The impact mechanism of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A moderated chain mediation model

The impact mechanism of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A moderated chain mediation model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The impact mechanism of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A moderated chain mediation model Jie Shen, Ling Li, Xiayi Liu, Dongyu Dai, Min Zhang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Grounded in the conservation of resources theory, this study constructed and tested a moderated serial mediation model to investigate the mechanism through which leader’s upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi. To enhance internal and external validity as well as the reliability of the findings, the model was validated using a scenario-based experiment and a three-wave questionnaire survey. The results indicate that: (1) Leader’s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion; (2) Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility; (3) Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi; (4) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion; (5) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the aforementioned serial mediation effect. These findings contribute to broadening the research perspective on upward ingratiation and offer valuable insights for organizations to identify and intervene in negative leader behaviors, thereby improving supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Health sciences/Health occupations Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology leader's upward ingratiation emotional exhaustion workplace incivility supervisor-subordinate guanxi the perceived climate of team Cha-xu Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Within the unique cultural context of China, ingratiation has evolved into a common strategy employed by subordinates to maintain relationships with superiors and avoid potential conflicts (Gross et al., 2020 ). At its core, upward ingratiation is a social influence behavior where individuals aim to affect a specific target's evaluation of them, manifested through self-deprecation, opinion conformity, and flattery (Jones & Pittman, 1982 ). Existing research has predominantly adopted the perspective of the actor, revealing that such impression management tactics can enhance a supervisor's perception of a subordinate’s competence and trustworthiness (Sun et al., 2021 ), thereby positively influencing the subordinate’s job performance and career progression (Clarke et al., 2022 ). However, potential drawbacks must also be considered. Studies indicate that ingratiators may face contempt, disdain, and resentment from colleagues due to their self-serving behavior, leading to diminished social standing and a loss of respect (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984 ). Once ingratiators lose their colleagues’ respect and admiration, their stability within the organizational power network can be undermined (Djurdjevic et al., 2017 ). Notably, upward ingratiation can also negatively affect observers, particularly coworkers (Chi & Tsai, 2021 ). The zero-sum nature of resource allocation within organizations means that an ingratiator's monopolization of resources encroaches upon the legitimate interests of other employees by limiting their access (Cheng et al., 2024 ). Further research suggests that favored ingratiators become "insiders" to the supervisor, while "outsider" colleagues perceive relational disharmony with the supervisor. This perception increases psychological strain in vertical interactions, and the accumulation of such stress can trigger counterproductive work behaviors like work withdrawal and knowledge hiding (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978 ). Collectively, these studies have advanced our understanding of the outcomes of upward ingratiation. However, focusing solely on its impact on the actors themselves and their colleagues is insufficient. First, current research has mainly concentrated on upward ingratiation among employees, overlooking its prevalence within the leadership group. In hierarchical organizations, leaders, especially those at the middle-management level, also depend on recognition from higher levels for promotion, resource acquisition, and performance evaluation (Hwan, 2015 ). This top-down pressure compels leaders to engage in upward ingratiation—through strategic alignment and relationship maintenance—to gain superior trust. Its frequency and subtlety may even exceed that of ordinary employees (Kim et al., 2018 ). Second, existing literature has neglected the potential impact of leaders' upward ingratiation on their subordinates. A leader's upward ingratiation is not an isolated act separate from their team (Mehtap et al., 2024 ). On one hand, to cater to superior preferences, leaders may implement directives that deviate from team needs or harm subordinate interests (Kumar & Beyelein, 1991). On the other hand, excessive focus on upward management can reduce a leader's attention and investment in internal team affairs (Kim et al., 2018 ). Such behaviors trigger negative subordinate evaluations of the leader's credibility, fairness, and supportiveness, eroding the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. This erosion manifests as weakened affective bonds, shaken trust, and imbalanced role obligation fulfillment (Park, 2023 ; Ma et al., 2023 ). Consequently, critical questions arise: How does a leader's upward ingratiation affect supervisor-subordinate guanxi? What is the underlying mechanism? These questions lack clear, systematic, and convincing explanations in the existing literature. The conservation of resources theory posits that psychological stress and defensive behaviors are triggered when individuals face threats of resource loss, actual resource depletion, or a lack of expected return on resource investment (Hobfoll, 1989 ). Leader's upward ingratiation is inherently a high-risk, high-consumption resource investment (Kim et al., 2018 ). To secure scarce resources from superiors, leaders must expend significant emotional resources to suppress genuine feelings and engage in surface acting—emotional disguise (Liu et al., 2023 ). This investment faces high uncertainty of return due to power asymmetry across organizational hierarchies (Öztürk & Karagonlar, 2019 ). When expected returns fail to materialize, leaders enter a state of resource depletion (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011 ). Sustained resource overdraw, particularly the depletion of emotional capital beyond an individual's recovery threshold, evolves into emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion refers to a negative psychological state of fatigue resulting from the overextension of emotional resources (Maslach et al., 2001 ). At this stage, the leader transitions from a resource manager to a resource deficit holder, with critical psychological resources—such as emotional regulation capacity, patience, and cognitive flexibility—approaching depletion (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007 ). Consequently, resource-depleted leaders lose the ability to inhibit impulses, manage negative emotions, and adhere to role norms, thereby instigating workplace incivility (Liu et al., 2022 ). Workplace incivility constitutes low-intensity deviant behavior that violates workplace norms of mutual respect, with ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson & Pearson, 1999 ). This behavior undermines the foundations of high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi: mutual respect, trust, and socio-emotional exchange (Gui et al., 2022 ). Specifically, subordinates perceiving insult and neglect may respond with anger and alienation, withdrawing their affective commitment. Eroded trust makes subordinates reluctant to offer extra help or share information (Lee & Soo, 2022 ). More critically, subordinate defensive withdrawal—such as reduced communication and diminished engagement—further deprives leaders of supportive resources like respect and cooperation, exacerbating resource scarcity (Cao et al., 2022 ). Ultimately, the supervisor-subordinate relationship irreversibly deteriorates from a mutually beneficial state to one of mutual depletion. Research indicates that a leader's behavioral choices and psychological states are largely shaped by the organizational cultural context (González-Torres et al., 2023 ). In the unique Chinese management context characterized by high power distance and relationship orientation, the perceived climate of team Cha-xu—a leader's psychological experience of implicit organizational rules favoring differential treatment based on relational closeness (Zhang & Xie, 2024 )—serves as a crucial situational variable. It elucidates the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. When leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate—recognizing that resource allocation, promotion opportunities, and superior trust heavily depend on personal connections rather than objective performance—their upward ingratiation is compelled into a more complex logic of relational competition. On one hand, to maintain or elevate their "inner circle" status within this differential order, leaders must intensify their ingratiation efforts. This involves more sophisticated strategizing to precisely cater to superior preferences and more intensive relationship nurturing to consolidate personal bonds. Such extraordinary investment accelerates the depletion rate of emotional resources (Chen & Sun, 2022 ). On the other hand, a Cha-xu climate often entails factional attachment pressure. Leaders may be forced into involuntary ingratiation activities to maintain their in-group status, further depriving them of behavioral autonomy and triggering more severe emotional resource depletion and a heightened sense of powerlessness (Fang et al., 2024 ). Conversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, they need not expend extra resources speculating on superiors' personal preferences or factional stances, nor must they frequently engage in surface acting. This effectively mitigates the degree of emotional exhaustion (He et al., 2022 ). In summary, drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this study constructs a moderated chain mediation model. Its academic contributions are threefold: First, it moves beyond the traditional focus on employee ingratiation, advancing scholarly understanding of leader's upward ingratiation and revealing its "dark side." Second, as no prior study has examined the impact of ingratiation on subordinates, this research incorporates emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as mediating variables. It elucidates the conduit path between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi, enriching related literature. Third, by introducing the perceived climate of team Cha-xu as a moderator, it uncovers the boundary conditions of this impact path, further refining the mechanism through which leader's upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses Leader’s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. As upward ingratiation effectively shapes a positive image in the eyes of power holders, it has become a common impression management strategy within organizations (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Bolino & Turnley, 1999). In hierarchical workplace environments, senior managers control access to scarce resources such as promotion channels, budget allocations, and key decisions. This positions them as primary targets for ingratiation by middle-level leaders (Hwan, 2015). Consequently, the phenomenon of leader’s upward ingratiation—in which leaders strategically use behaviors like flattery, catering to preferences, or selective information presentation to align with superiors' likes—constitutes a significant and practically relevant issue in contemporary organizational research (Park, 2023). While such behavior may yield short-term benefits for leaders, such as access to more high-quality resources and promotion opportunities (Sun et al., 2021), a long-term perspective reveals its costs. Upward ingratiation compels leaders to chronically suppress their genuine emotions and invest considerable energy in maintaining relationships. This sustained high consumption of emotional resources can ultimately lead leaders into a state of emotional exhaustion (Kim et al., 2018). Emotional exhaustion is precisely the state of physical and mental fatigue that arises when an individual’s emotional resources are depleted under pressure (Qin et al., 2014). Accordingly, we propose that leader’s upward ingratiation may trigger emotional exhaustion through the following mechanisms: First, ingratiation itself represents a high-intensity initial investment of resources. The conservation of resources theory posits that individuals have finite resources, and any resource loss increases stress, leading to negative psychological experiences (Hobfoll, 1989). On one hand, ingratiation often requires leaders to engage in deep "emotional labor", particularly "surface acting". This manifests as deliberately exaggerating achievements, concealing dissent, or offering insincere praise (Lee et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023). Such behaviors force individuals to suppress negative emotions and expend significant emotional resources to meticulously design and monitor their words and actions to meet superior expectations (Park, 2023). On the other hand, when a leader’s internal values conflict with ingratiatory acts, it triggers pronounced cognitive dissonance. This creates a rift between the “authentic self” and the "performed self". Reconciling this conflict requires the continuous mobilization of additional emotional resources to alleviate resulting anxiety, guilt, and self-doubt (Yan et al., 2020). Following this logic, upward ingratiation gradually depletes a leader’s reservoir of emotional resources, thereby fostering emotional exhaustion. Second, the uncertainty surrounding the returns from ingratiation can intensify a spiral of resource loss. The conservation of resources theory notes that resource loss has a far greater impact on individuals than resource gain (Hobfoll et al., 2001). A superior’s favor, resource allocation, or promotion promises are often subject to ambiguous, shifting standards (Öztürk & Karagonlar, 2019). When leaders invest substantial resources in ingratiation but fail to receive the expected returns, or even face skepticism or rejection from superiors, their initial resource investment faces irreversible loss (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011). At this point, leaders enter a "spiral of resource loss": in an attempt to recoup losses, they often feel compelled to invest even more resources. However, in an uncertain environment, such compensatory investments frequently yield minimal returns. They may even backfire, as excessive ingratiation can provoke superior aversion or colleague alienation, causing the rate and totality of resource loss to escalate (Baumeister et al., 1998). The state of resource scarcity itself impairs an individual's capacity to acquire new resources, making emotional exhaustion a nearly inevitable endpoint (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). In summary, upward ingratiation may gradually undermine a leader’s psychological capital reserves. When the rate of resource depletion consistently outpaces the capacity for replenishment, emotional exhaustion becomes the inevitable outcome. This explains the paradoxical phenomenon where many leaders who are "skilled at upward management" ultimately fall into deep professional burnout. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H1 Leader’s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility. According to the conservation of resources theory, emotional exhaustion signifies that the sustained net loss from an individual’s emotional resource reservoir has reached a critical state of depletion (Hobfoll, 2002). At this juncture, leaders find themselves in a classic resource deficit predicament. On one hand, prolonged resource depletion severely impairs their emotional regulation capacity, cognitive flexibility, and self-monitoring functions (Ejaz et al., 2025). On the other hand, resource exhaustion triggers a strong motivation to conserve resources, driving individuals to take all possible measures to prevent further loss (Hobfoll, 2001). In this state, leaders struggle to mobilize resources such as empathy or patience to handle interpersonal friction. Even minor conflicts are easily interpreted as challenges to their authority (Shen et al., 2021), setting the stage for subsequent workplace incivility. Workplace incivility refers to low-intensity deviant workplace behaviors with ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). As one of the most prevalent workplace dark-side behaviors, it is ubiquitous in organizations, silently eroding organizational value (Cortina et al., 2017). Relevant data indicate that the prevalence of supervisor incivility experienced by employees today is twice that of two decades ago, and it continues to rise year by year (Cortina et al., 2022). Given the potential harm of workplace incivility, it is imperative to delve into its causes and underlying mechanisms. From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, we propose that emotional exhaustion increases the likelihood of workplace incivility, for two main reasons. First, restraining incivility itself consumes resources (Hobfoll, 2001), and leaders experiencing emotional exhaustion lack sufficient resources to inhibit such behavior. The conservation of resources theory emphasizes that resources are scarce and finite, so individuals are always inclined to acquire and protect their own resources (Hobfoll, 2018). When leaders are emotionally exhausted, their resource reserves fall below the threshold required for basic functioning (Hobfoll, 2002). Under these circumstances, the self-regulatory process needed to inhibit workplace incivility encounters a systemic resource crisis. On one hand, suppressing impulsive aggression—such as holding back anger over a subordinate’s mistake—requires emotional management via inhibiting negative emotional expression or cognitive reappraisal. However, the emotional resources consumed in this process far exceed the leader's remaining reserves (Liu et al., 2022), making them more likely to succumb to instinctual impulses. On the other hand, adhering to ethical norms demands the continuous engagement of self-monitoring and volitional control resources. Yet, leaders in a resource-depleted state find it difficult to uphold moral boundaries, thereby engaging in workplace incivility (Liu et al., 2020). Second, workplace incivility can help leaders quickly regain a sense of control and replenish depleted resources. The conservation of resources theory notes that resource infusion is crucial for individuals to replenish resources and resist further loss (Hobfoll, 2018). From a power dynamics perspective, when leaders are emotionally exhausted, their substantive resources—such as decision-making energy and the capacity for emotional support—are significantly depleted, making it difficult to maintain authority through positive resource provision (He et al., 2023). Consequently, they may resort to coercive power, using incivility such as belittling subordinates' abilities or devaluing their contributions to artificially create a power differential (Malik, 2023). This allows leaders to maintain superficial authority, reconstruct psychological dominance, and gain new resource support. From an emotional management perspective, negative emotions accumulated during emotional exhaustion, such as anger and frustration, constitute "negative resource reservoirs" that urgently need release (Rice & Reed, 2022). Displacing these emotions onto subordinates becomes a convenient way for leaders to reduce their own resource consumption. Examples include venting anger at the team due to criticism from above or transforming work pressure into unwarranted criticism of subordinates (Chris et al., 2022). Such workplace incivility allows leaders to reduce the resource expenditure required for emotion regulation and achieve brief emotional release. In summary, under the dual pressures of depleted self-regulatory resources and a strong motivation to acquire resources, leaders in a state of emotional exhaustion are more likely to enact workplace incivility. Integrating the positive effect of leader’s upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion and the positive effect of emotional exhaustion on workplace incivility, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H2 Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. That is, leader’s upward ingratiation exacerbates emotional exhaustion, which in turn increases workplace incivility. Workplace incivility and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. In the Chinese organizational context, leaders in positions of power control and allocate core organizational resources. Their resource allocation decisions heavily rely on informal relational ties with subordinates. Conversely, subordinates, as those in lower-power positions, must establish close connections with their leaders to secure critical support for career advancement and project opportunities (Wang et al., 2019). This dependent nature of resource acquisition drives subordinates to proactively invest time and effort in relationship cultivation, forming an informal network centered around the leader. Academia defines this unique social bond as "supervisor-subordinate guanxi" (Ma et al., 2023). Supervisor-subordinate guanxi transcends the rigid boundaries of formal authority, profoundly shaping organizational members' behavioral patterns and resource acquisition pathways (Zhang et al., 2016). According to the conservation of resources theory, maintaining high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi depends on continuous resource exchange and perceived reciprocity (Hobfoll, 1989). Leaders provide guidance, trust, and promotion opportunities in exchange for subordinates’ engagement and loyalty (Zhang et al., 2024). However, a leader’s workplace incivility strips subordinates of emotional, cognitive, and social resources. This directly assaults subordinates' resource reserves and psychological safety boundaries, ultimately undermining the foundation of the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Gui et al., 2022). Analyzing from the subordinate’s resource perspective, workplace incivility triggers a resource depletion effect. First, emotional resources, as the core reserve for coping with stress, are rapidly consumed when subordinates face leader incivility. They must invest extra emotional resources to cope with the negative stimuli. Chronic emotional exhaustion from this process can diminish their work engagement and organizational commitment (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Second, cognitive resources are excessively depleted due to the ambiguous and unpredictable nature of uncivil acts (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Subordinates need to repeatedly guess and interpret the leader’s intent—pondering questions like "Is the leader targeting me?" This persistent cognitive uncertainty occupies working memory capacity, creating an uncontrollable and unavoidable stressor (Miranda et al., 2020). When resource depletion exceeds an individual's compensatory capacity, subordinates adopt resource conservation strategies. These manifest as reduced interaction with the leader, decreased work initiative, and even turnover intentions (Hur et al., 2015), thereby weakening the trust base of the supervisor-subordinate guanxi. From the leader’s resource perspective, although incivility might temporarily grant a sense of control through power display, it harbors a significant latent resource crisis. After enduring prolonged workplace incivility, subordinates gradually build psychological defenses, developing resistance and emotional distance from the leader (Gui et al., 2022). The spread of this negative sentiment leads to a sharp decline in team social capital. Subordinates become unwilling to proactively share information, offer support, or take on extra responsibilities (Lee & Soo, 2022). Consequently, the leader finds themselves in a precarious position. Due to collective subordinate alienation, the leader’s influence resources within the organization diminish drastically (Guan & Frenkel, 2019). The leader’s decisions become difficult to implement effectively, instructions go unheeded, and their authoritative position within the team is severely challenged (Cao et al., 2022). The once close and orderly supervisor-subordinate guanxi becomes loose, fragile, and may even show signs of rupture. Integrating H1, H2, and the relationships outlined above, and based on the conservation of resources theory, this study proposes a complete mechanism: "leader’s upward ingratiation→emotional exhaustion→workplace incivility→supervisor-subordinate guanxi." The logic is as follows: To gain superior recognition or maintain their power status, leaders must continuously invest resources to interpret superior intentions and adjust their own behavior. This process constitutes a sustained drain on their internal resource reserves. As resources are depleted without effective replenishment, leaders become prone to emotional exhaustion. To alleviate their own resource crisis and prevent further loss, leaders may displace negative emotions and behaviors onto subordinates, manifesting as workplace incivility. This incivility, in turn, erodes subordinates’ trust in and emotional connection to the leader, ultimately deteriorating supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H3 Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Specifically, leader’s upward ingratiation, by exacerbating emotional exhaustion, triggers workplace incivility, which consequently leads to the deterioration of supervisor-subordinate guanxi. The moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. The perceived climate of team Cha-xu is an indigenous construct in the Chinese context, referring to an individual’s perception of the extent to which relationships between superiors and subordinates within an organization or department are differentiated by closeness and distance (Zhang & Xie, 2024). Within a Cha-xu structure, resource allocation is not solely based on objective performance but is also influenced by the "inner circle-outer circle" relational differentiation (Fang et al., 2024). Research by Luo and Cheng (2015) further reveals the phenomenon of "concentric circles" in organizations with a strong Cha-xu climate: "inner circle" members who are closer to the core power holders receive disproportionate resource allocation, while "outer circle" members with distant relationships face