literature review on leadership style

Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2022
• Volume 73 , pages 841–871, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elia Pizzolitto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4569-1365 1 ,
• Ida Verna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3838-341X 1 &
• Michelina Venditti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7269-0707 1  

50k Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

Although authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, work climate deterioration, increased power distance, and centralized control, contradictory empirical evidence has emerged in the literature. In this paper, we perform a systematic literature review with three aims: (1) understand the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, (2) study the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate, and (3) establish a research agenda for the future. The results show that in the last two decades, the interest for the field has shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Moreover, many authors encourage leaders to increase or decrease their degree of authoritarian leadership depending on the context to more effectively connect leadership with performance. Therefore, leadership should be studied in light of a more complex approach that considers hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Finally, we discuss our study’s limitations and managerial implications.

Similar content being viewed by others

The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation

Leni Chen, Xu Huang, … Judy Jiang

Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader

Zhen Wang, Yuan Liu & Songbo Liu

Meta-Analysis Study on the Effect of Managers’ Leadership Behaviors on Work Performance of Employees

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Authoritarian leadership styles involve high levels of control over subordinates (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Authoritarian leaders tend to use their authority, which is ensured by organizational hierarchies, to demand absolute obedience of their followers (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Superiors adopting these leadership styles tend to centralize their power and accentuate the power distance between them and their subordinates (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). Evidence in the literature has shown that authoritarian leaders press their subordinates to achieve demanding objectives and to follow the rules (Li et al. 2018 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Although at first glance, these leadership styles may not seem to ensure a good work climate or facilitate high performance (Shen et al. 2019 ), the empirical literature has shown contrasting results during the last decades.

Authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, complex leader–follower relationships, and high intentions of followers to leave (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). For example, Chiang et al. ( 2020 ) showed that the work climate worsens if authoritarian leaders operate by suppressing subordinates’ emotions. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) showed that subordinates’ effort could be limited if superiors act as authoritarian leaders. Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) demonstrated the direct relationship between subordinates’ disapproval of power distance and adverse effects of directive leadership on performance. Therefore, authoritarian leadership styles seem to clash with the high dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets.

Nevertheless, several studies have identified specific conditions under which authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect workgroup performance. For example, positive results can be achieved in workgroups characterized by high levels of traditionality and guided by authoritarian leaders (Shen et al. 2019 ). Directive leadership can ensure good outcomes when rewards are low, group size is large, and failure is not too costly (Rahmani et al. 2018 ). Moreover, authoritarian leaders can succeed in workgroups with low team power struggles (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ) and high participation (Sagie 1996 ). Finally, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) highlighted that authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect communication if authority is not exaggerated. These contrasting results highlight the need for a comprehensive review of the evolution of the scientific debate on this topic.

Furthermore, cultural prejudice about the effectiveness of authoritarian leadership styles should be addressed in light of the complexity of new businesses. For example, authoritarian and paternalistic leadership styles are “still predominant in many Asian cultures” (Shen et al. 2019 : 498), where Confucianism is widespread and applied in business (Shen et al. 2019 ). In particular, the literature highlights the “necessity of challenging the deeply rooted beliefs held by many Chinese managers that authoritarian leadership is an effective leadership strategy” (Li et al. 2019 : 951). Nevertheless, authoritarian leadership styles are popular in contemporary business organizations worldwide (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Therefore, empirical evidence reveals a contradiction between organizational theory and practice: even though authoritarian leadership styles are formally considered ineffective, management employs this kind of leadership in practice worldwide. The literature highlights the importance of “leadership styles prevalent in the culture under investigation and examines its cultural roots and dominant psychological mechanisms” (Chen et al. 2014 : 813). Consequently, questions arise about the evolution of the authoritarian leadership concept and applications of authority in leaders’ behaviors.

A considerable number of literature reviews have debated the effects of leadership styles on performance. For example, Yahaya and Ebrahim’s ( 2016 ) review on this topic was limited to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Harrison et al. ( 2016 ) devoted their systematic review to entrepreneurial leadership and its effects on performance. Georgakakis et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed the role assumptions of CEOs and top management teams, organizing them into theoretical categories. However, their research did not classify authoritarian leadership styles depending on these assumptions. Laureani and Antony’s ( 2017 ) comprehensive literature review discussed the effects of a general conceptualization of leadership and its effects on Lean Six Sigma. Servant leadership’s effects on performance were debated by Langhof and Güldenberg ( 2019 ) and Parris and Peachey ( 2013 ). The general effects of leadership on performance were discussed by Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar ( 2018 ). To summarize, although the literature highlights the importance of leadership for performance, we could not find a review devoted to authoritarian leadership styles and their outcomes.

For these reasons, we concentrated on authoritarian leadership styles–i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership – to explore literature findings of their effects on performance. In particular, we perform a systematic literature review (SLR) to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ2: What has been the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ3: How does the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles make sense in light of the strong dynamism of new markets?

The article is structured as follows. We define the key concepts, i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership. After that, we describe in detail the methodology employed for the selection and analysis of the literature. The subsequent descriptive analysis shows the results of publications’ years, typologies, and fields and the evolution of authors’ and statistical units’ origins over time. Then, we develop the content analysis with a conceptual map of the field, an analysis of the most employed theories, the themes that emerged, and the future research opportunities identified by the authors of selected articles. Finally, we conclude our article with a general discussion of the results and indications for the future expansion of this study.

2 Definitions of key concepts

In this study, we refer to four leadership styles: authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic. In this section, we present four definitions derived from the extracted articles' content in our dataset. In the past, the literature treated authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leadership styles interchangeably (Chiang et al. 2020 ). However, commonalities and differences have emerged during the most recent debate.

Authoritarian leadership styles “include exercising discipline, authority, and control over followers” (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 : 475). They demand that employees meet high work standards and reprimand employees for poor performance (Wang et al. 2013 ; Lee et al. 2019 ). To achieve these goals, authoritarian leaders exhibit high self-confidence and plan their actions to ensure that their subordinates do not challenge their authority. Authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders limit “followers’ autonomy and self-determination, whereby leaders control followers via impersonal procedures and rules” (Li et al. 2019 : 931). They provide “clear directions and expectations regarding compliance with instructions” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). After that, they tend to centralize decisions and limit subordinates’ opportunities to express their opinions (Yun et al. 2005 ).

In addition to revealing commonalities among authoritarian leadership styles, the literature shows substantial differences. According to Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), authoritarian and autocratic leadership styles differ in two main characteristics. First, evidence in the literature does not associate autocratic with destructive leadership styles, while authoritarian leadership is often associated with the ‘dark side’ of leadership. Second, autocratic leaders are task-oriented and therefore are accepted by subordinates. Authoritarian leaders, instead, trigger feelings such as fear of distrust. Moreover, authoritarian and directive leaders differ in the way they give subordinates feedback. In particular, “a directive leader focuses on providing guidance”, while an authoritarian leader “focuses on controlling and making demands of subordinates” (Chiang et al. 2020 : 1085).

Moreover, authoritarian behaviors are part of the construct of paternalistic leadership, which “combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity in a personalistic atmosphere” (Wu et al. 2012 : 97). Therefore, paternalistic leaders have a genuine interest in subordinates’ well-being in both their professional and private lives (Hiller et al. 2019 ). The construct of paternalistic leadership consists of three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality (Chen et al. 2014 ; Chou et al. 2015 ; Hiller et al. 2019 ). The most crucial difference between paternalistic leaders and authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders is the benevolent side of this style. While morality could be associated with directive leadership and authority could be ascribed to authoritarian and autocratic styles, benevolence can be ascribed only to paternalistic behaviors.

3 Methodology

SLR is a methodology characterized by a rigorous protocol (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Post et al. 2020 ), in which authors’ interpretation and creativity are limited to achieve the highest possible level of objectivity (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ). According to most authors who have debated the SLR methodology, the SLR procedure is a fit when a researcher seeks proof in the literature to answer specific research questions. Our research examines a small group of leadership styles, i.e., authoritarian styles, and their effects on firm and employee performance. Given this level of specificity, the SLR was the best available methodology for answering our questions.

The protocol we chose for our SLR was proposed by Wolfswinkel et al. ( 2013 ), who introduced the application of grounded theory (GT) for developing content analyses in SLRs. GT (Corbin and Strauss 1990 ; Strauss and Corbin 1997 ) is a research method based on the interpretative paradigm about sociological research, which interprets the processes underlying a specific phenomenon. Using open, axial, and selective coding (Table 1 ), the research starts from a set of documents and organizes their contents into subthemes, themes, and, eventually, superordinate structures.

The advantage of using GT is that researchers concentrate on concepts and theories to reveal themes debated in the literature during the analysis; the themes are not decided before the study (Wolfswinkel et al. 2013 ). Given that our research was not driven by any previous convictions about the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance and was not influenced by cultural prejudice, GT was the best possible choice to develop our content analysis. Table 1 shows the detailed steps of the protocol we followed, and Fig.  1 shows a PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 ) flowchart that displays the process of the extraction and selection of relevant articles.

Extraction and inclusion of relevant contributions: PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 )

4 Descriptive analysis of the dataset

4.1 publications’ years, typologies, authors, and fields.

Figure  2 shows the number of theoretical (orange) and empirical (blue) publications per year. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of publications was 0.49 per year. During the following decade, the average was one per year. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average number of publications was 2.45 per year. Moreover, the average number of authors per document increased over time. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of authors per publication was 2.06. From 2001 to 2010, the average was 3.00. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average was 3.85. Therefore, the increasing number of publications and authors involved in the debate demonstrates the increasing interest in the topic. In particular, the distribution of articles per year shows a considerable focus on empirical research. In the dataset, 47 articles are empirical, and only seven are theoretical.

Number of publications per year

Our research covered a wide range of journals and fields. The fields interested in the topic also changed over time, as shown in Fig. 3 a and b. From 1966 to 2010, 48% of the articles were published in organizational psychology journals. In the next decade, this percentage decreased to 29%. Organization studies journals published 19% of the articles from 1966–2010, while from 2011 to 2021, this percentage increased to 22%. From 1966 to 2010, there were two articles published in general psychology journals, and in the next decade, there were none. General management, ethics, and social responsibility journals published 11% of the articles from 1966 to 2010 and 18% from 2011 to 2021. Finally, a new considerable area emerged during the last decade of analysis: international business and area studies journals published 15% of the articles from 2011 to 2021.

a Fields (1966–2010). b Fields (2011–2021)

To summarize, during the analyzed period, the topic was debated in journals in the fields of psychology, organization studies, general management, ethics, and social responsibility. During the last decade, international business and area studies journals emerged as a new and relevant field interested in debating issues related to authoritarian leadership styles. The wide range of fields that debate the topic reflect its multifaceted nature. More specifically, the considerable number of viewpoints considered in discussing authoritarian leadership styles and their effects on performance reveal the complexity of the topic. Moreover, the influences of so many different fields on the scientific debate justify the vast number of contradictory results in empirical research. The considerable number of different scientific viewpoints demonstrates the phenomenological nature of the field. Therefore, the wide variety of areas and the increasing amount of contrasting empirical evidence should be seen as an opportunity and not as a limitation.

4.2 Evolution of authors’ origins over time

The total number of authors included in the dataset is 148. The authors’ origins evolved over time (Fig.  4 a and b). Between 1966 and 2010, most authors were from the USA (43, 66.15%), 6 were from Switzerland (although they were all concentrated in one article), five were from Canada (7.69%), four were from Israel (6.15%), and the rest were from Norway, Australia, France, or Finland.

a Authors’ origins (1966–2010). b Authors’ origins (2011–2021)

During the following decade, interest in the field shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Although most of the authors remained from the USA (29, 27.88%), China emerged with 23 authors (22.12%), Taiwan with 12 authors (11.54%), and Hong Kong with five authors. Together, Eastern countries contributed 40 authors, representing 38.46% of the total. Other countries represented during this period included the UK with ten authors (9.62%) and the Netherlands with four authors (3.85%).

To summarize, Western authors dominated the field of authoritarian leadership from 1966 to 2011, but Eastern countries emerged in the field during the last decade. The rapid development of Eastern economies, together with the increasing scientific competencies of the Eastern population, allowed these countries to participate in this debate. Comparing the current situation with the future conditions of the field in the next ten years would be interesting to verify whether this shift in scientific interest will be amplified by the continuous improvement of the Eastern scientific community’s participation. Moreover, authoritarian leadership styles are typical in most Eastern businesses. Therefore, it would be interesting to verify whether research on authoritarian leadership by Eastern authors will improve the empirical knowledge of the field.

4.3 Evolution of statistical units’ origins over time

A statistical unit is the unit of research observation: it is an entity–or set of entities–for which data are collected. The evolution of statistical units’ origins over time was similar to the evolution of the authors’ origins (Fig. 5 a and b). Many of the 47 empirical papers in our dataset involved collaboration between authors from different countries (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). Similarly, some papers used a sample of statistical units from different countries (e.g., Sutcliffe 1999 ; Wang et al. 2018 ).

a Statistical units’ origins (1966–2010). b Statistical units’ origins (2011–2021)

Before 2011, more than 70% of the empirical papers employed statistical units from North America: 62.50% from the USA and 8.33% from Canada. Only three papers employed statistical units from Israel. After 2010, the data shifted. Only four studies employed statistical units from North America, and all of them were from the USA. The presence of Eastern countries increased substantially. Nine papers employed Chinese statistical units, five used statistical units from Taiwan, one used statistical units from Japan, and one used statistical units from Turkey. Therefore, after 2010, 66.67% of empirical papers employed Eastern or Middle-Eastern statistical units.

5 Content analysis

In this section, we present the content analysis of the articles included in our dataset. We start with a conceptual map based on the work of Menz ( 2011 ) (Fig.  6 ). After that, we show the most commonly used theories in the articles. Further, we identify the results of our grounded analysis of themes that emerged during the content analysis. Finally, authors’ suggestions for future research are discussed.

Conceptual map of the field

To design the conceptual map in Fig.  6 , we identified the main aim of each article in the database. We thus revealed three of the most significant general components of the scientific debate, i.e., context, actions, and consequences/outcomes, and we grouped the evidence that emerged from the content analysis into these three elements. After that, we found that mediators and moderators of leadership effects on outcomes/consequences were analyzed in detail by the considered literature.

5.1 Theories employed in the extracted articles

Table 2 shows the employed theories that appeared more than once in the dataset. Moreover, we show the leadership styles considered by the articles in which we found the theories.

Paternalistic leadership is associated with Confucianism. Chen et al. ( 2014 referred to two pillars of Confucianism, i.e., hierarchy and relationalism. The former pillar involves respect for superiors, and the latter indicates that individuals with close relationships tend to “exchange favors beyond instrumental purposes” (Chen et al. 2014 : 799). Wei et al. ( 2016 ) considered Confucian concepts of reflection ( si ), heart ( qing ), and mind-heart ( xin ) to achieve a more comprehensive framework of leaders’ compassionate actions. Specifically, through these three concepts, the authors integrated the framework of compassion with the Confucian perspective.

Attribution theory aims to explain how subordinates or followers react to their perception of their leaders’ behavior. Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) used attribution theory to study employee evaluation. In particular, they referred to the power usage model to highlight that managers’ perceptions of “who is in charge of employee’s behavior” (Kipnis, 1981 : 324) are the most critical variable for managers’ evaluation of their employees. Moreover, Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) used attribution theory to study how followers seek leaders’ signals to perceive their behaviors. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2013 ) used this theory to understand the impact of leaders’ gender on subordinates’ performance.

Chang et al. ( 2003 ) used path-goal theory to identify four categories of leadership: participative, supportive, directive, and achievement-oriented. Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) added path-goal theory to adaptive structuration theory to predict the effects of two kinds of leadership, i.e., participative and directive.

Finally, contingency theory and cognitive resource theory were among the most used theories. For example, Yun et al. ( 2005 ) used contingency theory to show the different effects of leadership styles that adapt to different trauma conditions. Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) used cognitive resource theory to relate leaders’ technical training to group members’ performance.

5.2 Identified themes

This paragraph describes the results of our grounded analysis of the 43 articles’ contents. In particular, we show the effects of authoritarian leadership style on the different typologies of performance highlighted by the authors. Figure  7 summarizes the results, highlighting the differences within the four leadership styles analyzed in terms of authority, power, attitude towards followers, and effectiveness. In the following section, we start from the authoritarian leadership style, and finish with paternalistic leadership.

Authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership styles

5.2.1 Authoritarian leadership style and performance

Authoritarian leadership exercises control and authority over followers, limiting their autonomy and self-determination, and is often associated with the “dark side” of leadership (Chiang et al. 2020 ). The articles considered in this literature review which were devoted explicitly to this leadership style are relatively recent, and, in most cases, authors present studies in which the analyzed samples comprise Asian participants.

Authoritarian leadership and team performance In general, results in regard to the effects of authoritarian leadership on performance are coherent. In particular, most of the publications in our sample showed that authoritarian leadership had adverse (e.g., Scully et al. 1994 ), or, in some cases, insignificant (e.g., Chen et al. 2017 ) effects. A positive relation between authoritarian leadership and team performance was found by Fodor ( 1976 ), but this is a relatively isolated result.

Moreover, authoritarian leadership affects followers’ organizational and relational identity, often reducing their intention to stay (e.g., Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) and suppressing emotions (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). In particular, authoritarian leaders’ lack of any emotional side leads to negative team performance, as verified by Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), who recently analyzed this phenomenon in relation to three large public Japanese companies.

Authoritarian leadership and in-role and extra-role performance Two articles debated the relations between authoritarian leadership style and in-role and extra-role performance. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) considered a sample of 114 Chinese subordinate–supervisor dyads, finding that the leaders’ authoritarian behavior had adverse effects on the two typologies of performance in the context of highly transformational leadership. In the context of low transformational leadership, however, the effects were not significant.

More recently, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) considered Turkish, Taiwanese, and US employees and found that, although in the Asian context people are more willing to tolerate authoritarian leadership styles, leaders’ authoritarian behavior can compromise the quality of communication, which is a critical moderator of followers’ performance.

Authoritarian leadership and job performance Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) considered the Chinese high-tech field and its employees and supervisors, demonstrating that an authoritarian leadership style promoted the worst job performance within contexts in which subordinates’ power distance was not accepted by subordinates. In contexts in which the power distance was accepted, authoritarian leadership had no significant effects on job performance. Moreover, Shen et al. ( 2019 ) monitored how the indirect adverse effects of authoritarian leadership style on job performance varied according to the traditionality of groups and found significant effects, at least for groups with a low level of traditionality.

Authoritarian leadership style limits followers’ self-efficacy and proactivity, as demonstrated by Li et al. ( 2019 ) in the context of the dyadic relations between Chinese leaders and followers. Moreover, an authoritarian leadership style can limit innovation and creativity (Lee et al. 2019 ).

5.2.2 Autocratic leadership style and performance

Although autocratic leadership shares its main characteristics with authoritarian leadership, it is less destructive and it is task-oriented; therefore, it tends to be associated with a higher level of acceptance by followers. In the set of articles we studied, autocratic leadership was not considered in Eastern Countries, although some authors hypothesized that it could be more accepted in such contexts (e.g., Misumi & Peterson 1985 ).

In general, autocratic leadership style can have both positive and negative effects on performance, depending on the contextual conditions (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). In 1971, Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum considered the effects of autocratic leadership on task performance. Through an experiment which involved US students, they verified that the effects of this leadership style were positive on performance in a highly stressed condition but not on satisfaction. Ten years later, Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) analyzed the effects of autocratic behaviors on leaders’ evaluation of their followers. Given this leadership style does not leave decision-making power to followers, it leads to a worse performance, both at team and individual level. This condition leads leaders to evaluate followers more poorly.

Finally, autocratic leadership, like authoritarian leadership, promotes better performance in contexts in which hierarchy is well-accepted by followers (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Nevertheless, autocratic leadership can compromise the team’s psychological self-confidence, worsening performance.

5.2.3 Directive leadership style and performance

Directive leaders exercise discipline and control over followers but, instead of focusing on making demands, they focus on providing guidance and feedback (Chiang et al. 2020 ). A coherent baseline can be identified during the entire period of directive leadership development in the literature, from Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) to Yi et al. ( 2021 ). In particular, the latter made a critical contribution to the interpretation of directive leadership and its effects on performance, identifying an inverse U relation between the two variables. Although Yi et al.’s ( 2021 ) article is not a review, its results represent one of the more effective summaries to have emerged in the worldwide empirical literature to date. In fact, most of the literature has concentrated on finding specific situations in which a directive leadership style can have negative and positive effects on different typologies of performance.

Although the positive effects of directive leadership on performance and satisfaction could be considered counterintuitive at first sight, a convincing reason for their existence was provided by Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) through an analysis of cognitive evaluation theory. In particular, “structures external to an individual, such as leader directiveness, have control and informational components” (Kahai et al. 2004 : 94). The two components affect, respectively, the conformity of behaviors and perceived competence. The informational component allows a reduction of perceived role ambiguity and an increase in followers’ trust in leaders and motivation (Kahai et al., 2004 ; Chen et al., 2017 ).

Few articles explicitly found situations in which directive leadership leads only to adverse performance effects. For example, in the context of car dealers in North Europe, Chang et al. ( 2003 ) identified that customer focus could be compromised by a directive leadership style, adversely affecting quantitative parameters of performance measurement (e.g., productivity and profitability).

Directive leadership and task performance When the directive leadership literature first began to develop, academic analysis was concentrated in North America, especially the United States. In particular, tests in the first years were performed through laboratory experiments that involved undergraduates, and directive leadership was already seen to produce positive and negative effects on performance depending on the context. Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) analyzed the effectiveness of directive leadership for task performance by studying changes in the task structures, and their experiment found that directive leaders managed more structured tasks better.

Nevertheless, not all studies have supported this finding. For example, Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) found a reduction of the positive effects of directive leadership for highly structured tasks. Therefore, the level of task structure which causes directive leadership to be more or less effective on performance remains an open issue.

Directive leadership and team performance: highly technical contexts Another relevant example is the work published by Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) that analyzed highly technical contexts. In particular, they demonstrated how, in such contexts, directive leadership could be effective in terms of team performance, but it has to be associated with the technical knowledge of leaders. This finding was confirmed by Sutcliffe ( 1999 ), who analyzed performances in business process reengineering through quantitative methods and the participation of IT executives from North America and Europe. The highly technical content of the context determined the greater efficacy of directive leadership in assignment and task facilitation, objective definition, and team performance. These findings were confirmed more recently by Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ), who verified how projects characterized by high knowledge intensity need directive leadership to be completed effectively.

Moreover, Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) considered a Danish ICT context and found that the concurrent employment of directive and participative leadership was the best possible strategy for perceived performance during project implementation. Similar results have been presented in the past. For example, Tjosvold ( 1984 ) identified that directive leaders’ warmth and sincere interest in followers’ productivity were effective mediators of work-related performance.

Further information on highly technical circumstances was provided by Yun et al. ( 2005 ) in a US medical context. In particular, their work highlighted how the directive leadership style promoted different effects depending on specific contextual elements. The study showed that such effects changed depending on the seriousness of the problem and teams’ experience, with positive effects found at high levels of problem seriousness and low levels of team experience.

The same context was considered by Tschan et al. ( 2006 ) in Switzerland, where the authors identified positive effects of directive leadership on team performance. The study was performed in two phases, and it was found, in particular, that directive leadership had an additive effect, showing more effectiveness in the second phase for groups that had already obtained good results in the first.

