Original Article

The Relative Effects of Constructive,Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical

Leadership on SubordinateJob Satisfaction

Results From Two Prospective and RepresentativeStudies

Anders Skogstad,1 Merethe Schanke Aasland,1 Morten Birkeland Nielsen,2,1

Jørn Hetland,1 Stig Berge Matthiesen,3,1 and Ståle Einarsen1

1Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway, 2National Instituteof Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway, 3Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior,

BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Abstract. Knowledge on short and long-term effects of perceived leadership behaviors on subordinates’ job satisfaction, and particularly soregarding the relative influences of constructive and destructive forms of leadership, is scarce. Based on two prospective and representativesurveys, with time lags of 6 months (Study 1) and 2 years (Study 2), respectively, we investigated the relative influence of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership behaviors, respectively, on followers job satisfaction. Interestingly, destructive forms of leadership were the solesignificant predictors in both studies. Tyrannical leadership predicted a decrease in subordinate job satisfaction over a 6-month period, whilelaissez-faire leadership turned out as the sole predictor of job satisfaction over a 2-year time lag. A reversed relationship was found between jobsatisfaction and subsequent perceived constructive leadership over the 6-month lag. Dissatisfied subordinates did not, however, report increasedexposure to destructive forms of leadership, disconfirming the gloomy perception mechanism of dissatisfied and stressed subordinates toperceive their leaders in an ever more negative way. Hence, destructive forms of leadership seem to be better predictors of job satisfaction thanare constructive forms of leadership which is in line with the notion that ‘‘bad is stronger than good.’’

Keywords: destructive leadership, constructive, tyrannical, laissez-faire, job satisfaction, longitudinal study

Introduction

Still, a prominent characteristic of contemporary leader-ship research is the distinct division between studies focus-ing on constructive and destructive forms of leadership. In ameta-study on outcomes of destructive leadership, Schynsand Schilling (2013) do not report on any study includingconstructive as well as destructive forms of leadershipand, accordingly, restrict their study to separate reports ofoutcomes of destructive and constructive forms of leader-ship. This ‘‘state of the art’’ may reflect a dominating impli-cit assumption that constructive and destructive forms ofleadership constitute opposite poles on a good-to-badimplying that good leadership excludes bad leadership,and vice versa. However, social interactions are frequently

characterized by a mixture of supportive as well as under-mining behaviors (see, e.g., Rook, 1998 for an overview),substantiating the positive and negative aspects of socialrelationships are independent dimensions, a notion alsoconfirmed in a study of abusive and supportive leadership(Schriesheim & Neider, 2010). Therefore, the present studyinvestigates the relative predictive power of constructiveand destructive leadership behavior as perceived bysubordinates on the most studied subordinate job attitude,namely job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Schyns& Schilling, 2013; Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman,2010) employing a prospective design.

Reviewing studies on constructive and passive forms ofleadership and their relationships with well-being andstress, Skakon and colleagues (2010) only report one

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000189

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

longitudinal study on the leader behavior – job satisfactionrelationship. This systematic lack of studying the effects ofleadership over time has been pinpointed by several schol-ars (see, e.g., Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013;Shamir, 2011) as a serious flaw. Accordingly, Bluedornand Jaussi (2008) state that:

‘‘In fact, because relationships between leaders andfollowers occur over time, it is difficult, if not impos-sible, to consider leadership without time playing arole’’ (p. 657).

The present study, therefore, aims at making two signif-icant contributions. First, to provide new knowledge on therelative impact of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannicalleadership on subordinates’ job satisfaction, and second,doing so within two longitudinal designs with a 6 monthand a 2-year time lag, respectively.

In line with well-established definitions and operational-izations of leadership, we will start by presenting good oreffective forms of leadership, employing the overarchingterm of ‘‘constructive leadership’’ to describe leaders whoactively influence groups and their members in accordancewith the legitimate interests of the organization by support-ing and enhancing the goals, tasks, and strategy of the orga-nization, as well as enhancing the motivation, well-being,and job attitudes of their followers (Einarsen, Aasland, &Skogstad, 2007). In agreement with DeRue, Nahrgang,Wellman, and Humphrey (2011) categorization we usethe overarching domains of relational, task, and change-oriented leadership which include the most frequently stud-ied leadership forms of consideration, initiating structure,contingent reward, and transformational leadership.

In their much cited meta-analysis Judge and Piccolo(2004) found a strong positive correlation (q = .58)between transformational leadership and followers’ job sat-isfaction, and an even stronger correlation for contingentreward (q = .64). Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) meta-study of the ‘‘classical’’ leadership forms of Considerationand Initiating structure also showed significant correlationswith job satisfaction (p = .46 and p = .22, respectively), afinding corresponding to DeRue and colleagues (2011)for transformational leadership. Piccolo et al. (2012)showed the most important leadership predictor of job sat-isfaction to be Consideration followed by transformationalleadership.

Only two studies have been identified on the leaderbehavior – job satisfaction relationship using a longitudinaldesign. Moyle (1998), using three waves with approxi-mately 6-months intervals, showed that managerial supportat time 1 and time 2 was related to current job satisfaction,and in addition influenced subsequent job satisfaction.As expected, Moyle’s (1998) study showed considerablehigher correlations between managerial support and jobsatisfaction at T1, T2, and T3, respectively as comparedto the lagged influences of managerial support onsubsequent job satisfaction. Winkler, Busch, Clasen, andVowinkel (2014) employing a three wave design with3-month intervals, found that leader support, positive

feedback, and task-related communication, respectively pre-dicted job satisfaction 6-months later but not over a 3-monthperiod, with support being the strongest predictor.

However, when examining the relative effect of con-structive forms of leadership we have to take into consider-ation the potential concurrent effects of both active anddestructive leadership behaviors. A variety of destructiveleadership behaviors have been described and operational-ized such as ‘‘abusive supervision,’’ ‘‘workplace bullying,’’and ‘‘tyrannical leadership’’ (Einarsen, Skogstad, & Glasø,2013; Tepper, 2007). In the present study we employ theconcept of tyrannical leadership, defined as a style wherethe leader systematically humiliate, belittle, and manipulatehis/her subordinates in order to ‘‘get the job done,’’ and typ-ically obtain results not through, but at the expense of sub-ordinates (Einarsen et al., 2007). In this it also encompassesthe concept of abusive supervision, often defined as subor-dinate’s perception of the extent to which supervisorsengage in sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbalcontact (Tepper, 2000).

Subordinates who perceive their superior as tyrannicalor abusive typically report thoughts and feelings ofbetrayal, distrust, resentment, frustration, and mentalexhaustion (Bies & Tripp, 1998). Schyns and Schilling(2013) show that such destructive forms of leadership isstrongly related (r = �.57) to how followers feel abouttheir leader, while the relationships are weaker with behav-ioral outcomes such as overall counterproductive workbehavior (CWB; r = .38), overall well-being (r = �.35),follower resistance (r = .26) and stress (r = .24). Employ-ing the baseline data from one of the present studies,Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen (2007) showed a significantcorrelation (r = �.35) between tyrannical leadership andjob satisfaction. Schyns and Schillings (2013), in theirmeta-study, show correlations between such leadershipforms and job satisfaction to be in the range from �.27to �.35. Yet, destructive and counterproductive behaviorsmay also come in passive forms, for example in the shapeof laissez-faire leadership, a notion in line with Kelloway,Sivanathan, Francis, and Barling (2005) concept of poorleadership, which pinpoint that destructive leadershipbehavior come in an active as well as a passive form.In its most extreme form passive leadership may be equatedwith ‘‘the silent treatment’’ and even as ostracism(Williams, 2007) potentially constituting a highly destruc-tive form of social exclusion and rejection of subordinates.By its passive component laissez-faire leadership has fre-quently been associated with non-influence, resulting inmany scholars equating laissez-faire leadership with non-leadership. However, as reflected in Bass and Avolio’s(1994, p. 4) definition of laissez-faire leadership as ‘‘. . .theavoidance or absence of leadership and is, by definition, themost inactive – as well as the most ineffective according toalmost all research on the style,’’ this leadership style maynot be conceived as a zero-type of leadership regarding itsconsequences. Accordingly, Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers,Nielsen, and Einarsen (2010) showed a significant positiverelationship between laissez-faire leadership and tyrannicalleadership (r = .38). As such laissez-faire leadership maybe conceived as a counterproductive work behavior

222 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

(CWB) defined as any volitional act that potentially violatethe legitimate interests of, or do harm to, an organization orits stakeholders (e.g., Sackett & DeVore, 2001), where theCWB typically include passivity in the form of withdrawalbehaviors such as poor attendance and reduced effort.

A range of studies show laissez-faire leadership to besignificantly and negatively associated with various attitu-dinal, behavioral, and well-being outcomes (see Skogstad,Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, in press). Regarding the rela-tionship between laissez-faire leadership and job satisfac-tion, Judge and Piccolo (2004) document a moderatesignificant correlation of �.28, and with a regression anal-ysis yielding a regression coefficient of �.13 with the cor-responding coefficient for transformational leadershipbeing .52. In Piccolo and colleagues (2012) study on therelative impact of various leader behaviors, the correlationbetween laissez-faire leadership and job satisfaction was�.28, while a dominance analysis showed laissez-faire tobe a stronger predictor than contingent reward and Initiat-ing structure, but weaker than Consideration and transfor-mational leadership. In their meta study DeRue andcolleagues (2011) showed laissez-faire leadership toexplain 3.8% of the variance in job satisfaction, while con-tingent reward, transformational leadership and Consider-ation explained 43.9%, 21%, and 16.6%, respectively.The reported studies substantiate that the relative impactof laissez-faire leadership on job satisfaction, when com-pared with constructive leadership, may be significantwithin a longitudinal research design. However, it is reasonto believe that this effect will be considerable weaker thanthat of constructive leadership.

In conclusion, the above presented findings, showingconsiderable stronger relationships between constructiveleadership and job satisfaction than the corresponding rela-tionships for laissez-faire leadership and tyrannical leader-ship, substantiate constructive leadership to be thestrongest predictor of job satisfaction, which may be a sur-prise in light of the well documented notion that ‘‘bad isstronger than good’’ (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer,& Vohs, 2001). This conclusion is further supported by the‘‘outcome specific effect’’ hypothesis, (see, e.g., Rook,1998) stating that the relationship between a positive pre-dictor (e.g., constructive leadership) and a positive outcome(e.g., job satisfaction) will be stronger than the relationshipbetween a negative predictor (e.g., tyrannical leadershipand laissez-faire leadership, respectively) and a positiveoutcome (job satisfaction). However, it is not easy to definehow long it takes for different leadership behaviors toimpact followers’ attitudes (Shamir, 2011). When evaluat-ing their own research design and findings Dvir, Eden,Avolio, and Shamir (2002) reason that a 4-month periodof exposure to leader’s transformational style may not besufficiently long to influence more distant subordinates.Following Winkler and colleagues (2014) who did find sig-nificant positive relationships between leadership and out-comes within a 6 months’ time span (T1–T3), as didMoyle (1998) between managerial support and job satisfac-tion using approximately 6-month intervals, the presentpaper reports the results from two separate longitudinalstudies each with two measurement points, where Study 1

uses a relatively short time lag of 6 months and Study 2use a relatively long time lag of 2 years.

The measurement of leadership behavior and styles, aswell as job satisfaction relies on subjective appraisals,thereby making the reports of those characteristics vulnera-ble to self-report bias and, thus, increasing the probabilityof reversed or reciprocal relationship. In their recent reviewFord et al. (2014) found normal lagged effects as well asreversed causation effects between stressors and strain.Accordingly, there may be arguments for a reverse or reci-procal relationship between constructive leadership stylesand job satisfaction in that respondents experiencing highjob satisfaction may either elicit more constructive andpositive behavior in one’s superior or, according to the‘‘rosy’’ perception mechanism increasingly perceive thesuperior as manifesting more constructive leadershipbehaviors (see also De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman,& Bongers, 2004). Correspondingly, dissatisfied subordi-nates, may start perceiving their superiors as more lais-sez-faire and tyrannical, reflecting the so-called ‘‘gloomy’’perception mechanism (De Lange, Taris, Kompier,Houtman, & Bongers, 2005). We will therefore examinewhether such reversed effects may be found for job satis-faction in its relationship with the three studied forms ofleadership behavior and in both time lags.

Method

Sample 1: Procedure and Participants

This study is based on a prospective and representativesample of offshore employees recruited among membersfrom the two major unions for offshore workers in Norway.In mid-2005, the baseline questionnaire was distributed bymail to 1,800 randomly sampled offshore workers. A totalof 1,017 individuals returned completed questionnaires tothe research team in enclosed pre-stamped envelopes.The response rate of 59% is somewhat higher than themean response rate of survey studies in general (cf. Baruch& Holtom, 2008). Using the same procedure, the secondwave of data was collected some 6 months later. Theresponse rate for the follow-up survey was 72%, yieldinga cohort participation rate of 41%.

At baseline, the mean age in the cohort sample(N = 741) was 45 (SD = 8.6) years with a range from 18to 63. The sample was predominately male (85%). Alto-gether 18% had some sort of leadership responsibility,while 15% also acted as an employee representative.

Attrition analyses of demographic data at baseline,including dropouts, showed that a higher percentage ofdropout respondents (26%), compared to cohorts (18%)had some sort of leadership position (X2 = 6.52, df = 1;p < .05). Attrition analyses of the leadership and outcomesvariables are displayed in Table 1. Systematic differencebetween cohort and dropouts was only established for jobsatisfaction in that dropout respondents reported lower lev-els of job satisfaction than did cohort respondents (t = 2.28;

A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership 223

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

df = 1007; p = .05). Yet, the effect size indicates that theactual difference is very small (Cohen’d = .16; effect sizer = .08).

Sample 2: Procedure and Participants

The second sample is based on a nationwide representativesample of the Norwegian working force. In 2005 (T1), arandom sample of 4,500 employees was drawn from theNorwegian Central Employee Register (NCER) by Statis-tics Norway (SSB; Høstmark & Lagerstrøm, 2006). Thesampling criteria were adults between 18 and 67 years ofage that were registered in the NCER as employed duringthe preceding 6 months in a Norwegian enterprise with astaff of five or more, and with a mean of more than 15working hours per week.

Questionnaires were distributed through the NorwegianPostal Service. Altogether 2,539 questionnaires werereturned providing a response rate (57%). Using the sameprocedure, the second wave of data was collected in 2007(T2), with 1,775 persons from the T1 sample responding,providing a 70% response rate.

The mean age in the T1 sample was 43.79 years(SD = 11.52), with a range from 19 to 66 years of age.The majority of the respondents reported to be in a full-time(77.1%) or part-time (13.3%) job. 8.6% turned out to be onsick leave or rehabilitation leave. The mean number of work-ing hours per week was 37.5 (SD = 10.36). Among therespondents, 15.4% were managers with personnel responsi-bilities, while 13.3% were elected as union representativesor personnel safety representatives. With regard to T2, attri-tion analyses show that respondents participating at both T1and T2 were somewhat older than those who only participatedat T1 (t = 9.73; df = 1; p < .01). Systematic gender differ-ences were found between T2 respondents and drop-outs(X2 = 25.06; df = 1; p < .001) in that women (55.2%) wereslightly overrepresented among the respondents who partici-pated at T2. The mean age in the T2 sample was 46.5 years.

Instruments

Constructive leadership was measured with six items fromEkvall and Arvonen (1991) covering employee, production

and change-centered leadership. Sample items are ‘‘givesclear instructions’’ and ‘‘encourages innovative thinking.’’Cronbach’s alpha indicates high internal consistency withinthe scale at both T1 and T2 for both Sample 1 (.83/.84) andSample 2 (.87/.86).

Tyrannical leadership was measured using the fouritems from the Destructive Leadership Scale (Aasland,2012), assessing such leadership behaviors (Cronbach’salpha Sample 1 = .70/.73; Sample 2 = .70/.71). Examplesof items included ‘‘has humiliated you, or other employees,if you/they fail to live up to his/her standards’’ and ‘‘hasspread incorrect information about you or your coworkers,in order to harm your/their position in the firm.’’ Laissez-faire leadership was measured by four items (Cronbach’salpha Sample 1 = .69/.67; Sample 2 = .72/.71) from theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass &Avolio, 1990; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). An exampleitem is ‘‘. . . avoids making decisions.’’ Response alterna-tives for all leadership scales were ‘‘never,’’ ‘‘sometimes,’’‘‘quite often,’’ or ‘‘very often/nearly always,’’ focusing onleadership behavior which one had observed in one’s imme-diate superior during the preceding 6 months. Job satisfac-tion was measured with four items from the Job SatisfactionScale – short version (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951), a reliableand commonly-used indicator of job satisfaction (Rafferty& Griffin, 2009) with items such as ‘‘I feel fairly satisfiedwith my present job’’ and ‘‘I find real enjoyment in mywork.’’ For each item, respondents gave their answers ona five-point Likert scale where 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’and 5 = ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The internal consistency forthe scale was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha Sample1 = .88/.88; Sample 2 = .81/.81).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed via Structural Equation Modeling(SEM) employing SPSS AMOS 22.0. The goodness-of-fitof the SEM models was evaluated using a chi-square value,with a nonsignificant p-value indicating a good fit(Kelloway, 1998), a root mean square error of approxima-tion (RMSEA) with values of 0.05 or less indicating goodfit (Steiger, 1990) and a comparative fit index (CFI) andTucker-Lewis Index (TLI) with values 0.90 or above indi-cating a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In both samples, the

Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, and correlations for study variables in Sample 1

Variables �x SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Constructive lead, T1 1.48 0.61 1.002. Tyrannical lead, T1 0.14 0.29 �0.26** 1.003. Laissez-faire lead, T1 0.60 0.49 �0.43** 0.45** 1.004. Job satisfaction, T1 4.08 0.74 0.34** �0.26** �0.26** 1.005. Constructive lead, T2 1.46 0.60 0.61** �0.19** �0.31** 0.30** 1.006. Tyrannical lead, T2 0.13 0.29 �0.17** 0.54** 0.32** �0.20** �0.24** 1.007. Laissez-faire lead, T2 0.59 0.48 �.28** 0.29** 0.55** �0.20** �0.36** 0.38** 1.008. Job satisfaction, T2 4.07 0.74 0.28** �0.24** �0.24** 0.57** 0.29** �0.28** �0.25** 1.00

*p < .05; **p < .001.

