Why Do Employees Withdraw Under Authority: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Psychological Distance and Moral Identity

Why Do Employees Withdraw Under Authority: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Psychological Distance and Moral Identity | 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 Why Do Employees Withdraw Under Authority: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Psychological Distance and Moral Identity Wenli Zhang, Suosuo Jia, Yuankun Cao, Jiang Yu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/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 Background Understanding why employees withdraw from work responsibilities is critical for organizational effectiveness. This study explores how authoritarian leadership contributes to employee work withdrawal behavior, applying the triadic reciprocal causation model from social cognitive theory. Specifically, it investigates psychological distance as a mediating cognitive mechanism and tests moral identity’s moderating role in potentially buffering the negative consequences. Methods A two-wave survey was conducted with 213 employees from various industries in China. Structural equation modeling and moderated mediation analysis were performed using MPLUS 8.3 and SPSS 26.0. Results It was found that authoritarian leadership positively influenced employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior, with psychological distance mediating this relationship. Employee moral identity negatively moderated both the link between psychological distance and withdrawal behavior and the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership, thereby reducing its overall impact. Conclusions This study identifies psychological distance as a key mechanism linking authoritarian leadership to withdrawal and highlights moral identity as a protective factor. The findings offer insights for promoting healthier leader-employee relationships and minimizing withdrawal in the workplace. Authoritarian leadership Psychological distance Work withdrawal behavior Moral identity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Leadership plays a critical role in shaping employee behavior [ 1 ], influencing workplace dynamics and organizational outcomes. Among various leadership approaches, authoritarian leadership, characterized by high control, strict discipline, and unilateral decision-making [2 − 4], is common in hierarchical organizations, especially in high power distance cultures [ 5 ]. While some studies suggest it enhances discipline and efficiency [ 6 ], others highlight its detrimental effects on employees, including workplace stress, diminished performance [ 7 ] and counterproductive work behaviors [ 8 , 9 ]. Work withdrawal behavior, generally regarded as a form of counterproductive work behavior, which includes lateness, absenteeism, and turnover [ 10 , 11 ], undermining team cohesion and overall productivity [ 12 ]. However, the underlying mechanisms through which authoritarian leadership influences work withdrawal behavior, remain insufficiently explored. Despite significant progress in authoritarian leadership research, several questions still require further exploration. Most studies focus on its inhibitory effects on active behaviors, such as reducing creativity [ 13 , 14 ] and suppressing voice behavior [ 15 ]. While some research links authoritarian leadership to negative behaviors like cyberloafing [ 16 ], its role in withdrawal behavior, which is shaped by environmental factors, requires further exploration. Additionally, despite various antecedents of withdrawal behavior, the influence of leadership remains understudied. Existing research primarily examines withdrawal through employees’ emotions and affective states [ 17 , 18 ] or focuses on overtly destructive supervisory behaviors like abusive supervision [ 19 , 20 ]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how authoritarian leadership contributes to employee withdrawal behavior. Our study seeks to address this gap by examining the role of psychological distance as a mediator and moral identity as a moderator in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior, grounded in social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory posits the concept of triadic reciprocal causation , where environmental, cognitive,and behavioral influences continuously interact [21 − 23]. In leader-employee interactions, employees’ cognition is shaped by environmental factors, particularly their observations and interpretations of leadership styles [ 24 , 25 ]. When leaders adopt a controlling and hierarchical approach, employees may feel powerless and constrained within the organization, perceiving limited autonomy and opportunities for growth. This social cognitive process disrupts employees’ psychological states, likely fosters greater psychological distance, reducing employees’ sense of connection and involvement. This, in turn, may increase employees’ withdrawal behaviors, such as reduced work effort, and turnover intentions, as a way to cope with the unfavorable work environment [ 26 ]. Additionally, we propose that moral identity, a self-concept rooted in moral traits such as honesty, fairness, and compassion [ 27 ], moderates the relationship between psychological distance and withdrawal behavior. Employees with high moral identity may be more resilient to the negative effects of psychological distance, as their moral convictions might drive them to remain committed despite perceived detachment from their leader. Conversely, employees with low moral identity may be more prone to disengagement when faced with psychological distance, as they lack a strong internalized moral obligation to persist in adverse circumstances. Thus, moral identity further shapes this social cognitive process, altering how employees construe the justifiability of withdrawal in response to psychological distance. Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we highlight the impact of authoritarian leadership on negative employee behaviors, particularly withdrawal behavior, expanding its theoretical framework.While dominant theories like social exchange theory [ 13 , 28 ], affective events theory [ 9 ], and conservation of resources theory [ 29 ], explain its effects, they overlook employees’ social cognitive interpretations of authoritarian leadership. Second, we identify authoritarian leadership as a key antecedent of withdrawal behavior and reveal psychological distance as a mediator, offering a nuanced perspective on how leadership influences employee behavior through cognitive perceptions. Finally, our model introduces moral identity as a boundary condition, recognizing individual differences in responses to psychological distance. The moderating role of moral identity enriches social cognitive theory by demonstrating how employees’ moral self-concept shapes their perception of psychological distance, ultimately influencing their withdrawal or persistence in the workplace. Theoretical background and hypotheses Social Cognitive Theory Social cognitive theory explains human functioning through triadic reciprocal causation, in which environmental influences, cognitive factors, and behavioral patterns interact bidirectionally as determinants of one another [21 − 23]. The theory provides a dynamic framework for understanding the relationship between authoritarian leadership (environment), psychological distance (personal cognition), and work withdrawal behavior (behavior). This framework is reflected in three key aspects. First, from a cognitive processing perspective, individuals interpret external stimuli through mechanisms like attention and memory [ 22 , 23 ]. Authoritarian leadership’s high-pressure style influences employees’ cognition, increasing psychological distance. Second, from a self-efficacy perspective, employees’ belief in their ability to complete tasks affects motivation and effort. Misalignment with authoritarian leadership or lack of leader support can reduce motivation, leading to withdrawal behavior. Finally, from a self-regulation perspective, individuals monitor behavior to align with personal goals or social norms [ 21 , 22 ]. Employees’ moral identity influences their behavioral responses, shaping how they manage psychological distance challenges. Authoritarian leadership and psychological distance Psychological distance refers to an individual’s subjective perception of closeness or detachment from others, influenced by factors such as status and cultural differences [ 26 , 30 ]. Our study focuses on the leader-employee relationship and therefore defines psychological distance as employees’ perceived closeness or detachment from their leaders, reflecting their sense of intimacy with leadership. As previously discussed, authoritarian leaders emphasize strict obedience from employees and often devalue their contributions [ 31 , 32 ], which can result in cognitive confusion and restricted communication among employees. Drawing on social cognitive theory, employees may develop negative social cognition, perceiving strict leadership behaviors as indications of personal dislike or disapproval [ 33 ]. In such instances, employees are likely to experience a lack of positive emotional connection with their leader [ 5 ]. Furthermore, the paternalistic and highly interventionist approach of authoritarian leaders may lead employees to question their own abilities, thereby undermining their personal agency. This loss of control can even evoke feelings of fear [ 34 ], ultimately intensifying their subjective perception of psychological distance. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1. Authoritarian leadership positively influences employees’ psychological distance. The mediating role of psychological distance In social cognitive theory, sociostructural factors operate through psychological mechanisms to produce behavioral effects [ 23 ]. Prior research suggests that when individuals experience relationship breakdowns, they tend to engage in withdrawal behaviors as a self-protective mechanism to avoid further harm [ 35 ]. Building on this, we argue that high psychological distance reflects a detached emotional connection between employees and their leaders. This, in turn, can lead employees to make more negative cognition, such as perceiving the leader as aloof or deliberately suppressive, which may subsequently trigger work withdrawal behaviors due to the negative emotions generated by such perceptions. Furthermore, greater psychological distance between employees and leaders can lead to avoidance coping [ 26 ] and even emotional exhaustion [ 36 ], which may foster distrust toward leadership and create a negative psychological experience. This, in turn, can motivate employees to disengage from their work, manifesting in passive compliance and reduced effort, ultimately increasing work withdrawal behavior. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis: H2. Psychological distance positively influences employees’ work withdrawal behavior. As discussed earlier, authoritarian leadership increases the psychological distance between employees and leaders, which in turn heightens the likelihood of employees’ work withdrawal behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize: H3. Authoritarian leadership positively influences employees’ work withdrawal behavior through psychological distance. The moderating role of moral identity Moral identity is defined as a personal trait reflecting the centrality of moral characteristics (e.g., diligence, kindness) to one’s self-concept [ 37 ]. We argue that employees with high moral identity are less likely to engage in work withdrawal behavior under high psychological distance. Individuals with a strong moral identity concern more about others’ well-being [ 38 ] and are likely to uphold moral principles, resisting behaviors detrimental to the organization, thus reducing withdrawal behavior. Additionally, work withdrawal is sometimes categorized as a form of counterproductive behavior [ 39 ]. Employees with lower moral identity are more prone to moral disengagement and self-control depletion, leading to greater engagement in counterproductive work behavior [ 40 ]. Conversely, employees with high moral identity experience greater meaningfulness and self-congruence in their work, providing positive psychological resources that help buffer stress and reduce work withdrawal caused by psychological distance. Bandura [ 22 ] proposed that self-regulation mechanisms help individuals maintain self-control, enabling them to persist in positive behaviors even in adverse environments. Employees with high moral identity may perceive authoritarian leadership as a performance-driven management style. Despite its rigid nature, they still recognize their professional responsibilities and seek to avoid negative behaviors. Such individuals are more likely to regulate their actions based on their personal values [ 41 ] and are less prone to withdrawal in response to increased psychological distance. However, employees with low moral identity are less committed to moral norms [ 42 ], when experiencing high psychological distance, they feel less compelled to maintain a moral self-image and are more likely to engage in work withdrawal behavior. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis : H4. Moral identity moderates the positive relationship between psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior, such that this relationship is weaker when moral identity is high and stronger when moral identity is low. Building on H3 and H4, we argue that employees with high moral identity are more likely to mitigate the effect of psychological distance induced by authoritarian leadership, thereby reducing work withdrawal behavior. In contrast, for employees who do not view morality as a core aspect of their self-concept, the indirect relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior is likely to be stronger. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis: H5. Moral identity negatively moderates the mediating role of psychological distance in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior, such that the indirect effect is weaker when moral identity is high and stronger when moral identity is low. Methods Sample and procedure Data were collected from participants across various industries in China, including healthcare, energy, real estate, manufacturing, and information technology. To minimize common method bias [ 43 ], data collection occurred at two time points, approximately two weeks apart. At Time 1, data on authoritarian leadership, psychological distance, and moral identity were collected, yielding 282 responses. At Time 2, data on work withdrawal behavior were collected, resulting in 232 responses. After matching responses across both time points, 221 matched surveys were obtained. Following the removal of invalid responses, the final sample consisted of 213 valid questionnaires. Among the participants, 45.1% were male, and 54.9% were female. The average age of employees was 29.1, with an average tenure of 32.5 months in their current organization. In terms of education, 77.5% of employees held a bachelor’s degree or higher, while 22.5% had an education level below a bachelor’s degree. Measures This study employs well-established scales, refined through Brislin’s [ 44 ] translation-back translation procedure for linguistic accuracy and conceptual equivalence. A five-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”) was used to measure participants’ responses, ensuring a clear assessment of agreement levels. Authoritarian leadership was measured using a five-item scale developed by Cheng et al. [ 2 ], with sample items such as “My supervisor determined all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not.” The Cronbach’s α value was 0.80. Employee psychological distance was assessed using an 11-item scale developed by Salzmann et al. [ 30 ]. A sample item is “Towards my direct leader, I feel very tense.” The Cronbach’s α value was 0.81. Moral identity was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Aquino et al. [ 27 ]. Participants were asked to consider nine traits—caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honesty, and kind—and rate their agreement with statements such as “Having these characteristics is an important part of my sense of self.” The Cronbach’s α value was 0.88. Work withdrawal behavior was measured using a four-item scale developed by Pelled et al. [ 11 ], with a sample item being “I am late for work or meetings.” The Cronbach’s α value was 0.78. Consistent with previous studies [ 12 , 16 ], we controlled for employees’ gender, age, education level, and tenure working with their direct leader. Data analysis and results Common method bias test and confirmatory factor analysis Following prior research [ 13 ], Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess common method bias. The first factor accounted for 26.4% of the variance, well below the 40% threshold, indicating that common method bias was not a significant concern in this study. To examine the discriminant validity among the four factors, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using MPLUS 8.3. Given that some latent variables in the model contained more than five items, item parceling was applied to scales with excessive items to improve model parsimony. As shown in Table 1 , the four-factor model demonstrated the best fit (χ² = 188.03, df = 99, χ²/ df = 1.90, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06), indicating good discriminant validity among the four factors examined in this study. Table 1 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model c 2 df c 2/ df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Four-factor model (AL; PD; MI; WD) 188.03 99 1.90 0.94 0.93 0.07 0.06 Three-factor model (AL + PD ; MI; WD) 457.93 102 4.49 0.76 0.71 0.13 0.13 Two-factor model (AL + PD + MI; WD) 819.41 104 7.89 0.51 0.43 0.18 0.15 One-factor model (AL + PD + MI + WD) 1017.59 105 9.69 0.37 0.28 0.20 0.17 Notes: AL = Authoritarian leadership, PD = Employees’ psychological distance, MI = Employees’ moral identity, WD = Employees’ work withdrawal behavior. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results We used SPSS 26.0 to analyze the correlations among the study variables. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients, are presented in Table 2 . The results indicated a significant positive correlation between authoritarian leadership and employee psychological distance ( r = 0.24, p < 0.01) and a significant positive correlation between employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior ( r = 0.25, p < 0.01). These findings provide preliminary support for H1 and H2. Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Gender 1.55 0.50 2. Age 29.14 4.60 –0.10 3. Education 2.96 0.90 0.12 –0.09 4. Tenure with leader 32.48 33.82 –0.01 0.57 ** –0.16 * 5. Servant leadership 3.31 0.77 –0.10 –0.01 –0.09 0.08 0.86 6. Authoritarian leadership 3.21 0.80 –0.04 0.04 –0.10 0.07 –0.04 0.80 7. Employees’ psychological distance 2.59 0.59 –0.01 0.01 0.04 –0.06 –0.68 ** 0.24 ** 0.81 8. Employees’ moral identity 3.73 0.70 0.07 –0.13 0.13 0.07 0.40 ** 0.11 –0.39 ** 0.88 9. Employees’ work withdrawal behavior 2.37 0.82 –0.05 –0.00 0.15 * –0.04 –0.15 * 0.13 0.25 ** –0.02 0.78 Notes: N = 213; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; The bold numbers on the diagonal represent the alphas of the corresponding scale. Regression analysis results The regression results are shown in Table 3 . To test moderation and reduce multicollinearity [ 45 ], the independent variable and interaction term were mean-centered. The moderating effects were further illustrated by plotting interactions at high and low levels of the moderating variable. Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression analyses Variables Employees’ psychological distance Employees’ work withdrawal behavior Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Constant 4.46 *** 3.89 *** 2.65 *** 1.93 ** 1.99 *** Gender –0.08 –0.087 –0.13 –0.10 –0.13 Age 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Education –0.01 –0.00 0.13 * 0.14 * 0.11 Tenure with leader 0.00 –0.00 0.00 0.00 –0.00 Servant leadership –0.53 *** –0.52 *** –0.15 * 0.05 0.01 Authoritarian leadership 0.15 *** 0.09 0.11 Employees’ psychological distance 0.39 ** 0.41 ** Employees’ moral identity 0.17 EPD × EMI –0.32 ** R 2 0.47 0.51 0.05 0.09 0.13 R 2 change 0.04 *** 0.04 ** 0.04 *** Notes: N = 213; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; EPD = Employees’ psychological distance, EMI = Employees’ moral identity. Regression results in Model 2 showed that authoritarian leadership positively predicted employee psychological distance ( b = 0.15, p < 0.001), providing support for H1. Model 4 confirmed that psychological distance positively influenced work withdrawal ( b = 0.39, p < 0.01), supporting H2. H3 proposed the mediating role of employee psychological distance. Model 4 revealed a significant mediation effect (indirect effect = 0.06, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.12], excluding zero), providing support for H3. H4 posited the moderating effect of employee moral identity. Model 5 in Table 3 indicated that employee moral identity significantly and negatively moderated the positive relationship between employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior ( b = − 0.32, p < 0.01), providing support for H4. Additionally, the moderating effect is illustrated in Fig. 2 using a simple slope test. Specifically, when moral identity was one standard deviation below the mean, the positive effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal behavior was more pronounced ( b = 0.59, t = 4.53, 95% CI [0.34, 0.85], excluding zero). In contrast, when moral identity was one standard deviation above the mean, the positive effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal behavior was not significant ( b = 0.11, t = 0.89, 95% CI [–0.14, 0.37], including zero). Employee moral identity negatively moderated the mediating effect of authoritarian leadership on work withdrawal via psychological distance. Specifically, for employees with low levels of moral identity, the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on work withdrawal behavior was stronger (indirect effect = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.20], excluding zero). In contrast, for employees with high levels of moral identity, the indirect effect was not significant (indirect effect = 0.02, 95% CI = [–0.03, 0.09], including zero). The difference in the indirect effect across high and low levels of moral identity was significant (Δ b = − 0.09, 95% CI = [–0.18, − 0.02], excluding zero). Thus, H5 was supported. Discussion Drawing on social cognitive theory and a two-wave data analysis, our study shows that authoritarian leadership increases psychological distance between employees and leaders. This widened distance raises the likelihood of work withdrawal behavior. Moreover, lower moral identity amplifies the effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal, with the positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal being stronger under low moral identity conditions. Theoretical implications First, our study contributes to understanding the outcomes of authoritarian leadership by examining its role in promoting negative behaviors, particularly withdrawal behavior. While prior research has highlighted its negative impact on employee well-being [ 46 ], innovative work behavior [ 47 ], and both individual and team performance [ 12 ], we expand this by focusing on withdrawal behavior. Although authoritarian leadership has been linked to counterproductive work behaviors [ 8 , 9 ], withdrawal behavior differs as it is non-directed, non-intentional and serves as an escape from unfavorable conditions [ 39 ]. Our study highlights the importance of distinguishing withdrawal behavior from counterproductive work behavior and provides a deeper understanding of employees’ passive coping mechanisms in response to authoritarian leadership. Second, we provide new insights into the mechanisms driving withdrawal behavior, generally studied from emotional and affective perspectives. Previous research links work withdrawal to negative affect from surface acting [ 17 ] and shame induced by abusive supervision or illegitimate tasks [ 18 , 20 ]. Unlike abusive supervision, which involves overt mistreatment, authoritarian leadership emphasizes authority and discipline without inherent hostility. Additionally, while illegitimate tasks concern task fairness, authoritarian leadership reflects a control style rather than task nature. Drawing on social cognitive theory, we conceptualize authoritarian leadership as an environmental factor shaping employees’ cognition, ultimately triggering withdrawal behavior. Our findings highlight leadership style as a key precursor to work withdrawal, opening new research directions. Finally, this study reveals that moral identity plays a negative moderating role in the mediating effect of psychological distance between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior. Previous research has explored various moderators of authoritarian leadership’s impact, such as power distance from the perspective of social exchange theory [ 13 ], in-group/out-group distinctions from the perspective of social identity theory [ 48 ],and event disruption from the appraisal theory [ 49 ]. However, moral identity, as a personal trait reflecting self-concept, plays a crucial role in individuals’ cognitive processes and can significantly influence subsequent behaviors. Our findings extend the literature on the boundary conditions of authoritarian leadership’s influence mechanisms. Practical implications This study offers valuable guidance for practitioners. First, our findings suggest that an overly authoritarian and controlling leadership style may increase employees’ psychological distance, potentially leading to disengagement and reduced proactivity. Research indicates that a leader’s perceived intent to harm, rather than actual harm, drives employees’ withdrawal behavior [ 35 ]. Therefore, leaders should exercise caution when adopting an authoritarian leadership approach, avoid conveying intentional hostility toward employees. Additionally, they can integrate elements of empowering leadership or transformational leadership alongside their authoritative style, allowing employees to maintain obedience to authority while still feeling supported and valued. Second, employees’ psychological distance largely shapes their attitudes and behaviors toward work, highlighting the importance of addressing their psychological experiences. Organizations can reduce psychological distance by establishing feedback mechanisms, providing psychological support, and fostering greater interaction between employees and leaders. Additionally, cultivating a culture of organizational trust can enhance employees’ sense of involvement and belonging, helping to mitigate the adverse effects of psychological distance. Third, organizations can develop tailored human resource management strategies based on employees’ moral identity levels. For those with low moral identity, transparent performance evaluations and additional incentives may help prevent negative behaviors linked to psychological distance. Assessing candidates’ moral identity during recruitment may reduce the likelihood of withdrawal behavior. Moreover, research suggests that personality traits can change over time [ 50 ], indicating that organizations can foster employees’ moral identity through training programs, value-driven initiatives, and role modeling, ultimately reducing work withdrawal behavior. Limitations and future research While our study has several strengths, it also has limitations that warrant further improvement. First, although we collected data in two waves and used Harman’s single-factor test and confirmatory factor analysis to minimize common method bias, future research should collect multi-wave and multi-source data for greater validity.Additionally, relying solely on surveys limits causal inference; experimental methods could better verify variable relationships. Furthermore, our sample size was limited to 213 matched responses. Expanding the sample in future studies would enhance external validity and generalizability. Second, our study treats authoritarian leadership as a common and broadly applied management style without further differentiation or refinement. However, leaders may apply authoritarian behaviors inconsistently, leading to varied employee reactions [ 12 ]. Some variations may mitigate withdrawal behavior, a topic for future exploration. Additionally, the motives behind authoritarian leadership can be categorized into discipline-focused and dominance-focused approaches [ 51 ], yet their distinct effects on withdrawal behavior remain unclear. Investigating these classifications could provide deeper insights into the nuanced impact of authoritarian leadership, helping to refine theoretical frameworks and management practices. Lastly, social cognitive theory acknowledges intracultural diversity and intraindividual variation in psychosocial orientations [ 52 ], suggesting that authoritarian leadership may manifest differently across cultures.. While our study includes multiple industries in China, future research could explore its generalizability across diverse social systems and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, leadership studies often focus solely on workplace effects [ 4 , 32 ], overlooking work-family interactions. Since work and family domains are interconnected [ 53 ], future research should examine how authoritarian leadership influences employees’ family lives to provide a more comprehensive understanding of its broader impact. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, and were in line with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was signed and obtained from all individual participants included in the study Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Regional Project (No. 72262018) and the Jiangxi Province 2024 Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund Project (No. YC2024-B128). Author Contribution Conceptualization, Writing, W.Z. and S.J.; Methodology, S.J; Revisions, Analysis, W.Z.; Supervision, Y.C.; Review & Editing, J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the organizations that supported data collection and to all participants for generously sharing their experiences, which contributed significantly to this research. Availability of data and material The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author. References Boekhorst JA. The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Hum Resour Manag. 2015;54(2):241–64. Cheng BS, Chou LF, Wu TY, Huang MP, Farh JL. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2004;7(1):89–117. Chen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J Manag. 2014;40(3):796–819. Schaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(2):203. Li Y, Sun JM. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. Leadersh Q. 2015;26(2):172–89. Zhao H, Su Q, Lou M, Hang C, Zhang L. Does authoritarianism necessarily stifle creativity? The role of discipline-focused authoritarian leadership. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1037102. Chen L, Huang X, Sun JM, Zheng Y, Graham L, Jiang J. The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation. Asia Pac J Manag. 2024;41(2):507–47. Jiang R, Lin X. Effect of managers’ sleep quality on authoritarian leadership dynamics and employees’ counterproductive behavior. J Manag Psychol. 2024;39(5):570–83. Hu X, Dong M, Li Y, Wang M. The cross-level influence of authoritarian leadership on counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(27):23580–93. Berry CM, Lelchook AM, Clark MA. A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(5):678–99. Pelled LH, Xin KR. Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. J Manag. 1999;25(6):875–95. Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z, Gumusluoglu L, Erturk A, Scandura TA. What if authoritarian to all or to some? A multi-level investigation of within-team differentiation in authoritarian leadership. J Bus Res. 2023;162:113873. Gu J, Wang G, Liu H, Song D, He C. Linking authoritarian leadership to employee creativity: The influences of leader–member exchange, team identification and power distance. Chin Manag Stud. 2018;12(2):384–406. Zhao H, Su Q, Zhang L, Zhong J. Understanding the influence of dual authoritarian leadership on employee creativity: The type of leadership and the role of event. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(29):25308–30. Zheng Y, Graham L, Farh JL, Huang X. The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. J Bus Ethics. 2021;170(1):133–46. Zhang Y, Wang J, Akhtar MN, Wang Y. Authoritarian leadership and cyberloafing: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1010845. Scott BA, Barnes CM. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Acad Manag J. 2011;54(1):116–36. Wang Z, Jiang F. It is not only what you do, but why you do it: The role of attribution in employees’ emotional and behavioral responses to illegitimate tasks. J Vocat Behav. 2023;142:103860. Liang Y, Chen T, Asante EA, Yan M, Deng J, Lam W. An identity threat appraisal framework explaining distinct reactions to active- and passive-aggressive abusive supervision. J Manag. 2025. 10.1177/01492063241312657 . Gao R, Liu B. Is abusive supervision the last straw? The buffering role of construal level in the association of abusive supervision with withdrawal. Front Psychol. 2022;13:831185. Bandura A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. Am Psychol. 1978;33(4):344. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):1–26. Carmeli A, Schaubroeck J. The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(1):35–48. Egan R, Turner M, Blackman D. Leadership and employee work passion: Propositions for future empirical investigations. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2017;16(4):394–424. Marstand AF, Epitropaki O, Kapoutsis I. Distant but close’: Leadership behaviors, psychological distance, employee coping and effectiveness in remote work contexts. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2025;98(1):e12544. Aquino K, Reed IIA. The self-importance of moral identity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(6):1423. Wang L, Sun Y, Li J, Xu Y, Chen M, Zhu X, et al. Effects of ambidextrous leadership on employees’ work behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Front Psychol. 2022;13:862799. Peng S, Huang Y. Teachers’ authoritarian leadership and students’ well-being: The role of emotional exhaustion and narcissism. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):590. Salzmann J, Grasha AF. Psychological size and psychological distance in manager-subordinate relationships. J Soc Psychol. 1991;131(5):629–46. Jiang H, Chen Y, Sun P, Li C. Authoritarian leadership and employees’ unsafe behaviors: The mediating roles of organizational cynicism and work alienation. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(6):1668–78. Zheng Y, Huang X, Graham L, Redman T, Hu S. Deterrence effects: The role of authoritarian leadership in controlling employee workplace deviance. Manag Organ Rev. 2020;16(2):377–404. Xing L, Sun JM, Jepsen D, Zhang Y. Supervisor negative feedback and employee motivation to learn: An attribution perspective. Hum Relat. 2023;76(2):310–40. Farh JL, Cheng BS, Chou LF, Chu XP. Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. China’s Domestic Private Firms. Routledge; 2014. pp. 230–60. Jolly PM, Krylova KO, Phillips JS. Leader intention, misconduct and damaged relational follower identity: A moral decision making perspective. Leadersh Q. 2022;33(4):101425. Dang-Van T, Nguyen PT, Vu TT, Doan MQ. How does social overload lead to withdrawal behavior? The case of social communities on social networking sites. Inf Technol People. 2025. 10.1108/ITP-02-2024-0224 . Blasi A. Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In: Kurtines W, Gewitz J, editors. Morality, moral behavior and moral development. New York, NY: Wiley; 1984. pp. 128–39. O’Reilly J, Aquino K, Skarlicki D. The lives of others: Third parties’ responses to others’ injustice. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(2):171. Carpenter NC, Berry CM. Are counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal empirically distinct? A meta-analytic investigation. J Manag. 2017;43(3):834–63. Zhang H, Liu XL, Cai Y, Sun X. Paved with good intentions: Self-regulation breakdown after altruistic ethical transgression. J Bus Ethics. 2023;186(2):385–405. Hu X, Jiang Z. Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust in management. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2018;29(5):746–71. Hertz SG, Krettenauer T. Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior? A meta-analysis. Rev Gen Psychol. 2016;20(2):129–40. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63(1):539–69. Brislin RW. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triandis HC, Berry JW, editors. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology. Allyn and Bacon; 1980. pp. 389–444. Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. Xiao J, Yang G, Xie S, Zhao X. The boon and bane of authoritarian leadership: An impression management perspective investigating the differential effects of authoritarian leadership on employee outcomes. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(22):19676–89. 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 Manag. 2021;24(4):1354–78. Wang L, Cheng MY, Wang S. Carrot or stick? The role of in-group/out-group on the multilevel relationship between authoritarian and differential leadership and employee turnover intention. J Bus Ethics. 2018;152:1069–84. Zhu Z, Chen X, Johnson RE, Yang M, Yuan Y, Yin Y, et al. A tale of two narratives: The role of event disruption in employee affective and behavioral reactions to authoritarian leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2024. 10.1037/apl0001209 . Smallfield J, Kluemper DH. An explanation of personality change in organizational science: Personality as an outcome of workplace stress. J Manag. 2022;48(4):851–77. Lou M, Zhao H, Ma C, Zhang L. Discipline vs. dominance: The relationships between different types of authoritarian leadership and employee self-interested voice. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(32):27927–41. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Appl Psychol. 2002;51(2):269–90. Liang Y, Asante EA, Shi L, Chen K, Guan Z. Family strains, work passion drains: The impact of daily family demands on daily work passion. J Bus Res. 2025;189:115186. 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-6486110","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":448413888,"identity":"16e461d9-ee87-4ce5-b696-d4ef2316b7f8","order_by":0,"name":"Wenli Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenli","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":448413889,"identity":"ebff27fe-b1e0-4167-96cf-c8cecb98b59e","order_by":1,"name":"Suosuo Jia","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suosuo","middleName":"","lastName":"Jia","suffix":""},{"id":448413890,"identity":"484fbb91-6daa-4cee-b047-a4729b08f396","order_by":2,"name":"Yuankun Cao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuankun","middleName":"","lastName":"Cao","suffix":""},{"id":448413891,"identity":"bde5ca7b-4a35-45b1-b7e4-240d5cb3400f","order_by":3,"name":"Jiang Yu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Yu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-19 17:38:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81504023,"identity":"d651a409-3cd2-4702-8d17-5f0242c901a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-28 05:05:20","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92742,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheoretical model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6486110/v1/54f14719ecb33abb19b5256e.jpeg"},{"id":81503758,"identity":"a8073254-f53a-4fe6-a801-261bb8b8b997","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-28 04:57:20","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":122913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect of moral identity on psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior of employees\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6486110/v1/175bf6eb79e1f594a34dc1e3.jpeg"},{"id":100237280,"identity":"55d69333-a129-4940-96c9-b1f1bf536d40","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-14 12:41:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1162200,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6486110/v1/79772327-00b4-4e07-a1d4-e09daf621b0a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Why Do Employees Withdraw Under Authority: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Psychological Distance and Moral Identity","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLeadership plays a critical role in shaping employee behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], influencing workplace dynamics and organizational outcomes. Among various leadership approaches, authoritarian leadership, characterized by high control, strict discipline, and unilateral decision-making [2\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4], is common in hierarchical organizations, especially in high power distance cultures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. While some studies suggest it enhances discipline and efficiency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], others highlight its detrimental effects on employees, including workplace stress, diminished performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e] and counterproductive work behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Work withdrawal behavior, generally regarded as a form of counterproductive work behavior, which includes lateness, absenteeism, and turnover [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], undermining team cohesion and overall productivity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the underlying mechanisms through which authoritarian leadership influences work withdrawal behavior, remain insufficiently explored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite significant progress in authoritarian leadership research, several questions still require further exploration. Most studies focus on its inhibitory effects on active behaviors, such as reducing creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] and suppressing voice behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. While some research links authoritarian leadership to negative behaviors like cyberloafing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], its role in withdrawal behavior, which is shaped by environmental factors, requires further exploration. Additionally, despite various antecedents of withdrawal behavior, the influence of leadership remains understudied. Existing research primarily examines withdrawal through employees\u0026rsquo; emotions and affective states [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] or focuses on overtly destructive supervisory behaviors like abusive supervision [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how authoritarian leadership contributes to employee withdrawal behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study seeks to address this gap by examining the role of psychological distance as a mediator and moral identity as a moderator in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior, grounded in social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory posits the concept of \u003cem\u003etriadic reciprocal causation\u003c/em\u003e, where environmental, cognitive,and behavioral influences continuously interact [21\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23]. In leader-employee interactions, employees\u0026rsquo; cognition is shaped by environmental factors, particularly their observations and interpretations of leadership styles [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. When leaders adopt a controlling and hierarchical approach, employees may feel powerless and constrained within the organization, perceiving limited autonomy and opportunities for growth. This social cognitive process disrupts employees\u0026rsquo; psychological states, likely fosters greater psychological distance, reducing employees\u0026rsquo; sense of connection and involvement. This, in turn, may increase employees\u0026rsquo; withdrawal behaviors, such as reduced work effort, and turnover intentions, as a way to cope with the unfavorable work environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, we propose that moral identity, a self-concept rooted in moral traits such as honesty, fairness, and compassion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], moderates the relationship between psychological distance and withdrawal behavior. Employees with high moral identity may be more resilient to the negative effects of psychological distance, as their moral convictions might drive them to remain committed despite perceived detachment from their leader. Conversely, employees with low moral identity may be more prone to disengagement when faced with psychological distance, as they lack a strong internalized moral obligation to persist in adverse circumstances. Thus, moral identity further shapes this social cognitive process, altering how employees construe the justifiability of withdrawal in response to psychological distance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we highlight the impact of authoritarian leadership on negative employee behaviors, particularly withdrawal behavior, expanding its theoretical framework.While dominant theories like social exchange theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], affective events theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], and conservation of resources theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], explain its effects, they overlook employees\u0026rsquo; social cognitive interpretations of authoritarian leadership. Second, we identify authoritarian leadership as a key antecedent of withdrawal behavior and reveal psychological distance as a mediator, offering a nuanced perspective on how leadership influences employee behavior through cognitive perceptions. Finally, our model introduces moral identity as a boundary condition, recognizing individual differences in responses to psychological distance. The moderating role of moral identity enriches social cognitive theory by demonstrating how employees\u0026rsquo; moral self-concept shapes their perception of psychological distance, ultimately influencing their withdrawal or persistence in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical background and hypotheses","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSocial Cognitive Theory\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial cognitive theory explains human functioning through triadic reciprocal causation, in which environmental influences, cognitive factors, and behavioral patterns interact bidirectionally as determinants of one another [21\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23]. The theory provides a dynamic framework for understanding the relationship between authoritarian leadership (environment), psychological distance (personal cognition), and work withdrawal behavior (behavior).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis framework is reflected in three key aspects. First, from a cognitive processing perspective, individuals interpret external stimuli through mechanisms like attention and memory [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Authoritarian leadership\u0026rsquo;s high-pressure style influences employees\u0026rsquo; cognition, increasing psychological distance. Second, from a self-efficacy perspective, employees\u0026rsquo; belief in their ability to complete tasks affects motivation and effort. Misalignment with authoritarian leadership or lack of leader support can reduce motivation, leading to withdrawal behavior. Finally, from a self-regulation perspective, individuals monitor behavior to align with personal goals or social norms [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity influences their behavioral responses, shaping how they manage psychological distance challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAuthoritarian leadership and psychological distance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePsychological distance refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s subjective perception of closeness or detachment from others, influenced by factors such as status and cultural differences [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Our study focuses on the leader-employee relationship and therefore defines psychological distance as employees\u0026rsquo; perceived closeness or detachment from their leaders, reflecting their sense of intimacy with leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs previously discussed, authoritarian leaders emphasize strict obedience from employees and often devalue their contributions [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], which can result in cognitive confusion and restricted communication among employees. Drawing on social cognitive theory, employees may develop negative social cognition, perceiving strict leadership behaviors as indications of personal dislike or disapproval [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. In such instances, employees are likely to experience a lack of positive emotional connection with their leader [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the paternalistic and highly interventionist approach of authoritarian leaders may lead employees to question their own abilities, thereby undermining their personal agency. This loss of control can even evoke feelings of fear [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], ultimately intensifying their subjective perception of psychological distance. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1.\u003c/strong\u003e Authoritarian leadership positively influences employees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe mediating role of psychological distance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn social cognitive theory, sociostructural factors operate through psychological mechanisms to produce behavioral effects [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Prior research suggests that when individuals experience relationship breakdowns, they tend to engage in withdrawal behaviors as a self-protective mechanism to avoid further harm [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Building on this, we argue that high psychological distance reflects a detached emotional connection between employees and their leaders. This, in turn, can lead employees to make more negative cognition, such as perceiving the leader as aloof or deliberately suppressive, which may subsequently trigger work withdrawal behaviors due to the negative emotions generated by such perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, greater psychological distance between employees and leaders can lead to avoidance coping [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] and even emotional exhaustion [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], which may foster distrust toward leadership and create a negative psychological experience. This, in turn, can motivate employees to disengage from their work, manifesting in passive compliance and reduced effort, ultimately increasing work withdrawal behavior. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2.\u003c/strong\u003e Psychological distance positively influences employees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs discussed earlier, authoritarian leadership increases the psychological distance between employees and leaders, which in turn heightens the likelihood of employees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior. Therefore, we hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3.\u003c/strong\u003e Authoritarian leadership positively influences employees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior through psychological distance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe moderating role of moral identity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoral identity is defined as a personal trait reflecting the centrality of moral characteristics (e.g., diligence, kindness) to one\u0026rsquo;s self-concept [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. We argue that employees with high moral identity are less likely to engage in work withdrawal behavior under high psychological distance. Individuals with a strong moral identity concern more about others\u0026rsquo; well-being [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] and are likely to uphold moral principles, resisting behaviors detrimental to the organization, thus reducing withdrawal behavior. Additionally, work withdrawal is sometimes categorized as a form of counterproductive behavior [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Employees with lower moral identity are more prone to moral disengagement and self-control depletion, leading to greater engagement in counterproductive work behavior [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, employees with high moral identity experience greater meaningfulness and self-congruence in their work, providing positive psychological resources that help buffer stress and reduce work withdrawal caused by psychological distance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBandura [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] proposed that self-regulation mechanisms help individuals maintain self-control, enabling them to persist in positive behaviors even in adverse environments. Employees with high moral identity may perceive authoritarian leadership as a performance-driven management style. Despite its rigid nature, they still recognize their professional responsibilities and seek to avoid negative behaviors. Such individuals are more likely to regulate their actions based on their personal values [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] and are less prone to withdrawal in response to increased psychological distance. However, employees with low moral identity are less committed to moral norms [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e], when experiencing high psychological distance, they feel less compelled to maintain a moral self-image and are more likely to engage in work withdrawal behavior. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis :\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4.\u003c/strong\u003e Moral identity moderates the positive relationship between psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior, such that this relationship is weaker when moral identity is high and stronger when moral identity is low.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on H3 and H4, we argue that employees with high moral identity are more likely to mitigate the effect of psychological distance induced by authoritarian leadership, thereby reducing work withdrawal behavior. In contrast, for employees who do not view morality as a core aspect of their self-concept, the indirect relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior is likely to be stronger. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH5.\u003c/strong\u003e Moral identity negatively moderates the mediating role of psychological distance in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior, such that the indirect effect is weaker when moral identity is high and stronger when moral identity is low.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSample and procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected from participants across various industries in China, including healthcare, energy, real estate, manufacturing, and information technology. To minimize common method bias [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e], data collection occurred at two time points, approximately two weeks apart. At Time 1, data on authoritarian leadership, psychological distance, and moral identity were collected, yielding 282 responses. At Time 2, data on work withdrawal behavior were collected, resulting in 232 responses. After matching responses across both time points, 221 matched surveys were obtained. Following the removal of invalid responses, the final sample consisted of 213 valid questionnaires. Among the participants, 45.1% were male, and 54.9% were female. The average age of employees was 29.1, with an average tenure of 32.5 months in their current organization. In terms of education, 77.5% of employees held a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree or higher, while 22.5% had an education level below a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employs well-established scales, refined through Brislin\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] translation-back translation procedure for linguistic accuracy and conceptual equivalence. A five-point Likert scale (1 = \u0026ldquo;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to 5 = \u0026ldquo;strongly agree\u0026rdquo;) was used to measure participants\u0026rsquo; responses, ensuring a clear assessment of agreement levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthoritarian leadership\u003c/strong\u003e was measured using a five-item scale developed by Cheng et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], with sample items such as \u0026ldquo;My supervisor determined all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not.