Using a pattern‐oriented approach to study leaders: Implications for burnout and perceived role demand

Abstract

SummaryUsing a pattern‐oriented approach, we identified clusters of leaders who shared theoretically meaningful combinations of transformational, contingent reward, management by exception active, management by exception passive, and laissez‐faire leadership styles. Drawing upon conservation of resources theory, we examined whether leaders who shared a similar pattern of leadership styles differed from leaders who belonged to other profile groups, with respect to felt burnout and perceived role demands. Hypotheses were tested using a time‐lagged field study involving 183 leaders. Using latent profile analyses, we found four theoretically interpretable patterns. Leaders who belonged to the comprehensive cluster (elevated scores on the transformational, contingent reward, and the passive styles; 14.2%) experienced the highest levels of burnout and role demands, whereas those who were disengaged (low scores on all styles; 33.3%) reported the lowest levels. Leaders who exhibited a passive behavioral pattern (elevated scores on management by exception active, management by exception passive, and laissez‐faire relative to the other styles; 27.3%) experienced more burnout and role demands than did leaders who exhibited an optimal pattern (elevated scores on transformational and contingent reward styles relative to the passive styles; 25.1%). The theoretical and practical implications of a pattern‐oriented approach to leadership research were discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Caring for Oneself or for Others? How Consistent and Inconsistent Profiles of Health-Oriented Leadership Are Related to Follower Strain and Health

“…Moreover, it is common practice and conceptually sensible to focus on follower perceptions when investigating individual consequences of leadership, because “leader behavior can only have an effect when it is perceived by followers” (Schyns and Schilling, 2013, p. 140). Nevertheless, future research would benefit from incorporating the leaders’ perspective for triangulation purposes, as well as leaders’ own strain and health to better understand the reciprocal dynamics between leaders and their followers that bring about different profiles: It is for example conceivable that the profiles we identified affect the leaders’ health as well (see Arnold et al, 2017; Wirtz et al, 2017). Furthermore, followers’ strain and behavior may influence a leaders’ practice of health-oriented leadership.…”

“…For instance, some leaders may manage to maintain healthy working conditions and encourage self care for both themselves and their followers. For others, a high workload or limited resources may create trade-offs between healthy follower-directed leadership and healthy self-leadership, both of which may require resource investment on the part of leaders and thus be perceived as demanding (see Arnold et al, 2017). Some leaders may react by fostering their followers’ health and self care (i.e., high staff care), but disregarding their own health at work (i.e., low leader self care).…”

“…Furthermore, identifying patterns of (in-)consistency in health-oriented leadership contributes to a growing body of person-oriented research in occupational health psychology (e.g., Mäkikangas et al, 2013; Bennett et al, 2016; Perko et al, 2016). In leadership research, a few studies have applied person-oriented methods such as profile analysis to identify subtypes of leadership behavior directed to followers such as transformational or paternalistic leadership (Gavan et al, 2009; Chou et al, 2015; Arnold et al, 2017). We aim to expand the conventional understanding of leadership by including leaders’ and followers’ self -leadership and shift the focus from effects of isolated variables to persons with similar profiles.…”

A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors

“…The results of our meta-analysis highlight that servant leadership can explain distinctive variance in proposed outcomes considering the impacts of transformational leadership. Yet, it is also important to consider that leaders may integrate different strategies to exert influence on employees (Arnold et al, 2017;Foti et al, 2012).…”

Mindfulness as a Buffer of Leaders’ Self-Rated Behavioral Responses to Emotional Exhaustion: A Dual Process Model of Self-Regulation

“…First, emotional exhaustion is an indication of strain that is linked explicitly to one’s work role (e.g., being a leader) (Maslach et al, 1996). Second, the incidence of leader emotional exhaustion is quite high as evidenced by recent studies (e.g., Arnold et al, 2017); thus, better understanding the relationship between emotional exhaustion and leader behavior, and how to potentially address its negative outcomes, is critical. Third, emotional exhaustion has been shown to predict impaired cognition and affect (Lazarus, 1999; van der Linden et al, 2005), which in turn are regulatory processes that predict leader behavior (Liang et al, 2016).…”