224 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

structural regression analyses of reciprocal time-laggedrelationships between leadership behavior and job satisfac-tion were done in three steps. First, a stability model wasestimated. Secondly, a reciprocal model which includesstructural paths from the leadership behavior at Time 1 tojob satisfaction at Time 2 as well as paths from job satisfac-tion at Time 1 to leadership behavior at Time 2 was com-pared to the stability model. In the third and final model,insignificant lagged effects were omitted. All study con-structs were modeled as latent variables using their respec-tive observed indicators. In order to prevent inflatedestimates of stability (Marsh & Hau, 1996), we allowedfor the indicators of the latent factors at Time 1 to covariatewith the corresponding indicators at Time 2. Finally, thelatent factors were allowed to covariate within time points.The different structural models were compared using a chi-square test, and critical values of the chi-square distributionare taken as evidence of whether or not estimation of addi-tional parameters is preferred (Jçreskog, 1998).

Results

Sample 1

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all studyvariables in Sample 1 are presented in Table 1. A signifi-cant positive correlation was established between construc-tive leadership at Time 1 and job satisfaction at Time 2(r = .28, p < .001). Tyrannical leadership and laissez-faireleadership at Time 1 were negatively correlated with jobsatisfaction at Time 2 (r = �.24, p < .001, r = �.24,p < .001, respectively).

Cross-Sectional Model

In order to establish the relative cross-sectional relation-ships between the different leadership dimension and jobsatisfaction, the three leadership dimensions were regressedonto job satisfaction in the baseline data. The modelshowed good fit to the data (CMIN = 317.24; df = 129;CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .044; 95% CIRMSEA = .038–.051). All indicators had acceptable factorloadings to their respective latent factors (range = .29–.93).After adjusting for the mutual impact of each leadershipdimension, constructive leadership was positively relatedto job satisfaction (b = .29; p < .001), whereas tyrannical

leadership was negatively associated with job satisfaction(b = �.19; p < .001). Laissez-faire leadership was notrelated to job satisfaction (b = �.00; p > .05).

Cross-Lagged Models

Adequate factor loadings were found for the four latentvariables at both time points across the different models.Latent factor loadings in the range from .30 to .75 werefound for the leadership styles, whereas factor loadingswere in the range from .64 to .92 for the latent factor ofjob satisfaction. The initial stability model showed goodfit to the data (CMIN = 1,025.86; df = 560; CFI = .96;TLI = .95; RMSEA = .034; 95% CI RMSEA = .030–.037). Temporal stability of the three leadership factors overthe 6-month period was very high (b = .65–.66). The stabil-ity in job satisfaction was moderate (b = .46).

In the model testing for possible reciprocal laggedeffects between leadership behavior and job satisfaction,tyrannical leadership emerged as the only significant pre-dictor of subsequent levels of job satisfaction (b = �.12;p < .05). As for the reversed relationship between job sat-isfaction at Time 1 and leadership behavior at Time 2,job satisfaction was positively associated with reports ofconstructive leadership 6 months later (b = .08, p < .05).No lagged effects were detected in the analysis examiningthe links between baseline job satisfaction and subsequenttyrannical or laissez-faire leadership. This model showedan excellent fit to data (CMIN = 997.72; df = 554;CFI = .96; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .033; 95% CIRMSEA = .030–.036) and provided a significant improve-ment in model fit compared to the stability model(DX2 = 28.14; Ddf = 6; p < .001). Omitting the insignifi-cant paths in the final model resulted in a significantlyreduced fit when compared with the initial full cross-laggedmodel (DX2 = �9.82; Ddf = 4; p < .05). The full recipro-cal model was therefore used as a basis for the reportedassociations between the variables. Model fit and compari-sons for the different models are included in Table 2,whereas stability coefficients and significant structuralpaths between variables are displayed in Figure 1.

To investigate whether the above findings are con-founded by whether or not the respondents had a formalleadership responsibility, the above structural models werere-estimated controlling for the possible influence of leader-ship position. The results showed no changes in the struc-tural relationships between the study variables, thusindicating that the findings of the present study are notlikely to be influenced by this variable.

Table 2. Results of cross-lagged structural regression between leadership behavior and job satisfaction in Sample 1

X2 df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) AIC ECVI Comparison Ddf DX2

1. Stability model 1,025.86 560 .96 .95 .034 (.030�.037) 1,309.86 1.77 2 vs. 1 – –2. Reciprocal model 997.72 554 .96 .95 .033 (.030�.036) 1,293.72 1.75 2 vs. 1 28.14*** 63. Significant paths model 1,007.54 558 .96 .95 .033 (.030�.036) 1,295.54 1.75 3 vs. 1 18.32*** 2

3 vs. 2 �9.82 4

A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership 225

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Sample 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all studyvariables in Sample 2 are shown in Table 3. A significantpositive correlation was found between constructive leader-ship at Time 1 and job satisfaction at Time 2 (r = .24,p < .001). Tyrannical leadership and laissez-faire leader-ship at Time 1 were negatively correlated with job satisfac-tion at Time 2 (r = �.16, p < .001, r = �.20, p < .001,respectively).

Cross-Sectional Model

A cross-sectional model in the baseline data where the threeleadership dimensions were regressed onto job satisfactionshowed good fit (CMIN = 496.13; df = 129; CFI = .97;TLI = .95; RMSEA = .040; 95% CI RMSEA = .036–.044). All indicators had strong factor loadings to theirrespective latent indicators for all variables (range = . 40–.90). Constructive (b = .31; p < .001) and tyrannical(b = �.27; p < .001), but not laissez-faire (b = �.02;

Constructive

Jobsatisfaction

Laissez-faire

Tyrannical

Jobsatisfaction

Laissez-faire

Tyrannical

.66∗∗∗

.65∗∗∗

.66∗∗∗

.46∗∗∗

Constructive

.08∗

.12∗

Time 2 Time 1

Figure 1. Cross-lagged relationships over 6 months between leadership behavior and job satisfaction in Sample 1 (forsimplification, only significant paths show and factor loading for latent constructs are omitted. *p < .05; ***p < .001).

Table 3. Mean, standard deviation, and correlations for study variables in Sample 2

Variables �x SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Constructive lead, T1 1.44 0.66 1.002. Tyrannical lead, T1 0.09 0.24 �0.23** 1.003. Laissez-faire lead, T1 0.58 0.52 �0.35** 0.38** 1.004. Job satisfaction, T1 4.12 0.71 0.36** �0.30** �0.26** 1.005. Constructive lead, T2 1.42 0.64 0.49** �0.12** �0.18** 0.20** 1.006. Tyrannical lead, T2 0.10 0.28 �0.13** 0.34** 0.22** �0.14** �0.22** 1.007. Laissez-faire lead, T2 0.55 0.51 �0.15** 0.25** 0.50** �0.17** �0.34** 0.37** 1.008. Job satisfaction, T2 4.12 0.70 0.24** �0.16** �0.20** 0.48** 0.36** �0.25** �0.33** 1.00

*p < .05; **p < .001.

226 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

p > .05), leadership were significantly associated with jobsatisfaction.

Cross-Lagged Models

The structural regression analyses of reciprocal time-laggedrelationships between leadership behavior and job satisfac-tion in Sample 2 followed the same analytic procedures asused for Sample 1. Adequate factor loadings were found forthe latent variables at both time points. Latent loadings inthe range from .40 to .81 were found for the leadershipstyles, whereas factor loadings were in the range from .62to .90 for the latent job satisfaction factor.

As displayed in Table 4, the stability model gave goodfit to the data (CMIN = 1,533.51; df = 560; CFI = .96;TLI = .95; RMSEA = .031; 95% CI RMSEA = .029–.033). In this model, the temporal stability of the threeleadership factors over the 2-year period ranged from .46for laissez-faire leadership through .51 for tyrannical lead-ership, to .54 for constructive leadership. The two-year sta-bility in job satisfaction was .44. When testing reciprocalrelationships between leadership behavior and job satisfac-tion (CMIN = 1518.77; df = 554; CFI = .96; TLI = .95;RMSEA = .031; 95% CI RMSEA = .029–.033), laissez-faire leadership at Time 1 (b = –.10; p < .001) emergedas the sole predictor of job satisfaction at Time 2. Baselinelevels of job satisfaction were not related to reports of lead-ership at follow-up. Constraining the model to only includ-ing significant paths did not improve the overall model fit.Stability coefficients and significant paths are presented inFigure 2.

Discussion

Our assumptions regarding the relative predictive power ofthe three leadership styles on job satisfaction received lim-ited support. Constructive leadership did not predicted jobsatisfaction neither 6 months nor 2 years later when com-pared with the effects of laissez-faire and tyrannical leader-ship. In Sample 1, tyrannical leadership predicted loweredjob satisfaction 6 months later, while laissez-faire leader-ship predicted lowered job satisfaction over a 2-yeartime-span in Sample 2. Yet, both tyrannical and construc-tive leadership were related to job satisfaction in thecross-sectional analyses at T1. As regards reversed effects,job satisfaction predicted constructive leadership behavior6 month later, while such a relationship was not found inthe sample with a 2-year lag. No reversed effects werefound for laissez-faire and tyrannical leadership styles.

As argued and substantiated in the Introduction it is rea-son to believe that the effects of the three studied leadershipstyles will be reduced when examined concurrently, andeven more so over time (Ford et al., 2014). The presentresults differ dramatically from the dominating cross-sectional correlational studies of constructive and laissez-faire leadership in one research tradition (see, e.g., Judge& Piccolo, 2004) and destructive leadership in another(see, e.g., Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Hence, in line withthose scholars emphasizing that constructive, counterpro-ductive, and destructive leadership styles should be studiedconcurrently (see, e.g., Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002;Skogstad & Notelaers, 2014), the present results stronglysupport this notion. Separate studies within a cross-sectional design probably yield a misguiding representationof the factual influences of the three types of leadershipover time.

Our results raise some important questions regarding ofhow long it takes for a consistent leadership style to have anoutcome, how long the potential effect may last, and there-fore what are the optimal time interval in longitudinalresearch on leadership. Taris and Kompier (2014, p. 2)argue that ‘‘The length of this interval should correspondwell with the underlying ‘‘true’’ causal lag.’’ Accordingly,if an examined time lag is much shorter than the true causallag, the predictor, such as leadership behaviors, has not yethad sufficient time to influence the outcome. Conversely, ifthe time-lag is too long, the effect of a leader’s behaviorsmay already have disappeared. Further, a variety of eventswill probably influence the predictor and the outcome, andtheir relationship, in the intervening period. Hence, we areleft with the very essential questions of how long it takesfor constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership,respectively, to influence subordinates, and the degree towhich this effect may accumulate or, alternatively, fadeaway over time. The findings of the present studies seemto indicate that the effects of constructive leadership onsubordinate job satisfaction may come quick and wane asquickly. The effect of tyrannical may come quickly and lastat least 6 months before starting to wane, while the effect oflaissez-faire takes a rather long time and seems to last atleast 2 year down the road. Such longitudinal effects ofconstructive versus destructive forms of leadership haveseldom been discussed. However, in her review of researchwithin families and friendships Rook (1998) argues that‘‘Although the incremental effect of each additional nega-tive exchange exceeds the incremental effect of each addi-tional positive exchange in many studies, respondentstypically report few negative exchanges and many positiveexchanges’’ (p. 384). Accordingly, Rook (1998) argues thatit is reason to believe that the cumulative effect of positive

Table 4. Results of cross-lagged structural regression between leadership behavior and job satisfaction in Sample 2

X2 df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) AIC ECVI Comparison Ddf DX2

1. Stability model 1,533.51 560 .96 .95 .031 (.029�.033) 1,817.51 1.03 2 vs. 1 – –2. Reciprocal model 1,518.77 554 .96 .95 .031 (.029�.033) 1,814.77 1.03 2 vs. 1 14.74* 63. Significant paths model 1,520.79 559 .96 .95 .031 (.029�.033) 1,806.79 1.02 3 vs. 1 12.72*** 1

3 vs. 2 2.02 5

A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership 227

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

exchanges may exceed the cumulative effect of negativeexchanges. In line with this Vinokur and Van Ryn (1993,p. 350) state that ‘‘Compared with the volatile and extremeeffects of social undermining, those of social supportappear weaker but more stable.’’ However, the present find-ings do not yield much support to Rook’s lines of reason-ing, as the cumulative effect of perceived constructiveleadership is overshadowed by tyrannical leadership inthe 6-month time lag and by laissez-faire over the 2-yearperiod.

Hence, the present results indicate that the influence ofconstructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership mayvary over time, but not necessarily in the ways proposedby Rook (1998). A possible explanation for this differencecould be that in families and friendship there may be a basiclevel of positive interactions and positive feelings that arenot necessarily present in the more formalized work arena.This may be supported by the fact that the bivariate corre-lation between constructive leadership and job satisfactionwas rather small, even compared to most correlational stud-ies on the relationship between job satisfaction on the onehand and transformational leadership and individual consid-eration on the other (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002;Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, the correlations are in

line with another (4-sample) study in Norway using theEkvall and Arvonen measure employee, production andchange-centered leadership (Skogstad & Einarsen, 1999),and with De Lange et al. (2004) findings on the supportiveleadership – job satisfaction relationship. Still, the lack ofsignificant relationships in the longitudinal study maypartly be due to the relative low cross-sectional relation-ships in the first place (T1). Hence, the relationship withjob satisfaction should also be tested longitudinally usingalternative measures of constructive forms of leadershipsuch as transformational types of leadership.

Winkler and colleagues (2014) showed significant rela-tionships between three types of constructive leadershipbehaviors and follower job satisfaction within a 6-monthperiod, but not in a 3-month period. Likewise, Moyle(1998) found that managerial support predicted job satisfac-tion within a 6-month interval. Hence it is reason to believethat the 6-months interval is a satisfactory time period forconstructive leadership to influence job satisfaction. In linewith Rook’s (1998) reasoning one would expect that sup-portive leadership, by its relative high frequency as com-pared to those of tyrannical as well as laissez-faireleadership (Aasland et al., 2010), would have a relativelystrong impact on subordinates over time, which might result

Constructive

Jobsatisfaction

Tyrannical

Jobsatisfaction

Laissez-faire Laissez-faire

Tyrannical

.54∗∗∗

.51∗∗∗

.61∗∗∗

.44∗∗∗

Constructive

-.10∗∗∗

Time 2 Time 1

Figure 2. Cross-lagged relationships over 2 years between leadership behavior and job satisfaction in Sample 2 (forsimplification, only significant paths show and factor loading for latent constructs are omitted. *p < .05; ***p < .001).

228 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

in significant relationships over a 6 month as well asa 2 year time-lag. However, no such relationships werefound when controlling for exposure to destructive leader-ship behaviors, supporting the notion by Baumeister andcolleagues (2001) that ‘‘bad is stronger than good,’’ at leastin superior-subordinate relationships. Further, a variety offactors will influence follower job satisfaction and therelationship between constructive leadership and the stud-ied outcome over time, and such influences increase withlonger time lags. Among such factors are the tenure ofthe leader-follower relationship (Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008)and, probably, leader distance variables such as powerdistance, physical distance, span of management, andquality of the relationship (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).

By its definition, as well as its operationalization(Aasland et al., 2010), tyrannical leadership may be con-ceived as a highly negative leadership style and socialstressor related to a variety of outcomes variables incross-sectional studies, including job satisfaction (Martinkoet al., 2013; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Yet, cross-sectionalstudies have indicated that destructive forms of leaderships’relationships with job satisfaction may be lower than thoseof transformational and considerate forms of leadershipwhen studied separately (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).For cross-sectional studies, including both destructive andconstructive forms of leadership the results are mixed,depending on which type of leadership behaviors and out-comes studied (Duffy et al., 2002; Lian, Ferris, & Brown,2012). Still, one may expect that those studies examiningthe effect of destructive leadership only, by excluding alter-native forms of leadership, probably overestimate the fac-tual influence of such destructive behavior. In the presentstudy our assumption that tyrannical leadership would bea weaker predictor of job satisfaction than constructiveleadership was partly supported by the cross-sectional anal-yses at T1 for the two samples. However, tyrannical leader-ship was the only significant predictor of job satisfaction inthe 6-month time lag. Hence, the results from Sample 1yield some support to the notion that such active destructiveleader behaviors may have an effect within relatively shorttime lags. Such an interpretation is in line with Rook’s(1998) reasoning that negative interactions may have astrong initial effect which may fade out over time.However, based on the present results this may be a ratherpremature conclusion as only two time-lags are included inthe present study. As stated earlier, shorter time lags shouldbe explored, and more intervening variables should beregarded, like followers’ responses and coping strategies(Yagil, Ben-Zur, & Tamir, 2011). It may be that followers,depending on his/her personal resources and control, with-draws from the leader-follower relationships and in variousways compensate for the lack of leader resources, which isin line with the substitutes of leadership approach. Suchcoping processes will probably influence the tyrannicalleadership – follower job satisfaction relationship, andshould be further studied.

Yet, destructive leadership may also be of a passivekind, for example, in the form of Laissez-faire leadership,a leadership style often evaluated by subordinates as theleast effective form of leadership (Judge & Piccolo,

2004). A range of studies have shown this style to be quitecounterproductive by being systematically negativelyrelated to various attitudinal, behavioral, and well-beingoutcomes (Skogstad et al., in press). Hence, laissez-faireleadership should not be conceived as a non-leadershipform as regards its consequences. It is experienced not onlyas ineffective but as highly negative or even destructiveover time.

