Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Stress Health. 2016 Jul 29;33(3):211–222. doi: 10.1002/smi.2697

If only my leader would just do something! Passive leadership undermines employee well-being through role stressors and psychological resource depletion

Julian Barling a,*, Michael R Frone b
PMCID: PMC5791740  NIHMSID: NIHMS931751  PMID: 27470980

Abstract

The goal of this study was to develop and test a sequential mediational model explaining the negative relationship of passive leadership to employee well-being. Based on role stress theory, we posit that passive leadership will predict higher levels of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. Invoking Conservation of Resources theory, we further hypothesize that these role stressors will indirectly and negatively influence two aspects of employee well-being, namely overall mental health and overall work attitude, through psychological work fatigue. Using a probability sample of 2,467 U.S. workers, structural equation modeling supported the model by showing that role stressors and psychological work fatigue partially mediated the negative relationship between passive leadership and both aspects of employee well-being. The hypothesized, sequential indirect relationships explained 47.9% of the overall relationship between passive leadership and mental health and 26.6% of the overall relationship between passive leadership and overall work attitude.

Keywords: passive leadership, laissez-faire leadership, role stressors, psychological work fatigue, Conservation of Resources theory, mental health

A substantial body of evidence-based knowledge exists regarding the effects of bad leadership. Not surprisingly, most of this research has focused on more visible and outrageous forms of bad leadership. Taking abusive supervision as one example, Martinko, Harvey, Brees, and Mackey (2013) identified 82 empirical studies published on abusive supervision between 2000 and 2012. In contrast, passive leadership—where leaders avoid or delay taking necessary actions—has received relatively little scrutiny, and there are at least two conceptual reasons for this neglect. First, within the transformational leadership paradigm, passive leadership (or what is referred to as “laissez faire leadership”)1 rests on the negative ends of effective-ineffective and active-passive continua, with the assumption that as long as leaders do nothing they cannot do any real harm. Second, recent models of destructive leadership explicitly exclude passive leadership because of the absence of intent by leaders to harm the organization or its employees (e.g., Kelloway, Sinvanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005; Krasikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Nonetheless, the small but growing body of literature that does exist suggests that passive leadership is associated with a number of potential harms.

Early studies showed that passive leadership (or what was referred to then as leader “role abdication”) was linked to employees’ role ambiguity and conflict (Rizzo, House & Litrzman, 1970). More recently, research has more directly linked passive leadership with role ambiguity and poor role clarity (e.g., Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø & Einarsen, 2014). Not surprisingly, therefore, some evidence exists that passive leadership is negatively related to employee well-being (Zineldin & Hytter, 2012) and work attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Buch, Martinsen & Kuvaas, 2015; Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and affective organizational commitment (Jackson, Meyer, & Wang, 2013). Further, CEO passive leadership is associated with poor top management team effectiveness (Flood et al., 2000), and a meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to leader effectiveness. In sum, a growing evidence base shows that passive leadership contributes to exposure to work-related stressors and is negatively related to important organizational and personal outcomes.

Nonetheless, little effort has been devoted to the development of conceptual models that attempt to explain how passive leadership influences important employee outcomes. The goal of the present study, therefore, was to develop and test a sequential mediational model linking passive leadership to employee mental health and overall work attitude via role stressors and psychological work fatigue (i.e., depletion of mental and emotional resources). To do so, we integrate across two separate literatures (i.e., leadership and work stress), and two different theories of work stress (i.e., role stress and conservation of resources theories). The hypothesized conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. We develop the theoretical and empirical rationale for the model below.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model of passive leadership, role stressors, psychological work fatigue, and employee well-being.

Passive Leadership and Role Stressors

Although hundreds of peer-reviewed, empirical studies on leadership are published each year (Barling, 2014), the primary focus of much of this research is on “higher impact theories or models of leadership” (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumba, & Chan, 2009, p. 765) that largely represents charismatic, transformational, inspirational and ethical leadership. However, what is lost in all this “new” research is a focus on “traditional” models of leadership that emphasize the leaders’ role in providing direction and support, and ensuring that appropriate reward (and punishment) structures are in place that help to provide clarity about performance standards and expectations. As we will show, leaders’ failure to do so may create a work environment that can compromise employees’ ability to meet performance expectations, and may undermine their well-being.

To understand why passive leadership has negative effects for employees requires an appreciation of the basic functions of leadership. Effective performance and well-being depend, in part, on employees understanding what is expected of them at work. This would include an understanding of the various aspects of the process involved in task completion, including required standards for performance. After all, it would be pointless to complete work on time if it does not meet minimum quality standards. Also, it would be counterproductive for employees to do high quality work that is not completed on time. When leaders explicitly share the information and expectations that are required for employees to do their work, or do so implicitly by rewarding positive behaviors or admonishing negative behaviors (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), the basic functions of leadership are fulfilled. However, it cannot be taken for granted that this always occurs in organizations. For example, in their national sample of 1,500 American workers, Kahn et al. (1964) reported that 38% of their respondents were distressed because they did not receive the information necessary for adequate job performance. More recently, Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielson, and Einarsen (2010) showed in their representative sample of Norwegian workers, that 21% of employees had experienced passive leadership in the prior six months. Therefore, given the prevalence of exposure to passive leadership among employees, and the fact that passive leadership represents a failure to carry out the basic functions of leadership, it is important to explore further its potential to undermine employees’ ability to successfully enact their work roles.