Directive leadership and team performance: unstable and dynamic contexts Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who analyzed the context of the fastest-growing US startups, verified that directive leadership is better adapted to dynamic and unstable contexts in which decisions should be taken immediately. This tendency was confirmed by Lorinkova et al. ( 2013 ), who involved some US students in their study and demonstrated that team performance in groups guided by directive leaders was positive in the short run and stabilized thereafter. At the beginning of project implementation, the context is unstable, tasks are not permanently assigned, and competencies are yet to be developed. In such contexts, directive leadership is more effective.

Mossholder et al. ( 1990 ) had already found similar results by integrating time in their study of leadership. In fact, the longer the duration of dyadic relations, the less followers are affected by leaders’ behaviors. In particular, directive leadership is initially more effective in complex contexts (e.g., engineering). Over time, followers become confident in their competencies, and non-directive styles are the best choice for satisfaction and job performance. Sanchez-Manzanares et al. ( 2020 ) further confirmed such effects in the Spanish context. Their study verified that when pressure is strong, directive leadership is more effective for team performance and adaptation.

Given that leadership is a highly phenomenological construct, not all the studies found significant relationships between directive leadership and team performance. For example, Faraj and Sambamurthy ( 2006 ), who also analyzed a technological context (i.e., information systems development projects) in the USA, found nothing to support this relationship.

Directive leadership and team performance: Asian contexts Although there has been a particularly notable recent contribution from Eastern authors to the literature on directive leadership, interesting works have been published by Asian academics previously. These publications suggested that this typology of leadership style is more accepted in Eastern countries than in Western areas. Nevertheless, we identified a tendency among Eastern authors to suggest that smoothing the directive side of leadership can foster better performance. For example, Sagie ( 1996 ) developed a study which involved the participation of students in Israel and underlined that directive leadership produced positive results but that, at the same time, when leaders used a more communicative approach to define goals in a participative way, the positive effects on team performance increased.

An interesting comparison can be made between Somech ( 2006 ) and Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who considered the effects of directive leadership on team performance, starting from different levels of team homogeneity. In this sense, interpreting directive leadership as a mediator or moderator of such an effect, Somech ( 2006 ) considered the Israeli context and analyzed in-depth the effects of directive leadership style on in-role performance and team innovation, considering different levels of team homogeneity. In particular, a more homogeneous team, in terms of professional backgrounds and abilities, can put more pressure to achieve conformity. In this case, directive leadership promotes better performance. In contrast, an analysis of the US context by Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) highlighted that top management team heterogeneity could lead to positive results if a directive leadership style is adopted. Therefore, to achieve better performance, directive leadership should be associated with top management team heterogeneity and low-level team homogeneity.

5.2.4 Paternalistic leadership and performance

The paternalistic leadership style is traditionally described as a construct composed of three dimensions: authority, morality, and benevolence. Nevertheless, Wang et al. ( 2018 ) published an innovative interpretation of this leadership style. In particular, they stated that previous literature joined three separate styles: benevolence-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which benevolence dominates over authority; authoritarianism-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which authority dominates over benevolence; and classical paternalistic leadership, in which no dimension dominates. Therefore, the definition and foundation of paternalistic leadership style can be considered an open issue in the literature.

In general, paternalistic leadership is based on Confucian philosophy, which is particularly studied in Eastern contexts, in which it is present and appreciated (Shen et al. 2019 ). In the set of articles we studied, almost all the articles analyzed Asian statistical units, and there was a general tendency to consider paternalistic leadership an effective style in terms of performance.

Paternalistic leadership and task performance Chan et al. ( 2012 ) and Chou et al. ( 2015 ) considered the effects of paternalistic leadership on task performance. The former concentrated on the authoritarian and benevolent components of this leadership style in relation to Chinese supervisor–subordinate dyads. The benevolent dimensions were shown to be a moderator of the adverse effects caused by the authoritarian dimension on task performance, organization-based self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. The latter, which focused on the Taiwanese military, considered the authoritarian and moral dimensions of paternalistic leadership and found that, in such a context, high levels of both dimensions were the most widespread and appreciated by followers.

Paternalistic leadership, job performance, and trust Numerous studies have considered the effects of the paternalistic leadership style on work and job performance, and Wu et al. ( 2012 ) studied such effects by analyzing supervisor–subordinates dyads in the Chinese context. Although paternalistic leadership has already been associated with positive performance, the researchers identified international justice as a possible mediator of this relation, both for job performance and organizational citizenship behavior.

Wang et al. ( 2018 ), who compared dyads in Taiwanese and US contexts through their innovative vision of paternalistic leadership, verified that if the authoritarian dimension dominates leaders’ style, the effects on job performances are adverse. In contrast, if benevolence is dominant, or if there is an equilibrium between the two dimensions, the effects are positive. The same results were obtained by Hiller et al. ( 2019 ), who explained that adverse effects could extend to organizational citizenship behavior, creativity, turnover intention, and counterproductive attitudes.

Chen et al. ( 2014 ) found significant influences of all three dimensions of paternalistic leadership for in-role and extra-role performance. Their results were similar to those of previous studies: the authoritarian dimension negatively affected the two typologies of performance differently from the other two dimensions. Moreover, affective trust was a significant mediator between benevolent and moral dimensions and role performance.

The meta-analysis carried out by Legood et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrated that affective trust could effectively predict followers’ performance. Moreover, this study remarked that specific conditions exist which foster the effectiveness of the paternalistic leadership style. In particular, trust is promoted by a paternalistic leadership style when the power distance is low. When the power distance increases, however, the benevolent dimension should be more and more dominant to ensure a positive work-related performance.

5.2.5 Directive leadership vs. empowering and participative leadership styles

Numerous articles have debated the differences between directive and empowering leadership styles. Specifically, empowering leadership is a style focused on “sharing power with employees and increasing their responsibility and autonomy to perform their work” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). Most articles debating this comparison state that directive and empowering leadership styles have different and significant effects on performance, with limited exceptions (e.g., Faraj & Sambamurthy 2006 ).

In stressful contexts, directive leadership showed higher effectiveness in regard to team adaptation and performance (Sanchez-Manzanares et al., 2020 ). In contrast, in less complicated situations, empowering leadership has a positive effect on team performance (Yun et al. 2005 ).

Empowering and directive leadership were also compared according to levels of team homogeneity. In particular, Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) examined the US startup context. They found that, in unstable environments, a directive leadership style was more effective for firm performance when top management teams were heterogeneous, while empowering leadership positively affected performance when top management teams were homogeneous. In stable environments, however, the effects were the opposite.

Other studies performed in similar contexts gave different results in regard to comparisons of directive and participative leadership styles. Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ) found that directive leadership is more effective than participative leadership in fields with high knowledge intensity, whereas Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) found that employing a directive and participative leadership style combination is the best strategy for implementing projects in ICT environments. The same results were obtained in an experiment performed by Sagie ( 1996 ).

Moreover, through experiments, Sauer ( 2011 ) found that the effectiveness of leaders depends on their position in the firm. In particular, low-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a directive style, while high-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a participative leadership style. Somech ( 2006 ) found that when groups are functionally heterogeneous, the participative leadership style is more effective than the directive style, which is ineffective in functionally homogeneous groups. Directive leadership can reduce role ambiguity and, therefore, increase the quantity of communication. Thus, directive and participative leadership can positively affect group performance and satisfaction (Kahai et al. 2004 ).

5.3 Further research opportunities

This section presents further research opportunities that selected articles’ authors identified in their research. We found four main areas of interest (Table 3 ). First, replications of studies in different cultural contexts were widely suggested by authors. Second, further research opportunities examining novel and multiple leadership styles were identified. Third, emotions and perception were suggested as promising further research opportunities. Finally, authors identified the need to analyze the power of moderator and mediator variables influencing the relationship between leadership styles and performance.

6 Discussion

In this paper, we performed an SLR to achieve a better understanding of authoritarian leadership styles on the different typologies on performance considered in the literature. Although the literature presents considerable evidence highlighting the need for leaders to adapt to different contexts (e.g., Yun et al., 2005 ; Chiang et al., 2020 ), our findings showed that, when leaders limit the authoritarian component of their styles, there are more contexts in which the considered leadership styles can be effective. The level of authority, discipline, and control over followers decreases as leaders move from authoritarian to paternalistic leadership styles, passing through autocratic and directive styles.

There is a general consensus among researchers that the authoritarian style is the worst leadership style for performance. Differenly, the autocratic leadership style is more task-oriented and tends to be more accepted by followers (Chiang et al. 2020 ). It has positive effects on performance in very stressful environments. In contrast, the directive leadership style has been shown to produce positive effects on performance in a considerable number of contexts, and it has been most frequently demonstrated to be an effective strategy for numerous typologies of performance in unstable, dynamic, and highly technical environments. Paternalistic leadership has been shown to be the most balanced style. Its three dimensions (i.e., authority, morality, and benevolence) lead to better effects on performance, especially when the benevolent and moral dimensions dominate the authority one.

Finally, although authoritarian leadership styles are more accepted in Eastern countries (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ), the literature showed a tendency to ask that the “dark side” of leadership style be smoothed, even in Asian contexts. Smoothing the authoritarian side of leadership could be obtained through better communication (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ; Sagie 1996 ) or through leaders’ sincere interest in their followers’ lives and productivity (Tjosvold 1984 ).

In the following section, we present the limitations of our work, propose a research agenda for further in-depth analysis in line with our study, and discuss the practical implications of our paper.

6.1 Limitations and research agenda

The principal outcome of our study is the finding that a considerable number of mediators, moderators, and specific conditions can change the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. In particular, the leadership style appears to be a complex condition that cannot be superficially ascribed to a single and peculiar style detached from other leadership models that supervisors may apply. It is, instead, a changing condition: leaders are often able to change their degree of authority in line with objectives, followers’ behaviors, and other specific conditions (Kahai et al. 2004 ). For example, paternalistic leaders can increase or decrease leadership dimensions (i.e., authoritarian, benevolence, and morality) depending on the context, actions, subordinates’ behaviors, and desired outcomes.

Given that a discussion about single and detached leadership styles does not make sense in light of the dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets, the study of hybrid leadership styles is still open and promising. The in-depth analysis of specific circumstances in which leaders can change the degree of a specific dimension of their leadership styles is a critical stimulus for future researchers. In particular, authoritarian leaders are suitable units of analysis: the literature widely recognizes that more democratic leadership styles (e.g., empowering) positively affect performance. Instead, authoritarian leaders have to increasingly adapt their style, which collides with the changing conditions of jobs, markets, and diffuse beliefs about the negative impact of exaggerated authority (Sauer 2011 ). Therefore, in future research, examining authoritarian leadership styles will probably be the key to achieving an in-depth understanding of hybrid leadership styles.

Moreover, we encourage future researchers to overcome two limitations of our paper. The first relates to the conceptual map we drawn in Fig.  6 . The thematic map shows three main groups of evidence: context, actions, and consequences/outcomes. These three dimensions are connected in a linear relationship that starts from the context and produces the effects on performance. Nevertheless, Dourish ( 2004 ) suggests that in fields where the phenomenological nature of results is undeniable (as it is for leadership), context is much more than a starting point. In particular, “from a phenomenological perspective […] context does not describe a setting; it is something that people do. It is an achievement, rather than an observation; an outcome, rather than a premise” (Dourish 2004 : 22). Therefore, we encourage further research to find theoretical and empirical evidence of performance effects on leadership. In particular, are leaders willing and able to change their style depending on previous performance?

The second limitation of our work is that the comparison we made between authoritarian and non-authoritarian leadership styles (§5.2.5) was not the final aim of our article. It was a secondary result. However, it underlined a critical starting point for further research opportunities. In particular, we encourage future researchers to explore in much more detail the differences among leadership styles in their effects on performance. We call for research reviewing a broader range of leadership styles to highlight the main differences in their outcomes. We are aware that this is a demanding objective. Therefore, in our opinion, meta-analyses should help organize the considerable number of papers published on the topic. In particular, a restriction in the time range of articles extracted could support researchers in limiting bias and reducing the time needed for the analysis.

6.2 Managerial implications

While the theoretical implications of our study are clear, since we fill the gap concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, this review also has relevant practical implications. In particular, we identified three groups that could benefit form the managerial implications: leaders, top management teams, and recruiters and human resources management (HRM).

Leaders should be aware of their leadership styles (Chiang et al. 2020 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Given that under specific conditions, authoritarian leadership is effective, leaders have to be trained to understand the nature of their behaviors. To achieve this demanding objective, they have to gain in-depth knowledge of each leadership style’s positive and negative effects. As a consequence, they should be able to limit the degree of their authority and their centralizing tendency. There are several opportunities to help leaders achieve this goal. For example, HRM can design jobs with autonomous features (Li et al. 2019 ) and encourage regular feedback between superiors and subordinates (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ).

Top management teams should design the work environment to enhance creativity, share ideas, incentivize collaboration and information sharing, and encourage participation (Lee et al. 2019 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) to stimulate authoritarian leaders to reduce the power distance between them and subordinates. Planning work activities in line with democratic ideas can help followers identify with their leaders. Moreover, supervisors should be trained to clearly express their projects for their subordinates, especially in terms of their learning and professional achievements (Chen et al. 2017 ). Furthermore, leaders should be subjected to psychological training to improve their ability to understand the structure of their teams and the personality of their subordinates.

Finally, in the last decade, the literature has reconsidered the strategic role of HRM (e.g., Pizzolitto and Verna 2020 ; 2022 ). Given the evidence that emerged during this review, the fundamental effects of strategic HRM interventions can dramatically affect leadership and, consequently, performance. Recruiters should select managers depending on the leadership styles required by the specific conditions of workgroups, markets, and business needs. For example, evidence in the literature suggests that changing and complex conditions can be better managed through directive leaders (e.g., Lorinkova et al. 2013 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ). In calmer situations, more empowering leadership styles are more effective. Therefore, recruiters have to be careful in their selections, considering the training and compensation needed for adapting managers’ leadership styles to business needs. In specific situations, hiring a directive leader can be an efficient choice (e.g., Yun et al. 2005 ; Lorinkova et al. 2013 ).

7 Conclusions

We performed this study to answer three research questions. The first concerned the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. Although there is a consensus that an exceedance of authority, power distance, pressure, and impositions on subordinates can worsen performance, contrasting results about the specific effects of authoritarian leadership styles emerged in the literature. In particular, several publications highlight positive and negative outcomes of authoritarian, autocratic, and directive behaviors. A considerable number of specific conditions can indeed affect the effects of authoritarian styles on performance. The conditions of leadership are changing, and leaders should adapt and combine their styles to enhance performance (Hansen & Nørup 2017 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ; Yun et al. 2005 ).

The second research question concerned the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate on authoritarian leadership styles. We identified a revolution in the origins of interest for this topic during the last two decades. In particular, while before 2000, authors from Western countries were the most prolific in the field, after 2000, Eastern authors emerged with a considerable number of contributions. Given the diffusion of these leadership typologies in Asia, these publications enriched the scientific debate with important empirical papers and novel ideas for further research opportunities.

Finally, the third research question reflected on the effectiveness of scientific discussion on authoritarian leadership in light of the high dynamism of new and hyperconnected markets. In our opinion, the scientific debate has to concentrate on hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Moreover, researchers should focus on leaders’ ability to change the degree of authority in their leadership styles depending on the specific conditions of their workgroups. Therefore, the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles still makes sense, but it should be ascribed to a viewpoint inspired by complexity.

Asrar-ul-Haq M, Anwar S (2018) The many faces of leadership: proposing research agenda through a review of literature. Future Bus J 4:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) Debating systematic literature reviews (SLR) and their ramifications for IS: a rejoinder to mike chiasson, briony oates, Ulrike Schultze, and Richard Watson. J Inf Technol 30:188–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.15

Chan SCH, Huang X, Snape E, Lam CK (2012) The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J Organ Behav 34:108–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1797

Chang TZ, Chen SJ, Polsa P (2003) Manufacturer channel management behavior and retailers’ performance: an empirical investigation of automotive channel. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 8:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310468733

Chen T, Li F, Leung K (2017) Whipping into shape: construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture. Asia Pac J Manag 34:537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9511-6

Chen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS (2014) Affective trust in Chinese leaders. J Manag 40:796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604

Chiang JTJ, Chen XP, Liu H, Akutsu S, Wang Z (2020) We have emotions but can’t show them! authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Hum Relat 74:1082–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720908649

Chou WJ, Sibley CG, Liu JH, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2015) Paternalistic leadership profiles. Group Organ Manag 40:685–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115573358

Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00988593

de Freitas JG, Costa HG (2017) Impacts of lean six sigma over organizational sustainability. Int J Lean Six Sigma 8:89–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlss-10-2015-0039

de Hoogh AHB, Greer LL, den Hartog DN (2015) Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? an investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. Leadersh Q 26:687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001

Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance in the UK. Int J Manag Rev 6:131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00100.x

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8

Faraj S, Sambamurthy V (2006) Leadership of information systems development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2006.872245

Fodor EM (1976) Group stress, authoritarian style of control, and use of power. J Appl Psychol 61:313–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.313

Georgakakis D, Heyden MLM, Oehmichen JDR, Ekanayake UIK (2019) Four decades of CEO–TMT interface research: a review inspired by role theory. Leadersh Q 5:101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101354

Hansen MB, Nørup I (2017) Leading the implementation of ICT innovations. Public Adm Rev 77:851–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12807

Harrison C, Paul S, Burnard K (2016) Entrepreneurial leadership: a systematic literature review. Int Rev Entrep 14:235–264

Hiller NJ, Sin HP, Ponnapalli AR, Ozgen S (2019) Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. Leadersh Q 30:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003

Hing LSS, Bobocel DR, Zanna MP, McBride MV (2007) Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: high social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. J Pers Soc Psychol 92:67–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.67

Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Organ Behav 28:865–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479

Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2004) Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organ Manag 29:67–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103252100

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z, Gumusluoglu L, Erturk A, Scandura TA (2021) Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. J Bus Res 128:473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034

Keupp MM, Palmié M, Gassmann O (2011) The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research. Int J Manag Rev 14:367–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x

Kipnis D, Schmidt S, Price K, Stitt C (1981) Why do I like thee: is it your performance or my orders? J Appl Psychol 66:324–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.324

Langhof JG, Güldenberg S (2019) Servant Leadership: a systematic literature review—toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. Ger J Hum Resour Manag 34:32–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219869903

Laureani A, Antony J (2017) Leadership and Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 30:53–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1288565

Lee A, Legood A, Hughes D, Tian AW, Newman A, Knight C (2019) Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 29:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837

Legood A, van der Werff L, Lee A, Den Hartog D (2020) A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 30:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241

Li G, Rubenstein AL, Lin W, Wang M, Chen X (2018) The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: the mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Pers Psychol 71:369–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12264

Li R, Chen Z, Zhang H, Luo J (2019) How do authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? a social control perspective. J Manag 47:930–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878261

Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures EdFR, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res 55:3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576

Lorinkova NM, Pearsall MJ, Sims HP (2013) Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad Manag J 56:573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132

Mossholder KW, Niebuhr RE, Norris DR (1990) Effects of dyadic duration on the relationship between leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes. J Organ Behav 11:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110505

Menz M (2011) Functional top management team members. J Manag 38:45–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311421830

Misumi J, Peterson MF (1985) The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: review of a japanese research program. Adm Sci Q 30:198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393105

Murphy SE, Blyth D, Fiedler FE (1992) Cognitive resource theory and the utilization of the leader’s and group members’ technical competence. Leadersh Q 3:237–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90014-7

Nguyen DH, de Leeuw S, Dullaert WEH (2016) Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retailing: a systematic review. Int J Manag Rev 20:255–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12129

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (clinical Research Ed) 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Parris DL, Peachey JW (2013) A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. J Bus Ethics 113:377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2020) Vocational identity development and the role of human resources management. a systematic literature review. Eur Sci J 16:52. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n34p80

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2022) Resource orchestration theory and electronic human resources management configuration. In: Exploring Digital Resilience. Challenges for People and Organisations. Springer series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (LNISO). In press.

Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manag Stud 57:351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

Rahmani M, Roels G, Karmarkar US (2018) Team leadership and performance: combining the roles of direction and contribution. Manag Sci 64:5234–5249. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2911

Rosenbaum LL, Rosenbaum WB (1971) Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. J Appl Psychol 55:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031458

Sagie A (1996) Effects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting on performance and attitudes. Hum Perform 9:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0901_3

Sanchez-Manzanares M, Rico R, Antino M, Uitdewilligen S (2020) The joint effects of leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: a longitudinal experiment. Group Organ Manag 45:836–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120958838

Sauer SJ (2011) Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. J Appl Psychol 96:574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Schaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S (2017) A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J Appl Psychol 102:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

Schuh SC, Zhang XA, Tian P (2012) For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. J Bus Ethics 116:629–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0

Scully JA, Sims HP, Olian JD, Schnell ER, Smith KA (1994) Tough times make tough bosses: a meso analysis of ceo leader behavior. Leadersh Q 5:59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90006-x

Shaw ME, Blum JM (1966) Effects of leadership style upon group performance as a function of task structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 3:238–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022900

Shen Y, Chou WJ, Schaubroeck JM (2019) The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 28:498–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1615453

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Somech A (2006) The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. J Manag 32:132–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Strauss A, Corbin J (1997) Grounded theory in practice, 1st edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York

Sutcliffe N (1999) Leadership behavior and business process reengineering (BPR) outcomes. Inf Manag 36:273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(99)00027-0

Tjosvold D (1984) Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. J Appl Psychol 69:422–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.422

Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gautschi D, Hunziker P, Spychiger M, Marsch SU (2006) Leading to recovery: group performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum Perform 19:277–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1903_5

Vecchio RP (1990) Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. J Appl Psychol 75:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.141

Vrontis D, Christofi M (2021) R&D internationalization and innovation: a systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. J Bus Res 128:812–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031

Wang AC, Chiang JTJ, Tsai CY, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2013) Gender makes the difference: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 122:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001

Wang AC, Tsai CY, Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Spain SM, Ling HC, Huang MP, Chou LF, Cheng BS (2018) Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: testing their relationships with subordinate performance. Leadersh Q 29:686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.002

Wei H, Zhu Y, Li S (2016) Top executive leaders’ compassionate actions: an integrative framework of compassion incorporating a confucian perspective. Asia Pac J Manag 33:767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9463-2

Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst 22:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Wu M, Huang X, Li C, Liu W (2012) Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Manag Organ Rev 8:97–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x

Yahaya R, Ebrahim F (2016) Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. J Manag Dev 35:190–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-01-2015-0004

Yi Y, Chen Y, He X (2021) CEO leadership, strategic decision comprehensiveness, and firm performance: the moderating role of TMT cognitive conflict. Manag Organ Rev 3:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2021.10

Yun S, Faraj S, Sims HP (2005) Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. J Appl Psychol 90:1288–1296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Economics, University G. D’Annunzio–Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, 65122, Pescara, PE, Italy

Elia Pizzolitto, Ida Verna & Michelina Venditti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, analysis and first draft were performed by EP. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and contributed to its final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elia Pizzolitto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The funding note was missing.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I. & Venditti, M. Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Manag Rev Q 73 , 841–871 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2021

Accepted : 23 February 2022

Published : 04 April 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human resource management
• Authoritarian leadership
• Paternalistic leadership
• Directive leadership
• Autocratic leadership
• Performance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(4); 2020 Apr

Leadership styles, work engagement and outcomes among information and communications technology professionals: A cross-national study

Habtamu kebu gemeda.

a Adama Science & Technology University, School of Humanity & Social Sciences, Ethiopia

b Pusan National University, Keumjeong-Gu, Jangjeon-Dong, San 30, Busan, 609-735, South Korea

The present study examined relationships among leadership styles, work engagement and work outcomes designated by task performance and innovative work behavior among information and communication technology professionals in two countries: Ethiopia and South Korea. In total, 147 participants from Ethiopia and 291 from South Korea were made to fill in the self-reporting questionnaire intended to assess leadership styles, work engagement, task performance, and innovative work behavior. To test the proposed hypotheses, multiple linear regression analysis was utilized. The results showed that transformational leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employees' work engagement and innovative work behavior, while transactional leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employees' task performance. However, laissez-faire leadership style had a significant negative relationship with task performance. Work engagement had significant positive relationships with the indicators of work outcomes. Besides, work engagement partially mediated the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes. The observed associations and mediation were consistent across the two national samples considered, indicating the soundness of the assumptions across countries. The findings provide insights into how leadership styles correspond with employees’ work outcomes.

