European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

When the victim becomes vicious: Combined effects of pseudo

transformational leadership and epistemic motivation on contempt
and deviant behaviors
Fauzia Syed, Saima Naseer, Javaria Nawaz*, Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah
Faculty of Management Sciences International Islamic University Sector H 10, Islamabad, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Utilizing affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), the current study unravels how and when
Received 30 August 2019 pseudo-transformational leaders promote contempt, avoidance, and aggression. Specifically, we exam-
Received in revised form ined whether pseudo-transformational leadership enforces feelings of contempt, which, in turn, fosters
2 July 2020
interaction avoidance and covert aggression in followers. We hypothesized that contempt also has an
Accepted 16 July 2020
indirect effect that is contingent on levels of epistemic motivation of followers. By adopting a multi-wave
Available online 30 July 2020
research design, we gathered data from 277 employees of the service sector of Pakistan. The results
signified that followers of pseudo-transformational leaders feel contemptuous of them and respond with
Keywords:
Pseudo-transformational leadership
interaction avoidance and indirect aggression. Further, we found that the impact of pseudo-
Contempt transformational leadership on contempt was more pronounced in individuals with higher levels of
Indirect aggression epistemic motivation. We believe that this study opens up a new avenue in the pseudo-transformational
Interaction avoidance leadership literature by highlighting the mechanism and conditions under which such leaders are
Epistemic motivation deleterious for organizations.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction attention. Specifically, one such self-interested leadership named

Leadership phenomenon has been glamorized since its begin-
ning and focused primarily on the beneficial effects for followers
and organizations (Schilling, 2009). The new millennium has
brought critical challenges to the workplace and dark leadership
has emerged as one of the most prevalent employee concerns
(Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013; Schyns & Shillings, 2013). The
presence of “bad bosses” is thus a pertinent reality of the corporate
world since a bundle of corporate scandals is ascribed to organi-
zational leaders’ dysfunctional behaviors and tendencies (Brown,
Trevino, & Harrison, 2005; Huang & Paterson, 2017).
Extant research ascertained the self-interest and egotistic mo-
tives of leaders as strong driving forces behind their deleterious
behaviors (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; Schyns & Schilling,
2013). However, how such leaders influence followers and bring
harm to employees and organizations is not yet given due
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: syedfauzia@ymail.com, fauzia.syed@iiu.edu.pk (F. Syed),
saimanaseersheikh@yahoo.com (S. Naseer), javaria.nawaz@yahoo.com (J. Nawaz),
zulfiqar.shah@iiu.edu.pk (S.Z.A. Shah).
pseudo-transformational leadership is a relatively unheeded area
(Lin, Huang, Chen, & Huang, 2017; Naber & Moffett, 2017; Schmid,
Pircher Verdorfer, & Peus, 2018).
Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) asserted that there are two
opposing types of transformational leaders in an organization, i.e.
authentic transformational and pseudo-transformational leader-
ship. Authentic transformational leaders are presented as heroic
figures with altruistic behaviors whose ultimate focus is always on
the greater good, resulting in employee well-being and organiza-
tional success (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Crane &
Hartwell, 2018; Frieder, Wang, & Oh, 2018). Pseudo-
transformational leaders, however, are labeled as unethical and
inauthentic transformational leaders. Such leaders who bring
enormous harm to followers and organizations are characterized
by egotistic motives (House & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1992).
Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) took a behavioral approach in
conceptualizing pseudo-transformational leadership and defined
such leaders as the ones who fail to uphold ethical values and moral
principles which are essential for transformational leaders. Pseudo-
transformational leaders exhibit self-interested behaviors,
whereby they may exploit transformational behaviors to promote