Introduced by Kahn et al. (1964), role ambiguity refers to the difference between the amount of information available and the amount required for successful performance, and role conflict refers to incompatible demands made by at least two people, often supervisors, on a third person. Based on role theory (Kahn et al., 1964), we expect that the lack of guidance and information reflective of passive leadership would heighten employees’ role ambiguity. In addition, passive leadership may increase the likelihood of employees experiencing role conflict because passive leaders will not actively manage task and interpersonal processes in such a way as to minimize experienced role conflict among members of their organization or team. For example, an accounts service employee may be subject to competing demands from two salespersons. However, a passive supervisor will be less likely to have procedures in place to reduce the likelihood of role conflict occurring and may be less likely to quickly intervene if role conflict should occur. Although little research has explicitly explored the link between passive leadership and either role ambiguity or role conflict, several studies provide support for these relationships. First, Jackson and Schuler (1985) found that low initiating structure by leaders (a potential proxy for passive leadership) was positively related to role conflict and role ambiguity. Second, Hauge, Skogstad and Einarsen (2007) reported cross-sectional evidence that laissez faire leadership was positively related to role ambiguity and role conflict. Third, Skogstad et al. (2014) showed a time-lagged effect of laissez faire leadership on role ambiguity, though no other role stressors were simultaneously assessed. Finally, perhaps the strongest support for the link between passive leadership and role ambiguity derives from Schaubroeck, Ganster, Sime and Ditman’s (1993) field experiment showing that management training in clarifying roles reduced employee role ambiguity.

Missing from the discussion above, and frequently missing from research on role stressors, is a consideration of role overload. Initially conceived as a special form of role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964), role overload exists when people believe that the demands placed on them cannot be fulfilled in the available time (quantitative overload) or that they lack the skills for satisfactory task performance (qualitative overload). Given that some of the basic leadership functions include scheduling work and setting deadlines, on the one hand, and making training opportunities available to enable appropriate skills acquisition on the other, passive leadership may expose employees to both quantitative and qualitative role overload. Furthermore, Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out that “since organizational activity must be geared to certain constancies in a time schedule, changed inputs create a condition of overload in one or more of the organizational subsystems” (p. 451). Changed inputs can include changes in personnel due to voluntary or involuntary attrition or changes in demands made across interdependent jobs or departments. One would expect that passive leaders are not likely to intervene in such cases at all or not soon enough minimize excessive role demands placed on their employees. Relatedly, supervisors who fail to provide direction and feedback would leave employees, especially those committed to the organization or involved in their work, with a greater quantitative load as they seek to establish for themselves what work needs to be done, what work might be rewarded, and what work can be safely ignored. Thus, despite the absence of available research, we suggest that passive leadership also would increase employees’ experience of role overload. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1

Passive leadership will be positively associated with role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity.

Role Stressors, Psychological Resource Depletion and Employee Well-Being

A substantial body of literature has accumulated on the negative outcomes of role stressors since Kahn et al.’s (1964) initial research (e.g., Beehr & Glazer, 2005; Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic & Johnson, 2011; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Suffice it to say that role stressors have consistently been negatively associated with two broad aspects of employee well-being, namely mental health (e.g., anxiety: Caplan & Jones, 1975; depression: Schmidt, Roesler, Kusserow, & Rau 2014) and work attitudes (e.g., affective organizational commitment: Chênevert, Vandenberghe, Doucet, & Ben Ayed, 2013; job satisfaction: e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Despite the negative relationship between role stressors and employee well-being, research has not explored the potential process linking these variables. As shown in Figure 1, we propose that psychological work fatigue (i.e., psychological resource depletion) mediates the relationship between role stressors and employee well-being.

The proposed intervening role of psychological work fatigue is based on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). According to COR theory, people have a finite set of valued resources which they are motivated to obtain, retain, and protect, which include energies. Stress outcomes are experienced when individuals are threatened with resource loss, actually loss of resources, or fail to regain resources following resource investment. For example, to meet demands imposed by role stressors, individuals need to expend (lose) cognitive and/or emotional energy. Thus, COR theory suggests that role stressors can lead to an energy depletion process resulting in psychological work fatigue, and COR theory is especially relevant given the chronic nature of role stress. Two of the defining criteria for chronic (as opposed to acute) stressors are that (a) they endure for long periods of time, and (b) have no “end point” (i.e., individuals in the situation would see no end in sight to the stressor; Barling, Bluen & Fain, 1987). Given that the most powerful source of role stressors is the quality of supervision (Kahn et al., 1964), chronic exposure to passive leadership will lead to chronic exposure to role stressors. That exposure to passive leadership can be chronic receives support from Skogstad et al.’s (2014) multi-wave longitudinal study in which the stability coefficients for laissez faire leadership across two and three years were .65 and .53 respectively (N = 1771). Finally, meta-analytic studies have reported that chronic exposure to role conflict, ambiguity, and overload are positively related to emotional work fatigue (i.e., chronic psychological resource depletion; Alarcan, 2011; Lee & Ashforth, 1996). The chronic nature of these stressors is especially important because faced with on-going exposure, resource replenishment becomes unlikely. Moreover, as Christie and Barling (2009) showed in their longitudinal study, chronic work stress will not just prevent resource replenishment, but is also more likely to result in downward resource spirals.

