Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership

By David de Cremer. 2006

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea7bd76d787ceb7372082c750987781392b355bd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Unrequited Profit: How Stakeholder and Economic Values Relate to Subordinates' Perceptions of Leadership and Firm Performance (2008, background): “These followers in turn have little motivation to make personal sacrifices for the autocratic leader or the organization, and thus their efforts decline (Bass, 1998; De Cremer, 2006).”
Self-uncertainty and Support for Autocratic Leadership (2013, result): “…research, mainly conducted in the USA, found that non-autocratic leadership was preferred and more effective in most situations; a finding that has been robustly confirmed in recent empirical studies and meta-analyses (e.g., De Cremer, 2006; Gastil, 1994;Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, & De Cremer, 2003).”
The emotional link: Leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional contagion processes across multiple organizational levels (2015, background): “Given the prevalence of computermediated, textual forms of communication in today’s organizations (de Cremer, 2006), further research could examine in greater detail the nature of emotional contagion processes as communicated via such technology-mediated channels, and how this influences leadership…”
Being “in Control” May Make You Lose Control: The Role of Self-Regulation in Unethical Leadership Behavior (2013, background): “Some scholars have even claimed that norm-transgressing behaviors are intrinsic to the leadership role (De Cremer 2003; Van Dijk and De Cremer 2006) because leaders feel entitled to obtain more outcomes than followers (De Cremer and Van Dijk 2005; Stouten, De Cremer and Van Dijk 2005).”
Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? (2014, background): “First, authoritarian leadership is conceptually similar to the theory of autocratic leadership (Cremer, 2006), which is defined as not taking care of the group cohesion and denying individuals control over decision making.”
Millennials in the Workplace: A Conceptual Analysis of Millennials' Leadership and Followership Styles (2012, background): “…emotions experienced by subordinates (e.g., De Cremer, 2007), passive-aggressive behavior exhibited by leaders (e.g., Johnson & Klee, 2007), low satisfaction and motivation demonstrated by subordinates (e.g., De Cremer, 2006), and burnout experienced by subordinates (e.g., De Hoogh & Hartog, 2009).”
Elevation at work: The effects of leaders’ moral excellence (2010, unknown): “De Cremer (2006) demonstrated that positive affect mediates the impact of self-sacrifice on followers’ motivation to work with the leader.”
Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. (2009, background): “Autocratic leaders limit subordinates’ input in decisions, are dominating and pushy, and show little respect for others’ opinions and values (Bass, 1990; De Cremer, 2006).”
Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance (2015, background): “…autocratic leadership for the demoralizing effect that an autocratic leader's centralization of power can have on the team climate and thereby on team performance (e.g., De Cremer, 2006; De Luque, Washburn, Waldman, & House, 2008; Edmondson, 2003; Van Vugt, Jepson, Hart, & De Cremer, 2004).”
Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis (2011, background): “…that followers from leaders who show self-sacrificing behavior exhibit higher positive emotions and a stronger willingness to work together (De Cremer, 2006), are more motivated toward prosocial behavior (De Cremer, Mayer, Schouten, & Bardes, 2009), and rate their leaders as more effective…”