Expectations of Leaders’ Mental Health

Abstract

Understanding the causes and consequences of varying mental health experiences in the workplace has gained significant research attention, yet little is known about the assumptions people hold about mental health at work, especially with regard to the expectations people may have of their leaders’ mental health. Given people tend to romanticize organizational leaders and have expectations regarding prototypical leader attributes, we consider whether people also hold expectations of leaders’ mental health. Drawing on implicit leadership theories, we propose that people will expect leaders experience better mental health compared to those occupying other organizational roles (e.g., subordinates). Using mixed methods, Study 1 ( n = 85) showed that people expect that those in leadership roles enjoy higher well-being and experience less mental illness than those in non-leadership roles. Using vignettes in which an employee’s health was manipulated, Study 2 ( n = 200) demonstrated that mental illness is incongruent with leadership prototypes. Using vignettes in which organizational role was manipulated, Study 3 ( n = 104) showed that compared to subordinates, leaders are perceived as having more job resources and demands, but people expect that it is leaders’ greater access to organizational resources that facilitates their well-being and inhibits mental illness. These findings extend the occupational mental health and leadership literatures by identifying a novel attribute upon which leaders are evaluated. We conclude by considering the consequences of leader mental health expectations for organizational decision-makers, leaders, and employees aspiring to lead.

Full text

Expectations of Leaders’Mental Health
Anika E. Cloutier
1*
and Julian Barling
2
Abstract
Understanding the causes and consequences of varying mental health experiences in the workplace has gained significant
research attention, yet little is known about the assumptions people hold about mental health at work, especially with
regard to the expectations people may have of their leaders’mental health. Given people tend to romanticize organizational
leaders and have expectations regarding prototypical leader attributes, we consider whether people also hold expectations
of leaders’mental health. Drawing on implicit leadership theories, we propose that people will expect leaders experience
better mental health compared to those occupying other organizational roles (e.g., subordinates). Using mixed methods,
Study 1 (n=85) showed that people expect that those in leadership roles enjoy higher well-being and experience less
mental illness than those in non-leadership roles. Using vignettes in which an employee’s health was manipulated, Study
2(n=200) demonstrated that mental illness is incongruent with leadership prototypes. Using vignettes in which organiza-
tional role was manipulated, Study 3 (n=104) showed that compared to subordinates, leaders are perceived as having more
job resources and demands, but people expect that it is leaders’greater access to organizational resources that facilitates
their well-being and inhibits mental illness. These findings extend the occupational mental health and leadership literatures
by identifying a novel attribute upon which leaders are evaluated. We conclude by considering the consequences of leader
mental health expectations for organizational decision-makers, leaders, and employees aspiring to lead.
Keywords
implicit leadership theories, leader prototypes, mental health, well-being, mental illness
Understanding the important role of mental health in the
workplace is by no means new; Chinoy (1955) and
Kornhauser (1965) had already identified mental health
issues and their consequences in the auto industry decades
ago. Since then, research on the role, causes, and outcomes
of mental health within the context of work has expanded
substantially: Researchers have established that workplace
characteristics (e.g., leadership, culture) affect employees’
mental health, mental health affects workplace behaviors
(e.g., withdrawal, performance, interpersonal interactions),
and unique mental health experiences emerge in the work-
place (e.g., occupational stress, burnout) (see Kelloway
et al., 2023 for a recent review). Such extensive research
attention is well deserved; the prevalence of mental illness
has been steadily increasing in recent decades, particularly
within the working population (Mind Share Partners,
2021), even before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic
(Santomauro et al., 2021). This has resulted in several
calls for action: In 2022, the United States (U.S.) Surgeon
General released its first-ever report outlining the critical
role of organizations in promoting and protecting the
mental health of their employees, while the World Health
Organization (WHO) recently released a set of recommen-
dations to improve mental health specifically within the
workplace (Staglin, 2023). Though research advancements
and organizational initiatives broadly acknowledge the
importance of mental health for workplace success, they
do not consider whether all employees are viewed equally
when it comes to their experience with their mental health.
Indeed, within the workplace context, we know little
about the assumptions and expectations people hold regard-
ing who may be considered most (or least) vulnerable to
mental health challenges. This is an important limitation
given (1) some people may be excluded from organizational
accommodation programs designed to support mental health
if they are expected to experience good mental health and
(2) certain people may be excluded from work opportunities
if they are expected to experience poor mental health. Thus,
understanding who is deemed most or least vulnerable to
mental health challenges at work may highlight underlying
1
Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax Nova Scotia,
Canada
2
Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
*
Anika Cloutier, Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Kenneth
C. Rowe Management Building; 6100 University Ave, Room 5094, Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2.
Email: anika.cloutier@dal.ca
Article
Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
2023, Vol. 30(3) 276–296
© The Authors 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/15480518231178637
journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo

inequalities in the workplace while pointing to opportunities
for intervention.
Though existing research has demonstrated that several
individual difference factors (e.g., gender), personal histo-
ries (e.g., exposure to trauma), and behaviors (e.g., social
withdrawal) inform who is deemed most vulnerable to
mental health struggles (Furnham & Telford, 2012;
Kelloway et al., 2023), work-related factors have not been
explored to the same extent. We suggest one’s work role
(i.e., the formal duties and responsibilities assigned by the
organization) may be a particularly relevant characteristic
that people draw upon to inform their mental health expec-
tations of others. This is because work roles reflect a
common social category by which people differentiate
between others and differentiate others from themselves
(Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth et al., 2000; Ashforth & Mael,
1989), and different work roles engender different prototyp-
ical expectations (Lord et al., 1984; Sy, 2010). One work
role that may particularly engender unique mental health
expectations is the leadership role.
Extent empirical evidence demonstrates that people hold
unique expectations of what it means to be an organizational
leader. Leader prototypes reflect people’s underlying beliefs
regarding the attributes (e.g., intelligent, sensitive) and
behaviors (e.g., charismatic, agentic) considered most
typical of organizational leaders (Epitropaki et al., 2013;
Lord et al., 1984). Research has established that people gen-
erally hold overarching, categorical expectations of their
leaders (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004); for example, regard-
less of context, leaders are expected to be charismatic and
sensitive (House et al., 2002). However, people also have
context-specific leader prototypes (Hanges et al., 2000);
for example, people expect leaders to be male (Braun
et al., 2017), white (Petsko & Rosette, 2023), and happy
(Trichas et al., 2017). We posit that people may also hold
unique expectations regarding leaders’mental health.
The purpose of this research is to examine whether
people hold expectations regarding organizational leaders’
mental health. Informed by implicit leadership theories
(ILTs) (Epitropaki et al., 2013), we predict that leadership
roles will be associated with expectations of good mental
health, because the characteristics and underlying assump-
tions of good mental health are more consistent with exist-
ing leader prototypes. Informed by the connectionist
approach to leader prototypes (Foti et al., 2008), we
further predict people will use contextual information
regarding work roles (i.e., presence of organizational
resources and demands) to inform their expectations, and
more specifically, we hypothesize that people will view
leaders as having greater access to organizational resources,
resulting in expectations of better mental health.
We test our predictions across three experimental studies.
In Study 1, we consider whether people associate different
work roles (i.e., leader, subordinate, or employee) with
different mental health experiences and establish that
leaders are expected to experience higher well-being and
less mental illness (depression and anxiety) than those in
non-leadership roles. In Study 2, we test whether different
health experiences (i.e., mental illness diagnosis, physical
illness diagnosis, no health diagnosis) affect expectations
of leadership suitability and establish that mental illness
(but not physical illness) is viewed as incongruent with
leader prototypes. In Study 3, we consider whether work
role characteristics serve as contextual cues to inform
leader mental health predictions, and we find that leadership
roles are perceived as having greater access to organiza-
tional resources, which result in positive expectations of
their mental health.
Our research offers three theoretical contributions. First,
we contribute to research on mental health at work by dem-
onstrating that people hold mental health expectations of
others based on their organizational role. Second, we con-
tribute to understanding people’s leader prototypes (Lord
et al., 2020) by identifying a novel attribute (i.e., mental
health) upon which leaders are perceived and evaluated.
This contributes to the emerging connectionist perspective
to ILTs (Foti et al., 2008), which suggest that when
focused on salient contextual features, people can develop
more domain-specific leader prototypes. Third, we contrib-
ute to the growing literature on leaders’mental health
(Barling & Cloutier, 2017); research has established that
transitioning into leadership roles affects incumbents’
mental health (e.g., Fletcher & French, 2021), but no
research has considered whether people hold expectations
of the mental health leaders ought to experience, which
may be relevant to whether employees emerge into leader-
ship roles in the first instance. Results from this research
also offer practical implications. Despite organizational
efforts to destigmatize mental illness, covert discrimination
in the workplace persists (Hastuti & Timming, 2021). One
way in which mental illness stigmatization may manifest
in the workplace is via individuals’implicit categorization
of those who are mentally healthy as leaders and those
who experience mental illness as non-leaders. As such, we
open up a discussion on how these social categorizations
could engender organizational consequences for leaders,
employees, and organizations.
Theoretical Background
We begin by conceptualizing mental health and briefly
review the literature on lay perceptions of mental health,
identifying both generally held beliefs about mental health
and how mental health is viewed within the context of
work. We then review the literature on ILTs and the connec-
tionist approach to leadership theories and focus on explain-
ing lay beliefs about leaders and the context-specific beliefs
that have been identified. Next, we consider the overlap
Cloutier and Barling 277

between beliefs about mental health and implicit beliefs
about leaders to inform our hypotheses, suggesting that
the characteristics of good mental health (i.e., well-being)
are more consistent with leader prototypes, while the char-
acteristics and assumptions of poor mental health (i.e.,
depression, anxiety) are incongruent with leader prototypes.
Finally, we consider whether organizational characteristics
associated with different work roles (i.e., resources and
demands) may serve as additional contextual variables
that people consider when informing their expectations of
leaders’mental health.
Mental Health: Conceptualization and Beliefs
Though there are several frameworks for conceptualizing
mental health (e.g., see Kelloway et al., 2023), we concep-
tualize mental health as a multidimensional construct com-
prising positive (i.e., well-being) and negative (i.e., mental
illness) aspects of mental health (Westerhof & Keyes,
2010). According to Westerhof and Keyes (2010),
“mental health”reflects an optimal level of functioning
and includes emotional (i.e., positive emotions), psycholog-
ical (i.e., positive self-evaluations), and social (i.e., positive
relations with others) dimensions of well-being. “Mental
illness”is defined as the presence of sub- or clinical symp-
toms of internalized (i.e., negative feelings and thoughts
experienced inwards, e.g., depression, anxiety) or external-
ized (e.g., negative thoughts and feelings exhibited out-
wards, e.g., substance abuse and aggression) disorders.
This conceptualization implies that “mental health”and
“mental illness”range along their own continuum and
should therefore be studied separately (Keyes, 2005;
2006). To maintain clarity, we use “well-being”to refer to
the positive dimension of mental health, “mental illness”
to refer to the negative dimension of mental health, and
“mental health”as the collective experience of both positive
and negative health dimensions.
In addition to evidence-informed conceptualizations of
mental health, lay conceptions of mental health have also
been explored within the field of psychiatry for several
decades (Star, 1955). There are three related but distinct
approaches to understanding lay conceptions of mental
health: (1) public attitudes, (2) lay theories, and (3) mental
health literacy (Furnham & Telford, 2012). First, research-
ers have explored people’s general attitudes toward mental
health experiences, including their beliefs about what
people with mental illness (e.g., depression, schizophrenia)
are like and how they ought to be treated. Insights from this
approach have contributed to our understanding of mental
illness stigma, pointing to mental illness being viewed
with adverse emotional (fear, pity, and anger) and behavio-
ral (attempts to socially distance) reactions (Schomerus
et al., 2012; Walsh & Foster, 2021). Second, researchers
have considered people’s lay theories about mental health,
which assesses people’s underlying beliefs related to the
causes, prevalence, consequences, and treatment of mental
illness. This perspective contributes to our understanding
of how people view mental health in general and why
people stigmatize mental illness—particularly if they view
disorders as emerging from controllable factors, as resulting
in dangerous behavioral patterns, or as untreatable
(Furnham & Telford, 2012). Third, researchers have
explored public mental health literacy, which documents
public knowledge, understanding, and recognition of
mental disorders (Furnham & Telford, 2012).
Public attitudes and lay theories about mental health have
been explored to a much lesser extent within the context of
work but do show some consistent findings. For example,
research demonstrates that mental illness is stigmatized in
the workplace; hiring managers doubt the capabilities of
employees with mental illness and consequently avoid
hiring them (Brouwers, 2020; Janssens et al., 2021), while
those suffering from mental illness believe that others
look down upon them as a function of their illness, resulting
in self-stigmatization and organizational withdrawal (Elraz,
2018). Beliefs about well-being in the workplace are gener-
ally less explored; however, employees exhibiting psycho-
logical capital (i.e., efficacy, hope, optimism, and
resilience) are generally evaluated more positively, as orga-
nizational citizens and effective team members (see
Newman et al., 2014 for a review).
In addition to generalized beliefs about mental health in
the workplace (i.e., “mental illness results in poor employee
capability”;“employees experiencing well-being are better
team players”), we suggest people may believe that the
degree to which others experience well-being and mental
illness differs as a function of the work role. Indeed, exten-
sive research has demonstrated that people develop different
prototypical expectations of the attributes, characteristics,
and behaviors of others based on their organizational role
(e.g., leader, follower; Lord et al., 2020; Sy, 2010).
In the current study, we focus on understanding expecta-
tions of leaders’mental health, concentrating on expecta-
tions related to their psychological well-being, depression,
and anxiety. Psychological well-being reflects positive eval-
uations of oneself, one’s life, and one’s achievements and is
composed of six factors, including experiencing high
degrees of autonomy (i.e., ability to regulate one’sown
behavior independent of social pressures), environmental
mastery (i.e., ability to manage one’s environment and every-
day affairs), personal growth (i.e., desire to continuously
develop), positive relations with others (i.e., ability to posi-
tively engage with others and form meaningful relationships),
purpose in life (i.e., a zest for life, strong goal orientation), and
self-acceptance (i.e., positive self-evaluations) (Ryff & Keyes,
1995). Depression is characterized by two overarching symp-
toms: depressive affect (i.e., feelings of intense sadness, help-
lessness, and hopelessness) and anhedonia (i.e., feelings of
278 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

disinterest and displeasure) (American Psychiatric Association,
2013). Anxiety is characterized by persistent and excessive
worry and includes symptoms such as feelings of self-doubt
and concern that something will go wrong (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013).
We focus on these three indicators of mental health for
three reasons. First, these indicators tap into both mental
health continua (i.e., well-being and mental illness) and
therefore provide a more complete assessment of mental
health beliefs compared to if we just focused on one dimen-
sion (e.g., beliefs about leaders’mental illness). Second, we
focus on assessing perceptions of depression and anxiety as
mental illness indicators specifically because they reflect the
most common mental illnesses experienced in the workplace
(Mind Share Partners, 2021), as a result of which they
would be familiar to our sample of participants, and are there-
fore constructs upon which expectations/schemas may already
exist. In addition, depression and anxiety are internalized
mental illnesses, meaning negative feelings and thoughts are
directed inwards and are therefore not always obvious to
observers. Thus, people may be more likely to rely on their
implicit theories surrounding these illnesses when developing
expectations about the degree to which work roles experience
these symptoms. Third, the characteristics associated with psy-
chological well-being, depression, and anxiety range in their
congruency with general leader prototypes and may therefore
inform expectations, a topic we turn to next.
Leader Prototypes
As is the case with lay theories about mental health, people
also hold implicit leadership theories (ILTs; Lord et al.,
1984; 2020). Specifically, people possess cognitive schemas
about organizational leaders (i.e., ILTs) that guide which attri-
butes (e.g., traits, abilities, characteristics) and behaviors are
considered most prototypical of leaders (Epitropaki & Martin,
2004; Junker & van Dick, 2014; Lord & Maher, 1991).
Leadership schemas develop through early interactions with
parents (Keller, 1999; 2003) and later through interactions
with other leaders (e.g., coaches, teachers, supervisors). Once
developed, ILTs are relatively impervious to disconfirming evi-
dence from interactions with individual leaders (Epitropaki &
Martin, 2005) implying their robustness through time and space.
Although scholars originally theorized that people held
overarching ILTs that broadly categorized targets as leader
versus non-leader (Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Rush et al., 1977),
later research informed by categorization theory (Epitropaki &
Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994) demon-
strated that leader schemas are comprised of multi-categorical
prototypes; that is, observers categorize targets’attributes along
several dimensions and then consider whether their attributes
are consistent with those of leaders. Across time (Epitropaki &
Martin, 2004; Offermann et al., 1994; Offermann & Coats,
2018), research has shown that prototypical leadership attributes
include sensitivity, intelligence, dedication, and dynamism. The
more targets are perceived to match these attributes, the more
likely they are to be considered a leader, with meaningful impli-
cations. Leaders perceived to match these prototypes have better
leader–follower relationships (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005),
receive more positive leadership evaluations (Porr & Fields,
2006; Hansbrough et al., 2021), and engender higher follower
workplace attitudes (De Luque et al., 2008) and performance
(Lord & Maher, 1991; Veestraeten et al., 2021). Taken together,
people hold leader prototypes that serve as a top–down influence
to determine who is viewed as a leader and who is not.
Extending information gathered from general ILTs, some
researchers have adopted a connectionist approach to inves-
tigating ILTs (Foti et al., 2008). The connectionist approach
suggests that information about a target’s leadership suit-
ability is based on the simultaneous interpretation of exist-
ing leader prototypes and contextual information (e.g., the
work environment in which this target is embedded). As
such, when forming judgments about whether or not a
target is “behaving like a leader”or “seems like a leader,”
individuals subconsciously integrate salient bottom–up
inputs (e.g., their observations of the work context) with
their existing top–down inputs (pre-existing leadership pro-
totypes). In essence, people’s leader categorizations are
colored and shaped by both existing leader prototypes and
salient contextual features in which targets are observed.
Several sources of contextual information shape leader
schemas, including observers’own attributes (e.g., leader-
ship preferences), the work context (e.g., industry), and
additional target attributes (e.g., gender) (e.g., Chiu et al.,
2017; Foti et al., 2008; Lord et al., 2020; Sy & van
Knippenberg, 2021; Trichas et al., 2017). The ways in
which target attributes shape leader schemas are particularly
relevant to the current study. For example, a target’s emo-
tional expressions can shape whether the target is viewed
as a leader, with positive emotional expressions being asso-
ciated with higher leadership categorization compared to
nervous emotional expressions (Trichas et al., 2017). As a
second example, when managers are viewed as having
more positive network ties and fewer negative network
ties, they are viewed as possessing more social power and
are in turn categorized as a leader (Chiu et al., 2017).
Taken together, people categorize a target as a leader
based on their existing leader prototypes and additional con-
textual information, demonstrating that leader schemas are
informed by both top–down and bottom–up information.
We therefore adopt this approach in considering whether
an additional target attribute contributes to leader proto-
types, namely, mental health.
Leader Mental Health Prototypes
Leader Well-Being Prototypes. We first consider how general
(i.e., context-free) ILTs serve as top–down influences that
Cloutier and Barling 279

guide and inform observers’expectations of leaders’well-
being. Across two studies, Epitropaki and Martin (2004)
found that leader prototypes are made up of four prototypi-
cal attributes: leaders are expected to be (1) sensitive, i.e.,
understanding, sincere, compassionate, warm, and sympa-
thetic; (2) dynamic, i.e., bold, strong, in control, energetic
and charismatic; (3) dedicated, i.e., motivated, unrelenting,
and hardworking; and (4) intelligent, i.e., clever, knowledge-
able, and intellectual. We posit that the central attributes,
behaviors, and characteristics of all four prototypical leader-
ship dimensions are more schematically consistent with the
characteristics associated with higher levels of psychological
well-being, and therefore, existing leader prototypes may
serve as a top–down, social–cognitive framework that shapes
the degree to which those in leadership roles are expected to
experience psychological well-being.
First, we argue that the prototypical expectation that
leaders are dynamic (i.e., leaders are in control, strong, influ-
ential, charismatic; Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) may drive
expectations that they also experience higher psychological
autonomy (i.e., ability to regulate one’s own behavior) and
environmental mastery (i.e., ability to manage one’s envi-
ronment) given their conceptual overlap. The autonomy
and environmental mastery dimensions of psychological
well-being imply that individuals experience control over
their own actions and can manage their immediate social
environment and day-to-day affairs (Westerhof & Keyes,
2010). Leadership roles are linked to increased responsibil-
ities over one’s own work and the work of others (Korman
et al., 2021). Thus, we suggest observers may implicitly
draw positive connections between leader prototypes/lead-
ership characteristics and the autonomy and environmental
mastery dimensions of psychological well-being.
Second, the dedication (i.e., leaders are hardworking,
successful, highly motivated) and intelligence (i.e., leaders
are intellectual, clever) dimensions of leader prototypes
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) may drive predictions that
leaders ought to experience greater purpose in life (i.e.,
strong goal orientation), personal growth (i.e., continuous
development), and self-acceptance (i.e., positive self-
evaluations). Purpose in life, personal growth, and
self-acceptance collectively imply individuals’approach to
self-actualization (i.e., reaching one’s full potential;
Maslow, 1970; Whitehead, 2017). Being hardworking and
intelligent may be necessary precursors to such personal
achievements. Moreover, given most organizational struc-
tures have some degree of hierarchy, with leadership titles
at the top, observers may view those achieving leadership
titles as indicative of growth and personal achievement,
which might then extend into their expectations that
leaders ought to experience higher psychological well-
being. Indeed, as compared to those in subordinate
positions, leadership roles are associated with greater
status and power (Meindl et al., 1985), and such status
and power itself may indicate to observers that leaders
have achieved a sense of purpose, growth, and
self-acceptance.
Third, we suggest that the sensitivity dimension of leader
prototypes (i.e., being sincere, compassionate, and warm;
Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) is consistent with the psycho-
logical well-being dimension of experiencing positive rela-
tions with others (Westerhof & Keyes, 2010). Indeed,
leaders are expected to approach relationships with others
in the workplace with social–interpersonal skill and
concern (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). In addition, leaders
are expected to be central in positive social networks and
disconnected from negative social ties (Chiu et al., 2017).
As such, these underlying leader prototypes may drive
expectations that those in leadership roles experience the
psychological benefits of more and stronger social relation-
ships with others, both within and possibly beyond the
workplace.
Taken together then, we suggest that the collective leader
prototypes that make up general ILTs set the socio-cognitive
framework for how leaders’psychological well-being will
be perceived by others because people generate attributions
that more easily align with their existing schemas (Fiske &
Taylor, 1991; Foti et al., 2008) and because the underlying
characteristics of psychological well-being are conceptually
similar to the underlying attributes of leader prototypes.
Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Leadership roles will be positively
related to perceptions of well-being.
Leader Mental Illness Prototypes. As with well-being, general
leader prototypes may additionally serve as top–down influ-
ences that determine people’s expectations of leaders’expe-
rience with mental illness. We propose that the prototypical
expectations that leaders are charismatic and optimistic (i.e.,
dynamism dimension), in control and determined (i.e., ded-
icated dimension), and express empathy and warmth (i.e.,
sensitivity dimension) are inconsistent with the symptoms,
behaviors, and assumptions associated with depression
and anxiety. Indeed, depression is characterized by symp-
toms of low self-worth, disinterest, and withdrawal, while
anxiety is characterized by self-doubt, excessive worrying,
and feelings of being out of control.
Additionally, leadership roles are often prized and
romanticized (Meindl et al., 1985) and viewed as roles in
which occupants wield power and control (Korman et al.,
2021). Yet, internalized illnesses generate stigmatized
assumptions: those with depression are often perceived as
having a lack of control over emotions while those with
anxiety are viewed as having low ability to manage
impulses (Connell et al., 2012). These stigmatized beliefs
extend to the workplace, where mental illness is viewed as
280 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

a weakness, an indication of low competencies, and a hin-
drance to organizational effectiveness (Brouwers, 2020;
Janssens et al., 2021). As such, cognitive schemas surround-
ing leadership roles on the one hand and the symptoms and
stigmatized beliefs about mental illness on the other hand
are conceptually incongruent and should therefore be cogni-
tively interpreted as a mismatch. Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Leadership roles will be negatively
related to perceptions of mental illness.
Contextual Inputs: Perceptions of Job Resources and Demands.
In addition to general leadership prototypes, the connection-
ist approach to ILTs suggests people also consider multiple
sources of contextual information to further refine and
inform their leader categorizations (Adriasola & Lord,
2019; Foti et al., 2008; Junker & van Dick, 2014). One con-
textual cue that people may draw upon when forming expec-
tations of work roles in general—and leaders’mental health
in particular—is their perception of job characteristics,
namely, their access to job resources and exposure to job
demands.
The job demands–resources model (Demerouti et al.,
2001) suggests jobs are characterized by a broad set of
demands (i.e., external stressors including physical, social,
or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
effort) such as heavy workload or exposure to harassment.
However, jobs also offer resources (i.e., physical, psycho-
logical, social, or organizational aspects of the job) that
reduce job demands, facilitate goal achievement, and stim-
ulate development, such as financial resources or decision-
making discretion. The coexistence of resources and
demands determines job strain in particular and mental
health more generally. Put simply, jobs with greater
resources and fewer demands should result in less strain
and better mental health, while jobs with higher demands
than resources should result in the opposite. We posit that
people will perceive leaders as having greater access to
job resources, which in turn would cue the expectation
that they should experience better mental health.
In this research, we conceptualize job resources as the
physical, social, and organizational factors that enable
work-related goal attainment, including access to money
(higher salary), job autonomy (i.e., discretion over one’s
own work), and decision-making latitude (i.e., discretion
over other’s work). Past research has supported the perspec-
tive that leadership roles are associated with greater organi-
zational resources. For example, leaders have higher salaries
(Barling & Weatherhead, 2016), job autonomy (e.g., Li
et al., 2018), and decision-making latitude (Korman et al.,
2021). We suggest that these job resources are visible and
therefore recognized by observers. Leaders typically
out-earn subordinates, and as more organizations adopt
pay transparency policies, followers learn about leaders’
income. Given subordinates receive directives from
leaders, it is clear that leaders have greater job control and
decision-making authority than their subordinates. Since job
resources indeed boost well-being and buffer against mental
illness (Marmot, 2004; Sherman et al., 2012), we expect
observers will perceive these additional resources as cues
regarding leaders’experience with mental health. We predict:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Leadership roles are indirectly and
positively associated with expectations of well-being
via perceptions of work role resources.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Leadership roles are indirectly and
negatively associated with expectations of mental
illness via perceptions of work role resources.
None of this suggests that leadership roles are without
their own unique stressors or demands (Fletcher &
French, 2021; Li et al., 2018). In this research, we concep-
tualize job demands as the physical, social, and organiza-
tional factors, including workload demands and
interpersonal injustice, that deplete personal resources.
Indeed, leadership roles have been associated with increased
role demands (Li et al., 2018) and social mistreatment
(Walsh et al., 2019) which in turn harms mental health.
However, we argue that these demands are less visible to
observers and thus have less impact on impressions of
leaders’well-being and mental illness. Indeed, leaders
might hide any signs that they are struggling with the
demands of their job for fear that they could be stigmatized
as weak and evaluated negatively (Barling & Cloutier,
2017; Hastuti & Timming, 2021), and research does show
that individuals in higher status work roles who self-disclose
weakness do experience a “status penalty”in the form of
lower evaluated social status (Gibson et al., 2018). Thus,
even though leaders experience greater demands (Li et al.,
2018), they may hide any visible signs that they are strug-
gling with such demands, preserving the belief that
leaders benefit from their additional resources. Given lead-
ership roles are associated with increased organizational
demands that may be less visible to observers, we do not
form predictions regarding the role of job demands in
informing expectations of leaders’mental health. Instead,
we choose to explore whether the relationship between lead-
ership roles and mental health expectations is indirectly
explained by perceptions of job demands.
Study Overview
We test our hypotheses using multiple methodological
approaches. First, implementing an implicit association
methodology (Uhlmann et al., 2012), we examine whether
people associate “mental health at work”with organizational
leadership roles (Study 1), testing H1 and H2. Second, using
Cloutier and Barling 281

an experimental vignette approach, we examine whether
varying health experiences are associated with leader suitabil-
ity (Study 2), testing H2. Third, using a connectionist
approach, we examine whether people directed to think
about a leader draw on contextual cues, namely, established
perceptions of job resources and demands, to inform their
judgments about their mental health (Study 3), testing H3
and H4.
1
See Figure 1 for an overview of our studies, predic-
tions, and variables tested.
Study 1: Leaders’Well-Being and Mental
Illness Prototypes
The goal of Study 1 is to examine whether organizational
leaders are cognitively associated with perceptions of
higher well-being and lower mental illness. We use two
methodological approaches to examine these predictions.
First, to assess underlying associations between work roles
and mental health, participants responded to open-ended
questions that examined the associations they make with
“mental health at work”and different work roles. Second,
we randomly assigned participants to read short descriptions
of one work role (a leader, subordinate, or employee) to eval-
uate the degree to which they believed a person in that role
experiences well-being and mental illness.
Method
Participants
To recruit participants, we used snowball sampling
(Goodman, 1961) with undergraduate students from a mid-
sized Canadian university who were blind to the purpose of
the study. Students were invited to a campus classroom and
received a 15 min. tutorial on the purpose of snowball sam-
pling techniques. They then received a brief script to email
friends and family who were employed full-time. The script
described the study as a “10-minute survey on workplace atti-
tudes”and contained a link to a survey hosted on Qualtrics,
an online survey tool. This resulted in the recruitment of
113 employees from the U.S. and Canada. Participants
were excluded from the study if they failed attention checks
(n=11), failed manipulation checks (n=6), or were unem-
ployed (n=11), resulting in a final sample of 85 employees
(46 female; Mage =40.2 years, SD =14.94). Students
received course credit for their recruitment efforts, and
survey participants were entered into a draw to win a prize.
Procedure
The online survey consisted of two parts. In Part 1, partici-
pants were asked two open-ended questions, namely, (1)
“who comes to mind when thinking about ‘mental health’
Figure 1. Study overview.
Note. “+”denotes predicted positive relationship; “−”denotes predicted negative relationship. H1: Hypothesis 1; H2: Hypothesis 2; H3: Hypothesis 3;
H4: Hypothesis 4.
282 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

in the workplace”and (2) “what comes to mind when think-
ing about ‘mental health’in the workplace.”These ques-
tions are similar to an item generation approach in scale
development (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) and encourage
participants to freely associate the construct of “mental
health at work”with whoever and whatever comes to
mind. Thus, this approach activates one construct (i.e.,
workplace mental health) and assesses what features, char-
acteristics, and categories are associated with this construct.
The term “mental health”was used so as to not bias partic-
ipants into thinking about only well-being or mental illness,
and the order of presentation of the questions was random-
ized. The space provided for written responses was limited
to motivate implicit responding (Uhlmann et al., 2012), but
there was no time limit for responding.
In Part 2, participants were randomly assigned to a
“leader”(n=29), “subordinate”(n=26), or “employee”
(n=26) condition using a randomization tool available
through Qualtrics. Each condition contained a brief description
of the assigned work role. Participants assigned to the leader
condition read, “Leaders may hold workplace roles in which
they supervise, manage, or lead other people within a work-
place setting.”Participants in the subordinate condition read,
“Subordinates may hold workplace roles in which they are
supervised, are managed, or are led by another person within
a workplace setting,”while participants in the employee con-
dition read, “Employees may hold different workplace roles
within a workplace setting.”The “subordinate”and
“employee”conditions were selected to directly contrast
mental health beliefs about leadership vs. non-leadership
roles. The “subordinate”label was used as it more directly
implies a role without leadership responsibilities, and the
“employee”label was used as it is neutral regarding hierarchy
and therefore should not induce implicit followership schemas
associated with the subordinate title (Sy, 2010). To strengthen
the manipulation, participants were asked to reflect on the
duties of the work role to which they were assigned and iden-
tify anyone they may know who holds this role, by listing ini-
tials, effectively drawing on both category-based and
target-based representations to prime schemas of the role
(Lord et al., 2020). Finally, participants evaluated the degree
to which they expected the person in this work role to experi-
ence well-being and mental illness.
Part 2 Measures
Well-Being. Perceptions of psychological well-being was
measured with four items (viz., optimism, emotional stabil-
ity, happiness, and high self-esteem) consistent with
Westerhof and Keyes’(2010) conceptualization.
Participants rated the frequency with which they believed
leaders (subordinates/employees) experience each item on
a weekly basis using a 1 (almost never) to 7 (very often)
scale. Items were averaged (a=.70).
Mental Illness. Perceptions of internalized mental illness
symptoms were measured with three items (viz., generalized
anxiety, depression, chronic sadness). Participants rated
these items using the same 7-point rating scale. Items
were averaged (a=.73). Other items unrelated to mental
health were also embedded in these scales to prevent
hypothesis guessing, as were two attention checks (e.g.,
“to show you are paying attention, select ‘almost never’”).
Manipulation Check. To ensure participants were reflecting
on the designated work role, at the end of the survey, they
were asked to indicate which work role they had thought
about (i.e., leader, subordinate, employee); only those who
correctly identified the work role were retained for analyses.
As an additional manipulation check, participants rated the
degree to which they believed this work role had
“income to meet needs”and “social status at work,”
assessed on a 1 (low) to 7 (high) scale, with items aver-
aged (r=.50). These items were included as they mean-
ingfully differentiate between leader, employee, and
subordinate work roles.
Control Variables. We controlled for participants’current
leadership status (“Do you currently supervise anyone in
your job?”;0=no, 1 =yes) because those in leadership
roles may draw on their own mental health to inform any
predictions they have about leaders’mental health. We
also controlled for participants’perceptions of the work
role gender (“What gender did you imagine the [leader/
employee/subordinate] to be?”;0=female, 1 =male),
because leadership roles are associated with men while sub-
ordinate roles are associated with women (Braun et al.,
2017; Schein et al., 1996), and internalized mental illnesses
are stereotypically associated with women (Boysen et al.,
2014); thus, the perceived target gender could alternatively
explain any association found between work role and mental
health expectations.
Analyses and Results
Part 1. We thematically coded participants’open-ended
responses using techniques described by Charmaz (2006).
We were interested in identifying the work roles that partic-
ipants listed in response to the question “Who comes to mind
when you think about mental health in the workplace?”Of
the 81 participants who responded to this question, 40 partic-
ipants listed one work role, and 10 listed multiple work roles,
resulting in 63 total listed work roles. The other participants
did not list work roles, but rather industries or specific names
of people, which we did not code. The listed work roles were
separated into distinct codes, which we then aggregated
into higher-order categories based on their similarity in work-
place responsibilities. Three categories emerged: leadership
Cloutier and Barling 283

roles (e.g., “management,”“leaders,”“supervisors”;n=24),
general work roles (e.g., “employees,”“coworkers,”“every-
one”;n=28), and subordinate work roles (e.g., “followers,”
“entry workers,”“front line”;n=10).
We next coded participants’responses to the question
“What comes to mind when you think about mental health
in the workplace?”Responses were again reduced to specific
codes, from which two distinct categories emerged: well-being
(i.e., positively balanced mental health experiences; e.g.,
“stability,”“calmness,”“managing stress”;n=35) and
mental illness (i.e., negatively balanced mental health experi-
ences; e.g., “stress,”“anxiety,”“burnout”;n=27).
We used χ
2
tests to assess whether the work role(s)
people listed were associated with indicators of well-being
or mental illness in the workplace. Results showed that
both categories of mental health perceptions (viz., well-
being and mental illness) significantly differed by work
role (viz., leader, employee, subordinate categories), χ
2
(2,
62) =13.84, p=.001, Phi =.47 (see Table 1).
2
Specifically, leader categories were significantly and posi-
tively associated with well-being in the workplace com-
pared to subordinate and employee role categories, which
were equally associated with thoughts of mental illness
and well-being.
Part 2. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations appear
in Table 2.
We began by conducting a series of manipulation checks to
test the validity of the experimental manipulation using percep-
tions of job status. As expected, leaders were perceived as
having higher job status than employees (M=5.19, SD =1.57
vs, M=4.35, SD =1.58, Cohen’sd=.53) and subordinates
(M=3.44, SD =1.23, Cohen’sd=1.24), all ts(78) >2.12, ps
< .04; and employees were perceived as having higher job
status than subordinates, t=2.21, p=.03, Cohen’sd=.64, sup-
porting that participants were thinking of different work roles.
Next, a priori contrasts were used to assess whether work
roles were differentially associated with expectations of
well-being and mental illness, controlling for participant
leadership status and perceptions of the target work role
gender. As predicted in H1, leaders were expected to experi-
ence higher levels of well-being than employees (M=5.35,
SD =.73 vs. M=4.83, SD =1.17; Cohen’sd=.53; post hoc
power =.62) and subordinates (M=4.57, SD =1.16;
Cohen’sd=.81; post hoc power =.91); all ts(78) >.617, ps
< .015. Leaders were also expected to experience less mental
illness than employees (M=2.97, SD =1.23 vs. M=3.53,
SD =1.13, Cohen’sd=.47; post hoc power =.53) and subor-
dinates (M=3.55, SD =1.27; Cohen’sd=.46; post hoc power
=.53), all ts(78) >−.634, ps < .033, thereby supporting H2.
There were no differences in perceptions of well-being and
mental illness between subordinate and employee conditions,
all ts(78) < −.030, ps > .301.
3
Table 1. Implicit Association: χ
2
Results (Study 1, n=62).
What comes to mind when you
think of mental health in the
workplace?
Positive mental
health
Negative mental
health Total
Who comes to mind when you think of mental health in the workplace? Leadership roles 20 (83%) 4 (17%) 24 (38%)
General work roles 9 (32%) 19 (68%) 28 (45%)
Subordinate roles 6 (60%) 4 (40%) 10 (16%)
Total 35 (56.5%) 27 (43.5%) 62 (100%)
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations (Study 1, n=81).
M(SD)1 2 3456
1. Condition 1.06 (.84) –
2. Job status 4.36 (1.62) .445** .50
3. Well-being 4.93 (1.07) .305** .349* .70
4. Mental illness 3.33 (1.23) −.200 .009 .225* .73
5. Participant leader status .53 (.50) −.189 −.358** −.164 −.020 –
6. Perceived gender .52 (.50) .170 −.039 −.045 .054 −.075 –
Note. Listwise deletion was applied. Alphas (and in the case of job status, the inter-item correlation) appear on the diagonal, italicized. Condition was coded
0=subordinate, 1 =employee, 2 =leader role. Job status was rated on a 1 (low) to 7 (high) scale. Well-being and mental illness were rated on 1 (almost
never) to 7 (very often) scales. Participant leader status was coded 0 =non-leader, 1 =leader. Perceptions of gender was coded 0 =female, 1 =male.
*p < .05; **p< .001.
284 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

Discussion
Across assessments, the results of Study 1 show that leaders
are (1) more likely to be associated with positive mental
health at work and (2) expected to experience greater psycho-
logical well-being and less depressive and anxious symptoms
than those holding subordinate or employee roles. There were
no differences in perceptions of well-being and mental illness
between subordinates and employees, suggesting that it is the
leadership role that influences perceptions of mental health,
rather than a subordinate-labeling effect (Sy, 2010). These
results, which emerged from two different methods, support
H1 and H2. However, excluding participants who did not
match eligibility criteria or follow instructions resulted in a
small sample size and subsequent low power in analyses exam-
ining differences in expectations of mental illness (H2). We
address these limitations in Study 2.
Study 2: Mental Illness and Leadership
Prototypes
The goal of Study 2 was twofold. First, we aimed to replicate
the findings from Study 1 showing that leaders are expected to
experience less mental illness than non-leaders (H2), but with a
larger sample to increase statistical power. Second, to avoid
mono-operation bias (Shadish et al., 2002), we varied the
experimental approach and investigated whether observers
evaluate an employee with a mental illness as less leader-like
via their perceptions of the target’s leadership attributes
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) and potential to engage in con-
structive leadership behaviors (Rubin et al., 2005).
Method
Participants
Drawing upon the actual effect sizes established in Study 1 and
using G*Power (effect size f=.25, a=.04, 1-βerr prob =.80,
ngroups =3), we determined that a sample of 159 was
required. We oversampled to account for the expected loss
of participants. Three hundred three students from a mid-sized
Canadian university were recruited to participate in a 30 min
online survey in exchange for course credit; 103 participants
were excluded based on incomplete survey data (n=18),
failing attention checks and manipulation checks (n=63), or
repeating the survey multiple times (n=12). This resulted in
afinal sample of 200 participants (56.5% female; Mage =
19.65, SD =1.43). All participants had previously been
employed, and 51.5% reported leadership experience.
Procedure
Via Qualtrics’s embedded randomization tool, participants
were randomly assigned to one of three experimental
conditions in which they read a brief vignette giving basic
information about an employee. The employee was
described as a “well-trained, reliable worker, who is
willing to put in the extra hours”across conditions.
Thereafter, participants were randomly assigned to read
that the employee was either (1) diagnosed with a mental
illness of clinical depression (n=65), (2) diagnosed with a
physical illness of hypertension (n=72), or (3) received
news regarding an organizational change (control condition;
n=63).
The mental illness condition served as our experimental
condition, with a diagnosis of clinical depression selected as
it represents a prevalent internalized disorder and is well rec-
ognized by the general public. The “physical illness”condi-
tion was included to examine whether it is perceptions of
mental illness, or any illness, that influences leadership eval-
uations, and hypertension was selected as it reflects a
common physical diagnosis. The “no illness”condition
was included as a control in which illness is not primed,
but the employee undergoes a change (i.e., change in
work location). After reading their respective vignettes, par-
ticipants rated their perceptions of the employee’s leader-
ship potential. See Appendix A for vignettes.
Measures
Leadership Suitability. We measured perceptions of leader-
ship suitability using two scales. First, we drew upon
Epitropaki and Martin’s (2004) 21-item ILT scale to
measure perceived leadership attributes. Participants rated
how characteristic each of the 21 traits was of the employee
described in the vignette, using a 9-point scale (1: not at all
characteristic; 9: extremely characteristic). The ILT scale com-
prises six dimensions, four of which represent prototypical
leader attributes (total a=.90): sensitivity (3 items: under-
standing, sincere, helpful; a=.71), intelligence (4 items: intel-
ligent, knowledgeable, educated, clever; a=.79), dedication (3
items: motivated, dedicated, hardworking; a=.83), and dyna-
mism (3 items: energetic, strong, dynamic; a=.76). Two anti-
typical leader attributes (total a=.83): tyranny (6 items:
domineering, pushy, manipulative, loud, conceited, selfish;
a=.85) and masculinity (2 items: masculine, male; inter-item
r=.64) were also measured. The recommendation to examine
prototypical attributes as a single factor was followed
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; 2005).
Second, we used a shortened version of Rubin et al.’s
(2005) transformational leadership scale to assess partici-
pants’perceptions of the target’s potential to enact high-
quality leadership behaviors. Participants rated how likely
the employee would be to engage in each dimension of
transformational leadership if they were placed in a leader-
ship role (i.e., “inspire others with his/her plans for the
future,”“get the groups to work together for the same
goal,”“lead by doing rather than simply telling,”“show
Cloutier and Barling 285

respect for employees’personal feelings”) rated on a 7-point
scale (1: very unlikely; 7: very likely). Items were aggre-
gated (a=.77).
Manipulation Check. To assess the validity of experimental
manipulation, participants were asked, “What type of infor-
mation did this person receive?”and selected from five cat-
egorical options: (1) diagnosed with depression, (2)
diagnosed with anxiety, (3) diagnosed with high blood pres-
sure, (4) a change in office location, or (5) I don’t know.
Only those who selected the right condition were retained.
Control Variables. As in Study 1, we controlled for partici-
pants’leadership role experience (“Have you ever been in
an organizational leadership role in which you directly
supervised others?”;0=no, 1 =yes) and their perception
of the employee’s gender (“When reading the previous
description, what gender did you imagine the person to
be?”0=female; 1 =male; 3 =unspecified).
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations appear in Table 3.
A priori contrasts were used to assess whether illness
diagnosis affected perceptions of prototypical leadership
attributes and expectations for transformational leadership
behaviors. We controlled for participant leadership role
experience and their perception of the work role’s gender
across analyses. As expected, an employee diagnosed with
a mental illness was perceived as having less prototypical
leadership attributes than the employee with no illness diag-
nosis (M=5.96, SD =1.11 vs. M=6.55, SD =1.04, respec-
tively; Cohen’sd=.55; post hoc power =.87) or a physical
illness diagnosis (M=6.58, SD =1.15; Cohen’sd=.55;
post hoc power =.89); all ts(197) >−.596, ps < .001.
4
Similarly, the employee diagnosed with a mental illness
was expected to engage in fewer transformational leadership
behaviors than the employee with no illness diagnosis
(M=4.40, SD =1.03 vs. M=5.01, SD =.85, respectively;
Cohen’sd=.65; post hoc power =.98) or a physical illness
diagnosis (M=4.85, SD =1.05; Cohen’sd=.43; post hoc
power =.80); all ts(197) > −.574, ps<.001.
5
Together,
results offer additional support for H2, namely, that mental
illness is negatively associated with leadership prototypes.
Discussion
Study 1 established that leaders are expected to experience
higher well-being and lower mental illness than non-leader
roles. Building on these results, Study 2 showed that an
employee with a mental illness is viewed as less leader-like
as indicated by lower perceived leadership attributes and
expectations that the employee would engage in fewer con-
structive leadership behaviors. Confidence can be expressed
in these results as a mental illness diagnosis was contrasted
both with no illness and a physical illness diagnosis.
Study 3: The Mediating Role of Job
Resources
While the first two studies tested the top–down influence of
general ILTs on leader mental health prototypes, the role of
contextual information in shaping these perceptions pro-
posed in H3 and H4 remains untested. To further our appli-
cation of a connectionist approach in examining
context-specific ILTs, we now assess whether job resources
serve as a contextual cue that relates to leaders being viewed
as mentally healthier (i.e., higher well-being, H3, and lower
mental illness, H4) than non-leaders. We also explore
whether perceptions of job demands mediate the relation-
ship between work roles and mental health expectations.
Method
Participants
Participants from the U.S. were recruited by Qualtrics, a
recruitment service with access to a global panel of
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations (Study 2, n=200).
M(SD)1 234 5
1. Condition 1.01 (.80) –
2. Prototypical leader attributes 6.37 (1.13) −.209** .90
3. Transformational leadership behaviors 4.75 (1.01) −.242** .624** .77
4. Participant leader role experience .52 (.50) −.013 .055 .052 –
5. Perceived target gender 1.10 (.85) .017 .142 .070 −.186* –
Note. Listwise deletion was applied. Alphas appear on the diagonal and are italicized. Condition coded 0 =mental jllness, 1 =physical illness, 2=no illness
diagnosis. Prototypical and antitypical leader attributes rated on a 1 (not at all characteristic) to 9 (extremely characteristic) scale. Transformational
leadership behaviors rated on a 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) scale. Participant past leader role experience was coded 0 =non-supervisor, 1 =supervisor,
and perceptions of the work role gender was coded 0 =female, 1 =male, 3 =unspecified.
*p < .05; **p< .001.
286 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

participants. Only employed individuals who passed all
three attention checks (e.g., “to show you are paying atten-
tion, leave this response blank”) and completed more than
75% of the survey were retained, resulting in a final
sample of 104 full-time employees (57% female; Mage =
39.85 years, SD =11.76)
6
.
Procedure
Via Qualtrics’s embedded randomization tool, participants
were randomly assigned to one of two experimental condi-
tions (“leader”[n=52], “subordinate”[n=51]) in which
they read a brief vignette describing a target’s work role,
skills, job duties, and performance. Participants in the
leader condition read a similar opening vignette to Study
2; however, this time, the “employee”had a leadership
title with leadership responsibilities. Participants in the sub-
ordinate condition read the same work role description
described in Study 2; however, the “employee”label was
changed to “subordinate”to better contrast perceptions of
the work roles. No illness/change was described in these
vignettes. After reading their respective vignettes, partici-
pants rated the degree to which they believed the target
(a) had access to job resources, (b) experienced job
demands, and (c) would experience well-being and mental
illness in the future (see Appendix B for full vignettes).
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures were rated on a 1
(extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely) scale. Items in
all four measures are averaged.
Job Resources and Demands. To assess perceptions of job
resources, participants indicated their perceptions of the
work role’s current income (i.e., “have enough money to
satisfy needs and desires”), job control (i.e., “has the
ability to use discretion and skills at work”), and decision-
making authority (i.e., “has a great deal of say and authority
in making decisions for others at work”;a=.70). To assess
perceptions of job demands, participants indicated their per-
ceptions of the work role’s current job demands (i.e., “have
to work very intensely and feel as though there are too many
demands at work”) and experience of injustice (i.e., “at
work, will feel cheated, disrespected, discouraged, and not
justly rewarded for effort”; inter-item correlation =.48).
These items were derived from Demerouti et al.’s (2001)
conceptualization of job resources and demands.
Well-Being. Participants reported predictions for the leader’s
or subordinate’s future (“three months from now”) psycho-
logical well-being. We used the highest loading item from
each sub-dimension (autonomy, environmental mastery,
personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in
life, self-acceptance; a=.84) of Ryff’s (1989) psychologi-
cal well-being measure (e.g., “lead a purposeful and mean-
ingful life [in the next three months]”). Evidence for the
validity of shortened measures of well-being has been estab-
lished (e.g., Diener et al., 2010).
Mental Illness. Expectations for future mental illness was
assessed with five items adapted from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.)
(DSM-IV) (Ryff & Keyes, 1995) capturing depressive
symptomology and diagnosis, anxious symptomology and
diagnosis, and panic attacks (e.g., “experience symptoms
of anxiety [in the next three months]”;a=.89).
Manipulation Check. To ensure the validity of the manipula-
tion, participants first indicated which work role they
reflected upon, selecting one of four options (i.e., leaders,
managers, employees, or subordinates). Only participants
who selected the correct work role based on their condition
were retained for analyses. Participants also rated their per-
ceptions of job status (two items: “how much status [power]
do you feel this person has at work specifically, relative to
others in their work organization; inter-item correlation =
.77) using a 0 (very low) to 10 (very high) response scale.
Control Variables. As in Studies 1 and 2, we controlled for
participants’leadership role experience (“Do you currently
supervise anyone in your work role?”;0=no, 1 =yes)
and their perception of the work role’s gender (“When
reading the previous description, what gender did you
imagine [the leader/subordinate] to be?”0=female;
1=male).
Data Analysis
To test our prediction that perceived access to job resources
link the indirect effect of work role (leader =1, subordinate
=0) on predictions of future well-being (H3) and mental
illness (H4), we used PROCESS 4.0 for SPSS (Hayes,
2017; http://www.afhayes.com), drawing on a bootstrapped
sample of 10,000, and determined significance based on
whether confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 0. We used
the same analytic approach to explore the indirect effects
of job demands. Across analyses, we controlled for partici-
pants’leadership role experience and perceptions of the
target work role’s gender.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all variables
in Study 3 appear in Table 4.
7
The validity of the experimental manipulation was sup-
ported: using an independent sample t-test, the leader
(M=7.56, SD =1.83, Cohen’sd=.86) was perceived as
Cloutier and Barling 287

having significantly more job status than the subordinate
condition (M=6.11, SD =1.85, t(101) =−3.970, p< .001,
Cohen’sd=1.24). Further, compared to the subordinate
condition, the leader condition was perceived as having
greater access to job resources (subordinate M=4.92,
SD =1.19; leader M=5.71, SD =1.08; t(101) =−3.55,
p< .001, Cohen’sd=1.14) and more job demands (subordi-
nate M=3.35, SD =1.22; leader M=3.91, SD =1.54;
t(101) =−2.05, p=.043; Cohen’sd=1.39).
We next examined whether perceptions of job resources
explained the relationship between work role and future
mental health expectations. Support emerged for H3 and
H4. After controlling for leader experience and perceptions
of gender, leaders were perceived to have greater job
resources than subordinates, resulting in expectations of
higher well-being (indirect effect: b=.526; CI: [.215,
.898]; direct effect: b=−.005; CI: [−.269, .260]) and
lower mental illness (indirect effect: b=−.238; CI:
[−.520, −.042]; direct effect: b=.137; CI: [−.388, .662]).
See Table 5.
Finally, we explored whether perceptions of job demands
explained the relationship between work role and future
mental health expectations. Using the same control vari-
ables, perceptions of job demands did not explain the indi-
rect relationship between work role and well-being (indirect
effect: b=−.072; CI: [−.201, .024]; direct effect: b=.593;
CI: [.202, .985]) or mental illness (indirect effect: b=.275;
CI: [−.030, .601]; direct effect: b=−.387; CI: [−.815,
.040]).
8
Discussion
Results from Study 3 identify one contextual cue that may
explain why leaders are expected to have higher well-being
and less mental illness than non-leaders. Specifically,
leaders are expected to have greater access to job resources,
which signals to observers that leaders might also
experience better mental health. Moreover, though leaders
are also expected to experience higher job demands,
results showed that these perceptions did not drive expecta-
tions of leaders’future mental health experiences, suggest-
ing that people may over-rely on the perceived benefits of
organizational resources in facilitating mental health and
may discount the costs of job demands.
General Discussion
The importance of mental health in the workplace is garner-
ing increased research and socio-political attention. Major
organizational bodies (e.g., the WHO) and political
decision-makers (e.g., President Biden’s State of the
Union address) continue to make calls to action in light of
the ongoing “global mental health crisis,”pointing to orga-
nizations as particular places for intervention (Staglin,
2023). Yet, organizational mental health accommodation
programs tend to target employees deemed most vulnerable,
while those in leadership roles are often neglected (Barling
& Cloutier, 2017). We suggest one reason for such neglect
may be the expectation that certain work roles are deemed
“mentally healthier”than others. The goal of our research
was to examine whether people hold positive mental
health prototypes for organizational leaders.
Results from Study 1 showed that people do indeed
expect leaders to manifest greater well-being and less
mental illness than those in non-leadership roles (supporting
H1 and H2). Results from Study 2 showed that mental
illness is inconsistent with leader prototypes (supporting
H2), and Study 3 demonstrated that people draw upon con-
textual cues, namely, job resources, to inform these percep-
tions (supporting H3 and H4).
These results should be interpreted in light of previous
findings; though people believe leaders ought to experience
better mental health than other work roles, leaders in fact
experience both higher demands and resources that
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations (Study 3, n=104).
M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7. 8.
1. Condition .50 (.50) –
2. Job status 6.72 (1.94) .398** .77
3. Job resources 5.32 (1.20) .333** .338** .70
4. Job demands 3.64 (1.41) .200* .042 −.226* .46
5. Well-being 5.31 (1.00) .268** .261** .787** −.153 .84 –––
6. Mental illness 3.35 (1.29) .001 −.029 −.264** .581** -.291** .89
7. Participant leader status .56 (.50) −.108 −.041 −.007 −.156 -.061 -.188 –
8. Perceived gender .72 (.45) .102 .063 −.018 .127 -.032 .149 -.009 –
Note. Listwise deletion was applied. Alphas (and in the case of job status and job demands, inter-item correlation) appear on the diagonal and are italicized.
Condition is coded 0 =subordinate role, 1 =leader role. Job status was rated on a 0 (very low) to 10 (very high) scale. Job resources, well-being, and mental
illness were rated on 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). Participant leader status was coded 0 =non-supervisor, 1 =supervisor, and perceptions
of the work role (leader/subordinate) gender was coded 0 =female, 1 =male.
*p < .05; **p< .001.
288 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

respectively hinder and benefit their mental health, essen-
tially cancelling one another out, and resulting in leaders
experiencing similar degrees of mental health issues as
those in non-leadership roles (Debus et al., 2019; Fletcher
& French, 2021; Li et al., 2018). Recent evidence further
suggests that those in top echelon leadership roles do expe-
rience mental health disorders and, as a function of those
disorders, end their tenure earlier than those without
mental illness (Keloharju et al., 2023). Taken together, our
results suggest people have biased expectations of the
quality of mental health that their organizational leaders
possess, such that they believe leaders to be mentally health-
ier than they are in reality.
Theoretical Implications
Results from this research offer theoretical contributions to
the workplace mental health literature, ILT, and research on
leaders’mental health. First, we contribute to the occupa-
tional mental health literature. To date, most research exam-
ining beliefs about mental health in the workplace have
focused on how mental illness is broadly stigmatized, result-
ing in discriminatory hiring practices and withdrawal
(e.g., Elraz, 2018; Hastuti & Timming, 2021; Janssens
et al., 2021). However, we extend this literature by suggest-
ing that our expectations of others’mental health at work
may not be universal, but rather may differ based on a
target’s organizational role and responsibilities. Indeed,
people develop differing expectations of others based on
organizational titles (Lord et al., 2020; Sy, 2010);
however, no research to date has explored whether work
roles engender different mental health expectations. We
find that leadership roles may be particularly vulnerable to
biased views of mental well-being. Intriguingly, these find-
ings may also explain why mental illness continues to be
stigmatized within organizations despite efforts to reduce
such views. Indeed, one implicit way in which stigma
against mental illness may manifest is by categorizing
those with mental illness as unfit to lead, while those exhib-
iting well-being as most suitable for leadership roles.
Second, our findings extend our understanding about the
context-specific prototypes people hold about leaders.
Beyond general leader prototypes, research is increasingly
adopting a connectionist approach (Foti et al., 2008) to iden-
tify the specific attributes people expect to see in their
leaders. That is, in addition to general leader prototypes,
Table 5. Predicting Work Role Well-Being and Mental Illness through Perceptions of Job Resources (Study 3, n=103).
Outcome: job resources
Variables BSE tLLCI ULCI
Constant 4.957 .281 17.649 4.399 5.515
Condition .814 .234 3.474 .349 1.280
Participant leader status .068 .235 .290 −.398 .534
Perceived gender −.140 .260 −.539 −.655 .375
Outcome: well-being
Variables BSE tLLCI ULCI
Constant 1.973 .310 6.371 1.358 2.588
Condition −.005 .133 −.035 −.269 .260
Job resources .646 .055 11.82 .537 .754
Participant leader status −.134 .126 −1.069 −.384 .115
Perceived gender −.040 .139 −.286 −.316 .237
Outcome: mental illness
Variables BSE tLLCI ULCI
Constant 4.813 .616 7.819 3.591 6.035
Condition .137 .265 .518 −.388 .662
Job resources −.293 .109 2.696 −.508 −.077
Participant leader status −.445 .250 −1.779 −.941 .052
Perceived gender .389 .277 1.405 −.160 .938
Indirect effects
Effect Boot SE LLCI ULCI
Work role expectations of well-being
through job resources .526 .176 .215 .898
Work role expectations of mental illness
through job resources −.238 .124 −.520 −.042
Notes. LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval; SE: standard error.
Cloutier and Barling 289

researchers have identified that people hold, for example,
specific expectations regarding the gender (Braun et al.,
2017), race (Petsko & Rosette, 2023), emotions (e.g., Sy
& van Knippenberg, 2021), and social networks (e.g.,
Chiu et al., 2017) expected of leaders. Our research adopts
this lens and finds that people also hold mental health expec-
tations of leaders, suggesting that targets exhibiting well-
being may be more likely to be categorized as leaders,
while those with mental illness are not.
Moreover, we demonstrate that expectations of leaders’
mental health may also emerge as a function of work role
characteristics. That is, we suggest observers may use
information regarding work role characteristics, for
example, leaders’access to organizational resources, to
justify implicitly why those in leadership roles should
experience better mental health. Intriguingly, though lead-
ership roles were associated with greater perceptions of
both job resources and demands compared to those in sub-
ordinate roles, only organizational resources influenced
future mental health expectations. One potential explana-
tion for this finding is that observers are prioritizing infor-
mation consistent with their top–down leader prototypes.
That is, the expectation that leaders are generally powerful
and in control (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005) is schemati-
cally aligned with the characteristics of well-being (envi-
ronmental mastery, personal growth) and the positive
benefits of organizational resources (e.g., greater decision
discretion and autonomy). Incorporating the belief that
leaders may also have additional organizational demands
does not necessarily fit as nicely in this narrative, and
thus, its influence on mental health expectations may be
implicitly downplayed. We therefore contribute to explain-
ing why implicit leader prototypes may be so robust
through time (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), despite the
presence of disconfirming evidence.
Third, our findings contribute to the growing body of
research focused on understanding leaders’mental health.
To date, research on leaders’well-being has received con-
siderably less attention than research on subordinate well-
being (Barling & Cloutier, 2017). In their review of research
on leaders’mental health, Barling and Cloutier (2017) pro-
posed that one reason for this lack of attention is because
leaders are generally expected to be mentally healthier,
and so, any research on their well-being would be consid-
ered redundant. Our results therefore directly test and
support this proposition. However, since their review,
research has demonstrated that leaders are just as subject
to mental illness as non-leaders (Debus et al., 2019;
Fletcher & French, 2021; Li et al., 2018). This suggests
people’s expectations of leaders’mental health do not
align with leader’s lived experience and further justify the
need to study and understand leaders’unique experience
with their mental health. As such, a natural extension of
our results would be to consider the consequences of
leader mental health expectations, which we discuss in
greater detail within our future directions.
Organizational Implications
The results of our research can inform those (1) appointing
leadership roles, (2) seeking leadership opportunities, and
(3) in leadership roles. First, leadership prototypes influence
hiring and promotion decisions (Foti et al., 2012;
Hansbrough et al., 2015), such that hiring committees are
more likely to select applicants whose attributes match
their leader prototypes. If people involved in hiring deci-
sions believe that leaders ought to be mentally healthy, indi-
cators of well-being and mental illness may influence
leadership selection decisions. Although many people
choose to actively conceal mental health struggles at work
(Bril-Barniv et al., 2017), recent research shows more
people are disclosing mental health status to organizations
(Hastuti & Timming, 2021). In an inclusive work culture,
disclosure has benefits (e.g., more flexible work arrange-
ments, more organizational support). However, disclosure
may simultaneously influence those involved in leadership
selection, biasing them against applicants disclosing
mental illness.
Second, people with mental illnesses may not apply for
leadership roles if they see their illness as incongruent
with leadership prototypes. Individuals with traits incongru-
ent to those of leadership prototypes are less likely to apply
for leadership roles (DeRue et al., 2015; Epitropaki et al.,
2017; Kwok et al., 2018), and people with mental illness
avoid job opportunities when they perceive stigma (Elraz.,
2018). Seeing oneself as non-leader-like has consequences
itself, such as low positive affect (Hoption et al., 2012)
and engaging in counterproductive workplace behaviors
(Fine et al., 2016).
Given these implications, those responsible for leader-
ship selection should receive training designed to recognize
biases regarding mental health, including how biases influ-
ence decision-making. Informing decision-makers in this
way has been shown to mitigate bias against the hiring of
pregnant women job applicants (Morgan et al., 2013) and
female leader applicants (Leicht et al., 2014). At the same
time, people involved in leader recruitment should be
made aware that some qualified applicants may choose
not to apply if they believe existing mental illnesses could
handicap them. Recent research showing that opt-out mech-
anisms, whereby all qualified candidates are considered for
a position, may help overcome such biases by mitigating the
unwillingness to apply for the position (Erkal et al., 2021).
The argument that those with mental illness should
be excluded from leadership roles can be discounted.
People with mental illness (1) benefit from employment
opportunities (Silván-Ferrero et al., 2022), (2) can actively
cope with mental illness given appropriate treatment and
290 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

organizational support, and (3) precisely because of their
experience with mental illness, may develop coping strate-
gies and attributes (e.g., empathy) that promote high
quality leadership behaviors (Ghaemi, 2011). Further,
mental illness affects mostly everyone, with reports suggest-
ing that almost half of the working population suffer mental
illness symptoms (Mind Share Partners, 2021). To discount
such a large population from leadership selection would cer-
tainly restrict the leadership pool of potentially talented and
suitable individuals.
Finally, people in leadership roles may be directly
affected by leader mental health schemas. Leaders may
feel as though they do not have the same access to mental
health accommodation programs given they ought to expe-
rience better mental health. Further, leaders may become
motivated to hide any signs of mental illness, including
avoiding organizational resources supporting well-being at
work, afraid that displaying indication of mental illness
could result in negative evaluations (Hansbrough et al.,
2015). Just as the “think manager, think male”phenomenon
persists (Ferguson, 2018; Koenig et al., 2011), “think leader,
think well-being”stereotypes may perpetuate the negative
associations with mental illness at work.
Strengths
Several strengths inherent in the current research allow for
greater confidence in the validity of the findings. First, to
ensure construct validity, we conceptualized leader mental
health along two continua (i.e., well-being and mental
illness) and treated these conceptualizations as separate
throughout the studies. Operationalizations of well-being
and mental illness matched their conceptualization, and
we varied how they were operationalized across samples
to reduce mono-operation bias (Shadish et al., 2002).
Second, to enhance internal validity and generalizability,
we drew upon diverse samples and methods, replicating
support for our hypotheses. For example, we used samples
drawn from employees, students, and panel data, adopting
both grounded and experimental approaches. Third, the
use of experimental methods enhances the ability to make
causal inferences, increasing the internal validity of our
results.
Limitations
Despite these strengths, this research has limitations. First,
methodological limitations could limit the interpretation of
our results. For example, statistical conclusion validity
(Shadish et al., 2002) emerging from the small sample and
low power in Study 1 could limit any interpretations.
However, we addressed this issue in Studies 2 and 3,
which used larger samples with sufficient power to test
our hypotheses. In addition, we were limited to testing
indirect effects using cross-sectional data in Study
3. However, our hypotheses were theoretically driven, and
more importantly, the independent variable was manipu-
lated experimentally (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016).
Moreover, the outcomes (i.e., expectations of well-being
and mental illness) were couched as predictions for future
events. As a result, inferences about the mediating function
of job resources remain plausible (Spector, 2019). A second
potential limitation concerns the operationalization of
mental health expectations and the leadership role. We
only operationalized three indicators of mental health,
namely, psychological well-being, depression, and
anxiety. As such, whether people have differing expecta-
tions of other mental health indicators (e.g., more severe
mental illness disorders such as schizophrenia; externalized
disorders such as substance abuse) remains untested.
Nonetheless, by operationalizing three different indicators,
concerns about mono-operation bias are reduced. In addi-
tion, leadership roles were operationalized at the lower
levels of the organizational hierarchy, and future research
should assess whether the current findings replicate for lead-
ership roles such as the chief executive officer (CEO).
Future Directions
We offer two broad suggestions for future research. First,
future research should expand the operationalizations of
mental health and leader role. Across all three studies,
mental illness was operationalized as internalized disorders
(e.g., depression, anxiety), and future research could con-
sider whether people also hold leadership prototypes
related to externalized disorders (e.g., substance abuse,
conduct disorder) and whether prototypes vary by illness
severity (e.g., depressive symptoms vs. schizophrenia).
Similarly, the level of leadership was not specified in
Studies 1 and 3, and future research could investigate
whether expectations of leaders’mental health replicate
across different levels of leadership (e.g., middle vs. top
management; Sy & van Knippenberg, 2021).
Second, it is critical to consider the many consequences of
leader mental health expectations for leaders, their followers,
and organizations. First, future research should assess
whether leader mental health expectations affect leaders’
health behaviors, including their likelihood of (a) disclosing
mental illness and (b) accessing organizational mental
health accommodation programs. Second, research might
consider whether followers’mental health experiences influ-
ence their willingness to pursue leadership roles. That is, indi-
viduals with a history of mental illness might perceive their
mental illness as limiting their potential access to organiza-
tional leadership roles as a function of leader mental health
stereotypes. This may ultimately increase their own self-
selection out of leadership opportunities. Third, researchers
should consider the organizational consequences that might
Cloutier and Barling 291

emerge if leaders disconfirm role expectations by disclosing
mental illness. On the one hand, existing research on ILTs
would suggest that such disclosure would result in negative
follower attitudes and workplace behaviors (Hansbrough
et al., 2021; De Luque et al., 2008; Veestraeten et al.,
2021) that could impede organizational functioning. On the
other hand, leaders’disclosure of mental illness could help
to destigmatize beliefs surrounding mental illness, enabling
others to disclose struggles (Hastuti & Timming, 2021),
thereby creating a psychologically safe workplace. Taken
together, results from our research could serve as a spring-
board for future research testing the consequences of leader
mental health beliefs.
Conclusion
In her book on presidential leadership and illness,
McDermott (2008) wrote, “Powerful leaders are not
exempt from illness by virtue of their position or its influ-
ence.”Despite this, people romanticize leaders (Collinson
et al., 2018; Meindl et al., 1985), expecting them to enjoy
greater well-being and an absence of mental illness.
However, as previous research has established, there is no
clear evidence that leaders enjoy meaningfully better
mental health than non-leaders (Debus et al., 2019;
Fletcher & French, 2021; Li et al., 2018). Given these incon-
sistencies, it is time to acknowledge that leaders’mental
health matters, possibly more than people may expect.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council held by the second
author. Portions of this research were presented at the 77
th
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM) in
Atlanta, GA, and the 36th Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, held virtually.
ORCID iD
Anika E. Cloutier https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5731-1449
Notes
1. Note, all data were collected prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.
2. Data analyses across all studies were computed using
SPSS27.
3. Results remain significant without covariates.
4. We did not develop predictions related to mental health and
leader antiprototypes and therefore do not report these results.
5. There were no differences between the control and physical
illness conditions on prototypical leadership attributes,
t(197) =.142, p=.887, or transformational leadership,
t(197) =.947, p=.345. All results remain significant
without covariates.
6. Given policies set by the recruitment service, we do not have
information regarding the number of participants who failed
attention and manipulation checks, who were excluded from
analyses.
7. Though job resources and well-being were measured using
separate question stems and on separate survey pages, they
are highly correlated (r(101) =.787).
8. All significant and non-significant effects remain without
covariates and when tested at 5,000 and 20,000 bootstraps.
References
Adriasola, E., & Lord, R. G. (2019). From a leader and a follower
to shared leadership: A review of identity as antecedent of
shared leadership. In The connecting leader: Serving concur-
rently as leader and a follower, Ed. Z Jaser. Charlotte, NC:
Inf. Age Publ.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life. An
identity-based perspective. Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s
work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 472-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/
259305
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Barling, J., & Cloutier, A. (2017). Leaders’mental health at work:
Empirical, methodological, and policy directions. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology,22, 394–406. https://doi.
org/10.1037/ocp0000055
Barling, J., & Weatherhead, J. G. (2016). Persistent exposure to
poverty during childhood limits later leader emergence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1305–1318. https://doi.
org/10.1037/apl0000129
Boysen, G. A., Ebersole, A., Casner, R. W., & Coston, N. (2014).
Gendered mental disorders: Masculine and feminine stereo-
types about mental disorders and their relation to stigma.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 546–565. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224545.2014.953028
Braun, S., Stegmann, S., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Junker, N. M., &
van Dick, R. (2017). Think manager—think male, think fol-
lower—think female: Gender bias in implicit followership the-
ories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,47, 377–388.
https://doi-org/10.1111/jasp.12445
Bril-Barniv, S., Moran, G. S., Naaman, A., Roe, D., &
Karnieli-Miller, O. (2017). A qualitative study examining
experiences and dilemmas in concealment and disclosure of
people living with serious mental illness. Qualitative Health
Research,27(4), 573–583. https://doi-org/10.1177%2F1049
732316673581
Brouwers, E. P. (2020). Social stigma is an underestimated contrib-
uting factor to unemployment in people with mental illness or
292 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

mental health issues: Position paper and future directions.
BMC Psychology,8,1–7. https://doi-org/10.1186/s40359-
020-00399-0
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical
guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Chinoy, E. (1955). Automobile workers and the American dream.
Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Chiu, C. Y. C., Balkundi, P., & Weinberg, F. J. (2017). When man-
agers become leaders: The role of manager network centrali-
ties, social power, and followers’perception of leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly,28, 334–348. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.004
Collinson, D., SmolovicJones, O., & Grint, K. (2018). ‘No more
heroes’: Critical perspectives on leadership romanticism.
Organization Studies,39, 1625–1647. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0170840617727784
Connell, J., Brazier, J., O’Cathain, A., Lloyd-Jones, M., & Paisley,
S. (2012). Quality of life of people with mental health prob-
lems: A synthesis of qualitative research. Health and
Quality of Life Outcomes,10,1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1477-7525-10-138
Debus, M.E., Fritz, C., & Philipp, M. (2019). A story of gains and
losses: Intra-individual shifts in job characteristics and well-
being when transitioning to a managerial role. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 34, 637–655. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10869-018-9604-3
De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R.
J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic
values relate to subordinates’perceptions of leadership and
firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,53,
626–654. https://doi-org/10.2189%2Fasqu.53.4.626
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. https://doi-org/10.1037/
0021-9010.86.3.499
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Ashford, S. J. (2015).
Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership
structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization
Science,26, 1192–1209. https://doi-org.proxy/10.1287/orsc.
2014.0963
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi,
S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures:
Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative
feelings. Social Indicators Research,97(2), 143–156. https://
doi-org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a
determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory
behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
736-741. https://doi-org/10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
Elraz, H. (2018). Identity, mental health and work: How employees
with mental health conditions recount stigma and the pejora-
tive discourse of mental illness. Human Relations,71, 722–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717716752
Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R. G. (2017).
Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel
review. The Leadership Quarterly,28, 104–129. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in
applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and
stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 293–
310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitu-
dinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-
member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.90.4.659
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A.
(2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the
wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to
leadership and followership in organizational settings. The
Leadership Quarterly,24, 858–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.leaqua.2013.10.005
Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Xiao, E. (2021). Leadership selec-
tion: Can changing the default break the glass ceiling? The
Leadership Quarterly. Accessed Online First. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101563
Ferguson, T. W. (2018). Female leadership and role congruity within
the clergy: Communal leaders experience no gender differences
yet agentic women continue to suffer backlash. Sex Roles,78,
409–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0803-6
Fine, S. et al. (2016). Beware of those left behind:
Counterproductive work behaviors among nonpromoted
employees and the moderating effect of integrity. Journal of
Applied Psychology,101, 1721–1729. https://doi-org/10.
1037/apl0000156
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Mcgraw-Hill
Book Company.
Fletcher, K. A., & French, K. A. (2021). Longitudinal effects of
transitioning into a first-time leadership position on wellbeing
and self-concept. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
Advance online publication. https://doi-org.proxy/10.1037/
ocp0000302
Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012).
Know thy self, know thy leader: Contributions of a
pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions.
The Leadership Quarterly,23, 702–717. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.007
Foti, R. J., Knee, R. E. Jr, & Backert, R. S. (2008). Multi-level
implications of framing leadership perceptions as a dynamic
process. The Leadership Quarterly,19, 178–194. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.007
Furnham, A., & Telford, K. (2012). Public attitudes, lay theories and
mental health literacy: The understanding of mental health. In
L. L’Abate (Ed.), Mental illnesses—Understanding, prediction
and control (pp. 3-22).
Ghaemi, N. (2011). Afirst-rate madness: Uncovering the links
between leadership and mental illness. New York, NY:
Penguin.
Gibson, K. R., Harari, D., & Marr, J. C. (2018). When sharing
hurts: How and why self-disclosing weakness undermines
the task-oriented relationships of higher status disclosers.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
144,25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.09.001
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 23, 148–170. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/2237615
Hanges, P., Lord, R., & Dickson, M. (2000). An information-
processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for
Cloutier and Barling 293

connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology,49, 133–161.
https://doi-org/10.1111/1464-0597.00008
Hansbrough, T. K., Lord, R. G., & Schyns, B. (2015).
Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings.
The Leadership Quarterly,26, 220–237. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2014.11.006
Hansbrough, T. K., Lord, R. G., Schyns, B., Foti, R. J., Liden, R.
C., & Acton, B. P. (2021). Do you remember? Rater memory
systems and leadership measurement. The Leadership
Quarterly,32. Accessed online first. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.leaqua.2020.101455
Hastuti, R., & Timming, A. R. (2021). An inter-disciplinary review
of the literature on mental illness disclosure in the workplace:
Implications for human resource management. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32,
3302–3338. https://doi-org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1875494
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
Guilford Publications.
Hoption, C., Christie, A., & Barling, J. (2012). Submitting to the
follower label: Followership, positive affect, and extra-role
behaviors. Zeitschrift für Psychologie,220(4), 221–230.
https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000116
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002).
Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories
across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE.
Journal of World Business,37,3–10. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
Janssens, K. M., van Weeghel, J., Dewa, C., Henderson, C.,
Mathijssen, J. J., Joosen, M. C., & Brouwers, E. P. (2021).
Line managers’hiring intentions regarding people with
mental health problems: a cross-sectional study on workplace
stigma. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106955
Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organi-
zational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of
implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership
Quarterly,25, 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2017.12.006
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences
and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly,
10, 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00033-8
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sense-
making: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership the-
ories. The Leadership Quarterly,14, 141–160. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9
Kelloway, E. K., Dimoff, J. K., & Gilbert, S. (2023). Mental health
in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior,10, 363–387.
https://doi-org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-050527
Keloharju, M., Knüpfer, S., & Tåg, J. (2023). CEO health. The
Leadership Quarterly. https://doi-org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101672
Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health?
Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,73,
539-548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From lan-
guishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 43(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197
Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is
America’syouthflourishing? American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry,76, 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-
9432.76.3.395
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T.
(2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis
of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4),
616-642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Korman, J. V., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Tröster, C. (2021).
Managers are less burned-out at the top: The roles of sense
of power and self-efficacy at different hierarchy levels.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-21. https://doi-org/
10.1007/s10869-021-09733-8
Kornhauser, A. (1965). Mental health and the industrial worker.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Kwok, N., Hanig, S., Brown, D. J., & Shen, W. (2018). How leader
role identity influences the process of leader emergence: A
social network analysis. The Leadership Quarterly,29,
648-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.003
Leicht, C., de Moura, G. R., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). Contesting
gender stereotypes stimulates generalized fairness in the selec-
tion of leaders. The Leadership Quarterly,25, 1025-1039.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.05.001
Li, W. D., Schaubroeck, J. M., Xie, J. L., & Keller, A.C. (2018) Is
being a leader a mixed blessing? A dual-pathway model
linking leadership role occupancy to well-being. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39, 971-989. https://doi.org/10.
1002/job.2273
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001).
Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their mul-
tilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The
Leadership Quarterly,12, 311-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1048-9843(01)00081-9
Lord, R. G., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. J., & Hansbrough, T. K.
(2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership the-
ories, and dynamic processing of leadership information.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior,7, 49-74. https://doi-org/10.1146/
annurev-orgpsych-012119-045434
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., Vader, De, & L, C.. (1984). A test of lead-
ership categorization theory: Internal structure, information
processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance,34, 343-378. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London:
Routledge.
Marmot, M. (2004). Status syndrome. Significance,1, 150-154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2004.00058.x
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper & Row.
McDermott, R. (2008). Presidential leadership, illness and deci-
sion making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The
romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly,
30, 78-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392813
Mind Share Partners. (2021). 2021 Mental health at work report.
https://www.mindsharepartners.org/mentalhealthatworkreport-
2021
294 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)

Morgan, W. B., Walker, S. S., Hebl, M. M. R., & King, E. B.
(2013). A field experiment: Reducing interpersonal discrimi-
nation toward pregnant job applicants. Journal of Applied
Psychology,98, 799-809. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034040
Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F. E. I., & Hirst, G. (2014).
Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,35, 120-S138. https://doi-org/10.
1002/job.1916
Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of lead-
ership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership
Quarterly,29, 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.
12.003
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K. Jr, & Wirtz, P. W. (1994).
Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generaliz-
ability. The Leadership Quarterly,5, 43-58. https://doi.org/10.
1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
Petsko, C. D., & Rosette, A. S. (2023). Are leaders still presumed
white by default? Racial bias in leader categorization revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 108, 330-340. https://doi-org/
10.1037/apl0001020
Pirlott, A. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to
experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,66, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.
09.012
Porr, D., & Fields, D. (2006). Implicit leadership effects on multi-
source ratings for management development. Journal of
Managerial Psychology,21, 651-668. https://doi-org/10.
1108/02683940610690196
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading
from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personal-
ity on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of
Management Journal,488, 845-858. https://doi-org/10.5465/
amj.2005.18803926
Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leader-
ship theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader
behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance,20, 93-110. https://doi-org/10.1016/
0030-5073(77)90046-0
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations
on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,57, 1069-1081. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psycholog-
ical well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,69, 719-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
69.4.719
Santomauro, D. F., Herrera, A. M. M., Shadid, J., Zheng, P.,
Ashbaugh, C., Pigott, D. M., Abbafati, C., Adolph, C.,
Amlag, J. O., Aravkin, A. Y., Bang-Jensen, B. L.,
Bertolacci, G. J., Bloom, S. S., Castellano, R., Castro, E.,
Chakrabarti, S., Chattopadhyay, J., Cogen, R. M., & Collins,
J. K., …A. J. Ferrari (2021). Global prevalence and burden
of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and terri-
tories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet,
398, 1700-1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)
02143-7
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think
manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of
Organizational Behavior,17, 33-41. https://doi-org/10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17:1%3C33::AID-JOB778%3E3.0.
CO;2-F
Schomerus, G., Schwahn, C., Holzinger, A., Corrigan, P. W.,
Grabe, H. J., Carta, M. G., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2012).
Evolution of public attitudes about mental illness: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,
125, 440-452. https://doi-org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.
01826.x
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002).
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized
causal experiments. NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J., Renshon, J., Oveis, C.,
Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S. (2012). Leadership is associated
with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109, 17903-17907. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.1207042109
Silván-Ferrero, P., Holgado, P. F., Jiménez, J., & Pérez-Garín, D.
(2022). Benefits of employment in people with mental illness:
Differential mediating effects of internalized stigma on self-
esteem. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology,32, 119-134. https://doi-org/10.1002/casp.2552
Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of
cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology,
34, 125-137. https://doi-org/10.1007/s10869-018-09613-8
Staglin, G. (2023, January 19) CEO required reading: 2023 work-
place mental health resolutions. Forbes. https://www.forbes.
com/sites/onemind/2023/01/19/ceo-required-reading-2023-
workplace-mental-health-resolutions/?sh=6c06625e5e97
Star, S. (1955). The public’s ideas about mental illness.Paper pre-
sented at: Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Mental Health; November 5, Indianapolis, Ind
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the
content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership
theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,113, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.
06.001
Sy, T., & van Knippenberg, D. (2021). The emotional leader:
Implicit theories of leadership emotions and leadership per-
ceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,42, 885-912.
https://doi-org.proxy/10.1002/job.2543
Trichas, S., Schyns, B., Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2017). “Facing”
leaders: Facial expression and leadership perception. The
Leadership Quarterly,28, 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2016.10.013
Uhlmann, E. L., Leavitt, K., Menges, J. I., Koopman, J., Howe, M.,
& Johnson, R. E. (2012). Getting explicit about the implicit: A
taxonomy of implicit measures and guide for their use in orga-
nizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 15,
553-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112442750
Veestraeten, M., Johnson, S. K., Leroy, H., Sy, T., & Sels, L.
(2021). Exploring the bounds of Pygmalion effects:
Congruence of implicit followership theories drives and
binds leader performance expectations and follower work
engagement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies,28, 137-153. https://doi-org/10.1177/15480518209
80428
Walsh, B. M., Matthews, R. A., Toumbeva, T. H., Kabat-Farr, D.,
Philbrick, J., & Pavisic, I. (2019). Failing to be family-
supportive: Implications for supervisors. Journal of
Cloutier and Barling 295

Management,45(7), 2952-2977. https://doi-org/10.1177/
0149206318774621
Walsh, D. A. B., & Foster, J. L. H. (2021). A call to action. A crit-
ical review of mental health related anti-stigma campaigns.
Frontiers in Public Health,8, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpubh.2020.569539
Westerhof, G. J., & Keyes, C. L. (2010). Mental illness and mental
health: The two continua model across the lifespan. Journal of
Adult Development,17, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10804-009-9082-y
Whitehead, P. M. (2017). Goldstein’s self-actualization: A bio-
semiotic view. The Humanistic Psychologist, 45(1), 71-83.
https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000047
Author Biographies
Anika E. Cloutier is an assistant professor in the Faculty of
Management at Dalhousie University. Her research focuses on
understanding predictors (e.g., mental health, aspects of one’s
home-life) of leader emergence and leadership behaviors.
Julian Barling is a distinguished university professor at Queen’s
and the Borden Chair of Leadership in the Smith School of
Business. He has written a number of books, including the recent
Brave new workplace: Designing productive, healthy and safe
organizations and The science of leadership: Lessons from
research for organizational leaders.
Appendix A: Study 2 Vignettes
Vignette Description Prior to Manipulation
The following is a description of employee X [name
removed to maintain confidentiality]. Employee X is a
worker for a mid-sized organization within the marketing
sector and works with approximately 20 employees under
the leadership of one manager. All of the employees working
in Employee X’s department have a good working knowledge
of marketing principles as demonstrated by their prior and
current work experience. Employee X has worked for this
organization for 12 years, and has been described as well-
trained, reliable worker, who is willing to put in extra hours.
Employee X’s current position requires some solitary work
and some interaction with people inside and outside of the
organization.
Mental Illness Condition:
Employee X has been feeling down for some time (e.g.,
experiencing sadness), and sought out help from a physi-
cian. This physician diagnosed Employee X with clinical
depression, a risk factor for other illnesses. Employee X
was surprised by this diagnosis but is following the treat-
ment prescribed by the physician.
Physical Illness Condition:
Employee X has been feeling unwell for some time (e.g.,
experiencing dizziness), and sought out help from a physi-
cian. This physician diagnosed Employee X with clinical
levels of high blood pressure, a risk factor for heart
disease. Employee X was surprised by this diagnosis but
is following the treatment prescribed by the physician.
Control Condition:
Employee X was informed that the organization will
be moving office locations. This new location will be
about the same distance from home (5-minute differ-
ence), the cost of parking is not expected to change
but the location is the opposite direction of where this
leader used to work –from the West end of the city to
the East end.
Appendix B: Study 3 Vignettes
Vignette Describing Leader Role:
The following is a description of Leader X [name
removed to maintain confidentiality]. Leader X leads a mid-
sized organization within the marketing sector and is
directly responsible for approximately 20 employees. All
of the employees working in Leader X’s department have
a good working knowledge of marketing principles as dem-
onstrated by their prior and current work experience.
Leader X has worked for this organization for 12 years,
and has been described as a well-trained, reliable leader,
who is willing to put in extra hours. Leader X’s current posi-
tion requires some solitary work, leadership responsibili-
ties, and some interaction with people inside and outside
of the organization.
Vignette Describing Subordinate Role:
The following is a description of subordinate X [name
removed to maintain confidentiality]. Subordinate X is a
worker for a mid-sized organization within the marketing
sector and works with approximately 20 employees under
the leadership of one manager. All of the employees
working in subordinate X’s department have a good
working knowledge of marketing principles as demon-
strated by their prior and current work experience.
Subordinate X has worked for this organization for 12
years, and has been described as well-trained, reliable
worker, who is willing to put in extra hours. Subordinate
X’s current position requires some solitary work and
some interaction with people inside and outside of the
organization.
296 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 30(3)