No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the study is to test the assumption that laissez-faire leadership behavior is not a type of zero-leadership, but a type of destructive leadership behavior that shows systematic relationships with workplace stressors, bullying at work, and psychological distress. A survey of 2,273 Norwegian employees was conducted and analyzed. Laissez-faire leadership was positively correlated with role conflict, role ambiguity, and conflicts with coworkers. Path modeling showed that these stressors mediated the effects of laissez-faire leadership on bullying at work and that the effects of laissez-faire leadership on distress were mediated through the workplace stressors, especially through exposure to bullying. The results support the assumption that laissez-faire leadership behavior is a destructive leadership behavior.

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5% (OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly. Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing over more active ones. The results showed that laissez‐faire leadership behaviour was the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

No abstract