COR theory further proposes that chronic resource depletion is itself psychologically damaging, thereby leading to lower levels of employee well-being. Thus, we expect that chronic psychological work fatigue will be associated with poor mental health and work attitudes. Meta-analytic research supports this by showing that emotional exhaustion is negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Alarcan, 2011; Lee & Ashforth, 1996), and is negatively related to mental health (Huang, Du, Chen, Yang, & Huang, 2011; van Daalen, Willemsen, Sanders, & van Veldhoven, 2009). Finally, although Huang et al. (2011) did not assess role conflict or ambiguity, they found that role overload was negatively and indirectly related to mental health via increased emotional exhaustion. Based on this discussion, the following specific hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 2

Role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity will be positively related to psychological work fatigue.

Hypothesis 3

Psychological work fatigue will be negatively related to both mental health and overall work attitude.

Hypothesis 4

Role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity will be negatively and indirectly related to mental health and overall work attitude via psychological work fatigue.

Passive leadership and Employee Well-being

The relations described above collectively present a sequential mediational process that indirectly links passive leadership to employee mental health and overall work attitude via role stressors and psychological work fatigue. Therefore, we further hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5

Passive leadership will be negatively and indirectly related to mental health and overall work attitude via role stressors and psychological work fatigue.

Method

Sample and Study Design

There were 2,975 U.S. workers who took part in a national telephone survey called the National Survey of Work Stress and Health.2 The population from which the study participants were randomly sampled was all noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 to 65 who were currently employed in the civilian labor force and residing in households in the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. Data were collected by 29 extensively trained interviewers using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) stations from December 2008 to April 2011. Of all selected eligible individuals, 47% participated in the study. Before being interviewed, informed consent was obtained from all participants. On average, the interview lasted 55 minutes and participants were paid $25.00 for their time. Of the 2,975 study participants, the present analyses were restricted to the 2,467 wage and salary workers (owner/operators were excluded) who had complete data on all of the variables used in this study.

Sampling Weights

For all analyses, the participants are weighted according to standard procedures for sample survey data (e.g., Korn & Graubard, 1999; Levy & Lemeshow, 1999) to generalize to the target population defined earlier. The sampling weights account for differences in the initial selection probability for the reached telephone number, the number of different telephone lines through which the household could be reached, and the number of eligible adults in the household. The weights further adjust for differential nonresponse and are poststratified to population totals obtained from the Current Population Survey (Bowler & Morisi, 2006) for the months during which the present study was in the field.

Participant Characteristics

Respondent (i.e., population) characteristics are described with weighted means and percentages. Of the participants, 51.7% were men. Furthermore, 69.4% were White, 12.8% were Black, 9.0% were Hispanic, and 8.8% were of other racial/ethnic makeup. The average age of the participants was 40 years. In terms of highest level of education, 0.2% did not attend high school; 4.3% attended high school but did not graduate; 19.4% graduated from high school or obtained a GED; 3.1% attended trade, technical, or vocational training beyond high school; 20.1% attended some college; 9.2% received an Associate’s degree; 22.3% received a Bachelor’s degree; 2.9% attended some graduate school; 14.3% received a Master’s degree; and 4.2% received a doctoral level degree. Median family income was $65,000. On average, the participants worked 40.5 hours per week and held their present job for 5.3 years.

Measures

Descriptive statistics for and correlations among all study variables are provided in Table 1. Each of the variables is describe below.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Model Constructs (weighted)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Passive Leadership 1.95 0.89 ----
2. Role overload 2.11 1.28 .27 ----
3. Role conflict 2.58 0.97 .37 .34 ----
4. Role ambiguity 1.50 0.60 .38 .24 .32 ----
5. Psychological work fatigue 1.48 1.04 .23 .40 .26 .21 ----
6. Mental health 3.09 0.72 −.17 −.15 −.14 −.17 −.41 ----
7. Overall work attitude 3.16 0.80 −.42 −.17 −.26 −.33 −.21 .24 ----
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 2,467. All correlations are significant at p < .001.

Passive leadership

Passive leadership was assessed with five items—two items were adapted from Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997), two from Pearce and Sims (2002), and one item was developed for this study. The items were: Your supervisor …tends to be unavailable when staff need help with a problem; …waits until things have gone wrong before taking action; …delays taking action until problems become serious; …avoids making decisions; and …avoids getting involved when important issues arise. Response anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability was .90.

Role overload

Role overload was assessed with three commonly used items (Lisle, van Veldhoven, & Moors, 1998; Spector & Jex, 1998). An example item is During the past 12 months, how often did you have too much work to do? Response anchors for each item ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (everyday). Internal consistency reliability was .86.

Role conflict

Role conflict was assessed with three items—two items from Peterson et al. (1994) and one item from House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983). An example item is I often receive conflicting requests from two or more people at work. Response anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability was .86.

Role ambiguity

Role ambiguity was assessed with four items developed by House et al. (1983). An example item is My job has clear goals and objectives. Response anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). All role ambiguity items were reverse scored. Internal consistency reliability was .82.