Interestingly, the cross-sectional model yields insignifi-cant results for laissez-faire leadership at T1 when adjustingfor the effects of constructive and tyrannical leadership.However, in Sample 2 laissez-faire systematically influ-ences job satisfaction over a 2-year time span may, whilethe relationship was insignificant in Sample 1. First of all,it is interesting that laissez-faire leadership has a significantimpact on job satisfaction even when controlled for theeffect of tyrannical, as well as for constructive leadership,in the 2-year time lag. Secondly, our findings may indicatethat that laissez-faire leadership may have an accumulativeeffect over a relative long time period. One factor whichmay explain such an experienced destructive componentis the operational definition of laissez-faire leadership inthe MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2004) where this leadership styleis operationalized as leader behaviors characterized by sys-tematically not assisting subordinated who are, more orless, in a critical situation where they need assistance(Skogstad et al., in press). Hence, laissez-faire leadershipmay be perceived as an opposite of functional leadershipemphasizing that team leadership is centered on helpingteams solve the problems they encounter on a day-to-daybasis (Morgeson, 2005). Being in a situation where youare in critical need of help, and not receiving adequate help,will probably represent a type of stress (cf. Lazarus, 1999).Further, it is reasonable to believe that the criticality andurgency component, which is more or less a situationalcharacteristic of laissez-faire leadership when measuredby the MLQ, will strengthen the negative impact of thisleadership style. Further, one may argue that leaders’ lais-sez-faire style may be a predictable behavioral pattern,but those situations where subordinates are in need forhis/her assistance may not be, and followers lacking theindividual resources necessary to cope with those situationsresult in durable stressors, which probably make followersvulnerable for job dissatisfaction as well as strain. This lineof reasoning is in accordance with Morgeson and DeRue’s(2006) study showing that the event characteristics ofcriticality, urgency, and duration were significantly relatedto disruptions in teams.

Furthermore, laissez-faire may influence job satisfactionindirectly by creating ever more role stress and interper-sonal conflicts in the work group (see Skogstad, Einarsen,Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). In a study employ-ing the data from Sample 2, laissez-faire leadership turnedout to be a significant predictor of subsequent role ambigu-ity even when controlling for constructive leadership(Skogstad et al., in press). It has also been shown tostrengthen the relationship between role conflict and reportsof workplace bullying (Hauge et al., 2007). Alternatively,as laissez-faire leadership is about avoiding leadershipresponsibilities by not being present when needed, avoiding

A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership 229

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

making decisions, and not following up on subordinates(Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008), subordinates may interpretsuch behavior as a type of social exclusion, especially if thisis not a consistent leadership style across subordinates.To conclude, our line of arguing is that laissez-faireleadership may be a stress-inducing as well as demotivatingtype of leadership which may accumulate over relativelylonger time-frames, as compared to more temporal tyranni-cal leadership behavior resulting in more temporal reducedjob satisfaction. The conclusion that the two destructiveforms of leadership act as antecedents of reduced jobsatisfaction is further strengthened by the fact that noreversed relationships were found in this respect. Hence,the ‘‘gloomy’’ perception mechanism where dissatisfiedemployees see their superiors in an ever more negative lightdid not receive support in the present study.

On the other hand, high job satisfaction was related toan increase in reported constructive leadership 6 monthslater, a finding in line with De Lange et al. (2004) studyshowing that an increase in job satisfaction was related toan increase in social support from supervisors 1 year later.According to them two basic mechanisms may explain suchresults. First, real changes in ones work environment, suchas leader behavior, may be due to characteristics and behav-iors of the follower, which is in line with a follower-centered perspective on leadership (Shamir, 2007)emphasizing that followers influence superiors, as well asvice versa. Second, the reversed, or reciprocal, relationshipmay be due to changes in followers’ evaluations of theirleaders, in our case a positive reevaluation, which has alsobeen labeled as the ‘‘rosy’’ perception mechanism (see alsoFletcher, 2003).

Methodological Issues

The present study has more notable strengths. First of all,the longitudinal design is a rare animal in the fauna of lead-ership studies. Secondly, comparing constructive anddestructive leadership in such a design is even rarer, con-tributing to a more nuanced and accurate picture of howleadership works in the real world, as well as to how wemay conceptualize and understand it theoretically (Hogan,2008). Thirdly, by employing two different prospectivesamples, one with a 6-month time lag and the other witha 2-year time lag, the present study adds vital knowledgeabout how leadership styles may have different effectsdepending on the time lag used. Despite these strengths,the present study is not without limitations. The data onpredictors and outcome were collected from the samesource, albeit with a 6-month and a 2-year time lag. Subor-dinates rated both their immediate leader’s behavior andtheir job attitudes. Alternative observations of leader behav-ior, for example, from the focal leader’s superior, as well asrestricting the study to the behaviors of only the same supe-riors across the two measurement points, may havestrengthened the validity. Accordingly, the lack of effectof tyrannical leadership over the 2-year time lag may partlybe due to more leaders simply not being there anymore.

In this regard it may be more likely that tyrannical leadersare more likely to leave or asked to leave than laissez-faireleaders.

However, the longitudinal design minimizes the likeli-hood that the observed relationships are strictly artifactual.Nevertheless, evidence of any form of inter-rater reliability,actual observations of leadership behavior or the use ofobjective criteria variables would strengthen confidencein the measurement’s construct validity. In addition, thetwo studies have only investigated these relationships byemploying one time lag. To conclude on the causal relation-ship, more waves should be included. One limitation of atwo-wave study is that any and all changes from Time 1to Time 2 are by default linear, making it difficult todetermine the form of change over time (Ployhart &Vandenberg, 2010). Thus, it is not possible to assesswhether the change was steady or delayed or whether itplateaued and then changed again (Singer & Willett,2003). Another limitation of a two-wave study is that itcan confound true change and measurement error.

Conclusion

Two main conclusions can be drawn from our findings.First, that the relationships between leadership styles andjob satisfaction seem to differ in cross-sectional as com-pared to longitudinal designs, and that passive and activedestructive forms of leadership seem to have a strongerinfluence over time than do constructive forms, at leastwithin the two used time lags. Second, it is substantiatedthat laissez-faire leadership is not a zero-type of leadershipas regards effects over time, but probably more of a system-atic destructive form of leadership, at least in the long run,for subordinate job satisfaction. Hence, it is time to includeactive as well as passive destructive forms of leadership indefinitions and studies on leadership. Accordingly, ourstudy support the notion that laissez-faire leadership isnot a type of non-leadership as regards followersexperiences and outcomes, which is very well reflected inWatzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967, p. 48) axiom that‘‘there is no such thing as non-behavior or, to put it evenmore simply: one cannot not behave.’’

References

Aasland, M. S. (2012). Destructive leadership: Conceptualisa-tion, measurement, prevalence and outcomes (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of Bergen, Norway.

Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., &Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leader-ship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21,438–452.

