How and when does centralization affect the likelihood of passive leadership?

Abstract

PurposeThis study empirically investigates the impact of organizational structure (specifically centralization) on the occurrence of the passive leadership. The authors also examine the mediating role of autonomy frustrations and the moderating effect of turnover intentions in these relationships.Design/methodology/approachUsing structural equation modelling as well as PROCESS macro (version 3.5), the research model is analysed based on a sample of 133 employee–supervisor dyads in various public sector organizations in Dubai.FindingsContrary to the study hypothesis and assumption, the results demonstrate that centralization has no significant direct effect on the occurrence of passive leadership; however, this effect found to be significant only via the mediating of autonomy frustrations (fully mediator). This influence is strengthening when a supervisor has the intentions to leave his/her organizations.Originality/valueThese findings point on how and why centralization can lead to occurrence of passive leadership.

Examining Toxic Leadership Nexus With Employee Cyberloafing Behavior via Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion

“…It has been shown that toxic leadership has a negative impact on employees' perceptions of justice in the workplace. Toxic leadership leads to emotional exhaustion (Bani-Melhem et al, 2022;Khakpour, 2019). Toxic leaders provide less emotional support to targeted employees.…”

The role of leader favoritism, unfairness, and employability in employee psychological withdrawal behavior

“…The literature suggests that leaders engaging in preferential treatment among their subordinates rationalize their behavior in various ways. Loyalty acquisition and power centralization (Blasé, 1988; Bani‐Melhem et al, 2022), self‐interest maximization (Cropanzano et al, 1997), and organizational politics and role ambiguity (Li, 2016) emerge as the malevolent intentions behind favoritism, while knowledge enhancement surfaces as a positive driver of favoritism (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Nonetheless, employees have always perceived favoritism as an unfair and discriminated practice (Blasé, 1988; Lim et al, 2023), driving employees to develop workplace negativity and exhibit various forms of psychological withdrawal behaviors (Abubakar et al, 2017; De los Santos et al, 2020; Hsiung & Bolino, 2017), which diminish their loyalty and performance (Naseer et al, 2016), job satisfaction and work commitment along with distrust in leader and organization (Saleem et al, 2018).…”

How having job impact leads to employee innovative behavior: a moderated mediation model of servant leadership and work meaningfulness

“…For public sector organizations to be innovative in their operations, they need people who can demonstrate innovative work behavior (IWB). However, scholarly work on this topic in the public sector is limited compared to the private sector (Baafi et al, 2021;Houtgraaf, 2022) due to the stereotypical portrayal of the former as being "change resistant", "sluggish" and inept (Houtgraaf, 2022;Bani-Melhem et al, 2022). In their systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process, Cinar et al (2019) identified organizational factors, such as rigid organizational structure/culture, hindered primarily the innovation process.…”

“…However, scholarly work on this topic in the public sector is limited compared to the private sector (Baafi et al. , 2021; Houtgraaf, 2022) due to the stereotypical portrayal of the former as being “change resistant”, “sluggish” and inept (Houtgraaf, 2022; Bani-Melhem et al. , 2022).…”