laissez faire leadership case study

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

Eleanor Myers

Lab Manager at Duke University

Psychology Major at Princeton University

Eleanor Myers is a Princeton University psychology graduate.  At Princeton Eleanor studied language development as a research assistant in the Princeton Baby Lab. Eleanor is interested in how atypical child populations learn language, and how social cues and interactions can aid in language development. Eleanor currently works as a lab manager of the early childhood cognition lab at Duke University.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Laissez-faire leadership is a leadership style in which the leader gives group members minimal (if any) guidance. 

In this leadership style, group members assume full responsibility for the group, and “they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own” (Sharma & Singh, 2013).  

“Laissez-faire” actually means “leave alone” in French. The leader of a laissez-faire group takes on a minimal role in the inner functions of the group. This leadership style requires group members with certain characteristics to be successful and, like any other leadership style, has both advantages and disadvantages.

What are the Characteristics of Laissez-Faire Leadership?

“hands-off style” leadership.

A hands-off approach is perhaps the fundamental characteristic of laissez-faire leadership, as the “laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the “hands-off” style” (Sharma & Singh, 2013).

In this leadership style, the leader of the group is absent from many of the group’s functions and leaves things in the hands of the group members.  

This may be beneficial for people who function best with little direction, but, on the other hand, it may pose problems for people who require more direction to complete tasks effectively and efficiently. 

Provide Training and Support

In order for group members to make effective and well-informed decisions on the group’s behalf, training and support from the leader of the group is extremely useful. 

As the leader of a laissez-faire group is not very involved with the group’s decision-making process, they must make sure that the people who are in charge (the group members) are adequately prepared for their responsibilities. 

A variety of training is likely needed before group members can assume the large responsibilities that this leadership style gives them.  

Additionally, it is important for laissez-faire leaders to set up support for their group members if they need it along the decision-making process. 

Especially since the leader of a laissez-faire group may not be accessible in the group decision-making process, they must ensure that proper support and materials are available to help their group members through the process as smoothly as possible.

Trust is Given to Employees

Because employees are given so much responsibility in the laissez-faire leadership style, a huge amount of trust is being put in them to keep the group running smoothly. 

It is important for a laissez-faire leader to have group members that they can trust so that they can ensure that the group will progress without the leader’s direct input. 

If the leader does not trust their group members to handle their responsibilities properly, then it may be difficult for the leader to not be involved, and therefore it would likely not be a laissez-faire leadership. 

Placing trust in group members may increase their confidence in themselves and make them more likely to complete their jobs efficiently and effectively, which highlights an advantage of laissez-faire leadership. 

Employees Make Decisions

Part of group members’ responsibilities in the laissez-faire leadership style is making decisions (Sharma & Singh, 2013).  In this leadership style, employees must come together to make the best decisions for the group’s future development. 

It is important for this process to be collaborative, with all group members participating in some way.  It may be more efficient to divide responsibilities among group members, but how responsibilities are split up will be different from group to group.

What are the Advantages of Laissez-Faire Leadership?

Encourages personal growth.

One advantage of laissez-faire leadership is that, by providing group members with more responsibility within the group, it encourages their own personal growth. 

Being trusted with more tasks and completing these tasks can boost anyone’s confidence in themselves and their skills. 

This highlights a positive cycle within a laissez-faire-led group as if people are more confident in their abilities, they are likely to do a better job, and doing a good job further raises their confidence in themselves.

Encourages Creativity

Because the laissez-faire leadership style includes so many people in the decision-making process and in other important group functions, it encourages creativity through all the different perspectives and ideas that many people can bring (Malec, 2021). 

Importantly, “such a focus on personal growth and a general trust in the capabilities of individuals creates room for innovation and to be creative without the fear of failure, or rather the fear of the consequences of failure.” 

Removing an authority figure to overlook the decision-making process within a group gives people opportunities to make mistakes, which promotes creativity. 

Learning and Development

Another advantage of laissez-faire leadership is that “it facilitates learning and development opportunities…because of its hands-off approach, employees have the chance to learn on their own” (Pathak, 2022). 

Many people learn better with direct experience than being shown exactly how to do something, and a laissez-faire leadership style provides this opportunity.

Faster Decision-Making

A laissez-faire leadership style can lead to faster decision-making because group members do not have to pass ideas by the group leader along the way in the decision-making process (Pathak, 2022). 

This allows for a smoother, speedier process, where more decisions can be made and, if they are good decisions, a group can progress and develop faster overall.

What are the Disadvantages of Laissez-Faire Leadership?

Lack of role clarity.

On the other hand, one disadvantage of laissez-faire leadership is that, without a leader being involved in the decision-making process, there may be a lack of role clarity among group members.  Without a proper assignment of tasks to group members, it may be unclear to members exactly what they are responsible for. 

Additionally, without a leader being involved along the way, there is no one available to clarify group members’ responsibilities if they become unclear.

Group members may even feel like the group leader does not care about the group in this leadership style (Malec, 2021). 

With the leader being so removed from the group dynamic, it may seem as though the leader is not invested in the group to group members.  However, the opposite is likely true. 

Those who choose to lead their group in a laissez-faire way should choose this leadership style because they think that it will be the best way for the group to function, and by implementing a whole new style of leadership, the leader would actually be demonstrating just how much they care about the success of their group. 

Naturally, if a group has a designated leader, that person would be the authority figure within the group, and therefore for a group to have a laissez-faire leadership style, the leader of the group (or the founder of the group) would have to have gone out of their way to implement this style.

Interestingly, a study from 2012 found results that “indicate that laissez-faire style is not an important style that boosts the motivation level of workers as compared to other leadership styles” (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012).  This highlights the potential lack of motivation that laissez-faire leadership may cause among group members.

Low Accountability

Without a clear authority figure or hierarchy among the group, group members in a laissez-faire led group are not truly held accountable by anything or anyone other than the success of the group itself. 

And, if group members are not invested in the group’s success, then they truly have no accountability.

Avoids True Leadership

With the low involvement of the leader in a laissez-faire leadership style, there is a lack of any true leadership, which can be a disadvantage for many groups. 

Leadership can be a strong factor in productivity and in making a group move forward and progress.  With all group members at the same leadership level and with no leader in charge, accountability may be low, and therefore little or no progress may be made within the group. 

When Should Laissez-Faire Leadership Be Used?

Laissez-faire leadership should be used when group members “are highly skilled, experienced, educated, and trustworthy” (Sharma & Singh, 2013). 

If the group members have these skills, laissez-faire leadership may be an option for the group, but it may not always be the best option.

When implementing the laissez-faire leadership style, hiring people that want to work in this type of leadership style is important, instead of forcing people to be in a leadership environment that they don’t feel comfortable in or prefer (Malec, 2021). 

People respond differently to the laissez-faire leadership style, as is the case for all leadership styles.

When to Avoid Using Laissez-Faire Leadership

If group members do not have the proper qualities for laissez-faire leadership as described above, it would be extremely difficult for effective decisions to be made for the group without a designated leader, and therefore this leadership style should be avoided (Sharma & Singh, 2013).

Furthermore, laissez-faire leadership should be avoided when group members are not skilled at setting and maintaining deadlines or managing projects.

A laissez-faire leadership style should also be avoided if there are group decisions that need to be made that require precision and attention to detail. 

Small details regarding important group decisions may be overlooked, with multiple people making decisions.  This is also related to the lack of role clarity that comes with the laissez-faire leadership style.

If every part of the decision-making process is not specifically designated to a group member, some details are bound to be missed.

Also, laissez-faire leadership should be avoided when high productivity is required or preferred. 

It is difficult to rely on high productivity with the laissez-faire leadership style, as the productivity of the group overall depends on many people working efficiently together, which could easily not be the case if group members are not aware of their responsibilities if they are unmotivated, or because of other issues that may arise among the group.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who created laissez-faire leadership.

Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, is often said to be the creator of laissez-faire leadership (STU, 2014).  Lewin “identified laissez-faire leadership as the opposite of autocratic leadership ” and, notably, “did not subscribe to it as his preferred leadership method”.

What is the difference between laissez-faire and autocratic leadership?

The difference between laissez-faire leadership and autocratic leadership is that “autocratic leadership favors direct control and oversight in the work environment”, while laissez-faire leadership takes the opposite approach (Malec, 2021).

Who are some examples of laissez-faire leaders?

Some examples of laissez-faire leaders include Herbert Hoover (former president of the United States) and Warren Buffet (Malec, 2021).  Some important characteristics of a laissez-faire leader are that they are good at delegating tasks, building an effective and balanced group, and genuinely trusting their group members to run the group well.

How can laissez-faire leadership be applied to education?

Laissez-faire leadership can be applied to education by providing a hands-off approach to learning (Sharma & Singh, 2013).  In a laissez-faire educational setting, teachers may not provide their students with much direction, allowing them to take charge of their own education. 