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.07.005
0263-2373/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
their hidden agendas by demanding unconditional loyalty and
complete submission from their followers (Barling, Christie, &
Turner, 2008; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998).
In contrast to authentic transformational leaders, less attention
has been paid to pseudo-transformational leadership and its
impact on followers and organizations (Hughes & Harris, 2017;
Naber & Moffett, 2017), thus we know very little how such leaders
harm employees and the organizations. Specifically, literature is
sparse that under what conditions and how employees respond to
such leaders (Hoption, Barling, & Turner, 2013; Lin et al., 2017;
Schuh, Zhang, & Tian, 2013). Moreover, mainly leadership research
has focused on deviant behaviors such as leader directed aggres-
sion, hostility, and retaliation, which are ultimately self-defeating
for followers’ selves (Decoster, Stouten, & Tripp, 2019) and less
attention is given to deviant behaviors that are covert and con-
cealed (Lian et al., 2014). Particularly in the context of self-serving
(Decoster et al., 2019) and inauthentic or pseudo-
transformational leadership, the past research has mostly focused
on negative outcomes such as deviant behaviors (e.g. Bass & Riggio,
2006; Barling et al., 2008; Christie, Barling, & Turner, 2011; Schuh
et al., 2013) and lower proactive behaviors (Eisenbeib & Boerner,
2013; Lin et al., 2017). This stream of research depicts that fol-
lowers of pseudo-transformational leaders tend to develop the fear,
apparently comply with the orders of leaders, are less likely to
indulge in explicit retaliation, and are more likely to adopt covert
aggression and retaliation strategies. Hence, given the untapped
nature of this research field, the primary motivation for this study
stems from the need to explore the processes and conditions
through which pseudo-transformational leadership is associated
with deviance (avoidance and aggressive behaviors). While estab-
lishing the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions
associated with pseudo-transformational leadership and outcomes,
we focus on two types of deviance: (a) interaction avoidance and
(b) indirect aggression.
Interaction avoidance is one’s deliberate attempt to evade
interaction with another person, which is an important stress
coping strategy (Lazarus & Folkman, 1991), whereas employee
aggression is an important and costly phenomenon in organiza-
tions (Fida et al., 2018; Hassard, Teoh, Visockaite, Dewe, & Cox,
2018). Covert aggression has long-term devastating effects on or-
ganizations than direct aggression, yet empirical evidence linking
dark leadership and employee covert aggression is scarce (Lian
et al., 2014). Past research has linked pseudo-transformational
leadership to contextual performance and organizational devi-
ance (Christie et al., 2011; Schuh et al., 2013), neglecting the role
that such leaders play in instigating indirect aggression. This sig-
nifies a missing link of pseudo-transformational leadership with
covert aggression including indirect aggression and interaction
avoidance, which needs to be examined.
Existing research claims that how dark leaders influence fol-
lowers is not a simple process and is likely to flow through some
mediational mechanism (Eissa, Chinchanachokchai, & Wyland,
2017). Dark leaders can trigger affective responses in employees,
which might influence their behaviors (Glaso, Skogstad, Notelaers
& Einarsen, 2018; Lian et al., 2014). Although leadership and
affect relationship is established, it is still surrounded by ambigu-
ities and holds ample scope for further investigation (Ashkanasy,
Humpherey & Huy, 2017; Glaso et al., 2018; Oh & Farh, 2017).
More specifically, existing studies have shown that the impact of
pseudo-transformational leadership on outcomes is not simple and
passes through certain underlying mechanisms and boundary
conditions (Christie et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2017). Moreover, only a
handful of studies have investigated the impact of pseudo-
transformational leadership on emotions and outcomes of fol-
lowers (Lin et al., 2017; Schuh et al., 2013). In line with the same
237
reasoning, emotions such as fear (Barling et al., 2008; Bass & Riggio,
2006; Christie et al., 2011) have been studied in the context of
pseudo-transformational leadership, where individuals develop
fear from their leaders due to his/her self-serving behaviors. Also,
there is an outcry of recent calls for more research on the link of
dark leadership with negative emotions and destructive outcomes
(Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, & Gupta, 2010; Lebel, 2017). Specifically,
researchers called for more research to unveil the impact of dark,
egotistic and manipulative leaders on follower’s discrete emotions
and their distinct behavioral reactions (Schmid et al., 2018; Oh &
Farh, 2017). Contempt has also been studied as an underlying
mechanism between culturally (in)congruent leadership and fol-
lower outcomes (Sund & Lines, 2017). This stream of research
explicitly signifies the relevance and use of emotion of contempt
between other leadership styles and outcomes. Based on these
recent calls, the current study thus unfolds state contempt, a
powerful, prevalent yet theoretically discounted discrete emotion
(Fischer & Sorolla, 2016) as an underlying mechanism to explain
employee reactions and behaviors under pseudo-transformational
leaders.
Followers play a crucial role in success or failure of any leader-
ship; thus, it is imperative to know how followers perceive and
assess their leaders’ actions (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Clapp-Smith,
Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; Van Gils, Van Quaquebeke, Van
Knippenberg, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2015). Ignoring the dispo-
sitional aspects of understanding pseudo-transformational leaders
(Christie et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2017; Nifadkar, Tsui, & Ashforth,
2012) and developing contempt will lead to an incomplete pic-
ture of the whole process. Employees due to differences in their
personalities respond differently to environmental and organiza-
tional provocations including leadership (Bies & Tripp, 2005). Much
of the literature on pseudo-transformational leadership has
focused on examining the leader’s dark-side personality traits
(House & Howell, 1992) and egoistic values (Price, 2003). However,
this research has ignored the role of the follower’s personality and
characteristics that can play in evaluating and responding to
pseudo-transformational leadership. Hence, the current study
identifies followers’ epistemic motivation e a tendency associated
with deep information processing would help individuals to un-
leash self-serving intentions behind apparent transformational
leadership.
In this inquiry, we mainly build on the underpinnings of affec-
tive events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). AET asserts
that arousal of affect or discrete emotions can be ascribed to certain
events at the workplace and these affective responses then trigger
distinct behavioral and attitudinal reactions. Along with this, it
substantiates the role of individual dispositions and motivations in
arousal of affective responses and behavioral reactions (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996). Our study setting provides an ideal context
for examining the unique mechanisms and boundary conditions of
pseudo-transformational leadership behaviors. An eastern cultural
context of Pakistan, which scores high on power distance, collec-
tivism, and uncertainty avoidance along with masculine and short-
term orientation (Hofstede, 1991), can add fruitful insights into the
dynamics of dark leadership. Past research has already corrobo-
rated that dark leadership is more prevalent in power distant,
collectivist, masculine, and uncertainty avoidance cultures
(Luthans, Peterson, & Ibrayeva, 1998). House (1995) asserted that
the majority of research on leadership comes from Western cul-
tures that are more individualistic and there is a pressing need to
explicate the way in which leadership, specifically dark leadership,
influences follower outcomes across a variety of samples and cul-
tures. By utilizing a sample of employees belonging to the eastern
context of Pakistan, our study offers new prospects to examine
pseudo-transformational leader’s effects in an ideal cultural setting.
238 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
Our research makes four important contributions. First, the
current study aims to answer the recent calls for more research on
the potentially dark side of transformational leaders (Lin et al.,
2017; Naber & Moffett, 2017); thus, it adds to the nascent litera-
ture on pseudo-transformational leadership by studying employee
interaction avoidance and indirect aggression as probable out-
comes of such leadership. Second, by treating contempt as an
intervening mechanism between pseudo-transformational leader-
ship and outcomes (Lin et al., 2017), current research adds to the
limited research on underlying mechanisms in the realm of
pseudo-transformational leadership (Lin et al., 2017), thus adding
to the domain of dark leadership and outcomes relationship
through the lens of affect/emotions such as contempt. Third, recent
studies highlight the need to examine different dispositional vari-
ables that may strengthen or weaken the relationship between
negative leadership-affect/emotions relationships (Ferris, Yan, Lim,
Chen, & Fatimah, 2016). Therefore, the current study not only adds