Leadership; Workplace; innovation; Performance; industry; Organization; Human Resources; work engagement; transformation; transaction, Technology Management; Organizational Theory; Human Resource Management; Behavioral Psychology; Organizational Psychology

1. Introduction

Leadership is crucial for effective functioning of any organization. The fundamental of leadership is its persuading power on human resources, organizations' source of competitive advantage, and the resultant outcomes. In swaying followers and harnessing organization member's selves to their work roles, leaders must enhance employees' motivation as having engaged employees is critical for organization to achieve its goal ( Batista-Taran et al., 2009 ). Studies, (e.g., Bakker and Bal, 2010 ; Harter et al., 2002 ; Xathopoulou et al., 2009 ) recorded the noteworthiness of employees' work engagement for organizational achievement measured in terms of monetary returns, productivity, client satisfaction, and a number of individual-level alluring employees' characteristics such as taking initiative and being proactive.

Literature (e.g. Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Kim, 2014 ; Park et al., 2013 ; Saks, 2006 ; Salanova et al., 2011 ; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008 ; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ; Song et al., 2012 ; Xathopoulo et al., 2007 ) studied employee engagement within the framework of its antecedents and consequences using mainly the job demand-resources model, social exchange theory, social cognitive theory, and leadership theory. In the plethora of studies examining the correlates of employee engagement, particularly in Western and some Asian contexts, the most discussed antecedents included job resources, personal resources, perceived supports, learning organizations, and transformational leadership, while the personal-level outcomes considered were performance, turnover intention, organizational citizenship behavior, health, proactive behavior, innovative behavior, and knowledge creation practices. In spite of significant empirical studies on associates of work engagement, little research have been found that explored the potential link between leadership behaviors and employee engagement in the wider human resources literature ( Carasco-Saul et al., 2015 ).

Thus, the current study focused on examining relationships among leadership styles, employee work engagement and work outcomes. Leadership was targeted because previous research (e.g. Xu and Thomas, 2011 ; Carasco-Saul et al., 2015 ) also elucidated scarcity of findings that connect leadership styles and employees work engagement. Further, the dominant capacity of leadership over other work variables and its vulnerability to modifications were taken into consideration in its selection as correlates of work engagement and outcomes. For workoutcomes, employees' job performance and innovative work behavior were considered because of their pertinence to organizational existence and progress. Job performance is the term that academics and practitioners use most commonly and widely. Nonetheless, an aggregate definition of success across jobs and roles is very difficult to conceptualize since employees are engaged in a large number of tasks including even those not listed out in their formal job description ( Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ). On the basis of review of previous studies, Kim (2014) outlined various ways of conceptualizing job performance ranging from overall performance to organizational citizenship behaviour. In the present study, as indicator of employees' job performance, in-role performance is conceptualized as accomplishment of core tasks and activities specified in employee contract document connected to officially defined organizational outcomes (( Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ). In addition to performing main tasks officially listed out, considering the current competitive work environment, employees are pressed to go extra mile beyond those formally recognized in their job description such as being innovative in their workplace. As Ramoorthy et al. (2005) suggested, to succeed organizations are pressuring employees to innovate their methods and operations. Janssen (2000) was of the view that to have a continuous flow of innovation and to achieve goals, individual employees need to be skilled to innovate. What is more, employees’ innovative work behavior is comprehended as a specific form of extra-role performance related to discretionary employee actions in connection to generating idea, promoting, and realizing it.

In spite of evidences on the relationship between styles of leadership and work outcomes such as job performance and innovative work behavior (e.g., Khan et al., 2012 ; Solomon, 2016 ), studies explored the meditational role of work engagement in the link between leadership and work outcomes were insignificant. In connection to work engagement mediation between leadership behaviour and work outcomes, findings of the study are directing to quality of leader-subordinate relationships ( Agarwal et al., 2012 ), transformational leadership ( Salanova et al., 2011 ) and employees affective commitment to their immediate supervisor ( Chughtai, 2013 ) as antecedent factors.

Thus, specifically, in the present study the researchers proposed and tested a model in which work engagement partly mediates relationship between leadership styles (focusing on the pattern of behavior of leaders’ exhibited) and work outcomes labelled by task performance and innovative work behavior. Hence, the conceptual model used in the study is depicted in Figure 1 .

Research model.

Besides, the study also examined the associations among variables of the study and the mediation of work engagement in link between leaders’ style and work outcomes in two independent samples of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) professionals from Ethiopia and South Korea to test for soundness of suggested assumptions across the nations.

2. An overview of the study context

The participants of the study were professional ICT staffs working for for-profit companies engaged in ICT businesses in the two countries: Ethiopia and South Korea. Ethiopia is situated in the Horn of Africa; it has the second biggest populace in the continent, with more than 102 million occupants; however it has the most minimal per capita income ( Ethiopia, 2018 ). Be that as it may, Ethiopia's economy has developed at a remarkable rate over the previous decade. As the International Monetary Fund (2016) revealed, the nation has had a great record of achievement of development and poverty decrease lately and it is portrayed as one of the fastest developing economies on the planet.

With respect to Ethiopia's work culture, on the continuum of Hofstede's dimensions of culture—power distance, collectivism vs. individualism, femininity vs. masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance—it is characterized by a large power distance, tight social ties and collective action, masculine characteristics, and high uncertainty avoidance ( Beyene et al., 2016 ). Thus, in Ethiopian work culture, it appeared that power centralization is prevalent. Subordinates inclined to be told what to do and managers are expected to be influential and powerful. However, as Wasbeek (2004) indicated, individualism, masculinity, and a long-term orientation have been budding, specifically among the young and educated employees in Ethiopia.

South Korea, on the other hand, is an East Asian country on the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula and is home to more than 51 million people. South Korea is the fourth biggest economy in Asia and the eleventh biggest on the planet ( South Korea, 2018 ).

When South Korean culture is examined, regarding power distance, it is a slightly hierarchical society with a collectivist nature and feminine as South Koreans are low on masculine/feminine dimension. Regarding uncertainty avoidance, South Korea might be taken as one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries, where people show a convincing enthusiastic prerequisite for rules, value time, and have an internal tendency to be involved and buckle down. Besides, South Korea's score on long-term orientation is at 100, showing that it is a highly pragmatic and long-term-oriented society ( Compare Countries—Hofstede Insights, n.d. ).

Nevertheless, as Yim (2002) indicated, Korean customary culture has in slight change, and to some level giving way to Western influx. Rapid socioeconomic transformation and the apparently indiscriminate inflow of Western culture were accounted for the change.

3. Previous research and hypotheses

3.1. leadership styles and work-related outcomes.

Leadership is the most commonly discussed topic in the organizational sciences. Lines of research may be delineated along three major approaches: trait, behavioral and inspirational. Trait theorists seek to identify a set of universal leadership traits whereas behaviorists focused on behaviors exhibited by specific leaders. Inspirational approach deliberated on leader as one who moves adherents through their words, thoughts and conduct ( Robbins et al., 2009 ). As Carasco-Saul et al. (2015) suggested in the 1970s and 1980s, the charismatic leadership concept emerged, emphasizing that a charisma leader, a leader who inspires, attracts and influences followers by their personal qualities are considered effective. A typical characteristic of charismatic leadership is that it has the ability to motivate subordinates to concede to goals by imparting a vision, displaying charming behavior, and being a powerful model.

As part of neo-charismatic movement, full range leadership theory, which is also referred to as the Full Range Leadership Theory of Bass and Avolio's distinguished three groups of leaders in behaviors/styles: transformational, transactional and laissez-faire ( Avolio et al., 1999 ; Bass and Riggio, 2006 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Solomon, 2016 ). The theory defines a complete range of influencing styles from influential transformational leadership to laissez-faire style.

Based on a review of various studies, Vincent-Hoper et al. (2012) portrayed transformational leaders as managers who advance and propel their followers by anticipating and communicating appealing visions, common goals, and shared values, as well as by setting an illustration of the requested behavior. Facets of transformational leadership are: idealized influence (idealized attribution and idealized behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration ( Bass and Avolio, 1994 ; Bass and Riggo, 2006 ).

Transactional leadership contains among other things, an exchange process (between leader & follower) that results in adherent compliance to leader demands, but it is not expected to create zeal and commitment to an errand objective ( Trottier et al., 2008 ). The transactional leadership style constituted a constructive style labeled “contingent reward” and a corrective style labeled “management-by-exception.”

The last style is laissez-faire, which is characterized by non-involvement, showing indifference, being absent when needed, overlooking achievements and problems as well. It is a style of leadership in which leaders offer very little direction and allow group members to make decisions on their own ( Bass and Riggio, 2006 ; Koech & Namusonge, 2012 ; Solomon, 2016 ).

Several studies (e.g., Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Pourbarkhordari et al., 2016 ; Solomon, 2016 ) examined the influence of leadership styles on a number of employee work outcomes critical to an organization's productivity and effectiveness, such as job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and motivation. Judge and Piccolo (2004) carried out a comprehensive meta-analytic review of studies that employed a complete range of leadership from influential transformational to influential laissez-faire style to test their relative validity in predicting a number of leadership criteria: follower job satisfaction, follower satisfaction with the leader, follower motivation, leader job performance, group or organizational performance, and leader effectiveness. The researchers found out an overall positive relationship for transformational leadership and transactional leadership (contingent rewards), but a negative overall relationship between laissez-faire style and the criteria considered.

Other researches in broad leadership literature (e.g, Bass and Avolio, 1994 ; Hayward et al., 2003 ; Kotter, 1988 ; Meyer and Botha, 2000 ) elucidated that transformational leadership style is the most successful in enhancing employee performance and other characteristics. In the studies, transformational leadership is positively related with a range of workplace desirable behaviour such as individual employee's performance, satisfaction and organizational performance. For instance, in South African pharmaceutical industry, Hayward et al., 2003 ) found a significant positive linear relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance but not for transactional leadership and employee performance. In Ethiopian education sector, Solomon (2016) reported positive association of both transformational and transactional styles of leadership with employees' performance while the relations of laissez-fair style with employees' performance failed to reach significance level. Khan et al. (2012) examined leadership styles (transformational, transactional & laissez-fair) assessed with Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, as indicator variables in predicting innovative work behaviour and found out that both transformational and transactional leadership styles had positive relationship while laissez-faire had negative relationship with innovative work behaviour.

In general, it appears that transformational leadership style seems prominent in enhancing employees' work performance and other characteristics such as innovative behavior. The qualities of transformational leaders such as providing intellectual stimulation, inspiring followers through setting appealing vision and setting higher expectations maintains it effectiveness in organizational settings. Moreover, the motivational aspect and the fact that leaders serve as role model make this style to have profound influence on employees’ work outcomes. Because of the goal oriented nature of Transactional leaders focusing on expectations and recognizing achievement characteristics may positively initiate workers to exert higher levels of effort and performance Ejere and Abasilim (2013) ; Bass and Riggio (2006) . Based on the above discussion, the followings were hypothesized:

Transformational leadership style is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Transactional leadership style is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Laissez-faire style of leadership is negatively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Transformational leadership style is positively related to work engagement.

Transactional leadership style is positively related to work engagement.

Laissez-faire leadership style is negatively related to work engagement.

3.2. Mediating role of work engagement

Kahn (1990) presented an early interpretation of engagement, which conceptualized it as personal involvement in the workplace reflecting a condition in which workers "bring in" their personal selves during job performance, expend personal energy and feel an emotional connection to their jobs. According to Kahn, engaged employees dedicate themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances, while disengaged ones withdraw and guard themselves in all aspects (physically, cognitively & emotionally)in the course of role performances.

Based on Kahn's work, researchers—particularly those from the occupational health psychology fields further illuminate the concept of engagement. Early works based themselves on burnout model to clarify the concept of employee engagement ( Maslach and Leiter, 1997 ; Maslach et al., 2001 ). To Maslach and Leiter, for instance, elements of engagement are energy, involvement, and efficacy, which are in stark contrast to the three burnout dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of accomplishment, respectively. In the same burnout framework, an alternative view that considered work engagement as a unique concept stands by its own and negatively related to burnout appeared. As a concept by its own right work engagement, consequently, defined as a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption ( Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker, 2002 ). Here, Vigor refers to a high amount of drive and mental toughness while working, a willingness to invest effort in one's work, and sustain the determination even in the face of challenges. Dedication refers to a robust engagement in one's work and experiencing a sense of purpose and being enthusiastic, and absorption refers to fully and happily absorbed in one's work, such that time passes without notice while on work.

Despite some criticisms on confounding nature of some sub-constructs, the Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b model is hailed as a representative conceptualization of engagement and has been widely used in many fields ( Jeung, 2011 ).

The distinctive essence of work engagement was described in various works using constructs, such as employee engagement, job engagement, and role engagement in line with Kahn's conceptualization ( Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010 ; Rothbard, 2001 ; Saks, 2006 ). Among the different terms for engagement, work engagement and employee engagement are frequently and sometimes interchangeably used in literature. However the two terms vary in range in that work engagement focuses on the relationship between an individual employee and his or her work, while employee engagement applies to the relationships between the employee and the work and between the employee and the organization ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010 ). In the current study, since the focus was on the specific relationship between an individual employee and his her work, the term “work engagement” and conceptualization of Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b which connotes work engagement as ‘ a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption ’ was utilized.

Regarding the links among leadership styles, work engagement, and employee outcome behaviors, a closer look at the related literature showed that the quality of leader–subordinate relationships (LMX), empowering leadership, and transformational leadership behavior were the most frequently discussed topics ( Agarwal et al., 2012 ; Park et al., 2013 ; Zhang and Bartol, 2010 ). For instance, Agarwal et al. (2012) pointed out that the excellence of leader-member exchange influences engagement, and work engagement in turn correlates positively with innovative work behavior and negatively with intention to quit. The researchers asserted the meditational role of work engagement in the relationship between LMX as predictor and innovative work behavior and intention to quit as outcomes.

Park et al. (2013) also investigated the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between learning organizations and innovative behavior in the Korean context. The researchers found that a culture of learning organizations characterized by a positive learning environment, specific learning processes and procedures, and premeditated leadership behaviors through work engagement had direct and indirect impacts on the innovative work behaviors of employees.

In connection to transformational leadership and its link with various individual/organizational outcome behaviors, the mediating role of work engagement has been documented in various studies. Work engagement was found to mediate the link between transformational leadership and employees’ subjective occupational success designated by career satisfaction, social and career successes ( Vincent-Höper et al., 2012 ), staff nurse extra-role performance ( Salanova et al., 2011 ), organizational performance ( Evelyn and Hazel, 2015 ), and organizational knowledge creation practices ( Song et al., 2012 ). Thus, the researchers hypothesized:

Work engagement is positively related to (a) innovative work behavior and (b) task performance.

Work engagement partly mediates the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes (task performance & innovative work behavior).

3.3. Cross-national aspects of leadership styles and work engagement

Despite some authors' claims that leadership styles are common across cultures, results are inconsistent with the degree to which leadership styles reign and their impact across cultures on followers. Shahin and Wright (2004) investigated the appropriateness of Bass and Avolio's leadership model in non-western country such as Egypt. They found that only certain factors that were considered as ideal leadership styles corresponded with U.S. factors, suggesting the influence of culture in labeling best leadership. Contrary to this finding, Walumbwa et al. (2007) made comparison based on data from China, India, Kenya, and the U.S. and found a robust manifestation of transformational and/or transactional leadership in these countries.

Ardichvili and Kuchinke (2002) carried out a comparative study on leadership styles and cultural values of managerial and non-managerial employees across culture by taking into account 10 business organizations in Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Germany, and the U.S., countries that differ widely in socio-economic and political orientation. The researchers elucidated that cross-cultural human resource development matters cannot be seen in terms of simplified dichotomies of East and West or developed versus developing economies.

In terms of the influences of leadership styles on work outcomes, it appeared that transformational-related behavior of leaders had a universally positive impact on followers’ behaviors ( Dorfman et al., 1997 ; Walumbwa et al., 2005 ). For instance, Walumbwa et al. (2005) examined influence of transformational leadership on two work-related attitudes: organizational commitment and job satisfaction based on data from Kenya and the U.S. and obtained its strong positive effect on both indicators and in both countries. Dunn et al. (2012) also reported similar results on the association of transformational leadership with organizational commitment based on data collected from two countries: the U.S. and Israel.

With regard to work engagement as a psychological construct, cross-cultural investigations are scant. However, existing evidence reveals invariance in the construct—at least, in Western countries. For instance, Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b observed the invariance of the UWES, consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption, on a sample of students from three countries: Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) also reported the mediation model of work engagement in the link between job resources and managers’ proactive behavior at work in two independent samples drawn from Spain and the Netherland reflecting the consistence of the assertion across culture. In the current study, hence it was hypothesized that:

The proposed relationships among study variables and thus the interceding of work engagement between leadership styles and work outcomes are consistent for the two national samples.

4. Materials and method

The study partly used a cross-sectional method of online survey research. As pointed out by Nasbary (2000) , using an electronic format for a survey study does not pose any threat to the validity or reliability of the survey results, but rather has advantages such as low cost and rapid delivery.

4.1. Participants’ selection procedure

The target population for the study comprised of full-time professional ICT staff (with at least a college education) from for-profit companies engaged in ICT-related activities in Ethiopia and South Korea. Professionals in the ICT field were chosen mainly because of their crucial role in modern economic development in the least developed and advanced countries. Furthermore, the online survey was easily accessible due to their frequent contact to the internet. Additionally, selecting single industry enabled researchers to minimize errors emanating from industry-type. To collect data, Amharic (for Ethiopians) and Korean (for Koreans) versions of questionnaires were utilized for the study. In South Koreaa a survey company administered the questionnaire using random sampling approach in March–April, 2018. Using the company database, the questionnaire was sent to 500 staff, of which 300 replied. In Ethiopia, however, considering network quality and poor habit of using web, a hard-copy questionnaire was administered to 200 professionals selected by availability sampling in which 151 usable data were obtained. During data screening, nine extreme outliers (below or above 1.5 interquartile ranges of Q 1 & Q 3 respectively . ) from South Korea and four from Ethiopia were removed. Thus, the analyses were based on 291 (Males = 229 [78.7%], Females = 62 [21.3%]) participants from South Korea and 147 (Males = 98 [66.7%], Females = 49 [33.3%]) from Ethiopia.

The School Scientific Committee for Research and Publication (School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Adama Science & Technology University) approved the proposal of the study. The purpose of the research was also clearly explained for the participants to obtain their consent for participation.

For the South Korean participants, the average age was 37 years, with 58 being the highest age and 24 the lowest. The average tenure was seven years. Qualification wise, 16 (5.5%) had a diploma, 226 (77.7%) a bachelor’ degree, 43 (14.8%) a master's degree, and six (2.1%) were PhD holders. With respect to work position, 182 (62.5%) worked as staff, while 95 (32.6%) and 14 (4.8%) South Korean participants worked as team leaders and department heads respectively. A total of 176 (59.5%) worked for companies engaged in software development, followed by 86 (29.1%) who worked in telecom services. For the Ethiopian participants, the average age was 32, with 21 being the lowest age and 55 the highest. Average work experience was 5.6 years. In terms of educational qualifications, four (2.1%) had a diploma, 110 (74.8%) a first degree, 31 (21.1%) a second degree, and 2 (1.4%) of them were third degree holders. With regard to their work position, 129 (87.8%) worked as staff, while 12 (8.2%) and 6 (4.8%) of the Ethiopian participants worked as team leaders and department heads respectively. Most of (80%) the Ethiopian participants work for a telecom service company.

4.2. Measures

The study variables were measured using extensively used and validated instruments.

4.2.1. Leadership style

To measure the three leadership styles, participants ' impressions of the leadership behavior of their immediate supervisor were retrieved using the short form of the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X), a measure built based on the full range leadership model of Avolio and Bass ( Avolio et al., 1999 ) and commonly used and evaluated in different cultures ( Trottier et al., 2008 ; Solomon, 2016 ). The short form of the MLQ 5X consists of 36 items measuring nine outcomes of leadership: idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavioral), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, contingent rewards, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive), and laissez-faire. The response are rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 “not at all” to 4 “frequently, if not always.”

4.2.2. Work engagement

The UWES which was initially designed by Schaufeli et al., 2002a , Schaufeli et al., 2002b and subsequently reviewed by Schaufeli et al. (2006) , has been used to measure the level of work engagement of the individual employees The scale was validated in many studies ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010 ) and utilized in non-Western countries such as South Korea ( Kim, 2014 ; Song et al., 2012 ). The short form of UWES is called the UWES-9; it has nine items, three for each dimension: vigor, dedication, and absorption. It is a self-report scale. All items of the UWES-9 were presented with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“always”). Through analyzing data from various countries via CFA and test-retest reliability, Schaufeli et al. (2006) reported that the Cronbach's alpha for the UWES-9 ranged between 0 .85 and 0.92. Besides, other studies also confirmed its acceptable applicability in terms of the items' homogeneity and the construct factor structure (e.g., Park et al., 2013 ; Seppala et al., 2009 ).

4.2.3. Innovative work behavior

Innovative work behavior was measured using Janssen (2000) 9-item test with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “never” to (7) “always.” The instrument measures three aspects of innovative work behavior: breeding a new idea, gaining support from others for its implementation, and turning an idea into an application. The respondents were asked how often creative tasks relevant to these three fields were performed. To create measure of innovative work behavior, scores of the three aspects were summed up. With respect to its internal consistency, Agarwal et al. (2012) , reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.92.

4.2.4. Task performance

In order to assess in-role task performance, a three-item self-report scale which is utilized widely in recent studies (e.g., Kim, 2014 ), has been used. Responses were recorded on seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” Drawing on review of different studies that had employed the scale, Kim (2014) reported its reliability ranging from 0.77 to 0.87.

All the scales that became part of the questionnaire used in this analysis were in English. Hence, to suit the current study, forward-then-backward translation procedures (English to Amharic and English to Korean) were performed on all instruments by independent bilingual professionals. This procedure ensures linguistic equivalence between the original language of the instrument and the language used for its administration ( McGorry, 2000 ).

4.3. Data analysis

In order to examine the data, descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Pearson's product momentum correlation, and linear multiple regression analysis were employed. To assess the amount of variability explained by the predictors, coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) and to determine the magnitude of the path effects, standardized path coefficient estimates were considered. For the sake of comparison, analyses were made for the two national samples separately.

Prior to the analyses, basic assumptions of multivariate data analysis such as normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were tested. Data from the two national samples showed approximately normal distributions. The assumption of linearity was also met. With respect to multicollinearity, the high bivariate correlation between transformational leadership style and transactional leadership style, particularly for South Korean participants, resulted in a relatively high variance inflation factor (VIF) of 5.33 for the variable transactional leadership worrisome as per the suggestion by Hair et al. (2010) .

