ABSTRACT
Theory and research have widely argued for and documented positive impacts of empowering leadership on employee psychological empowerment, putting empowering leadership on a pedestal depicting it as a panacea for increasing psychological empowerment. However, we argue that this could be due to not considering social structural empowerment (i.e., a construct manifested in employees' beliefs about their access to resources, access to information, and sociopolitical support) as a so far "forgotten side" of empowerment. Using empowerment theory, we depart from this consensus to focus on the moderating role that social structural empowerment can have on the empowering leadership-psychological empowerment relationship. We propose that empowering leadership and social structural empowerment interact to affect employee psychological empowerment, such that lower (vs. higher) social structural empowerment can unintentionally attenuate the positive effects of empowering leadership on psychological empowerment and, ultimately, job performance. Across four studies using unique methods, findings supported our predictions that lower (vs. higher) social structural empowerment can stifle positive effects of empowering leadership on employee psychological empowerment and performance. We highlight the impact that social structural empowerment can have on the empowering leadership-psychological empowerment relationship, providing answers as to why this forgotten side of empowerment should matter to scholars and practitioners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Subject(s)
Leadership , Power, Psychological , HumansABSTRACT
The majority of theory and research on empowering leadership to date has focused on how empowering leader behaviors influence employees, portraying those behaviors as almost exclusively beneficial. We depart from this predominant consensus to focus on the potential detriments of empowering leadership for employees. Drawing from the social cognitive theory of morality, we propose that empowering leadership can unintentionally increase employees' unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), and that it does so by increasing their levels of moral disengagement. Specifically, we propose that hindrance stressors create a reversing effect, such that empowering leadership increases (vs. decreases) moral disengagement when hindrance stressors are higher (vs. lower). Ultimately, we argue for a positive or negative indirect effect of empowering leadership on UPB through moral disengagement. We find support for our predictions in both a time-lagged field study (Study 1) and a scenario-based experiment using an anagram cheating task (Study 2). We thus highlight the impact that empowering leadership can have on unethical behavior, providing answers to both why and when the dark side of empowering leadership behavior occurs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Subject(s)
Employment , Leadership , Humans , Employment/psychology , Social Behavior , Morals , Power, PsychologicalABSTRACT
Why do employees perceive that they have been treated fairly by their supervisor? Theory and research on justice generally presumes a straightforward answer to this question: Because the supervisor adhered to justice rules. We propose the answer is not so straightforward and that employee justice perceptions are not merely "justice-laden." Drawing from theory on information processing that distinguishes between automatic and systematic modes, we suggest that employee justice perceptions are also "ethics-laden." Specifically, we posit that employees with more ethical supervisors form justice perceptions through automatic processing with little scrutiny of or attention paid to a supervisor's justice acts. In contrast, employees with less ethical supervisors rely on systematic processing to evaluate their supervisor's justice enactment and form justice perceptions. Thus, we propose that ethical leadership substitutes for the supervisor's justice enactment. Our results demonstrate support for the interactive effect of supervisor justice enactment and ethical leadership on employee justice perceptions, and we further demonstrate its consequences for employees' engagement in discretionary behaviors (citizenship and counterproductive behaviors). Our findings highlight an assumption in the justice literature in need of revision and opens the door to further inquiry about the role of information processing in justice perceptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
