Does Authoritarian Leadership always Inhibit Employee Innovative Performance? The Joint Effect of Environmental Dynamics and Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240414

Abstract

Abstract: From the beginning of the industrial revolution, innovation has been a key source of competitive advantage. With the increasing external competition faced by firms in today's business world, innovation has become imperative for most organizations. In the previous studies, scholars have studied the antecedents of individual innovative performance, with leadership being a key factor among these antecedents. Authoritarian leadership (AL) is the most prominent and most representative of the Chinese leadership tradition. It is also an important element of triad model of paternalistic leadership. However, it is surprising that there is no consistent research finding about the effect of authoritarian leadership on employee innovative performance. The purposes of the present study are twofold. First, we examine the moderating role of environmental dynamics in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee innovative performance. Second, we test the moderating role of supervisor-subordinate guanxi in the interaction between authoritarian leadership and environmental dynamics in predicting employee innovative performance.
Empirical data were obtained from 686 employees and their supervisors and finally 501 matched dyads were available. Data were collected from multiple sources to avoid the common method bias. Specifically, employees were asked to rate authoritarian leadership, supervisor-subordinate guanxi, and environmental dynamics. The formal leaders were asked to evaluate employee innovative performance. Correlation Analysis, Confirmative Factor Analysis, Hierarchical Regression Modeling were applied to test our hypotheses. The results indicated that: (1)Environmental dynamics negative moderated the relationship between authoritarian leadership and innovative performance, such that high environmental dynamics changed the positive impact of authoritarian leadership on innovative performance; (2)Environmental dynamics and supervisor-subordinate guanxi jointly moderated the authoritarian leadership and innovative performance relationship in such a way that this relationship was the most negatively pronounced when both environmental dynamics and supervisor-subordinate guanxi were high.
This study makes several meaningful contributions to the growing literatures on authoritarian leadership and employee innovative performance. First, this study found that authoritarian leadership does not always inhibit employee innovation performance. Intuitively, authoritarian leadership should inhibit the innovative behavior of employees. However, as shown in this study, in a stable external environment, the inhibitory effect of authoritarian leadership on employee innovation performance is alleviated. Second, the effectiveness of authoritarian leadership needs to consider multiple effective conditions. The existing research on the boundary conditions of authoritarian leadership pays less attention to the organization's environment and interpersonal interaction factors, while the research that considers multiple boundary conditions at the same time is even rarer. The results of this study have found two new boundaries for the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee innovation performance. Finally, the relevant research results of this study will enrich and expand the development of the research context of the transactional model of stress. Our study also has important practical implications. This study suggested that supervisors' authoritarian behaviors should depend on the environment, the higher level of dynamism in the environment, the worse innovative performance under the influence of authoritarian leadership. Meanwhile, supervisors need to be aware that the supervisor-subordinate guanxi has not only an instrumental effect, but also an emotional effect.

Key words: authoritarian leadership, employee innovation performance, environmental dynamics, supervisor-subordinate guanxi

摘要： 基于压力认知交互作用理论,考察环境动态性和上下属关系对威权领导与员工创新绩效关系的联合调节作用。以501份领导-下属配对数据为研究样本,数据分析结果表明：威权领导与环境动态性以及上下属关系的三维交互作用显著,在强上下属关系、高环境动态性条件下,威权领导对员工创新绩效具有显著负向预测作用,在其他条件下,威权领导对员工创新绩效都没有显著影响。

关键词: 威权领导, 员工创新绩效, 环境动态性, 上下属关系

Sun Jianqun, Li Rui, Tian Xiaoming, Tian Qi. Does Authoritarian Leadership always Inhibit Employee Innovative Performance? The Joint Effect of Environmental Dynamics and Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(4): 879-886.

孙建群, 李锐, 田晓明, 田奇. 威权领导总是遏制员工创新绩效吗?环境动态性和上下属关系的联合调节作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(4): 879-886.

