The Influence of Perceived Constructive and Destructive Leadership on Employee Well-Being and Ill-Being: The Mediating Role of Self-Conscious Emotions Shame, Guilt and Pride

Theoretical Base - Employee well-being is an important issue for organisations. Research shows that engagement and well-being have performance implications that are linked to individual and team performance (Breevaart et al.,... [ view full abstract ]

Theoretical Base - Employee well-being is an important issue for organisations. Research shows that engagement and well-being have performance implications that are linked to individual and team performance (Breevaart et al., 2015) client satisfaction (Salanova et al., 2005), financial returns (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) and proactive work behaviours (Ilies et al., 2006). Follower ill-being (burnout) has been linked to absence (Peterson et al., 2008), absence duration (Schaufeli et al., 2009) and poor performance (Taris & Schaufeli, 2014). Organisations also have an ethical and legal obligation to provide a safe place to work which discourages abusive supervision and supports employee well-being (LaVan & Martin, 2008).

Many authors have moved away from defining mental health as the absence of illness to identifying mental health as a ‘flourishing’ state (Keyes, 2007) in which individuals experience positive feelings about life (Diener, 2000). The employee well-being construct stems from this positive organisational psychology approach and positive mental health approach promoted by a number of scholars (Bakker et al., 2008; Cotton & Hart, 2003; Diener, 2000). The research uses a taxonomy of affective-cognitive work-related well-being (job satisfaction, engagement) and ill-being (workaholism, burnout) as conceptualised by Bakker et al., (2012) to operationalise employee subjective well-being. The taxonomy of work-related subjective well-being is adapted from Russell’s (2003) circumplex of core affect based on valance (activation) and arousal (pleasantness). Bakker et al. (2012) have adapted Russell’s (2003) circumplex of core affect to map a taxonomy of employee subjective well-being and ill-being to indicate the level of emotion and activation displayed by employees during each state of well-being at work (Figure 2.0).

There is already a large body of research confirming the relationship between an employee’s job and their well-being at work (Demerouti et al., 2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1975 Karasek, 1979). This research investigates the role of the leader in follower well-being, as leaders form an important part of a follower’s job, contributing to whether the overall job experience is perceived as pleasant or unpleasant (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). To explore the pathways through which the leader influences follower well-being at work, the research draws on Affective Events Theory (AET) developed by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996). Affective events theory posits that events in the workplace generate positive and negative emotional reactions (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Affective events theory explains how exogenous factors, such as leadership, can elicit emotional reactions that have consequences for follower attitudes and behaviours (Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). Consequently, the research investigates the influence of experienced leadership (i.e. transformational, abusive) on positive and negative follower well-being (i.e. job satisfaction, engagement, workaholism, burnout) through the pathways of follower affect and the self-conscious emotions shame, guilt, and pride.

Research Questions & Method - To date, research focusing on the relationship between leadership and employee well-being has been dominated by a focus on the influence of constructive leadership (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). This has given rise to a number of calls in the literature for research to explore alternative models of leadership to help understand ‘when, how, and what kinds of leadership behaviours influence engagement’ (Bakker et al., 2011, p.14). Using this question as a framework, the study set out to answer the following research question - What, how and when do leaders influence follower well-being and ill-being at work?

Data used in this study was collected from two diverse studies, with Study 1 having obtained data from a Japanese multi-national firm (n=183), and Study 2 including data from an Irish local government emergency response organisation (n=237).

Findings –Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used as an analytical approach to simultaneously combine factor analysis, linear regression and mediation models for theory testing. The findings showed that, as predicted, transformational leadership positively and significantly predicted follower well-being outcomes of job satisfaction and engagement, and negatively predicted the follower ill-being outcome of burnout in both studies. The predicted negative relationship between abusive supervision and follower job satisfaction and engagement was supported in Study 2 only, while the positive influence of abusive supervision on follower ill-being outcomes of workaholism and burnout was supported in both studies. The research further confirmed follower emotions of pride and positive and negative affect (PANA) as emotional pathways through which constructive and destructive leaders influence follower well-being (i.e. engagement) and ill-being (i.e., working compulsively, exhaustion, and burnout).

Importance and Key Contribution – The research findings make three distinct contributions to the leadership and well-being literatures. Firstly, the research confirms the role of diverse leadership styles in influencing follower well-being and ill-being outcomes, thereby addressing calls to help understand ‘when, how, and what kinds of leadership behaviours influence engagement’ and well-being outcomes (Bakker et al., 2011, p.14; Wu & Hu, 2009). Secondly, the research responds to calls for future leadership research to broaden the measurement criteria to enable us to understand how leaders and leadership are related to emotional constructs (Dasborough et al., 2009; Hiller et al., 2011) and to calls to identify the pathways through which leadership influences follower well-being and ill-being (Hansbrough et al., 2015; Skakon et al., 2010). Thirdly, the findings in both studies identify when leaders influence follower well-being and ill-being through the pathways of follower emotions. The research findings establish the important role of the leader in follower well-being (job satisfaction, engagement) and ill-being (workaholism, burnout) in both work contexts, and identify the leader as positively or negatively influencing follower positive and negative emotions across both studies. The hypothesised mediating effects of follower emotions in the relationship between perceived leadership style and well-being and ill-being outcomes was found only in Study 1, thus highlighting the important role of work context for future studies when measuring the antecedents and outcomes of well-being and ill-being at work.

Implications - The research findings identify the important role of the leader in influencing follower emotions and well-being and ill-being at work and establish the abusive leader as a job demand placing emotional demands on the follower, and the transformational leader as a job resource, uplifting and supporting the follower with implications for theory and practice.

References Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & van den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754-770.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,20(1), 4-28.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2012). How do engaged employees stay engaged. Ciencia & Trabajo, 14, 15-21.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (1998). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. School of Business Discussion Papers, 65.
Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 163-178.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands- resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management.
Hansbrough, T.K., Lord, R., & Schyns, B. (2015). Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 220-237.
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the US workplace: Normative and process- oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147-165.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams.The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561-581.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A.B. , van Rhenen, W. (2009), ‘ How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism’, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 30, 893-917.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
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), 107-139.
Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). Individual well-being and performance at work. Well-being and Performance at Work: The Role of Context, 15.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235-244.

abusive supervision, transformational leadership, affect, shame, guilt, pride, employee well-being; job satisfaction; engagement; workaholism; burnout. [ view full abstract ]

abusive supervision, transformational leadership, affect, shame, guilt, pride, employee well-being; job satisfaction; engagement; workaholism; burnout.