Journal of Applied Psychology

A Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation Model Linking

Authoritarian Leadership to Follower Outcomes
John M. Schaubroeck, Yimo Shen, and Sinhui Chong
Online First Publication, October 27, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

CITATION
Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2016, October 27). A Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation
Model Linking Authoritarian Leadership to Follower Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165
 Journal of Applied Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 101, No. 10, 000 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

A Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation Model Linking Authoritarian

Leadership to Follower Outcomes

John M. Schaubroeck Yimo Shen

Michigan State University Southwest University

Sinhui Chong
Michigan State University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Although authoritarian leadership is viewed pejoratively in the literature, in general it is not strongly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

related to important follower outcomes. We argue that relationships between authoritarian leadership and
individual employee outcomes are mediated by perceived insider status, yet in different ways depending
on work unit power distance climate and individual role breadth self-efficacy. Results from technology
company employees in China largely supported our hypothesized model. We observed negative indirect
effects of authoritarian leadership on job performance, affective organizational commitment, and inten-
tion to stay among employees in units with relatively low endorsement of power distance, whereas the
indirect relationships were not significant among employees in relatively high power distance units.
These conditional indirect effects of authoritarian leadership on performance and intention to stay were
significantly stronger among employees with relatively high role breadth self-efficacy. We discuss how
the model and findings promote understanding of how, and under what circumstances, authoritarian
leadership may influence followers’ performance and psychological connections to their organizations.

Keywords: authoritarian leadership, autocratic leadership, perceived insider status, power distance,
role-based self-efficacy

Scholarly interest in the “dark,” or destructive, side of leader-
ship behaviors has grown in recent years. Much of the research
attention has focused on authoritarian leadership, which refers to
an approach to leadership that emphasizes the use of authority to
control followers (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004).
Authoritarian leadership has normally been viewed among schol-
ars and practitioners as a destructive leadership style (Aryee, Chen,
Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Ashforth, 1997) and considered both inap-
propriate and ineffective for leadership in contemporary organiza-
tions worldwide (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004). However, several studies have reported weak, and in some
cases even positive, relationships between authoritarian leadership
and employees’ performance or organizational attitudes (e.g.,
John M. Schaubroeck, Department of Management and Department of
Psychology, Michigan State University; Yimo Shen, School of Psychol-
ogy, Southwest University; Sinhui Chong, Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University.
John M. Schaubroeck and Yimo Shen contributed equally to this article;
the two authors’ names are arranged in alphabetical order.
This research was supported by (Grants 71201130 and 71602163) from
the National Science Foundation of China to Yimo Shen.
We are grateful to Sean T. Hannah, Anna Connors Lennard, Ann C.
Peng, Hui Wang, and Zhixue Zhang for their helpful comments on a draft
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yimo Shen,
School of Psychology, Southwest University, Number 1 of Tian Sheng Road,
Beibei, Chongqing, China 400715. E-mail: shenym1980@126.com
Cheng, Chou, Huang, Farh, & Peng, 2003; Cheng et al., 2004;
Chou, Chou, Cheng, & Jen, 2010). This variability in research
findings has prompted calls for researchers to identify psycholog-
ical processes that link authoritarian leadership to follower out-
comes and situational factors that may strengthen or weaken these
processes (C. C. Chen & Farh, 2010; X. P. Chen, Eberly, Chiang,
Farh, & Cheng, 2014; Cheng et al., 2004; Farh, Liang, Chou, &
Cheng, 2008).
In this article, we draw from theoretical perspectives that high-
light the role of employees’ status perceptions in their relationships
with their organizations to argue that perceived insider status
mediates relationships between authoritarian leadership and em-
ployees’ job performance and work attitudes. We propose that
these connections are contingent on work group members’ shared
beliefs concerning the extent to which leaders should share control
and information, and on individual members’ personal efficacy
beliefs. Perceived insider status “represents the extent to which an
individual employee perceives him or herself as an insider within
a particular organization” (Stamper & Masterson, 2002, p. 876).
We argue that to the extent values and norms for deferring to
authorities become routinized in the practices of work groups, as
reflected in relatively high power distance climate (Yang, Moss-
holder, & Peng, 2007), there may be a stronger connection be-
tween authoritarian leadership and perceived insider status. We
further argue that individual differences in perceived capacity to
contribute to one’s work unit and organization in ways that are
commensurate with relatively high perceived insider status (i.e.,
role breadth self-efficacy) moderates the relationship between per-
ceived insider status and employees’ performance and work atti-

1
 2 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG
tudes. Thus, in this article we develop and test a dual-stage
moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007) in which
group (power distance climate) and individual (role breadth self-
efficacy) factors moderate the separate stages of mediated rela-
tionships between authoritarian leadership and employees’ perfor-
mance and organizational attitudes.
Authoritarian Leadership, Perceived Insider Status,
and Employee Outcomes
Scholarly research on the topic of authoritarian leadership dates
back to a study of groups of children reported by Lewin and Lippitt
(1938). In their view, an “authoritarian leader” dictates all policies
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of the group and determines the steps to obtain goals. More recent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
research has examined authoritarian leadership as assessed by
followers, normally under the heading “autocratic leadership”
among European and North American scholars (e.g., De Cremer,
van Dijke, & Bos, 2004; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009) and
“authoritarian leadership” among Asian scholars (e.g., Farh et al.,
2008). Both terms refer to a style of leadership that is based on
followers’ unquestioning compliance (X. P. Chen et al., 2014).
Hereafter, we use the abbreviation “AL” to denote a continuum on
which higher AL refers to a relatively high level of autocratic/
authoritarian leadership. Higher AL represents relatively low shar-
ing of power and information with employees as well as relatively
high efforts to control their behaviors. AL is distinct from other
leadership constructs that concern power sharing, most notably
empowering leadership. Empowering leadership refers not only to
leaders’ sharing of power with subordinates, but also to their
proactive developmental behaviors, such as providing followers
with increasing levels of responsibility, expressing confidence in
them, and helping them develop capabilities to handle higher
responsibility (Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013).
AL is important to employees’ motivation and psychological
connections to their organizations and work units because it can
limit the potential for employees to perceive they are fully engaged
as members. Employees thrive when they believe they are sub-
stantial contributors to their work groups and organizations (Mas-
terson & Stamper, 2003). Drawing from social identity theory,
Tyler and his colleagues have proposed that treatment by the
supervisor influences one’s perception of social standing in the
work group (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Referring
to the Tyler and Lind’s (1992) relational model of authority in
groups, Lapalme, Stamper, Simard, and Tremblay (2009) noted,
“the model suggests that individuals determine their status in the
group- in other words, the extent to which they are included or
considered as insiders, on the basis of how they are treated by the
authority figure(s) . . .” (p. 924; italics added for emphasis). The
relational model and its subsequent refinements (Tyler & Blader,
2000) further propose that these assessments of status influence
workers’ behaviors and work and organizational attitudes.
As conceived by Stamper and Masterson (2002), perceived
insider status (PIS) is related less to one’s actual position within a
broader communication and influence network than to the sense
that one is a valued employee who has access to insiders in the
organization. PIS is a product of employees’ sense-making pro-
cesses that derive from inputs such as high quality work relation-
ships. It is therefore likely to be affected by leader behaviors as
well as social cues from work unit peers concerning how those
behaviors should be interpreted (Lapalme et al., 2009). Published
studies report consistently positive relationships between PIS and
important employee outcomes. These outcomes include those on
which we focus in our study, specifically affective organizational
commitment (Z. X. Chen & Aryee, 2007; Lapalme et al., 2009),
intention to stay (Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2011; Knapp,
Smith, & Sprinkle, 2014), and job performance (Z. X. Chen &
Aryee, 2007; Wang & Kim, 2013).
Moderating Role of Power Distance Climate
Aside from aspects of AL that many subordinates may find
restrictive, there are authoritative aspects to which many may
respond favorably (C. C. Chen & Farh, 2010). Rast, Hogg, and
Giessner (2013) argued that authoritarian leaders typically provide
a better sense of “what it means in terms of identity, attitudes and
behavior to be a member of the group” than do less directive
leaders (p. 636). They noted that authoritarian leaders are uniquely
effective in this respect because they provide a singular and
unambiguous version of the group’s identity with which individ-
uals can identify and thereby ameliorate uncertainties about their
own identities as organizational members (see also Hogg & Adel-
man, 2013). Social identity theorists argue that such uncertainty is
alleviated when individuals perceive they are members of groups
that enable them to categorize themselves through their member-
ship (i.e., highly entitative groups; Hogg, 2000).
Reliance on leaders to resolve uncertainty concerning individ-
uals’ identities as group members is consistent with conceptions of
collectives with higher power distance. Members of groups that
maintain a relatively high power distance climate (PDC) have a
greater psychological dependence on their leaders to provide di-
rection and to establish group boundaries (Cole, Carter, & Zhang,
2013; Yang et al., 2007). Compared with members of lower PDC
groups, they have a lower expectation that they will be consulted
about decisions that concern the group, have discretion over their
tasks, or receive information from the leader about the broader
context of their work (Cole et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2007).
Because they promote a strong and unified sense of the meaning
and boundaries of group membership (Rast et al., 2013), higher AL
leaders may help meet the unique needs of members of higher
PDC groups to perceive that being a group member is important.
Yet, like members of groups in general, members of higher PDC
groups strive for social affirmation. We suggest that, compared
with members of lower PDC groups, members of higher PDC
groups who report to authoritarian leaders are more likely to view
their peers in the work group as the “insiders” from whom they
may gain social affirmation. As noted by Stamper and Masterson
(2002), good relationships with peers alone can often promote
favorable PIS perceptions (see also Wang & Kim, 2013). Given
that authoritarian leaders convey a uniquely strong sense that
membership in the group is important to distinguishing members
from others in the organization (Rast et al., 2013), and higher
power distance norms serve to limit the extent to which employees
view access to authority as important to being an insider, these
leadership and group climate factors may together lead members to
perceive relatively high PIS through their personal connections to
other group members.
Conversely, members of lower power distance groups do not
depend on the leader to resolve issues of personal identity and
 AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP
membership. They are instead more likely to seek social affirma-
tion through concerted personal engagement in matters that affect
the group (Cole et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2007). Yet, these higher
expectations of participatory engagement make lower PDC group
members more dependent on the leader to be willing to share
control and influence. Access to hierarchical authority and to the
leader’s connections to other groups and resources is therefore
more critical for such members to gain the control they need to
contribute as semiautonomous agents. Authoritarian leaders may
be less inclined to provide them with this access to organizational
insiders outside the peer group, such as the leader himself or
herself or leaders of other units. In addition, compared with mem-
bers of higher PDC groups, being strongly connected to a network
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of work group peers may be less sufficient for members of lower
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
PDC groups to perceive they are insiders. Thus, especially in
relatively low PDC groups, unfulfilled values and expectations
concerning influence and personal discretion may lead subordi-
nates of higher AL leaders to perceive they have lower levels of
insider status. With a leader who exhibits lower AL, however,
members of such groups are less restricted from developing a
connection to the leader and to other organizational insiders as
they may require to perceive themselves as insiders.
These differences between members of relatively high and rel-
atively low PDC groups lead us to propose the following interac-
tion hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Power distance climate moderates the relation-
ship between AL and perceived insider status, such that there
will be a negative relationship when PDC is relatively low and
a positive relationship when PDC is relatively high.
Moderated Indirect Relationships
The connections between AL and PIS as described in the pre-
vious section may be the first stage in a mediational process that
links AL to employees’ performance and organizational attitudes.
As we review below, there is considerable theoretical and empir-
ical support for positive relationships between PIS performance,
intention to stay, and affective organizational commitment.
Employees’ personal status perceptions motivate them to exhibit
higher levels of performance and connect them psychologically to
their organizations. Individuals also exert extra effort to maintain
relatively high status levels compared with their peers (Tyler &
Blader, 2000). Perceiving insider status in work groups is therefore
central to individuals’ views of themselves as important and val-
ued group members (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). The observed
positive relationships between PIS and job performance may de-
rive from employees’ desires to maintain comparatively high PIS
by engaging in behaviors that contribute to group or organizational
functioning. The relationship is also supported by members’ de-
sires to reciprocate for the reward value they attribute to relatively
high PIS by engaging greater effort (Stamper & Masterson, 2002;
Wang & Kim, 2013). Perceiving relatively high insider status thus
provides a “reason to” type of motivation that encourages proac-
tive behaviors (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; p. 830). As re-
viewed by Parker and Collins (2010), scholars argue that such
proactive behaviors promote higher levels of job performance by
broadening the focus of employees’ role-related contributions.
Higher perceived status also promotes more favorable work and
organizational attitudes (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind,
3
1992). Masterson and Stamper (2003) noted that perceived insider
status is a core precursor to employees’ sense of belonging to their
organizations. Believing one is needed and “in the thick of things”
is of such great psychological importance to most employees that
perceiving it bonds them both emotionally and behaviorally to
their organizations. Considering these theoretical processes in con-
junction with the moderating role of power distance climate as
described in the previous section, we expect that the indirect
relationships between AL and our study outcomes are conditional
on the level of PDC.
Hypothesis 2 (a– c): There is an indirect (through perceived
insider status) relationship between authoritarian leadership
and (a) job performance, (b) affective organizational commit-
ment, and (c) intention to stay that is positive among employ-
ees in units with relatively high PDC and negative among
employees in relatively low PDC units.
Perceived Insider Status and Role-Breadth
Self-Efficacy
Although perceiving insider status is critical to viewing one’s
group membership in a favorable light (Masterson & Stamper,
2003), this connection may be weaker among employees who
believe they are less capable of affirming their insider status by
contributing in ways that are consistent with such status. These
beliefs are reflected in role-breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), which
refers to employees’ perceived capability to that they can effec-
tively complete a broad range of work tasks that contribute to the
effective functioning of their groups (Parker, 1998). For example,
the core technical task of an employee may be to order assembly
parts, but she may also participate more broadly as a team member,
such as by helping to set production goals for the unit. RBSE
beliefs concern this broader sphere of involvement that extends the
core technical elements of jobs in ways that contribute to more
effective group functioning. These broader role capabilities enable
one to contribute to the group in ways that are consonant with
relatively high insider status.
Perceiving that one has relatively high insider status promotes a
sense of belonging and importance, but this connection may be
stronger among employees who perceive themselves as competent,
“go-to” employees who can use their status to make broader
contributions to their units and the organization (Masterson &
Stamper, 2003). Employees are also more likely to exhibit proac-
tive behaviors that bind them emotionally to their organizations
(Kiesler, 1971) when they perceive higher efficacy to act on the
“reason to” motivation that derives from higher PIS. When they
perceive both a strong opportunity and rationale for contributing to
their work units in broader ways (i.e., relatively high PIS) and they
believe they are very capable of effectively contributing in such
ways (i.e., relatively high RBSE), employees may develop stron-
ger psychological connections to their organizations. Thus, we
suggest that the “can do” motivation operates synergistically to
support the “reason to” impetus that derives from the desire to
behave in accordance with relatively high insider status (Parker et
al., 2010; p. 830). Conversely, when either PIS or RBSE is
relatively low, there is lesser mutual reinforcement of these key
motivational states. This may be expected to result in substantially
lower levels of affective organizational commitment and intention
to stay.
 4 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG
Hypothesis 3(a, b): RBSE moderates the relationship between
perceived insider status and (a) affective organizational com-
mitment and (b) intention to stay, such that there is a more
positive relationship among employees with relatively high
RBSE.
Demonstrating maximal rather than simply adequate perfor-
mance is a means through which higher status employees promote
their work groups (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Yet, perceiving one has
higher insider status may not contribute to higher performance
among persons with relatively low RBSE. Achieving a higher
performance level requires both the motive and the ability to do so.
We therefore hypothesize the same pattern for the interaction of
perceived insider status and RBSE in predicting job performance
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
as we do for affective organizational commitment and intention to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
stay (Hypothesis 3).
Hypothesis 4: RBSE moderates the relationship between per-
ceived insider status and job performance, such that there is a
more positive relationship among employees with relatively
high RBSE.
Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation
Thus far, we have proposed two moderator variables that oper-
ate at separate stages of a mediation process that links AL to
follower outcomes. Integrating the previous sections suggests that
the indirect relationships between AL and employee job perfor-
mance, affective organizational commitment, and stay intention
may be conditional on both PDC and RBSE. Figure 1 depicts this
dual stage moderated mediation model. Our model predicts that the
relationship between AL and PIS will vary substantially depending
on work unit PDC, and that the relationships between PIS and
employee job performance, affective organizational commitment,
and stay intention will be stronger among employees with rela-
tively high RBSE. Therefore, within this framework AL’s indirect
relationships through PIS will be contingent on both PDC and
RBSE. Thus, we expect that a higher level of RBSE will
strengthen the indirect effects of AL that are contingent on PDC.
Hypothesis 5 (a– c): The relationships between authoritarian
leadership and subordinate (a) job performance, (b) affective
organizational commitment, and (c) intention to stay through
perceived insider status are moderated by PDC and RBSE at
the first and second stages, respectively.
Authoritarian Power distance
leadership climate
Group Level
Individual Level
Perceived
insider
t t
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
Method
Research Setting, Participants, and Procedures
The second author collected data from a large high technology
development and manufacturing company in China. He randomly
selected a single division from within the company to recruit study
participants. After soliciting employees’ participation, he hand-
delivered surveys to employees, which they completed during
work time. He explained the purpose of the study and noted that
participation was voluntary and that their responses would be kept
confidential. After a period of between 9 and 10 weeks, he admin-
istered questionnaires to supervisors seeking their assessments of
their subordinates’ job performance. The number of subordinates
rated by each supervisor varied from three to six. He also admin-
istered a second survey to the employees at this time. This survey
included questions about their intention to stay and affective
organizational commitment. To ensure confidentiality, respon-
dents were instructed to seal their completed questionnaires in the
envelope provided and return them directly to the second author
on site. Respondents received a small monetary reward for their
participation. A total of 248 employees and 59 supervisors
voluntarily responded to a survey during working hours. Of
these responses, a few were not included in the analysis because
they could not be reliably matched to a unique work group.
Others were excluded because they did not provide data on key
variables or their supervisor rating of job performance was
missing. In still other cases, fewer than three members of the
supervisory group responded to the solicitation. These omis-
sions resulted in a final analysis sample of 202 employees
paired with 50 supervisors.
A majority of respondents were males (53.5%), and most were
relatively young (58.9% were 20 –29 years of age) and fairly well
educated; 73.8% had at least some college or advanced vocational
training. Most supervisors were males (64.4%) and were older than
rank-and-file employees (90.6% were over 30 years of age); 59.9%
of the supervisors had received an undergraduate degree or higher.
The majority (93%) of respondents had been employed with the
company for over 4 years.
Measures
With the exception of the authoritarian leadership scale, which
was originally developed in Chinese, all construct measures used
Job performance
Intention to stay
Affective organizational
commitment
Role-breadth
self-efficacy
 AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP
in the current analysis were originally developed in English. The
second author, who is bilingual in Chinese and English, contrib-
uted to and supervised a back-translation procedure (Brislin, Lon-
ner, & Thorndike, 1973). This author translated the items that
were originally developed in English to Chinese. Next, a sep-
arate bilingual professor of psychology in China, who was blind
to the original English language items, translated these Chinese
items back to English. A professor of English at the same
university in China then checked for differences between the
back-translated and the original English language items. Fi-
nally, the latter two professors discussed their views as to the
fidelity of the two versions of these items. They reported that
there were only minor differences that could have affected the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Chinese versions and that these were resolved by making minor
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
changes to the Chinese items. Except for the role-breadth self-
efficacy scale, which uses anchors that range from 1 ⫽ “not
confident at all” to 7 ⫽ “very confident,” all items used seven-
point Likert-type response categories (ranging from 1 ⫽
strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree).
Employee job performance. To measure employee job per-
formance, we used the four-item scale developed in Taiwan by
Farh and Cheng (1997). Two sample items are “This person is one
of the best employees in our work unit” and “This person’s work
performance always meets the expectations of the supervisor”
(␣ ⫽ .86).
Intention to stay. We used the three-item scale developed by
(Landau & Hammer, 1986) to measure intention to stay (␣ ⫽ .90).
A sample item is “As soon as I can find a better job, I’ll leave the
organization.” Items were reverse-scored to index stay (vs. leave)
intention.
Affective organizational commitment. We used the three
affective commitment items from the organizational commitment
scale developed by Marsden, Kalleberg, and Cook (1993) (␣ ⫽
.81). These items are, “I am willing to work harder than I have to
in order to help this organization succeed”; “I find that my values
and the organization’s are very similar”; and “I am proud to be
working for this organization.”
Perceived insider status. To measure perceived insider sta-
tus, we used the six item scale developed by Stamper and Mas-
terson (2002). A sample item is, “I feel I am an ‘insider’ in my
work organization” (␣ ⫽ .82).
Role-breadth self-efficacy. Following Parker, Williams, and
Turner (2006), we measured role-breadth self-efficacy using the
seven highest loading items from the instrument reported by
Parker (1998). A sample item is “How confident would you feel
representing your work area in meetings with senior manage-
ment?” (␣ ⫽ .91).
Power distance climate. We adapted seven items from a scale
developed by Earley and Erez (1997) to measure power distance
climate (␣ ⫽ .69). A sample item is “Managers should be able to
make the right decision without consulting others.” To measure
power distance climate, respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which their group as a whole agreed with each of the
seven statements. We examined rwg(j) and the intraclass correlation
coefficients (ICC[1] and ICC[2]) to evaluate whether individual
scores should be aggregated to the group level (Bliese, 2000;
James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The ICC[1] value for power
distance climate (0.15) indicates there is reliable variance at the
group level. The rather low ICC[2] value of .41 must be considered
5
in light of the small group sample sizes (Bliese, 2000). Given the
potential for higher power distance climates in a Chinese setting,
we used the slightly skewed null distribution to calculate rwg(j).
The rwg(j) value indicated substantial agreement (mean rwg(j) ⫽
0.72; median ⫽ .67) and it is statistically significant based on the
critical values reported by Smith-Crowe, Burke, Cohen, and
Doveh (2014). Together with the theoretical foundation, this in-
formation supports using the mean of all respondents from each
group to index PDC.
Authoritarian leadership. To measure authoritarian leader-
ship, we used the 13-item scale developed by Cheng, Chou, and
Farh (2000). The original language of the items is Chinese. A
sample item translates into English as “Our supervisor determines
all decisions in the organization whether they are important or not”
(␣ ⫽ .90). We treated AL as a group level construct because
employees in the current study are nested within supervisors, and
these leadership behaviors are assumed to be homogeneous with
respect to an entire group (Cheng et al., 2000). Individual scores on
AL exhibited considerable variance at the group level (ICC[1] ⫽
0.20), and in light of the small group sizes the ICC[2] value of .51
is not unexpectedly low. As there might be a tendency toward
higher mean levels of AL in Chinese contexts (Leung, 2012), we
calculated rwg(j) based on the slightly skewed null distribution.
This statistic indicates substantial agreement within units on AL
(mean rwg(j) ⫽ 0.74; median ⫽ .68). These statistics, together with
the theory and item content, support using the mean of all respon-
dents from each group to index AL.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
We conducted confirmatory factor analyses at the individual
level using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006) to test the
measurement model specifying AL, PIS, PDC, RBSE, job perfor-
mance, intention to stay, and affective organizational commitment
as separate factors. The hypothesized seven-factor model demon-
strated acceptable fit: ␹2(839) ⫽ 1850.10, non-normed fit index
(NNFI) ⫽ .90, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .90; root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ .077). We then com-
pared this model to all models in which two factors were specified
to correlate at unity. In each case the fit decreased as indicated by
statistically significant chi-square difference tests (p ⬍ .001) and
fit that worsened by values that rounded to .01 or more.
The means, standard deviations, correlations among variables,
and alpha reliability coefficients for the study variables are sum-
marized in Table 1.
Hypothesis Tests
We tested the hypotheses using Mplus 7.2 (Muthén &
Muthén, 2012). All parameters were estimated simultaneously
for all three outcome variables. Because each participant’s data
was nested within a supervisory unit together with other par-
ticipants, we employed the “Cluster” and “Type⫽Complex”
Mplus syntax to account for nonindependence (see Liu et al.,
2015). With this approach, the standard errors are adjusted
using a sandwich estimator to account for nonindependence due
 6 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
1. Perceived insider status 5.85 0.93 (.82) .60 .38 .48 .69 ⫺.24 .17
2. Role-breadth self-efficacy 4.48 0.92 .39ⴱⴱ (.91) .31ⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 .14
3. Job performance 5.21 0.99 .32ⴱⴱ .16ⴱ (.86) .27 .38ⴱⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.06
4. Intention to stay 5.11 1.53 .35ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ (.90) .64ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .01
5. Affective organizational commitment 5.47 1.04 .54ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ (.81) ⫺.15 .26
6. Authoritarian leadership 3.26 0.82 ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.17ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.16ⴱ (.90) .14
7. Power distance climate 4.02 0.59 .04 .04 ⫺.11 ⫺.04 .07 .21ⴱⴱ (.69)
Note. Individual level correlations are below the diagonal (N ⫽ 202); correlations of variables aggregated to group level are above the diagonal (N ⫽ 50).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01 (two-tailed).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

to individuals’ clustering within supervisory groups (Muthén &
Muthén, 2012).
To obtain accurate tests of the indirect effects in multilevel
analyses, we tested conditional indirect effects using the Monte
Carlo resampling method (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006). Monte
Carlo has demonstrated superior accuracy over the Sobel test that
computes confidence intervals based only on the single sample of
data (Preacher & Selig, 2012). Using the information from the
asymptotic covariance matrix of estimated model coefficients, this
method repeatedly simulates indirect effects to obtain a distribu-
tion of the indirect effect. For models testing first-stage moderated
mediation only, we ran the same model (Model 1 as described
below) in two sets of analyses with PDC centered at plus or minus
one standard deviation from its mean. This approach yields pa-
rameters for computing the conditional indirect effects at high
and low PDC (see Bauer et al., 2006). For mediation that is
moderated at both stages, as per Hypothesis 5, we ran four sets
of SEM analyses that centered each of the two moderator
variables in this manner. (To test hypotheses concerning inter-
action effects only, i.e., Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, we centered pre-
dictors and moderators by their means.) We then input the
resulting coefficients for the “a” and “b” paths, their respective
variances, and their covariances, into an R-web utility devel-
oped by Selig and Preacher (2008). This utility calculates 95%
confidence intervals for indirect effects using the Monte Carlo
method. We utilized 20,000 resamplings for each confidence
interval. The conditional indirect effect is significant (p ⬍ .05)
if the confidence interval excludes zero.1 As shown in Table 2,
we separately obtained a point estimate and a standard error of
each indirect effect by estimating the product of the “a” and “b”
paths for each separate analysis in which the moderator(s) was
centered at a higher or a lower level.
We first estimated a full mediation model (Model 1) in which
there were no direct relationships between AL and the outcome
variables. This model provided an acceptable fit to the data,
␹2(14) ⫽ 15.18, ns; CFI ⫽ .99; NNFI ⫽ .99; RMSEA ⫽ .02. We
then estimated a partial mediation model that included these direct
effects (Model 2). Because none of the direct effects in Model 2
were significant, and estimating them did not improve the model
fit, ⌬␹2(3) ⫽ 4.72, ns, we report hereafter on findings from Model
1. Table 2 summarizes the coefficients estimated in this model and
the model fit indices.
Hypothesis 1 proposes that PDC moderates the relationship
between AL and PIS, such that there is a positive relationship
when PDC is relatively high and a negative relationship when
PDC is relatively low. As shown in Table 2, the interaction of
AL and PDC is significantly related to PIS (b ⫽ .27, SE ⫽ .07,
p ⬍ .01). A simple slope test as reported in Figure 2 indicates
that in groups with relatively low PDC (1 SD below the mean),
AL is significantly and negatively related to PIS (b ⫽ ⫺.38,
SE ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .001). This supports Hypothesis 1 (a). In groups
with relatively high PDC (1 SD above the mean), however, the
simple slope is not significant (b ⫽ ⫺.05, SE ⫽ .08, ns).
Because we had predicted a positive slope for these groups,
Hypothesis 1 (b) is not supported.
Hypothesis 2 (a– c) proposes that the indirect relationship be-
tween AL and follower outcome variables (i.e., job performance,
intention to stay, and organizational commitment) through PIS will
be negative in relatively low PDC groups and positive in relatively
high PDC groups. As shown in Table 3, AL has a negative indirect
effect through PIS on all three outcome variables among employ-
ees in units with relatively low PDC (job performance: CI ⫽
[⫺.23, ⫺.05]; intention to stay: CI ⫽ [⫺.30, ⫺.08]; affective
organizational commitment: CI ⫽ [⫺.32, ⫺.10].) The confidence
intervals for the indirect effects at higher PDC levels all included
zero (job performance: CI ⫽ [⫺.05, .01]; intention to stay: CI ⫽
[⫺.04, .02]; affective organizational commitment: CI ⫽ [⫺.06,
.01].). Although these differences between lower and higher PDC
groups are consistent with Hypothesis 2, it is only partially sup-
ported because it predicted positive indirect relationships among
employees in higher PDC units.
Hypothesis 3(a, b) states that role-breadth self-efficacy mod-
erates the relationship between PIS and the outcomes of affec-
tive organizational commitment and intention to stay. The in-
teraction between PIS and RBSE predicting affective
organizational commitment is not significant (b ⫽ .01, SE ⫽
.09, ns; see Table 2). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not supported.
The interaction is significant for intention to stay (b ⫽ .35,
SE ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05). The plot of this interaction shown shows
there is a stronger positive relationship among employees with
relatively high RBSE than among those with relatively low
RBSE (see Figure 3). This is consistent with Hypothesis 3b.
The simple slope test is significant for higher RBSE (b ⫽ .72,
SE ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .001) and for lower RBSE (b ⫽ .30, SE ⫽ .10,
p ⬍ .01).
1
We are grateful to Kris Preacher (personal communication, July 16,
2016) for outlining this approach.
 AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP 7

Table 2
Mplus Analysis Results (Coefficients and Standard Errors)

Perceived Affective organizational Intention to

Variable insider status Job performance commitment stay

Intercept ⫺.01 (.07) 5.14ⴱⴱ (.10) 5.46ⴱⴱ (.07) 5.00ⴱⴱ (.15)

Authoritarian leadership (AL) ⫺.21ⴱⴱ (.06)
Power distance climate (PDC) .17ⴱ (.08)
Perceived insider status (PIS) .35ⴱⴱ (.08) .47ⴱⴱ (.08) .51ⴱⴱ (.11)
Role-breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) .01 (.07) .36ⴱⴱ (.10) .20 (.15)
AL ⫻ PDC .27ⴱⴱ (.07)
PIS ⫻ RBSE .21ⴱ (.09) .01 (.09) .35ⴱ (.16)
Note. N ⫽ 202 at individual level; N ⫽ 50 at group level. AL, PIS, PDC, and RBSE are centered by their respective grand means. Model fit: ␹2(14) ⫽
15.18, ns; CFI ⫽ .99; NNFI ⫽ .99; RMSEA ⫽ .02. Estimated parameters that are not shown above include the following factor covariances: Job
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

performance (JPERF) and affective organizational commitment (AOC), ⌿ ⫽ .05 (SE ⫽ .05), ns; JPERF and intention to stay (INTS), ⌿ ⫽ .18 (SE ⫽.09),
p ⬍ .05; INTS and AOC (INTS), ⌿ ⫽ .32 (SE ⫽.11), p ⬍ .01; PIS and RBSE, ⌿ ⫽ .32 (SE ⫽.05), p ⬍ .01; RBSE and PIS ⫺ RBSE interaction, ⌿ ⫽
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.13 (SE ⫽ .07), p ⬍ .05; PIS and PIS ⫺ RBSE interaction, ⌿ ⫽ ⫺.04 (SE ⫽.08), ns; PDC and AL, ⌿ ⫽ .10 (SE ⫽.08), ns, AL and PIS ⫺ RBSE interaction,
⌿ ⫽.01 (SE ⫽.04); PDC and AL ⫺ PDC interaction, ⌿ ⫽ ⫺.11 (SE ⫽.10), ns; and AL and AL ⫺ PDC interaction, ⌿ ⫽ .05 (SE ⫽.12), ns. Mplus also
estimates variances and mean levels of the exogenous variables (i.e., AL, PDC, RBSE, the PIS ⫺ RBSE interaction, and the AL ⫺ PDC interaction), and
the variances of the endogenous variables (i.e., PIS, JPERF, AOC, INTS).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Hypothesis 4 states that role-breadth self-efficacy moderates
the relationship between PIS and job performance. The inter-
action is significant (b ⫽ .21, SE ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .05; see Table 2).
Figure 4 shows PIS has a stronger positive relationship with job
performance among employees with relatively high RBSE than
among those with relatively low RBSE. This supports Hypoth-
esis 4. The simple slope test for was significant for higher
RBSE (b ⫽ .54, SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .001), but not for lower RBSE
(b ⫽ .15, SE ⫽ .13, ns).
Hypotheses 5 (a– c) states that PDC and RBSE moderate the
first and second stages, respectively, of a mediation model in
which AL is related to the outcome variables through PIS. Results
supported moderation at both stages of the model for job perfor-
mance and intention to stay (see Table 2). Table 4 shows the
indirect effects and their Monte Carlo confidence intervals at
different combinations of higher and lower values of the moder-
ators. AL has a significant and negative indirect effect on perfor-
7 indicate that AL is related to follower outcomes through perceived
6.06
6 5.92
Perceived Insider Status
mance through PIS when PDC is relatively low and RBSE is
relatively high (CI ⫽ [⫺.34, ⫺.10]; see Table 4), whereas the
indirect effect (conditional on lower PDC) is not significant when
RBSE is relatively low (CI ⫽ [⫺.17, .04]). We find essentially the
same pattern of indirect relationships for intention to stay among
employees in relatively low PDC units. There is a significant
negative indirect effect of AL at higher levels of RBSE (CI ⫽
[⫺.55, ⫺.13]), whereas the indirect effect is not significant at
lower levels of RBSE (CI ⫽ [⫺.20, .02]). In addition, for all three
outcomes, the confidence intervals for the indirect effects included
zero for relatively high PDC, irrespective of the level of RBSE.
These results support Hypotheses 5 (a) and 5 (c). Hypothesis 5 (b)
is not supported, however, as the indirect effect on affective
organizational commitment is conditional only on PDC.
Discussion
This study examined how, why, and in what circumstances AL
may foster or harm performance and work attitudes. Our findings
insider status, and that the strength and sign of these relationships
depends on the power distance climate of the work unit. For the

6.00
5.42 outcomes of job performance and intention to stay, the relation-
5
ships were further conditional on individuals having relatively
high role-breadth self-efficacy. As we describe below, these find-
4
ings have some interesting theoretical and managerial implica-
3 Lower PDC tions.
Higher PDC
2
Theoretical Implications
1 The contingent findings with respect to PDC point to limitations
Lower AL Higher AL
and boundaries to theories of social influence and leadership
within organizations. Our theory and findings suggest that where
Figure 2. Interaction of authoritarian leadership and power distance
climate predicting perceived insider status. Simple slopes are ⫺.38 (SE ⫽
values and norms for follower inclusion in the advice and influ-
.08, p ⬍ .001) for lower power distance climate and ⫺.05 (SE ⫽ .08, ns) ence network of a work unit prevail (i.e., relatively low power
for higher power distance climate. Perceived insider status was not grand distance climates), authoritarian leaders may impede followers’
mean centered in the analysis used to create this plot. AL ⫽ authoritarian perceptions of insider status. In lower PDC units, AL was related
leadership; PDC ⫽ power distance climate. to our focal outcomes only indirectly through PIS. There was no
 8 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG

Table 3
Indirect Effects Through Perceived Insider Status at Higher and Lower Levels of Power Distance Climate

Stage Effect
Moderator: Power Indirect 95% CI of
Outcome distance climate First (PMX) Second (PYM) (PMX ⫻ PYM) indirect effect

Job performance Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .35ⴱⴱ (.08) ⫺.13ⴱⴱ (.045) [⫺.23, ⫺.05]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .35ⴱⴱ (.09) ⫺.01 (.03) [⫺.05, .01]
Intention to stay Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .51ⴱⴱ (.11) ⫺.19ⴱⴱ (.06) [⫺.30, ⫺.08]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .51ⴱⴱ (.11) ⫺.02 (.04) [⫺.04, .02]
Affective organizational commitment Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .47ⴱⴱ (.08) ⫺.18ⴱⴱ (.06) [⫺.32, ⫺.10]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .47ⴱⴱ (.08) ⫺.02 (.03) [⫺.06, .01]
Note. PMX refers to the path from authoritarian leadership to perceived insider status; PYM refers to paths from perceived insider status to outcomes. CI ⫽
confidence interval.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

a
The coefficient for each conditional indirect effect was estimated using the product of coefficients approach. The test uses robust standard errors that are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

based on the Sobel formula (Sobel, 1982). b Confidence intervals were calculated using the Monte Carlo method. Parameters estimated in separate SEM
analyses were input to the utility provided by Selig and Preacher (2008; http://quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01 (two-tailed).

relationship between AL and PIS among employees in relatively
high PDC units. This difference between higher and lower PDC
units could simply reflect how higher power distance norms and
values are associated with weaker needs for access to control and
influence (Daniels & Greguras, 2014). From this perspective,
authoritarian leaders undermine followers’ insider status percep-
tions under norms of lower PDC because of their higher expecta-
tions for personal influence in such units. However, references to
employees’ expectations would not fully explain the relatively
high levels of PIS we found among employees in high PDC groups
who had more authoritarian leaders. In addition, the literature
suggests that the strong ties between a leader and his or her
“in-group” subordinates often explain how peers gain access to
important insider information (e.g., Venkataramani, Green, &
Schleicher, 2010). Such conventional theories about how “insider”
meanings propagate are less consistent with relatively high power
distance groups. In units with authoritarian leaders, deeper con-
nections between leaders and individual members are less preva-
lent or even absent, yet our findings show that in high PDC units,
their followers often report relatively high levels of PIS.
A more complete explanation for the relatively favorable influ-
ence of AL on PIS in higher PDC units may lie in considering how
perceptions of insider status can derive from feeling tightly con-
nected with one’s peers as well as with leaders (Stamper &
Masterson, 2002; Wang & Kim, 2013). Because information,
support, and influence is less often provided by an authoritarian
leader, members may interact more intensively owing to their
greater needs for sense making (see Zohar & Luria, 2005). This
process could be reinforced by a stronger sense of group identity
that is promoted by an authoritarian leader (Rast et al., 2013), as
this facilitates member interpersonal attraction. In higher PDC
groups, members may therefore perceive they are insiders based
largely on their interactions with peers. Scholarly descriptions of
AL also suggest that because authoritarian leaders foster follower
dependency, they are highly central to the social networks of their
employees, and they seek to exert greater control over how peers
interact (Snadowsky, 1972). Thus, particularly in units with higher
PDC, where employees may expect that the leader will establish
and reinforce group identity and resolve uncertainty, authoritarian
leaders’ promotion of group identity and structuring of peer inter-

7 7
6.83
6 6 5.71
5.48 5.86
Job Performance
Stay Intention

5.33
5 5 5.06
5.25
4.70
4 4

3 3
Lower RBSE Lower RBSE

2 Higher RBSE 2 Higher RBSE

1 1
Lower PIS Higher PIS Lower PIS Higher PIS

Figure 3. Interaction of perceived insider status and role breadth self-
efficacy predicting stay intentions. Simple slopes are .30 (SE ⫽ .10, p ⬍
.01) for lower role breadth self-efficacy and .72 (SE ⫽ .18); p ⬍ .001) for
higher role breadth self-efficacy. PIS ⫽ perceived insider status; RBSE ⫽
role breadth self-efficacy.
Figure 4. Interaction of perceived insider status and role breadth self-
efficacy predicting job performance. Simple slopes are .15 (SE ⫽ .13, ns)
for lower role breadth self-efficacy and .54 (SE. ⫽ .10); p ⬍ .001) for
higher role breadth self-efficacy. PIS ⫽ perceived insider status; RBSE ⫽
role breadth self-efficacy.
 AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP 9

Table 4
Dual Moderated Effects of Authoritarian Leadership Through Perceived Insider Status

Stage Effect
Moderator 1: Power Moderator 2: Role- First Second Indirecta 95% CI indirect
Outcome distance climate breadth self-efficacy (PMX) (PYM) (PMX PYM) effectb

Job performance High (⫹1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .15 (.13) ⫺.005 (.01) [⫺.05, .02]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .54ⴱⴱ (.10) ⫺.02 (.04) [⫺.11, .05]
Low (⫺1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .15 (.13) ⫺.06 (.05) [⫺.17, .04]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .54ⴱⴱ (.10) ⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ (.06) [⫺.34,⫺.10]
Intention to stay High (⫹1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .19ⴱⴱ (.10) ⫺.01 (.02) [⫺.05, .02]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .83ⴱⴱ (.23) ⫺.03 (.06) [⫺.15, .10]
Low (⫺1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .19ⴱⴱ (.10) ⫺.07 (.05) [⫺.20, .02]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .83ⴱⴱ (.23) ⫺.31ⴱⴱ (.11) [⫺.55,⫺.13]
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Affective organizational
⫺.03 (.07) .46ⴱⴱ (.11) ⫺.02 (.03)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

commitment High (⫹1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) [⫺.09, .05]

High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.03 (.07) .48ⴱⴱ (.12) ⫺.02 (.04) [⫺.09, .05]
Low (⫺1 SD) Low (⫺1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .46ⴱⴱ (.11) ⫺.17ⴱⴱ (.06) [⫺.31,⫺.02]
High (⫹1 SD) ⫺.38ⴱⴱ (.08) .48ⴱⴱ (.12) ⫺.18ⴱⴱ (.07) [⫺.34,⫺.07]
Note. PMX refers to the path from authoritarian leadership to perceived insider status; PYM refers to paths from perceived insider status to outcomes
a
The coefficient for each conditional indirect effect was estimated using the product of coefficients approach. The test uses robust standard errors that are
based on the Sobel formula (Sobel, 1982). b Confidence intervals were calculated using the Monte Carlo method. Parameters estimated in separate SEM
analyses were input to the utility provided by Selig and Preacher (2008; http://quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm).
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001 (two-tailed).

actions may provide the foundation for intensive peer interactions
that promote PIS. This may offset the extent to which reporting to
an authoritarian leader can be frustrating even for employees in
relatively high PDC units. As a result, reporting to an authoritarian
leader may not undermine these followers’ perceptions of them-
selves as insiders as it does for employees in lower PDC groups.
In lower PDC units, where access to information and influence is
more highly valued, authoritarian leaders may not only frustrate
employees’ desires for access through connection to the leader.
By structuring how peers interact, they could also undermine
employees’ collective sense making and accordingly limit the
quality and intensity of peer relationships that might otherwise
heighten their perceptions of insider status.
Perceiving insider status provides a sense of connection that
employees may seek to maintain by exerting extra effort and
binding their identities to the organization. Yet, perceiving
relatively high PIS had little relationship with the performance
or organizational attitudes of individuals who reported rela-
tively low RBSE. Having strong beliefs about one’s ability to
perform proactively on behalf of the work unit or organization
may enable employees to more effectively engage opportunities
to contribute in ways that reinforce or even heighten insider
status. In addition, relatively high RBSE means one has the
capabilities needed to remain vital to one’s unit and organiza-
tion. This may enhance the belief that one’s relatively high
insider status is secure. When higher RBSE employees perceive
they lack insider status, however, they may perceive their
talents are underutilized. This may weaken their psychological
bond to the organization and their motivation to perform at their
highest level.
The negative indirect relationship between AL and perfor-
mance and intention to stay was supported only among employ-
ees with lower PDC and higher RBSE. Lower PDC and higher
RBSE have in common the expectation of personal agency
concerning one’s work. In higher PDC groups, norms constrain
agency, whereas lower RBSE employees are relatively lacking
in capabability to utilize their insider status in ways that might
make them more secure about their status and more productive
contributors to their work units. Thus, authoritarian leadership
may be especially insidious because its more adverse relation-
ships with outcomes are contingent on employees having higher
RBSE and operating under low PDC norms. These are the
employees who expect to take initiative and who feel them-
selves more capable than others in doing so. It is possible that
an authoritarian style of leadership is legitimized by the accep-
tance of employees who are less inclined to contribute substan-
tially to work unit and organizational objectives unless they are
clearly directed to do so by the leader.
Study Limitations and Future Directions
Among the limitations of this study, relationships between PIS
and organizational commitment and intention to stay were as-
sessed using employee self-reports. However, common method
variance is a less plausible explanation for the findings for three
reasons. First, we assessed relationships that included AL only
after aggregating different members’ perceptions of the same
leader. Correlated error is minimized when different employees’
biases are “averaged out” prior to assessing their relationship with
other self-reported variables. Second, we measured the outcome
variables more than two months after AL, PIS, and the two
moderator variables. Such time separation is among the most
powerful ways to reduce priming, consistency, and other artifacts
that contribute to common method variance (Johnson, Rosen,
Chang, Djurdjevic, & Taing, 2012). Third, the focal indirect rela-
tionships were conditional on moderator variables, with interac-
tions at each of the two stages of the mediation model. Studies
have demonstrated that common method variance cannot explain
interaction effects (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010).
 10 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG
As suggested by a reviewer, the lack of power sharing that is
characteristic of AL suggests it may be quite strongly related to
empowering leadership, albeit in a negative direction. Power shar-
ing is an important characteristic of empowering leadership (Mar-
tin et al., 2013). Future research that examines AL could clarify the
potential similarities and differences in the nomological network
of constructs that relate to how leaders instill and inhibit employ-
ees’ perceptions of power, status, and control.
Most field studies of AL have been conducted in organizations
located in societies that are ascribed by members as valuing high
power distance, particularly Chinese cultures (e.g., China, Hong
Kong, Taiwan). Their findings are largely consistent with studies
conducted in relatively low power distance cultures. Our interest in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
AL was piqued by the differences in study findings observed in the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
same societal cultures. Such differences might derive largely from
differences in power distance norms between the organizations
that have served as study settings. However, as examined in our
study, we expect there is often greater variability in AL between
lower level work groups within organizations. However, such
variability may depend on the characteristics of leaders at higher
levels and the values they embed into their organizations. Owing
to the greater emphasis on hierarchical control when power dis-
tance norms prevail, there may often be strong cascading influ-
ences that contribute to PDC in lower level units. Thus, depending
on the norms and values of higher authorities in organizations,
PDC may be quite homogeneous at lower levels in some organi-
zations. Future studies should be mindful of how top leaders
influence the PDC of lower level work units, and thereby encour-
age more or less favorable relationships between AL and employee
outcomes. Studies with large samples of organizations, units, and
employees could test such processes.
Conclusion
Our findings indicate that power distance climate and role
breadth self-efficacy jointly moderate relationships between AL
and important individual outcomes at different stages of a process
that flows through PIS. Authoritarian leaders may not directly
promote insider status among their followers, but their behavior
better matches with employees’ expectations and preferences in
units with relatively high PDC. In such contexts, their behavior
may also reinforce dynamics through which followers develop
insider status perceptions that are based more strongly on peer
relationships than they are in lower PDC units. The findings
suggest that regardless of whether it is derived from peer relation-
ships or through access to the leader, perceived insider status is
potentially important to explaining the effects of general leader-
ship styles. In addition, these connections may be more pro-
nounced among employees who maintain a strong sense of their
ability to contribute in ways that validate their importance to the
organization.
References
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. (2011). Perceived organizational
membership and the retention of older workers. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 319 –344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.647
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary
examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 14, 126 –140.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel
models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11, 142–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in
organizations (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural
research methods. New York, NY: Wiley.
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face
of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’
organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 34, 108 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1797
Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese
leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alterna-
tives. In M. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 599 –
622). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541850.013.0036
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S.
(2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leader-
ship to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796 – 819.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes:
An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 226 –238. http://dx.doi.org/10
.5465/AMJ.2007.24162389
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J.-L. (2000). A triad model of
paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous
Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14, 3– 64.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Farh, J. L., & Peng, S. (2003). A
triad model of paternalistic leadership: Evidence from business organi-
zations in Mainland China. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chi-
nese Societies, 20, 209 –252.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M., & Farh, J.-L. (2004).
Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a lead-
ership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 7, 89 –117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
Chou, W. J., Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2010). Juan-chiuan
and shang-yan: The components of authoritarian leadership. Indigenous
Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 223–284.
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence
in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of
procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 962–973.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034269
Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power
distance: Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes,
and outcomes. Journal of Management, 40, 1202–1229. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0149206314527131
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. (2004). Distributive justice
moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 25, 466 – 475. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1108/01437730410544773
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of
control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic
leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1058 –1067.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016253
Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive: Why you
need to understand how workers in other countries see the world
differently. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moder-
ation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated
path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S. (1997). Modesty bias in self-rating in Taiwan:
Impact of item wording, modesty value, and self-esteem. Chinese Jour-
nal of Psychology, 39, 103–118.
Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic
leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future re-
search directions. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and
management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices (pp. 171–
205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1017/CBO9780511753763.008
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. Eu-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ropean Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/14792772043000040
Hogg, M. A., & Adelman, J. (2013). Uncertainty–identity theory: Extreme
groups, radical behavior, and authoritarian leadership. Journal of Social
Issues, 69, 436 – 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12023
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U.
(2012). Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher
order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management Re-
view, 22, 62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.006
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Com-
puter software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking
behavior to belief. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., & Sprinkle, T. A. (2014). Clarifying the
relational ties of organizational belonging: Understanding the roles of
perceived insider status, psychological ownership, and organizational
identification. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21,
273–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051814529826
Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of
intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 29, 385– 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256194
Lapalme, M. È., Stamper, C. L., Simard, G., & Tremblay, M. (2009).
Bringing the outside in: Can “external” workers experience insider
status? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 919 –940. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/job.597
Leung, K. (2012). Theorizing about Chinese organizational behavior: The
role of cultural and social forces. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.),
Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, re-
search and practice (pp. 13–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857933409.00008
Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of
autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1, 292–300.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2785585
Liu, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C. H., Shi, J., Zhou, L., & Shao, R. (2015).
Work-family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression
toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict
and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 100, 793– 808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038387
Marsden, P. V., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gender differ-
ences in organizational commitment influences of work positions and
family roles. Work and Occupations, 20, 368 –390. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0730888493020003005
11
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus
empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task
proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
1372–1395. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0113
Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational
membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee–
organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 473–
490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.203
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 835– 852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6
.835
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A
model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827– 856.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management,
36, 633– 662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91, 636 – 652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A
review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34,
566 –593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confi-
dence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Mea-
sures, 6, 77–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
Rast, D. E., III, Hogg, M. A., & Giessner, S. R. (2013). Self-uncertainty
and support for autocratic leadership. Self and Identity, 12, 635– 649.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.718864
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for
assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals
for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available at http://quantpsy.
org/medmc/medmc.htm
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in
regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 13, 456 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428109351241
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M. J., Cohen, A., & Doveh, E. (2014). Statistical
significance criteria for the rWG and average deviation interrater agree-
ment indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 239 –261. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0034556
Snadowsky, A. M. (1972). Communication network research: An exami-
nation of controversies. Human Relations, 25, 283–306. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/001872677202500401
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290 –312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270723
Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How
employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 875– 894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
job.175
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural
justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in
groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
ogy (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
Venkataramani, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-
connected leaders: The impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX
 12 SCHAUBROECK, SHEN, AND CHONG

and members’ work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1071– action effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 681– 692. http://dx
1084. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020214 .doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.681
Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate:
(2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates.
gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 616 – 628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 0021-9010.90.4.616
122, 101–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001
Wang, J., & Kim, T. Y. (2013). Proactive socialization behavior in China:
The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of
supervisors’ traditionality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34,
389 – 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1811 Received June 8, 2015
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice Revision received August 17, 2016
climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level inter- Accepted August 18, 2016 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.