Psychological work fatigue

Psychological work fatigue was assessed with the mental and emotional fatigue scales from the Three-Dimensional Work Fatigue Inventory (Frone & Tidwell, 2015). Mental and emotional work fatigue were each assessed with six items that were commensurate across the two dimensions of work fatigue. Example items are: During the past 12 months, how often did you feel mentally exhausted at the end of the workday?; and During the past 12 months, how often did you want to emotionally shut down at the end of the workday? Response anchors ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (everyday). The scale scores for mental and emotional work fatigue were used as indicators for a latent psychological work fatigue variable. For the correlation matrix presented in Table 1, the two scale scores were averaged into a composite psychological work fatigue variable. Internal consistency reliability was .95 for mental work fatigue, .95 for emotional work fatigue, and .97 for the composite psychological work fatigue measure.

Mental health

Mental health was assessed with three indicators. The first two indictors were from a two-item measure of mental health developed by Frone (2007), which was based on approaches commonly used in epidemiological and public health research to represent both absolute and relative ratings of health. The two items were: In general, would you say your mental or emotional health is poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent? and In general, compared to most (men/women) of your age, is your mental or emotional health much worse, somewhat worse, about the same, somewhat better, or much better? For both of these items, the responses were scored from 1 (poor or much worse) to 5 (excellent or much better). The third indicator represented a scale score obtained by average reports of the frequency of experiencing three depressive symptoms—being depressed, sad, and gloomy. Response anchors for the depressive experiences ranged from 0 (never) to (3) often. The measure of depressive symptoms was reverse scored so that high scores represent better mental health (low depression). Internal consistency reliability for the overall mental health measure was .77.

Overall work attitude

Job satisfaction was assessed with three items developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). An example item is All in all, I am satisfied with my job. Organizational affective commitment was assessed with three items developed by Meyer and Allen (1997). An example item is: This organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. Response anchors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Following Harrison, Newman, and Roth (2006) and Schat and Frone (2011), the scale scores for job satisfaction and organizational commitment were used as indicators for a latent overall work attitude variable. For the correlation matrix presented in Table 1, the two scale scores were averaged into an overall work attitude variable. Internal consistency reliability was .91 for job satisfaction, .88 for organizational commitment, and .93 for the overall work attitude measure.

Data Analysis

The latent variable structural model (see Figure 1) was analyzed using Mplus software (Version 7.4; Muthen & Muthen, 2015). A robust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV) was used to accommodate the sampling weights and the mix of continuous and ordinal manifest indicator variables (Asparouhov, 2005; Muthen & Muthen, 2015). Model fit was assessed with the χ2 statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Based on recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1989), the following cut-offs were used to indicate adequate model fit: CFI and TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .06. Chi-square difference testing of nested models was accomplished using a robust chi-square difference test (DIFFTEST) developed for mean and variance adjusted weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2006). Finally, because the sampling distribution of indirect effects (i.e., a product of two or more coefficients) is nonnormal, the significance of the indirect effects was based on bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals using 5,000 bootstrap samples (e.g., Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).

Results

Overall Model Fit

The hypothesized conceptual model (see Figure 1) showed a good fit to the data: χ2 (197, N = 2,467) = 1,058.95, p <.001; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; and RMSEA = .042 (90% CI [.040, .045]). Nonetheless, because the model contained nine direct paths constrained to equal zero, modification indices were examined to determine whether or not these constraints were reasonable. As a result, three constrained relationships were freed—passive leadership to mental health, passive leadership to overall work attitude, and role ambiguity to overall work attitude. A robust chi-square difference test showed that the revised conceptual model (see Figure 2) fit better than that hypothesized conceptual model shown in Figure 1 (Δχ2 [3, N = 2,467] = 174.21, p < .001). Also, the revised conceptual model showed an excellent overall fit to the data: χ2 (194, N = 2,467) = 569.53, p <.001; CFI = .99; TLI = .98; and RMSEA = .028 (90% CI [.025, .031]). The paths that were freed indicate that (a) the role stressors and psychological fatigue only partially mediated the relationship of passive leadership to both mental health and overall work attitude and (b) psychological fatigue only partially mediated the relationship of role ambiguity to overall work attitude.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Structural equation modeling results for the revised conceptual model (weighted). N = 2,467. Standardized path coefficients are shown. To simplify presentation of the model, the standardized factor loadings for the latent variables are shown in Table 2. Correlations among the latent mediator and between the latent outcome variables are shown in Table 3. All path coefficients are significant at p < .001.

Parameter Estimates

Parameter estimates for the revised structural equation model are presented in Tables 2 to 4 and Figure 2. Table 2 presents the factor loadings for each of the latent variables. These results indicate that the 22 indicator variables loaded highly and significantly on their respective latent variable. Table 3 presents the correlations among the latent role stressors variables and between the latent mental health and overall work attitude variables. The results show that the role stressors were significantly and positively interrelated as was mental health and overall work attitude.

Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings for the Substantive Model (weighted)

Factor/Indicators Standardized
Factor
Loadingsa 		Factor/Indicators Standardized
Factor
Loadingsa
Passive leadership Mental health
 Item 1 .78  Item 1 .92
 Item 2 .91  Item 2 .77
 Item 3 .92  Low depressive symptoms .67
 Item 4 .86
 Item 5 .87 Overall work attitude
 Job satisfaction .92
Role overload  Organizational commitment .73
 Item 1 .84
 Item 2 .91
 Item 3 .88
Role conflict
 Item 1 .83
 Item 2 .87
 Item 3 .91
Role ambiguity
 Item 1 .81
 Item 2 .83
 Item 3 .82
 Item 4 .87
Psychological work fatigue
 Mental work fatigue .82
 Emotional work fatigue .91
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 2,467.

a

All factor loadings significant at p < .001.

Table 4.

Standardized total effects, direct effects, total indirect effects, and specific indirect effects for psychological fatigue, mental health, and overall work attitude (weighted)

Effects Psychological fatigue
β (95% BC CI)		 Mental
health
β (95% BC CI)		 Overall
Work attitude
β (95% BC CI)
Passive leadership
Total effect .234 (.190, .280) −.215 (−.276, −.153) −.488 (−.553, −.428)
Direct effect 0a −.112 (−.174, −.049) −.358 (−.462, −.270)
Total indirect effect .234 (.190, .280) −.103 (−.133, −.078) −.130 (−.178, −.081)
Specific indirect effects:
 via role overload .116 (.088, .151)
 via role conflict .052 (.018, .088)
 via role ambiguity .066 (.026, .109) −.103 (−.151, −.055)
 via role overload and
psychological work fatigue		 −.051 (−.071, −.037) −.013 (−.024, −.005)
 via role conflict and
psychological work fatigue		 −.023 (−.039, −.008) −.006 (−.014, −.001)
 via role ambiguity and
psychological work fatigue		 −.029 (−.051, −.011) −.007 (−.017, −.002)
Role overload
Total effect −.153 (−.197, −.115) −.040 (−.068, −.014)
Direct effect 0a 0a
Total indirect effect
via psychological work fatigue		 −.153 (−.197. −.115) −.040 (−.068, −.014)
Role conflict
Total effect −.051 (−.085, −.017) −.013 (−.031, −.003)
Direct effect 0a 0a
Total indirect effect
via psychological work fatigue		 −.051 (−.085, −.017) −.013 (−.031, −.003)
Role ambiguity
Total effect −.058 (−.101, −.023) −.224 (−.307, −.132)
Direct effect 0a −.209 (−.294, −.115)
Total indirect effect
via psychological work fatigue		 −.058 (−.101, −.023) −.015 (−.033, −.004)
Open in a new tab

Note: N=2,467. β = standardized effects. BC CI = bias corrected confidence interval. The bias corrected confidence intervals for all effects in this table were based on 5,000 bootstrap samples.

a

Direct effect constrained to equal zero.

Table 3.

Correlations among the Latent Variables (weighted)

Parameter Correlationsa
Latent Mediator Variables
 Role overload—Role conflict .30
 Role overload—Role ambiguity .17
 Role conflict—Role ambiguity .25
Latent Outcome Variables
 Mental health—Overall work
attitude		 .18
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 2,467.

a

All correlations significant at p < .001.

Figure 2 presents the standardized estimates for the direct relationships that comprised the revised conceptual model, and Table 4 presents the standardized indirect relationships of passive leadership to psychological fatigue and the standardized indirect relationships of the role stressors and passive leadership to mental health and overall work attitude. The results in Figure 2 show that passive leadership was positively related to role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. Supporting Hypothesis 2, each of the role stressors was positively and independently related to psychological work fatigue. Supporting Hypothesis 3, psychological work fatigue was negatively related to mental health and overall work attitude. Finally, the revised model in Figure 2 shows that passive leadership was directly and negatively related to both mental health and overall work attitude, and that role ambiguity was directly and negatively related to overall work attitude.

Turning to the indirect relationships, Table 4 shows that role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity were each negative and indirectly related to mental health and overall work attitude via psychological work fatigue. These findings support Hypothesis 4. The results in Table 4 and Figure 2 also show that the relationships of role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity to mental health were fully mediated by psychological work fatigue. Similarly, the relationships of role overload and role conflict to overall work attitude were fully mediated by psychological work fatigue. In contrast, psychological work fatigue only partially mediated the relationship between role ambiguity and overall work attitude. The results in Figure 2 and Table 4 show that passive leadership was indirectly related to psychological work fatigue via the three role stressors. More importantly, and supporting Hypothesis 5, the total indirect relationships for passive leadership show that it was negatively and indirectly related to both mental health (β = −.103, p < .05) and overall work attitude (β = −.130, p < .05) via the sequential paths involving the role stressors and psychological work fatigue. Table 4 also shows that each of the six individual indirect paths linking passive leadership to the two well-being outcomes via role stressors and psychological work fatigue were negative and statistically significant. However, because the revised model included significant direct paths from passive leadership to both mental health and overall work attitude, role stressors and psychological work fatigue only partially mediated the overall relationships. Finally, comparing the size of the total indirect effects to total effects, shown in Table 4, reveals that the indirect relations involving the role stressors and psychological work fatigue explained 47.9% (−.103/−.215) of the relationship between passive leadership and mental health and 26.6% (−.130/−.488) of the relationship between passive leadership and overall work attitude.

Discussion

Building from role stress and COR theories, a conceptual model was developed and revised (see Figure 2) outlining the direct and indirect relations of passive leadership to employee well-being. Overall, the results support four general findings. First, passive leadership is directly related to a poor work environment, as reflected in its positive relation to three types of role stressors. Second, passive leadership is directly and/or indirectly related to several types of employee harm—higher levels of psychological work fatigue and poorer mental health and overall work attitude. Third, the total and direct relationships between passive leadership and overall work attitude were stronger than the total and direct relationships between passive leadership and mental health, respectively. Fourth, the role stressors and psychological work fatigue partially mediated the relationship of passive leadership to both mental health and overall work attitude. However, the indirect relations involving role stressors and psychological work fatigue explained a larger proportion of the relationship between passive leadership and mental health (47.9%) than the relationship between passive leadership and overall work attitude (26.6%).

Although the post-hoc addition of three direct paths to the conceptual model should be considered as tentative until replicated, they are conceptually reasonable and were based on a large probability sample of U.S. workers. The direct relationship from role ambiguity to overall work attitudes suggests that, compared to role overload and role conflict, role ambiguity may undermine work attitudes directly or that its relationship to work attitudes involves some other mediating mechanism in addition to psychological work fatigue. Likewise, the direct relationships of passive leadership to mental health and overall work attitude may suggest that passive leadership is sufficiently detrimental to directly influence employee well-being or that the proposed model needs to be expanded to include other mediator variables.

In addition to the specific findings just summarized, this study more generally provides support for role stress and COR theories. Role stress theory suggests role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload are unique and individually important constructs. Nonetheless, prior research often studies the three role stressors in isolation. By simultaneously modeling all three role stressors, this study revealed that each of them plays an important role—passive leadership was positively related to all three role stressors and each role stressor was positively and directly related to psychological work fatigue. In terms of COR theory, a central hypothesized process linking work stressors to stress outcomes is resource depletion. Despite the underlying assumption that work stressors and various outcomes are indirectly linked via resource depletion, past research often fails to directly test this assumption. Adding to this literature, this study provides support for a key tenet of COR theory by showing that passive leadership and three role stressors were indirectly related to poor employee well-being via psychological work fatigue, which directly reflects psychological resource depletion at work.

Study Strengths and Weaknesses

The present results should be interpreted within the context of the strengths and limitations of this study. In terms of strengths, this study used a large and broad probability samples of U.S. employees, which would provide more variation in the constructs than smaller convenience samples. Further, compared to typical convenience samples, the present sample provided adequate statistical power to detect the hypothesized effects and provide more accurate estimates of population effect sizes (e.g., Ioannidis, 2005, 2008).

These strengths notwithstanding, the present study has two potential weaknesses. The first limitation is that although the results were consistent with theoretical expectations, the present cross-sectional data do not lend themselves to strong inferences regarding the direction of causal effects because they cannot rule out reverse or reciprocal relations. Although the present model should be replicated with longitudinal data, prior research provides some support for the hypothesized causal direction proposed in the model. For example, using a large nationally representative sample in Norway, Skogstad et al. (2014) showed that (a) laissez faire leadership predicted role ambiguity at three later time points (with time lags of two and three years respectively) and (b) role ambiguity did not predict later reports of laissez faire leadership. Moreover, Chênevert et al. (2013) showed that the effects of initial passive leadership on affective commitment measured three years later was fully mediated by role ambiguity, though they did not test for reverse causality.

A second limitation is that collecting all data from a single source may result in common methods variance (CMV). Although it is generally assumed that CMV can inflate construct relations relative to the true population effect, CMV can lead to deflated construct relations as well (e.g., Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). In order to minimize processes that lead to CMV, such as consistency biases, demand characteristics, and social desirability biases, the present study incorporated several suggested procedural remedies to minimize the likelihood of CMV occurring (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012): (a) confidentiality of responses was assured and no information was collected in terms of where the participants were employed; (b) interviewer training included building rapport with participants; (c) the measures and items, as well as the number of response options, were selected or developed to minimize the cognitive demands of the survey; (d) the focal measures in the present analyses used several different response formats and were separated within and across sections of a larger questionnaire by assessments of other constructs; and (e) the survey was interviewer-administered over the telephone, which can reduce response consistency by making prior responses physically unavailable and less likely to be available in short-term memory, and minimize stylistic and careless responding.

Directions for future research

The results of the current study suggest several directions for future research on passive leadership and its consequences. First, more research should be devoted to construct and measurement development. The most widely referenced/used construct is laissez faire leadership, which reflects an undifferentiated and unintentional lack of leader response. Hinkin and Schreisheim (2007) brought greater conceptual clarity by introducing the constructs of reward omission and punishment omission as possible supervisory non-responses to performance, showing that they uniquely predicted perceived supervisor effectiveness, satisfaction with the supervisor and role clarity after controlling for laissez faire leadership. However, they also showed that reward and punishment omission and laissez faire leadership were distinct constructs. Thus, passive leadership may represent a multidimensional construct comprised of a general and more specific dimensions.

Second, research on role stressors generally focuses on role ambiguity and role conflict simultaneously, without considering role overload in the set of role stressors. Yet all three role stressors played a mediating role in linking passive leadership to employee well-being. Given this finding and the positive associations among the three role stressors, future research should assess and model the three role stressors simultaneously.

Third, because the three role stressors and psychological work fatigue only partially mediated the negative relation of passive leadership to mental health and work attitudes, research should consider other pathways through which passive leadership might exert its negative effects on employee well-being. For example, having a leader who ignores requests for assistance, fails to provide feedback, encouragement or even punishment, would suggest to employees that they are not an integral part of the organization and that their work is not important, thus thwarting needs for belongingness (e.g., Twenge, Baumeister, Tice & Stucke, 2001), and meaningfulness (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007) that are critical for psychological well-being. Moreover, failing to show an interest in employees’ performance, especially when it is of a high quality could compromise the development of positive self-efficacy beliefs that are central to subsequent performance (e.g., Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Thus, future research might focus on belongingness, meaningfulness, and self-efficacy as additional mediating variables.

Fourth, while the available literature points to the negative effects of passive leadership, it would be premature to assume that all employees respond to passive leadership in the same way. For example, employees with a higher need for personal growth (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) may view passive leadership as an opportunity for learning and development, thereby moderating (i.e., reducing) any of the negative effects of passive leadership on three role stressors, mental health or overall work attitudes that we found in this study. Therefore, until research explores possible conditional effects involving passive leadership, we cannot exclude the possibility that passive leadership might exert positive outcomes. Future research should investigate the role of the need for personal growth, as well as other possible moderators such as personal resilience, on the effects of passive leadership.

Finally, research needs to explore the relationship of passive leadership to motivational outcomes and work performance. One issue that might be explored is whether inactive and passive leaders fail to elicit high levels of motivation and employee engagement, thereby resulting in lower levels of task performance, fewer citizenship behaviors, and an increased likelihood of various types of organizational deviance. In addition, controlled laboratory studies might investigate the possible link between passive leadership and objective measures of work performance while manipulating different conceptualizations of passive leadership, such as laissez faire leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006) or reward and punishment omission (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). The conceptual model developed is this study outlines a set of processes that would be useful in exploring all these questions.

Practical implications

Earlier, we drew attention to the fact that the nature and consequences of passive leadership have largely been ignored by researchers. Based on Avolio et al.’s (2009) analysis of leadership intervention research, we suggest that a similar situation exists regarding practical leadership development initiatives, where most leadership interventions would be concentrated on helping leaders acquire positive behaviors, without making leaders aware of their negative behaviors. Our findings and those of others (e.g., Skogstad et al., 2014) indicate that formal management and leadership development programs should explicitly include a focus on the nature and mostly negative effects of passive leadership styles. For this to happen, lessons about the negative effects of passive leadership need to be shared with those charged with leadership training and with decisions about organizational leadership.

Conclusion

This study shows that passive leadership may have a deleterious relationship with employee well-being. Part of its negative relationship is indirect—passive leadership may result in a negative work environment that depletes employees’ psychological resources, which then results in poorer mental health and work attitudes. Therefore, management needs to be made aware of the potential deleterious effects resulting from a passive leadership style. As noted earlier, employee exposure to passive leadership is not rare.

Acknowledgments

Manuscript preparation was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Julian Barling. Data collection was supported by a grant (R01-AA016592) from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to Michael R. Frone. The content of this project is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, or the National Institutes of Health. These agencies played no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Footnotes

1

We retain the use of the term “laissez faire” leadership when it is used explicitly in research under discussion, such as within transformational leadership theory (Bass & Riggio, 1996), and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. More generally, however, we use the term “passive leadership” throughout to capture leadership behaviors that reflect disengagement or unwillingness to take action as the leader.

2

The present paper is based on a large national survey that was developed to address a number of substantive issues. In addition to the present paper, participants and data from this larger project have been used in several other papers (Frone, 2015, 2016, in press; Frone & Tidwell, 2015). Despite some overlap in variables, each paper addresses unique hypotheses, is based on different theoretical perspectives, and makes a conceptually unique contribution.

References

  1. Aasland MS, Skogstad A, Notelaers G, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. The prevalence of destructive leadership behavior. British Journal of Management. 2010;21:438–452. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alarcan GM. A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2011;79:549–562. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold KA, Turner N, Barling J, Kelloway EK, McKee M. Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2007;12:193–203. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asparouhov T. Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling. 2005;12:411–434. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asparouhov T, Muthen B. Robust chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2006. Mplus web notes No. 10. http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  6. Avolio BJ, Reichard RJ, Hannah ST, Walumbwa FO, Chan A. A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Leadership Quarterly. 2009;20:764–784. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barling J. The Science of Leadership: Lessons from Research for Organizational Leaders. NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barling J, Bluen SD, Fain R. Psychological functioning following an acute disaster. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1987;72:683–690. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bass BM, Riggio RE. Transformational leadership. 2nd. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  10. Beehr TA, Glazer S. Organizational role stress. In: Barling J, Kelloway EK, Frone MR, editors. Handbook of Work Stress. CA: Sage; 2005. pp. 7–33. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowler M, Morisi TL. Understanding the employment measures from the CPS and CES survey. Monthly Labor Review. 2006;129:23–38. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buch R, Martinsen ØL, Kuvaas B. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior: The mediating role of economic leader-member exchange relationships. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 2015;22:115–124. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins D, Klesh J. Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In: Seashore SE, Lawler EE III, Mirvis PH, Cammann C, editors. Assessing organization change. New York: Wiley; 1983. pp. 71–138. [Google Scholar]
  14. Caplan RD, Jones KW. Effects of work load, role ambiguity, and Type A personality on anxiety, depression and heart rate. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975;60:713–719. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chênevert D, Vandenberghe C, Doucet O, Ben Ayed AK. Passive leadership, role stressors, and affective organizational commitment: A time-lagged study among health care employees. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. 2013;63:277–286. [Google Scholar]
  16. Christie AM, Barling J. Disentangling the indirect links between socioeconomic status and health: The dynamic roles of work stressors and personal control. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94:1466–1478. doi: 10.1037/a0016847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Den Hartog DN, Van Muijen JJ, Koopman PL. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1997;70:19–34. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eatough EM, Chaang CH, Miloslavic SA, Johnson RE. Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011;96:619–632. doi: 10.1037/a0021887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Flood PC, Hannan E, Smith KG, Turner T, West MA, Dawson J. Chief executive leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2000;9:401–420. [Google Scholar]
  20. Frone MR. Obesity and absenteeism among U.S. workers: Do physical health and mental health explain the relation? Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health. 2007;22:65–79. [Google Scholar]
  21. Frone MR. Relations of negative and positive work experiences to employee alcohol use: Testing the intervening role of negative and positive work rumination. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2015;20:148–160. doi: 10.1037/a0038375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Frone MR. The great recession and employee alcohol use: A U.S. population study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2016;30:158–167. doi: 10.1037/adb0000143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Frone MR. Work stress and alcohol use: Developing and testing a biphasic self-medication model. Work & Stress. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2016.1252971. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Frone MR, Tidwell M-CO. The Meaning and Measurement of Work Fatigue: Development and Evaluation of the Three-Dimensional Work Fatigue Inventory (3D-WFI) Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2015;20:273–288. doi: 10.1037/a0038700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hackman RJ, Oldham GR. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975;60:159–170. [Google Scholar]
  26. Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal. 2006;49:305–325. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hauge LJ, Skogstad A, Einarsen S. Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative sample. Work and Stress. 2007;21:220–242. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hinkin TR, Schriesheim CA. An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93:1234–1248. doi: 10.1037/a0012875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989;44:513–524. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology. 2002;6:307–324. [Google Scholar]
  31. House RJ, Schuler RS, Levanoni E. Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality Or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology. 1983;68:334–337. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hu L-T, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1989;6:1–55. [Google Scholar]
  33. Huang Y-H, Du P-I, Chen C-H, Yang C-A, Huang I-C. Mediating effects of emotional exhaustion on the relationship between job demands-control model and mental ealth. Stress and Health. 2010;27:e94–e109. doi: 10.1002/smi.1340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2:e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ioannidis JPA. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19:640–648. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackson SE, Schuler RS. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1985;36:16–78. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackson TA, Meyer JP, Wang F. Leadership, commitment and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational and Leadership Studies. 2013;20:84–106. [Google Scholar]
  38. Judge TA, Piccolo RF. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004;89:755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA. Organizational Stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. NY: Wiley & Sons; 1964. [Google Scholar]
  40. Katz D, Kahn RL. The social psychology of organizations. 2nd. New York: Wiley; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kelloway EK, Sivanathan N, Francis L, Barling J. Poor leadership. In: Barling J, Kelloway EK, Frone M, editors. Handbook of Work Stress. CA: Sage; 2005. pp. 89–112. 2005. [Google Scholar]
  42. Korn E, Graubard B. Analysis of health surveys. New York: Wiley; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  43. Krasikova DV, Green SG, LeBreton JM. Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management. 2013;39:1308–1338. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lee RT, Ashforth BE. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1996;81:123–133. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Levy PS, Lemeshow S. Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. 3rd. New York: Wiley; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lisle J, van Veldhoven M, Moors S. Questionnaire on the experience and evaluation of work. Amsterdam, Netherlands: National Institute for Working Conditions; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  47. Martinko MJ, Harvey P, Brees JR, Mackey J. A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2013;34:120–137. [Google Scholar]
  48. Meyer JP, Allen NJ. Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. CA: Sage Publications; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  49. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide (Version 7) Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pearce CL, Sims HP., Jr Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics. 2002;6:172–197. [Google Scholar]
  51. Peterson MF, Smith PB, Akande A, Ayestaran S, Bochner S, Callan V, Sinha TN. Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: a 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal. 1995;38(2):429–452. [Google Scholar]
  52. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012;63:539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2007;42:185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SJ. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1970;15:150–163. [Google Scholar]
  55. Schat ACH, Frone MR. Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work and Stress. 2011;25:23–40. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2011.563133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Schaubroeck J, Ganster DC, Sime WE, Ditman D. A field experiment testing supervisory role clarification. Personnel Psychology. 1993;46:1–25. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schmidt S, Roesler U, Kusserow T, Rau R. Uncertainty in the workplace: Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression—a meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2014;23:91–106. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schyns B, Schilling J. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly. 2013;24:138–158. [Google Scholar]
  59. Siemsen E, Roth A, Oliveira P. Common method bias in regression with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods. 2010;13:456–476. [Google Scholar]
  60. Skogstad A, Hetland J, Glasø L, Einarsen S. Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. Work and Stress. 2014;28:323–341. [Google Scholar]
  61. Spector PE, Jex SM. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1998;3:356–367. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1998;124:240–261. [Google Scholar]
  63. Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81:1058–1069. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. van Daalen G, Willemsen TM, Sanders K, van Veldhoven MJPM. Emotional exhaustion and mental health problem among employees doing “people work”: The impact of job demands, job resources, and family-to-work conflict. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2009;82:291–303. doi: 10.1007/s00420-008-0334-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Zineldin M, Hytter A. Leaders’ negative emotions and leadership styles influencing subordinates’ well-being. International Journal of Human Resources. 2012;23:748–758. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES