Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uncover the veil of power: The determining effect of subordinates’ instrumental value on leaders’ power-induced behaviors

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leaders’ sense of power is often found to induce abusive and aggressive behaviors toward subordinates, which consequently undermines interactional justice. Drawing on moral exclusion theory, we predict that subordinates’ instrumental value determines whether leaders’ sense of power prompts abusive supervisory behaviors or actions of showing goodwill toward subordinates, which, in turn, reshapes interactional justice. We theorize that leaders’ outcome dependence on subordinates is the key indicator of subordinates’ instrumental value. The results of two field studies lend support to our propositions. When leaders have low outcome dependence on subordinates, their sense of power is more likely to trigger abusive supervisory behaviors and then hamper interactional justice. Conversely, when leaders have high outcome dependence on subordinates, their sense of power is more likely to promote goodwill toward subordinates and consequently foster interactional justice. We further find that subordinates’ power distance influences the relationship between power-induced behaviors and interactional justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Notes

  1. Because there were no “stayers” and “leavers” across Time 1 and Time 3 surveys, we did not conduct logistic regression for participants across Time 1 and Time 3 surveys.

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising these two issues.

  3. Leaders only participated in Time 1 survey (rating their sense of power and outcome dependence on subordinates), while subordinates participated Time 2 survey (rating abusive supervisory behaviors and goodwill toward them) and Time 3 survey (rating their power distance orientation and interactional justice), We, thus, conducted one logistic regression to test whether there were systematic response differences for subordinates across Time 2 and Time 3 surveys.

  4. CFA results for all alternative models are available upon request.

References

  • Acton, J. E. (1907). Letter to Bishop Creighton. In J. N. Figgis & R. V. Laurence (Eds.), Historical essays and studies (pp. 503–508). MacMillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59(6), 723–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Z. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. H., Wan, K.-C., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are responses to verbal insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6), 871–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., van Dijk, E., & Folmer, C. P. R. (2009). Why leaders feel entitled to take more. In D. de Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 107–119). Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1625–1637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. (2012). Does power corrupt or enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 681–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1061–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer, R. B. Peterson, E. G. McGoun, & P. Marer (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management (vol. 3, pp. 127–149). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1–2), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fast, N. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Illusory control: A generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychological Science, 20(4), 502–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 182–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, T., Dietz, J., & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foulk, T. A., Lanaj, K., Tu, M. H., Erez, A., & Archambeau, L. (2018). Heavy is the head that wears the crown: An actor-centric approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 661–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 184–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22(4), 627–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (2003). An analysis of empirical research on the scope of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Zhong, C.-B. (2011). Drunk, powerful, and in the dark: How general processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). How power corrupts relationships: Cynical attributions for others’ generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 795–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S. L., & Shah, P. P. (2016). Diagnosing the locus of trust: A temporal perspective for trustor, trustee, and dyadic influences on perceived trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, D., Huang, M., Liu, D., Qin, X., Hu, Q., & Chen, C. (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154, 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.

  • Keltner, D., van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. (2012). Power increases social distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 282–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A Comparison of Approaches to Forming Composite Measures in Structural Equation Models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leets, L. (2001). Interrupting the cycle of moral exclusion: A communication contribution to social justice research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(9), 1859–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54(9), 1155–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., & Song, Z. (2018). Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1039–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. H. J., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 815–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Richards, C. (1997). Mixed messages: Implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1349–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., Ellemers, N., & van Dijk, E. (2015). Why leaders punish: A power perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2019). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: User’s guide (8th ed.). Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. (2015). Speaking truth to power: The effect of candid feedback on how individuals with power allocate resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by Morton Deutsch (pp. 347–369). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prislin, R., Sawicki, V., & Williams, K. (2011). New majorities’ abuse of power: Effects of perceived control and social support. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proell, C. A., & Sauer, S. J. (2011). Stock options: The debilitating effects of autonomy and choice on self-perceptions of power. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 23(3), 82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Matta, F. K. (2021). To and fro: The costs and benefits of power fluctuation throughout the day. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1357–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassenberg, K., Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., & Scholl, A. (2014). “Power corrupts” revisited: The role of construal of power as opportunity or responsibility. In J.-W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 73–87). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 136–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tost, L. P. (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 29–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tost, L. P., & Johnson, H. H. (2019). The prosocial side of power: How structural power over subordinates can promote social responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 426–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 1138–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2002). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review and proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1315–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1056–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Reynolds, S. J., & Brown, M. E. (2014). Moral intuition: Connecting current knowledge to future organizational research and practice. Journal of Management, 40(1), 100–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, E. X., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2352–2380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1365–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, X., Kwan, H. K., Ma, Y., Lai, G., & Yim, F. H. K. (2020). Lone wolves reciprocate less deviance: A moral identity model of abusive supervision. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(7), 859–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapata, C. P., Carton, A. M., & Liu, J. T. (2016). When justice promotes injustice: Why minority leaders experience bias when they adhere to interpersonal justice rules. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1150–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 719–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, 18 Xueyuan Street, Hangzhou, China

    Jieying Xu

  2. Huaqiang Vocational and Technical School, 02 Xinsha Street, Shenzhen, China

    Yuting Li

  3. Shenzhen Futian Academy of Educational Sciences, 1040 Hongling Street, Shenzhen, China

    Yuting Li

Authors
  1. Jieying Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jieying Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, J., Li, Y. Uncover the veil of power: The determining effect of subordinates’ instrumental value on leaders’ power-induced behaviors. Asia Pac J Manag (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09892-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09892-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation