To understand the extent to which employees choose to improvise under authoritarian leadership, we applied social information processing theory to examine the mechanisms and boundary conditions of such leadership’s influence on subordinates’ perceptions of managerial intolerance of errors and their improvisation from the perspective of negative leadership. Data from a multi-wave questionnaire survey of 319 frontline teams analysed using SPSS and Mplus revealed that authoritarian leadership can have an inhibitory effect on subordinates’ improvisation due to perceiving managerial intolerance of errors. Even so, the negative mediating effect is significantly weakened by the moderating effect of a leader–member exchange (LMX) relationship and task complexity. That is, when the level of the LMX relationship or task complexity is high, it mitigates authoritarian leadership’s indirect inhibitory effect on subordinates’ improvisation via their perceptions of management’s intolerance of errors.

Although subordinate's perception of authoritarian leadership is viewed derogatively in the leadership literature, limited studies still claim that it can positively influence subordinate's performance. Drawing from the attribution theory, we hypothesize and demonstrate that subordinate's perception of authoritarian leadership can have a positive, indirect effect on subordinate task performance through the subordinate-attributed performance promotion motive, but only when the subordinate's perception of leader's expert power is high. We found support for our hypothesized model using multisource data collected from 246 subordinates and 76 supervisors from 11 different private sector organizations in Pakistan.

Researchers have paid much attention to the performance implications of authoritarian leadership. However, less effort has been devoted to exploring its ethical consequences at work. Drawing on the social cognitive theory of morality, this study explores the indirect relationship between authoritarian leadership and subordinates’ unethical pro-organizational behaviors (UPB) via displacement of responsibility. A vignette-based experimental study (Study 1) and a time-lagged field study (Study 2) were conducted to test our hypotheses. Consistent findings were accumulated for the indirect relationship between authoritarian leadership and UPB through displacement of responsibility (both Study 1 and 2). Furthermore, this indirect relationship was stronger among employees with low level of moral efficacy (Study 2). We conclude this study by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Drawing upon two independent samples from mainland China, we propose and investigate the deterrence function of leadership behavior focused on control. We suggest that controlling leadership, specifically, authoritarian leadership, deters employees’ deviance under certain conditions. That is, authoritarian leadership thwarts employees’ interpersonal deviance behavior when leaders send clear signals of potential punishments of non-compliance by showing low leader benevolence, and when employees are highly dependent on the leaders for important work resources. Results from two independent studies largely support our key propositions. Overall, these results add to the range of possible impacts that a leader can play in decreasing employee deviance. Theoretical implications and directions for follow-up research are discussed.

Authoritarian leaders make unilateral decisions and prevail over subordinates. Such leadership, as a style of exercising formal authority and position power, may inhibit employees’ extra-role behaviors in the hierarchical role structure. We explore employees’ role perceptions to better understand how supervisors’ authoritarian leadership decreases extra-role behaviors (OCBs). Authoritarian behavior is expected to generate subordinate perceptions of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload, with consequent negative effects on OCB. Hypotheses are tested using data from 613 subordinate – supervisor dyads. Empirical results indicate that authoritarian leadership increases subordinate role conflict and overload which then decreases OCB. Authoritarian behavior also increases role ambiguity, but role ambiguity is not associated with OCB. The article concludes with research suggestions and practical implications.

We examine the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee silence behaviour with 324 employees in 16 state-owned manufacturing enterprises in China. We draw from theories of motivation and person–environment fit to explain the mediating roles of psychological safety and organization-based self-esteem, and the moderating effects of power distance orientation. Regression analyses show that authoritarian leadership has a positive relationship with employee silence behaviour. Mediation analyses show that both psychological safety and organization-based self-esteem partially mediate the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee silence. Moderation analysis revealed that the direct relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee silence behaviour is stronger for employees with high (as opposed to low) power distance orientation. Additionally, moderated-mediation analyses show that the mediating effects of both psychological safety and organization-based self-esteem are stronger for employees with low (as opposed to high) power distance orientation. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.