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

Abstract

Why leaders behave the way they do is of considerable importance. Our goal in this research was to understand how family‐to‐work conflict and romantic relationship conflict influence two different forms of destructive leadership, namely, abusive supervision and passive leadership. To do so, we invoke the conservation of resources theory. One hundred twenty‐three leader–follower dyads participated. Leaders completed questionnaires on their own family‐to‐work conflict and romantic relationship conflict, depressive symptoms, and cognitive distraction. Their followers rated their abusive supervision and passive leadership. With the use of Hayes's PROCESS program, depressive symptoms mediated the effects of family‐to‐work conflict and romantic relationship conflict on abusive supervision, whereas cognitive distraction mediated the effects of family‐to‐work conflict on passive leadership. Implications and several directions for further research are offered.

Intimate partner aggression and work: An interdisciplinary review and agenda for future research

“…Furthermore, Tolman and Wang (2005) found that existing mental and physical health issues only partially explained victims working less hours. In a study focusing specifically on leaders, Dionisi and Barling (2019) found that depression mediated the effects of relationship conflict at home (which may be a potential indicator of WIPA) and abusive supervision at work, offering a unique perspective on how leaders' personal lives can influence their work behaviors. On the whole, the empirical findings on the mediating role of victims' mental health remains inconclusive and warrants further empirical investigation (Adams et al, 2013;Alexander, 2011;Carlson et al, 2002).…”

“…While majority of the studies were atheoretical, most of the studies that applied theories used mixed perspectives (k = 16) typically combining the feminist and resource perspectives (e.g., Lenze & Klasen, 2017;Sanders, 2015). This is closely followed by papers which used the feminist (k = 9; e.g., Naved et al, 2018;Tolman & Wang, 2005), resource (k = 9; e.g., Dionisi & Barling, 2019;Gibson-Davis et al, 2005), ecological (k = 6, e.g., Duffy, 2015;Slep et al, 2014), and social cognitive career perspectives (k = 5, e.g., Chronister et al, 2008;Davidson et al, 2012). Indeed, the use of theory in IPA and work research is still at a nascent stage.…”

Who wants to lead? The role of romantic and parental relationship quality on motivation to lead

“…As previously mentioned, both parent-child and romantic relationships are among the most salient of interpersonal relationships and have a strong influence on individual outcomes (e.g., Kim & Cicchetti, 2004;Marchand-Reilly, 2009). Both relationships influence various aspects of individuals lives, in both personal and professional ways (e.g., Dionisi & Barling, 2019;Finchman, 2003). For example, a study conducted by Dionisi and Barling (2019) examined the association between romantic relationship conflict and both abusive supervision and passive leadership and found that relational conflict was indirectly related to abusive supervision.…”

“…Both relationships influence various aspects of individuals lives, in both personal and professional ways (e.g., Dionisi & Barling, 2019;Finchman, 2003). For example, a study conducted by Dionisi and Barling (2019) examined the association between romantic relationship conflict and both abusive supervision and passive leadership and found that relational conflict was indirectly related to abusive supervision.…”

“…Aside from research on work-family conflict and vice versa, some studies have also investigated the association between romantic relationships and the work interface (e.g., Dionisi & Barling, 2019;Ford et al, 2007;Hughes et al, 1992). Romantic relationship conflict can occur, for example, when partners oppose one another's ideas or disagree about matters important to their relationship resulting in low overall relationship quality (Barki & Hartwick, 2004).…”