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.
AinsworthM. D. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.
2.
AinsworthM. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In ParkesC. M.Stevenson-HindeJ.MarrisP. (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). Routledge.
3.
AryeeS.ChenZ. X.SunL. Y.DebrahY. 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
4.
BassB. M. (Ed.). (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). Free Press.
5.
BediA. (2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12186
BowlbyJ. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, 6(1), 5–33.
8.
ChengB.ChouL.WuT.HuangM.FarhJ. (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
9.
ChenX. P.EberlyM. B.ChiangT. J.FarhJ. L.ChengB. 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.
ColeM. S.CarterM. Z.ZhangZ. (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.
DavidovitzR.MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.IzsakR.PopperM. (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 CremerD. (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 HooghA. H. B.GreerL. L.Den HartogD. 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.
DorfmanP. W.HowellJ. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1), 127–150.
15.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
16.
EdmondsonA. C.LeiZ. (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.
FarhJ. L.HackettR. D.LiangJ. (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.
FrazierM. L.FainshmidtS.KlingerR. L.PezeshkanA.VrachevaV. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
19.
GastilJ. (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.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. 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.
HarmsP. D.WoodD.LandayK.LesterP. B.Vogelgesang LesterG. (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.
HayesA. F. (Ed.). (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
23.
HazanC.ShaverP. 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.
HuangX.XuE.ChiuW.LamC.FarhJ. 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.
KahnW. 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.
KellerT. (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.
KiazadK.RestubogS. L. D.ZagenczykT. J.KiewitzC.TangR. 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 GuardiaJ. G.RyanR. M.CouchmanC. E.DeciE. 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
LorinkovaN. M.PearsallM. J.SimsH. 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.
MayselessO.PopperM. (2007). Reliance on leaders and social institutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730601151466
32.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 56–152). Academic Press.
33.
MitchellM. S.VogelR. M.FolgerR. (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.
OgunfoworaB.WeinhardtJ. M.HwangC. 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.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (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.
PellegriniE. K.ScanduraT. 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.
PierroA.CiceroL.Tory HigginsE. (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.
PizzolittoE.VernaI.VendittiM. (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.
PopperM.MayselessO. (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
RobinsonM. D.CloreG. 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.
RomE.MikulincerM. (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.
SchaubroeckJ. M.ShenY.ChongS. (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.
SchoelC.BluemkeM.MuellerP.StahlbergD. (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.
SchriesheimC. A.HouseR. J.KerrS. (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.
SchynsB.SchillingJ. (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.
SeoM. G.TaylorM. S.HillN. S.ZhangX.TeslukP. E.LorinkovaN. 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.
ShenY.ChouW. J.SchaubroeckJ. 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.
SmithE. R.MurphyJ.CoatsS. (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.
TianQ.SanchezJ. 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 VugtM.JepsonS. F.HartC. M.De CremerD. (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.
WangH.GuanB. (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.
WangZ.LiuY.LiuS. (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.
WatersE.CummingsE. 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.
YangJ.MossholderK. W.PengT. 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.
YipJ.EhrhardtK.BlackH.WalkerD. 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.
ZimmermanR. D.SwiderB. W.WooS. E.AllenD. 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
