POOR LEADERSHIP

Poor leadership

Poor leadership

Introduction

Leadership is undoubtedly one of the most ubiquitous potential stressors in the workplace. Although most stressors are specific to a given workplace, virtually everyone has a formal leader to whom they report. Throughout our discussion we shall be using the term “leader” to reference individuals in organizations who have assumed a formal leadership role (e.g., supervisors, managers, etc.). Although leadership theorists typically have focused on leadership as a process rather than leadership as a role (Yukl, 1998), our focus is on individuals who by virtue of their organizational position have legitimate reward and coercive power (French & Raven, 1959). How might such individuals evidence poor leadership? At least two possibilities are apparent: Leaders may be abusive, aggressive, or punitive, and leaders may simply lack appropriate leadership skills. We suggest that both conditions lead to increased employee stress.

Abusive Leadership

Abusive leadership occurs when individuals in a formal leadership role engage in aggressive or punitive behaviors toward their employees. These behaviors can vary widely from leaders degrading their employees by yelling, ridiculing, and name-calling to terrorizing employees by withholding information or threatening employees with job loss and pay cuts. Such behaviors have been variously termed “workplace harassment” (e.g., Rospenda, 2002), “emotional abuse” (e.g., Keashly, 1998, 2001), “bullying” (e.g., Einarsen, 1999; Hoel et al., 1999), or simply “workplace aggression” (for a review, see Schat & Kelloway, Chapter 8, this volume). Although conceptually abusive supervision includes acts of physical violence, empirically the incidence of coworker violence (including leader-follower violence) is very low (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; U.S. Postal Service [USPS], 2000). Indeed, in their study, LeBlanc & Kelloway (2002) found no reported incidents of physical violence between coworkers. Acts of nonphysical aggression are relatively more common. Pizzino (2002) reported that supervisors accounted for 20% of aggressive behaviors reported by unionized respondents whereas members of the public were responsible for 38% of respondents' reports of aggressive behavior.

Passive Leadership

Although the foregoing discussion focused on the notion of abusive leadership, we also recognize that a lack of leadership skills may be a source of stress for individuals. We term this lack of skills “passive leadership.” We define passive leadership as comprising elements from both the laissez-faire and management-by-exception (passive) styles articulated in the theory of transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Leaders engaging in the management-by-exception (passive) style do not intervene until problems are either brought to their attention or become serious enough to demand action (Bass, 1990). Leaders who rely on the laissez-faire style avoid decision making and the responsibilities associated with their position (Bass, 1990; Hater & Bass, 1988)

In contrast to transformational leadership, passive leadership is generally considered to be ineffective. For instance, Howell and Avolio (1993) reported that passive management by exception is negatively related to business unit performance, and laissez-faire leadership is generally accounted to be the least effective style (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Perhaps most important, there are both conceptual and empirical grounds on which to suggest that passive leadership (a) is distinct from and ...