Previous research on laissez-faire leadership and stress has focused on between-person differences by looking at general ratings of leader behaviours. Yet, researchers have demonstrated a high situational contingency of leadership behaviours that call for a more detailed analysis of within-person differences. We adopt a role theory perspective to explain why daily laissez-faire leadership is linked to daily stress of followers. Also drawing on role theory, we further explain fluctuations of supervisors’ laissez-faire leadership behaviour over time in relation to follower perceptions of day-specific stress. Finally, we also take followers’ level of neuroticism into perspective to describe when followers are particularly vulnerable to laissez-faire leadership. We conducted a diary study spanning over 5 days within 1 working week to test whether daily laissez-faire leadership and its variability were positively related to followers’ daily stress and whether these relations were moderated by follower neuroticism. A total of 201 participants completed the diary surveys (M = 4.79 days × 201 participants = 963 data points) and provided information in an initial survey. Results gave support for most of our hypotheses and showed a positive relationship between daily laissez-faire leadership and daily stress as well as a positive relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress. Neuroticism moderated the positive relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress in the way that the relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress was stronger for individuals with high neuroticism.
AaslandMSSkogstadANotelaersG, et al. (2009) The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management15: 20.
2.
AguinisHGottfredsonRKCulpepperSA (2013) Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management39(6): 1490–1528.
3.
AntonakisJAvolioBJSivasubramaniamN (2003) Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly14(3): 261–295.
4.
AvolioBJBassBMJungDI (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology72(4): 441–462.
5.
BarnesCMLucianettiLBhaveDP, et al. (2015) ‘You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy’: leaders’ sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal58(5): 1419–1437.
6.
BarrickMRMountMK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology44(1): 1–26.
7.
BassBM (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Simon & Schuster.
8.
BassBMAvolioBJ (1990) Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting.
9.
BironMVan VeldhovenM (2016) When control becomes a liability rather than an asset: comparing home and office days among part-time teleworkers. Journal of Organizational Behavior37(8): 1317–1337.
10.
BormannKC (2017) Linking daily ethical leadership to followers’ daily behaviour: the roles of daily work engagement and previous abusive supervision. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology26(4): 590–600.
11.
BormannKC (2018) Turning daily time pressure into a creative day: the interactionist roles of employee neuroticism and time pressure dispersion. Applied Psychology. Epub ahead of print 24 November 2018. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12183.
12.
BreevaartKBakkerAB (2018) Daily job demands and employee work engagement: the role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology23(3): 338–349.
13.
BreevaartKZacherH (2019) Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and laissez-faire leadership on followers’ trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology92(2): 384–409.
14.
BreevaartKBakkerABDemeroutiE, et al. (2016) Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior37(3): 309–325.
15.
ColeMSBedeianAGBruchH (2011) Linking leader behavior and leadership consensus to team performance: integrating direct consensus and dispersion models of group composition. The Leadership Quarterly22(2): 383–398.
16.
CostaPTMcCraeRR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
17.
De CremerD (2003) Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self-esteem concerns. European Journal of Social Psychology33(4): 535–550.
18.
De HooghAHBDen HartogDN (2009) Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology94(4): 1058–1067.
19.
DemeroutiERispensS (2014) Improving the image of student-recruited samples: a commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology87(1): 34–41.
20.
DiebigMBormannKCRowoldJ (2016) A double-edged sword: relationship between full-range leadership behaviors and followers’ hair cortisol level. The Leadership Quarterly27(4): 684–696.
21.
DiestelSWeggeJSchmidtK-H (2014) The impact of social context on the relationship between individual job satisfaction and absenteeism: the roles of different foci of job satisfaction and work-unit absenteeism. Academy of Management Journal57(2): 353–382.
22.
EhrhartMGKleinKJ (2001) Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: the influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly12(2): 153–179.
23.
FelfeJSchynsB (2009) Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management10: 345.
24.
FogartyGJAnthony MachinMAlbionMJ, et al. (1999) Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: the role of stress, coping, personality, and affectivity Variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior54(3): 429–452.
25.
GansterDCRosenCC (2013) Work stress and employee health: a multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management39(5): 1085–1122.
26.
GilboaSShiromAFriedY, et al. (2008) A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology61(2): 227–271.
27.
GunthertKCCohenLHArmeliS (1999) The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(5): 1087–1100.
28.
HouseRJ (1996) Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review: Theoretical and Methodological Advances in Leadership7(3): 323–352.
29.
JohnsonREVenusMLanajK, et al. (2012) Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology97(6): 1262–1272.
30.
JudgeTAErezABonoJE, et al. (2002) Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(3): 693–710.
31.
