Organization-Set High-Performance Goals and Employee Expediency Syndrome: An Underlying Mechanism of Supervisor Expediency and Illegitimate Tasks

Abstract

Recent research in organizational behavior reveals that even though expediency is detrimental to an organization, it remains an overlooked phenomenon. Expediency is covert unethical behavior and is challenging to identify because it is mostly confused with proficiency. Limited empirical research can be traced in the literature investigating when and why employee exhibits expediency. This research aims to identify and examine contextual factors in organizations that are the probable cause of employee expediency. Organization-set high-performance goals are examined as a predictor of expediency. Furthermore, supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks are investigated as mediators to refine the causal mechanism between organization-set high-performance goals and employee expediency. Drawing on the transactional model of stress and coping, it is theorized that organization-set high-performance goals, supervisor expediency, and illegitimate tasks are contextual workplace stressors, and employees exhibit expediency to cope with them. Data is collected from private health sector employees with a sample size of 591. It is a time lag- study with four-wave data collection and two sources, that is, supervisors and subordinates. The results provide empirical support to the hypotheses formulated in the present study. The findings demonstrate that organization-set high-performance goals positively and significantly affect employee and supervisor expediency. Additionally, results confirm the mediation effect of supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks. Theoretical and practical implications and future research directions are also discussed.

Keywords

organization-set high-performance goals supervisor expediency illegitimate tasks and employee expediency

Workplace deviant behavior has gained significant attention from researchers and attracted more research on a range of negative, problematic, and unethical behaviors in the workplace (Catley et al., 2017; Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019). Scholars have mainly focused on overt unethical behaviors such as bullying, cheating, abuse, and stealing (Mitchell et al., 2018; Tepper, 2007). However, researchers overlooked covert unethical behaviors at the workplace that are subtle but harmful to organizations, formally known as expediency (Eissa, 2020; Ren et al., 2021). Employee expediency is defined as employee involvement in unethical practices to expedite their work for self-interest (Greenbaum et al., 2018). Moreover, expediency can be observed at all hierarchal levels in the workplace; even supervisors fall prey to expediency termed as supervisor expediency. In the corporate world number of cases, such as Arthur Andersen’s questionable accounting practices and the fraud of the century: the case of Bernard Madoff is an illustration of supervisor expediency (Ferrell et al., 2013). These cases underlined how leaders in pursuit of growth compromised ethical practices. Supervisor and employee expediency are covert, non-interpersonal, and organizational-directed unethical behaviors that can harm the organization. Researchers have a consensus that expediency is a common workplace phenomenon that tends to have negative implications but remains understudied (Eissa, 2020; Jonason & O’Connor, 2017; Parks et al., 2010). Moreover, expediency characterizes achieving ends while overlooking the means through which they are accomplished. Expediency at the workplace has a detrimental effect on employees and organizations (Greenbaum et al., 2018). To date, an explanation of why employees engage in such behavior has largely been ignored in literature (Eissa, 2020). There could be multiple reasons that employees may indulge in expedient behavior, such as personal or organizational factors. The present study considers the organizational factors leading to such behavior.

In today’s dynamic and competitive world, organizations are under tremendous pressure to maintain a competitive edge. Thus organizations frequently ask employees to perform better to remain competitive because employee contribution is the foundation of organizational performance (Zhu et al., 2022). Therefore, the organization sets high-performance goals (HPGs) for employees. It’s been a long that researchers have highlighted the positive outcomes associated with HPGs and treated them as a challenge stressor (Locke & Latham, 2015). HPGs have come under question (Dockterman & Weber, 2017). Scholars since the beginning of the era of 2000 emphasized the negative consequences of high goals and the debate of why goals go wild (Ordóñez et al., 2009). Recently, the researchers specifically underlined that goal source significantly affects the related outcomes, such as whether goals are self-set or organization-set; the consequences may differ (Welsh, Baer, Session, 2020). The self-set goals are primarily discussed in the literature, and positive consequences are highlighted. However, organization-set goals and their consequences need more research. The characteristics of the organization-set HPGs include (i) uncertainty in goal achievement, (ii) public nature (publically instructed or communicated), and; (iii) more substantial consequences than self-set goals because of their public nature and everyone is “watching” (Welsh et al., 2020). Scholars argued that in the pursuit of attaining these goals, employees might engage in inadvertent unethical behavior (Ordóñez & Welsh, 2015). Notable examples like Volkswagen and Wells Fargo highlighted the far-reaching consequences of unethical behaviors in the workplace (Egan, 2016; M. Thompson, 2016). Recently expediency emerged as a form of unethical behavior, and researchers, for instance, Ren et al. (2021) argued that despite the expected prevalence of expediency in the workplace, insufficient consideration is given to it.

The primary purpose of the present study is to examine what at the workplace compels employees to engage in expedient behavior. For building a conceptual framework in the current study, we relied on the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) which posits that employees make cognitive appraisals about stress at the workplace and are resultantly involved in coping with these stressors. Built on this model, it is suggested that organization-set high-performance goals (HPGs), supervisor expediency (SE), and illegitimate tasks (IT) are the sources of employee expediency. It is argued, based on this model that these sources are stressful and that employees exhibit expediency in coping with this stress. In the extant literature, it is underlined that high-performance goals, supervisor expediency, and illegitimate tasks are stressful. For instance, scholars suggested that the threat of failure to achieve the goal is stressful, and high goals cause psychological distress (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Locke & Latham, 1990). Similarly, unethical leader behavior is stressful for followers (Lašáková & Remišová, 2015) in our case, supervisor expediency. Also, illegitimate tasks are threatening and stressful because the employee feels disrespected when assigned such tasks (Semmer et al., 2010). Researchers pointed out that workplace stress is a dynamic process that evolves over time, and it’s critical to understand how emotional and behavioral reactions to workplace stress manifest (Rosen et al., 2020)

This study makes four-fold contributions to organizational behavior literature. Firstly, this study contributes to covert unethical behavior by shedding light on why and under what conditions supervisors and employees engage in expediency. As per researcher knowledge till, to date, only a few studies empirically examined expediency and an explanation of why and under what circumstances employees exhibit expediency has largely been ignored in the literature (Eissa, 2020; Ren et al., 2021). Secondly, this research addresses the recent debate on the dark side of organization-set HPGs (Welsh et al., 2020). These scholars elaborated on HPGs and categorically differentiated between organization-set and self-set goals, along with the fact that goal source (organization or self) effects differently, and consequences are dissimilar. Previously, research mainly focused on self-set goals, treating them as challenge stressors, and associated them with positive outcomes (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2015). However, a new perspective has emerged that goes beyond the challenge and hindrance stressors model, highlighting that a single stressor can be evaluated instantaneously as both challenge and hindrance (mutually exclusive appraisal), along with the emphasis that challenges also tend to hinder (Horan et al., 2020; Rosen et al., 2020). We are following the footsteps of these scholars and argue that organization-set goals possess the elements of uncertainty and threat and thus have the potential to yield adverse outcomes. In the present study, it is claimed that HPGs tend to trigger supervisor and employee expediency which is morally questionable behavior. Thirdly, this study integrates the transactional model of stress and coping with expediency and HPGs research. Based on this framework, it is contended that HPGs are stressful and employees at the workplace to cope exhibit expediency. Fourth, methodological contribution, as suggested by Eissa’s (2020) inquiry on expediency, could be benefited from time lag and multisource research, and the present study is four-wave and dyad.

A Review of Literature

Organization-Set High-Performance Goals and Employee Expediency

High-performance goals are defined as performance goals that are difficult to achieve (Locke & Latham, 1990; Welsh et al., 2019). The researchers underlined that HPGs could be classified as self-set and organization-set goals. Moreover, organization-set performance goals cause anxiety and emotional exhaustion compared to self-set performance goals in employees (Welsh et al., 2020). These researchers highlighted that organizations-set high goals are more threatening than self-set because they accompany uncertainty and are communicated publically. Historically, the dark side of HPGs got significant attention from scholars (Mawritz et al., 2014; Ordóñez & Welsh, 2015; Welsh et al., 2020). Business scholars have a consensus that HPGs can yield adverse outcomes in the workplace (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014; Welsh et al., 2020). Scholars argued that HPGs tend to cause unethical behavior (Barsky, 2008; Niven & Healy, 2016; Soman & Cheema, 2004). Employee expediency is involvement in unethical behavior to expedite work (Greenbaum et al., 2018). Researchers emphasize that HPGs cause stress and emotional exhaustion, which is one of the main reasons employees exhibit unethical behavior (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014; Welsh et al., 2020). The transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) posits that individuals develop cognitive appraisal of stress and, to cope with stress, exhibit behavior. Relying on this model, it is argued that organizations-set HPGs are appraised as stressful and to cope with this stress, employee exhibits expediency.

H₁ High-performance goals have a significant positive effect on employee expediency.

Organization-Set High-Performance Goals and Supervisor Expediency

Supervisor expediency is defined as supervisor involvement in unethical behavior that includes (i) cutting corners; (ii) ignoring companies’ standards; (ii) manipulating companies’ laws; and (iv) alteration in performance numbers (Greenbaum et al., 2018). Moreover, supervisor expediency is covert and organization-directed unethical leader behavior that negatively affects the organization. The question that needs consideration is why individuals exhibit expediency in the workplace (Eissa, 2020). In an attempt to answer this question, researchers in the present study identify organization-set HPGs as a predictor of supervisor expediency. In the extant literature, researchers argued that goals at the workplace could trigger unethical behavior for multiple reasons, such as decreased moral awareness, increased risk-taking, and moral disengagement (Ordóñez & Welsh, 2015). Similarly, Ordóñez et al. (2009) highlighted that overprescribed goals can go wild and have side effects. Alike, scholars agree that overprescribed high goals have a dark side and can be detrimental to the organization (Niven & Healy, 2016; Schweitzer et al., 2004; Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014). Also, Scholars have suggested that managers are aware that goals tend to promote unethical reporting as the employee may make overstatements (Karevold, 2021). Researchers agree that high goals are stressful, so they may provoke unethical behavior (Ordóñez et al., 2009; Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010; Schweitzer et al., 2004; Welsh et al., 2020). Scholars have found that stressful situations impact leaders’ ethical behavior and ability to recognize ethical challenges (Selart & Johansen, 2011). Furthermore, the ethical decision-making of leaders is influenced by organizational variables. In organizations, stress and ethical dilemma coexist because a leader in a difficult position is frequently confronted with an ethical choice (Mohr & Wolfram, 2010). Furthermore, the manager may be confronted with altering goals and new responsibilities before completing past work, putting strain and stress on the manager. Similarly, empirical research has revealed that leaders have rigorous and stressful work schedules (Ganster, 2005; Hambrick et al., 2005). Individuals in modern firms must cope with complicated business ethics, and workplace stress has an impact on moral behavior. Consequently, in the present study based on the transactional theory of stress and coping, researchers contend that HPGs are stressful and act as a stress stimulus; thus, the supervisor exhibits expediency to cope with them. Therefore, it is hypothesized that

H₂ High-performance goals have a significant positive effect on supervisor expediency

Supervisor Expediency and Illegitimate Tasks

To fine-tune the knowledge of stress, scholars are investigating various forms and sources of stress, and lately, in occupational stress research, illegitimate tasks emerged as workplace stressors (Semmer et al., 2007). Illegitimate tasks (IT) are defined as employees’ belief that the assigned task is unreasonable and unnecessary and must not be performed (Semmer et al., 2010). Illegitimate tasks are considered stressful because they are considered to be not a part of their job, and they send self-threatening messages to employees because it negatively affects self-esteem (Semmer et al., 2015). Supervisors play a significant role in assigning tasks at the workplace (Vincent-Höper & Stein, 2019). Stein et al. (2020) examined the relationship between abusive supervision and illegitimate tasks; the research results proved a positive relationship between abusive supervision and illegitimate tasks. Kelloway et al. (2005) highlighted that poor leadership is stressful and can potentially raise occupational stressors. Illegitimate tasks are one of the occupational stressors, and supervisor expediency is a form of unethical leader behavior, where leaders use unethical practices like cutting corners and manipulation for self-interest. In the present study, it is argued that a supervisor, in pursuit of their expediency, assigns tasks that are considered illegitimate by the follower. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) theorize that individuals cope with stress differently, and coping is a cognitive and behavioral struggle to manage stress. Furthermore, coping can be in inform of the behavioral exhibition, and there can be an adaptive outcome of coping. Consequently, the researcher in the present study argues that supervisor expediency is observation-based behavior at the workplace, and this behavior’s adaptive outcome is illegitimate tasks. Thus, it is hypothesized.

H₃ Supervisor expediency has a significant positive association with illegitimate tasks

Illegitimate Tasks and Employee Expediency

Eatough et al. (2016) highlighted that illegitimate tasks are constantly associated with adverse outcomes. Illegitimate tasks are stressful because the individual feels disrespected when assigned such tasks (Semmer et al., 2015). Similarly, researchers contended that illegitimate tasks develop the employee’s feelings that they should not be performing them (Björk et al., 2013) as these tasks are considered insolent. Scholars underlined that illegitimate tasks are workplace stressors and have a high tendency to cause strain (Semmer et al., 2021). Previous research proved that illegitimate tasks positively and significantly affect counterproductive work behavior (CWB) (Semmer et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2018). As per scholars, workplace stressors tend to trigger employee negative behavior (Golparvar et al., 2012). Similarly, a model presented by O’Brien (2008) stressor-strain asserted that organizational stressors affect workplace deviant behavior. A meta-analysis review found that work stress and deviant behavior are significantly related (Dalal, 2005). Notably, business scholars, for instance, Greenbaum et al. (2018) contended that expediency is a crucial factor in the downfall of organizations like Enron and WorldCom. At this point, it can be deduced that expediency is harmful to organizations as Eissa (2020) also underlined that expediency is the reason for ignominy for many giant organizations. Employee expediency is considered a negative behavior because it is employees’ involvement in unethical practices for self-serving purposes. Correspondingly, relying on the transactional model of stress and coping it is argued that illegitimate tasks are stressful and to cope with this stress, employee exhibits expediency. Therefore, it is hypothesized

H₄ Illegitimate tasks have a significant positive effect on employee expediency

Supervisor Expediency as a Mediator

Supervisor expediency is further investigated as a mediator between high-performance goals and illegitimate tasks. Researchers like Schyns and Hansbrough (2010) highlighted that goals can have negative consequences, further suggested that goal can be a contextual antecedent of destructive leadership. Numerous forms of destructive leader behavior can be witnessed in literature such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), petty tyrants (Ashforth, 1994), bullies (Namie & Namie, 2000), intolerable bosses (Lombardo & McCall, 1984), etc. Supervisor expediency is recently identified as destructive leadership behavior where supervisors for the self-serving purpose manipulate and cut corners (Greenbaum et al., 2018). By definition, it falls under the umbrella of unethical leadership behavior. Researchers like Einarsen et al. (2007) elaboraonbout destructive leadership, its serious consequences for organizations, and contextual factors in the organization that can trigger numerous forms of destructive leadership. In line with this, we argue that high-performance goals are the contextual antecedent of supervisor expediency. Scholars claimed that despite strong evidence in favor of challenging and difficult goals, several papers suggested that challenging goals may lead to counterproductive behavior such as lying and colleagues undermining (Bardes & Piccolo, 2010). Barsky (2008) proposed a conceptual framework to extend the research on goals and ethics, scholar suggested that goal attributes like specificity, content, and difficulty leads to unethical behavior. Moreover, the researcher emphasized that performance goals can interfere with the individual evaluation of morality, and exhibition of ethical behavior because these goals are stressful. Similarly, scholars also reported that exceedingly difficult goals are stressful and trigger abusive supervision (Mawritz et al., 2014). Thus consistent with the negative implication of high-performance goals it is argued that high-performance goals trigger supervisor expediency. Furthermore, supervisor expediency leads to illegitimate tasks assignment as Bass and Bass (2008) discussed stress as a predecessor and consequence of leader behavior.

The spillover effect at the workplace got significant attention in management literature and scholars discussed that individual facing events in one sphere has a spillover effect in another sphere (Kahn et al., 1964). Likewise, researchers confirmed that organizational cynicism has a spillover effect on the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Neves, 2012). It is argued that supervisors when are assigned high-performance goals by organizations that are by definition difficult to achieve and are stressful, the spillover effect of this stress is in the form of illegitimate tasks assignments for employees. Furthermore, it is argued in the present study based on the transactional model of stress and coping that high-performance goals are stressful for supervisors and to cope with them supervisor exhibits expediency and the adaptive outcome of supervisor expediency is illegitimate tasks. Consequently, it is hypothesized

H₅ Supervisor expediency mediates the relationship between high-performance goals and illegitimate tasks

Illegitimate Task as a Mediator

Researchers further examine illegitimate tasks as a mediator between supervisor expediency and employee expediency. Supervisor and employee expediency is covert unethical behavior (Eissa, 2020; Greenbaum et al., 2018). Scholars argue that when employee observe delinquency in the workplace, he/she feels distressed and strained (Folger et al., 2001). This tension could be a reason that when the supervisor exhibit expediency and assigns task employee consider them to be illegitimate. Researchers also highlighted that leader’s unethical behavior tends to trigger employee unethical behavior (Brown & Mitchell, 2010). Similarly, Mayer et al. (2009) discussed the trickle-down effect of leader moral quality on employee ethical behavior. Also, research results confirmed that abusive leader behavior has a trickle-down effect on employee abusive behavior (Mawritz et al., 2012). So, it is argued that supervisor expediency also has a trickle-down effect on employee expediency, when employees observe expediency at the supervisory level it tends employees to exhibit expediency. Moreover, it is underlined in the present study based on the transactional theory of stress and coping that supervisor expedient behavior being unethical conduct is stressful for the employee and resultantly task assigned by the supervisor can be appraised as illegitimate and to cope with it employee exhibits expediency. Thus, it is hypothesized

H₆ Illegitimate tasks mediate the relationship between supervisor expediency and employee expediency

Sequential Mediation

Most of the studies in the literature highlighted positive outcomes of high goals (Welsh et al., 2020). However, later in 2000, the debate started on the negative consequences of high goals (Schweitzer et al., 2004). Recently surge on the dark side of high goals can be observed and researchers are discussing how, when and why high goals lead to negative outcomes (Welsh et al., 2020). Researchers have an agreement that HPGs tend to trigger unethical behavior (Ordóñez & Welsh, 2015; Welsh et al., 2020). Greenbaum et al. (2018) and Eissa (2020) emphasized that expediency is a form of unethical behavior that is detrimental to the organization. Meier et al. (2013) underlined that unethical behavior in the workplace is stressful. Similarly, Rajah et al. (2011) emphasized that leader behavior can be a cause of stress for followers. Stress at the workplace leads to employee negative behavior (Yao et al., 2014).

