Measures

The study used various measures to assess destructive leadership behaviors, including abusive
supervision, exploitative leadership, organization-directed behaviors, and laissez-faire leadership.
Each measure consisted of multiple items from different scales, with high internal reliability.
Control variables such as age, gender, sense of power, and affective motives were also included
in the analysis. Manipulation checks were conducted to ensure that the scenarios effectively
manipulated the desired leadership behaviors, and the results indicated significant differences
between the different conditions.
Results
The study used PLS-SEM analysis to test hypotheses and assess the measurement and structural
models. The reliability and validity of the measurement model were evaluated through various
statistical techniques. The path coefficients and the predictive power of the structural model were
analyzed using bootstrapping and effect size calculations. The study also conducted a multigroup
analysis to test the moderation effect of different conditions, establishing partial measurement
invariance. Significant differences were found in the paths between certain groups for
dysfunctional resistance.
Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this research was to examine how coproduction beliefs impact resistance behaviors in
the workplace. The results showed that coproduction beliefs contribute to constructive resistance,
regardless of the leader's behavior. Although the effects were generally modest, they align with
previous research. Interestingly, coproduction beliefs only reduced dysfunctional resistance in
situations involving abusive and laissez-faire leadership styles. These findings highlight the
importance of coproduction beliefs in ethical followership and suggest that different types of
destructive leader behaviors may require different resistance strategies.
Limitations
The limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the findings. One limitation
is that the study only used scenario-based research to assess behavioral intentions, but this
approach is commonly used in organizational studies, particularly in ethics-related topics.
Additionally, the study's four scenarios did not allow for mixed contexts or opposing behaviors,
but future research could explore resistance behaviors using scenarios that include these
variations. Another limitation is that the study focused exclusively on the individual level, so
future research could consider the role of the team as a context, such as testing coproduction
beliefs against group conformity.
Implications
This study highlights the importance of understanding resistance behaviors and coproduction in
organizations. By focusing on followers and their perspectives, organizations can address
destructive leadership more effectively. Recognizing followers' agency and influence, investing
in coproduction beliefs, and teaching followership skills can promote a positive organizational
dynamic. This can help prevent power centralization and mitigate destructive leadership.