Abstract
Globalization has highlighted that authoritarian leadership is prevalent in both Eastern and Western organizations. Although there is a growing body of literature that focuses on the effect of authoritarian leadership, an important, but missing, perspective concerns the strategies employees use to deal with authoritarian leaders and the subsequent outcomes. Drawing on impression management theory, this study develops a moderated mediation model to examine the differential effects of authoritarian leadership on employee outcomes. To examine the proposed hypotheses, we conducted a scenario-based experiment (364 full-time employees) and a time-lagged multi-source field survey (464 employees matched with 76 supervisors). The results indicate that Hewlin’s (Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 727–741, 2009) façade of conformity construct is a specific impression management strategy adopted by employees when working with authoritarian leaders. Through triggering employees’ façades of conformity, authoritarian leadership has a positive indirect effect on employee task performance, but a negative indirect effect on employee workplace well-being. These indirect relationships are more salient when authoritarian leaders have high social status. This study not only contributes to authoritarian leadership literature by illustrating its double-edged effects and unveiling its underlying mechanisms but also offers constructive guidance to practitioners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The processed data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The raw data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions imposed by the companies included in the study.
Notes
To ensure that the control variables did not affect the patterns of significance, we retested all the hypotheses in Study 1 and Study 2 without control variables. The results demonstrate a similar significance pattern when control variables were excluded.
References
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377701400320
Asad, H., Butt, A., & Malik, A. (2022). The good side of authoritarian leaders: Leader in the eyes of the subordinates. Journal of Management & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.28. Advance publication.
Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., & Pieters, R. (2021). The biasing effect of common method variance: Some clarifications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00766-8
Bendersky, C., & Pai, J. (2018). Status dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104602
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325
Bolino, M., Long, D., & Turnley, W. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 377–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2669
Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., Roberts, L. M., Buckman, B. R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E. L., ... & Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 633–671. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0108
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021886
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. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063114106
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.03.011
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 Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
Chiang, J.T.-J., Chen, X.-P., Liu, H., Akutsu, S., & Wang, Z. (2021). We have emotions but can’t show them! Authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Human Relations, 74(7), 1082–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720908649
Crede, M., Jong, J., & Harms, P. (2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership across cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2018-0506
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.107
Djurdjevic, E., Stoverink, A. C., Klotz, A. C., Koopman, J., da Motta Veiga, S. P., Yam, K. C., & Chiang, J.T.-J. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1124–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000202
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Gu, Q., Hempel, P. S., & Yu, M. (2020). Tough love and creativity: How authoritarian leadership tempered by benevolence or morality influences employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12361
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.034
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, G. V. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.007
Hewlin, P. F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: Antecedents and consequences of creating façades of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 727–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015228
Hewlin, P. F., Kim, S. S., & Song, Y. H. (2016). Creating façades of conformity in the face of job insecurity: A study of consequences and conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 539–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12140
Hu, X., Dong, M., Li, Y., & Wang, M. (2022). The cross-level influence of authoritarian leadership on counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 42(27), 23580–23593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03491-3
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Erturk, A., & Scandura, T. A. (2021). Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. Journal of Business Research, 128, 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034
Li, R., Chen, Z., Zhang, H., & Luo, J. (2021). How do authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? A social control perspective. Journal of Management, 47(4), 930–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878261
Liu, F., Liang, J., & Chen, M. (2021). The danger of blindly following: Examining the relationship between authoritarian leadership and unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Management and Organization Review, 17(3), 524–550. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.75
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R., Vega, R. P., ... & Khare, V. P. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1010–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311425613
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498904
Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I., & Venditti, M. (2023). Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 841–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/. Accessed 10 May 2023.
Seo, G., Huang, W., & Han, S. H. C. (2017). Conceptual review of underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions from a perspective of gendered social status in the workplace: Implication for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317690063
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1615453
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347
Spector, P. E., Rosen, C. C., Richardson, H. A., Williams, L. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management, 45(3), 855–880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316687295
Sutton, A. (2020). Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645
Thiel, C. E., Bonner, J., Bush, J. T., Welsh, D. T., & Garud, N. (2023). Stripped of agency: The paradoxical effect of employee monitoring on deviance. Journal of Management, 49(2), 709–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211053224
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Van Vugt, M., & von Rueden, C. R. (2020). From genes to minds to cultures: Evolutionary approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101404
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357
Wang, S., Wu, J., He, C., & Gu, J. (2022). The impact of authoritarian leadership on employee creativity: The joint moderating roles of benevolent leadership and power distance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(6), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2021-0046
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Xiao, J., Liu, X., & Zhao, X. (2022). How and when frontline employees positively cope with supervisor ostracism: An attributional perspective. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 31(7), 850–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2067609
Zhang, S., Liu, X., & Du, Y. (2021). When and how authoritarian leadership influences employee innovation behavior in the context of Chinese culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(5), 722–734. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2020-0342
Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1990
Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Farh, J. L., & Huang, X. (2021). The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: A moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04261-1
Funding
This study was funded by the Young Scientists Fund of Humanities and social sciences of the Ministry of Education of China, Grant/Award Number: 22YJC630166 (awarded to Jincen Xiao); Sichuan Applied Psychology Research Center, Sichuan Office of Philosophy and Social Science, Grant/Award Number: CSXL-22222 (awarded to Jincen Xiao).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all the participants in the studies. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Scenarios used in Study 1
Dear Sir/Madam,
New Rise is a high-tech enterprise dedicated to the development of smart buildings through artificial intelligence, Internet of things, and other cutting-edge technologies. The company has approximately 300 employees. It is the third year since you started working there. Yang Liu is your immediate supervisor and you have been working together for more than one year.
High authoritarian leadership condition
You have found that Yang Liu always clearly tells employees what to do and is very strict with them. He closely monitors every team member’s work progress and expects high performance. When employees fail to meet Yang Liu’s expectations or make mistakes that violate the principles set by Yang Liu, he scolds and disciplines them. Yang Liu is autocratic in making decisions at work. For example, in meetings, everyone is required to take Yang Liu’s ideas as the final decision when there are different viewpoints.
Low authoritarian leadership condition
You have found that Yang Liu does not clearly specify what to do but allows employees to perform assigned tasks in their own ways. When employees fail to meet Yang Liu’s expectations or make mistakes, he seldom scolds or disciplines them. Yang Liu encourages team members to express their opinions, even if they are contrary to his. Yang Liu is also democratic in making decisions at work. For example, in a meeting context, Yang Liu keeps an open mind and is willing to listen to different opinions from employees.
High leader social status condition
Yang Liu received his bachelor degree from a well-known university, and then a master’s degree from another top university. Owing to his key attributes and accomplishments, Yang Liu has great social worth at New Rise. In daily work, Yang Liu is frequently sought out by organizational members for work-related advice. Yang Liu receives more attention than other leaders. Both normal employees and top managers at New Rise know him.
Low leader social status condition
Yang Liu graduated from an ordinary university and did not pursue a master’s degree. In the past few years, Yang Liu has not made outstanding contributions to New Rise, indicating that his social worth is at an average level. In daily work, Yang Liu is occasionally asked by organizational members for work-related advice. Not every employee at New Rise knows Yang Liu. He is no more well-known among top managers than other leaders at the same level; only his immediate leaders know him.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xiao, J., Yang, G., Xie, S. et al. The boon and bane of authoritarian leadership: an impression management perspective investigating the differential effects of authoritarian leadership on employee outcomes. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05754-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05754-7