Analysing the Impact of Benevolent Leadership on Employee Voice and Workplace Deviant Behaviours through the Lens of Psychological Safety

Analysing the Impact of Benevolent Leadership on Employee Voice and Workplace Deviant Behaviours through the Lens of Psychological Safety | 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 Analysing the Impact of Benevolent Leadership on Employee Voice and Workplace Deviant Behaviours through the Lens of Psychological Safety Deepika Pandita, Himani Choudhary, Anusuya Yadav This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/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 The study investigates the role of benevolent leadership (BL) in fostering employee voice (EV) in a psychologically safe environment, which helps the organisation mitigate workplace deviant behaviour (WDB) of employees. The study uses a theoretical framework to investigate the relationship between BL, psychological safety (PS), EV, and WDB. The study uses an interpretivist approach to explore how BL influences workplace dynamics. 40 employees from various sectors were interviewed. Further, thematic analysis was used to analyse data. The authors have proposed a model in the study that can be utilised in management development programmes to foster BL and abridge employees' deviant behaviour in the workplace. This research has substantial implications for practitioners as well as academics. Practitioners can use the qualitative study and theoretical model to develop training programmes emphasising BL and creating a safe environment to motivate employees to express their opinions and concerns, thus reducing employees' deviant behaviour. The authors have proposed a benevolent leadership model that provides insights for organisational managers and HR leaders in fostering PS and facilitating EV through BL. In alignment with the proposed model, benevolent leaders can encourage trust, transparent communication, and collaboration among employees by prioritising employees' PS. Benevolent leadership employee voice psychological safety workplace deviant behaviour Figures Figure 1 Introduction In the present-day organisational context, the increasing incidence of deviant actions by employees creates substantial challenges as such behaviours contravene organisational norms and negatively impact the organisation's reputation. Such behaviours of employees usually begin with minor acts of non-compliance and can escalate into severe acts of sabotage. Instances like this hamper productivity and deteriorate the overall workplace environment. The role of leaders and their leadership becomes crucial to creating a positive and harmonious work environment (Dadaboyev & Baek, 2022 ; Pless et al., 2021 ). This study investigates the effectiveness of benevolent leadership in reducing deviant behaviours in the workplace, focusing on the crucial roles of EV and PS. Organisations endure significant expenses due to deviant behaviour, including financial losses, low staff morale, and destroyed reputations. Considering today's competitive corporate environment, addressing these concerns is critical to ensuring operational efficiency and employee satisfaction. Benevolent leaders can effectively lower the prevalence of deviant behaviour by creating a respectful and encouraging work atmosphere. These leaders encourage employees to speak up and express their concerns, which helps reduce negative workplace behaviours. Benevolent leaders are kind, empathetic, and compassionate to the people under their leadership. They strongly influence organisational culture and employee conduct, emphasising their employees’ well-being and their organisation’s growth (Karakas et al., 2013 ). This leadership style is defined by empathy and compassion for employee well-being beyond simply focusing on work and targets. Today's work environment places more importance on empowerment and inclusivity. Therefore, BL contributes to making a favourable work environment. Benevolent leaders contribute to the success of their organisation as they are considerate of their employees and motivated to work towards their goals following an ethical approach (Huang, 2022 ). Despite sufficient research on the concept and understanding that benevolent leadership can influence workplace behaviour, there is a noticeable gap in the existing literature on how the prevalence of EV and PS can influence deviant workplace behaviour. Employee Voice (EV) is how employees express their views and suggestions to their managers. EV is essential in building trust, innovation, productivity, problem-solving and organisational improvement. The feeling of empowerment that employees experience by openly sharing their thoughts leads to improved decision-making and problem-solving capabilities. This expression of EV depends upon one factor in the organisation, which is psychological safety (PS). PS is the collective belief held by the employees in the organisation that they may freely take risks to share their thoughts and apprehensions without fearing adverse consequences on self-confidence, status and profession (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016 ; Nazir et al., 2021 ). In the present study, the social exchange theory and input-process-output theory provide a deeper understanding of how benevolent leadership practices impact employees' behaviour and experiences. The present research contributes to the reservoir of knowledge and addresses the theoretical gap by integrating these ideas and investigating their combined influence on workplace deviant behaviour. Although frequent changes in the workplace and increasing expectations may be challenging for some, leaders need to recognise that employees may struggle due to these changes. When dealing with a toxic leader, employees in the organisation typically respond with negative responses rather than favourable ones (Amoadu & Akoto-Buabeng, 2025 ; Sabino et al., 2024 ). Therefore, the need to listen to and understand employees arises. In this study, the authors have collected data through semi-structured interviews. Using a qualitative analysis, the authors aim to make a meaningful contribution to the theory of social exchange theory and input-process-output theory by including the challenges and the essential role the leaders have in effectively decreasing deviant behaviour by giving their employees a platform to express their grievances and concerns without fear. This kind of workplace promotes a pleasant workplace and enhances organisational performance. Through a rigorous examination of these dynamics, this study can guide organisations in determining how to improve organisational success and employee well-being. Literature Review Benevolent Leadership Great leaders are essential for an organisation to achieve its goals and objectives. Leaders guide and motivate their employees to enhance the performance of teams and the organisation. They genuinely care about their employees and understand the emotions and aspirations of their team members. One such leader is the benevolent leader. Benevolent leadership (BL) has drawn attention as a leadership approach that strongly emphasises the well-being of followers and the greater good of an organisation. Confucianism is the foundation of BL, which accentuates the value of the leader's moral character, ethical conduct, and kindness towards others. The ideal leader in Confucianism is a moral exemplar who cultivates a harmonious and virtuous community by setting a good example for their followers to follow (Alatf & Anjum, 2018 ). Leaders exemplifying the characteristics of benevolent leadership, like empathy and care towards their employees, always give precedence to the needs of their team members and establish an environment of inclusivity in the organisation. Consequently, benevolent leaders create an atmosphere where employees perceive themselves as appreciated (Niu et al., 2009 ). Benevolent leaders encourage and initiate constructive modification in organisations through conscientious and virtuous decision-making, nurturing motivation for achievement and growth, and positively impacting the employees. Humility, empathy, kindness, and ethical leadership practices define benevolent leaders. They improve morale and productivity in the workplace and inspire loyalty, dedication, and teamwork in their subordinates (Karakas & Sarigollu, 2012 ). Positive associations between BL and various outcomes have been identified in people's and organisations' research done in the past. Researchers have found a correlation between leaders who care about their employees' well-being and increased levels of job satisfaction, organisational loyalty, productivity, and health. Higher organisational citizenship behaviour, social responsibility, and organisational performance have all been linked to BL at the managerial level. BL highlights the leader's compassion for the welfare of their subordinates and for the overall success of the business (Alatf & Anjum, 2018 ; Wang & Cheng, 2010 ). Psychological Safety Psychological safety (PS) is the feeling by workers that taking interpersonal risks will not lead to embarrassment or shame. Employees can overcome anxiety and awkwardness by sharing new experiences or ideas and focusing on achieving goals (Edmondson & Lei, 2014 ). PS in the organisation will make the employees feel more engaged and motivated because they feel that their efforts matter at work. They can express their opinions without fearing retribution (Frazier & Tupper, 2018 ; Sharma & Sharma, 2024 ). PS leads to better decision-making as different perspectives of employees are heard and given importance (Barkhi & Kao, 2011 ). Employees working in a psychologically safe environment foster a collaborative work environment. They direct their efforts towards problem-solving, seeking input from others, attentively listening to colleagues' ideas, demonstrating kindness and respect even in disagreement, and offering feedback in a considerate manner. Organisations can train leaders and managers on fostering PS, examining hierarchical structures that hinder communication, and emphasising a zero-tolerance policy against an employee deliberately undermining the efforts of another employee (Anh et al., 2025 ; Carmeli & Gittell, 2009 ). Benevolent leaders prioritise establishing trusting relationships with their team members. Benevolent leaders earn the confidence and trust of their employees as their actions are characterised by integrity, honesty, and dependability. Employees feel reassured when they share their thoughts, ideas, and concerns, knowing their leader is genuinely concerned about them (Li & Li, 2021 ). Benevolent leaders demonstrate sincere empathy and understanding towards the needs and difficulties of their employees. Benevolent leaders provide support to their employees and thus create an environment where employees, under the guidance of such leaders, feel valued and encouraged. This approach of leading fosters the feeling of PS, where employees can seek assistance without fear of repercussions (Shen et al., 2023 ). Benevolent leaders encourage transparent and honest communication. These leaders actively listen to the needs and viewpoints of their employees and invite diverse perspectives. The culture of open communication within the organisation fosters PS (X. Chen et al., 2021 ). Benevolent leaders acknowledge and appreciate the contributions made by their employees. They celebrate successes and offer constructive feedback. This acknowledgement fosters an encouraging work setting where employees feel valued and affirmed, bolstering their PS (Rui & Xinqi, 2020 ). Employee Voice Employee Voice is how employees express their opinions to managers and impact matters that distress them. EV leads to increased job satisfaction, feeling valued and better development opportunities, which creates an impression of ownership among employees. EV promotes honest communication and transparency within an organisation as it encourages the workforce to express issues and suggestions for improvement (Tedone & Bruk-Lee, 2022 ). When employees feel unheard, they comply without challenging or giving suggestions because they believe no action will be taken. It gives rise to poor organisational culture and dissatisfied employees. An organisation encouraging EV improves employee satisfaction and retention (Alang et al., 2022 ; Azevedo et al., 2020 ). Employees with higher PS communicate openly and transparently (Adair et al., 2022 ). Employees perceiving their workplace as psychologically safe were further inclined to express their opinions and contribute to organisational enhancements (Bentley et al., 2023 ; Kim et al., 2020 ). Teams with elevated PS levels were more prone to brainstorming and risk-taking, resulting in increased innovation. PS emphasises promoting EV, such as employees presenting new ideas in meetings and delivering constructive feedback (Harvey et al., 2019 ; Loch, 2017 ). Workplace Deviance Behaviour Workplace Deviance Behaviour ( WDB) is voluntary behaviour that violates the organisation's significant values and ethics and impends organisational welfare. Workplace deviance refers to intentional and immoral attempts by employees to cause problems in their organisation. Workplace deviance is divided into two categories: interpersonal deviance, which is destroying relationships through gossip, lying, and blaming another person, and organisational deviance, delay or theft of equipment (Narayanan & Murphy, 2017 ). In this paper, the authors are considering both types of WDB. Stealing, deception, disruption, leaking vital statistics, and disrespect towards seniors and teammates are alleged to increase in the Indian workplace (Pradhan et al., 2014 ). Many organisations perceive employee silence as a form of workplace deviance. The silence, intentionally aimed to harm the organisation, may be considered deviant (Khan et al., 2022 ; Ölçer & Coşkun, 2024 ). Therefore, it is essential to contemplate the reasons behind the silence and whether the issue is malevolent. Theoretical Framework The social exchange theory (SET) propounded by Homans ( 1958 ) explains the dynamics of PS and EV. This theory describes social interactions in the organisation as a mutually beneficial transfer of resources, such as confidence and admiration, among individuals and their surroundings (Cropanzano et al., 2017 ). Employees will engage in voice behaviour when they feel psychologically safe, perceive it as a positive exchange of resources, and think that their suggestions can benefit the organisation. It creates a sense of belongingness within the organisation. Employees in an organisation lacking PS may withhold their voice because they fear being criticised or punished. This unwillingness to voice their opinions and ideas can hinder organisational effectiveness by depriving significant innovation and creativity (Morrison, 2014 ). The literature offers substantial evidence supporting the notion that PS fosters EV. Organisations prioritising the establishment of psychologically safe environments are more likely to experience heightened employee involvement, innovation, and efficiency. Various studies have explored the significance of PS in organisational environments. PS is the belief by the employees that they will not be punished or humiliated for expressing themselves. PS is often misunderstood and is even undervalued in the workplace. Leaders are essential in creating a supportive and inclusive environment where employees feel secure to voice their opinions. Leaders who demonstrate active listening, empathy, and openness to feedback contribute to PS and foster EV (Deng et al., 2019 ; Frazier et al., 2017 ). When leaders cultivate a psychologically safe environment, employees feel supported and motivated, leading to productive organisations (Kim et al., 2020 ). The mediating role of PS can be explained through the traditional input-process-output (IPO) framework (McGrath, 1964 ). Benevolent leaders (input) significantly contribute to creating PS (process) in the workplace. Under the leadership of such Benevolent leaders, employees are respected and supported for their views and opinions. Thus, employees are encouraged to voice their ideas and contribute to the important discussion (output) related to the organisation's growth (Hackman, 1987 ). Benevolent leaders lead with a different strategy that incorporates the elements of both transformational and transactional leadership. Benevolent leaders prioritise the welfare and growth of their employees while also setting clear expectations regarding ethical behaviour and decision-making. This leadership style cultivates trust, loyalty, and a feeling of belonging among employees, reducing the risk of deviant behaviour (Karakas et al., 2013 ). Employees working under benevolent leaders are less inclined to participate in counterproductive work behaviours, such as absenteeism, sabotage, and theft. Benevolent leaders make their decisions ethically, inspire the team as a whole and ensure the well-being of their employees. Research suggests that BL facilitates the development of an optimistic organisational ethos where employees feel content with their work environment. Benevolent leaders are accommodating and encourage their employees to balance their professional and personal lives, as they understand that every employee has a life outside of work. In such situations, employees are more inclined to obey organisational norms and values, reducing deviant behaviour (Tan et al., 2016 ). In understanding the dynamics of EV and WDB, the social exchange theory suggests that employees give their opinions when they feel valued and respected. When employees give their best and provide valuable insights and innovative ideas to the organisation, they expect respect and support. However, when employees believe that their organisation is unsupportive of their contribution and are not allowed to voice their concerns, it can lead to deviant behaviour (Jung & Yoon, 2019 ). The present study will explore how benevolent leaders can discourage employees from engaging in deviant behaviour by creating a psychologically safe environment and ensuring that employees ' views at the workplace are respected. Organisations that support EV observe it as a proactive approach to problem-solving, detecting and resolving potential problems before they escalate into deviant behaviours. In light of the literature review and theoretical underpinnings, the study aims to investigate the research questions as follows: How does benevolent leadership influence the willingness of employees to voice their opinions in the workplace? How does the PS of the employees in the organisation mediate the relationship between benevolent leadership and EV? How does benevolent leadership affect workplace deviant behaviour among employees? How does the EV influence the occurrence of workplace deviant behaviours? Research Methodology Research Design This study employs a qualitative research approach based on interpretivist epistemology. Interpretivism holds that reality is socially produced and understood through the meanings and experiences of humans. This perspective is particularly well-suited to investigating complex constructs such as benevolent leadership, EV, PS, and workplace deviant behaviours because it thoroughly explains how employees experience and interpret these phenomena. The primary approach to data collection was semi-structured interviews. This method allows for a comprehensive investigation of participants' experiences and views. It provides for open-ended questions and follow-up enquiries to capture the intricate details of the studied constructs. The semi-structured method also allows for investigating emerging topics that may arise during the interviews. A purposive sample technique was used to select employees familiar with the constructs of the study. The sample includes employees from varied organisational backgrounds to capture various experiences and opinions. A total of 40 employees were questioned, regarded as sufficient for data saturation, and no new noteworthy themes emerged. This sample size was justified to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between the variables of the study. The interview guide was developed through a comprehensive literature analysis of the key constructs of the study. It comprised questions designed to evoke in-depth responses about participants' understandings and insights of each construct. For example, participants were asked to explore benevolent leadership: "Can you describe an experience where you felt that your supervisor has demonstrated concern for your well-being?" For PS, a question included, "How comfortable do you feel expressing your opinions at work, and why?" The interview questions were piloted with three individuals to ensure their clarity and relevance. The details of the respondents interviewed are illustrated in Table 1 . Table 1 Details of Respondents Total no of Respondents Type of Service sector Experience Region 10 BPO 5–10 years South Mumbai and Central Mumbai 8 Telecom 5–15 years Navi Mumbai and Central Mumbai 10 Hotel 5–15 years Navi Mumbai and Central Mumbai 12 Bank 5–15 years Central Mumbai and Navi Mumbai Data Collection and Analysis Interviews were conducted over a month, each lasting approximately 60 to 90 minutes. The interview was conducted online and offline at the convenience of the employees. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants' permission and transcribed precisely. Data analysis followed a thematic approach, systematically coding data and identifying themes related to the constructs. The analysis focused on identifying patterns and relationships between the constructs, mainly how benevolent leadership influences EV, PS, and workplace deviant behaviours. Each interview transcript was reviewed several times throughout the initial coding phase to find significant textual components. Descriptive codes that reflected the central ideas and themes found in the data were used to label these units. Axial codes were created by grouping initial codes into more significant categories and comparing and contrasting them to discover patterns and linkages. Theoretical sampling and constant comparison refined the axial codes. Significant themes of the study, which are BL, PS, EV, and WDB, were discovered during the coding process. A theoretical model was created using these themes to show the relationship between these constructs. The choice of semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist approach is justified by the study's aim to understand the subjective and contextual nature of the constructs. The qualitative nature of the study allows for a thorough examination of intricate social phenomena, providing rich, comprehensive perspectives that quantitative methods may not obtain. Using thematic analysis has enabled the identification of common themes (Table 2 ). All participants have provided informed consent to participate in the study and were informed that they can discontinue participation at any time. Participants were guaranteed the anonymity of their identity and the information they provided. Table 2 Codes and Themes generated S. No. Sub Themes Final Themes Respondents Literature References 1. • Empathy and understanding • Active listening • Fairness • Stress Reduction • Sustainable practices Benevolent Leadership Creates an Environment Of Psychological Safety, Acting As An Encouragement R1, R5, R6, R12, R14, R15, R21, R22, R24, R26, R30, R33, R36, R40 Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016 ; Tan et al., 2016 2. • Mutual Respect • Tolerance for mistakes • Feedback culture • Respectful Disagreement A Psychologically Safe Environment Has Provided the Platform for Employee Voice R4, R7, R9, R10, R16, R18, R19, R29, R34, R35, R39 Adair et al., 2022 3. • Inclusivity • Diversity • Encouragement • Responsive • Leadership Accessibility • Commitment • Employee Engagement Benevolent Leadership Has Reduced Workplace Deviant Behaviour R2, R3, R6, R11, R12, R13, R20, R22, R25, R27, R28, R37, R40 Chan, 2017 ; Khairy et al., 2023 4. • Interpersonal Deviance • Incivility • Rudeness • Theft and fraud • Sabotage • Unfair treatment • Ignoring safety protocols Employee Voice Has Encouraged Employees to Express Their Concerns, Reducing Deviant Behaviour R7, R8, R9, R17, R19, R20, R23, R24, R25, R26, R31, R32, R38, R39 Ahmad et al., 2020 ; Pradhan et al., 2014 Theme 1. Benevolent Leadership as a Catalyst for Psychological Safety The respondents emphasised the significant role of BL in fostering an environment of PS and encouraging employees to navigate workplace challenges more effectively. Many participants expressed that leaders displaying sincere care and affection for their well-being create a supportive atmosphere where individuals feel safe to voice their concerns and seek assistance. Regarding this theme, one respondent stated, “ Recognising that our leaders are understanding and compassionate makes a huge difference. As an employee, I feel confident that my concerns will be heard. When facing a difficult situation, I don't hesitate to talk to my manager because I know they will listen and help me find a solution without judgment .” The sense of security created through benevolent leadership empowers employees to be more open and honest about their struggles, leading to a more collaborative and supportive work environment. In accordance with this theme, another response was noted, “ The assurance that my supervisor genuinely cares about my well-being allows me to take risks and suggest improvements without fearing negative repercussions. This makes me feel valued and motivated to contribute even more. ” This statement underscores the importance of benevolent leadership in creating PS, alleviating stress and encouraging proactive engagement and innovation. The analysis reveals that employees who perceive their leaders as benevolent and supportive are likelier to feel psychologically safe. This dynamic strengthens the organisational culture, as employees feel more connected, valued, and motivated to contribute positively to the workplace. Theme 2. Psychological Safety, as the cornerstone for enhancing employee voice The respondents pointed out that PS underpins the enhancement of the voice in organisations, where the employees can freely contribute their opinions, concerns and feedback without worrying about its ramifications. Several respondents reflected on how they can be assured of a safe work climate to share their opinions within their workplaces without hesitation. One respondent shared, “ Psychological safety is well developed in the team, and there is no fear of sharing an opposing viewpoint, even if it goes against the majority opinion. In the end, I know that my idea will be heard and will not be disregarded .” This comment shows that employees will not hesitate to make remarkable suggestions or actively contribute to team discussions. Another participant said, “ In an environment where there is no fear of repercussions, I can express ideas I would otherwise keep to myself; hence, being open to others allows constructive knowledge sharing that enhances our workflow .” This indicates that a supportive voice enhances PS, facilitating knowledge sharing within the organisation. Theme 3. The role of Benevolent leadership in curbing workplace deviant behaviour The responders to this survey emphasised the importance of kind leadership in reducing workplace aberrant behaviour. Many participants reported that when leaders show empathy, support, and genuine care for employee well-being, it dramatically reduces behaviours that depart from organisational standards and expectations. Among the respondents, one said, “ I have realised that things at the workplace have become much better because our leaders have become more empathetic and accommodating. ” Employees are less stressed, and they treat one another cordially. This environment minimises any chances for individuals to indulge in unpleasant behaviours. From the respondents' view, benevolent leadership has helped create a stronger work culture and decrease deviant behaviour. Another participant stated, “ Knowing that our leaders actually acknowledge our existence and accept our input has reduced cases of misbehaviour. When I feel that I am valued, I do not have any reason to engage in a manner that may harm the team or the company. It has fostered loyalty and enhanced the level of ethics among us. ” This finding demonstrates how kind leadership minimises the likelihood of deviant behaviour and develops a greater sense of commitment and ethical behaviour among employees. It is argued that improvement in workplace aberrant behaviour depends on the adoption of benevolent leadership as a means of improving organisational culture. According to the findings, benevolent leadership is critical in reducing workplace aberrant behaviour by fostering a culture of trust, respect, and support. When employees feel respected and understood by their leaders, they are more inclined to align with the organisational goals and standards. Theme 4. The Role of Employee Voice in Reducing Deviant Behaviour Respondents in this study underlined the importance of increasing EV in preventing workplace aberrant behaviour. Several participants reported that when people are given a chance to share their concerns and feel that they are being listened to, it decreases the number of undesirable behavioural patterns and enhances the organisational climate. One of our respondents said, “ Having the opportunity to talk about any issues or difficulties without worrying about any adverse repercussions from the management has significantly improved the workplace environment. ” There is no animosity when we can voice our concerns, and the individuals are less likely to misbehave. This viewpoint emphasises how giving an EV forum can help address possible sources of deviant behaviour by allowing concerns to be resolved before they escalate. One of the respondents said, “ After the realisation by the leaders that encouraged people to voice their concerns, I have realised that everybody is ready to express themselves. This has eliminated causes for conflict, and hence, the instances of immoral behaviours have been reduced. We all seem to be striving for the same thing now .” According to the respondent's perspective, EV improves communication and fosters a shared sense of purpose, lowering the risk of deviant behaviour. According to the analysis, empowering employees to communicate their issues and knowing their contribution is valued leads to a more transparent and constructive work environment. This openness helps to address possible concerns early on and minimises motivations for deviant behaviour, resulting in a more positive and cohesive workplace. Discussion The research findings emphasise the purpose of BL and EV in reducing employees' deviant behaviour. These constructs have been extensively examined individually in the past, but their relation to reducing employee deviant behaviour has received relatively little attention. Drawing upon the findings through a qualitative study, it becomes evident that leaders' caring and supportive approach effectively mitigates organisational problems. This nurturing leadership style catalyses PS, proving pivotal in fostering transparent communication. Thus, creating a workplace where employees feel comfortable, motivated, and satisfied with their working environment helps reduce deviant behaviour among employees. The increasing use of social media has made it necessary for organisations to pay attention to decreasing deviant behaviour. Though social media has its positive side, news related to errant acts by employees can be disseminated quickly. It leads to a negative reputation for the organisation. By addressing deviant behaviour proactively, organisations can create an encouraging and favourable work environment beneficial to long-term success (Nayak et al., 2022 ). While some research has indicated that benevolent leadership might lead to increased cheating behaviour, our study finds that it reduces deviant behaviour by promoting a psychologically safe environment where employees feel comfortable speaking up (H. Chen et al., 2024 ). PS is vital in empowering employees to express their viewpoints and share innovative ideas. In organisations with PS, employees feel encouraged to contribute their diverse perspectives, culminating in enhanced decision-making, creative solutions, and organisational efficacy. This conducive environment can help reduce deviant behaviour among employees. Based on the interview responses and the final themes, we have developed a Proposed Benevolent Leadership Model highlighting the interrelationships between benevolent leadership, psychological safety, employee voice and workplace deviance behaviours, as shown in Fig. 1 . Source: Authors' Own The thematic analysis outlines that the BL style practised by managers and leaders of the organisation creates an environment of PS where employees feel free to take risks, giving them a safe environment to speak their minds without fearing negative consequences. BL and EV create a favourable environment for the employees, reducing the chances of employees opting for deviant behaviour in situations of dissatisfaction. Instead, employees speak to the management directly and try their best to resolve any issue. Implications The present study enhances our understanding of why organisations must prioritise cultivating benevolent leadership skills among their leaders. This new dimension of leadership style suggests that to tackle some issues and concerns in the organisation; a benevolent leadership style would be more effective than more common leadership styles like transformational and transactional leadership. Training and coaching programs can assist leaders in developing empathy, compassion, and concern for their employees' well-being, fostering an environment of support and inclusivity (Wu et al., 2020 ). HR managers can refer to the proposed model to develop training programmes emphasising the effect of PS and EV to create a positive workplace. The findings of the qualitative study and the proposed model may serve as an outline for organisations seeking to promote EV and BL in the workplace culture. The insights from this study and the proposed model will encourage HR managers to invest in leadership development programs. These programs will foster a harmonious work environment under the leadership of benevolent leaders where employees are less inclined to resort to deviant behaviour when dissatisfied; instead, they feel empowered to voice their concerns. Therefore, the findings of this study emphasise the importance of BL in fostering PS and encouraging EV within organisations. The study explains the significance of BL and EV in reducing deviant behaviour. By creating such a supportive work environment, leaders can cultivate a culture of trust, transparency, and collaboration that contributes to the growth and advancement of the organisation. Limitations and Future Research Perspective The theoretical framework proposed in the study suggests areas for future research. As the model is suggested based on the qualitative study, it is recommended that the theoretical model proposed can be empirically tested in the future. Future studies can also explore other factors, like cross-cultural differences, longitudinal studies, and other mediating and moderating factors. Researchers can utilise different methodologies to examine further and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the constructs studied in this study. By addressing these limitations in the future, researchers can advance the knowledge of the complex dynamics between BL, PS, and EV, thereby contributing to the development of more robust theoretical frameworks and practical implications for organisational practice. Exploring future research perspectives can also advance our understanding of the interrelation between BL, PS, EV and WDB. Conclusion The values of benevolence offer a leader a holistic perspective when faced with a difficult situation in the workplace, which guides their decision-making capabilities. BL demonstrates genuine care for its employees, which fosters the feeling of PS within the organisation. This study will guide organisations that believe ethical decision-making solely depends on rational thinking; instead, the decision-making process involves a holistic view from all life perspectives. This is how benevolent leaders create an atmosphere where their teams feel safe articulating their opinions and concerns without fearing judgment, nurturing a culture of open communication. Thus, employees feel valued when their voices are heard, which reduces the occurrence of deviant behaviour. The significant role of PS as a mediator between BL and EV has also been highlighted in the study. By prioritising the well-being of employees and creating a favourable work environment, leaders encourage principles of trust, transparent communication, and collaboration that enhance organisational efficiency and employee engagement. The research outcomes highlight the significance of prioritising the welfare of employees and organisations as an essential element of BL. Declarations Ethics Approval As per the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) National Ethical Guidelines (2017), the study was exempt from ethical review due to minimal risk and absence of personal identifiers. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration. Consent to Participate All participants were informed about the purpose of the study. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants before the interview. Consent to Publish Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymised. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for the use of their anonymised responses in the publication for research. Clinical Trial Number Not Applicable Funding The authors received no financial support for this article's research, data collection, or publication. Author Contribution D.P conceptualized the study, designed the interview protocol, and conducted the majority of the interviews.H.C assisted with participant recruitment, transcribed interview data, and supported initial coding. A.Y led the thematic analysis, synthesized findings, and refined the manuscript structure. All authors contributed to writing, critically revised the content, and approved the final manuscript for submission. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to sensitivity reasons and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Adair KC, Heath A, Frye MA, Frankel A, Proulx J, Rehder KJ, Eckert E, Penny C, Belz F, Sexton JB. The Psychological Safety Scale of the Safety, Communication, Operational, Reliability, and Engagement (SCORE) Survey: A Brief, Diagnostic, and Actionable Metric for the Ability to Speak Up in Healthcare Settings. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(6):513–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001048 . Ahmad MS, Iqbal F, Siddique R, Abbas S, Fakhr Z. Responsible leadership and workplace deviant behaviour: modelling trust and turnover intention as mediator. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2020;41(7):939–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0212 . Alang T, Stanton P, Rose M. Enhancing Employee Voice and Inclusion Through Inclusive Leadership in Public Sector Organizations. Public Personnel Manage. 2022;51(3):309–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221085583 . Alatf A, Anjum H. (2018). Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisor support and subordinate performance. J Manage Hum Resource (JMHR), 1–17. Amoadu M, Akoto-Buabeng W. Job content, psychological well-being, burnout and fatigue driving among heavy goods vehicle drivers in Ghana. Discover Psychol. 2025;5(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00367-y . Anh NN, Pham TXT, Phan AC, Matsui Y. The impact of psychological safety on improvement capability: the moderating role of manufacturing complexity. Oper Manage Res. 2025;18(1):400–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-024-00535-8 . de Azevedo MC, Schlosser F, McPhee D. Building organisational innovation through HRM, employee voice and engagement. Personnel Rev. 2020;50(2):751–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2019-0687 . Barkhi R, Kao Y-C. Psychological climate and decision-making performance in a GDSS context. Inf Manag. 2011;48(4–5):125–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.02.003 . Bentley T, Onnis L, Vassiley A, Farr-Wharton B, Caponecchia C, Andrew C, O’Neill S, De Almeida Neto A, Huron V, Green N. A systematic review of literature on occupational health and safety interventions for older workers. Ergonomics. 2023;66(12):1968–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2176550 . Carmeli A, Gittell JH. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organisations. J Organizational Behav. 2009;30(6):709–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.565 . Chan SCH. Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisory support, and subordinates’ performance: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2017;38(7):897–911. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0196 . Chen H, Wei W, Wang L, Bao J. Mercy does not hold the army: a study on the dark side effect of benevolent leadership. J Organizational Change Manage. 2024;37(1):133–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2023-0119 . Chen X, Zhu Z, Liu J. Does A Trusted Leader Always Behave Better? The Relationship Between Leader Feeling Trusted by Employees and Benevolent and Laissez-Faire Leadership Behaviors. J Bus Ethics. 2021;170(3):615–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04390-7 . Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 . Dadaboyev SMU, Baek Y. Organisational misbehaviors: construct review and hierarchical reflective model. Manage Res. 2022;20(4):310–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-01-2022-1266 . Deng H, Leung K, Lam CK, Huang X. Slacking Off in Comfort: A Dual-Pathway Model for Psychological Safety Climate. J Manag. 