View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Can Leader Affiliative Humor Promote Employees' Bootleg Innovation? A Moderated Chain Mediation Model

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Can Leader Affiliative Humor Promote Employees' Bootleg Innovation? A Moderated Chain Mediation Model
Language: English
Authors: Hui Wang (ORCID 0000-0001-6372-7838), Min Zhang, Jian Zhu
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2025 59(2).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Leadership Styles, Humor, Employees, Innovation, Social Exchange Theory, Foreign Countries, Supervisor Supervisee Relationship
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.70016
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: Drawing on social exchange theory and social information processing theory, this study constructs a moderated chain mediation model to test the impact of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation. Based on a sample of 264 employees from Chinese companies, this study used SPSS 26.0 and MPLUS 8.3 to examine the hypotheses. Empirical results demonstrate that (a) leader affiliative humor is directly and positively related to employees' bootleg innovation; (b) supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety serve as mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; (c) supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety function as chained mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; and (d) personal need for structure negatively moderates the effect of leader affiliative humor on supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety, and negatively moderates the mediating effect of supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi on the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1474492
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFRK_x6krd_yVza2iSDdgRkAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP9hc59Cpx8F4ne-owIBEICBmk47ZTl9Yhth-jGz5qCpqj8Dxh7t4V9hVJ4YiqQbga8nH9rV3fv8yXYsPgVQbapHjvxDyMDT685CpIyrwKa2_L64zSLg2mQzecL3kxMYnHdEcJKh6wXcCGK9ZuswK3pdQ5WIv5X2E43ns9CD_spFzVu9YXicR1FWeRdn360jWPMCE2aBDDHKbQCepH3gKJZiohCMZGVgJTSkMjY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186049511;3u701jun.25;2025Jun23.03:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186049511-1">Can Leader Affiliative Humor Promote Employees' Bootleg Innovation? A Moderated Chain Mediation Model </title> <p>Drawing on social exchange theory and social information processing theory, this study constructs a moderated chain mediation model to test the impact of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation. Based on a sample of 264 employees from Chinese companies, this study used SPSS 26.0 and MPLUS 8.3 to examine the hypotheses. Empirical results demonstrate that (a) leader affiliative humor is directly and positively related to employees' bootleg innovation; (b) supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety serve as mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; (c) supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety function as chained mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; and (d) personal need for structure negatively moderates the effect of leader affiliative humor on supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety, and negatively moderates the mediating effect of supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi on the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation.</p> <p>Keywords: employees' bootleg innovation; leader affiliative humor; personal need for structure; psychological safety; supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Humor used by leaders, as a tool of management practice (Malone III [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref1">46</reflink>]), plays a significant role in leadership effectiveness (Kong et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]). Successful leaders often utilize their sense of humor to motivate their employees, thereby winning the trust and support of their followers (Yam et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref3">70</reflink>]). For instance, Sergey Brin, co‐founder of Google, elicited laughter through impromptu witty remarks during company meetings, thereby liberating employees from the high‐pressure work environment. Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos.com, is renowned for valuing humor and self‐deprecation, which has become ingrained in Zappos' culture and even extended to the company's external relationships. But in traditional Chinese beliefs, leaders represent dignity and authority, and their humorous style is often considered incongruent with a serious work environment (Shi et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref4">63</reflink>]). Therefore, there has been relatively little attention and research on the humorous behavior of leaders in China (Neves and Karagonlar [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref5">55</reflink>]). However, with the new generation entering the workforce, their work values have undergone significant changes compared to traditional beliefs. Specifically, they reject the traditional hierarchical management concept and a serious authoritative work atmosphere. In addition, they pursue an equal, empowering, and interesting work atmosphere, and enjoy it when their superiors display an affiliative humor style (Zheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref6">77</reflink>]). In recent years, the success of innovation enterprises such as Alibaba, that advocate a happy working concept, has drawn attention to the affiliative humor leadership style of leaders such as Jack Ma who excel at inspiring subordinate happiness. Therefore, providing a more comprehensive understanding of leader affiliative humor not only has theoretical value but also broad appeal to practitioners (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Leader affiliative humor refers to leaders entertaining subordinates by telling interesting stories and good‐natured jokes, thereby eliciting positive emotional responses from subordinates (Dai et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]). In the literature on the outcomes of leader affiliative humor, most studies have focused on individual‐level outcomes, which include the influence of leader humor on individual psychological states, work attitudes, and positive behaviors. For instance, Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref9">36</reflink>]) found that the positive or negative attributes of leader humor are key in affecting employees' positive emotions and well‐being. Tremblay ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref10">64</reflink>]) and Cooper et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]) discovered the significant role of leader humor in stimulating employees' prosocial organizational citizenship behaviors. Lin ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]) suggested that leader affiliative humor facilitates employee voice behavior. In addition, some studies have shown that leader affiliative humor motivates employees' knowledge sharing behavior (Abdillah [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]; Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref14">68</reflink>]). Regarding creativity and innovation, Yang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref15">71</reflink>]) confirmed the significant impact of leader humor on employees' creativity, while Zhang and Su ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref16">74</reflink>]) further proposed that leader humor promotes employees' innovation through work engagement. Existing research has explored the important role of leader affiliative humor in promoting employees' positive behavior. However, there has been relatively little attention paid to whether leader affiliative humor may trigger employees' bootleg innovation behavior. Employees' bootleg innovation refers to employees' out‐of‐role behavior in which they believe that their innovative actions will bring benefits to the organization. Even if these actions go against the wishes of their superiors or violate organizational norms, they continue to explore through informal channels (Augsdorfer [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]). According to a recent survey, over 80% of respondents admitted to the widespread occurrence of employees' bootleg innovation in their daily work (Augsdorfer [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]), indicating that bootleg innovation has become an important informal avenue for organizations to achieve breakthroughs.</p> <p>To narrow the research gap, this study aimed to examine the impact of affiliative humor among leaders on employees' bootleg innovation. According to social exchange theory, sustained positive interactions between individuals can promote the formation of high‐quality relationships (Maslyn and Uhl‐Bien [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>]). Leaders with affiliative humor traits can liven up the atmosphere and evoke employees' positive emotions, thereby forming high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]). Supervisor–subordinate guanxi is an informal leader–member relationship that is of utmost importance in Chinese organizations (Charoensukmongkol [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>]; Cheung et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Existing research has indicated that high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi makes employees more willing to undertake risky and challenging tasks (Ma et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]). Meanwhile, social information processing theory holds that individuals process social information within the organization to better understand their work environment, subsequently adjusting their attitudes and behaviors (Salancik and Pfeffer [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref24">62</reflink>]). Leaders' affiliative humor conveys signals of friendliness, tolerance, and a willingness to reduce power differentials (Cooper [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]). Evaluating these signals, employees develop a positive psychological state, namely psychological safety. Existing research has indicated that psychological safety can promote bootleg innovation (Wang et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref26">65</reflink>]). In addition, the characteristics of humor recipients can influence the effectiveness of leader humor (Mesmer‐Magnus et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref27">53</reflink>]). Employees hold varying attitudes toward hierarchical differences and clear structures within the organization (Neuberg and Newsom [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref28">54</reflink>]), which in turn lead to different responses to leader humor. Thus, personal need for structure may serve as a crucial boundary condition that explain when leader affiliative humor facilitates or inhibits employees' bootleg innovation. Therefore, the purpose of this study is fourfold: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>) to investigate the direct effect of leaders' affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>) to explore the mediating role of supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety in the relationship between leaders' affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>) to reveal the sequential mediating role of "supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety" in the relationship between leaders' affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>) to explore the moderating role of personal need for structure on the indirect effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety.</p> <p>This study makes four contributions to the research field of leadership and innovation. First, by investigating the influence of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation, it identifies a key antecedent of bootleg innovation. Second, based on the cultural context of China, the study examines the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation, thereby enriching the understanding of leader humor within the Chinese cultural context. Third, the study introduces supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety as chain‐mediating variables, and subsequently explores the indirect relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation. This study reveals the underlying mechanism through which leader affiliative humor impacts employees' bootleg innovation and enriches the dialogue surrounding leadership's role in shaping employees' bootleg innovation. Last, this study explores the moderating role of personal need for structure on the indirect effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-3">Theoretical Background and Hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049511-4">Leader Affiliative Humor and Employees' Bootleg Innovation</hd> <p>Leader humor—which spans a diverse array of behaviors, from spontaneous verbal wit to sharing entertaining anecdotes or jokes (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref33">15</reflink>])—is a deliberate action taken by leaders toward their subordinates aimed at provoking amusement and being recognized as intentional. Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]) introduced a 2 × 2 humor style model that categorizes humor based on its target and essence into affiliative, aggressive, self‐enhancing, and self‐defeating varieties. Both leader affiliative and aggressive humor focus on the interpersonal dimensions of humor, whereas leader self‐enhancing and self‐defeating humor represent self‐directed humor (Martin et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]). Meanwhile, compared with leader aggressive humor, affiliative humor focuses on fostering relationships with others in a benign and self‐accepting atmosphere. Those who excel in this dimension are prone to uttering humorous remarks, telling jokes, and engaging in spontaneous witty repartee to delight others, nurture relationships, and alleviate interpersonal strains (Howland and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). Affiliative humor, being non‐hostile and forgiving, affirms both the self and others, potentially bolstering the cohesion and allure of interpersonal connections. In the context of research on leader affiliative humor, it has been shown that this type of humor not only influences employees' work engagement (Goswami et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]) and job performance (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]) but also stimulates employees to engage in additional extra‐role behaviors, such as voice behavior (Potipiroon and Ford [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref39">57</reflink>]), feedback‐seeking behavior (Karakowsky et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref40">35</reflink>]), and innovative behavior (Pundt [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref41">59</reflink>]). Therefore, the question arises: can leader affiliative humor, which emphasizes communication and encourages inclusivity, stimulate employees' bootleg innovation behavior, thereby contributing to technological advancements and enhanced competitiveness for organizations?</p> <p>Bootleg innovation refers to the process whereby individuals engage in creative work proactively, without formal organizational support and often without the knowledge of senior management, but with the aim of generating innovations beneficial to the company. According to Criscuolo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]), bootleg innovation encompasses four key elements: first, it involves proactive bottom‐up activities driven by individual initiative; second, it lacks organizational support and recognition; third, it is not known to upper level managers; and fourth, despite contravening organizational norms, the emphasis of bootleg innovation activities lies in achieving organizational goals. It is precisely the "rationality" behind the objective of bootleg innovation that has attracted academic attention to the continuous emergence of such behaviors within organizations in the context of the innovation era, particularly at the organizational level. For instance, Criscuolo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]) pointed out that employees' bootleg innovation can enhance corporate innovation performance, driving technological and product innovation and serving as a crucial impetus for sustainable development in the context of a new wave of global competition. Additionally, Masoudnia and Szwejczewski ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref44">49</reflink>]) found that bootleg innovation can propel organizational development, foster product innovation, process innovation, and management innovation, improve organizational processes and management practices, and ultimately enhance organizational competitiveness.</p> <p>However, bootleg innovation, as a particular form that occurs without formal support, may have a dual‐edged effect. On the one hand, if the innovative ideas succeed, it can bring substantial benefit to the organization (Augsdorfer [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). On the other hand, as bootleg innovation is not formally authorized by the organization, employees often have concerns when deciding whether to engage in bootleg innovation. Correspondingly, leaders' affiliative humor helps alleviate employees' concerns about bootleg innovation. According to social information processing theory, an individual's behavior is not only determined by their own needs and goals but is also heavily influenced by the surrounding environment (Salancik and Pfeffer [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref46">62</reflink>]). Employees actively seek to understand the norms and expectations within the organization and strive to align their behavior with them by processing social cues in their surroundings (Yam et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref47">70</reflink>]). On the one hand, given that humor often necessitates departing from organizational norms (McGraw and Warren [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref48">51</reflink>]), when leaders exhibit an affiliative humor style, subordinates may perceive that deviating from norms within the organization is acceptable. On the other hand, the expression of affiliative leader humor in the workplace can create an open, communicative, and relaxed atmosphere, which is conducive to reducing employees' perceived risks and uncertainties associated with engaging in bootleg innovation behaviors (Pundt [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref49">58</reflink>]). Under this cognitive framework, employees' concerns about engaging in bootleg innovation behaviors are significantly reduced, further promoting their willingness to implement such bootleg innovation. Based on the above discussion, this study proposes the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-5">1 Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Leader affiliative humor is directly and positively associated with employees' bootleg innovation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-6">Mediating Role of Supervisor–Subordinate Affective Guanxi in the Relationship Between Leader...</hd> <p>The supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi refers to an emotional connection, understanding, and care between leaders and subordinates, resembling a "genuine affection" similar to that of family members (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]). Compared to leader–member exchange, which is restricted to work‐related interpersonal interactions with the absence of emotionality, the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi stems from informal and implicit social interactions based on shared interests and benefits beyond the work domain (such as inviting each other to dinners, giving gifts, and engaging in charitable activities) (Ding and Yu [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>]; Mejia et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]; Wei et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref53">66</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref54">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the social exchange theory, parties engage in and maintain exchange relationships with others in anticipation of rewards (Blau [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]; Homans [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]), and the nature of this relationship is mutually beneficial (Cropanzano and Mitchell [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). Given that leader affiliative humor is viewed as a social–emotional resource in social exchanges that can cultivate high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi (Graen and Uhl‐Bien [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]). Additionally, the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, as a relational interaction between leaders and subordinates, can have a profound impact on employees' attitudes and behaviors (Gottfredson et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). For example, guanxi has been shown to influence employees' behavior and innovation through trust and reciprocity (Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]). Therefore, the more frequently the leaders express affiliative humor toward the followers, the more socioemotional resources the followers will accumulate (Kong et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref61">38</reflink>]), which not only makes the followers feel positive about their job and organization, but also motivates them to reciprocate the leaders' benefits through bootleg innovation. Based on this notion, this study argues that leader affiliative humor improves the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, thus leading to employees' bootleg innovation.</p> <p>On the one hand, leader affiliative humor can enhance the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi. One important function of humor is to establish relationships (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]). Firstly, leader affiliative humor entertains employees through amusing verbal expressions or body gestures, thereby creating a lively work atmosphere (Avolio et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]; Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]). In such an atmosphere, the leader's image in the employees' minds shifts from being strictly authoritative to that of a friend with whom they can have open and genuine communication. As a result, information flows effectively between supervisors and subordinates (Wood et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref65">67</reflink>]). Through close communication, employees can perceive the emotional resources that leaders provide for their work and personal lives, thereby strengthening their emotional attachment and identification with the leader and establishing a more solid emotional relationship (Cooper et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]). Secondly, leader affiliative humor symbolizes the leader's support or friendliness toward subordinates, and indicates the leader's willingness to share personal information at a deeper level, thus reducing the power distance between supervisors and subordinates. Therefore, as a social–emotional resource, the more frequently leaders display affiliative humor traits in the workplace, the more likely subordinates are to perceive and appreciate the leader's support and friendliness, as well as the desire for personal disclosure and reduced social distance. This results in mutual benefits in the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi.</p> <p>On the other hand, the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi can facilitate employees' bootleg innovation. Firstly, employees with high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective relationships are able to obtain greater autonomy and control from their supervisor, thereby having more freedom to engage in bootleg innovative activities at work (Guan and Frenkel [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). Secondly, for subordinates who maintain good relationships with their supervisor, the latter tend to provide special care and resource support in various ways (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref68">40</reflink>]), which allows subordinates to better establish, expand, and utilize their network resources to acquire the resources necessary for bootleg innovation (Han et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]). Lastly, empirical studies have shown that high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi can stimulate employees' bootleg innovation by increasing their job satisfaction, their sense of psychological empowerment, and their commitment to the organization (Gao and Liu [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]; Zhang, Huang, et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref71">73</reflink>]; Zhang, Qin, et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref72">75</reflink>]). Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-7">2a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Leader affiliative humor is positively associated with supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-8">2b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi is positively associated with employees' bootleg innovation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-9">2c Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi plays a mediating role in the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-10">Mediating Role of Psychological Safety in the Relationship Between Leader Affiliative Humor a...</hd> <p>Psychological safety reflects the interpersonal risk perceived by individuals in an organizational context (Edmondson [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). It refers to the perception that individuals can express themselves and be their authentic selves without fear of negative consequences or punishment for their thoughts and behaviors, which may impact their image, status, or career (Kahn [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref74">33</reflink>]). Recently, psychological safety was conceptualized as a state where individuals feel that taking interpersonal risks in the workplace is safe (Edmondson and Lei [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref75">22</reflink>]). Therefore, in the present study, psychological safety is considered an individual cognition that reflects beliefs that showing risky behaviors does not cause personal harm or interpersonal threats to the self‐image, career, or status of individuals (Kahn [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref76">33</reflink>]; Edmondson and Lei [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref77">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to social information processing theory, individuals form perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors through the acquisition of external information (Salancik and Pfeffer [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref78">62</reflink>]). Given that the leadership style is an important antecedent variable of psychological safety (Detert and Burris [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]), the openness and inclusiveness of management can facilitate employees' perception of psychological safety. Furthermore, psychological safety is known to foster environments conducive to risk‐taking and innovation (Edmondson and Lei [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]). As such, this study concludes that when leaders show affiliative humor, employees improve their perceptions of organizational environment security and exhibit more bootleg innovative behaviors.