ChapterPDF Available

Leadership Styles: Employee Stress, Well-being, Productivity, Turnover and Absenteeism

Authors:

Abstract

The present review examines some of the most widely accepted leadership styles (Transactional leadership, Laissez-faire leadership, Autocratic / Dissonant / Authoritarian and Transformational leadership) and how and whether these impact on employee well-being outcomes such as employee stress, well-being, productivity, turnover and absenteeism. The review shows consistent advantages in terms of reduced stress, turnover and absenteeism and better well-being and productivity for leadership styles that are more relational such as transformational leadership. Poorer outcomes are demonstrated for laissez-faire, autocratic and transactional leadership. This review suggests that employees will benefit from leadership environments where relational styles are employed whereby employees feel their leaders have strong values and act in accordance with these, where the leaders communicate clearly and inspirationally attracting employees to follow their vision, where employees are encouraged to use their full capacity, are intellectually challenged and where they feel the leader individually supports them and considers them, or at a minimum knows them. In short, valued employees are healthier, perform better and take less time off.
Understanding Stress at Work
28
Stress factors
Leadership Styles: Employee Stress, Well-being, Productivity,
Turnover and Absenteeism
Erskine, J.A.K.
1
& Georgiou, G.J.
2
1
Institute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George’s, University of London, UK
2
Department of Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, UK
email: jerskine@sgul.ac.uk
Erskine, J.A.K, & Georgiou, G.J. (2017).
Leadership Styles: Employee Stress, Well-being,
Productivity, Turnover and Absenteeism,
Understanding Stress at Work, 28-40
http//hayka-kultura.org/larsen.html
Abstract
The present review examines some of the most
widely accepted leadership styles (Transactional
leadership, Laissez-faire leadership, Autocratic /
Dissonant / Authoritarian and Transformational
leadership) and how and whether these impact on
employee outcomes such as employee stress, well-
being, productivity, turnover and absenteeism.
The review shows consistent advantages in terms of
reduced stress, turnover, absenteeism and better
well-being and productivity for leadership styles
that are more relational such as transformational
leadership. Poorer outcomes are demonstrated for
laissez-faire, autocratic and transactional
leadership. This review suggests that employees
will benefit from leadership environments where
relational styles are present where employees feel
their leaders have strong values and act in
accordance with these, where the leaders
communicate clearly and inspirationally attracting
employees to follow their vision, where employees
are encouraged to use their full capacity, are
intellectually challenged and where they feel the
leader individually supports them and considers
them, or at a minimum knows them. In short,
valued employees are healthier, perform better and
take less time off.
1- Introduction
The concept of stress needs no real introduction.
Scientific definitions suggest that stress occurs
when the individual appraises a situation as a threat
to something of value to them, which exceeds their
ability to cope given their current resources and
typically reduces their psychological and physical
well-being (Harms et al., 2017; French et al., 1982;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In simple terms, stress
is felt when the situation demands more from us
than we feel able to give.
In terms of well-being, its definition is perhaps
more difficult and often is conceptualised as the
absence of “dis-ease” or mental disturbance.
However, according to the World Health
Organisation this definition by absence is
incomplete, and they suggest well-being to be the
most significant aspect of mental health, thus
“Mental health is defined as a state of well-being in
which every individual realises his or her own
potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life,
can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to
make a contribution to her or his community”
(WHO, 2014). Psychological conceptualisations of
well-being have suggested it is primarily comprised
of two components, 1. Hedonic well-being defined
as maximising pleasure and minimising pain and 2.
Eudaimonic well-being defined as moving towards
one’s full potential and experiencing life as
personally meaningful. However, it is worth noting
that large scale studies of well-being have reported
these two factors to be highly inter-correlated
(Disabato, Goodman, Kashdan, Short, & Jarden,
2016). Stress is a factor that will consistently reduce
reported well-being.
One obvious potential source of stress in the
modern world concerns work. Several
characteristics of work make it a major potential
cause of stress, chiefly: 1. The sheer amount of time
spent at work relative to other life activities (e.g.
sleeping, home, travel); 2. Consistent demands to
perform and produce results; 3. Managing
relationships with other individuals in the
workplace; 4. Reduced autonomy; 5. Financial
imperative to work irrespective of desire; 6. Usually
a hierarchical power structure; 7. Career aspirations
and wage discrepancy awareness; 8. Potential for
bullying, victimisation, harassment and inequality;
9. Managing work life balance; 10. Job security; 11.
Unmanageable workloads, deadlines and
expectations; 12. Lack of training or support.
Given the potential for work to be such a
compelling source of stress, one aspect that has
increasingly received attention in the literature
concerns whether the particular type of manager,
leader or supervisor in the organisation and their
style of leadership can affect the level of stress and
well-being experienced by individual employees /
followers.
Before the effects of leadership style can be
examined, it is necessary to delineate differences
between management and leadership.
Understanding the similarities and differences
between management and leadership has long been
explored within management theories and research
paradigms. Debate over the precise differences
continues to the present day, with many suggesting
Understanding Stress at Work
29
that arriving at a precise definition of either
management or leadership remains an elusive goal
(Morrill, 2007). Despite this, several key
differences have been systematically distilled from
a range of authors.
The attributes and activities of managers versus
leaders have been documented by various authors
(see Bennis, 1989; Diffen LLC, 2017; Kotter, 1990)
and show clearly that there are marked differences
between their roles. Typically, managers are seen as
high-level administrators, chiefly concerned with
the day to day running of an organisation, and
therefore with structures, processes and ensuring
optimal functioning. In contrast, leaders are more
visionary and long term focused, attempting to
define and generate organisational commitment to a
shared vision and associated values (Bush, 2000). A
famous quote, that echoes similar ideas, suggests
that “management is doing things right; leadership
is doing the right things” (attributed to both Peter
Drucker and Warren Bennis).
The focus of this chapter will be on leadership
styles and how these influence employee outcomes
including stress and well-being. Having said this it
is important to realise that in practice managers and
leaders are frequently the same individual. Despite
this, organisational structure frequently allocates
positions in a hierarchical manner to allow people
employed at the very pinnacle, for example the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO), a leadership role,
with several ancillary managers sitting just below
them, for example CTO (Chief Technical Officer),
CFO (Chief Financial Officer), COO (Chief
Operating Officer), CMO (Chief Marketing
Officer) to deal with the more practical aspects of
running the organisation and reporting directly to
the overall CEO.
Even though there is considerable overlap between
leadership and management, this chapter will
concentrate on leadership rather than management.
Leadership has been defined as “a process whereby
an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal” (Northous, 2004).
2- Method
This article represents a review of the available
evidence linking leadership styles in an
organisational context with outcomes of relevance
to employee health chiefly: Employee Stress,
Well-being, Productivity, Turnover and
Absenteeism.
The method employed initially was to use a
literature search on PsychInfo and Google Scholar
for papers directly linking leadership styles to
employee / health outcomes. The search terms used
included “leadership styles” and derivatives such as
“management styles”, and employee stress, well-
being, productivity, turnover and absenteeism”
some relevant derived terms such as “burnout” were
also used. The abstracts of all papers arising out of
these searchers were examined for inclusion.