\u0026rdquo; The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; value was 0.80.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployee psychological distance\u003c/strong\u003e was assessed using an 11-item scale developed by Salzmann et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. A sample item is \u0026ldquo;Towards my direct leader, I feel very tense.\u0026rdquo; The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; value was 0.81.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMoral identity\u003c/strong\u003e was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Aquino et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Participants were asked to consider nine traits\u0026mdash;caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honesty, and kind\u0026mdash;and rate their agreement with statements such as \u0026ldquo;Having these characteristics is an important part of my sense of self.\u0026rdquo; The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; value was 0.88.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork withdrawal behavior\u003c/strong\u003e was measured using a four-item scale developed by Pelled et al. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], with a sample item being \u0026ldquo;I am late for work or meetings.\u0026rdquo; The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; value was 0.78.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with previous studies [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], we controlled for employees\u0026rsquo; gender, age, education level, and tenure working with their direct leader.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Data analysis and results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCommon method bias test and confirmatory factor analysis\u003c/h2\u003eFollowing prior research [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test was conducted to assess common method bias. The first factor accounted for 26.4% of the variance, well below the 40% threshold, indicating that common method bias was not a significant concern in this study.\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo examine the discriminant validity among the four factors, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using MPLUS 8.3. Given that some latent variables in the model contained more than five items, item parceling was applied to scales with excessive items to improve model parsimony. As shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the four-factor model demonstrated the best fit (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 188.03, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;99, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.90, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.94, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06), indicating good discriminant validity among the four factors examined in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults of Confirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2/\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFour-factor model (AL; PD; MI; WD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e188.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThree-factor model (AL\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PD ; MI; WD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e457.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo-factor model (AL\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PD\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;MI; WD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e819.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne-factor model (AL\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PD\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;MI\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1017.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotes: AL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Authoritarian leadership, PD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Employees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance, MI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity, WD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Employees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analysis results\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe used SPSS 26.0 to analyze the correlations among the study variables. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients, are\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epresented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The results indicated a significant positive correlation between authoritarian leadership and employee psychological distance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and a significant positive correlation between employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). These findings provide preliminary support for H1 and H2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. Age\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Tenure with leader\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.16\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Servant leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.86\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Authoritarian leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.80\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. Employees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.68\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.81\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. Employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.88\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9. Employees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.78\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotes: N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;213; \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; The bold numbers on the diagonal represent the alphas of the corresponding scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRegression analysis results\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe regression results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. To test moderation and reduce multicollinearity [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], the independent variable and interaction term were mean-centered. The moderating effects were further illustrated by plotting interactions at high and low levels of the moderating variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults of hierarchical regression analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth colspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; work withdrawal behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.46\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.89\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.93\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.99\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTenure with leader\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eServant leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.53\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.52\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthoritarian leadership\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; moral identity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEPD \u0026times; EMI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.32\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotes: N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;213; \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; *** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; EPD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Employees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance, EMI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegression results in Model 2 showed that authoritarian leadership positively predicted employee psychological distance (\u003cem\u003eb\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.001), providing support for H1. Model 4 confirmed that psychological distance positively influenced work withdrawal (\u003cem\u003eb\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.01), supporting H2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3 proposed the mediating role of employee psychological distance. Model 4 revealed a significant mediation effect (indirect effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.12], excluding zero), providing support for H3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4 posited the moderating effect of employee moral identity. Model 5 in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e indicated that employee moral identity significantly and negatively moderated the positive relationship between employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior (\u003cem\u003eb =\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.01), providing support for H4. Additionally, the moderating effect is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e using a simple slope test. Specifically, when moral identity was one standard deviation below the mean, the positive effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal behavior was more pronounced (\u003cem\u003eb\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.59, \u003cem\u003et\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;4.53, 95% CI [0.34, 0.85], excluding zero). In contrast, when moral identity was one standard deviation above the mean, the positive effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal behavior was not significant (\u003cem\u003eb\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003et\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.89, 95% CI [\u0026ndash;0.14, 0.37], including zero).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployee moral identity negatively moderated the mediating effect of authoritarian leadership on work withdrawal via psychological distance. Specifically, for employees with low levels of moral identity, the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on work withdrawal behavior was stronger (indirect effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.20], excluding zero). In contrast, for employees with high levels of moral identity, the indirect effect was not significant (indirect effect\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02, 95% CI = [\u0026ndash;0.03, 0.09], including zero). The difference in the indirect effect across high and low levels of moral identity was significant (\u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eb =\u003c/em\u003e \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.09, 95% CI = [\u0026ndash;0.18, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.02], excluding zero). Thus, H5 was supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDrawing on social cognitive theory and a two-wave data analysis, our study shows that authoritarian leadership increases psychological distance between employees and leaders. This widened distance raises the likelihood of work withdrawal behavior. Moreover, lower moral identity amplifies the effect of psychological distance on work withdrawal, with the positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal being stronger under low moral identity conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, our study contributes to understanding the outcomes of authoritarian leadership by examining its role in promoting negative behaviors, particularly withdrawal behavior. While prior research has highlighted its negative impact on employee well-being [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], innovative work behavior [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e], and both individual and team performance [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], we expand this by focusing on withdrawal behavior. Although authoritarian leadership has been linked to counterproductive work behaviors [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], withdrawal behavior differs as it is non-directed, non-intentional and serves as an escape from unfavorable conditions [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Our study highlights the importance of distinguishing withdrawal behavior from counterproductive work behavior and provides a deeper understanding of employees\u0026rsquo; passive coping mechanisms in response to authoritarian leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, we provide new insights into the mechanisms driving withdrawal behavior, generally studied from emotional and affective perspectives. Previous research links work withdrawal to negative affect from surface acting [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] and shame induced by abusive supervision or illegitimate tasks [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike abusive supervision, which involves overt mistreatment, authoritarian leadership emphasizes authority and discipline without inherent hostility. Additionally, while illegitimate tasks concern task fairness, authoritarian leadership reflects a control style rather than task nature. Drawing on social cognitive theory, we conceptualize authoritarian leadership as an environmental factor shaping employees\u0026rsquo; cognition, ultimately triggering withdrawal behavior. Our findings highlight leadership style as a key precursor to work withdrawal, opening new research directions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, this study reveals that moral identity plays a negative moderating role in the mediating effect of psychological distance between authoritarian leadership and work withdrawal behavior. Previous research has explored various moderators of authoritarian leadership\u0026rsquo;s impact, such as power distance from the perspective of social exchange theory [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], in-group/out-group distinctions from the perspective of social identity theory [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e],and event disruption from the appraisal theory [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. However, moral identity, as a personal trait reflecting self-concept, plays a crucial role in individuals\u0026rsquo; cognitive processes and can significantly influence subsequent behaviors. Our findings extend the literature on the boundary conditions of authoritarian leadership\u0026rsquo;s influence mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePractical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study offers valuable guidance for practitioners. First, our findings suggest that an overly authoritarian and controlling leadership style may increase employees\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epsychological distance, potentially leading to disengagement and reduced proactivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch indicates that a leader\u0026rsquo;s perceived intent to harm, rather than actual harm, drives employees\u0026rsquo; withdrawal behavior [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, leaders should exercise caution when adopting an authoritarian leadership approach, avoid conveying intentional hostility toward employees. Additionally, they can integrate elements of empowering leadership or transformational leadership alongside their authoritative style, allowing employees to maintain obedience to authority while still feeling supported and valued.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, employees\u0026rsquo; psychological distance largely shapes their attitudes and behaviors toward work, highlighting the importance of addressing their psychological experiences. Organizations can reduce psychological distance by establishing feedback mechanisms, providing psychological support, and fostering greater interaction between employees and leaders. Additionally, cultivating a culture of organizational trust can enhance employees\u0026rsquo; sense of involvement and belonging, helping to mitigate the adverse effects of psychological distance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, organizations can develop tailored human resource management strategies based on employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity levels. For those with low moral identity, transparent performance evaluations and additional incentives may help prevent negative behaviors linked to psychological distance. Assessing candidates\u0026rsquo; moral identity during recruitment may reduce the likelihood of withdrawal behavior. Moreover, research suggests that personality traits can change over time [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], indicating that organizations can foster employees\u0026rsquo; moral identity through training programs, value-driven initiatives, and role modeling, ultimately reducing work withdrawal behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and future research\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile our study has several strengths, it also has limitations that warrant further improvement. First, although we collected data in two waves and used Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test and confirmatory factor analysis to minimize common method bias, future research should collect multi-wave and multi-source data for greater validity.Additionally, relying solely on surveys limits causal inference; experimental methods could better verify variable relationships. Furthermore, our sample size was limited to 213 matched responses. Expanding the sample in future studies would enhance external validity and generalizability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, our study treats authoritarian leadership as a common and broadly applied management style without further differentiation or refinement. However, leaders may apply authoritarian behaviors inconsistently, leading to varied employee reactions [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Some variations may mitigate withdrawal behavior, a topic for future exploration. Additionally, the motives behind authoritarian leadership can be categorized into discipline-focused and dominance-focused approaches [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], yet their distinct effects on withdrawal behavior remain unclear. Investigating these classifications could provide deeper insights into the nuanced impact of authoritarian leadership, helping to refine theoretical frameworks and management practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, social cognitive theory acknowledges intracultural diversity and intraindividual variation in psychosocial orientations [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], suggesting that authoritarian leadership may manifest differently across cultures.. While our study includes multiple industries in China, future research could explore its generalizability across diverse social systems and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, leadership studies often focus solely on workplace effects [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], overlooking work-family interactions. Since work and family domains are interconnected [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], future research should examine how authoritarian leadership influences employees\u0026rsquo; family lives to provide a more comprehensive understanding of its broader impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, and were in line with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was signed and obtained from all individual participants included in the study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Regional Project (No. 72262018) and the Jiangxi Province 2024 Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund Project (No. YC2024-B128).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization, Writing, W.Z. and S.J.; Methodology, S.J; Revisions, Analysis, W.Z.; Supervision, Y.C.; Review \u0026amp; Editing, J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors are grateful to the organizations that supported data collection and to all participants for generously sharing their experiences, which contributed significantly to this research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and material\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoekhorst JA. The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Hum Resour Manag. 2015;54(2):241\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng BS, Chou LF, Wu TY, Huang MP, Farh JL. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2004;7(1):89\u0026ndash;117.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J Manag. 2014;40(3):796\u0026ndash;819.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(2):203.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Y, Sun JM. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. Leadersh Q. 2015;26(2):172\u0026ndash;89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao H, Su Q, Lou M, Hang C, Zhang L. Does authoritarianism necessarily stifle creativity? The role of discipline-focused authoritarian leadership. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1037102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen L, Huang X, Sun JM, Zheng Y, Graham L, Jiang J. The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation. Asia Pac J Manag. 2024;41(2):507\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang R, Lin X. Effect of managers\u0026rsquo; sleep quality on authoritarian leadership dynamics and employees\u0026rsquo; counterproductive behavior. J Manag Psychol. 2024;39(5):570\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu X, Dong M, Li Y, Wang M. The cross-level influence of authoritarian leadership on counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(27):23580\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerry CM, Lelchook AM, Clark MA. A meta-analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: Implications for models of withdrawal behavior. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(5):678\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePelled LH, Xin KR. Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. J Manag. 1999;25(6):875\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarakitapoğlu-Ayg\u0026uuml;n Z, Gumusluoglu L, Erturk A, Scandura TA. What if authoritarian to all or to some? A multi-level investigation of within-team differentiation in authoritarian leadership. J Bus Res. 2023;162:113873.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGu J, Wang G, Liu H, Song D, He C. Linking authoritarian leadership to employee creativity: The influences of leader\u0026ndash;member exchange, team identification and power distance. Chin Manag Stud. 2018;12(2):384\u0026ndash;406.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao H, Su Q, Zhang L, Zhong J. Understanding the influence of dual authoritarian leadership on employee creativity: The type of leadership and the role of event. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(29):25308\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng Y, Graham L, Farh JL, Huang X. The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. J Bus Ethics. 2021;170(1):133\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Wang J, Akhtar MN, Wang Y. Authoritarian leadership and cyberloafing: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and power distance orientation. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1010845.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott BA, Barnes CM. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Acad Manag J. 2011;54(1):116\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Z, Jiang F. It is not only what you do, but why you do it: The role of attribution in employees\u0026rsquo; emotional and behavioral responses to illegitimate tasks. J Vocat Behav. 2023;142:103860.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang Y, Chen T, Asante EA, Yan M, Deng J, Lam W. An identity threat appraisal framework explaining distinct reactions to active- and passive-aggressive abusive supervision. J Manag. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/01492063241312657\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/01492063241312657\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGao R, Liu B. Is abusive supervision the last straw? The buffering role of construal level in the association of abusive supervision with withdrawal. Front Psychol. 2022;13:831185.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. Am Psychol. 1978;33(4):344.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):1\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarmeli A, Schaubroeck J. The influence of leaders\u0026rsquo; and other referents\u0026rsquo; normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. Leadersh Q. 2007;18(1):35\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEgan R, Turner M, Blackman D. Leadership and employee work passion: Propositions for future empirical investigations. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2017;16(4):394\u0026ndash;424.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarstand AF, Epitropaki O, Kapoutsis I. Distant but close\u0026rsquo;: Leadership behaviors, psychological distance, employee coping and effectiveness in remote work contexts. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2025;98(1):e12544.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAquino K, Reed IIA. The self-importance of moral identity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(6):1423.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang L, Sun Y, Li J, Xu Y, Chen M, Zhu X, et al. Effects of ambidextrous leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; work behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Front Psychol. 2022;13:862799.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeng S, Huang Y. Teachers\u0026rsquo; authoritarian leadership and students\u0026rsquo; well-being: The role of emotional exhaustion and narcissism. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):590.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalzmann J, Grasha AF. Psychological size and psychological distance in manager-subordinate relationships. J Soc Psychol. 1991;131(5):629\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJiang H, Chen Y, Sun P, Li C. Authoritarian leadership and employees\u0026rsquo; unsafe behaviors: The mediating roles of organizational cynicism and work alienation. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(6):1668\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng Y, Huang X, Graham L, Redman T, Hu S. Deterrence effects: The role of authoritarian leadership in controlling employee workplace deviance. Manag Organ Rev. 2020;16(2):377\u0026ndash;404.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXing L, Sun JM, Jepsen D, Zhang Y. Supervisor negative feedback and employee motivation to learn: An attribution perspective. Hum Relat. 2023;76(2):310\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarh JL, Cheng BS, Chou LF, Chu XP. Authority and benevolence: Employees\u0026rsquo; responses to paternalistic leadership in China. China\u0026rsquo;s Domestic Private Firms. Routledge; 2014. pp. 230\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJolly PM, Krylova KO, Phillips JS. Leader intention, misconduct and damaged relational follower identity: A moral decision making perspective. Leadersh Q. 2022;33(4):101425.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDang-Van T, Nguyen PT, Vu TT, Doan MQ. How does social overload lead to withdrawal behavior? The case of social communities on social networking sites. Inf Technol People. 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/ITP-02-2024-0224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/ITP-02-2024-0224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlasi A. Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In: Kurtines W, Gewitz J, editors. Morality, moral behavior and moral development. New York, NY: Wiley; 1984. pp. 128\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Reilly J, Aquino K, Skarlicki D. The lives of others: Third parties\u0026rsquo; responses to others\u0026rsquo; injustice. J Appl Psychol. 2016;101(2):171.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarpenter NC, Berry CM. Are counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal empirically distinct? A meta-analytic investigation. J Manag. 2017;43(3):834\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang H, Liu XL, Cai Y, Sun X. Paved with good intentions: Self-regulation breakdown after altruistic ethical transgression. J Bus Ethics. 2023;186(2):385\u0026ndash;405.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu X, Jiang Z. Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust in management. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2018;29(5):746\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHertz SG, Krettenauer T. Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior? A meta-analysis. Rev Gen Psychol. 2016;20(2):129\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63(1):539\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrislin RW. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triandis HC, Berry JW, editors. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology. Allyn and Bacon; 1980. pp. 389\u0026ndash;444.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiao J, Yang G, Xie S, Zhao X. The boon and bane of authoritarian leadership: An impression management perspective investigating the differential effects of authoritarian leadership on employee outcomes. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(22):19676\u0026ndash;89.\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 Manag. 2021;24(4):1354\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang L, Cheng MY, Wang S. Carrot or stick? The role of in-group/out-group on the multilevel relationship between authoritarian and differential leadership and employee turnover intention. J Bus Ethics. 2018;152:1069\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu Z, Chen X, Johnson RE, Yang M, Yuan Y, Yin Y, et al. A tale of two narratives: The role of event disruption in employee affective and behavioral reactions to authoritarian leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/apl0001209\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/apl0001209\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmallfield J, Kluemper DH. An explanation of personality change in organizational science: Personality as an outcome of workplace stress. J Manag. 2022;48(4):851\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLou M, Zhao H, Ma C, Zhang L. Discipline vs. dominance: The relationships between different types of authoritarian leadership and employee self-interested voice. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(32):27927\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A. Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Appl Psychol. 2002;51(2):269\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang Y, Asante EA, Shi L, Chen K, Guan Z. Family strains, work passion drains: The impact of daily family demands on daily work passion. J Bus Res. 2025;189:115186.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"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":"Authoritarian leadership, Psychological distance, Work withdrawal behavior, Moral identity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e Understanding why employees withdraw from work responsibilities is critical for organizational effectiveness. This study explores how authoritarian leadership contributes to employee work withdrawal behavior, applying the triadic reciprocal causation model from social cognitive theory. Specifically, it investigates psychological distance as a mediating cognitive mechanism and tests moral identity’s moderating role in potentially buffering the negative consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e A two-wave survey was conducted with 213 employees from various industries in China. Structural equation modeling and moderated mediation analysis were performed using MPLUS 8.3 and SPSS 26.0.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults \u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;It was found that authoritarian leadership positively influenced employee psychological distance and work withdrawal behavior, with psychological distance mediating this relationship. Employee moral identity negatively moderated both the link between psychological distance and withdrawal behavior and the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership, thereby reducing its overall impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e This study identifies psychological distance as a key mechanism linking authoritarian leadership to withdrawal and highlights moral identity as a protective factor. The findings offer insights for promoting healthier leader-employee relationships and minimizing withdrawal in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Why Do Employees Withdraw Under Authority: A Social Cognitive Perspective on Psychological Distance and Moral Identity","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-28 04:57:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6486110/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":"ce7da844-0403-41dd-99ed-bd2da042492e","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 28th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-14T12:40:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-28 04:57:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6486110","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6486110","identity":"rs-6486110","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}