2019;45(3):1114–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317693083 . Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2014;1(1):23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305 . Erkutlu H, Chafra J. Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2016;37(3):369–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129 . Frazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Pers Psychol. 2017;70(1):113–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183 . Frazier ML, Tupper C. Supervisor Prosocial Motivation, Employee Thriving, and Helping Behavior: A Trickle-Down Model of Psychological Safety. Group Organ Manage. 2018;43(4):561–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116653911 . Hackman JR. The design of work teams. The Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Handbook of Organisational Behavior; 1987. Harvey J-F, Johnson KJ, Roloff KS, Edmondson AC. From orientation to behavior: The interplay between learning orientation, open-mindedness, and psychological safety in team learning. Hum Relat. 2019;72(11):1726–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718817812 . Homans GC. Social Behavior as Exchange. Am J Sociol. 1958;63(6):597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355 . Huang J-C. Does benevolent leadership consistently lead to employees’ voluntary behaviors? Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2022;43(8):1234–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0141 . Jung HS, Yoon HH. The effects of social undermining on employee voice and silence and on organisational deviant behaviors in the hotel industry. J Service Theory Pract. 2019;29(2):213–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-06-2018-0131 . Karakas F, Sarigollu E. Benevolent Leadership: Conceptualisation and Construct Development. J Bus Ethics. 2012;108(4):537–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1109-1 . Karakas F, Sarigollu E, Manisaligil A. The use of benevolent leadership development to advance principles of responsible management education. J Manage Dev. 2013;32(8):801–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0102.R1 . Khairy HA, Liu S, Sheikhelsouk S, EI-Sherbeeny AM, Alsetoohy O, Al-Romeedy BS. The Effect of Benevolent Leadership on Job Engagement through Psychological Safety and Workplace Friendship Prevalence in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry. Sustain (Switzerland). 2023;15(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713245 . Khan R, Murtaza G, Neveu JP, Newman A. Reciprocal relationship between workplace incivility and deviant silence—The moderating role of moral attentiveness. Appl Psychol. 2022;71(1):174–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12316 . Kim S, Lee H, Connerton TP. How Psychological Safety Affects Team Performance: Mediating Role of Efficacy and Learning Behavior. Front Psychol. 2020;11(July):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581 . Li S, Li J. Fostering trust: Authoritarian, benevolent, and moral paternalistic leadership styles and the coach–athlete relationship. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2021;49(12):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10452 . Loch CH. Creativity and Risk Taking Aren’t Rational: Behavioral Operations in MOT. Prod Oper Manage. 2017;26(4):591–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12666 . McGrath JE. (1964). Toward a theory of method for research on organisations. In New perspectives in organisation research . Morrison EW. Employee Voice and Silence. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2014;1(1):173–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 . Narayanan K, Murphy SE. Conceptual Framework on Workplace Deviance Behaviour: A Review. J Hum Values. 2017;23(3):218–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685817713284 . Nayak S, Budhwar P, Pereira V, Malik A. Exploring the dark-side of E-HRM: a study of social networking sites and deviant workplace behavior. Int J Manpow. 2022;43(1):89–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0125 . Nazir S, Shafi A, Asadullah MA, Qun W, Khadim S. Linking paternalistic leadership to follower’s innovative work behavior: the influence of leader–member exchange and employee voice. Eur J Innov Manage. 2021;24(4):1354–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0005 . Niu C, Wang A, Cheng B. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2009;12(1):32–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01267.x . Ölçer F, Coşkun ÖF. The mediating role of organisational silence in the relationship between organisational justice and organisational creativity. Soc Bus Rev. 2024;19(1):23–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-09-2021-0172 . Pless NM, Murphy M, Maak T, Sengupta A. Societal challenges and business leadership for social innovation. Soc Bus Rev. 2021;16(4):535–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-10-2020-0129 . Pradhan S, Pradhan RK, Kumar Pradhan R. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Deviant Workplace Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Organizational Justice Human Resource Empowerment View project Transformational Leadership and Deviant Workplace Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Organisational Justice. In Proceedings of the First Asian-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Social Sciences (Pp. 1–19) , August , 1–3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304024658 Rui J, Xinqi L. Trickle-down effect of benevolent leadership on unethical employee behavior: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2020;41(6):721–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2019-0529 . Sabino A, Cesário F, Antunes A. Linking toxic leadership to exit, voice, silence and neglect: the mediating role of loyaltyA ligação entre a liderança tóxica e a saída, a voz, o silêncio e a negligência: o papel mediador da lealdadeEl vínculo entre liderazgo tóxico y salida, voz, silenc. Manage Res. 2024;22(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-10-2023-1471 . Sharma A, Sharma H. Job Autonomy and Employee Psychological Well-being: The Mediating Effect of Employee Voice. South Asian J Hum Resour Manage. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937241257279 . Shen X, Shen T, Chen Y, Wang Y, He X, Lv X, Jin Q. The associations between benevolent leadership, affective commitment, work engagement and helping behavior of nurses: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):407. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01581-6 . Tan JX, Zawawi D, Aziz YA. Benevolent leadership and its organisational outcomes: A social exchange theory perspective. Int J Econ Manage. 2016;10(2):343–64. Tedone AM, Bruk-Lee V. Speaking up at work: personality’s influence on employee voice behavior. Int J Organizational Anal. 2022;30(2):289–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2417 . Wang A, Cheng B. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J Organizational Behav. 2010;31(1):106–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.634 . Wu C, Kuo C, Lin C, Hu W, Wu C, Cheng S. How does benevolent leadership lead to work–family enrichment? The mediating role of positive group affective tone. Stress Health. 2020;36(4):496–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2950 . 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-7007435","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":493533676,"identity":"c5c76589-0f31-4dc6-9b5a-cc5eed09a003","order_by":0,"name":"Deepika Pandita","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Deepika","middleName":"","lastName":"Pandita","suffix":""},{"id":493533678,"identity":"6897f203-3efd-4381-a44c-7a5db986ac0e","order_by":1,"name":"Himani Choudhary","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Himani","middleName":"","lastName":"Choudhary","suffix":""},{"id":493533681,"identity":"a7a8d98f-b1e2-429b-9309-b51fe15bb0dd","order_by":2,"name":"Anusuya Yadav","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anusuya","middleName":"","lastName":"Yadav","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-30 07:23:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88249818,"identity":"8ae897ba-4bec-4704-b587-0913d230039b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-04 13:15:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18651,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProposed Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7007435/v1/7040f8e31f5d8256f497636b.png"},{"id":93567816,"identity":"84848875-06b6-4f72-b6ee-ecda525ed6eb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-15 08:40:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":793334,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7007435/v1/2894f3aa-d2d4-4404-b95a-c5d68206cc80.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Analysing the Impact of Benevolent Leadership on Employee Voice and Workplace Deviant Behaviours through the Lens of Psychological Safety","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the present-day organisational context, the increasing incidence of deviant actions by employees creates substantial challenges as such behaviours contravene organisational norms and negatively impact the organisation's reputation. Such behaviours of employees usually begin with minor acts of non-compliance and can escalate into severe acts of sabotage. Instances like this hamper productivity and deteriorate the overall workplace environment. The role of leaders and their leadership becomes crucial to creating a positive and harmonious work environment (Dadaboyev \u0026amp; Baek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Pless et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This study investigates the effectiveness of benevolent leadership in reducing deviant behaviours in the workplace, focusing on the crucial roles of EV and PS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisations endure significant expenses due to deviant behaviour, including financial losses, low staff morale, and destroyed reputations. Considering today's competitive corporate environment, addressing these concerns is critical to ensuring operational efficiency and employee satisfaction. Benevolent leaders can effectively lower the prevalence of deviant behaviour by creating a respectful and encouraging work atmosphere. These leaders encourage employees to speak up and express their concerns, which helps reduce negative workplace behaviours. Benevolent leaders are kind, empathetic, and compassionate to the people under their leadership. They strongly influence organisational culture and employee conduct, emphasising their employees’ well-being and their organisation’s growth (Karakas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This leadership style is defined by empathy and compassion for employee well-being beyond simply focusing on work and targets. Today's work environment places more importance on empowerment and inclusivity. Therefore, BL contributes to making a favourable work environment. Benevolent leaders contribute to the success of their organisation as they are considerate of their employees and motivated to work towards their goals following an ethical approach (Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite sufficient research on the concept and understanding that benevolent leadership can influence workplace behaviour, there is a noticeable gap in the existing literature on how the prevalence of EV and PS can influence deviant workplace behaviour. Employee Voice (EV) is how employees express their views and suggestions to their managers. EV is essential in building trust, innovation, productivity, problem-solving and organisational improvement. The feeling of empowerment that employees experience by openly sharing their thoughts leads to improved decision-making and problem-solving capabilities. This expression of EV depends upon one factor in the organisation, which is psychological safety (PS). PS is the collective belief held by the employees in the organisation that they may freely take risks to share their thoughts and apprehensions without fearing adverse consequences on self-confidence, status and profession (Erkutlu \u0026amp; Chafra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nazir et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the social exchange theory and input-process-output theory provide a deeper understanding of how benevolent leadership practices impact employees' behaviour and experiences. The present research contributes to the reservoir of knowledge and addresses the theoretical gap by integrating these ideas and investigating their combined influence on workplace deviant behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough frequent changes in the workplace and increasing expectations may be challenging for some, leaders need to recognise that employees may struggle due to these changes. When dealing with a toxic leader, employees in the organisation typically respond with negative responses rather than favourable ones (Amoadu \u0026amp; Akoto-Buabeng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sabino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the need to listen to and understand employees arises. In this study, the authors have collected data through semi-structured interviews. Using a qualitative analysis, the authors aim to make a meaningful contribution to the theory of social exchange theory and input-process-output theory by including the challenges and the essential role the leaders have in effectively decreasing deviant behaviour by giving their employees a platform to express their grievances and concerns without fear. This kind of workplace promotes a pleasant workplace and enhances organisational performance. Through a rigorous examination of these dynamics, this study can guide organisations in determining how to improve organisational success and employee well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBenevolent Leadership\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGreat leaders are essential for an organisation to achieve its goals and objectives. Leaders guide and motivate their employees to enhance the performance of teams and the organisation. They genuinely care about their employees and understand the emotions and aspirations of their team members. One such leader is the benevolent leader. Benevolent leadership (BL) has drawn attention as a leadership approach that strongly emphasises the well-being of followers and the greater good of an organisation. Confucianism is the foundation of BL, which accentuates the value of the leader's moral character, ethical conduct, and kindness towards others. The ideal leader in Confucianism is a moral exemplar who cultivates a harmonious and virtuous community by setting a good example for their followers to follow (Alatf \u0026amp; Anjum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeaders exemplifying the characteristics of benevolent leadership, like empathy and care towards their employees, always give precedence to the needs of their team members and establish an environment of inclusivity in the organisation. Consequently, benevolent leaders create an atmosphere where employees perceive themselves as appreciated (Niu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Benevolent leaders encourage and initiate constructive modification in organisations through conscientious and virtuous decision-making, nurturing motivation for achievement and growth, and positively impacting the employees. Humility, empathy, kindness, and ethical leadership practices define benevolent leaders. They improve morale and productivity in the workplace and inspire loyalty, dedication, and teamwork in their subordinates (Karakas \u0026amp; Sarigollu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePositive associations between BL and various outcomes have been identified in people's and organisations' research done in the past. Researchers have found a correlation between leaders who care about their employees' well-being and increased levels of job satisfaction, organisational loyalty, productivity, and health. Higher organisational citizenship behaviour, social responsibility, and organisational performance have all been linked to BL at the managerial level. BL highlights the leader's compassion for the welfare of their subordinates and for the overall success of the business (Alatf \u0026amp; Anjum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wang \u0026amp; Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychological Safety\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychological safety (PS) is the feeling by workers that taking interpersonal risks will not lead to embarrassment or shame. Employees can overcome anxiety and awkwardness by sharing new experiences or ideas and focusing on achieving goals (Edmondson \u0026amp; Lei, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). PS in the organisation will make the employees feel more engaged and motivated because they feel that their efforts matter at work. They can express their opinions without fearing retribution (Frazier \u0026amp; Tupper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). PS leads to better decision-making as different perspectives of employees are heard and given importance (Barkhi \u0026amp; Kao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Employees working in a psychologically safe environment foster a collaborative work environment. They direct their efforts towards problem-solving, seeking input from others, attentively listening to colleagues' ideas, demonstrating kindness and respect even in disagreement, and offering feedback in a considerate manner. Organisations can train leaders and managers on fostering PS, examining hierarchical structures that hinder communication, and emphasising a zero-tolerance policy against an employee deliberately undermining the efforts of another employee (Anh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Carmeli \u0026amp; Gittell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenevolent leaders prioritise establishing trusting relationships with their team members. Benevolent leaders earn the confidence and trust of their employees as their actions are characterised by integrity, honesty, and dependability. Employees feel reassured when they share their thoughts, ideas, and concerns, knowing their leader is genuinely concerned about them (Li \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Benevolent leaders demonstrate sincere empathy and understanding towards the needs and difficulties of their employees. Benevolent leaders provide support to their employees and thus create an environment where employees, under the guidance of such leaders, feel valued and encouraged. This approach of leading fosters the feeling of PS, where employees can seek assistance without fear of repercussions (Shen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Benevolent leaders encourage transparent and honest communication. These leaders actively listen to the needs and viewpoints of their employees and invite diverse perspectives. The culture of open communication within the organisation fosters PS (X. Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Benevolent leaders acknowledge and appreciate the contributions made by their employees. They celebrate successes and offer constructive feedback. This acknowledgement fosters an encouraging work setting where employees feel valued and affirmed, bolstering their PS (Rui \u0026amp; Xinqi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEmployee Voice\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployee Voice is how employees express their opinions to managers and impact matters that distress them. EV leads to increased job satisfaction, feeling valued and better development opportunities, which creates an impression of ownership among employees. EV promotes honest communication and transparency within an organisation as it encourages the workforce to express issues and suggestions for improvement (Tedone \u0026amp; Bruk-Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen employees feel unheard, they comply without challenging or giving suggestions because they believe no action will be taken. It gives rise to poor organisational culture and dissatisfied employees. An organisation encouraging EV improves employee satisfaction and retention (Alang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Azevedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Employees with higher PS communicate openly and transparently (Adair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Employees perceiving their workplace as psychologically safe were further inclined to express their opinions and contribute to organisational enhancements (Bentley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Teams with elevated PS levels were more prone to brainstorming and risk-taking, resulting in increased innovation. PS emphasises promoting EV, such as employees presenting new ideas in meetings and delivering constructive feedback (Harvey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Loch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWorkplace Deviance Behaviour\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Deviance Behaviour \u003cb\u003e(\u003c/b\u003eWDB) is voluntary behaviour that violates the organisation's significant values and ethics and impends organisational welfare. Workplace deviance refers to intentional and immoral attempts by employees to cause problems in their organisation. Workplace deviance is divided into two categories: interpersonal deviance, which is destroying relationships through gossip, lying, and blaming another person, and organisational deviance, delay or theft of equipment (Narayanan \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In this paper, the authors are considering both types of WDB.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStealing, deception, disruption, leaking vital statistics, and disrespect towards seniors and teammates are alleged to increase in the Indian workplace (Pradhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Many organisations perceive employee silence as a form of workplace deviance. The silence, intentionally aimed to harm the organisation, may be considered deviant (Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ölçer \u0026amp; Coşkun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, it is essential to contemplate the reasons behind the silence and whether the issue is malevolent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe social exchange theory (SET) propounded by Homans (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1958\u003c/span\u003e) explains the dynamics of PS and EV. This theory describes social interactions in the organisation as a mutually beneficial transfer of resources, such as confidence and admiration, among individuals and their surroundings (Cropanzano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Employees will engage in voice behaviour when they feel psychologically safe, perceive it as a positive exchange of resources, and think that their suggestions can benefit the organisation. It creates a sense of belongingness within the organisation. Employees in an organisation lacking PS may withhold their voice because they fear being criticised or punished. This unwillingness to voice their opinions and ideas can hinder organisational effectiveness by depriving significant innovation and creativity (Morrison, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The literature offers substantial evidence supporting the notion that PS fosters EV. Organisations prioritising the establishment of psychologically safe environments are more likely to experience heightened employee involvement, innovation, and efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVarious studies have explored the significance of PS in organisational environments. PS is the belief by the employees that they will not be punished or humiliated for expressing themselves. PS is often misunderstood and is even undervalued in the workplace. Leaders are essential in creating a supportive and inclusive environment where employees feel secure to voice their opinions. Leaders who demonstrate active listening, empathy, and openness to feedback contribute to PS and foster EV (Deng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Frazier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). When leaders cultivate a psychologically safe environment, employees feel supported and motivated, leading to productive organisations (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The mediating role of PS can be explained through the traditional input-process-output (IPO) framework (McGrath, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e). Benevolent leaders (input) significantly contribute to creating PS (process) in the workplace. Under the leadership of such Benevolent leaders, employees are respected and supported for their views and opinions. Thus, employees are encouraged to voice their ideas and contribute to the important discussion (output) related to the organisation's growth (Hackman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenevolent leaders lead with a different strategy that incorporates the elements of both transformational and transactional leadership. Benevolent leaders prioritise the welfare and growth of their employees while also setting clear expectations regarding ethical behaviour and decision-making. This leadership style cultivates trust, loyalty, and a feeling of belonging among employees, reducing the risk of deviant behaviour (Karakas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Employees working under benevolent leaders are less inclined to participate in counterproductive work behaviours, such as absenteeism, sabotage, and theft. Benevolent leaders make their decisions ethically, inspire the team as a whole and ensure the well-being of their employees. Research suggests that BL facilitates the development of an optimistic organisational ethos where employees feel content with their work environment. Benevolent leaders are accommodating and encourage their employees to balance their professional and personal lives, as they understand that every employee has a life outside of work. In such situations, employees are more inclined to obey organisational norms and values, reducing deviant behaviour (Tan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn understanding the dynamics of EV and WDB, the social exchange theory suggests that employees give their opinions when they feel valued and respected. When employees give their best and provide valuable insights and innovative ideas to the organisation, they expect respect and support. However, when employees believe that their organisation is unsupportive of their contribution and are not allowed to voice their concerns, it can lead to deviant behaviour (Jung \u0026amp; Yoon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The present study will explore how benevolent leaders can discourage employees from engaging in deviant behaviour by creating a psychologically safe environment and ensuring that employees ' views at the workplace are respected. Organisations that support EV observe it as a proactive approach to problem-solving, detecting and resolving potential problems before they escalate into deviant behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of the literature review and theoretical underpinnings, the study aims to investigate the research questions as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does benevolent leadership influence the willingness of employees to voice their opinions in the workplace?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does the PS of the employees in the organisation mediate the relationship between benevolent leadership and EV?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does benevolent leadership affect workplace deviant behaviour among employees?