TY - JOUR
T1 - How do authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? A social control perspective
AU - Li, Rui
AU - Chen, Zhijun
AU - Zhang, Huihua
AU - Luo, Jinlian
N1 - Funding Information:
Li Rui Soochow University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8076-012X Chen Zhijun Shanghai University of Finance and Economics https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-8782 Zhang Huihua Shanghai Normal University Luo Jinlian Tongji University Zhijun Chen, Department of Human Resource Management, College of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, No. 100 Wudong Road, Shanghai, 200433, China. E-mail: [email protected] 10 2019 0149206319878261 © The Author(s) 2019 2019 Southern Management Association A number of studies have examined how employees regulate their behaviors in keeping with their leaders’ formal control (e.g., authoritarian leadership) or informal control (e.g., abusive supervision). Yet, these two lines of investigation are largely unintegrated. Drawing on a social control perspective, we integrate these two forms of controlling behaviors into one coherent model and link them to employee proactive behaviors. We propose that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision substitute effects from each other in thwarting followers’ proactivity by increasing their perceived powerlessness. We then test our hypotheses with three field samples of Chinese supervisor-subordinate dyads, using different exemplary behaviors to operationalize proactivity (i.e., taking charge, personal initiative, and proactive performance). The findings across the three studies show that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision weaken each other’s effects in terms of inhibiting subordinate proactive behaviors. Moreover, in our third study, perceived powerlessness mediates this interaction effect. These results, however, do not generalize to employee affiliative behaviors, operationalized as altruism, cooperation, and conscientious behaviors. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed. authoritarian leadership abusive supervision proactive behavior perceived powerlessness social control National Natural Science Foundation of China https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 71302120 National Natural Science Foundation of China https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 71472137 National Natural Science Foundation of China https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 71771160 National Natural Science Foundation of China https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 71772138 edited-state corrected-proof The authors acknowledge Action Editor Christopher O. L. H. Porter and the two anonymous reviewers for their very insightful comments on earlier versions of this article. This research was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71771160, 71772138, 71472137, & 71302120) awarded to Rui Li and Jinlian Luo. ORCID iDs Zhijun Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8076-012X Huihua Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-8782
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
PY - 2021/4
Y1 - 2021/4
N2 - A number of studies have examined how employees regulate their behaviors in keeping with their leaders’ formal control (e.g., authoritarian leadership) or informal control (e.g., abusive supervision). Yet, these two lines of investigation are largely unintegrated. Drawing on a social control perspective, we integrate these two forms of controlling behaviors into one coherent model and link them to employee proactive behaviors. We propose that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision substitute effects from each other in thwarting followers’ proactivity by increasing their perceived powerlessness. We then test our hypotheses with three field samples of Chinese supervisor-subordinate dyads, using different exemplary behaviors to operationalize proactivity (i.e., taking charge, personal initiative, and proactive performance). The findings across the three studies show that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision weaken each other’s effects in terms of inhibiting subordinate proactive behaviors. Moreover, in our third study, perceived powerlessness mediates this interaction effect. These results, however, do not generalize to employee affiliative behaviors, operationalized as altruism, cooperation, and conscientious behaviors. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.
AB - A number of studies have examined how employees regulate their behaviors in keeping with their leaders’ formal control (e.g., authoritarian leadership) or informal control (e.g., abusive supervision). Yet, these two lines of investigation are largely unintegrated. Drawing on a social control perspective, we integrate these two forms of controlling behaviors into one coherent model and link them to employee proactive behaviors. We propose that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision substitute effects from each other in thwarting followers’ proactivity by increasing their perceived powerlessness. We then test our hypotheses with three field samples of Chinese supervisor-subordinate dyads, using different exemplary behaviors to operationalize proactivity (i.e., taking charge, personal initiative, and proactive performance). The findings across the three studies show that authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision weaken each other’s effects in terms of inhibiting subordinate proactive behaviors. Moreover, in our third study, perceived powerlessness mediates this interaction effect. These results, however, do not generalize to employee affiliative behaviors, operationalized as altruism, cooperation, and conscientious behaviors. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.
KW - abusive supervision
KW - authoritarian leadership
KW - perceived powerlessness
KW - proactive behavior
KW - social control
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074042701&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0149206319878261
DO - 10.1177/0149206319878261
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85074042701
SN - 0149-2063
VL - 47
SP - 930
EP - 956
JO - Journal of Management
JF - Journal of Management
IS - 4
ER -