</p> <p>On the one hand, leader affiliative humor can effectively enhance the psychological safety of employees. The perception of psychological safety regarding the outcomes of their work within an organization largely depends on whether they are respected and trusted by others in the work environment, particularly by their supervisors who conduct performance evaluations (Kaiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref81">34</reflink>]). Previous studies have confirmed that leader affiliative humor has a positive effect on psychological safety (Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref82">68</reflink>]; Yuan et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref83">72</reflink>]). At first, leader affiliative humor reduces hierarchical distance and promotes communication between leaders and employees in organizations (Mesmer‐Magnus et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref84">53</reflink>]), which enhances the psychological safety of employees. Moreover, leaders with affiliative humor often use humorous comments to respond to mistakes and unexpected situations, sending a clear signal to subordinates that making mistakes is inevitable and that leaders can tolerate these mistakes and unexpected situations. This also helps enhance subordinates' psychological safety (Potipiroon and Ford [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref85">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, psychological safety can stimulate employees to exhibit bootleg innovative behavior. As is well known, bootleg innovation is a high‐risk activity that involves achieving innovation through bootleg means. Employees will carefully assess the risks associated with bootleg innovation before deciding whether to engage in it (Zheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref86">77</reflink>]). However, a sense of psychological safety can make employees believe that implementing challenging behaviors in the organization is safe. They are willing to continue learning, changing, and innovating in complex and high‐risk work environments without worrying about the potential risk or negative evaluation brought by bootleg innovation, thus reducing the perceived risk of bootleg innovation (Xu et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref87">69</reflink>]). In addition, when employees see leaders' positive attitudes toward bootleg innovation through affiliative humor and generate psychological safety, they are willing to communicate and share these bootleg innovation experiences with other members of the organization openly and honestly to obtain positive responses and tacit knowledge (Arthachinda and Charoensukmongkol [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>]), thereby having sufficient ability to engage in bootleg innovation. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-11">3a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Leader affiliative humor is positively associated with psychological safety</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-12">3b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Psychological safety is positively associated with employees' bootleg innovation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-13">3c Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Psychological safety plays a mediating role in the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-14">Chain‐Mediating Role of Supervisor–Subordinate Affective Guanxi and Psychological Safety in t...</hd> <p>Existing studies found that psychological safety relies on high levels of interpersonal support, trust, respect, and friendship (Edmondson [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref89">21</reflink>]). For instance, Kahn ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref90">33</reflink>]) suggests that a positive emotional relationship between supervisors and subordinates can enhance employees' sense of psychological safety. Humor is one possible way for leaders to establish positive relationships with subordinates (Pundt and Herrmann [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]). When leaders utilize affiliative humor, subordinates can use it as a resource to create positive emotions, facilitating frequent and relaxed emotional communication between employees and leaders. This helps overcome hierarchical differences and triggers perceived similarity between leaders and followers (Pundt [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]). Consequently, a high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is formed. As a party in the emotional exchange, leaders, in return for employees' emotions, provide them with more tolerance, understanding, and support. Therefore, the costs of making mistakes borne by leaders are relatively lower/fewer compared to other employees. As a result, followers feel free to develop, communicate, and implement their ideas without any fear of negative consequences (Carmeli and Gittell [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]). In this work environment, employees who have good interactive relationships with their leaders are more likely to develop a sense of psychological safety. Therefore, employees can engage in bootleg innovation projects with greater peace of mind, significantly reducing the negative effects of concerns about exposure and innovation failure that might arise from bootleg innovation projects. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-15">4a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is positively associated with psychological safety</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-16">4b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety plays a chain‐mediating role in the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation. In other words, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is positively related to psychological safety, and leader affiliative humor is indirectly related to employees' bootleg innovation through the chain‐mediating path of "supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi—psychological safety."</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0186049511-17">Moderating Role of Personal Need for Structure</hd> <p>Personal need for structure is a stable personality trait that reflects individual differences in the perception of uncertainty (Gocłowska et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref94">25</reflink>]). There are significant individual differences in personal need for structure, with individuals who have a higher personal need for structure tending to seek simplicity and order, while avoiding situations that are uncertain or ambiguous. Therefore, the ambiguity and informality conveyed by leader affiliative humor may cause discomfort among individuals with a higher personal need for structure. On one hand, this discomfort may lead to weaker affective relationships between employees and leaders (Pundt and Venz [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref95">61</reflink>]). On the other hand, employees may perceive the intentions behind the humor as unclear, thereby reducing their trust in the team environment and their sense of psychological safety (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref96">42</reflink>]). An individual's personal need for structure influences subsequent behavioral responses by altering the processes of information processing and cognitive elaboration (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref97">42</reflink>]). Based on the above analysis, our study introduced personal need for structure as a moderator to discuss the boundary condition of the effects of leader affiliative humor on supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety.</p> <p>First, although leader affiliative humor can have positive effects on organizations, it also conveys ambiguous and contradictory messages. On the one hand, leader affiliative humor reduces the perceived hierarchical differences between leaders and employees on the other hand, the hierarchical status difference between them persists, suggesting that the information communicated through leader affiliative humor is inherently ambiguous (Mallett and Wapshott [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref98">45</reflink>]). Compared to relationship‐oriented leadership behaviors, employees with higher personal need for structure prefer task‐oriented leadership, clear social structures, and established hierarchies (Pundt and Venz [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref99">61</reflink>]). When confronted with the ambiguous messages conveyed by leader affiliative humor, employees with high structural needs may struggle to process such ambiguity and thus exhibit a weaker response to leader affiliative humor. In contrast, employees with lower personal need for structure tend to prefer relationship‐oriented leadership and an inclusive, open work environment. In other words, employees with low structural needs are more likely to benefit from the relationship aspect of leader affiliative humor, as informal interactions with their supervisors reduce the salience of power distance created by hierarchical differences, thereby facilitating communication and emotional attachment between leaders and subordinates (Pundt and Venz [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, employees with a high personal need for structure tend to prefer clear and simple information within the organization and exhibit positive responses to the predictability and certainty of their environment, while displaying aversion and discomfort toward ambiguous organizational phenomena such as uncertainty and complexity (Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref101">43</reflink>]). When confronted with ambiguous messages conveyed through leader affiliative humor, employees with a high personal need for structure may struggle to effectively respond to and process the relational ambiguity between themselves and their leaders (Pundt and Venz [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref102">61</reflink>]), resulting in lower levels of psychological safety. In contrast, employees with a low personal need for structure are more inclined to favor organizational structures with fewer hierarchical differences and prefer informal communication with their leaders (Friesen et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref103">23</reflink>]). When leaders exhibit humor within the organization, employees with low structural needs are more capable of perceiving and interpreting the messages conveyed through leader affiliative humor and are more likely to adjust their attitudes and behaviors accordingly, thus fostering higher levels of psychological safety.</p> <p>Taking together, being high on personal need for structure weakens the positive effect of leader affiliative humor on supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and leader affiliative humor on psychological safety. Thus, the following hypotheses were proposed:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-18">5a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Personal need for structure moderates the relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi. That is, the positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is weaker in the case of high personal need for structure</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-19">5b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Personal need for structure moderates the relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety. That is, the positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety is weaker in the case of high personal need for structure</emph>.</p> <p>The analysis and hypothesis above led to the development of a moderated mediation model. Combining Hypothesis 2c and Hypothesis 5a, we could infer that when personal need for structure is higher, the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi will be weakened. In contrast, when personal need for structure is lower, the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi will be strengthened. Similarly, combining Hypothesis 3c and Hypothesis 5b, when personal need for structure is higher, the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via psychological safety will be weakened. In contrast, when personal need for structure is lower, the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via psychological safety will be strengthened. Therefore, we hypothesized that:</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-20">6a Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Personal need for structure moderates the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi. That is, the indirect effect is weaker in the case of high personal need for structure</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-21">6b Hypothesis</hd> <p> <emph>Personal need for structure moderates the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation via psychological safety. That is, the indirect effect is weaker in the case of high personal need for structure</emph>.</p> <p>The theoretical framework is presented in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun25/jocb70016-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb70016-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Theoretical model." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049511-23">Materials and Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049511-24">Sample and Procedures</hd> <p>We employed a dedicated data collection platform called Credamo for online questionnaires in China during July 2023. The Credamo platform is an intelligent professional research platform, with registered users covering all provinces, cities, and regions in China. The Credamo platform provides one‐stop services such as questionnaire design and sample database, providing assistance for users in conducting questionnaire research and achieving questionnaire design, distribution, and recycling. The participants in this survey were the users in the Credamo platform and worked in various departments of different types of companies. All participants were informed that the questionnaires would only be used for academic purposes and that the contents would be kept anonymous and confidential. Given the inevitable common method bias in cross‐sectional data, which may undermine the persuasiveness of the causal relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation, we conducted 2‐week time‐lagged for data collection to discern the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation from a temporal dimension. At Time 1 (T1), participants completed questionnaires regarding leader affiliative humor, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, psychological safety, and demographic information. 330 questionnaires were distributed, and 330 responses (100%) were collected. Two weeks later (Time 2), 330 participants who had answered questionnaires at T1 were asked to complete questionnaires regarding employees' bootleg innovation. The ID of each user on the Credamo platform is unique, and we use this mechanism to match the two‐stage data. At T2, a total of 264 matched questionnaires were collected, resulting in a recovery rate of 80%. The sample description is presented in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Statistical characteristics of the sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Characteristics</th><th align="center">Classification</th><th align="center">Number</th><th align="center">Ratio</th><th align="center">Characteristics</th><th align="center">Classification</th><th align="center">Number</th><th align="center">Ratio</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="center">Male</td><td align="center">89</td><td align="center">33.71%</td><td align="center">Working seniority</td><td align="center">< 3</td><td align="center">112</td><td align="center">42.42%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Female</td><td align="center">175</td><td align="center">66.29%</td><td align="center">3–6</td><td align="center">58</td><td align="center">21.97%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center">18–25</td><td align="center">84</td><td align="center">31.82%</td><td align="center">7–14</td><td align="center">73</td><td align="center">27.65%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">26–30</td><td align="center">69</td><td align="center">26.14%</td><td align="center">≥ 15</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">7.95%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">31–35</td><td align="center">74</td><td align="center">28.03%</td><td align="center">Enterprise nature</td><td align="center">State‐owned enterprises</td><td align="center">78</td><td align="center">29.55%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">36–40</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">5.30%</td><td align="center">Private enterprises</td><td align="center">132</td><td align="center">50.00%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">41–45</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">3.40%</td><td align="center">Foreign‐funded enterprises</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">12.88%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">> 45</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">5.30%</td><td align="center">Others</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">7.58%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education</td><td align="center">High school or below</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">4.17%</td><td align="center">Tenure with leader</td><td align="center">< 1</td><td align="center">45</td><td align="center">17.05%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Junior college</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">7.58%</td><td align="center">1–2</td><td align="center">89</td><td align="center">33.71%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Bachelor</td><td align="center">168</td><td align="center">63.64%</td><td align="center">3–5</td><td align="center">85</td><td align="center">32.20%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Master or above</td><td align="center">65</td><td align="center">24.62%</td><td align="center">6–10</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">11.36%</td></tr><tr><td align="center">> 10</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">5.68%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph><emph>N</emph> = 264.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-25">Measures</hd> <p>The main variables in this study, including leader affiliative humor, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, psychological safety, and employees' bootleg innovation, were measured on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree." The specific application is described below.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-26">Leader Affiliative Humor</hd> <p>Leader affiliative humor was measured with a six‐item scale developed by Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref104">47</reflink>]). A sample item is "My leader doesn't have to work very hard at making other people laugh—He/she seems to be a naturally humorous person." Cronbach's alpha for this scale is 0.847.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-27">Supervisor–Subordinate Affective Guanxi</hd> <p>Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi was measured with the six‐item scale developed by Law et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref105">39</reflink>]). The sample item includes "During holidays or after office hours, I would call my supervisor or visit him/her." Cronbach's alpha in this study is 0.848.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-28">Psychological Safety</hd> <p>Psychological safety was measured with a five‐item scale adapted from May et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref106">50</reflink>]) and Edmondson ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref107">21</reflink>]), which is an individual‐level scale. One of the sample items was "I'm not afraid to be myself at work." Cronbach's alpha for this scale is 0.786.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-29">Employees' Bootleg Innovation</hd> <p>Employees' bootleg innovation was measured with the five‐item scale developed by Criscuolo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]). The sample items incorporate "I have the flexibility to work my way around my official work plan, digging into new potentially valuable business opportunities." Cronbach's alpha in this study is 0.704.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-30">Personal Need for Structure</hd> <p>Personal need for structure was measured with the 11‐item scale developed by Neuberg and Newsom ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref109">54</reflink>]). One of the sample items was "It upsets me to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it." Cronbach's alpha in this study is 0.940.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-31">Control Variables</hd> <p>Based on previous studies, the following control variables were selected: gender, age, education, working seniority, and tenure with leaders. The primary reason stems from the fact that existing research has revealed that factors such as gender, age, education, and working seniority may potentially impact the manifestation of leader humor (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref110">36</reflink>]). Furthermore, Shi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref111">63</reflink>]) found that tenure with leaders can influence the boundary conditions under which leader humor operates. Consequently, these variables are incorporated as control variables in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-32">Data Analysis and Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049511-33">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>MPLUS 8.0 was utilized to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). On the one hand, CFA ensures that the latent constructs are accurately represented by the observed variables, thereby assessing construct validity—including convergent and discriminant validity—and evaluating model fit (Brown [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref112">7</reflink>]; Kline [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref113">37</reflink>]). On the other hand, CFA helps identify and rectify any measurement issues, such as low factor loadings or high error variances, ensuring the SEM path analysis is based on a robust and reliable model. This step is crucial as SEM assumes that latent constructs are measured reliably, making CFA an indispensable precursor to SEM analysis (Byrne [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref114">8</reflink>]). As Table 2 shows, the theoretical five‐factor model (leader affiliative humor, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, psychological safety, personal need for structure, and employees' bootleg innovation) demonstrated a better fit with the data (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>/df = 1.830, RMSEA = 0.056, CFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.905, and SRMR = 0.050) compared with the other models (Table 2), indicating that the theoretical five‐factor model possessed appropriate discriminant validity.</p> <p>2 TABLE Results of confirmatory factor analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Models</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>/df</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Five‐factor model: LAH; SSAG; PS;PNS; EBI</td><td align="center">887.781</td><td align="center">485</td><td align="center">1.830</td><td align="center">0.056</td><td align="center">0.913</td><td align="center">0.905</td><td align="center">0.050</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Four‐factor model: LAH; SSAG+PS; PNS; EBI</td><td align="center">967.767</td><td align="center">489</td><td align="center">1.979</td><td align="center">0.061</td><td align="center">0.897</td><td align="center">0.889</td><td align="center">0.053</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Three‐factor model: LAH; SSAG+PS + PNS; EBI</td><td align="center">2056.526</td><td align="center">492</td><td align="center">4.180</td><td align="center">0.110</td><td align="center">0.663</td><td align="center">0.638</td><td align="center">0.181</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Two‐factor model: LAH + SSAG+PS + PNS; EBI</td><td align="center">3091.090</td><td align="center">494</td><td align="center">6.257</td><td align="center">0.141</td><td align="center">0.440</td><td align="center">0.402</td><td align="center">0.170</td></tr><tr><td align="left">One‐factor model: LAH + SSAG+PS + PNS + EBI</td><td align="center">3156.531</td><td align="center">495</td><td align="center">6.377</td><td align="center">0.143</td><td align="center">0.426</td><td align="center">0.388</td><td align="center">0.173</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note:</emph><emph>N</emph> = 264.</item> <item>3 Abbreviations: EBI, employees' bootleg innovation; LAH, leader affiliative humor; PNS, personal need for structure; PS, psychological safety; SSAG, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186049511-34">Common Method Variance</hd> <p>The data collection process employed an anonymous measurement method alongside a two‐wave approach to minimize the risk of common method variance (CMV). However, the potential for CMV remained due to the reliance on individual self‐evaluations for all measurements. Consequently, the Harman's single‐factor test was administered to assess the presence of CMV. The results revealed that the first factor accounted for 28.111% of the cumulative total variance, which falls below the 40% threshold recommended by Podsakoff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref115">56</reflink>]). This finding suggests that there are no significant issues related to CMV in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-35">Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics (mean and SD) and correlation analysis (Pearson's coefficient). The results showed that leader affiliative humor is positively correlated with employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.504, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi (<emph>r</emph> = 0.576, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and psychological safety (<emph>r</emph> = 0.477, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is positively associated with psychological safety (<emph>r</emph> = 0.629, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) and employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.549, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). In addition, psychological safety was positively associated with employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.632, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). The correlations among core variables provided initial support for the further test of our theoretical model.