1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 7, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 7, 2020

Asian Conceptualizations of Leadership: Progresses and Challenges

Abstract

By investigating broadly a contingency approach and implicit leadership theoretical perspectives with a multilevel lens as a starting point, this review highlights the potential for Asian conceptualizations of leadership. More specifically, by highlighting the important contingent role national culture plays in influencing leadership effectiveness, we review Asian conceptualizations of leadership that exist (e.g., paternalistic leadership style, paternalism, and in the leadership setting) in the literature and the findings that have been found in a relatively selective manner. This also allows us to advance the notion of a culturally contingent leadership perspective by developing the notion of hierarchical social exchange and various modalities associated with such a relationship. By so doing, this review enables us to underscore the advantages as well as challenges associated with Asian conceptualizations of leadership as well as future research directions that need to be undertaken to more firmly establish their utility to general leadership literature.

Keyword(s): cultural contingency, guanxi, paternalism, paternalistic leadership
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307
2020-01-21
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/7/1/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aktas M, Gelfand MJ, Hanges PJ 2016. Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of effective leadership. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 47:294–309
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aryee S, Chen ZX, Sun LY, Debrah YA 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:191–201
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aycan Z, Schyns B, Sun JM, Felfe J, Saher N 2013. Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: a cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 44:962–69
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bell D, Ham C. 2003. Confucianism for the Modern World New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Bolden R, Kirk P. 2009. African leadership: surfacing new understandings through leadership development. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 9:69–86
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brodbeck FC, Frese M, Akerblom S, Audia G, Bakacsi G et al. 2000. Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73:1–29
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Castaño N, de Luque MFS, Wernsing T, Ogliastri E, Shemueli RG et al. 2015. El Jefe: differences in expected leadership behaviors across Latin American countries. J. World Bus. 50:584–97
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chan SCH. 2014. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: does information sharing matter. ? Hum. Relat. 67:667–93
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chan SCH, Huang X, Snape E 2013. The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J. Organ. Behav. 34:108–28
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan SCH, Mak W. 2012. Benevolent leadership and follower performance: the mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pac. J Manag. 29:285–301
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen CC, Chen XP, Huang S 2013. Chinese guanxi: an integrative review and new directions for future research. Manag. Organ. Rev. 9:167–207
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen CC, Chen YR, Xin K 2004. Guanxi practices and trust in management: a procedural justice perspective. Organ. Sci. 15:200–9
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen CC, Farh JL. 2010. Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology MH Bond 599–622 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen L, Yang B, Jing R 2015a. Paternalistic leadership, team conflict, and TMT decision effectiveness: interactions in the Chinese context. Manag. Organ. Rev. 11:739–62
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 34:537–63
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS 2014. Affective trust in Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. J. Manag. 40:796–819
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen Y, Chen ZX, Zhong L, Son J, Zhang X, Liu Z 2015b. Social exchange spillover in leader–member relations: a multilevel model. J. Organ. Behav. 36:673–97
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen Y, Friedman R, Yu E, Fang W, Lu X 2009. Supervisor–subordinate guanxi: developing a three-dimensional model and scale. Manag. Organ. Rev. 5:375–99
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen Y, Friedman R, Yu E, Sun F 2011. Examining the positive and negative effects of guanxi practices: a multi-level analysis of guanxi practices and procedural justice perceptions. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 28:715–35
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng BS, Boer D, Chou LF, Huang MP, Yoneyama S et al. 2014. Paternalistic leadership in four East Asian societies: generalizability and cultural differences of the triad model. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 45:82–90
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng BS, Chou LF, Wu TY, Huang MP, Farh JL 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 7:89–117
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chou WJ, Sibley CG, Liu JH, Lin TT, Cheng BS 2015. Paternalistic leadership profiles: a person-centered approach. Group Organ. Manag. 40:685–710
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chuang A, Hsu RS, Wang AC, Judge TA 2015. Does West “fit” with East? In search of a Chinese model of person–environment fit. Acad. Manag. J. 58:480–510
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cole BM. 2015. Lessons from a martial arts dojo: a prolonged process model of high-context communication. Acad. Manag. J. 58:567–591
