Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination

IF 5.6 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED

Work and Stress Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369

Antonia J. Kaluza, Diana Boer, Claudia Buengeler, R. van Dick

{"title":"Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination","authors":"Antonia J. Kaluza, Diana Boer, Claudia Buengeler, R. van Dick","doi":"10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While the link between leadership and follower well-being is well established, less is known about the relation between leaders’ leadership behaviour and their own well-being. Particularly, a systematic integration of existing studies is missing. Based on an integrated framework summarising major theories on the leader well-being–leadership link, we quantitatively synthesised findings on the relations between different leadership behaviours and leader well-being indicators. The meta-analytical results (95 effect sizes; N = 12,617) confirmed significant relationships of constructive and destructive leadership with leader well-being in the expected directions. Relative weight analyses on the constructive leadership behaviours showed that change-oriented and relational-oriented leadership (e.g. transformational, participative) accounted for more variance in leader well-being than task-oriented leadership (e.g. transactional). Regarding destructive leadership, active destructive leadership (e.g. abusive supervision) showed stronger negative associations with leader well-being than passive leadership (e.g. laissez-faire). Based on our integrated framework, we proposed and found support for divergent patterns of associations for different forms of well-being (positive vs. negative, short-term vs. long-term, job-related vs. general). Our study demonstrates a considerable linkage between leader well-being and leadership, supporting the adoption of leadership development programmes and organisational health interventions for leaders given their impact on employees, teams and organisations.","PeriodicalId":48199,"journal":{"name":"Work and Stress","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369","citationCount":"94","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work and Stress","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 94

Abstract

ABSTRACT While the link between leadership and follower well-being is well established, less is known about the relation between leaders’ leadership behaviour and their own well-being. Particularly, a systematic integration of existing studies is missing. Based on an integrated framework summarising major theories on the leader well-being–leadership link, we quantitatively synthesised findings on the relations between different leadership behaviours and leader well-being indicators. The meta-analytical results (95 effect sizes; N = 12,617) confirmed significant relationships of constructive and destructive leadership with leader well-being in the expected directions. Relative weight analyses on the constructive leadership behaviours showed that change-oriented and relational-oriented leadership (e.g. transformational, participative) accounted for more variance in leader well-being than task-oriented leadership (e.g. transactional). Regarding destructive leadership, active destructive leadership (e.g. abusive supervision) showed stronger negative associations with leader well-being than passive leadership (e.g. laissez-faire). Based on our integrated framework, we proposed and found support for divergent patterns of associations for different forms of well-being (positive vs. negative, short-term vs. long-term, job-related vs. general). Our study demonstrates a considerable linkage between leader well-being and leadership, supporting the adoption of leadership development programmes and organisational health interventions for leaders given their impact on employees, teams and organisations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

领导行为与领导者自我报告的幸福感：综述、整合和元分析检验

摘要虽然领导能力和追随者幸福感之间的联系已经建立起来，但人们对领导者的领导行为与自身幸福感之间关系的了解却很少。特别是，缺乏对现有研究的系统整合。基于一个综合框架，总结了领导者幸福感与领导联系的主要理论，我们定量地综合了不同领导行为与领导者幸福感指标之间关系的研究结果。荟萃分析结果（95个效应大小；N = 12617）证实了建设性和破坏性领导与领导者在预期方向上的幸福感之间的重要关系。对建设性领导行为的相对权重分析表明，与任务型领导（如事务型）相比，变革型和关系型领导（例如变革型、参与型）在领导幸福感方面的差异更大。关于破坏性领导，主动破坏性领导（如滥用监督）比被动领导（如自由放任）与领导者幸福感的负相关更强。基于我们的综合框架，我们提出并发现了对不同形式幸福感（积极与消极、短期与长期、与工作相关与一般）的不同关联模式的支持。我们的研究表明，领导者的幸福感与领导力之间存在着相当大的联系，鉴于领导者对员工、团队和组织的影响，我们支持他们采用领导力发展计划和组织健康干预措施。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Work and Stress PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-

CiteScore

11.70

自引率

3.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting high-quality papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational health and well-being, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations. Research published in Work & Stress relates psychologically salient features of the work environment to their psychological, behavioural and health consequences, focusing on the underlying psychological processes. The journal has become a natural home for research on the work-family interface, social relations at work (including topics such as bullying and conflict at work, leadership and organizational support), workplace interventions and reorganizations, and dimensions and outcomes of worker stress and well-being. Such dimensions and outcomes, both positive and negative, include stress, burnout, sickness absence, work motivation, work engagement and work performance. Of course, submissions addressing other topics in occupational health psychology are also welcomed.