The current study examines how employees interpret and respond to transgressions committed by authoritarian leaders, and identifies the conditions under which these leaders are forgiven. Employees of authoritarian leaders may attribute leader transgressions either to performance-promotion or to injury-initiation, depending on transgression severity. Based on attribution theory, we propose employee attributions as cognitive mediating mechanisms and severity of an offense as a contextual variable shaping attributions and the resulting forgiveness.
We surveyed 216 employees in a multi-wave time-lagged study. We tested a moderated mediation model using bootstrapped path analysis.
Authoritarian leadership was positively associated with both performance-promotion and injury-initiation motives. Followers were less likely to forgive authoritarian leaders for severe offenses, as they attributed transgressions to injury intentions. Less severe offenses displayed by authoritarian leaders were forgiven since they were attributed to performance-promotion motives.
The major limitation is the retrospective nature of the critical incident method.
Authoritarian leaders should be careful about not leaving the impression that they commit transgressions to cause deliberate harm to employees.
This study extends research on authoritarian leadership by identifying the cognitive mechanisms and contextual conditions under which leader transgressions are forgiven. Based on attribution theory, it offers a dual-path model showing how authoritarian leadership can produce both constructive and destructive outcomes, challenging the field's predominantly negative view of this style.
