Asia Pacific Business Review

ISSN: 1360-2381 (Print) 1743-792X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fapb20

New generation employees’ preferences towards

leadership style in China

Shuang Ren, Yuhua Xie, Ying Zhu & Malcolm Warner

To cite this article: Shuang Ren, Yuhua Xie, Ying Zhu & Malcolm Warner (2018) New generation
employees’ preferences towards leadership style in China, Asia Pacific Business Review, 24:4,
437-458, DOI: 10.1080/13602381.2018.1451128

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2018.1451128

Published online: 09 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 464

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fapb20
Asia Pacific Business Review, 2018
VOL. 24, NO. 4, 437–458
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2018.1451128

New generation employees’ preferences towards leadership

style in China
Shuang Rena, Yuhua Xieb, Ying Zhuc and Malcolm Warnerd
a
Business School, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; bBusiness School, Hunan University, Changsha City,
China; cAustralian Centre for Asian Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; dCambridge
Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The leadership style preferences of China’s ‘new generation’ employees Received 20 August 2017
in the workplace are now, more than ever, important issues in the Accepted 1 December 2017
management field. Our theoretical contribution aims to extend the
KEYWORDS
employee involvement and leadership literatures by illustrating the China; economic reforms;
relationships between different styles of leadership preferences from employee involvement;
the follower-centric perspective. The findings highlight that Chinese leadership style; new
new generation employees’ need for involvement negatively impacts generation employees; trust-
on their preference for directive leadership and positively on their in-supervisor
preference for high relationship-oriented leadership (i.e. participative
and coaching leadership). Additionally, trust-in-supervisor is found
to moderate the relationship between need for involvement and
preference for delegating leadership.

1. Introduction
Although a ‘transitional economy’ like China has achieved significant economic growth in
the past three decades and become a global superpower, its sustained development has
largely been constrained by its labour supply, as well as the quality and productivity of its
workforce (Goodall and Warner 2009; Rowley and Warner 2013; Warner 2014, 2017; Warner
and Rowley 2013). In this context, ‘Post-80s’ and ‘Post-90s’ employees have gradually become
the backbone of the workforce, those who were born and raised after post-1979 economic
reforms and ‘one-child policy’ (now declared to be phased out as of 2016) in the 1980s and
1990s (see Economist 2015). These new generation employees have acquired many advan-
tages from China’s transformation – but the ‘benefits’ have also in turn been accompanied
by ‘costs’ (see, for example, Stanat 2005; Zhu et al. 2015).
Influenced by the historical backgrounds and changing economic, political and social
environments, new generation employees are said to demonstrate an enhanced sense of
need for involvement and a different range of attitudes and preferences from the previous
generation of employees (Jiang 2013) – those who were born and raised during and after
the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (1966–1976). Such demographic changes in the workplace have
challenged established practices of management, influencing the way leadership is practised

CONTACT  Yuhua Xie  xieyuhua66@163.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
438   S. REN ET AL.

as it affects both China’s version of Industrial and Labour Relations (ILR), as well as its Human
Resource Management (HRM), and now changing talent-management strategies in China
(Ren, Zhu, and Warner 2015; Warner 2014). Previous approaches to managing the Chinese
workforce may no longer be effective, thus there is increased research interest in effectively
managing, developing and retaining this new Chinese workforce.
The English language literature investigating the work attitudes of generations Y and Z
is indeed extensive (Smola and Sutton 2002). However, the knowledge of new generation
employees in China is largely under-specified (see, for example, Qiu 2010; Zhu et al. 2015)
and presents at least two challenges. The first relates to the leader-centric approach dominant
in the leadership literature (Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2010; Shalit, Popper, and Zakay
2010). With increase in awareness of the follower-role in constructing leadership (Meindl
and Shamir 2007), a follower-centric approach can be a significant step forward in studying
new generation employees. Second, the attraction to a leader varies among individuals,
depending on their psychological needs and trusting belief of leaders. However, prior studies
on Chinese new generation employees have focused primarily on turnover intention, work
values, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, with less attention paid to the
impact of psychological needs, attitudes and preferences (see, Li and Hou 2012; Wang and
Zhang 2012; Xie and Zhang 2013; Zhu et al. 2015). Therefore, many questions remain unad-
dressed including, for instance: What leadership styles do new generation Chinese employees
prefer? Under what conditions do such preferences work? What is the role of employee need for
involvement and trust-in-supervisor? These questions are closely related to the effectiveness
of talent-management and organizational competitiveness in the broader ILR and HRM
domains, but remain empirically untested.
This study aims to address the above-mentioned questions by enhancing understanding
of new generation employees’ preferences for different leadership styles. We ground our
investigation in similarity attraction theory (Byrne 1971) to investigate the relationship
between need for involvement and preferences for different leadership styles among Chinese
new generation employees. We further enrich the literature by investigating two potential
boundary conditions, namely trust-in-supervisor and employees’ perception of involvement,
the selection of which being encouraged by the important role of trusting belief and indi-
vidual perceptions in the attraction literature (e.g. Cottrell, Neuberg, and Li 2007).
The research makes several contributions. First, it enriches the empirical understanding
of Chinese new generation employees, which, compared to the extensive English literature
on generations Y and Z (Smola and Sutton 2002), still remains under-researched. We provide
here a more nuanced understanding of Chinese new generation employees’ need for involve-
ment and their preferences for leadership styles by investigating boundary conditions.
Second, drawing upon the similarity attraction theory (Byrne 1971), we shift the research
focus from a ‘leader-centric’ to ‘follower-centric’ approach and take into account the Chinese
context. A scholarly review of the leadership literature reveals that the underlying assumption
of many Western-derived theories concerns the leader and therefore is inadequate to fully
explain essential components of leadership, namely the leader, the follower and the situation
(Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber 2010; Bass 1997; Yukl 2013). The findings thus have theoretical
relevance for extending the debate about effects of leadership styles across countries. Thirdly,
the study has practical implications for companies seeking to increase the quality and pro-
ductivity of these employees. Put simply, how do companies ensure that they support, rather
than inhibit, Post-80s and Post-90s Chinese employees?
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   439

2.  Literature and context

2.1.  Contingency theory of leadership
Since the debut of the modern term, ‘leadership’, in English writing in the first half of the
nineteenth century (Bass 1997), several theories have been developed to describe and
explain its various aspects – addressing who leaders are, what they do and what determines
the outcome of effective leadership. A fundamental assumption concerns whether it is dif-
ficult to change (or whether effective leaders adjust their styles) (Nahavandi 2009). The
notion relates primarily to internal determinism, that leadership is the product of certain
universal and enduring traits which effective leaders possess. This line of research did not,
however, examine contingencies that determine leader effectiveness in the enterprise and
workplace and, consequently, failed to identify a consistent set of traits that guarantee a
leader’s success in varied situations.
With increase in conceptual and empirical criticism of this approach, the research focus
has shifted to the interaction between leaders and followers, and between leadership and
its situational context, eventually producing one of the most widely accepted approaches
in the literature, namely, the contingency theories of effective leadership (see, Yukl 2013).
Contingency theory argues that leadership effectiveness is maximized when leaders correctly
make their behaviours contingent on situational and follower characteristics (Hughes,
Ginnett, and Curphy 1993). With the exception of Fiedler’s (1967) model, the practice of
leadership should adjust flexibly to achieve a match between the leader and contingencies
related to the followers and the situation.

2.2.  Follower-centric approach

As contingency theory shifts the focus from effects of leadership on follower- performance
to preferences of followers for various types of leaders, several studies have investigated the
compatibility between follower-characteristics and leader-behaviour. For instance, building
upon ‘expectancy theory’, research found that internal-locus-of-control subordinates benefit
from participative leadership (House 1971; Jennings and Zeithaml 1983). A more recent
study reports that followers characterized by basic trust and confidence in leaders’ availability
and responsiveness prefer leaders who maintain two-way communication and consider
followers’ needs, whereas followers with no confidence in leaders’ help prefer those who act
on one-way communication (Shalit, Popper, and Zakay 2010). Ehrhart and Klein (2001) further
confirm that the values and personality of followers effectively differentiate followers in
terms of their preference for leadership. In particular, work values associated with interper-
sonal values and extrinsic rewards are positively related to relationship-oriented leadership
preference, whereas the need for structure and security are positively related to task-oriented
leadership preference. These findings provide the basis for our hypotheses to be presented
later.

2.3.  A similarity/attraction perspective in Chinese new generation employees’

needs and preferences
The similarity attraction paradigm (Byrne 1971) is a robust theory in social psychology that
predicts and explains attraction, liking and preferences in social interactions. Its core tenet
440   S. REN ET AL.

argues that interpersonal similarity, regarding attitudes, attributes and other characteristics,
influences intentional, emotional and behavioural liking and interacting (Byrne 1971). As
we argue here, different leadership styles engender different attractions to leaders depend-
ing on the extent to which these leadership styles share similarity with employees’ psycho-
logical needs.
New generation employees in China grow in a different environment from preceding
generations and so have different personal agendas (see, Zhu et al. 2015). Since China’s
embarking on reforms and opening-up in 1979, the country’s traditional values have con-
stantly been challenged by the introduction of Western culture and practices and a synthesis
has evolved. A hybrid form of ILR and HRM has emerged from this demarche (see Warner
2014). The developmental trajectory experienced by new generation employees clearly
appears to have led to a greater demand for involvement and participation in the workplace
(see Stanat 2005; Su 2007; Zhu et al. 2015). Generational change produces individuals who
are more confident, precocious, independent, open, self-centred, with an enhanced sense
of autonomy and a high degree of involvement (Jiang 2013; Ren, Zhu, and Warner 2015;
Zhao and Du 2012). The need for involvement is manifested in their expectations of rela-
tionships with leaders. As one source has noted:- ‘Younger workers, especially, have higher
expectations and are no longer willing to tolerate the abuse and exploitation their parents
had to endure. [They] have greater bargaining power and they are better able to utilize that
power effectively’ (Boehler 2014, 1).
From a similarity attraction perspective, congruence between employees’ need for
involvement and leaders’ leadership style can engender attraction to each other. Building
on a range of taxonomies proposed by contingency theorists, Figure 1 presents the orthog-
onal dimension of relationship behaviour and divides it into high and low segments. Directive
and delegating leadership styles fit into the low segment, whereas participative and coaching
leadership styles fall into the high segment. New generation employees, as empirically tested,
tend to be goal- and achievement- oriented, and motivated by career progression (Wong
et al. 2008). This characteristic implies that they prefer timely feedback and have a higher
desire for value, respect and recognition (Weyland 2011). Leadership styles rated low in
relationship behaviours minimize sources of feedback. So when leaders demonstrate low
relationship-oriented leadership styles, new generation employees interact with those who

Figure 1. Taxonomy of leadership styles. Source: Adapted from Hersey and Blanchard (1984).
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   441

are dissimilar, which is not easy. The resulting uncertainty and unpredictability decrease
interaction desire (Mitteness et al. 2016). Conversely, when leaders demonstrate high rela-
tionship-oriented leadership styles, new generation employees are more likely to resonate
with the leaders and categorize them as belonging to the same in-group. Prior research has
shown that psychological needs and values are a common categorization criterion (e.g.
Ehrhart and Klein 2001). Altogether we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: The need for involvement among new generation employees is negatively
correlated with the preference for low relationship-oriented leadership (i.e. directive
and delegating leadership styles).
Hypothesis 2: The need for involvement among new generation employees is positively
correlated with the preference for high relationship-oriented leadership (i.e. partici-
pative and coaching leadership styles).
The assumption underlying the first two hypotheses is that employees prefer leadership
styles that meet their needs. However, when assessing preference for different leadership
styles simultaneously, the impact of need for involvement on high relationship-oriented
leadership styles may not be direct, as it appears, in the Chinese workforce. The possible
theoretical deduction builds on the leadership and HRM context ‘with Chinese characteristics’
(see Warner 2014). A conventional perception of Chinese leadership portrays a paternalistic
leader and an obedient follower – a leader is assumed to have the legitimate right to exercise
power, closely monitor followers, and make final decisions, whereas followers respect, follow
and do not challenge the leader’s authority, both in the society as well as in the economy.
This perception derives primarily from the historic patriarchal Confucian tradition (Warner
2016; Zhao and Du 2012; Zhu 2005). New leadership styles may emerge against the backdrop
of emerging new style people management models introduced in many of the larger Joint
Ventures and State-Owned Enterprises. However, given the long-standing influence of
authoritative leadership demarche, new generation employees may not directly expect par-
ticipative and coaching leadership styles, even though these leadership styles allow for input
to influence their workplace through their own efforts (Hatcher, Ross, and Collins 1991; Miller
and Prichard 1992; Zhu et al. 2015). Indeed, several past investigations of China’s HRM system
have revealed that many management practices across China remain as ‘command economy’
modes (see Warner 2014; Zhu 2005). Employees were not regarded as strategic, nor as having
any competitive advantage, rather, their main role was to implement procedures and focus
on tasks determined by the company. As a result, paternalistic managerial thinking and
behaviour modes persist and remain pervasive in some firms, with many not yet ready to
make the necessary changes to accommodate ‘generational differences’ of the changing
workforce.
Within this context, new generation employees’ dissatisfaction with low relationship-ori-
ented leadership styles produces a state of disequilibrium with their preference, which sub-
sequently works as a motivator to change the ‘status quo’. To do so, they tend not to follow
constraints of rules and pay less attention to authoritarian power. This in turn constitutes a
source of motivation for seeking diverse channels to express themselves and nurture a
cooperative and respectable connection with leaders (Kahnweiler and Thompson 2000),
and hence prefer high relationship-oriented leadership styles. Therefore, we propose that
the low preference for low relationship-oriented leadership works as a mediating function
442   S. REN ET AL.

between the need for involvement and the high preference for high relationship-oriented
leadership.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between the need for involvement and the preference
for high relationship-oriented leadership (i.e. participative and coaching leadership
styles) among new generation employees is mediated by the low preference for low
relationship-oriented leadership (i.e. directive and delegating leadership styles).

2.4.  The moderating role of trust-in-supervisor and perception of involvement

Trust is a key relational variable in social interactions (Rousseau et al. 1998; Singh et al. 2009).
The underlying assumption is that involved parties reciprocate when they believe that the
others’ actions and behaviours are undertaken in their interest. Trust-in-supervisor reflects
employees’ evaluation of supervisors’ trustworthiness (Wu et al. 2012). We hypothesize that
trust-in-supervisor moderates the relationship between need for involvement and prefer-
ences for leadership styles such that while need for involvement is generally negatively
associated with preference for low relationship-oriented leadership styles, when trust-in-su-
pervisor is high, employees are more likely to accept leaders’ directives and delegations. This
is possible for two reasons. First, trustworthy has been found to be an important attribute
people value when assessing whether one is an ideal in-group member (Cottrell, Neuberg,
and Li 2007). When new generation employees believe their leaders are trustworthy in pro-
tecting their rights and interests, the enhanced attraction is a likely result. Therefore, the
negative beliefs and attitudes towards low relationship-oriented leadership styles are
thawed. Second, trusting belief increases psychological connections between employees
and leaders and engenders reciprocity (Wei and Long 2009). Reciprocal ‘win-win’ mindsets
are highly valued in managing a range of relationships in China. Employees’ trust implicitly
requires them to reciprocate supervisors’ needs. Thus, a higher level of trust renders it more
likely for employees to accept a directive and delegating leadership style. Therefore, we
propose the fourth hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 4: Trust-in-supervisor moderates the relationship between the need for
involvement among new generation employees and the preference for leadership
styles.
We have so far investigated employees’ need for involvement, which in essence is a psycho-
logical assessment concerning the likability of being included in the involvement schemes.
Employee involvement schemes are practices ‘intended variously to provide employees with
information, enable a two-way exchange of views and/or opportunities to influence deci-
sion-making in the workplace’ (Cox, Marchington, and Suter 2009). Generally speaking,
China’s ‘employee involvement’ schemes, so-called, with a ‘family-resemblance’ to those used
in Western countries, have been on a roller-coaster ride of rises and falls since 1949. Concerned
about the spillover effect of the Polish ‘Solidarity’ industrial protest movement, Deng Xiaoping,
(1904–1997), the architect of China’s economic reforms, promoted the establishment of
‘Workers’ Congresses’ in state-owned enterprises, as he feared the uprising might be conta-
gious (see Warner 2014). With the increasing opening-up in China, several foreign-invested
enterprises, from Japan, North America and Western Europe, brought schemes from their
parent companies, including information-sharing schemes, autonomous work teams, and
representation on supervision committees (see Xie 2009). Although employee involvement
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   443

is not yet well-established in China, a mixed blend of Chinese and Western schemes has
been observed (Warner 2014; Zhu et al. 2015).
The dual feasibility of satisfying this need and the practicality of the involvement schemes
are better captured by employees’ perceptions of involvement, defined as the extent to
which employees believe that the company promotes involvement schemes in management
and decision-making processes (Cox, Marchington, and Suter 2009; Marchington et al. 1992).
This cognitive assessment, as we argue, is another possible moderator in the relationship
between need for involvement and preferences for leadership styles. Specifically, in cases
of a stronger perception of involvement, employees believe they are allowed to express
their thoughts openly and expect their opinions to be listened to. Such perception increases
the likeability of the company as employees report higher organizational commitment and
job satisfaction (Cox, Marchington, and Suter 2009). The enhanced positive perception could
lead to a higher similarity between employees’ need for involvement and preferences for
participative and coaching leadership. Keef (1991) suggests that perception of involvement
significantly moderates the need to involve oneself. Similarly, under circumstances where
employees believe they have a lower degree of involvement, their need of involvement and
expectations of having voices heard are thwarted (see Zhao and Du 2012; Zhu 2005). The
negative effect of need for involvement and preference for low relationship-oriented lead-
ership styles is likely to be strengthened. In accordance with the above argument, we propose
that a relationship between need for involvement and preferences regarding leadership
styles exists via the moderation of employee perception of involvement. The conceptual
framework is summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework.

444   S. REN ET AL.

Hypothesis 5: Employees’ perception of involvement moderates the relationship

between the need for involvement among new generation employees and the pref-
erence for leadership styles.

3. Methodology
3.1.  Sample and data collection
The present study surveyed a cross-section of employees from different backgrounds in
China. The inclusion of a variety of cities across China ensured variation in contextual factors
and avoided constraints associated with any particular city, thus facilitating the generaliza-
tion of the research findings (Farh, Hackett, and Liang 2007). The authors conducted fieldwork
in the cities of Changsha in Hunan province (in Central China) and Guangzhou in Guangdong
province (in South-Eastern coastal China), and personally distributed the questionnaires to
the participants. Meanwhile, MBA students enrolled at Hunan University distributed ques-
tionnaires in their respective cities.
We distributed 650 questionnaires to employees from 50 companies in large and medi-
um-sized cities across the PRC, including Beijing, Changsha, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Haikou,
Hangzhou, Nanchang, Shenzhen and Xi’an. After excluding cases with missing values within
the research variables, the final research data comprised 594 cases, which we note are larger
than any previous studies in China on the topic. The high response rate gave us the confi-
dence that the data were not substantially distorted by non-response bias (Meterko et al.
2015).
Among the new generation participants, 533 were born between 1980 and 1989, and 61
were born after 1990. A vast majority (94.4%) had tenure of no more than 10 years. Male
(45.5%) and female employees (54.5%) were roughly equally represented. Their qualifications
spanned from attending secondary schools (21.7%) to graduating from vocational colleges
(21.9%), to holding university degrees (44.1%), to having a Masters qualification and above
(12.3%). The sample comprised front-line employees (62.1%), junior managers (25.6%), mid-
dle managers (11.8%) and senior managers (.5%). The profile of this sample is consistent
with the workforce composition in China, which in turn ensures the generalization of the
research findings (Table 1).

3.2. Measures
The need for involvement measure includes 20 items to operationalize the three employee
involvement attributes – information-sharing, six items from Paré and Tremblay (2007);
self-management team cooperation, eight items from Park, Appelbaum, and Kruse (2010);
and participative decision-making, five items from Ruh, White, and Wood (1975) and Paré
and Tremblay (2007). This practice is consistent with prior studies in the literature (e.g. Brown
and Cregan 2008; Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005). The validity of this measure
was further established in both content analysis and factor analysis. Specifically, an extensive
literature was undertaken and conceptualization of employee involvement (e.g. Lawler 1989;
Zhang, Ma, and Ma 2002) were consulted. Six subject-matter experts were used to verify
that the items reflect the related measures. During the data analysis stage, we randomly
selected half of the valid questionnaires (n = 297) and conducted exploratory factor analysis
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   445

Table 1. Profile of new generation employees.

Percentage Percentage
Background Number (%) Background Number (%)
Gender M 270 45.5 Firm ownership SOE 169 28.5
F 324 54.5 DPE 261 43.9
Age Born after 61 10.3 FIE 78 13.1
1990
1979–1989 533 89.7 Others 86 14.5
Qualification High school 129 21.7 Position Workers 369 62.1
and below
College 130 21.9 Front-line 152 25.6
supervisor
Bachelor 262 44.1 Middle 70 11.8
manager
Master and 73 12.3 Senior 3 .5
above manager
Tenure Less than 242 40.7 Company size 0–100 169 28.5
3 years
4–6 years 202 34.0 101–250 104 17.5
7–10 years 117 19.7 251–500 89 15.0
Above 33 5.6 501–1000 57 9.6
10 years
Team size Less than 5 113 19.0 1001–5000 87 14.6
6–10 174 29.3 Above 5000 88 14.8
11–15 73 12.3 Industry Manufacturing 159 26.8
16–20 67 11.3 Service 273 46.0
Above 21 167 28.1 Other 162 27.3

using Varimax rotation and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .01). SPSS tests produced a
three-factor solution, with the first six items relating to the information-sharing dimension,
the following eight items relating to team cooperation and the remainder relating to deci-
sion-making. This solution accounted for 64.31% of the variance. The Cronbach’s alpha values
for the three measures (.862, .902 and .892) were well above the .700 criterion suggested by
Hu and Bentler (1999). We then undertook confirmatory factor analysis to determine the fit
of model in the whole sample. The three-factor model demonstrated a strong support:
χ2 = 460.086, df = 149, CFI = .954. TLI = .947. RMSEA = .059, SMR = .035). The factor loadings
and the composite reliability are summarized in Table 2. Altogether, the above analyses
demonstrate that the 20 items clearly operationalize the variables we used to define need
for employee involvement attributes and had minimal overlap. Therefore, being consistent
with the treatment in prior empirical work (e.g. Riordan, Vandenberg, and Richardson 2005),
the scale scores for employee need for involvement were created by attribute in subsequent
analysis for testing hypotheses. As to be reported shortly, we also undertook supplementary
analysis by averaging all items to create the scale score for employee need for involvement
and the result was consistent with those using three separate scales.
The leadership style scale developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1984), based on situational
leadership theory – an important part of contingency theories of leadership – was used in
this research to measure the preference for different leadership styles. Participants responded
to 12 scenarios by selecting their preferences for four different leadership styles within the
directive, coaching, participative and delegating mode. The sample scenario included, for
instance, how to communicate with employees when job performance is low. The scenar-
io-based scale was capable of measuring preference in concrete social situations than the
446   S. REN ET AL.

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Standardized item loadings (S.E.)
Items
Please rate the extent to Need for information Need for self-manage- Need for participative
which you feel the need to sharing ment team cooperation decision-making
Be regularly informed of future .751 (ref)
corporate projects (e.g. major
investments, acquisitions)
Be regularly informed of the .743 (.057)
level of customer satisfaction
for products or services
offered
Be regularly informed of their .768 (.057)
work unit’s performance
Be regularly informed of the .763 (.054)
criteria that will be included in
their performance evaluation
Be regularly informed of .759 (.054)
financial results
Be regularly informed of .522 (.063)
technological orientations
Work in a team where you are .750 (ref)
allocated tasks that are
meaningful
Work in a team that have .824 (.047)
autonomy
Work in a team that can make an .772 (.049)
influence
Learn new skills and knowledge .778 (.049)
through task allocation within
your work team
Work in a team that has a clear .689 (.049)
role for everyone
Work towards finding a solution .680 (.051)
through open discussion
when facing challenges
Offer help and assistance to .639 (.048)
each other within your work
team
Attain the work group goals .735 (.050)
with team members
Have a high degree of influence .785 (ref)
in corporate decisions
Regularly participate in .794 (.046)
decisions regarding your job
Have a big degree of influence in .808 (.044)
the decisions affecting you
Have a real influence in .784 (.048)
company decisions
Participate in setting new .776 (.049)
company policies
Composite reliability for each .862 .902 .892
factor
Note: All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001; (ref) = reference indicator for that factor, and thus, no
standard error is available.

traditional Likert scale which is concerned with general abstract statements and subjective
to the reference group effect (Peng, Nisbett, and Wong 1997).
Trust-in-supervisor was measured with eleven items designed by McAllister (1995).
McAllister (1995) categorizes trust-in-supervisor into ‘affect-based’ and ‘cognition-based’
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   447

domains. Accordingly, the first five items related to the affect-based domain, whereas the
last six items related to the cognition-based domain. The response categories ranged from
one (‘strongly disagree’) to five (‘strongly agree’) on a Likert scale. Sample items included
‘My supervisor approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication’ and ‘I have a
sharing relationship with my supervisor’. Separate explorative factor analyses on Items 1–5
and Items 6–10 found one-factor solutions, with Cronbach’s alpha of .877 for affect-based
trust and .886 for cognition-based trust. Item 11 was the only measure that was negatively
worded, indicating that it was unsuitable for explorative factor analysis. Consequently, this
item was removed. Principal component factor analysis was performed, yielding one factor
accounting for 61.70% of variance. The one-factor model demonstrated a reasonable fit: χ2
= 303.874, df = 35, CFI = .930. TLI = .910. RMSEA = .100, SMR = .044. Therefore, consistent
with prior studies (e.g. Li and Tan 2013) the scale score for trust-in-supervisor was created
by averaging the ten items.
Employee perception of involvement was measured with four items from Cox, Marchington,
and Suter (2009). Explorative factor analysis yielded a one-factor solution accounting for
70.11% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .855. Sample item included:
‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount of involvement you have in decision-making
at this workplace?’

3.3.  Common method bias

To consider common method bias, several procedures suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
and Podsakoff (2012) were used, including the following: (1) Anonymous responses to the
surveys were collected, which helped to mitigate social desirability effects. (2) The surveys
were pre-tested to improve clarity of expression. (3) Exploratory factor analysis of all the
variables was performed, yielding nine factors (three for the need for involvement, one for
trust-in-supervisor, one for the perception of involvement and four for the preference for
leadership styles), with the first factor accounting for 27.43% of the total variance. Under
Harman’s single factor rule, common method bias does not seriously distort the data in this
sample. (4) We adopted a slightly modified application of Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker
variable technique (see Arvey et al. 2006). Using SPSS’s partial correlation analysis function,
we developed a correlation matrix by treating tenure as the marker variable. When it was
controlled, there were no significant changes in the relationships at 95% level of confidence
among the variables. The results further suggested that common method bias was not an
issue.

