The Relative Effects of Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership on Subordinate Job Satisfaction

Abstract

Knowledge on short and long-term effects of perceived leadership behaviors on subordinates’ job satisfaction, and particularly so regarding the relative influences of constructive and destructive forms of leadership, is scarce. Based on two prospective and representative surveys, with time lags of 6 months (Study 1) and 2 years (Study 2), respectively, we investigated the relative influence of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership behaviors, respectively, on followers job satisfaction. Interestingly, destructive forms of leadership were the sole significant predictors in both studies. Tyrannical leadership predicted a decrease in subordinate job satisfaction over a 6-month period, while laissez-faire leadership turned out as the sole predictor of job satisfaction over a 2-year time lag. A reversed relationship was found between job satisfaction and subsequent perceived constructive leadership over the 6-month lag. Dissatisfied subordinates did not, however, report increased exposure to destructive forms of leadership, disconfirming the gloomy perception mechanism of dissatisfied and stressed subordinates to perceive their leaders in an ever more negative way. Hence, destructive forms of leadership seem to be better predictors of job satisfaction than are constructive forms of leadership which is in line with the notion that “bad is stronger than good.”

The importance of a multidimensional and temporal design in research on leadership and workplace safety

“…Here it should be noted that the limited relationship between tyrannical leadership and psychological safety climate may be influenced by the fact that only 4.2% of the respondents reported exposure to tyrannical leaders in the present study, and that there was relatively low variance in exposure to this specific form of leadership. While the low prevalence of tyrannical leadership may be explained by the fact that the offshore petroleum industry has a high focus on safety and efficiency where there is little room for enacting destructive leader behavior, previous longitudinal research has shown that even low exposure to tyrannical leadership is associated with an increase in mental health problems and a decrease in job satisfaction over time among offshore employees (Nielsen et al, 2012;Skogstad, Aasland, et al, 2014). Hence, while the prevalence of tyrannical leadership is low, this kind of leadership may still pose a significant problem for employees.…”

“…Hence, even if there are strong theoretical reasons for assuming that leadership influences workplace safety, there are no full panel prospective or time-lagged studies which actually provide indications for any causal effect of leadership on workplace safety (Barlow & Iverson, 2005). However, as longitudinal research on constructive and destructive forms of leadership have found timelagged associations with related outcomes such as job satisfaction (Skogstad, Aasland, et al, 2014) and role expectancies (Skogstad, Hetland, et al, 2014) it is reasonable to expect that leadership also should have a lagged effect on safety. Still, as there are no studies which have examined time-lagged relationships in this regard, a second limitation of existing research on leadership and workplace safety is:…”

“…This study is based on an extension and re-analysis of data presented in previous studies (see Nielsen, Tvedt, & Matthiesen, 2012;Skogstad, Aasland, et al, 2014). The sample comprises workers from the offshore petroleum industry representing various companies and their installations operating on the Norwegian sector.…”

Is It Me or You?—How Reactions to Abusive Supervision Are Shaped by Leader Behavior and Follower Perceptions

“…While Schyns and Schilling (2013) explicitly excluded laissez-faire from their meta-analysis arguing that doing nothing is not destructive enough to be a part of destructive leadership, others have argued that laissez-faire is destructive due to its considerable negative consequences (Skogstad et al, 2007, 2014). In line with Schyns and Schilling (2013), we expect that followers react less negatively to non-positive leadership behaviors such as laissez-faire than when exposed to strong abusive leader behavior.…”

“…In line with Schyns and Schilling (2013), we expect that followers react less negatively to non-positive leadership behaviors such as laissez-faire than when exposed to strong abusive leader behavior. At the same time, based on previous research regarding the outcomes of laissez-faire (Skogstad et al, 2007, 2014), we assume that laissez-faire will still instill negative follower reactions. Consequently, with respect to reactions toward the different leadership styles, we assume that reactions are stronger for strong abusive leader behavior than for mild abusive leader behavior, laissez-faire, or constructive leadership.…”