</p> <p>3 TABLE Means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Gender</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Age</td><td align="center">−0.154<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Education</td><td align="center">0.124<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">−0.149<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Working seniority</td><td align="center">−0.103</td><td align="center">0.845<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.169<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Enterprise nature</td><td align="center">−0.031</td><td align="center">0.018</td><td align="center">−0.100</td><td align="center">0.005</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Tenure with leader</td><td align="center">−0.098</td><td align="center">0.772<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.171<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.825<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.028</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. LAH</td><td align="center">−0.057</td><td align="center">0.006</td><td align="center">0.064</td><td align="center">0.011</td><td align="center">−0.096</td><td align="center">0.075</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. SSGA</td><td align="center">−0.137<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.197<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.014</td><td align="center">0.258<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.141<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.290<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.576<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. PS</td><td align="center">−0.127<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.264<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.044</td><td align="center">0.296<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.133<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.306<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.477<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.629<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. EBI</td><td align="center">0.001</td><td align="center">0.206<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.010</td><td align="center">0.201<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.173<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.251<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.504<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.549<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">0.632<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">11. PNS</td><td align="center">−0.034</td><td align="center">−0.035</td><td align="center">−0.105</td><td align="center">−0.044</td><td align="center">0.058</td><td align="center">−0.049</td><td align="center">−0.090</td><td align="center">−0.222<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.194<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">−0.155<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M</td><td align="center">1.66</td><td align="center">2.38</td><td align="center">3.09</td><td align="center">2.01</td><td align="center">1.98</td><td align="center">2.55</td><td align="center">3.893</td><td align="center">3.724</td><td align="center">3.986</td><td align="center">3.781</td><td align="center">3.289</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SD</td><td align="center">0.474</td><td align="center">1.351</td><td align="center">0.695</td><td align="center">1.011</td><td align="center">0.854</td><td align="center">1.078</td><td align="center">0.725</td><td align="center">0.768</td><td align="center">0.632</td><td align="center">0.618</td><td align="center">1.009</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note:</emph><emph>N</emph> = 264.</item> <item>5 Abbreviations: EBI, employees' bootleg innovation; LAH, leader affiliative humor; PNS, personal need for structure; PS, psychological safety; SSAG, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi.</item> <item>6 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>7 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186049511-36">Hypothesis Tests</hd> <p>This study conducted a statistical analysis using structural equation model (SEM) and constructed the following models with MPLUS 8.3: the baseline model (which posits no direct effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation), competing model a (which adds a direct effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation to the baseline model), competing model b (which removes the path from the supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi to psychological safety in the baseline model), and competing model c (which adds a direct effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation while also removing the path from the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi to psychological safety in the baseline model). The results in Table 4 indicate that, compared to the baseline model and other competing models, competing model a achieved an acceptable level of fit with the best overall fit, suggesting that the modification in competing model a (the addition of the direct effect path) improved the original baseline model's goodness of fit. Consequently, competing model a was selected as the baseline mediation model for the subsequent analysis.</p> <p>4 TABLE Competing model comparison analysis results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="center"><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup>/df</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Baseline model</td><td align="center">13.740</td><td align="center">0.220</td><td align="center">0.972</td><td align="center">0.324</td><td align="center">0.024</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competing model a</td><td align="center">0.000</td><td align="center">0.000</td><td align="center">1.000</td><td align="center">1.000</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competing model b</td><td align="center">13.740</td><td align="center">0.220</td><td align="center">0.972</td><td align="center">0.324</td><td align="center">0.024</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Competing model c</td><td align="center">51.801</td><td align="center">0.439</td><td align="center">0.888</td><td align="center">−1.695</td><td align="center">0.056</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 <emph>Note:</emph> Baseline model: posit no direct effect of LAH on EBI; Competing model a: add a direct effect of LAH on EBI to the baseline model; Competing model b: remove the path from the SSAG to PS in the baseline model; Competing model c: add a direct effect of LAH on EBI while also removing the path from the SSAG to PS in the baseline model.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-37">Direct Effect Tests</hd> <p>To test hypotheses H1, H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, and H4a, we used Mplus 7.0 to conduct a structural equation model analysis for path analysis, and the results are presented in Figure 2. Leader affiliative humor is positively related to employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>β</emph> = 0.180, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), supporting H1. Leader affiliative humor is positively related to supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi (<emph>β</emph> = 0.583, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), supporting H2a. Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is positively related to employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>β</emph> = 0.124, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), supporting H2b. Leader affiliative humor is positively related to psychological safety (<emph>β</emph> = 0.182, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01); H3a is confirmed. Psychological safety is positively related to employees' bootleg innovation (<emph>β</emph> = 0.408, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); H3b is confirmed. Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is positively related to psychological safety (<emph>β</emph> = 0.373, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); H4a is confirmed.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun25/jocb70016-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb70016-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Path analyses results. N = 264, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Standardized path coefficients are reported." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186049511-39">Mediating Effect Tests</hd> <p>To test H2c, H3c and H4b, PROCESS macro was employed for the bootstrap analysis. The sample size was set to 5000, and the confidence interval was set to 95%. The non‐parametric percentile method of deviation correction was selected for the bootstrap sampling, and the results are presented in Table 5. The indirect effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi is 0.072, and the proportion of mediation effect accounts for 30.64%, with a 95% CI of [0.001, 0.151] (excluding 0), H2c is supported. The indirect effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through psychological safety is 0.074, with the mediation effect accounting for 31.49% of the total effect, and the 95% CI is [0.019, 0.151] (excluding 0), H3c is supported. The chain mediation path effect value of "leader affiliative humor → supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi → psychological safety → employees' bootleg innovation" is 0.089, with the mediation effect accounting for 37.87% of the total effect, and the 95% CI is [0.046, 0.147] (excluding 0). Thus, H4b is confirmed.</p> <p>5 TABLE Results of the chain mediation test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Path</th><th align="center">Effect</th><th align="center">Boot SE</th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Lower limit</th><th align="center">Upper limit</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">LAH → EBI</td><td align="center">0.180</td><td align="center">0.049</td><td align="center">0.0003</td><td align="center">0.084</td></tr><tr><td align="left">LAH → SSAG → EBI</td><td align="center">0.072</td><td align="center">0.038</td><td align="center">0.001</td><td align="center">0.151</td></tr><tr><td align="left">LAH → PS → EBI</td><td align="center">0.074</td><td align="center">0.034</td><td align="center">0.019</td><td align="center">0.151</td></tr><tr><td align="left">LAH → SSAG → PS → EBI</td><td align="center">0.089</td><td align="center">0.025</td><td align="center">0.046</td><td align="center">0.147</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total effect</td><td align="center">0.235</td><td align="center">0.046</td><td align="center">0.156</td><td align="center">0.336</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 <emph>Note:</emph><emph>N</emph> = 264.</item> <item>10 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EBI, employees' bootleg innovation; LAH, leader affiliative humor; PS, psychological safety; SSAG, supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186049511-40">Moderating Effect and Moderated Mediating Effect Tests</hd> <p>Figure 2 also shows the results of the test for a moderating effect. The interaction of leader affiliative humor and personal need for structure is significantly and negatively related to supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi (<emph>β</emph> = −0.129, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.069), showing that personal need for structure moderates the relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi. Furthermore, the interaction between leader affiliative humor and personal need for structure explains 6.9% of the variance in supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi, and H5a is supported. Meanwhile, the interaction of leader affiliative humor and personal need for structure is significantly and negatively related to psychological safety (<emph>β</emph> = −0.075, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.040), showing that personal need for structure plays a negative role in moderating the relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety. Furthermore, the interaction between leader affiliative humor and personal need for structure explains 4.0% of the variance in psychological safety, and H5b is supported. In order to display the moderating effect more intuitively, the moderating effect diagram is drawn by combining the personal need for structure with (M – 1 SD) and (M + 1 SD) respectively, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 demonstrates that with a high personal need for structure (1 SD above the mean), the positive effect of leader affiliative humor on supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi (<emph>β</emph> = 0.441, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) is weaker than that of low personal need for structure (1 SD below the mean; <emph>β</emph> = 0.702, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Compared to employees low on personal need for structure, employees high on personal need for structure can experience a weaker positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi. Thus, H5a is further supported. Moreover, Figure 4 demonstrates that with a high personal need for structure (1 SD above the mean), the positive effect of leader affiliative humor on psychological safety (<emph>β</emph> = 0.315, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) is weaker than that of low personal need for structure (1 SD below the mean; <emph>β</emph> = 0.467, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Compared to employees low on personal need for structure, employees high on personal need for structure can experience a weaker positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety. Therefore, H5b is further supported.