autocratic style of leadership research papers

Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2022
• Volume 73 , pages 841–871, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elia Pizzolitto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4569-1365 1 ,
• Ida Verna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3838-341X 1 &
• Michelina Venditti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7269-0707 1  

65k Accesses

21 Citations

Explore all metrics

Although authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, work climate deterioration, increased power distance, and centralized control, contradictory empirical evidence has emerged in the literature. In this paper, we perform a systematic literature review with three aims: (1) understand the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, (2) study the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate, and (3) establish a research agenda for the future. The results show that in the last two decades, the interest for the field has shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Moreover, many authors encourage leaders to increase or decrease their degree of authoritarian leadership depending on the context to more effectively connect leadership with performance. Therefore, leadership should be studied in light of a more complex approach that considers hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Finally, we discuss our study’s limitations and managerial implications.

Similar content being viewed by others

The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation

Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader

Meta-Analysis Study on the Effect of Managers’ Leadership Behaviors on Work Performance of Employees

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Authoritarian leadership styles involve high levels of control over subordinates (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Authoritarian leaders tend to use their authority, which is ensured by organizational hierarchies, to demand absolute obedience of their followers (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Superiors adopting these leadership styles tend to centralize their power and accentuate the power distance between them and their subordinates (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). Evidence in the literature has shown that authoritarian leaders press their subordinates to achieve demanding objectives and to follow the rules (Li et al. 2018 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Although at first glance, these leadership styles may not seem to ensure a good work climate or facilitate high performance (Shen et al. 2019 ), the empirical literature has shown contrasting results during the last decades.

Authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, complex leader–follower relationships, and high intentions of followers to leave (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). For example, Chiang et al. ( 2020 ) showed that the work climate worsens if authoritarian leaders operate by suppressing subordinates’ emotions. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) showed that subordinates’ effort could be limited if superiors act as authoritarian leaders. Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) demonstrated the direct relationship between subordinates’ disapproval of power distance and adverse effects of directive leadership on performance. Therefore, authoritarian leadership styles seem to clash with the high dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets.

Nevertheless, several studies have identified specific conditions under which authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect workgroup performance. For example, positive results can be achieved in workgroups characterized by high levels of traditionality and guided by authoritarian leaders (Shen et al. 2019 ). Directive leadership can ensure good outcomes when rewards are low, group size is large, and failure is not too costly (Rahmani et al. 2018 ). Moreover, authoritarian leaders can succeed in workgroups with low team power struggles (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ) and high participation (Sagie 1996 ). Finally, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) highlighted that authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect communication if authority is not exaggerated. These contrasting results highlight the need for a comprehensive review of the evolution of the scientific debate on this topic.

Furthermore, cultural prejudice about the effectiveness of authoritarian leadership styles should be addressed in light of the complexity of new businesses. For example, authoritarian and paternalistic leadership styles are “still predominant in many Asian cultures” (Shen et al. 2019 : 498), where Confucianism is widespread and applied in business (Shen et al. 2019 ). In particular, the literature highlights the “necessity of challenging the deeply rooted beliefs held by many Chinese managers that authoritarian leadership is an effective leadership strategy” (Li et al. 2019 : 951). Nevertheless, authoritarian leadership styles are popular in contemporary business organizations worldwide (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Therefore, empirical evidence reveals a contradiction between organizational theory and practice: even though authoritarian leadership styles are formally considered ineffective, management employs this kind of leadership in practice worldwide. The literature highlights the importance of “leadership styles prevalent in the culture under investigation and examines its cultural roots and dominant psychological mechanisms” (Chen et al. 2014 : 813). Consequently, questions arise about the evolution of the authoritarian leadership concept and applications of authority in leaders’ behaviors.

A considerable number of literature reviews have debated the effects of leadership styles on performance. For example, Yahaya and Ebrahim’s ( 2016 ) review on this topic was limited to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Harrison et al. ( 2016 ) devoted their systematic review to entrepreneurial leadership and its effects on performance. Georgakakis et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed the role assumptions of CEOs and top management teams, organizing them into theoretical categories. However, their research did not classify authoritarian leadership styles depending on these assumptions. Laureani and Antony’s ( 2017 ) comprehensive literature review discussed the effects of a general conceptualization of leadership and its effects on Lean Six Sigma. Servant leadership’s effects on performance were debated by Langhof and Güldenberg ( 2019 ) and Parris and Peachey ( 2013 ). The general effects of leadership on performance were discussed by Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar ( 2018 ). To summarize, although the literature highlights the importance of leadership for performance, we could not find a review devoted to authoritarian leadership styles and their outcomes.

For these reasons, we concentrated on authoritarian leadership styles–i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership – to explore literature findings of their effects on performance. In particular, we perform a systematic literature review (SLR) to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ2: What has been the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ3: How does the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles make sense in light of the strong dynamism of new markets?

The article is structured as follows. We define the key concepts, i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership. After that, we describe in detail the methodology employed for the selection and analysis of the literature. The subsequent descriptive analysis shows the results of publications’ years, typologies, and fields and the evolution of authors’ and statistical units’ origins over time. Then, we develop the content analysis with a conceptual map of the field, an analysis of the most employed theories, the themes that emerged, and the future research opportunities identified by the authors of selected articles. Finally, we conclude our article with a general discussion of the results and indications for the future expansion of this study.

2 Definitions of key concepts

In this study, we refer to four leadership styles: authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic. In this section, we present four definitions derived from the extracted articles' content in our dataset. In the past, the literature treated authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leadership styles interchangeably (Chiang et al. 2020 ). However, commonalities and differences have emerged during the most recent debate.

Authoritarian leadership styles “include exercising discipline, authority, and control over followers” (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 : 475). They demand that employees meet high work standards and reprimand employees for poor performance (Wang et al. 2013 ; Lee et al. 2019 ). To achieve these goals, authoritarian leaders exhibit high self-confidence and plan their actions to ensure that their subordinates do not challenge their authority. Authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders limit “followers’ autonomy and self-determination, whereby leaders control followers via impersonal procedures and rules” (Li et al. 2019 : 931). They provide “clear directions and expectations regarding compliance with instructions” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). After that, they tend to centralize decisions and limit subordinates’ opportunities to express their opinions (Yun et al. 2005 ).

In addition to revealing commonalities among authoritarian leadership styles, the literature shows substantial differences. According to Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), authoritarian and autocratic leadership styles differ in two main characteristics. First, evidence in the literature does not associate autocratic with destructive leadership styles, while authoritarian leadership is often associated with the ‘dark side’ of leadership. Second, autocratic leaders are task-oriented and therefore are accepted by subordinates. Authoritarian leaders, instead, trigger feelings such as fear of distrust. Moreover, authoritarian and directive leaders differ in the way they give subordinates feedback. In particular, “a directive leader focuses on providing guidance”, while an authoritarian leader “focuses on controlling and making demands of subordinates” (Chiang et al. 2020 : 1085).

Moreover, authoritarian behaviors are part of the construct of paternalistic leadership, which “combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity in a personalistic atmosphere” (Wu et al. 2012 : 97). Therefore, paternalistic leaders have a genuine interest in subordinates’ well-being in both their professional and private lives (Hiller et al. 2019 ). The construct of paternalistic leadership consists of three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality (Chen et al. 2014 ; Chou et al. 2015 ; Hiller et al. 2019 ). The most crucial difference between paternalistic leaders and authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders is the benevolent side of this style. While morality could be associated with directive leadership and authority could be ascribed to authoritarian and autocratic styles, benevolence can be ascribed only to paternalistic behaviors.

3 Methodology

SLR is a methodology characterized by a rigorous protocol (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Post et al. 2020 ), in which authors’ interpretation and creativity are limited to achieve the highest possible level of objectivity (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ). According to most authors who have debated the SLR methodology, the SLR procedure is a fit when a researcher seeks proof in the literature to answer specific research questions. Our research examines a small group of leadership styles, i.e., authoritarian styles, and their effects on firm and employee performance. Given this level of specificity, the SLR was the best available methodology for answering our questions.

The protocol we chose for our SLR was proposed by Wolfswinkel et al. ( 2013 ), who introduced the application of grounded theory (GT) for developing content analyses in SLRs. GT (Corbin and Strauss 1990 ; Strauss and Corbin 1997 ) is a research method based on the interpretative paradigm about sociological research, which interprets the processes underlying a specific phenomenon. Using open, axial, and selective coding (Table 1 ), the research starts from a set of documents and organizes their contents into subthemes, themes, and, eventually, superordinate structures.

The advantage of using GT is that researchers concentrate on concepts and theories to reveal themes debated in the literature during the analysis; the themes are not decided before the study (Wolfswinkel et al. 2013 ). Given that our research was not driven by any previous convictions about the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance and was not influenced by cultural prejudice, GT was the best possible choice to develop our content analysis. Table 1 shows the detailed steps of the protocol we followed, and Fig.  1 shows a PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 ) flowchart that displays the process of the extraction and selection of relevant articles.

Extraction and inclusion of relevant contributions: PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 )

4 Descriptive analysis of the dataset

4.1 publications’ years, typologies, authors, and fields.

Figure  2 shows the number of theoretical (orange) and empirical (blue) publications per year. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of publications was 0.49 per year. During the following decade, the average was one per year. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average number of publications was 2.45 per year. Moreover, the average number of authors per document increased over time. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of authors per publication was 2.06. From 2001 to 2010, the average was 3.00. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average was 3.85. Therefore, the increasing number of publications and authors involved in the debate demonstrates the increasing interest in the topic. In particular, the distribution of articles per year shows a considerable focus on empirical research. In the dataset, 47 articles are empirical, and only seven are theoretical.

Number of publications per year

Our research covered a wide range of journals and fields. The fields interested in the topic also changed over time, as shown in Fig. 3 a and b. From 1966 to 2010, 48% of the articles were published in organizational psychology journals. In the next decade, this percentage decreased to 29%. Organization studies journals published 19% of the articles from 1966–2010, while from 2011 to 2021, this percentage increased to 22%. From 1966 to 2010, there were two articles published in general psychology journals, and in the next decade, there were none. General management, ethics, and social responsibility journals published 11% of the articles from 1966 to 2010 and 18% from 2011 to 2021. Finally, a new considerable area emerged during the last decade of analysis: international business and area studies journals published 15% of the articles from 2011 to 2021.

a Fields (1966–2010). b Fields (2011–2021)

To summarize, during the analyzed period, the topic was debated in journals in the fields of psychology, organization studies, general management, ethics, and social responsibility. During the last decade, international business and area studies journals emerged as a new and relevant field interested in debating issues related to authoritarian leadership styles. The wide range of fields that debate the topic reflect its multifaceted nature. More specifically, the considerable number of viewpoints considered in discussing authoritarian leadership styles and their effects on performance reveal the complexity of the topic. Moreover, the influences of so many different fields on the scientific debate justify the vast number of contradictory results in empirical research. The considerable number of different scientific viewpoints demonstrates the phenomenological nature of the field. Therefore, the wide variety of areas and the increasing amount of contrasting empirical evidence should be seen as an opportunity and not as a limitation.

4.2 Evolution of authors’ origins over time

The total number of authors included in the dataset is 148. The authors’ origins evolved over time (Fig.  4 a and b). Between 1966 and 2010, most authors were from the USA (43, 66.15%), 6 were from Switzerland (although they were all concentrated in one article), five were from Canada (7.69%), four were from Israel (6.15%), and the rest were from Norway, Australia, France, or Finland.

a Authors’ origins (1966–2010). b Authors’ origins (2011–2021)

During the following decade, interest in the field shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Although most of the authors remained from the USA (29, 27.88%), China emerged with 23 authors (22.12%), Taiwan with 12 authors (11.54%), and Hong Kong with five authors. Together, Eastern countries contributed 40 authors, representing 38.46% of the total. Other countries represented during this period included the UK with ten authors (9.62%) and the Netherlands with four authors (3.85%).

To summarize, Western authors dominated the field of authoritarian leadership from 1966 to 2011, but Eastern countries emerged in the field during the last decade. The rapid development of Eastern economies, together with the increasing scientific competencies of the Eastern population, allowed these countries to participate in this debate. Comparing the current situation with the future conditions of the field in the next ten years would be interesting to verify whether this shift in scientific interest will be amplified by the continuous improvement of the Eastern scientific community’s participation. Moreover, authoritarian leadership styles are typical in most Eastern businesses. Therefore, it would be interesting to verify whether research on authoritarian leadership by Eastern authors will improve the empirical knowledge of the field.

4.3 Evolution of statistical units’ origins over time

A statistical unit is the unit of research observation: it is an entity–or set of entities–for which data are collected. The evolution of statistical units’ origins over time was similar to the evolution of the authors’ origins (Fig. 5 a and b). Many of the 47 empirical papers in our dataset involved collaboration between authors from different countries (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). Similarly, some papers used a sample of statistical units from different countries (e.g., Sutcliffe 1999 ; Wang et al. 2018 ).

a Statistical units’ origins (1966–2010). b Statistical units’ origins (2011–2021)

Before 2011, more than 70% of the empirical papers employed statistical units from North America: 62.50% from the USA and 8.33% from Canada. Only three papers employed statistical units from Israel. After 2010, the data shifted. Only four studies employed statistical units from North America, and all of them were from the USA. The presence of Eastern countries increased substantially. Nine papers employed Chinese statistical units, five used statistical units from Taiwan, one used statistical units from Japan, and one used statistical units from Turkey. Therefore, after 2010, 66.67% of empirical papers employed Eastern or Middle-Eastern statistical units.

5 Content analysis

In this section, we present the content analysis of the articles included in our dataset. We start with a conceptual map based on the work of Menz ( 2011 ) (Fig.  6 ). After that, we show the most commonly used theories in the articles. Further, we identify the results of our grounded analysis of themes that emerged during the content analysis. Finally, authors’ suggestions for future research are discussed.

Conceptual map of the field

To design the conceptual map in Fig.  6 , we identified the main aim of each article in the database. We thus revealed three of the most significant general components of the scientific debate, i.e., context, actions, and consequences/outcomes, and we grouped the evidence that emerged from the content analysis into these three elements. After that, we found that mediators and moderators of leadership effects on outcomes/consequences were analyzed in detail by the considered literature.

5.1 Theories employed in the extracted articles

Table 2 shows the employed theories that appeared more than once in the dataset. Moreover, we show the leadership styles considered by the articles in which we found the theories.

Paternalistic leadership is associated with Confucianism. Chen et al. ( 2014 referred to two pillars of Confucianism, i.e., hierarchy and relationalism. The former pillar involves respect for superiors, and the latter indicates that individuals with close relationships tend to “exchange favors beyond instrumental purposes” (Chen et al. 2014 : 799). Wei et al. ( 2016 ) considered Confucian concepts of reflection ( si ), heart ( qing ), and mind-heart ( xin ) to achieve a more comprehensive framework of leaders’ compassionate actions. Specifically, through these three concepts, the authors integrated the framework of compassion with the Confucian perspective.

Attribution theory aims to explain how subordinates or followers react to their perception of their leaders’ behavior. Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) used attribution theory to study employee evaluation. In particular, they referred to the power usage model to highlight that managers’ perceptions of “who is in charge of employee’s behavior” (Kipnis, 1981 : 324) are the most critical variable for managers’ evaluation of their employees. Moreover, Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) used attribution theory to study how followers seek leaders’ signals to perceive their behaviors. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2013 ) used this theory to understand the impact of leaders’ gender on subordinates’ performance.

Chang et al. ( 2003 ) used path-goal theory to identify four categories of leadership: participative, supportive, directive, and achievement-oriented. Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) added path-goal theory to adaptive structuration theory to predict the effects of two kinds of leadership, i.e., participative and directive.

Finally, contingency theory and cognitive resource theory were among the most used theories. For example, Yun et al. ( 2005 ) used contingency theory to show the different effects of leadership styles that adapt to different trauma conditions. Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) used cognitive resource theory to relate leaders’ technical training to group members’ performance.

5.2 Identified themes

This paragraph describes the results of our grounded analysis of the 43 articles’ contents. In particular, we show the effects of authoritarian leadership style on the different typologies of performance highlighted by the authors. Figure  7 summarizes the results, highlighting the differences within the four leadership styles analyzed in terms of authority, power, attitude towards followers, and effectiveness. In the following section, we start from the authoritarian leadership style, and finish with paternalistic leadership.

Authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership styles

5.2.1 Authoritarian leadership style and performance

Authoritarian leadership exercises control and authority over followers, limiting their autonomy and self-determination, and is often associated with the “dark side” of leadership (Chiang et al. 2020 ). The articles considered in this literature review which were devoted explicitly to this leadership style are relatively recent, and, in most cases, authors present studies in which the analyzed samples comprise Asian participants.

Authoritarian leadership and team performance In general, results in regard to the effects of authoritarian leadership on performance are coherent. In particular, most of the publications in our sample showed that authoritarian leadership had adverse (e.g., Scully et al. 1994 ), or, in some cases, insignificant (e.g., Chen et al. 2017 ) effects. A positive relation between authoritarian leadership and team performance was found by Fodor ( 1976 ), but this is a relatively isolated result.

Moreover, authoritarian leadership affects followers’ organizational and relational identity, often reducing their intention to stay (e.g., Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) and suppressing emotions (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). In particular, authoritarian leaders’ lack of any emotional side leads to negative team performance, as verified by Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), who recently analyzed this phenomenon in relation to three large public Japanese companies.

Authoritarian leadership and in-role and extra-role performance Two articles debated the relations between authoritarian leadership style and in-role and extra-role performance. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) considered a sample of 114 Chinese subordinate–supervisor dyads, finding that the leaders’ authoritarian behavior had adverse effects on the two typologies of performance in the context of highly transformational leadership. In the context of low transformational leadership, however, the effects were not significant.

More recently, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) considered Turkish, Taiwanese, and US employees and found that, although in the Asian context people are more willing to tolerate authoritarian leadership styles, leaders’ authoritarian behavior can compromise the quality of communication, which is a critical moderator of followers’ performance.

Authoritarian leadership and job performance Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) considered the Chinese high-tech field and its employees and supervisors, demonstrating that an authoritarian leadership style promoted the worst job performance within contexts in which subordinates’ power distance was not accepted by subordinates. In contexts in which the power distance was accepted, authoritarian leadership had no significant effects on job performance. Moreover, Shen et al. ( 2019 ) monitored how the indirect adverse effects of authoritarian leadership style on job performance varied according to the traditionality of groups and found significant effects, at least for groups with a low level of traditionality.

Authoritarian leadership style limits followers’ self-efficacy and proactivity, as demonstrated by Li et al. ( 2019 ) in the context of the dyadic relations between Chinese leaders and followers. Moreover, an authoritarian leadership style can limit innovation and creativity (Lee et al. 2019 ).

5.2.2 Autocratic leadership style and performance

Although autocratic leadership shares its main characteristics with authoritarian leadership, it is less destructive and it is task-oriented; therefore, it tends to be associated with a higher level of acceptance by followers. In the set of articles we studied, autocratic leadership was not considered in Eastern Countries, although some authors hypothesized that it could be more accepted in such contexts (e.g., Misumi & Peterson 1985 ).

In general, autocratic leadership style can have both positive and negative effects on performance, depending on the contextual conditions (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). In 1971, Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum considered the effects of autocratic leadership on task performance. Through an experiment which involved US students, they verified that the effects of this leadership style were positive on performance in a highly stressed condition but not on satisfaction. Ten years later, Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) analyzed the effects of autocratic behaviors on leaders’ evaluation of their followers. Given this leadership style does not leave decision-making power to followers, it leads to a worse performance, both at team and individual level. This condition leads leaders to evaluate followers more poorly.

Finally, autocratic leadership, like authoritarian leadership, promotes better performance in contexts in which hierarchy is well-accepted by followers (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Nevertheless, autocratic leadership can compromise the team’s psychological self-confidence, worsening performance.

5.2.3 Directive leadership style and performance

Directive leaders exercise discipline and control over followers but, instead of focusing on making demands, they focus on providing guidance and feedback (Chiang et al. 2020 ). A coherent baseline can be identified during the entire period of directive leadership development in the literature, from Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) to Yi et al. ( 2021 ). In particular, the latter made a critical contribution to the interpretation of directive leadership and its effects on performance, identifying an inverse U relation between the two variables. Although Yi et al.’s ( 2021 ) article is not a review, its results represent one of the more effective summaries to have emerged in the worldwide empirical literature to date. In fact, most of the literature has concentrated on finding specific situations in which a directive leadership style can have negative and positive effects on different typologies of performance.

Although the positive effects of directive leadership on performance and satisfaction could be considered counterintuitive at first sight, a convincing reason for their existence was provided by Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) through an analysis of cognitive evaluation theory. In particular, “structures external to an individual, such as leader directiveness, have control and informational components” (Kahai et al. 2004 : 94). The two components affect, respectively, the conformity of behaviors and perceived competence. The informational component allows a reduction of perceived role ambiguity and an increase in followers’ trust in leaders and motivation (Kahai et al., 2004 ; Chen et al., 2017 ).

Few articles explicitly found situations in which directive leadership leads only to adverse performance effects. For example, in the context of car dealers in North Europe, Chang et al. ( 2003 ) identified that customer focus could be compromised by a directive leadership style, adversely affecting quantitative parameters of performance measurement (e.g., productivity and profitability).

Directive leadership and task performance When the directive leadership literature first began to develop, academic analysis was concentrated in North America, especially the United States. In particular, tests in the first years were performed through laboratory experiments that involved undergraduates, and directive leadership was already seen to produce positive and negative effects on performance depending on the context. Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) analyzed the effectiveness of directive leadership for task performance by studying changes in the task structures, and their experiment found that directive leaders managed more structured tasks better.

Nevertheless, not all studies have supported this finding. For example, Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) found a reduction of the positive effects of directive leadership for highly structured tasks. Therefore, the level of task structure which causes directive leadership to be more or less effective on performance remains an open issue.

Directive leadership and team performance: highly technical contexts Another relevant example is the work published by Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) that analyzed highly technical contexts. In particular, they demonstrated how, in such contexts, directive leadership could be effective in terms of team performance, but it has to be associated with the technical knowledge of leaders. This finding was confirmed by Sutcliffe ( 1999 ), who analyzed performances in business process reengineering through quantitative methods and the participation of IT executives from North America and Europe. The highly technical content of the context determined the greater efficacy of directive leadership in assignment and task facilitation, objective definition, and team performance. These findings were confirmed more recently by Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ), who verified how projects characterized by high knowledge intensity need directive leadership to be completed effectively.

Moreover, Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) considered a Danish ICT context and found that the concurrent employment of directive and participative leadership was the best possible strategy for perceived performance during project implementation. Similar results have been presented in the past. For example, Tjosvold ( 1984 ) identified that directive leaders’ warmth and sincere interest in followers’ productivity were effective mediators of work-related performance.

Further information on highly technical circumstances was provided by Yun et al. ( 2005 ) in a US medical context. In particular, their work highlighted how the directive leadership style promoted different effects depending on specific contextual elements. The study showed that such effects changed depending on the seriousness of the problem and teams’ experience, with positive effects found at high levels of problem seriousness and low levels of team experience.

The same context was considered by Tschan et al. ( 2006 ) in Switzerland, where the authors identified positive effects of directive leadership on team performance. The study was performed in two phases, and it was found, in particular, that directive leadership had an additive effect, showing more effectiveness in the second phase for groups that had already obtained good results in the first.

Directive leadership and team performance: unstable and dynamic contexts Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who analyzed the context of the fastest-growing US startups, verified that directive leadership is better adapted to dynamic and unstable contexts in which decisions should be taken immediately. This tendency was confirmed by Lorinkova et al. ( 2013 ), who involved some US students in their study and demonstrated that team performance in groups guided by directive leaders was positive in the short run and stabilized thereafter. At the beginning of project implementation, the context is unstable, tasks are not permanently assigned, and competencies are yet to be developed. In such contexts, directive leadership is more effective.

Mossholder et al. ( 1990 ) had already found similar results by integrating time in their study of leadership. In fact, the longer the duration of dyadic relations, the less followers are affected by leaders’ behaviors. In particular, directive leadership is initially more effective in complex contexts (e.g., engineering). Over time, followers become confident in their competencies, and non-directive styles are the best choice for satisfaction and job performance. Sanchez-Manzanares et al. ( 2020 ) further confirmed such effects in the Spanish context. Their study verified that when pressure is strong, directive leadership is more effective for team performance and adaptation.

Given that leadership is a highly phenomenological construct, not all the studies found significant relationships between directive leadership and team performance. For example, Faraj and Sambamurthy ( 2006 ), who also analyzed a technological context (i.e., information systems development projects) in the USA, found nothing to support this relationship.

Directive leadership and team performance: Asian contexts Although there has been a particularly notable recent contribution from Eastern authors to the literature on directive leadership, interesting works have been published by Asian academics previously. These publications suggested that this typology of leadership style is more accepted in Eastern countries than in Western areas. Nevertheless, we identified a tendency among Eastern authors to suggest that smoothing the directive side of leadership can foster better performance. For example, Sagie ( 1996 ) developed a study which involved the participation of students in Israel and underlined that directive leadership produced positive results but that, at the same time, when leaders used a more communicative approach to define goals in a participative way, the positive effects on team performance increased.

An interesting comparison can be made between Somech ( 2006 ) and Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who considered the effects of directive leadership on team performance, starting from different levels of team homogeneity. In this sense, interpreting directive leadership as a mediator or moderator of such an effect, Somech ( 2006 ) considered the Israeli context and analyzed in-depth the effects of directive leadership style on in-role performance and team innovation, considering different levels of team homogeneity. In particular, a more homogeneous team, in terms of professional backgrounds and abilities, can put more pressure to achieve conformity. In this case, directive leadership promotes better performance. In contrast, an analysis of the US context by Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) highlighted that top management team heterogeneity could lead to positive results if a directive leadership style is adopted. Therefore, to achieve better performance, directive leadership should be associated with top management team heterogeneity and low-level team homogeneity.

5.2.4 Paternalistic leadership and performance

The paternalistic leadership style is traditionally described as a construct composed of three dimensions: authority, morality, and benevolence. Nevertheless, Wang et al. ( 2018 ) published an innovative interpretation of this leadership style. In particular, they stated that previous literature joined three separate styles: benevolence-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which benevolence dominates over authority; authoritarianism-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which authority dominates over benevolence; and classical paternalistic leadership, in which no dimension dominates. Therefore, the definition and foundation of paternalistic leadership style can be considered an open issue in the literature.

In general, paternalistic leadership is based on Confucian philosophy, which is particularly studied in Eastern contexts, in which it is present and appreciated (Shen et al. 2019 ). In the set of articles we studied, almost all the articles analyzed Asian statistical units, and there was a general tendency to consider paternalistic leadership an effective style in terms of performance.

Paternalistic leadership and task performance Chan et al. ( 2012 ) and Chou et al. ( 2015 ) considered the effects of paternalistic leadership on task performance. The former concentrated on the authoritarian and benevolent components of this leadership style in relation to Chinese supervisor–subordinate dyads. The benevolent dimensions were shown to be a moderator of the adverse effects caused by the authoritarian dimension on task performance, organization-based self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. The latter, which focused on the Taiwanese military, considered the authoritarian and moral dimensions of paternalistic leadership and found that, in such a context, high levels of both dimensions were the most widespread and appreciated by followers.

Paternalistic leadership, job performance, and trust Numerous studies have considered the effects of the paternalistic leadership style on work and job performance, and Wu et al. ( 2012 ) studied such effects by analyzing supervisor–subordinates dyads in the Chinese context. Although paternalistic leadership has already been associated with positive performance, the researchers identified international justice as a possible mediator of this relation, both for job performance and organizational citizenship behavior.

Wang et al. ( 2018 ), who compared dyads in Taiwanese and US contexts through their innovative vision of paternalistic leadership, verified that if the authoritarian dimension dominates leaders’ style, the effects on job performances are adverse. In contrast, if benevolence is dominant, or if there is an equilibrium between the two dimensions, the effects are positive. The same results were obtained by Hiller et al. ( 2019 ), who explained that adverse effects could extend to organizational citizenship behavior, creativity, turnover intention, and counterproductive attitudes.

Chen et al. ( 2014 ) found significant influences of all three dimensions of paternalistic leadership for in-role and extra-role performance. Their results were similar to those of previous studies: the authoritarian dimension negatively affected the two typologies of performance differently from the other two dimensions. Moreover, affective trust was a significant mediator between benevolent and moral dimensions and role performance.

The meta-analysis carried out by Legood et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrated that affective trust could effectively predict followers’ performance. Moreover, this study remarked that specific conditions exist which foster the effectiveness of the paternalistic leadership style. In particular, trust is promoted by a paternalistic leadership style when the power distance is low. When the power distance increases, however, the benevolent dimension should be more and more dominant to ensure a positive work-related performance.

5.2.5 Directive leadership vs. empowering and participative leadership styles

Numerous articles have debated the differences between directive and empowering leadership styles. Specifically, empowering leadership is a style focused on “sharing power with employees and increasing their responsibility and autonomy to perform their work” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). Most articles debating this comparison state that directive and empowering leadership styles have different and significant effects on performance, with limited exceptions (e.g., Faraj & Sambamurthy 2006 ).

In stressful contexts, directive leadership showed higher effectiveness in regard to team adaptation and performance (Sanchez-Manzanares et al., 2020 ). In contrast, in less complicated situations, empowering leadership has a positive effect on team performance (Yun et al. 2005 ).

Empowering and directive leadership were also compared according to levels of team homogeneity. In particular, Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) examined the US startup context. They found that, in unstable environments, a directive leadership style was more effective for firm performance when top management teams were heterogeneous, while empowering leadership positively affected performance when top management teams were homogeneous. In stable environments, however, the effects were the opposite.

Other studies performed in similar contexts gave different results in regard to comparisons of directive and participative leadership styles. Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ) found that directive leadership is more effective than participative leadership in fields with high knowledge intensity, whereas Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) found that employing a directive and participative leadership style combination is the best strategy for implementing projects in ICT environments. The same results were obtained in an experiment performed by Sagie ( 1996 ).

Moreover, through experiments, Sauer ( 2011 ) found that the effectiveness of leaders depends on their position in the firm. In particular, low-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a directive style, while high-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a participative leadership style. Somech ( 2006 ) found that when groups are functionally heterogeneous, the participative leadership style is more effective than the directive style, which is ineffective in functionally homogeneous groups. Directive leadership can reduce role ambiguity and, therefore, increase the quantity of communication. Thus, directive and participative leadership can positively affect group performance and satisfaction (Kahai et al. 2004 ).

5.3 Further research opportunities

This section presents further research opportunities that selected articles’ authors identified in their research. We found four main areas of interest (Table 3 ). First, replications of studies in different cultural contexts were widely suggested by authors. Second, further research opportunities examining novel and multiple leadership styles were identified. Third, emotions and perception were suggested as promising further research opportunities. Finally, authors identified the need to analyze the power of moderator and mediator variables influencing the relationship between leadership styles and performance.

6 Discussion

In this paper, we performed an SLR to achieve a better understanding of authoritarian leadership styles on the different typologies on performance considered in the literature. Although the literature presents considerable evidence highlighting the need for leaders to adapt to different contexts (e.g., Yun et al., 2005 ; Chiang et al., 2020 ), our findings showed that, when leaders limit the authoritarian component of their styles, there are more contexts in which the considered leadership styles can be effective. The level of authority, discipline, and control over followers decreases as leaders move from authoritarian to paternalistic leadership styles, passing through autocratic and directive styles.

There is a general consensus among researchers that the authoritarian style is the worst leadership style for performance. Differenly, the autocratic leadership style is more task-oriented and tends to be more accepted by followers (Chiang et al. 2020 ). It has positive effects on performance in very stressful environments. In contrast, the directive leadership style has been shown to produce positive effects on performance in a considerable number of contexts, and it has been most frequently demonstrated to be an effective strategy for numerous typologies of performance in unstable, dynamic, and highly technical environments. Paternalistic leadership has been shown to be the most balanced style. Its three dimensions (i.e., authority, morality, and benevolence) lead to better effects on performance, especially when the benevolent and moral dimensions dominate the authority one.

Finally, although authoritarian leadership styles are more accepted in Eastern countries (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ), the literature showed a tendency to ask that the “dark side” of leadership style be smoothed, even in Asian contexts. Smoothing the authoritarian side of leadership could be obtained through better communication (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ; Sagie 1996 ) or through leaders’ sincere interest in their followers’ lives and productivity (Tjosvold 1984 ).

In the following section, we present the limitations of our work, propose a research agenda for further in-depth analysis in line with our study, and discuss the practical implications of our paper.

6.1 Limitations and research agenda

The principal outcome of our study is the finding that a considerable number of mediators, moderators, and specific conditions can change the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. In particular, the leadership style appears to be a complex condition that cannot be superficially ascribed to a single and peculiar style detached from other leadership models that supervisors may apply. It is, instead, a changing condition: leaders are often able to change their degree of authority in line with objectives, followers’ behaviors, and other specific conditions (Kahai et al. 2004 ). For example, paternalistic leaders can increase or decrease leadership dimensions (i.e., authoritarian, benevolence, and morality) depending on the context, actions, subordinates’ behaviors, and desired outcomes.

Given that a discussion about single and detached leadership styles does not make sense in light of the dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets, the study of hybrid leadership styles is still open and promising. The in-depth analysis of specific circumstances in which leaders can change the degree of a specific dimension of their leadership styles is a critical stimulus for future researchers. In particular, authoritarian leaders are suitable units of analysis: the literature widely recognizes that more democratic leadership styles (e.g., empowering) positively affect performance. Instead, authoritarian leaders have to increasingly adapt their style, which collides with the changing conditions of jobs, markets, and diffuse beliefs about the negative impact of exaggerated authority (Sauer 2011 ). Therefore, in future research, examining authoritarian leadership styles will probably be the key to achieving an in-depth understanding of hybrid leadership styles.

Moreover, we encourage future researchers to overcome two limitations of our paper. The first relates to the conceptual map we drawn in Fig.  6 . The thematic map shows three main groups of evidence: context, actions, and consequences/outcomes. These three dimensions are connected in a linear relationship that starts from the context and produces the effects on performance. Nevertheless, Dourish ( 2004 ) suggests that in fields where the phenomenological nature of results is undeniable (as it is for leadership), context is much more than a starting point. In particular, “from a phenomenological perspective […] context does not describe a setting; it is something that people do. It is an achievement, rather than an observation; an outcome, rather than a premise” (Dourish 2004 : 22). Therefore, we encourage further research to find theoretical and empirical evidence of performance effects on leadership. In particular, are leaders willing and able to change their style depending on previous performance?

The second limitation of our work is that the comparison we made between authoritarian and non-authoritarian leadership styles (§5.2.5) was not the final aim of our article. It was a secondary result. However, it underlined a critical starting point for further research opportunities. In particular, we encourage future researchers to explore in much more detail the differences among leadership styles in their effects on performance. We call for research reviewing a broader range of leadership styles to highlight the main differences in their outcomes. We are aware that this is a demanding objective. Therefore, in our opinion, meta-analyses should help organize the considerable number of papers published on the topic. In particular, a restriction in the time range of articles extracted could support researchers in limiting bias and reducing the time needed for the analysis.

6.2 Managerial implications

While the theoretical implications of our study are clear, since we fill the gap concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, this review also has relevant practical implications. In particular, we identified three groups that could benefit form the managerial implications: leaders, top management teams, and recruiters and human resources management (HRM).

Leaders should be aware of their leadership styles (Chiang et al. 2020 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Given that under specific conditions, authoritarian leadership is effective, leaders have to be trained to understand the nature of their behaviors. To achieve this demanding objective, they have to gain in-depth knowledge of each leadership style’s positive and negative effects. As a consequence, they should be able to limit the degree of their authority and their centralizing tendency. There are several opportunities to help leaders achieve this goal. For example, HRM can design jobs with autonomous features (Li et al. 2019 ) and encourage regular feedback between superiors and subordinates (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ).

Top management teams should design the work environment to enhance creativity, share ideas, incentivize collaboration and information sharing, and encourage participation (Lee et al. 2019 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) to stimulate authoritarian leaders to reduce the power distance between them and subordinates. Planning work activities in line with democratic ideas can help followers identify with their leaders. Moreover, supervisors should be trained to clearly express their projects for their subordinates, especially in terms of their learning and professional achievements (Chen et al. 2017 ). Furthermore, leaders should be subjected to psychological training to improve their ability to understand the structure of their teams and the personality of their subordinates.

Finally, in the last decade, the literature has reconsidered the strategic role of HRM (e.g., Pizzolitto and Verna 2020 ; 2022 ). Given the evidence that emerged during this review, the fundamental effects of strategic HRM interventions can dramatically affect leadership and, consequently, performance. Recruiters should select managers depending on the leadership styles required by the specific conditions of workgroups, markets, and business needs. For example, evidence in the literature suggests that changing and complex conditions can be better managed through directive leaders (e.g., Lorinkova et al. 2013 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ). In calmer situations, more empowering leadership styles are more effective. Therefore, recruiters have to be careful in their selections, considering the training and compensation needed for adapting managers’ leadership styles to business needs. In specific situations, hiring a directive leader can be an efficient choice (e.g., Yun et al. 2005 ; Lorinkova et al. 2013 ).

7 Conclusions

We performed this study to answer three research questions. The first concerned the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. Although there is a consensus that an exceedance of authority, power distance, pressure, and impositions on subordinates can worsen performance, contrasting results about the specific effects of authoritarian leadership styles emerged in the literature. In particular, several publications highlight positive and negative outcomes of authoritarian, autocratic, and directive behaviors. A considerable number of specific conditions can indeed affect the effects of authoritarian styles on performance. The conditions of leadership are changing, and leaders should adapt and combine their styles to enhance performance (Hansen & Nørup 2017 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ; Yun et al. 2005 ).

The second research question concerned the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate on authoritarian leadership styles. We identified a revolution in the origins of interest for this topic during the last two decades. In particular, while before 2000, authors from Western countries were the most prolific in the field, after 2000, Eastern authors emerged with a considerable number of contributions. Given the diffusion of these leadership typologies in Asia, these publications enriched the scientific debate with important empirical papers and novel ideas for further research opportunities.

Finally, the third research question reflected on the effectiveness of scientific discussion on authoritarian leadership in light of the high dynamism of new and hyperconnected markets. In our opinion, the scientific debate has to concentrate on hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Moreover, researchers should focus on leaders’ ability to change the degree of authority in their leadership styles depending on the specific conditions of their workgroups. Therefore, the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles still makes sense, but it should be ascribed to a viewpoint inspired by complexity.

Asrar-ul-Haq M, Anwar S (2018) The many faces of leadership: proposing research agenda through a review of literature. Future Bus J 4:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) Debating systematic literature reviews (SLR) and their ramifications for IS: a rejoinder to mike chiasson, briony oates, Ulrike Schultze, and Richard Watson. J Inf Technol 30:188–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.15

Chan SCH, Huang X, Snape E, Lam CK (2012) The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J Organ Behav 34:108–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1797

Chang TZ, Chen SJ, Polsa P (2003) Manufacturer channel management behavior and retailers’ performance: an empirical investigation of automotive channel. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 8:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310468733

Chen T, Li F, Leung K (2017) Whipping into shape: construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture. Asia Pac J Manag 34:537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9511-6

Chen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS (2014) Affective trust in Chinese leaders. J Manag 40:796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604

Chiang JTJ, Chen XP, Liu H, Akutsu S, Wang Z (2020) We have emotions but can’t show them! authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Hum Relat 74:1082–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720908649

Chou WJ, Sibley CG, Liu JH, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2015) Paternalistic leadership profiles. Group Organ Manag 40:685–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115573358

Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00988593

de Freitas JG, Costa HG (2017) Impacts of lean six sigma over organizational sustainability. Int J Lean Six Sigma 8:89–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlss-10-2015-0039

de Hoogh AHB, Greer LL, den Hartog DN (2015) Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? an investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. Leadersh Q 26:687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001

Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance in the UK. Int J Manag Rev 6:131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00100.x

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8

Faraj S, Sambamurthy V (2006) Leadership of information systems development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2006.872245

Fodor EM (1976) Group stress, authoritarian style of control, and use of power. J Appl Psychol 61:313–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.313

Georgakakis D, Heyden MLM, Oehmichen JDR, Ekanayake UIK (2019) Four decades of CEO–TMT interface research: a review inspired by role theory. Leadersh Q 5:101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101354

Hansen MB, Nørup I (2017) Leading the implementation of ICT innovations. Public Adm Rev 77:851–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12807

Harrison C, Paul S, Burnard K (2016) Entrepreneurial leadership: a systematic literature review. Int Rev Entrep 14:235–264

Hiller NJ, Sin HP, Ponnapalli AR, Ozgen S (2019) Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. Leadersh Q 30:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003

Hing LSS, Bobocel DR, Zanna MP, McBride MV (2007) Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: high social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. J Pers Soc Psychol 92:67–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.67

Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Organ Behav 28:865–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479

Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2004) Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organ Manag 29:67–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103252100

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z, Gumusluoglu L, Erturk A, Scandura TA (2021) Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. J Bus Res 128:473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034

Keupp MM, Palmié M, Gassmann O (2011) The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research. Int J Manag Rev 14:367–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x

Kipnis D, Schmidt S, Price K, Stitt C (1981) Why do I like thee: is it your performance or my orders? J Appl Psychol 66:324–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.324

Langhof JG, Güldenberg S (2019) Servant Leadership: a systematic literature review—toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. Ger J Hum Resour Manag 34:32–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219869903

Laureani A, Antony J (2017) Leadership and Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 30:53–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1288565

Lee A, Legood A, Hughes D, Tian AW, Newman A, Knight C (2019) Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 29:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837

Legood A, van der Werff L, Lee A, Den Hartog D (2020) A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 30:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241

Li G, Rubenstein AL, Lin W, Wang M, Chen X (2018) The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: the mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Pers Psychol 71:369–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12264

Li R, Chen Z, Zhang H, Luo J (2019) How do authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? a social control perspective. J Manag 47:930–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878261

Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures EdFR, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res 55:3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576

Lorinkova NM, Pearsall MJ, Sims HP (2013) Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad Manag J 56:573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132

Mossholder KW, Niebuhr RE, Norris DR (1990) Effects of dyadic duration on the relationship between leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes. J Organ Behav 11:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110505

Menz M (2011) Functional top management team members. J Manag 38:45–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311421830

Misumi J, Peterson MF (1985) The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: review of a japanese research program. Adm Sci Q 30:198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393105

Murphy SE, Blyth D, Fiedler FE (1992) Cognitive resource theory and the utilization of the leader’s and group members’ technical competence. Leadersh Q 3:237–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90014-7

Nguyen DH, de Leeuw S, Dullaert WEH (2016) Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retailing: a systematic review. Int J Manag Rev 20:255–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12129

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (clinical Research Ed) 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Parris DL, Peachey JW (2013) A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. J Bus Ethics 113:377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2020) Vocational identity development and the role of human resources management. a systematic literature review. Eur Sci J 16:52. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n34p80

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2022) Resource orchestration theory and electronic human resources management configuration. In: Exploring Digital Resilience. Challenges for People and Organisations. Springer series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (LNISO). In press.

Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manag Stud 57:351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

Rahmani M, Roels G, Karmarkar US (2018) Team leadership and performance: combining the roles of direction and contribution. Manag Sci 64:5234–5249. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2911

Rosenbaum LL, Rosenbaum WB (1971) Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. J Appl Psychol 55:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031458

Sagie A (1996) Effects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting on performance and attitudes. Hum Perform 9:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0901_3

Sanchez-Manzanares M, Rico R, Antino M, Uitdewilligen S (2020) The joint effects of leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: a longitudinal experiment. Group Organ Manag 45:836–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120958838

Sauer SJ (2011) Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. J Appl Psychol 96:574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Schaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S (2017) A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J Appl Psychol 102:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

Schuh SC, Zhang XA, Tian P (2012) For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. J Bus Ethics 116:629–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0

Scully JA, Sims HP, Olian JD, Schnell ER, Smith KA (1994) Tough times make tough bosses: a meso analysis of ceo leader behavior. Leadersh Q 5:59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90006-x

Shaw ME, Blum JM (1966) Effects of leadership style upon group performance as a function of task structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 3:238–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022900

Shen Y, Chou WJ, Schaubroeck JM (2019) The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 28:498–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1615453

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Somech A (2006) The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. J Manag 32:132–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Strauss A, Corbin J (1997) Grounded theory in practice, 1st edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York

Sutcliffe N (1999) Leadership behavior and business process reengineering (BPR) outcomes. Inf Manag 36:273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(99)00027-0

Tjosvold D (1984) Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. J Appl Psychol 69:422–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.422

Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gautschi D, Hunziker P, Spychiger M, Marsch SU (2006) Leading to recovery: group performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum Perform 19:277–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1903_5

Vecchio RP (1990) Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. J Appl Psychol 75:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.141

Vrontis D, Christofi M (2021) R&D internationalization and innovation: a systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. J Bus Res 128:812–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031

Wang AC, Chiang JTJ, Tsai CY, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2013) Gender makes the difference: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 122:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001

Wang AC, Tsai CY, Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Spain SM, Ling HC, Huang MP, Chou LF, Cheng BS (2018) Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: testing their relationships with subordinate performance. Leadersh Q 29:686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.002

Wei H, Zhu Y, Li S (2016) Top executive leaders’ compassionate actions: an integrative framework of compassion incorporating a confucian perspective. Asia Pac J Manag 33:767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9463-2

Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst 22:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Wu M, Huang X, Li C, Liu W (2012) Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Manag Organ Rev 8:97–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x

Yahaya R, Ebrahim F (2016) Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. J Manag Dev 35:190–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-01-2015-0004

Yi Y, Chen Y, He X (2021) CEO leadership, strategic decision comprehensiveness, and firm performance: the moderating role of TMT cognitive conflict. Manag Organ Rev 3:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2021.10

Yun S, Faraj S, Sims HP (2005) Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. J Appl Psychol 90:1288–1296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Economics, University G. D’Annunzio–Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, 65122, Pescara, PE, Italy

Elia Pizzolitto, Ida Verna & Michelina Venditti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, analysis and first draft were performed by EP. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and contributed to its final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elia Pizzolitto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

The original online version of this article was revised: The funding note was missing.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I. & Venditti, M. Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Manag Rev Q 73 , 841–871 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2021

Accepted : 23 February 2022

Published : 04 April 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human resource management
• Authoritarian leadership
• Paternalistic leadership
• Directive leadership
• Autocratic leadership
• Performance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

When timing is key: How autocratic and democratic leadership relate to follower trust in emergency contexts

Florian rosing.

1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

Claudia Buengeler

2 Department of Human Resource Management and Organization, Institute of Business, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany

Associated Data

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

In emergency contexts, leaders’ ability to develop others’ trust in them is critical to leadership effectiveness. By integrating functional leadership and team process theories, we argue that democratic and autocratic leadership can create trust in the leader depending on the performance phase of the action team. We further argue that action and transition phases produce different task demands for leadership behavior to enhance trust in the leader, and different leader characteristics (i.e., leader benevolence and leader ability) mediate these effects. The results of a scenario experiment ( N = 125) and field survey ( N = 165) among firefighters revealed that autocratic rather than democratic leadership elevates trust in the leader during the action phase by increasing leader ability. In contrast, democratic rather than autocratic leadership enhances trust in the leader during the transition phase by elevating leader benevolence. These findings highlight the importance of leader characteristics in emergencies, demonstrating the value of mixing autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors across different team performance phases to build trust in the leader.

Introduction

Although follower trust in the leader is a key factor for effective leadership across diverse situations ( Dirks and Ferrin, 2002 ; Burke et al., 2007 ; Hasel and Grover, 2017 ), arguably the most critical context for exploring trust is in emergency settings. In this context, followers must trust their leaders and work well together because errors may lead to danger and death ( Myers, 2005 ; Fisher et al., 2010 ; Kolditz, 2010 ). If followers do not trust their leader, they may not show strong cohesion and commitment ( Weick, 1993 ; Hamby, 2002 ).

The previous literature has focused on identifying the behavioral antecedents that increase trust in leaders ( Sweeney et al., 2009 ; Liu et al., 2010 ; Sweeney, 2010 ; Kelloway et al., 2012 ). These studies have implicitly assumed that such antecedents have similar effects on trust in leaders across various tasks and contexts ( Lapidot et al., 2007 ; Colquitt et al., 2011 ). However, an emerging research strand has suggested that the behavioral antecedents of trust vary in emergency contexts ( Lapidot et al., 2007 ; Sweeney, 2010 ). Although the current research argues that leadership is critical for mission success and survival ( Hällgren et al., 2018 ), the role of leadership behaviors in this variability remains largely unclear.

We address these research gaps by investigating which leadership behavior functions best in emergency contexts. Many emergency teams perform their work in two recurrent performance phases: action and transition ( Kozlowski et al., 1996 ; Marks et al., 2001 ; Desmond, 2006 , 2008 ; DeChurch et al., 2011 ; Farh and Chen, 2018 ). In action phases (e.g., firefighting), the team acts toward goal accomplishment, whereas in transition phases (e.g., debriefing, reflection, and reexamination), the team focuses on mission analysis, planning, and goal setting. Several studies have suggested that both phases create different team demands, requiring various (functional) leadership behaviors ( Marks et al., 2001 ; Morgeson et al., 2010 ). In the action phase, proper emergency management is key to ensuring safety, high speed, and efficiency ( Yun et al., 2005 ; Klein et al., 2006 ; Maynard et al., 2017 ), as emergencies are unpredictable and demand quick responses ( Kozlowski et al., 2009 ). In the transition phase, demands associated with contemplation and debriefing become salient ( Karrasch et al., 2011 ).

Two “classical” leadership behaviors have been highlighted as significant for effective leadership: autocratic leadership, where solely the leader holds decision-making duties and power, and democratic leadership, where decision-making duties and power are shared with followers ( Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ; Bass, 1990 ; Van Vugt et al., 2004 ). While some studies have suggested that autocratic leadership behavior is preferred at the workplace ( Isenberg, 1981 ; Gladstein and Reilly, 1985 ; Mulder et al., 1986 ), other studies have favored democratic leadership behavior ( Yun et al., 2003 , 2005 ; Sims et al., 2009 ). Prior work has typically considered non-emergency contexts ( Hannah et al., 2009 , 2010 ) and yielded mixed results for the effective of these two leadership behaviors ( Berkowitz, 1953 ; Bass, 1990 ; Gastil, 1994 ; Yukl, 2006 ; Schoel et al., 2011 ; De Hoogh et al., 2015 ). As action phases are more risky, urgent, and dangerous than transition phases, we assume that the impact of these two leadership behaviors on follower trust may differ. Thus, the current study investigates how such leadership behaviors are antecedent to follower trust in the leader during both phases.

In addition, to better understand the effectiveness of autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors in emergency contexts, we further examine the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between autocratic or democratic leadership and follower trust during the two phases. Based on functional leadership theory and the integrative model of trust in leadership ( Burke et al., 2007 ), this article investigates the mediating role of leader ability—a key determinant of trust in the leader during action phases ( Lapidot et al., 2007 )—in the relationship between autocratic leadership and trust in the leader in action phases. Furthermore, we examine the mediating role of leader benevolence—a key determinant of trust in the leader during transition phases ( Lapidot et al., 2007 )—in the relationship between democratic leadership and trust in the leader in transition phases.

This study extends the literature on leadership in multiple ways. First, we integrate the literature on leadership and team performance phases ( Marks et al., 2001 ) by investigating the impact of autocratic and democratic leadership behavior on follower trust in emergency contexts. Thus, we contribute to the ongoing debate regarding what leadership behaviors are most effective in emergencies ( Hannah et al., 2009 ). This work also offers a nuanced description of the costs and benefits of autocratic and democratic leadership by arguing that their impact on follower trust varies according to the team performance phase. Second, in recognizing key mediators between autocratic and democratic leadership and follower trust, we offer new insights into why these leadership behaviors create trust in emergency contexts. We test our assumptions in the context of firefighting, which possesses many characteristics of organizations operating in emergency contexts ( Jankovic et al., 1991 ; Colquitt et al., 2011 ; Burtscher et al., 2018 ). We use a multimethod approach to integrate causal relationships from a scenario experiment (Study 1) with the broader generalizability of an online survey field study (Study 2).

Background and hypotheses development

Leadership behaviors and trust in the leader for action teams.

Action teams are “teams where members with specialized skills must improvise and coordinate their actions in intense, unpredictable situations” ( Edmondson, 2003 , p. 1421). Many action teams in emergency contexts accomplish their tasks through dual temporal-phase cycles ( McGrath, 1991 ; Colquitt et al., 2011 ): action and transition phases. Morgeson et al. (2010) proposed that both team performance phases create different demands, requiring different leadership behaviors. This finding aligns with functional leadership theory ( McGrath, 1962 ), which posits that leadership behaviors are effective when they meet certain functions critical to the team’s needs ( Zaccaro et al., 2001 ). For example, in the action phase, leadership functions include providing resources, monitoring the team, managing team boundaries, and challenging the team ( Morgeson et al., 2010 ). In the transition phase, leaders meet critical team needs through training and developing, providing feedback, engaging in sense-making and sense-giving, defining team missions, and establishing expectations and roles ( Morgeson et al., 2010 ).

This paper focuses on two leadership behaviors, autocratic and democratic, widely used and recommended for risk management in emergency contexts (e.g., Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ; Gladstein and Reilly, 1985 ; Yun et al., 2005 ; Farh and Chen, 2018 ). We examine the impact of both leadership behaviors on trust in the leader ( Hannah et al., 2010 ), defined as followers’ perception that their leaders are fair and reliable ( Rousseau et al., 1998 ; Dirks, 2000 ; Schoorman et al., 2007 ). We suggest that the effect of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust varies between the two team performance phases. Specifically, we propose that autocratic leadership enhances trust in the leader during action phases. Vroom and Yetton (1973) emphasized that when the timing is critical, a leader should make decisions alone rather than delegate to team members. Hence, autocratic leaders can make quick, unilateral choices that accelerate decision-making ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ). In particular, novel and unstructured situations require action-oriented leadership ( Fiedler, 1964 , 1967 ). Autocratic leadership consolidates administrative control and properly manages resources ( Hannah et al., 2009 ). Thus, we argue that a leader needs to personally take charge of the operation accomplishment to build and maintain follower trust. This initiative accelerates decision-making, reduces uncertainties, and enhances members’ task knowledge ( Morgeson, 2005 ; Kozlowski et al., 2009 ). We also argue that a democratic leader does not increase follower trust during action phases because these phases enhance the need for direct leader intervention to increase coordination clarity and recover shared understanding ( Kozlowski et al., 2009 ). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H1a . During the action phase, follower trust in the leader is higher under autocratic than democratic leadership.

We also propose that as the team engages in transition phases, autocratic behaviors decrease in importance, and democratic behaviors become a relevant antecedent for trust in the leader. During transition phases, developmental concerns emerge as demands associated with reflection and reexamination become salient ( Kozlowski et al., 2009 ; Karrasch et al., 2011 ). Vroom and Yetton (1973) suggested that in situations (1) when time is not essential, (2) the leader alone does not possess the information required to solve a problem, or (3) the interests of leaders and subordinates diverge, democratic leadership is most appropriate for achieving follower trust and consensus-building.

Existing research has demonstrated that followers tend to feel more vulnerable and more willing to scrutinize their leader’s actions and organizational processes after facing autocratic structures during emergencies ( Bartunek, 1988 ; Hurst, 1995 ; Hannah et al., 2009 ). Leaders can use democratic behaviors to help followers voice their opinions ( Farh and Chen, 2018 ) and develop their skills and competencies ( Sims et al., 2009 ), which may enhance follower trust. Thus, we argue that a leader must employ democratic leadership to build follower trust during transition phases, enhancing learning opportunities while reducing conflicts among followers and leaders. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

H1b . During the transition phase, follower trust in the leader is higher under democratic than autocratic leadership.

The mediating role of trustworthiness in the leader’s ability and benevolence

One mechanism by which autocratic and democratic leadership may exert different effects on trust in the leader is the perception of the leader’s characteristics comprising trustworthiness ( Mayer et al., 1995 ; Cunningham and MacGregor, 2000 ). Mayer et al.’s (1995) theory distinguished trust from trustworthiness, with three characteristics contributing to the prediction of trust: ability, integrity, and benevolence ( Mayer and Davis, 1999 ; Davis et al., 2000 ; Gill et al., 2005 ; Schoorman et al., 2007 ; Colquitt et al., 2011 ). This study focuses on leader ability and benevolence, major predictors of follower trust in emergency contexts ( Yukl, 2006 ; Lapidot et al., 2007 ; Hannah et al., 2009 ; Sweeney et al., 2009 ; Sweeney, 2010 ). We omitted leader integrity from our hypotheses because tests of functional leadership and team process models have produced more meaningful results with regard to the ability and benevolence of leaders than on their integrity ( Hannah et al., 2009 , 2010 ; Farh and Chen, 2018 ). Several studies have found that in situations of heightened vulnerability (i.e., firefighting operations), followers were more attentive to leader behaviors reflecting their ability (compared to leader benevolence; Freitas et al., 2002 ; Lapidot et al., 2007 ; Hannah et al., 2009 ). In such situations, basic security needs are aroused and followers prefer to be with a leader who is determined ( Geier, 2016 ), and competent ( Yun et al., 2005 ; Eberly et al., 2017 ), partly because in vulnerable situations, followers usually seek to establish a sense of control and mastery ( Lazarus, 1966 ). Conversely, in situations of lowered vulnerability (i.e., debriefing), followers were more sensitive to leader behaviors reflecting benevolence (compared to leader ability; Yun et al., 2005 ; Lapidot et al., 2007 ). In such situations, relational needs are aroused and followers prefer to be with a leader who is focused on relationship development ( Geier, 2016 ), and nurturance ( Yun et al., 2005 ; Eberly et al., 2017 ). Thus, trustworthiness in the leader’s ability was more salient in action phases, and trustworthiness in the leader’s benevolence was more salient in transition phases.

The mediating role of leader ability in action phases

We assume that follower trustworthiness in the leader’s ability explains greater trust improvement associated with autocratic leadership compared to democratic leadership during the action phase. Leader ability is “that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence with some specific domain” ( Mayer et al., 1995 , p. 717). Leader ability means the competence and expertise required to do a specific job with the interpersonal competencies and general wisdom required to succeed in the workplace ( Gabarro, 1978 ; Davis et al., 2000 ; Burke et al., 2007 ; Colquitt et al., 2011 ; Ritzenhöfer et al., 2017 ).

We suggest that autocratic leadership increases follower perceptions of leader ability by drawing on functional leadership ( McGrath, 1962 ) and team process theories ( Marks et al., 2001 ; Kozlowski et al., 2009 ). Research on trust suggests that the degree to which the leader takes charge, ensuring a clear direction and an enabling structure, is the degree to which the leader will be perceived as trustworthy in terms of leader ability ( Belenky et al., 1985 ; Hackman, 1992 , 2002 ; Bartone, 2006 ; Burke et al., 2007 ). Research on leadership in action teams emphasizes that leaders who provide clear step-by-step directions for followers while enabling adequate resources and structures signal their ability to constructively respond to emergency contexts ( Isenberg, 1981 ; Gladstein and Reilly, 1985 ; Mulder et al., 1986 ; Bass, 2008 ; Martínez-Córcoles, 2018 ). Therefore, if leaders behave autocratically during action phases, followers are likelier to perceive their leaders as competent than if they behave democratically. In the latter case, followers are less likely to perceive leaders as competent, seeing them as ineffectual ( Yun et al., 2005 ) and indecisive ( Gladstein and Reilly, 1985 ; Mulder et al., 1986 ; Bass, 1990 ). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2a: During the action phase, follower perceptions of leader ability are higher under autocratic than democratic leadership.

Trustworthiness in the leader’s ability boosts trust in the leader ( Mayer et al., 1995 ; Schoorman et al., 2016 ; Shao, 2019 ). Research on trust shows that leader ability enables leaders to maintain their influence within a specific situation ( Burke et al., 2007 ). Given that followers may have little experience, knowledge, and training in some situations, leader ability is a factor that promotes trust ( Zand, 1972 ). Lapidot et al. (2007) argued that when security needs are threatened in emergencies, followers should be more attentive to the leader’s ability to manage the operation and lead the team. Consequently, we predict that autocratic rather than democratic leadership can increase trust in the leader in an action phase through leader ability. Specifically, we expect the leader’s ability to mediate the relationship between autocratic leadership and trust in the leader during action phases (see Figure 1 ). Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:

Visual depiction of the proposed research model.

H2b: In the action phase, follower perceptions of leader ability mediate the positive relationship between autocratic leadership (compared to democratic leadership) and trust in the leader.

The mediating role of leader benevolence in transition phases

We assume that follower trustworthiness in the leader’s benevolence explains the greater trust improvement associated with democratic instead of autocratic leadership during the transition phase. Benevolence is a leadership attribute that captures consideration and sensitivity to follower needs and interests ( Mayer et al., 1995 ). Benevolence reflects that leaders are willing to care and want to do good for their followers above what is formally required, even if they do not profit from it ( Ritzenhöfer et al., 2017 ). Thus, we propose that democratic leadership increases follower perceptions of leader benevolence based on functional leadership and team process theories. Research on trust has suggested that the degree to which the leader engages in shared decision-making and provides opportunities to voice opinions increases the perception of leader trustworthiness in terms of benevolence ( Hackman, 2002 ; Burke et al., 2007 ). Moreover, research on leadership in action teams has suggested that leaders who encourage a high degree of group members’ involvement and participation during decision-making signal that they care about follower welfare and interests during transition phases ( Konovsky and Pugh, 1994 ; Burke et al., 2007 ; Caldwell and Hayes, 2007 ). Therefore, if leaders behave democratically in this phase, followers are likelier to perceive the leader as benevolent than if leaders behave autocratically. In the latter case, followers are less likely to perceive their leader as benevolent because they are seen as eroding their sense of control over group decisions ( De Cremer, 2007 ). Hence, we predict the following hypothesis:

H3a: During the transition phase, follower perceptions of leader benevolence are higher under democratic than autocratic leadership.

Trustworthiness in the leader’s benevolence boosts trust in the leader ( Mayer et al., 1995 ; Schoorman et al., 2016 ; Shao, 2019 ). Mayer et al. (1995) explained that benevolence influences trust because benevolent leaders build a positive attachment to followers and a low motivation to lie. These qualities play a prominent role in building and maintaining trust. Research on action teams shows that in less threatening but stressful situations, such as transition phases, benevolent leaders trigger followers’ needs for nurture and care. In these situations, followers should be more attentive to the leaders’ attributes that reflect their benevolence ( Lapidot et al., 2007 ). Hence, we predict that democratic rather than autocratic leadership can increase follower trust during transition phases by enhancing perceptions of leader benevolence. Specifically, we expect leader benevolence to mediate the relationship between democratic leadership and trust in the leader. We propose the following hypothesis:

H3b: In the transition phase, follower perceptions of leader benevolence mediate the positive relationship between democratic leadership (compared to autocratic leadership) and trust in the leader.

Overview of the current work

Following recommendations for confirming our results’ robustness and generalizability ( Chen et al., 2021 ), we used a multimethod approach to examine our hypotheses. We conducted two studies among professional firefighters. In Study 1, we conducted a scenario experiment to test our hypotheses in a controlled research context ( Aguinis and Bradley, 2014 ). We then conducted a cross-sectional field study to enhance external validity. In Study 2, we replicated and extended the findings from Study 1 using cross-sectional data from a sample of 165 firefighters to test our hypotheses in an emergency context.

Participants

In this study, 125 firefighters participated, of which 89% were male, ages 16 to 62 years ( M = 32.35, SD = 9.99), with an average of 16 years of work experience. Firefighters were recruited via professional firefighting conferences, department visits, email news briefs, blogs, and forums. All firefighters volunteered to complete the study.

Design and experimental procedure

This study used a 2 × 2 between-subject design, with the leader’s behavior (autocratic/democratic) as the first factor and the temporal phase (action/transition phase) as the second factor. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four vignettes [autocratic/action phase ( n = 31), democratic/action phase ( n = 32), autocratic/transition phase ( n = 30), democratic/transition phase ( n = 32)] to control for order effects.

The online experiment included a screening page, informed consent, instructions, the vignette (to manipulate the type of leadership behavior and temporal phase), and a questionnaire ( Geier, 2016 ). The questionnaire included the dependent measures and controls. We informed participants that they were participating in a study that “examines critical success factors of effective teamwork” and that they were going to read a scenario and would respond to questions about that scenario. Specifically, they were asked to imagine that they were experiencing the written scenario and assume the role of a fire brigade member.

Vignette development

We began vignette development by constructing a set of draft scenarios based on nine in-depth interviews in which firefighters were asked about realistic examples of leadership behaviors during the action and transition phases ( Ashill and Yavas, 2006 ; Levy, 2006 ; Aguinis and Bradley, 2014 ; Rosing et al., 2022 ; see Appendix 1 ). The most frequently mentioned examples of autocratic and democratic leadership within action and transition phases were selected to create the vignettes ( Leicher and Mulder, 2016 ). The vignettes were reviewed by three researchers (who were not part of the research team) and two firefighters until consensus was achieved on their true-to-life correctness ( Hughes and Huby, 2002 ; McAlearney, 2006 ; see Table 1 ).

Vignettes used in Study 1.

Unless otherwise stated, the measures in this study used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Autocratic leadership behavior

We measured the effectiveness of manipulating autocratic leadership with six items from the autocratic leader behavior scale ( De Hoogh et al., 2004 ). The Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.92. Examples included items such as “the leader makes decisions in an autocratic way” and “the leader often pushes his/her opinions.”

Democratic leadership behavior

We measured the effectiveness of manipulating democratic leadership using five items from the participative decision-making questionnaire ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). Sample items included “the leader encourages group members to express ideas/suggestions” and “the leader gives all group members a chance to voice their opinions.” The Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.70.

Leader ability and benevolence

Mayer and Davis (1999) developed a measure of trustworthiness that included subscales of leader ability and benevolence. We used six items to measure leader ability (“the leader is very capable of performing his job,” α = 0.96) and five items to study leader benevolence (“the leader is very concerned about followers’ welfare,” α = 0.97).

Trust in the leader

We used a three-item scale developed by Giessner and van Knippenberg (2008) to assess overall trust in the leader. The items were as follows: “I trust the leader absolutely,” “I think this leader does the right things,” and “I think this leader is trustworthy” (α = 0.95).

Control variables

We controlled for firefighters’ age (continuously in years), gender (1 = male, 2 = female), and job tenure (continuously in years). The results remained unchanged with or without these controls in the model.

Data analysis

We analyzed our data in several steps. First, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated for each variable to determine multicollinearity ( Suen, 1990 ). Second, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested the effects of leadership behaviors on follower trust ( H1a-b ) and perceptions of the leader’s abilities and benevolence ( H2a and H3a ). We also used planned comparison ( Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1985 ) tests to compare the means between the conditions. Third, to analyze H2b and H3b, we used the PROCESS tool in SPSS ( Hayes, 2012 ). We chose model 4 of this tool with 5,000 bootstraps and, as recommended ( Hayes and Preacher, 2014 ), a confidence interval of 95% for estimating the respective effects.

Multicollinearity

We assessed the absence of multicollinearity with VIF scores of less than 10 (VIF < 10 = no serious multicollinearity; Cohen et al., 2003 ; Neubert and Taggar, 2004 ). The results of our multicollinearity analysis showed that the VIF scores ranged within acceptable values from 1.09 to 2.87 (VIF = 2.45 for leader ability, 2.52 for leader benevolence, 2.82 for age, 1.09 for gender, and 2.87 for job tenure), indicating an extremely low level of multicollinearity in our study ( Dingel and Wei, 2014 ).

Manipulation checks

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among all study variables. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for all experimental conditions. We analyzed the manipulation checks in two steps. First, we analyzed whether our leadership manipulation in the action phase was effective. The results of a univariate ANOVA indicated that participants assigned the autocratic leadership condition perceived the leader as being more autocratic than participants assigned the democratic condition [ M = 5.10, SD = 1.18 vs. M = 2.39, SD = 1.52, with t (121) = 8.95, p < 0.01]. In contrast, participants assigned the democratic leadership condition perceived the leader as more democratic than participants assigned the autocratic condition [ M = 2.76, SD = 0.90 vs. M = 4.97, SD = 0.94, with t (121) = −10.59, p < 0.01].

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among Study 1 variables.

N = 125; a 1 = male; 2 = female; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Mean values, standard deviations, and significances of differences between experimental conditions (Study 1).

N = 125; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Second, we used a univariate ANOVA to test whether our manipulation of leadership in the transition phase was successful. The results again showed that participants assigned the autocratic leadership condition perceived the leader as being more autocratic than participants assigned the democratic condition [M = 6.30, SD = 0.54 vs. M = 3.56, SD = 1.32, with t (121) = 8.95, p < 0.01]. In contrast, participants assigned the democratic leadership condition perceived the leader as being more democratic than participants assigned the autocratic condition [ M = 5.35, SD = 0.55 vs. M = 2.27, SD = 0.87, with t (121) = −14.66, p < 0.01]. In conclusion, all manipulations worked as expected.

Hypotheses testing

We supported H1a since performing autocratic leadership behavior during the action phase resulted in higher trust ratings ( M = 4.22, SD = 1.67) than performing democratic leadership ( M = 3.22, SD = 1.90; p < 0.05). We also supported H1b since performing democratic behavior during the transition phase resulted in higher trust in the leader ( M = 5.58, SD = 1.14) than performing autocratic leadership ( M = 2.41, SD = 1.31; p < 0.01; see Figure 2 ). Moreover, we supported H2a since autocratic leadership resulted in higher leader ability ratings ( M = 4.21, SD = 1.41) during the action phase than democratic leadership ( M = 3.29, SD = 1.76; p < 0.05, see Figure 3 ) and also supported H2b since the indirect effect of autocratic leadership (as compared with democratic leadership) on follower trust during the action phase through leader ability was significant (effect = –0.90, 95% CI[–1.63, –0.13]).

The relationship between autocratic and democratic leadership and trust in the leader for the action and transition phase (Study 1).

The relationship between autocratic and democratic leadership and leader ability for the action phase (Study 1).

Finally, we supported H3a since leader benevolence ratings were higher for democratic leadership behavior ( M = 5.84, SD = 0.98) during the transition phase than for autocratic leadership behavior ( M = 1.66, SD = 1.01; p < 0.01, see Figure 4 ). Furthermore, in the transition phase, the indirect effect of democratic (rather than autocratic) leadership behavior on follower trust through leader benevolence was significant (effect = 3.95, 95% CI[2.84, 5.57]), supporting H3b.

The relationship between autocratic and democratic leadership and leader benevolence for the transition phase (Study 1).

Using a scenario-based experimental methodology, we designed Study 1 to provide an experimental test of the impact that autocratic and democratic leadership has on follower trust. Study 1 supported that the influence of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust varies depending on the team performance phase since the action and transition phases involve different task demands and thus leadership requirements. We found that autocratic rather than democratic leadership elevates follower trust by increasing leader ability in the action phase. In contrast, democratic rather than autocratic leadership enhances follower trust during transition phases by elevating leader benevolence. Our scenario-based experimental methodology had the advantage of isolating the effects of autocratic and democratic leadership ( Antonakis et al., 2010 ). However, the drawback was that respondents could not directly experience the team performance phase to which they were responding ( Belschak and Den Hartog, 2009 ). Therefore, we conducted a second study in the context of firefighting to replicate and extend the results from Study 1 using a different method involving a sample of firefighters who actually experience leader behaviors in extreme operations.

Sample, design, and procedure

We recruited firefighters through professional firefighting conferences, department visits, email news briefs, blogs, and forums to participate in an online survey. Various recruitment methods restricted us from calculating an exact response rate. However, of the 576 firefighters registered for participation, 165 (29%) completed the survey. All participants worked for firefighting departments in Germany. The study sample consisted of 147 males and 18 females, averaging 36 years of age ( SD = 10.77) and 18 years of work experience ( SD = 10.16). All firefighters volunteered to complete the study.

We used the critical incident technique ( Aquino et al., 2006 ; Wang et al., 2018 ) to elicit salient experiences of action and transition phases. First, we asked participants to complete the following task: to think back over the last months as a firefighter and recall the last incident where they experienced an acute, serious, and dangerous firefighting operation. After thinking about this incident, respondents answered questions about leadership behaviors and trust in the leader. Second, we asked participants to complete another task: to think back over the last month as a firefighter and recall the last incident where they experienced a transition phase, such as a debriefing. Again, after deliberating about this critical incident, participants answered the questions about leadership behaviors and trust in the leader.

Unless otherwise stated, we used measures on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

As in Study 1, we measured autocratic leadership using the six-item autocratic leader behavior scale developed by De Hoogh et al. (2004) . The Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.75 for the action phase and 0.87 for the transition phase.

We assessed democratic leadership using five items from the participative decision-making questionnaire, as in Study 1 ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). The Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.89 for the action phase and 0.94 for the transition phase.

As in Study 1, we used a measure developed by Mayer and Davis (1999) to assess leader ability and benevolence. We used six items to measure leader ability (α = 0.96 for action phase, α = 0.97 for transition phase) and five items for leader benevolence (α = 0.90 for the action phase, α = 0.95 for the transition phase).

Follower trust was measured using the three-item scale developed by Giessner and van Knippenberg (2008) , as in Study 1. The Cronbach’s alpha score was 0.93 for the action phase and 0.96 for the transition phase.

As in Study 1, we controlled for firefighter age, gender, and job tenure. The results remained unchanged with or without these controls in the model.

We analyzed our data using ordinary least square regression to check for H1a, H1b, H2a, and H3a and examined the statistical significance of the difference between the two means by investigating whether the two 95% confidence intervals overlapped ( Schenker and Gentleman, 2001 ; Ryu and Cheong, 2017 ). Moreover, we used bootstrapping and bias-corrected confidence intervals (95%) to analyze H2b and H3b. All mediation analyses were performed with the PROCESS tool in SPSS ( Hayes, 2012 ). Analyses were repeated without control variables, resulting in findings similar to those reported here.

The findings of our multicollinearity analysis showed that the VIF values ranged within acceptable values, from 1.11 to 2.76 in the action phase (VIF = 1.74 for autocratic leadership, VIF = 1.07 for democratic leadership, VIF = 2.76 for leader ability, 2.43 for leader benevolence, 2.47 for age, 1.11 for gender, and 2.37 for job tenure) and from 1.02 to 3.61 in the transition phase (VIF = 1.02 for autocratic leadership, VIF = 1.96 for democratic leadership, VIF = 3.61 for leader ability, 3.40 for leader benevolence, 2.44 for age, 1.10 for gender, and 2.34 for job tenure). Thus, no severe multicollinearity problems were present in our research model.

Hypothesis testing

Tables 4 , ​ ,5 5 provide the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients among the study variables for both temporal phases. Table 6 presents the findings of the regression analysis. First, the results of the regression analysis showed that the effect of autocratic leadership on trust in the leader was significantly positive ( b = 0.75, SE = 0.09, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.56, 0.91]), and the effect of democratic leadership was also significantly positive ( b = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p < 0.05, 95% CI[0.18, 0.25]) in the action phase. Supporting H1a, the 95% confidence intervals of the two estimates did not overlap, hence the two were statistically significantly different from one another.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the action phase (Study 2).

N = 165; a 1 = male, 2 = female; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the transition phase (Study 2).

Effects of leadership behaviors on trust in the leader and leader ability and benevolence (Study 2).

N = 165; a 1 = male; 2 = female; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; unstandardized coefficients are reported.

Second, the effect of democratic leadership on trust in the leader was significantly positive ( b = 0.58, SE = 0.06, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.46, 0.69]), and the effect of autocratic leadership was non-significant in the transition phase ( b = 0.01, SE = 0.06, p > 0.05, 95% CI[–0.11, 0.13]). Supporting H1b, the 95% confidence intervals of the two estimates did not overlap. Thus, we concluded that they were different from each other.

Third, there was a positive significant effect of autocratic leadership on leader ability in the action phase ( b = 0.76, SE = 0.07, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.60, 0.89]). There was also a positive significant effect for democratic leadership ( b = 0.13, SE = 0.05, p < .05, 95% CI[0.03, 0.29]). Supporting H2a, the 95% confidence intervals of the two estimates were significantly different from each other as the confidence intervals of the two estimates did not overlap.

Fourth, the findings also supported H2b since the indirect effect on trust in the leader through leader ability in the action phase was significantly positive for autocratic leadership (effect = 0.65, 95% CI[0.44, 0.89]) and insignificant for democratic leadership (effect = 0.11, 95% CI[–0.01, 0.23]). Fifth, there was a significant positive effect of democratic leadership on leader benevolence in the transition phase ( b = 0.53, SE = 0.05, p < 0.01, 95% CI[0.42, 0.62]) and an insignificant effect for autocratic leadership ( b = 0.00, SE = 0.06, p > 0.05, 95% CI[–0.11, 0.11]). Thus, the results supported H3a since the 95% confidence intervals of the two estimates did not overlap, hence the two estimates were statistically significantly different from one another. Sixth, our results also supported H3b, as the indirect effect on follower trust through leader benevolence in the transition phase was significantly positive for democratic leadership (effect = 0.41, 95% CI[0.25, 0.61]) but insignificant for autocratic leadership (effect = 0.05, 95% CI[–0.10, 0.20]).

Study 2 replicated and extended the results from Study 1 using a different research method. In line with findings obtained in Study 1, Study 2 supported that autocratic leadership, compared to democratic leadership, elevates follower trust in the leader by increasing leader ability in the action phase. In addition, we demonstrated that democratic compared to autocratic leadership enhances follower trust in the leader during the transition phase by elevating leader benevolence.

General discussion

Our findings demonstrate that the influence of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust differs between action and transition phases. We find that follower trust is more strongly related to autocratic rather than democratic leadership during the action phase, whereas follower trust during the transition phase is more strongly related to democratic rather than autocratic leadership. Moreover, our results show that autocratic leaders have higher abilities than democratic leaders in action phases, whereas democratic leaders are more benevolent than autocratic leaders in transition phases. Furthermore, we find that the link between autocratic leadership and trust is mediated by leader ability in action phases, whereas the link between democratic leadership and trust is mediated by leader benevolence in transition phases.

Theoretical implications

This article contributes to the leadership and trust literature by demonstrating the necessity of considering situational factors when assessing the effects of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust. In line with other studies on follower trust (e.g., Dirks, 2000 ; Burke et al., 2007 ) and autocratic and democratic leadership ( Lewin and Lippitt, 1938 ; Gastil, 1994 ; Foels et al., 2000 ; Schoel et al., 2011 ), we demonstrate that explicit consideration of the context provides a better description of the effects of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust.

Departing from prior research that has mainly considered these leadership behaviors in isolation (e.g., Mulder et al., 1971 ; Gladstein and Reilly, 1985 ; Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Bass, 1990 ; Bass and Riggio, 2006 ; Sweeney et al., 2009 ), we directly compare autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors to clarify the conflicting findings in the literature on the effectiveness of both behaviors for instilling follower trust. Thus, we provide insights into when and why autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors foster follower trust in emergency contexts and contribute to the debate regarding the limits and benefits of both behaviors ( Berkowitz, 1953 ; Bass, 1990 ; Gastil, 1994 ; Yukl, 2006 ; Schoel et al., 2011 ; De Hoogh et al., 2015 ).

Conceptually, we extend the leadership and trust literature by considering the critical role of team process phases ( Marks et al., 2001 ), showing that the influence of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust manifests through different task demands encountered in the action and transition phases. This finding is consistent with functional leadership ( McGrath, 1962 ) and team process theory ( Kozlowski et al., 2009 ; Morgeson et al., 2010 ), suggesting that action and transition phases produce different task demands for leadership behavior. By demonstrating that the influence of autocratic and democratic leadership on follower trust differs significantly across the two phases, we highlight an important temporal condition that may help explain some of the inconsistencies in previous research regarding the effectiveness of autocratic versus democratic leadership at the workplace ( Schoel et al., 2011 ), proposing its impact to both positively and negatively affect the working environment.

Previous research on the effectiveness of autocratic leadership has highlighted positive and negative consequences (e.g., Bass, 1990 ; Gastil, 1994 ; Foels et al., 2000 ; De Hoogh et al., 2015 ). This study supports that autocratic leadership is not always costly and sometimes fosters follower trust. Specifically, autocratic leadership during action phases promotes follower trust and perceptions of the leader’s abilities. This finding aligns with normative models ( Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ; Vroom and Jago, 1978 ), suggesting that autocratic leadership allows for fast decision-making processes and facilitates reaction times in time-sensitive situations. Moreover, this study informs leadership research by answering the call for more research on different behaviors of leadership in emergency contexts ( Hannah et al., 2009 ; Hannah and Parry, 2014 ). In particular, this study shows that autocratic leadership can have functional value for follower trust situations of heightened vulnerability.

Previous studies have largely focused on the positive effects of democratic leadership on team performance and effectiveness in the workplace ( Kushell and Newton, 1986 ; Foels et al., 2000 ). Scholars have suggested that followers do not prefer domineering leadership behaviors but are more efficient and satisfied when they participate in decision-making ( Gastil, 1994 ). Our results show a functional value for democratic leadership during transition phases and a dysfunctional value during action phases. In particular, we demonstrate that democratic leadership fosters follower perceptions of leader benevolence and trust in the transition phase. In contrast, democratic leadership is unrelated to follower perceptions of the leader’s abilities in action phases.

These findings align with the normative model ( Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ; Vroom and Jago, 1978 ) and social exchange processes ( Foels et al., 2000 ; Bass, 2008 ), suggesting that democratic leadership may operate by establishing care and consideration for followers in situations where time is not essential and where the leader does not have the information required to solve the problem alone ( Yukl, 2006 ). Thus, our study informs the debate on leadership effectiveness, demonstrating a functional and dysfunctional value for participatory and decentralized leadership behaviors in the two team performance phases.

Limitations and future research

This research has certain limitations, highlighting possible directions for future study. First, further research is needed concerning the operation of trust for emergency jobs with recurring team performance phases. Future work can thus expand this study and focus on how trust in the leader develops throughout the performance phase ( Sweeney, 2010 ). Future studies could include questions and measures to allow researchers to examine whether trust in the leader developed during a transition phase might transfer to an action phase. For example, Hannah et al. (2009) suggested that appropriate leadership behavior before an emergency event may allow leaders to be more autocratic during the emergency event based on the trust they have already built.

Second, we limit the analyzed leadership types to the two behaviors identified by Lewin and Lippitt (1938) : autocratic and democratic. In emergency contexts, the development and operation of trust may include other leadership behaviors. However, research suggests that adaptive and flexible leadership should consider a variety of leadership types, such as transformational and transactional leadership (e.g., Arnold et al., 2016 ; Geier, 2016 ; Eberly et al., 2017 ) and shared leadership (e.g., Klein et al., 2006 ; Ramthun and Matkin, 2014 ).

Third, our study narrowly defines autocratic and democratic leadership as two variants of decision-making ( Vroom and Yetton, 1973 ; Vroom and Jago, 1988 ). We describe autocratic leadership as forbidding subordinate involvement in decisions and democratic leadership as group decision-making. However, future research might differentiate between other variants of decision-making, such as consultation.

Fourth, we investigate only two leader characteristics comprising trustworthiness (ability and benevolence) that serve as mechanisms to explain the impact of autocratic and democratic leadership on trust. Previous research has suggested that future research should explore other mechanisms ( Mayer et al., 1995 ; Dirks, 2000 ; Mayer and Gavin, 2005 ). Thus, we encourage future research to examine other underlying mechanisms or moderators on the development and operation of follower trust, such as leader integrity, individual propensity to trust, and individual perceived risks ( Burke et al., 2007 ).

Fifth, a significant limitation of this study is our inability to test causality within our research design, particularly as our mediators and dependent variables are measured through cross-sectional self-reports. Future longitudinal studies and diary studies should address this issue.

Sixth, we find that trustworthiness in the leader’s ability and trustworthiness in the leader’s benevolence highly correlate with trust in the leader, raising concerns about content overlap. Therefore, we use well-validated scales to focus on nonoverlapping constructs ( Colquitt and Rodell, 2011 ). We also measure and account for multicollinearity in our analyses. Our findings support the measurement of our constructs, and the low likelihood that construct content overlap is a concern in the present research. Future studies should account for overlapping content correlation in trust research.

Practical implications

Our findings show that functional and dysfunctional values exist for autocratic and democratic leadership concerning follower trust. These findings inform the debate on whether autocratic and democratic leadership are important leadership tools in emergency contexts (e.g., Hannah et al., 2010 ). Our findings highlight that it is important for leaders to understand the positive impact they can have on follower trust by enacting a mix of autocratic and democratic leadership behaviors across performance phases. Furthermore, leaders should be aware of the dynamic task features of emergency contexts and adjust their leadership behaviors depending on the phase to which they are exposed.

We also show advantages to employing both leadership behaviors and providing a framework for leaders to follow, depending on the team performance phases ( Marks et al., 2001 ). For teams facing action phases (e.g., fire missions, surgeries), autocratic leadership is the most appropriate, as units must be able to immediately operate at peak performance and full speed. The team cannot afford to slow down the treatment process for the participation required in democratic teams ( Yun et al., 2005 ; Lorinkova et al., 2013 ). In contrast, when units are exposed to transition phases (e.g., operational debriefings), democratic leadership is the most appropriate choice, facilitating learning opportunities, feelings of identity, and commitment of the units.

Leadership development activities can also help raise leaders’ awareness regarding how their behaviors may or may not lead to follower trust, depending on the leader’s abilities and benevolence. Leaders can then learn to adjust their behavior as required ( De Hoogh et al., 2015 ). For example, leaders can use autocratic leadership techniques for action-related events.

This study provides meaningful insights into the relative benefits of autocratic and democratic leadership. Previous research has not compared autocratic and democratic leadership in emergency contexts, and the unique impact of both leadership behaviors on follower trust remains unknown. Our findings suggest that it is important for leaders to understand the positive impact they can have on follower trust by enacting a mix of autocratic and democratic leadership across different team performance phases.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Koblenz-Landau. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results, to the writing of the manuscript, and provided final approval of the version to be published.

Appendix 1: Pilot study

To construct a set of draft vignettes of autocratic and democratic leadership in emergency contexts and ensure their validity, we first conducted a qualitative pilot study using an in-depth interview technique with a firefighter sample ( Belkin and Rothman, 2017 ).

Nine firefighters participated in the study: all males aged 24 to 40 years old ( M = 26 years, SD = 5.94), averaging 11 years of work ( SD = 5.87). The participants were employed across four departments in the midwestern region of Germany. The sample included two lieutenants, one driver/ladder operator, and six firefighters.

A trained, professional interviewer collected data during face-to-face interviews of approximately 90 min. We used a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions ( Taylor and Bogdan, 1998 ), and all tape-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim for the data analysis. Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling technique ( McAlearney, 2006 ). The original sample of firefighters was generated by academic staff and extended by informants asked to suggest additional experts. Data saturation was judged to have occurred if interviews offered repetitive information and ideas and no new information emerged ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ; Morse, 2000 ).

Firefighters were free to talk about personal thoughts and feelings and explore real-life situations ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 ; Ashill and Yavas, 2006 ; Levy, 2006 ). They were asked questions such as, “What do you think you need from your leader during action phases? And during transition phases? Are some leadership behaviors particularly essential in each phase?” They were then asked to narrate critical leadership behavior incidents in their daily work experiences during and following various operations. They were also questioned about their preferences and expectations regarding the leader’s behavior and its relationship to trust development and erosion.

Our analysis followed the inductive analysis technique by searching for patterns and identifying data themes ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ; Haddon et al., 2015 ; Pratt et al., 2019 ). Two independent researchers read the interview transcripts several times, identifying themes, key ideas, and recurring statements shared by interviewees ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 ). Coding was descriptive and open and remained close to the firefighters’ language ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ).

In this section, the results are summarized into two distinct themes. The first theme answered the question, “What do you think you need from your leader during action phases?” The second theme concerned the forms of leadership displayed in the transition phase. Verbatim quotations were chosen as representative of the qualitative data. Below, we discuss each theme in more detail.

Theme 1: Leadership in the action phase

The most critical leadership behavior in the action phase was the leaders’ ability to be decisive and set directions. The importance of leaders telling followers what to do while effectively inhibiting discussions was considered important to provide the opportunity to act quickly and follow an operation plan. This attitude was evidenced by the representative quotes below:

Leadership should set direction. It goes like this. Otherwise, it wastes time and delays the whole process. (Participant 1) When the order is given, the order is given. That’s what you do. Orders create silence. It’s a very clear job. There’s nothing to discuss what you have to do. […] It’s not up for discussion. Outside it’s hectic and chaotic, but simple commands make you calm in a situation. […] Clear simple orders are required. (Participant 2) Discussions are not at all beneficial and protract the mission. This makes it more tense between the forces. […] In the end, I do something wrong. (Participant 7) You should never reject a command. It gets unpredictable at this moment. (Participant 4)

Establishing a sense of hierarchy was emphasized, helping to bundle, process, and analyze all incoming information. The leader was seen as a contact person whom they could turn to in case of need, as evidenced by the quotes below:

One cannot act democratically in such a situation. Gotta maintain hierarchy; can’t have a great debate there. I’m just an underling. (Participant 8) We have a clear hierarchical structure in an operation, which is also carried out in this way. But, apart from that, it is a lot of togetherness. […] You can be on first-name terms with the boss. […] It’s not that it always has to stay in a fixed structure after an operation. (Participant 3)

Theme 2: Leadership in the transition phase

The second central theme was leadership in the transition phase. The leader’s ability to give all followers the chance to voice their opinions and sensitivities was important, providing the opportunity to learn, reflect, and resolve inconsistencies. This sentiment was evidenced by the representative quotes below:

There isn’t any room for discussion on a mission! Not until the end of a mission. Then a leader can come and chat. […] Also, ask what did I experience and how I feel! Show interest; then I feel better. (Participant 2) After the mission, go and ask whether everything is fine and if there are any ideas. Ask if you can improve something. (Participant 4) To question leaders’ commands can be very negative on a mission! I get insecure. Then I question the executive. This is not working. If there is any dissatisfaction, it should be clarified in the follow-up. (Participant 9)

The leader’s behavior of listening to follower’s ideas and suggestions was also considered important (to enhance transparency and learning):

After a mission, it is also important to discuss. Experience must be shared. It is of no use if the wealth of experience that everyone has is kept to themselves. It’s useless. Exchange means learning through discussion. People listen to you. Should offer an open ear, be curious. (Participant 2) Transparent communication is very important. When you make a decision, you should also explain why it was necessary to do so afterward. Then, you can see a sense of your own security. Without justification and without explanation, you often don’t see any sense in it. (Participant 6)

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Aguinis H., Bradley K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Org. Res. Methods 17 351–371. 10.1177/1094428114547952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonakis J., Bendahan S., Jacquart P., Lalive R. (2010). On making causal claims: a review and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 21 1086–1120. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 [ CrossRef ] [ 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. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 653–668. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold J. A., Arad S., Rhoades J. A., Drasgow F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J. Org. Behav. 21 249–269. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3<249::AID-JOB10>3.0.CO;2-# [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold K. A., Loughlin C., Walsh M. M. (2016). Transformational leadership in an extreme context. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 37 774–788. 10.1108/LODJ-10-2014-0202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashill N. J., Yavas U. (2006). Vignette development: an exposition and illustration. Innov. Mark. 2 28–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartone P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: can leaders influence hardiness? Mil. Psychol. 18(sup1) S131–S148. 10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartunek J. (1988). “ The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing ,” in Paradox And Transformation: Towards A Theory Of Change In Organization And Management , eds Quinn R. E., Cameron K. S. (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; ), 137–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (1990). Bass And Stogdill’s Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research, And Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (2008). The Bass Handbook Of Leadership: Theory, Research, And Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M., Riggio R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410617095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belenky G. L., Noy S., Solomon Z. (1985). Battle stress: the israeli experience. Mil. Rev. 65 28–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belkin L. Y., Rothman N. B. (2017). Do I trust you? Depends on what you feel: interpersonal effects of emotions on initial trust at zero-acquaintance. Negotiation Conflict Manage. Res. 10 3–27. 10.1111/ncmr.12088 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belschak F. D., Den Hartog D. N. (2009). Consequences of positive and negative feedback: the impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. Appl. Psychol. 58 274–303. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkowitz L. (1953). Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 48 231–238. 10.1037/h0058076 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke C. S., Sims D. E., Lazzara E. H., Salas E. (2007). Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration. Leadersh. Q. 18 606–632. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burtscher M. J., Meyer B., Jonas K., Feese S., Tröster G. (2018). A time to trust? The buffering effect of trust and its temporal variations in the context of high-reliability teams. J. Org. Behav. 39 1099–1112. 10.1002/job.2271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caldwell C., Hayes L. A. (2007). Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens. J. Manage. Dev. 26 261–281. 10.1108/02621710710732155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y., Liu D., Tang G., Hogan T. M. (2021). Workplace events and employee creativity: a multistudy field investigation. Pers. Psychol. 74 211–236. 10.1111/peps.12399 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J., Cohen P., West S., Aiken L. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis For The Behavioral Sciences , 3rd Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colquitt J. A., Rodell J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Acad. Manage. J. 54 1183–1206. 10.5465/amj.2007.0572 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colquitt J. A., LePine J. A., Zapata C. P., Wild R. E. (2011). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Acad. Manage. J. 54 999–1015. 10.5465/amj.2006.0241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham J. B., MacGregor J. (2000). Trust and the design of work complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Hum. Relat. 53 1575–1591. 10.1177/00187267005312003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis J. H., Schoorman F. D., Mayer R. C., Tan H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage. Strateg. Manage. J. 21 563–576. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<563::AID-SMJ99>3.0.CO;2-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Cremer D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of autocratic leader behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37 1385–1404. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00217.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Hoogh A. H. B., Greer L. L., Den Hartog D. N. (2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. Leadersh. Q. 26 687–701. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Hoogh A., den Hartog D., Koopman P., Thierry H., van den Berg P., van der Weide J., et al. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 13 447–471. 10.1080/13594320444000164 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch L. A., Burke C. S., Shuffler M. L., Lyons R., Doty D., Salas E. (2011). A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. Leadersh. Q. 22 152–169. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Desmond M. (2006). Becoming a firefighter. Ethnography 7 387–421. 10.1177/1466138106073142 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Desmond M. (2008). On The Fireline: Living And Dying With Wildland Firefighters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226144078.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dingel M., Wei W. (2014). Influences on peer evaluation in a group project: an exploration of leadership, demographics and course performance. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 39 729–742. 10.1080/02602938.2013.867477 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball. J.Appl. Psychol. 85 1004–1012. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirks K. T., Ferrin D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 611–628. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eberly M. B., Bluhm D. J., Guarana C., Avolio B. J., Hannah S. T. (2017). Staying after the storm: how transformational leadership relates to follower turnover intentions in extreme contexts. J. Vocat. Behav. 102 72–85. 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J. Manage. Stud. 40 1419–1452. 10.1111/1467-6486.00386 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Manage. J. 32 543–576. 10.5465/256434 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farh C. I., Chen G. (2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: test of a dynamic phase model. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 97–110. 10.1037/apl0000256 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler F. E. (1964). “ A contingency model of leadership effectiveness ,” in Advances in experimental social psychology , Vol. 1 ed. Berkowitz L. (New York, NY: Academic Press; ), 149–190. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher K., Hutchings K., Sarros J. C. (2010). The “bright” and “shadow” aspects of in extremis leadership. Mil. Psychol. 22 : S89 . 10.1080/08995601003644346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foels R., Driskell J. E., Mullen B., Salas E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction. Small Group Res. 31 676–701. 10.1177/104649640003100603 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freitas A. L., Liberman N., Salovey P., Higgins E. T. (2002). When to begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28 121–130. 10.1177/0146167202281011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabarro J. J. (1978). “ The development of trust, influence and expectations ,” in Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships , eds Athos A. G., Gabarro J. J. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; ), 290–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gastil J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Res. 25 384–410. 10.1177/1046496494253003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geier M. T. (2016). Leadership in extreme contexts? J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 23 234–247. 10.1177/1548051815627359 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giessner S. R., van Knippenberg D. (2008). “License to fail”: goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105 14–35. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gill H., Boies K., Finegan J. E., McNally J. (2005). Antecedents of trust: establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. J. Bus. Psychol. 19 287–302. 10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladstein D. L., Reilly N. P. (1985). Group decision making under threat: the tycoon game. Acad. Manage. J. 28 613–627. 10.5465/256117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R. (1992). Group Influences On Individuals In Organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting The Stage For Great Performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddon A., Loughlin C., McNally C. (2015). Leadership in a time of financial crisis: what do we want from our leaders? Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 36 612–627. 10.1108/LODJ-12-2013-0166 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hällgren M., Rouleau L., De Rond M. (2018). A matter of life or death: how extreme context research matters for management and organization studies. Acad. Manage. Ann. 12 111–153. 10.5465/annals.2016.0017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamby J. E. (2002). The mutiny wagon wheel: a leadership model for mutiny in combat. Armed Forces Soc. 28 575–600. 10.1177/0095327X0202800404 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannah S. T., Parry K. W. (2014). “ Leadership in extreme contexts ,” in The Oxford Handbook Of Leadership And Organizations , ed. Day D. V. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ). 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannah S. T., Campbell D. J., Matthews M. D. (2010). Advancing a research agenda for leadership in dangerous contexts. Mil. Psychol. 22(sup1) S157–S189. 10.1080/08995601003644452 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannah S. T., Uhl-Bien M., Avolio B. J., Cavarretta F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. Leadersh. Q. 20 897–919. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasel M. C., Grover S. L. (2017). An integrative model of trust and leadership. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 38 849–867. 10.1108/LODJ-12-2015-0293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2012). Process: A Versatile Computational Tool For Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, And Conditional Process Modeling. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F., Preacher K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67 451–470. 10.1111/bmsp.12028 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes R., Huby M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J. Adv. Nurs. 37 382–386. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hurst D. K. (1995). Crisis And Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Isenberg D. J. (1981). Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision-making accuracy in small groups. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 27 119–134. 10.1016/0030-5073(81)90042-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jankovic J., Jones W., Burkhart J., Noonan G. (1991). Environmental study of firefighters. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 35 581–602. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karrasch A., Levine A., Kolditz C. T. A. (2011). “ Leadership when it matters most: lessons on influence from in extremis contexts ,” in Leadership in Dangerous Situations , eds Sweeney P. J., Matthews M. D., Lester P. B. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press; ), 218–229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelloway E. K., Turner N., Barling J., Loughlin C. (2012). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: the mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work Stress 26 39–55. 10.1080/02678373.2012.660774 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein K. J., Ziegert J. C., Knight A. P., Xiao Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 51 590–621. 10.2189/asqu.51.4.590 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolditz T. A. (2010). In Extremis Leadership: Leading As If Your Life Depended On It, 107. Chichester, NH: John Wiley and Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Konovsky M. A., Pugh S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad. Management. J. 37 656–669. 10.5465/256704 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski S. W., Gully S. M., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. (1996). “ Team leadership and development: theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams ,” in Advances In Interdisciplinary Studies Of Work Teams: Team Leadership , Vol. 3 eds Beyerlein M. M., Johnson D. A., Beyerlein S. T. (Stamford, CT: Elsevier Science/JAI Press; ), 253–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski S. W., Watola D. J., Jensen J. M., Kim B. H., Botero I. C. (2009). “ Developing adaptive teams: a theory of dynamic team leadership ,” in Team Effectiveness In Complex Organizations: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives And Approaches (SIOP Frontiers Series) , eds Salas E., Goodwin G. F., Burke C. S. (Mahwah, NJ: LEA; ), 113–155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kushell E., Newton R. (1986). Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction: an experiment. Sex Roles 14 203–209. 10.1007/BF00288249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lapidot Y., Kark R., Shamir B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of follower’s trust in their leader. Leadersh. Q. 18 16–34. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazarus R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leicher V., Mulder R. (2016). Individual and contextual factors influencing engagement in learning activities after errors at work. J. Workplace Learn. 28 66–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy D. (2006). Qualitative methodology and grounded theory in property research. Pacific Rim Property Res. J. 12 369–388. 10.1080/14445921.2006.11104216 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K., Lippitt R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: a preliminary note. Sociometry 1 292–300. 10.2307/2785585 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu J., Siu O.-L., Shi K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: the mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Appl. Psychol. 59 454–479. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorinkova N. M., Pearsall M. J., Sims H. P. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad. Manage. J. 56 573–596. 10.5465/amj.2011.0132 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., Zaccaro S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26 356–376. 10.5465/amr.2001.4845785 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martínez-Córcoles M. (2018). High reliability leadership: a conceptual framework. J. Conting. Crisis Manage. 26 237–246. 10.1111/1468-5973.12187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R. C., Davis J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 : 123 . 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R. C., Gavin M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Acad. Manage. J. 48 874–888. 10.5465/amj.2005.18803928 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 709–734. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maynard M. T., Resick C. J., Cunningham Q. W., DiRenzo M. S. (2017). Ch-Ch-Ch-changes: how action phase functional leadership, team human capital, and interim vs. permanent leader status impact post-transition team performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 32 575–593. 10.1007/s10869-016-9482-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAlearney A. S. (2006). Leadership development in healthcare: a qualitative study. J. Org. Behav. 27 967–982. 10.1002/job.417 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E. (1962). Leadership Behavior: Some Requirements For Leadership Training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGrath J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): a theory of groups. Small Group Res. 22 147–174. 10.1177/1046496491222001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 497–508. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.497 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgeson F. P., DeRue D. S., Karam E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. J. Manage. 36 5–39. 10.1177/0149206309347376 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulder M., de Jong R. D., Koppelaar L., Verhage J. (1986). Power, situation, and leaders’ effectiveness: an organizational field study. J. Appl. Psychol. 71 566–570. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.566 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulder M., Ritsema van Eck J. R., De Jong R. D. (1971). An organization in crisis and non-crisis situations. Hum. Relat. 24 19–41. 10.1177/001872677102400102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers K. K. (2005). A burning desire. Manage. Commun. Q. 18 344–384. 10.1177/0893318904270742 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neubert M. J., Taggar S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: the moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. Leadersh. Q. 15 175–194. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt M. G., Lepisto D. A., Dane E. (2019). The hidden side of trust: supporting and sustaining leaps of faith among firefighters. Adm. Sci. Q. 64 398–434. 10.1177/0001839218769252 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramthun A. J., Matkin G. S. (2014). Leading dangerously. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 21 244–256. 10.1177/1548051814529827 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritzenhöfer L., Brosi P., Spörrle M., Welpe I. M. (2017). Leader pride and gratitude differentially impact follower trust. J. Manage. Psychol. 32 445–459. 10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0235 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R., Rosnow R. L. (1985). Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons In The analysis Of Variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosing F., Boer D., Buengeler C., Scheel T. (2022). The effectiveness of absence of humour in leadership in firefighting frontline communication: a reversal theory perspective. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 31 200–213. 10.1080/1359432X.2021.1948401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., Camerer C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23 393–404. 10.5465/amr.1998.926617 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryu E., Cheong J. (2017). Comparing indirect effects in different groups in single-group and multi-group structural equation models. Front. Psychol. 8 : 747 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00747 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schenker N., Gentleman J. F. (2001). On judging the significance of differences by examining the overlap between confidence intervals. Am. Stat. 55 182–186. 10.1198/000313001317097960 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoel C., Bluemke M., Mueller P., Stahlberg D. (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option—uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 521–540. 10.1037/a0023393 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoorman F. D., Mayer R. C., Davis J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32 344–354. 10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoorman F. D., Mayer R. C., Davis J. H. (2016). Empowerment in veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation. J. Trust Res. 6 76–90. 10.1080/21515581.2016.1153479 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao B. (2019). Moral anger as a dilemma? An investigation on how leader moral anger influences follower trust. Leadersh. Q. 30 365–382. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sims H. P., Jr., Faraj S., Yun S. (2009). When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Bus. Horiz. 52 149–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A., Corbin J. (1990). Basics Of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suen H. K. (1990). Principles Of Test Theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweeney P. J. (2010). Do soldiers reevaluate trust in their leaders prior to combat operations? Mil. Psychol. 22(sup1) S70–S88. 10.1080/08995601003644312 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweeney P. J., Thompson V., Blanton H. (2009). Trust and influence in combat: an interdependence model. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 39 235–264. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00437.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S. J., Bogdan R. (1998). In-depth interviewing. Introduction Qual. Res. Methods 3 87–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Vugt M., Jepson S. F., Hart C. M., De Cremer D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: a threat to group stability. J.Exp. Soc.PsyChol. 40 1–13. 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. H., Jago A. G. (1978). On the validity of the vroom-yetton model. J. Appl. Psychol. 63 151–162. 10.1037/0021-9010.63.2.151 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. H., Jago A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. H., Yetton P. W. (1973). Leadership And Decision-Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 10.2307/j.ctt6wrc8r [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang L., Restubog S., Shao B., Lu V., Van Kleef G. A. (2018). Does anger expression help or harm leader effectiveness? The role of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 61 1050–1072. 10.5465/amj.2015.0460 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weick K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the mann gulch disaster. Adm. Sci. Q. 38 628–652. 10.2307/2393339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G. (2006). Leadership In Organizations , 6th Edn. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yun S., Faraj S., Sims H. P., Jr. (2005). Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 1288–1296. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yun S., Faraj S., Xiao Y., Sims H. P., Jr. (2003). “ Team leadership and coordination in trauma resuscitation ,” in Advances in interdisciplinary study of work teams: Team-based organizing , Vol. 9 . (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; ), 189–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zaccaro S. J., Rittman A. L., Marks M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadersh. Q. 12 451–483. 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zand D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Adm. Sci. Q. 17 229–239. [ Google Scholar ]

• Corpus ID: 158462478

Autocratic Leadership Style: Obstacle to Success in Academic Libraries

• J. Chukwusa
• Published 1 December 2018
• Library Philosophy and Practice

24 Citations

The impact of administrators' leadership styles in provision of quality education in secondary schools level, transformational, authentic, and authoritarian types of leadership: which one is the most influential in staffs’ performance (a study on performance in a religious school setting), transformational, authentic, and authoritarian leadership: which one is the most influential in staffs’ school performance in jakarta indonesia, perception gap: academic leadership styles in maldivian higher education institutes, effect of transformational and transactional leadership style on public health centre performance, impact of head teachers’ democratic leadership style on teachers’ performance at public secondary schools, analyzing leadership style and employee performance (study at pt. bank mandiri area manado (persero) tbk.), correlation of university lecturer leadership styles, students satisfaction, and learning outcomes during the covid-19 pandemic, autocratic leadership style and organizational change on performance during pandemic, leadership styles and academic staff turnover intentions in universities in kenya.

• Highly Influenced

21 References

Head teachers' leadership styles' and teachers job satisfaction in primary schools in ekiti state, nigeria, model for leadership style evaluation, assessment of teams and teamwork in the university of maryland libraries, measuring the impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation by, manager's leadership styles and employee's job satisfaction, leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former soviet union, germany, and the us, leadership: theory and practice.

• Highly Influential

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Open access
• Published: 23 December 2019

Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader

• Zhen Wang 1 ,
• Yuan Liu 1 &
• Songbo Liu 1  

Frontiers of Business Research in China volume  13 , Article number:  19 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

62k Accesses

20 Citations

Metrics details

This study examines how and when authoritarian leadership affects subordinates’ task performance. Using social exchange theory and power dependence theory, this study proposes that authoritarian leadership negatively influences task performance through leader-member exchange (LMX). This study further proposes that the effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX is stronger when a subordinate has less dependence on a leader. A two-wave survey was conducted in a large electronics and information enterprise group in China. These hypotheses are supported by results based on 219 supervisor-subordinate dyads. The results reveal that authoritarian leadership negatively affects subordinates’ task performance via LMX. Dependence on leader buffers the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX and mitigates the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance through LMX. Theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

The dark or destructive side of leadership behavior has attracted the attention of many scholars and practitioners in recent years (Liao and Liu 2016 ). Much of the research has focused on authoritarian leadership (e.g., Chan et al. 2013 ; Li and Sun 2015 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ), which is prevalent in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific business organizations (Pellegrini and Scandura 2008 ). Authoritarian leadership refers to the leadership that stresses the use of authority to control subordinates (Cheng et al. 2004 ). In general, authoritarian leadership has a negative connotation in the literature; this type of leadership is negatively related to employees’ attitudes, emotions and perceptions, for example, regarding organizational commitment, job satisfaction, tacit knowledge-sharing intentions (Chen et al. 2018 ), team identification (Cheng and Wang 2015 ), intention to stay and organizational justice (Pellegrini and Scandura 2008 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). A substantial body of empirical research has also explored the influence of authoritarian leadership on followers’ work-related behavior and outcomes. Authoritarian leadership is negatively related to employee voice (Chan 2014 ; Li and Sun 2015 ), organizational citizenship behavior (Chan et al. 2013 ), employee creativity (Guo et al. 2018 ), and employee performance (Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ; Shen et al. 2019 ; Wu et al. 2012 ), and such leadership is positively associated with employee deviant workplace behavior (Jiang et al. 2017 ). In particular, studies concerning authoritarian leadership and employee performance have suggested that authoritarian leadership is negatively related to employee performance because subordinates of authoritarian leaders are likely to have low levels of the following: trust-in-supervisor, organization-based self-esteem, perceived insider status, relational identification, and thus, little motivation to improve performance (Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ; Shen et al. 2019 ; Wu et al. 2012 ).

Although previous studies have explored the effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance from the perspective of self-evaluation or perception, such as organization-based self-esteem or perceived insider status, the underlying mechanism remains unclear (Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). To fully understand the effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance, it is critical to investigate alternative influencing mechanisms of authoritarian leadership from other perspectives (Hiller et al. 2019 ). For example, Wu et al. ( 2012 ) reveal that trust-in-supervisor mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance; Shen et al. ( 2019 ) show that relational identification also mediates this relationship. These findings suggest that authoritarian leadership may lead to a poor exchange between leaders and followers, whereby followers of authoritarian leaders may reciprocate by withholding their efforts at work. These studies use a social exchange perspective to understand the effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance but fail to examine the exchange relationship explicitly. To summarize, little is known about how authoritarian leadership impacts the ongoing social exchange relationship between leaders and subordinates and how such social exchange affects subordinates’ performance. Therefore, we adopt a social exchange perspective to explore the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee task performance to gain a deep understanding of employees’ reaction to authoritarian leadership behavior.

From the perspective of social exchange, leader-member exchange (LMX) is most often chosen to examine how leadership affects followers’ behavior and outcomes (Dulebohn et al. 2012 ). Thus, we specifically posit that LMX mediates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee task performance.

Moreover, Wang and Guan ( 2018 ) suggest that the effects of authoritarian leadership on employees depend on certain conditions and, thus, may influence the relationship between authoritarian leadership and performance. Literature concerning the relationship between mistreatment and employees’ response find that employees are less likely to respond to perceived mistreatment with deviant behavior when their power status is lower than that of the offender or when they depend more on the perpetrator (Aquino et al. 2001 ; Tepper et al. 2009 ). Since employees have less power than the offender, vengeful or deviant employee behavior may incur a punitive response or trigger future downward hostility (Tepper et al. 2009 ). Thus, the second purpose of this research is to examine how subordinates’ dependence on a leader impacts the responses of subordinates to authoritarian leadership. Specifically, we posit that subordinates’ dependence on a leader moderates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX.

By examining the relationship between authoritarian leadership and subordinates’ task performance, this research makes several contributions to the literature. First, we directly examine the social exchange relationship between authoritarian leaders and their subordinates, which helps further clarify the mediating mechanism of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance (Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). Second, this study contributes to the LMX literature by exploring the role of LMX in destructive or dark leadership. Indeed, most studies on LMX focus on how constructive leadership leads to a positive and high-quality LMX relationship, which then impacts followers’ behavior and outcomes (Chan and Mak 2012 ; Lin et al. 2018 ; Qian et al. 2017 ; Wang et al. 2005 ). Therefore, exploring and determining how destructive or dark leadership behavior influences the exchange relationship between leaders and followers is imperative (Harvey et al. 2007 ; Xu et al. 2012 ). Third, this study helps clarify the boundary condition of the effect of authoritarian leadership on subordinate outcomes. By investigating and demonstrating the moderating effect of employee dependence on a leader, our research offers some of the first insights into how dependence influences the effect of authoritarian leadership and the social exchange relationship as well.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

• Authoritarian leadership

Authoritarian leadership refers to leader behavior that exerts absolute authority and control over subordinates and demands unconditional obedience (Farh and Cheng 2000 ; Pellegrini and Scandura 2008 ). Authoritarian leaders expect their subordinates to obey their requests without disagreement and to be socialized to accept and respect a strict and centralized hierarchy (Redding 1990 ).

Authoritarian leadership reflects the cultural characteristics of familial ties, paternalistic control, and submission to authority in Chinese culture (Farh and Cheng 2000 ; Farh et al. 2008 ). Influenced by Confucian doctrine, a father has absolute authority and power over his children and other family members in a traditional Chinese family (Cheng and Wang 2015 ). In business organizations, leaders often enforce this patriarchal value by establishing a vertical hierarchy and by playing a paternal role in an authoritarian leadership style (Peng et al. 2001 ). Authoritarian leadership is prevalent in Chinese organizations and its construct domain remains relatively unchanged regardless of rapid modernization (Farh et al. 2008 ).

According to Farh and Cheng’s ( 2000 ) research, authoritarian leadership has four kinds of typical behavior. First, authoritarian leaders exercise tight control over their subordinates and require unquestioning submission. To maintain their absolute dominance in organizations, authoritarian leaders are unwilling to empower their subordinates. In addition, higher authoritarian leaders share relatively little information with employees and adopt a top-down communication style. Second, authoritarian leaders tend to deliberately ignore subordinates’ suggestions and contributions. Such leaders are more likely to attribute success to themselves and to attribute failure to subordinates. Third, authoritarian leaders focus very much on their dignity and always show confidence. Such leaders control and manipulate information to maintain the advantage of power distance and create and maintain a good image through manipulation. Fourth, highly authoritarian leaders demand that their subordinates achieve the best performance within the organization and make all the important decisions in their team. In addition, such leaders strictly punish employees for poor performance.

Authoritarian leadership and task performance

In this study, we posit that authoritarian leadership harms employee performance according to the four kinds of typical behavior of authoritarian leaders. First, authoritarian leaders try to maintain a strict hierarchy, are unwilling to share information with followers, and adopt a top-down communication style (Farh and Cheng 2000 ). All of these behaviors create distance and distrust between subordinates and leaders, thus leading to poor employee performance (Cheng and Wang 2015 ). Second, authoritarian leaders tend to ignore followers’ contributions to success and to attribute failure to followers (Farh and Cheng 2000 ). These behaviors greatly undermine subordinates’ self-evaluation and are harmful to improving employee performance (Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). Third, it is typical for leaders with an authoritarian leadership style to control and manipulate information to maintain the advantage of power distance and create and maintain a good image (Farh and Cheng 2000 ). Such behaviors set a bad example for subordinates and are not conducive to improving employee performance (Chen et al. 2018 ). Fourth, leaders with a highly authoritarian leadership style focus strongly on the supreme importance of performance. Subordinates are commanded to pursue high performance and surpass competitors. If subordinates fail to reach the desired goal, leaders will rebuke and punish them severely (Farh and Cheng 2000 ). Leaders’ emphasis on high performance and possible severe consequences enhance subordinates’ sense of fear (Guo et al. 2018 ), which is detrimental to performance improvement. To summarize, we posit that authoritarian leadership is negatively related to employee performance.

Authoritarian leadership and LMX

Building on social exchange theory (Blau 1964 ), LMX refers to the quality of the dyadic exchange relationship between a leader and a subordinate and the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995 ; Liden and Maslyn 1998 ; Wayne and Green 1993 ). Low-quality relationships are characterized by transactional exchanges based on employment contracts. High-quality relationships are characterized by affect, loyalty, perceived contribution and professional respect (Dienesch and Liden 1986 ; Liden et al. 1997 ; Liden and Maslyn 1998 ). There are several reasons why authoritarian leadership is related to a lower quality of LMX. First, since authoritarian leaders demonstrate authoritarian behaviors, such as controlling information, maintaining a strict hierarchy and high power distance, ignoring followers’ contributions and suggestions, and attributing losses to subordinates and punishing them, employees who perceive highly authoritarian leadership tend to strongly fear their leaders (Guo et al. 2018 ). These employees follow their leaders because of the need to work instead of affective commitment, which is a relationship based on an employment contract and leads to lower LMX. Second, subordinates of authoritarian leaders are less likely to identify with their leaders and teams because these leaders focus on obtaining the best performance from their subordinates while controlling information. Without identification with their leaders and teams, employees can hardly be loyal to their leaders and can be less motivated to maintain high-quality relationships with them, thus leading to lower LMX. Third, both authoritarian leaders and their subordinates perceive that the other contributes little to the performance of the team. Authoritarian leaders tend to ignore subordinates’ advice and contributions, while the subordinates perceive that leaders contribute little because they focus more on controlling information and maintaining the hierarchy instead of helping subordinates attain high performance (Farh and Cheng 2000 ). Fourth, since authoritarian leaders and their subordinates each perceive that the other contributes little, they cannot sincerely show professional respect to each other, thereby leading to lower LMX (Liden and Maslyn 1998 ). Therefore, we expect a negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX.

Hypothesis 1: Authoritarian leadership is negatively related to LMX.

Authoritarian leadership, LMX, and task performance

As described by Blau ( 1964 ), unspecified obligations are very important in social exchange. When one person helps another, some future return is expected, though it is often uncertain when it will happen and in what form (Gouldner 1960 ). The premise of social exchange theory is that in a dyadic relationship (e.g., leader and follower), something given creates an obligation to respond with behavior that has equal value (Gouldner 1960 ; Perugini and Gallucci 2001 ). According to social exchange theory, high-quality LMX is considered as rewards or benefits from the leaders for the employees. This may create obligations for the employees to reciprocate with equivalent positive behaviors to maintain the high quality of the LMX (Blau 1964 ; Emerson 1976 ). Since one of the requirements and expectations from authoritarian leaders is high task performance (Cheng et al. 2004 ; Farh and Cheng 2000 ), after perceiving a high LMX as involving the receipt of rewards and benefits from the leader, employees with high-quality LMX are more likely, in return, to consider high task performance as a way to meet supervisors’ requirements and expectations. Here, the exchange currency of employees to reciprocate the rewards and benefits from their leaders is to pursue high task performance. The desire to reciprocate may motivate subordinates to exert more effort in achieving high task performance. Conversely, where there is low-quality LMX, subordinates are not obligated to increase effort to benefit supervisors and organizations (Gouldner 1960 ). In addition, according to the principle of negative reciprocity, which states that those who receive unfavorable treatment will respond with unfavorable behaviors (Gouldner 1960 ), because subordinates of authoritarian leaders receive unfavorable treatment, such as being strictly controlled and being compelled to obey unconditionally, these subordinates may respond with undesirable behaviors, such as withholding their effort and engaging in more deviant workplace behavior (Jiang et al. 2017 ).

To summarize, the typical behaviors of authoritarian leaders produce low-quality LMX. Consequently, subordinates do not feel obligated or motivated to strive for high task performance. In accordance with the principle of negative reciprocity, subordinates even engage in deviant workplace behavior, and employee task performance decreases. Therefore, authoritarian leadership is likely to be negatively related to employee task performance by creating low-quality LMX.

Hypothesis 2: LMX mediates the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and subordinates’ task performance.

The moderation of subordinate dependence on leader

This study posits that the relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX is moderated by dependence on a leader. Studies that investigate revenge and retaliation in organizations reveal that employees may be constrained in responding to perceived mistreatment with deviant behavior when their power status is lower than the offender and when they are largely dependent on their leaders (Aquino et al. 2001 ; Tepper et al. 2009 ). Therefore, the corresponding behavior of subordinates is affected by their dependence on their leaders and by the power relationship between them. The effect of dependence can be explained from a power dependence perspective. According to Emerson’s ( 1962 ) power dependence theory, dependence of individuals on others makes the former relatively powerless. In contrast, individuals on whom others depend but who do not depend on those others in return are relatively powerful. The powerful have many benefits, such as being able to reserve support or to exit from relationships at lower costs than the less powerful (Cook and Emerson 1978 ; Giebels et al. 2000 ), having more transaction alternatives (Brass 1981 ), and being able to engage in counter-revenge against the less powerful (Aquino et al. 2006 ). Therefore, taking their future conditions into consideration, those with greater dependence or less power are restricted from performing behaviors that are in their self-interest (Molm 1988 ).

This dependence and power relationship between leaders and their followers can be captured by the construct of “subordinate dependence on leader.” It refers to subordinates’ material and psychological dependence on leaders because subordinates believe that only by obeying their leader can they obtain the necessary work resources and support (Chou et al. 2005 ). We posit that subordinate dependence on leader moderates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX. Specifically, a leader’s authoritarian behavior is rooted in the dependence of subordinates, that is, the dependence of subordinates rationalizes and strengthens the authoritarian leadership of superiors (Cheng et al. 2004 ; Farh and Cheng 2000 ). In circumstances where employees are highly dependent on their leaders, authoritarian leaders control much valuable information and many resources related to subordinates’ competence and development at work. Taking their future conditions into consideration, subordinates are more likely to be obedient. These reluctant employees take conciliatory action or withhold their anger and respond with desirable behaviors to meet the requirements and expectations of leaders, thereby hoping to have good relations with supervisors and maintain a high relationship quality. In contrast, subordinates who have a low dependence on their leaders tend to act self-interestedly. Such subordinates are not motivated to meet the expectations of authoritarian leaders at the cost of harming their self-interest, such as their self-esteem, and the relationship with the leader becomes worse. These arguments produce a moderation prediction:

Hypothesis 3: Subordinate dependence on leader moderates the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX such that this negative relationship is weaker in cases where subordinate dependence on leader is higher.

Based on the above argument, we further propose that subordinate dependence on leader will moderate the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance through LMX. Subordinates with high levels of dependence on their leader will have higher LMX under authoritarian leadership; thus, they are more likely to work to reciprocate rewards or benefits provided by leader and to get more valued resources, thereby increasing their task performance. In contrast, those with low levels of dependence on leader reciprocate less and have fewer resources, since they do not develop high-quality relationships with their authoritarian leaders, and will not improve their task performance. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4: The indirect relationship between authoritarian leadership and task performance through LMX is stronger for those with lower dependence on leader. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model.

Research setting, participants, and procedures

This research was conducted in a large electronics and information enterprise group in China. Under the permission of the companies’ directors, we met with the companies’ personnel directors and explained the study objectives. The personnel directors helped us contact group supervisors and each group supervisor was instructed about the study objectives and procedure.

We used two sets of questionnaires to minimize common method bias: one for subordinates and the other for their immediate supervisors. First, we delivered surveys to employees (time 1). During the survey, we explained the purpose of the study and noted that participation was voluntary and their responses would be kept confidential. This survey included questions about measures of subordinates for their immediate supervisor’s authoritarian leadership, self-reported dependence on the leader, the LMX relationship and personal information. After 2 months, we administered questionnaires to supervisors to obtain their assessments of subordinates’ task performance (time 2).

Data on a total of 258 supervisor-subordinate dyads were collected. Among these responses, 20 cases were not included in the analysis because they could not be reliably matched. Nine cases were excluded because the supervisors’ rating of task performance was missing. In the other 10 cases, the reaction tendency was very obvious. These omissions resulted in a final sample set of 219 supervisor-subordinate dyad data. An independent t test was used to examine the difference between the final sample and the dropped sample in terms of demographic features. The results show that there is no significant difference between these two samples in terms of demographic features.

In the sample, 68.9% were male; 68.5% were Chinese. As for age distribution, 31.1% were aged 30 or younger; 63.9% were aged between 31 and 50; 5.0% were aged 51 or older. 83.6% of the employee respondents had received at least a college education. The mean tenure of the employee respondents was 6.42 years.

All scales used in this study are widely accepted by the academic community. Because participants were recruited from 18 companies in China and from overseas, it was necessary to have scales in both languages. Translation and back-translation procedures were followed to translate the English-based measures into the corresponding Chinese-English comparison scales.

Authoritarian leadership . Authoritarian leadership was measured using the nine-item scale developed by Cheng et al. ( 2004 ) at time 1. Authoritarian leadership has two dimensions: Zhuanquan and Shangyan . Zhuanquan stresses the use of authority to control subordinates and subordinates’ unquestioning compliance. Shangyan emphasizes the strict discipline and the supreme importance of high performance (Cheng et al. 2004 ; Chen and Farh 2010 ; Li et al. 2013 ). A sample item is “Our supervisor determines all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not” ( α  = 0.90). All items used six-point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 = few to 6 = very frequent).

LMX . LMX was measured at time 1 and each subordinate described the quality of his/her exchange relationship with the leader. We used the seven-item scale developed by Scandura and Graen ( 1984 ). A sample item is “My line manager is personally inclined to use power to help me solve problems in my work” ( α  = 0.88). All items used six-point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree).

Subordinate dependence on leader . Subordinate dependence on leader was measured using the eight-item scale developed by Chou et al. ( 2005 ) at time 1. Subordinate dependence on leader has two dimensions: job dependence and affective dependence (Chou et al. 2005 ). A sample item is “I rely on my supervisor to obtain the necessary work resources (i.e., budget and equipment, etc.)” ( α  = 0.75). All items used six-point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree).

Task performance . Subordinates’ task performance was measured using the four-item scale at time 2 (Chen et al. 2002 ). Leaders rated their subordinates’ performance respectively. A sample item is “Performance always meets the expectations of the supervisor” ( α  = 0.91). All items used six-point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree).

Control variables . This study controls for the age, gender and tenure of the subordinates. These demographic variables are widely used as control variables in the study of authoritarian leadership mechanisms (e.g., Li and Sun 2015 ; Wang and Guan 2018 ). Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Age and tenure were measured by the number of years.

Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in Mplus 7 to test the distinctiveness of the variables included in the study: authoritarian leadership, LMX, subordinate dependence on leader, and employee task performance. To reduce the model size, we created two parcels based on the two subdimensions of authoritarian leadership to indicate the factors of authoritarian leadership. In addition, we created two parcels based on the two subdimensions of subordinate dependence on leader. As indicated in Table  1 , the hypothesized four-factor model fits the data well: χ 2 ( df  = 84) = 181.29, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, and TLI = 0.92. Against this baseline model, we test three alternative models: a three-factor model combining authoritarian leadership and LMX into one factor; a two-factor model combining authoritarian leadership, LMX and subordinate dependence on leader into one factor; and a single-factor model combining all four variables into one factor. As shown in Table  1 , the hypothesized four-factor model fits the data significantly better than all three alternative models, indicating that the four variables show good discriminant validity. Thus, we retained the hypothesized four-factor model for our analyses.

Proposed conceptual model

Descriptive statistics

We present the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the variables in Table  2 . The results show that authoritarian leadership is negatively related to LMX ( r  = − 0.26, p  < 0.01) and employee task performance ( r  = − 0.22, p  < 0.01). The results also support that there is a positive relationship between LMX and employee task performance ( r  = 0.25, p  < 0.01).

Hypotheses testing

We performed a mediation and moderation analysis to further examine the joint effects of authoritarian leadership, LMX, and subordinate dependence on leader on employee task performance. More specifically, to test the four hypotheses, we tested moderated mediation models using conditional process analysis. Conditional process analysis is an integrative approach that estimates the mediation and moderation effects simultaneously and yields estimates of the conditional indirect and conditional direct effects. Scores for authoritarian leadership and dependence on leader were mean centered in the following analysis to avoid the problem of multicollinearity when their interaction terms were included.

As shown in Table  3 , after controlling for age, tenure and gender, authoritarian leadership has a negative relationship with LMX (B = − 0.27, SE = 0.08, p  < 0.001) and employee task performance (B = − 0.21, SE = 0.06, p  < 0.01). The positive relationship between LMX and employee task performance is also significant (B = 0.15, SE = 0.06, p  < 0.05). The bootstrapping results further suggest that the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance via LMX is significant (indirect effect = − 0.04; SE = 0.02; 95% CI = [− 0.0922, − 0.0116], excluding zero). These findings support Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Hypothesis 3 proposes a moderating effect of subordinate dependence on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX. We examined this hypothesis by adding an interaction term of authoritarian leadership and subordinate dependence on leader into the model. The results reveal that the predicted interaction is significant (B = 0.25, SE = 0.07, p  < 0.001). To further interpret the nature of this significant interaction, we plotted the relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX at 1 SD above and below the mean of the moderator. Figure  2 shows the moderating role of subordinate dependence on leader: When subordinate dependence on leader was higher, the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX was weaker (B = − 0.21, t  = − 2.67, p  < 0.01), supporting our hypothesis. However, when subordinate dependence on leader was lower, the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX was stronger (B = − 0.63, t  = − 6.69, p  < 0.001). Furthermore, we examined whether subordinate dependence on leader moderated the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance through LMX. The findings reveal that the indirect effect was significant in cases where subordinate dependence on leader was higher (B = − 0.03; SE = 0.02; 95% CI = [− 0.0867, − 0.0063], excluding zero), and the indirect effect was also significant in cases where subordinate dependence on leader was lower (B = − 0.10; SE = 0.04; 95% CI = [− 0.1768, − 0.0339], excluding zero). The moderated mediation index was 0.0358 (95% CI = [0.0084, 0.0748], excluding zero). Therefore, the results are consistent with Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Moderating role of subordinate dependence on leader. Notes. AL = Authoritarian leadership; LMX = Leader-member exchange

Discussion and conclusion

Based on theories of social exchange and power dependence, this study investigates the relationship between authoritarian leadership and its negative effects on employee task performance. In examining a moderated mediation model with two-wave data collected from subordinates and their leaders, we find that authoritarian leadership negatively relates to task performance; LMX mediates the negative relationship; subordinate dependence on leader buffers the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX and mitigates the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee task performance through LMX.

Theoretical implications

These findings contribute to the literature on authoritarian leadership, LMX and task performance and expand our understanding of why authoritarian leadership harms task performance. In terms of literature on leadership, the results may represent the first attempt to understand the relationship between authoritarian leadership and task performance via LMX. A flourishing number of studies explain the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance from the perspective of self-evaluation or perception (e.g., Chan et al. 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). There is a need to explore the divergent influencing mechanisms of authoritarian leadership on employee performance from other perspectives. Our study contributes to the literature by directly introducing LMX as a mediating variable in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and task performance from a social exchange perspective.

In addition, we offer important contributions to the literature on LMX. Most previous research on LMX focuses on how constructive leadership leads to a high-quality leader-member exchange relationship, which then affects employee behaviors and outcomes (Chan and Mak 2012 ; Lin et al. 2018 ; Qian et al. 2017 ; Wang et al. 2005 ). With the increasing attention given to destructive or dark leadership in recent years (e.g., Liao and Liu 2016 ; Tepper et al. 2009 ), it is imperative to explore and determine how destructive or dark leadership styles impact the quality of the exchange relationship between leaders and followers (Harvey et al. 2007 ; Xu et al. 2012 ). We fill this void by investigating how authoritarian leadership creates a low-quality social exchange, thereby leading to worse task performance.

Our study also extends current knowledge about the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and task performance by uncovering the mechanisms whereby this effect is amplified or attenuated. Based on power dependence theory (Emerson 1962 ), we introduce subordinate dependence on leader as a moderating variable into the model. Our research offers some of the first insights into how dependence and power between leaders and subordinates (e.g., subordinate dependence on leader) influence the effect of authoritarian leadership and the social exchange relationship between leaders and subordinates as well.

Practical implications

Our results also provide some suggestions for practice. First, our study observes that authoritarian leadership is related to lower levels of LMX and is, therefore, related to lower employee task performance. These relationships suggest the importance of curbing leaders’ authoritarian behavior. Organizations could invest in leadership training programs that help control negative leadership behavior, establish a high-quality exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates and thus enhance subordinates’ task performance.

Second, programs aimed at strengthening exchange relationships between supervisors and subordinates may also be conducive to improving employee task performance, because LMX is an important predictor of performance. To develop a higher-quality LMX, organizations could hold more social activities for supervisors and followers, providing them with more opportunities to deeply interact.

Third, our test of the moderating effects of subordinate dependence on leader reveals that the negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and LMX is weaker for employees that highly depend on their leader, thus implying that work background influences the interaction between leaders and subordinates. In business organizations where employees depend less on their leaders, it is more urgent to curb authoritarian behavior; for those business organizations where employees depend more on their leaders, the negative effect of authoritarian leadership on LMX and task performance is attenuated, but authoritarian leadership still negatively affects LMX and performance. As a result, organizations should avoid using an authoritarian leadership style to boost their employee performance.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, the samples in this research were all obtained from the same subsidiary of a large electronics and information enterprise group, which is a relatively traditional business organization. Although it is beneficial to control the potential impacts of factors such as industry and organization, thereby increasing the internal validity of research findings while, at the same time, weakening their external validity, future research can further verify the conclusions of this research with different types of industries. Second, although we collected data from leaders and followers at two time points, it is difficult to draw any causal conclusions. To validate our suggested moderated mediation process, a longitudinal design is required. Third, we introduce LMX perceived by subordinates into the relationship between authoritarian leadership and task performance. It is also necessary to consider the role of LMX as perceived by leaders. It is interesting to explore whether LMX perceived by subordinates and LMX perceived by authoritarian leaders are the same or not and how they interact and affect the relationship between authoritarian leadership and work outcomes. Fourth, we explore how authoritarian leadership affects employee task performance from a social exchange perspective and specifically choose LMX as the mediator. It is possible that alternative mediating processes exist. Future research can verify the conclusions of this research by investigating alternative mediating processes simultaneously.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact author for data requests.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 52–59.

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.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York, NY: Wiley.

Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (3), 331–348.

Chan, S. C. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? Human Relations, 67 (6), 667–693.

Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34 (1), 108–128.

Chan, S. C. H., & Mak, W. M. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29 (2), 285–301.

Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 599–622). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Chen, Z. J., Davison, R. M., Mao, J. Y., & Wang, Z. H. (2018). When and how authoritarian leadership and leader renqing orientation influence tacit knowledge sharing intentions. Information & Management, 55 (7), 840–849.

Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 (3), 339–356.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Psychology, 7 (1), 89–117.

Cheng, M. Y., & Wang, L. (2015). The mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and team identification: A team-level analysis in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 129 (3), 639–654.

Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2005). The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the annual meeting of academy of management . Honolulu.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity, and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43 (5), 721–739.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11 (3), 618–634.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38 (6), 1715–1759.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27 (1), 31–41.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 , 335–362.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84–127). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices (pp. 171–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Giebels, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Interdependence in negotiation: Effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (2), 255–272.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25 , 161–178.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 219–247.

Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92 , 219–230.

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (3), 264–280.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hiller, N. J., Sin, H., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as weirdly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30 (1), 165–184.

Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 732–743.

Li, Y., Sun, J., & Jiao, H. (2013). Disintegration and integration: The research trend of paternalistic leadership. Advances in Psychological Science, 21 (7), 1294–1306.

Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26 (2), 172–189.

Liao, Z., & Liu, Y. (2016). Abusive supervision and psychological capital: A mediated moderation model of team member support and supervisor-student exchange. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 9 (4), 576–607.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi-dimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24 (1), 43–72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15 , 47–119.

Lin, W., Ma, J., Zhang, Q., Li, J. C., & Jiang, F. (2018). How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity? The mediating role of leader-member exchange and the moderating role of power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 152 (4), 1099–1115.

Molm, L. D. (1988). The structure and use of power: A comparison of reward and punishment power. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (2), 108–122.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 566–593.

Peng, M. W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D. Y. L. (2001). Treasures in the China house: A review of management and organizational research on greater China. Journal of Business Research, 52 (2), 95–110.

Perugini, M., & Gallucci, M. (2001). Individual differences and social norms: The distinction between reciprocators and prosocials. European Journal of Personality, 15 (S1), S19–S35.

Qian, J., Wang, B., Han, Z., & Song, B. (2017). Ethical leadership, leader-member exchange and feedback seeking: A double-moderated mediation model of emotional intelligence and work-unit structure. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1–11.

Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Book   Google Scholar  

Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 428–436.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (2), 203–214.

Shen, Y., Chou, W. J., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2019). The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28 (4), 498–509.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C. Y., & 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.

Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 357.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 420–432.

Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46 (12), 1431–1440.

Wu, M., Huang, X., & Chan, S. C. H. (2012). The influencing mechanisms of paternalistic leadership in mainland China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18 (4), 631–648.

Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (4), 531–543.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71971211) and the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (18YJC630192).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Zhongguancun Street 59, Haidian District, Beijing, 100872, China

Zhen Wang, Yuan Liu & Songbo Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the manuscript. Zhen Wang and Yuan Liu designed the research, collected data and drafted manuscript. Songbo Liu revised the manuscript and provided guidance on the details. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Songbo Liu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, Z., Liu, Y. & Liu, S. Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Front. Bus. Res. China 13 , 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-019-0066-x

Download citation

Received : 23 June 2019

Accepted : 12 November 2019

Published : 23 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-019-0066-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Task performance
• Leader-member exchange (LMX)
• Subordinate dependence on leader
• Social exchange theory
• Power dependence theory

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Autocratic Leadership Style: Obstacle to Success in Academic Libraries

The literature review is on autocratic leadership style as obstacle to success in academic libraries and other institutions were it is practiced. Leaders in institutions of higher education have been observed to be exhibiting autocratic leadership style. This review is geared towards reminding Chief Librarians that autocratic leadership style, no matter the colour it is painted remains a leadership style that is greatly not wanted by the led in the libraries. Most times, positive work attitude is not exhibited by staff. Leaders have been for the most part ignoring staff by following outmoded set of principles about them for the reason that it adhered to Theory X when actually most staff could be closer to the Theory Y set of principles. In this review, the many definitions put forward by researchers where highlighted and discussed. The pros and cons of using autocratic leadership style were also noted. It was concluded that autocratic leadership style prevents the use of creative id...

Related Papers

Library Philosophy and Practice

OSAS EROMOSELE GEORGE

Librarian CURaj

Jonathan Ogugua

The general purpose of the study is influence of dictatorial and charismatic leadership style of librarians’ on productivity of staff in academic libraries in Imo State. The survey research design was used for the study using questionnaire as the instrument for data collection. Two research questions were framed for the study. The study covered the entire population of 294 staff in academic libraries in Imo State. 286 copies of the questionnaire were completed and returned for analysis representing 97.3%. The finding shows that dictatorial style of leadership does not involve subordinates in planning. The study recommended that there is need for staff to undergo in service training and refresher courses on the modern rudiments of leadership styles. This will enable them to adopt the appropriate leadership styles which will enhance staff productivity.

Information Impact: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management

Juliet C. Alex-Nmecha

The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances

Gary Fitsimmons

Purpose - This paper introduces the column and the idea of library leadership as it relates to library finances. It distinguishes between good leadership (dynamic) and good management (static), and sets forth the subject of subsequent installments of the column which will focus on attributes of good library administrative leadership Design – The approach taken is to introduce the column, define what it will cover and set up subsequent columns which will each expound upon one “leadership performance standard.” Findings – This paper shows that although leadership has been extensively studied, it is still not readily understood. As a quality that should be modeled and taught it first requires definition. Value – Learning the differences between good administrative leadership and good management as well as the fact that there are specific attributes to good administrative leadership lays the groundwork for subsequent discussion of those attributes for library administrators at all levels.

Tatevik Zargaryan

The present exploratory study was undertaken to focus on the correlation of leadership styles and library effectiveness. Having summarized the findings of various researches and theories on leadership, particularly Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire, this paper aims at making an attempt to study the leadership style of academic libraries by implementing a foreign instrument (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) in Armenia, respectively by indicating the most appropriate style by four indicators. Moreover, taking into account the leadership styles proposed by Bass and Avolio, which is Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire, to follow library statistical dynamics and the impact on library effectiveness and to examine whether there are any significant changes in the library because of leadership style and what was the outcome of these changes in comparison with other libraries (of the same type). Having analyzed the major findings of this study, it is possible to conclude, that both hypotheses were proved, so far leadership style does matter in the library effectiveness. Finally the findings indicated that the leadership style of directors has different effects on different indicators within the same library. Also the same library indicator changes because of leadership style.

Jonathan Olusola Fatokun

Journal of Organizational Management Studies

NOR FAMIZA TARSIK

Roselyn Nyamato , Tom Kwanya

Purpose-A leadership style is a leader's way of providing direction, implementing plans and motivating people. Leadership styles include autocratic, bureaucratic, charismatic, participative, transactional, laissez-faire, task-oriented, people-oriented, servant, and transformational styles. These styles can be grouped into three broad categories of authoritarian, democratic or liberal leadership. This study investigated the leadership styles librarians in regional libraries based in Arusha, Tanzania apply as well as the impact of the styles on the performance of their libraries. Methodology-This was a case study of special libraries of regional organisations based in Arusha, Tanzania. The organisations studied include the East African Community, African Court on Human and People's Rights, and United Nations Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. Primary data on the leadership styles and their impact on the performance of the libraries was collected online questionnaires with all the librarians in the case study studies. Findings-The majority of the library leaders in the regional libraries in Arusha use democratic leadership style while the minority apply the liberal style. These leadership styles have enhanced the performance of the libraries by mainstreaming the contribution of the staff to the vision and mission of the libraries and their parent organisations; enhanced the quality and effectiveness of the services delivered by the libraries; improved cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the service delivery approaches; and increased the capacity of the libraries to grow by managing change through innovation.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Shafiq Ur Rehman

IAEME PUBLICATION

IAEME Publication

Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science

Shafiq Ur Rehman , murtaza ashiq

JOURNAL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCES

Juliana Akidi

Srijani Kundu

Library trends

Irving J Spitzberg

QQNL Journal

marta deyrup

Sophia JOHNSON

John Buschman

Mohammad Aslam

College & Research Libraries

Oluwatosin Fisayo Oyerinde

https://matararesearch.com/

Matara Gunapala

Library Management

Khalid Mahmood

Obaje Michael

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

Joanne Muellenbach

International Journal of Business and Management

Margaret Linehan

International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review

Abdulakeem Sodeeq Sulyman

Ibrahim A Atoum , Naved Ahmad

Pamela Harland

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Ali Mohamed

Ghana Library Journal

Comfort Asare

Leadership challenges and issues facing academic libraries

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024