research paper on autocratic leadership style

• 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

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

2022, Management Review Quarterly

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 st...

Related Papers

Journal of Business Research

Lale Gumusluoglu , Terri Scandura

This study investigates how the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership influences the quality of communication experience with the leader across three countries: Taiwan, Turkey, and the U.S. We also examine the mediating role of the quality of communication in linking agreement on authoritarianism to subordinate in-role and extra-role performance. Our sample consisted of 674 Taiwanese, 409 Turkish, and 294 American employees and their leaders. The results demonstrate that in the U.S., the leader-follower agreement on this negative form of leadership has positive effects on the quality of communication. In Turkey, however, the leader-follower agreement on high levels of authoritarian leadership has a negative effect on interpersonal interactions. In Taiwan, agreement or disagreement on authoritarian leadership is not as important as in the U.S. or Turkey. We also found that the quality of communication experience was a significant mediating mechanism between the leader-follower agreement and follower performance in all three countries.

Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies

kamran Nawaz

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

Mohamed Kulmiye

In particular, the relationship between democratic, autocratic, transformational, and transactional leadership styles and organizational performance was the focus of this study. The study was an organized review of the literature (Desk Review), concentrating on general discussions that were already accessible through database search engines like Google Scholar. The most pertinent journal papers, books, and dissertations were also looked for by the researcher. The theoretical foundation of democratic, autocratic, transformational, and transactional leadership styles as well as organizational performance was uncovered by the study&#39;s findings. According to a study that examined many authors&#39; studies on leadership behaviors and the performance of organizations, some leadership styles are good for an organization&#39;s success while others are bad depending on the circumstance. Article visualizations:

American Based Research Journal - ISSN (2304-7151)

Bogosi Monyamane

For the reason that it is widely presumed that the effectiveness of a leader has a significant impact on organizational performance, this, has led to heightened research focused on the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Similarly, the purpose of this study was to investigate the theoretical aspects of this concept, evaluate various leadership styles, and examine evidence regarding the efficacy of leadership styles in optimizing organizational performance. Qualitative Content Analysis was used to analyze relevant journal articles, government publications and books in order to achieve three main goals: (1) exploring the concept of organizational performance in relation to leadership; (2) identifying methods for measuring organizational performance at its core; and (3) evaluating the effects of different leadership styles on organizational performance. The results indicate that the charismatic leadership style is the most effective when compared to other approaches in that it can increase employee morale and productivity, thereby improving overall organizational performance. Correspondingly, the transformational and democratic leadership styles are found to improve organizational performance. Furthermore, it is established that the situational leadership style is effective when it employs either the charismatic, transactional, and or transformational leadership approach. Therefore, this study recommends that leaders ought to: (1) utilise feedback from subordinates to assess their leadership impact; (2) reflect on their leadership journey; (3) use leadership assessment tools to identify their strengths and weaknesses for growth opportunities; and (4) employ leadership styles that maximize employee engagement and productivity preferably the charismatic leadership style.

The Leadership Quarterly

Paul Lester

Victoria Muhumuza

This study sought to determine the influence of authoritarian leadership on social, economic and political development. To do so, it adopted a comparative study design, comparing the development of the Republic of Singapore under authoritarian leadership, and the development of the Republic of Zambia under authoritarian leadership. It sought to answer the questions: Why and how does authoritarian leadership influence development differently in Singapore compared to Zambia? The research used the modernization theory as the background of the research. It adopted the case study method for its research methodology and employed the descriptive method of analysis. It used purely secondary data sources in the research. From the findings it is noted that authoritarian leadership can either lead to the development of an economy or the underdevelopment of an economy. This is realized through the analysis of the authoritarian leadership style exhibited by Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia during their leadership tenures. The paper recommends that it is important for leaders to know their leadership styles so as to use the styles effectively in building their economies; and heads of state summits should be held to deal with issues of governance and development, most specifically authoritarian leadership and development. This is to help states still under authoritarian leadership to thrive within their contexts.

Journal of Occupational Psychology

michael bond

Rashika Shukla

Leadership is a significant factor in whether or not an organization will be successful. Leadership style refers to what means folks are rapt and driven by a front-runner to reach organizational goals or what they do. The main focus is on diverse categories of leadership. People who are democratic, transformational, bureaucratic, and authoritarian are good leaders. Still, charismatic and transactional people are bad leaders because they don't give employees opportunities and freedom to do their best work, hurting the organization. Both main and minor research has been done in this study, and both have been good. The reading establishes that charismatic, bureaucratic, and transactional leadership styles harm the performance of an organization. Organizations that had leaders who used transformational, autocratic, and democratic leadership styles did better than those who used other types of leadership. There is a suggestion that organizations should use a control style that helps people's abilities and skills grow and grow and grow and grow.

Umakhihe Kelvin, Bello Abdulazeez Adio

Avenue Publishers

Leadership is among the major drivers to improve the performance of an organization. It is believed that an organization's kind of style of leadership influences its overall results. This report focuses on the three styles of leadership which are autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, and laissez faire style of leadership. The roles of leadership styles towards the organizational performance were also discussed. It is seen that leadership styles definitely have a strong relationship towards a company's success, as the way the leader manages his employees will ultimately decide the performance of the organization itself. When a leader is engaging and puts employees' ideas and input into account when making decisions, productivity will indirectly increase especially from the employees as they feel like they are a part of an input that leads to motivation. It all comes down to human behaviour and psychological views when it comes to having the right leadership style a leader wants to adopt in an organization. A few recommendations were made to further improve organizational performance in the long run. According to this report, democratic leadership is the most effective style of leadership towards attaining and enhancing organizational performance. In depth explanations are given in this report.

Loading Preview

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

RELATED PAPERS

Marcial Ruben Esquives Guerra

Andrew Hede

International Journal of Accounting & Business Management

Veronica Sebastian

Sandhiya Goolaup

The International Journal of Science & Technoledge

Oscar Chagwiza

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Management

Muhizan Tamimi

Journal of Management Development

Romie F Littrell , Romie F Littrell

Jinnah Business Review

ijetrm journal

Ijetrm Journal

Jaymo Carter

Kifayat Ali Larik

Aarti Deveshwar

Journal of Leadership in Organizations

Anhar Januar Malik

Saul Alejandro Diaz Tello

Polish Journal of Management Studies

Marius Guluta

Magdelyn Letsatsi

Journal of Business & Tourism

Hamid Hassan

Mahbub Alam

Jan C. Simmons

IAEME PUBLICATION

IAEME Publication

ASEAN Journal of Management and Business Studies

NOR FATHIMAH FATHIL

Personnel Review

EMMANUEL KORANTENG

Serap Yağlı

RELATED TOPICS

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

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

The Positive Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on Employee Performance: The Moderating Role of Power Distance

Honglei wang.

1 College of Economics and Management, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China

Bichen Guan

2 Department of Marketing and Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Based on goal setting theory, this study explores the positive effect and influencing process of authoritarian leadership on employee performance, as well as the moderating role of individual power distance in this process. Data from 211 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Chinese organizations indicates that authoritarian leadership is positively associated with employee performance, and learning goal orientation mediates this relationship. Furthermore, power distance moderates the effect of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation, such that the effect was stronger when individual power distance was higher. The indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance via learning goal orientation is also moderated by power distance. Theoretical and managerial implications and future directions are also discussed.

Introduction

Authoritarian leadership refers to a leader’s behavior of asserting strong authority and control over subordinates and demanding unquestioned obedience from them ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ). According to the leadership literature ( Wang et al., 2013 ; Zhang and Xie, 2017 ), leaders who are highly on authoritarian demand their subordinates to achieve best performance among the organizations and make all the important decisions in their team. Authoritarian leadership is prevalent in Latin America, Middle East, and Asia Pacific business organizations ( Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008 ), which has been receiving increasing attention in recent years ( Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). Extensive research has depicted authoritarian leadership as destructive by verifying its negative influence on employee outcomes, such as employee voice behavior ( Li and Sun, 2015 ), team identification ( Cheng and Wang, 2015 ), and job performance ( Chan et al., 2013 ). Thus, high authoritarian leadership has often been considered undesirable and ineffective in organizational management.

However, some scholars have questioned the belief that authoritarian leadership is uniformly detrimental for employees and organizations, instead suggesting that it may exert positive effect on employees. For example, based on an empirical study conducted in Taiwan, Cheng et al. (2004) found authoritarian leadership to be conducive to employee responses. Tian and Sanchez’s (2017) findings suggested that authoritarian leadership was positively correlated with affective trust. Other studies have also shown weakly negative or even positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ; Cheng et al., 2003 ). Such complex research findings have prompted calls for further investigation of the psychological mechanisms underlying authoritarian leadership’s effect on employee outcomes, in addition to its boundary conditions ( Farh et al., 2008 ; Chen X.P. et al., 2014 ).

The mixed findings regarding the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee outcomes suggest two possible explanations. First, the psychological processes of authoritarian leadership’s influence on employee outcomes are complex. The extant mechanisms used to explore the relationship fail to capture the full picture of the actual effect of authoritarian leadership ( Cheng et al., 2004 ). Second, as the majority of studies on authoritarian leadership have supported its negative impact on employee behaviors, it is plausible that the actual effects of authoritarian leadership on employees depend on certain conditions, such as individual values. Authoritarian leadership is proposed to have under certain conditions a positive effect on employees. A more detailed examination of the boundary conditions may help to explain why authoritarian leadership has varying influences on employees.

To advance this line of research, we take a subordinate-centered perspective to explore the psychological process that links authoritarian leadership to employee performance, as well as the situational factor that may temper this process. From this perspective, we can gain a better understanding of how leadership shapes employee outcomes through subordinates’ self-construction. Specifically, we propose that authoritarian leadership can be positively associated with employee performance by affecting employee’s learning goal orientation. Although learning goal orientation has been considered as an individual difference in several studies ( Porter, 2008 ), research has provided evidence that learning goal orientation can indeed be both a state and a trait, which could be enhanced by work context ( Payne et al., 2007 ). We further argue that the relationship between authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation is moderated by employees’ beliefs about the degree to which power should be unequally distributed in the organization (power distance). Thus, we develop and test the mediating role of learning goal orientation and the moderating role of power distance between authoritarian leadership and employee performance from a subordinate-centered perspective.

We, thereby, extend the research on authoritarian leadership in several respects. First, we discuss the possibility that authoritarian leadership may exert a positive influence on employees in the context of Chinese culture. In some Asian countries, such as China, authoritarian leadership is considered as a prevalent and effective leadership style because of its fit with traditional values ( Cheng et al., 2004 ). Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that authoritarian leadership may generate a positive effect on employee performance in Chinese organizations. Second, this study deepens our understanding of the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance by taking a subordinate-centered perspective. Previous studies have mainly focused on the leader-centered perspective, examining how leadership affects followers’ attitudes toward their leaders, instead of how leadership influence subordinates’ self-construction ( Chan et al., 2013 ). Our study extends this line of research by considering the mediating role of employees’ learning goal orientation. Third, we address the inconsistent prior findings on the effects of authoritarian leadership on employee behaviors by testing power distance as a moderator. The theoretical model allows us to answer the questions of why and for whom authoritarian leadership is beneficial.

Theory and Hypotheses

Authoritarian leadership and employee performance.

Authoritarian leadership stems from the cultural traditions of Confucianism and Legalism ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ; Farh et al., 2008 ). Under the influence of the Confucian value system, a father has absolute authority and power over his children and other family members in a traditional Chinese family ( Cheng and Wang, 2015 ). In Chinese organizations, leaders often implement this value by establishing a centralized hierarchy and by assuming a father-like role with an authoritative leadership style ( Peng et al., 2001 ). Thus, authoritarian leaders possesses authority over their subordinates which further induces employee compliance and submission. Also, authoritarian leaders insist on adherence to high standards and punish employees for poor performance ( Wang et al., 2013 ). Some scholars argued that authority based on hierarchical difference predicts negative outcomes, including fear of leader, work pressure, and turnover intention ( Farh and Cheng, 2000 ; Wang et al., 2016 ). However, several recent studies have also found the positive influence of authoritarian leadership on employee behaviors ( Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ; Tian and Sanchez, 2017 ). Thus, results regarding whether authoritarian leadership foster or harm employee performance remain inconclusive, which calls for deeper studies exploring the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance.

In our research, we propose that authoritarian leadership would enhance employee performance based on the following reasons. First, authoritarian leaders can be effective by setting specific and unambiguous goals to their subordinates. Authoritarian leaders always have the last say in their organizations and provide a singular mission upon which followers can focus on their job responsibilities, without uncertainty ( Cheng et al., 2000 ; Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). According to goal setting theory, higher performance levels are usually reached when goals are specific, rather than ambiguous ( Locke and Latham, 2006 ). As Locke and Latham (2006) noted, when a specific goal is set for employees, goal attainment provides them with an objective, unambiguous basis for evaluating the effectiveness of their performance. Thus, although authoritarian leaders exercise tight control and unquestioned submission, the underlying reason is to promote followers’ performance.

Second, authoritarian leaders typically enhance followers’ sense of identity as group members, which further motivates employees to perform at a high level ( Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). As Rast et al. (2013) argued, authoritative leaders are more likely to provide a clear, unambiguous, and direct prototype with their subordinates. They usually require subordinates to obey their rules completely and punish them if they do not follow their orders ( Chan et al., 2013 ). As a result, employees could gain a better understanding of what they should do and should not do as a team member. Prior research also suggested that authoritarian leaders offer a better sense of what it means in terms of identity, attitudes and behavior to be a member of the team ( Rast et al., 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). Authoritarian leaders are uniquely effective in this respect since they offer an unambiguous identity for their team members ( Rast, 2015 ). Taking on this identity is likely to encourage an employee to dedicate effort to enhancing their performance.

Third, some scholars believe that authoritarian leaders usually set high performance standard expectations for their subordinates ( Aycan, 2006 ). As Chen et al. (2017) argued, authoritarian leaders demand their subordinates to achieve the best performance by exercising strict control, setting clear rules, establishing job responsibilities, issuing punishment and rewards. Consequently, employees are motivated to perform strongly, delivering excellent quality. Huang et al. (2015) also claimed that authoritarian leaders, who emphasize discipline, obedience, and unity, are likely to achieve operational performance by fostering a highly centralized decision-making structure. Therefore, we expect to observe a positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance.

• simple  Hypothesis 1: Authoritarian leadership will be positively related to employee performance.

The Mediating Role of Learning Goal Orientation

Prior research has generally focused on the leader-centered perspective, aiming to understand the influence of authoritarian leadership behavior on subordinate by exploring how leaders affect employees’ perception of leadership behavior, such as affective trust in leader ( Chen X.P. et al., 2014 ), team identification ( Cheng and Wang, 2015 ), and interactive justice ( Wu et al., 2012 ). However, most scholars have overlooked how authoritarian leadership influences employees’ self-construction, which in turn influences their reactions. The subordinate-centered perspective is important for understanding the salient impact of leadership on employee performance, as self-construction is the key motivational mechanism driving employees’ effort investment ( Bono and Judge, 2003 ; Chan et al., 2013 ). We therefore explore the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance from a subordinate-centered perspective to gain deeper understanding of employees’ reactions to authoritarian leadership behavior.

In our study, we propose learning goal orientation as an important mediator of authoritarian leadership’s impact on employee behavior. Achievement goal theory suggests that an individual’s goal orientation affects how he or she interprets and responds to situations and challenges ( Poortvliet et al., 2007 ). Individuals with a strong learning goal orientation consistently strive toward mastery of a skill or task in an effort to increase competence, whereas performance goals motivate individuals to seek to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid negative judgments of their competence ( Nicholls, 1984 ). Scholars have suggested that goal orientations are independent constructs, which allows an individual to possess both the learning goal and performance goal orientation simultaneously ( Button et al., 1996 ; Anderson and Lawton, 2009 ).

We believe that authoritarian leadership may strengthen subordinate’s learning goal orientation. First, authoritarian leaders are highly competitive and set very high expectations for their teams ( Wang et al., 2013 ; Zhang and Xie, 2017 ). Employees may realize that the best way to meet the high-level goal is not only to work hard but also work to learn and build up their competence. Also, authoritarian leaders emphasize that their team members must have the best performance of all the teams in the organization ( Cheng et al., 2000 ). They will spread the information of achieving the best performance among the organization. Subordinates have to achieve their leaders’ high performance standards; otherwise they will be punished. These high performance standards serve as signals of insufficient goal progress, which stimulates greater effort. When employees identified the gap between their performance and their leaders’ expectation, they will build up their competence and pursue self-development through acquiring skills and task ( Gong et al., 2017 ). Second, research shows that employees are attracted to the certainty and strength provided by authoritarian leaders and so they want to live up to their high standards. This requires continually learning and building competence. For instance, using survey data from the United Kingdom, Rast et al. (2013) found that under high uncertainty the more authoritative the leaders the more strongly their subordinates supported and trusted. Schaubroeck et al. (2017) also stated that authoritarian leaders provide unambiguous goals with which individuals can identify and ameliorate uncertainties. When employees understand what it means in terms of competences and behaviors to be a team member, they are more likely to focus on increasing their skills and striving to be suitably qualified for their work ( Hogg and Adelman, 2013 ).

Goal orientation further influences how employees approach, interpret, and respond to situations and challenges ( Dweck, 2000 ; Chen and Mathieu, 2008 ). Drawing from achievement goal theory, individuals with a strong learning goal orientation tend to pursue goals of competence improvement, which result in higher performance levels ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Additionally, learning goal orientation is favorably related to variables involving effective self-regulation strategies and greater on-task attention ( Payne et al., 2007 ). Prior studies consistently report positive relationships between learning goal orientation and employee performance. For example, in Taing et al.’s (2013) research, learning goal orientation was found to be associated with both setting higher goals and maintaining higher performance over time. In another study, Heslin and Latham (2004) also found learning goal orientation to be significantly associated with managerial performance. Consistent with these theoretical arguments and empirical findings, we predict the following:

• simple  Hypothesis 2: Learning goal orientation will mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance.

The Moderating Role of Power Distance

Despite the positive effect that authoritarian leaders can exert on subordinates, there are also negative aspects of authoritarianism to which many employees may respond passively ( Chen X.P. et al., 2014 ; Li and Sun, 2015 ). The inconsistent effects of authoritarian leadership may be caused by the interaction of individual cultural values and leadership behaviors ( Farh et al., 1997 ; Chen and Farh, 2010 ). In this section, we propose our hypothesis concerning the boundary conditions for authoritarian leadership’s positive effect, with power distance as a moderator. Power distance is the extent to which one accepts the legitimacy of unequally distributed power in institutions and organizations ( Hofstede, 1980 ). Employees who believe that leaders should have a great degree of authority over subordinates are considered to have a high power distance, whereas employees who believe a smaller degree of authority is appropriate are considered to have a low power distance ( Lee et al., 2000 ). Individual values on the power distance between leaders and subordinates may shape the nature of employees’ relationship with leaders ( Lee et al., 2000 ). Thus, it is plausible to conclude that power distance may influence how individuals perceive and react to authoritarian leadership.

Employees higher in power distance have a greater psychological dependence on their leaders to offer clear goals and to establish group boundaries ( Cole et al., 2013 ). Higher power distance individuals are more inclined to legitimize the power differences between superiors and subordinates, and develop formal and less personalized relationships with their leaders ( Tyler et al., 2000 ). Therefore, they believe that they should not challenge their leaders and are more likely to be submissive and receptive to authoritarian leaders. Furthermore, as Schaubroeck et al. (2017) stated, subordinates higher in power distance are less likely to expect to be consulted by or receive information from authoritarian leaders about their work. Having great respect for authority, they interpret authoritative behaviors as more favorable than passive behaviors, and prefer superiors who exhibit authoritarianism ( Hofstede, 1980 ). For example, Chen C.C. et al. (2014) argued that high power distance employees perceive standard setting and management control as signs of consideration and support, rather than undue interference. Consequently, these subordinates are more likely to focus on their jobs and be motivated to enhance their competences and abilities.

Conversely, employees with lower power distance are more likely to expect and develop personalized relationships with their leaders, as they view leaders as approachable ( Hofstede, 1980 ; Tyler et al., 2000 ). Such individuals care more strongly about how they are treated by authority figures who oversee their work ( Lian et al., 2012 ). Given that lower power distance subordinates expect superiors to consult them and value their opinions, they are inclined to react negatively when superiors seem to be authoritative. Compared with higher power distance employees, employees expecting to be strongly connected to authority figures may feel disrespected and unduly controlled when leaders exhibit authoritarianism. As such, lower power distance subordinates are more likely to experience the negative influence of authoritarian leadership; thus, the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on individuals’ learning goal orientation may be reduced for employees with lower power distance.

• simple  Hypothesis 3: Power distance will moderate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation, such that when power distance was higher, the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation was higher; when power distance was lower, the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation was lower.

We further propose that power distance will moderate the indirect relationship of authoritarian leadership on employee performance through learning goal orientation. Thus, we develop a moderated mediation hypothesis and build up our theoretical model. Figure ​ Figure1 1 illustrates the study’s theoretical model.

Theoretical model.

Materials and Methods

Sample and procedure.

The study’s sample comprises 211 supervisor-subordinate dyads from 10 different technology companies located in China. To avoid common method bias, the data were sourced from multiple independent teams and from multiple respondents within each team. Surveys were distributed to potential participants through human resource management departments. Data were principally collected by surveying managers and employees within each team. The respondents were assured of confidentiality and that nobody else in their teams would have access to their individual responses. To maximize the response rate, managers were contacted through a follow-up phone call or email 2 weeks after the initial distribution of the survey. Out of 280 distributed questionnaires (40 to supervisors and 240 to subordinates), 260 questionnaires (representing 232 supervisor-subordinate dyads) were returned, giving a response rate of 92.8% for both leaders and subordinates. 21 pairs of responses were deleted as either they did not provide data on key variables or showed obvious random responding ( Osborne and Blanchard, 2011 ) (e.g., in a survey utilizing a Likert scale, the respondent only give answers as 1’s or 5’s). These omissions resulted in a usable sample of 211 supervisor-subordinate dyads. In the employee sample, 36.5% were male, 4.0% were aged 25 or younger, 63.5% were aged between 26 and 40, 32.5% were aged 41 or older, and 86.4% of the employee respondents have received at least a college education.

Except for the items on authoritarian leadership, all the measures used in this study were adopted from English literature. In accordance with ( Brislin et al.’s (1973) back-translation procedure, the primary researcher (a native Chinese speaker who is also proficient in English) translated the measures from English into Chinese. Next, the primary researcher and another researcher (with human resource management experience in the Chinese workplace) both checked the translation for accuracy, identified problematic areas, and improved the translation through an iterative process. Finally, the translation was validated by a Ph.D. student (a Chinese native with a doctorate from the United States), who improved the readability of the questions through discussion with the other two researchers. All measures used five-point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”).

Authoritarian Leadership

To measure authoritarian leadership, we used nine-item scale developed by Cheng et al. (2004) . Sample items for authoritarian leadership were: “My supervisor determines all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not” and “My supervisor emphasizes that our group must have the best performance of all the units in the organization.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the measure of authoritarian leadership was 0.83.

Learning Goal Orientation

Learning goal orientation was assessed using nine items scale developed by VandeWalle (1997) . Two sample items were “I often read materials related to my work to improve my ability,” and “I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge.” The Cronbach’ s alpha coefficient was 0.88.

Power Distance

We measured power distance using a six-item measure developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) for use in Taiwan. Sample items were “Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates” and “Employees should not disagree with management decisions.” In this study, the coefficient alpha for the measure of power distance was 0.86.

Employee Performance

The team managers were asked to provide a performance rating for each individual employee. We used three items from a scale developed by Heilman et al. (1992) . Sample items were “This employee is very competent,” “This employee gets his or her work done very effectively,” and “This employee has performed his/her job well.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the measure of employee performance was 0.86.

Control Variables

Prior research has found that demographic variables (gender and age) may influence employee performance ( Shore et al., 2003 ; Schaubroeck et al., 2007 ), we therefore controlled for gender and age in our study. In addition, we controlled for leader-member exchange as it has shown a positive relationship with employee performance ( Dulebohn et al., 2012 ; Martin et al., 2016 ). Gender was coded 0 for “female” and 1 for “male.” Age was measured by number of years. Leader-member exchange was measured using seven items scale developed by Scandura and Graen (1984) . The Cronbach’ s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.87.

Measurement Validation

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in Mplus 7 to test the distinctiveness of the variables included in the study: authoritarian leadership, learning goal orientation, power distance, and employee performance. As indicated in Table ​ Table1 1 , the hypothesized four-factor model fits the data well, χ 2 ( df = 306) = 561.69, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91. Against this baseline model, we test three alternative models: a three-factor model combining authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation into one factor; a two-factor model combining authoritarian leadership, learning goal orientation, and power distance into one factor; and a single-factor model combining all four variables into one factor. As shown in Table ​ Table1 1 , the baseline 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. Then, we tested for common method variance (CMV) with a CFA model wherein all the items loaded on the respective factors and a common method factor ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). The average variance explained by the common method factor was 21%, less than 25%, the median reported by Williams et al. (1989) .

Comparison of factor structures.

Also, based on the work of Williams et al. (2010) , we applied the CFA marker technique to further examine the CMV in our data. This method uses a marker variable that is theoretically unrelated to the substantive variables in the proposed model to test the CMV. We selected hindrance stressor ( Cavanaugh et al., 2000 ) as a marker variable since it showed the weakest correlation with other variables ( Table ​ Table2 2 ). Hindrance stressor was measured with five items and sample items were “The amount of red tape I need to go through to get my job done” and “The degree to which politics rather than performance affects organizational decisions.” According to the procedure of the CFA marker technique, we analyzed the CFA model, baseline model, Method-C model, Method-R model, and Method-U model. The results indicated that the Method-R model was not superior to the Method-U model (Δχ 2 = 11.9, df = 16, p > 0.75). Therefore, there is no severe CMV in our study.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among all variables.

Descriptive Statistics

We present the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all the variables in Table ​ Table2 2 . The results show that authoritarian leadership is positively related to learning goal orientation ( r = 0.18, p < 0.01), power distance ( r = 0.45, p < 0.01), and employee performance ( r = 0.24, p < 0.01). The results also support the positive relationship between learning goal orientation and employee performance ( r = 0.40, p < 0.01).

Hypotheses Testing

To test the main and mediation effects, we used the path analysis model conducted in Mplus 7, which estimate both the path coefficients and the indirect effects with bootstrapping. As shown in Figure ​ Figure2 2 , after controlling for gender, age and leader-member exchange, authoritarian leadership has a positive relationship with learning goal orientation ( B = 0.17, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05) and employee performance ( B = 0.20, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05). The positive relationship between learning goal orientation and employee performance is also significant ( B = 0.30, SE = 0.10, p < 0.001). The bootstrapping results further suggest that the indirect effect between authoritarian leadership and employee performance via learning goal orientation is significant (indirect effect = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.007, 0.131], excluding zero). These findings support Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Model results. ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Hypothesis 3 proposes the moderating effect of power distance on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation. We examined this hypothesis by adding an interaction term of authoritarian leadership and power distance into the model predicting learning goal orientation. The results reveal that the predicted interaction is significant ( B = 0.17, SE = 0.07, p < 0.05). To further interpret the nature of this significant interaction, we plotted the relationship between authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation at 1 SD above and below the mean of the moderator ( Aiken and West, 1991 ). Figure ​ Figure3 3 shows the moderating role of power distance: supporting our hypothesis, when individual’s power distance was higher, the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation was stronger ( B = 0.98, t = 2.48, p < 0.05). However, when individual’s power distance was lower, the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation was weaker ( B = 0.59, t = 2.59, p < 0.05). Furthermore, we examined whether power distance moderated the indirect effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance through learning goal orientation. The findings revealed that the indirect effect was significant in the condition of higher power distance (indirect effect = 0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.17], excluding zero), whereas the indirect effect was not significant in the condition of lower power distance (indirect effect = 0.02, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.03, 0.12], including zero). Therefore, the results are consistent with Hypothesis 3.

Interaction between authoritarian leadership and power distance on learning goal orientation.

The primary goal of our research is to examine how, why, and under what condition authoritarian leadership may exert a positive effect on employee performance. In particular, we proposed and tested the mediating role of learning goal orientation on the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance. We then examined the moderating effect of individual power distance on the impact of authoritarian leadership on learning goal orientation. Our findings reveal that authoritarian leadership is positively related to employee performance through learning goal orientation, and the strength of the relationship is dependent on employees’ power distance.

Theoretical Implications

Authoritarian leadership is widely considered as the exemplar of detrimental leadership behaviors. Previous studies of authoritarian leadership have primarily emphasized and highlighted its negative features ( Chan et al., 2013 ; Chen X.P. et al., 2014 ). However, recent studies have started to explore the potential positive influence of authoritarian leadership ( Huang et al., 2015 ; Tian and Sanchez, 2017 ), suggesting that the mechanisms through which authoritarian leadership influences employee outcomes still require further investigation. Our study attempted to address the lack of consensus on whether authoritarian leadership is beneficial for or detrimental to employee performance. Our findings indicate that authoritarian leadership is positively related to employee performance (Hypothesis 1). This result is consistent with previous research findings and the argument that employees in Chinese organizations may consider authoritarian leadership behavior to be the norm and show greater tolerance for this type of leadership behavior ( Cheng et al., 2000 ; Tian and Sanchez, 2017 ). Therefore, our study’s results add important evidence to the literature concerning the actual effect of authoritarian leadership on employees. In addition, despite theoretical arguments that authoritarian leadership may promote positive outcomes ( Cheng et al., 2004 ), only a few studies have provided empirical evidence ( Tian and Sanchez, 2017 ). In this respect, our study offers a fresh insight into the performance implications of authoritarian leadership and contributes to authoritarian leadership research.

Second, by exploring the effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance through individuals’ learning goal orientation, we were able to obtain a richer picture of the mechanisms through which authoritarian leadership affects employees. Prior research has generally examined the effect of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership, ethical leadership) through a leader-centered approach, ignoring the role of subordinates’ self-construction, despite its verified importance in explaining the function of leadership ( Chan et al., 2013 ; Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). This study extends the scope of this approach and suggests that learning goal orientation plays a mediating role in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee performance. Building on goal setting theory, we argued that employees would be motivated to enhance their competence and performance under the specific and difficult goals offered by authoritarian leaders. Our research, thereby, provides more comprehensive understanding of subordinates’ role in the process of authoritarian leadership influencing employee outcomes.

Third, our findings indicate that the positive relationship between authoritarian leadership and learning goal orientation is enhanced when employees hold higher levels of power distance and mitigated when they hold lower levels. Consistent with the work of Schaubroeck et al. (2017) , we argue that the difference between individuals with higher and lower power distance could simply reflect how higher power distance norms and values are associated with weaker needs for personal influence ( Daniels and Greguras, 2014 ). Individual power distance has great implications for the ways in which authoritarian leaders are evaluated by employees. Employees with higher power distance are inclined to consider authoritarianism as reasonable and, therefore, more favorably interpret of authoritarian leadership behavior. Our work, thus, provides further evidence of the favorable role of power distance in the process of authoritarian leaders exerting influence on employees, and develops our understanding of the complex effects of authoritarianism.

Managerial Implications

Our research also has several managerial implications. Although some studies have shown negative effects on employees who experience authoritarian leadership, managers need to be aware that authoritarian leadership may also motivate employees to enhance their performance; this is particularly the case in Chinese organizations. Indeed, some scholars have already suggested the positive effect of authoritarian leadership on firm performance when firms operate in resource–scarce environments ( Huang et al., 2015 ). Leaders who focus on discipline and rules may motivate their subordinates to enhance their abilities and performance in Chinese organizations. We also found that the association between authoritarian leadership and employee outcomes may vary depending on individual power distance. For employees higher in power distance, authoritarian leadership could exert a more positive effect on employee performance; however, for individuals lower in power distance, the positive effect may be weaker. Therefore, it is reasonable for authoritarian leaders to assess individuals’ power distance during the selection process.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite some notable contributions, this study has several limitations that indicate future research avenues. First, we used a Chinese sample, which might limit the generalizability of the research findings to other cultural contexts ( Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008 ). Since China’s culture is characterized by high power distance and collectivism ( Hofstede, 2001 ), it is plausible that subordinates are more tolerant of authoritarian leaders than their counterparts in other cultures ( Chan et al., 2013 ). Therefore, it would be valuable for future studies to verify our findings in different cultural contexts. Second, results based on the technology company employees we surveyed may not be generalizable to other work settings. Some research showed that specific conditions such as uncertainties ( Rast et al., 2013 ) and low economic munificence ( Huang et al., 2015 ) may enhance authoritarian leaders effectiveness. Thus, it is worthwhile for future research to extend the current analysis to other types of industries (e.g., manufacturing or service settings). Third, our research used a cross-sectional design and self-reported individual-level measurements of the independent, mediating, and moderating variables. We employed the latent method factor in CFA to extract the influence caused by CMV. However, future research could use longitudinal designs to examine the causal relationships and further reduce the possible influence of CMV.

In addition to these limitations, we also suggest some new directions for future research. First, future studies could build on our work by further exploring how authoritarian leadership affects other employee outcomes. For example, it would be interesting to investigate whether authoritarian leadership could benefit employees through enhancing their job focus and work engagement. Second, while we test the mediating role of learning goal orientation in the process of authoritarian leadership affecting employee outcomes, future study could expand the range of potential mediators to consider other self-related constructs, such as core self-evaluation ( Kacmar et al., 2009 ) and self-esteem ( Chan et al., 2013 ). Based on social identity theory, recent study has already examined the mediating role of perceived insider status between authoritarian leadership and employee outcomes ( Schaubroeck et al., 2017 ). Third, we have made assumptions about the moderating role of individual power distance. Future research could consider including other contextual factors to help explain the inconsistent findings in authoritarian leadership literature. For example, the effect of authoritarian leaders on subordinates may be affected by leader characteristics, such as leader integrity, or situational factors, such as organizational justice.

Ethics Statement

An ethics approval was not required as per institutional guidelines and national laws and regulations because no unethical behaviors existed in this study. We just conducted paper–pencil test and were exempt from further ethics board approval since this research did not involve human clinical trials or animal experiments. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Research respondents were ensured confidentiality and anonymity. All participation was voluntary.

Author Contributions

HW has been provided substantial contribution to the research design, data collection, and the write-up. BG has been involved in data analysis and interpretation. All authors reviewed and approved this paper for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

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.

• Aiken L. S., West S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson P. H., Lawton L. (2009). The relationship between goal orientation and simulation performance with attitude change and perceived learning. Dev. Bus. Simul. Experiential Learn. 36 75–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aycan Z. (2006). “Paternalism: towards conceptual refinement and operationalization,” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context eds Yang K. S., Hwang K. K., Kim U. (New York, NY: Springer; ) 445–466. 10.1007/0-387-28662-4_20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bono J., Judge T. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leadership. Acad. Manage. J. 46 554–571. 10.2307/30040649 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brislin R. W., Lonner W. J., Thorndike R. M. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Button S. B., Mathieu J. E., Zajac D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 67 26–48. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavanaugh M. A., Boswell W. R., Roehling M. V., Boudreau J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U. S. managers. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 65–74. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan S. C., Huang X., Snape E., Lam C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34 108–128. 10.1002/job.1797 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C. C., Farh J. L. (2010). “Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives,” in Handbook of Chinese Psychology ed. Bond M. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ) 599–622. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C. C., Zhang A. Y., Wang H. (2014). Enhancing the effects of power sharing on psychological empowerment: the roles of management control and power distance orientation. Manage. Organ. Rev. 10 135–156. 10.1111/more.12032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen G., Mathieu J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and performance trajectories: the roles of supplementary and complementary situational inducements. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 106 21–38. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X. P., Eberly M. B., Chiang T. J., Farh J. L., Cheng B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J. Manage. 40 796–819. 10.1177/0149206311410604 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Z., Song M., Jia L., Wang Z. (2017). “How authoritarian leadership and renqing orientation improve tacit knowledge sharing,” in Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Hilton Waikolo, HI: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng B. S., Chou L. F., Farh J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: the constructs and measurement. Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chin. Soc. 14 3–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng B. S., Chou L. F., Huang M. P., Farh J. L., Peng S. (2003). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: evidence from business organizations in Mainland China. Indigen. Psychol. Res. Chin. Soc. 20 209–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 J. Soc. Psychol. 7 89–117. 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. J. Bus. Ethics 129 639–654. 10.1007/s10551-014-2189-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M. S., Carter M. Z., Zhang Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 962–973. 10.1037/a0034269 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniels M. A., Greguras G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. J. Manage. 40 1202–1229. 10.1177/0149206314527131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorfman P. W., Howell J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership in patterns. Adv. Int. Comp. Manage. 3 127–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. J. Manage. 38 1715–1759. 10.1177/0149206311415280 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol. Rev. 95 256–273. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farh J. L., Cheng B. S. (2000). “A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations,” in Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context eds Li J. T., Tsui A. S., Weldon E. (London: Macmillan; ) 84–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farh J. L., Earley P. C., Lin S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Admin. Sci. Q. 42 421–444. 10.2307/2393733 [ CrossRef ] [ 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 Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices eds Chen C. C., Lee Y. T. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ) 171–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gong Y., Wang M., Huang J. C., Cheung S. Y. (2017). Toward a goal orientation-based feedback-seeking typology: implications for employee performance outcomes. J. Manage. 4 1234–1260. 10.1177/0149206314551797 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Lucas J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 536–544. 10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heslin P. A., Latham G. P. (2004). The effect of upward feedback on managerial behavior. Appl. Psychol. 53 23–37. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00159.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg M. A., Adelman J. (2013). Uncertainty-identity theory: extreme groups, radical behavior, and authoritarian leadership. J. Soc. Issues 69 436–454. 10.1111/josi.12023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang X., Xu E., Chiu W., Lam C., Farh J. L. (2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Acad. Manage. Discov. 1 180–200. 10.5465/amd.2014.0132 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kacmar K. M., Collins B. J., Harris K. J., Judge T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: the role of the perceived work environment. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 1572–1580. 10.1037/a0017498 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C., Pillutla M., Law K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. J. Manage. 26 685–704. 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00052-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li Y., Sun J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: a cross-level examination. Leadersh. Q. 26 172–189. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lian H., Ferris D. L., Brown D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 107–123. 10.1037/a0024610 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A., Latham G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15 265–268. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin R., Guillaume Y., Thomas G., Lee A., Epitropaki O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: a meta-analytic review. Pers. Psychol. 69 67–121. 10.1111/peps.12100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicholls J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol. Rev. 91 328–346. 10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne J. W., Blanchard M. R. (2011). Random responding from participants is a threat to the validity of social science research results. Front. Psychol. 1 : 220 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00220 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne S. C., Youngcourt S. S., Beaubien J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 128–150. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pellegrini E. K., Scandura T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. J. Manage. 34 566–593. 10.1177/0149206308316063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. J. Bus. Res. 52 95–110. 10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00063-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. -Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poortvliet P. M., Janssen O., Van Yperen N. W., Van de Vliert E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: how mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33 1435–1447. 10.1177/0146167207305536 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter C. O. L. H. (2008). “A multilevel, multiconceptualization perspective of goal orientation in teams,” in Work Group Learning: Understanding and Assessing How Groups Learn in Organizations ed. Sessa V. I., London M. (New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; ) 149–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rast D. E., III. (2015). Leadership in times of uncertainty: recent findings, debates, and potential future research directions. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 9 133–145. 10.1111/spc3.12163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rast D. E., III, Hogg M. A., Giessner S. R. (2013). Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership. Self Identity 12 635–649. 10.1080/15298868.2012.718864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scandura T. A., Graen G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. J. Appl. Psychol. 69 428–436. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaubroeck J., Lam S. S., Cha S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 1020–1030. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaubroeck J. M., Shen Y., Chong S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 102 203–214. 10.1037/apl0000165 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shore L. M., Cleveland J. N., Goldberg C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 529–537. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.529 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taing M. U., Smith T., Singla N., Johnson R. E., Chang C. H. (2013). The relationship between learning goal orientation, goal setting, and performance: a longitudinal study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43 1668–1675. 10.1111/jasp.12119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tian Q., Sanchez J. I. (2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47 235–246. 10.1111/jasp.12431 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler T. R., Lind E. A., Huo Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: the psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychol. Public Pol. Law 6 1138–1163. 10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.1138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• VandeWalle D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 57 995–1015. 10.1177/0013164497057006009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang A. C., Chiang J. T. J., Tsai C. Y., Lin T. T., Cheng B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 122 101–113. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang L., Cheng M. Y., Wang S. (2016). Carrot or stick? The role of in-group/out-group on the multilevel relationship between authoritarian and differential leadership and employee turnover Intention. J. Bus. Ethics 1–16. 10.1007/s10551-016-3299-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams L. J., Cote J. A., Buckley M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? J. Appl. Psychol. 74 462–468. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams L. J., Hartman N., Cavazotte F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: a review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organ. Res. Methods 13 477–514. 10.1177/1094428110366036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu M., Huang X., Li C., Liu W. (2012). Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Manage. Organ. Rev. 8 97–121. 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y., Xie Y. H. (2017). Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manage. Organ. Rev. 13 147–166. 10.1017/mor.2016.36 [ CrossRef ] [ 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