References

[1] 樊景立, 郑伯埙. (2000). 华人组织的家长式领导: 一项文化观点的分析. 本土心理学研究, 13, 126-180.
[2] 管建世, 罗瑾琏, 钟竞. (2016). 动态环境下双元领导对团队创造力影响研究——基于团队目标取向视角. 科学学与科学技术管理, 37(8), 159-169.
[3] 郭晓薇. (2011). 中国情境中的上下级关系构念研究述评——兼论领导-成员交换理论的本土贴切性. 南开管理评论, 14(2), 61-68.
[4] 蒿坡, 龙立荣, 贺伟. (2015). 共享型领导如何影响团队产出? 信息交换、激情氛围与环境不确定性的作用. 心理学报, 47(10), 1288-1299.
[5] 李锐, 凌文辁, 柳士顺. (2012). 传统价值观、上下属关系与员工沉默行为——一项本土文化情境下的实证探索. 管理世界, 3, 127-140.
[6] 李宗波, 李锐. (2013). 挑战性—阻碍性压力源研究述评. 外国经济与管理, 35(5), 40-49, 59.
[7] 刘冰, 齐蕾, 徐璐. (2017). 棍棒之下出"孝子"吗——员工职场偏差行为研究. 南开管理评论, 20(3), 182-192.
[8] 刘豆豆, 胥彦, 李超平. (2021). 中国情境下家长式领导与员工绩效关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 29(10), 1829-1846.
[9] 齐亚静, 伍新春. (2018). 工作要求-资源模型: 理论和实证研究的拓展脉络. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 6, 28-36.
[10] 王磊, 邢志杰. (2019). 权力感知视角下的双元威权领导与员工创新行为. 管理学报, 16(7), 987-996.
[11] 温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹. (2018). 问卷数据建模前传. 心理科学, 41(1), 204-210.
[12] 张建卫, 李海红, 刘玉新, 赵辉. (2018). 家长式领导对多层面创造力的作用机制. 心理科学进展, 26(7), 1319-1330.
[13] 郑伯埙, 黄敏萍, 周丽芳,樊景立, 彭泗清. (2003). 家长式领导的三元模式: 中国大陆企业组织的证据. 本土心理学研究, 20, 209-252.
[14] 周婉茹, 郑伯埙, 连玉辉. (2014). 威权领导: 概念源起, 现况检讨及未來方向. 中华心理学刊, 56(2), 165-189.
[15] Bedi, A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of paternalistic leadership. Applied Psychology, 69(3), 960-1008.
[16] Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. P. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413-435.
[17] 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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74.
[18] de Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog D. N., & Koopman P. L. (2005). Linking the big five-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865.
[19] Gu Q. X., Hempel P. S., & Yu M. C. (2020). Tough love and creativity: How authoritarian leadership tempered by benevolence or morality influences employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 305-324.
[20] Hiller N. J., Sin H. P., 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.
[21] 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. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 150-155.
[22] Law K. S., Wong C. S., Wang D. X., & Wang L. H. (2000). Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 751-765.
[23] Lazarus R. S.(1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
[24] Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.
[25] Nazir S., Shafi A., Asadullah M. A., Qun W., & Khadim S. (2021). Linking paternalistic leadership to follower's innovative work behavior: The influence of leader-member exchange and employee voice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1354-1378.
[26] Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
[27] 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.
[28] van der Broeck A., de Cuyper N., de Witte H., & Vansteenkiste M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759.
[29] Wang A. C., Tsai C. Y., Dionne S. D., Yammarino F. J., Spain S. M., Ling H. C., & Cheng B. S. (2018). Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: Testing their relationships with subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 686-697.
[30] Webster J. R., Beehr T. A., & Love K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 505-516.
[31] Zhang, X. M., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
[32] Zhang Y. W., LePine J. A., Buckman B. R., & Wei F. (2014). It's not fair or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675-697.
[33] Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in research in personnel and human resources management ( pp. 165-218). Elsevier Science Ltd.