Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:20:42.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Three Graces of Leadership: Untangling the Relative Importance and the Mediating Mechanisms of Three Leadership Styles in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

Alexei Koveshnikov Open the ORCID record for Alexei Koveshnikov [Opens in a new window] ,
Mats Ehrnrooth Open the ORCID record for Mats Ehrnrooth [Opens in a new window]  and
Heidi Wechtler
Alexei Koveshnikov*
Affiliation:
Aalto University, Finland
Mats Ehrnrooth
Affiliation:
Hanken School of Economics, Finland
Heidi Wechtler
Affiliation:
Newcastle Business School, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Alexei Koveshnikov ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on the job-demand resource theory, the article examines the relative importance and the complementarity of three widely practiced leadership styles – transformational, paternalistic, and authoritarian. It investigates how the three styles relate to followers’ work engagement amongst employees in Russian domestic organizations. It also theorizes and tests the mediating effects of three psychological mechanisms, namely self-efficacy, self-esteem, and job control, on the examined relationships. The findings show that all three leadership styles relate to followers’ work engagement positively. The relationship of transformational leadership is dominant and mediated by all three psychological mechanisms. The remaining two styles also make their unique contributions to followers’ work engagement. Whereas authoritarian leadership influences followers by enhancing their self-efficacy and self-esteem, paternalistic leadership operates more extrinsically by increasing followers’ job control. Surprisingly, our analyses found that the role of control variables such as gender, age, and hierarchical position were insignificant in predicting how the three leadership styles influence employee work engagement. The study is among the first to shed light on the relative importance of the three focal leadership styles, their differential influences and interrelations, and the different mechanisms through which they relate to followers’ work engagement.

摘要

摘要

基于工作--要求资源理论，本文研究三种广为实践的领导风格—转型式、家长式和威权式领导—的相对重要性和互补性。我们研究在俄罗斯组织中三种领导风格怎样与下属的工作投入发生关联，还检验自我效能、自尊和工作控制三种心理机制对上述关系的中介效应。研究发现三种领导风格都与下属的工作投入有积极关系。转型式领导与下属工作投入之间的关系最显著，并被所有三个心理机制所中介。另外两种领导风格对于下属的工作投入也产生了独特的作用，威权式领导通过提高下属的自我效能和自尊而影响下属，而家长式领导则更多通过外在地增加下属的工作控制而发挥作用。令人惊讶的是，我们的分析发现，性别、年龄和在公司中的位置高低这些控制变量在预测三种领导风格如何影响下属的工作投入方面都不显著。这项研究首次揭示了三种重要领导风格的相对重要性、它们不同的影响作用和相互关系，并揭示了三种领导风格与下属工作投入关系的不同机制。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Опираясь на ресурсную теорию спроса на работу, в данной статье мы рассматриваем относительную важность и взаимодополняемость трех широко распространенных стилей руководства – трансформационного, патерналистского и авторитарного. Мы также исследуем, каким образом эти три стиля руководства связаны с вовлечением в работу сотрудников в российских организациях. Кроме того, мы строим теоретические положения и проверяем опосредованное влияние трех психологических механизмов, а именно самоэффективности, самооценки и контроля над работой, на исследуемые отношения. Результаты показывают, что все три стиля руководства положительно влияют на работу сотрудников. Влияние трансформационного лидерства доминирует и регулируется с помощью всех трех психологических механизмов. Оставшиеся два стиля руководства также вносят свой уникальный вклад в работу сотрудников. В то время как авторитарное руководство влияет на сотрудников, повышая их самоэффективность и самооценку, патерналистское руководство действует путем внешнего усиления контроля над работой у сотрудников. Примечательно, что наш анализ показал, что контрольные переменные, такие как пол, возраст и позиция в иерархии, не имеют решающего значения в прогнозировании того, каким образом три стиля руководства влияют на вовлечение сотрудников в работу. Данное исследование является одним из первых, которое проливает свет на относительную важность трех основных стилей руководства, их различное влияние и взаимосвязь, а также на различные механизмы, с помощью которых три стиля руководства влияют на вовлечение в работу сотрудников.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Con base en la teoría de las demandas y los recursos laborales, este artículo examina la importancia relativa y la complementariedad de los tres estilos de liderazgo ampliamente practicados: transformacional, paternalista y autoritario. Investiga cómo los tres estilos de liderazgo se relacionan con el compromiso laboral de los seguidores entre los empleados en organizaciones nacionales rusas. También teoriza y prueba los efectos mediadores de tres mecanismos psicológicos, concretamente, autoeficacia, autoestima y control laboral, en las relaciones examinadas. Los resultados muestran que los tres estilos de liderazgo se relacionan positivamente con el compromiso laboral de los seguidores. La relación del liderazgo transformacional es dominante y mediada por los tres mecanismos psicológicos. Los dos estilos restantes también hacen sus contribuciones únicas al compromiso laboral de los seguidores. Mientras que el liderazgo autoritario influencia a los seguidores influye en los seguidores al mejorar su autoeficacia y autoestima, el liderazgo paternalista opera de manera más extrínseca mediante el aumento del control laboral de los seguidores. Sorprendentemente, nuestros análisis encontraron que el rol de las variables de control como género, edad y posición jerárquica fueron insignificantes en predecir cómo los tres estilos de liderazgo influencian el compromiso laboral. Este estudio está entre los primeros en arrojar luces sobre la importancia relativa de los tres estilos focales de liderazgo, sus influencias diferenciales e interrelaciones, y los diferentes mecanismos a través de los cuales se relacionan con el mecanismo laboral de los seguidores.