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does the EV influence the occurrence of workplace deviant behaviours?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Research Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch Design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative research approach based on interpretivist epistemology. Interpretivism holds that reality is socially produced and understood through the meanings and experiences of humans. This perspective is particularly well-suited to investigating complex constructs such as benevolent leadership, EV, PS, and workplace deviant behaviours because it thoroughly explains how employees experience and interpret these phenomena. The primary approach to data collection was semi-structured interviews. This method allows for a comprehensive investigation of participants' experiences and views. It provides for open-ended questions and follow-up enquiries to capture the intricate details of the studied constructs. The semi-structured method also allows for investigating emerging topics that may arise during the interviews. A purposive sample technique was used to select employees familiar with the constructs of the study. The sample includes employees from varied organisational backgrounds to capture various experiences and opinions. A total of 40 employees were questioned, regarded as sufficient for data saturation, and no new noteworthy themes emerged. This sample size was justified to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between the variables of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interview guide was developed through a comprehensive literature analysis of the key constructs of the study. It comprised questions designed to evoke in-depth responses about participants' understandings and insights of each construct. For example, participants were asked to explore benevolent leadership: \"Can you describe an experience where you felt that your supervisor has demonstrated concern for your well-being?\" For PS, a question included, \"How comfortable do you feel expressing your opinions at work, and why?\" The interview questions were piloted with three individuals to ensure their clarity and relevance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe details of the respondents interviewed are illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetails of Respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal no of Respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Service sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBPO\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5–10 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Mumbai and Central Mumbai\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTelecom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5–15 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNavi Mumbai and Central Mumbai\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHotel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5–15 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNavi Mumbai and Central Mumbai\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBank\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5–15 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCentral Mumbai and Navi Mumbai\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData Collection and Analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterviews were conducted over a month, each lasting approximately 60 to 90 minutes. The interview was conducted online and offline at the convenience of the employees. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants' permission and transcribed precisely. Data analysis followed a thematic approach, systematically coding data and identifying themes related to the constructs. The analysis focused on identifying patterns and relationships between the constructs, mainly how benevolent leadership influences EV, PS, and workplace deviant behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach interview transcript was reviewed several times throughout the initial coding phase to find significant textual components. Descriptive codes that reflected the central ideas and themes found in the data were used to label these units. Axial codes were created by grouping initial codes into more significant categories and comparing and contrasting them to discover patterns and linkages. Theoretical sampling and constant comparison refined the axial codes. Significant themes of the study, which are BL, PS, EV, and WDB, were discovered during the coding process. A theoretical model was created using these themes to show the relationship between these constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe choice of semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist approach is justified by the study's aim to understand the subjective and contextual nature of the constructs. The qualitative nature of the study allows for a thorough examination of intricate social phenomena, providing rich, comprehensive perspectives that quantitative methods may not obtain. Using thematic analysis has enabled the identification of common themes (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All participants have provided informed consent to participate in the study and were informed that they can discontinue participation at any time. Participants were guaranteed the anonymity of their identity and the information they provided.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCodes and Themes generated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS. No.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSub Themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinal Themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRespondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterature References\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Empathy and understanding\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Active listening\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Fairness\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Stress Reduction\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Sustainable practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenevolent Leadership Creates an Environment Of Psychological Safety, Acting As An Encouragement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR1, R5, R6, R12, R14, R15, R21, R22, R24, R26, R30, R33, R36, R40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eErkutlu \u0026amp; Chafra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Mutual Respect\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Tolerance for mistakes\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Feedback culture\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Respectful Disagreement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA Psychologically Safe Environment Has Provided the Platform for Employee Voice\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR4, R7, R9, R10, R16, R18, R19, R29, R34, R35, R39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Inclusivity\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Diversity\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Encouragement\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Responsive\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Leadership Accessibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Commitment\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Employee Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBenevolent Leadership Has Reduced Workplace Deviant Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR2, R3, R6, R11, R12, R13, R20, R22, R25, R27, R28, R37, R40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Khairy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Interpersonal Deviance\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Incivility\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Rudeness\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Theft and fraud\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Sabotage\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Unfair treatment\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e• Ignoring safety protocols\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployee Voice Has Encouraged Employees to Express Their Concerns, Reducing Deviant Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR7, R8, R9, R17, R19, R20, R23, R24, R25, R26, R31, R32, R38, R39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAhmad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Pradhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 1. Benevolent Leadership as a Catalyst for Psychological Safety\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe respondents emphasised the significant role of BL in fostering an environment of PS and encouraging employees to navigate workplace challenges more effectively. Many participants expressed that leaders displaying sincere care and affection for their well-being create a supportive atmosphere where individuals feel safe to voice their concerns and seek assistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding this theme, one respondent stated, “\u003cem\u003eRecognising that our leaders are understanding and compassionate makes a huge difference. As an employee, I feel confident that my concerns will be heard. When facing a difficult situation, I don't hesitate to talk to my manager because I know they will listen and help me find a solution without judgment\u003c/em\u003e.” The sense of security created through benevolent leadership empowers employees to be more open and honest about their struggles, leading to a more collaborative and supportive work environment. In accordance with this theme, another response was noted, “\u003cem\u003eThe assurance that my supervisor genuinely cares about my well-being allows me to take risks and suggest improvements without fearing negative repercussions. This makes me feel valued and motivated to contribute even more.\u003c/em\u003e” This statement underscores the importance of benevolent leadership in creating PS, alleviating stress and encouraging proactive engagement and innovation. The analysis reveals that employees who perceive their leaders as benevolent and supportive are likelier to feel psychologically safe. This dynamic strengthens the organisational culture, as employees feel more connected, valued, and motivated to contribute positively to the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 2. Psychological Safety, as the cornerstone for enhancing employee voice\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe respondents pointed out that PS underpins the enhancement of the voice in organisations, where the employees can freely contribute their opinions, concerns and feedback without worrying about its ramifications. Several respondents reflected on how they can be assured of a safe work climate to share their opinions within their workplaces without hesitation. One respondent shared, “\u003cem\u003ePsychological safety is well developed in the team, and there is no fear of sharing an opposing viewpoint, even if it goes against the majority opinion. In the end, I know that my idea will be heard and will not be disregarded\u003c/em\u003e.” This comment shows that employees will not hesitate to make remarkable suggestions or actively contribute to team discussions. Another participant said, “\u003cem\u003eIn an environment where there is no fear of repercussions, I can express ideas I would otherwise keep to myself; hence, being open to others allows constructive knowledge sharing that enhances our workflow\u003c/em\u003e.” This indicates that a supportive voice enhances PS, facilitating knowledge sharing within the organisation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 3. The role of Benevolent leadership in curbing workplace deviant behaviour\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe responders to this survey emphasised the importance of kind leadership in reducing workplace aberrant behaviour. Many participants reported that when leaders show empathy, support, and genuine care for employee well-being, it dramatically reduces behaviours that depart from organisational standards and expectations. Among the respondents, one said, “\u003cem\u003eI have realised that things at the workplace have become much better because our leaders have become more empathetic and accommodating.\u003c/em\u003e” Employees are less stressed, and they treat one another cordially. This environment minimises any chances for individuals to indulge in unpleasant behaviours. From the respondents' view, benevolent leadership has helped create a stronger work culture and decrease deviant behaviour. Another participant stated, “\u003cem\u003eKnowing that our leaders actually acknowledge our existence and accept our input has reduced cases of misbehaviour. When I feel that I am valued, I do not have any reason to engage in a manner that may harm the team or the company. It has fostered loyalty and enhanced the level of ethics among us.\u003c/em\u003e” This finding demonstrates how kind leadership minimises the likelihood of deviant behaviour and develops a greater sense of commitment and ethical behaviour among employees. It is argued that improvement in workplace aberrant behaviour depends on the adoption of benevolent leadership as a means of improving organisational culture. According to the findings, benevolent leadership is critical in reducing workplace aberrant behaviour by fostering a culture of trust, respect, and support. When employees feel respected and understood by their leaders, they are more inclined to align with the organisational goals and standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 4. The Role of Employee Voice in Reducing Deviant Behaviour\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRespondents in this study underlined the importance of increasing EV in preventing workplace aberrant behaviour. Several participants reported that when people are given a chance to share their concerns and feel that they are being listened to, it decreases the number of undesirable behavioural patterns and enhances the organisational climate. One of our respondents said, “\u003cem\u003eHaving the opportunity to talk about any issues or difficulties without worrying about any adverse repercussions from the management has significantly improved the workplace environment.