RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

SILENCED BY DESPOTIC LEADERSHIP: INVESTIGATING THE MEDIATING

EFFECT OF JOB TENSIONS AND MODERATING INFLUENCE OF PSYCAP
ON EMPLOYEE SILENCE

SAEED AHMAD1, HAFIZ AHMAD ASHRAF2, DR. JAVED IQBAL3, WAQAR MUNIR4, YASIR IQBAL5,
USMAN ALI6
1
Imperial College of Business Studies [email protected]
2
University of Central Punjab [email protected] (corresponding author)
3
Bahria University Lahore Campus Lahore, [email protected]
4
University of Malaysia, Sarawak campus (PhD scholar) [email protected]
5
Superior University [email protected]
6
Imperial College of Business Studies, [email protected]

Abstract
Dark leadership is rising, and scholars are paying more attention to reducing its harmful outcomes.
Present research probes the harmful effects of despotic leadership due to subordinates’ silent
behavior, along with mediating role of job tensions. This research used the moderating effect of the
employees’ PsyCap by using the conservations of resources theory. A self-administered,
questionnaire-based survey was used to collect data from employees of Tourism industry. This study
employed a three-wave design with a three-week time gap between them. A total of 408 relevant
surveys were statistically assessed through Hayes’s (2012) process bootstrapping, and SMART-PLS
was used to confirm convergent and discriminant validity. According to the study’s findings, despotic
leadership is strongly associated with job tensions and employee silence, and these positive effects
are buffered in the presence of strong subordinates’ PsyCap. Furthermore, PsyCap’ strong
subordinates were studied to reduce the positive association of despotic leadership on job tensions
and employee silence. In contrast, it reverses the positive relationship of despotic leadership with
job tensions and employee silence. Our study adds to the scant body of research on the detrimental
impacts of despotic leadership on followers by focusing on the conservation of resource viewpoints.
Present study also contributed by establishing when and how these impacts could be mitigated or
overcome. The evidence from our study points to ways that policymakers and organizations can
lessen the harmful effects of despotic leadership.
Keywords: Employees’ Perceptions of Despotic Leadership, Employee Silence, Job Tensions,
Employees’ Psychological capital (PsyCap), and Conservations of Resources Theory

INTRODUCTION
The extensive research on organizational leadership focuses on positive facets instead of dishonest
or dysfunctional leadership practices (Ahmad et al., 2023). Many studies have found leadership
destructive or dark aspects (Naseer et al., 2016; Thoroughgood et al., 2018; Mackey et al., 2021).
Moreover, scholars have exposed leadership’s deleterious forms, which may have a detrimental effect
on job performance (Ahmad et al., 2023), work engagement (Jabeen & Rahim, 2020), career
satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2016), organizational citizenship behavior (Wu, Peng, & Estay, 2018),
creativity (Lee et al., 2013), job satisfaction, and psychological well‐being (Raja et al., 2020). These
leaders cause job stress, emotional exhaustion (Tepper, 2000; Khan et al., 2019), deviant work
behavior (Mackey et al., 2019), counterproductive work behavior (Brender-Ilan & Sheaffer, 2019),
and absenteeism (Tepper et al., 2006; Labrague et al., 2020). Such harmful leadership practices have
been studied under names such as petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), supervisor undermining (Einarsen,
Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007), abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), destructive leadership (Schyns &
Hansbrough, 2010), and despotic leadership (Aronson, 2001). De Hoogh & Den Hartog (2008) posit
that despotic leadership displays important forms of deleterious leadership styles.

173
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

Despotic leadership has been characterized as leaders exhibiting dictatorial and assertive behaviors
with a desire for self-aggrandizement, self-serving, and mistreatment of their subordinates (Islam et
al., 2020). Schyns & Schilling (2013) studied that despotic leaders expect unconditional obedience
from their employees. They exercise harsh and brutal tactics to influence subordinates for one-self.
These leaders act against their organizations’ and employees’ interests by engaging in self-centered
and immoral activities (Aronson, 2001). Despotic leaders’ fraudulent and unlawful behavior in the
organization severely impacts subordinates’ creativity and citizenship behaviors. (Naseer et al.,
2016). Such type of leadership is associated with emotional exhaustion and work-family conflicts
(Nauman et al., 2018), job stress (Raja et al., 2020), work withdrawal behavior (Nauman et al., 2020),
job dissatisfaction (Islam et al., 2020), workplace deviance (Mackey et al., 2019 and adversely
associated to performance (Islam et al., 2020; Ahmad et al., 2021), job satisfaction, psychological
well-being (Raja et al., 2020), work engagement (Jabeen, & Rahim 2020; Ahmad & Gao, 2018),
innovative behavior (Ahmad, Khan, & Iqbal, 2021). Although studies show that despotic leadership is
detrimental to subordinates, there is a scarcity of studies on its harmful impacts on subordinates’
passive behavior in terms of silence and the mediating role of employee job tensions.
The adverse impact of despotic leadership extends beyond employees, including the organization,
customers, workers’ families, and the community (Nauman et al., 2018). According to research, these
adverse outcomes of despotic leadership are a significant concern for organizations (Naseer et al.,
2016). Present study employed the conservation of resources theory as a foundation that provides
insight into despotic leadership and passive employee response (Witt & Carlson, 2006; Grandey &
Cropanzano, 1999; Xu et al., 2015). COR theory proposes that individuals feel stress in response to
an actual or impending loss of resources. (Hobfoll, 1989). In addition, resources might be depleted
when people face despotic leadership. Therefore, they struggle to save their remaining resources
and defend themselves from future loss of resources and depletion (Hobfoll, 2001, 2011). According
to the conservation of resources theory, hurt employees from despotic leadership save their valuable
job resources in a way that they seldom respond or complain against their higher-ranking leadership
(Sarwar et al., 2017; De Clercq et al., 2018). They rely on themselves to protect valuable job
resources like continuous employment or promotion prospects. Hence, upset subordinates save their
limited resources and reduce their job tension such that they prefer the passive or avoidant dealing
method, which involves separating oneself from the cause of the stressor.
Moreover, previous studies on dark supervision show that hurt employees involve regulative
techniques like avoiding interaction to sustain relationships and adopting intentional feedback
avoidance practices (Whitman et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015; Dehkharghani et al., 2022). Where
employees’ silence is regarded as the subordinates intentionally hiding crucial or potentially
meaningful and sensitive information, they deliberately withhold problems, suggestions, comments,
or complaints about their jobs and their workplace (Brinsfield, Edwards, & Greenberg, 2009; Knoll et
al., 2016; Uys, 2022). Hence, subordinates’ silence is another employee’s natural and logical response
to leaders’ misuse (Frommer et al., 2021), and studies on the association between despotic leadership
and subordinate silence are relatively scarce.
In line with, despotic leadership shows behavior such as ridiculing, fraudulent, unethical, and self-
serving behavior, which would cause job tensions. Employees’ psychological job strain is related to
psychological responses to perceived disruptions in their workplace setting, which is referred to as
job tension (Yousaf et al., 22023; Fakunmoju et al., 2010; Karamushka et al., 2019). Job tension is a
type of stress in the job that arises when individuals react emotionally to interruptions in their work
environments (Hochwarter, 2005; Andrews et al., 20015). Job tension impacts both personal and
organizational outcomes (Steffensen et al., 2022). Therefore, distressed employees safeguard their
precious resources by adopting passive dealing practices to avoid job tensions. The current study
investigates to expand on this line of research by suggesting job tensions as a critical mediating
mechanism. In particular, under job tension, this study recommends employee silence as a safe
approach for employees to save the remaining resources from despotic leadership.