4. Findings
4.1.  Descriptive statistics
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for, and the correlations of, the main study variables.
As can be seen, most of the variables were statistically correlated. Specifically, need for involve-
ment was significantly correlated with different leadership styles in the expected direction.
Additionally, correlations among the independent variables were all less than .50 and the
variance inflation factors were well below 10. Taken together, these checks suggest that
multicollinearity did not contaminate the findings in this study. Additionally the average
 448 
 S. REN ET AL.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Need for information sharing 3.75 .74
Need for team cooperation 3.87 .72 .79**
Need for participative decision-making 3.75 .82 .59** .70**
Employee perception of involvement 3.37 .82 .34** .30** .21**
Trust-in-supervisor 3.56 .77 .41** .42** .32** .64**
Preference for directive leadership 1.78 1.60 −.130** −.220** −.186** .020 −.022
Preference for coaching leadership 5.67 2.12 .096* .098* .108** .154** .106** −.357**
Preference for participative leadership 4.20 2.04 .053 .119** .069+ −.140** −.051 −.389** −.649**
Preference for delegating leadership .37 .79 −.150** −.141** −.117** −.117** −.144** −.040 −.299** −.038
*p < .01; **p < .01; +p < .10.
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   449

variance extracted for our latent variables were above .50 (trust-in-supervisor: .576; percep-
tion of employee involvement: .621; need for information sharing: .532, need for team coop-
eration: .541; need for participative decision-making: .623) and their square root was greater
than correlations with the study variables concerned.

4.2.  Establishing the level of analysis

Given the data were collected from 50 organizations, observed effects due to the non-
independence of observations was a possibility. A one-way analysis of variance, with organ-
ization as a between-subject factor, showed no differences in preferences for coaching
(F = 1.289, p = .098) and delegation (F = 1.172, p = .206). These results indicated that even
though the data appear to have a nested structure, analyses at the individual level is appro-
priate (Bliese and Hanges 2004).

4.3.  Hypothesis testing

We undertook hierarchical regression analysis in SPSS 19 by entering control variables (i.e.
gender, age, qualification, tenure, position, firm ownership, team size, industry and firm size)
in the first step, followed by the main study variables in the second step, and the interaction
terms in the third step. As summarized in Table 4, new generation employees’ educational
background had a significant effect on their preferences for participative leadership (β = .120,
p < .01). Its effect on preference for directive leadership showed a considerable trend towards
significance (β = −.092, p = .057). Similarly, position in the organization and team size signif-
icantly impacted employee’s need for directive leadership style, with β = .129, p < .01,
β = .083, p < .05, respectively. The effect of position on preference for participative leadership
reached a margin at the edge of significance: β = −.077, p = .09). The effect of team size on
preference for delegating leadership almost became significant, β = −.079, p = .056. These
results indicate that employees with higher qualifications prefer less directive and more
participative leadership, and those in higher position within the organization prefer directive
rather than participative leadership. Employees in large team prefer to have directive, rather
than delegating leaders.
Hypothesis 1 proposed a negative relationship between need for involvement and pref-
erence for low relationship-oriented leadership styles (i.e. directive leadership and delegating
leadership), whereas Hypothesis 2 proposed a positive correlation with preference for high
relationship-oriented leadership styles (i.e. participative leadership and coaching leadership).
Among the three attributes of need for involvement, need for team cooperation was nega-
tively associated with preference for directive leadership (β = −.299, p < .01) and positively
related to preference for participative leadership (β = .213, p < .01). The other two attributes
(i.e. need for information sharing, need for participative decision-making) did not signifi-
cantly predict preference for leadership styles. When we combined these three attributes
to create an average score of need for involvement, the results were consistent. On average,
need for involvement was negatively related to preference for directive leadership (β = −.267,
p < .01) and significantly related to preference for participative leadership (β = .136, p < .01).
Also its effect on preference for coaching leadership styles reached a margin at the edge of
significance (β = .081, p = .086). Altogether, these results show that Chinese new generation
employees’ need for involvement was negatively correlated with preference for directive
 450 

Table 4. Main effects and moderation effects (continuing).

Hierarchical regression analysis, using separate scores representing three attributes of need for involvement
Preference for Directive Preference for Delegating Preference for Participative Preference for Coaching
 S. REN ET AL.

Constructs B S.E. β B S.E. β B S.E. β B S.E. β

Control variable Gender .043 .135 .013 −.026 .067 −.016 −.136 .175 −.033 .139 .185 .033
Age −.219 .232 −.042 .083 .116 .032 .120 .301 .018 .034 .319 .005
Qualification −.152 .080 −.092+ −.050 .040 −.061 .253 .104 .120* −.059 .110 −.027
Tenure .067 .080 .038 .008 .040 .009 .014 .104 .006 −.096 .110 −.041
Position .287 .100 .129** −.049 .050 −.044 −.219 .130 −.077+ −.028 .138 −.010
Firm ownership −.042 .067 −.026 −.049 .033 −.062 .027 .087 .013 .063 .092 .029
Team size .088 .043 .083* −.041 .021 −.079+ −.035 .056 −.026 −.025 .059 −.018
Industry −.042 .090 −.019 .020 .045 .019 −.341 .116 −.123** .368 .123 .127**
Firm size −.084 .038 −.095 .034 .019 .078+ .073 .050 .065 −.018 .052 −.015
Main effect Information sharing .218 .144 .101 −.100 .071 −.094 −.155 .186 −.056 .019 .197 .007
Team cooperation −.666 .167 −.299** .020 .083 .019 .604 .217 .213** .051 .229 .017
Participative decision-making −.181 .115 −.093 .027 .057 .029 −.056 .149 −.023 .205 .157 .079
Perception of involvement .153 .107 .078 −.029 .053 −.030 −.477 .139 −.191** .345 .147 .133*
Trust-in-supervisor .059 .115 .028 −.101 .057 −.099+ .022 .149 .008 −.003 .157 −.001
Moderation effect Information sharing*Percep- .040 .130 .030 .026 .065 .040 −.030 .169 −.018 −.015 .178 −.008
tion of involvement
Team cooperation*Perception −.081 .146 −.063 −.030 .073 −.047 .198 .189 .121 −.084 .200 −.049
of involvement
Participative decision- −.124 .089 −.098 −.011 .045 −.017 −.046 .116 −.029 .171 .123 .102
making*Perception of
involvement
Information sharing*Trust .017 .140 .013 −.002 .069 −.004 .076 .181 .045 −.086 .191 −.049
Team cooperation*Trust .014 .164 .011 .175 .082 .272* −.178 .213 −.107 −.004 .226 −.002
Participative −.056 .095 −.044 −.004 .047 −.006 −.061 .123 −.038 .117 .130 .069
decision-making*Trust
R2 .127 .107 .092 .065
Hierarchical regression analysis, using the average score for need for involvement
Control variable Sex −.004 .134 −.001 −.024 .066 −.015 −.142 .173 −.035 .186 .183 .044
Age −.213 .233 −.040 .090 .115 .035 .160 .300 .024 −.013 .317 −.002
Qualification −.152 .080 −.092+ −.052 .040 −.063 .242 .103 .115* −.048 .109 −.022
Tenure .109 .079 .062 .006 .039 .007 .007 .102 .003 −.129 .108 −.055
Position .266 .100 .119** −.052 .049 −.048 −.222 .129 −.078+ −.003 .136 −.001
Firm ownership −.048 .067 −.029 −.049 .033 −.061 .027 .087 .013 .068 .092 .032
Team size .080 .043 .075+ −.040 .021 −.077+ −.040 .056 −.030 −.012 .059 −.009
Industry −.031 .089 −.014 .017 .044 .015 −.365 .115 −.132** .383 .122 .133**
Firm size −.087 .038 −.099* .033 .019 .076+ .072 .049 .065 −.013 .052 −.012
Main effect Need for involvement −.633 .109 −.267** −.044 .054 −.037 .411 .140 .136** .255 .148 .081+
Perception of involvement .174 .106 .089 −.047 .053 −.049 −.489 .137 −.196** .352 .145 .135*
Trust-in-supervisor .048 .115 .023 −.097 .057 −.095+ .024 .148 .009 .002 .156 .001
Moderation effect Need for involvement*Per- −.139 .086 −.110 −.008 .042 −.013 .118 .111 .073 .045 .117 .027
ception of involvement
Need for involvement*Trust −.020 .085 −.016 .151 .042 .245** −.150 .110 −.094 .026 .116 .015
R2 .108 .100 .083 .056
Notes: B: Unstandardized coefficient; S.E.: standard error: β: standardized coefficient.
*p < .05; **p < .01; +p < .10.
ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW 
 451
452   S. REN ET AL.