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun25/jocb70016-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb70016-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Moderating effect of personal need for structure on the relationship of leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun25/jocb70016-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb70016-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Moderating effect of personal need for structure on the relationship of leader affiliative humor and psychological safety." /> </p> <p></p> <p>For the moderated mediating effect test, a "mediating effect difference test" is used. By adding or subtracting 1 SD from the mean value of personal need for structure, the conditional mediating effect of supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety under high and low personal need for structure are formed and compared for significance at different levels. Table 6 shows the results, when the personal need for structure is lower than 1 SD, the mediating effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is 0.194, and the 95% CI is [0.108, 0.297] (excluding 0). When the personal need for structure is higher than 1 SD, the mediating effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi is 0.122, and the 95% CI is [0.058, 0.204] (excluding 0). The effect value of differences between the two groups is −0.072, with a 95% CI of [−0.144, −0.007] (excluding 0), indicating there is a significant difference between the two groups. Thus H6a is confirmed. Analogously, when the personal need for structure is lower than 1 SD, the mediating effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through psychological safety is 0.218, and the 95% CI is [0.113, 0.332] (excluding 0). When the personal need for structure is higher than 1 SD, the mediating effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through psychological safety is 0.147, and the 95% CI is [0.056, 0.279] (excluding 0). The effect value of differences between the two groups is −0.071, with a 95% CI of [−0.173, 0.062] (including 0), indicating there is a non‐significant difference between the two groups. Thus H6b is not confirmed.</p> <p>6 TABLE Results of moderated mediating effect test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Effects</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">S.E.</th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Lower limit</th><th align="center">Upper limit</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Leader affiliative humor → Supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi → employees' bootleg innovation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low personal need for structure (−1 SD)</td><td align="center">0.194</td><td align="center">0.048</td><td align="center">0.108</td><td align="center">0.297</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High personal need for structure (+1 SD)</td><td align="center">0.122</td><td align="center">0.038</td><td align="center">0.058</td><td align="center">0.204</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Differences between the two groups</td><td align="center">−0.072</td><td align="center">0.035</td><td align="center">−0.144</td><td align="center">−0.007</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Leader affiliative humor → Psychological safety → employees' bootleg innovation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low personal need for structure (−1 SD)</td><td align="center">0.218</td><td align="center">0.055</td><td align="center">0.113</td><td align="center">0.332</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High personal need for structure (+1 SD)</td><td align="center">0.147</td><td align="center">0.058</td><td align="center">0.056</td><td align="center">0.279</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Differences between the two groups</td><td align="center">−0.071</td><td align="center">0.059</td><td align="center">−0.173</td><td align="center">0.062</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>11 <emph>Note:</emph> The difference between the two groups is equal to the mediating effect of conditions under high personal need for structure minus the mediating effect of conditions under low personal need for structure.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-43">Discussion</hd> <p>Based on social exchange theory and social information processing theory, this study constructed a moderated chain mediation model to explore how and when leader affiliative humor impacts employees' bootleg innovation. The empirical findings are described below.</p> <p>First, the results show that leader affiliative humor is positively and directly related to employees' bootleg innovation. The more affiliative humor behavior shown by the leader, the more effective it is in stimulating employees' bootleg innovation. This finding aligns with previous research holding that leader affiliative humor plays an important role in prompting employees' bootleg innovation (Dai et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref116">18</reflink>]; Zhang, Huang, et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref117">73</reflink>]; Zhang, Qin, et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref118">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, both supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety play mediating roles in the positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation. The results reveal that leader affiliative humor enhances emotional bonding between superiors and subordinates and makes employees perceive a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere. Employees will then actively exhibit bootleg innovation behavior consistent with supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety.</p> <p>Third, the chain‐mediating effect of supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety on the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation is verified. In other words, leader affiliative humor fosters a high‐quality supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, which in turn enhances employees' psychological safety and encourages bootleg innovation activities.</p> <p>Lastly, personal need for structure not only moderates the relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, but also moderates the relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety. Employees with a high level of personal need for structure tend to prefer clear and simple information within the organization and exhibit positive responses to the predictability and certainty of their environment. As a result, both the positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi, and the positive relationship between leader affiliative humor and psychological safety, are weakened. Furthermore, personal need for structure moderates the indirectly positive effect of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation through supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-44">Theoretical Implications</hd> <p>This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it examines the relationship between leader affiliative humor and bootleg innovation, thereby extending research on the consequences of leader affiliative humor. The current body of research on employees' reactions to leader humor has predominantly focused on employees' positive emotions, voice behavior, innovative behavior, and so forth (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref119">36</reflink>]; Lin [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref120">41</reflink>]; Potipiroon and Ford [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref121">57</reflink>]; Pundt [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref122">58</reflink>]; Zhang and Su [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref123">74</reflink>]). Although a few studies have explored the relationship between leader humor and employees' bootleg innovation (Dai et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref124">18</reflink>]; Zheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref125">77</reflink>]), leadership humor encompasses various types, each with distinct effects. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on leader affiliative humor and further explores its positive influence on employees' bootleg innovation based on social exchange theory. Consequently, this research enriches the study of leader humor and its outcomes.</p> <p>Second, based on social information processing theory, this study uncovers the deeper influence mechanism of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation by introducing supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety as two mediating variables. There are relatively few existing research studies on the influence mechanism of leader humor on employees' bootleg innovation (Dai et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref126">18</reflink>]; Zhang, Huang, et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref127">73</reflink>]; Zhang, Qin, et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref128">75</reflink>]; Zheng et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref129">77</reflink>]). Zheng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref130">77</reflink>]) identified the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between leader humor and bootleg innovation from a cognitive perspective. Zhang, Huang, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref131">73</reflink>]) demonstrated the indirect effect of leader humor on employee bootlegging through relational energy, based on the conservation of resources theory. Dai et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref132">18</reflink>]) found that there is a positive relationship between a leader's positive humor and employee bootlegging, which is partially mediated by norm violation acceptability. Given that Chinese organizational culture is characterized by a "guanxi‐oriented" nature (Charoensukmongkol [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref133">10</reflink>]; Cheung et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref134">13</reflink>]), this study employs supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety as mediators to explore the underlying relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation by combining both guanxi and cognitive perspectives. The findings indicate that when leader affiliative humor plays an effective leading role, employees will have more emotional interactions with leaders, which will subsequently improve supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi and the psychological safety of employees. These influences will ultimately lead to enhanced employees' bootleg innovation. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on how leader affiliative humor affects employees' bootleg innovation and enriches the application of social information processing theory.</p> <p>Third, this study deepens our understanding of the boundary conditions for the mechanism underlying leader affiliative humor and enriches the theoretical application of personal need for structure as a moderating variable. On the one hand, considering the significance of individual traits of humor recipients, employees with different levels of personal need for structure may perceive, and respond to leader affiliative humor differently. At the same time, this study actively echoes the call for future research to evaluate and identify important boundary conditions in the theory of leader humor (Pundt [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref135">58</reflink>]). On the other hand, by incorporating the impact of personal need for structure into the domain of employees' bootleg innovation, the study further extends the theoretical application of personal need for structure. The findings of this research enhance scholars' understanding of humor expression and reception in the workplace, providing novel research insights and theoretical support for the use of humor by leaders in organizations.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-45">Practical Implications</hd> <p>First, organizations should emphasize the importance of leader affiliative humor and consciously recruit and develop leaders who exhibit the trait of affiliative humor. In the daily interactions between employees and leaders, leader affiliative humor exhibits a more positive side and bridges the psychological distance. Leaders reduce hierarchical differences through light‐hearted communication, such as humorous language, creating an egalitarian work atmosphere. This relaxed atmosphere within the organization stimulates employees' creativity and innovative thinking, allowing them to showcase more imagination and originality in their work.</p> <p>Second, the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi can facilitate employees' bootleg innovation behavior. Leaders should focus on establishing supportive, trusting, and friendly relationships with their employees. To enhance leaders' abilities to establish and manage close personal relationships with subordinates, organizations can provide training workshops or courses on leadership skills and traditional relationship cultures, and provide examples of leaders cultivating good interpersonal relationships. Building upon this foundation, it is expected that leaders strengthen emotional relationships beyond the work realm, such as conducting home visits and showing concern for subordinates' work activities and personal lives.