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Daniels MA, Greguras GJ. 2014. Exploring the nature of power distance: implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. J. Manag. 40:1202–29
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dansereau F Jr., Graen G, Haga WJ 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13:46–78
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 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
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Epitropaki O, Martin R. 2004. Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:293–310
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ersoy NC, Born MP, Derous E, van der Molen HT 2012. The effect of cultural orientation and leadership style on self-versus other-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour in Turkey and the Netherlands. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 15:249–60
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Farh JL, Cheng BS. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context JT Li, AS Tsui, E Weldon 85–127 London: Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Farh JL, Cheng BS, Chou LF, Chu XP 2006. Authority and benevolence: employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. China's Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and Performance AS Tsui, Y Bian, L Cheng 230–60 New York: Sharpe
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Farh JL, Earley PC, Lin SC 1997. Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:421–44
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Farh JL, Hackett RD, Liang J 2007. Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Acad. Manag. J. 50:715–29
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Farh JL, Liang J, Chou LF, Cheng BS 2008. Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: research progress and future research direction. Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories & Practices CC Chen, YT Lee 171–205 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Farh JL, Tsui AS, Xin K, Cheng BS 1998. The influence of relational demography and guanxi: the Chinese case. Organ. Sci. 9:471–88
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiedler FE. 1964. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1 L Berkowitz 149–90 New York: Academic Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Fiedler FE. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness New York: McGraw-Hill
  38. Fiedler FE. 1971. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: a review and empirical findings. Psychol. Bull. 76:128–48
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Friesen JP, Kay AC, Eibach RP, Galinsky AD 2014. Seeking structure in social organization: compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 106:590–609
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Graen GB. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project GLOBE: a response viewed from the third culture bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership. Acad. Manag. Persp. 20:95–101
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Halevy N, Chou EY, Galinsky AD 2011. A functional model of hierarchy: why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organ. Psych. Rev. 1:32–52
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1969. Life cycle theory of leadership. Train. Dev. J. 23:26–34
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hersey P, Blanchard KH. 1977. Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. , 3rd ed..
  45. Hiller NJ, Sin HP, Ponnapalli AR, Ozgen S 2019. Benevolence and authority in WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. Leadersh. Q. 30:165–84
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ho DYF. 1989. Socialization in contemporary mainland China. Asian Thought Soc 14:136–49
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Ho DYF. 1994. Filial piety, authoritarian moralism and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 120:349–65
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hofstede G. 1980. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad. ? Organ. Dyn. 9:42–63
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hollander EP, Offermann LR. 1990. Power and leadership in organizations: relationships in transition. Am. Psychol. 45:179–89
     [Google Scholar]
  50. House RJ. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 16:321–39
     [Google Scholar]
  51. House R, Javidan M, Dorfman P 2001. Project GLOBE: an introduction. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 59:489–505
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Huang X, Xu E, Chiu W, Lam C, Farh JL 2015. When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Acad. Manag. Discov. 1:180–200
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Hughes RL, Ginnett RC, Curphy GJ 1999. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experiences Sydney: McGraw-Hill
  54. Hui MK, Au K, Fock H 2004. Empowerment effects across cultures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 35:46–60
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Hwang KK. 1987. Face and favor: the Chinese power game. Am. J. Sociol. 92:944–74
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Javidan M, Dorfman PW, Sully de Luque M, House RJ 2006. In the eye of the beholder: cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20:67–90
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Jiang X, Chen CC, Shi K 2013. Favor in exchange for trust? The role of subordinates' attribution of supervisory favors. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 30:513–36
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Jiang Y, Colakoglu S, Lepak DP, Blasi JR, Kruse DL 2015. Involvement work systems and operational effectiveness: exploring the moderating effect of national power distance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 46:332–54
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Johns G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:386–408