\u003c/em\u003e” There is no animosity when we can voice our concerns, and the individuals are less likely to misbehave. This viewpoint emphasises how giving an EV forum can help address possible sources of deviant behaviour by allowing concerns to be resolved before they escalate. One of the respondents said, “\u003cem\u003eAfter the realisation by the leaders that encouraged people to voice their concerns, I have realised that everybody is ready to express themselves. This has eliminated causes for conflict, and hence, the instances of immoral behaviours have been reduced. We all seem to be striving for the same thing now\u003c/em\u003e.” According to the respondent's perspective, EV improves communication and fosters a shared sense of purpose, lowering the risk of deviant behaviour. According to the analysis, empowering employees to communicate their issues and knowing their contribution is valued leads to a more transparent and constructive work environment. This openness helps to address possible concerns early on and minimises motivations for deviant behaviour, resulting in a more positive and cohesive workplace.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research findings emphasise the purpose of BL and EV in reducing employees' deviant behaviour. These constructs have been extensively examined individually in the past, but their relation to reducing employee deviant behaviour has received relatively little attention. Drawing upon the findings through a qualitative study, it becomes evident that leaders' caring and supportive approach effectively mitigates organisational problems. This nurturing leadership style catalyses PS, proving pivotal in fostering transparent communication. Thus, creating a workplace where employees feel comfortable, motivated, and satisfied with their working environment helps reduce deviant behaviour among employees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe increasing use of social media has made it necessary for organisations to pay attention to decreasing deviant behaviour. Though social media has its positive side, news related to errant acts by employees can be disseminated quickly. It leads to a negative reputation for the organisation. By addressing deviant behaviour proactively, organisations can create an encouraging and favourable work environment beneficial to long-term success (Nayak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While some research has indicated that benevolent leadership might lead to increased cheating behaviour, our study finds that it reduces deviant behaviour by promoting a psychologically safe environment where employees feel comfortable speaking up (H. Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). PS is vital in empowering employees to express their viewpoints and share innovative ideas. In organisations with PS, employees feel encouraged to contribute their diverse perspectives, culminating in enhanced decision-making, creative solutions, and organisational efficacy. This conducive environment can help reduce deviant behaviour among employees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the interview responses and the final themes, we have developed a Proposed Benevolent Leadership Model highlighting the interrelationships between benevolent leadership, psychological safety, employee voice and workplace deviance behaviours, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSource: Authors' Own\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe thematic analysis outlines that the BL style practised by managers and leaders of the organisation creates an environment of PS where employees feel free to take risks, giving them a safe environment to speak their minds without fearing negative consequences. BL and EV create a favourable environment for the employees, reducing the chances of employees opting for deviant behaviour in situations of dissatisfaction. Instead, employees speak to the management directly and try their best to resolve any issue.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplications\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study enhances our understanding of why organisations must prioritise cultivating benevolent leadership skills among their leaders. This new dimension of leadership style suggests that to tackle some issues and concerns in the organisation; a benevolent leadership style would be more effective than more common leadership styles like transformational and transactional leadership. Training and coaching programs can assist leaders in developing empathy, compassion, and concern for their employees' well-being, fostering an environment of support and inclusivity (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). HR managers can refer to the proposed model to develop training programmes emphasising the effect of PS and EV to create a positive workplace. The findings of the qualitative study and the proposed model may serve as an outline for organisations seeking to promote EV and BL in the workplace culture. The insights from this study and the proposed model will encourage HR managers to invest in leadership development programs. These programs will foster a harmonious work environment under the leadership of benevolent leaders where employees are less inclined to resort to deviant behaviour when dissatisfied; instead, they feel empowered to voice their concerns. Therefore, the findings of this study emphasise the importance of BL in fostering PS and encouraging EV within organisations. The study explains the significance of BL and EV in reducing deviant behaviour. By creating such a supportive work environment, leaders can cultivate a culture of trust, transparency, and collaboration that contributes to the growth and advancement of the organisation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations and Future Research Perspective\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical framework proposed in the study suggests areas for future research. As the model is suggested based on the qualitative study, it is recommended that the theoretical model proposed can be empirically tested in the future. Future studies can also explore other factors, like cross-cultural differences, longitudinal studies, and other mediating and moderating factors. Researchers can utilise different methodologies to examine further and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the constructs studied in this study. By addressing these limitations in the future, researchers can advance the knowledge of the complex dynamics between BL, PS, and EV, thereby contributing to the development of more robust theoretical frameworks and practical implications for organisational practice. Exploring future research perspectives can also advance our understanding of the interrelation between BL, PS, EV and WDB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe values of benevolence offer a leader a holistic perspective when faced with a difficult situation in the workplace, which guides their decision-making capabilities. BL demonstrates genuine care for its employees, which fosters the feeling of PS within the organisation. This study will guide organisations that believe ethical decision-making solely depends on rational thinking; instead, the decision-making process involves a holistic view from all life perspectives. This is how benevolent leaders create an atmosphere where their teams feel safe articulating their opinions and concerns without fearing judgment, nurturing a culture of open communication. Thus, employees feel valued when their voices are heard, which reduces the occurrence of deviant behaviour. The significant role of PS as a mediator between BL and EV has also been highlighted in the study. By prioritising the well-being of employees and creating a favourable work environment, leaders encourage principles of trust, transparent communication, and collaboration that enhance organisational efficiency and employee engagement. The research outcomes highlight the significance of prioritising the welfare of employees and organisations as an essential element of BL.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs per the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) National Ethical Guidelines (2017), the study was exempt from ethical review due to minimal risk and absence of personal identifiers. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll participants were informed about the purpose of the study. Informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants before the interview.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and anonymised. Informed consent was obtained from all participants for the use of their anonymised responses in the publication for research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors received no financial support for this article's research, data collection, or publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eD.P conceptualized the study, designed the interview protocol, and conducted the majority of the interviews.H.C assisted with participant recruitment, transcribed interview data, and supported initial coding. A.Y led the thematic analysis, synthesized findings, and refined the manuscript structure. All authors contributed to writing, critically revised the content, and approved the final manuscript for submission.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to sensitivity reasons and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdair KC, Heath A, Frye MA, Frankel A, Proulx J, Rehder KJ, Eckert E, Penny C, Belz F, Sexton JB. The Psychological Safety Scale of the Safety, Communication, Operational, Reliability, and Engagement (SCORE) Survey: A Brief, Diagnostic, and Actionable Metric for the Ability to Speak Up in Healthcare Settings. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(6):513\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad MS, Iqbal F, Siddique R, Abbas S, Fakhr Z. Responsible leadership and workplace deviant behaviour: modelling trust and turnover intention as mediator. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2020;41(7):939\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0212\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0212\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlang T, Stanton P, Rose M. Enhancing Employee Voice and Inclusion Through Inclusive Leadership in Public Sector Organizations. Public Personnel Manage. 2022;51(3):309\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00910260221085583\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00910260221085583\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlatf A, Anjum H. (2018). Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisor support and subordinate performance. J Manage Hum Resource (JMHR), 1\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmoadu M, Akoto-Buabeng W. Job content, psychological well-being, burnout and fatigue driving among heavy goods vehicle drivers in Ghana. Discover Psychol. 2025;5(1):33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00367-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44202-025-00367-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnh NN, Pham TXT, Phan AC, Matsui Y. The impact of psychological safety on improvement capability: the moderating role of manufacturing complexity. Oper Manage Res. 2025;18(1):400\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-024-00535-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12063-024-00535-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Azevedo MC, Schlosser F, McPhee D. Building organisational innovation through HRM, employee voice and engagement. Personnel Rev. 2020;50(2):751\u0026ndash;69. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2019-0687\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/PR-12-2019-0687\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarkhi R, Kao Y-C. Psychological climate and decision-making performance in a GDSS context. Inf Manag. 2011;48(4\u0026ndash;5):125\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.02.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.im.2011.02.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBentley T, Onnis L, Vassiley A, Farr-Wharton B, Caponecchia C, Andrew C, O\u0026rsquo;Neill S, De Almeida Neto A, Huron V, Green N. A systematic review of literature on occupational health and safety interventions for older workers. Ergonomics. 2023;66(12):1968\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2176550\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140139.2023.2176550\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarmeli A, Gittell JH. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organisations. J Organizational Behav. 2009;30(6):709\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.565\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.565\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan SCH. Benevolent leadership, perceived supervisory support, and subordinates\u0026rsquo; performance: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2017;38(7):897\u0026ndash;911. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-09-2015-0196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen H, Wei W, Wang L, Bao J. Mercy does not hold the army: a study on the dark side effect of benevolent leadership. J Organizational Change Manage. 2024;37(1):133\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2023-0119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JOCM-04-2023-0119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen X, Zhu Z, Liu J. Does A Trusted Leader Always Behave Better? The Relationship Between Leader Feeling Trusted by Employees and Benevolent and Laissez-Faire Leadership Behaviors. J Bus Ethics. 