Supervisory Security Provision: The Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on Psychological Safety

Abstract

By integrating the concepts of supervisory security provision, we extend current research on how authoritarian leaders may impact perceptions of psychological safety in their workgroups. We conducted a laboratory experiment in Study 1 to examine the psychological safety perceptions of differing power-oriented groups under low- and high-authoritarian leadership manipulations. In Study 2, we performed a vignette study to investigate the mediating effect of attachment projections. Our findings suggest significant links between authoritarian leaders and perceived psychological safety in both low- and high-power groups. Furthermore, we found significant links between authoritarian leadership, attachment projections, and power orientation.

Keywords

authoritarian leadership psychological safety attachment projection group power orientation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainsworth

M. D.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.

Ainsworth

M. S.

(1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In Parkes

C. M.

Stevenson-Hinde

Marris

(Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). Routledge.

Aryee

Chen

Z. X.

Sun

L. Y.

Debrah

Y. A.

(2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191

Bass

B. M.

(Ed.). (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). Free Press.

Bedi

(2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12186

Bowlby

(Ed.). (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, 6(1), 5–33.

Cheng

Chou

Huang

Farh

(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

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/10.1177/0149206311410604

10.

Cole

M. S.

Carter

M. Z.

Zhang

(2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034269

11.

Davidovitz

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Izsak

Popper

(2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632

12.

De Cremer

. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005

13.

De Hoogh

A. H. B.

Greer

L. L.

Den Hartog

D. N

. (2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001

14.

Dorfman

P. W.

Howell

J. P.

(1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1), 127–150.

15.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

16.

Edmondson

A. C.

Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

17.

Farh

J. L.

Hackett

R. D.

Liang

(2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support—employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866

18.

Frazier

M. L.

Fainshmidt

Klinger

R. L.

Pezeshkan

Vracheva

(2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

19.

Gastil

(1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496494253003

20.

Halevy

Chou

E. Y.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610380991

21.

Harms

P. D.

Wood

Landay

Lester

P. B.

Vogelgesang Lester

(2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.007

22.

Hayes

A. F.

(Ed.). (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.

23.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

24.

Huang

Chiu

Lam

Farh

J. L.

(2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: Firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0132

25.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

26.

Keller

(2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9

27.

Kiazad

Restubog

S. L. D.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Kiewitz

Tang

R. L.

(2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004

28.

La Guardia

J. G.

Ryan

R. M.

Couchman

C. E.

Deci

E. L

. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367

29.

Lavy

(2014). Supervisor security provision: Correlates and related mechanisms. Psychological Reports, 114(3), 758–783. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.21.PR0.114k30w8

30.

Lorinkova

N. M.

Pearsall

M. J.

Sims

H. P.

(2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132

31.

Mayseless

Popper

(2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730601151466

32.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 56–152). Academic Press.

33.

Mitchell

M. S.

Vogel

R. M.

Folger

(2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000002

34.

Ogunfowora

Weinhardt

J. M.

Hwang

C. C.

(2021). Abusive supervision differentiation and employee outcomes: The roles of envy, resentment, and insecure group attachment. Journal of Management, 47(3), 623–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319862024

35.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

36.

Pellegrini

E. K.

Scandura

T. A.

(2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063

37.

Pierro

Cicero

Tory Higgins

(2009). Followers’ satisfaction from working with group-prototypic leaders: Promotion focus as moderator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1105–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.020

38.

Pizzolitto

Verna

Venditti

(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

39.

Popper

Mayseless

(2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00183-2

40.

Rast

D. E.

Hogg

M. A.

Giessner

S. R.

(2013). Self-uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership. Self and Identity, 12(6), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.718864

41.

Robinson

M. D.

Clore

G. L.

(2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1520–1532. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711012

42.

Rom

Mikulincer

(2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1220–1235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220

43.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

Shen

Chong

(2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

44.

Schoel

Bluemke

Mueller

Stahlberg

(2011). When autocratic leaders become an option—Uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023393

45.

Schriesheim

C. A.

House

R. J.

Kerr

(1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90043-X

46.

Schyns

Schilling

(2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001

47.

Seo

M. G.

Taylor

M. S.

Hill

N. S.

Zhang

Tesluk

P. E.

Lorinkova

N. M.

(2012). The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 121–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01240.x

48.

Shen

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

49.

Smith

E. R.

Murphy

Coats

(1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.94

50.

Tian

Sanchez

J. I.

(2017). Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12431

51.

Van Vugt

Jepson

S. F.

Hart

C. M.

De Cremer

. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1

52.

Wang

Guan

(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

53.

Wang

Liu

(2019). Authoritarian leadership and task performance: The effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 13(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-019-0066-x

54.

Waters

Cummings

E. M.

(2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71(1), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00130

55.

Yang

Mossholder

K. W.

Peng

T. K.

(2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.681

56.

Yip

Ehrhardt

Black

Walker

D. O.

(2018). Attachment theory at work: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2204

57.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Swider

B. W.

Woo

S. E.

Allen

D. G.

(2016). Who withdraws? Psychological individual differences and employee withdrawal behaviors. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 498–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000068