KahnRLWolfeDMQuinnRP, et al. (1964) Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Oxford: John Wiley.
32.
KirmeyerSLDoughertyTW (1988) Work load, tension, and coping: moderating effects of supervisor support. Personnel Psychology41(1): 125–139.
33.
KristensenTSHannerzHHoghA, et al. (2005) The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health31(6): 438–449.
34.
KuonathASpechtJKühnelJ, et al. (2017) Keeping up day-specific effects of transformational leadership: the role of followers’ emotion regulation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology26(6): 828–843.
35.
LaRoccoJMHouseJSFrenchJRP (1980) Social support, occupational stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior21(3): 202–218.
36.
LeBretonJMSenterJL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods11(4): 815–852.
37.
LepineJAPodsakoffNPLepineMA (2005) A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal48(5): 764–775.
38.
LinS-HScottBAMattaFK (2018) The dark side of transformational leader behaviors for leader themselves: a conservation of resources perspective. Academy of Management Journal. Epub ahead of print 22 October 2019. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2016.1255.
39.
McCraeRRJohnOP (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality60(2): 175–215.
40.
MarcusBWeigeltOHergertJ, et al. (2017) The use of snowball sampling for multi source organizational research: some cause for concern. Personnel Psychology70(3): 635–673.
41.
MattaFKScottBColquittJ, et al. (2017) Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal60(2): 743–770.
42.
MontanoDReeskeAFrankeF, et al. (2017) Leadership, followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: a comprehensive meta-analysis from an occupational health perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior38(3): 327–350.
NielsenKDanielsK (2012) Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict followers’ working conditions and well-being?The Leadership Quarterly23(3): 383–397.
45.
OrganDW (1975) Effects of pressure and individual neuroticism on emotional responses to task-role ambiguity. The Journal of Applied Psychology60(3): 397–400.
46.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63(1): 539–569.
47.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBMoormanRH, et al. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly1(2): 107–142.
48.
PreacherKJCurranPJBauerDJ (2006) Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics31(4): 437–448.
49.
RajaUJohnsG (2010) The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations63(7): 981–1005.
50.
RammstedtBJohnOP (2005) Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): development and validation of an economic inventory for assessment of the five factors of personality. Diagnostica51(4): 195–206.
51.
RimannMUdrisI (1997) Salutogenetische Subjektive Arbeitsanalyse (SALSA). Zürich: ETH Zürich.
52.
RizzoJRHouseRJLirtzmanSI (1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly15(2): 150–163.
53.
RobersonQMSturmanMCSimonsTL (2007) Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes. Organizational Research Methods10(4): 564–588.
54.
RowoldJ (2011) Relationship between leadership behaviors and performance: the moderating role of a work team’s level of age, gender, and cultural heterogeneity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal32(6): 628–647.
55.
SatorraABentlerPM (2001) A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika66(4): 507–514.
56.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716.
57.
SkogstadAAaslandMSNielsenMB, et al. (2014a) The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction. Zeitschrift für Psychologie222(4): 221–232.
58.
SkogstadAEinarsenSTorsheimT, et al. (2007) The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology12(1): 80–92.
59.
SkogstadAHetlandJGlasøL, et al. (2014b) Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. Work & Stress28(4): 323–341.
60.
SonnentagS (2003) Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between non-work and work. The Journal of Applied Psychology88(3): 518–528.
61.
SosikJJGodshalkVM (2000) Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior21(4): 365–390.
62.
StarckeKBrandM (2012) Decision making under stress: a selective review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews36(4): 1228–1248.
63.
TarisTWSchreursPJG (2009) Well-being and organizational performance: an organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress23(2): 120–136.
64.
TeeEYJ (2015) The emotional link: leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional contagion processes across multiple organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly26(4): 654–670.
65.
TimsMBakkerABXanthopoulouD (2011) Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement?The Leadership Quarterly22(1): 121–131.
66.
Vahle-HinzTBambergEDettmersJ, et al. (2014) Effects of work stress on work-related rumination, restful sleep, and nocturnal heart rate variability experienced on workdays and weekends. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology19(2): 217–230.
67.
Van SellMBriefAPSchulerRS (1981) Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations34(1): 43–71.
68.
WheelerARShanineKKLeonMR, et al. (2014) Student-recruited samples in organizational research: a review, analysis, and guidelines for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology87(1): 1–26.
69.
WongSIGiessnerSR (2016) The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership. Journal of Management44: 757–783.
70.
WrightTACropanzanoR (2000) Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology5(1): 84–94.
71.
XanthopoulouDBakkerABDemeroutiE, et al. (2009) Work engagement and financial returns: a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology82(1): 183–200.