2021;170(3):615\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04390-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-019-04390-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV. Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11(1):479\u0026ndash;516. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/annals.2015.0099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDadaboyev SMU, Baek Y. Organisational misbehaviors: construct review and hierarchical reflective model. Manage Res. 2022;20(4):310\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-01-2022-1266\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/MRJIAM-01-2022-1266\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeng H, Leung K, Lam CK, Huang X. Slacking Off in Comfort: A Dual-Pathway Model for Psychological Safety Climate. J Manag. 2019;45(3):1114\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317693083\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206317693083\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2014;1(1):23\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErkutlu H, Chafra J. Benevolent leadership and psychological well-being. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2016;37(3):369\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0129\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Pers Psychol. 2017;70(1):113\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/peps.12183\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrazier ML, Tupper C. Supervisor Prosocial Motivation, Employee Thriving, and Helping Behavior: A Trickle-Down Model of Psychological Safety. Group Organ Manage. 2018;43(4):561\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116653911\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1059601116653911\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHackman JR. The design of work teams. The Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Handbook of Organisational Behavior; 1987.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey J-F, Johnson KJ, Roloff KS, Edmondson AC. From orientation to behavior: The interplay between learning orientation, open-mindedness, and psychological safety in team learning. Hum Relat. 2019;72(11):1726\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718817812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0018726718817812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHomans GC. Social Behavior as Exchange. Am J Sociol. 1958;63(6):597\u0026ndash;606. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/222355\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/222355\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang J-C. Does benevolent leadership consistently lead to employees\u0026rsquo; voluntary behaviors? Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2022;43(8):1234\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0141\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-04-2021-0141\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJung HS, Yoon HH. The effects of social undermining on employee voice and silence and on organisational deviant behaviors in the hotel industry. J Service Theory Pract. 2019;29(2):213\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-06-2018-0131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JSTP-06-2018-0131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarakas F, Sarigollu E. Benevolent Leadership: Conceptualisation and Construct Development. J Bus Ethics. 2012;108(4):537\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1109-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-011-1109-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarakas F, Sarigollu E, Manisaligil A. The use of benevolent leadership development to advance principles of responsible management education. J Manage Dev. 2013;32(8):801\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0102.R1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0102.R1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhairy HA, Liu S, Sheikhelsouk S, EI-Sherbeeny AM, Alsetoohy O, Al-Romeedy BS. The Effect of Benevolent Leadership on Job Engagement through Psychological Safety and Workplace Friendship Prevalence in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry. Sustain (Switzerland). 2023;15(17). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151713245\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su151713245\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan R, Murtaza G, Neveu JP, Newman A. Reciprocal relationship between workplace incivility and deviant silence\u0026mdash;The moderating role of moral attentiveness. Appl Psychol. 2022;71(1):174\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12316\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/apps.12316\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim S, Lee H, Connerton TP. How Psychological Safety Affects Team Performance: Mediating Role of Efficacy and Learning Behavior. Front Psychol. 2020;11(July):1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01581\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi S, Li J. Fostering trust: Authoritarian, benevolent, and moral paternalistic leadership styles and the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship. Social Behav Personality: Int J. 2021;49(12):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2224/sbp.10452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLoch CH. Creativity and Risk Taking Aren\u0026rsquo;t Rational: Behavioral Operations in MOT. Prod Oper Manage. 2017;26(4):591\u0026ndash;604. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12666\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/poms.12666\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGrath JE. (1964). Toward a theory of method for research on organisations. In \u003cem\u003eNew perspectives in organisation research\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorrison EW. Employee Voice and Silence. Annual Rev Organizational Psychol Organizational Behav. 2014;1(1):173\u0026ndash;97. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNarayanan K, Murphy SE. Conceptual Framework on Workplace Deviance Behaviour: A Review. J Hum Values. 2017;23(3):218\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0971685817713284\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0971685817713284\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNayak S, Budhwar P, Pereira V, Malik A. Exploring the dark-side of E-HRM: a study of social networking sites and deviant workplace behavior. Int J Manpow. 2022;43(1):89\u0026ndash;115. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNazir S, Shafi A, Asadullah MA, Qun W, Khadim S. Linking paternalistic leadership to follower\u0026rsquo;s innovative work behavior: the influence of leader\u0026ndash;member exchange and employee voice. Eur J Innov Manage. 2021;24(4):1354\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiu C, Wang A, Cheng B. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2009;12(1):32\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01267.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01267.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;l\u0026ccedil;er F, Coşkun \u0026Ouml;F. The mediating role of organisational silence in the relationship between organisational justice and organisational creativity. Soc Bus Rev. 2024;19(1):23\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-09-2021-0172\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SBR-09-2021-0172\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePless NM, Murphy M, Maak T, Sengupta A. Societal challenges and business leadership for social innovation. Soc Bus Rev. 2021;16(4):535\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-10-2020-0129\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SBR-10-2020-0129\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePradhan S, Pradhan RK, Kumar Pradhan R. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Deviant Workplace Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Organizational Justice Human Resource Empowerment View project Transformational Leadership and Deviant Workplace Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Organisational Justice. \u003cem\u003eIn Proceedings of the First Asian-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and Social Sciences (Pp. 1\u0026ndash;19)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAugust\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/304024658\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304024658\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRui J, Xinqi L. Trickle-down effect of benevolent leadership on unethical employee behavior: a cross-level moderated mediation model. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2020;41(6):721\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2019-0529\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/LODJ-12-2019-0529\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSabino A, Ces\u0026aacute;rio F, Antunes A. Linking toxic leadership to exit, voice, silence and neglect: the mediating role of loyaltyA liga\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o entre a lideran\u0026ccedil;a t\u0026oacute;xica e a sa\u0026iacute;da, a voz, o sil\u0026ecirc;ncio e a neglig\u0026ecirc;ncia: o papel mediador da lealdadeEl v\u0026iacute;nculo entre liderazgo t\u0026oacute;xico y salida, voz, silenc. Manage Res. 2024;22(1):18\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-10-2023-1471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/MRJIAM-10-2023-1471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma A, Sharma H. Job Autonomy and Employee Psychological Well-being: The Mediating Effect of Employee Voice. South Asian J Hum Resour Manage. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/23220937241257279\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/23220937241257279\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen X, Shen T, Chen Y, Wang Y, He X, Lv X, Jin Q. The associations between benevolent leadership, affective commitment, work engagement and helping behavior of nurses: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):407. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01581-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12912-023-01581-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTan JX, Zawawi D, Aziz YA. Benevolent leadership and its organisational outcomes: A social exchange theory perspective. Int J Econ Manage. 2016;10(2):343\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTedone AM, Bruk-Lee V. Speaking up at work: personality\u0026rsquo;s influence on employee voice behavior. Int J Organizational Anal. 2022;30(2):289\u0026ndash;304. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2417\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJOA-09-2020-2417\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang A, Cheng B. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J Organizational Behav. 2010;31(1):106\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.634\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.634\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu C, Kuo C, Lin C, Hu W, Wu C, Cheng S. How does benevolent leadership lead to work\u0026ndash;family enrichment? The mediating role of positive group affective tone. Stress Health. 2020;36(4):496\u0026ndash;506. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2950\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/smi.2950\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":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":"Benevolent leadership, employee voice, psychological safety, workplace deviant behaviour","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe study investigates the role of benevolent leadership (BL) in fostering employee voice (EV) in a psychologically safe environment, which helps the organisation mitigate workplace deviant behaviour (WDB) of employees. The study uses a theoretical framework to investigate the relationship between BL, psychological safety (PS), EV, and WDB. The study uses an interpretivist approach to explore how BL influences workplace dynamics. 40 employees from various sectors were interviewed. Further, thematic analysis was used to analyse data. The authors have proposed a model in the study that can be utilised in management development programmes to foster BL and abridge employees' deviant behaviour in the workplace. This research has substantial implications for practitioners as well as academics. Practitioners can use the qualitative study and theoretical model to develop training programmes emphasising BL and creating a safe environment to motivate employees to express their opinions and concerns, thus reducing employees' deviant behaviour. The authors have proposed a benevolent leadership model that provides insights for organisational managers and HR leaders in fostering PS and facilitating EV through BL. In alignment with the proposed model, benevolent leaders can encourage trust, transparent communication, and collaboration among employees by prioritising employees' PS.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Analysing the Impact of Benevolent Leadership on Employee Voice and Workplace Deviant Behaviours through the Lens of Psychological Safety","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-04 13:15:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7007435/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":"27ab711f-6390-4463-849f-101718327247","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-15T08:39:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-04 13:15:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7007435","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7007435","identity":"rs-7007435","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}