174
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

Researchers have underlined the importance of personal resources that allow subordinates to be
flexible and adapt to resource-draining situations (Paul et al., 2016). According to a study, individual
resources impact employees’ perceptions of mistreatment and their response (Martinko et al., 2013).
The conceptual model of despotic leadership posits the importance of employees’ psychological
resources in resolving work-related issues (DeClercq et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2020). Psychological
capital is a valuable personal resource related to an employee’s positive psychological development
state, classified by self-efficacy, resilience, hope, and optimism (Youssef & Luthans, 2012; Nolzen,
2018; Ho & Chan, 2022). Psychological capital has gained prominence as a prominent
psychological resource that moderates the effects of emotionally stressful workplace events such as
dark supervision (Avey et al., 2021; Gill et al., 2019; Agarwal, 2018). Furthermore, according to
scholars, psychological capital is favorably and strongly related to employee well-being and adversely
related to occupational tension and anxiety (Rahimnia, Mazidi, & Mohammadzadeh, 2013; Avey,
Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011).
PsyCap is a valuable personal resource enabling people to deal optimally with leadership hostility,
which may mitigate the consequences of despotic leadership on subordinates’ silence and lessen job
tensions. Employees with low PsyCap lack the personal resources to cope effectively with despotic
leadership. Job tensions will be heightened in these circumstances. Employees with strong PsyCap,
on the other hand, are likely to be better equipped to deal with stressful events such as despotic
leadership and hence less likely to experience stress as a result of such circumstances. For example,
Narsa & Wijayanti (2021) and Patnaik et al. (2021) found that employees with more significant
amounts of psychological capital adapt to stressful events more readily and behave favorably instead
of an unfavorable emotional condition. As a result, current study argue that psychological capital
may give employees the resources and ability to deal with despotic leadership, mitigating the
favorable effect of despotic leadership on employee silence and reducing work-related tensions.
Hence present research proposes psychological capital as a plausible moderator of the association
between despotic leadership and employees’ job tensions; and despotic leadership and employee
silence. Despite its intuitive appeal, empirical research on the association between despotic
leadership and personal resources is limited (Bouckenooghe et al., 2019; DeClercq et al., 2019).
The current study adds to the existing leadership research in various ways. First and foremost, it
expands our understanding of the harmful implications of despotic leadership. By relating leaders’
maltreatment to subordinates’ silence, this study investigated employees’ passive approach apart
from the hostile approach to understand better what occurs under despotic leadership. Moreover,
choosing confrontational responses that may exacerbate or even end their relationships under
despotic supervision still, most employees continue to use passive coping strategies to prevent leader
hurt (Chi & Liang, 2013; Lam & Xu, 2019; Moin et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is crucial to examine how
these subordinates continually interact with their despotic leadership conceptually and empirically
(DeClercq et al., 2019). Silence is a particularly significant passive response in this respect owing to
its pervasive negative influence on organizations at all levels (Lam & Xu, 2019). In addition, employee
salience caused many well-known business crises, such as Enron and WorldCom’s demise. Similarly,
without crucial and timely feedback from subordinates, organizations cannot address highly
significant issues and generate immediate solutions for continuous development (Hao et al., 2022;
Rai & Agarwal, 2018; Cullinane & Donaghey, 2020).
In addition, these factors are investigated in economically impoverished nations like Pakistan (Ahmad
et al., 2021; Ahmad2021) where the hostile effects of despotic leadership are visible in subordinate
behavior. In the Pakistani cultural context, this research elucidates these research gaps and studied
the harmful consequences of despotic leadership on employees’ job tensions and silent behavior. It
is important to comprehend how it functions for organizations in emerging countries, particularly
those characterized by collectivism, high power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and insufficient job
opportunities. (Hofstede, 2010; Raja et al., 2019).
Second, by investigating the moderating effect of PsyCap, our study advances this line of research by
establishing a relationship context in which despotic leadership has potentially detrimental effects.
Psychological capital is a valuable personal resource for empowering people to cope optimally with

175
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

leadership aggression. The present research donates significantly to the leadership literature by
analyzing the interaction effect of despotic leadership behavior and PsyCap on employees from a
resource conservation viewpoint. Additionally, this research expands on this field of research by
using job tensions as a crucial mediating variable. Finally, despite the well-established detrimental
effect of silence, the study on its antecedents is sparse (Morrison, 2014; Lam & Xu, 2019; Parlar et
al., 2022). In addition, the current research contributes significantly to this inadequacy by examining
the effect of leadership (i.e., despotic leadership and PsyCap proposed by Bouckenooghe et al. (2019)
and De Clercq et al. (2019) along with the underlying mechanism of job tensions. Our results
emphasize the debilitating impact of despotic leadership through an empirical perspective and
critically affect organizations seeking to avoid silence. Additionally, it heightens leaders’ awareness
of their leadership style’s influence on their employees’ well-being and silent behavior.
Theory and hypotheses development
Conservation of resources (COR) theory
The conservation of resources theory describes how stress originates and how people respond to it.
People strive to protect, safeguard, and create resources such as social support, future career and
enhanced personal traits, or ability development (Hobfoll, 1989). Resources are essential because
they help people to achieve meaningful goals and support people in identifying themselves as who
they are. Fundamentally, humans want more resources to fulfil their basic needs and avoid situations
that might cause them to lose valuable resources, which would make them feel uncomfortable or
stressed (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). When stressors don’t threaten people, they are more likely to obtain,
retain, and invest the resources they need to fulfill their work needs and build up extra resources for
when situations get stressful again (Hobfoll, 2001). However, when people are under stressful
conditions, they work hard to keep their resources safe and secure themselves from losing them
(Hobfoll, 2001, 2011). To accomplish this, individuals isolate themselves from the stresses by devoting
some efforts to passive and defensive responses (Dong & Chung, 2021; Hobfoll & Shirom, 1993).
Misused subordinates from leadership intentionally hide important information or suggestions and
adopt passive behavior to avoid upcoming stress or resources depletion in the shape of employment
or career decay. However, when these subordinates develop personal resources, i.e., PsyCap, that is
self-confidence, self-efficacy, hope and optimism. Psychological capital provides resources to hurt
subordinates and the ability to deal with despotic leadership, mitigating the harmful effect of
despotic leadership and decreasing work-related tensions.
Despotic leadership and employee silence
This study draws on the conservations of resources theory, which posits that resource loss is far more
prominent than resource gain (Hobfoll, 2011). People who have drained their resources are strongly
compelled to defend their scarce resources and minimize additional or excessive depletion of the
remaining resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). Victimised people frequently save enduring resources by
decreasing their determination, lowering their commitment to the company, and limiting their
performance attempts (Wright & Hobfoll, 2004). According to Wu Peng & Estay (2018), employees
may engage in avoidant or passive responses to relieve the psychological stress caused by threatening
stressors. Therefore, in this research, propose that hurt employees use silence as a passive and
necessary response to save the remaining resource and reduce psychological distress affected by
despotic leadership.
Silence captures employees’ voluntary withholding of potentially useful ideas or information about
work-related concerns. It is not a situation of non-communication, i.e., having nothing to say;
however, workers consciously decide not to disclose problems or keep ideas (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008; Cullinane & Donaghey, 2020). As a result, scholars regard silence as a passive unfavorable work
practice that would be destructive to organizations (John & Manikandan, 2019). Using conservations
of resources theory, posit that standing up against leadership is typically expensive and unsafe.
Additionally, it involves additional determination as subordinates must refine their concepts, prepare
for the ideal situation, and then express themselves appropriately (Lam & Xu, 2019).
Subordinates who speak up can be denoted as complainers or provocateurs, and as a response, they
may lose valuable individual or professional resources (Detert & Trevio, 2010; Yang & Sekiguchi,

176
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

2021). Communicating about essential work problems may significantly jeopardize the status quo or
leadership, resulting in a drain on existing resources and future resource depletion (Wang et al.,
2020). However, when confronted with despotic leadership, keeping silent in a job effectively
protects one’s remaining resources. It takes lower effort and energy than speaking up (Rani et al.,
2021). Moreover, hiding crucial information would help avoid further resource loss that might result
from challenging current work settings. Following this reasoning, this study postulate silence as a
passive dealing mechanism for emotionally drained employees when faced with continuous despotic
leadership. Thus, propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Employees’ perceptions of despotic leadership positively relate to employee silence.
Despotic leadership and job tensions
As demonstrated by oppressing and demeaning subordinates for self-gain, despotic leadership is a
severe workplace stressor that threatens employees’ valuable resources like employment stability
and career opportunities (Naseer et al., 2016; Ahmad et al., 2021). It also drains employees’ job
resources, such as self-confidence, and diminishes job satisfaction (Islam et al., 2020). Additionally,
victimized employees would expend more effort and energy to survive under despotic leadership
(Nauman et al., 2020). Therefore, job tensions arise as hurt employees become vulnerable and lack
the psychological, individual, or social resources to deal with their despotic leadership (Hobfoll,
1989; Ahmad et al., 2021; Faase et al., 2022). Job tensions are a persistent form of apprehension and
stress, including emotional and psychological distress resulting from job stressors such as despotic
leadership. Therefore, suggest the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Despotic leadership is positively related to subordinate job tensions.
Job Tensions and Employee Silence
Job tensions are discussed as the detrimental physical and psychological responses that arise when
despotic leadership fails to meet the demands of employees. Hence, due to leaders’ such dark
behavior, employees take more job tensions which provide serious harm to employees and would
cause further resource depletion (Bartsch et al., 2020). Employees who take more workplace tensions
might hold back concerns over their despotic leaders for the risk of additional resource loss (e.g.,
employment, promotion, and salary increases) and hostile confrontations (Raja et al., 2020). In
addition, they may not endanger their existing resources to alter the status quo and contribute to
improving the present working conditions (Kong, Liu, & Weng, 2020). Therefore, being silent on the
job is a safe method to conserve employees’ remaining resources when working under conduce work
settings. It takes less effort and resource-draining than speaking up (Frieder et al., 2015; Gopakumar
et al., 2020). Hence, recommend the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Subordinate job tensions are positively related to employee silence.
The mediating role of employee Job Tensions
Job tensions express subordinates’ experiences of being stressed, pressured, and exhausted of their
mental and physical resources (Wright & Hobfoll, 2004; Drobnic et al., 2011). Job tensions are severe
stress and unease that contain substantial physical, emotional, and mental distress caused by
workplace stressors like despotic leadership (Faase et al., 2022). Such leadership is also a significant
factor in reducing employees’ work-life quality (Nouman et al., 2018) and a key factor in many critical
organizational outcomes, such as reduced job performance and turnover intention (Naseer et al.,
2016). Additionally, such despotic leadership produce job tensions that contribute to the threatened
and possible depletion of resources (Ng & Feldman, 2012; Kong, Liu, & Weng, 2020). Employees that
take workplace tensions would hide their concerns about their despotic leaders in order to face
greater resource loss in terms of lower career or appraisals and more uncomfortable interactions
(Nauman et al., 2018).
As a result, employees who have been affected are encouraged to offset the harmful effects of the
source of stress (i.e., despotic leadership). Therefore, employees would instead remain silent to
protect their scarce precious resources and focus on preventing additional resource loss at the
organization’s expense (Chen et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019). In this research, propose that silence is
an appropriate passive response for hurt employees to save the limited resource and alleviate
psychological distress caused by job tensions. The present study explores the association between

177
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

despotic leadership and employee silence through job tensions. Hence, present research concentrate
on job tensions as a manifestation of the strain caused by exposure to despotic leadership and suggest
the following:
Hypothesis 4: Subordinate job tensions mediate the relationship between despotic leadership and
employees’ silence.
Moderating Role of PsyCap
Following Youssef‐Morgan et al. (2015), PsyCap contains four facets: self-efficacy, optimism, hope,
and resilience. PsyCap refers to an employee’s profound personality development stage, which is
categorized by: (1) having assurance (self-efficacy) in one’s ability to take on and complete complex
endeavors; (2) adopting an optimistic approach (optimism) to current and future success; (3) in terms
of striving toward objectives and where essential extending routes to goals (hope); and (4) enduring
and bouncing back (resiliency) when confronted with obstacles and hardship to achieve success
(Luthans et al., 2007; Kumar et al., 2022). Moreover, subordinates with high PsyCap are regarded as
a critical job resource for protecting employees from harmful situations (Ugwu et al., 2014;
Novitasari et al., 2020). Subordinates strong in PsyCap are deeply engaged in their jobs, are positive,
devoted, and can deal with potentially harmful conditions well. They also employ their proficiencies,
abilities, and commitment to work (Nolzen, 2018).
Moreover, PsyCap has been highlighted as the most important in describing many employee job
outcomes (Salanova et al., 2019; Purwanto et al., 2021). Employees strong in PsyCap are innovative
and capable of doing something novel (Novitasari et al., 2020). Employee PsyCap is positively related
to job performance (Shahzad, 2022; Peng & Chen, 2022), work satisfaction (Nolzen, 2018), employee
engagement (Slåtten et al., 2021), citizenship behavior (Bogler & Somech, 2019), and job
commitment (Lather & Kaur, 2015), enhance the quality of work-life (Allameh et al., 2018) and an
adverse association with turnover intensions (Karatepe & Avci 2017).
Subordinates working under despotic leadership involve behaviors that are likely to hurt employees
emotionally. Such subordinates are frequently mistreated and exploited and tend to evaluate their
environment negatively and lose career satisfaction (Avey et al., 2011; Ahmad et al., 2021).
Consistent exposure to such harmful behaviors enhances employees’ dissatisfaction and deviance
(Islam et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2022). When subordinates’ personal resources are depleted due to
workplace ill-treatment, they would feel anxious or depressed about their situation and lose
confidence in their ability to perform work (Raja et al., 2020). These harmful events potentially
erode subordinates’ psychological states over time, shifting their focus from active to passive, i.e.,
silent behavior (Deci & Cascio, 1972; Avey et al., 2021). Hence under such harmful working
conditions, employees need the capacity to cope and recover from obstacles or adversity (Luthans et
al., 2007; Agarwal, 2018; Gill, 2019). PsyCap provides important psychological resources that give
injured subordinates confidence and resilience (Karatepe & Talebzadeh, 2016). Employees with
strong PsyCap are optimistic, dedicated and proficient that recover the negative effects of despotic
leadership. PsyCap buffers the adverse effects of subordinates’ behavior in a way to enhance hope,
self-esteem and capability to attain their goals (Novitasari et al., 2020).
Despite the intuitive appeal of the association between despotic leadership and PsyCap, efforts to
investigate the relationship between despotic leadership and PsyCap have been far. Few of the
handful of research investigating despotic leadership and PsyCap affiliation are inadequate to
analyses it’s all four aspects optimism, efficacy, hope, and resilience (Liao and Liu, 2015; Lee, Chou,
& Wu, 2016; Ahmad et al., 2019). According to researchers, the combined effect of psychological
capital’s four core components offers insight into the role of personal resources and implementation
for managing them (Karatepe & Talebzadeh, 2016; Okun, 2022). This study proposes that
psychological capital serves as a resource for harmed employees, reversing the harmful effects of
despotic leadership on employee job tensions and silence. Furthermore, this research adds to the
conservation of resources theory by investigating how employees’ PsyCap serves as a job resource
when confronted with despotic leadership. Therefore, based on the definition and prior study,
current study postulate that psychological capital promotes positive thinking and enhances

178
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

subordinates’ confidence, leading to decreased job tensions and a silent employee approach. Hence,
this research offers the following hypothesis:

H5. Psychological capital is negatively related to (a) job tensions and (b) employees’ silence.
H5c. Psychological capital moderates the relationship between despotic leadership and employees’
silence.
H5d. Psychological capital moderates the relationship between job tensions and employees’ silence.
H5e. Psychological capital moderates the relationship between despotic leadership and employees’
silence via employee-job tensions.

PsyCap PsyCap

Employee Job
Tensions

Despotic Employee
Leadership Silence

Figure 1: Theoretical Model of Despotic Leadership

Research Method
Sample and Data Collection
This study gathered data from the tourism sector, hotel industry employees located in area of Murree
and Naran (Tourism areas) where more the 50% tourist visit every year. This study employed a three-
wave design with a three-week time gap between them to avoid the problem of common method
variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The research has investigated employees’ behavioral responses
under despotic leadership and has used a time gap of this duration (Nauman et al., 2019) and is
motivated by our desire to avoid the issues of reverse causality. Johnson et al. (2011) studied that a
3-week time lag between independent and dependent variables reduced correlations across
constructs by 43% in research addressing common method variance. Furthermore, the essence of our
studied variables demands self-reports from employees, such as rating perceived despotic leadership.
The time-lag design in mediation models also manages reverse causality between variables.
Additionally, low to moderate correlation size shows that common method variance is not an issue
across the studied variables. All data in this study were gathered from identical participants, and
time-lag replies were matched with increasing the accuracy of the results.