Included papers represented ones where they
provided actual data regarding the links between
leadership styles and the particular health outcomes
of interest. Previous review articles were also
included as these led to the identification of further
experimental literature that was not present in the
online searches.
3- Leadership styles
The historical literature has identified a myriad of
distinct leadership styles of unknown number and
has frequently evidenced disagreement regarding
taxonomy, overlap, hierarchy and critical
distinctions. However, there is some broad
agreement regarding the existence of four styles
which although not exhaustive (Anderson & Sun,
2015) have the widest evidence base with regards to
impact on employee outcomes. These are:
3-1-Transactional leadership
Focuses on transaction and exchange of resources
in order to accomplish necessary work, rewards are
contingent on measureable performance, in addition
to taking corrective action when tasks are being
undertaken poorly e.g. punishments (Bass, 1990;
Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Transactional leadership is seen as encompassing
three dimensions:
I. Contingent reward the leader makes
transactions in a constructive way,
rewarding good performance and
making explicit expectations.
II. Management by exception active the
leader takes corrective action regarding
leader / follower exchanges e.g.
punishing poor performance active
leaders monitor behaviour and take
corrective actions quickly.
III. Management by exception passive
these leaders wait until problems
manifest before taking action.
3-2-Laissez-faire leadership
These leaders are characterised by the absence of
transactions and provide employees with a great
deal of freedom regarding how they manage and
run their day to day work. The leaders can be
supportive but are often uninvolved. They passively
avoid issues and decision making. This can backfire
if the employees do not effectively manage
themselves (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Lewin &
Lippitt, 1938). Often described as the avoidance of
leadership. These leaders are avoidant, often
hesitant and difficult to contact.
3-3-Autocratic / Dissonant / Authoritarian
These leaders are autocratic and order others to do
certain tasks, which depends on their positon in the
Understanding Stress at Work
30
hierarchy, authority and punitive measures. They
make decisions without consulting others. The
advantages are that decisions are made very quickly
and can be implemented swiftly. However,
employees feel uninvolved and can become
complacent (Coleman et al., 2002; Lewin & Lippitt,
1938).
3-4-Transformational leadership
Involves establishing oneself as a role model by
inspiring employees to follow them, gaining trust
and employee confidence. These leaders are
charismatic and attract respect and trust from
colleagues, they are inspiring, motivating and seen
as collaborative and fair. They model useful
organisational behaviours they wish employees to
adopt. They respect staff and challenge employees
to follow them (Bass, 1990; 1998; Eagly et al.,
2003).
As Judge and Piccolo (2004) state
“Transformational leaders offer a purpose that
transcends short term goals and focuses on higher
order intrinsic needs” (p. 755).
Transformational leadership is said to encompass
four sub domains (Arnold & Connelly, 2013; Bass
& Riggio, 2006), which are:
I. Idealised influence – these leaders have
strong consistent values and act in
accordance with those values.
II. Inspirational motivation
communicate clearly, often
inspirational and convey a vision of the
path to take, convincing others to
follow and share in this vision.
III. Intellectual stimulation they
encourage followers to think in
alternative and different ways, solving
problems by using their full capacity.
IV. Individual consideration supporting
employees individually and helping
them to develop their potential.
The leadership styles noted above are not
exhaustive and other styles debated in the literature
include: charismatic; servant; authentic; ethical; as
well as destructive forms of leadership e.g. abusive,
tyrannical, derailed etc., and models such as Full-
range Leadership Theory (FRLT) and Leader-
Member Exchange theory (LMX), among others.
The focus of this chapter will examine how the
style of leadership impacts on a range of employee
outcomes, chiefly: well-being; stress and burnout;
performance and absenteeism / sickness.
It is worth noting at this juncture that
leadership styles are not mutually exclusive, and
some have suggested that optimal leadership might
be best conceptualised as a combination of the
transformational and transactional styles, e.g. Bass
(1999) states “the best leaders are both
transformational and transactional” (p. 21).
However, others suggest sensitivity to context is
key and that all styles are necessary to flexibly
apply as the situation or the type of organisation
demands (Goleman, 2000).
4-The impact of leadership styles on employee
wellbeing and productivity
The following sections will examine research
regarding employee outcomes under distinct
headings representing possible effects of leadership
style.
4-1-Sickness, absence and staff turnover
Sickness and absence are clearly undesirable
outcomes for any organisation. They will affect
productivity, morale and stress levels of other
employees. Furthermore, they are poor outcomes
for employees.
Research has shown that higher level support
provided by leaders and supervisors are associated
with reductions in turnover (Thomas & Ganster,
1995) and absenteeism (Kuoppala et al., 2008;
Stansfeld et al., 1997). However not all studies
support this (Clumeck et al., 2009). Furthermore,
long term absence due to sickness has been found to
be related to lower levels of work based support
from leaders and supervisors (Labriola et al., 2006;
Nielsen et al., 2006).
There is also evidence that it is not only the
provision of support per se that results in greater
presenteeism but also the quality of the support.
Thus, leadership quality assessed as providing good
developmental opportunities, work satisfaction, and
good conflict solving relationships is associated
with lower levels of sickness absence (Munir et al.,
2011). In a rare longitudinal study, Dellve and
colleagues demonstrated in 3275 employees that
high quality leadership that carefully used rewards
and recognition cultivated greater respect and was
associated with presenteeism (Dellve et al., 2007).
Studies that have examined discrete leadership
styles have consistently found that relational
leadership styles (e.g. transformative and
charismatic / inspirational) where employees feel
valued and have a say in decision making are
invariably associated with less absenteeism
including sickness and lower staff turnover (Boyle
et al., 1999; Nyberg et al., 2008; Schreuder et al.,
2011; Volk & Lucas, 1991). Importantly Schreuder
et al. (2011) report task-oriented leadership
behaviours are related to more absenteeism in the
short term. Nyberg et al. (2008) found autocratic
leadership to be associated with more sick leave for
men.
Some research has examined the leadership
behaviour and its relationship with intent to stay in
the role by employees. With consistent findings
being reported regarding the fact that employees
report more intent to stay in roles where leadership
Understanding Stress at Work
31
styles are more relational, employees are satisfied
and feel their behaviour is rewarded (Manion, 2004;
Boyle et al., 1999; Kramer & Schmalenberg, 2003;
Upenieks, 2003). Transformational leadership has
been specifically examined in the field of nursing
and has been shown to relate to greater job
satisfaction, commitment to the organisation, self-
efficacy and empowerment, while simultaneously
relating to lower staff turnover, (Failla & Stichler,
2008; Neilson et al., 2009).
4-2-Stress and Burnout
The effect of leadership on stress and burnout has
been examined in multiple studies. For the purpose
of this chapter burnout is defined as a cluster of
psychological factors best represented by emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation (seeing others as
more like objects than people) and reduced personal
accomplishment (Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, &
Sixma, 1994).
In line with the evidence reviewed above regarding
absence and turnover, studies have consistently
demonstrated that more relational forms of
leadership such as transformational and
charismatic, where leaders are perceived to be
individually considerate and effective
communicators are associated with less stress and
burnout in employees (Gill, Flaschner, & Shachar,
2006; Leithwood et al., 1996; Seltzer, Numerof &
Bass, 1989; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Sparks et al.,
2001). Furthermore, higher levels of employee
support have been associated with reduced stress
and burnout (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998).
Importantly in some studies the beneficial effects of
leadership style are stronger than the effects of
demographic and personality factors, however they
are not as strong as job demands and social /
organisational support (Leithwood et al., 1996).
Lyons and Schneider (2009) report that
transformational leadership was associated with
higher perceived social support, increased self-
efficacy, less threat appraisal when simultaneously
under stress, and less negative affect again in
stressful conditions.
Corrigan and colleagues examined the
subcomponents of transformational leadership
(idealised influence, inspirational motivation,
individual consideration and intellectual
stimulation) the first three components were
negatively related to burnout. However intellectual
stimulation was not related to emotional exhaustion
and was positively related to personal
accomplishment (Corrigan et al., 2002). This is
similar to Seltzer et al. (1989) who found that
intellectual stimulation was positively related to
stress and burnout.
Research has started to investigate processes that
may moderate the relationships between relational
leadership styles, stress and burnout. One suggested
factor is personality. Thus, Hetland et al. (2007)
found transformational leadership was not
associated with emotional exhaustion but positively
associated with efficacy. Yet the personality
dimension of neuroticism was more strongly
associated with burnout and its sub-dimensions. Liu
et al. (2010) found that another potential mediator
was the degree of trust in the leader. Thus, leader
trust and self-efficacy mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and stress.
In terms of negative leadership styles, abusive
supervision and bullying have both been linked to
increased stress and burnout (Sparks et al., 2001;
Tepper, 2000). In line with this, research has
examined a range of factors that are associated with
increased stress the main contenders have been
shown to be: role ambiguity, lack of autonomy,
difficult interpersonal relationships and workload
(Dolan & Renaud, 1992; O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994;
Schaubroeck, Cotton & Jennings, 1989; Sullivan,
1993). Importantly given the literature these are all
likely to be reduced where leaders are
transformational. Thus, studies have shown that
having increased control over one’s work results in
significant mental health benefits and reduces
absenteeism (Stansfeld et al., 2000). Furthermore,
there is evidence that these same factors not only
affect stress and well-being but may have
detrimental effects on physical health. Thus, high
workload, low autonomy and lack of sensitivity to
reward balance have been found to be related to
increased coronary heart disease (Head et al.,
2002).
These issues appear to be exacerbated where work
stress becomes chronic. Therefore, chronic stress at
work has been demonstrated both cross-sectionally
and longitudinally to be linked to many negative
outcomes including depression, anxiety,
cardiovascular disease and emotional exhaustion
(Michie & Williams, 2003; Sapolsky, 2003).
Furthermore, work stress itself relates to negative
organisational outcomes such as increased staff
turnover and absenteeism while simultaneously
lowering performance (Dollard et al., 2000).
One feature of transformational leadership that
lends itself to enhanced positive outcomes
particularly regarding work stress is social support
and individual consideration of employees. To
investigate the effects of social support,
Viswesvaran and colleagues conducted a meta-
analysis which demonstrated that social support had
beneficial effects on stress via three pathways.
These were: reducing experienced strain, altering
employee’s perception of stressful situations
whereby previously stressful situations come to be
seen as easier to deal with, and moderating the
relationship between stressors and strain
(Viswesvaran, Sanchez & Fisher, 1999).
Understanding Stress at Work
32
In a review of the literature on stress and burnout in
correctional officers, Schaufeli and Peters (2000)
conclude that while stress levels and burnout are
high in this occupation the situation could be helped
by improving human resources management and
the social work environment. Importantly both of
these strategies are more likely with relational and
transformational leadership styles.
4-3-Well-being / health
Studies have investigated the effects of leadership
behaviours and styles on well-being. It is important
to realise that as a concept well-being is seen as
having both psychological and physical qualities
(Liu et al., 2010). Therefore, the present section
will review the literature in terms of effects on both
mental and physical health broadly.
In line with the previous research examining
outcomes on absenteeism and stress / burnout,
studies on well-being have broadly shown that once
again leadership styles that are relational,
charismatic and transformational consistently
demonstrate better employee outcomes in terms of
well-being (Cummings, 2004). Specifically,
transformational leadership has been associated
with less depression at multiple time points, better
general health, lower anxiety and less stress
(Cummings, 2004; Munir, Nielsen & Carneiro,
2010; Stordeur et al., 2001). One rare longitudinal
study is particularly instructive (Nielsen et al.,
2008) which demonstrated, over 18-months, that
there was no direct relationship between
transformational leadership at time 1 and affective
well-being at time 2. However, transformational
leadership did show positive effects on affective
well-being that were shown to be mediated by
increasing experience of meaning in work, greater
role clarity, improved developmental opportunities
and more self-efficacy. Of relevance to well-being,
transformational leadership was associated with less
depression both at time 1 and over the 18-month
period.
In terms of the mechanisms through which
transformational and relational leadership may exert
effects, research has shown that charismatic
leadership (a sub component of transformational
leadership) seems to evoke more positive emotions
in employees with benefits to well-being (Bono &
Ilies, 2006; Cherulnik et al., 2001). Thus, it seems
charismatic and transformational leaders are viewed
as more positive and these emotions can be
transmitted to employees. This is important as
positive emotions are one consistent hallmark of
mental health and well-being (Arnold & Connelly,
2013). Furthermore, there is also some evidence
that transformational leadership can simultaneously
reduce negative emotions in followers (Rowold &
Rohmann, 2009). In addition to evoking more
positive emotions the increased support likely to be
in evidence with transformative and relational
leadership styles may also lead to independent
benefits. Thus, higher levels of employee support
have been associated with increased well-being and
satisfaction (Amick & Celantano, 1991;
DonaldsonFeilder, Munir, & Lewis, 2013; Moyle
& Parks, 1999). Another factor that appears related
to employee well-being and leadership is job
satisfaction. Meta-analysis indicates that job
satisfaction is related to improved employee health
both mental and physical (Faragher & Cooper,
2005). As transformational leadership styles have
been consistently related to increased job
satisfaction this suggests one route to improving
well-being.
In view of the findings demonstrating consistent
benefits of transformational styles on well-being, a
range of studies have investigated whether these
styles can be developed in leaders and the benefits
that may result. The main findings indicate that
training programs designed to develop effective
leader behaviours show good outcomes particularly
with respect to employee well-being. Thus,
Theorell et al. (2001) examined the effectiveness of
a program designed to improve managers
psychosocial competence with the training covering
the social psychology of groups, individual
functioning (psychologically & medically), and the
design of workloads. Leaders participating had bi-
weekly sessions for a year. Results indicated that
employees with managers that had undergone the
training showed evidence of increased autonomy,
and critically demonstrated lower serum cortisol
levels compared to employees whose managers did
not participate. This is an important finding as
serum cortisol is seen as a robust marker of general
stress.