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Johns G. 2017. Reflections on the 2016 decade award: incorporating context in organizational research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42:577–95
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Kabasakal H, Dastmalchian A, Karacay G, Bayraktar S 2012. Leadership and culture in the MENA region: an analysis of the GLOBE project. J. World Bus. 47:519–29
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kerr S, Jermier JM. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22:375–403
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kirkman BL, Chen G, Farh JL, Chen ZX, Lowe KB 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Acad. Manag. J. 52:744–64
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Lam CF, Liang J, Ashford SJ, Lee C 2015. Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:499–510
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Law KS, Wong CS, Wang D, Wang L 2000. Effect of supervisor–subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 11:751–76
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Li G, Rubenstein AL, Lin W, Wang M, Chen X 2018a. 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. 71:369–97
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Li J, Laurence GA, Blume BD 2018b. How does supervisor-focused procedural justice explain the effects of person-focused leadership? The moderating role of leader-referenced relational-self. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27:387–99
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Li Y, Sun JM. 2015. Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: a cross-level examination. Leadersh. Q. 26:172–89
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Lian H, Ferris DL, Brown DJ 2012. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:107–23
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ 1997. Leader-member exchange theory: the past and potential for the future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 15 GR Ferris 47–120 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lin W, Ma J, Zhang Q, Li JC, Jiang F 2018. How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity? The mediating role of leader-member exchange and the moderating role of power distance. J. Bus. Ethics 152:1099–115
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Lord RG. 1985. An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership, and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 BM Staw, LL Cummings 87–128 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lord RG, Alliger GM. 1985. A comparison of four information processing models of leadership and social perceptions. Hum. Relat. 38:47–65
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lord RG, Foti RJ, De Vader CL 1984. A test of leadership categorization theory: internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 34:343–78
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lord RG, Maher KJ. 1993. Leadership and Information Processing London: Routledge
  76. Mansur J, Sobral F, Goldszmidt R 2017. Shades of paternalistic leadership across cultures. J. World Bus. 52:702–13
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Mittal R, Dorfman PW. 2012. Servant leadership across cultures. J. World Bus. 47:555–70
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Morris MW, Leung K, Ames D, Lickel B 1999. Views from inside and outside: integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:781–96
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Ng TWH, Feldman DC. 2015. Ethical leadership: meta-analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:948–65
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Niu CP, Wang AC, Cheng BS 2009. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 12:32–39
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Offermann LR, Kennedy JK, Wirtz PW 1994. Implicit leadership theories: content, structure, and generalizability. Leadersh. Q. 5:43–58
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA. 2006. Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: an empirical investigation. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37:264–79
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA. 2008. Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. J. Manag. 34:566–93
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA, Jayaraman V 2010. Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: an expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group Organ. Manag. 35:391–420
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Peters LH, Hartke DD, Pohlmann JT 1985. Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership: an application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psych. Bul. 97:274–85
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Phillips JS. 1984. The accuracy of leadership ratings: a cognitive categorization perspective. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 33:125–38
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Phillips JS, Lord RG. 1981. Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 28:2143–63
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Bommer WH 1996. Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. J. Appl. Psych. 81:380–99
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Raghuram S. 2011. Organizational identification among young software professionals in India. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 22:3913–28
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Reddin WJ. 1967. The 3-D management style theory: a typology based on task and relationships orientations. Train Dev. J. April 12–17
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Redding SG. 1990. The Spirit of Chinese Capitalization Berlin: de Gruyter
  92. Rockstuhl T, Dulebohn JH, Ang S, Shore LM 2013. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:1097–130
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rush MC, Russell JE. 1988. Leader prototypes and prototype-contingent consensus in leader behavior descriptions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24:88–104