5.1. Descriptive analyses

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the variables included in the study are presented in Table 1 . The bivariate correlations are indicated by a Pearson's product momentum correlation coefficient ( r) . Among the background factors, weak negative correlations between sex and work engagement ( r = - 0.18, p < 0.01) and sex and task performance ( r = -0.17, p < 0.01) were obtained for the South Korean sample, while for Ethiopia they failed to reach significance. Work position was weakly negatively correlated with work engagement ( r = -0.22, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0.16, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia) and innovative work behavior ( r = -0.19, p < 0.01 for South Korea and r = -0 .24, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia). Transformational and transactional leadership styles were positively correlated with work engagement and indicators of work outcomes in both countries, with the exception of the relationship between the transactional leadership style and work engagement in Ethiopia, which failed to reach significance. Laissez-faire leadership was weakly positively correlated with work engagement ( r = 0.13, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior ( r = 0.17, p < 0.01) in South Korea, while in Ethiopia it was negatively correlated with work engagement ( r = -0.21, p < 0.05) and innovative work behavior ( r = -0.16, p < 0.05). Its correlation with task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. Work engagement was moderately positively related with measures of outcome indicators —innovative work behavior ( r = 0.57, p < 0.01, and r = 0.66, p < 0.01) and task performance ( r = 0.46 , p < 0.01, and r = 0.54, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and South Korea, respectively. With respect to internal consistency, all measures for both samples demonstrated traditionally acceptable internal reliability levels ( α ranged from 0.77 to 0.95).

Table 1

Bivariate correlation, mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and internal consistencies (Cronbach'sα) of the study variables for the South Korean (n = 291) and Ethiopian (n = 147) samples.

Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed).

The coding scheme was as follows: Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; Education: 1 = diploma, 2 = BSc, 3 = MSc, 4 = PhD; work position: 1 = director/division head/assistant head, 2 = team leader, 3 = staff.

TRF - transformational, TRA - transactional, LAF - laissez-faire, WE - work engagement, IWB - innovative work behavior, TP - task performance.

Values below the diagonals are correlation coefficients for the South Korean sample, while those above the diagonals are values for the Ethiopian sample, along with internal consistency measures (Cronbach's alpha values).

5.2. Influence of leadership styles on work-related behaviors

To ascertain the proposed hypotheses related to the relationships between leadership styles and the measures of work outcomes and work engagement, a series of multiple linear regression analyses was performed, in which each indicator of work outcomes and work engagement was regressed on styles of leadership consecutively for the two countries separately. In the analyses, the background variables of the participants were controlled to remove their effects. As shown in Table 2 , the outputs indicated that the three leadership styles taken together explained a significant amount of the variability in innovative work behavior (Δ R 2 = 0.26, F (8,138) = 8.82 , p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.48, F (8,182) = 47.1, p < 0.01 for South Korea), task performance (Δ R 2 = 0.20, F (8,138) = 5.55, p < .0.05 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.21, F (8,182) = 10.46, p < 0.01 for South Korea), and work engagement (Δ R 2 = 0.24, F (8,138) = 8.82, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.32, F (8,182) = 23.2, p < 0.01 for South Korea). However, when the path coefficient estimates were taken into account, the path effects of the transformational leadership style on innovative work behavior ( β = 0.47, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; β = 0. 54, p < 0. 01 for South Korea) and work engagement ( β = 0.52, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; β = 0.45, p < 0.01 for South Korea) were significant, while its effect on task performance failed to reach the significance level in both countries. The effect of the transactional leadership style was significant only for task performance ( β = 0.29, p < 0. 01 for Ethiopia; β = 0.35, p < 0.01 for South Korea), not for innovative work behavior. Similarly, laissez-faire leadership's negative effect also reached significance level for task performance only ( β = -0.19, p < 0.05 for Ethiopia; β = - 0.17, p < 0.01 for South Korea).

Table 2

Regression results for predicting innovative work behavior, task performance, and work engagement from leadership styles.

Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed). ETH - Ethiopia, KOR - South Korea.

The results in Table 2 provided support for H1 (a), H2 (b), H3 (b), and H4 but not for H5 and H6 .

To test the hypothesis related to the relationship between work engagement and the measures of work outcomes: innovative work behavior and task performance were regressed on work engagement consecutively and separately for the two countries. The results in Table 3 showed that a significant proportion of the variance in innovative work behavior (Δ R 2 = 0.28, F (6,140) = 13.10, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0.38, F (6,140) = 38.04, p < 0.01 for South Korea) and task performance (Δ R 2 = 0.18, F (6,140) = 6.74, p < 0.01 for Ethiopia; Δ R 2 = 0. 29, F (6,284) = 21.95, p < 0 .01 for South Korea) were explained by work engagement. The standardized path coefficients of work engagement on innovative work behavior ( β = 0.56, p < 0.01 and β = 0.64, p < 0.01) and on task performance ( β = 0. 45, p < 0.01 and β = 0.56, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and South Korea, respectively, indicated positive and significant relationships of work engagement with innovative work behavior and task performance and thus provided support for H7 .

Table 3

Regression results for predicting innovative work behavior and task performance from work engagement.

Note: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01 (two tailed).

5.3. Mediational role of work engagement

In testing the hypothesis related to the partial mediational role of work engagement in the link between leadership styles and indicators of outcome behavior, as per Baron and Kenny's (1986) suggestion, certain conditions need to be met for mediation establishment. First, the predictor variable(s) had to be related to the mediator variable. Second, the mediator had to be related to the predicted variable(s). Third, a significant relationship between the predictor variable(s) and predicted variable(s) was to be reduced for partial mediation to operate when controlling for the mediator variable. As described earlier, the first two conditions were partly met. Thus, for the mediation test, the two indicators of work outcomes were regressed over leadership styles consecutively while controlling for background factors and work engagement. As the results in Table 4 showed, the amount of variance in innovative work behavior explained by leadership styles was reduced from 26% to 9% ( Δ R 2 = 0. 09, F (9,137) = 12.56, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and from 48% to 16% (Δ R 2 = 0.16, F (9,281) = 48.62, p < 0.01) for South Korea, while for task performance reduction was from 20% to 10% (Δ R 2 = .10, F (9,137) = 7.63, p < 0.01) for Ethiopia and from 21% to 4% (Δ R 2 = 0.04, F (9,281) = 17.44, p < 0.01) for South Korea. Thus, H8 is supported.

Table 4

Regression results for predicting work outcomes (innovative work behavior and task performance) from leadership styles while controlling work engagement.

With respect to hypothesis 9, (nature of relationships & mediation model across the two national samples), the separately presented results elucidated that the relationships among styles of leadership, work engagement and work outcomes were more or less consistent across Ethiopia and South Korea samples. Work engagement also partly mediated the relationship between leadership styles and work outcomes in both samples. Hence, H9 is supported.

6. Discussion

The present study investigated relationships among leadership styles, employee work engagement and some indicators of work outcomes and tested a mediation model of work engagement in the link between styles of leadership and work outcomes among ICT professionals. The model viewed leadership styles (the behavior of leaders varying from powerful transformation to "non-leadership") as antecedent to work engagement and innovative work behavior and task performance were taken as work outcomes. It also investigated the nature of relationships among variables and cross-national validity of the proposed model in two independent samples from Ethiopia and South Korea, countries that differ in their social, cultural, economic, and technological levels. The obtained results were as follows:

First, the transformational leadership style had significant positive relationships with employees' work engagement and innovative work behavior, while the transactional leadership style had a significant positive relationship with employee task performance. Laissez-faire leadership had a significant negative relationship with task performance. These associations were consistent across the two national samples. The assumed positive links of transformational leadership style with task performance and transactional leadership style with employees’ innovative work behavior, and the negative relationship of the laissez-faire style with innovative behavior were not supported in both national samples. The relationships obtained have shown that leaders who stimulate and inspire followers by articulating visions, goals, and shared values and engaged in building capacity via coaching and challenging employees promote innovative behavior, while leaders who emphasize compliance of followers through supervision may have influence on task performance.

Second, as expected, work engagement had significant positive relationships with the indicators of work outcomes (innovative work behavior and task performance) among ICT professionals in both countries. This suggests that, employees who psychologically identify with their work or “bring in” their personal selves to work, devoting and experiencing an emotional connection to their work, appear to be innovative and put discretionary effort into performance of tasks.

Third, work engagement partially mediated the relationships between leadership styles and indicators of outcomes. Specifically, the relationship between transformational leadership and professionals’ innovative work behavior was partially mediated by work engagement in both countries. This implies that transformational leaders influence innovative behavior of staff directly and indirectly through influencing their level of work engagement.

Work outcomes such as task performance and innovative work behavior are influenced by a number of factors of which leadership is an important one. Consistent to current study results, previous studies (e.g. Khan et al., 2012 ; Ejere and Abasilim, 2013 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Solomon, 2016 ) underscored the significant contributions of transactional and transformational styles of leadership for employees’ performance.

Specifically, the association of transformational leadership style with innovative work behavior and transactional leadership style with task performance observed in the current study may be explained in terms of peculiar characteristics of these styles. With respect to innovative work behaviour, transformational leadership style is considered as a suitable style of leadership as in this style followers are encouraged to commence new ideas and challenge old ways of doing things ( Bass and Avolio, 2000 ). For innovative behaviour transformational leaders' behaviour such as being role model by engaging in needed change, stimulating followers to challenge the status quo and be inspirational while leading others are all vital qualities. In addition, transformative leadership style demanding alignment of the needs and desires of followers with the organization's one ( Bass, 1999 ), may encourage employees to go additional mile necessary for creative behaviour. On the other hand, transactional leadership can be argued to be significant for task performance of employees' as it is focused more on immediate outcomes, monitor performance and correct mistakes. Additionally, transactional leaders make clear expectations and give feedback about meeting expectations may push employees to focus on tasks listed in job description.

The findings related to linkages among leadership styles, work engagement and work outcomes obtained in the current study are also consistent with some earlier studies (e.g., Bakker and Bal, 2010 ; Salanova et al., 2011 ; Song et al., 2012 ). Bakker and Bal (2010) reported on weekly work engagement as a predictor of performance among starting teachers. With respect to leadership styles, Song et al. (2012) affirmed the significant impact of transformational leadership on employee work engagement and organizational knowledge creation practices, and partial mediation of employee work engagement in the link between those two constructs. Salanova et al. (2011) also reported a relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement where, contrary to the findings of the current study, work engagement fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and nurses’ extra-role performance.

The observed mediation of work engagement across independent samples found in the current study is also consistent with some previous studies ( Dorfman et al., 1997 ; Walumbwa et al., 2005 ; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008 ). While the consistency of the mediation model observed here across the two independent national samples does not justify either its utility or its contribution, it may add confidence in the generalizability of the findings.

6.1. Implications

The results of this study have some theoretical and practical implications in HR-related fields for researchers and practitioners. The study provides insights into the ongoing investigations of correlates of employees' work engagement. In particular, the study may shed light on the nature of associations among leadership styles, work engagement, and critical work outcomes such as task performance and innovative work behavior among ICT professionals. It may also disentangle the role of transformational leadership, particularly when it comes to employees personally committing themselves to role performance and innovation efforts. Besides, the study elucidated the cross-national aspect of the relationships among the variables it considered. Despite a number of background differences, it appeared that styles of leadership had more or less similar links with work engagement and outcome behaviors among participants from Ethiopia and South Korea. Specifically, the invariance in the mediating role of work engagement in the link between transformational leadership and employees’ discretionary actions with respect to idea generation, promotion, and realization among ICT professionals working in different countries solidify the existing understanding of the importance of this leadership style.