The questionnaires were conducted in English, the country’s official language for business and higher
education. The investigations were accompanied in each session by a cover letter noting that the
research had been ethically granted and that respondents would trust anonymity. The cover letters
detailed that no personally identifiable details will be disclosed, that only combined information will
be published, and that they may leave the survey at any stage. The researchers also highlighted that
there were no correct or incorrect answers, that it was likely for respondents’ replies to differ, and
that it was essential to answer questions carefully and fairly. The following ethics minimize the
chances of compliance and social desirability biases (Spector, 2006). Present study measured
employees’ perceptions of despotic leadership and job tensions in the first survey, their PsyCap in
the second, and their silence behavior in the third survey.

179
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

A total of 490 questionnaires were sent out to prospective respondents in the ins, who were selected
randomly from personnel lists received from the HR offices of the companies. The number of
participants chosen varied in every organization based on top leadership suggestions for who would
be considered responders. Moreover, the random sample of respondents taken in alphabetical order
from these suggested samples reduced the likelihood of biased sampling, indicating that the
respondents were relevant to their paying organizations. We received back 460 surveys in
session one, 435 in the second session, and 420 in the third session of the 490 initially administered
questionnaires. After removing questionnaires with missing data, kept 408 finalized response sets for
data analysis, with a reply rate of 66% male and 34% female of those who responded. The duration
spent at work for all employees surveyed was three years.
Measurement
The scales used to measure the four focal concepts were validated by past studies. The anchors on
each scale were 5-point Likert scales.
Despotic Leadership
De Hoogh & Den Hartog (2008) developed a six-item scale to assess employees’ exposure to despotic
leadership, which has also been used in previous research on this style of leadership in Pakistan (e.g.,
Nauman et al., 2018; Naseer et al. 2016). Participants responded, i.e., my boss has no pity or
compassion, and my supervisor seeks revenge when wronged, which was measured at time 1.
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.86. All items were loaded between 0.66 and 0.81, with an
average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.51, establishing convergent validity.
Employee Silence
subordinates’ silence was evaluated using a five items scale developed by Tangirala & Ramanujam
(2008). For example, “I chose to remain silent when I had concerns about my work, “On a Five point
Likert scale, participants were asked how much they hide suggestions, problems, or facts concerning
crucial workplace issues, which was measured at time 3. This scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82. The
items were loaded between 0.68 and 0.82, with an average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.58,
confirming convergent validity.
Job Tension
House & Rizzo (1972) created a seven-item measure to assess job tension. Using a five-point Likert
scale, respondents were asked, i.e., my job tends to affect my health directly, and I work under a
great deal of stress, were two examples which were measured at time 1. This scale’s Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.85. All items were loaded between 0.52 to 0.87, with an average variance extracted
(AVE) of 0.54, approving convergent validity.
Psychological Capital
The PsyCap (CPC-12) scale measures hope, resilience, self-efficacy, and optimism. On a five-point
Likert scale, each of the four components is scored. The CPC-12 has demonstrated high reliability
and validity (Lorenz, Beer, Putz, & Heinitz, 2016), which was measured at time 2. This scale’s
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89. All items were loaded in the 0.61 to 0.81 range, with an average variance
extracted (AVE) of 0.50, indicating convergent validity.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To estimate the measuring model, construct reliability, convergent and discriminant validity tests
were performed. Individual Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were estimated for each research variable
to evaluate construct reliability. All constructs had a Cronbach’s alpha value larger than 0.7, the
acceptability level proposed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Additionally, composite reliability
(CR) was estimated to ensure construct reliability. The outcome showed that every value was more
than 0.7 (Kline, 2010; Werts, Linn, & Joreskog, 1974). The factor loading of the items was used to
measure indicator reliability. Loading larger than 0.5 is acceptable; according to Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, and Gudergan (2017), all Items scored greater than 0.5. Likewise, the average variance
extracted (AVE) has been used to measure the convergent validity. The findings demonstrate that all

180
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

values were more than 0.50, as proposed by Hair, Babin, Anderson, and Black (2018). See (Appendix
A).
Moreover, evaluated model fitness of this study using “comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90,
standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) ≤ 0.10, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) ≤ 0.08, and chi-square (χ2/df) ≤ 3.0”), and model was found to be fit (i.e., χ2/df = 2.74,
RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.071) Williams et al. (2009).
HTMT was also used in this study to evaluate discriminant validity. Becker & Ringle (2018) state that
the HTMT refers to heterotrait-heteromethod correlations, which are correlations of the mean values
of the latent variables distributed across constructs in comparison to the (geometric) mean of the
average correlations of the indicators measuring the same construct. Henseler et al. (2015) suggested
that HTMT levels of more than 0.90 might be problematic. Table 1 showed that all values were less
than the benchmark value of 0.90, suggesting adequate discriminant validity. Hence, this study’s
measurement model achieved good discriminant validity.
Table 1: Results of Discriminant Validity (HTMT)
No. Factors 1 2 3 4
1 Despotic Leadership
2 Employee Silence 0.644
3 Job Tensions 0.599 0.737
4 Psychological Capital 0.503 0.562 0.608

Fornell and Larcker (1981) placed the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) at all
constructs’ diagonal elements of the correlation matrix. The outer model is discriminately valid since
these diagonal items were greater than the other elements in the row and column where they were
placed. The hypothesis testing proved valid and reliable based on the construct validity of the outer
model. According to Table 2, each research variable’s average extracted variance had a square root
that was larger than the correlations among other variables, suggesting that the variable had
adequate discriminant validity (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Table 2: Results of Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)
No. Factors 1 2 3 4
1 Despotic Leadership 0.714
2 Employee Silence 0.661 0.761
3 Job Tensions 0.604 0.642 0.735
4 Psychological Capital -0.508 -0.567 -0.619 0.707

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

First, Table 3 displays the descriptive statistics for all variables, including the mean and standard
deviations. Second, this table shows the correlation analysis; all associations were according to the
prediction. Despotic leadership is strongly associated with subordinates’ silence (r = .589**, p < .01),
job tensions (r = .529**, p < .01), and PsyCap (r = -.4.73**, p < .01). Notably, none of the model’s
control variables—age, gender, and tenure—had any impact on the variables being studied. This study
followed Becker’s (2005) recommendation and eliminated such control variables from further study.
Moreover, to avoid reduced statistical power and elevated Type II error, he suggested removing
uncorrelated control variables from studies (i.e., incorrectly assuming no connection available
between the substantive variables and the criterion variables).
In order to assess the scale’s internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is also given, with a
value of 0.7 or above indicating adequate reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al., 1995).
The Cronbach’s alpha values of despotic leadership (0.86), Psychological capital (0.89), employee
silence (.88), and job tensions (0.85), all exhibit excellent outcomes. The recommended value of
skewness is ±1, and the value of Kurtosis is ±3. All reported values indicate excellent findings. The
tolerance value was more than 0.1. Table 3 indicates that all values exhibit outstanding results.

181
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

Furthermore, the relationship between the variables was reported to be less than 0.85, as
demonstrated in Table 3. It means there is no collinearity between the variables (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2019).

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, Correlations and Reliabilities

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4
Despotic leadership 3.15 .762 (.86)
Psychological Capital 3.18 .692 -.473*** (.89)
Job Tensions 2.81 .871 .529*** -.514*** (.85)
Employee silence 2.47 .982 .589*** -.481*** .726*** (.88)
Skewness ±1 ---- -.261 -.472 .168 .644
Kurtosis ±3 ---- -1.570 -1.543 -1.766 -.985
Tolerance >0.1 ---- .665 .531 .580 .473
Note. N=408, * p < 0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p <.001.

The results of the study Regression Analysis

According to the regression analysis’s findings, despotic leadership and employee silence are
positively associated (see Table 4, ß =.507, R2 =.347, and P <.000). In addition, despotic leadership
is also positively linked with job tensions (ß = .575, R2 = .280, and P < .000), employee job tensions
are positively related to employee silence (ß = .575, R 2 = .527, and P <.000). Employee PsyCap, in
contrast, has an adverse effect on employee silence (ß = -.403, R2 = .232, and P < .000), and employee
PsyCap is negatively associated with job tensions (ß = -.543, R2 = .264, and P <.000), The study
hypotheses are significantly supported by all the variables. All associations were according to the
prediction.

Table 4: Regression Analysis

No. Descriptions ß R2 T P
H:1 Despotic Leadership → Employee Silence .507 *** 0.347 14.69 .000
H:2 Despotic Leaderships → Job Tensions .575*** 0.280 12.56 .000
H:3 Job Tensions → Employee Silence .573*** 0.527 21.27 .000
H:5a Psychological capital → Employee -.403*** 0.232 .000
Silence -11.20
H:5b Psychological capital → Job Tensions -.543*** 0.264 -12.06 .000
Level of Significant ***P<.001, **P<.01, *P<.05.

Mediation Analysis
Hayes (2012) bootstrapping approach is used in this study (Table 5). In the mediation model’s first
step, there is a significant relationship between despotic leadership and employee silence (b = .2449,
df2 (405), t= 7.54, and p = <.001). Step two demonstrated that there is a significant relationship
between despotic leadership and job tensions (b = .5749, R2 = .28, df2 (406), t= 12.56, and p = <.001).
Stage three of the mediation study suggests that job tension is also strongly related to job silence (b
= .4558, df2 (405), t= 15.26, and p =<.001). The fourth step shows that despotic leadership is highly
associated with employee silence via job tensions (mediator) (b =.5070, df2 (406), t = 14.69, and p =
<.001.). Additionally, the indirect impacts are also shown with a 95% confidence interval that
excludes zero in this instance. The effect size is .2620, indicating that the influence is considerably
more than zero at α =.05.
Table 5 shows that the indirect effect of despotic leadership and subordinate silence via the
mediating impact of employee job tensions is also significant. The lower-level confidence interval
(LLCI) and upper-level confidence interval (ULCI) both have the same sign since no zero was included.

182
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

Given that the direct link between despotic leadership and employee silence in our study is
significant, this research suggests, in accordance with Hayes (2012) recommendations, that employee
job tensions partially mediate the relationship between them.

Table 5: Mediation Analysis

Sr.# Indirect Effects of Bootstrap Results Effect SE 95%LLCI 95%ULCI
H:4 DL → EJT → ES .2620 .0283 .2086 .3194
The Effect of Employee Job Tensions as a Mediator
Note(s): N = 408. Unstandardized regression coefficients. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
LL = lower limit, CI= confidence interval 95%, UL= upper limit. Path-1 = IV→DV,
Path-2 = IV→MV, Path-3 = MV→DV, Path-4 = IV→MV→DV
Despotic Leadership = DL, Psychological Capital = PC, Job Tension = JT, Employee Silence = ES

Moderation Analysis
The association between despotic leadership and employee silence is moderated by the employees’
PsyCap, seen in Table 6. Employees’ PsyCap considerably weaker the association between despotic
leadership and subordinate silence. The interaction term results show that (ß = -.1848, df2 = 404, R2
=.433, ΔR2 = .033 and p =.000), despotic leadership impact on employee silence is (ß = .401, t = 10.66,
p = .000), psychological capital (moderator) impact on employee silence is (ß = -.219, t = 5.98, p =
.000). The value of ΔR2 = .033 shows that the employees’ PsyCap strongly changes the association
between despotic leadership and subordinate silence. Figure 2 depicts it as well.

Table 6: The Psychological Capital Moderating Effect

Descriptions ß SE T P 95%LLCI 95%ULCI
H:5c DL*PC -.1848 *** .0380 -4.841 .000 -2.588 -.1093
Conditional direct effects of DL on ES at SCFG Effect SE LLCI ULCI
values of the moderator (i.e., DL* PC)
-1SD 1.8333*** .692 .070 .5540 .8312
M 3.833*** .324 .039 .2461 .4027
+1SD 4.25*** .247 .048 .1526 .3427
Note(s): N = 408. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size =
5000;
lower limit = LL, confidence interval 95% = CI, upper limit= UL, ***P<.001, **P<.01, *P<.05.
(Despotic Leadership = DL, Psychological Capital = PC, Employee Silence = ES.)

5
4.5
4
Employee Scilience

3.5
Low PC
3
High PC
2.5
2
1.5
1
Low Despotic Leadership High Despotic Leadership

Figure 2: Interactive Effect of Despotic Leadership and PsyCap on Employee Silence

183
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

The employees’ PsyCap moderates the relationship between job tensions and employee silence Table
7 shows the results. Employees’ PsyCap substantially supports and weaker the relationship between
job tensions and employee silence. The interaction term results show that (ß = -.083, df2 = 404, R2
=.554, ΔR2 = .012 and p = .000), job tensions effect on employee silence is (ß = .515, t = 16.62, and
p = .000), and psychological capital (moderator) influence on subordinate silence is (ß = -.123, t = -
3.76, and p = .000). The value of ΔR2 = .012 value exhibited that the subordinates’ PsyCap strongly
changes the relationship between job tensions and employee silence. As also seen in figure 3.
Table 7: The Psychological Capital Moderating Effect
Descriptions ß SE T P 95%LLCI 95%ULCI
H:5d JT*PC -.0830 *** .0250 -3.26 .0000 -.1334 -.0331
Conditional direct effects of JT on ES at SCFG Effect SE LLCI ULCI
values of the moderator (i.e., JT* PC)

-1SD 1.8333*** .6920 .0454 .5353 .7138

M 3.833*** .4581 .0353 .3887 .5275
+1SD 4.250*** .4234 .0416 .3415 .5052
Note(s): N = 408. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size =
5000;
lower limit = LL, confidence interval 95% = CI, upper limit= UL, ***P<.001, **P<.01, *P<.05.
(Despotic Leadership = DL, Psychological Capital = PC, Job Tension = JT, Employee Silence = ES.)

4.5

4
Employee Scilience

3.5
Low PC
3
High PC
2.5

1.5

1
Low Job Tensions High Job Tensions

Figure 3: Interactive Effect of Job Tensions and PsyCap on Employee Silence

Moderation Mediation Analysis

The employees’ PsyCap moderates the association between despotic leadership and subordinate
silence via subordinates’ job tensions. Employees’ PsyCap considerably weakens the association
between despotic leadership and subordinate silence, see Table 8. The interaction term results show
that (ß = -.233, t = -4.73, df2 = 404, R2 = .402, ΔR2 = .035 and p = .000), despotic leadership influence
on subordinate job tensions (ß = .401, t = 8.23, and p = .000), subordinate job tensions influence on
subordinate silence is (ß = .455, t = 15.26, and p = .000), despotic leadership impact on subordinate
silence is (ß = .245, t = 7.55, and p = .000), psychological capital (moderator) impact on employee
silence is (ß = -.359, t = -7.56, and p = .000). The value of ΔR2 = .035 displays that the employees’

184
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

PsyCap considerably modifies the relationship between despotic leadership and subordinate silence,
as seen in figure 4.

Table 8: Regression Analysis for Moderated Mediation

Index of Moderated Mediation Index SE 95%LLCI 95%ULCI
H:5e Mediator: Job Tensions -.1064 .0181 -.1389 -.0678
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y PsyCap Effect SE LLCI ULCI
(Despotic Leadership * PsyCap via
Employee Job Tensions on Employee
silence)
-1SD 1.833*** .3512 .0387 .2705 .4242
M 3.833*** .1385 .0283 .0842 .1966
+1SD 4.250*** .0942 .0314 .0332 .1585
Note(s): N = 408. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size =
5000;
lower limit = LL, confidence interval 95% = CI, upper limit= UL, ***P<.001, **P<.01, *P<.05.
(Despotic Leadership = DL, Psychological Capital = PC, Job Tension = JT, Employee Silence = ES.)

4.5

4
Job Tensions

3.5
Low PC
3
High PC
2.5

1.5

1
Low Despotic Leadership High Despotic Leadership

Figure 4: Interactive Effect of Despotic Leadership and PsyCap on Employee Silence via Job
Tensions

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This research expands ethical business literature by investigating the association between
subordinates’ perception of despotic leadership and workplace silence, emphasizing unstudied
aspects such as employees’ job tensions and passive employee response. Most past studies on despotic
leadership have highlighted employee outcomes like decreased work performance, citizenship
behavior, and creativity (Naseer et al., 2016), or the leader’s goal is to gain power and a higher status
position in the workplace (De Clercq et al., 2019). Similarly, the study has explored despotic
leadership’s detrimental impacts on employee job dissatisfaction and organization deviance seen
through the perspective of Islamic work ethics (IWE) (Islam et al., 2020). However, there is an
absence of studies on why subordinates may remain silent in the organization in the existence of a

185
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

harmful leadership type, i.e., despotic leadership. This research contributes to the knowledge of
dark leadership by revealing how a strong PsyCap moderates the association between despotic
leadership and subordinate silence; employee job tensions and subordinate silence. The present study
also examines the association between despotic leadership and employee silence through job
tensions.
A robust PsyCap is crucial for subordinates employed under despotic leadership in especially
developing countries like Pakistan. Pakistan is top-ranked regarding power distance, collectivism,
short-term orientation, and risk avoidance (Hofstede, 2007; Naseer et al., 2016). On the 2020 United
Nations Human Development Index, which rates 189 nations, Pakistan was rated 154 th, reflecting
human development is very low comparatively (Ahmad et al., 2021). Pakistan’s citizens confront
extreme poverty, high unemployment, and injustice. Employees are more likely to accept power
disparities and self-serving leadership in these circumstances. (Nauman et al., 2018; Raja et al.,
2020). In this scenario, present research revealed that a strong PsyCap of employees is critical in
such an oppressing work environment where employees are abused and neglected. Moreover, this
study witnessed that most employees continue to use the passive dealing approach while working
under despotic leadership.
Theoretical implications
First, this study makes a significant contribution to the body of literature on despotic leadership by
evaluating its effect on subordinates’ silence and the underlying mediating role of job tensions, which
has not been studied previously. Our findings revealed that when deciding how to deal with despotic
leadership in the workplace, injured subordinates prefer to keep silent to retain current resources
and avoid future resource loss. Research has witnessed that distressed employees involve information
avoidance, feedback withdrawal, and surface acting to deal with everyday interactions with their
dark leadership, such as despotic supervision (Whitman et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2020; Islam et al.,
2022). This study results revealed that being silent in one’s job is another passive method preferred
by hurt employees to adjust and work with their leadership. In comparison to other passive responses
to despotic leadership, employee silence poses a more significant threat to the workplace due to its
pervasive negative influence on crucial knowledge and innovative behavior in the organizations
(Morrison, 2014; Aboramadan et al., 2020).
In addition, the findings on the PsyCap moderating effect add to the existing leadership literature
and provide additional insight that influences the association between despotic leadership and job
tensions (Whitman et al., 2014). Our results suggest that when confronted with despotic leadership,
the emotional resources of low PsyCap employees deplete more rapidly than those of strong PsyCap
employees. Subordinates with greater levels of psychological capital are believed to be better able
to deal with stressful situations such as despotic leadership and hence to be less prone to suffer job
tensions and adopt passive behavior as a result of such experiences. For example, Roberts et al.
(2011) and Wu (2019) revealed that those with greater amounts of psychological capital respond to
stressful events more effectively and behave optimistically instead of in a harmful psychological
state.
This study is in line with the results of Agarwal et al. (2020), who suggest that employees experience
greater stress when the sources of employment resources and job demands (or stresses) are the same.
Moreover, our results also support earlier research by Lian et al. (2012) and Avey et al. (2021), which
discovered an association between abusive leadership and a high PsyCap, which reduced
subordinates’ ability to satisfy their basic needs and led to workplace deviance. Present research
extends their findings by employing COR theory to establish a relationship between despotic
leadership and PsyCap with another significant organizational outcome (i.e., silence). Additionally,
this study revealed from the results that strong PsyCap fosters beneficial outcomes (Ozturk, &
Karatepe, 2019).
Finally, our results add to dark leadership literature and precursors of silence (Guo et al., 2018; Lam
& Xu, 2019; Parlar et al., 2022; Younus et al., 2022). More precisely, our findings demonstrate
despotic leadership’s essential role in developing subordinates’ silent behavior, mainly when PsyCap
is strong. The mediating effect of job tensions further emphasizes that employees are unwilling to

186
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

speak out against despotic leadership to safeguard the limited remaining resources. Moreover, this
study not only examined the impact of despotic leadership on subordinates’ deciding to keep silent
and also investigated the underlying process. Our results are compatible with earlier research
indicating that hurt subordinates always keep silent, particularly when the offender has a higher
social position (Xu et al., 2015; Aboramadan et al., 2020).
Practical implications
Our findings have several significant implications for management. First, organizations should focus
more on restraining despotic leadership practices in light of their severe repercussions. Organizations
should communicate clearly to policymakers about the negative implications of despotic leadership
and may implement regulations or policies to discourage despotic behaviors. Moreover, management
considers that in a suppressing environment, hurt subordinates are more chances to remain silent
than to express their despotic leadership behavior. Organizations must establish a secure mechanism
for subordinates to complain or speak up about any despotic leadership behavior in the organization
and shield strategies to safeguard them from deviance. Furthermore, the underlying function of job
tensions draws the attention of organizations to the significance of providing a safe working
environment to minimize such job strain inside the organization (Halbesleben, 2006; Bartsch, et al.,
2020).

REFERENCE
[1] Aboramadan, M., Turkmenoglu, M. A., Dahleez, K. A., & Cicek, B. (2020). Narcissistic leadership and
behavioral cynicism in the hotel industry: The role of employee silence and negative workplace gossiping.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(2), 10-25.
[2] Ashraf, H. A. (2021). The relationship between TQM and business performance: The mediating role of
innovation performance and organizational learning culture: A pitch. Journal of Accounting and
Management Information Systems, 20(1), 161-167.
[3] Ashraf, H. A., Ishaq, M. I., & Khan, M. M. (2021). EFQM enablers and business performance relationship:
Examining mediating role of organizational learning culture in Pakistani textile sector. Research Journal
of Textile and Apparel, 25(4), 431-443.
[4] Ahmad, R., Ishaq, M. I., & Raza, A. (2023). The blessing or curse of workplace friendship: Mediating role
of organizational identification and moderating role of political skills. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 108, 103359.
[5] Agarwal, U. A. (2018). Examining links between abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and outcomes.
Management Decision, 14(3), 120-132.
[6] Agarwal, U. A., & Avey, J. B. (2020). Abusive supervisors and employees who cyber loaf: examining the
roles of psychological capital and contract breach. Internet Research, 12(1), 14-27.
[7] Ahmad, I., & Gao, Y. (2018). Ethical leadership and work engagement: The roles of psychological
empowerment and power distance orientation. Management Decision, 04(3), 123-138.
[8] Ahmad, J., Athar, M. R., Azam, R. I., Hamstra, M. R., & Hanif, M. (2019). A resource perspective on
abusive supervision and extra-role behaviors: The role of subordinates’ psychological capital. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(1), 73-86.
[9] Ahmad, M. S., Khan, M. M., & Iqbal, N. (2021). Despotic leadership, career satisfaction and innovative
behavior. Journal of ISOSS, 7(2), 99-124.
[10] Ahmad, M. S., Khan, M. M., Mehmood, A., Ali, U., & Iqbal, M. N. (2021). Despotic leadership and
employee job performance: Mediating role of work engagement and moderating role of the social
climate of friendship groups. Journal of Management and Research, 8(2), 62-97.
[11] Allameh, S. M., Hosseini, S. H., Mahabadi, M. N., & Samadi, A. (2018). The effect of psychological capital
on quality of life, given the mediating role of social capital and quality of work life. International
Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 17(2), 210-225.
[12] Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Kacmar, C. (2015). The interactive effects of behavioral integrity and
procedural justice on employee job tension. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 371-379.
[13] Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences 18(4), 244-256.
[14] Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human relations, 47(7), 755-778.
[15] Avey, J. B., Agarwal, U., & Gill, J. K. (2021). How does abusive supervision hurt employees? The role of
positive psychological capital. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
17(4), 113-129.