Keywords

authoritarianleadershippaternalisticRussiatransformationalwork engagement威权式领导家长式领导转型式领导工作投入俄罗斯авторитарноеруководствопатерналистскоеРоссиятрансформационноевовлечение в работуautoritarioliderazgopaternalistaRusiatransformacionalcompromiso laboral
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 791 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by Senior Editor Maral Muratbekova-Touron

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Astakhova, M., DuBois, C. L., & Hogue, M. 2010. A typology of middle managers in modern Russia: An intracultural puzzle. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(5): 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avolio, B. J. 2007. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1): 25–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Puja, B. 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 951–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aycan, Z. 2006. Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In Yang, K. S., Hwang, K. K., & Kim, U. (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions: 445–466. London, UK: Sage Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. 2000. Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology, 49(1): 192–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. 2007. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balabanova, E., Efendiev, A., Ehrnrooth, M., & Koveshnikov, A. 2015. Idiosyncrasy, heterogeneity and evolution of managerial styles in contemporary Russia. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(1): 2–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balabanova, E., Rebrov, A., & Koveshnikov, A. 2018. Managerial styles in privately owned domestic organizations in Russia: Heterogeneity, antecedents, and organizational implications. Management and Organization Review, 14(1): 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 64: 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007. Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5): 1357–1367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4): 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 554–571.Google Scholar
Casimir, G. 2001. Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3): 245–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. 2013. The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1): 108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. C., Zhang, A. Y., & Wang, H. 2014. Enhancing the effects of power sharing on psychological empowerment: The roles of management control and power distance orientation. Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L., Yang, B., & Jing, R. 2015. Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT decision effectiveness: Interactions in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 11(4): 739–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2014. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3): 796–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. 2000. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14: 3–64.Google Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1): 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chuang, C.-H., Jackson, S., & Jiang, Y. 2016. Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2): 524–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D. 2006. Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1): 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2009. Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4): 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Hoogh, A. H., Greer, L. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2015. Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. 2011. The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Hartog, D. N. & Belschak, F.D. 2012. When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 194–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. 2011. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1): 7–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. 1997. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3): 233–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenkov, D. S. 2002. Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55(6): 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. 2013. Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6): 858–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. 2006. Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In Tsui, A. S., Bian, Y., & Cheng, L. (Eds.), China's domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance: 230–260. New York, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Li, J. T.., Tsui, A. S., & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context: 84–127. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., Adaeva, M., & Vitkovskaia, A. 2001. Developing a model of leadership styles: What works best in Russia? International Business Review, 10(6): 615–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14(6): 686–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. 1971. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, F. E. 1978. The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In Zanna, M. P. & Olson, J. M. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 11): 59–112. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredrickson, B. L. 2003. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 163–175. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, G. V. 2018. Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1): 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. 2018. Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2): 501–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. S. 2014. Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
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): 180–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. 1993. New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5): 753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahai, S., Sosik, J., & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Personnel Psychology, 50(1): 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2002. The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, 2: 67–91.Google Scholar
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2): 246–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. 2012. Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work & Stress, 26(1): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. K. 2000. A journey into the 'Wild East': Leadership style and organizational practices in Russia. Organizational Dynamics, 4(28): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. K. 2001. The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54(5): 585–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. K., Shekshnia, S. V., Korotov, K., & Florent-Treacy, E. 2005. The new Russian business leaders. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4): 744–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koveshnikov, A., & Ehrnrooth, M. 2018. The cross-cultural variation of the effects of transformational leadership behaviors on followers’ organizational identification: The case of idealized influence and individualized consideration in Finland and Russia. Management and Organization Review, 14(4): 747–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leroy, H., Segers, J., Dierendonck, D., & den Hartog, D. 2018. Managing people in organizations: Integrating the study of HRM and leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3): 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. 2015. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2): 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, W., Chia, R. C., & Fang, L. 2000. Chinese implicit leadership theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(6): 729–739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luchman, J. N., & González-Morales, M. G. 2013. Demands, control, and support: A meta-analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1): 37–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. 2009. The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5): 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. 1996. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2): 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. 2001. Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2): 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. 2001. Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3): 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., & Darda, S. V. 2010. Convergence in entrepreneurial leadership style: Evidence from Russia. California Management Review, 52(4): 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W. H. Jr 2008. Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: The legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3): 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., Vikhanski, O. S., & Naumov, A. I. 2005. Russian managers in the New Europe. Organizational Dynamics, 3(34): 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. 2006. Emotional exhaustion and organizational deviance: Can the right job and a leader's style make a difference? Journal of Business Research, 59(12): 1222–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumov, A., & Puffer, S. 2000. Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede's dimensions. Applied Psychology, 49(4): 709–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, K., & Munir, F. 2009. How do transformational leaders influence followers' affective well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 23(4): 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu, C. P., Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. 2009. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1): 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. 2018. Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4): 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, N., Psych, R., & Hatcher, L. 2013. A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2006. Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2): 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2008. Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3): 566–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. 2010. Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35(4): 391–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 622–648.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259–298.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. 2006. Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA. Computer software. Available from URL: http://quantpsy.orgGoogle Scholar
Puffer, S. M. 1994. Understanding the bear: A portrait of Russian business leaders. The Academy of Management Executive, 8(1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5): 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. 1994. The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5): 755–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riordan, C. M., Griffith, R. W., & Weatherly, E. W. 2003. Age and work-related outcomes: The moderating effects of status characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33(1): 37–57.Google Scholar
Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. 1998. Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and role behavior: A contingency model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(2): 167–195.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. 1997. Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 738–754.Google Scholar
Schaubroeck, J., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. 2017. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2): 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. 2006. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4): 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. 2010. Job insecurity and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy. Work & Stress, 24(1): 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X. A., & Tian, P. 2013. For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3): 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 387–409.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 2000. Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(3): 612–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheer, V. C. 2010. Transformational and paternalistic leaderships in Chinese organizations: Construct, predictive, and ecological validities compared in a Hong Kong sample. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(1): 121–140.Google Scholar
Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2011. A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3): 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. 2000. Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4): 365–390.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 558–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2): 295–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tian, Q., & Sanchez, J. I. 2017. Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5): 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2008. Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3): 182–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. 2003. Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3): 339–348.Google Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. 2008. How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance. Personnel Psychology, 61(4): 793–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. 2007. Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology, 56(2): 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. 2004. The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 77(4): 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., & Guan, B. 2018. The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. 2005. Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1134–1144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasti, S. A., Tan, H. H., & Erdil, S. E. 2011. Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. 2010. Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3): 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. 2012. Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2009. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3): 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. S. 2010. Middle manager leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 654–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. 2011. Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5): 851–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Li, L., Xu, L., Cao, C., Li, G., Ma, L., & Ge, J. 2012. Understanding indigenous leadership research: Explication and Chinese examples. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1063–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z. X., Chen, Y. R., & Ang, S. 2014. Business leadership in the Chinese context: Trends, findings, and implications. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 199–221.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Xie, Y. H. 2017. Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: A role-perception perspective. Management and Organization Review, 13(1): 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. 2015. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1): 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. Jr, & Chen, Q. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar