Linking authoritarian leadership to employee creativity

Abstract

Purpose The present study aims to examine how and when authoritarian leadership affects employee creativity. Based on social exchange theory and team identification literature, the present research attempts to simultaneously explore how leader–member exchange (LMX) and team identification serve as two important mediating processes in the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee creativity. Furthermore, this research uncovers the mechanism under which conditions the effects of authoritarian leadership will be magnified or minimized. Design/methodology/approach A survey has been conducted in China by using a questionnaire to collect data. The study sample consisted of 325 employees. LISREL 8.7 and SPSS 18.0 were used to test the mediating and moderating effects, respectively. Findings Results from 325 employees revealed that both LMX and team identification mediated the negative relationships between authoritarian leadership and employee creativity. Specifically, the relationship between two mediators was that LMX was positively related to team identification. In addition, the relationship between authoritarian leaderships and LMX and team identification was moderated by power distance, such that the negative relationships will be weaker with high power distance and stronger with low power distance. Practical implications First, firms and managers should recognize and take actions to reduce the negative effects of authoritarian leadership, such as effective selection system and interventional mechanisms because authoritarian leadership is important in influencing employee creativity. Second, managers are suggested to take specific actions, such as increasing communications and team-building activities, to promote LMX and team identification, thereby enhancing employee creativity. Third, managers should engage in behaviors that motivate employee creativity, such as empowerment behaviors, other than authoritarian leadership, when the employee has low power distance. Originality/value The primary contribution of this research is that two psychological processes (i.e. LMX and team identification) have been identified through which authoritarian leadership is related to employee creativity. Meanwhile, this study explores the relationship between LMX and team identification. Moreover, the current research deepens our understanding of power distance by empirically examining the moderating effect of power distance. Overall, the findings extend our understanding about the relationship between authoritarian leadership and employee creativity and contribute to literature on authoritarian leadership and creativity.

Power Distance as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Organisational Justice and Job Satisfaction

“…A number of previous studies on organic organisations display that a low power distance creates a low interaction gap between superiors and subordinates in a low hierarchical organisation structure (Daniels & Greguras, 2014;Gu et al, 2018). In this power distance orientation, superiors show a number of tendencies, such as allowing active participation, obtaining feedback from subordinates on matters of importance and sharing up-to-date information (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005;Gu et al, 2018).…”

“…They are practised at varying degrees in different organisational settings within the same and/or different countries (Daniels & Greguras, 2014;Muhammad et al, 2020). The findings from previous studies have shown that the role of power distance as a moderating variable has investigated leadership styles and individual attitudes and behaviour (e.g., performance, team effectiveness and creativity) within collectivism and individualism cultures (Gu et al, 2018;Purwanto, 2018). According to Purwanto (2018), most organisational culture studies have spotted the level of power distance as an important moderating variable between particular features of organisational justice (e.g., quality of relationship between leaders and subordinates, participative decision making and empowerment) and job satisfaction (Fock et al, 2013;Hauff & Richter, 2015;Rafiei & Pourreza, 2013).…”

“…In these studies, the role of power distance as a significant moderating variable has not been specifically examined in the relationship between organisational justice and job satisfaction. Lacking such focus may not help academicse and practitioners to understand the inconsistent effect of organisational justice on job satisfaction within different power distance practices (Gu et al, 2018;Haybatollahi & Gyekye, 2015;Muhammad et al, 2020).…”

“…A number of previous studies on organic organisations display that a low power distance creates a low interaction gap between superiors and subordinates in a low hierarchical organisation structure (Daniels & Greguras, 2014;Gu et al, 2018). In this power distance orientation, superiors show a number of tendencies, such as allowing active participation, obtaining feedback from subordinates on matters of importance and sharing up-to-date information (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005;Gu et al, 2018). Past organisational power studies, however, have provided a limited evidence to support the role of low power distance as a vital variable in changing the strength of relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction (Begley et al, 2002;Lam et al, 2002).…”

“…At an individual level, power distance refers to the degree to which individuals accept the legitimacy of unequal power distribution or the hierarchical gap between authorities (e.g., managers and supervisors) and subordinates in organisations (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005;Muhammad et al, 2020;Robbins & Judge, 2017). However, power distance has been investigated more at the individual level than at the societal level (Chen et al, 2014;Gu et al, 2018). Power distance consists of two major elements: low power distance and high-power distance.…”