Cited by 165Employee Performance and LeadershipLeadership and Management in OrganizationsJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda

Open access
Pizzolitto, Elia, Verna, Ida, Venditti, Michelina·2023·Management Review Quarterly

Abstract

Although authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, work climate deterioration, increased power distance, and centralized control, contradictory empirical evidence has emerged in the literature. In this paper, we perform a systematic literature review with three aims: (1) understand the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, (2) study the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate, and (3) establish a research agenda for the future. The results show that in the last two decades, the interest for the field has shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Moreover, many authors encourage leaders to increase or decrease their degree of authoritarian leadership depending on the context to more effectively connect leadership with performance. Therefore, leadership should be studied in light of a more complex approach that considers hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Finally, we discuss our study’s limitations and managerial implications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review is more rigorous than literature reviews, is scientific, transparent, replicable and limits the subjectivity and bias of the researchers.

    “It is a methodology that is more rigorous than literature reviews, is scientific, transparent, replicable and limits the subjectivity and bias of the researchers (Kuckertz and Block 2021; Pizzolitto et al. 2022; Tranfield et al.2003).”

    From Whither compassionate leadership? A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Pizzolitto et al. 2022

    The Methodology section describes systematic literature reviews as following a rigorous protocol that limits authors’ interpretation to increase objectivity, supporting the rigor and reduced-subjectivity parts of the claim. It does not explicitly compare them with other literature reviews or establish the broader claims that they are scientific, transparent, and replicable. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Harrison C, Paul S, Burnard K (2016) Entrepreneurial leadership: a systematic literature review. Int Rev Entrep 14:235-264
  2. Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2022) Resource orchestration theory and electronic human resources management con- figuration. In: Exploring Digital Resilience. Challenges for People and Organisations. Springer series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (LNISO). In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I., & Venditti, M.
Affiliations
University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
Corresponding author
Pizzolitto, Elia
Venue
Management Review Quarterly
Published
2022-04-04
Volume
73
Issue
2
Pages
841-871
ISSN
  • 2198-1620 (ISSN-L)
  • 2198-1639
OpenAlex
W4226053984
Cited by
143
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Management Review Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
authoritarian leadership, leadership styles, organizational performance, power distance, centralized control, organizational climate, contextual leadership, research agenda

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review