In a similar study, Barling et al. (1996) examined a
program designed to develop transformational
leadership styles. Results indicated that employees
of managers who underwent the training had
enhanced perceptions of their managers
transformational style. Most importantly the
employees of managers that completed the training
also showed evidence of increased organisational
commitment and financial performance. In terms of
the general effectiveness of stress management
interventions, Richardson and Rothstein (2008)
report consistent positive overall effects in a meta-
analysis, especially beneficial were cognitive
behavioural interventions.
In a well-designed study avoiding some of the
pitfalls of an overreliance on self-report measures,
Bono et al. (2007) used experience sampling
procedures where employees were randomly
stopped throughout the day and had to report their
current emotions. Results indicated that employees
with transformational leaders reported more
positive emotions at work but not less negative
emotions.
Understanding Stress at Work
33
Studies have also investigated the converse i.e.
leadership factors that appear detrimental to well-
being. Thus, Skogstad et al. (2007) found that
laissez-faire leadership was associated with
increased role conflict, ambiguity and greater
conflict and bullying. In turn, abusive supervision
has consistently been linked to increased anxiety
(Harris & Kacmar, 2005) and depression (Tepper,
2000). Unsurprisingly, forms of destructive
leadership (e.g. harassment, bullying abusive
practices, power abuse, and undermining among
many other destructive practices) have consistently
been demonstrated to harm employees, particularly
with respect to well-being (Bowling & Beehr,
2006). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of destructive
leadership by Schyns and Schilling (2013) suggests
that employee outcomes are negative including
worse perceptions of management and
counterproductive work practices.
4-4-Employee engagement
Studies have also investigated the effect of
leadership styles on employee engagement.
Employee engagement refers to “individual’s
involvement and satisfaction with as well as
enthusiasm for work” (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes,
2002, p. 269). While this concept shares overlap
with organisational commitment it is not viewed as
identical (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004).
Thus, organisational commitment is seen as
referring to a person’s attitude towards their
organisation but engagement is not seen as an
attitude but the extent to which an individual is
focused and attentive to their employment role
(Saks, 2006). What is clear is the literature on
employee engagement agrees that the concept has
developed mainly from organisational departments
and human resource based organisations not from
academic researchers who have been slow to start
researching employee engagement, which has led to
terminological confusion (Macey & Schneider,
2008). Although a modern definition has emerged
suggesting that employee engagement is a state of
mind relating to feelings of fulfilment, enthusiasm
and dedication to work (Eldor & Vigoda-Gadot,
2017).
Once again relational forms of leadership where
leaders are effective communicators are seen to be
positively related to greater employee engagement,
job satisfaction and organisational commitment
(Keegan & den Hartog, 2004; Myers & Kassing,
1998). In line with this, Schaufeli & Peeters (2002)
found engagement is linked to charismatic
leadership which is often seen as one component of
transformational leadership.
Factors shown in various studies to be linked to
greater employee engagement include positive
leader interactions and communications (Bakker,
Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008; Madlock, 2008;
Madlock, & Booth-Butterfield, 2012; Madlock &
Horan, 2009), involvement of employees in
decision making (Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli,
2003), and greater control over day to day running
of one’s own work tasks (Hakanen, Bakker &
Schaufeli 2006). Indeed, Madlock and Horan
(2009) found that almost 18% of the variance in job
satisfaction was accounted for by supervisor
effective communication. Importantly studies
indicate that greater engagement is linked to higher
productivity and work performance, customer
satisfaction, loyalty, profit, turnover and safety
(Harter et al., 2002; Towers Watson, 2008).
Studies have also examined factors associated with
greater estrangement. Thus, Sarros and colleagues
report that authoritarian, inflexible, less
empowering leadership leads to employee
estrangement and alienation. They also suggest that
transformational styles of leadership avoid these
losses by providing workers with the support they
need to handle complex job demands effectively
(Sarros et al., 2002). Furthermore, Sarros found that
transformational leadership lessened the degree of
work alienation, whereas transactional leadership
increased alienation. In line with this, the degree of
centralised control, more formal rules, codified
practice and strict authority have all been found to
predict the degree of work alienation (Gaziel &
Weiss, 1990; Zeffane, 1993). It is suggested that
inflexible bureaucracy contributes to alienation by
constraining employee autonomy and the extent to
which they control their own activities (Kakabadse,
1986; Zeffane, 1993). This led MacLeod & Clark
(2009) to suggest that, to enhance employee
engagement, leaders need to provide autonomy,
empowerment, developmental opportunities, be
clear regarding expectations, respect and fair
treatment, offer coaching, feedback and training to
ensure work is effectively and efficiently designed
and allocated fairly.
In terms of discrete leadership styles the evidence is
clear, transformational leadership is a driver of
employee engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Furthermore, Shamir et al. (1993) found that
transformational leadership resulted in increased
employee involvement, commitment, performance
and relatedness. Importantly, leadership satisfaction
appears negatively related to laissez-faire
leadership, and positively related to inspirational
leadership (Andrews et al., 2012). However, there is
some evidence that employees report even greater
satisfaction where leaders display both relational
and task-oriented behaviours (Castenada &
Nahavandi, 1991).
4-5-Productivity
Research examining work productivity has again
demonstrated advantages for transformational
forms of leadership, thus transformational leaders
have been found to be more productive, both in
terms of their own performance and that of their
Understanding Stress at Work
34
employees, regardless of the level at which the
output is measured e.g. individual, team or
company (Barrick et al., 2015; Bass et al., 2003;
Hater & Bass, 1988).
Ng (2017) investigated the mechanisms through
which transformational leadership might give rise
to better performance by conducting a large scale
meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that five
separate factors could explain some of the effects of
transformational leadership on performance. The
first factor was labelled affective experience, being
led by a transformational leader enhanced the
number of positive emotions experienced by
followers and thereby led to improved performance.
The second factor, labelled motivation, concerned
the fact that transformational leadership resulted in
greater confidence in followers and excitement
regarding their work resulting in performance
increments. The third factor was labelled
identification mechanism and demonstrated the
influence of transformational leadership on
employees whereby they would identify with the
leader and emulate them as a source of inspiration.
The fourth factor was labelled social exchange and
suggested that transformational leadership
improved the quality of social exchanges between
leaders and followers which in turn meant the
follower was motivated to reciprocate by
performing their job to a higher standard. The fifth
and final factor was labelled justice enhancement
and suggested to followers that resources would be
allocated in a fair way, motivating followers to
expend more effort on tasks. These overall results
indicate that in the final analysis it was the quality
of the relationship that improved performance.
Related to performance increments, Judge, Piccolo
and Kosalka (2009) comment “even among leaders,
we believe charismatic, intelligent, conscientious
leaders perform better (i.e. have higher subjective
and objective effectiveness)” (p. 864). Furthermore,
they make the critical point that stable
characteristics, i.e. personality or leadership style,
are unlikely to show utility in all situations. For
example, collaborative leadership where decisions
are jointly made is likely to be effective in normal
circumstances but ineffective in times of crisis or
war. By the same token they suggest some socially
“dark” or undesirable traits can sometimes be
necessary and useful. The same authors conducted a
meta-analysis examining the effects of leadership
styles on performance. Results indicated that
transformational leadership was consistently related
to enhanced performance. Contingent reward was
also related to better performance and
transformational and contingent reward were
themselves positively related. Importantly passive
leadership and laissez-faire leadership were
consistently related to reduced performance (Judge
& Piccolo, 2004).
4-6-Effects of transformational leadership on
leader stress and well being
While most studies have focused on the effects of
leadership style and behaviours on employee
outcomes, a few have investigated the impact of
leadership style on stress and well-being in the
leaders themselves. These studies report that
transformational leadership and its sub-dimensions
are positively related to personal accomplishment in
the leader (Corrigan et al., 2002). Furthermore,
there is some evidence that charismatic leadership
is associated with reductions in one component of
burnout - emotional exhaustion. A similar study
also reported benefits of transformational leadership
on well-being in the leader. Thus, transformational
leadership was negatively correlated with emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation and positively
correlated with personal accomplishment (Zopiatis
& Constanti, 2010).
4-7-Gender differences in leadership style
Research has now demonstrated that there may be
gender differences in preferences for leadership
style, particularly in Western cultures. Specifically,
women have been shown to lead more
democratically, preferring participation from other
members of the organisation whereas men tend to
lead more autocratically (Johnson & Eagly, 1990).
A further meta-analysis from Eagly and colleagues
(2003) has also shown that female leaders are often
more transformational than males. In addition,
women were shown to be more consistent in
rewarding useful behaviours, thereby being more
transactional. In contrast, they found male leaders
to be more laissez-faire. However, it is worth noting
that the effects were small.
5-Conclusions
The research linking leadership styles with a range
of outcomes linked to health, well-being and
productivity show a remarkable degree of
consistency. Relational and transformational
leadership styles show consistent benefits to both
the leader themselves and employees in terms of
increased well-being, health, and productivity
coupled with reduced absenteeism and sickness
absence. In contrast, transactional leadership
sometimes shows benefits albeit only for
contingent reward and some studies report a
positive correlation between transformational and
contingent reward transactional leadership.
However, it is worth noting that even for
contingent rewards the outcomes are not always
positive and management by exception whether
active or passive demonstrated poor outcomes.
The outcomes for Laissez-faire and authoritarian
leadership are easier to distil. These have been
related consistently to poor outcomes in terms of
less productivity and workplace engagement
Understanding Stress at Work
35
coupled with negative impacts on health and well-
being.
However, despite the consistencies reported, a few
critical points need to be raised at this juncture.
Firstly, the quality of the evidence, while
improving has on the whole been limited, with the
vast majority of studies being correlational and
associative making it impossible to make causal
inferences (Arnold & Connelly, 2013).
Furthermore, although this chapter has focused on
four widely accepted leadership types, these are
far from all of the suggested leadership styles (see
end of section 3) and there is ongoing debate
regarding the number of styles that exist. In
addition, the literature is rife with inconsistent use
of terminology and simplistic research designs.
For example, data is typically collected via self-
report and often assessed retrospectively, is often
cross sectional and correlational so no causal
ascriptions or causal direction can be argued. One
critical issue within the literature is the fact that
leadership style is rarely objectively verified and
mapped onto actual leader behaviour, creating a
dichotomy in the literature between perceived
leadership style against objective leadership style
(Behrendt, Matz & Goritz, 2017; Dinh, et al.,
2014). Therefore, although tempting, it is too
premature to suggest that transformational
leadership leads to the enhanced outcomes.
What is clear is that work environments have
changed dramatically in the 21
st
Century and
employees are now more educated and intelligent
than previously. Some have argued these shifts
mean it is now necessary for leaders to be more
collaborative and transformational to engage their
employees (Salacuse, 2013). Towards this end,
research indicates that satisfaction with supervisors
is related to the leaders perceived competence as an
effective communicator (Berman & Hellweg,
1989). Perhaps most important in view of the
consistent association with improved employee
outcomes, there is good evidence that
transformational leadership can be taught (Barling,
Weber & Kelloway, 1996; Kelloway, Barling &
Helleur, 2000).
References
Amick, B. C., & Celentano, D. D. (1991).
Structural determinants of the psychosocial
work environment: introducing technology in
the work stress framework. Ergonomics, 34(5),
625-646.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. (2015). The
downside of transformational leadership when
encouraging followers to network. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 790-801.
Andrews, D. R., Richard, D. C., Robinson, P.,
Celano, P., & Hallaron, J. (2012). The influence
of staff nurse perception of leadership style on
satisfaction with leadership: A cross-sectional
survey of pediatric nurses. International journal
of nursing studies, 49(9), 1103-1111.
Arnold, K. A., & Connelly, C. E. (2013).
Transformational Leadership and Psychological
Wellbeing. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of
the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and
Organizational Development, 175-194.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999).
Reexamining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of
occupational and organizational
psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2003).
Dual processes at work in a call centre: An
application of the job demands–resources
model. European Journal of work and
organizational psychology, 12(4), 393-417.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., &
Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health
psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996).
Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment. Journal of applied
psychology, 81(6), 827.
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., &
Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective
organizational engagement: Linking
motivational antecedents, strategic
implementation, and firm
performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 58(1), 111-135.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to
transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-
31.
Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational
leadership. Ethics, the heart of leadership, 169-
192.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and
development in transformational
leadership. European journal of work and
organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.).
(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Sage.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y.
(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of applied
psychology, 88(2), 207.
Understanding Stress at Work
36
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E.
(2006). Transformational leadership.
Psychology Press.
Bennis, W. G. (1989). Managing the dream:
Leadership in the 21st century. Journal of
organizational change management, 2(1), 6-10.
Behrendt, P., Matz, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2017). An
integrative model of leadership behavior. The
Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 229-244.
Berman, S. J., & Hellweg, S. A. (1989). Perceived
supervisor communication competence and
supervisor satisfaction as a function of quality
circle participation. The Journal of Business
Communication (1973), 26(2), 103-122.
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive
emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(4), 317-334.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J.
P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of
supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(5), 1357.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace
harassment from the victim's perspective: a
theoretical model and meta-analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998-1012.
Boyle, D. K., Bott, M. J., Hansen, H. E., Woods, C.
Q., & Taunton, R. L. (1999). Manager's
leadership and critical care nurses' intent to
stay. American Journal of Critical Care, 8(6),
361.
Bush, T. (2000). Management styles: impact on
finance and resources. Coleman, M. and
Anderson, L. Managing Finance and Resources
in Education, London.
Castaneda, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of
manager behavior to supervisor performance
rating and subordinate satisfaction. Group &
Organization Studies, 16(4), 357-366.
Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R.,
& Miller, S. R. (2001). Charisma is contagious:
The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’
affect. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31(10), 2149-2159.
Clumeck, N., Kempenaers, C., Godin, I., Dramaix,
M., Kornitzer, M., Linkowski, P., & Kittel, F.
(2009). Working conditions predict incidence of
long-term spells of sick leave due to depression:
results from the Belstress I prospective
study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 63(4), 286-292.
Coleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002).
Primal leadership. Realizing the Power of
Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business
School Press. Boston.
Corrigan, P. W., Diwan, S., Campion, J., & Rashid,
F. (2002). Transformational leadership and the
mental health team. Administration and Policy
in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research, 30(2), 97-108.
Cummings, G. (2004). Investing relational energy:
the hallmark of resonant leadership. Nursing
Leadership (Toronto, Ont.), 17(4), 76-87.
Dellve, L., Skagert, K., & Vilhelmsson, R. (2007).
Leadership in workplace health promotion
projects: 1-and 2-year effects on long-term work
attendance. European Journal of Public
Health, 17(5), 471-476.
Diffen LLC (2017). Leadership vs Management.
Retrieved June 16, 2017, from
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Leadership_vs
_Management
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J.
D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership
theory and research in the new millennium:
Current theoretical trends and changing
perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36-
62.
Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Kashdan, T. B.,
Short, J. L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different types
of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
Psychological assessment, 28, 471-482.
Dollard, M. F., Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H.,
& Jonge, J. (2000). Psychosocial job strain and
productivity in human service workers: a test of
the demandcontrolsupport model. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73(4), 501-510.
Dolan, S. L., & Renaud, S. (1992). Individual,
organizational and social determinants of
managerial burnout: A multivariate
approach. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 7(1), 95.
DonaldsonFeilder, E., Munir, F., & Lewis, R.
(2013). Leadership and Employee
Wellbeing. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of
the psychology of leadership, change, and
organizational development, 155-173.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., &. Van
Engen, M.L. (2003). "Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles:
a meta-analysis comparing women and men."
Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.
Eldor, L., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2017). The nature
of employee engagement: Rethinking the
employee–organization relationship. The
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28, 526-552.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement
and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the
Understanding Stress at Work
37
evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 375-
384.
Failla, K. R., & Stichler, J. F. (2008). Manager and
staff perceptions of the manager's leadership
style. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 38(11), 480-487.
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005).
The relationship between job satisfaction and
health: a meta-analysis. Occupational and
environmental medicine, 62(2), 105-112.
French, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R.
(1982). The mechanisms of job stress and
strain (Vol. 7). Chichester [Sussex]; New York:
J. Wiley.
Gaziel, H. H., & Weiss, I. (1990). School
bureaucratic structure, locus of control and
alienation among primary
schoolteachers. Research in Education, 44, 55-
66.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets
results. Harvard business review, 78(2), 4-17.
Gill, A. S., Flaschner, A. B., & Shachar, M. (2006).
Mitigating stress and burnout by implementing
transformational-leadership. International
Journal of contemporary hospitality
management, 18(6), 469-481.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43(6),
495-513.
Harris, K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2005). Easing the
strain: The buffer role of supervisors in the
perceptions of politics–strain
relationship. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 337-354.
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., &
Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A
meta-analytic review. The Leadership
Quarterly, 28(1), 178-194.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors'
evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Applied
psychology, 73(4), 695.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).
Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement,
and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. 268.
Head, J., Martikainen, P., Kumari, M., Kuper, H., &
Marmot, M. G. (2002). Work environment,
alcohol consumption and ill-health: The
Whitehall II Study. HSE Books.
Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B.
(2007). Burnout in the information technology
sector: Does leadership matter? European
journal of work and organizational
psychology, 16(1), 58-75.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004).
Transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5),
755.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009).
The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A
review and theoretical extension of the leader
trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6),
855-875.
Kakabadse, A. (1986). Organizational alienation
and job climate: A comparative study of
structural conditions and psychological
adjustment. Small Group Behavior, 17(4), 458-
471.
Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004).
Transformational leadership in a project-based
environment: a comparative study of the
leadership styles of project managers and line
managers. International journal of project
management, 22(8), 609-617.
Kelloway, K. E., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000).
Enhancing transformational leadership: The
roles of training and feedback. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 145-
149.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). How leadership differs from
management. New York: Free Press, 240, 59-68.
Kramer, M., & Schmalenberg, C. E. (2003).
Magnet hospital nurses describe control over
nursing practice. Western Journal of Nursing
Research, 25(4), 434-452.
Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vainio,
H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and
health effects—a systematic review and a meta-
analysis. Journal of occupational and
environmental medicine, 50(8), 904-915.
Labriola, M., Christensen, K. B., Lund, T., Nielsen,
M. L., & Diderichsen, F. (2006). Multilevel
analysis of workplace and individual risk factors
for long-term sickness absence. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, 48(9), 923-929.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and
adaptation. The handbook of behavioral
medicine, 282-325.
Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., &
Leithwood, J. (1996). School restructuring,
transformational leadership and the amelioration
of teacher burnout. Anxiety, stress, and
coping, 9(3), 199-215.
Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental
approach to the study of autocracy and
Understanding Stress at Work
38
democracy: A preliminary
note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292-300.
Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010).
Transformational leadership and employee
wellbeing: The mediating role of trust in the
leader and selfefficacy. Applied
Psychology, 59(3), 454-479.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects
of leadership style on stress outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 737-748.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The
meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership
style, communicator competence, and employee
satisfaction. The Journal of Business
Communication, 45(1), 61-78.
Madlock, P. E., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2012).
The influence of relational maintenance
strategies among coworkers. The Journal of
Business Communication, 49(1), 21-47.
Madlock, P. E., & Horan, S. M. (2009). Predicted
outcome value of organizational
commitment. Communication Research
Reports, 26(1), 40-49.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The
meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for
success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement: a report to government.
London: Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills.
Manion, J. (2004). Nurture a culture of
retention. Nursing Management, 35(4), 29-39.
Michie, S., & Williams, S. (2003). Reducing work
related psychological ill health and sickness
absence: a systematic literature
review. Occupational and environmental
medicine, 60(1), 3-9.
Morrill, R. L. (2007). Strategic
leadership. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of
transition stress: A relocation study. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 20, 625-646.
Munir, F., Nielsen, K., & Carneiro, I. G. (2010).
Transformational leadership and depressive
symptoms: A prospective study. Journal of
affective disorders, 120(1), 235-239.
Munir, F., Burr, H., Hansen, J. V., Rugulies, R., &
Nielsen, K. (2011). Do positive psychosocial
work factors protect against 2-year incidence of
long-term sickness absence among employees
with and those without depressive symptoms? A
prospective study. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 70(1), 3-9.
Myers, S. A., & Kassing, J. W. (1998). The
relationship between perceived supervisory
communication behaviors and subordinate
organizational identification. Communication
Research Reports, 15(1), 71-81.
Ng, T. W. (2017). Transformational leadership and
performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple
mediation pathways. The Leadership
Quarterly, 28(3), 385-417.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & 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), 16-32.