leadership (Hypothesis 1 partially supported) and positively correlated with preferences for
participative and coaching leadership styles (Hypothesis 2 supported).
Regarding the moderation effect, only the interaction term between need for team coop-
eration and trust-in-supervisor was significantly related to preference for delegating lead-
ership (β = .272, p < .01). We undertook simple slope-analysis for need for team cooperation
predicting preference for delegating leadership at 1 SD (i.e. standard deviation) below, at,
and above the mean of trust-in-supervisor. The nature of interaction effect is shown in Figure
3. When trust-in-supervisor is high, the greater the need for employee involvement and the
lower the preference for delegating leadership. Therefore, Hypothesis 4, which predicts the
moderating role of trust-in-supervisor, was supported for the relationship between need for
team cooperation and preference for delegating leadership. Hypothesis 5, which predicted
that employee perception of involvement moderate the relationship between the need for
involvement and the preference for leadership styles, is not supported.
The mediated relationships proposed in Hypothesis 3 were tested using the boot-strap-
ping strategy in the structural model. In the next step, structural equation modelling using
SPSS AMOS 20 was performed to confirm the structural relationships between the hypoth-
esized constructs. We first tested the relationship between need for involvement and pref-
erence for participative leadership, mediated by preference for directive and delegating
leadership styles. The model showed a good fit: χ2 = 13.679, df = 7, p > .05, CFI = .994,
TFI = .987, RMSEA = .040, SRMR = .024 (Table 5). The standardized coefficient regarding the
indirect effect of need for involvement and preference for participative leadership was .095,
with 95% confidence intervals from .060 to .132 based on 2,000 boot-strapping samples.
Given the direct effect of need for involvement on preference for participative leadership
was not significant, the model showed a full mediation. Regarding the model concerning
preference for coaching leadership style, the following fit indexes were obtained: χ2 = 13.319,
df = 7, p > .05, CFI = .995, TFI = .989, RMSEA = .039, SRMR = .020 (Table 5). The direct effect

Figure 3. Simple slopes of need for team cooperation predicting preference for delegating leadership at
different levels of trust-in-supervisor.
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   453

Table 5. Mediation analysis.

Path Estimate S.E. p
The influence of need for involvement on preference for participative leadership
Preference for directive ← need for involvement −.601 .110 ***
Preference for delegating ← need for involvement −.196 .055 ***
Preference for participative ← Preference for directive −.492 .049 ***
Preference for participative← need for involvement n.s n.s n.s.
Preference for participative← preference for delegating n.s n.s n.s.
The influence of need for involvement on preference for coaching leadership
Preference for directive ← need for involvement −.602 .110 ***
Preference for delegating ← need for involvement −.196 .055 ***
Preference for coaching ← Preference for directive −.499 .049 ***
Preference for coaching ← need for involvement n.s n.s n.s
Preference for coaching ← preference for delegating −.858 .098 ***
Note: n.s. not significant.
***p < .001.

of need for involvement on preference for coaching leadership was not significant, but the
indirect effect was statistically significant, with standardized coefficient .132, with 95% con-
fidence intervals (.088, .178) based on 2000 boot-strapping samples. Altogether Hypothesis
3 is supported.

5. Discussion
Research shows that new generation employees had been exposed to a new developmental
trajectory that influenced their thinking modes and psychological needs. However, how
their characteristics influence the way they approach and respond to leadership styles has
largely been overlooked in the literature. There are several meaningful implications for theory
to be generated.
First, our study is among the first to investigate new generation employees’ need for
involvement and preferences with regard to different leadership styles. This approach pro-
vides empirical evidence and extends theoretical development in this field in China. Despite
the acknowledgement that the characteristics of China’s transformational status have gen-
erated pervasive influences in the economy and in society at large, little is known based on
empirical evidence about the new generation employees resulting from the ‘one-child policy’
in China, namely, the Post-80s and Post-90s generations. In recent years, more English-
language publications have shifted the focus onto the psychological needs and preferences
of employees by focusing on employee involvement schemes (e.g. Wang, Du, and Wang
2011; Zatzick and Iverson 2011). Research on this topic, however, remains at an early stage
in China.
Second, using similarity attraction theory, our study enriches the empirical understand-
ings that Chinese new generation employees prefer less directive and more participative
leadership styles. Of employees’ need for involvement, team cooperation appeared to be
the most important factor influencing employees’ preferences for leadership style.
Third, using similarity/attraction theory, our study extends the leadership literature from
the follower-centric perspective. Whereas contingency theorists on leadership have helped
the development of theories that account for the leader, the followers and the situation,
454   S. REN ET AL.

they ‘fail to explain adequately what organizations should do when there is a mismatch
between the leader and the situation in the workplace’ (Northouse 2009, 117).
Fourth, our study extends the literature by providing more nuanced understandings of
preferences among different leadership styles. Although it is not difficult to recognize that
participative and coaching leadership styles are more highly preferred among new gener-
ation employees, our study suggests a counter-intuitive condition that influences such a
preference. When new generation employees simultaneously assess their preference for
different types of leadership styles, their need for involvement may not directly lead them
towards preference for high relationship-oriented leadership styles. Rather, their dislike of
low relationship-oriented leadership styles was a more likely direct outcome, which in turn
guides them to look for more high relationship-oriented leadership styles. This finding con-
tributes to the expansion of the underlying mechanisms mediating the relationship between
the need for involvement and preferences regarding leadership styles emphasizing relation-
ship building.
Fifth, for new generation employees, the moderating effect of trust-in-supervisor was
obtained in the correlation between the need for involvement and the preference for dele-
gating leadership styles. When employees have a higher level of trusting beliefs in their
supervisors, they are more likely to show an acceptance to leadership styles that spare limited
thought for psychological needs. But in situations where trust-in-supervisor is lower, employ-
ees with a high degree of need to involve themselves at work are more likely to prefer high
relationship-oriented leadership.