</p> <p>Third, leader affiliative humor and high‐quality supervisor‐subordinate affective guanxi can enhance employees' psychological safety. Organizations should create a work environment full of psychological safety, reducing internal psychological pressures and external interpersonal risks when employees engage in bootleg innovation. The organization should provide various forms of support, including training and development opportunities, good management and leadership, and encouraging employees to express their opinions and ideas. At the same time, employees should be given appropriate recognition and rewards, acknowledging their outstanding performance and contributions, making them feel supported and recognized by the organization. This will make them more confident and more receptive to new ideas and innovations.</p> <p>Lastly, leaders may opt for personalized approaches or methods to manage employees more effectively. When using humor, leaders should be mindful of the characteristics of the humor recipients. For employees with higher needs for structure, leader affiliative humor can indeed foster positive supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and enhance psychological safety, thereby promoting bootleg innovation. However, its effectiveness may be less pronounced compared to employees with lower needs for structure. In such cases, leaders might consider employing alternative motivational strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-46">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>This study has several limitations. First, all variables were assessed through employee self‐evaluation. Although common method variance tests were conducted, the potential influence of this variance cannot be completely eliminated, thus weakening the explanatory power of causal relationships. Therefore, future research could employ multi‐source methods to collect data. For example, bootleg innovation behavior could be assessed by supervisors.</p> <p>Second, while introducing the supervisor–subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety as key mediating mechanisms, there may be other variables at play. Subsequent studies could further expand the investigation of mediating mechanisms.</p> <p>Third, this study introduced personal need for structure as a boundary condition for the model and examined the moderating role of personal need for structure in the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation. Future research could further shift the research perspective to explore whether, and how, the characteristics of the humor initiator influence the effectiveness of humor.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-47">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Our institution's relevant body deemed ethical approval not required because the study was not medical research nor regarded as human experimentation, as stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures performed were approved by our institution, considering the obtained and anonymized data by the survey in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-48">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186049511-49">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.</p> <ref id="AN0186049511-50"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by Education Science Planning Project in Hunan Province of China under grant no. ND211784, and Education Science Planning Project in Hunan Province of China under grant no. XJK23AJC003.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186049511-51"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abdillah, M. R. 2021. " Leader Humor and Knowledge Sharing Behavior: The Role of Leader‐Member Exchange." Jurnal Manajemen 25, no. 1 : 76 – 91. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v25i1.704.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arthachinda, P., and P. Charoensukmongkol. 2024. " Effect of Spiritual Leadership on Psychological Safety Climate and Team Innovation in Consulting Teams: The Moderating Role of Occupational Self‐Efficacy." International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 73 : 3231 – 3251. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Augsdorfer, P. 2005. " Bootlegging and Path Dependency." Research Policy 34, no. 1 : 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Augsdorfer, P. 2012. " A Diagnostic Personality Test to Identify Likely Corporate Bootleg Researchers." International Journal of Innovation Management 16, no. 1 : 1250003. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref63" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Avolio, B. J., J. M. Howell, and J. J. Sosik. 1999. " A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bottom Line: Humor as a Moderator of Leadership Style Effects." Academy of Management Journal 42, no. 2 : 219 – 227. https://doi.org/10.2307/257094.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref55" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref112" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. 2015. Comfirmatory Factor Anaysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref114" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne, B. M. 2016. Stuctural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref93" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carmeli, A., and J. H. Gittell. 2009. " High‐Quality Relationships, Psychological Safety, and Learning From Failures in Work Organizations." Journal of Organizational Behavior 30, no. 6 : 709 – 729. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.565.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charoensukmongkol, P. 2021. " How Chinese Expatriates' Cultural Intelligence Promotes Supervisor‐Subordinate Guanxi With Thai Employees: The Mediating Effect of Expatriates' Benevolence." International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 21, no. 1 : 9 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595821996735.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, C. C., X. P. Chen, and S. Huang. 2013. " Chinese Guanxi: An Integrative Review and New Directions for Future Research." Management and Organization Review 9, no. 1 : 167 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0047.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Y., R. Friedman, E. Yu, W. Fang, and X. Lu. 2009. " Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi: Developing a Three‐Dimensional Model and Scale." Management and Organization Review 5, no. 3 : 375 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740‐8784.2009.00153.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, M. F. Y., W.‐P. Wu, A. K. K. Chan, and M. M. L. Wong. 2009. " Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi and Employee Work Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction." Journal of Business Ethics 88, no. 1 : 77 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐008‐9830‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, C. D. 2005. " Just Joking Around? Employee Humor Expression as an Ingratiatory Behavior." Academy of Management Review 30, no. 4 : 765 – 776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378877.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, C. D., D. T. Kong, and C. D. Crossley. 2018. " Leader Humor as an Interpersonal Resource: Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives." Academy of Management Journal 61, no. 2 : 769 – 796. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Criscuolo, P., A. Salter, and A. L. J. Ter Wal. 2014. " Going Underground: Bootlegging and Individual Innovative Performance." Organization Science 25, no. 5 : 1287 – 1305. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0856.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cropanzano, R., and M. S. Mitchell. 2005. " Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review." Journal of Management 31, no. 6 : 874 – 900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dai, L., Z. Li, Y. Zheng, K. Zeng, and C. Millman. 2023. " Linking Leader's Positive Humor and Employee Bootlegging: Empirical Evidence From China." Psychology Research and Behavior Management 16 : 1283 – 1297. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S405167.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Detert, J. R., and E. R. Burris. 2007. " Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? " Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 4 : 869 – 884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ding, H., and E. Yu. 2020. " Subordinate‐Oriented Strengths‐Based Leadership and Subordinate Job Performance: The Mediating Effect of Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 41, no. 8 : 1107 – 1118. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj‐09‐2019‐0414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edmondson, A. 1999. " Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams." Administrative Science Quarterly 44, no. 2 : 350 – 383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edmondson, A., and Z. Lei. 2014. " Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1, no. 1 : 23 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐031413‐091305.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friesen, J. P., A. C. Kay, R. P. Eibach, and A. D. Galinsky. 2014. " Seeking Structure in Social Organization: Compensatory Control and the Psychological Advantages of Hierarchy." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106, no. 4 : 590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003562.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao, Y., and H. Liu. 2021. " How Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi Influence Employee Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model." Psychology Research and Behavior Management 14 : 2001 – 2014. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S342875.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gocłowska, M. A., M. Baas, A. J. Elliot, and C. K. De Dreu. 2017. " Why Schema‐Violations Are Sometimes Preferable to Schema‐Consistencies: The Role of Interest and Openness to Experience." Journal of Research in Personality 66 : 54 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, A., P. Nair, T. Beehr, and M. Grossenbacher. 2016. " The Relationship of Leaders' Humor and Employees' Work Engagement Mediated by Positive Emotions: Moderating Effect of Leaders' Transformational Leadership Style." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 37, no. 8 : 1083 – 1099. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ‐01‐2015‐0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gottfredson, R. K., S. L. Wright, and E. D. Heaphy. 2020. " A Critique of the Leader‐Member Exchange Construct: Back to Square One." Leadership Quarterly 31, no. 6 : 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graen, G. B., and M. Uhl‐Bien. 1995. " Relationship‐Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader‐Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership Over 25 Years: Applying a Multi‐Level Multi‐Domain Perspective." Leadership Quarterly 6, no. 2 : 219 – 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048‐9843(95)90036‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guan, X., and S. J. Frenkel. 2019. " Explaining Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi and Subordinate Performance Through a Conservation of Resources Lens." Human Relations 72, no. 11 : 1752 – 1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718813718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, Z., M. Ni, C. Hou, and Y. Zhang. 2023. " Effects of Superior–Subordinate Guanxi on Employee Innovative Behavior: The Role of Follower Dependency and Work Passion." Behavioral Science 13, no. 8 : 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Homans, G. C. 1958. " Social Behavior as Exchange." American Journal of Sociology 63, no. 6 : 597 – 606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howland, M., and J. A. Simpson. 2014. " Attachment Orientations and Reactivity to Humor in a Social Support Context." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 31, no. 1 : 114 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513488016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn, W. A. 1990. " Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work." Academy of Management Journal 33, no. 4 : 692 – 724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, R. B., R. Hogan, and S. B. Craig. 2008. " Leadership and the Fate of Organizations." American Psychologist 63, no. 2 : 96 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.63.2.96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karakowsky, L., M. Podolsky, and A. R. Elangovan. 2020. " Signaling Trustworthiness: The Effect of Leader Humor on Feedback‐Seeking Behavior." Journal of Social Psychology 160, no. 2 : 170 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1620161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, T. Y., D. R. Lee, and N. Y. S. Wong. 2016. " Supervisor Humor and Employee Outcomes: The Role of Social Distance and Affective Trust in Supervisor." Journal of Business and Psychology 31, no. 1 : 125 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐015‐9406‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. 2016. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, D. T., C. D. Cooper, and J. J. Sosik. 2019. " The State of Research on Leader Humor." Organizational Psychology Review 9, no. 1 : 3 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619846948.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law, K. S., C. S. Wong, D. Wang, and L. Wang. 2000. " Effect of Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi on Supervisory Decisions in China: An Empirical Investigation." International Journal of Human Resource Management 11, no. 4 : 751 – 765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., W. Wang, G. Sun, Z. Jiang, and Z. Cheng. 2018. " Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi and Job Satisfaction Among Migrant Workers in China." Social Indicators Research 139 : 293 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐016‐1471‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, Z. 2016. " The Influence of Perceived Leader Humor on Subordinate's Voice Behavior: A Study Under Chinese Background." Open Journal of Social Sciences 4, no. 4 : 174 – 178. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.44025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, S., X. Wang, and K. Zhao. 2022. " The Effect of Leader Humor on Employee Learning From Failure—A Mediated Moderation Model." Soft Science 37, no. 8 : 46 – 51+58. https://doi.org/10.13956/j.ss.1001‐8409.2023.08.07.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Y., G. Lu, and Y. Liu. 2016. " Personal Need for Structure: Concept, Measurements and Relationships to Related Variables." Advances in Psychological Science 24, no. 2 : 228 – 241. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, Z., H. S. U. D. Khan, M. S. Chughtai, M. Li, B. Ge, and S. U. Qadri. 2023. " A Review of Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi: Current Trends and Future Research." Sustainability 15, no. 1 : 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010795.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mallett, O., and R. Wapshott. 2014. " Informality and Employment Relationships in Small Firms: Humour, Ambiguity and Straight‐Talking." British Journal of Management 25, no. 1 : 118 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8551.2012.00836.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone, P. B., III. 1980. " Humor: A Double‐Edged Tool for Today's Managers? " Academy of Management Review 5, no. 3 : 357 – 360. https://doi.org/10.2307/257110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, R. A., P. Puhlik‐Doris, G. Larsen, J. Gray, and K. Weir. 2003. " Individual Differences in Uses of Humor and Their Relation to Psychological Well‐Being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire." Journal of Research in Personality 37, no. 1 : 48 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092‐6566(02)00534‐2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslyn, J. M., and M. Uhl‐Bien. 2001. " Leader–Member Exchange and Its Dimensions: Effects of Self‐Effort and Other's Effort on Relationship Quality." Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 4 : 697 – 708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.86.4.697.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masoudnia, Y., and M. Szwejczewski. 2012. " Bootlegging in the R&D Departments of High‐Technology Firms." Research‐Technology Management 55, no. 5 : 35 – 42. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5505070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May, D. R., R. L. Gilson, and L. M. Harter. 2004. " The Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77, no. 1 : 11 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGraw, A. P., and C. Warren. 2010. " Benign Violations: Making Immoral Behavior Funny." Psychological Science 21, no. 8 : 1141 – 1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376073.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mejia, C., Y. Wang, and X. Zhao. 2020. " The Impact of Personal and Professional Guanxi Relationships on Leader–Member Exchange in the Chinese Hotel Industry." International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 21, no. 1 : 65 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2018.1429340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesmer‐Magnus, J., D. J. Glew, and C. Viswesvaran. 2012. " A Meta‐Analysis of Positive Humor in the Workplace." Journal of Managerial Psychology 27, no. 2 : 155 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211199554.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuberg, S. L., and J. T. Newsom. 1993. " Personal Need for Structure: Individual Differences in the Desire for Simpler Structure." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, no. 1 : 113 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.65.1.113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neves, P., and G. Karagonlar. 2020. " Does Leader Humor Style Matter and to Whom? " Journal of Managerial Psychology 35, no. 2 : 115 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP‐12‐2018‐0552.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. " Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 : 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.88.5.879.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potipiroon, W., and M. Ford. 2021. " Does Leader Humor Influence Employee Voice? The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and the Moderating Role of Team Humor." Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 28 : 415 – 428. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211036464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pundt, A. 2015. " The Relationship Between Humorous Leadership and Innovative Behavior." Journal of Managerial Psychology 30, no. 8 : 878 – 893. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP‐03‐2013‐0082.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pundt, A. 2024. " Humor in Leadership and Employee Creative and Innovative Behavior." Current Opinion in Psychology 55 : 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pundt, A., and F. Herrmann. 2015. " Affiliative and Aggressive Humour in Leadership and Their Relationship to Leader–Member Exchange." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 88, no. 1 : 108 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12081.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pundt, A., and L. Venz. 2017. " Personal Need for Structure as a Boundary Condition for Humor in Leadership." Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, no. 1 : 87 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salancik, G. R., and J. Pfeffer. 1978. " A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design." Administrative Science Quarterly 23, no. 2 : 224 – 253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shi, G., S. Mao, and K. Wang. 2017. " The Relationship Between Leader Humor and Employees' Creativity: A Study From the Perspective of Social Exchange Theory." Human Resources Development of China 34, no. 11 : 17 – 31. https://doi.org/10.16471/j.cnki.11‐2822/c.2017.11.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay, M. 2017. " Humor in Teams: Multilevel Relationships Between Humor Climate, Inclusion, Trust, and Citizenship Behaviors." Journal of Business and Psychology 32, no. 4 : 363 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐016‐9445‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, X. L., M. Y. Wang, and J. N. Liu. 2023. " Study on the Influence Mechanism of Leaders' Abusive Supervision on Employees' Bootlegging Innovation Behavior." International Journal of Conflict Management 34, no. 5 : 887 – 906. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA‐02‐2023‐0026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wei, L. Q., J. Liu, Y. Y. Chen, and L. Z. Wu. 2010. " Political Skill, Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi and Career Prospects in Chinese Firms." Journal of Management Studies 47, no. 3 : 437 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2009.00871.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, R. E., N. Beckmann, and J. R. Rossiter. 2011. " Management Humor: Asset or Liability? " Organizational Psychology Review 1, no. 4 : 316 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611418393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Z., J. Gong, Y. Qu, and X. Sun. 2023. " Using Leader Affiliative Humor to Encourage Employee Knowledge Sharing: The Multilevel Role of Knowledge Sharing Self‐Efficacy and Team Psychological Safety." Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8, no. 3 : 100408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Z., H. Wang, and S. Suntrayuth. 2022. " Organizational Climate, Innovation Orientation, and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and Intrinsic Motivation." Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2022, no. 1 : 9067136. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9067136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yam, K. C., M. S. Christian, W. Wei, Z. Liao, and J. Nai. 2018. " The Mixed Blessing of Leader Sense of Humor: Examining Costs and Benefits." Academy of Management Journal 61, no. 1 : 348 – 369. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1088.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, C., F. Yang, and C. Ding. 2021. " Linking Leader Humor to Employee Creativity: The Roles of Relational Energy and Traditionality." Journal of Managerial Psychology 36, no. 7 : 548 – 561. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP‐06‐2020‐0300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuan, Y., Q. Zhang, and M. Yang. 2023. " Such a High Cost: The Positive Effect of Leader Humor on Employee Incivility via Psychological Safety." Asian Business & Management 22, no. 2 : 529 – 548. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291‐022‐00180‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J., R. Huang, Q. Chen, and G. Zhao. 2023a. " The Relationships Between Supervisor‐Subordinate Guanxi, Perceived Supervisor Autonomy Support, Autonomous Motivation, and Employee Job Satisfaction: Evidence From International Hotel Chains in China." International Journal of Hospitality Management 108 : 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, J., and W. Su. 2020. " Linking Leader Humor to Employee Innovative Behavior: The Roles of Work Engagement and Supervisor's Organizational Embodiment." Frontiers in Psychology 11 : 592999. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, L., G. Qin, F. Yang, and P. Jiang. 2023b. " Linking Leader Humor to Employee Bootlegging: A Resource‐Based Perspective." Journal of Business and Psychology 38, no. 6 : 1233 – 1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869‐023‐09881‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, X. A., N. Li, and T. B. Harris. 2015. " Putting Non‐work Ties to Work: The Case of Guanxi in Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships." Leadership Quarterly 26, no. 1 : 37 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, X., S. Mai, C. Zhou, L. Ma, and X. Sun. 2022. " As Above, So Below? The Influence of Leader Humor on Bootleg Innovation: The Mechanism of Psychological Empowerment and Affective Trust in Leaders." Frontiers in Psychology 13 : 956782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.956782.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hui Wang; Min Zhang and Jian Zhu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref115"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1474492
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Can Leader Affiliative Humor Promote Employees' Bootleg Innovation? A Moderated Chain Mediation Model
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hui+Wang%22">Hui Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6372-7838">0000-0001-6372-7838</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Min+Zhang%22">Min Zhang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jian+Zhu%22">Jian Zhu</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2025 59(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Styles%22">Leadership Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Humor%22">Humor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Innovation%22">Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Exchange+Theory%22">Social Exchange Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supervisor+Supervisee+Relationship%22">Supervisor Supervisee Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.70016
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Drawing on social exchange theory and social information processing theory, this study constructs a moderated chain mediation model to test the impact of leader affiliative humor on employees' bootleg innovation. Based on a sample of 264 employees from Chinese companies, this study used SPSS 26.0 and MPLUS 8.3 to examine the hypotheses. Empirical results demonstrate that (a) leader affiliative humor is directly and positively related to employees' bootleg innovation; (b) supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety serve as mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; (c) supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety function as chained mediators between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation; and (d) personal need for structure negatively moderates the effect of leader affiliative humor on supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi and psychological safety, and negatively moderates the mediating effect of supervisor-subordinate affective guanxi on the relationship between leader affiliative humor and employees' bootleg innovation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1474492
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1474492
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.70016
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Humor
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Exchange Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supervisor Supervisee Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Can Leader Affiliative Humor Promote Employees' Bootleg Innovation? A Moderated Chain Mediation Model
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hui Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Min Zhang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jian Zhu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1