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Schaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S 2017. A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:203–14
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Schoel C, Bluemke M, Mueller P, Stahlberg D 2011. When autocratic leaders become an option—uncertainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership preferences. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101:521–40
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Schriesheim CA, Tepper BJ, Tetrault LA 1994. Least preferred co-worker score, situational control, and leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contingency model performance predictions. J. Appl. Psych. 79:561–73
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Shih CT, Lin CCT. 2014. From good friends to good soldiers: a psychological contract perspective. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 31:309–26
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Steers RM, Porter LW, Bigley GA, eds. 1996. Motivation and Leadership at Work New York: McGraw-Hill
  99. Sy T, Shore LM, Strauss J, Shore TH, Tram S et al. 2010. Leadership perceptions as a function of race-occupation fit: the case of Asian Americans. J. Appl. Psych. 95:902–19
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43:178–90
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Tian Q, Sanchez JI. 2017. Does paternalistic leadership promote innovative behavior? The interaction between authoritarianism and benevolence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47:235–46
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Tyler TR. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:375–400
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Vecchio RP. 1987. Situational leadership theory: an examination of a prescriptive theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 72:444–51
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Vogel RM, Mitchell MS, Tepper BJ, Restubog SL, Hu C et al. 2015. A cross-cultural examination of subordinates' perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. J. Organ. Behav. 36:720–45
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Vroom VH, Yetton PW. 1973. Leadership and Decision-Making, Vol. 110 Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
  106. Wagstaff MF, Collela A, Triana MC, Smith AN, Watkins MB 2015. Subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism: a scale development. J. Manag. Psychol. 30:659–74
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang AC. 2019. Developmental or exploitative? How Chinese leaders integrate authoritarianism and benevolence to cultivate subordinates. Acad. Manag. Dis. 5:291–313
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang AC, Cheng BS. 2010. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. J. Organ. Behav. 31:106–21
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang AC, Chiang JTJ, Chou WJ, Cheng BS 2017. One definition, different manifestations: investigating ethical leadership in the Chinese context. Asia Pac. J Manag. 34:505–35
     [Google Scholar]
  110. 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. 122:101–13
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Wang AC, Tsai CY, Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Spain SM et al. 2018. Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: testing their relationships with subordinate performance. Leadersh. Q. 29:686–97
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Liden RC 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 40:82–111
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Wong C-S, Tinsley C, Law KS, Mobley WH 2003. Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of guanxi. J. Psychol. Chin. Soc 4:43–69
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 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
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Yu A, Matta FK, Cornfield B 2018. Is leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Acad. Manag. J. 61:1158–88
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Yukl GA. 1981. Leadership in Organizations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. , 1st ed..
  117. Yukl GA. 1994. Leadership in Organizations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. , 3rd ed..
  118. Zhai Q, Lindorff M, Cooper B 2013. Workplace guanxi: its dispositional antecedents and mediating role in the affectivity–job satisfaction relationship. J. Bus. Ethics 117:541–51
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Zhang L, Lam CF, Deng Y 2017. Leader–member exchange and guanxi are not the same: differential impact of dyadic relationships on fit perceptions, helping behavior, and turnover intention. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 28:1005–30
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhang X, Li N, Harris TB 2015a. Putting non-work ties to work: the case of guanxi in supervisor–subordinate relationships. Leadersh. Q. 26:37–54
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhang Y, Huai M, Xie Y 2015b. Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: a dual process model. Leadersh. Q. 26:25–36
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Zhang Y, Xie YH. 2017. Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: a role-perception perspective. Manag. Organ. Rev. 13:147–66
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Zheng Y, Graham L, Farh JL, Huang X 2019. The impact of authoritarian leadership on ethical voice: a moderated mediation model of felt uncertainty and leader benevolence. J. Bus. Ethics In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04261-1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307
Loading
Asian Conceptualizations of Leadership: Progresses and Challenges
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7, 233 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045307
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error