9th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. Promoting Dignity and Justice at work June 17-20, 2014, Milan, Italy
How and when may laissez-faire leadership be destructive? The mediating and moderating effects of supervisory interactional justice and occupational self-efficacy.
Anders Skogstad & Jørn Hetland, University of Bergen, Faculty of Psychology, Bergen, Norway
Laissez-faire leadership – More than non-leadership? 1/2 The dominating theoretical definition (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 4): “…the avoidance or absence of leadership and is, by definition, the most inactive – as well as the most ineffective according to almost all research on the style.” Such an avoidance or lack of leader behaviour may also been defined as a form of passive aggressiveness (Buss, 1960). In its extreme Laissez-faire leadership may represent a form of ostracism, by leaders (see e.g. Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008).
Laissez-faire leadership – More than non-leadership? 2/2 The dominating operational definition (MLQ, Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 98): • • • •
Avoid getting involved when important issues arise Am absent when needed Avoid making decisions Delay responding to urgent questions
Operational characteristics: •
Activity through avoidant behaviors
•
Subordinates probable urgent need for assistance
•
An unbalance between subordinates’ resources and situational demands
•
A leadership style resulting in followers experiencing stress
Laissez-faire – a passive forms of destructive leadership (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, & Jacobs, 2012, p. 3)
Negative consequences of Laissez-faire leadership Laissez-faire leadership has shown to be associated with follower job dissatisfaction, low organizational commitment, dissatisfaction with the leader, follower health complaints, burnout reactions, intentions to leave, bullying, and leader ineffectiveness (see Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014 for an overview). In line with various studies on abusive supervision, laissezfaire leadership has also been associated with subordinates’ Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) (Bruursema, 2005; Skogstad, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2009)
Occupational self-efficacy and Interactional justice as a moderator and a mediator, respectively Very few studies, if any, have investigated moderators or mediators in the laissez-faire – CWB relationship. However, such studies have been done in the abusive supervision – CWB relationship. Based on their recent review Martinko and colleagues (2013, p. 132), propose occupational self efficacy to be a moderator in the abusive supervision - follower deviance relationship. Likewise, Tepper (2007), in his review, propose organizational justice to be a mediator in the abusive supervision - follower deviance relationship.
Hypotheses
H1
There is a significant positive relationship between subordinates’ perception of laissez-faire leadership and subordinates’ passive Counterproductive Work Behaviour, (CWP-P).
H2
Occupational self-efficacy (OSE) moderates the relationship between the two. For subordinates scoring low on OSE, high levels of perceived laissez-faire leadership will to a higher degree influence their reports of CWB-P, as compared to subordinates scoring high on OSE.
H3
Supervisory interactional justice mediates the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and CWB-P.
Methods Sample A cross-sectional sample of 200 employees participating in part time university studies. Response rate=approx. 55% (SurveyXact, internet based study)
Measures Laissez-faire leadership, 4 items, Cronbach’s alpha=.79 (MLQ, Bass & Avolio, 2004) Occupational self-efficacy, 6 items, Cronbach’s alphas=.76 (Felfe & Schyns, 2006) Supervisory interactional justice, 4 items, Cronbach’s alphas=.86 (Colquitt, 2001) Passive CWB, acquiescent silence, 5 items, Cronbach’s alphas=.79 (van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003)
Analyses IBM SPSS Statistics 20, regression analyses Sobel test (http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm)
Results – H1 and H2
Laissez-faire leadership
β = .28**
Occupational self-efficacy
Laissez-faire leadership x Occupational self-efficacy
β = -.19**
Passive CWB
β =-.15*
Note * p < .05, ** p < .01 Department of Psychosocial Science
Results - H2 5 4,5
passive CWB
4 3,5
β = .42** Low O self-efficacy
3
β = .14 n.s. High O self-efficacy
2,5 2 1,5 1 Low Laissez-faire
High Laissez-faire
Results – H3
Supervisory interactional justice
β =- .26**
β =- .54**
Passive CWB
Laissez-faire leadership
β = .33** β = .19* Sobels test, t = 2,93** Support for a partial mediation ( 57.6%) of laissez-faire leadership on CWB through supervisory interpersonal justice.
Department of Psychosocial Science
Conclusions • The present study substantiates that laissez-faire leadership is a destructive form of leadership by being systematically related to a passive form of Counterproductive Work Behavior. • This may indicate that subordinates’ retaliate against their superiors which is comparable to superiors’ laissez-faire behavior in the first place – by holding back important information or contributions (cf. ‘tit for that’ (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). • Scoring high on occupational self-efficacy seems to buffer the effect of laissez-faire leadership on CWB, and may as such be perceived as a type of substitute for leadership (cf. Kerr & Jermier,1978). • The systematic effect of laissez-faire leadership on passive CWB may be explained by subordinates’ experiencing laissez-faire leadership to be a highly unjust type of leadership.
Theoretical, methodological and practical implications • Laissez-faire leadership is worth studying per se, and not only to be perceived as an antipole of transactional forms of leadership. • Laissez-faire leadership may be defined as a passive form of destructive leadership. • Future studies should employ longitudinal research designs, also including constructive as well as active destructive forms of leadership, e.g. tyrannical leadership (see Skogstad, Aasland, Nielsen, Hetland, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, in press). • Leaders should emphasize a situational awareness regarding situations when they may be perceived as laissez-faire. Accordingly, leadership development programmes should address laissez-faire leadership just as much as they address transactional and transformational forms of leadership.
“There is no such thing as nonbehavior or, to put it even more simply: one cannot not behave.” (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967, p. 48)
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected] FALK – Research group of Work environment, Leadership and Conflict Department of Psychosocial Science Faculty of psychology University of Bergen, Norway
Du tilbakeholder ideer som kan komme virksomheten til gode. Du kommer ikke uoppfordret med forslag til forbedringer Du sier ikke ifra om forhold som skaper løpende problemer for organisasjonen. Du holder ideer og tanker om løsninger på konkrete problemer for deg selv. Du sier ikke ifra om forhold som setter bedriften i et dårlig lys.
