Shared or different realities

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the consequences of self–other agreement (SOA) between leaders and subordinates on constructive and passive leadership behaviors for employee well-being, performance and perception of learning climate. Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire ratings of 76 leaders and 211 subordinates in a forest industrial company on full-range leadership and subordinate ratings of well-being, work performance and learning climate have been used in this paper. The data were analyzed using polynomial regression with response surface analysis. Findings SOA on constructive leadership (transformational leadership and contingent reward) was related to subordinates’ perception of a positive learning climate. SOA on passive leadership (management-by-exception passive) reduced subordinates’ performance, while disagreement reduced their well-being. Practical implications It is important to give leaders feedback on their own and their subordinates’ ratings of not only constructive leadership behaviors but also passive behaviors. Originality/value The study demonstrates how SOA on leaders’ constructive and passive leadership behaviors impacts employees’ well-being, performance and work climate.

Leadership and well-being of employees in the Nordic countries: A literature review

“…Thirteen studies in the literature review used FRLM as a theoretical starting point. One of the studies used the complete theory [ 40 ], but the others only measured transformational leadership. None of the studies explored the various leadership behaviours – only the composite variables.…”

“…A negative association was also found between passive management by exception and work ability [ 41 ]. Nine studies found no statistically significant associations between transformational leadership and health [ 40, 41, 52, 53 ], well-being [ 47, 48, 54 ], job satisfaction [ 42, 46, 53 ] or work ability [ 40, 52 ]. No associations were found regarding contingent reward or laissez-faire leadership in relation to health or work ability [ 40 ].…”

“…Most of these studies described this as a limitation, i.e. that the results need to be replicated and confirmed in other populations and contexts [ 40, 42, 44, 51, 53, 54, 76 ], but one study suggested that an advantage of the study was that it was only conducted in one context as it creates a more homogeneous sample [ 66 ]. Others highlighted contextual factors as something that needs to be considered more in future studies [ 47, 52, 74, 75, 78, 79 ].…”

Are we seeing “eye to eye” on qualitative job insecurity in healthcare? Employee–teammates perceptual (in)congruence and individual well-being

“…This downward comparison may result in less adverse effects. Previous research about perceptual incongruences between managers and their subordinates has demonstrated that when teams perceive that a problematic issue exists but the leader does not, it is linked with worse employee outcomes than if the situation was reversed (Bashshur et al, 2011;Hasson et al, 2019). Thus, a relevant problem being assessed as severe combined with the experience of being misunderstood or not 'in sync' with others (i.e., lack of congruence) may exacerbate the negative outcomes of job insecurity.…”

What Works for whom in which Circumstances? An Integrated Realist Evaluation Model for Organisational Interventions

“…For instance, if employees do not see the intervention's benefits, they resist the intervention, and consequently, the intervention may not produce positive outcomes (Albertsen et al, 2014). The literature shows that various omnibus contextual factors influence organisational units' readiness for change, including pre-intervention levels of employees' health and wellbeing (von Thiele Schwarz et al, 2017), pre-intervention working conditions (Nielsen & Randall, 2012), previous experience with change processes and resultant positive appraisal of change processes (Framke et al, 2019), the change valence (i.e., the extent to which organisational actors perceive the change as needed, important, or worthwhile) (Weiner, 2009), a shared understanding of the needed changes among managers and their employees (Hasson et al, 2013), a shared positive vision for the future among managers and their employees (Nielsen et al, 2010b), and the collective efficacy (i.e., the extent to which organisational actors feel capable of solving the problems as a group and of making changes to psychosocial working conditions) (Abildgaard et al, 2020).…”