If Only my Leader Would just DoSomething! Passive Leadership Undermines Employee Well-being Through Role Stressors and Psychological Resource Depletion

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.

What happens at home does not stay at home: The role of family and romantic partner conflict in destructive leadership

“…Subsequent research has replicated and extended these findings (e.g., Barling & Frone, 2017). In addition, passive leadership is associated with increases in bullying (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), safety incidents and injuries (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2006) and decreases in employee well-being (Barling & Frone, 2017). Importantly, passive leadership is not uncommon; some estimates suggest that approximately 20% of employees have experienced passive leaders (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einersen, 2010).…”

“…Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman () initially showed that what they referred to as “role abdication” predicted followers' role ambiguity and role conflict. Subsequent research has replicated and extended these findings (e.g., Barling & Frone, ). In addition, passive leadership is associated with increases in bullying (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, ), safety incidents and injuries (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, ) and decreases in employee well‐being (Barling & Frone, ).…”

“…We posit that leaders experiencing cognitive resource drain will be more likely to “avoid or delay taking necessary actions”—or in other words, display passive leadership (Barling & Frone, , p. 211). Although there has been much academic interest in destructive leadership more generally, most of this research has focused on more visible and offensive ways that leaders harm employees and their organizations (Barling, ).…”

“…Passive leadership involves leaders doing very little (if anything at all; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008) and, as such, is conceptually distinct from other forms of destructive leadership (including abusive supervision) that entail active behaviour on the part of the leader (Barling, 2014). However, largely fuelled by the misconception that "doing nothing causes nothing to happen," to date, the majority of leadership theories and research pertaining to destructive leadership focus solely on the damaging behaviours enacted by leaders (Barling, 2014)-an approach that may be costly given the negative consequences that have been attributed to passive leadership (e.g., Barling & Frone, 2017). Thus, we answer the call to learn more about the nature and predictors of this less understood form of leadership (Barling, 2014), and in so doing, we contribute to theory development in each unique area of destructive leadership scholarship.…”

Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms and passive leadership: The mediating role of daytime sleepiness

“…The conundrum of passive leadership is why some leaders, in an often dynamic and competitive environment, tend toward inaction. This is a particularly important issue: Although not the focus of sustained research until recently, what has most often been referred to as laissez‐faire leadership has been shown to be associated with a host of negative outcomes for employees such as increased bullying (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, ), occupational safety incidents (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, ), and mental health challenges (Barling & Frone, ). Add to this the fact that organizations are not immune from the negative effects of inactive leadership (e.g., a lower quality learning climate; Hetland, Skogstad, Hetland, & Mikkelsen, ), and the puzzle of passive leadership becomes even more apparent.…”