This article was downloaded by: [Air University]

On: 07 May 2015, At: 21:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Work & Stress: An International Journal

of Work, Health & Organisations
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twst20

Is avoidant leadership a root cause

of subordinate stress? Longitudinal
relationships between laissez-faire
leadership and role ambiguity
a

ab

Anders Skogstad , Jrn Hetland , Lars Glas

& Stle Einarsen

Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen,

Bergen, Norway
b

Click for updates

Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI

Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Published online: 25 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Anders Skogstad, Jrn Hetland, Lars Glas & Stle Einarsen (2014) Is avoidant
leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissezfaire leadership and role ambiguity, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health &
Organisations, 28:4, 323-341, DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2014.957362
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.957362

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Work & Stress, 2014

Vol. 28, No. 4, 323341, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.957362

Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal

relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity
Anders Skogstada*, Jrn Hetlanda, Lars Glasa,b and Stle Einarsena
a

Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; bDepartment of

Leadership and Organizational Behaviour, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

(Received 9 February 2012; final version accepted 16 December 2013)

Within a stressor-strain framework, the aim of this study is to examine the influence of perceived
laissez-faire leadership a type of leadership characterized by the superiors avoidance and inaction
when subordinates are experiencing a situational need for leadership on stress in the form of
experiences of role ambiguity. This was tested within a prospective 3-wave research design with
time lags of 2 and 3 years respectively. A combination of 2 constructive types of leadership,
initiating structure and showing consideration, was included as a control. In a sample of 1771
employees drawn from the Norwegian working population, structural equation modelling supported
the hypothesis that perceived laissez-faire leadership would be positively related to experiencing
role ambiguity at 3 consecutive measurement points. The findings did not support a potential
reciprocal relationship between the two across time. Initiation of structure and Consideration were
not related to role ambiguity, providing strong evidence of the importance of laissez-faire leadership
within a stressor-strain framework. Demonstrating that laissez-faire leadership is a root source of
subordinate role ambiguity underlines the importance of superiors perceiving situations and
circumstances where subordinates experience a need for leadership and, accordingly, approaching
this need instead of avoiding it.
Keywords: leadership; laissez-faire; initiation of structure; consideration; role ambiguity; workrelated stress

Introduction
As pointed out by Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008a) as well as Judge and Piccolo (2004),
research on laissez-faire leadership is scarce compared to the abundant studies on
transformational and transactional forms of leadership. However, studies have shown that
the prevalence of laissez-faire leadership in contemporary working life is strikingly high
(Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010), with there being documented
negative associations of such leadership with subordinate satisfaction with the leader,
evaluations of leader effectiveness and subordinates experiencing stress (Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Kelloway, Sivanathan,
*Corresponding author. Email: Anders.Skogstad@psysp.uib.no
2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

324

A. Skogstad et al.

Francis, and Barling (2005) therefore put forward the hypothesis that poor leadership,
including laissez-faire, is a root cause of important workplace stressors such as role
ambiguity. In line with this, it is reasonable to believe that laissez-faire leadership
characterized by the avoidance of leadership behaviours, or the sheer lack of leader
presence when subordinates are in need of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994, 2004) will
be closely related to subordinates experiencing stressful work situations characterized by
a lack of clarity regarding duties and responsibilities within the organization. Such
systematic relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity were found
in a cross-sectional study (Skogstad et al., 2007). However, to our knowledge, no studies
have investigated these relationships in a longitudinal design to substantiate the direction
of their relationships. The present study thus aims to contribute to a more nuanced
understanding of leadership behaviour by adding to our scarce knowledge of the potential
negative outcomes related to laissez-faire leadership, employing a stressor-strain
framework (see, e.g. Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, 2010 for an overview), as an
alternative to the traditional satisfaction and effectiveness frameworks often used in
leadership studies (see, e.g. Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Role stress in the form of role
ambiguity is one of the most frequently studied occupational stressors in contemporary
working life (Beehr, 1995; rtqvist & Wincent, 2006), which in turn has been
documented to be related to a wide range of negative outcomes, such as reduced job
satisfaction, dissatisfaction with the leader, reduced organizational commitment and job
and task performance, burnout reactions and turnover intentions (Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, &
Cooper, 2008; Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The study of
laissez-faire leadership as an antecedent of role ambiguity is thus an important
contribution to the literature.
In addition to looking at the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and role
ambiguity within such a stressor-strain framework, there may be arguments for a circular
relationship between the two variables in that respondents high on role ambiguity may
then start to perceive their superiors as being laissez-faire or to attribute their ambiguous
work situation to the lack of leadership from their immediate superior. Employing a
longitudinal research design with three measurement points, we will investigate whether
such a stressor-strain relationship may also be identified by investigating a possible
reversed relationship, in line with the so called gloomy perception mechanism
(de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2005).
In their Full Range of Leadership model (FRL), consisting of transactional,
transformational and laissez-faire forms of leadership, Bass and Avolio (1994, p. 4)
define laissez-faire leadership as: the avoidance or absence of leadership and is, by
definition, the most inactive as well as the most ineffective according to almost all
research on the style. As opposed to transactional leadership, laissez-faire represents a
non-transaction. Transactional, together with transformational leadership, may thus be
perceived as an antipole of laissez-faire leadership on an active-passive continuum for
superior-subordinate transactions (see the active-passive dimension in the FRL model,
Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 6). However, a meta-study by Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed
far from perfect negative correlations (^
q .38 and .51, where q^ is the estimated true
correlation) between laissez-faire leadership and contingent reward and management-byexception active leadership, respectively, as did Piccolo et al.s (2012) meta-study
showing correlations of .47 and .62 (in two separate studies) between laissez-faire
leadership and transactional leadership. These findings substantiate that leaders use of
transactional forms of leadership does not exclude their use of laissez-faire leadership and

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Work & Stress

325

vice versa. In line with this, Bass (1990, p. 547) stated that Laissez-faire leadership does
not seem to be the exact opposite of active leadership. Likewise, Bass and Riggio (2006,
p. 9) stated that Fundamental to the FRL model is that every leader displays each style to
some amount. Laissez-faire leadership is probably different therefore from transactional
leadership forms in more ways than simply representing its antipole on an inactivityactivity continuum for effective leadership.
As various descriptive definitions of laissez-faire leadership have been presented (see
Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a, for an overview), one feasible way of approaching the
concept of laissez-faire leadership is to examine its operational definition in the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5x-Short; Bass & Avolio, 2004, p. 98),
which has been the predominant measure of laissez-faire leadership. The MLQ
operationalizes laissez-faire leadership as a situational need for leadership in three of
the four items, which point to situations where subordinates are in need of some sort of
assistance from their superiors that is then not given (e.g. absent when needed; Bass
& Avolio, 2004, p. 98). These needs do not represent basic physiological, psychological
or social needs but are so-called quasi-needs originating from situational demands and
pressures (Lewin, 1936; Reeve, 2005). The imbalance between subordinate competence
and resources on one hand and the situational demands on the other, show that this is a
situation where the subordinate experiences situational vulnerability (Lapidot, Kark, &
Shamir, 2007) and even stress (see, e.g. Lazarus, 1999) with a high corresponding
potential for negative outcomes. This need, characteristic of laissez-faire leadership, is
comparable to de Vries, Roe, and Taillieus (2002, p. 122) concept of the need for
leadership defined as the extent to which an employee wishes the leader to facilitate
the paths toward individual, group, and/or organizational goals, and further explained as
The need is contextual in the sense that it depends on the persons assessment of the
particular setting (p. 123). Laissez-faire leadership may therefore be perceived as a type
of situational lack of leadership when a subordinate experiences lack of competence or
other resources, indicating that laissez-faire leadership may have strong negative
consequences in such critical situations, whereas it may be far less influential in
situations where subordinates are able to cope with the situation.
In accordance with Bass and Avolios (1994) above-cited definition, two of four items
in the scale specify that the leader avoids the leader behaviour that is required. In a third
item, the word delay is used similarly. Bass and Avolio thus seem to support the
acknowledged approach-avoidance distinction, which is fundamental in many theoretical
approaches in psychology (see, e.g. Higgins, 1997 for overviews) including stress
theories and research (see, e.g. Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). Laissez-faire
leader behaviours thus represent volitional activity with respect to avoiding subordinates
when they need assistance, while at the same time these leader behaviours reflect
inactivity with respect to approaching subordinates who require leader assistance.
In conclusion, laissez-faire leadership may be defined as a follower-centred form of
avoidance-based leadership by focusing on subordinates perceived situational need for
leadership, and leader non-response to such needs, as the main source of variance in
outcomes. In contrast, transactional and transformational forms of leadership are leadercentred leadership forms because of their focus on superiors initiation of transactional
and transformational behaviours as the main source of variance in outcomes (see Shamir,
2007, for an overview). Moreover, laissez-faire leadership is perceived as leaders
volitional and active avoidance of subordinates when they are in need of assistance, in
contrast to transactional and transformational forms of leadership. The latter forms

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

326

A. Skogstad et al.

include contingent rewards and consideration for individuals, which may be perceived as
active leadership approaches to attaining organizational goals and attending to individual
needs. Laissez-faire leadership is thus clearly distinguished from transactional and
transformational forms of leadership and constitutes a unique form of leadership that
should be studied in its own right.
As laissez-faire leadership is an integral part of the Full Range of Leadership (FRL)
model, probably the most studied leadership model over the last decades, our first idea
was to contrast and compare this leadership style with the two other styles of leadership in
the model, namely transactional and transformational. However, on reflection we decided
it would be even more fruitful to contrast and compare laissez-faire leadership with the
structuring and supportive leadership behaviours of Initiating Structure and showing
Consideration for subordinates, which may be perceived as the original true opposites
of laissez-faire leadership (Lewin, Lippit, & White, 1939). Such forms of leadership are
missing in the FRL model (Yukl, 1999) but were firmly revalidated in a meta-study by
Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004). In an exceptional meta-study, integrating leadership
forms from the FRL model with the classical leadership styles of Initiating Structure
and showing Consideration, Piccolo et al. (2012) found negative correlations of .55 and
.60 between laissez-faire leadership and Initiating Structure and Consideration,
respectively. The two meta-studies (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Piccolo et al., 2012)
nonetheless showed comparable relationships between laissez-faire leadership and
transactional leadership and between laissez-faire leadership and Initiating Structure and
Consideration, respectively, which in turn substantiates that laissez-faire leadership by no
means represents the absence of other leadership forms but is a unique type of leadership
worth studying by itself.
The present study aims to investigate whether perceived laissez-faire leadership,
representing perceived active avoidance of leader behaviours when subordinates are in
need of such behaviours, explains subsequent increases in role ambiguity over and above
that of the constructive leadership styles of Initiating Structure and showing Consideration. According to path-goal theory, in order to be effective, leaders have to provide
structure for subordinates by letting them know what they are expected to do and to
provide them with what is missing or needed in the situation (House, 1996). In his paper,
House (1996) proposed that leader Initiating Structure is related to lower levels of
follower role ambiguity, a point of view that received support in his 1971 study. In a field
experiment, Schaubroeck, Ganster, Sime, and Ditman (1993) found that after superiors
had been trained in a method of clarifying subordinates roles, a follow-up questionnaire
showed reduced subordinate role ambiguity. In line with this, Bandura (1997, p. 90),
stated that clear roles are congruent with the cognitive representation processes in
which individuals vicariously imagine or experience success in a task. Leaders
clarification of expectations in subordinates work roles may thus be defined as a core
ingredient of leadership. There is reason to believe that a perceived avoidance of such a
clarification will probably result in increased role ambiguity, which in turn may be
associated with a broad range of negative outcomes (see, e.g. Chen & Bliese, 2002;
Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Most studies
on role ambiguity, which has been described as the lack of clarity regarding duties,
objectives and responsibilities involved in fulfilling ones role in the organization (Beehr &
Glazer, 2005), have employed the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman scale (1970) in which, in
addition to an unpredictability component, role ambiguity is defined as a lack of the
existence of clarity of behavioural requirements, often in terms of inputs from the

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Work & Stress

327

environment, which would serve to guide behaviour, and provide knowledge that the
behaviour is appropriate. (Rizzo et al., 1970, pp. 155156), again demonstrating its close
relationship with leadership.
Even though Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), in their seminal
studies on role conflict and role ambiguity, found superiors to be the strongest and most
powerful role senders in their interpersonal relationship with subordinates and, therefore,
probably a primary source of subordinates role ambiguity when exhibiting laissez-faire
behaviour, only a limited number of studies have investigated the actual relationship
between leader behaviour and follower role ambiguity. In addition, most studies are rather
old and, to our knowledge, only two have employed a longitudinal research design. In a
longitudinal study, Moyle (1998) showed that role ambiguity mediated the relationship
between managerial support and job satisfaction, while Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, and
Brenner (2008) found that work characteristics, including role clarity, meaningfulness and
opportunities for development, mediated the relationship between transformational
leadership and psychological well-being.
Reviewing cross-sectional evidence, Fisher and Gitelson (1983) found a mean
correlation of .37 between role ambiguity and satisfaction with the supervisor in their
meta-analysis. In their frequently cited meta-analysis, Jackson and Schuler (1985) found
that both leader Consideration and Initiating Structure were related to employees role
ambiguity (r = .43 and r = .44, respectively) which confirmed similar findings by
Schriesheim, House, and Kerr (1976). More recent studies have also confirmed a negative
relationship between showing Consideration and Initiating Structure, and measures of role
ambiguity and role stress (Dale & Fox, 2008; ODriscoll & Beehr, 1994). With respect to
relationships between leadership forms in the FRL model and role ambiguity, Stordeur,
Dhoore, and Vandenberghe (2001) found transformational forms of leadership to be
associated with subordinates role ambiguity (r = .42 and r = .39, p < .001), while
contingent reward showed a more moderate yet, still, significant correlation (r = .29,
p < .001). MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Rich (2001) found comparable correlations (.48)
between core transformational leadership and role ambiguity. Hinkin and Schriesheim
(2008a) and Jackson et al. (1986) found significant correlations (.39 and .43, respectively)
between contingent reward and role clarity, measured by unreversed scores of role
ambiguity. Based on the argument presented earlier, that Initiating structure and showing
Consideration may be defined as opposites of laissez-faire leadership, and their relative
strong predictions of role ambiguity, these leadership styles will be examined in the
present study.
However, the main aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of laissez-faire
leadership, representing perceived active avoidance of leader behaviours when subordinates are in need of such behaviours, and if such leadership explains subsequent
increases in role ambiguity over and above that of Initiating Structure and showing
Consideration. In this regard, it is interesting to note that Rizzo and colleagues (1970) in
their seminal work have already examined this relationship, documenting significant
correlations between leader role abdication (which may be seen as a proxy of laissez-faire
leadership) and role ambiguity (r = .28 and r = .17, p < .05), substantiating a
systematic negative relationship between the two variables. In a more recent crosssectional study in a representative sample of the Norwegian working population
(N = 2539), Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen (2007) found laissez-faire leadership to
correlate even more strongly with role ambiguity (r = .44, p <. 01), which is in line with
Hinkin and Schriesheims (2008a) finding (r = .47). Because there has been a systematic

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

328

A. Skogstad et al.

lack of studies focusing on laissez-faire leadership as an influential leadership style per se,
making it the stepchild in the FRL model (see, e.g. Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a), it is
time to reverse the lenses and turn them from the bright sides of leadership to its darker
sides, in this case in the form of laissez-faire leadership as an antecedent of role ambiguity.
This reversal is further supported by the fact that laissez-faire leadership has shown to be
associated with a variety of negative attitudinal and behavioural consequences, in the form
of negative correlations with follower job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader and
leader effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), as well as positive associations with job
insecurity (Aasland, 2012), health complaints (Einarsen, Skogstad, & Aasland, 2010),
burnout reactions (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2007), work withdrawal and intentions to
leave (Skogstad, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2009) and bullying (Hauge et al., 2007; Skogstad
et al., 2007). Accordingly, in the present study laissez-faire will be the focal leadership style
as regards its effect on role ambiguity.
Kelloway and colleagues (2005, p. 97) state that researchers have argued that role
ambiguity is the variable that might be most readily influenced by managers. It is therefore
theoretically sound to hypothesize that laissez-faire leadership functions as a social stressor
which over time may cause elevated levels of subordinate role ambiguity, even over and
above that of limited Initiation of structure and lack of Consideration. According to the
Demand-Control-Support model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the Job DemandsResources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), employees experiences of low support
(which is highly probable during exposure to laissez-faire leadership) may lead to increased
stress reactions; this is a notion that has been supported in other longitudinal studies
showing the main effects of support on employees well-being and health outcomes (see de
Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003, for an overview). Hence, the present
study will focus on laissez-faire leadership as the main candidate for explaining role
ambiguity. However, as leaders over time will show destructive laissez-faire as well as
instances of constructive leadership behaviours, we will control for the influence of the
constructive behaviour of Initiation of structure and Consideration.
On the basis of this background our main hypothesis (H1) is that:
Hypothesis 1. Laissez-faire leadership will be positively related to role ambiguity at three
consecutive measurement points.

Role ambiguity tends to be investigated in conjunction with role conflict, often defined as
the existence of two or more sets of expectations on the focal person (as well as sent role
pressures) such that compliance with one makes compliance with the other more difficult
(Beehr, 1995, p. 58). However, in relation to laissez-faire leadership, such expectations
are contradictory as laissez-faire leadership represents a lack of leader behaviour and, as
such, also a lack of role expectations. As a lack of role expectations may not be directly
related to role conflict, we regard it as theoretically unsound to study relationships
between this form of leadership and role conflict. Another issue of concern is that the
concept of role conflict is related to the presence of various role-senders (e.g. intra-sender,
inter-sender and person-role conflicts) both in its definition (Beehr, 1995) and in the
operationalization of the concept (Rizzo et al., 1970), which makes it difficult to interpret
results relating to the influence of leaders role expectations compared to other sources of
expectations. Thus, it is the respondents overall impression of a number of sources of
role messages that is measured most often (Beehr, 1995). Consequently, role conflict is
not included in the present study.

Work & Stress

329

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

However, we cannot rule out the possibility of followers experiences of role

ambiguity leading to subsequent increased experiences and reports of laissez-faire
leadership. According to the gloomy perception mechanism, stressed employees may
evaluate their work environment ever more negatively, a notion that was supported by a
four-phase prospective study by de Lange et al. (2005) showing that so called unhealthy
stayers reported significantly reduced supervisory support over time in a Dutch cohort
study. It may therefore be the case that followers experiencing role ambiguity develop
more gloomy perceptions of leader behaviour, in the present case expressed by the
respondents reports of high levels of laissez-faire leadership. We will therefore test an
alternative hypothesis (H2) that there is a reciprocal relationship between laissez-faire
leadership and role ambiguity over time:
Hypothesis 2. A reciprocal relationship will exist between laissez-faire leadership and role
ambiguity in that laissez-faire leadership will be positively related to role ambiguity at the
same time as role ambiguity is positively related to laissez-faire leadership at three
consecutive measurement points.

In testing our two hypotheses we will control for the potential effect of a leader merely
being low on a compound variable consisting of both Initiation of Structure and
Consideration.

Method
The present study is based on longitudinal survey data from a nationwide sample of the
Norwegian workforce. The survey was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical
Research Ethics in Western Norway. Data were collected at three time points, with a time
lag of two years between T1 and T2, and three years between T2 and T3. In 2005 (T1), a
random sample of 4500 employees was drawn from the Norwegian Central Employee
Register (NCER) by Statistics Norway (SSB). The sampling criteria were adults between
18 and 67 years of age who were registered in the NCER as being employed during the
preceding six months in a Norwegian enterprise with a staff of five or more, working a mean
of at least 15 hours per week. Questionnaires were distributed through the Norwegian Postal
Service. A total of 2539 questionnaires were returned in the first wave (response rate 57%),
securing a response rate slightly above the typical response rate in this kind of survey
research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). This sample may be considered to be representative of
the Norwegian working population, according to the criteria above, when controlling for
participants age and location (county), but female participants were somewhat better
represented in the actual sample (52%) compared to the original sample drawn (47%)
(Hstmark & Lagerstrm, 2006). Using the same procedure, the second and third waves of
data were collected in 2007 (T2) and in 2010 (T3). The study sample consisted of
participants responding in waves 1, 2 and 3, or in wave 1 combined with waves 2 or 3,
respectively; a total of 1771 employees, representing a response rate of 70% from the
first wave.

Participants
The mean age of participants in the T1 sample was 43.8 years (SD = 11.5), with a range
from 19 to 66 years of age. The majority of the respondents were in full-time (77%) or

330

A. Skogstad et al.

part-time (13%) employment, while 9% were on sick leave or rehabilitation leave.

Disabled pensioners represented 1% of the respondents. The mean number of actual
working hours per week was 37.5 (SD = 10.4). Among the respondents, 15% were
managers with personnel responsibilities, and 13% were elected union representatives or
personnel safety representatives. Attrition analysis (t-tests) did not reveal significant
differences between respondents and non-respondents at the different measurement points
on the reporting of either laissez-faire leadership or role ambiguity.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Measures
Role ambiguity was measured using the scale of Rizzo et al. (1970) and consisted of six
items, formulated as expressions of role clarity. According to the authors instructions and
use of the scale (see, e.g. a meta-study by Jackson & Schuler, 1985), reversed scores were
used to measure role ambiguity. An example of an item is I know exactly what my
responsibilities are). The scale had seven response categories ranging from very false
to very true (Cronbachs alphas in the range .85.87). In some studies, unreversed
scores are used as a measure of role clarity (see, e.g. Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a).
Laissez-faire leadership behaviour was measured by four items from the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008b), an
example being is absent when needed. (Cronbachs alphas are in the range of .68
to .71).
Leaders initiating structure and showing consideration for subordinates, represented
in this study by a compound indicator Initiating Structure and Consideration, were
measured by three items from a short version of Ekvall and Arvonens (1991) leadership
questionnaire. The three items are Sets clear goals, Defines and explains the work
requirements clearly and Shows appreciation for good work. (Cronbachs alphas are in
the range of .73 to .76.).
For all leadership scales, four response categories were employed (never,
sometimes, quite often and very often/nearly always), and the respondents were
asked to report on leadership behaviour that they had experienced during the last six
months.
Control variables in the present study were gender, age and change of leader between
follow-ups. With respect to the latter, two dichotomous variables were constructed,
namely, change of leader between 2005 and 2007, and between 2007 and 2010.

Statistical analysis
Our hypotheses were tested by Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using Mplus 6.0
(Muthn & Muthn, 2012). In order to adequately handle non-normality in study
variables, maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) was applied. MLR is
robust to violations of non-normality (Brown, 2006). The goodness-of-fit of the SEM
models was evaluated using a chi-square value, with a non-significant p-value indicating
a good fit (Kelloway, 1998), a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with
values of .05 or less indicating a good fit (Steiger, 1990) and a comparative fit index
(CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) with values of 0.90 or above indicating a good fit
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Comparisons between nested models were performed using the
Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square difference test taking into account the MLR correction

Work & Stress

331

factor (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). Missing data were estimated by full information
maximum likelihood (FIML).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations and correlations for the study variables are shown in Table 1.
Laissez-faire leadership, Initiating Structure and Consideration, and role ambiguity were
represented by summing the scores across the three measurement occasions.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Multivariate autoregressive cross-lagged models

Prior to running the autoregressive cross-lagged models, a measurement model with the
three latent study constructs (laissez-faire leadership, leaders Initiating Structure and
Consideration, and role ambiguity) were examined separately at each measurement point.
In the measurement model, the latent factors were modelled using their respective
observed indicators, and the latent factors were allowed to covary. The measurement
model showed good fit to the data at all measurement points (2 = 413.1 (74), CFI = .95,
TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05; 2 = 429.0 (74), CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06; 2 =
336.2 (74), CFI = .94, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .06), at measurement points 1, 2 and 3,
respectively). In the measurement model, the factor loadings for the latent factor
measuring laissez-faire leadership were in the range .41.75 across the three measurement
occasions, while the factor loadings for leaders Initiating Structure and Consideration
and role ambiguity were in the range .55.82, and .51.88, respectively.
To test for possible lagged effects between the two leadership styles (laissez-faire and
leaders Initiating Structure and Consideration) and role ambiguity across the three
measurements, a conditional multivariate autoregressive cross-lagged SEM model was
applied. In order to prevent inflated estimates of stability (Marsh & Hau, 1996), we
allowed the indicators of the latent factors at the different measurements to covariate with
the corresponding indicators at the other measurements. Finally, the latent factors were
allowed to covary within time points. Three nested models were tested. Initially, a crosslagged model was modelled with lagged effects from laissez-faire leadership on role
ambiguity at the following measurement point, controlling for the possible corresponding
lagged effect from leaders Initiating Structure and Consideration.
In the model, all dependent variables were controlled by gender, age and change of
leader between measurement points. As shown in Table 2, the initial cross-lagged model
showed a good fit to the data (CFI = .94, TLI = .93 and RMSEA = .03). In support of
Hypothesis 1, significant lagged effects from laissez-faire leadership on role ambiguity
were both found between T1 and T2, and between T2 and T3. However, the corresponding
lagged effects between leaders Initiating Structure and Consideration and role ambiguity
were not significant. In the second model, reciprocal lagged effects of role ambiguity on the
two leadership styles were added to the model. However, the lagged paths from role
ambiguity to the two leadership styles were not significant, and adding the paths did not
result in a significant improvement of fit (TRd (4) = 2.86, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not
supported. In the final model, all insignificant paths were removed from the model.
Removing insignificant paths from the analysis in the final model did not result in
significant deterioration of fit (TRd (24) = 28.21, n.s.), and the final model showed good fit

332

Means, standard deviations and correlations between study variables (N = 1771).

1. Laissez faire T1
2. Constructive T1
3. Role ambiguity T1
4. Laissez faire T2
5. Constructive T2
6. Role ambiguity T2
7. Laissez faire T3
8. Constructive T3
9. Role ambiguity T3
10. Gender
11. Age
12. Change leader
20052007
13. Change leader
20072010

Mean

SD

0.57
1.47
2.18
0.54
1.45
2.20
0.51
1.51
2.21
1.55
45.22
0.19

0.52
0.70
0.93
0.53
0.69
0.95
0.49
0.70
0.94
0.50
11.29
0.39

1.00
.32**
.45**
.52**
.19**
.32**
.39**
.14**
.28**
.01
.01
.02

1.00
.31**
.16**
.45**
.18**
.09**
.35**
.16**
.01
.05*
.05

1.00
.30**
.17**
.60**
.22**
.07*
.49**
.04
.09**
.03

0.46

0.50

.09**

.05

.10**

11

12

1.00
.32** 1.00
.44** .29** 1.00
.39** .11**
.26** 1.00
.15**
.37** .09** .33** 1.00
.35** .16**
.53**
.43** .28** 1.00
.05*
.03
.05* .07*
.03
.07*
1.00
.04
.07* .11** .04
.09** .13** .07** 1.00
.02
.04
.04
.03
.05
.01
.01
.05

1.00

.05

.01

.06*

.01

.00

.15**

10

.03

A. Skogstad et al.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Table 1.

.12** .45**

Note: Laissez-faire and Constructive refer to leadership styles, where constructive was operationalized as a combined measure of leaders initiating structure and showing
consideration.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Work & Stress

333

Table 2. Fit indices for conditional multivariate autoregressive cross-lagged models.

Model
Initial cross-lagged model
Reciprocal cross-lagged model
Final cross-lagged model

df

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

2224.4
2223.0
2252.2

896
892
916

.94
.94
.94

.93
.93
.93

.03
.03
.03

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Note: CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.

to the data (CFI = .94, TLI = .93 and RMSEA = .03). Parameter estimates from the final
model are shown in Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 1, Stability coefficients in the range .53.65 were found for
laissez-faire leadership, while the corresponding range of coefficients for Initiating
Structure and Consideration, and role ambiguity were .49.56 and .52.59, respectively.
The within-measurement correlations between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity
ranged from .57 at the first measurement to .40 at the final measurement. The withinmeasurement correlations between Initiating Structure and Consideration and role
ambiguity, were .36, .33 and .38 at T1, T2 and T3, respectively. The corresponding
within-measurement correlations between laissez-faire leadership and Initiating Structure
and Consideration ranged from .42 at T1 to .49 at T3. Only three significant paths
were found between the control variables and the study constructs. A significant negative
0.42

.56

Laissez faire
leadership T1

Age

0.36

Role
ambiguity T1

Constructive
leadership T1

0.07
.65
0.07

.09

Gender

.59

.56

0.47
0.05
0.14

0.45

Change of
leader
20072010

0.31

.45

Change of
leader
20052007

Laissez faire
leadership T2

Role
ambiguity T2

.11

.11
.53

.52
.49

0.38

.38
Laissez faire
leadership T3

Constructive
leadership T2

Role
ambiguity T3

Constructive
leadership T3

0.49

Figure 1. Parameter estimates in nal conditional cross-lagged model. For simplication,

observed indicators of latent variables, residuals and residual co-variances are not included.

334

A. Skogstad et al.

path was found from gender to laissez-faire leadership at T2 ( = .05, p < .05),
indicating lower reporting of laissez- faire leadership by female respondents. Correspondingly, age was negatively related to role ambiguity at T2 ( = .07, p < .01), and change
of leader between T2 and T2 was positively related to role ambiguity at T3 ( = .11,
p < .01). Finally, the lagged paths from laissez faire leadership to role ambiguity were .09
(p < .01) from T1 to T2, and .11 (p < .05) from T2 to T3.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Discussion
The effects of laissez-faire leadership on subordinates have rarely been studied. In this
three-wave study we tested the effect of such leadership on subordinates stress in the
form of experiences of role ambiguity.
The results support Hypothesis 1, that laissez-faire leadership is a precursor of
subsequent role ambiguity, while Hypothesis 2, positing a bidirectional relationship, was
not supported. Prior exposure to laissez-faire leadership was found to significantly
account for subsequent variation in role ambiguity over both time lags investigated. The
paths from laissez-faire leadership at T1 to role ambiguity at T2, and from laissez-faire
leadership at T2 to role ambiguity at T3, were significant when the possible lagged effect
of leaders Initiating Structure and Consideration were controlled for. Whereas age and
gender at T1 were associated with role ambiguity and laissez-faire leadership at T2, and
change of leader between the first and second follow-up was related to role ambiguity at
T3, the relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity remained
significant across all the three measurement points. It is also interesting to note that the
levels of role ambiguity, instead of increasing, remained relatively stable across the three
measurement points. There may be further explanations for this pattern of stability.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommers (1996) meta-analysis showing relatively strong
negative correlations (.49, .37 and .48) between role ambiguity and leadership
substitutes in the form of task feedback, intrinsically satisfying tasks and organizational
formalization, indicating that subordinates may find compensation for leaders laissezfaire leadership in a number of ways. In this respect, it is reasonable to assume that more
proximal substitutes, such as support from colleagues and others at work (Viswesvaran,
Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999) and the development of relevant coping strategies (Skinner
et al., 2003) may, to an even greater extent, help subordinates cope with role ambiguity at
work. With respect to the longitudinal effects of negative social exchanges, represented in
our case by a leadership style of laissez-faire avoidance and non-transactions, it may also
be the case that negative social exchanges have a greater initial impact than do positive
exchanges such as those connected with transactional leadership, but that the effects of
negative exchanges subside more over time (Rook, 1998).
The present results yield significant support to the assumption that poor leadership in
the form of laissez-faire leadership may be a root cause of workplace stress (Kelloway
et al., 2005) through role ambiguity. The findings support Hypothesis 1 that is, they
indicate that the immediate superior is highly influential with respect to clarifying
subordinates role expectations related to duties, objectives and responsibilities; this is a
point of view that has been stated but not tested by various scholars (e.g. Kelloway
et al., 2005). The importance of such work role clarification is emphasized by all the
negative consequences of role ambiguity, which have been richly documented. Leaders and
managers may act as a significant source of role stress when they do not fulfil basic

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Work & Stress

335

obligations and requirements in the leadership role, and especially when subordinates find
themselves in need of leadership. According to Rizzo and colleagues (1970) and Beehr and
Glazer (2005), the lack of information and clarity of behavioural requirements are essential
in creating role ambiguity. There is reason to believe that role clarity and its opposite, role
ambiguity may be influenced by various persons in a given role in the work arena).
However, according to prevailing theoretical perspectives, such as the Full Range of
Leadership model, path goal theory and Leader-Member Exchange Theory, as well as
according to empirical findings from meta-studies, there is reason to believe that the actions
and the avoidance of actions of leaders are most influential with respect to subordinates
role ambiguity.
The present longitudinal study, consisting of three waves, confirms theoretical models
as well as findings from earlier cross-sectional studies, and provides support for there
being a significant influence of immediate superiors laissez-faire leadership behaviour on
subordinates role ambiguity.
This study also supports the notion that laissez-faire leadership is a unique type of
leadership by being a significant predictor of role ambiguity over time, while by contrast
the classical constructive leadership styles of leaders Initiating Structure and showing
Consideration (as a compound variable in the present study), appeared to have an
insignificant influence on role ambiguity. The avoidance of leadership responsibilities in
leader-follower relationships, in the form of laissez-faire leadership, may thus be decisive
in explaining subordinates experience of work-related stress. In line with the bad is
stronger than good assumption, which has received strong support in a variety of human
interaction arenas (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001), there are strong
arguments for leadership researchers focusing primarily on the negative aspects of
leadership behaviour, such as laissez-faire leadership, especially when studying leadership
within a stressor-strain framework. Moreover, when role stress is studied as a mediator in
the leader behaviour-outcome chain (see Moyle, 1998; Nielsen et al., 2008), laissez-faire
leadership is a strong candidate for inclusion. Leadership scholars may therefore benefit
from including laissez-faire leadership in their studies more often. For example, when
studying the unique effects of various forms of leadership on subordinate attitudes,
behaviour and health in times of context uncertainty, laissez-faire leadership may be of
primary interest (see, e.g. Balogun, 2003).

Study strengths and limitations

Whereas this study, in line with the majority of leadership studies, has its limitations, it
also has notable strengths. The employment of a longitudinal design with three
measurement points makes it possible to substantiate a plausible causal direction between
laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. As such, the present study contributes
important knowledge to the leadership field, which, to our knowledge, has only examined
this relationship by employing cross-sectional studies. Furthermore, the sample in the
present study is valuable as it is systematically drawn from the Norwegian workforce
(Hstmark & Lagerstrm, 2006), and, as such, reduces the probability of the results being
influenced by factors that may occur in a convenience sample.
Despite its strengths, the present study also has its limitations. Even though the threewave study provides strong support for laissez-faire leadership being a predictor of role
ambiguity, and not the other way around, the longitudinal design employed does not fully

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

336

A. Skogstad et al.

prove a causal relationship as such (see, e.g. Antonakis, Bendaham, Jacquart, & Lalive,
2010). Furthermore, the predictor and the criterion variables were both collected from
subordinates. Thus, the present study is based on subordinates rating both their perception
of their immediate superiors behaviour and their own role ambiguity. However,
employing a longitudinal design will minimize the likelihood of the relationship between
the two study variables being strictly artefactual. Nevertheless, alternative observations of
leadership behaviour, e.g. from the immediate leaders superior, as well as restricting the
study to the behaviours of only the same immediate superiors across all three
measurement points, may have strengthened the validity of the study. However, because
a majority of the respondents (944 of 1771) changed their immediate leaders from T1 to
T2 and/or from T2 to T3, only including those of the respondents having the same leader
across the three measurements would substantially reduce the statistical power in the
analysis. Furthermore, as mentioned above, a major strength of the present study is the
use of a systematically drawn national sample. By including less than half of the sample,
the generalizability of the study would be weakened. Accordingly, we chose to control the
respective dependent variables at T2 and T3 for the effects of changing leader from T1 to
T2 and/or from T2 to T3.
This study employed an autoregressive cross-lagged model. Growth curve modelling
could alternatively have been used (see, e.g. Curran & Bollen, 2002). With respect to time
lags, the study used two and three years, respectively. Although such time intervals may
bolster confidence in the results, it may be that subordinates experiences of the
immediate superiors laissez-faire leadership as well as their own role ambiguity vary over
time. Future studies of the relationships between leadership behaviour and role stress
should therefore also test alternative time intervals to explore how long it takes for
laissez-faire leadership to significantly influence role ambiguity (see, e.g. Moyle 1998,
where six-month intervals were used when testing relationships between perceptions of
managerial support, role clarity and job satisfaction).
In general, in order for the present study to be comparable to the majority of recent
leadership studies, it may have benefited from including transactional and transformational forms of leadership as measured by the MLQ, even though classical types of
leadership such as Initiating Structure and Consideration may be more relevant in the
present study (see also Yukl (1999) for a discussion of the limitations of the MLQ). There
is a strong need for theoretically-driven studies on this type of leadership, with respect to
its precursors and outcomes as well as moderating and mediating factors. It is therefore
highly important within a stressor-strain framework to gain nuanced knowledge about
what organizational and individual factors influence the impact of laissez-faire leadership
on stress outcomes. In this respect, leader-follower structural, functional and psychological distance (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), and leader and follower competence
uncertainty (Mayer, Thau, Workman, Van Dijke, & Cremer, 2012) are some interesting
candidates worth investigating in future studies. Furthermore, in future studies of avoidant
and non-leadership forms of leadership, it will also be highly relevant to employ
alternative approaches and measures. For instance, in their study of non-leadership,
Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008a) investigated the effects of leader reward omission and
punishment omission on good and poor subordinate performance. This alternative
approach illustrates that the domain of avoidant and non-leadership behaviours is
probably populated with a variety of leader-avoidant and non-leader behaviours.

Work & Stress

337

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Conclusion
The study was conducted for theoretical, empirical, methodological and applied reasons.
Firstly, we believe that it makes an important contribution to our understanding of laissezfaire leadership as an independent type of leadership, within a stressor-strain framework,
compared to effectiveness and satisfaction frameworks (rtqvist & Wincent, 2006). It also
provides valuable empirical findings by testing the theoretical proposition that laissez-faire
leadership is a root cause of workplace role stress, employing a three-wave longitudinal
design. By demonstrating an exclusive effect of laissez-faire leadership on role ambiguity,
and no effect of constructive leadership in the form of Initiating Structure and Consideration
as a control, the study provides strong evidence for laissez-faire leadership being a highly
relevant and influential type of leadership worth studying in itself.
Our findings indicate that laissez-faire leadership may be more important for
subordinates than is reflected in the majority of leadership studies, which emphasize
transformational and transactional forms of leadership and their relationships with attitude
and effectiveness correlates. Bass and Avolio (1994) stated that laissez-faire leadership is
the least effective type of leadership. However, with respect to the effects on subordinates
working conditions and experience of stress, the opposite may also be true; laissez-faire
leadership is highly effective in a negative sense, i.e. in creating a stressful working
environment. In line with the Bad is stronger than good assumption (Baumeister et al.,
2001), the employment of laissez-faire leadership may in various circumstances be just as
important, or even more important, for follower attitudes and behavioural outcomes as the
employment of transactional and transformational forms of leadership.
From an applied perspective, our findings show that leaders in general should avoid
laissez-faire leadership, which from a follower-centred perspective may be defined as not
meeting the legitimate expectations of the subordinates (Skogstad et al., 2007, p. 81). This
is probably especially true when subordinates are in need of leadership. Organizations in
general, as well as leadership development programmes in particular, should thus address
laissez-faire leadership behaviour and its negative effects just as much as they do
transactional and transformational forms of leadership. It may be of the utmost importance
for superiors to know when to act and not to act in their relationships with subordinates,
and thus not confuse empowering leadership with laissez-faire leadership behaviours. In
line with the present results, superiors consistently not taking action when subordinates are
in need of leadership can probably not therefore be perceived as a zero-type of leadership,
but more as destructive leaders maintaining and even escalating the experience of a stressful
work environment, with potentially very strong negative effects on employees satisfaction
and effectiveness.

Acknowledgements
This is a collaborative project between the University of Bergen and Statistics Norway, which
collected the data. We would like to thank Bengt Oscar Lagerstrm and Maria Hstmark of
Statistics Norway and Stig Berge Matthiesen of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen,
for their contribution to the data collection.

338

A. Skogstad et al.

Funding
The project was made possible by joint grants from two Norwegian employer associations (the
Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise and the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional
Authorities), and the Norwegian government (the National Insurance Administration) and their
FARVE programme.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

References
Aasland, M. S. (2012). Destructive leadership: Conceptualization, measurement, prevalence and
outcomes (Doctoral thesis). University of Bergen, Bergen.
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence
of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21, 438452.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and proposed theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673704. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8
Antonakis, J., Bendaham, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review
and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 10861120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.
10.010
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands resources model: State of the art. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change
intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 6983. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00266
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61, 11391160. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial
applications (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (3rd ed.). Manual and
Sampler Set. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good.
Review of General Psychology, 5, 323370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.
Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2005). Organizational role stress. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, &
M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 733). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and
collective efficacy: Evidence of discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549556.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549
Curran, P. J., & Bollen, K. A. (2002). The best of both worlds. Combining autoregressive and latent
curve models. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change
(pp. 105136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2008). Leadership style and organizational commitment: Mediating effect
of role stress. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 109130.
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D, & Bongers, P. M. (2003). The
very best of the millennium: Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282305. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2005).
Different mechanisms to explain the reversed effects of mental health on work characteristics.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(1), 314. doi:10.5271/sjweh.843

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Work & Stress

339

de Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. B. (2002). Need for leadership as a moderator of the
relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2),
121137. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00097-8
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., & Aasland, M. S. (2010). The nature, prevalence and outcomes of
destructive leadership: A behavioral and conglomerate approach. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough
(Eds.), When leadership goes wrong. Destructive leadership, mistakes and ethical failures
(pp. 145171). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two-dimensional
model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 1726. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(91)90024-U
Fisher, C., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320333. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.320
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors
and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61,
227271. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21,
220242. doi:10.1080/02678370701705810
Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2007). Burnout in the information technology sector:
Does leadership matter? European Journal of Work and Organizational Leadership, 16(1),
5875. doi:10.1080/13594320601084558
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 12801300.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008a). An examination of nonleadership: From laissezfaire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 12341248. doi:10.1037/a0012875
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008b). A theoretical and empirical examination of the
transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).
The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 501513. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.001
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323352. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Hstmark, M., & Lagerstrm, B. O. (2006). Underskelse om arbeidsmilj: destruktiv atferd i
arbeidslivet: Destruktiv atferd i arbeidslivet [A study of work environment: Destructive
behaviours in working life]. Dokumentasjonsrapport [Documentation Report]. Oslo: Statistisk
sentralbyr [Statistics Norway].
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role
ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36(1), 1678. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2
Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout
phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630640. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.630
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755768. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.89.5.755
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 3651.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford: John Wiley.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of
working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researchers guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling,
E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89112). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

340

A. Skogstad et al.

Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the
development and erosion of followers trust in their leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1),
1634. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion. A new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally
created social climates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 269299. doi:10.1080/0022454
5.1939.9713366
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. H., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2),
115134. doi:10.1177/03079459994506
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable?
Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364390. doi:10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604
Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & Cremer, D. D. (2012). Leader
mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted
needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
117(1), 2440. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.003
Moyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of managerial support on employee well-being. Work &
Stress, 12(1), 2949. doi:10.1080/02678379808256847
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (2012). Mplus 6.12. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, Y., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership on followers perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being:
A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 1632. doi:10.1080/02678370801979430
ODriscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(2),
141155. doi:10.1002/job.4030150204
rtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review.
International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 399422. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399
Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative
impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matters most? The Leadership Quarterly, 23,
567581. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.008
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships
between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and
behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113142. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.09.002
Podsakoff, P. H., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships
between Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role
perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380399. doi:10.1037/00219010.81.4.380
Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administration Sciences Quarterly, 15, 150163. doi:10.2307/2391486
Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sides of personal relationships: Through
a lens darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships
(pp. 369393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment
structure analysis. Psychometrica, 66, 507514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., Sime, W. E., & Ditman, D. (1993). A field experiment testing
supervisory role clarification. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 125. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.
tb00865.x
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of
discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 15, 297321. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90043-X
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C.
Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership. A tribute to the
memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ixxxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Downloaded by [Air University] at 21:39 07 May 2015

Work & Stress

341

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders well-being, behaviours and
style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three
decades of research. Work & Stress, 24(2), 107139. doi:10.1080/02678373.2010.495262
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping:
A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin,
129(2), 216269. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness
of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 8092.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2009, May 1316). Exposure to destructive leadership:
Relationships with job satisfaction, work-withdrawal and intentions to leave. Paper presented at
the 14th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Santiago de Compostela,
Spain.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Stordeur, S., DHoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and
emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35, 533542.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01885.x
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of
work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314334. doi:10.1006/jvbe.
1998.1661
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285305. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2