The Double Shadow of Exploitative Leadership: The Lost Path of Affective Commitment and Organization-Based Self-Esteem

The Double Shadow of Exploitative Leadership: The Lost Path of Affective Commitment and Organization-Based Self-Esteem | 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 Research Article The Double Shadow of Exploitative Leadership: The Lost Path of Affective Commitment and Organization-Based Self-Esteem Zhiyong Han, Yingjie Peng, Cai Wang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract As time progresses and self-awareness improves, the importance of employee work well-being has increasingly been recognized. However, research on the factors influencing this phenomenon remains limited, particularly with respect to inhibitory factors. This study obtained data from 355 employees in Chinese enterprises through the administration of a questionnaire survey. A dual-mediation model was constructed to explore the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being from the perspectives of self-validation theory and social exchange theory. The findings indicate that exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on employees' work well-being. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem serve as mediators in the relationship between exploitative leadership and employees' work well-being. This study effectively supplements the research on exploitative leadership and work well-being, expands the scope of application of self-validation theory and social exchange theory, and provides crucial insights for managers seeking to increase employees' work well-being and improve organizational performance. exploitative leadership affective commitment organization-based self-esteem work well-being 1. Introduction On June 28, 2023, under the guidance of the Talent Exchange Center of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the Chinese Society of Labor, FESCO and Tsinghua University jointly held the "Building Happy Enterprises, Building a Better Life − 2023 China Happy Enterprises Forum" and released the "Happy Enterprises Report". The "Happy Enterprise Report" introduces the novel concept of the "Happy Enterprise," which seeks to enhance employees' work well-being and facilitate enterprise development and social progress. The term "work well-being" encompasses the multifaceted emotional experience of employees in relation to their work environment and responsibilities. It has been demonstrated that fostering work well-being can enhance organizational performance and expand competitive advantages, thereby contributing to the long-term growth and sustainability of enterprises [ 1 ] In the extant literature on the factors influencing work well-being, studies at both the individual and organizational levels are prevalent. Individual-level studies concentrate on employee psychology and behavior, including work engagement [ 2 ] , work-family conflict [ 3 ] , job stress [ 4 ] , and recovery experience [ 5 ] . Organizational-level research has concentrated on the impact of leadership behaviors, including transformational and passive-avoidant leadership styles, on work well-being. These styles have been found to have either positive or negative effects on well-being [ 6 ] . In addition to the aforementioned leadership types, disruptive leadership, a common leadership behavior in the modern workplace, is gradually being regarded as one of the main influences on work well-being. For example, [ 7 ] reported that disruptive leadership significantly and negatively affects employees' work well-being. However, the literature on the impact of leadership behaviors on employees' work well-being has focused primarily on transformational and relational leadership [ 8 ] . Research on the impact of disruptive leadership on work well-being is notably understudied and requires further investigation. Exploitative leadership has been identified as a significant and pervasive phenomenon [ 9 ] , representing a prominent form of destructive leadership that has garnered increasing attention in recent years. The evidence indicates that exploitative leadership is associated with increased psychological distress among employees [ 10 ] , the enactment of coercive citizenship behaviors and service-destructive behaviors [ 11 ] , and impaired employee service performance and innovation [ 9 ] . Peng Jian et al. [ 12 ] based their argument on the work-resource model and concluded that exploitative leadership has a negative effect on employees' work well-being. Chen et al. [ 13 ] based their argument on the perspective of Chinese traditionality and similarly concluded that exploitative leadership increases employees' moral shirking behaviors. In conclusion, exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on employees' emotional well-being and leads to an increase in negative behaviors. Consequently, it is possible to investigate the influence of exploitative leadership on work well-being and address the existing gap between the antecedent and outcome variables of the two. The notion that leadership directly translates into employee actions is a fallacy; rather, it generally flows through certain mediating mechanisms [ 14 ] . This paper seeks to examine the mediating functions of employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem between exploitative leadership and work well-being, drawing upon social exchange theory and self-validation theory, respectively. The concept of social exchange can be defined as equal and reciprocal behavior between two parties, whereby each party offers the other equal rewards [ 15 ] . As postulated by social exchange theory, the receipt of negative rewards can have a detrimental effect on employees' affective commitment [ 16 ] , which in turn affects job satisfaction [ 17 ] and turnover intentions [ 18 ] . Self-validation theory posits that individuals receive and process external information in a continuous manner, which subsequently impacts their self-concept [ 19 ] . In accordance with the tenets of self-validation theory, the formation of organizational-based self-esteem is largely contingent upon the receipt and processing of information pertaining to self-worth by key individuals within the organizational hierarchy [ 20 ] . Conversely, the display of negative leadership behaviors has been demonstrated to precipitate a decline in employees' organizational self-esteem levels [ 21 ] . Furthermore, the observed variation in organizational self-esteem significantly influences employees' ability to depart from their organizations [ 22 ] and their engagement in organizational citizenship behaviors [ 23 ] . In light of the defining characteristics of the exploitative leadership style, we propose that affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem serve as mediators in the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee work well-being. This paper makes two theoretical contributions. First, it deepens our understanding of the negative consequences of exploitative leadership by examining its impact on employees' work well-being. Second, it extends social exchange theory by exploring the role of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem in mediating the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being. The paper employs the theoretical frameworks of self-validation theory and social exchange theory to elucidate the mediating roles of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem during the process of exploitative leadership affecting employees' work well-being. This contributes to the theoretical value of the aforementioned frameworks and expands their practical applications. 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Hypotheses 2.1 Exploitative Leadership and Work Well-Being Exploitative leadership represents one of the manifestations of destructive leadership, which is defined as the process in which a leader resorts to bullying subordinates for personal gain. The interest in question manifests in five behavioral forms, as identified by Schmid et al. [24] . These include authentic self-interested behaviors, the exertion of pressure on subordinates, the suppression of subordinates, the denial of credit to subordinates for their contributions, and the manipulation of subordinates. The term "authentic self-interested behavior" denotes a leadership style whereby subordinates are treated as a means to an end, with leaders prioritizing their own interests over those of their subordinates. "Pressing subordinates" refers to a leadership approach that involves exerting excessive pressure on employees to achieve organizational goals. "Suppressing subordinates" describes a leadership practice that involves assigning roles or tasks that are detrimental to subordinates' professional development and growth. The appropriation of credit by leaders is a form of exploitation whereby the achievements of subordinates are attributed to the leader for personal gain. The manipulation of subordinates is a related phenomenon whereby leaders exploit their position of authority to control employee relationships in a way that serves their own interests. Research on work well-being can be broadly classified into three categories: subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and the integration of the first two. Subjective well-being can be defined as an individual's perception and experience of their own life state, encompassing both cognitive and affective dimensions. The cognitive dimension reflects an individual's overall perception of quality of life, whereas the affective dimension refers to whether an individual's emotional tendencies are positive or negative [25] . Psychological well-being can be defined as a state of optimal human psychological functioning that is not subject to human volition and comprises six dimensions: positive interpersonal relationships, personal growth, environmental mastery, personal goals, self-acceptance, and autonomy [26] . The third type of research, which integrates subjective well-being and psychological well-being, is regarded as the principal development trend [27] . This suggests that work well-being is contingent upon the overall level of experience and efficacy at work [28] . Accordingly, this paper also adopts the perspective of integrating subjective and psychological well-being in the study of work well-being. Adopting the third perspective, which considers work well-being in terms of experience and efficacy, it can be argued that higher levels of work well-being result in healthier physical and mental states, greater productivity and a reduction in negative behaviors in the workplace [29] . However, previous studies have demonstrated that exploitative leadership negatively impacts employee job satisfaction, fosters burnout [24] , engenders negative affective experiences, and ultimately positively influences employees' willingness to leave their positions [30] . Furthermore, Majeed et al. [10] reported that exploitative leadership increases the prevalence of psychological distress among employees, whereas Bajaba et al. [31] reported that exploitative leadership significantly elevates work stress, which impairs employees' physical and mental health. In conclusion, this study proposes the following hypotheses: H1: Exploitative leadership negatively affects employees' work well-being. 2.2 Mediating role of affective commitment Affective commitment represents one of three dimensions of organizational commitment: continuance commitment and normative commitment [32] . Affective commitment can be considered the core concept of organizational commitment. In their 1991 study, Meyer and colleagues defined affective commitment as an employee's recognition of their organization and a sense of belonging, accompanied by a desire to maintain their identity as a member of that organization. Affective commitment is regarded as the most crucial aspect of organizational commitment [33] . It is frequently regarded as one of the most desirable forms of commitment [34] and has been demonstrated to positively influence employee work behavior [35] . Prior research has demonstrated that studies examining the factors influencing affective commitment can be classified into two primary categories: individual-level and organizational-level studies. At the individual level, positive affect [22] , exemplary qualities [36] , and intrinsic motivation [37] have been found to enhance affective commitment to the organization. At the organizational level, leadership behavior represents a primary factor influencing employee affective commitment. With respect to positive leadership behaviors, Long et al. [38] determined that transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated with employee affective commitment, whereas transactional leadership is significantly and weakly positively correlated with employee affective commitment. With respect to negative leadership behaviors, Tillman et al. [39] employed affective event theory to demonstrate that abusive management has a detrimental effect on employee affective commitment. Similarly, Dabos & Rousseau et al. [16] revealed that an employee's affective commitment to an organization is adversely affected when they receive unequal or negative rewards for their contributions. The theory of social exchange posits that individuals have at least the same expectation of future returns and expected benefits when they incur costs for other individuals [15] . However, exploitative leadership behavior,which is motivated by the desire to obtain personal benefits through the use of intimidation and coercion toward subordinates, inevitably leads to frustration of employees' expectations regarding the returns they will receive. Consequently, in accordance with social exchange theory, exploitative leadership can be assumed to have a negative effect on the affective commitment of employees. Furthermore, affective commitment has been demonstrated to influence employees' behaviors and emotions within the workplace. A review of the literature revealed a negative correlation between affective commitment and employee turnover intention [40] ,organizational performance [41] , job quality, and employee job satisfaction [42] . Moreover, Tillman et al. [39] found, on the basis of affective event theory, that abusive behavior by leaders reduces the level of affective commitment of subordinates, which subsequently reduces employee work well-being.Thus, negative affective commitment has a detrimental effect on employees' emotions and increases their negative workplace behaviors, which in turn reduces the overall level of employees' experience and efficacy in their work situations and ultimately decreases their work well-being. In summary, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study: H2 : Employee affective commitment mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and work well-being. 2.3 Mediating Role of Organization-Based Self-Esteem Self-esteem is typically defined as an individual's subjective evaluation of their own value. This evaluation affects not only individual perceptions but also the manner in which individuals process information about their surroundings [43] . Pierce et al. [44] proposed the concept of organization-based self-esteem on the basis of an individual's general self-esteem and defined it as the extent to which individuals in an organization assess their own value and degree of importance. He posits that organization-based self-esteem is highly malleable and typically in an unstable state at the outset of the work period, which is susceptible to external influences. As the work period progresses, the individual's perception of intrinsic traits and self-worth gradually solidifies, leading to a stabilization of organization-based self-esteem. The extant literature on the determinants of organization-based self-esteem identifies two primary categories of factors: individual employee characteristics and organizational situational factors. Individual employee factors primarily pertain to the influence of employee experience on the development of organization-based self-esteem. For instance, Lee et al. [45] demonstrated that the duration of an employee's tenure has a bearing on their organization-based self-esteem. Among the organizational situational factors, leadership behavior is the most dominant category. The evidence indicates that both high-quality leadership member exchange [46] and leadership support [47] have positive effects on employees' organization-based self-esteem. Self-validation theory posits that individuals continuously receive and process external information, interpret it, and then revise their self-concept in light of this information [19] . Self-validation theory posits that employees' organization-based self-esteem is shaped primarily by the appraisals of significant others within the organization. The quality of these appraisals, whether positive or negative, can exert a considerable influence on employees' organization-based self-esteem [20] . Exploitative leadership frequently employs tactics of suppression and negative evaluation to exert control over subordinates [24] . Such negative leadership behaviors are likely to have a detrimental effect on employees' organization-based self-esteem. In conclusion, exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on the level of organization-based self-esteem exhibited by employees. Furthermore, the degree of organization-based self-esteem can exert disparate effects on variables such as employees' emotional states and behaviors. With respect to employee emotions, [48] found, on the basis of the theory of planned behavior, that organization-based self-esteem is positively correlated with employees' work attitudes. Similarly, Gardner et al . [49] reported that organization-based self-esteem is positively correlated with employees' job satisfaction. In terms of employee behavior, high organization-based self-esteem has been found to increase employees' organizational citizenship behavior [50] , improve task performance [13] , and reduce employees' deviant organizational behavior [51] . However, a decline in the level of organization-based self-esteem has been observed to result in the development of negative emotions and perceptions about the work environment and people among employees within the organization [52] . This, in turn, has been linked to a reduction in job satisfaction and work well-being. In light of the aforementioned analysis, it can be concluded that high organization-based self-esteem fosters positive emotions and positive workplace behaviors among employees, whereas low organization-based self-esteem has a detrimental effect on both. The construct of employee work well-being, which comprises positive emotional experience and work effectiveness, is undoubtedly affected by the level of organization-based self-esteem. In summary, this paper proposes the following hypothesis: H3: Organization-based self-esteem mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee work well-being. 3. Methods 3.1 Research Sample This study employs the format of an online questionnaire survey to ensure that the questionnaire can accurately represent the target population. To this end, the questionnaire includes key control variables, enabling the survey to encompass all grades and working years of enterprise employees. To ensure the authenticity and credibility of the questionnaire, the personal information of the respondents was concealed in the questionnaire design. The introduction to the questionnaire promises to keep the private information of individuals completely confidential. The survey was conducted in three phases, with an interval of two weeks between each phase. Each participant was assigned a number based on the last four digits of their mobile phone number to ensure the consistency of the data across the three time points. In the initial phase of the study (T1), 568 participants were invited to complete a series of questionnaires assessing their demographic information, exploitative leadership behaviors, and knowledge hiding tendencies. After questionnaires with omissions, patterns of completing the same questionnaire, or all the same answers were eliminated, 467 valid questionnaires were returned. In the second phase of the study (T2), the 467 participants who had completed the initial questionnaire were invited to continue with the hindrance stress scale. A total of 396 valid questionnaires were returned. In the third phase of the study (T3), 396 participants who had completed the valid questionnaires in the second phase were invited to continue completing the superior-subordinate guanxi scale. A total of 355 valid questionnaires were recovered, representing a valid recovery rate of 89.6%. Among the recovered valid questionnaires, 139 males and 216 females were included. The average age was 32.56 years. The largest number of participants were undergraduates (240). The average number of years of work was 4.673 years. 3.2 Variable Measurement To ensure the reliability and validity of the scale measurements, the measurement scales of all the variables in this study were adapted from mature scales used in China and abroad. The scales were adapted via Brislin's [53] bidirectional translation-back-translation procedure, which ensured that the scales were appropriate for use in the organizational context in China. All scales were scored on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. The specific scale information is presented in the following section. The construct of exploitative leadership was operationalized via the following scale. The construct was measured via the scale developed by Schmid et al. [24] The scale comprises a total of 15 items, with the representative item being "using my job for personal gain." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.939, indicating a high level of internal consistency. Affective Commitment The scale was developed by Gao et al. [54] and was used to measure this variable. The scale comprises a total of five items, with a representative item being "This is a good organization to work for." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.761. Organizational self-esteem. The scale was developed by Gardner [49] . The scale comprises a total of eight items, with the representative item being "The unit values me." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.704. The construct of work well-being. The scale developed by Zheng et al. [1] was utilized for its measurement purposes. The scale comprises a total of six items, with the representative item being "My work is very interesting." The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.761. Control Variables. The control variables in this paper were determined with reference to the study of Bernerth et al. [55] . Initially, this study specifies the personal information of the test takers, including age, gender, and education level. To ensure the validity of the measurement and to facilitate the ability to obtain reliable information from different levels, this study included question items concerning employees’ years of experience and position level. 4. Results 4.1 Common method variance test Given that this study employed the questionnaire method and that all the data were derived from employees' self-judgment, it is possible that common method variance may be present in the data. To ascertain whether there is notable common method variance in the data, this study employed the Harman one-factor test and the method of controlling for unmeasured one-way latent variables [56] . First, the Harman one-factor method was employed for the analysis of the data. This was achieved by loading the variable question items onto a common variable and then restricting the analysis to the unrotated factors. The results of the principal component analysis indicated the presence of eight factors, with the first factor accounting for 33.052% of the variance, which is below the critical value of 40%. This suggests that the common method variance in the data is not a significant concern. Second, the latent variable method was employed for further validation purposes. This was accomplished by constructing Model I, which contains the common latent factors, and Model II, which represents the control group without them. The degrees of change in the key indices in the experimental results of the two groups were then compared. The results demonstrate that the fit of the original model did not change significantly after the addition of common latent variables, as evidenced by the following changes: ΔRMSEA=0.046, ΔCFI=0.061, ΔIFI=0.059, and ΔTLI=0.071. These changes are less than 0.1, indicating that the model remains adequately fit. This further supports the conclusion that there is no significant common method variance in the data. 4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis First, to ensure that the data exhibit good discriminant validity, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on exploitative leadership, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and employee happiness. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1, which shows that the four-factor model has the best fit (RMSEA=0.046, CFI=0.950, IFI=0.950, TLI=0.941). In contrast, the one-factor model has the worst fit, and all of the indices are less than 0.8. These results indicate that the four-factor model is the most appropriate for data analysis and that the selected variables are distinct and exhibit significant discriminant validity. Table 1 Results of the confirmatory factor analysis Models c 2 df c 2 /df RMSEA CFI IFI TLI Four-factor(full model) 644.666 369.000 1.747 0.046 0.950 0.950 0.941 Three-factor 1164.269 402.000 2.896 0.073 0.861 0.862 0.850 Two-factor 1522.230 404.000 3.768 0.088 0.796 0.797 0.780 One-factor 1566.604 405.000 3.868 0.090 0.788 0.789 0.772 4.3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Second, to further test the suitability of the data for further regression analysis, descriptive and correlation analyses were performed on the data in this study. The means and standard deviations of all the variables under investigation, along with the correlations between these variables, are presented in Table 2. As evidenced in Table 2, exploitative leadership is significantly and negatively correlated with employee happiness (β=-0.692, p<0.01) and significantly and negatively correlated with employee affective commitment (β=-0.519, p<0.01) and organization-based self-esteem (β=-0.682, p<0.01). Furthermore, employee happiness was significantly and positively correlated with employee affective commitment (β=0.742, p<0.01) and organization-based self-esteem (β=0.743, p<0.01). This finding indicates that there is a significant correlation between all the variables and preliminary compliance with the expected hypothesis, which is suitable for further regression analysis. Table 2 Results of descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gender 1 Age -0.07 1 Education 0.088 -0.268** 1 Tenure -0.098 0.711** -0.109* 1 TWS -0.116* 0.542** -0.058 0.698** 1 Sector -0.024 -0.053 -0.176** -0.023 -0.055 1 EL -0.039 -0.137** -0.167** -0.239** -0.276** 0.221** 1 AC 0.031 0.05 0.113* 0.083 0.123* -0.072 -0.519** 1 OBSE -0.002 0.107* 0.272** 0.174** 0.229** -0.180** -0.682** 0.655** 1 WWB -0.008 0.079 0.211** 0.134* 0.198** -0.180** -0.692** 0.742** 0.743** 1 Mean 1.609 2.175 3.186 2.676 2.876 2.330 1.899 4.352 4.245 4.233 Variables 0.489 0.715 0.582 1.005 0.909 1.732 0.684 0.504 0.436 0.502 Note: * indicates p<0.05; ** indicates p<0.01; N=355 4.4 Hypothesis testing To test the validity of the aforementioned hypotheses, this study employs hierarchical regression to assess the impact of exploitative leadership, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and employee well-being. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3, wherein Model 1 serves as the baseline model for controlling the variables. Table 3, Model 2, illustrates the impact of exploitative leadership on employee well-being. Models 3 and 4 demonstrate the influence of exploitative leadership, employee affective commitment, and organization-based self-esteem on employee well-being, respectively. Finally, Models 5 and 6 illustrate the effects of exploitative leadership on employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem, respectively. As evidenced in Table 3, Model 2 reveals a notable negative correlation between exploitative leadership and employee happiness (β = -0.675, p < 0.01), substantiating the validity of Hypothesis 1. In Models 5 and 6, exploitative leadership has a significant negative effect on employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem (β1 = -0.534, p < 0.01; β2 = -0.639, p < 0.01). In Models 3 and 4, affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem significantly positively influence the happiness of employees who are related to them (β1=0.523, p<0.01; β2=0.420, p<0.01). The aforementioned results indicate that exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. Conversely, employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem have beneficial effects on their well-being. The mediating effect is thus established, and hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported. Second, to further validate the aforementioned analysis, this study employed the SPSS macro program PROCESS for hypothesis testing, and the test results are presented in Table 4. As evidenced in Table 4, exploitative leadership has a direct negative influence on employee happiness (β=-0.494, p<0.01), with a significant negative correlation at the 95% confidence interval (-0.271, -0.153). This substantiates the veracity of Hypothesis 1. In the mediation effect process, the path through which exploitative leadership affects employee happiness through affective commitment does not include 0 in the 95% confidence interval (-0.243, 0.097), thereby establishing the mediation effect and supporting Hypothesis 2. The path of exploitative leadership affecting employee happiness through organization-based self-esteem also did not yield a result of 0 in the 95% confidence interval (-0.184, -0.059), and the mediation effect was found to be significant, thereby verifying Hypothesis 3. Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis WWB AC OBSE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Gender -0.006 -0.044 -0.047 -0.037 0.006 -0.346 Age 0.019 0.047 0.030 0.014 0.033 0.075 Education 0.205 0.107 0.088 0.045 0.035 0.186 Tenure 0.012 -0.085 -0.048 -0.041 -0.071 -0.055 TWS 0.183 0.046 0.039 0.026 0.012 0.057 Sector -0.133 -0.010 -0.038 -0.032 0.052 -0.001 EL -0.675** -0.395** -0.289** -0.534** -0.639** AC 0.523** 0.420** OBSE 0.252** R 2 0.106 0.493 0.691 0.716 0.524 0.706 F 6.910** 48.144** 96.882** 96.427** 18.807** 49.258** Note: * indicates p<0.05; ** indicates p<0.01; N=355 Table 4 PROCESS mediation effect test results Name intermediary variable Effects SE t p LLCI ULCI Total effects - -0.494 0.030 -16.254 0.000 -0.554 -0.435 Direct effects - -0.212 0.030 -7.050 0.000 -0.271 -0.153 AC -0.164 0.038 - - -0.243 -0.097 Intermediate effects OBSE -0.118 0.032 - - -0.184 -0.059 Note: * indicates p<0.05; ** indicates p<0.01; N=355 5. Discussion 5.1 Research Conclusion This study investigated the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being. It constructed and validated a dual-mediation model of exploitative leadership and employees' work well-being from the perspectives of social exchange theory and self-validation theory. Additionally, it explored the mediating roles of employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem in the relationship between exploitative leadership and work well-being. The findings of the study indicate that exploitative leadership has a direct negative effect on employees' work well-being. Additionally, the results demonstrate that exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being by influencing their affective commitment, with affective commitment acting as a mediator between the two. Furthermore, the findings suggest that exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being by affecting their organization-based self-esteem, with organization-based self-esteem serving as a mediator between the two. Third, exploitative leaders can affect employees' job happiness by influencing their organizational self-esteem, which in turn mediates the relationship between the two. 5.2 Theoretical Implications First, by examining the impact of exploitative leadership on work well-being, this paper contributes to the existing research on the outcome variables of exploitative leadership and the factors affecting affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and work well-being. First, in the extant literature, research on the influencing factors of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem predominantly concentrates on positive leadership. For example, Long et al. [ 38 ] concluded that transformational leadership has a significant positive correlation with employees' affective commitment, whereas Yang et al. [ 47 ] reported that leadership support positively affects employees' organization-based self-esteem. This paper demonstrates that exploitative leadership can have a detrimental effect on employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of exploitative leadership and the factors influencing affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. Second, research on the influence of organisational factors on work well-being hasfocused predominantly on positive leadership behaviors. For example, Berger et al. [ 6 ] reported that transformational leadership has a positive effect on work well-being, whereas Montano et al. [ 7 ] reported that relational and task-based leadership are significantly and positively correlated with employees' work well-being. Despite the prevalence of negative leadership behaviors in the contemporary workplace and their deleterious impact on organizational development,research examining the relationship between negative leadership behaviors and work well-being is scarce. By investigating the influence of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being, this study, to some extent, addresses the gap in understanding the impact of negative leadership behaviors on work well-being. Additionally, it contributes to the growing body of research on the outcomes of exploitative leadership. Second, this paper employs social exchange theory and self-validation theory to construct a dual-mediation model of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. This model demonstrates the mediating role of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem between exploitative leadership and employee happiness. The fundamental premise of social exchange theory is that of equal reciprocity [ 15 ] . This paper employs exploitative leadership as the catalyst for negative reciprocal behaviors and investigates the influence of negative leadership conduct on employees' affective commitment. Self-validation theory [ 19 ] posits that individuals integrate information from their surroundings to form their self-concept. Similarly, this paper treats exploitative leadership as a source of negative information for organizational employees and explores the impact of exploitative leadership's suppressive behaviors on employees' organization-based self-esteem. In light of the aforementioned theories, this study endeavors to elucidate the internal mechanism through which exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being. This endeavor serves to expand the boundaries of the application of the theory and enrich the value of the theory. 5.3 Practical implications The findings of this study have implications for managers in organizations, as outlined below: First and foremost, it is imperative that organizations maintain a vigilant watch of exploitative behavior exhibited by leaders in the workplace to forestall any adverse consequences. This paper finds that exploitative leadership is a common and destructive behavior in the modern workplace. It can have a significant effect on the psychological state and work efficiency of employees, which in turn can negatively affect the organization's creativity, innovation, and performance. Consequently,to circumvent exploitative leadership from becoming a more destructive force in the process of organizational operation, the following measures should be implemented: first, the organization should conduct regular training for managers to instill the appropriate values; second, the organization should reinforce the feedback channels. It is recommended that organizations implement a system of comprehensive supervision to mitigate the impact of exploitative leadership. This system should be designed to monitor employee communication channels and identify instances of exploitative leadership. Once identified, the organization should take immediate action to eliminate the influence of such behavior. Second, the organization must prioritize the well-being of its employees and establish a profound and pervasive understanding of the concept of a "happy enterprise." This paper finds that the well-being of employees is highly dependent on the development of an organization and is susceptible to a multitude of influences. The well-being of employees can facilitate the improvement of organizational citizenship behavior, enhance employee motivation, and improve corporate performance. Nevertheless, negative leadership behaviors have the potential to significantly impact employee work well-being, which in turn can have a detrimental effect on organizational development. Consequently, to enhance employees' work well-being, organisations should implement the following measures: first, they should prioritize and safeguard employees' rights and interests, establish corporate values with employees' work well-being at their core, and view employees' work well-being as a long-term organisational objective. Second, they should consistently monitor the psychological state and emotional fluctuations of employees and provide constructive feedback to facilitate positive emotional development. To facilitate the long-term well-being of employees, it is essential to consider the impact of work well-being on organizational performance. Negative factors, such as negative leadership behavior and unreasonable rules, should be identified and addressed to ensure a healthy and productive work environment. 5.4 Research limitations and future perspectives While this study offers a novel perspective on the study of work well-being, it is not without limitations. First, the data for the variable measurements were obtained from the subjective responses of the test subjects. While the results of the data analysis were validated, the actual situation may be biased as a result. Second, this study did not consider the modifiable nature of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator variable. This can also be used as a personality trait that can produce opposite results for different encounters, depending on the degree. This was not reflected in the study. Exploitative leadership represents a particularly complex and destructive form of leadership, manifesting in a range of ways in the workplace and causing psychological and work-related distress to subordinates. A substantial body of research has been conducted on the effects of exploitative leadership in both domestic and international contexts. However, few studies have explored the formation mechanisms of exploitative leadership. Future research on exploitative leadership should commence with an investigation of its antecedent variables, with the objective of elucidating the formation mechanism of exploitative leadership. This approach would facilitate the control of the widespread exploitative leadership behavior at its source. Since its introduction, the concept of employee work well-being has attracted considerable attention. However, research on work well-being in the literature hasfocused primarily on positive leadership behaviors at the organisational level, such as transformational leadership and responsible leadership. Consequently, there is a paucity of research on negative leadership behaviors. Therefore, future research on employee work well-being should consider this aspect to address the existing gaps in the relevant research. Abbreviations Abbreviation Name EL Exploitative leadership AC Affective Commitment OBSE Organization-based Self-esteem WWB Work Well-being Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Our study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at College of Business Administration, Anhui University of Finance and Economics. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards with written informed consent from all subjects. Besides, consent Consent for publication Not-applicable. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests Funding No source of funding. Author Contribution Zhiyong Han designed the study and provided conceptual guidance; Yingjie Peng conducted the literature review, analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the first draft, and reviewed the manuscript with Zhiyong Han. Data Availability The data supporting this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. References Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well‐being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross‐cultural validation[J].Erratum. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5):645–647. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4):701–716. Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations [J]. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2):151–169. Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review[J]. Journal of Management, 39(5):1085–1122. Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635–1654. Berger R, Czakert J P, Leuteritz J P, et al.(2019). How and when do leaders influence employees well-being? Moderated mediation models for job demands and resources[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 2788. Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership, followers' mental health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta‐analysis from an occupational health perspective[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3): 327–350. Zhang XingGui,Peng Jian,Dai Xueming,.et al.(2024). A Bibliometric Research and Integrative Model of Employee Well-Being[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 21(03):464-474. Wu, L.-Z., Sun, Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Yang, M. (2021). The impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employees’ service performance: A social exchange perspective[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 102954 Majeed M, Fatima T.(2020) .Impact of exploitative leader ship on psychological distress: A study of nurses[J]. Jour nal of Nursing Management, 28(7): 1713-1724. Zhang Yongjun,Sun Yadi,Liu Zhiqiang.(2022).The Mechanism of Exploitative Leadership on Employees’Compulsory Citizenship Behavior [J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 19(04):525-533. Peng Jian,Zhang Xinggui,Xie Bin.(2023). Will Exploitative Leadership Reduce Employee Job Wellbeing? An Explanation from the JobDemands-Resources Model [J]. Foreign Economics & Management ,45(09):119-134 Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1):226–238. Eissa, G., Chinchanachokchai, S. and Wyland, R. (2017).The influence of supervisor undermining on self-esteem, creativity, and overall job performance: a multiple mediation model.Organization Management Journal[J], 14(11): 185-197. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Dabos，G. E. & Rousseau，D. M..(2004).Mutuality and Reciprocity in the Psychological Contracts of Employees and Employers[J].Journal of Applied Psychology,89(1): 52-72. Bateman,T.S＆Strasser,S.(1984).A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment［J］．Academy of Management Journal, (1):95 112． Zhu Zheng,Chen Xingwen,Liu Jun,.et al.(2022). The Effect of Leader Gratitude Expression on Employee Turnover Intention: An Agentic and Communal Perspective[J]. Nankai Business Review ,25(02):80-89. Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior[J].Journal of Applied Psychology, 54:31–41. Park, J., & Kim, H. J. (2020). Customer mistreatment and service performance: A self-consistency perspective[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 86:285–299. Qu Rujie,Wang Lin,Shang jie&Shi Kan.(2015). Abusive Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Effect of Employee Self-concept[J]. Management Review,27(08):90-101. Kim Jungsun,Milliman John,Lucas Anthony F.(2021).Effects of CSR on affective organizational commitment via organizational justice and organization-based self-esteem[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management ,92. Bellou, V., Chitiris, L., & Bellou, A. (2005). The impact of organizational identification and self-esteem on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The case of Greek public hospitals. Operational Research, 5(2):305–318. doi:10.1007/bf02944315 Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer A., & Peus, C. V. (2019). Shedding light on leaders' self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership[J]. Journal of Management,45(4):1401-1433 Diener E.,Suh E.M.,Lucas R.E.,et al.(1999).Subjective well-being:three decades of progress.[J].Psychological Bulletin,125(2):276-302 Ryff C.(1995) .The structure of psychological well-being revisted [J]. J Per Soc Psychol, 69(4):719-727 Page, K. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A..(2009) .The“What”, “Why”and“How” of Employee Well-being: A New Model[J]. Social Indicators Research, 90(3): 441-458 Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., Price, R. H.. Happiness, Health, or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well-being Tradeoffs[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2007, 21(3): 51-63. Peccei, R., & Van de Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management–well‐being–performance research revisited: Past, present, and future[J]. Human Resource Management Journal. Syed F, Naseer S, Akhtar M W, et al. Frogs in boil ing water: a moderated-mediation model of exploitative leadership, fear of negative evaluation and knowledge hiding behaviors[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021,25(8):2067–2087. Bajaba S, Bajaba A, Fuller B.(2022).Enduring exploitative leaders at work: the buffering role of proactive personali ty on employee job strain[J]. Organization Management Journal, 19(2): 60-71. Meyer J P, Allen N J.(1991) .A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment[J]. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89. Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment: An Integrative Literature Review[J]. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4):389-414. Jafri, M.H. (2010). Organizational Commitment and Employee's Innovative Behavior: A Study in Retail Sector[J]. Journal of Management and Research, 10:62-68. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences[J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1):20–52. Paul H.,Budhwar P.,Bamel U.(2019).Linking resilience and organizational commitment:does happiness matter?[J].Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 7(1):21-37 . Hui Meng,Yang Luo,Lu Huang, et al.(2019).On the relationships of resilience with organizational commitment and burnout:a social exchange perspective[J].International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(15):2231-2250 Long, S., Yong, L., & Chuen, T. (2016). Analysis of the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Management[J].Accounting and Economics, 3:572-598. Tillman, C. J., Gonzalez, K., Crawford, W. S., and Lawrence, E. R.(2018) .Affective responses to abuse in the workplace: The role of hope and affective commitment[J]. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 26(1): 57-65. Haque, A., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2019). The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions: An empirical study with Australian employees[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3): 759–774. Ribeiro, Neuza & Gomes, Daniel & Kurian, Shaji. (2018). Authentic leadership and performance: The mediating role of employees' affective commitment[J]. Social Responsibility Journal. 14:213-225. 10.1108/SRJ-06-2017-0111. Sung Min Park, & Rainey, H. G. (2007). Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies[J]. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3):197-226. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2009). Relationships of personality and job characteristics with organization-based self-esteem[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(5):392–409 Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, operationalization, and validation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 32:622-648. Lee J.An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in two Korean banks[J]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,2003,14(6):1046-1066 Lu, X., & Sun, J.-M. (James). (2017). Multiple pathways linking leader-member exchange to work effort[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(4):270–283. Yang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H.K. et al(2018). Crossover Effects of Servant Leadership and Job Social Support on Employee Spouses: The Mediating Role of Employee Organization-Based Self-Esteem[J]. J Bus Ethics 147:595–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2943-3 Hsu, M.H., & Kuo, F. (2003). The Effect of Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Deindividuation in Protecting Personal Information Privacy[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 42:305-320. Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group & Organization Management, 23(1), 48–70. Mayer, B. W., Fraccastoro, K. A., & McNary, L. D. (2007). The Relationship Among Organizational-Based Self-Esteem and Various Factors Motivating Volunteers[J]. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2):327-340. Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal Injustice and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Esteem Threat[J]. Journal of Management, 38(6):1788-1811. Gardner, D.G., & Pierce, J.L. (2013). Focus of attention at work and organization‐based self‐esteem[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28:110-132. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185− 216. Gao-Urhahn X, Biemann T& Jaros S J. How affective commitment to the organization changes over time: a longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal relationships between affective organizational commitment and income[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2016,1(2):203-207 Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best‐practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283. Hongxing Xiong,Jing Zhang,Baojuan Ye.et.al.(2012). Common Method Variance Effects and the Models of Statistical Approaches for Controlling It[J]. Advances in Psychological Science,20(05):757-769 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-5353058","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":374511925,"identity":"42fc2841-8c3b-40a6-b8d9-0bac9db32fcd","order_by":0,"name":"Zhiyong Han","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anhui University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhiyong","middleName":"","lastName":"Han","suffix":""},{"id":374511926,"identity":"8553dde4-b928-45e8-b3cf-b89e23e9fb9c","order_by":1,"name":"Yingjie Peng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anhui University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yingjie","middleName":"","lastName":"Peng","suffix":""},{"id":374511927,"identity":"4c0db199-a4c5-4224-9163-b4a41026f6ad","order_by":2,"name":"Cai Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anhui University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cai","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-29 09:38:25","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83824681,"identity":"e9d58750-5feb-4786-baa3-1bd24be59ad4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-03 09:47:17","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1084344,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5353058/v1/247f4851-1ba3-4dda-bd59-a888bbaa8114.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Double Shadow of Exploitative Leadership: The Lost Path of Affective Commitment and Organization-Based Self-Esteem","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOn June 28, 2023, under the guidance of the Talent Exchange Center of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) and the Chinese Society of Labor, FESCO and Tsinghua University jointly held the \"Building Happy Enterprises, Building a Better Life \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2023 China Happy Enterprises Forum\" and released the \"Happy Enterprises Report\". The \"Happy Enterprise Report\" introduces the novel concept of the \"Happy Enterprise,\" which seeks to enhance employees' work well-being and facilitate enterprise development and social progress. The term \"work well-being\" encompasses the multifaceted emotional experience of employees in relation to their work environment and responsibilities. It has been demonstrated that fostering work well-being can enhance organizational performance and expand competitive advantages, thereby contributing to the long-term growth and sustainability of enterprises \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the extant literature on the factors influencing work well-being, studies at both the individual and organizational levels are prevalent. Individual-level studies concentrate on employee psychology and behavior, including work engagement \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, work-family conflict \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, job stress \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, and recovery experience \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Organizational-level research has concentrated on the impact of leadership behaviors, including transformational and passive-avoidant leadership styles, on work well-being. These styles have been found to have either positive or negative effects on well-being \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition to the aforementioned leadership types, disruptive leadership, a common leadership behavior in the modern workplace, is gradually being regarded as one of the main influences on work well-being. For example, \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that disruptive leadership significantly and negatively affects employees' work well-being. However, the literature on the impact of leadership behaviors on employees' work well-being has focused primarily on transformational and relational leadership \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Research on the impact of disruptive leadership on work well-being is notably understudied and requires further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploitative leadership has been identified as a significant and pervasive phenomenon \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, representing a prominent form of destructive leadership that has garnered increasing attention in recent years. The evidence indicates that exploitative leadership is associated with increased psychological distress among employees\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, the enactment of coercive citizenship behaviors and service-destructive behaviors\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, and impaired employee service performance and innovation\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Peng Jian et al. \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e based their argument on the work-resource model and concluded that exploitative leadership has a negative effect on employees' work well-being. Chen et al. \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003ebased their argument on the perspective of Chinese traditionality and similarly concluded that exploitative leadership increases employees' moral shirking behaviors. In conclusion, exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on employees' emotional well-being and leads to an increase in negative behaviors. Consequently, it is possible to investigate the influence of exploitative leadership on work well-being and address the existing gap between the antecedent and outcome variables of the two.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe notion that leadership directly translates into employee actions is a fallacy; rather, it generally flows through certain mediating mechanisms \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This paper seeks to examine the mediating functions of employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem between exploitative leadership and work well-being, drawing upon social exchange theory and self-validation theory, respectively. The concept of social exchange can be defined as equal and reciprocal behavior between two parties, whereby each party offers the other equal rewards \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. As postulated by social exchange theory, the receipt of negative rewards can have a detrimental effect on employees' affective commitment\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, which in turn affects job satisfaction \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003eand turnover intentions \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Self-validation theory posits that individuals receive and process external information in a continuous manner, which subsequently impacts their self-concept \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In accordance with the tenets of self-validation theory, the formation of organizational-based self-esteem is largely contingent upon the receipt and processing of information pertaining to self-worth by key individuals within the organizational hierarchy \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Conversely, the display of negative leadership behaviors has been demonstrated to precipitate a decline in employees' organizational self-esteem levels \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, the observed variation in organizational self-esteem significantly influences employees' ability to depart from their organizations \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e and their engagement in organizational citizenship behaviors \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In light of the defining characteristics of the exploitative leadership style, we propose that affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem serve as mediators in the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee work well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper makes two theoretical contributions. First, it deepens our understanding of the negative consequences of exploitative leadership by examining its impact on employees' work well-being. Second, it extends social exchange theory by exploring the role of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem in mediating the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being. The paper employs the theoretical frameworks of self-validation theory and social exchange theory to elucidate the mediating roles of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem during the process of exploitative leadership affecting employees' work well-being. This contributes to the theoretical value of the aforementioned frameworks and expands their practical applications.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review and Theoretical Hypotheses","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Exploitative Leadership and Work Well-Being\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExploitative leadership represents one of the manifestations of destructive leadership, which is defined as the process in which a leader resorts to bullying subordinates for personal gain. The interest in question manifests in five behavioral forms, as identified by Schmid et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[24]\u003c/sup\u003e. These include authentic self-interested behaviors, the exertion of pressure on subordinates, the suppression of subordinates, the denial of credit to subordinates for their contributions, and the manipulation of subordinates. The term \u0026quot;authentic self-interested behavior\u0026quot; denotes a leadership style whereby subordinates are treated as a means to an end, with leaders prioritizing their own interests over those of their subordinates. \u0026quot;Pressing\u0026nbsp;subordinates\u0026quot; refers to a leadership approach that involves exerting excessive pressure on employees to achieve organizational goals. \u0026quot;Suppressing subordinates\u0026quot; describes a leadership practice that involves assigning roles or tasks that are detrimental to subordinates\u0026apos; professional development and growth. The appropriation of credit by leaders is a form of exploitation whereby the achievements of subordinates are attributed to the leader for personal gain.\u0026nbsp;The manipulation\u0026nbsp;of subordinates is a related phenomenon whereby leaders exploit their position of authority to control employee relationships in a way that serves their own interests. Research on work well-being can be broadly classified into three categories: subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and the integration of the first two.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubjective well-being can be defined as an individual\u0026apos;s perception and experience of their own life state, encompassing both cognitive and affective dimensions.\u0026nbsp;The cognitive dimension reflects an individual\u0026apos;s overall perception of quality of life, whereas the affective dimension refers to whether an individual\u0026apos;s emotional tendencies are positive or negative\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[25]\u003c/sup\u003e. Psychological well-being can be defined as a state of optimal human psychological functioning that is not subject to human volition and\u0026nbsp;comprises\u0026nbsp;six dimensions: positive interpersonal relationships, personal growth, environmental mastery, personal goals, self-acceptance, and autonomy\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[26]\u003c/sup\u003e. The third type of research, which integrates subjective well-being and psychological well-being, is regarded as the principal development trend\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[27]\u003c/sup\u003e. This suggests that work well-being is contingent upon the overall level of experience and efficacy at work\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[28]\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, this paper also adopts the perspective of integrating subjective and psychological well-being in the study of work well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdopting the third perspective, which considers work well-being in terms of experience and efficacy, it can be argued that higher levels of work well-being result in healthier physical and mental states, greater productivity and a reduction in negative behaviors in the workplace\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[29]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, previous studies have demonstrated that exploitative leadership negatively impacts employee job satisfaction, fosters burnout\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[24]\u003c/sup\u003e, engenders negative affective experiences, and ultimately\u0026nbsp;positively influences\u0026nbsp;employees\u0026apos; willingness to leave their positions\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[30]\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, Majeed et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[10]\u003c/sup\u003e reported\u0026nbsp;that exploitative leadership increases the prevalence of psychological distress among employees,\u0026nbsp;whereas\u0026nbsp;Bajaba et al.\u003csup\u003e[31]\u003c/sup\u003e reported\u0026nbsp;that exploitative leadership significantly elevates work stress, which impairs employees\u0026apos; physical and mental health. In conclusion, this study proposes the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u003c/strong\u003e Exploitative leadership negatively affects employees\u0026apos; work well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Mediating\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erole\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eaffective commitment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAffective commitment represents one of three dimensions of organizational commitment:\u0026nbsp;continuance commitment and normative commitment\u003csup\u003e[32]\u003c/sup\u003e. Affective commitment can be considered the core concept of organizational commitment. In their 1991 study, Meyer and colleagues defined affective commitment as an employee\u0026apos;s recognition of their organization and a sense of belonging, accompanied by a desire to maintain their identity as a member of that organization. Affective commitment is regarded as the most crucial aspect of organizational commitment\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[33]\u003c/sup\u003e. It is frequently regarded as one of the most desirable forms of commitment\u003csup\u003e[34]\u003c/sup\u003e and has been demonstrated to positively influence employee work behavior\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[35]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior research has demonstrated that studies examining the factors influencing affective commitment can be classified into two\u0026nbsp;primary\u0026nbsp;categories: individual-level and organizational-level studies.\u0026nbsp;At\u0026nbsp;the individual level, positive affect\u003csup\u003e[22]\u003c/sup\u003e, exemplary qualities\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[36]\u003c/sup\u003e, and intrinsic motivation\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[37]\u003c/sup\u003ehave been found to enhance affective commitment to the organization. At the organizational level, leadership behavior represents a primary factor influencing employee affective commitment. With\u0026nbsp;respect\u0026nbsp;to positive leadership behaviors, Long et al.\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[38]\u003c/sup\u003edetermined that transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated with employee affective commitment, whereas transactional leadership is significantly and weakly positively correlated with employee affective commitment. With\u0026nbsp;respect\u0026nbsp;to negative leadership behaviors, Tillman et al.\u003csup\u003e[39]\u003c/sup\u003e employed affective event theory to demonstrate that abusive management has a detrimental\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on employee affective commitment. Similarly, Dabos \u0026amp; Rousseau et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[16]\u003c/sup\u003e revealed that an employee\u0026apos;s affective commitment to an organization is adversely affected when they receive unequal or negative rewards for their contributions. The theory of social exchange posits that individuals have at least the same expectation of future returns and expected benefits when they incur costs for other individuals\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[15]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, exploitative leadership behavior,which\u0026nbsp;is motivated by the desire to obtain personal benefits through the use of intimidation and coercion\u0026nbsp;toward\u0026nbsp;subordinates,\u0026nbsp;inevitably\u0026nbsp;leads\u0026nbsp;to frustration of employees\u0026apos; expectations regarding the returns they will receive. Consequently, in accordance with social exchange theory,\u0026nbsp;exploitative leadership\u0026nbsp;can be assumed\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;have a negative\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on the affective commitment of employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, affective commitment has been demonstrated to influence employees\u0026apos; behaviors and emotions within the workplace. A review of the literature revealed a negative correlation between affective commitment and\u0026nbsp;employee\u0026nbsp;turnover intention\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[40]\u003c/sup\u003e,organizational performance\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[41]\u003c/sup\u003e, job quality, and employee job satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[42]\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, Tillman et al.\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[39]\u003c/sup\u003efound, on\u0026nbsp;the basis of\u0026nbsp;affective event theory, that abusive behavior by leaders reduces the level of affective commitment of subordinates, which subsequently reduces employee work well-being.Thus,\u0026nbsp;negative affective commitment has a detrimental effect on employees\u0026apos; emotions and increases their negative workplace behaviors, which in turn reduces the overall level of employees\u0026apos; experience and efficacy in their work situations and ultimately decreases\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;work well-being. In summary, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2\u003c/strong\u003e: Employee affective commitment mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and work well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Mediating Role of Organization-Based Self-Esteem\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelf-esteem is typically defined as an individual\u0026apos;s subjective evaluation of their own value. This evaluation affects not only individual perceptions but also the manner in which individuals process information about their surroundings\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[43]\u003c/sup\u003e. Pierce et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[44]\u003c/sup\u003eproposed the concept of organization-based self-esteem on the basis of an individual\u0026apos;s general self-esteem and defined it as the extent to which individuals in an organization assess their own value and degree of importance. He posits that organization-based self-esteem is highly malleable and typically in an unstable state at the outset of the work period,\u0026nbsp;which is\u0026nbsp;susceptible to external influences. As the work period progresses, the individual\u0026apos;s perception of intrinsic traits and self-worth gradually\u0026nbsp;solidifies, leading to a stabilization of organization-based self-esteem.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe extant literature on the determinants of organization-based self-esteem identifies two primary categories of factors: individual employee characteristics and organizational situational factors. Individual employee factors primarily pertain to the influence of employee experience on the development of organization-based self-esteem. For instance, Lee et al.\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[45]\u003c/sup\u003e demonstrated that the duration of an employee\u0026apos;s tenure has a bearing on their organization-based self-esteem. Among the organizational situational factors, leadership behavior is the most dominant category. The evidence indicates that both high-quality leadership member exchange\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[46]\u003c/sup\u003eand leadership support\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[47]\u003c/sup\u003e have positive\u0026nbsp;effects\u0026nbsp;on employees\u0026apos; organization-based self-esteem.\u0026nbsp;Self-validation theory posits that individuals continuously receive and process external information, interpret it, and then revise their self-concept in light of this information\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[19]\u003c/sup\u003e. Self-validation theory posits that employees\u0026apos; organization-based self-esteem is shaped\u0026nbsp;primarily\u0026nbsp;by the appraisals of significant others within the organization. The quality of these appraisals, whether positive or negative, can exert a considerable influence on employees\u0026apos; organization-based self-esteem\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[20]\u003c/sup\u003e. Exploitative leadership frequently employs tactics of suppression and negative evaluation to exert control over subordinates\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[24]\u003c/sup\u003e. Such negative leadership behaviors are likely to have a detrimental\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on employees\u0026apos; organization-based self-esteem. In conclusion, exploitative leadership has a detrimental\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on the level of organization-based self-esteem exhibited by employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the degree of organization-based self-esteem can exert disparate effects on variables such as employees\u0026apos; emotional states and behaviors. With\u0026nbsp;respect\u0026nbsp;to employee emotions,\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[48]\u003c/sup\u003e found, on the\u0026nbsp;basis\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;the theory of planned behavior, that organization-based self-esteem is positively correlated with employees\u0026apos; work attitudes. Similarly, Gardner et al\u003csup\u003e.\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[49]\u003c/sup\u003e reported\u0026nbsp;that organization-based self-esteem is positively correlated with employees\u0026apos; job satisfaction. In terms of employee behavior, high organization-based self-esteem has been found to increase employees\u0026apos; organizational citizenship behavior\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[50]\u003c/sup\u003e, improve task performance\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[13]\u003c/sup\u003e, and reduce employees\u0026apos; deviant\u0026nbsp;organizational\u0026nbsp;behavior\u003csup\u003e[51]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, a decline in the level of organization-based self-esteem has been observed to result in the development of negative emotions and perceptions about the work environment and people among employees within the organization\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[52]\u003c/sup\u003e. This, in turn, has been linked to a reduction in job satisfaction and work well-being. In light of the aforementioned analysis, it can be concluded that high organization-based self-esteem fosters positive emotions and positive workplace behaviors among employees, whereas low organization-based self-esteem has a detrimental\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on both. The construct of employee work well-being, which\u0026nbsp;comprises\u0026nbsp;positive emotional experience and work effectiveness, is undoubtedly affected by the level of organization-based self-esteem. In summary, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3:\u003c/strong\u003e Organization-based self-esteem mediates the relationship between exploitative leadership and employee work well-being.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1 Research Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employs the format of an online questionnaire survey to ensure that the questionnaire can accurately represent the target population. To this end, the questionnaire includes key control variables, enabling the survey to encompass all grades and working years of enterprise employees. To ensure the authenticity and credibility of the questionnaire, the personal information of the respondents was concealed in the questionnaire design. The introduction to the questionnaire promises to keep the private information of individuals completely confidential. The survey was conducted in three phases, with an interval of two weeks between each phase. Each participant was assigned a number based on the last four digits of their mobile phone number to ensure the consistency of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;data across the three time points. In the initial phase of the study (T1), 568 participants were invited to complete a series of questionnaires assessing their demographic information, exploitative leadership behaviors, and knowledge hiding tendencies. After questionnaires with omissions, patterns of\u0026nbsp;completing\u0026nbsp;the same questionnaire, or all the same answers\u0026nbsp;were eliminated, 467 valid questionnaires were returned. In the second phase of the study (T2), the 467 participants who had completed the initial questionnaire were invited to continue with the hindrance stress scale. A total of 396 valid questionnaires were returned. In the third phase of the study (T3), 396 participants who had completed the valid questionnaires in the second phase were invited to continue\u0026nbsp;completing\u0026nbsp;the superior-subordinate guanxi scale. A total of 355 valid questionnaires were recovered, representing a valid recovery rate of 89.6%. Among the recovered valid questionnaires, 139 males and 216 females\u0026nbsp;were included. The average age was 32.56 years. The largest number of participants were undergraduates (240). The average number of years of work was 4.673 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Variable Measurement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the reliability and validity of the scale measurements, the measurement scales of all\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;variables in this study were adapted from mature scales used in China and abroad. The scales were adapted\u0026nbsp;via\u0026nbsp;Brislin\u0026apos;s\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[53]\u003c/sup\u003ebidirectional translation-back-translation procedure, which ensured that the scales were appropriate for use in the organizational context in China. All scales were scored on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. The specific scale information is presented in the following section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe construct of exploitative leadership was operationalized\u0026nbsp;via\u0026nbsp;the following scale.\u0026nbsp;The construct was measured\u0026nbsp;via\u0026nbsp;the scale developed by Schmid et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[24]\u003c/sup\u003eThe scale comprises a total of 15 items, with the representative item being \u0026quot;using my job for personal gain.\u0026quot; The Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.939, indicating a high level of internal consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAffective Commitment The scale was developed by Gao et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[54]\u003c/sup\u003e and was used to measure this variable. The scale comprises a total of five items, with\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;representative item being \u0026quot;This is a good organization to work for.\u0026quot; The Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.761.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational self-esteem. The scale was developed by Gardner\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[49]\u003c/sup\u003e. The scale comprises a total of eight items, with the representative item being \u0026quot;The unit values me.\u0026quot; The Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.704.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe construct of work well-being. The scale developed by Zheng et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003ewas utilized for its measurement purposes. The scale comprises a total of six items, with the representative item being \u0026quot;My work is very interesting.\u0026quot; The Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha coefficient for this scale was 0.761.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eControl Variables.\u0026nbsp;The control variables in this paper were determined with reference to the study of Bernerth et al.\u003csup\u003e[55]\u003c/sup\u003e. Initially, this study specifies the personal information of the test takers, including age, gender, and education level. To ensure the validity of the measurement and to facilitate the ability to obtain reliable information from different levels, this study included question items concerning employees\u0026rsquo; years of experience and position level.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Common method variance test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven that this study employed the questionnaire method and that all\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;data were derived from employees\u0026apos; self-judgment, it is possible that common method variance may be present in the data. To ascertain whether there is notable common method variance in the data, this study employed the Harman one-factor test and the method of controlling for unmeasured one-way latent variables\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e[56]\u003c/sup\u003e. First, the Harman one-factor method was employed for the analysis of the data. This was achieved by loading the variable question items onto a common variable and then restricting the analysis to the unrotated factors. The results of the principal component analysis indicated the presence of eight factors, with the first factor accounting for 33.052% of the variance, which is below the critical value of 40%. This suggests that the common method variance in the data is not a significant concern.\u0026nbsp;Second, the latent variable method was employed for further validation purposes. This was accomplished by constructing Model I, which contains the common latent factors, and Model II, which represents the control group without them. The\u0026nbsp;degrees\u0026nbsp;of change in the key indices in the experimental results of the two groups\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;then compared. The results demonstrate that the fit of the original model did not change significantly after the addition of common latent variables, as evidenced by the following changes:\u0026nbsp;\u0026Delta;RMSEA=0.046,\u0026nbsp;\u0026Delta;CFI=0.061,\u0026nbsp;\u0026Delta;IFI=0.059, and\u0026nbsp;\u0026Delta;TLI=0.071. These changes are less than 0.1, indicating that the model remains adequately fit. This further supports the conclusion that there is no significant common method variance in the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst,\u0026nbsp;to ensure that the data exhibit good discriminant validity, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on exploitative leadership, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and employee happiness. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1, which shows that the four-factor model has the best fit (RMSEA=0.046, CFI=0.950, IFI=0.950, TLI=0.941). In contrast, the one-factor model has the worst fit, and all of the indices are less than\u0026nbsp;0.8. These results indicate that the four-factor model is the most appropriate for data analysis and that the selected variables are distinct and exhibit significant discriminant validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1 Results of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003econfirmatory factor analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"562\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModels\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edf\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e/df\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRMSEA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCFI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIFI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTLI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFour-factor(full model)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e644.666\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e369.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.747\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.950\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.950\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.941\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThree-factor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1164.269\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e402.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.896\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.862\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.850\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTwo-factor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1522.230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e404.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.768\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.088\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.796\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.797\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.780\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOne-factor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1566.604\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e405.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.868\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.772\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, to further test the suitability of the data for further regression analysis, descriptive and correlation analyses were performed on the data in this study. The means and standard deviations of all the variables under investigation, along with the correlations between these variables, are presented in Table 2. As evidenced in Table 2, exploitative leadership is significantly and negatively correlated with employee happiness (\u0026beta;=-0.692, p\u0026lt;0.01) and significantly and negatively correlated with employee affective commitment (\u0026beta;=-0.519, p\u0026lt;0.01) and organization-based self-esteem (\u0026beta;=-0.682, p\u0026lt;0.01). Furthermore, employee happiness was significantly and positively correlated with employee affective commitment (\u0026beta;=0.742, p\u0026lt;0.01) and organization-based self-esteem (\u0026beta;=0.743, p\u0026lt;0.01). This finding indicates that there is a significant correlation between all the variables and preliminary compliance with the expected hypothesis, which is suitable for further regression analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2 Results of descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"681\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.088\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.268**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTenure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.098\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.711**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.109*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTWS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.116*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.542**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.698**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSector\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.176**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.137**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.167**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.239**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.276**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.221**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.113*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.083\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.123*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.519**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.107*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.272**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.174**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.229**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.180**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.682**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.655**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWWB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.079\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.211**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.134*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.198**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.180**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.692**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.742**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.743**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.609\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.175\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.186\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.676\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.876\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.330\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.899\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.352\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.489\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.715\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.582\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.909\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.732\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.684\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.436\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.502\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote:\u0026nbsp;* indicates p\u0026lt;0.05; ** indicates p\u0026lt;0.01; N=355\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.4 Hypothesis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003etesting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo\u0026nbsp;test the validity of the aforementioned hypotheses, this study employs hierarchical regression to assess the impact of exploitative leadership, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and employee well-being. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3, wherein Model 1 serves as the baseline model for controlling the variables. Table 3, Model 2, illustrates the impact of exploitative leadership on employee well-being. Models 3 and 4 demonstrate the influence of exploitative leadership, employee affective commitment, and organization-based self-esteem on employee well-being, respectively. Finally, Models 5 and 6 illustrate the\u0026nbsp;effects\u0026nbsp;of exploitative leadership on employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem, respectively. As evidenced in Table 3, Model 2 reveals a notable negative correlation between exploitative leadership and employee happiness (\u0026beta; = -0.675, p \u0026lt; 0.01), substantiating the validity of Hypothesis 1. In Models 5 and 6, exploitative leadership has a significant negative\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem (\u0026beta;1 = -0.534, p \u0026lt; 0.01; \u0026beta;2 = -0.639, p \u0026lt; 0.01). In Models 3 and 4, affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem\u0026nbsp;significantly positively\u0026nbsp;influence the happiness of employees who are related to them (\u0026beta;1=0.523, p\u0026lt;0.01; \u0026beta;2=0.420, p\u0026lt;0.01). The aforementioned results indicate that exploitative leadership has a detrimental\u0026nbsp;effect\u0026nbsp;on employees\u0026apos; affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. Conversely, employees\u0026apos; affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem have beneficial\u0026nbsp;effects\u0026nbsp;on their well-being. The mediating effect is thus established, and hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, to further validate the aforementioned analysis, this study employed the SPSS macro program PROCESS for hypothesis testing, and the test results are presented in Table 4. As evidenced in Table 4, exploitative leadership\u0026nbsp;has\u0026nbsp;a direct negative influence on employee happiness (\u0026beta;=-0.494, p\u0026lt;0.01),\u0026nbsp;with\u0026nbsp;a significant negative correlation at the 95% confidence interval (-0.271, -0.153). This substantiates the veracity of Hypothesis 1. In the mediation effect process, the path\u0026nbsp;through which\u0026nbsp;exploitative leadership\u0026nbsp;affects\u0026nbsp;employee happiness through affective commitment does not include 0 in the 95% confidence interval (-0.243,\u0026nbsp;0.097), thereby establishing the mediation effect and supporting\u0026nbsp;Hypothesis\u0026nbsp;2. The path of exploitative leadership affecting employee happiness through organization-based self-esteem also did not yield a result of 0 in the 95% confidence interval (-0.184, -0.059), and the mediation effect was found to be significant, thereby verifying Hypothesis 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWWB\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.346\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.075\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.205\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.088\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.186\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTenure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTWS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.183\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.057\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSector\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEL\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.675**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.395**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.289**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.534**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.639**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.523**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.420**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.252**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.493\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.691\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.524\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.706\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.6495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 11.3402%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.910**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.4639%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.144**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.882**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.3711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.427**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.807**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.4021%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.258**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote:\u0026nbsp;* indicates p\u0026lt;0.05; ** indicates p\u0026lt;0.01; N=355\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4 PROCESS mediation effect test results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"538\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eName\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eintermediary variable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLLCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eULCI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; -\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.494\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-16.254\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.554\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.435\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.050\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.271\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.153\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.243\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntermediate effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOBSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: * indicates p\u0026lt;0.05; ** indicates p\u0026lt;0.01; N=355\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Research Conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being. It constructed and validated a dual-mediation model of exploitative leadership and employees' work well-being from the perspectives of social exchange theory and self-validation theory. Additionally, it explored the mediating roles of employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem in the relationship between exploitative leadership and work well-being. The findings of the study indicate that exploitative leadership has a direct negative effect on employees' work well-being. Additionally, the results demonstrate that exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being by influencing their affective commitment, with affective commitment acting as a mediator between the two. Furthermore, the findings suggest that exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being by affecting their organization-based self-esteem, with organization-based self-esteem serving as a mediator between the two. Third, exploitative leaders can affect employees' job happiness by influencing their organizational self-esteem, which in turn mediates the relationship between the two.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Theoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, by examining the impact of exploitative leadership on work well-being, this paper contributes to the existing research on the outcome variables of exploitative leadership and the factors affecting affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, and work well-being. First, in the extant literature, research on the influencing factors of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem predominantly concentrates on positive leadership. For example, Long et al. \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e concluded that transformational leadership has a significant positive correlation with employees' affective commitment, whereas Yang et al. \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that leadership support positively affects employees' organization-based self-esteem. This paper demonstrates that exploitative leadership can have a detrimental effect on employees' affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of exploitative leadership and the factors influencing affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. Second, research on the influence of organisational factors on work well-being hasfocused predominantly on positive leadership behaviors. For example, Berger et al.\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that transformational leadership has a positive effect on work well-being, whereas Montano et al.\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e reported that relational and task-based leadership are significantly and positively correlated with employees' work well-being. Despite the prevalence of negative leadership behaviors in the contemporary workplace and their deleterious impact on organizational development,research examining the relationship between negative leadership behaviors and work well-being is scarce. By investigating the influence of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being, this study, to some extent, addresses the gap in understanding the impact of negative leadership behaviors on work well-being. Additionally, it contributes to the growing body of research on the outcomes of exploitative leadership.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, this paper employs social exchange theory and self-validation theory to construct a dual-mediation model of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem. This model demonstrates the mediating role of affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem between exploitative leadership and employee happiness. The fundamental premise of social exchange theory is that of equal reciprocity \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This paper employs exploitative leadership as the catalyst for negative reciprocal behaviors and investigates the influence of negative leadership conduct on employees' affective commitment. Self-validation theory \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003eposits that individuals integrate information from their surroundings to form their self-concept. Similarly, this paper treats exploitative leadership as a source of negative information for organizational employees and explores the impact of exploitative leadership's suppressive behaviors on employees' organization-based self-esteem. In light of the aforementioned theories, this study endeavors to elucidate the internal mechanism through which exploitative leadership affects employees' work well-being. This endeavor serves to expand the boundaries of the application of the theory and enrich the value of the theory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Practical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study have implications for managers in organizations, as outlined below:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst and foremost, it is imperative that organizations maintain a vigilant watch of exploitative behavior exhibited by leaders in the workplace to forestall any adverse consequences. This paper finds that exploitative leadership is a common and destructive behavior in the modern workplace. It can have a significant effect on the psychological state and work efficiency of employees, which in turn can negatively affect the organization's creativity, innovation, and performance. Consequently,to circumvent exploitative leadership from becoming a more destructive force in the process of organizational operation, the following measures should be implemented: first, the organization should conduct regular training for managers to instill the appropriate values; second, the organization should reinforce the feedback channels. It is recommended that organizations implement a system of comprehensive supervision to mitigate the impact of exploitative leadership. This system should be designed to monitor employee communication channels and identify instances of exploitative leadership. Once identified, the organization should take immediate action to eliminate the influence of such behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the organization must prioritize the well-being of its employees and establish a profound and pervasive understanding of the concept of a \"happy enterprise.\" This paper finds that the well-being of employees is highly dependent on the development of an organization and is susceptible to a multitude of influences. The well-being of employees can facilitate the improvement of organizational citizenship behavior, enhance employee motivation, and improve corporate performance. Nevertheless, negative leadership behaviors have the potential to significantly impact employee work well-being, which in turn can have a detrimental effect on organizational development. Consequently, to enhance employees' work well-being, organisations should implement the following measures: first, they should prioritize and safeguard employees' rights and interests, establish corporate values with employees' work well-being at their core, and view employees' work well-being as a long-term organisational objective. Second, they should consistently monitor the psychological state and emotional fluctuations of employees and provide constructive feedback to facilitate positive emotional development. To facilitate the long-term well-being of employees, it is essential to consider the impact of work well-being on organizational performance. Negative factors, such as negative leadership behavior and unreasonable rules, should be identified and addressed to ensure a healthy and productive work environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Research limitations and future perspectives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this study offers a novel perspective on the study of work well-being, it is not without limitations. First, the data for the variable measurements were obtained from the subjective responses of the test subjects. While the results of the data analysis were validated, the actual situation may be biased as a result. Second, this study did not consider the modifiable nature of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator variable. This can also be used as a personality trait that can produce opposite results for different encounters, depending on the degree. This was not reflected in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploitative leadership represents a particularly complex and destructive form of leadership, manifesting in a range of ways in the workplace and causing psychological and work-related distress to subordinates. A substantial body of research has been conducted on the effects of exploitative leadership in both domestic and international contexts. However, few studies have explored the formation mechanisms of exploitative leadership. Future research on exploitative leadership should commence with an investigation of its antecedent variables, with the objective of elucidating the formation mechanism of exploitative leadership. This approach would facilitate the control of the widespread exploitative leadership behavior at its source. Since its introduction, the concept of employee work well-being has attracted considerable attention. However, research on work well-being in the literature hasfocused primarily on positive leadership behaviors at the organisational level, such as transformational leadership and responsible leadership. Consequently, there is a paucity of research on negative leadership behaviors. Therefore, future research on employee work well-being should consider this aspect to address the existing gaps in the relevant research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbbreviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExploitative leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAffective Commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOBSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization-based Self-esteem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork Well-being\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at College of Business Administration, Anhui University of Finance and Economics. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards with written informed consent from all subjects. Besides, consent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot-applicable. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo source of funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZhiyong Han designed the study and provided conceptual guidance; Yingjie Peng conducted the literature review, analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the first draft, and reviewed the manuscript with Zhiyong Han.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., \u0026amp; Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well‐being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross‐cultural validation[J].Erratum. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5):645\u0026ndash;647.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4):701\u0026ndash;716.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., \u0026amp; Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work\u0026ndash;family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations [J]. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2):151\u0026ndash;169.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGanster, D. C., \u0026amp; Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review[J]. Journal of Management, 39(5):1085\u0026ndash;1122.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., \u0026amp; Trougakos, J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635\u0026ndash;1654.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBerger R, Czakert J P, Leuteritz J P, et al.(2019). How and when do leaders influence employees well-being? Moderated mediation models for job demands and resources[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 2788.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMontano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., \u0026amp; H\u0026uuml;ffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership, followers\u0026apos; mental health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta‐analysis from an occupational health perspective[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3): 327\u0026ndash;350.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang XingGui,Peng Jian,Dai Xueming,.et al.(2024).\u0026nbsp;A Bibliometric Research and Integrative Model of Employee Well-Being[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 21(03):464-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWu, L.-Z., Sun, Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., \u0026amp; Yang, M. (2021). The impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employees\u0026rsquo; service performance: A social exchange perspective[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 102954\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMajeed M, Fatima T.(2020) .Impact of exploitative leader ship on psychological distress: A study of nurses[J]. Jour nal of Nursing Management, 28(7): 1713-1724.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang Yongjun,Sun Yadi,Liu Zhiqiang.(2022).The Mechanism of Exploitative Leadership on Employees\u0026rsquo;Compulsory Citizenship Behavior [J].\u0026nbsp;Chinese Journal of Management, 19(04):525-533.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeng Jian,Zhang Xinggui,Xie Bin.(2023).\u0026nbsp;Will Exploitative Leadership Reduce Employee Job Wellbeing? An Explanation from the JobDemands-Resources Model [J].\u0026nbsp;Foreign Economics \u0026amp; Management ,45(09):119-134\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, Z. X., \u0026amp; Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1):226\u0026ndash;238.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEissa, G., Chinchanachokchai, S. and Wyland, R. (2017).The influence of supervisor undermining on self-esteem, creativity, and overall job performance: a multiple mediation model.Organization Management Journal[J], 14(11): 185-197.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDabos，G. E. \u0026amp; Rousseau，D. M..(2004).Mutuality and Reciprocity in the Psychological Contracts of Employees and Employers[J].Journal of Applied Psychology,89(1): 52-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBateman,T.S＆Strasser,S.(1984).A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment［J］．Academy of Management Journal, (1):95 112．\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhu Zheng,Chen Xingwen,Liu Jun,.et al.(2022).\u0026nbsp;The Effect of Leader Gratitude Expression on Employee Turnover Intention: An Agentic and Communal Perspective[J].\u0026nbsp;Nankai Business Review ,25(02):80-89.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKorman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior[J].Journal of Applied Psychology, 54:31\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePark, J., \u0026amp; Kim, H. J. (2020). Customer mistreatment and service performance: A self-consistency perspective[J]. International \u0026nbsp;Journal of Hospitality Management, 86:285\u0026ndash;299.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQu Rujie,Wang Lin,Shang jie\u0026amp;Shi Kan.(2015).\u0026nbsp;Abusive Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Effect of Employee Self-concept[J].\u0026nbsp;Management Review,27(08):90-101.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim Jungsun,Milliman John,Lucas Anthony F.(2021).Effects of CSR on affective organizational \u0026nbsp;commitment via organizational justice and organization-based self-esteem[J].International Journal of Hospitality Management ,92.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBellou, V., Chitiris, L., \u0026amp; Bellou, A. (2005).\u0026nbsp;The impact of organizational identification and self-esteem on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The case of Greek public hospitals. Operational Research, 5(2):305\u0026ndash;318.\u0026nbsp;doi:10.1007/bf02944315\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer A., \u0026amp; Peus, C. V. (2019). Shedding light on leaders\u0026apos; self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership[J]. Journal of Management,45(4):1401-1433\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiener E.,Suh E.M.,Lucas R.E.,et al.(1999).Subjective well-being:three decades of progress.[J].Psychological Bulletin,125(2):276-302\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRyff C.(1995) .The structure of psychological well-being revisted [J]. J Per Soc Psychol, 69(4):719-727\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePage, K. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A..(2009) .The\u0026ldquo;What\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Why\u0026rdquo;and\u0026ldquo;How\u0026rdquo; of Employee Well-being: A New Model[J]. Social Indicators Research, 90(3): 441-458\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., Price, R. H.. Happiness, Health, or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well-being Tradeoffs[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2007, 21(3): 51-63.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeccei, R., \u0026amp; Van de Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management\u0026ndash;well‐being\u0026ndash;performance research revisited: Past, present, and future[J]. Human Resource Management Journal.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSyed F, Naseer S, Akhtar M W, et al. Frogs in boil ing water: a moderated-mediation model of exploitative leadership, fear of negative evaluation and knowledge hiding behaviors[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021,25(8):2067\u0026ndash;2087.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBajaba S, Bajaba A, Fuller B.(2022).Enduring exploitative leaders at work: the buffering role of proactive personali ty on employee job strain[J]. Organization Management Journal, 19(2): 60-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeyer J P, Allen N J.(1991) .A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment[J]. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1): 61-89.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment: An Integrative Literature Review[J]. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4):389-414.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJafri, M.H. (2010). Organizational Commitment and Employee\u0026apos;s Innovative Behavior: A Study in Retail Sector[J]. Journal of Management and Research, 10:62-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., \u0026amp; Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences[J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1):20\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePaul H.,Budhwar P.,Bamel U.(2019).Linking resilience and organizational commitment:does happiness matter?[J].Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 7(1):21-37 .\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHui Meng,Yang Luo,Lu Huang, et al.(2019).On the relationships of resilience with organizational commitment and burnout:a social exchange perspective[J].International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(15):2231-2250\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLong, S., Yong, L., \u0026amp; Chuen, T. (2016). Analysis of the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Affective Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Management[J].Accounting and Economics, 3:572-598.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTillman, C. J., Gonzalez, K., Crawford, W. S., and Lawrence, E. R.(2018) .Affective responses to abuse in \u0026nbsp;the workplace: The role of hope and affective commitment[J]. International Journal of Selection and \u0026nbsp;Assessment, 26(1): 57-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaque, A., Fernando, M., \u0026amp; Caputi, P. (2019). The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions: An empirical study with Australian employees[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3): 759\u0026ndash;774.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRibeiro, Neuza \u0026amp; Gomes, Daniel \u0026amp; Kurian, Shaji. (2018). Authentic leadership and performance: The mediating role of employees\u0026apos; affective commitment[J]. Social Responsibility Journal. 14:213-225. 10.1108/SRJ-06-2017-0111.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSung Min Park, \u0026amp; Rainey, H. G. (2007). Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies[J]. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3):197-226.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePierce, J. L., \u0026amp; Gardner, D. G. (2009). Relationships of personality and job characteristics with organization-based self-esteem[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(5):392\u0026ndash;409\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., \u0026amp; Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, operationalization, and validation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 32:622-648.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee J.An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in two Korean banks[J]. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,2003,14(6):1046-1066\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLu, X., \u0026amp; Sun, J.-M. (James). (2017). Multiple pathways linking leader-member exchange to work effort[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(4):270\u0026ndash;283.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, Z., Zhang, H., Kwan, H.K. et al(2018). Crossover Effects of Servant Leadership and Job Social Support on Employee Spouses: The Mediating Role of Employee Organization-Based Self-Esteem[J]. J Bus Ethics 147:595\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2943-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHsu, M.H., \u0026amp; Kuo, F. (2003). The Effect of Organization-Based Self-Esteem and Deindividuation in Protecting Personal Information Privacy[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 42:305-320.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGardner, D. G., \u0026amp; Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context.\u0026nbsp;Group \u0026amp; Organization Management, 23(1), 48\u0026ndash;70.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMayer, B. W., Fraccastoro, K. A., \u0026amp; McNary, L. D. (2007). The Relationship Among Organizational-Based Self-Esteem and Various Factors Motivating Volunteers[J]. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2):327-340.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFerris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., \u0026amp; Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal Injustice and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Esteem Threat[J]. Journal of Management, 38(6):1788-1811.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGardner, D.G., \u0026amp; Pierce, J.L. (2013). Focus of attention at work and organization‐based self‐esteem[J]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28:110-132.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185\u0026minus; 216.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGao-Urhahn X, Biemann T\u0026amp; Jaros S J. How affective commitment to the organization changes over time: a longitudinal analysis of the reciprocal relationships between affective organizational commitment and income[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2016,1(2):203-207\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBernerth, J. B., \u0026amp; Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best‐practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229\u0026ndash;283.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHongxing Xiong,Jing Zhang,Baojuan Ye.et.al.(2012). Common Method Variance Effects and the Models of Statistical Approaches for Controlling It[J]. Advances in Psychological Science,20(05):757-769 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"exploitative leadership, affective commitment, organization-based self-esteem, work well-being","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs time progresses and self-awareness improves, the importance of employee work well-being has increasingly been recognized. However, research on the factors influencing this phenomenon remains limited, particularly with respect to inhibitory factors. This study obtained data from 355 employees in Chinese enterprises through the administration of a questionnaire survey. A dual-mediation model was constructed to explore the effects of exploitative leadership on employees' work well-being from the perspectives of self-validation theory and social exchange theory. The findings indicate that exploitative leadership has a detrimental effect on employees' work well-being. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that employee affective commitment and organization-based self-esteem serve as mediators in the relationship between exploitative leadership and employees' work well-being. This study effectively supplements the research on exploitative leadership and work well-being, expands the scope of application of self-validation theory and social exchange theory, and provides crucial insights for managers seeking to increase employees' work well-being and improve organizational performance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Double Shadow of Exploitative Leadership: The Lost Path of Affective Commitment and Organization-Based Self-Esteem","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-11-11 12:58:12","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5353058/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8a7597e8-6839-4437-bb08-b49af21c07de","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-03T09:39:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-11-11 12:58:12","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5353058","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5353058","identity":"rs-5353058","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}