to the literature on emotions (contempt) but also accentuates an
important and unexplored boundary condition of pseudo-
transformational leadership, namely, epistemic motivation.
Fourth, integration of AET to the literature of self-serving leader-
ship, i.e. pseudo-transformational leadership is unique to this
study, prior studies in this domain have not utilized the un-
derpinnings of AET as a theoretical framework to extend the liter-
ature. Finally, instead of adopting a leader-centric approach as
widely applied in transformational leadership literature (Hunter,
Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Naber & Moffett, 2017), the cur-
rent study proposed and tested the follower centric approach of
assessing leader’s integrity and intentions, which subsequently
influences their affective responses and behaviors.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Pseudo-transformational leadership and outcomes (interaction
avoidance, indirect aggression)
Affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) is a theo-
retical framework that encompasses affective experiences with
their causes and consequences, asserting the importance of emo-
tions in shaping attitudes and behaviors. Central to AET is the idea
that certain events at the workplace are perceived to be supporting/
suppressing a person’s advancement towards goals and elicit pos-
itive/negative affective responses, which subsequently shape one’s
attitudes and behaviors. These events can affect the general mood
or elicit distinct emotions. Moreover, AET claims that events elicit
different intensities of emotional and affective responses in in-
dividuals due to their dispositions and individual differences.
Leadership has been frequently taken from the lens of “affective
event” (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Dasborough, 2006). Dark/destructive
leadership has been linked to creating negative emotions and un-
favorable outcomes in followers (Glaso et al., 2018; Schmid et al.,
2018). Specifically, pseudo-transformational leadership has been
found to develop feelings of fear in followers and subsequently
decrease their performance-related outcomes and increase devi-
ance (Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011). If the leader is a
source of tension and victimization, then avoidance lies among
many of the strategies deployed to deal with such strenuous situ-
ations (Tepper, 2000; Zapf & Gross, 2001); it helps to counterbal-
ance stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1991) by buffering the discomfort
surfaced after perplexing encounters with such leaders and pro-
tects from further harm (Nifadkar et al., 2012).
Pseudo-transformational leaders are self-aggrandizing and
egotistic, demanding undue submission from followers (Bass &
Steildemier, 1999); their followers fear and distrust them (Christie
et al., 2011). Barling et al. (2008) conceptualized and examined a
model of pseudo-transformational leadership that consisted of two
of the four transformational leadership behaviors as viewed by the
followers, namely, idealized influence and inspirational motivation.
They assert that transformational leaders display an idealized in-
fluence which indicates that such leaders place the group interests
above their self-interests, whereas pseudo-transformational
leaders promote their self-interests by controlling and subduing
followers (Barling et al., 2008; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Second,
the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational lead-
ership signifies a leader’s capacity to enhance the follower’s un-
derstanding and commitment to collective goals and motivate
them to achieve such goals. However, pseudo-transformational
leaders are quite well versed in communicating their self-
interested beliefs, but they falsely use their inspiration to deceive
followers through fake promises and invoke emotionality rather
than logic for motivating followers (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999;
Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Pseudo-transformational leaders
formulate and communicate a vision that discounts the best in-
terests of the followers and utilize their status and position to attain
personal gain (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002).
Past research argued that, if leaders are perceived as belittling
their followers’ interests and engage in self-focused behaviors, this
is likely to deteriorate followers’ motivation to engage in beneficial
behaviors for organizations (Schuh et al., 2013). Thus, it is most
likely that interactions with such leaders will be taxing. As frequent
interactions are not a part of one’s formal job requirements (Hu &
Shi, 2015), we expect that followers of pseudo-transformational
leaders would be cautious in initiating interactions and also avoid
interactions. Additionally, recipient of mistreatment often retorts
with deviance and offense (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010), but if the
source of aggression/mistreatment is powerful and possess control
over resources, then expressing overt aggression could be detri-
mental (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Lian et al., 2014; Lin et al.,
2017). Thus, followers of pseudo-transformational leaders are
likely to indulge in fear and undue obedience to refrain themselves
from the damage caused by such self-interested leaders at the
workplace (Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2017).
Therefore, such individuals do not indulge in direct aggression and
are more likely to balance the harm caused by leaders by with-
drawing their performance and voluntary behaviors; and indulge in
covert aggression and deviance (Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al.,
2011; Lin et al., 2017). Indirect aggression is a relevant concept in
this regard where the invader, instead of openly challenging the
target, harms indirectly through social manipulation (Warren,
Richardson, & McQuillin, 2011). This proposition is in line with
AET, which asserts that an event appraised negatively would result
in dysfunctional behaviors. Therefore, when individuals appraise
taxing and negative events, they would express indirect aggression
and interaction avoidance towards their supervisors. Thus, it is
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1. Pseudo-transformational leadership is positively
related to (a) interaction avoidance and (b) indirect aggression.
2.2. The mediating effects of contempt in pseudo-transformational
leadership and outcomes
Utilizing AET, we propose that followers of pseudo-
transformational leaders would feel contemptuous of their leader,
which would ultimately shape their behaviors. Past literature found
that dark leadership, i.e. destructive and exploitative (Schmid et al.,
2018), supervisory abuse, and undermining (Mitchell, Vogel, &
Folger, 2015), elicit negative affect and discrete emotions such as
fear, anger, guilt, and shame in followers (Chintakananda &
Greguras, 2017, p. 16094; Syed, Naseer, & Khan, 2018), which
 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
further translate into unfavorable behaviors. Existing research
provides some evidence of pseudo-transformational leadership in
generating unfavorable outcomes through certain underlying
mechanisms (Lin et al., 2017). Moreover, past research considers
follower emotions (such as fear; Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al.,
2011) to be an important component in defining subordinate atti-
tudes and behaviors. This line of research argues that the emotions
and attributions that followers make about the motives of their
leaders shape their evaluations and labeling of the leadership
(Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). However, as pseudo-
transformational leaders engage in impression management tac-
tics by hiding their self-interests, this, in turn, will not blind fol-
lowers to the leaders’ self-aggrandizing values (Barling et al., 2008).
Rather followers are more likely to account for such selfish motives
because pseudo-transformational leaders usually exploit their fol-
lowers (Lin et al., 2017) evident through their inconsistent actions
(Christie et al., 2011). As pseudo-transformational leaders are
controlling and deceitful, followers are less likely to respect the
leader’s motives or admire the leader’s style (Christie et al., 2011).
Past research already corroborates that the followers of pseudo-
transformational leaders depict negative attitudes, behaviors, and
fear, which inhibit them to work in best interests of the firm
(Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2017).
Contempt, a “social emotion”, belongs to the triad of anger-
contempt-disgust; it is associated with feelings of disrespect,
disdain, and scorn for others (Miller, 1997; Rozin, Lowery, Imada, &
Haidt, 1999). Those in hierarchical relationships are prone to feel
contempt. Specifically, employees feel contemptuous when their
superiors exploit them, fail to fulfill their needs and achieve
financial benefits at their cost (Melwani & Barsade, 2011; Pelzer,
2005). When top management uses their subordinates as a tool
for their gain and exploits them in pursuit of their self-interest then
contemptuous feelings are likely to occur in subordinates (Pelzer,
2005). Pseudo-transformational leaders frequently exploit their
followers and, under influence of their manipulative intentions,
prefer self-interest over collective good (Barling et al., 2008;
Christie et al., 2011), so they are unable to work for organization and
society at large and violate community norms. Pseudo-
transformational leaders take credit for other’s tasks (Christie
et al., 2011), which would make employees doubt the compe-
tence of such leaders and would instigate feelings of contempt in
them.
Moreover, contempt being distinct in its action tendencies
would further spur interaction avoidance and covert aggressive
behaviors. Action tendencies associated with contempt are exclu-
sionary in nature and target of contemptuous feelings is looked
down upon, socially excluded, belittled, and derogated (Fischer &
Roseman, 2007; Roseman, 2001). Emotions can regulate our
approach or avoidance behaviors (Crawford & Cacioppo, 2002) and
contempt being an adherent of the exclusion-emotion family
(Roseman, 2001) would result in avoidance behaviors. Employees
avoid interactions with their managers/superiors when they
initially have adverse interactions with them or are mistreated by
them (Nifadkar et al., 2012; Sund & Lines, 2017). Thus, as pseudo-
transformational leaders exploit abuse and mistreat their sub-
ordinates, the employees being the target of such leaders will
develop contemptuous feelings against them and thus it is
conceivable that interaction with such a leader would be avoided.
Moreover, although upfront agitation contempt fuels behaviors
that are less intense such as indirect aggressive behaviors (Rozin
et al., 1999), individuals would be more likely to engage in indi-
rect aggression against such leaders due to their contemptuous
feelings. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2. Contempt will mediate the relationship between
239
Pseudo-transformational leadership and (a) interaction avoidance
and (b) indirect aggression.
2.3. Moderating effects of epistemic motivation between pseudo-
transformational leadership and contempt
Epistemic motivation is defined as an individual’s inclination to
gain a thorough, systematic and rich understanding of the world
around (Kruglanski, Piero, Mannetti, & De Grada, 2006). Research
describes it as a function of context and circumstances as well as a
trait-like tendency (De Dreu, 2003; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). In-
dividuals high in epistemic motivation seek and utilize all the
available information for sense-making (VanKleef, Homan,
Beersma, Knippenerg, Knippenberg & Damen, 2009), especially
coping with unconventionality (Amit & Sagiv, 2013). These in-
dividuals aspire for clarity that forces them to search for additional
information and pay heed to supplementary cues to make sense of
their current situation (Greifeneder & Bless, 2007). Individuals who
possess high epistemic motivation do not like ambiguity and pro-
cess information in a more thoughtful and organized manner
(Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Such individuals have an increased ten-
dency to engage in systematic information processing and rely less
on heuristics and stereotypes (Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987).
Followers are central in making sense of leader’s intentions,
specifically, Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) argued that both
authentic and pseudo-transformational leaders depict same
behavioral manifestations with distinct underlying intentions,
which are arduous to be identified; therefore, only “astute” fol-
lowers could label leaders as legitimate/illegitimate, and hence, we
conjecture that epistemic motivation would help individuals to
assess manipulative intentions behind transformational behaviors
of a leader. Individuals high in epistemic motivation, to maintain a
structured view of everything, would deal with unconventional
transformational behaviors (Schuh et al., 2013) by decoding them,
and in this attempt, they would make sense of leader’s nasty in-
tentions. Thus, individuals high in epistemic motivation don’t fall
prey to their exploitation and identify their egotistic intents;
therefore, the arousal of contempt would be immediate and more
pronounced in such individuals.
AET proposes the influence of personality traits in appraisal and
response of events (Eissa & Lester, 2017). In line with the reasoning
of AET, individuals with high epistemic motivation are likely to
understand the fake intentions of pseudo-transformational leaders,
thus resulting in increased feelings of contempt in individuals. It is
also plausible that epistemic motivation will conditionally influ-
ence the strength of the relationship between pseudo-
transformational leadership and outcomes (interaction avoidance
and indirect aggression) through contempt, thereby indicating a
moderated mediation pattern between study variables (see Fig. 1).
Thus it is hypothesized:
Fig. 1. Depicts a moderated mediation model whereby contempt mediates the pseudo-
transformational leadership and outcomes (interaction avoidance and indirect
aggression) relationship at different levels of epistemic motivation.
240 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
Hypothesis 3. Epistemic motivation will moderate the positive
relationship between pseudo-transformational leadership and
contempt, such that this relationship will be stronger for high levels
of epistemic motivation as compared to low.
Hypothesis 4. Epistemic motivation will moderate the indirect
relationship between pseudo-transformational leadership and (a)
interaction avoidance and (b) indirect aggression through
contempt, such that this relationship will be stronger for high levels
of epistemic motivation as compared to low.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and data collection
The current study employed a three-wave research design,
which allowed temporal segregation of measurement of the inde-
pendent variable (Pseudo-transformational Leadership: T1) and
moderator variable (Epistemic Motivation: T1), mediator variable
(Contempt: T2) and outcome variables (Interaction avoidance, In-
direct aggression: T3). The time-lag between each measurement
point was 2e3 weeks minimum. All the measures were self-
reported. Adopting such design helps in addressing potential is-
sues arising from solely using self-reported and single-source data
collection methods.
A field survey was designed and disseminated to employees
working in 14 service sector firms located in Rawalpindi and
Islamabad (Pakistan), using personal and professional contacts. The
sample firms included four banks, five universities, three telecom
firms, one financial service providing agency, and one
manufacturing firm. Respondents of the current study were mostly
the entry and middle managers working in the above-mentioned
firms. A cover letter explaining the objectives of the study and as-
suring them of the strictest confidentiality was attached to the
questionnaire. The letter also stated that participation was volun-
tary, and it included the contact information of the principal
investigator in case participants had questions about the study or
wanted to share their feedback. Data were collected at three points
of time, thus each respondent was asked to provide a primary key
at time 1 and mention the same key for time 2 and time 3 re-
sponses, thus keeping track of responses from the same
respondent.
At T1, we distributed 550 questionnaires containing measures of
pseudo-transformational leadership and epistemic motivation; 430
of these were completed, yielding a response rate of 78%. After
three weeks of T1, we requested the participants to complete
another questionnaire round to measure contempt (i.e. mediator).
A total of 310 useable surveys were completed at T2, yielding a
response rate of 72%. Finally, three weeks after T2, we again con-
tacted the same participants and asked them to fill out a third
survey measuring the study’s outcomes (T3). We received 277
completed surveys at a time 3 yielding a response rate of 89%. After
removing all missing data, we achieved an overall effective
response rate of 50%.
Participants in our final sample had an average age of 29.02
years (SD ¼ 6.07), consisted of males (54.9%), belonged mostly to
management/operations department (23.1%) and mostly held
master’s degree (43.2%), had spent 4.06 years (SD ¼ 4.72) with the
present company and had total work experience of 5.70 years
(SD ¼ 5.10).
3.2. Measures
The survey was administered in English, as it is the official
language and medium of instruction at all high schools and
universities in Pakistan. Past studies conducted in Pakistan in
similar fields have used English questionnaires (e.g. Abbas, Raja,
Darr, & Bouckenooghe, 2014; Naseer, Raja, Syed, Donia, & Darr,
2016) and reported no major language-related issues. Further, we
had to brief respondents about the process of filling out the ques-
tionnaire because of the time-lagged nature of the data. For all
these reasons, we decided to keep all the measures in English
instead of translating and back-translating surveys into Urdu.
Pseudo-transformational leadership, epistemic motivation, and
interaction avoidance were measured on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from “1 ¼ strongly disagree” to “7 ¼ strongly agree”;
whereas contempt and indirect aggression were measured on a
seven-point Likert scale “1 ¼ Never” to “7 ¼ Everyday”.
Pseudo-transformational leadership. Past literature on
pseudo-transformational leadership has measured this concept
either using experimental techniques (Christie et al., 2011; Kazmi,
2017) or using a reverse coded measure of full transformational
leadership scale (20 items multifactor leadership questionnaire
(MLQ) scale; Bass & Avolio, 2000). We delved into a deeper ex-
amination of the measurement of pseudo-transformational lead-
ership scale and found that most of the studies have combined two
dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors, i.e. idealized
influence and inspirational motivation (reversed) to constitute
pseudo-transformational leadership behaviors (Barling et al., 2008;
Lin et al., 2017). The basic contention of these authors is that
pseudo-transformational leadership can be distinguished from
authentic transformational leadership based on these two com-
ponents rather than all of the components (Barling et al., 2008).
Hence, to more closely align our conceptual and methodological
approach with previous research, we combine and reverse only
these two components (i.e. 8 items of idealized influence and 4
items of inspirational motivation) out of the full transformational
leadership scale (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2000) to capture a 12-item
pseudo-transformational leadership scale. Sample items include
“My leader goes beyond self-interest” and “My leader emphasizes
the importance of having a collective sense of mission”. The
Cronbach alpha coefficient of this scale is 0.94.
Epistemic Motivation. Epistemic motivation was measured by
utilizing 12-items need for structure scale (Neuberg & Newsom,
1993). Previous research has highlighted a plethora of studies
that have validated this scale’s capacity to differentiate among
people possessing varying chronic levels of information processing
motivation, thus establishing it as a parsimonious, well-validated,
and reliable scale for tapping epistemic motivation (Moskowitz,
1993; Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, & Moskowitz, 2001). The
psychometric properties of the scale have been tested and validated
in previous work settings across several countries and samples
(Moskowitz, 1993; Rietzschel, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2007; Van Kleef
et al., 2009). The items were coded such that high values depic-
ted higher epistemic motivation. Sample items include: “I enjoy
having a clear and structured mode of life” and “It upsets me to go
into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it”. Reli-
ability and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed negative
loadings for 4 reverse coded items, thus those items were dropped
and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of scale with 8 items was 0.80.
Contempt. A 3-item scale developed by Zevon and Tellegen
(1982) was used to tap the feeling of contempt; respondents
rated the frequency of their contemptuous feelings. Sample items
include “I feel disdainful”, “I feel contemptuous”, and “I feel
scornful”. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of this scale is 0.88.
Interaction Avoidance. Social avoidance and distress scale,
which is a 28-item measure originally developed by Watson and
Friend (1969), was used to measure social avoidance at work.
Later Hu and Shi (2015) based on the above scale developed their
own 3-item scale in which they used and modified the interaction
 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
avoidance items by replacing “him/her” with the word “leader”. We
used the 3-item modified version of interaction avoidance scale
adopted from Hu and Shi (2015), as it highlights the specific source
(i.e. the leader) that the employee is avoiding at work rather than
just peers or any other person. For the present study, the interaction
avoidance 3-item measure was self -reported by the focal respon-
dent at time 3. The sample items include: “I try to stay away from
interactions with my leader at work”, “I never initiate interactions
with my leader”, and “I often intentionally avoid opportunities to
interact with my leader”. This scale has a Cronbach alpha coefficient
of 0.91 in this study.
Indirect Aggression. We extracted 12 items from the direct/in-
direct aggression scale (DIAS) developed by Bjo €
€rkqvist, Osterman,
and Kaukiainen (1992) to tap indirect aggression. The DIAS is a
24-item scale consisting of three dimensions, i.e. direct physical
aggression (7 items), direct verbal aggression (5 items), and indirect
aggression (12 items). As the objective of our study is to consider
how followers indirectly show aggression, we utilized only the 12
items that tap indirect aggression from the DIAS. Participants rated
the degree to which they indulged in indirect aggressive behaviors.
Sample items include “Ignores the other one” and “Plans secretly to
bother the other one”. This scale has a Cronbach alpha coefficient of
.94 in the current study.
4. Control variables
One-way ANOVA revealed significant variations in our study’s
dependent variables with education, organization, and organiza-
tion type. We created three dummy-coded variables, i.e. two for
organization and one for organization type having multiple cate-
gories. Finally, education (0 ¼ bachelor’s and below, 1 ¼ master’s
and above) had only two categories, and we could directly control
it.
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was executed to establish the
discriminant validity of the variables measured at the same time
and from the same source. Following Anderson and Gerbing’s
(1988) approach, a series of one-on-one CFA was run, where all
variables tapped at the same time from the same source were
compared by pairing a two-factor model with a single-factor
model. Additionally, a 5-factor model containing all the measured
variables was also tested against a 1-factor alternative model (see
Table 1).
5. Results
Table 2 represents descriptive statistics (means and standard
deviations), bivariate correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability
of the main variables. Pseudo-transformational leadership is posi-
tively correlated with epistemic motivation (r ¼ .17, p < .01),
contempt (r ¼.50, p < .01), indirect aggression (r ¼ .36, p < .01), and
Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis results.
Measurement Models c2 Df
PTL-EM (2 factor) 410.56 148
PTL-EM (1 factor) 1017.27 157
IAg-IAv (2 factor) 222.97 73
IAg-IAv (1 factor) 704.48 74
PTL-EM-Con-IAg-IAv (5 factor) 1336.63 614
PTL-EM-Con-IAg-IAv (1 factor) 4394.78 652
Note: N ¼ 277; PTL¼ Pseudo-Transformational leadership; EM¼ Epistemic motivation; Con¼ Contempt; IAg¼ Indirect aggression; IAv¼ Interaction Avoidance.
241
interaction avoidance (r ¼ .30, p < .01). Similarly, contempt is
positively correlated with epistemic motivation (r ¼ .18, p < .01),
indirect aggression (r¼ .44, p < .01), and interaction avoidance
(r¼.32, p < .01).
We tested proposed associations, i.e. direct, mediation, moder-
ation, and moderated mediation effects using Preacher and Hayes’
(2004) bootstrapping macro. Detailed results of direct and media-
tion effects are depicted in Table 3 (a & b). Hypothesis 1 (a & b)
argued a positive association between pseudo-transformational
leadership and interaction avoidance and indirect aggression,
respectively. The results fully support Hypothesis 1 (a & b), i.e.
pseudo-transformational leadership is positively and significantly
associated with interaction avoidance (B ¼ 0.25, t ¼ 2.95, p < .005)
and indirect aggression (B ¼ 0.20, t ¼ 2.72, p < .01).
Hypothesis 2 (a & b) contended an indirect effect of pseudo-
transformational leadership on interaction avoidance and indirect
aggression through contempt. The results fully supported
Hypothesis 2 (a & b), i.e. pseudo-transformational leadership had a
significant indirect effect on interaction avoidance (indirect
effect ¼ .11, p < .01) and indirect aggression (indirect effect ¼ 0.16,
p < .001). Furthermore, non-zero values in 95% bootstrapped con-
fidence interval for interaction avoidance (0.02, 0.22) and indirect
aggression (0.08, 0.27) also supported Hypothesis 2 (a & b).
We ran hierarchical moderated regression analysis in SPSS using
PROCESS macro (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) to test Hypothesis 3 and
plotted the interactions at ±1 SD. Hypothesis 3 argued that the
positive association between pseudo-transformational leadership
and contempt would be strengthened at higher levels of epistemic
motivation. Table 4 represents the results of the moderated
regression analysis. Hypothesis 3 received full support as the
interaction term of PTL x EM is significant for contempt (B ¼ 0.21,
SE ¼ 0.06, p < .001), and bootstrap results further verified that
pseudo-transformational leadership’s effects on contempt varied at
different levels of the moderator (see Table 4). On the basis of
significant moderation effects, we formulated the interaction plot
for mean ± 1 SD. Fig. 2 illustrates the moderating role of epistemic
motivation in the relationship between pseudo-transformational
leadership and contempt. As depicted in Fig. 2, the relationship
between pseudo-transformational and contempt is significant and
stronger at higher levels of epistemic motivation (B ¼ 0.79,
p < .001), whereas the pseudo-transformational and contempt
relationship though significant became weaker at low levels of
epistemic motivation (B ¼ 0.32, p < .01), thus lending support to
Hypothesis 3.
We further tested the conditional indirect effect of pseudo-
transformational leadership on interaction avoidance and indirect
aggression through contempt and investigated moderated media-
tion patterns between study variables at three levels of epistemic
motivation, i.e. ±1 SD and mean. The results show that the indirect
effect of pseudo-transformational leadership, through contempt,
on interaction avoidance (indirect effect ¼ 0.15, p < .001) and in-
direct aggression (indirect effect ¼ 0.22, p < .001), is stronger in case
of high epistemic motivation (þ1 SD) as compared to low epistemic
c2/Df CFI GFI IFI NFI RMSEA
2.77 .92 .89 .92 .88 .08
6.48 .74 .68 .75 .71 .14
3.05 .95 .90 .96 .93 .08
9.52 .81 .75 .81 .79 .18
2.18 .91 .82 .91 .85 .06
6.74 .51 .46 .51 .47 .14
242 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities for key variables in the study.

Mean S. D 1 2 3 4 5

1 . Pseudo-Trans Leadership (Time 1) 3.09 1.34 (0.94)

2 . Epistemic Motivation (Time 1) 4.50 1.15 .17** (0.80)
3 . Contempt (Time 2) 3.64 1.70 .50** .18** (0.88)
4 . Indirect Aggression (Time 3) 3.49 1.55 .36** .10 .44** (0.94)
5 . Interactional Avoidance (Time 3) 3.70 1.75 .30** .22** .32** .44** (0.91)

Note: N ¼ 277; Pseudo-Trans Leadership ¼ Pseudo-Transformational leadership; Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are given in parentheses.*Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
(2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level.

Table 3
Mediated regression analysis results.

Variable R R2 B SE T P

.56 .31 .000

1 Direct effects of PTL on Contempt .58 .07 8.75 .000
.40 .16 .000
2 Direct effects of PTL on interaction avoidance .25 .09 2.95 .003
3 Direct effects of Contempt on Interaction Avoidance .19 .07 2.73 .006
Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effects
Indirect Effect M SE LL CI 95% UL CI 95%
.11 .05 .02 .22

Variable R R2 B SE T P

.56 .31 .000

1 Direct effects of PTL on Contempt .58 .07 8.75 .000
.50 .25 .000
2 Direct effects of PTL on Indirect Aggression .20 .07 2.72 .006
3 Direct effects of Contempt on Indirect Aggression .27 .06 4.71 .000
Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effects
Indirect Effect M SE LL CI 95% UL CI 95%
.16 .05 .08 .27

Note: N ¼ 277; PTL¼ Pseudo-Transformational Leadership; Control variables: organization, organization type, education; Bootstrap Sample Size ¼ 5000. LL ¼ Lower Limit, CI ¼
Confidence Interval, UL ¼ Upper Limit. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 4
Hierarchical moderated regression analysis.

Predictors Contempt

R R2 Estimate SE LLCI ULCI

Step 1 .59*** .35***

Constant 4.13*** .24 3.66 4.60
Pseudo-transformational leadership .56*** .07 .43 .69
Epistemic Motivation .17* .08 .02 .32
Step 2 DR2 .03***
PTL x EM .21*** .06 .09 .32

Conditional Direct Effects of X on Y at Values of Moderator (Epistemic Motivation) (Slope Test Results)
Moderator Contempt
Epistemic Motivation Effect Boot SE LLCI ULCI
1 SD (1.15) .32** .10 .13 .51
Mean (0.00) .56*** .07 .43 .69
þ1 SD (1.15) .79*** .09 .61 .97

Note: N ¼ 277; PTL¼ Pseudo-Transformational Leadership; Control variables: organization, organization type, education; Bootstrap Sample Size ¼ 5000. LL ¼ Lower Limit, CI ¼
Confidence Interval, UL ¼ Upper Limit. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

motivation (1 SD). See Table 5 for detailed results. In further
support of Hypothesis 4, the bootstrapped 95% CIs contained non-
zero values for interaction avoidance (0.03, 0.30) and indirect
aggression (0.11, 0.36). In line with the suggestions of Hayes (2015),
we also examined the index of moderated mediation to confirm the
linear relationship between moderator and indirect effects. The
results of the index of moderated mediation were significant for
both interaction avoidance (index ¼ 0.04, SE ¼ 0.02, CI.95 ¼ 0.00,
0.09) and indirect aggression (index ¼ 0.06, SE ¼ 0.02, CI.95 ¼ 0.02,
0.11), thus further lending support to Hypothesis 4.
6. Discussion
Transformational leadership has although remained one of the
most popular theoretical styles in the leadership domain, its dark
side, i.e. pseudo-transformational leadership has been relatively
ignored (Hoption et al., 2013). The prime motivation of this study
stemmed from the inadequacy of research examining the influence
of such leaders on followers and the mechanisms through which
this influence flows (Lin et al., 2017; Naber & Moffett, 2017; Schuh
et al., 2013). This study contributes to the literature on the dark side
of leadership by examining an emotion-based model that explains
how and why followers under a pseudo-transformational leader
 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246 243

Fig. 2. Interaction effects of pseudo-transformational leadership and epistemic motivation on contempt.

Table 5
Moderated mediation analysis.

Independent Variable Mediator Dependent Variable Moderator EM Indirect Effect SE 95% Bootstrap CI [LLCI, ULCI]

Pseudo-transformational Leadership. Contempt Interaction Avoidance High .15*** .07 [.03, .30]
Medium .10** .05 [.02, .21]
Low .06** .03 [.01, .15]
Indirect Aggression High .22*** .06 [.11, .36]
Medium .15*** .04 [.08, .25]
Low .09** .04 [.03, .18]

Note: n ¼ 277. Control variables: organization, organization type, education; EM ¼ Epistemic Motivation.
Bootstrap Sample Size ¼ 5000. LL ¼ Lower Limit, CI ¼ Confidence Interval, UL ¼ Upper Limit. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

engage in avoidance and aggressive behaviors. Besides, this study
also incorporated an individual’s trait information processing ten-
dency in the form of epistemic motivation between pseudo-
transformational leadership and contempt relationship. Our study
highlights the mechanisms and the boundary conditions under
which a leader’s nasty intentions in the disguise of so-called
transformational behaviors promote negative consequences for
followers. We found full support for our hypothesized
relationships.
Overall, the results suggest that a leader’s exploitative behaviors
and interpersonal transgressions serve as a negative event that
activates contempt as a negative emotion, which further triggers
avoidance and aggressive behaviors. Extant research says that
pseudo-transformational leaders aim at exhibiting excessive con-
trol, and demand compliance and obedience from their followers
(Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011), but our study contends
that followers rather respond with interaction avoidance and in-
direct aggression. This study is an important addition to the
existing literature on leadership and affect. Categorically, Schmid
et al. (2018) verified that self-serving leaders (e.g. exploitative
leaders) elicit negative affect in followers but suggested the need
for researchers to identify and study other discrete emotions and
consequent behaviors in response to dark leadership styles.
Moreover, Christie et al. (2011) identified arousal of fear in
followers under pseudo leaders, but they did not study the ensuing
behaviors of followers. This study extends this line of reasoning and
contends that contempt can be a unique emotional response to self-
serving leaders, i.e. pseudo-transformational leaders, which then
translates into follower’s avoidance and indirect aggression.
Our research was conducted in Pakistan, which provides
important contextual implications for the study’s findings. As
Pakistan ranks high on power distance, where there are power
asymmetries, along with a collectivist orientation where there is a
prevalence of harmony and collective good (Hofstede, 2001; 2011,
chap. 8), followers in such cultures are more likely to aggress
indirectly and avoid such dark leaders. Moreover, Pakistan rates
high on uncertainty avoidance, where people feel uncomfortable in
ambiguous situations and are more likely to exhibit higher stress
and emotionality (Hofstede, 1991). Hence, such cultures would
especially be more instrumental in revealing the negative effects of
pseudo-transformational leadership in the form of showing
contempt towards the leader and subsequent negative behaviors.
Similarly, as Pakistan ranks high on masculinity and short-term
orientation (Hofstede, 2001), where there is an admiration for the
strong reliance on past and present, such cultures not only make
dark leadership more probable but also tend to unveil the negative
mechanisms and outcomes in such contexts more evident.
Apart from the theoretical strengths, this study utilized a time-
244 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
lagged research design with three waves of data collection,
enhancing the methodological superiority of this study. By
temporally segregating the measurement of predictor, mediator,
and criterion variable, we reduced the chances of common method
bias arising from a single source and single time design. Despite the
theoretical and methodological strengths, this study holds some
limitations that cannot be overlooked. Even though time-lagged
research design is widely used in studies investigating
moderated-mediation patterns, it cannot be termed purely longi-
tudinal. As pure longitudinal research designs are suitable for
making consistent causal inferences (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Cook,
Campbell, & Shadish, 2002), future studies should replicate this
study with all the variables tapped from the same respondent at all
periods. Second, based on past research, we measured pseudo-
transformational leadership through combining and reversing
two dimensions of the MLQ, i.e. idealized influence and inspira-
tional motivation (e.g. Barling et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2017). However,
this scale might have restricted us to uncover the true essence of
pseudo-transformational leadership. For example, this measure has
been critiqued since it defines leadership by outcomes and not
behaviors (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Second, it would seem
that this measure would indicate the absence of transformational
leadership rather than pseudo-transformational leadership.
Therefore, future researchers need to develop a scale independent
of MLQ to capture the essence of this construct beyond the current
operationalization of pseudo-transformational leadership.
For instance, researchers while developing a new measure must
account for the intricacies of a pseudo-transformational leader’s
self-interested behaviors, which are currently not possible through
a reverse measure of MLQ (Christie et al., 2011). Also, future re-
searchers while constructing a new measure, must realize that
pseudo-transformational leaders encompass actions, whereby
these leaders not only are unable to aid followers to think for
themselves but openly discourage independent thinking through
promoting obedience and subduing (Barling et al., 2008; Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999). This new scale should include items that
directly assess pseudo-transformational leader’s tendency to drive
influence based on glorifying themselves, which is presently lack-
ing in the MLQ scale. Such measure should also reflect items that
clearly identify pseudo-transformational leader’s ability to propa-
gate their vision through manipulation, deceit, and false promises.
Hence, a new measure of pseudo-transformational behaviors
should more explicitly operationalize and capture the above be-
haviors, which make it not only conceptually but also empirically
distinct from authentic transformational leadership behaviors.
Lastly, although an eastern culture provides an ideal setting for
examining the mechanisms and conditions of pseudo-
transformational leadership behaviors, it limits the generaliz-
ability of the findings. Future studies should replicate our research
model’s findings in a Western cultural context and conduct more
cross-cultural comparisons while studying the effects of pseudo-
transformational leadership behaviors.
Pseudo-transformational leadership is deemed to be an area
ripe for scholarly attention and we encourage future researchers to
study the effects of pseudo-transformational leaders on followers
within organizations. It might be interesting for future researchers
to analyze direct aggressive behaviors such as organizational
retaliatory behaviors, revenge and turnover intentions as detri-
mental consequences of working under a pseudo-transformational
leader. While this study introduced contempt as an intervening
mechanism, it might be plausible to examine other negative emo-
tions such as anger and disgust, which might explain how pseudo-
transformational leadership can promote aggression and avoidance
behaviors. Similarly, individual dispositions can play a vital role in
pseudo-transformational leader and emotions relationship and it
would be exciting to know what type of followers are more prone
to engage in contempt under a pseudo-transformational leader. For
example, it might be fruitful to investigate negative affectivity or
dark triad personality as a moderator in the relationship between
pseudo-transformational leadership and contempt.
The findings of this study present several practical implications
for managers working in organizations. First, our study highlights
the deleterious impact of pseudo-transformational leaders in
creating contempt, which further promotes avoidance and indirect
aggression. Second, managers in organizations should ensure that
organizations do not hire, select, train, or support pseudo-
transformational leaders, as such fake leaders incite negative
emotions and passive forms of aggression in followers. Third, the
organization’s performance evaluation processes must highlight
and uncover a leader’s ethical or unethical tendencies, thus keeping
pseudo-transformational leaders under strict monitoring and
control. Fourth, organizations must arrange workshops and
training for managers, which convey them the importance of
following moral values and ethical code of conduct. Organizations
need to provide a reliable and authentic platform, where em-
ployees can safely raise their concerns regarding their leader’s
conduct and dealt with timely. Lastly, this study highlighted that
followers who possess epistemic motivation can thwart the self-
serving efforts of leaders. Hence, managers need to make efforts
to hire employees with increased epistemic motivation traits, as
such individuals do not fall prey to leader’s manipulation and
exploitative tendencies.
7. Conclusion
Our research examined a unique angle into the processes and
conditions under which pseudo-transformational leaders can
instigate detrimental consequences in followers. By studying fol-
lower’s discrete emotions and ensuing passive behavioral re-
sponses to pseudo-transformational leaders, we extend the
literature on the dark side of leadership in a newer cultural setting
of Pakistan. Our study opens up a new avenue in the pseudo-
transformational literature by highlighting why and when victims
of such a leader may strike back through indirect and passive forms
of aggression. We encourage researchers not only to study the
detrimental effects of such leaders but also to highlight other in-
dividual and contextual factors that might either support or sup-
press such leaders in a cross-cultural perspective.
Appendix
Measurements
Pseudo Transformational Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
1. My leader instills pride in others for being associated with
me.
2. My leader goes beyond self-interest.
3. My leader has my respect.
4. My leader displays a sense of power and confidence.
5. My leader talks of values.
6. My leader models ethical standards.
7. My leader considers the moral/ethical consequences of
decisions.
8. My leader emphasizes the collective mission.
9. My leader expresses confidence.
10. My leader talks enthusiastically.
11. My leader talks optimistically.
12. My leader arouses awareness about important issues.
 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246 245

Epistemic Motivation (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993). 315e338.

Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Towards the development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4),
1. It upsets me to go into a situation without knowing what I 851e861.
can expect from it. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City,
2. I’m not bothered by things that interrupt my daily routine. CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
(R) rence Erlbaum.
3. I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic trans-
4. I like to have a place for everything and everything in its formational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181e217.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual,
place. ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterpro-
5. I enjoy being spontaneous. (R) ductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65e81). Wash-
6. I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours makes my ington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
€
€rkqvist, K., Osterman,
Bjo K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The development of direct and
life tedious. (R) indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjo €rkqvist, &
7. I don’t like situations that are uncertain. P. Niemel€ a (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 51e64).
8. I hate to change my plans at the last minute. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job
9. I hate to be with people who are unpredictable. satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The
10. I find that a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270e283.
11. I enjoy the exhilaration of being in unpredictable situations. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279e307.
(R) ~ o, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social
Brown, M. E., Trevin
12. I become uncomfortable when the rules in a situation are not learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational
clear. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117e134.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multi trait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81e105.
Contempt (Zevon & Tellegen, 1982). Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology.
Guilford Press.
1. Scornful Chintakananda, K., & Greguras, G. (2017). Abusive supervision and power distance:
Exploring discrete emotions. In , Vol. 2017. Academy of management proceedings.
2. Contemptuous NY 10510: Briarcliff Manor. Academy of Management.
3. Disdainful Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo-transformational leadership:
Model specification and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12),
2943e2984.
Interaction Avoidance (Hu & Shi, 2015; Watson & Friend, 1969). Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and
positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of
1. I try to stay away from interactions with my leader at work. analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227e240.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
2. I never initiate interactions with my leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3. I often intentionally avoid opportunities to interact with my Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
leader. experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Crane, B., & Hartwell, C. J. (2018). Developing employees’ mental complexity:
Transformational leadership as a catalyst in employee development. Human
€rkqvist et al., 1992).
Indirect Aggression (Bjo Resource Development Review, 17(3), 1e24.
Crawford, L. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2002). Learning where to look for danger: Inte-
1. Shut the other one out of the group. grating affective and spatial information. Psychological Science, 13(5), 449e453.
Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to
2. Become friends with another as a kind of revenge? leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 163e178.
3. Ignored him/her? Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of inten-
4. Gossiped about the one I am angry with? tionality in leader-member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5),
615e634.
5. Told bad or false stories about him/her? De Dreu, C. K. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation.
6. Planned secretly to bother the other one? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 280e295.
7. Said bad things behind the other one’s back? Decoster, S., Stouten, J., & Tripp, T. M. (2019). When employees retaliate against self-
serving leaders: The influence of the ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics,
8. Said to others “Let’s not be with him/her!"? 1e19.
9. Told the other one’s secrets to a third person? Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior:
10. Wrote small notes where the other one is criticized? A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207e216.
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational
11. Criticized the other one’s hair or clothing? leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1),
12. Tried to get others to dislike the person you are angry with? 54e68.
Eissa, G., Chinchanachokchai, S., & Wyland, R. (2017). The influence of supervisor
undermining on self-esteem, creativity, and overall job performance: A multi-
References ple mediation model. Organization Management Journal, 14(4), 185e197.
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as ante-
Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2014). Combined effects of cedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality.
perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover in- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307e326.
tentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1813e1830. Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V. K., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach-avoidance
Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5),
to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1777e1800.
121(1), 104e117. Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Paciello, M., Guglielmetti, C., Gilardi, S., Probst, T. M., et al.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A (2018). ‘First, do No harm’: The role of negative emotions and moral disen-
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), gagement in understanding the relationship between workplace aggression
411e423. and misbehavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1e17.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, Fischer, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Contempt: Derogating others while keeping
procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, calm. Emotion Review, 8(4), 346e357.
reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics
91(3), 653e668. and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social
Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., & Huy, Q. N. (2017). Integrating emotions and Psychology, 93(1), 103e115.
affect in theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), Frieder, R. E., Wang, G., & Oh, I. S. (2018). Linking job-relevant personality traits,
175e189. transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningful-
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to ness at work: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 103(3), 324e333.
246 F. Syed et al. / European Management Journal 39 (2021) 236e246
Glasø, L., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2018). Leadership, affect and
outcomes: Symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships. The Leadership & Or-
ganization Development Journal, 39(1), 51e65.
Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., & Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emo-
tions: A state of the science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 979e1004.
Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2007). Relying on accessible content versus accessibility
experiences: The case of processing capacity. Social Cognition, 25(6), 853e881.
Hassard, J., Teoh, K. R., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P., & Cox, T. (2018). The financial burden
of psychosocial workplace aggression: A systematic review of cost-of-illness
studies. Work & Stress, 32(1), 6e32.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1e22.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes
for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
95(5), 874e888.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1) (chapter 8).
Hoption, C., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2013). “It’s not you, it’s me”: Transformational
leadership and self-deprecating humor. The Leadership & Organization Devel-
opment Journal, 34(1), 4e19.
House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century. In A. Howard (Ed.), The
changing nature of work (pp. 411e450). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81e108.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission
or liberation? Academy of Management Perspectives, 6(2), 43e54.
Huang, L., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Group ethical voice: Influence of ethical lead-
ership and impact on ethical performance. Journal of Management, 43(4),
1157e1184.
Hughes, P. J., & Harris, M. D. (2017). Organizational laundering: A case study of
pseudo-transformational leadership. Organization Development Journal, 35(2),
59e77.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership
study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18(5), 435e446.
Hu, X., & Shi, J. (2015). Employees’ surface acting in interactions with leaders and
peers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1132e1152.
Kazmi, S. A. Z. (2017). Cross comparative analysis on the models of transformational
leadership and pseudo-transformational leadership. International Journal of
Strategic Decision Sciences, 8(3), 59e77.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A
theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Man-
agement, 39(5), 1308e1338.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic
providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological
Review, 113(1), 84e100.
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1991). The concept of coping. In A. Monat, & R. S. Lazarus
(Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (pp. 189e206). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Lebel, R. D. (2017). Moving beyond fight and flight: A contingent model of how the
emotional regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 42(2), 190e206.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255e275.
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014).
Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(1), 116e139.
Lin, C. S., Huang, P. C., Chen, S. J., & Huang, L. C. (2017). Pseudo-transformational
leadership is in the eyes of the subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1),
179e190.
Luthans, F., Peterson, S. J., & Ibrayeva, E. (1998). The potential for the “dark side” of
leadership in post-communist countries. Journal of World Business, 33(2),
185e201.
Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). What makes you so sure? Effects of
epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 162e183.
Melwani, S., & Barsade, S. G. (2011). Held in contempt: The psychological, inter-
personal, and performance consequences of contempt in a work context.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 503e520.
Miller, W. I. (1997). The anatomy of disgust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the
abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4),
1040e1056.
Moskowitz, G. B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influ-
ence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 132e142.
Naber, A. M., & Moffett, R. G., III (2017). Follower moral reasoning influences
perceptions of transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 47(2), 99e112.
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), 14e33.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual dif-
ferences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(1), 113e131.
Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and
behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1146e1168.
Oh, J. K., & Farh, C. I. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates
appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of
Management Review, 42(2), 207e232.
Pelzer, P. (2005). Essai: Contempt and organization: Present in practicedignored by
research? Organization Studies, 26(8), 1217e1227.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717e731.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Lead-
ership Quarterly, 14(1), 67e81.
Rietzschel, E. F., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Personal need for structure
and creative performance: The moderating influence of fear of invalidity. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 855e866.
Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system. Appraisal pro-
cesses in emotion: Theory, methods, research, 68e91.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A
mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three
moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(4), 574e586.
Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: A qualitative study on the
meaning of negative leadership. Leadership, 5(1), 102e128.
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. V. (2018). Different shadesedifferent
effects? Consequences of different types of destructive leadership. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 1e16.
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X. A., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive
effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership
behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629e640.
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), 138e158.
Sund, B., & Lines, R. (2017). When leadership leads to loathing: The effect of
culturally (In)Congruent leadership on employee contempt and voluntary work
behaviors. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 10(2). Article 11.
Syed, F., Naseer, S., & Khan, A. K. (2018). Interplay of supervisor undermining &
rejection sensitivity on FNE & outcomes. In Academy of management proceedings
(Vol. 2018, p. 14594). Briarcliff Manor NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(2), 178e190.
Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., Parker, K. C. E., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2001). The
personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical
perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In G. B. Moskowitz
(Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and
future of social cognition (pp. 19e39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dijke, M., & De
Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower organizational deviance: The
moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2),
190e203.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenerg, D., Van Knippenberg, B.,
& Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader
emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic moti-
vation. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 562e580.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismaticd-
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy
of Management Annals, 7(1), 1e60.
Warren, P., Richardson, D. S., & McQuillin, S. (2011). Distinguishing among nondirect
forms of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 37(4), 291e301.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448e457.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical dis-
cussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at
work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Vol. 18. Research in organizational
behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 1e74). US:
Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying:
A replication and extension. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psy-
chology, 10(4), 497e522.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/
nomothetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 111e122.