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A reviewand a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,673–704.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire: Manual and sampler set. Menlo Park, CA:Mind Garden.

230 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levelsand trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61,1139–1160.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leader-ship development: Manual for the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizationaleffectiveness through transformational leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs,K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of GeneralPsychology, 5, 323–370.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless.Coping with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer &M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations(pp. 203–219). London, UK: Sage.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, andtime. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 654–668.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of jobsatisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 35,307–311.

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L.,& Bongers, P. M. (2004). The relationships between workcharacteristics and mental health: Examining normal,reversed and reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study.Work & Stress, 18, 149–166.

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L.,& Bongers, P. M. (2005). Different mechanisms to explainthe reversed effects of mental health on work characteristics.Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 31,3–14.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., &Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories ofleadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of theirrelative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Socialundermining in the workplace. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 331–351.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadershipcorrelates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update andextension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),Transformational and charismatic leadership: The roadahead (Monographs in Leadership and Management, Vol. 2,pp. 35–66). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact oftransformational leadership on follower development andperformance: A field experiment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 735–744.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destruc-tive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptualmodel. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., & Glasø, L. (2013). Whenleaders are bullies: Concepts, antecedents, and conse-quences. In H. S. Leonard, R. Lewis, A. M. Freedman, &J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of thepsychology of leadership, change, and organizationaldevelopment (pp. 129–153). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centered leadership:An extension of the two-dimensional model. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 7, 17–26.

Fletcher, B. C. (2003). A fit approach to work stress and health.In M. J. Schrabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper(Eds.), The handbook of work & health psychology (pp.549–568). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Ford, M. T., Matthews, R. A., Wooldridge, J. D., Mishra, V.,Kakar, U. M., & Strahan, S. R. (2014). How do occupa-tional stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and

meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinalstudies. Work & Stress, 28, 1–22.

Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationshipsbetween stressful work environments and bullying: Resultsof a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21, 220–242.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). A theoreticaland empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ). The Leadership Quarterly, 19,501–513.

Hogan, R. (2008). Leadership is a hygiene factor. Paperpresented at the 23rd annual conference of the Society forIndustrial-Organizational Psychology.

Høstmark, M., & Lagerstrøm, B. O. (2006). Undersøkelse omarbeidsmiljø: Destruktiv atferd i arbeidslivet: Destruktivatferd i arbeidslivet. Dokumentasjonsrapport [A study ofwork environment: Destructive behaviors in working life.Documentation report]. Oslo, Norway: Statistisk sentralbyr�.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexesin covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versusnew alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multi-disciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

Jçreskog, K. G. (1998). Interaction and nonlinear modeling:Issues and approaches. In R. E. Schumacker & G. A.Marcoulides (Eds.), Interaction and nonlinear effects instructural equation modelling (pp. 239–250). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational andtransactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of theirrelative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,755–768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgottenones? The validity of consideration and initiating structurein leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 36–51.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equationmodeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J.(2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, &M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89–112).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. NewYork, NY: Springer.

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does powerdistance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusivesupervision? It depends on the outcome. The Journal ofApplied Psychology, 97, 107–123.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing Goodness of Fit:Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 64, 364–390.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013).A review of abusive supervision research. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 34, 120–137.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-manag-ing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptiveevents. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 497–508.

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality,urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disruptteams and influence team leader intervention. The Leader-ship Quarterly, 17, 271–287.

Moyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of managerial supporton employee well-being. Work & Stress, 12, 29–49.

Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., &Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative impact of complementaryleader behaviors: Which matter most? The LeadershipQuarterly, 23, 567–581.

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinalresearch: The theory, design, and analysis of change.Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.

A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership 231

� 2014 Hogrefe Publishing Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2009). Job-satisfaction inorganizational research. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational researchmethods (pp. 196–212). London, UK: Sage.

Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sidesof personal relationships: Through a lens darkly? In B. H.Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of closerelationships (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductivebehaviors at work. Handbook of Industrial, Work, andOrganizational Psychology, 1, 145–164.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (2010). Abusive andsupportive leadership two sides of the same coin. In L. L.Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), The ‘‘Dark’’ side ofmanagement (pp. 49–67). Charlotte, NC: Information AgePublishing.

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects ofbad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership andits outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B.Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute tothe memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 9–39). Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.

Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of(not) taking time seriously in leadership research. TheLeadership Quarterly, 22, 307–315.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal dataanalysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Areleaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with theaffective well-being of their employees? A systematicreview of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24,107–139.

Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (1999). The importance of achange-centred leadership style in four organizational cul-tures. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15, 289–306.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., &Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faireleadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 12, 80–92.

Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (in press). Isavoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress?Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadershipand role ambiguity. Work & Stress.

Skogstad, A., & Notelaers, G. (2014). Patterns of ‘‘good’’ and‘‘bad’’ leadership behaviours, and their relationships withindividual outcomes. Paper presented at the EuropeanAcademy of Occupational Health Psychology, London.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modifi-cation: An interval estimation approach. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 25, 173–180.

Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. (2014). Cause and effect:Optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupa-tional health psychology. Work & Stress, 28, 1–8.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organiza-tions: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal ofManagement, 33, 261–289.

Vinokur, A. D., & Van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support andundermining in close relationships: Their independenteffects on the mental health of unemployed persons.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 350.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967).Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interac-tional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. London, UK:W. W. Norton & Company.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review Psychology,58, 425–452.

Winkler, E., Busch, C., Clasen, J., & Vowinkel, J. (2014).Changes in leadership behaviors predict changes in jobsatisfaction and well-being in low-skilled workers: Alongitudinal investigation. Journal of Leadership & Orga-nizational Studies 21, 1–16. doi: 10.1177/1548051814527771

Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees copeeffectively with abusive supervision at work? An explor-atory study. International Journal of Stress Management,18, 5–8.

Anders Skogstad

Department of Psychosocial ScienceChristiesgt. 125015 BergenNorwayTel. +47 55589077E-mail anders.skogstad@psysp.uib.no

232 A. Skogstad et al.: Constructive, Laissez-Faire, and Tyrannical Leadership

Zeitschrift f�r Psychologie 2014; Vol. 222(4):221–232 � 2014 Hogrefe Publishing

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.