The workplace environment possesses several stressors (Colligan & Higgins, 2006; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013). Researchers have consensus that illegitimate tasks are task, role, and justice-related workplace stressors (Schulte-Braucks et al., 2019; Semmer et al., 2015; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013). Likewise, supervisor unethical behavior is stressful for followers leader unethical behavior is objectionable for many reasons but when it comes to managing followers it is problematic because leaders are a direct influence on follower’s ethics (Bonner et al., 2016). Also, the literature highlights that high-performance goals set a difficult standard of achievement and for that very reason causes stress. The transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) also known as the cognitive theory of stress suggests that when individual faces stress develops a cognitive appraisal of it and tries to manage stress by coping. Consequently, researchers in the present study claim that high-performance goals, supervisor expediency, and illegitimate tasks are appraised as stressors, and employees to cope with this stress exhibit expediency. Therefore, it is hypothesized

H₇ There exists a sequential mediation between high-performance goals and employee expediency through the path of supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks

Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework of the present study.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Sample

The data was collected from employees working in the private health sector of Pakistan. Scholars have emphasized that the private sector healthcare system plays a crucial role and is profit-driven in Pakistan (Waraich, 2018). In addition, allegations of medical negligence and misconduct are common. Due to a lack of formal authority, the private healthcare industry is frequently unregulated and unmanaged. Hospitals have been under scrutiny from crusading journalists for several questionable practices, including Medicare billings, claims of unneeded surgeries, and poor infection control procedures, all of which have been looked into by federal and state regulators (Deshpande et al., 2006). Moreover, these researchers also emphasized that managerial decisions in private hospitals are overwhelmingly influenced by financial considerations, which can have an adverse impact on moral judgment. Particularly, the strength of private hospitals does not lie in organizational ethics.

Before data collection, written permission was taken from the hospitals. The concerned department in the hospital was requested to grant a permission letter for data collection. The authorities were provided with detailed information on the purpose of the research and further ensured the confidentiality of respondents and hospitals. The present study is a time lag and data were collected across four time periods each after 4 weeks gap. The two-source data was collected that includes employees and their immediate supervisors. Podsakoff et al. (2003) highlighted that source separation and time-lag help in reducing common method variance and 4 weeks’ time separation is effective (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). All the questionnaires that were distributed were assigned with four digit-code to keep track of respondents and hospitals in four different time lags. In time lag 1(T1), employees filled the data on organization-set HPGs because we followed the footsteps of Welsh et al. (2020), they clearly distinguished between organization-set HPGs and self-set HPGs and highlighted that organization-set HPGs are public in nature, the total number of questionnaires distributed in lag 1 was 800, and 636 employees responded to the questionnaires. In T2 and T3 employees completed the survey on supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks. The questionnaires distributed in T2 were 636 and received 611 questionnaires. Whereas in T3 total 611 questionnaires were provided to employees who filled in T1 and T2, and only 594 employees responded to the questionnaires. Supervisors rated employee expediency in T4, the researcher distributed 800 questionnaires to employees serving in supervisory positions and only 596 questionnaires were received that were completely filled. These supervisors were in charge of employees who responded in first three time lags. On average one supervisor rated three employees which make 1:3. Based on the digital code assigned to the questionnaires they were tracked and paired for analysis and usable data for analysis turned out to be 591. The response rate was approximately 73%.

This study employs partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3. It is considered one of the most efficient and flexible tools for statistical analysis (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, researchers find the PLS-SEM method to be particularly intriguing since it enables them to estimate complex models with numerous constructs, indicator variables, and structural paths without putting distributional assumptions on the data (Hair et al., 2019). As SEM is currently often used in many fields of social research. But more significantly, PLS-SEM is a causal-predictive approach to SEM that prioritizes prediction in estimating statistical models, whose structures are intended to offer causal explanations (Sarstedt et al., 2021). Thus current study used PLS-SEM for analysis.

As far as the demographics are concerned the respondents include supervisors and subordinates. The supervisor sample was 60% male 40% female, age 45% of supervisors are above 50 years, education 51% are holding master’s degree, salary 79% are earning above 50,000 and 31% have experience of more than 20 years. The employee sample was male 49% and female 51%. 53% of employees belong to the 31 to 40 years age bracket. 63% of employees are graduates. 60% are earning a salary between 31,000 and 40,000 and 60% have experience of less than 5 years.

Measures

The measures used in the present study are adapted from previous studies showing reliability.

Organizations Set High-Performance Goals

The organization-set high-performance goals were assessed using the four-item scale developed by Welsh et al. (2020). The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The sample item includes “My organization has set challenging performance goals for employees”

Supervisor Expediency

The supervisor expediency was assessed using four-item scales developed by Greenbaum et al. (2018). Items include “Cuts corners to complete work assignments more quickly.” The 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = all the time was used.

Illegitimate Tasks

The BERN illegitimate eight-item scale by Semmer et al. (2010) was used to assess illegitimate tasks. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = frequently. The sample items include “They would not exist.”

Employee Expediency

The four-item scale developed by Greenbaum et al. (2018) was adopted to gage employee expediency. The scale was assessed using the 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = all the time. Sample items include “Ignores company protocols in order to get what he or she wants”

Results

The current study employed PLS-SEM as a data analysis technique using SmartPLS 3 (Ringle et al., 2015). Following the guidelines of PLS-SEM, the two-step approach was adopted for analysis (Hair et al., 2021). First was the evaluation of the measurement model, and the second was the evaluation of the structural model. Figure 2 depicts the study’s measurement model and the structural model of the current study is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2.

Measurement model.

Figure 3.

Structural model for mediation analysis.

The evaluation of the measurement model included the assessment of factor loading, and the threshold value is 0.7 (Hair et al., 2021). Second internal consistency reliability was ensured through composite reliability (CR), and the values should be above 0.70 (Gefen et al., 2000). Third convergent validity was ascertained through average variance extracted (AVE), and the required threshold value is 0.50 (Bagozzi et al., 1991). The Fourth step was assessing discriminant validity, and to do so, two methods were applied Fornell and Larcker criteria and Heterotrait and Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2015).

With reference to Table 1, all the values of constructs are in accordance with the threshold values. Factor loading is above 0.7. AVE is greater than 0.5, and CR is above 0.7.

Table 1.

Validity and Reliability.

Constructs	Items	Factor Loading	AVE	Composite Reliability
High-Performance Goals	HPG1	0.856	0.713	0.908
	HPG2	0.839
	HPG3	0.831
	HPG4	0.850
Supervisor Expediency	SE1	0.847	0.730	0.915
	SE2	0.866
	SE3	0.854
	SE4	0.851
Illegitimate Tasks	IT1	0.768	0.619	0.928
	IT2	0.762
	IT3	0.784
	IT4	0.804
	IT5	0.772
	IT6	0.777
	IT7	0.801
	IT8	0.823
Employee Expediency	EE1	0.850	0.686	0.897
	EE2	0.891
	EE3	0.768
	EE4	0.797

Note. Factor loading > 0.70, AVE > 0.50, CR > 0.70.

Table 2 shows the discriminant validity of the constructs. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of AVE must be greater than the correlation between the constructs when assessing discriminant validity. With reference to Table 2, all the constructs AVE square roots are greater than the correlations between constructs. Hair et al. (2017) also suggested assessing discriminant validity through Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT), and the ratio should be below 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015). Refer to Table 2 all the HTMT values are below the threshold value.

Table 2.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	1	2	3	4
High-Performance Goals	0.844
Supervisor Expediency	0.514	0.855
Illegitimate Tasks	0.379	0.502	0.787
Employee Expediency	0.330	0.347	0.286	0.828
Note: Bold values represent the square root of AVE.
HTMT Criterion
High-Performance Goals
Supervisor Expediency	0.589
Illegitimate Tasks	0.423	0.557
Employee Expediency	0.381	0.398	0.315

Note. AVE is presented in bold letters. HTMT = heterotrait-monotrait ratio < 0.90.

Step two is the evaluation of the structural model for hypotheses testing. The bootstrapping procedure was followed with 5000 subsamples, as suggested by scholars (Hair et al., 2011). The results of the hypotheses testing are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.

Direct Effect Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis	Relationships	Beta	Std error	t-value	p value	Decision
H1	HPG → EE	0.186	0.046	4.081	.000	Supported
H2	HPG → SE	0.514	0.035	14.816	.000	Supported
H3	SE → IT	0.419	0.045	9.379	.000	Supported
H4	IT → EE	0.120	0.048	2.491	.013	Supported

Note. HPG = high-performance goals; SE = supervisor expediency; IT = Illegitimate Tasks; EE = Employee Expediency. n = 591, p < .05.

Table 4.

Indirect Effect Hypothesis Testing.

Relationships	Direct effect	Relationships	Beta	SE	t-value	p value	Decision
HPG → IT	0.163	HPG → SE → IT	0.215	0.029	7.441	.016	SupportedH5
SE→ EE	0.191	SE → IT → EE	0.050	0.021	2.402	.000	SupportedH6
HPG → EE	0.186	HPG → SE → IT → EE	0.026	0.011	2.315	.019	SupportedH7

Note. HPG = high-performance goals; SE = supervisor expediency; IT = Illegitimate Tasks; EE = Employee Expediency. n = 591, p < .05.

Table 3 provides details about direct relationship hypotheses testing, and the PLS-SEM algorithm was used for this purpose. H₁ predicted that high-performance goals have positive and significant affect on employee expediency (β = .186, t = 4.081 and p = .000), results supporting the hypothesis. H₂ underlined that high-performance goals have positive and significant affect on supervisor expediency (β = .514, t = 14.816, and p = .000) results confirmed the hypothesis. H₃ posits that supervisor expediency have positive and significant affect on illegitimate tasks (β = .419, t = 9.379, and p = .000) findings supported the hypothesis. H₄ was also supported (β = .120, t = 2.491, and p = .013) proving that illegitimate tasks have positive and significant affect on employee expediency.

Table 4 illustrates indirect hypotheses testing; the complete bootstrapping procedure was applied in PLS-SEM. H₅ predicted the mediation effect of supervisor expediency between high-performance goals and illegitimate tasks. The results were statistically significant (β = .215, t = 7.441, and p = .016) highlighting the partial mediation effect because the direct effect was found to be significant as well, thus proving the hypothesis. H₆ predicted the mediation effect of illegitimate tasks between supervisor expediency and employee expediency (β = .050, t = 2.402, and p = .000) supporting the hypothesis with partial mediation. Sequential mediation is underlined in H₇ as the relationship between high-performance goals and employee expediency is sequentially mediated by supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks. H₇ is supported by data (β = .026, t = 2.315 and p = .019). The research results supported the indirect hypotheses formulated in the present study.

Table 5 illustrates the explanatory and predictive power of the model by R² and Q² values respectively. Researchers highlighted that the R² value ranges from 0 to 1, and for primary data, R² (coefficient of determination) should be greater than 0.26 (Hair et al., 2021). In addition, scholars suggested assessing the latent variables Q², which should be greater than 0 (Shmueli et al., 2016).

Table 5.

Goodness of Fit.

Constructs	R ²	Q ²
Supervisor expediency	0.264	0.191
Illegitimate tasks	0.272	0. 165
Employee expediency	0.162	0. 106

Note. n = 591.

Cohen (1988) provided a guideline on the effect size (f² ) and the values are 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 representing small, medium, and large effect sizes respectively. Moreover, a value less than 0.02 shows no effect size. With reference to Table 6, the f² values range from a small, medium, and high effect size of hypothesized relationships, non of the relationship shows f² less than 0.02.

Table 6.

Effect Size.

Relationships	f ²	Effect size
HPG → EE	0.030	Small
HPG →SE	0.359	High
SE→ IT	0.177	Medium
IT → EE	0.020	Small

Note. n = 591. f² > 0.02.

Discussion

The main objective of this study is to identify what at the workplace prompts expediency and based on the literature researchers identified organization-set high-performance goals as a predictor of expediency. Furthermore, supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks are examined as mediators. Researchers, for instance, Welsh et al. (2020) emphasized that it is of significant importance to investigate the effect of the high-performance goal on various forms of unethical behavior, and in our case, we investigated the effect of high-performance goals on supervisor and employee expediency. Also, researchers stressed the importance of investigating antecedents and outcomes of illegitimate tasks, which is the recently identified occupational stressor (Semmer et al., 2021).

The hypotheses formulated in the present study are well supported by the statistical results. H₁ depicts the relationship between high-performance goals and employee expediency, research results supported the hypothesis. Similarly, in H₂ it was hypothesized that high-performance goals influence supervisor expediency, which is also confirmed by statistical analysis. These findings are similar to the previous research where empirical results confirmed that high-performance goals positively and significantly affect unethical behavior (Welsh et al., 2019, 2020). In addition, prior researchers elucidated that demands at the workplace trigger negative leader behavior at the workplace (Burton et al., 2012). As suggested by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) in transactional model of stress and coping that employees have tendency to devise coping mechanism to manage stress and when employee faces stress in the form of organizational-set HPGs the coping mechanism devised is expediency.

H₃ predicted that supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks are positively and significantly associated, which is also supported by statistical analysis. Researchers accord that leader behavior tends to cause stress for followers (Harms et al., 2017). It is difficult and perhaps dysfunctional for the organization when a leader acts unethically. In research, these types of leadership practises are cited as the root of employee stress in a variety of contexts, including workload and work-family conflict (Che et al., 2017). In a similar vein, academics asserted that a primary cause of subordinate stress could be a leader’s actions (Skogstad et al., 2014). According to studies, nursing supervisors, managers, and leaders are more likely to be unpleasant, make unrealistic demands, and show little regard for subordinates in the healthcare sector (Morrison & Korol, 2014). Consistent with previous scholars arguments and research present study findings prove that supervisors expediency and illegitimate tasks have positive significant association.

Illegitimate tasks affect employee expediency is hypothesized in H₄ and supported by data. Previous research findings have also confirmed a positive correlation between work stress and employee negative behavior (Yao et al., 2014). Moreover, researchers have an agreement that illegitimate tasks positively and significantly trigger counterproductive work behavior (Schulte-Braucks et al., 2019; Semmer et al., 2010). The transactional model of stress and coping was used to support the points in the current study, which focused on how stressful it is for workers to be given erroneous duties and how they respond by being expedient. It is also supported by the theoretical claim.

Statistical results supported H₅ which predicted the mediation effect of supervisor expediency between high-performance goals and illegitimate tasks. Leadership and stress have long been linked together and researchers emphasized that stress can be an antecedent and consequence of leader behavior (Bass & Bass, 2008). In agreement with theoretical assertion that is transactional model of stress, it is argued that organization-set HPGs are a source of stress. Supervisors cope with them by being expedient, and the adaptive result of this expediency is illegitimate duties.

H₆ hypothesized mediation effects of illegitimate tasks between supervisor expediency and employee expediency, research results confirmed this hypothesis. H. Thompson (2010) argued that it is undeniable that stress can make leaders take wrong decisions. Consequently, it can be argued that leaders under stress may assign tasks that are perceived as illegitimate by followers.

H₇ underlined the sequential mediation of supervisor expediency and illegitimate tasks between the high-performance goals and employee expediency relationship. In extant literature researchers highlighted that job stressors influence counterproductive work behavior (Penney & Spector, 2005). After comprehensive statistical analysis, it can be deduced that the hypotheses formulated in the present study are well supported by the results. In line with the transactional model of stress and coping, which postulates that when faced with stress or perceive a situation as stressful, employees come up with coping mechanisms. This paradigm is used to claim that illegitimate duties, supervisor expediency, and HPGs imposed by the company are stressors, and that employees use expediency to deal with this stress.

Implications of the Study

Theoretical Implications

Above all, we add to the body of knowledge on covert unethical behavior by investigating expediency, a typical workplace occurrence that has gotten little empirical examination so far. We agree with previous academics that an organized and comprehensive examination of this phenomenon is required, given the evidence that expediency plays a noteworthy role in the spread of unethical practices inside businesses. Employees, according to previous conceptual work, become overwhelmed by the desire to execute quickly and efficiently, and expediency becomes an opportune mechanism by which employees essentially perform in their work contexts (Parks et al., 2010). However, despite numerous theoretical assumptions, practical research on expediency is lacking. Greenbaum et al. (2018) were the first to conduct empirical research on supervisor and employee expediency, which attempted to analyze and highlight the relevance of examining this specific sort of unethical conduct in the workplace. When organizational leaders engage in or endorse expedient behaviors, the authors argue, expediency not only becomes predominant within the organization, but it also creates the perception that unethical practices and misconduct are usually tolerated by organizational leaders at the workplace. As a result, in order to build on existing studies, we initiated a comprehensive empirical investigation into supervisor and employee expediency. The current study builds on and expands on previous research by investigating what motivates individuals to engage in expediency at the workplace. Drawing on the transactional model of stress and coping, we examined organization-set HPGs as a predictor of expediency. We argued based on literature that organization-set HPGs bring uncertainty along and for this very reason they are threatening and stressful leading to expedient behavior. A competitive workplace environment often pushes employees to be more efficient (Eissa, 2020). Organization-set HPGs are inevitable in today’s work environment but there is a cost associated with them. Thus we presented a unique input by linking organization-set HPGs with a specific form of unethical conduct known as expediency. In addition to HPGs, it is also contended in the present study that illegitimate tasks that are workplace stressors tend to trigger expediency. Researchers have indicated that illegitimate tasks act as a source of work stress (Semmer et al., 2015). Researchers have a consensus that illegitimate tasks assignment is troublesome and related to numerous negative outcomes in the workplace such as counterproductive work behavior, moral disengagement, and turnover intention (Apostel et al., 2018; Semmer et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2022). Accordingly, his research offered a exclusive contribution to the literature by linking illegitimate tasks as a predictor of employee expediency and the outcome of supervisor expediency. We tested a comprehensive framework that examines the predictors and underlying mechanisms triggering expedient behavior at the workplace.

Practical Implications

Parks et al. (2010) noted that “with increased competitive pressures of the global economy and fewer available resources …. expedience is rife in organizations” (721). In today’s competitive organization employees are faced with immense pressures (Mitchell et al., 2018). Employees are expected to go beyond their responsibilities and work harder to ensure the smooth functioning of the organization (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Expediency is a common workplace phenomenon that has been overlooked in the literature (Eissa, 2020). Expediency is detrimental to the organization in the long run because it compromises the morality and ethics of individuals (Greenbaum et al., 2018). The present study provides insight to practitioners regarding why supervisors and employees engage in expediency. As discussed above expediency is a major cause of many organizations’ catastrophes. Still, managers fail to calculate the cost of expediency and under what circumstances individuals at the workplace engage in it. This study identifies factors that tend to trigger expediency. The factors identified included stressors like high-performance goals, supervisor expediency, and illegitimate tasks. The current study’s results support the assertion that workplace stressors tend to trigger expediency. Based on our results, organizations can plan to monitor and manage high-performance goals to avoid supervisor and employee involvement in expediency. Moreover, practitioners can develop effective, ethical programs to circumvent expediency.

This study was carried out in the private health sector of Pakistan. Healthcare professionals have been the focus of substantial research all across the world. However, the vast majority of research has focused on European countries, with only a few concentrating on Pakistan, (Aslam et al., 2014). The healthcare industry is frequently chastised for ethical breaches, and there have been difficulties with expediency and a lack of strict adherence to standards (Glickel, 2009). Thus this study envisages the healthcare practitioners about the contextual factors triggering expediency and developing in-house ethical programs to halt the expedient behavior of employees. Further, guide healthcare policymakers to develop policies that direct the individuals working in private health sectors to avoid the occurrence of expediency. The key take away is monitoring of HPGs. Goals are indeed important to be achieved but not at the cost of compromised ethical practices. It is significant to have a policy of carrot and stick that underlines stringent punishment for unethical behavior and recognition of ethical practices.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Every research has certain limitations and our research is also not exempted. The present study has overlooked several alternative explanations of investigated relationships such as individual differences as for example personality traits and attitudes. Secondly, expediency phenomena can be observed in any sector; researchers have collected data only from the private health sector of Pakistan. Lastly, the organization-set high-performance goals perspective has been included in the study, and the self-set high-performance goals perspective is missing. Future research could be benefited by testing this framework in other sectors for sake of generalizability. Individual differences as moderators can be studied for a more comprehensive understanding of expediency phenomena. Scholars can examine the effect of self-set high-performance goals on expediency. Future research can examine whether HPGs have curvilinear relationship to outcomes. In addition future research can identify and examine mitigating factors that can weaken the relationship between HPGs and expediency for example strong ethical culture or ethical leadership.

This research is one step forward in expediency as it provides understanding to scholars and practitioners about the contextual causes of expedient behavior at the workplace. We hope this research inspires more research on expediency. As, Zhu et al. (2022) underlined firms should pay close attention to whether employees engage in unethical or short-term behavior in order to fulfill performance goals because these actions might ultimately result in high expenses for the company.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hina Fayyaz

References

Apostel

Syrek

C. J.

Antoni

C. H.

(2018). Turnover intention as a response to illegitimate tasks: The moderating role of appreciative leadership. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(3), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000061

Ashforth

(1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701

Aslam

H. D.

Jamil

Tariq

(2014). Stress of medical practitioners in private healthcare industry. Asian Social Science, 10(22), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n22p111

Bagozzi

R. P.

Phillips

L. W.

(1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.

Bardes

Piccolo

R. F.

(2010). Goal setting as an antecedent of destructive leader behaviors. In Schyns

Hansbrough

(Eds.), When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes and ehical failures, (pp. 3–22). Information Age Publication, Inc.

Barsky

(2008). Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9481-6

Bass

(2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications. The Free Press.

Björk

Bejerot

Jacobshagen

Härenstam

(2013). I shouldn’t have to do this: Illegitimate tasks as a stressor in relation to organizational control and resource deficits. Work and Stress, 27(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.818291

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740

10.

Bonner

J. M.

Greenbaum

R. L.

Mayer

D. M.

(2016). My boss is morally disengaged: The role of ethical leadership in explaining the interactive effect of supervisor and employee moral disengagement on employee behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2366-6

11.

Brown

M. E.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25763039

12.

Burton

J. P.

Hoobler

J. M.

Scheuer

M. L.

(2012). Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9255-0

13.

Catley

Blackwood

Forsyth

Tappin

Bentley

(2017). Workplace bullying complaints: Lessons for “good HR practice. Personnel Review, 46(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-04-2015-0107

14.

Che

X. X.

Zhou

Z. E.

Kessler

S. R.

Spector

P. E.

(2017). Stressors beget stressors: The effect of passive leadership on employee health through workload and work–family conflict. Work and Stress, 31(4), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1317881

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

16.

Colligan

T. W.

Higgins

E. M.

(2006). Workplace stress: Etiology and consequences. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 21(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J490v21n02_0

17.

Dalal

R. S.

(2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241

18.

Deshpande

S. P.

Joseph

Prasad

(2006). Factors impacting ethical behavior in hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9086-5

19.

Dhanani

L. Y.

LaPalme

M. L.

(2019). It’s not personal: A review and theoretical integration of research on vicarious workplace mistreatment. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2322–2351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318816162

20.

Dockterman

Weber

(2017). Does stressing performance goals lead to too much, well, stress? Phi Delta Kappan, 98(6), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717696475

21.

Eatough

E. M.

Meier

L. L.

Igic

Elfering

Spector

P. E.

Semmer

N. K.

(2016). You want me to do what? Two daily diary studies of illegitimate tasks and employee well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2032

22.

Egan

(2016, September 9). 5,300 Wells Fargo employees fired over 2 million phony accounts. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-createdphony-accounts-bank-fees/index.html?iid_EL.

23.

Einarsen

Aasland

M. S.

Skogstad

(2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

24.

Eissa

(2020). Individual initiative and burnout as antecedents of employee expediency and the moderating role of conscientiousness. Journal of Business Research, 110, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.047

25.

Ferrell

O. C.

Fraedrich

Ferrell

(2013). Business ethics and social responsibility. Cengage Learning.

26.

Folger

Gilliland

S. W.

Steiner

D. D.

Skarlicki

D. P.

(2001). Fairness as deonance. In Gilliland

Steiner

Skarlicki

(Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3–33). Information Age Publishing.

27.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

28.

Ganster

D. C.

(2005). Executive job demands: Suggestions from a stress and decision-making perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.17293366

29.

Gefen

Straub

Boudreau

M.-C.

(2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 7.

30.

Glickel

S. Z.

(2009). The ethics of Expediency. Journal of Hand Surgery, 34(5), 799–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.03.012

31.

Golparvar

Kamkar

Javadian

(2012). Moderating effects of job stress in emotional exhaustion and feeling of energy relationships with positive and negative behaviors: Job stress multiple functions approach. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(4), 99–112.

32.

Greenbaum

R. L.

Mawritz

M. B.

Bonner

J. M.

Webster

B. D.

Kim

(2018). Supervisor expediency to employee expediency: The moderating role of leader-member exchange and the mediating role of employee unethical tolerance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2258

33.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE publications.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

35.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

36.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203

37.

Hambrick

D. C.

Finkelstein

Mooney

A. C.

(2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.17293355

38.

Harms

P. D.

Credé

Tynan

Leon

Jeung

(2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.006

39.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

40.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.3.456

41.

Horan

K. A.

Nakahara

W. H.

DiStaso

M. J.

Jex

S. M.

(2020). A review of the challenge-hindrance stress model: Recent advances, expanded paradigms, and recommendations for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 560346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.560346

42.

Jonason

P. K.

O’Connor

P. J.

(2017). Cutting corners at work: An individual differences perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.045

43.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

R. P.

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley.

44.

Karevold

K. I.

(2021). Managers’ beliefs about false performance reports: How high goals and low performance levels can Be unethical warning signals. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.49

45.

Kelloway

E. K.

Sivanathan

Francis

Barling

(2005). Poor leadership. Handbook of work stress (pp. 89–112). SAGE Publications Inc.

46.

Lašáková

Remišová

(2015). Unethical leadership: Current theoretical trends and conceptualization. Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01636-6

47.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing company.

48.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice- Hall, Inc.

49.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2015). Breaking the rules: A historical overview of goal-setting theory. Advances in Motivation Science, 2, 99–126.

50.

Lombardo

M. M.

McCall

M. W. J.

(1984). Coping with an intolerable boss. Center for Creative Leadership.

51.

Mawritz

M. B.

Folger

Latham

G. P.

(2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1879

52.

Mawritz

M. B.

Mayer

D. M.

Hoobler

J. M.

Wayne

S. J.

Marinova

S. V.

(2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x

53.

Mayer

D. M.

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

Bardes

Salvador

R. B.

(2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002

54.

Meier

L. L.

Semmer

N. K.

Spector

(2013). Unethical work behavior as a stressor. In Giacalone

R. A.

Promislo

M. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior (pp. 168–179). Routledge.

55.

Mitchell

M. S.

Baer

M. D.

Ambrose

M. L.

Folger

Palmer

N. F.

(2018). Cheating under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000254

56.

Mohr

Wolfram

H.-J.

(2010). Stress among managers: The importance of dynamic tasks, predictability, and social support in unpredictable times. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 167–179.

57.

Morrison

K. B.

Korol

S. A.

(2014). Nurses’ perceived and actual caregiving roles: Identifying factors that can contribute to job satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(23-24), 3468–3477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12597

58.

Namie

(2000). The bully at work. What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim dignity on the job. Sourcebooks, Inc.

59.

Neves

(2012). Organizational cynicism: Spillover effects on supervisor–subordinate relationships and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 965–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.006

60.

Niven

Healy

(2016). Susceptibility to the ‘dark side of goal-setting: Does moral justification influence the effect of goals on unethical behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2545-0

61.

Ordóñez

L. D.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Galinsky

A. D.

Bazerman

M. H.

(2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999

62.

Ordóñez

L. D.

Welsh

D. T.

(2015). Immoral goals: how goal setting may lead to unethical behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.001

63.

O’Brien

K. E.

(2008). A stressor-strain model of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida.

64.

Parks

Gallagher

D. G.

(2010). Elasticity in the ‘rules’ of the game: Exploring organizational expedience. Human Relations, 63(5), 701–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709355331

65.

Penney

L. M.

Spector

P. E.

(2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 26(7), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.336

66.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

67.

Poortvliet

P. M.

Darnon

(2010). Toward a more social understanding of achievement goals: The interpersonal effects of mastery and performance goals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410383246

68.

Rajah

Song

Arvey

R. D.

(2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.006

69.

Ren

Wang

Collins

N. T.

(2021). The joint impact of servant leadership and team-based HRM practices on team expediency: the mediating role of team reflexivity. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2020-0506

70.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH.

71.

Rindfleisch

Malter

A. J.

Ganesan

Moorman

(2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261

72.

Rosen

C. C.

Dimotakis

Cole

M. S.

Taylor

S. G.

Simon

L. S.

Smith

T. A.

Reina

C. S.

(2020). When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1181–1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000483

73.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Hair

J. F.

(2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer International Publishing.

74.

Schweitzer

M. E.

Ordóñez

Douma

(2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159591

75.

Schyns

Hansbrough

(2010). When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures. IAP.

76.

Schulte-Braucks

Baethge

Dormann

Vahle-Hinz

(2019). Get even and feel good? Moderating effects of justice sensitivity and counterproductive work behavior on the relationship between illegitimate tasks and self-esteem. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(2), 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000112

77.

Selart

Johansen

S. T.

(2011). Ethical decision making in organizations: The role of Leadership Stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0649-0

78.

Semmer

N. K.

Jacobshagen

Keller

A. C.

Meier

L. L.

(2021). Adding insult to injury: Illegitimate stressors and their association with situational well-being, social self-esteem, and desire for revenge. Work and Stress, 35, 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2020.1857465

79.

Semmer

N. K.

Jacobshagen

Meier

L. L.

Elfering

Beehr

T. A.

Kälin

Tschan

(2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work and Stress, 29(1), 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996

80.

Semmer

N. K.

Tschan

Meier

L. L.

Facchin

Jacobshagen

(2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology, 59(1), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00416.x

81.

Semmer

N. K.

Nicola

Meier

Achim

(2007). Occupational stress research: The Stress-as-offense-to-Self Perspective. In McIntyre

Houdmont

(Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 41–58). Nottingham University Press.

82.

Shmueli

Ray

Velasquez Estrada

J. M.

Chatla

S. B.

(2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049

83.

Skogstad

Hetland

Glasø

Einarsen

(2014). Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. Work and Stress, 28(4), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.957362

84.

Sonnentag

Frese

(2013). Stress in organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

85.

Soman

Cheema

(2004). When goals are counterproductive: The effects of violation of a behavioral goal on subsequent performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1086/383423

86.

Stein

Vincent-Höper

Schümann

Gregersen

(2020). Beyond mistreatment at the relationship level: Abusive supervision and illegitimate tasks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2722. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082722

87.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

88.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

89.

Thompson

(2010). The stress effect: Why smart leaders make dumb decisions and what to do about it. Jossey-Bass.

90.

Thompson

(2016, June 6). Prosecutors probe Volkswagen’s former CEO over the diesel scandal. CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/20/news/companies/volkswagen-diesel scandalmartinwinterkorn/ index.html.

91.

Vincent-Höper

Stein

(2019). The role of leaders in designing employees’ work characteristics: Validation of the health- and Development-promoting Leadership Behavior Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1049. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01049

92.

Waraich

R. S.

(2018). Healthcare system and medical malpractice law in Pakistan. Policy Perspectives, 15(3), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.13169/polipers.15.3.0085

93.

Welsh

Bush

Thiel

Bonner

(2019). Reconceptualizing goal setting’s dark side: The ethical consequences of learning versus outcome goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.11.001

94.

Welsh

D. T.

Baer

M. D.

Sessions

(2020). Hot pursuit: The affective consequences of organization-set versus self-set goals for emotional exhaustion and citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000429

95.

Welsh

D. T.

Baer

M. D.

Sessions

Garud

(2020). Motivated to disengage: The ethical consequences of goal commitment and moral disengagement in goal setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(7), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2467

96.

Welsh

D. T.

Ordóñez

L. D.

(2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.006

97.

Yao

Y.-H.

Fan

Y.-Y.

Guo

Y.-X.

(2014). Leadership, work stress and employee behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-04-2014-0089

98.

Zhao

Lam

L. W.

Zhu

J. N. Y.

Zhao

(2022). Doing it purposely? Mediation of moral disengagement in the relationship between illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(3), 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04848-7

99.

Zhou

Z. E.

Eatough

E. M.

Wald

D. R.

(2018). Feeling insulted? Examining end-of-work anger as a mediator in the relationship between daily illegitimate tasks and next-day CWB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2266

100.

Zhu

J. N. Y.

Lam

L. W.

Liu

Jiang

(2022). Performance pressure and employee expediency: The Role of Moral Decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05254-3