Practically, the results of the study highlight the need to improve leadership by applying a transformational style, as it is essential for organizations to have ICT workforces that perform their roles and are willing to demonstrate discretionary efforts. Thus, practitioners in the field should develop strategies and training programs targeting transformational leadership skills such as being supportive and intellectually stimulating, and conveying a vision to employees so that leaders can influence their staff. In particular, to strengthen the ICT sector's human resources in Ethiopia so that it can contribute significantly to the development of the country, more attention should be given to leadership development.

Furthermore, practitioners could closely scrutinize employees' work engagement by assessing it using well-established scales such as the UWES or a locally developed one. For ICT companies to be competitive, collecting information on the work engagement level of staff should be part of employees' opinion surveys, and identifying practices and policies that promote their staff's work engagement behavior is imperative.

6.2. Limitations and future research

Notwithstanding its important theoretical and practical contributions, there are some drawbacks to this study. The cross-sectional research design used primarily did not allow researchers to establish causality among variables. This means that the suggested associations among the variables should not be interpreted as causal relationships, but as associations that suggest causal ordering, which needs to be confirmed by longitudinal research. Secondly, the data for the study were gathered using a self-report questionnaire with its own inherent pros and cons, particularly when it comes to the participants’ assessments of their immediate supervisor. Thirdly, as antecedent variables, the study limited to full range of leadership model consists of transformational, transactional and laissez fair styles. That is, there are also other potential aspects of leadership nature that might be relevant that are not included in the current study. Finally, the relatively high VIF of the transactional leadership style could undermine the role of this variable in the web. Thus, for future research, the researchers suggest a longitudinal research design and outcomes measured through methods other than self-reports.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

Habtamu Kebu Gemeda, Jaesik Lee: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

• Agarwal U.A., Datta S., Blake-Beard S., Bhargava S. Linking LMX, innovative work behavior and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2012; 17 (3):208–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ardichvili A., Kuchinke K.P. Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2002; 5 (1):99–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B.J., Bass B.M., Jung D.I. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1999; 72 :441–462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A.B., Bal P.M. Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010; 83 (1):189–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 2008; 13 (3):209–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986; 51 :1173–1182. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999; 8 :9–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Avolio B.J. Sage Publications Inc; Thousand Oaks: 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness: through Transformational Leadership. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Avolio B.J. second ed. Mind Garden; Redwood City, CA: 2000. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B.M., Riggio R.E. second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; London: 2006. Transformational Leadership. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batista-Taran L.C., Shuck M.B., Gutierrez C.C., Baralt S. The role of leadership style in employee engagement. In: Plakhotnik M.S., Nielsen S.M., Pane D.M., editors. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference. Florida International University; Miami: 2009. pp. 15–20. http://coeweb.fiu.edu/research_conference/ Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beyene K.T., Shi C.S., Wu W.W. Linking culture, organizational learning orientation and product innovation performance: the case of Ethiopian manufacturing firms. Afr J. Ind. Eng. 2016; 27 (2):88–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carasco-Saul M., Kim W., Kim T. Leadership and employee engagement proposing research agendas through a review of literature. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2015; 14 (1):38–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chughtai A.A. Linking affective commitment to supervisor to work outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013; 28 (6):606–627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compare Countries-Hofstede Insights https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/ n.d., Wikipedia.
• Demerouti E., Cropanzano R. From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance. In: Bakker A.B., Leiter M.P., editors. Vol. 65. 2010. pp. 147–163. (Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorfman P.W., Howell J.P., Hibino S., Lee J.K., Tate U., Bautista A. Leadership in Western and Asian countries: communalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leader. Q. 1997; 8 (3):233–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn M.W., Dastoor B., Sims R.L. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: a cross-cultural perspective. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2012; 4 (1):45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ejere E.I., Abasilim U.D. Impact of transactional and transformational leadership styles on organizational Performance: empirical Evidence from Nigeria. J. Commer. 2013; 1 (5):30–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ethiopia. 2018. Retrieved on 5th March, 2018, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia . [ Google Scholar ]
• Evelyn D., Hazel G. Effects of transformational leadership on employee engagement: the mediating role of employee engagement. Int. J. Manag. 2015; 6 (2):1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. seventh ed. Pearson; New York: 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter J.K., Schmidt F.L., Hayes T.L. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002; 87 (2):268–279. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayward B.A., Davidson A.J., Pascoe J.B., Tasker M.L., Amos T.L., Pearse N.J. Paper Presented at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology 6th Annual Conference, 25-27 June 2003, Sandton, Johannesburg. 2003. The relationship between leadership and employee performance in a South African pharmaceutical company. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Monitory Fund . 2016. Country Report, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16322 Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2000; 73 :287–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeung C.W. The concept of employee engagement: a comprehensive review from a positive organizational behavior perspective. Perform. Improv. Q. 2011; 24 :49–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge T.A., Piccolo R.F. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004; 89 (5):755–768. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahn W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990; 33 (4):692–724. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan M.J., Aslam N., Riaz M.N. Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pak. J. Clin. Psychol. 2012; 9 (2):17–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim W. The Pennsylvania State University; 2014. An Examination of Work Engagement in Selected Major Organizations in Korea: its Role as a Mediator between Antecedents and Consequences. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/9386 Dissertation. Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koech P.M., Namusonge G.S. The effect of leadership styles on organizational performance at state corporations in Kenya. Int. J. Bus. Commer. 2012; 2 (1):1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotter J.P. The Free Press; New York: 1988. The Leadership Factor. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Leitier M.P. first ed. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA: 1997. The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and what to Do about it. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Schaufeli W.B., Leiter M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001; 52 (1):397–422. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGorry S.Y. Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. Qual. Market Res. 2000; 3 (2):74–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer M., Botha E. Butterworths; Durban: 2000. Organizational Development & Transformation in South Africa. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasbary D.K. Allyn& Bacon; Boston: 2000. Survey Research and the World Wide Web. [ Google Scholar ]
• Park Y.K., Song J.H., Yoon S.W., Kim J. Learning organization and innovative behavior: the mediating effect of work engagement. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2013; 38 :75–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pourbarkhordari1 A., Zhou E.H., Pourkarimi J. How Individual-focused transformational leadership enhances its influence on job performance through employee work engagement. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016; 11 (2):249–261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramoorthy N., Flood J., Slattery T.F., Sardessai R. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2005; 19 :959–971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rich B.L., Lepine J.A., Crawford E.R. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2010; 53 (3):617–635. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robbins S.P., Judge T.A., Sanghi S. Dorling Kindersley pvt.Ltd; New Delhi: 2009. Organizational Behavior (13 ed ) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbard N.P. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Adm. Sci. Q. 2001; 46 (4):655–684. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006; 21 (7):600–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salanova M., Lorente L., Chambel M.T., Martinez I.M. Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement. J. Adv. Nurs. 2011; 67 (10):2256–2266. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salanova M., Schaufeli W.B. A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008; 19 (1):116–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 2004; 25 (3):293–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B. Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity to the concept. In: Bakker A.B., Leiter M.P., editors. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Psychology Press; New York, NY: 2010. pp. 10–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Bakker A.B., Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006; 66 (1):701–716. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Martínez I., Marques-Pinto A., Salanova M., Bakker A.B. Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2002; 33 :464–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W.B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., Bakker A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002; 3 (1):71–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon S. Addis Ababa University; 2016. The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employees’ Performance in Selected Sub-city Education Offices of Addis Ababa City Administration. Unpublished master thesis submitted to. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seppala P., Mauno S., Feldt T., Hakanen J., Kinnunen U., Tolvanen A., Schaufeli W. The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: multi sample and longitudinal evidence. J. Happiness Stud. 2009; 10 (4):459–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahin A.I., Wright P.L. Leadership in the context of culture: an Egyptian perspective. Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 2004; 25 (6):499–511. [ Google Scholar ]
• Song J.,H., Kolb J.A., Lee U.H., Kim H.K. Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work engagement. Human Dev. Q. 2012; 23 (1):65–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• South Korea. 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea Retrieved on 5th March, 2018, from Wikipedia: [ Google Scholar ]
• Trottier T., Van Wart M., Wang X. Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Publ. Adm. Rev. 2008; 68 (2):319–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent-Höper S., Muser C., Janneck M. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Dev. Int. 2012; 17 :663–682. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa F.O., Lawler J.L., Avolio B.J. Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: a cross-culture investigation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2007; 56 (2):212–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa F.O., Orwa B., Wang P., Lawler J.J. Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: a comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2005; 16 (2):235–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasbeek D.J. Dissertation; Robert Kennedy College: 2004. Human Resource Management Practices in Selected Private Companies: A Study to Increase Employee Productivity in Ethiopia. www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/1122446b.pdf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A.B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W.B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007; 14 (2):121–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xanthopoulou D., Bakker A.B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W.B. Work engagement and financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009; 82 (1):183–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Thomas H. How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leader. Organ. Dev. J. 2011; 32 :399–416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yim H. Cultural identity and cultural policy in South Korea. Int. J. Cult. Pol. 2002; 8 (1):37–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang X.M., Bartol K.M. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 2010; 53 :107–128. [ Google Scholar ]

Leadership Styles: a brief literature review

Descriptions of leadership styles, leader behaviours, and potential impact on employees

Source: Daniels (2004)

The majority of authors stress the advantages of democratic leadership style over autocratic leadership at various levels. Interestingly, Dukakis et al. (2010) argue that the negative impacts of autocratic leadership are starkly evident in private sector organisations compared to public sector organisations. To explain this point, Dukakis et al. (2010) reason that leadership issues in private sector organisations associated with the application of autocratic leadership style would be reflected in the level of revenues, whereas leadership ineffectiveness in public sector organisations might be tolerated for longer periods of time.

Davies and Brundrett (2010) warn not to dismiss autocratic leadership style as totally inappropriate referring to specific cases where autocratic leadership might prove to be effective. Davies and Brundrett (2010) further elaborate that occasions where the application of autocratic leadership might prove to be effective include, but not limited to emergency situations and crises that can be resulted impacted by a wide range of factors.

However, the literature review has found a consensus among authors about inappropriateness of application of laissez-faire leadership style, regardless of the sector, public or private.

At the same time, the overall idea of dividing leadership into different categories is dismissed as impractical by Schermerhorn et al. (2011) and Griffin (2011). Specifically, Schermerhorn et al. (2011) argue that each leadership case is different as a subject to a range of unique circumstances, and therefore categorising leadership into rigid moulds would not be appropriate.

Daniels, R. (2004) Nursing Fundamentals: Caring and Clinical Decision-Making Cengage Learning

Davies, B. & Brundrett, M. (2010) Developing Successful Leadership Springer Publications

Dukakis, M.S., Portz, J.H. & Potz, J.S. (2010) Leader-Managers in the Public Sector: Managing for Results , ME Sharpe

Schermerhorn, J.R., Osborn, R.N. & Hunt, J.G. (2011) Organisational Behaviour John Wiley & Sons

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Review of Literature on Leadership Styles and Employee Performance

2019, A Review of Literature on Leadership Styles and Employee Performance

A principal topic in leadership research concerns the impact of leadership style-the configuration of attitudes that leaders hold and behaviors they exhibit. The leadership style is the act of providing direction, implementing strategies and motivating followers towards the attainment of the desired goals. Leadership styles are replicated in attitudes and behaviors but these, in turn, are the outcome of multifaceted interactions between the way individuals think and feel. Researchers have highlighted various approaches to leadership that are based on different suppositions and theories. As the time progressed, the analysts have worked out to design various models, theories and frameworks regarding the leadership styles. The major aim of their research was to elaborate the effectiveness of leadership in the reorganization including the establishment of authority, bringing sense of responsibility, restructuring and addressing the employees' issues in the context of already prevailing situation. Consequently, among many others, two styles of leadership became much prominent and widely researched namely transformational and transactional leadership. Both of these styles have been studied in the different socioeconomic and academic sectors with their distinct advantages. The present study is an attempt to analyze the effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles in relation with employee performance through review of literature.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024