Hurry up! The role of supervisors’ time urgency and self‐perceived status for autocratic leadership and subordinates’ well‐being

Abstract

This study examines the connections among supervisors’ time urgency, their leadership behavior, and subordinate outcomes. Integrating cognitive perspectives on time urgency with contemporary thinking on the psychological experience of status, we reason that supervisors’ time‐urgent personality relates positively with their autocratic leadership behavior, and we cast supervisors’ self‐perceived status as a moderator of this linkage. Moreover, we enrich this leader‐centric perspective with a complementary, more follower‐centric view, recognizing that the consequences of supervisors’ time urgency likely extend beyond their own behavior to indirectly affect their subordinates’ well‐being at work. We tested our hypotheses using a field sample of 60 supervisors and 277 of their subordinates. Results indicate that (a) supervisors with higher time urgency are more likely to exhibit autocratic leadership behavior when they also perceive themselves as having relatively high status among subordinates, but not when perceiving lower status, and (b) supervisors’ time urgency exhibits a conditional indirect effect (via autocratic leadership) on subordinates’ work stress and time pressure experiences. Hence, this study illustrates an important boundary condition for the consequences of supervisors’ time urgency, and it demonstrates that this personality characteristic not only shapes supervisors’ leadership behavior but also affects the subordinates they are charged with leading.

The moderating role of employee socioeconomic status in the relationship between leadership and well-being: A meta-analysis and representative survey.

“…Destructive leader behaviors impose job demands (Breevaart et al, 2014) for example by increasing work pressure, role conflict, and role ambiguity (Skogstad et al, 2007), consequently triggering a health impairment process (Breevaart & Bakker, 2014), and employees with lower SES tend to have fewer job resources to cope with these demands. In addition, destructive leadership involves deliberately withholding or constraining access to job resources such as autonomy (e.g., autocratic leadership; Briker et al, 2021), which should be particularly negative for the well-being of employees with lower SES given their already compromised pool of job resources. Well-being may also suffer more from destructive leadership because for some it may lower personal resources.…”

The Relationship between Headmaster's Leadership Style and Teacher Motivation in Primary Schools in Alor Gajah District, Melaka

“…In decision-making, process leaders make decisions based on their own beliefs, which play another significant in the decision-making process. As Briker et al (2021) commented, it has other advantages in the decision-making process, such as taking part in a quick decision-making process according to requirements. The Autocratic leadership style rarely chooses with the help of taking their ideas and thoughts, including accepting judgment and advice from their followers.…”

“…Individuals' intrinsic motivation is the force that activates, supplies power to, and guides their conduct toward productive outcomes in the workplace. Briker et al (2021) describes motivation as the process through which a person is driven to exert maximum effort toward a goal. Motivation may be defined as the process by which a person is prompted to act in response to an incentive or goal by use of physiological and psychological forces.…”

In the eye of the beholder: the role of self-perceived status in the relationship between high-performance work systems and affective commitment

“…Drawing on theory regarding the psychological experience of status (Anderson et al, 2012;Doyle et al, 2016;Pettit and Sivanathan, 2012), we test the moderating role of selfperceived status in the relationship between HR performance attribution and affective commitment. This study emphasizes the significance of self-perceived status as a psychological resource for responding to messages conveyed through HR practices (Briker et al, 2021;Fuller et al, 2006). Particularly, performance HR attributions are often perceived as a source of strain (Alfes et al, 2021;Guest et al, 2021), which can be viewed as either a challenge or a threat (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).…”