marginalization risks. This "circle culture" constructs an implicit power network, making leaders acutely aware that their job security and career prospects are highly dependent on the quality of their relationship with the core power circle (Fang et al., 2024). Integrating the perspective of the conservation of resources theory, which posits that individuals strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989), it is evident that differing intensities of perceived Cha-xu climate will influence a leader's resource investment decisions and behaviors. Therefore, this study posits that the perceived climate of team Cha-xu plays a crucial moderating role in the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. When leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate—for instance, discovering that promotions depend more on "choosing sides" than on competence—their resource sensitivity surges. Essentially, a Cha-xu climate establishes an evaluation system centered on relational distance (Zhang & Xie, 2024). To maintain "inner circle" status and avoid marginalization, leaders must intensify their ingratiation efforts. This very investment accelerates resource depletion (Kim et al., 2018). Furthermore, the Cha-xu culture demands that ingratiatory behaviors conform to the unwritten rules of the "circle", stripping leaders of the autonomy to adjust their investment based on context (Chen & Sun, 2022). This behavioral pattern forces leaders to continuously mobilize emotional labor resources for self-monitoring, meticulously calibrating the relational nuance of every word and action. The conservation of resources theory indicates that when individuals must continuously invest emotional resources to maintain a certain state, their internal resource pool faces the risk of depletion (Hobfoll, 2018). Specifically, a high Cha-xu climate amplifies the instrumental nature of ingratiation. Leaders come to view emotional expression as an exchangeable resource. This process of alienation intensifies the coercive nature of emotional labor, thereby strengthening the positive link between upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, the detrimental effect of upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion is likely mitigated. When the organizational evaluation system shifts towards a competency-oriented rather than a relationally-oriented approach, leaders' dependence on a single superior decreases (Chen & Sun, 2022). According to the conservation of resources theory, resources possess a degree of substitutability, allowing individuals to use different resources to achieve the same goal (Hobfoll, 2001). In this context, ingratiation transitions from a "survival necessity" to a "strategic option". Even if short-term returns are not forthcoming, individuals can still recoup losses through other avenues, avoiding the anxiety-driven spiral of additional resource investment (Zheng et al., 2024). Moreover, with weakened "circle" phenomena, a leader's ingratiation is more likely based on genuine affective expression rather than strategic calculation. Leaders can more freely modulate the gap between their emotional expressions and true feelings, significantly slowing the rate of emotional resource consumption (He et al., 2022). Specifically, a low Cha-xu climate weakens the instrumental motivation behind ingratiation, allowing emotional expression to revert to its essential function in interpersonal interaction. This shift effectively reduces the likelihood of emotional dissonance, thereby alleviating the degree of emotional exhaustion. In summary, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H4 The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. Specifically, for leaders with a stronger perception of a Cha-xu climate, the positive effect of leader’s upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion is stronger; conversely, it is weaker for those with a weaker perception. Finally, integrating the serial mediation effect posited in H3 and the moderating effect in H4, this study proposes the following moderated mediation hypothesis: H5 The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the indirect effect of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi through emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility. Specifically, for leaders with a stronger perception of a Cha-xu climate, this serial indirect effect is stronger; conversely, it is weaker for those with a weaker perception. The full conceptual model is presented in Fig. 1. Study 1: Scenario experiment Participants. The sample size required for this experiment was calculated using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2007 ). For the two-way analysis of variance applicable to this experiment, with a medium effect size f = 0.25, a significance level α = 0.05, and 4 groups, the a priori analysis showed that at least 128 participants were needed to achieve 80% statistical power. To ensure adequate statistical power, we recruited 160 participants through Credamo for the experiment, and the sample mainly consisted of employees. All participants voluntarily participated in the experiment with informed consent, and those who passed the attention check and completed the experimental tasks received corresponding compensation. In terms of gender, 49.4% were female and 50.6% were male; in terms of age, the proportions of those under 25 years old, 26–30 years old, 31–35 years old, and over 36 years old were 5.6%, 28.1%, 36.3%, and 30.0% respectively; in terms of education level, the proportions of those with technical secondary school/high school and below, vocational high school/college, and undergraduate and above were 6.9%, 16.8%, and 76.3% respectively; in terms of tenure, the proportions of those with less than 1 year, 1–3 years, 3–5 years, and 5 years and above were 23.1%, 19.4%, 26.3%, and 31.2% respectively. Manipulation and measurement. The study employed a 2 (leader's upward ingratiation: high vs. low) × 2 (the perceived climate of team Cha-xu: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to four scenarios, where they read different experimental situations, assumed the roles described, and answered identical questions. The experimental materials are as follows: Participants read the following instructions: “Please imagine you are Liu Wei, Department Manager of Product R&D at a technology company. You work with department heads including Marketing Manager Li, and your direct supervisor is Vice President Wang.” High (low) leader's upward ingratiation: “At last week's regular meeting, Vice President Wang proposed a full transition to the AIGC technology route. You took the lead in praising Vice President Wang for his far-sighted strategic vision (You immediately cited data to refute the proposal and suggested phased implementation, showing no regard for Vice President Wang's dignity).” On a regular day, upon learning that Director Wang was unwell, you immediately delivered medicine in person and showed concern for his well-being (you still sent your work to him for review as usual). One day, upon learning that Director Wang had a family gathering that evening, you took the initiative to offer transportation to assist him (yet in reality, you only expressed your best wishes, continued handling daily work with employees, and provided no special attention to the leader)”. High (low) perceived climate of team Cha-xu: “Every Monday morning, Deputy Director Wang meets privately with Marketing Manager Li in the private office to discuss strategy over coffee; other department managers, including yourself, only receive an email on Monday afternoon to sync up on the strategy formulation (Deputy Director Wang holds one-on-one meetings with each department manager in rotation, with the schedule publicly posted on the OA system). At the annual budget meeting, General Manager Wang originally planned to reduce R&D investment. However, after Manager Li requested that the marketing department needed more funds for advertising, General Manager Wang revised the budget table on the spot, cutting R&D expenses by 15% and allocating the amount to the marketing department (General Manager Wang required all departments to submit application reports supported by data, and the final allocation was determined by a vote of the independent finance committee; your R&D investment application was fully approved due to detailed experimental data). During the company's integrity investigation, General Manager Wang only allowed Manager Li to participate in the internal audit team. When you discovered anomalies in the marketing department's data and reported it, General Manager Wang rejected your report on the grounds that Manager Li had already checked and the data was correct (General Manager Wang established an inter-departmental audit team, selected members by drawing lots, emphasized that no one was allowed to interfere with the independence of the audit, and you were randomly selected to participate in the investigation)”. Finally, participants completed the following scales: Manipulation check scales: First, leader's upward ingratiation was assessed using three items from the scale developed by Bolino and Turnley ( 1999 ), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A sample item is: “You praise General Manager Wang to make him think you are likable” (α = 0.850). Second, the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was assessed using three items from the scale developed by Liu et al. ( 2009 ), scored on a 5-point Likert scale. A sample item is: “General Manager Wang has frequent contact with Manager Li of the Marketing Department” (α = 0.846). Mediating variable: First, the mediating variable emotional exhaustion was assessed using the scale developed by Watkins (2015), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly inconsistent, 5 = strongly consistent). There are 3 items, with an example item being: “You feel that work emotionally drains you” (α = 0.861). Second, the mediating variable workplace incivility was assessed using the scale developed by Cortina et al. ( 2001 ), which consists of 7 items. An example item is: “You would belittle a subordinate's personality or show a condescending attitude towards a subordinate” (α = 0.929). Dependent variable: The dependent variable supervisor-subordinate guanxi was measured using the scale developed by Law et al. ( 2000 ), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). It comprises 6 items in total, with an example item: “You believe that subordinates will defend your decision-making stance when there are disagreements” (α = 0.928). Subsequently, after providing relevant demographic information, the participants received their rewards, and the experiment concluded. Results Manipulation check results. In the high leader's upward ingratiation group, participants' perceived upward ingratiation ( M = 3.225, SD = 1.020) was significantly higher than that reported by participants in the low leader's upward ingratiation group ( M = 2.417, SD = 0.956), t = 5.170, p < 0.001, indicating that the manipulation of leader's upward ingratiation was successful. Moreover, in the high perceived climate of team Cha-xu group, participants' perceived climate of team Cha-xu ( M = 3.225, SD = 1.020) was significantly higher than that reported by participants in the low climate of team Cha-xu group ( M = 2.493, SD = 0.980), t = 4.521, p < 0.001, indicating that the manipulation of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was successful. Hypothesis testing . Leader’s upward ingratiation has a significant positive impact on emotional exhaustion( β = 0.456, p < 0.001), thus supporting H1. H2 predicts that emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. To examine this mediating effect, the study employed Model 4 from Hayes’ ( 2013 ) PROCESS macro to conduct a bootstrapping analysis ( N = 20000). Results confirmed a significant mediating effect of emotional exhaustion between leader's upward ingratiation and workplace incivility, with an indirect effect of β = 0.156, SE = 0.040, and 95% CI [0.083, 0.239]. Since the confidence interval excluded zero, H2 was supported. H3 predicts that emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility exert a chain mediating effect on the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Bootstrapping path analysis ( N = 20000) was performed using Model 6 from the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes ( 2013 ). leader's upward ingratiation served as the independent variable, supervisor-subordinate guanxi as the dependent variable, and emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as sequential mediating variables. As presented in Table 1 , the results revealed the following indirect effects: -0.063 for the sequential mediating path involving both emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility (95% CI = [-0.104, -0.030]). It was found that the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility is valid, thus supporting H3. Table 1 The chain mediating role of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Path Indirect effect SE 95% Confidence interval LLCI ULCI Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.105 0.052 -0.413 0.209 Leader's upward ingratiation→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.138 0.040 -0.224 0.066 Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.063 0.019 -0.104 -0.030 To test H4, namely that the perceived climate of team Cha-Xu moderates the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion, we introduced an interaction term between leader's upward ingratiation and climate of team Cha-xu into the regression model. Results indicate that this interaction term exerts a significant positive effect on emotional exhaustion ( β = 0.319, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H4. Figure 2 further illustrates this moderating effect, depicting the differential relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion across varying levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. To test H5, the study employed Mplus 8.0 to analyse the chained mediating effects of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility on leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi under varying levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Results are presented in Table 2 . At low levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi is non-significant ( β = -0.016, SE = 0.013, 95% CI [-0.042, 0.001]). At high levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi is also valid ( β = -0.104, SE = 0.030, 95% CI [-0.169, -0.064]).The chain mediating effect differs significantly under varying scenarios of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu ( β high−low = -0.088, SE = 0028, 95% CI [-0.150, -0.052]). H5 is thus supported, as the perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the chain mediating role played by emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Table 2 Comparison of chain mediation effects under different situations. Level of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu Estimate SE 95% Confidence Interval LLCL ULCL High level of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu -0.104 0.030 -0.169 -0.064 Low level of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu -0.016 0.013 -0.042 0.001 Diff (High - Low) -0.088 0.028 -0.150 -0.052 Study 2: Questionnaire Survey Sample and procedure. Data were collected using a questionnaire administered to project teams in the machinery manufacturing industry. Researchers first explained the study's purpose, content, and procedures to heads of human resources departments. Upon obtaining their consent, employee lists were obtained and team numbers were assigned. Subsequently, accompanied by human resources heads, researchers visited the companies to distribute and collect questionnaires on-site. The questionnaire distribution was conducted in three phases: During the first phase (T1), employees evaluated leader's upward ingratiation, while leaders assessed the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. After collection by researchers, questionnaires were aggregated and organized by team number. One month later (T2), the second phase of questionnaires was distributed, requiring employees to evaluate workplace incivility experienced over the past month; these responses were then matched with the T1 samples using team numbers. Concurrently, leaders were asked to evaluate their emotional exhaustion over the same one-month period. One month later (T3), employees were again asked to evaluate their supervisor-subordinate guanxi over the past two months. Questionnaires were distributed to 750 employees and 125 leaders across 125 teams. In the first stage, 702 employee questionnaires and 127 leader questionnaires were retrieved; in the second stage, 630 employee questionnaires and 105 leader questionnaires were collected; for the third stage, which only involved employee assessments, 609 employee questionnaires were received. After excluding invalid questionnaires and conducting three-stage sample matching, 603 valid samples from 100 teams were ultimately obtained. The effective response rate for team questionnaires was 80%, and for member questionnaires it was 80.4%. Sample characteristics are presented in Table 3 . Regarding the characteristics of the leadership sample, males accounted for 60.5% and females for 39.5%. In terms of age distribution, those aged over 36 were in the majority, representing 65.5%. For educational attainment, 77.9% of team leaders held a bachelor's degree or higher. Regarding work experience, individuals with 5 years or more of experience constituted the majority at 75%. For the employee sample characteristics, males made up 53.1% and females 46.9%. In age distribution, the 26–30 age group was most prevalent at 46.9%. In terms of education, 83.9% of team members possessed a bachelor's degree or above. Tenure was relatively concentrated: 29.1% had 1–3 years of experience, and 28% had 3–5 years. Concerning working time with their leader, those with 1–3 years of collaboration formed the majority, accounting for 41%. Table 3 Sample characteristics. Category Classification Proportion (%) Leadership sample characteristics Gender Male 60.5 Female 39.5 Age Below 25 years old 0 26–30 years old 5.1 31–35 years old 29.4 Above 36 years old 65.5 Education level High school/secondary school or lower 0 Vocational high school/junior college 22.1 Undergraduate and above 77.9 Tenure Less than 1 year 0 1–3 years 2.1 3–5 years 22.9 5 years or more 75.0 Employee sample characteristics Gender Male 53.1 Female 46.9 Age Below 25 years old 26.9 26–30 years old 46.9 31–35 years old 17.6 Above 36 years old 8.6 Education level High school/secondary school or lower 0 Vocational high school/junior college 16.1 Undergraduate and above 83.9 Tenure Less than 1 year 24.0 1–3 years 29.1 3–5 years 28.0 5 years or more 18.9 Working time Less than 1 year 24.0 1–3 years 41.0 3–5 years 22.6 5 years or more 12.4 Variable measurement. To ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement scales, well-established Western scales were adopted for all variables in this study and converted into Chinese using the “translation-back-translation” method (Brislin, 1970). Specifically, the English scales were first translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English. Professors proficient in both Chinese and English were then invited to conduct cultural adaptation and linguistic refinement. All scale items used a 5-point Likert scale, with scores from 1 to 5 generally representing “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” unless otherwise specified. Leader's upward ingratiation: A 4-item scale developed by Bolino and Turnley ( 1999 ) was adopted, with a representative item being “Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable”. The Cronbach’ s α value is 0.868. Emotional exhaustion: A 3-item scale developed by Watkins et al. ( 2015 ) was adopted, with a representative item such as “I feel emotionally drained from work” and a Cronbach’ s α value of 0.898. Workplace incivility: A 7-item scale developed by Cortina et al. ( 2001 ) was adopted, with a representative item such as “My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others” and a Cronbach’ s α value of 0.908. Supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A 6-item scale developed by Law et al. ( 2000 ) was adopted, with a representative item such as “When disagreements arise, I support my leader’ s decision-making stance” and a Cronbach’ s α value of 0.911. The perceived climate of team Cha-xu: An 11-item scale developed by Liu et al. ( 2009 ) was adopted, with a representative item such as “Superiors maintain frequent contact with specific subordinates” and a Cronbach’ s α value of 0.939. Control variables: Based on previous research, employee and leader gender, age, education level, and tenure have been shown to influence supervisor-subordinate Guanxi (Cai et al., 2021 ; Ma et al., 2023 ). Therefore, the above variables were controlled in this study to reduce their impact on the research results. Results of data analysis Common method variance analysis . To avoid common method bias arising from shared participants or data sources, this study employed a multi-stage, multi-source data collection approach. Harman's single-factor test revealed that when all items were subjected to unrotated principal component analysis, the first principal component accounted for only 28.303% of the total variance, which is below the 40.0% threshold. This indicates the absence of severe common method bias in the dataset. Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on key variables using AMOS 22.0 to assess their discriminant validity. Due to the complexity of the items and limitations in sample size, item parceling was utilized to simplify the measurement model.The results of confirmatory factor analysis (see Table 4 ) indicated that the five-factor model exhibited a high degree of fit with the survey data ( χ 2 /df = 4.120, RMSEA = 0.072, CFI = 0.884, TLI = 0.873, SRMR = 0.076) and was significantly superior to other nested models, demonstrating good discriminant validity among the five variables. Table 4 Results of confirmatory factor analysis. Model χ 2 df χ 2 /df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR One-factor (LUI + EE+WI + SSG+CX) 7782.300 434 17.932 0.168 0.357 0.311 0.195 Two-factor (LUI + EE+WI + SSG; CX) 3826.166 433 8.836 0.114 0.703 0.681 0.096 Three-factor (LUI; EE + WI+SSG; CX) 3277.340 431 7.604 0.105 0.751 0.731 0.090 Four-factor a (LUI + EE; WI; SSG; CX) 2277.590 428 5.321 0.085 0.838 0.824 0.084 Four-factor b (LUI; EE + WI; SSG; CX) 2731.633 428 6.382 0.094 0.798 0.781 0.093 Four-factor c (LUI; EE; WI + SSG; CX) 2439.063 428 5.699 0.088 0.824 0.809 0.078 Five-factor (LUI; EE; WI; SSG; CX) 1746.807 424 4.120 0.072 0.884 0.873 0.076 Note: n = 603; where LUI stands for leader's upward ingratiation, EE stands for emotional exhaustion, WI stands for workplace incivility, SSG stands for supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and CX stands for the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Descriptive statistical analysis . Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for the variables, are presented in Table 5 . As can be seen from the table, the square root of the AVE for each variable is greater than its correlation coefficients with all other variables, which again indicates good discriminant validity among the variables in this study. Table 5 Descriptive statistical analysis. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.Leader gender 1.39 0.489 2.Leader age 3.60 0.585 -0.184 ** 3.Leader education 2.78 0.415 0.151 ** -0.360 ** 4.Leader tenure 3.73 0.491 0.129 ** 0.323 ** -0.189 ** 5.Employee gender 1.47 0.499 -0.080 -0.016 -0.005 -0.061 6.Employee age 2.08 0.886 0.012 0.090 * -0.034 0.042 -0.017 7.Employee education 2.84 0.368 0.012 -0.111 ** 0.050 -0.031 0.032 -0.670 ** 8.Employee tenure 2.42 1.051 0.018 0.097 * -0.059 0.027 0.024 0.894 ** -0.574 ** 9.Working time 2.23 0.954 -0.002 0.113 ** -0.046 0.022 0.034 0.896 ** -0.598 ** 0.930 ** 10.LUI 3.193 0.998 0.040 0.049 -0.033 0.075 -0.036 0.098 * -0.003 0.100 * 0.059 11.EE 3.298 1.141 0.059 0.014 -0.073 0.168 ** 0.034 0.047 -0.003 0.070 0.038 0.422 ** 12.WI 3.347 0.915 0.050 -0.015 -0.047 0.113 ** -0.044 -0.058 0.044 -0.062 -0.099 * 0.307 ** 0.464 ** 13.SSG 3.083 0.986 -0.058 -0.026 0.043 -0.066 0.065 -0.027 0.008 -0.037 0.005 -0.240 ** -0.389 ** -0.516 ** 14.CX 3.331 0.903 -0.022 0.215 ** 0.095 * 0.042 -0.003 0.082 * -0.088 * 0.054 0.049 0.108 ** 0.227 ** 0.122 ** -0.076 Note: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; where LUI stands for leader's upward ingratiation, EE stands for emotional exhaustion, WI stands for workplace incivility, SSG stands for supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and CX stands for the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Hypothesis testing . (1) Test of the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion. The hierarchical regression results presented in Table 6 indicate that leader's upward ingratiation exerts a significant positive influence on emotional exhaustion (Model 1, β = 0.410, p < 0.001), thus supporting H1. Furthermore, emotional exhaustion has a significant positive effect on workplace incivility (Model 4, β = 0.459, p < 0.001). When both leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion are included in the model, emotional exhaustion remains a significant positive predictor of workplace incivility (Model 5, β = 0.402, p < 0.001). These findings confirm the existence of a mediating effect, providing support for H2. Table 6 Results of hierarchical linear model analysis. Variable Emotional exhaustion Workplace incivility Supervisor-subordinate guanxi Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6 Model7 Model8 Model9 Model10 Model11 Leader gender 0.021 0.010 0.017 0.011 0.008 -0.036 -0.036 -0.032 -0.035 -0.034 -0.032 Leader age -0.072 -0.117 ** -0.063 -0.026 -0.034 -0.034 -0.039 -0.046 -0.030 -0.035 -0.044 Leader education -0.055 -0.108 ** -0.047 -0.023 -0.024 0.011 0.009 0.002 0.012 0.009 0.002 Leader tenure 0.150 *** 0.153 *** 0.099 * 0.036 0.039 0.023 0.016 0.039 0.022 0.017 0.038 Employee gender 0.055 0.052 -0.020 -0.048 -0.042 0.071 0.039 0.050 0.067 0.038 0.049 Employee age -0.084 -0.107 0.017 0.081 0.051 -0.065 -0.024 -0.031 -0.048 -0.010 -0.026 Employee education -0.007 0.026 -0.032 -0.016 -0.029 0.004 -0.010 -0.003 0.011 -0.002 -0.001 Employee tenure 0.144 0.156 0.093 0.054 0.035 -0.170 -0.179 -0.147 -0.160 -0.165 -0.145 Working time -0.049 -0.037 -0.235 * -0.246 * -0.215 * 0.240 * 0.140 0.135 0.223 * 0.125 0.132 Leader's upward ingratiation 0.410 *** 0.373 *** 0.303 *** 0.138 *** -0.079 -0.076 * -0.021 Emotional exhaustion 0.459 *** 0.402 *** -0.386 *** -0.190 *** -0.353 *** 0.183 *** Workplace incivility -0.513 *** -0.426 *** -0.490 *** -0.423 *** The perceived climate of team Cha-xu 0.227 *** Leader's upward ingratiation×The perceived climate of team Cha-xu 0.210 *** R² 0.209 0.295 0.124 0.237 0.252 0.166 0.277 0.305 0.171 0.282 0.305 ΔR² 0.163 0.043 0.089 0.201 0.216 0.142 0.253 0.281 0.147 0.258 0.281 F 15.642 *** 20.622 *** 8.401 *** 18.341 *** 18.083 *** 11.778 *** 22.720 *** 23.538 *** 11.079 *** 21.139 *** 21.574 *** 注: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 (2) Test of the mediating effect of workplace incivility. As shown in Table 6 , emotional exhaustion has a significant positive effect on workplace incivility (Model 4, β = 0.459, p < 0.001), while workplace incivility exhibits a significant negative impact on supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Model 7, β = -0.513, p < 0.001). After incorporating both emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility into the analysis, workplace incivility continues to exert a significant negative influence on supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Model 8, β = -0.426, p < 0.001). This confirms the mediating role of workplace incivility, leading to the support of H3. Process Model 4 was further employed to verify the above mediating effects. The results in Table 7 show that emotional exhaustion has a significant indirect effect between leader's upward ingratiation and workplace incivility (indirect effect value = 0.151; confidence interval = [0.114, 0.191], which does not contain 0), and workplace incivility has a significant indirect effect between emotional exhaustion and supervisor-subordinate guanxi (indirect effect value = -0.169; confidence interval = [-0.214, -0.129], which does not contain 0). H2 and H3 are thus further supported. Table 7 Analysis of indirect effects. Path Indirect Effect SE 95% Confidence Interval LLCI ULCI Effect of leader's upward ingratiation on workplace incivility Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Workplace incivility 0.151 0.020 0.114 0.191 Effect of emotional exhaustion on supervisor-subordinate guanxi Emotional exhaustion→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.169 0.022 -0.214 -0.219 Effect of leader's upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.074 0.019 -0.111 0.038 Leader's upward ingratiation→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.058 0.019 -0.095 0.022 Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi -0.069 0.012 -0.094 -0.048 Table 8 Analysis of moderated chain mediation effect. Moderator: the perceived climate of team Cha-Xu Path: Leader's upward ingratiation→Emotional exhaustion→Workplace incivility→Supervisor-subordinate guanxi Indirect effect SE LLCI ULCI Low (-1SD) -0.008 0.007 -0.018 0.003 High (+ 1SD) -0.025 0.011 -0.043 -0.006 Moderated mediation result -0.017 0.008 -0.030 -0.004 (3) Test of the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility. The regression results in Table 6 preliminarily confirm this (Model 11, β = -0.423, p < 0.001). Next, Process Model 6 was adopted to test the chain mediating relationship. The results in Table 7 show that the proposed relationship, where in leader's upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi solely through emotional exhaustion, is not supported (95% CI [-0.111, 0.038], containing 0). Similarly, the hypothesized pathway where leader's upward ingratiation impacts supervisor-subordinate guanxi exclusively via workplace incivility is also unsupported (95% CI [-0.095, 0.022], containing 0). However, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility is statistically validated (indirect effect =-0.069; 95% CI [-0.094, -0.048], which excludes 0), thereby further supporting H3. (4) Test of the moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Hypothesis H4 proposes that when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is high, the positive impact of leader's upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion will be enhanced. To verify this moderating role, the interaction term between leader's upward ingratiation and the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was introduced into the model. The results in Table 6 show that the interaction term exerts a significant positive effect on emotional exhaustion (Model 2, β = 0.210, p < 0.001), providing support for H4. Furthermore, to more intuitively illustrate the moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, a simplified diagram illustrating the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion under different levels (high vs. low) of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was plotted (see Fig. 3 ). (5) Test of moderated mediation effect. Finally, Mplus 8.0 was utilized in this study to analyze the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi across different levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. As shown in Table 8, when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is low, the chain mediating effect is not significant (95% CI [-0.018, 0.003], which includes zero). In contrast, when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is high, the mediating effect becomes significant (indirect effect = -0.025; 95% CI [-0.043, -0.006], which does not include 0). Additionally, the moderated chain mediation result is significant (moderated mediation coefficient = -0.017; 95% CI [-0.030, -0.004], which does not include 0), thereby supporting H5. Research Conclusions and Discussion Research conclusions. Based on the conservation of resources theory, this study constructed a serial mediation model with emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as mediating variables to analyze the mechanism underlying the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It also examined the moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu in the stage from leader’s upward ingratiation to emotional exhaustion. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) Leader’s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. The proposition by Bolino et al. ( 2013 ) that impression management can trigger role stress provides theoretical support for this finding. Upward ingratiation requires leaders to continuously expend cognitive and emotional resources to maintain an image and behavioral patterns that meet expectations. Although this extra-role behavior may garner superior recognition in the short term, in the long run, it triggers internal tension due to conflicts between authenticity and role consistency. This leads to the accelerated depletion of psychological resources, manifesting as symptoms of emotional exhaustion. 2) Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. Maslach et al. ( 2001 ) indicated that emotional exhaustion impairs self-control and empathy, increasing the propensity for aggressive behavior, which informs this finding. When emotional resources are excessively overdrawn, leaders are likely to lose their capacity for emotional regulation. They become more prone to directly vent negative emotions toward subordinates, thereby triggering workplace incivility such as verbal abuse and belittlement. 3) Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Existing research from the victim's perspective has found that experiencing workplace incivility negatively impacts job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and task performance (Welbourne et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the accumulation of negative emotions and the breach of the psychological contract can induce behavioral deterioration and deviance (Harold & Holtz, 2015 ). Building on this, the current study highlights that workplace incivility reinforces adversarial "leader-subordinate" role perceptions. This makes it difficult for both parties to establish a positive interaction pattern based on support and trust, ultimately leading to the sustained deterioration of supervisor-subordinate guanxi quality. 4) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. Research by Cheng et al. ( 2002 ) suggests that the dynamic characteristics within a Cha-xu climate lead individuals to be more inclined to adopt specific interpersonal interaction rules. Based on this view, this study argues that when leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate, they will continuously invest emotional resources to maintain a "special relationship" with their superiors. This intensifies the depletion of emotional resources, resulting in a deeper level of emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, the degree of emotional exhaustion is alleviated. Theoretical implications. First, this study extends and deepens the research scope of upward ingratiation. Existing research has primarily focused on the direct effects or short-term benefits of ingratiatory behavior on the ingratiator themselves, commonly treating it as an individual's active strategic behavior and implicitly presuming it to be "harmless" or "beneficial" (Kim et al., 2018 ; Clarke et al., 2022 ). However, this study reveals the potential substantial, indirect, and negative "spillover effects" of leader's upward ingratiation on the destructive impact on supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It is the first to systematically demonstrate that the efforts leaders expend to manage their "upward relationships" can, by depleting their psychological resources and triggering negative behaviors, ultimately erode the foundation of their "downward relationships." The construction of this theoretical framework provides a profound revelation of the "dark side" of leader behavior. It clarifies the often-overlooked aspect of ingratiation that "harms both the leader and their subordinates," thereby greatly enriching and deepening the research on the outcomes of leader ingratiation behavior. It also offers a novel theoretical explanation for potential threats to supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Second, grounded in the conservation of resources theory, the research model identifies the serial mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility, thereby detailing the intermediate "black box" process from leader's upward ingratiation to supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Specifically, emotional exhaustion is a core proximal psychological consequence of upward ingratiation. Leaders' engagement in upward ingratiation directly and significantly depletes their psychological energy, leading to a state of profound emotional exhaustion (Liu et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, emotional exhaustion serves as a key mechanism triggering leader's workplace incivility. Leaders in a state of emotional exhaustion experience diminished emotional regulation capacity, making them more prone to displaying uncivil behaviors such as neglect, belittlement, or rudeness toward subordinates as a negative coping mechanism for stress venting or resource conservation (Ejaz et al., 2025 ; Liu et al., 2022 ). Finally, workplace incivility acts as the direct behavioral antecedent damaging supervisor-subordinate guanxi. A leader's uncivil behavior toward subordinates violates their dignity, trust, and sense of respect, severely undermining the foundations of mutual trust, respect, and support essential for high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Gui et al., 2022 ). This provides a more nuanced and explanatory theoretical framework for understanding how negative leader behavior is triggered and how it damages supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It constitutes a significant theoretical supplement and deepening to research on leader stress coping, antecedents of workplace incivility, and antecedents of supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Third, this study introduces and tests the critical moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu in the entire serial mediation mechanism. Existing research on differential leadership or Cha-xu climate primarily examines its impact on employee attitudes, behaviors, or fairness perceptions (Ren & Chadee, 2017 ; Luo & Cheng, 2015 ). Less attention has been paid to its influence on leaders' own psychological states and behavioral responses, and even less has connected it to leader's upward ingratiation behavior. This study points out that in a high Cha-xu climate, the "necessity" and "pressure" of ingratiation multiply, exacerbating leaders' anxiety and emotional resource depletion. Therefore, this study not only broadens the target of Cha-xu climate research but, more importantly, clearly articulates the theoretical mechanism of how the Cha-xu climate acts as a contextual amplifier, intensifying the effect of leader's upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion. This provides key theoretical insights for understanding the formation mechanism of leader stress within a Cha-xu cultural context. It also lays a significant theoretical foundation and empirical basis for future research exploring the psychological consequences of other leader behaviors within specific cultural contexts. Practical implications. First, it is necessary to be vigilant about the corrosive effects of ingratiatory behavior on the organizational ecosystem and reduce leaders' dependence on upward ingratiation. Organizations should begin by optimizing leadership assessment and promotion mechanisms. This involves reducing the weight of "supervisor-only evaluation" in performance appraisal and incorporating anonymous subordinate feedback, peer evaluation, and objective performance data. This ensures a leader's success depends on actual team outcomes rather than merely "pleasing the boss." Concurrently, leadership competency models should explicitly include "subordinate development," "trust building," and "fairness and justice" as core downward management indicators, making them mandatory criteria for promotion. This sends a clear signal that "excellent leaders must earn recognition from both superiors and subordinates." Furthermore, establishing safe communication and support channels is crucial. Senior management must model desired behaviors and set up anonymous feedback mechanisms, providing leaders with safe avenues to voice concerns. This reduces the pressure forcing leaders into ingratiation out of fear. Finally, empowering leaders to enhance their autonomy—through delegation and resource support—can diminish their motivation to "compete for resources" through ingratiation. Second, to address the vicious cycle of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility, it is essential to build a dual defense line focusing on both emotional management and behavioral constraints. As a key antecedent to leader misconduct, tackling emotional exhaustion requires systemic intervention targeting its sources. Organizations should conduct regular, anonymous, and standardized online assessments of psychological stress and exhaustion levels. They should also provide leaders with dedicated access to psychological counseling, allowing them to share pressures and gain understanding and support in a safe environment. Given the harm caused by workplace incivility, organizations must adopt a "zero-tolerance" attitude. They must ensure the existence of independent, confidential, and retaliation-free channels for employees to report leader incivility. Upon receiving a report, a timely and thorough investigation must be conducted by an impartial third party, such as a cross-departmental panel or external consultant, followed by transparent and fair disciplinary action according to established policies. These measures can help reduce the occurrence of workplace incivility and promote healthy organizational development. Third, it is important to weaken the perceived climate of team Cha-xu and foster a fair and inclusive organizational environment. For the allocation of key resources, organizations should formulate and publicize clear application processes, evaluation criteria, and decision-making mechanisms. This reduces superiors' discretionary power and the room for favoritism. Moreover, breaking down informal "circle" barriers is essential. Implementing job rotation for management positions or forming cross-departmental project teams can disrupt long-entrenched relational networks. Establishing "talent exposure" programs provides opportunities for employees outside the core circle to demonstrate their capabilities to top management, reducing superiors' reliance on "inner circle" members. Finally, organizational culture starts at the top. Senior executives must lead by example, demonstrating the utmost fairness, transparency, and inclusiveness in resource allocation, interpersonal interactions, and information sharing. They must publicly oppose any form of "circle culture" and special treatment. Limitations and future directions. First, although the research employed a multi-wave, leader-subordinate dyadic design to minimize common method bias, the potential for measurement error cannot be entirely eliminated. Furthermore, the sample was drawn from specific provinces in China. This geographical focus may limit the generalizability of our findings. As prior research suggests, a given construct may trigger differential cognitive interpretations, emotional experiences, and behavioral responses across cultural groups (Chin et al., 2024 ). Future studies could extend this line of inquiry to cross-cultural contexts. Comparing multinational data to validate the theoretical model proposed here would enhance the external validity and cultural adaptability of the conclusions. Second, this study focused solely on the mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader’s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi, potentially overlooking other relevant psychological and behavioral mechanisms. Considering that leader’s upward ingratiation often stems from insecurity about job safety or promotion prospects, such behavior may itself induce or exacerbate leader workplace anxiety, manifesting as a stress response characterized by tension (McCarthy et al., 2016 ). This persistent state of anxiety places leaders in a heightened state of vigilance and defensiveness, making them more prone to hostile attribution toward subordinates—a cognitive tendency to interpret others' ambiguous actions as intentionally harmful (Smith, 1991). This negative cognitive bias can subsequently trigger defensive, distrustful, or aggressive reactions from leaders, such as harsh criticism, distancing, or suppression, ultimately straining, alienating, or even causing conflict within the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Sung & Kim, 2024 ). Therefore, future research could introduce workplace anxiety and hostile attribution as mediating variables to more fully uncover the mechanisms through which leader’s upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Third, while this study highlighted the "regulating valve" role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, it is not the only boundary condition. Considering the central role of "face" within the Chinese cultural value system, a higher level of face consciousness makes individuals more likely to engage in impression management (Vecchione et al., 2013 ). For leaders, high face consciousness may drive more intense and invested upward ingratiation efforts. Each ingratiatory interaction becomes a test of "face", where fear of failure can evoke strong anxiety and shame, thereby intensifying personal resource depletion (Park, 2001 ). Conversely, leaders with low face consciousness may experience less impact on their self-worth and image if their ingratiation is ineffective or unrecognized, resulting in comparatively lower psychological resource consumption (Wang et al., 2019 ). Consequently, future research could examine face consciousness as a moderating variable, providing additional leverage for managing leader’s upward ingratiation behavior. Declarations Author contributions SJ: Investigation, Data collection, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft. LL: Writing—review & editing. LXY: Conceptualization, Methodology. DDY: Investigation, Data collection. ZM: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review & editing. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. We maintain the same order of authors in the submission system as provided in the manuscript. Ethical approval Research involving human participants was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nantong University on July 12, 2025, and was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical exemption provisions for minimal-risk studies. Informed consent All participants were informed of the research purpose, procedures, confidentiality protocols, and their right to withdraw at any time. Voluntary participation was ensured for all participants. Data availability The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Andersson LM, Pearson CM (1999) Tit for Tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad Manage Rev 24(3):452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131 Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM (1998) Ego depletion:ls the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc Psychol 74(5):1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252 Bolino MC, Turnley WH (1999) Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organ Res Methods 2(2):187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819922005 Bolino MC, Klotz AC, Turnley WH, Harvey J (2013) Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ Behav 34(4):542–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847 Cai WJ, Song J, He CQ, Wang DD, Yang XJ (2021) From employee creativity to leader empowering behaviors: The roles of supervisor-subordinate guanxi and supervisor-subordinate similarity. J Manage Organ 30(4):895–909. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.41 Cao Q, Niu XF, Wang DD, Wang R (2022) Antecedents of empowering leadership: The roles of subordinate performance and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Eur J Work Organ Psy 31(5):727–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2037562 Chen ZX, Sun M (2022) Qualitative study on the toxic triangle integration of leadership ostracism. Front Psychol 12:655216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655216 Cheng B, Guo GX, Tian J, Kong Y (2024) I disdain the company of flatterers!': How and when observed ingratiation predicts employees' ostracism toward their ingratiating colleagues. Hum Relat 77(8):1071–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267231170175 Cheng BS, Farh JL, Chang HF, Hsu WL (2002) Guanxi, zhongcheng,competence and managerial behavior in the Chinese context. Chin J Psy 44(2):151–166 Chi NW, Tsai WC (2021) How demographic faultlines and impression management behaviors influence group affective tone. Small Group Res 52(6):676–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496421993911 Chin T, Lin CL, Caputo F, Hu F (2024) Editorial: Understanding cross-cultural differences through cognition and perception analysis: integrating neuroscience and cultural psychology. Front Psychol 15:1416853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416853 Chris AC, Provencher Y, Fogg C, Thompson SC, Cole A, Okaka O, Bosco F, González-Morales MG (2022) A meta-analysis of experienced incivility and its correlates: Exploring the dual path model of experienced workplace incivility. Occup Health Psychol 27(3):317–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000326 Clarke N, Alshenalfi N, Garavan T (2022) The effects of subordinates' use of upward influence tactics on their supervisors' job performance evaluations in Saudi Arabia: the significance of loyalty. Int J Hum Resour Manage 33(2):239–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1686650 Cortina LM, Magley V, Wiliams JH, Langhout RD (2001) lncivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Occup Health Psychol 6(1):64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 Cortina LM, Hershcovis MS, Clancy KBH (2022) The embodiment of insult: A theory of biobehavioral response to workplace incivility. J Manage 48(3):738–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321989798 Cortina LM, Kabat-Farr D, Magley VJ, Nelson KC (2017) Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Occup Health Psychol 22(3):299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089 Djurdjevic E, Stoverink AC, Klotz AC, Koopman J, da Motta Veiga S, Yam KC, Chiang JT (2017) Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. J Appl Psychol 102(7):1124–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000202 Ejaz A, Quratulain S, Aulakh AH, Cando-Naranjo J, Sabharwal M (2025) The conditional effects of the transformational leadership behaviors on leaders' emotional exhaustion: Roles of deep acting and emotional intelligence. Am Rev Public Adm 55(1):3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241273978 Fang YC, Liu YH, Yu PL, Chen N (2024) How does narcissistic leadership influence change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior? Empirical evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):667. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03159-2 Faul F, Erdtelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav res methods 39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 González-Torres T, Gelashvili V, Martínez-Navalón JG (2023) Organizational culture and climate: new perspectives and challenges. Front Psychol 14:1267945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1267945 Gross C, Debus ME, Liu Y, Wang M, Kleinmann M (2020) I am nice and capable! How and when newcomers’ self-presentation to their supervisors affects socialization outcomes. J Appl Psychol 106(7):1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000817 Guan XY, Frenkel SJ (2019) Explaining supervisor-subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens. Hum Relat 72(11):1752–1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718813718 Gui WJ, Bai QY, Wang L (2022) Workplace incivility and employees' personal initiative: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and meaningful work. Sage Open 12(1):21582440221079899. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079899 Halbesleben JRB, Bowler WM (2007) Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. J Appl Psychol 92(1):93–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 Harold CM, Holtz BC (2015) The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility. Organ Behav 36(1):16–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.1926 Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation,and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York He P, Wang J, Zhou H, Zhang C, Liu Q, Xie X (2022) Workplace friendship, employee well-being and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of the perception of Chaxu climate. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036579 He Q, Fu JT, Wu WH, Pervaiz S (2023) You are insisting, or you want to withdraw? Research on the negative effect of ethical leadership on leaders themselves. Curr Psychol 42(30):25968–25984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03433-z Hobfoll SE (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 44(3):513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Hobfoll SE (2002) Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol 6(4):307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307 Hobfoll SE (2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol 50(3):337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062 Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu JP, Westman M (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annu Rev Organ Psych 5(1):103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-032117-104640 Hülsheger UR, Schewe AF (2011) On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Occup Health Psychol 16(3):361–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876 Hur WM, Kim BS, Park SJ (2015) The relationship between coworker incivility, emotional exhaustion, and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Hum Factor Ergon Man 25(6):701–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20587 Hwan PJ (2015) A study on the effect of influence tactics used by a middle manager on a managerial effectiveness. Korean J Bus Adm 28(2):781–803 Jones EE, Pittman TS (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychol Perspect Self 1(1):231–262 Kim JK, LePine JA, Chun JU (2018) Stuck between a rock and a hard place: Contrasting upward and downward effects of leaders’ ingratiation. Pers Psychol 71(4):495–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/PEPS.12267 Kumar K, Beyerlein M (1991) Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Appl Psych 76(5):619–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619 Law KS, Wong CS, Wang D, Wang L (2000) Effect of supervisor subordinate Guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. Int J Hum Resour Manag 11(4):751–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075105 Lee HYW, An SM, Lim GY, Sohn YW (2021) Ethical leadership and followers' emotional exhaustion: Exploring the roles of three types of emotional labor toward leaders in south Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(20):10862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010862 Lee YS, Soo KH (2022) The curvilinear effect of conscientiousness, emotional stability on emotional exhaustion and moderating role of knowledge sharing: Focused on flight attendants. J Aviat Manage Soc Korea 20(1):71–94 Liu J, Zhang K, Zhong LF (2009) The formation and impact of the atmosphere of the Error routine of the work team: A case study based on successive data. Manage World (8): 92–101 Liu CE, Yu SX, Chen YH, He W (2020) Supervision incivility and employee psychological safety in the workplace. Int J Env Res Pub He 17(3):840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030840 Liu P, Li X, Liu N, Ma Y, Wang X, Li A (2022) Is cyber anxiety signaling useful? An examination of leader's emotional and behavioral reactions. Bus Res 146:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.040 Liu X, Mao JY, Chiang JTJ (2023) When and why does voice sustain or stop? The roles of leader behaviours, power differential perception and psychological safety. Appl Psychol-Int Rev 72(3):1209–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12432 Luo JD, Cheng MY (2015) Guanxi circles’ effect on organizational trust: Bringing power and vertical social exchanges into intraorganizational network analysis. Am Behav Sci 59(8):1024–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215580 Ma ZJ, Khan HSUD, Chughtai MS, Li M, Ge B, Qadri SU (2023) A review of supervisor-subordinate guanxi: Current trends and future research. Sustainability-Basel 5(1):795. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010795 Malik MF (2023) Perfectionism is a debacle how a perfectionist leader hinders in business processes? A multiple mediated model. Bus Process Manag J 29(4):1184–1203. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-10-2022-0534 Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 Mehtap Ö, Balkas J, Tülemez S (2024) How do leaders' political influence tactics affect dissent, cynicism and negligence? A research into medical representatives in Turkey. J East Eur Manag Stud 29(1):28–70. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2024-1-28 McCarthy JM, Trougakos JP, Cheng BH (2016) Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Appl Psychol 101(2):279–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000044 Miranda GA, Welbourne JL, Sariol AM (2020) Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses. Hum Resour Dev Q 31(4):371–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21395 Öztürk EB, Karagonlar G (2019) The relationship between supervisor and employee emotional exhaustion: The role of procedural justice. Türk Psikol Derg 34:129–144 Park KK (2001) The Influence of a concern for superior` face on LMX of Leadership and organizational behavior[J]. Korean Manag Rev 30(4):1093–1114 Park S (2023) Savvy or slimy upward influence: The unintended effects of perceived political culture and tactics on employee perceptions of leader trustworthiness. Korean J Manag 31(4):1–32. https://doi.org/10.26856/kjom.2023.31.4.1 Qin X, Direnzo MS, Xu M, Duan Y (2014) When do emotionally exhausted employees speak up?Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Organ Behav 35(7):1018–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.1948 Ren S, Chadee D (2017) Influence of work pressure on proactive skill development in China:the role of career networking behavior and Guanxi HRM. Vocat Behav 98:152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2016.11.004 Rice DB, Reed N (2022) Supervisor emotional exhaustion and goal-focused leader behavior: The roles of supervisor bottom-line mentality and conscientiousness. Curr Psychol 41(12):8758–8773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01349-8 Shen W, Liang LH, Brown DJ, Ni D, Zheng X (2021) Subordinate poor performance as a stressor on leader well-being: The mediating role of abusive supervision and the moderating role of motives for abuse. Occup Health Psychol 26(6):491–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000307 Salancik GR, Pfeffer J (1978) A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm Sci Q 23(2):224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563 Smith TW (1994) Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. Anger, Hostility, and the Heart, pp 23–42 Sun H, Guo HB, Wang K, Sun L, Wang L (2021) Upward ingratiation outside the workplace and supervisor's human resource decisions: Moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking. Front Psychol 12:636756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636756 Sung J, Kim E (2024) The relationship between covert narcissism and reactive aggression: The sequential mediation effect of hostile attribution bias and anger rumination. J Cogn Enhanc 15(4):281–297. https://doi.org/10.21197/jcei.15.4.14 Tedeschi JT, Melburg V (1984) Impression Management and Influence in the Organization. In: Bacharach B (ed) Lawler, E. J. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. JAI, Greenwich Vecchione M, Alessandri G, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV (2013) A longitudinal investigation of egoistic and moralistic self-enhancement. J Pers Assess 95(5):506–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.810152 Wang HH, Wu W, Liu YP, Hao S, Wu S (2019) In what ways do Chinese employees speak up? An exchange approach to supervisor-subordinate guanxi and voice behavior. Int J Hum Resource Manag 30(3):479–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1253030 Wang ZN, Liu DD, Cai SH (2019) Self-reflection and employee creativity The mediating role of individual intellectual capital and the moderating role of concern for face. Chin Manag Stud 13(4):895–917. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2018-0683? Watkins MB, Ren R, Umphress EE, Boswell WR, Triana MD, Zardkoohi A (2015) Compassion organizing: Employees' satisfaction with corporate philanthropic disaster response and reduced job strain. J Occup Organ Psych 88(2):436–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOOP.12088 Welbourne JL, Gangadharan A, Esparza CA (2016) Coping style and gender effects on attitudinal responses to incivility. Manag Psychol 31(3):720–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2014-0340 Yan M, Xie YP, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Bashir M, Liu Y (2020) How ingratiation links to counterproductive work behaviors: The roles of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Front Psychol 11:2238. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02238 Zhang L, Deng Y, Zhang X, Hu E (2016) Why do Chinese employees build supervisor-subordinate guanxi?a motivational analysis. Asia Pac J Manag 33(3):617–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10490-015-9430-3 Zhang JH, Huang R, Huang BL, Xu T, Zhao G (2024) Employee motivation and outcomes of developing and maintaining high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi in hotel operations. Cornell Hosp Q 65(4):509–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655241226563 Zhang Z, Xie J (2024) How and when does boundary spanning behavior influence employees' creative performance? The roles of meaning of work and team Chaxu climate. Curr Psychol 43(24):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05911-y Zheng YH, Gao YX, Feng T (2024) Chaxu climate as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of organizational justice, hierarchy level on turnover intention. J Hosp Tour Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480241296000 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ScenarioExperimentQuestionnaire.docx Study2QuestionnaireSurvey.xlsx ThreeStageSurveyQuestionnaire.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 02 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 10 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9112549","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":634240295,"identity":"125d5cae-d091-49cc-afcd-4f12f81fa3fa","order_by":0,"name":"Jie Shen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nantong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jie","middleName":"","lastName":"Shen","suffix":""},{"id":634240296,"identity":"4162067e-4041-4d08-b028-54ed009b343c","order_by":1,"name":"Ling Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nantong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ling","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":634240297,"identity":"e2a3289f-3a1e-4785-99fb-dbaee5cea0b1","order_by":2,"name":"Xiayi Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huaqiao University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiayi","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":634240298,"identity":"15205902-7803-4c51-b355-f635203e7ff1","order_by":3,"name":"Dongyu Dai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nantong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dongyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Dai","suffix":""},{"id":634240299,"identity":"712cee58-5242-44ff-99f1-bcb36804a8f1","order_by":4,"name":"Min Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nantong University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-13 08:56:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108805002,"identity":"4d1903c9-f146-42c4-a2c8-02d61c939f7b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:24:29","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/bfe937634a9c0f8a66492140.png"},{"id":108804488,"identity":"677feecb-2de4-4a41-8916-c561376839b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:20:46","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17256,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-Xu on the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion (Study 1).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/2aca80560787d320a2514c18.png"},{"id":108502280,"identity":"f18dabff-7659-45ba-ac02-fced243fce83","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 10:58:57","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23437,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-Xu on the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion (Study 2).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/7cb57b5e261fb5959117fe4c.png"},{"id":108809877,"identity":"a5706572-2a1f-47ac-9910-447881a3b427","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:56:02","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":855518,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/cd39ab38-aa8d-4321-909c-902b5f24d746.pdf"},{"id":108804508,"identity":"2e4aa18c-c799-4441-9f18-459319d74f02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:20:59","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":26730,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ScenarioExperimentQuestionnaire.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/9e879e06df1b988cb0901147.docx"},{"id":108502278,"identity":"a79a544a-588e-42b4-bf71-d093617c6491","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 10:58:57","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":115372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Study2QuestionnaireSurvey.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/5313486250a55c30195f3684.xlsx"},{"id":108804411,"identity":"94137c12-1ed3-4f88-9bd6-089c9668d3cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:20:23","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":29723,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ThreeStageSurveyQuestionnaire.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9112549/v1/4dd831b053b0b0f1a8f62168.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The impact mechanism of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A moderated chain mediation model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWithin the unique cultural context of China, ingratiation has evolved into a common strategy employed by subordinates to maintain relationships with superiors and avoid potential conflicts (Gross et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). At its core, upward ingratiation is a social influence behavior where individuals aim to affect a specific target's evaluation of them, manifested through self-deprecation, opinion conformity, and flattery (Jones \u0026amp; Pittman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). Existing research has predominantly adopted the perspective of the actor, revealing that such impression management tactics can enhance a supervisor's perception of a subordinate\u0026rsquo;s competence and trustworthiness (Sun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), thereby positively influencing the subordinate\u0026rsquo;s job performance and career progression (Clarke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, potential drawbacks must also be considered. Studies indicate that ingratiators may face contempt, disdain, and resentment from colleagues due to their self-serving behavior, leading to diminished social standing and a loss of respect (Tedeschi \u0026amp; Melburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). Once ingratiators lose their colleagues\u0026rsquo; respect and admiration, their stability within the organizational power network can be undermined (Djurdjevic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, upward ingratiation can also negatively affect observers, particularly coworkers (Chi \u0026amp; Tsai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The zero-sum nature of resource allocation within organizations means that an ingratiator's monopolization of resources encroaches upon the legitimate interests of other employees by limiting their access (Cheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Further research suggests that favored ingratiators become \"insiders\" to the supervisor, while \"outsider\" colleagues perceive relational disharmony with the supervisor. This perception increases psychological strain in vertical interactions, and the accumulation of such stress can trigger counterproductive work behaviors like work withdrawal and knowledge hiding (Salancik \u0026amp; Pfeffer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Collectively, these studies have advanced our understanding of the outcomes of upward ingratiation. However, focusing solely on its impact on the actors themselves and their colleagues is insufficient.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, current research has mainly concentrated on upward ingratiation among employees, overlooking its prevalence within the leadership group. In hierarchical organizations, leaders, especially those at the middle-management level, also depend on recognition from higher levels for promotion, resource acquisition, and performance evaluation (Hwan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This top-down pressure compels leaders to engage in upward ingratiation\u0026mdash;through strategic alignment and relationship maintenance\u0026mdash;to gain superior trust. Its frequency and subtlety may even exceed that of ordinary employees (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Second, existing literature has neglected the potential impact of leaders' upward ingratiation on their subordinates. A leader's upward ingratiation is not an isolated act separate from their team (Mehtap et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). On one hand, to cater to superior preferences, leaders may implement directives that deviate from team needs or harm subordinate interests (Kumar \u0026amp; Beyelein, 1991). On the other hand, excessive focus on upward management can reduce a leader's attention and investment in internal team affairs (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Such behaviors trigger negative subordinate evaluations of the leader's credibility, fairness, and supportiveness, eroding the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. This erosion manifests as weakened affective bonds, shaken trust, and imbalanced role obligation fulfillment (Park, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, critical questions arise: How does a leader's upward ingratiation affect supervisor-subordinate guanxi? What is the underlying mechanism? These questions lack clear, systematic, and convincing explanations in the existing literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conservation of resources theory posits that psychological stress and defensive behaviors are triggered when individuals face threats of resource loss, actual resource depletion, or a lack of expected return on resource investment (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Leader's upward ingratiation is inherently a high-risk, high-consumption resource investment (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). To secure scarce resources from superiors, leaders must expend significant emotional resources to suppress genuine feelings and engage in surface acting\u0026mdash;emotional disguise (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This investment faces high uncertainty of return due to power asymmetry across organizational hierarchies (\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk \u0026amp; Karagonlar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). When expected returns fail to materialize, leaders enter a state of resource depletion (H\u0026uuml;lsheger \u0026amp; Schewe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Sustained resource overdraw, particularly the depletion of emotional capital beyond an individual's recovery threshold, evolves into emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion refers to a negative psychological state of fatigue resulting from the overextension of emotional resources (Maslach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). At this stage, the leader transitions from a resource manager to a resource deficit holder, with critical psychological resources\u0026mdash;such as emotional regulation capacity, patience, and cognitive flexibility\u0026mdash;approaching depletion (Halbesleben \u0026amp; Bowler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, resource-depleted leaders lose the ability to inhibit impulses, manage negative emotions, and adhere to role norms, thereby instigating workplace incivility (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Workplace incivility constitutes low-intensity deviant behavior that violates workplace norms of mutual respect, with ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson \u0026amp; Pearson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). This behavior undermines the foundations of high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi: mutual respect, trust, and socio-emotional exchange (Gui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, subordinates perceiving insult and neglect may respond with anger and alienation, withdrawing their affective commitment. Eroded trust makes subordinates reluctant to offer extra help or share information (Lee \u0026amp; Soo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). More critically, subordinate defensive withdrawal\u0026mdash;such as reduced communication and diminished engagement\u0026mdash;further deprives leaders of supportive resources like respect and cooperation, exacerbating resource scarcity (Cao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Ultimately, the supervisor-subordinate relationship irreversibly deteriorates from a mutually beneficial state to one of mutual depletion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch indicates that a leader's behavioral choices and psychological states are largely shaped by the organizational cultural context (Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Torres et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the unique Chinese management context characterized by high power distance and relationship orientation, the perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u0026mdash;a leader's psychological experience of implicit organizational rules favoring differential treatment based on relational closeness (Zhang \u0026amp; Xie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;serves as a crucial situational variable. It elucidates the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. When leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate\u0026mdash;recognizing that resource allocation, promotion opportunities, and superior trust heavily depend on personal connections rather than objective performance\u0026mdash;their upward ingratiation is compelled into a more complex logic of relational competition. On one hand, to maintain or elevate their \"inner circle\" status within this differential order, leaders must intensify their ingratiation efforts. This involves more sophisticated strategizing to precisely cater to superior preferences and more intensive relationship nurturing to consolidate personal bonds. Such extraordinary investment accelerates the depletion rate of emotional resources (Chen \u0026amp; Sun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, a Cha-xu climate often entails factional attachment pressure. Leaders may be forced into involuntary ingratiation activities to maintain their in-group status, further depriving them of behavioral autonomy and triggering more severe emotional resource depletion and a heightened sense of powerlessness (Fang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, they need not expend extra resources speculating on superiors' personal preferences or factional stances, nor must they frequently engage in surface acting. This effectively mitigates the degree of emotional exhaustion (He et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this study constructs a moderated chain mediation model. Its academic contributions are threefold: First, it moves beyond the traditional focus on employee ingratiation, advancing scholarly understanding of leader's upward ingratiation and revealing its \"dark side.\" Second, as no prior study has examined the impact of ingratiation on subordinates, this research incorporates emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as mediating variables. It elucidates the conduit path between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi, enriching related literature. Third, by introducing the perceived climate of team Cha-xu as a moderator, it uncovers the boundary conditions of this impact path, further refining the mechanism through which leader's upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical foundation and research hypotheses","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion.\u003c/strong\u003e As upward ingratiation effectively shapes a positive image in the eyes of power holders, it has become a common impression management strategy within organizations (Jones \u0026amp; Pittman, 1982; Bolino \u0026amp; Turnley, 1999). In hierarchical workplace environments, senior managers control access to scarce resources such as promotion channels, budget allocations, and key decisions. This positions them as primary targets for ingratiation by middle-level leaders (Hwan, 2015). Consequently, the phenomenon of leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation\u0026mdash;in which leaders strategically use behaviors like flattery, catering to preferences, or selective information presentation to align with superiors' likes\u0026mdash;constitutes a significant and practically relevant issue in contemporary organizational research (Park, 2023). While such behavior may yield short-term benefits for leaders, such as access to more high-quality resources and promotion opportunities (Sun et al., 2021), a long-term perspective reveals its costs. Upward ingratiation compels leaders to chronically suppress their genuine emotions and invest considerable energy in maintaining relationships. This sustained high consumption of emotional resources can ultimately lead leaders into a state of emotional exhaustion (Kim et al., 2018). Emotional exhaustion is precisely the state of physical and mental fatigue that arises when an individual\u0026rsquo;s emotional resources are depleted under pressure (Qin et al., 2014). Accordingly, we propose that leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation may trigger emotional exhaustion through the following mechanisms:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, ingratiation itself represents a high-intensity initial investment of resources. The conservation of resources theory posits that individuals have finite resources, and any resource loss increases stress, leading to negative psychological experiences (Hobfoll, 1989). On one hand, ingratiation often requires leaders to engage in deep \"emotional labor\", particularly \"surface acting\". This manifests as deliberately exaggerating achievements, concealing dissent, or offering insincere praise (Lee et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2023). Such behaviors force individuals to suppress negative emotions and expend significant emotional resources to meticulously design and monitor their words and actions to meet superior expectations (Park, 2023). On the other hand, when a leader\u0026rsquo;s internal values conflict with ingratiatory acts, it triggers pronounced cognitive dissonance. This creates a rift between the \u0026ldquo;authentic self\u0026rdquo; and the \"performed self\". Reconciling this conflict requires the continuous mobilization of additional emotional resources to alleviate resulting anxiety, guilt, and self-doubt (Yan et al., 2020). Following this logic, upward ingratiation gradually depletes a leader\u0026rsquo;s reservoir of emotional resources, thereby fostering emotional exhaustion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, the uncertainty surrounding the returns from ingratiation can intensify a spiral of resource loss. The conservation of resources theory notes that resource loss has a far greater impact on individuals than resource gain (Hobfoll et al., 2001). A superior\u0026rsquo;s favor, resource allocation, or promotion promises are often subject to ambiguous, shifting standards (\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk \u0026amp; Karagonlar, 2019). When leaders invest substantial resources in ingratiation but fail to receive the expected returns, or even face skepticism or rejection from superiors, their initial resource investment faces irreversible loss (H\u0026uuml;lsheger \u0026amp; Schewe, 2011). At this point, leaders enter a \"spiral of resource loss\": in an attempt to recoup losses, they often feel compelled to invest even more resources. However, in an uncertain environment, such compensatory investments frequently yield minimal returns. They may even backfire, as excessive ingratiation can provoke superior aversion or colleague alienation, causing the rate and totality of resource loss to escalate (Baumeister et al., 1998). The state of resource scarcity itself impairs an individual's capacity to acquire new resources, making emotional exhaustion a nearly inevitable endpoint (Halbesleben \u0026amp; Bowler, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, upward ingratiation may gradually undermine a leader\u0026rsquo;s psychological capital reserves. When the rate of resource depletion consistently outpaces the capacity for replenishment, emotional exhaustion becomes the inevitable outcome. This explains the paradoxical phenomenon where many leaders who are \"skilled at upward management\" ultimately fall into deep professional burnout. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmotional exhaustion and workplace incivility.\u003c/strong\u003e According to the conservation of resources theory, emotional exhaustion signifies that the sustained net loss from an individual\u0026rsquo;s emotional resource reservoir has reached a critical state of depletion (Hobfoll, 2002). At this juncture, leaders find themselves in a classic resource deficit predicament. On one hand, prolonged resource depletion severely impairs their emotional regulation capacity, cognitive flexibility, and self-monitoring functions (Ejaz et al., 2025). On the other hand, resource exhaustion triggers a strong motivation to conserve resources, driving individuals to take all possible measures to prevent further loss (Hobfoll, 2001). In this state, leaders struggle to mobilize resources such as empathy or patience to handle interpersonal friction. Even minor conflicts are easily interpreted as challenges to their authority (Shen et al., 2021), setting the stage for subsequent workplace incivility. Workplace incivility refers to low-intensity deviant workplace behaviors with ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson \u0026amp; Pearson, 1999). As one of the most prevalent workplace dark-side behaviors, it is ubiquitous in organizations, silently eroding organizational value (Cortina et al., 2017). Relevant data indicate that the prevalence of supervisor incivility experienced by employees today is twice that of two decades ago, and it continues to rise year by year (Cortina et al., 2022). Given the potential harm of workplace incivility, it is imperative to delve into its causes and underlying mechanisms. From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, we propose that emotional exhaustion increases the likelihood of workplace incivility, for two main reasons.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, restraining incivility itself consumes resources (Hobfoll, 2001), and leaders experiencing emotional exhaustion lack sufficient resources to inhibit such behavior. The conservation of resources theory emphasizes that resources are scarce and finite, so individuals are always inclined to acquire and protect their own resources (Hobfoll, 2018). When leaders are emotionally exhausted, their resource reserves fall below the threshold required for basic functioning (Hobfoll, 2002). Under these circumstances, the self-regulatory process needed to inhibit workplace incivility encounters a systemic resource crisis. On one hand, suppressing impulsive aggression\u0026mdash;such as holding back anger over a subordinate\u0026rsquo;s mistake\u0026mdash;requires emotional management via inhibiting negative emotional expression or cognitive reappraisal. However, the emotional resources consumed in this process far exceed the leader's remaining reserves (Liu et al., 2022), making them more likely to succumb to instinctual impulses. On the other hand, adhering to ethical norms demands the continuous engagement of self-monitoring and volitional control resources. Yet, leaders in a resource-depleted state find it difficult to uphold moral boundaries, thereby engaging in workplace incivility (Liu et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, workplace incivility can help leaders quickly regain a sense of control and replenish depleted resources. The conservation of resources theory notes that resource infusion is crucial for individuals to replenish resources and resist further loss (Hobfoll, 2018). From a power dynamics perspective, when leaders are emotionally exhausted, their substantive resources\u0026mdash;such as decision-making energy and the capacity for emotional support\u0026mdash;are significantly depleted, making it difficult to maintain authority through positive resource provision (He et al., 2023). Consequently, they may resort to coercive power, using incivility such as belittling subordinates' abilities or devaluing their contributions to artificially create a power differential (Malik, 2023). This allows leaders to maintain superficial authority, reconstruct psychological dominance, and gain new resource support. From an emotional management perspective, negative emotions accumulated during emotional exhaustion, such as anger and frustration, constitute \"negative resource reservoirs\" that urgently need release (Rice \u0026amp; Reed, 2022). Displacing these emotions onto subordinates becomes a convenient way for leaders to reduce their own resource consumption. Examples include venting anger at the team due to criticism from above or transforming work pressure into unwarranted criticism of subordinates (Chris et al., 2022). Such workplace incivility allows leaders to reduce the resource expenditure required for emotion regulation and achieve brief emotional release.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, under the dual pressures of depleted self-regulatory resources and a strong motivation to acquire resources, leaders in a state of emotional exhaustion are more likely to enact workplace incivility. Integrating the positive effect of leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion and the positive effect of emotional exhaustion on workplace incivility, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. That is, leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation exacerbates emotional exhaustion, which in turn increases workplace incivility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkplace incivility and supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/strong\u003e In the Chinese organizational context, leaders in positions of power control and allocate core organizational resources. Their resource allocation decisions heavily rely on informal relational ties with subordinates. Conversely, subordinates, as those in lower-power positions, must establish close connections with their leaders to secure critical support for career advancement and project opportunities (Wang et al., 2019). This dependent nature of resource acquisition drives subordinates to proactively invest time and effort in relationship cultivation, forming an informal network centered around the leader. Academia defines this unique social bond as \"supervisor-subordinate guanxi\" (Ma et al., 2023). Supervisor-subordinate guanxi transcends the rigid boundaries of formal authority, profoundly shaping organizational members' behavioral patterns and resource acquisition pathways (Zhang et al., 2016). According to the conservation of resources theory, maintaining high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi depends on continuous resource exchange and perceived reciprocity (Hobfoll, 1989). Leaders provide guidance, trust, and promotion opportunities in exchange for subordinates\u0026rsquo; engagement and loyalty (Zhang et al., 2024). However, a leader\u0026rsquo;s workplace incivility strips subordinates of emotional, cognitive, and social resources. This directly assaults subordinates' resource reserves and psychological safety boundaries, ultimately undermining the foundation of the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Gui et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalyzing from the subordinate\u0026rsquo;s resource perspective, workplace incivility triggers a resource depletion effect. First, emotional resources, as the core reserve for coping with stress, are rapidly consumed when subordinates face leader incivility. They must invest extra emotional resources to cope with the negative stimuli. Chronic emotional exhaustion from this process can diminish their work engagement and organizational commitment (Halbesleben \u0026amp; Bowler, 2007). Second, cognitive resources are excessively depleted due to the ambiguous and unpredictable nature of uncivil acts (Andersson \u0026amp; Pearson, 1999). Subordinates need to repeatedly guess and interpret the leader\u0026rsquo;s intent\u0026mdash;pondering questions like \"Is the leader targeting me?\" This persistent cognitive uncertainty occupies working memory capacity, creating an uncontrollable and unavoidable stressor (Miranda et al., 2020). When resource depletion exceeds an individual's compensatory capacity, subordinates adopt resource conservation strategies. These manifest as reduced interaction with the leader, decreased work initiative, and even turnover intentions (Hur et al., 2015), thereby weakening the trust base of the supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the leader\u0026rsquo;s resource perspective, although incivility might temporarily grant a sense of control through power display, it harbors a significant latent resource crisis. After enduring prolonged workplace incivility, subordinates gradually build psychological defenses, developing resistance and emotional distance from the leader (Gui et al., 2022). The spread of this negative sentiment leads to a sharp decline in team social capital. Subordinates become unwilling to proactively share information, offer support, or take on extra responsibilities (Lee \u0026amp; Soo, 2022). Consequently, the leader finds themselves in a precarious position. Due to collective subordinate alienation, the leader\u0026rsquo;s influence resources within the organization diminish drastically (Guan \u0026amp; Frenkel, 2019). The leader\u0026rsquo;s decisions become difficult to implement effectively, instructions go unheeded, and their authoritative position within the team is severely challenged (Cao et al., 2022). The once close and orderly supervisor-subordinate guanxi becomes loose, fragile, and may even show signs of rupture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntegrating H1, H2, and the relationships outlined above, and based on the conservation of resources theory, this study proposes a complete mechanism: \"leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;workplace incivility\u0026rarr;supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\" The logic is as follows: To gain superior recognition or maintain their power status, leaders must continuously invest resources to interpret superior intentions and adjust their own behavior. This process constitutes a sustained drain on their internal resource reserves. As resources are depleted without effective replenishment, leaders become prone to emotional exhaustion. To alleviate their own resource crisis and prevent further loss, leaders may displace negative emotions and behaviors onto subordinates, manifesting as workplace incivility. This incivility, in turn, erodes subordinates\u0026rsquo; trust in and emotional connection to the leader, ultimately deteriorating supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Specifically, leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation, by exacerbating emotional exhaustion, triggers workplace incivility, which consequently leads to the deterioration of supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu.\u003c/strong\u003e The perceived climate of team Cha-xu is an indigenous construct in the Chinese context, referring to an individual\u0026rsquo;s perception of the extent to which relationships between superiors and subordinates within an organization or department are differentiated by closeness and distance (Zhang \u0026amp; Xie, 2024). Within a Cha-xu structure, resource allocation is not solely based on objective performance but is also influenced by the \"inner circle-outer circle\" relational differentiation (Fang et al., 2024). Research by Luo and Cheng (2015) further reveals the phenomenon of \"concentric circles\" in organizations with a strong Cha-xu climate: \"inner circle\" members who are closer to the core power holders receive disproportionate resource allocation, while \"outer circle\" members with distant relationships face marginalization risks. This \"circle culture\" constructs an implicit power network, making leaders acutely aware that their job security and career prospects are highly dependent on the quality of their relationship with the core power circle (Fang et al., 2024). Integrating the perspective of the conservation of resources theory, which posits that individuals strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989), it is evident that differing intensities of perceived Cha-xu climate will influence a leader's resource investment decisions and behaviors. Therefore, this study posits that the perceived climate of team Cha-xu plays a crucial moderating role in the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate\u0026mdash;for instance, discovering that promotions depend more on \"choosing sides\" than on competence\u0026mdash;their resource sensitivity surges. Essentially, a Cha-xu climate establishes an evaluation system centered on relational distance (Zhang \u0026amp; Xie, 2024). To maintain \"inner circle\" status and avoid marginalization, leaders must intensify their ingratiation efforts. This very investment accelerates resource depletion (Kim et al., 2018). Furthermore, the Cha-xu culture demands that ingratiatory behaviors conform to the unwritten rules of the \"circle\", stripping leaders of the autonomy to adjust their investment based on context (Chen \u0026amp; Sun, 2022). This behavioral pattern forces leaders to continuously mobilize emotional labor resources for self-monitoring, meticulously calibrating the relational nuance of every word and action. The conservation of resources theory indicates that when individuals must continuously invest emotional resources to maintain a certain state, their internal resource pool faces the risk of depletion (Hobfoll, 2018). Specifically, a high Cha-xu climate amplifies the instrumental nature of ingratiation. Leaders come to view emotional expression as an exchangeable resource. This process of alienation intensifies the coercive nature of emotional labor, thereby strengthening the positive link between upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, the detrimental effect of upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion is likely mitigated. When the organizational evaluation system shifts towards a competency-oriented rather than a relationally-oriented approach, leaders' dependence on a single superior decreases (Chen \u0026amp; Sun, 2022). According to the conservation of resources theory, resources possess a degree of substitutability, allowing individuals to use different resources to achieve the same goal (Hobfoll, 2001). In this context, ingratiation transitions from a \"survival necessity\" to a \"strategic option\". Even if short-term returns are not forthcoming, individuals can still recoup losses through other avenues, avoiding the anxiety-driven spiral of additional resource investment (Zheng et al., 2024). Moreover, with weakened \"circle\" phenomena, a leader's ingratiation is more likely based on genuine affective expression rather than strategic calculation. Leaders can more freely modulate the gap between their emotional expressions and true feelings, significantly slowing the rate of emotional resource consumption (He et al., 2022). Specifically, a low Cha-xu climate weakens the instrumental motivation behind ingratiation, allowing emotional expression to revert to its essential function in interpersonal interaction. This shift effectively reduces the likelihood of emotional dissonance, thereby alleviating the degree of emotional exhaustion. In summary, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. Specifically, for leaders with a stronger perception of a Cha-xu climate, the positive effect of leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion is stronger; conversely, it is weaker for those with a weaker perception.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, integrating the serial mediation effect posited in H3 and the moderating effect in H4, this study proposes the following moderated mediation hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the indirect effect of leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi through emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility. Specifically, for leaders with a stronger perception of a Cha-xu climate, this serial indirect effect is stronger; conversely, it is weaker for those with a weaker perception.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe full conceptual model is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study 1: Scenario experiment","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants.\u003c/strong\u003e The sample size required for this experiment was calculated using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). For the two-way analysis of variance applicable to this experiment, with a medium effect size f\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, a significance level \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, and 4 groups, the a priori analysis showed that at least 128 participants were needed to achieve 80% statistical power. To ensure adequate statistical power, we recruited 160 participants through Credamo for the experiment, and the sample mainly consisted of employees. All participants voluntarily participated in the experiment with informed consent, and those who passed the attention check and completed the experimental tasks received corresponding compensation. In terms of gender, 49.4% were female and 50.6% were male; in terms of age, the proportions of those under 25 years old, 26\u0026ndash;30 years old, 31\u0026ndash;35 years old, and over 36 years old were 5.6%, 28.1%, 36.3%, and 30.0% respectively; in terms of education level, the proportions of those with technical secondary school/high school and below, vocational high school/college, and undergraduate and above were 6.9%, 16.8%, and 76.3% respectively; in terms of tenure, the proportions of those with less than 1 year, 1\u0026ndash;3 years, 3\u0026ndash;5 years, and 5 years and above were 23.1%, 19.4%, 26.3%, and 31.2% respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManipulation and measurement.\u003c/strong\u003e The study employed a 2 (leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation: high vs. low) \u0026times; 2 (the perceived climate of team Cha-xu: high vs. low) between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to four scenarios, where they read different experimental situations, assumed the roles described, and answered identical questions. The experimental materials are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants read the following instructions: \u0026ldquo;Please imagine you are Liu Wei, Department Manager of Product R\u0026amp;D at a technology company. You work with department heads including Marketing Manager Li, and your direct supervisor is Vice President Wang.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh (low) leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation: \u0026ldquo;At last week\u0026apos;s regular meeting, Vice President Wang proposed a full transition to the AIGC technology route. You took the lead in praising Vice President Wang for his far-sighted strategic vision (You immediately cited data to refute the proposal and suggested phased implementation, showing no regard for Vice President Wang\u0026apos;s dignity).\u0026rdquo; On a regular day, upon learning that Director Wang was unwell, you immediately delivered medicine in person and showed concern for his well-being (you still sent your work to him for review as usual). One day, upon learning that Director Wang had a family gathering that evening, you took the initiative to offer transportation to assist him (yet in reality, you only expressed your best wishes, continued handling daily work with employees, and provided no special attention to the leader)\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh (low) perceived climate of team Cha-xu: \u0026ldquo;Every Monday morning, Deputy Director Wang meets privately with Marketing Manager Li in the private office to discuss strategy over coffee; other department managers, including yourself, only receive an email on Monday afternoon to sync up on the strategy formulation (Deputy Director Wang holds one-on-one meetings with each department manager in rotation, with the schedule publicly posted on the OA system). At the annual budget meeting, General Manager Wang originally planned to reduce R\u0026amp;D investment. However, after Manager Li requested that the marketing department needed more funds for advertising, General Manager Wang revised the budget table on the spot, cutting R\u0026amp;D expenses by 15% and allocating the amount to the marketing department (General Manager Wang required all departments to submit application reports supported by data, and the final allocation was determined by a vote of the independent finance committee; your R\u0026amp;D investment application was fully approved due to detailed experimental data). During the company\u0026apos;s integrity investigation, General Manager Wang only allowed Manager Li to participate in the internal audit team. When you discovered anomalies in the marketing department\u0026apos;s data and reported it, General Manager Wang rejected your report on the grounds that Manager Li had already checked and the data was correct (General Manager Wang established an inter-departmental audit team, selected members by drawing lots, emphasized that no one was allowed to interfere with the independence of the audit, and you were randomly selected to participate in the investigation)\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants completed the following scales:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eManipulation check scales: First, leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation was assessed using three items from the scale developed by Bolino and Turnley (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). A sample item is: \u0026ldquo;You praise General Manager Wang to make him think you are likable\u0026rdquo; (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.850). Second, the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was assessed using three items from the scale developed by Liu et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), scored on a 5-point Likert scale. A sample item is: \u0026ldquo;General Manager Wang has frequent contact with Manager Li of the Marketing Department\u0026rdquo; (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.846).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMediating variable: First, the mediating variable emotional exhaustion was assessed using the scale developed by Watkins (2015), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly inconsistent, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly consistent). There are 3 items, with an example item being: \u0026ldquo;You feel that work emotionally drains you\u0026rdquo; (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.861). Second, the mediating variable workplace incivility was assessed using the scale developed by Cortina et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), which consists of 7 items. An example item is: \u0026ldquo;You would belittle a subordinate\u0026apos;s personality or show a condescending attitude towards a subordinate\u0026rdquo; (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.929).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent variable: The dependent variable supervisor-subordinate guanxi was measured using the scale developed by Law et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). It comprises 6 items in total, with an example item: \u0026ldquo;You believe that subordinates will defend your decision-making stance when there are disagreements\u0026rdquo; (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.928).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, after providing relevant demographic information, the participants received their rewards, and the experiment concluded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManipulation check results.\u003c/em\u003e In the high leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation group, participants\u0026apos; perceived upward ingratiation (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.225, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.020) was significantly higher than that reported by participants in the low leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.417, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.956), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.170, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, indicating that the manipulation of leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation was successful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, in the high perceived climate of team Cha-xu group, participants\u0026apos; perceived climate of team Cha-xu (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.225, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.020) was significantly higher than that reported by participants in the low climate of team Cha-xu group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.493, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.980), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.521, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, indicating that the manipulation of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was successful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis testing\u003c/em\u003e. Leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation has a significant positive impact on emotional exhaustion(\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.456, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), thus supporting H1. H2 predicts that emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. To examine this mediating effect, the study employed Model 4 from Hayes\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) PROCESS macro to conduct a bootstrapping analysis (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20000). Results confirmed a significant mediating effect of emotional exhaustion between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility, with an indirect effect of \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.156, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.040, and 95% CI [0.083, 0.239]. Since the confidence interval excluded zero, H2 was supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH3 predicts that emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility exert a chain mediating effect on the relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Bootstrapping path analysis (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20000) was performed using Model 6 from the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation served as the independent variable, supervisor-subordinate guanxi as the dependent variable, and emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as sequential mediating variables. As presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the results revealed the following indirect effects: -0.063 for the sequential mediating path involving both emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility (95% CI = [-0.104, -0.030]). It was found that the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility is valid, thus supporting H3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe chain mediating role of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence interval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.413\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.209\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.138\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.224\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test H4, namely that the perceived climate of team Cha-Xu moderates the relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion, we introduced an interaction term between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and climate of team Cha-xu into the regression model. Results indicate that this interaction term exerts a significant positive effect on emotional exhaustion (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.319, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), thereby supporting H4. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e further illustrates this moderating effect, depicting the differential relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion across varying levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test H5, the study employed Mplus 8.0 to analyse the chained mediating effects of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility on leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi under varying levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. At low levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi is non-significant (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.016, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013, 95% CI [-0.042, 0.001]). At high levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi is also valid (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.104, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.030, 95% CI [-0.169, -0.064]).The chain mediating effect differs significantly under varying scenarios of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ehigh\u0026minus;low\u003c/sub\u003e = -0.088, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0028, 95% CI [-0.150, -0.052]). H5 is thus supported, as the perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the chain mediating role played by emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader\u0026apos;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"char\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparison of chain mediation effects under different situations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLCL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eULCL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh level of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.169\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.064\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow level of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiff (High - Low)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.088\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n"},{"header":"Study 2: Questionnaire Survey","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample and procedure.\u003c/strong\u003e Data were collected using a questionnaire administered to project teams in the machinery manufacturing industry. Researchers first explained the study's purpose, content, and procedures to heads of human resources departments. Upon obtaining their consent, employee lists were obtained and team numbers were assigned. Subsequently, accompanied by human resources heads, researchers visited the companies to distribute and collect questionnaires on-site. The questionnaire distribution was conducted in three phases: During the first phase (T1), employees evaluated leader's upward ingratiation, while leaders assessed the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. After collection by researchers, questionnaires were aggregated and organized by team number. One month later (T2), the second phase of questionnaires was distributed, requiring employees to evaluate workplace incivility experienced over the past month; these responses were then matched with the T1 samples using team numbers. Concurrently, leaders were asked to evaluate their emotional exhaustion over the same one-month period. One month later (T3), employees were again asked to evaluate their supervisor-subordinate guanxi over the past two months.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires were distributed to 750 employees and 125 leaders across 125 teams. In the first stage, 702 employee questionnaires and 127 leader questionnaires were retrieved; in the second stage, 630 employee questionnaires and 105 leader questionnaires were collected; for the third stage, which only involved employee assessments, 609 employee questionnaires were received. After excluding invalid questionnaires and conducting three-stage sample matching, 603 valid samples from 100 teams were ultimately obtained. The effective response rate for team questionnaires was 80%, and for member questionnaires it was 80.4%. Sample characteristics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Regarding the characteristics of the leadership sample, males accounted for 60.5% and females for 39.5%. In terms of age distribution, those aged over 36 were in the majority, representing 65.5%. For educational attainment, 77.9% of team leaders held a bachelor's degree or higher. Regarding work experience, individuals with 5 years or more of experience constituted the majority at 75%. For the employee sample characteristics, males made up 53.1% and females 46.9%. In age distribution, the 26\u0026ndash;30 age group was most prevalent at 46.9%. In terms of education, 83.9% of team members possessed a bachelor's degree or above. Tenure was relatively concentrated: 29.1% had 1\u0026ndash;3 years of experience, and 28% had 3\u0026ndash;5 years. Concerning working time with their leader, those with 1\u0026ndash;3 years of collaboration formed the majority, accounting for 41%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSample characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClassification\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProportion (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"13\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeadership sample characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e60.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelow 25 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;30 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;35 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e29.4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbove 36 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e65.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh school/secondary school or lower\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVocational high school/junior college\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUndergraduate and above\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e77.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess than 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;3 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5 years or more\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e75.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"17\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee sample characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e53.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelow 25 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;30 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;35 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbove 36 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh school/secondary school or lower\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVocational high school/junior college\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e16.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUndergraduate and above\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e83.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess than 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e24.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;3 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e29.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e28.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5 years or more\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorking time\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLess than 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e24.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;3 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e41.0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5 years or more\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable measurement.\u003c/strong\u003e To ensure the validity and reliability of the measurement scales, well-established Western scales were adopted for all variables in this study and converted into Chinese using the \u0026ldquo;translation-back-translation\u0026rdquo; method (Brislin, 1970). Specifically, the English scales were first translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English. Professors proficient in both Chinese and English were then invited to conduct cultural adaptation and linguistic refinement. All scale items used a 5-point Likert scale, with scores from 1 to 5 generally representing \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo; unless otherwise specified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation: A 4-item scale developed by Bolino and Turnley (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted, with a representative item being \u0026ldquo;Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable\u0026rdquo;. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; value is 0.868.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion: A 3-item scale developed by Watkins et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted, with a representative item such as \u0026ldquo;I feel emotionally drained from work\u0026rdquo; and a Cronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; value of 0.898.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility: A 7-item scale developed by Cortina et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted, with a representative item such as \u0026ldquo;My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others\u0026rdquo; and a Cronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; value of 0.908.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupervisor-subordinate guanxi: A 6-item scale developed by Law et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted, with a representative item such as \u0026ldquo;When disagreements arise, I support my leader\u0026rsquo; s decision-making stance\u0026rdquo; and a Cronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; value of 0.911.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perceived climate of team Cha-xu: An 11-item scale developed by Liu et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted, with a representative item such as \u0026ldquo;Superiors maintain frequent contact with specific subordinates\u0026rdquo; and a Cronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; value of 0.939.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eControl variables: Based on previous research, employee and leader gender, age, education level, and tenure have been shown to influence supervisor-subordinate Guanxi (Cai et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ma et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the above variables were controlled in this study to reduce their impact on the research results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults of data analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommon method variance analysis\u003c/em\u003e. To avoid common method bias arising from shared participants or data sources, this study employed a multi-stage, multi-source data collection approach. Harman's single-factor test revealed that when all items were subjected to unrotated principal component analysis, the first principal component accounted for only 28.303% of the total variance, which is below the 40.0% threshold. This indicates the absence of severe common method bias in the dataset.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis.\u003c/em\u003e Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on key variables using AMOS 22.0 to assess their discriminant validity. Due to the complexity of the items and limitations in sample size, item parceling was utilized to simplify the measurement model.The results of confirmatory factor analysis (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that the five-factor model exhibited a high degree of fit with the survey data (\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.120, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.072, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.884, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.873, \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.076) and was significantly superior to other nested models, demonstrating good discriminant validity among the five variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults of confirmatory factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne-factor (LUI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;EE+WI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;SSG+CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7782.300\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e434\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e17.932\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.168\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.357\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.311\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.195\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo-factor (LUI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;EE+WI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3826.166\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e433\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.836\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.114\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.703\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree-factor (LUI; EE\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WI+SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3277.340\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e431\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.604\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.105\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.751\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.731\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour-factor a (LUI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;EE; WI; SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2277.590\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e428\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.321\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.838\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.084\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour-factor b (LUI; EE\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WI; SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2731.633\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e428\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.382\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.798\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.781\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour-factor c (LUI; EE; WI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2439.063\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e428\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.699\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.088\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.809\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive-factor (LUI; EE; WI; SSG; CX)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1746.807\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e424\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.120\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.884\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.873\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.076\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003eNote: \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;603; where LUI stands for leader's upward ingratiation, EE stands for emotional exhaustion, WI stands for workplace incivility, SSG stands for supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and CX stands for the perceived climate of team Cha-xu.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive statistical analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for the variables, are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. As can be seen from the table, the square root of the AVE for each variable is greater than its correlation coefficients with all other variables, which again indicates good discriminant validity among the variables in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.Leader gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.489\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.Leader age\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.585\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.184\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.Leader education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.415\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.151\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.360\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.Leader tenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.491\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.129\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.323\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.189\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.Employee gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.499\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.080\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.Employee age\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.886\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.090\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.Employee education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.84\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.368\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.111\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.670\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.Employee tenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.42\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.051\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.097\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.894\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.574\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9.Working time\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.23\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.954\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.113\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.896\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.598\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.930\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10.LUI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.193\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.998\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.098\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.100\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.EE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.298\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.141\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.073\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.168\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.070\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.422\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e12.WI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.347\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.915\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.113\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.062\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.099\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.307\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.464\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e13.SSG\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.083\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.986\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.240\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.389\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.516\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e14.CX\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.331\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.903\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.215\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.095\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.082\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.088\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.054\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.108\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.227\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.122\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.076\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"16\"\u003eNote: \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; where LUI stands for leader's upward ingratiation, EE stands for emotional exhaustion, WI stands for workplace incivility, SSG stands for supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and CX stands for the perceived climate of team Cha-xu.\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis testing\u003c/em\u003e. (1) Test of the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion. The hierarchical regression results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e indicate that leader's upward ingratiation exerts a significant positive influence on emotional exhaustion (Model 1, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.410, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), thus supporting H1. Furthermore, emotional exhaustion has a significant positive effect on workplace incivility (Model 4, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.459, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). When both leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion are included in the model, emotional exhaustion remains a significant positive predictor of workplace incivility (Model 5, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.402, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). These findings confirm the existence of a mediating effect, providing support for H2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"char\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults of hierarchical linear model analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"6\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel11\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader age\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.117\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.063\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.108\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.009\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader tenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.150\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.153\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.099\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee gender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.050\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee age\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.084\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.107\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.081\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.051\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployee tenure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.144\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.156\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.093\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.054\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.170\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.179\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.147\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.160\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.165\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.145\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorking time\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.235\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.246\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.215\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.240\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.140\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.135\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.223\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.125\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.410\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.373\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.303\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.138\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.079\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.076\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.459\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.402\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.386\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.190\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.353\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.183\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.513\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.426\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.490\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.423\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.227\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u0026times;The perceived climate of team Cha-xu\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.210\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.209\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.295\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.124\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.237\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.252\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.166\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.277\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.305\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.171\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.282\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.305\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026Delta;R\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.163\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.201\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.216\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.253\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.281\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.147\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.281\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e15.642\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e20.622\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.401\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18.341\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e18.083\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.778\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.720\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e23.538\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e11.079\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e21.139\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e21.574\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"12\"\u003e注: \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) Test of the mediating effect of workplace incivility. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, emotional exhaustion has a significant positive effect on workplace incivility (Model 4, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.459, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), while workplace incivility exhibits a significant negative impact on supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Model 7, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.513, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). After incorporating both emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility into the analysis, workplace incivility continues to exert a significant negative influence on supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Model 8, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.426, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). This confirms the mediating role of workplace incivility, leading to the support of H3. Process Model 4 was further employed to verify the above mediating effects. The results in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e show that emotional exhaustion has a significant indirect effect between leader's upward ingratiation and workplace incivility (indirect effect value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.151; confidence interval = [0.114, 0.191], which does not contain 0), and workplace incivility has a significant indirect effect between emotional exhaustion and supervisor-subordinate guanxi (indirect effect value = -0.169; confidence interval = [-0.214, -0.129], which does not contain 0). H2 and H3 are thus further supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of indirect effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"3\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndirect Effect\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e95% Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"9\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of leader's upward ingratiation on workplace incivility\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.151\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.114\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.191\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"9\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of emotional exhaustion on supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.169\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.214\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.219\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"9\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of leader's upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.111\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeader's upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.069\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr/\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of moderated chain mediation effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModerator:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe perceived climate of team Cha-Xu\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"8\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePath: Leader's upward ingratiation\u0026rarr;Emotional exhaustion\u0026rarr;Workplace incivility\u0026rarr;Supervisor-subordinate guanxi\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow (-1SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh (+\u0026thinsp;1SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.025\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.043\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModerated mediation result\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(3) Test of the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility. The regression results in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e preliminarily confirm this (Model 11, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = -0.423, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Next, Process Model 6 was adopted to test the chain mediating relationship. The results in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e show that the proposed relationship, where in leader's upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi solely through emotional exhaustion, is not supported (95% CI [-0.111, 0.038], containing 0). Similarly, the hypothesized pathway where leader's upward ingratiation impacts supervisor-subordinate guanxi exclusively via workplace incivility is also unsupported (95% CI [-0.095, 0.022], containing 0). However, the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility is statistically validated (indirect effect =-0.069; 95% CI [-0.094, -0.048], which excludes 0), thereby further supporting H3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(4) Test of the moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. Hypothesis H4 proposes that when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is high, the positive impact of leader's upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion will be enhanced. To verify this moderating role, the interaction term between leader's upward ingratiation and the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was introduced into the model. The results in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e show that the interaction term exerts a significant positive effect on emotional exhaustion (Model 2, \u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.210, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), providing support for H4. Furthermore, to more intuitively illustrate the moderating effect of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, a simplified diagram illustrating the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion under different levels (high vs. low) of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu was plotted (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(5) Test of moderated mediation effect. Finally, Mplus 8.0 was utilized in this study to analyze the chain mediating effect of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader's upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi across different levels of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;8, when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is low, the chain mediating effect is not significant (95% CI [-0.018, 0.003], which includes zero). In contrast, when the perceived climate of team Cha-xu is high, the mediating effect becomes significant (indirect effect = -0.025; 95% CI [-0.043, -0.006], which does not include 0). Additionally, the moderated chain mediation result is significant (moderated mediation coefficient = -0.017; 95% CI [-0.030, -0.004], which does not include 0), thereby supporting H5.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Research Conclusions and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch conclusions.\u003c/strong\u003e Based on the conservation of resources theory, this study constructed a serial mediation model with emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility as mediating variables to analyze the mechanism underlying the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It also examined the moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu in the stage from leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation to emotional exhaustion. The main conclusions are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) Leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. The proposition by Bolino et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) that impression management can trigger role stress provides theoretical support for this finding. Upward ingratiation requires leaders to continuously expend cognitive and emotional resources to maintain an image and behavioral patterns that meet expectations. Although this extra-role behavior may garner superior recognition in the short term, in the long run, it triggers internal tension due to conflicts between authenticity and role consistency. This leads to the accelerated depletion of psychological resources, manifesting as symptoms of emotional exhaustion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility. Maslach et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that emotional exhaustion impairs self-control and empathy, increasing the propensity for aggressive behavior, which informs this finding. When emotional resources are excessively overdrawn, leaders are likely to lose their capacity for emotional regulation. They become more prone to directly vent negative emotions toward subordinates, thereby triggering workplace incivility such as verbal abuse and belittlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Existing research from the victim's perspective has found that experiencing workplace incivility negatively impacts job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and task performance (Welbourne et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the accumulation of negative emotions and the breach of the psychological contract can induce behavioral deterioration and deviance (Harold \u0026amp; Holtz, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Building on this, the current study highlights that workplace incivility reinforces adversarial \"leader-subordinate\" role perceptions. This makes it difficult for both parties to establish a positive interaction pattern based on support and trust, ultimately leading to the sustained deterioration of supervisor-subordinate guanxi quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion. Research by Cheng et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that the dynamic characteristics within a Cha-xu climate lead individuals to be more inclined to adopt specific interpersonal interaction rules. Based on this view, this study argues that when leaders perceive a strong Cha-xu climate, they will continuously invest emotional resources to maintain a \"special relationship\" with their superiors. This intensifies the depletion of emotional resources, resulting in a deeper level of emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when leaders perceive a weak Cha-xu climate, the degree of emotional exhaustion is alleviated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical implications.\u003c/strong\u003e First, this study extends and deepens the research scope of upward ingratiation. Existing research has primarily focused on the direct effects or short-term benefits of ingratiatory behavior on the ingratiator themselves, commonly treating it as an individual's active strategic behavior and implicitly presuming it to be \"harmless\" or \"beneficial\" (Kim et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Clarke et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, this study reveals the potential substantial, indirect, and negative \"spillover effects\" of leader's upward ingratiation on the destructive impact on supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It is the first to systematically demonstrate that the efforts leaders expend to manage their \"upward relationships\" can, by depleting their psychological resources and triggering negative behaviors, ultimately erode the foundation of their \"downward relationships.\" The construction of this theoretical framework provides a profound revelation of the \"dark side\" of leader behavior. It clarifies the often-overlooked aspect of ingratiation that \"harms both the leader and their subordinates,\" thereby greatly enriching and deepening the research on the outcomes of leader ingratiation behavior. It also offers a novel theoretical explanation for potential threats to supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, grounded in the conservation of resources theory, the research model identifies the serial mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility, thereby detailing the intermediate \"black box\" process from leader's upward ingratiation to supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Specifically, emotional exhaustion is a core proximal psychological consequence of upward ingratiation. Leaders' engagement in upward ingratiation directly and significantly depletes their psychological energy, leading to a state of profound emotional exhaustion (Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, emotional exhaustion serves as a key mechanism triggering leader's workplace incivility. Leaders in a state of emotional exhaustion experience diminished emotional regulation capacity, making them more prone to displaying uncivil behaviors such as neglect, belittlement, or rudeness toward subordinates as a negative coping mechanism for stress venting or resource conservation (Ejaz et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, workplace incivility acts as the direct behavioral antecedent damaging supervisor-subordinate guanxi. A leader's uncivil behavior toward subordinates violates their dignity, trust, and sense of respect, severely undermining the foundations of mutual trust, respect, and support essential for high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi (Gui et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This provides a more nuanced and explanatory theoretical framework for understanding how negative leader behavior is triggered and how it damages supervisor-subordinate guanxi. It constitutes a significant theoretical supplement and deepening to research on leader stress coping, antecedents of workplace incivility, and antecedents of supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, this study introduces and tests the critical moderating role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu in the entire serial mediation mechanism. Existing research on differential leadership or Cha-xu climate primarily examines its impact on employee attitudes, behaviors, or fairness perceptions (Ren \u0026amp; Chadee, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Luo \u0026amp; Cheng, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Less attention has been paid to its influence on leaders' own psychological states and behavioral responses, and even less has connected it to leader's upward ingratiation behavior. This study points out that in a high Cha-xu climate, the \"necessity\" and \"pressure\" of ingratiation multiply, exacerbating leaders' anxiety and emotional resource depletion. Therefore, this study not only broadens the target of Cha-xu climate research but, more importantly, clearly articulates the theoretical mechanism of how the Cha-xu climate acts as a contextual amplifier, intensifying the effect of leader's upward ingratiation on emotional exhaustion. This provides key theoretical insights for understanding the formation mechanism of leader stress within a Cha-xu cultural context. It also lays a significant theoretical foundation and empirical basis for future research exploring the psychological consequences of other leader behaviors within specific cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePractical implications.\u003c/strong\u003e First, it is necessary to be vigilant about the corrosive effects of ingratiatory behavior on the organizational ecosystem and reduce leaders' dependence on upward ingratiation. Organizations should begin by optimizing leadership assessment and promotion mechanisms. This involves reducing the weight of \"supervisor-only evaluation\" in performance appraisal and incorporating anonymous subordinate feedback, peer evaluation, and objective performance data. This ensures a leader's success depends on actual team outcomes rather than merely \"pleasing the boss.\" Concurrently, leadership competency models should explicitly include \"subordinate development,\" \"trust building,\" and \"fairness and justice\" as core downward management indicators, making them mandatory criteria for promotion. This sends a clear signal that \"excellent leaders must earn recognition from both superiors and subordinates.\" Furthermore, establishing safe communication and support channels is crucial. Senior management must model desired behaviors and set up anonymous feedback mechanisms, providing leaders with safe avenues to voice concerns. This reduces the pressure forcing leaders into ingratiation out of fear. Finally, empowering leaders to enhance their autonomy\u0026mdash;through delegation and resource support\u0026mdash;can diminish their motivation to \"compete for resources\" through ingratiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, to address the vicious cycle of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility, it is essential to build a dual defense line focusing on both emotional management and behavioral constraints. As a key antecedent to leader misconduct, tackling emotional exhaustion requires systemic intervention targeting its sources. Organizations should conduct regular, anonymous, and standardized online assessments of psychological stress and exhaustion levels. They should also provide leaders with dedicated access to psychological counseling, allowing them to share pressures and gain understanding and support in a safe environment. Given the harm caused by workplace incivility, organizations must adopt a \"zero-tolerance\" attitude. They must ensure the existence of independent, confidential, and retaliation-free channels for employees to report leader incivility. Upon receiving a report, a timely and thorough investigation must be conducted by an impartial third party, such as a cross-departmental panel or external consultant, followed by transparent and fair disciplinary action according to established policies. These measures can help reduce the occurrence of workplace incivility and promote healthy organizational development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, it is important to weaken the perceived climate of team Cha-xu and foster a fair and inclusive organizational environment. For the allocation of key resources, organizations should formulate and publicize clear application processes, evaluation criteria, and decision-making mechanisms. This reduces superiors' discretionary power and the room for favoritism. Moreover, breaking down informal \"circle\" barriers is essential. Implementing job rotation for management positions or forming cross-departmental project teams can disrupt long-entrenched relational networks. Establishing \"talent exposure\" programs provides opportunities for employees outside the core circle to demonstrate their capabilities to top management, reducing superiors' reliance on \"inner circle\" members.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, organizational culture starts at the top. Senior executives must lead by example, demonstrating the utmost fairness, transparency, and inclusiveness in resource allocation, interpersonal interactions, and information sharing. They must publicly oppose any form of \"circle culture\" and special treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and future directions.\u003c/strong\u003e First, although the research employed a multi-wave, leader-subordinate dyadic design to minimize common method bias, the potential for measurement error cannot be entirely eliminated. Furthermore, the sample was drawn from specific provinces in China. This geographical focus may limit the generalizability of our findings. As prior research suggests, a given construct may trigger differential cognitive interpretations, emotional experiences, and behavioral responses across cultural groups (Chin et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Future studies could extend this line of inquiry to cross-cultural contexts. Comparing multinational data to validate the theoretical model proposed here would enhance the external validity and cultural adaptability of the conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, this study focused solely on the mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility in the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi, potentially overlooking other relevant psychological and behavioral mechanisms. Considering that leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation often stems from insecurity about job safety or promotion prospects, such behavior may itself induce or exacerbate leader workplace anxiety, manifesting as a stress response characterized by tension (McCarthy et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This persistent state of anxiety places leaders in a heightened state of vigilance and defensiveness, making them more prone to hostile attribution toward subordinates\u0026mdash;a cognitive tendency to interpret others' ambiguous actions as intentionally harmful (Smith, 1991). This negative cognitive bias can subsequently trigger defensive, distrustful, or aggressive reactions from leaders, such as harsh criticism, distancing, or suppression, ultimately straining, alienating, or even causing conflict within the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Sung \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, future research could introduce workplace anxiety and hostile attribution as mediating variables to more fully uncover the mechanisms through which leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, while this study highlighted the \"regulating valve\" role of the perceived climate of team Cha-xu, it is not the only boundary condition. Considering the central role of \"face\" within the Chinese cultural value system, a higher level of face consciousness makes individuals more likely to engage in impression management (Vecchione et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For leaders, high face consciousness may drive more intense and invested upward ingratiation efforts. Each ingratiatory interaction becomes a test of \"face\", where fear of failure can evoke strong anxiety and shame, thereby intensifying personal resource depletion (Park, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, leaders with low face consciousness may experience less impact on their self-worth and image if their ingratiation is ineffective or unrecognized, resulting in comparatively lower psychological resource consumption (Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, future research could examine face consciousness as a moderating variable, providing additional leverage for managing leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSJ: Investigation, Data collection, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft. LL: Writing—review \u0026amp; editing. LXY: Conceptualization, Methodology. DDY: Investigation, Data collection. ZM: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests. We maintain the same order of authors in the submission system as provided in the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch involving human participants was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nantong University on July 12, 2025, and was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical exemption provisions for minimal-risk studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants were informed of the research purpose, procedures, confidentiality protocols, and their right to withdraw at any time. Voluntary participation was ensured for all participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndersson LM, Pearson CM (1999) Tit for Tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad Manage Rev 24(3):452\u0026ndash;471. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amr.1999.2202131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM (1998) Ego depletion:ls the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc Psychol 74(5):1252\u0026ndash;1265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino MC, Turnley WH (1999) Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organ Res Methods 2(2):187\u0026ndash;206. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/109442819922005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/109442819922005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino MC, Klotz AC, Turnley WH, Harvey J (2013) Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Organ Behav 34(4):542\u0026ndash;559. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.1847\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai WJ, Song J, He CQ, Wang DD, Yang XJ (2021) From employee creativity to leader empowering behaviors: The roles of supervisor-subordinate guanxi and supervisor-subordinate similarity. J Manage Organ 30(4):895\u0026ndash;909. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.41\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/jmo.2021.41\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCao Q, Niu XF, Wang DD, Wang R (2022) Antecedents of empowering leadership: The roles of subordinate performance and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Eur J Work Organ Psy 31(5):727\u0026ndash;742. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2037562\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1359432X.2022.2037562\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen ZX, Sun M (2022) Qualitative study on the toxic triangle integration of leadership ostracism. Front Psychol 12:655216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655216\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655216\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng B, Guo GX, Tian J, Kong Y (2024) I disdain the company of flatterers!': How and when observed ingratiation predicts employees' ostracism toward their ingratiating colleagues. Hum Relat 77(8):1071\u0026ndash;1107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00187267231170175\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00187267231170175\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng BS, Farh JL, Chang HF, Hsu WL (2002) Guanxi, zhongcheng,competence and managerial behavior in the Chinese context. Chin J Psy 44(2):151\u0026ndash;166\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChi NW, Tsai WC (2021) How demographic faultlines and impression management behaviors influence group affective tone. Small Group Res 52(6):676\u0026ndash;707. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1046496421993911\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1046496421993911\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChin T, Lin CL, Caputo F, Hu F (2024) Editorial: Understanding cross-cultural differences through cognition and perception analysis: integrating neuroscience and cultural psychology. Front Psychol 15:1416853. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416853\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416853\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChris AC, Provencher Y, Fogg C, Thompson SC, Cole A, Okaka O, Bosco F, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Morales MG (2022) A meta-analysis of experienced incivility and its correlates: Exploring the dual path model of experienced workplace incivility. Occup Health Psychol 27(3):317\u0026ndash;338. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000326\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/ocp0000326\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarke N, Alshenalfi N, Garavan T (2022) The effects of subordinates' use of upward influence tactics on their supervisors' job performance evaluations in Saudi Arabia: the significance of loyalty. Int J Hum Resour Manage 33(2):239\u0026ndash;268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1686650\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09585192.2019.1686650\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCortina LM, Magley V, Wiliams JH, Langhout RD (2001) lncivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Occup Health Psychol 6(1):64\u0026ndash;80. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCortina LM, Hershcovis MS, Clancy KBH (2022) The embodiment of insult: A theory of biobehavioral response to workplace incivility. J Manage 48(3):738\u0026ndash;763. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321989798\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206321989798\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCortina LM, Kabat-Farr D, Magley VJ, Nelson KC (2017) Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Occup Health Psychol 22(3):299\u0026ndash;313. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/ocp0000089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDjurdjevic E, Stoverink AC, Klotz AC, Koopman J, da Motta Veiga S, Yam KC, Chiang JT (2017) Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. J Appl Psychol 102(7):1124\u0026ndash;1147. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0000202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEjaz A, Quratulain S, Aulakh AH, Cando-Naranjo J, Sabharwal M (2025) The conditional effects of the transformational leadership behaviors on leaders' emotional exhaustion: Roles of deep acting and emotional intelligence. Am Rev Public Adm 55(1):3\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241273978\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/02750740241273978\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFang YC, Liu YH, Yu PL, Chen N (2024) How does narcissistic leadership influence change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior? Empirical evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):667. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03159-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41599-024-03159-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaul F, Erdtelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav res methods 39(2):175\u0026ndash;191. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/BF03193146\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Torres T, Gelashvili V, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Naval\u0026oacute;n JG (2023) Organizational culture and climate: new perspectives and challenges. Front Psychol 14:1267945. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1267945\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1267945\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGross C, Debus ME, Liu Y, Wang M, Kleinmann M (2020) I am nice and capable! How and when newcomers\u0026rsquo; self-presentation to their supervisors affects socialization outcomes. J Appl Psychol 106(7):1067\u0026ndash;1079. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000817\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0000817\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuan XY, Frenkel SJ (2019) Explaining supervisor-subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens. Hum Relat 72(11):1752\u0026ndash;1775. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718813718\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0018726718813718\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGui WJ, Bai QY, Wang L (2022) Workplace incivility and employees' personal initiative: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and meaningful work. Sage Open 12(1):21582440221079899. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079899\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440221079899\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalbesleben JRB, Bowler WM (2007) Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. J Appl Psychol 92(1):93\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarold CM, Holtz BC (2015) The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility. Organ Behav 36(1):16\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.1926\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/JOB.1926\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation,and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe P, Wang J, Zhou H, Zhang C, Liu Q, Xie X (2022) Workplace friendship, employee well-being and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of the perception of Chaxu climate. Front Psychol 13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036579\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036579\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe Q, Fu JT, Wu WH, Pervaiz S (2023) You are insisting, or you want to withdraw? Research on the negative effect of ethical leadership on leaders themselves. Curr Psychol 42(30):25968\u0026ndash;25984. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03433-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-022-03433-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE (1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 44(3):513\u0026ndash;524. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE (2002) Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev Gen Psychol 6(4):307\u0026ndash;324. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE (2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl Psychol 50(3):337\u0026ndash;421. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1464-0597.00062\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu JP, Westman M (2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annu Rev Organ Psych 5(1):103\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-032117-104640\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-032117-104640\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026uuml;lsheger UR, Schewe AF (2011) On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Occup Health Psychol 16(3):361\u0026ndash;389. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0022876\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHur WM, Kim BS, Park SJ (2015) The relationship between coworker incivility, emotional exhaustion, and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Hum Factor Ergon Man 25(6):701\u0026ndash;712. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20587\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hfm.20587\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHwan PJ (2015) A study on the effect of influence tactics used by a middle manager on a managerial effectiveness. Korean J Bus Adm 28(2):781\u0026ndash;803\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones EE, Pittman TS (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. Psychol Perspect Self 1(1):231\u0026ndash;262\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim JK, LePine JA, Chun JU (2018) Stuck between a rock and a hard place: Contrasting upward and downward effects of leaders\u0026rsquo; ingratiation. Pers Psychol 71(4):495\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/PEPS.12267\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/PEPS.12267\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar K, Beyerlein M (1991) Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Appl Psych 76(5):619\u0026ndash;627. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw KS, Wong CS, Wang D, Wang L (2000) Effect of supervisor subordinate Guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. Int J Hum Resour Manag 11(4):751\u0026ndash;765. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09585190050075105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee HYW, An SM, Lim GY, Sohn YW (2021) Ethical leadership and followers' emotional exhaustion: Exploring the roles of three types of emotional labor toward leaders in south Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(20):10862. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010862\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph182010862\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee YS, Soo KH (2022) The curvilinear effect of conscientiousness, emotional stability on emotional exhaustion and moderating role of knowledge sharing: Focused on flight attendants. J Aviat Manage Soc Korea 20(1):71\u0026ndash;94\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu J, Zhang K, Zhong LF (2009) The formation and impact of the atmosphere of the Error routine of the work team: A case study based on successive data. Manage World (8): 92\u0026ndash;101\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu CE, Yu SX, Chen YH, He W (2020) Supervision incivility and employee psychological safety in the workplace. Int J Env Res Pub He 17(3):840. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030840\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph17030840\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu P, Li X, Liu N, Ma Y, Wang X, Li A (2022) Is cyber anxiety signaling useful? An examination of leader's emotional and behavioral reactions. Bus Res 146:1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu X, Mao JY, Chiang JTJ (2023) When and why does voice sustain or stop? The roles of leader behaviours, power differential perception and psychological safety. Appl Psychol-Int Rev 72(3):1209\u0026ndash;1247. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12432\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/apps.12432\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuo JD, Cheng MY (2015) Guanxi circles\u0026rsquo; effect on organizational trust: Bringing power and vertical social exchanges into intraorganizational network analysis. Am Behav Sci 59(8):1024\u0026ndash;1037. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215580\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0002764215580\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMa ZJ, Khan HSUD, Chughtai MS, Li M, Ge B, Qadri SU (2023) A review of supervisor-subordinate guanxi: Current trends and future research. Sustainability-Basel 5(1):795. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15010795\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15010795\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalik MF (2023) Perfectionism is a debacle how a perfectionist leader hinders in business processes? A multiple mediated model. Bus Process Manag J 29(4):1184\u0026ndash;1203. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-10-2022-0534\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/bpmj-10-2022-0534\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol 52(1):397\u0026ndash;422. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMehtap \u0026Ouml;, Balkas J, T\u0026uuml;lemez S (2024) How do leaders' political influence tactics affect dissent, cynicism and negligence? A research into medical representatives in Turkey. J East Eur Manag Stud 29(1):28\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2024-1-28\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5771/0949-6181-2024-1-28\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCarthy JM, Trougakos JP, Cheng BH (2016) Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Appl Psychol 101(2):279\u0026ndash;291. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000044\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0000044\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiranda GA, Welbourne JL, Sariol AM (2020) Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses. Hum Resour Dev Q 31(4):371\u0026ndash;392. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21395\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hrdq.21395\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zt\u0026uuml;rk EB, Karagonlar G (2019) The relationship between supervisor and employee emotional exhaustion: The role of procedural justice. T\u0026uuml;rk Psikol Derg 34:129\u0026ndash;144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark KK (2001) The Influence of a concern for superior` face on LMX of Leadership and organizational behavior[J]. Korean Manag Rev 30(4):1093\u0026ndash;1114\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark S (2023) Savvy or slimy upward influence: The unintended effects of perceived political culture and tactics on employee perceptions of leader trustworthiness. Korean J Manag 31(4):1\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.26856/kjom.2023.31.4.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26856/kjom.2023.31.4.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin X, Direnzo MS, Xu M, Duan Y (2014) When do emotionally exhausted employees speak up?Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Organ Behav 35(7):1018\u0026ndash;1041. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.1948\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/JOB.1948\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRen S, Chadee D (2017) Influence of work pressure on proactive skill development in China:the role of career networking behavior and Guanxi HRM. Vocat Behav 98:152\u0026ndash;162. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVB.2016.11.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.JVB.2016.11.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRice DB, Reed N (2022) Supervisor emotional exhaustion and goal-focused leader behavior: The roles of supervisor bottom-line mentality and conscientiousness. Curr Psychol 41(12):8758\u0026ndash;8773. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01349-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-021-01349-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen W, Liang LH, Brown DJ, Ni D, Zheng X (2021) Subordinate poor performance as a stressor on leader well-being: The mediating role of abusive supervision and the moderating role of motives for abuse. Occup Health Psychol 26(6):491\u0026ndash;506. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/ocp0000307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalancik GR, Pfeffer J (1978) A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm Sci Q 23(2):224\u0026ndash;253. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2392563\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2392563\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith TW (1994) Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. Anger, Hostility, and the Heart, pp 23\u0026ndash;42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun H, Guo HB, Wang K, Sun L, Wang L (2021) Upward ingratiation outside the workplace and supervisor's human resource decisions: Moderating effect of Zhongyong thinking. Front Psychol 12:636756. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636756\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636756\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSung J, Kim E (2024) The relationship between covert narcissism and reactive aggression: The sequential mediation effect of hostile attribution bias and anger rumination. J Cogn Enhanc 15(4):281\u0026ndash;297. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21197/jcei.15.4.14\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21197/jcei.15.4.14\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTedeschi JT, Melburg V (1984) Impression Management and Influence in the Organization. In: Bacharach B (ed) Lawler, E. J. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. JAI, Greenwich\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVecchione M, Alessandri G, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV (2013) A longitudinal investigation of egoistic and moralistic self-enhancement. J Pers Assess 95(5):506\u0026ndash;512. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.810152\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00223891.2013.810152\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang HH, Wu W, Liu YP, Hao S, Wu S (2019) In what ways do Chinese employees speak up? An exchange approach to supervisor-subordinate guanxi and voice behavior. Int J Hum Resource Manag 30(3):479\u0026ndash;501. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1253030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09585192.2016.1253030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang ZN, Liu DD, Cai SH (2019) Self-reflection and employee creativity The mediating role of individual intellectual capital and the moderating role of concern for face. Chin Manag Stud 13(4):895\u0026ndash;917. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2018-0683?\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/CMS-09-2018-0683?\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatkins MB, Ren R, Umphress EE, Boswell WR, Triana MD, Zardkoohi A (2015) Compassion organizing: Employees' satisfaction with corporate philanthropic disaster response and reduced job strain. J Occup Organ Psych 88(2):436\u0026ndash;458. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/JOOP.12088\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/JOOP.12088\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelbourne JL, Gangadharan A, Esparza CA (2016) Coping style and gender effects on attitudinal responses to incivility. Manag Psychol 31(3):720\u0026ndash;738. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2014-0340\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JMP-11-2014-0340\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYan M, Xie YP, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Bashir M, Liu Y (2020) How ingratiation links to counterproductive work behaviors: The roles of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Front Psychol 11:2238. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02238\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02238\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang L, Deng Y, Zhang X, Hu E (2016) Why do Chinese employees build supervisor-subordinate guanxi?a motivational analysis. Asia Pac J Manag 33(3):617\u0026ndash;648. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S10490-015-9430-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S10490-015-9430-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang JH, Huang R, Huang BL, Xu T, Zhao G (2024) Employee motivation and outcomes of developing and maintaining high-quality supervisor-subordinate guanxi in hotel operations. Cornell Hosp Q 65(4):509\u0026ndash;525. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/19389655241226563\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/19389655241226563\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Z, Xie J (2024) How and when does boundary spanning behavior influence employees' creative performance? The roles of meaning of work and team Chaxu climate. Curr Psychol 43(24):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05911-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-024-05911-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng YH, Gao YX, Feng T (2024) Chaxu climate as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of organizational justice, hierarchy level on turnover intention. J Hosp Tour Res. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10963480241296000\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10963480241296000\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"leader's upward ingratiation, emotional exhaustion, workplace incivility, supervisor-subordinate guanxi, the perceived climate of team Cha-xu","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGrounded in the conservation of resources theory, this study constructed and tested a moderated serial mediation model to investigate the mechanism through which leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation affects supervisor-subordinate guanxi. To enhance internal and external validity as well as the reliability of the findings, the model was validated using a scenario-based experiment and a three-wave questionnaire survey. The results indicate that: (1) Leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion; (2) Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and workplace incivility; (3) Emotional exhaustion and workplace incivility serially mediate the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and supervisor-subordinate guanxi; (4) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the relationship between leader\u0026rsquo;s upward ingratiation and emotional exhaustion; (5) The perceived climate of team Cha-xu moderates the aforementioned serial mediation effect. These findings contribute to broadening the research perspective on upward ingratiation and offer valuable insights for organizations to identify and intervene in negative leader behaviors, thereby improving supervisor-subordinate guanxi.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The impact mechanism of leader’s upward ingratiation on supervisor-subordinate guanxi: A moderated chain mediation model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-05 10:58:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9112549/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"340144029120675638608838779402165024291","date":"2026-05-03T03:33:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-24T14:47:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-10T11:33:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T08:48:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-03-30T08:33:31+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5ef9e227-f8dd-4b30-8fc4-74ce6d9630bb","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"340144029120675638608838779402165024291","date":"2026-05-03T03:33:33+00:00","index":31,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":67497159,"name":"Health sciences/Health occupations"},{"id":67497160,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":67497161,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-05T10:58:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-05 10:58:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9112549","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9112549","identity":"rs-9112549","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}