Nielsen, M. L., Rugulies, R., Christensen, K. B.,
Smith-Hansen, L., & Kristensen, T. S. (2006).
Psychosocial work environment predictors of
short and long spells of registered sickness
absence during a 2-year follow up. Journal of
occupational and environmental
medicine, 48(6), 591-598.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F.
(2009). The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between
transformational leadership, and job satisfaction
and psychological well-being in healthcare
professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire
survey. International journal of nursing
studies, 46(9), 1236-1244.
Northouse, P.G. (2004) Leadership: Theory and
Practice (3rd Edition). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Nyberg, A., Westerlund, H., Magnusson Hanson, L.
L., & Theorell, T. (2008). Managerial leadership
is associated with self-reported sickness absence
and sickness presenteeism among Swedish men
and women. Scandinavian Journal of Social
Medicine, 36(8), 803-811.
O'Driscoll, 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), 141-155.
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008).
Effects of occupational stress management
intervention programs: a meta-analysis. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69-93.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004).
The drivers of employee engagement. Report-
Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009).
Transformational and transactional leadership
styles, followers' positive and negative
emotions, and performance in German nonprofit
Understanding Stress at Work
39
orchestras. Nonprofit management and
leadership, 20(1), 41-59.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences
of employee engagement. Journal of managerial
psychology, 21, 600-619.
Salacuse, J. W. (2013). Real leaders negotiate.
In Negotiating Life (pp. 55-72). Palgrave
Macmillan US.
Sapolsky, R. (2003). Taming stress. Scientific
American, 289(3), 86.
Sarros, J. C., Tanewski, G. A., Winter, R. P.,
Santora, J. C., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Work
alienation and organizational leadership. British
Journal of Management, 13(4), 285-304.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993).
The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based
theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594.
Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R.
(1989). Antecedents and consequences of role
stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 35-58.
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout
companion to study and practice: A critical
analysis. CRC press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. (2000). Job
stress and burnout among correctional officers:
A literature review. International Journal of
Stress Management, 7(1), 19-48.
Schreuder, J. A., Roelen, C. A., van Zweeden, N.
F., Jongsma, D., van der Klink, J. J., &
Groothoff, J. W. (2011). Leadership styles of
nurse managers and registered sickness absence
among their nursing staff. Health care
management review, 36(1), 58-66.
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.
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. E., & Bass, B. M. (1989).
Transformational leadership: Is it a source of
more burnout and stress? Journal of Health and
Human Resources Administration, 12, 174-185.
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), 80.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership
styles, mentoring functions received, and job-
related stress: A conceptual model and
preliminary study. Journal of organizational
behavior, 21, 365-390.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001).
Wellbeing and occupational health in the 21st
century workplace. Journal of occupational and
organizational psychology, 74(4), 489-509.
Stansfeld, S. A., Head, J., & Marmot, M. G.
(2000). Work-related factors and ill health: the
Whitehall II study. Sudbury: HSE books.
Stansfeld, S. A., Rael, G. S., Head, J., Shipley, M.,
& Marmot, M. (1997). Social support and
psychiatric sickness absence: a prospective
study of British civil servants. Psychological
medicine, 27(1), 35-48.
Stordeur, S., D'hoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C.
(2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and
emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing
staff. Journal of advanced nursing, 35(4), 533-
542.
Sullivan, P. (1993). Stress and burnout in
psychiatric nursing: The purpose of this
literature review is to focus on the issue of
occupational stress in psychiatric nursing and to
examine academic work related to the concepts
of stress, coping and burnout. The review
concludes with comments on the implications
for nursing practice, education, research and
management. Nursing Standard, 8(2), 36-39.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive
supervision. Academy of management
journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Theorell, T., Emdad, R., Arnetz, B., & Weingarten,
A. M. (2001). Employee effects of an
educational program for managers at an
insurance company. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 63(5), 724-733.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of
family-supportive work variables on work-
family conflict and strain: A control
perspective. Journal of applied
psychology, 80(1), 6.
Towers Watson (2008). Global workforce study
2007-2008. Towers Watson: Towers Perrin.
Upenieks, V. (2003). Nurse leaders' perceptions of
what compromises successful leadership in
today's acute inpatient environment. Nursing
Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 140-152.
Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Sixma,
H. J. (1994). Burnout among general
practitioners: a perspective from equity
theory. Journal of social and clinical
psychology, 13(1), 86-100.
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(2), 314-334.
Understanding Stress at Work
40
Volk, M. C., & Lucas, M. D. (1991). Relationship
of management style and anticipated
turnover. Dimensions of critical care nursing:
DCCN, 10(1), 35-40.
World Health Organisation (2014). Mental health: a
state of well-being
http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_he
alth/en/
Zeffane, R. (1993). Uncertainty, participation and
alienation: Lessons for workplace
restructuring. International journal of sociology
and social policy, 13(5/6), 22-52.
Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2010). Leadership
styles and burnout: is there an
association? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3),
300-320.
... Leaders who follow a democratic participatory method with employees based on consultation and guidance can reduce tension n within the organization by providing the appropriate atmosphere, giving employees importance within the organization, encouraging and training them, and unifying responsibilities in order to achieve goals efficiently and effectively (Bhatti et al., 2012;Osazevbaru, & Amawhe 2022). In contrast to this, when the leader's style is authoritarian, it will increase pressure on employees, which will reflect negatively on their work performance and significantly decrease their performance index (Erskine & Georgiou, 2017). Therefore, leadership has a major role in influencing the relationship between work stress and job performance (Pishgooie et al., 2019;Saad et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the current study is to shed light on the impact of workplace stress on job performance in Iraqi public sector universities through the mediating role of leadership style. Where stresses in the workplace were measured through three types: role conflict, role burden and work conditions, job performance was determined as a dependent variable, the participatory leadership style was tested as a mediating variable for the relationship, the structural equation modeling method was applied to test the study model. A sample of professors of public universities in Iraq-Baghdad was selected, and 120 answers were collected that were valid for analysis. The study concluded that conflicting roles and working conditions are the factors that have an impact on academic performance. In contrast to the workload, which did not have a statistically significant effect on the performance of university professors. As for the mediation role of participatory management, it was contrary to expectations. It was not a contributing factor in reducing the effects of work stresses on the performance of university professors. These results are attributed to the fact that the university work environment affects its leaders and professors and is governed by the instructions and regulations of higher authorities.
... Leaders who intend to use a democratic, directive, or consultative leadership style can also alleviate stress by encouraging effective participation and shared responsibility for achieving goals, providing guidance, training, and the necessary support to efficiently and effectively carry out tasks (Bhatti et al., 2012;Osazevbaru, & Amawhe 2022). However, when leaders follow an autocratic or power-supportive leadership style, it will increase stress on employees and affect their engagement and satisfaction with work (Erskine & Georgiou, 2017). Therefore, the right leadership style can play an important role in improving employee engagement and reducing the impact of work stress on their performance (Pishgooie et al., 2019;Saad et al., 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of workplace stress on employee engagement within Iraqi universities through the mediator role of leadership style. Work-related stress and non-work-related stress were identified as representing workplace stress. Employee engagement has been measured through three types: social engagement, affective engagement, and intellectual engagement. Two types of leadership styles have been tested: directive and participative leadership. the structural equation Modeling was used to test the study model. A sample of 245 employees in Iraqi universities, including university professors, was targeted. Only 214 respondents participated in the survey. The results showed that non-work-related stress is the most influential factor in employee engagement. Furthermore, it has been found that the participative leadership style mediates the relationship between work-related and non-work-related stress and employee engagement. There is one exception; participative leadership did not mediate the impact of non-work-related stress on intellectual.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teachers' perceived cruciality of digital leadership among principals and their wellbeing in Sabah, Malaysia. The sample consisted of 102 teachers who responded to the questionnaires on Google Forms. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0. Findings showed that teachers' perceived cruciality of digital leadership among principals was significantly related to their perceived wellbeing, with a Spearman's coefficient of 0.32 (p < 0.01). Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that all digital leadership items were significant at p < 0.001, with the median being significantly different from the hypothesized test value of 3.5, indicating strong agreement for all the items. Wilcoxon signed rank test also revealed that 11 out of 12 wellbeing items were significant at p < 0.05, with the median being significantly different from the test value, indicating strong agreement for the 11 items. In light of the findings, several recommendations were made on how digital school leaders can enhance teachers' wellbeing.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on stress prevention measures in the workplace. The aim will be to categorise the various strategies into an overarching system while reviewing evidence of their effectiveness. As such this chapter will take an intentionally broad approach to stress reduction measures, examining a range of very different approaches to the issue.
Chapter
Evidence regarding the effects of leadership style on multiple employee and company outcomes is reviewed. This emphasises issues regarding the quality of study designs and operationalisation of the key constructs such as how many leadership types there are. These issues weaken some of the arguments as does the overreliance on correlational methods and self-report data. The chapter shows that some forms of leadership (autocratic, laissez faire, punitive) are extremely detrimental to staff health and well-being. Conversely, it shows that leadership styles such as transformational and more relational leadership forms have consistent benefits.
Chapter
The previous chapter has reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of leadership style on multiple employee and company outcomes. The purpose of the present chapter is to take the key messages resulting from the previous literature and to distil these into practical advice for organisations, leaders and followers.
Chapter
Resilience to the effects of stress is a variable that is often overlooked in studies of the effects of stress on behaviour and individuals. Indeed, our models of health provision (both physical and mental health) focus almost entirely on waiting until individuals develop issues and then seeking to treat these via pharmacotherapy and psychological interventions. This method of treating disease is costly and ineffective. Furthermore, science is beginning to unravel ways of living that evidence has shown can reduce the likelihood individuals will become sick in the future. After describing stress resilience, the present chapter presents the results of a literature review on evidence-based factors that improve human resilience to the destabilising effects of stress. It will also examine whether there is a “dark side” of focusing on individual human resilience that benefits organisations.
Article
Recent research has shown that hospital restructuring that included staff layoff has adversely affected the role, health and well-being of nurses who remained employed. Further research found that nurses working in environments that reflected resonant (emotionally intelligent) leadership reported the least negative effects to their healt and well-being following hospital restructuring. What remained unclear was the mechanism by which this mitigation occurred. The purpose of this paper is to explore additional findings from this leadership research and discuss one explanation unique to the academic literature for the mitigation variable--the investment of relational energy by resonant nursing leadership to build relationships with nurses and manage emotion in the workplace.
Article
Transformational leadership (TFL) has been shown to affect employees' job performance, and the literature offers a large variety of explanatory processes. Integrating the diverse literature related to the mechanisms that mediate the TFL-performance relationship, the current study identified five core mechanisms—affective, motivational, identification, social exchange, and justice enhancement—that are consistent with established social and psychological theories. Meta-analysis involving > 600 samples was conducted to test these mechanisms. General support was found for each of the five mechanisms. The findings showed that TFL was related to variables that represented these mechanisms, which in turn were associated with non-self-report measures of employees' task performance, citizenship behavior, and innovative behavior. An integrative model was further proposed and tested to show the central role of leader-member exchange in the relationships between TFL, other mediating variables, and performance outcomes. This study contributes to the literature by strengthening researchers' theoretical understanding of the major social and psychological processes by which transformational leaders promote followers' job performance.
Article
Stress has been implicated as an important determinant of leadership functioning. Conversely, the behavior of leaders has long been argued to be a major factor in determining the stress levels of followers. Yet despite the widespread acknowledgement that stress and leadership are linked, there has been no systematic attempt to organize and summarize these literatures. In the present, we meta-analytically review the relationship between three leadership constructs (transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, and abusive supervision) and stress and burnout. Our analyses confirm that leader stress influences leader behavior and that leadership behaviors and leader-follower relationships are significant determinants of stress and burnout in subordinates. We build on these results to suggest new avenues for research in this domain as well as discussing how these results can inform practice with regards to leader development.
Article
Decades of questionnaire and interview studies have revealed various leadership behaviors observed in successful leaders. However, little is known about the actual behaviors that cause those observations. Given that lay observers are prone to cognitive biases, such as the halo effect, the validity of theories that are exclusively based on observed behaviors is questionable. We thus follow the call of leading scientists in the field and derive a parsimonious model of leadership behavior that is informed by established psychological theories. Building on the taxonomy of Yukl (2012), we propose three task-oriented behavior categories (enhancing understanding, strengthening motivation and facilitating implementation) and three relation-oriented behavior categories (fostering coordination, promoting cooperation and activating resources), each of which is further specified by a number of distinct behaviors. While the task-oriented behaviors are directed towards the accomplishment of shared objectives, the relation-oriented behaviors support this process by increasing the coordinated engagement of the team members. Our model contributes to the advancement of leadership behavior theory by (1) consolidating current taxonomies, (2) sharpening behavioral concepts of leadership behavior, (3) specifying precise relationships between those categories and (4) spurring new hypotheses that can be derived from existing findings in the field of psychology. To test our model as well as the hypotheses derived from this model, we advocate the development of new measurements that overcome the limitations associated with questionnaire and interview studies.
Chapter
Many managers view negotiation as a tool to use outside the organization to deal with customers, suppliers, and creditors. By contrast, inside the organization, “It’s my way or the highway.” According to conventional wisdom, managing people requires the tried and true leadership qualities of charisma, vision, and presence—not negotiation skills. Real leaders just don’t negotiate.
Chapter
James Bond movies always follow some very predictable patterns. The movies always open with Bond involved in an extremely dangerous mission, which he single-handedly accomplishes to the tune of numerous explosions. Bond then shows up in M’s office in London to be briefed on the mission that will be the focus of the current movie. That done, Bond picks up his arsenal of tech toys from R (formerly Q), and is off. M, meanwhile, remains behind trying to keep track of what is going on and presumably coordinating other agents and missions.
Article
Link to the full study: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/D2YTzzdFxftnAIpcCTpB/full