187
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[16] Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human resource development
quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.
[17] Bartsch, S., Weber, E., Büttgen, M., & Huber, A. (2020). Leadership matters in crisis-induced digital
transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of
Service Management, 8(2), 80-95.
[18] Becker, J. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2018). Estimating moderating effects in PLS-SEM and PLS-
SEM: Interaction term generation data treatment. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(2),
1-21.
[19] Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2019). Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship
behavior. The Journal of psychology, 153(8), 784-802.
[20] Bouckenooghe, D., De Clercq, D., & Raja, U. (2019). A person-centered, latent profile analysis of
psychological capital. Australian Journal of Management, 44(1), 91-108.
[21] Brender-Ilan, Y., & Sheaffer, Z. (2019). How do self-efficacy, narcissism and autonomy mediate the link
between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior? Asia Pacific Management Review,
24(3), 212-222.
[22] Brinsfield, C. T., Edwards, M. S., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in organizations: Historical
review and current conceptualizations. Journal of Organizations, 11(1), 20-35.
[23] Chen, L., Li, M., Wu, Y. J., & Chen, C. (2020). The voicer's reactions to voice: an examination of employee
voice on perceived organizational status and subsequent innovative behavior in the workplace. Personnel
Review, 17(5), 130-149.
[24] Chi, S.C.S., & Liang, S.G. (2013). When do subordinates' emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive
supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 28,
125–137.
[25] Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods
for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.
[26] Cullinane, N., & Donaghey, J. (2020). Employee silence. Handbook of research on employee voice.
[27] De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., Raja, U., Azeem, M. U., & Mahmud, N. (2018). When is an Islamic work ethic
more likely to spur helping behavior? The roles of despotic leadership and gender. Personnel Review,
11(2), 57-70.
[28] De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's
social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method
study. The leadership quarterly, 19(3), 297-311.
[29] Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback
and threats, 13(4), 66-80.
[30] Dehkharghani, L. L., Paul, J., Maharati, Y., & Menzies, J. (2022). Employee silence in an organizational
context: A review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 18(2), 76-90.
[31] Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders
influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249-270.
[32] Dong, X. T., & Chung, Y. W. (2021). The mediating effect of perceived stress and moderating effect of
trust for the relationship between employee silence and behavioral outcomes. Psychological Reports,
124(4), 1715-1737.
[33] Drobnič, S., & Guillén Rodríguez, A. M. (2011). Tensions between work and home: Job quality and
working conditions in the institutional contexts of Germany and Spain. Social Politics, 18(2), 232-268.
[34] Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and
conceptual model. The leadership quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
[35] F, A., Khan, M. M., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2017). Despotic Leadership, Workplace Ostracism and Knowledge
Hoarding: A Serial Mediation Model. SAM Advanced Management Journal 82(4).
[36] Faase, C., Kohl, S., & Lau, J. (2022). Coping with Tensions: A Catalyst for Transformative Change for
Teachers and Administrators. Rowman & Littlefield, 07(2), 7-26.
[37] Fakunmoju, S., Woodruff, K., Kim, H. H., LeFevre, A., & Hong, M. (2010). Intention to leave a job: The
role of individual factors, job tension, and supervisory support. Administration in Social Work, 34(4),
313-328.
[38] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
[39] Frieder, R. E., Hochwarter, W. A., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2015). Attenuating the negative effects of
abusive supervision: The role of proactive voice behavior and resource management ability. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 821-837.

188
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[40] Frömmer, D., Hollnagel, G., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Strobel, A., & Wegge, J. (2021). Linking authentic
leadership, moral voice and silence—A serial mediation model comprising follower constructive cognition
and moral efficacy. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(4), 436-466.
[41] Gill, J. (2019). How does abusive supervision hurt employees? The mediating role of positive
psychological capital, 05(2), 36-46.
[42] Gopakumar, K. V., & Singh, S. (2020). Can subordinate voice prevail with abusive supervision? A
conceptual model using conservation of resources perspective. Management Research Review, 15(3), 26-
36.
[43] Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian
leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role
of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219-230.
[44] Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least
squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publications, 12, 19-30.
[45] Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with
readings. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
[46] Hair, J., Black, W., Anderson, R., & Babin, B. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8, ilustra ed.). Cengage
Learning, 27(6), 1951-1980.
[47] Halbesleben, J.R. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation
of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145.
[48] Hao, L., Zhu, H., He, Y., Duan, J., Zhao, T., & Meng, H. (2022). When Is Silence Golden? A Meta-Analysis
on Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Silence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-25.
[49] Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The
neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(3), 264-280.
[50] Hayes, A. F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modeling.
[51] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-
135.
[52] Ho, H. C., & Chan, Y. C. (2022). Longitudinal associations between psychological capital and problem‐
solving among social workers: A two‐wave cross‐lagged study. Health & social care in the community.
[53] Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
psychologist, 44(3), 513.
[54] Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process:
Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied psychology, 50(3), 337-421.
[55] Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience.
[56] Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in the workplace: Conservation of resources.
Handbook of organizational behavior, 1, 41-61.
[57] Hochwarter, W. (2005). LMX and job tension: Linear and non-linear effects and affectivity. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 19(4), 505-520.
[58] Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia pacific journal of management, 24(4),
411-420.
[59] House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior. Organizational behavior and human performance, 7(3), 467-505.
[60] House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5), 388.
[61] Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Ali, M., Ahmer, Z., & Usman, B. (2020). Understanding despotic leadership through
the lens of Islamic work ethics. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(5), 77-88.
[62] Islam, T., Asif, A., Jamil, S., & Ali, H. F. (2022). How abusive supervision affect knowledge hiding? The
mediating role of employee silence and moderating role of psychological ownership. Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 7(7),45-59.
[63] Jabeen, R., & Rahim, N. (2020). Mediating role of perception of job insecurity on the relationship
between despotic leadership and work engagement: Pakistani perspective. Review of Economics and
Development Studies, 6(2), 277-288.
[64] Jiang, W., Wang, L., & Lin, H. (2016). The role of cognitive processes and individual differences in the
relationship between abusive supervision and employee career satisfaction. Personality and Individual
Differences, 99(9), 155-160.

189
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[65] John, S. P., & Manikandan, K. (2019). Employee silence: A meta-analytic review. International Journal
of Indian Psychology, 7(1), 354-366.
[66] Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., and Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance
on higher order multidimensional constructs. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 744–761.
[67] Karamushka, L., Tereshchenko, K., Kredentser, O., Lazos, G., & Karamushka, T. (2019). Relationship
between job-related tension, negative affect at work and organizational culture. Social Welfare
Interdisciplinary Approach, 9(2).
[68] Karatepe, O. M., & Avci, T. (2017). The effects of psychological capital and work engagement on nurses’
lateness attitude and turnover intentions. Journal of Management Development, 66, 44–61.
[69] Karatepe, O. M., & Talebzadeh, N. (2016). An empirical investigation of psychological capital among
flight attendants. Journal of Air Transport Management, 55, 193-202.
[70] Khan, N. Z. A., Imran, A., & Anwar, A. (2019). Destructive leadership and job stress: Causal effect of
emotional exhaustion on job satisfaction of employees in call centers. International Journal of
Information, Business and Management, 11(1), 135.
[71] Kim, T. H., Lee, S. S., Oh, J., & Lee, S. (2019). Too powerless to speak up: Effects of social rejection on
sense of power and employee voice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(10), 655-667.
[72] Kline, R. B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research.
[73] Knoll, M., Wegge, J., Unterrainer, C., Silva, S., & Jønsson, T. (2016). Is our knowledge of voice and
silence in organizations growing? Building bridges and (re) discovering opportunities. German Journal of
Human Resource Management, 30(4), 161-194.
[74] Kong, F., Liu, P., & Weng, J. (2020). How and when group cohesion influences employee voice: A
conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 86, 74–91.
[75] Kumar, D., Upadhyay, Y., Yadav, R., & Goyal, A. K. (2022). Psychological capital and innovative work
behaviour: The role of mastery orientation and creative self-efficacy. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 1(2), 41-57.
[76] Labrague, L. J., Nwafor, C. E., & Tsaras, K. (2020). Influence of toxic and transformational leadership
practices on nurses' job satisfaction, job stress, absenteeism and turnover intention: A cross‐sectional
study. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(5), 1104-1113.
[77] Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2019). Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership,
power distance orientation, and perceived organizational politics. Applied Psychology, 68(3), 513-546.
[78] Lather, A. S., & Kaur, M. S. (2015). Psychological capital as predictor of organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2(4), 102-112.
[79] Lee, H. M., Chou, M. J., & Wu, H. T. (2016). Development and validation of Chinese-version Psychological
Capital Questionnaire of preschool teachers. European Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2).
[80] Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive
supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724-731.
[81] Liang, J., Farh, C.I., & Farh, J.L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of pro-motive and prohibitive voice:
A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
[82] Liao, Z., & Liu, Y. (2015). Abusive supervision and psychological capital: A mediated moderation model
of team member support and supervisor-student exchange. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 9(4),
576.
[83] Lorenz, T., Beer, C., Pütz, J., & Heinitz, K. (2016). Measuring psychological capital: Construction and
validation of the compound PsyCap scale (CPC-12). Management Journal, 11(4).
[84] Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:
Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 60(3), 541-572.
[85] Mackey, J. D., Ellen III, B. P., McAllister, C. P., & Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of leadership:
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. Journal of Business
Research, 132, 705-718.
[86] Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Maher, L. P., & Wang, G. (2019). Leaders and followers behaving badly:
A meta‐analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers’
workplace behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 72(1), 3-47.
[87] Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Brees, J.R. and Mackey, J. (2013), “A review of abusive supervision
research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 120-137.
[88] Moin, M. F., Wei, F., & Weng, Q. (2020). Abusive supervision, emotion regulation, and performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 498-509.
[89] Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173-197.

190
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[90] Narsa, N. P. D. R. H., & Wijayanti, D. M. (2021). The importance of psychological capital on the linkages
between religious orientation and job stress. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 4(3), 253-267.
[91] Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M. B., & Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad leader in a
bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and
perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 14-33.
[92] Nauman, S., Fatima, T., & Haq, I. U. (2018). Does despotic leadership harm employee family life:
exploring the effects of emotional exhaustion and anxiety. Frontiers in psychology, 6(1), 44-64.
[93] Nauman, S., Zheng, C., & Basit, A. A. (2020). How despotic leadership jeopardizes employees'
performance: the roles of quality of work life and work withdrawal. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 66(2), 34-47.
[94] Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the conservation
of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216-234.
[95] Nolzen, N. (2018). The concept of psychological capital: a comprehensive review. Management Review
Quarterly, 68(3), 237-277.
[96] Novitasari, D., Siswanto, E., Purwanto, A., & Fahmi, K. (2020). Authentic Leadership and Innovation:
What is the Role of Psychological Capital? International Journal of Social and Management Studies, 1(1),
1-21.
[97] Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[98] Okun, O. (2022). The positive face of human capital, psychological capital, and well-being. Research
Anthology on Changing Dynamics of Diversity and Safety in the Workforce, 3(3), 203-222.
[99] Ozturk, A., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Frontline hotel employees’ psychological capital, trust in
organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism, and creative performance.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2), 217-239.
[100] Parlar, H., Türkoğlu, M. E., & Cansoy, R. (2022). Exploring how authoritarian leadership affects
commitment: the mediating roles of trust in the school principal and silence. International Journal of
Educational Management, 18(3), 17-29.
[101] Patnaik, S., Mishra, U. S., & Mishra, B. B. (2021). Can psychological capital reduce stress and job
insecurity? An experimental examination with Indian evidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 7(5),
1-26.
[102] Paul, H., Bamel, U.K. and Garg, P. (2016), Employee resilience and OCB: Mediating effects of
organizational commitment. Journal of Research, 41(2), 198-224.
[103] Peng, J. C., & Chen, S. W. (2022). Learning climate and innovative creative performance: Exploring the
multi-level mediating mechanism of team psychological capital and work engagement. Current
Psychology, 1-19.
[104] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63(1), 539-569.
[105] Purwanto, A., Asbari, M., Hartuti, H., Setiana, Y. N., & Fahmi, K. (2021). Effect of psychological capital
and authentic leadership on innovation work behavior. International Journal of Social and Management
Studies, 2(1), 1-13.
[106] Rahimnia, F., Mazidi, A., & Mohammadzadeh, Z. (2013). Emotional mediators of psychological capital
on well-being: The role of stress, anxiety, and depression. Management Science Letters, 3(3), 913-926.
[107] Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). Workplace bullying and employee silence: A moderated mediation
model of psychological contract violation and workplace friendship. Personnel Review, 9(2), 149-168.
[108] Raja, U., Haq, I. U., De Clercq, D., & Azeem, M. U. (2020). When ethics create misfit: Combined effects
of despotic leadership and Islamic work ethic on job performance, job satisfaction, and psychological
well‐being. International Journal of Psychology, 55(3), 332-341.
[109] Rani, H., Shah, S. M. M., Umrani, W. A., Syed, J., & Afshan, G. (2021). Employee state paranoia: linking
abusive supervision with employee voice behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
7(4), 169-178.
[110] Raza, A., Ishaq, M. I., Jamali, D. R., Zia, H., & Haj-Salem, N. (2023). Testing workplace hazing, moral
disengagement and deviant behaviors in hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management.
[111] Roberts, S. J., Scherer, L. L., & Bowyer, C. J. (2011). Job stress and incivility: What role does
psychological capital play? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 449-458.
[112] Salanova, M., & Ortega-Maldonado, A. (2019). Psychological capital development in organizations: An
integrative review of evidence-based intervention programs. Positive psychological intervention design
and protocols for multi-cultural contexts, 81-102.

191
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[113] Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: A qualitative study on the meaning of negative
leadership. Leadership, 5(1), 102-128.
[114] Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T. (2010). When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and
ethical failures. IAP.
[115] Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive
leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
[116] Shahzad, M. B. (2022). Role of Psychological Capital in the Curvilinear Association between Job
Autonomy and Job Performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 34(4), 603-625.
[117] Slåtten, T., Lien, G., Evenstad, S. B. N., & Onshus, T. (2021). Supportive study climate and academic
performance among university students: the role of psychological capital, positive emotions and study
engagement. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(3), 25-38.
[118] Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend? Organizational
research methods, 9(2), 221-232.
[119] Steffensen, D. S., McAllister, C. P., Perrewé, P. L., Wang, G., & Brooks, C. D. (2022). “You’ve got mail”:
A daily investigation of email demands on job tension and work-family conflict. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 37(2), 325-338.
[120] Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects
of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37-68.
[121] Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-
190.
[122] Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim
precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
[123] Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance
communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169-
1180.
[124] Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., Padilla, A., & Lunsford, L. (2018). Destructive leadership: A critique
of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3),
627-649.
[125] Uys, T. (2022). Voice and Silence: Who Blows the Whistle and Why? In Whistleblowing and the Sociological
Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan, New York,3(2), 83-112.
[126] Wang, C. C., Hsieh, H. H., & Wang, Y. D. (2020). Abusive supervision and employee engagement and
satisfaction: the mediating role of employee silence. Personnel Review, 6(5), 33-52.
[127] Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural
assumptions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 34(1), 25-33.
[128] Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R., & Holmes IV, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance:
The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(1), 38-53.
[129] Williams, D., Martins, N., Consalvo, M., & Ivory, J. (2009). The virtual census: Representations of gender,
race and age in video games. New Media & Society, 11(5), 815–834.
[130] Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an
examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. Journal of Business &
Management, 9(4), 55-77.
[131] Wu, M., Peng, Z., & Estay, C. (2018). How destructive leadership influences compulsory organizational
citizenship behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 6(4), 59-71.
[132] Wu, M., Peng, Z., & Estay, C. (2018). How role stress mediates the relationship between destructive
leadership and employee silence: The moderating role of job complexity. Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology, 12(2), 134-149.
[133] Wu, W. Y. (2019). The antecedents and consequences of psychological capital: A meta-analytic approach.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 7(4), 123-136.
[134] Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–
member exchange interacts to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.
[135] Yang, Y., Li, J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2021). How supervisors respond to employee voice: an experimental
study in China and Japan. Asian Business & Management, 20(1), 1-31.
[136] Yousaf, M., Ishfaq, U., Ahmed, F., Jamal, K., Ashraf, H. A., & Ali, A. (2023) Influence of servant
leadership on organizational performance: evidence from hospitals in Pakistan. Russian Law Journal,
11(4), 10-17
[137] Younus, S., Danish, R. Q., Sair, S. A., & Rahi, S. (2022). Mediating role of information silence between
destructive leadership and counterproductive work behaviour: evidence from the tanners' sector of
Pakistan. International Journal of Business Excellence, 26(1), 115-135.

192
RUSSIAN LAW JOURNAL Volume XI (2023) Issue 1

[138] Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2012). Psychological capital. In The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship.
[139] Youssef‐Morgan, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2015). Psychological capital and well‐being. Stress and health:
Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress.

193