6.  Implications for theory and practice

With regard to the implications for theory and practice, the neglect of generational prefer-
ences, with regard to ‘environmental-fit’ at work, may risk undermining employee perfor-
mance, creativity and organizational citizenship behaviour, which may in turn leads to a
higher labour-turnover rate (see Westerman and Yamamura 2007). Compatibility between
a leader and followers serves as a process of selection and assists with assignments to teams
and mission. For organizations, more attention should be given to generational differences.
It is advisable to construct a detailed profile of employees’ demographic characteristics,
including their generational and psychological needs and preferences. Organizations should
also make their managers aware that: (1) these employees have a strong need for involve-
ment; and (2) they prefer participative and coaching leadership styles and dislike directive
and delegating leadership styles. That is, managers must adjust their leadership styles accord-
ingly, offer timely and specific feedback, and provide support for new generation employees.
By nurturing an open and supportive connection between a leader and followers, the work
motivation and commitment of new generation employees may be enhanced.

7. Limitations
Despite our endeavour to improve validity and reliability of our findings, we acknowledge
the limitations of this research, including having collected data from a constrained range of
locations in contemporary China. Also the study is not comparative in nature by studying
both new and previous generation employees. Future studies could address these limitations
by adopting a comparative design with a wider range of locations on a longitudinal basis.
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   455

8. Conclusions
To sum up, the current research contributes to the management literature by building and
testing a model that examines the relationships between need for involvement and the
different attitudes among new generation employees towards different leadership styles.
Understanding related issues in China provides insights not only for domestic organizations
but also for foreign organizations that seek to seize opportunities in one of the leading
transitional economies in the world, namely, China.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Shuang Ren, PhD, is a senior lecturer, Deakin Business School, Deakin University. Her most recent works
include: ‘Is guanxi always good for employee self-development in China? Examining non-linear and
moderated relationships’, Journal of Vocational Behavior (2017), 98: 108–117 (co-author: D. Chadee);
and ‘Influence of work pressure on proactive skill development in China: the role of career networking
behavior and guanxi HRM’, Journal of Vocational Behavior (2017), 98: 152–162 (co-author: D. Chadee).
Yuhua Xie is a professor, Business School, Hunan University. Her most recent publications include:
‘Holding up half of the sky: women managers’ view on promotion opportunities at enterprise
level in China’, Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management (2016), 7(1): 45–60 (co-author:
Y. Zhu); and ‘Employee participation and the influence on job satisfaction of the “new generation” of
Chinese employees’, International Journal of Human Resource Management (2015), 26(19): 2395–2411
(co-authors: Y. Zhu, M. Warner, and Y. X. Guo).
Ying Zhu is the director of Australian Centre for Asian Business at University of South Australia. His
most recent books are Business Leaders and Leadership in Asia (London and New York: Routledge, 2017,
co-authors: S. Ren, N. Collins, and M. Warner); and Conducting Business in China and India: A Comparative
and Contextual Analysis (London and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, co-author: D. Sardana).
Malcolm Warner is an Emeritus Fellow, Wolfson College and Cambridge Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge. His most recent works are Understanding Management in China; Past, Present
and Future (London and New York, NY, Routledge, 2014); Nolan, J., Rowley, C. and Warner, M. (eds.)
Business Networks in East Asian Capitalisms: Enduring Trends, Emerging Patterns (Cambridge, MA: Elsevier,
2016); and an edited book on The Diffusion of Western Economic Ideas in East Asia (London and New
York, NY: Routledge, 2017).

References
Arvey, R. D., M. Rotundo, W. Johnson, Z. Zhang, and M. McGue. 2006. “The Determinants of Leadership
Role Occupancy: Genetic and Personality Factors.” The Leadership Quarterly 17: 1–20.
Avolio, B. J., F. O. Walumbwa, and T. J. Weber. 2010. “Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future
Directions.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–449.
Bass, B. M. 1997. “Concepts of Leadership.” In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and
Influence in Organizations, edited by R. P. Vecchio, 3–23. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Bliese, P. D., and P. J. Hanges. 2004. “Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative: The Perils of Treating
Grouped Data as Though They Were Independent.” Organizational Research Methods 74: 400–417.
Boehler, P. 2014. “Strikes on the Rise in China with New Generation of Interconnected Workers.” South
China Morning Post, 13 August, p. 1.
456   S. REN ET AL.

Brown, M., and C. Cregan. 2008. “Organizational Change Cynicism: The Role of Employee Involvement.”
Human Resource Management 47 (4): 667–686.
Byrne, D. E. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cottrell, C. A., S. L. Neuberg, and N. P. Li. 2007. “What Do People Desire in Others? A Socio-Functional
Perspective on the Importance of Different Valued Characteristics.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 92: 208–231.
Cox, A., M. Marchington, and J. Suter. 2009. “Employee Involvement and Participation: Developing the
Concept of Institutional Embeddedness Using WERS2004.” International Journal of Human Resource
Management 20: 2150–2168.
Economist. 2015. “Too Little, Too Late.” November 7, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.
economist.com/news/leaders/21677645-china-has-replaced-its-one-child-policy-two-child-one-it-
should-stop-dictating-family
Ehrhart, M. G., and K. J. Klein. 2001. “Predicting Followers' Preferences for Charismatic Leadership: The
Influence of Follower Values and Personality.” Leadership Quarterly 12: 153–179.
Farh, J. L., R. D. Hackett, and J. Liang. 2007. “Individual-Level Cultural Values as Moderators of Perceived
Organizational Support-Employee Outcomes Relationship in China: Comparing the Effects of Power
Distance and Traditionality.” Academy of Management Journal 50: 715–729.
Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodall, K., and M. Warner. 2009. Management Training and Development in China: Laying the Foundation.
London: Routledge.
Hatcher, L., T. L. Ross, and D. Collins. 1991. “Attributions for Participation and Nonparticipation in Gain-
Sharing-Plan Involvement Systems.” Group and Organization Studies 16: 25–43.
Hersey, P., and K. H. Blanchard. 1984. The Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
House, R. J. 1971. “A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16:
321–339.
Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary
Journal 6: 1–55.
Hughes, R. L., R. C. Ginnett, and G. J. Curphy. 1993. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Jennings, D. E., and C. P. Zeithaml. 1983. “Locus of Control: A Review and Directions for Entrepreneurial
Research.” Academy of Management Proceedings 1: 417–421.
Jiang, X. 2013. “The New Generation of Migrant Workers in Labour Market in China.” In Shifting Boundaries
of Belonging and New Migration Dynamics in Europe and China, edited by E. Pries, 164–185. London:
Palgrave.
Kahnweiler, W. M., and M. A. Thompson. 2000. “Levels of Desired, Actual, and Perceived Control of
Employee Involvement in Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Business and
Psychology 14: 407–427.
Keef, S. P. 1991. “The Desire for Increased Participation: The Validation of a Framework with Two Large
New Zealand Companies.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 8: 71–84.
Lawler, E. E. 1989. “Choosing an Involvement Strategy.” Academy of Management Executive 2: 197–204.
Li, Y. P., and X. F. Hou. 2012. “Structure of Work Values of Millennial Generation and Mechanisms of Its
Impact on Work Behavior.” Economic Management 34: 77–86.
Li, A. N., and H. H. Tan. 2013. “What Happens When You Trust Your Supervisor? Mediators of Individual
Performance in Trust Relationships.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 34 (3): 407–425.
Marchington, M., J. Goodman, A. Wilkinson, and P. Ackers. 1992. New Developments in Employee
Involvement. London: Employment Department of the British Government.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. “Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations For Interpersonal Cooperation
in Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 38: 24–59.
Meindl, J. R., and B. Shamir. 2007. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory
of James R Meindl. Greenwich, CT: IAP.
 ASIA PACIFIC BUSINESS REVIEW   457

Meterko, M., J. D. Restuccia, K. Stolzmann, D. Mohr, C. Brennan, J. Glasgow, and P. Kaboli. 2015. “Response
Rates, Nonresponse Bias, and Data Quality: Results from a National Survey of Senior Healthcare
Leaders.” Public Opinion Quarterly 79 (1): 130–144.
Miller, R. W., and F. N. Prichard. 1992. “Factors Associated with Workers’ Inclination to Participate in an
Employee Involvement Program.” Group Organization Management 17: 414–430.
Mitteness, C. R., R. DeJordy, M. K. Ahuja, and R. Sudek. 2016. “Extending the Role of Similarity Attraction
in Friendship and Advice Networks in Angel Groups.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40 (3):
627–655.
Nahavandi, A. 2009. The Art and Science of Leadership. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Northouse, P. G. 2009. Leadership: Theory and Practice. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paré, G., and M. Tremblay. 2007. “The Influence of High-Involvement Human Resources Procedural
Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors on Information Technology
Professionals’ Turnover Intentions.” Group Organization Management 32: 326–357.
Park, R., E. Appelbaum, and D. Kruse. 2010. “Employee Involvement and Group Incentives in
Manufacturing Companies: A Multi-Level Analysis.” Human Resource Management Journal 20: 227–
243.
Peng, K., R. E. Nisbett, and N. Y. C. Wong. 1997. “Validity Problems Comparing Values across Cultures
and Possible Solutions.” Psychological Methods 2 (4): 329–344.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2012. “Sources of Method Bias in Social Science
Research and Recommendations on How to Control It.” Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.
Qiu, J. 2010. “Dang ‘60 hou’ lingdao zaoyu ‘80 hou’ yuangong.” [When Post-60 Leaders Face Post-80
Employees.] Human Resources 6: 42–44.
Ren, S., Y. Zhu, and M. Warner. 2015. “Dilemmas concerning the Employment of University Graduates
in China.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (3): 551–571.
Riordan, C. M., R. J. Vandenberg, and H. A. Richardson. 2005. “Employee Involvement Climate and
Organizational Effectiveness.” Human Resource Management 44 (4): 471–488.
Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. “Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline
View of Trust.” Academy of Management Review 23: 393–404.
Rowley, C., and M. Warner. 2013. “Strategic Challenges and Issues for Chinese Managers and Management
in the Global Economy: Conclusions.” Asia Pacific Business Review 19: 617–624.
Ruh, R. A., J. K. White, and R. R. Wood. 1975. “Job Involvement, Values, Personal Background, Participation
in Decision Making, and Job Attitudes.” Academy of Management Journal 18: 300–312.
Shalit, A., M. Popper, and D. Zakay. 2010. “Followers’ Attachment Styles and Their Preference for Social
or for Personal Charismatic Leaders.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 31: 458–472.
Smola, K. W., and C. D. Sutton. 2002. “Generational Differences: Revisiting Generational Work Values for
the New Millennium.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 363–382.
Stanat, M. 2005. China’s Generation Y: Understanding the Future Leaders of the World’s Next Superpower.
Paramus, NJ: Homa and Sekey Books.
Su, D. S. 2007. Guanli Xinlixue [Management Psychology]. Shanghai: Fudan University Press.
Wang, X., and Z. S. Zhang. 2012. “Influence of New Generation Employees Professional Maturity on
Turnover Intention.” Journal of Tianjin University 14: 428–431.
Wang, Y. T., P. C. Du, and C. C. Wang. 2011. “Xinmeiti shidai yuangong canyu de youxiaoxing yanjiu.”
[The Research on New Media Era’s Employee Participation Effectiveness.] China Human Resource
Development 9: 21–24.
Warner, M. 2014. Understanding Management in China: Past, Present and Future. London: Routledge.
Warner, M. 2016. “Whither Confucian Management?” Frontiers of Philosophy in China 11: 608–632.
Warner, M. 2017. “Commentary: On Globalization ‘with Chinese Characteristics’.” Asia Pacific Business
Review 23 (3): 309–316.
Warner, M., and C. Rowley. 2013. “Demystifying Chinese Management: Introduction.” Asia Pacific Business
Review 19: 435–443.
Wei, H. M., and L. R. Long. 2009. “Zhuguan renzhi xinren he qinggan xinren dui yuangong xingwei ji
jixiao de yingxiang.” [The Influence of Supervisor’s Cognitive and Emotional Trust on the Behaviour
and Performance of Employees.] Xin Li Xue Bao 41: 86–94.
458   S. REN ET AL.

Westerman, J. W., and J. H. Yamamura. 2007. “Generational Preferences for Work Environment Fit: Effects
on Employee Outcomes.” Career Development International 12: 150–161.
Weyland, A. 2011. “Engagement and Talent Management of Gen Y.” Industrial and Commercial Training
43: 439–445.
Wong, M., E. Gardiner, W. Lang, and L. Coulon. 2008. “Generational Differences in Personality and
Motivation: Do They Exist and What Are the Implications for the Workplace?” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 23: 878–890.
Wu, M., X. Huang, C. W. Li, and W. Liu. 2012. “Perceived Interactional Justice and Trust-in-Supervisor as
Mediators for Paternalistic Leadership.” Management and Organization Review 8: 97–120.
Xie, Y. H. 2009. “Zhongguo gongye minzhu he yuangong canyu zhidu ji gongneng.” [China’s Industrial
Democracy and Employees’ Participation Systems and Functions.] Economic and Social Systems
Comparison 1: 129–135.
Xie, Y. H., and Q. Y. Zhang. 2013. “Influence of Employee Participation on New Generation Employees’
Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Participation Intention.” Chinese Journal of Management 10:
1162–1169.
Yukl, G. 2013. Leadership in Organizations. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Zatzick, C. D., and R. D. Iverson. 2011. “Putting Employee Involvement in Context: A Cross-Level Model
Examining Satisfaction and Absenteeism in High-Involvement Work Systems.” International Journal
of Human Resource Management 22: 3462–3476.
Zhang, Z., L. Ma, and W. J. Ma. 2002. “Zuzhi qifen yu yuangong canyu de guanxi.” [The Relationship
between Organizational Environment and Employee Involvement.] Xinli Xiubao 34: 312–318.
Zhao, S. M., and J. Du. 2012. “Thirty-Two Years of Development of Human Resource Management in
China: Review and Prospects.” Human Resource Management Review 22: 179–188.
Zhu, J. C. 2005. Human Resource Management in China: Past, Current and Future HR Practices in the
Industrial Sector. Abingdon: Routledge-Curzon.
Zhu, Y., Y. H. Xie, M. Warner, and Y. X. Guo. 2015. “Employee Participation and the Influence on Job
Satisfaction of the ‘New Generation’ of Chinese Employees.” International Journal of Human Resource
Management 26 (19): 2395–2411.