دیکتاتورهای اهریمنی و یا فرماندهان شایسته: بررسی اثرات افتراقی رهبری خودکامه بر عملکرد تیم Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance

As with any study, our research has limitations. While we collected objective team performance data, team members provided ratings of autocratic leadership, power struggles and psychological safety within the team. Responses were averaged within each group which helps reduce single source bias, yet single-source reports remain a methodological threat for antecedents (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, common method variance is unlikely to result in (mediated) moderation, which is the main focus of this study (Aiken & West, 1991; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Though we measured average team performance with a time lag and were able to control for average pre-survey performance, the partially cross-sectional design did not allow for testing causality. Thus, with the leadership or team power struggles–psychological safety links, each could potentially cause the other. Our findings should be interpreted with this in mind, and future research should address this limitation. Specifically, future longitudinal research could test a possible mediation model in which power struggles mediate the relationship between leader consideration and team psychological safety. Considerate leaders are oriented towards maintaining good interpersonal relationships which, over time, may lower team power struggles and enhance team safety (Bass, 1990). Research on the potential combined and interactive effects of considerate and autocratic leader behaviors is also needed. As reflected in the literature on paternalistic leadership (e.g., Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008) and supported by a (marginally) nonsignificant negative relationship in this study, autocratic and considerate leader behaviors do not represent opposites of a single continuum, and autocratic leaders can display more or less considerate leader behaviors. Optimum combinations of autocratic and considerate leader behaviors in teams with different levels of power struggles may exist. While tentative given that the three-way interaction is not significant, exploratory analysis indicated that autocratic leader behaviors may benefit team psychological safety even more than considerate leadership in teams with low power struggles, whereas in teams with high power struggles, considerate leader behavior may be more positive for team psychological safety. More generally, autocratic behavior may often require a certain minimum level of consideration to be effective and such considerate behavior may signal benevolent intentions of the leader. Future research on the combined effects of autocratic and considerate leader behavior is therefore warranted. We also recognize that team performance may be influenced by extraneous events and many factors can play a role. Team performance is, for example, known to be affected by conflict, trust, cohesion and transformational leadership (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Keller, 2006). Additionally, in the competitive bank environment, past successes may not necessarily create psychological safety, as the competition and pressure to continue to perform and surpass previous sales records are high. By leaving out important team performance determinants we may be overstating the impact of the variables we have tested. However, we were able to control for a positive form of leadership, namely leader consideration (which did not affect the pattern of results) and results of our study do support the assertion that combined effects of autocratic leadership and power struggles, as well as psychological safety affect subsequent team performance. Furthermore, in our study we find support for the idea that autocratic leadership can provide direction and clarity to team members. However, other mechanisms may also organize teams and provide order and clarity. For example, self-directed work teams develop clear norms and rules to guide behavior (Barker, 1993), and even democratic governments rely to some extent on layers of formalized positions and bureaucracy to control their constituents and to function effectively. Studying the ways that team power struggles may affect the effectiveness of these other forms of control mechanisms is valuable for future research.