This may be beneficial for students who learn at a different pace than in a typical learning environment, whether they move faster or slower.

What are the qualities that define a leader who uses laissez-faire?

A leader who uses a laissez-faire style tends to be hands-off, giving their team autonomy to make decisions and complete tasks independently. They trust their team members, encourage innovation and creativity, and provide minimal guidance or intervention.

This leadership style promotes self-direction, fosters a sense of ownership among team members, and often requires proficient and self-motivated individuals.

References 

Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of transactional and laissez faire leadership style on motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 3 (7). https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1062.5269&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Learn about laissez-faire leadership and the importance of autonomy . STU. (2014, November 25). Retrieved July 24, 2022, from https://online.stu.edu/degrees/education/what-is-laissezfaire-leadership/

Malec, M. (2021, December 20). Laissez faire leadership: A guide for workplace management . RSS. Retrieved July 24, 2022, from https://www.learnerbly.com/articles/laissez-faire-leadership-a-guide-for-workplace-management

Pathak, A. (2022, March 3). What is laissez-faire leadership? its 8 advantages and disadvantages . Nurture an Engaged and Satisfied Workforce | Vantage Circle HR Blog. Retrieved July 24, 2022, from https://blog.vantagecircle.com/laissez-faire-leadership-style/ 

Sharma, L., & SINGH, S. K. (2013). CHARACTERISTICS OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP STYLE: A CASE STUDY. CLEAR International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management , 4 (3).

Decoding laissez-faire leadership: an in-depth study on its influence over employee autonomy and well-being at work

• Published: 29 November 2023

Cite this article

• Clément Desgourdes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2402-7801 1 ,
• Jamila Hasnaoui   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1611-7989 1 ,
• Muhammad Umar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-5954 2 &
• Jesus Gonzales Feliu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0056-7627 1  

390 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study investigates Laissez-faire leadership (LFL), an area often viewed negatively yet underexplored. Aiming to decipher LFL’s implications, particularly its ties with employee autonomy and well-being, the study distributed 4000 questionnaires via LinkedIn to various French organizations. Out of these, 226 were accepted and analyzed. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire measured LFL, while the Job Diagnostic Survey examined autonomy. Findings indicate LFL has a detrimental effect on workplace well-being, with autonomy serving as a key mediator. Additionally, LFL’s impact may differ based on individual expectations. These results emphasize the cautious adoption of LFL and spotlight autonomy’s importance. This research notably broadens our understanding of LFL’s role in the workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Who are the Empowered Employees: Those with High Work Performance or High Ethical Behavior?

Meizhen Lin, Xiaoyi Wu & Xiaolu Li

In what ways does age-differentiated leadership influence employee health?

Lena Marie Uhlmann, Tina Karabinski, … Jürgen Wegge

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CERIIM – Research Center in Managerial Intelligence and Innovation, Excelia Business School, La Rochelle, France

Clément Desgourdes, Jamila Hasnaoui & Jesus Gonzales Feliu

Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon

Muhammad Umar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Umar .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Desgourdes, C., Hasnaoui, J., Umar, M. et al. Decoding laissez-faire leadership: an in-depth study on its influence over employee autonomy and well-being at work. Int Entrep Manag J (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00927-5

Download citation

Accepted : 08 November 2023

Published : 29 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-023-00927-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Laissez-faire leadership
• Well-being at work
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Laissez-Faire Leadership and Affective Commitment: the Roles of Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Relational Self-concept

Véronique robert.

HEC Montréal, 3000 chemin Côte Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Québec H3T2A7 Canada

Christian Vandenberghe

Although the detrimental effects of laissez-faire leadership are well documented, research on the underlying mechanisms and the boundary conditions associated with these effects remains scarce. Using the identity orientation framework and social exchange theory, we propose that employees with stronger relational self-concepts are more likely to be affected by laissez-faire leadership. As these employees define themselves through dyadic relationships, they may react more negatively to laissez-faire leadership by diminishing their contributions to mutual goals and reducing their affective organizational commitment. These predictions were tested within a three-wave longitudinal study through structural equations modeling analyses with full information maximum likelihood estimation on a sample of employees from multiple organizations ( N  = 449). As predicted, the relational self-concept was associated with a stronger negative effect of laissez-faire leadership on the contribution dimension of leader-member exchange and a stronger negative indirect effect on affective organizational commitment. The implications of these findings for our understanding of the mechanisms related to laissez-faire leadership are discussed.

Leadership has always been at the forefront of organizational research. Most research has focused on what constitutes a good leader, neglecting negative forms of leadership (Tepper, 2000 , 2007 ; Schyns & Schilling, 2013 ; Most research has focused on what constitutesMost research has focused on what constitutesZellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002 ). However, according to the principle that “bad is stronger than good” (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001 ), negative forms of leadership may be more influential than positive forms of leadership. It is thus surprising that this area of research has been underinvestigated (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a ; Judge & Piccolo, 2004 ). Despite recent interest into destructive leadership (Schyns & Schilling, 2013 ), more passive yet destructive forms of leadership such as laissez-faire leadership did not receive the same attention (Che, Zhou, Kessler, & Spector, 2017 ). Passive forms of leadership, which include laissez-faire as the most extreme passivity of leaders, can still have detrimental effects on employees and organizations (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a ; Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005 ; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007 ). For example, laissez-faire leadership was found to be associated with reduced job satisfaction, leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004 ), and performance (Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993 ). Similarly, a study (Skogstad et al., 2014 ) found laissez-faire leadership to be the sole (negative) leadership predictor of job satisfaction over a 2-year period. However, despite being one of the most prevalent forms of negative leadership in modern organizations (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010 ), laissez-faire leadership has been understudied (Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014 ). Organizational research would gain from investigating this particular type of (negative) leadership given both its prevalence and its likely detrimental effects on employees and organizations.

Laissez-faire leadership is part of the full-range leadership model (Avolio, 2011 ), one of the most established (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997 ) and popular models of leadership (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002 ; Judge & Piccolo, 2004 ; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996 ), which also comprises transformational and transactional dimensions. Defined as avoidance and abdication of one’s responsibilities (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008b ; Skogstad, Hetland, et al., 2014 ), “laissez-faire has been consistently found to be the least satisfying and least effective management style” (Bass & Bass, 2008 , p. 145). However, as research has mainly focused on the direct effects of laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008 ; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a ), the mechanisms and contextual boundaries associated with these effects have received little attention, which is a gap we intend to fill with the current study. Our attempt at doing so resonates with the call for a more nuanced approach to laissez-faire leadership (Wong & Giessner, 2018 ), as its effects may depend on the context (Yang, 2015 ; Yang & Li, 2017 ). By shedding light on these processes, we take a step toward understanding how the detrimental effects of laissez-faire leadership can be reduced, hence providing clues for practitioners.

First, laissez-faire leadership may differentially affect individuals depending on their individual dispositions. An important individual disposition that has been considered in prior leadership research is the self-concept (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999 ; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004 ). The self-concept refers to the ways in which people define themselves and, as such, influences the perceptions of oneself and others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ; Markus & Wurf, 1987 ). It is composed of distinct motivations, sources of self-worth, and self-knowledge (Brickson, 2000 ). Multiple levels of the self-concept have been identified, namely, the individual, relational, and collective levels (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ). Since leadership involves dyadic relationships between leaders and subordinates, a relational self-concept, which refers to the significance of dyadic relationships in people’s life (Johnson & Saboe, 2011 ), is a salient characteristic that may influence employee reactions to leaders (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ). Employees with a strong relational self-concept are likely more affected by, and to react more strongly to, laissez-faire leadership because such leadership poses a threat to their goals, needs, and identity-defining relationship (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016 ). The absence of decisions and interactions with the leader may violate their expectations that a leader should attend to work-related problems and their relational needs (Lord & Brown, 2001 ). Therefore, individuals with strong relational self-concepts may experience laissez-faire leadership as disappointing, resulting in negative attitudes toward their supervisors and the organization.

Second, we explore the possibility that laissez-faire leadership may negatively affect the quality of the exchange relationship between employees and leaders. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests that leaders develop differential relationships with employees, ranging from low-quality to high-quality relationships (Boies & Howell, 2006 ; Chen, He, & Weng, 2018 ; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010 ; Liden & Graen, 1980 ). As laissez-faire leadership involves the abdication of one’s responsibilities, it may result in reduced LMX, particularly among employees with strong relational self-concepts. As these individuals are more sensitive to expressions of support and recognition and the active involvement of their leaders in decisions (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ), laissez-faire leaders—because they do not attend to employees’ relational needs—will not be able to entice them to cooperate and contribute to mutual goals (De Cremer, 2003 ). Among the dimensions of LMX (i.e., affect, loyalty, contribution, and professional respect; Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ), one particularly reflects that “currency of exchange” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 ; Greguras & Ford, 2006 ; Law, Wang, & Hui, 2010 ; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001 ) we allude to here. Specifically, the contribution dimension of LMX (i.e., the activity put forth toward mutual goals; Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ) is most likely to be affected because laissez-faire leadership involves a failure to invest in the relationship with the employee. Thus, as a result of laissez-faire leadership, employees with strong relational self-concepts may be inclined to reduce their contributions to mutual goals. We further argue that a lack of contribution by these employees will in turn lead to reduced affective organizational commitment (AOC) because it is well established that relationships with supervisors have implications for attitudes toward the organization (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012 ).

This study contributes to the leadership literature in several ways. First, we extend this literature by delving into the mechanisms and boundary conditions explaining how laissez-faire leadership negatively relates to AOC. Our focus is on examining the quality of the relationship between employees and leaders (i.e., LMX) as a primary reason why laissez-faire may affect AOC. Second, in doing so, we take a disaggregated approach to LMX and identify its contribution dimension as the most relevant aspect of LMX that should be affected by laissez-faire leadership. To further demonstrate the unique sensitivity of LMX’s contribution dimension to laissez-faire leadership, this study shows in parallel that the other LMX dimensions (i.e., affect, loyalty, and professional respect) are not affected by laissez-faire leadership. Third, we examine employees’ relational self-concepts as a boundary condition and, as such, depart from the leader-centric approaches that dominate the field (Schyns & Schilling, 2013 ). The relational self-concept is used as an individual difference variable that magnifies the value that individuals attribute to dyadic relationships. Fourth, our focus on laissez-faire leadership as an antecedent to LMX and AOC breaks new ground by expanding the spectrum of negative antecedents to these constructs. Finally, our hypotheses were tested within a dynamic perspective as we controlled for the baseline levels of our mediator and outcome variables in a three-wave longitudinal study. Hypotheses are developed in the next sections.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Laissez-faire leadership.

Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by avoidance and inaction (Bass & Bass, 2008 ; Avolio, 2011 ; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008b ; Skogstad, Hetland, et al., 2014 ). Laissez-faire leaders avoid making decisions, abdicate their responsibilities, delay actions, and refrain from using the authority associated with their roles (Bass & Bass, 2008 ; Den Hartog et al., 1997 ). They also fail to provide feedback and recognition to subordinates (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008b ) and they tend to ignore followers’ needs, as they do not deal with work-related problems (Yukl, 2010 ). These leaders do not take sides in disputes and are disorganized in dealing with priorities (Bass, 1998 ). Based on their survey, Aasland et al. ( 2010 ) noted that 21% of employees had experienced laissez-faire behaviors from their leaders during the previous six months, making laissez-faire the most prevalent form of negative leadership.

Neglecting one’s responsibilities as a leader harms both the organization and the subordinates (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a ; Skogstad et al., 2007 ). Laissez-faire leadership is not only ineffective but also destructive (Aasland et al., 2010 ; Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007 ; Skogstad, Aasland, et al., 2014 ; Skogstad, Hetland, et al., 2014 ). Empirically, laissez-faire leadership has been found to be associated with reduced subordinate effort (Bass & Stogdill, 1990 ), performance (Yammarino et al., 1993 ), job satisfaction, perceived leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004 ); increased stress and interpersonal conflicts (Skogstad et al., 2007 ); and more role ambiguity and role conflict (Skogstad et al., 2007 ; Skogstad, Hetland, et al., 2014 ). However, the inactivity characterizing laissez-faire leadership makes this style of leadership unique and distinct from other forms of negative leadership because its negative consequences result from the absence of constructive behaviors rather than from the presence of destructive ones (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2006 ). Therefore, further inquiry into laissez-faire leadership is warranted.

Laissez-Faire Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange

We posit that a primary mechanism through which laissez-faire leadership may affect employees pertains to the quality of the exchange relationship with the leader or LMX (e.g., Buch, Martinsen, & Kuvaas, 2015 ). Indeed, employees may be unmotivated to uphold a good relationship with a leader with whom they expect to have limited interactions (van Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003 ). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), employees invest in a relationship when they feel that contributing their time and energy may lead to reciprocal exchanges. However, laissez-faire leaders fail to provide resources such as information, challenging task assignments, and autonomy-supportive conditions. In such circumstances, employees may feel they are not receiving their due in the relationship with their leader, which may reduce their desire to engage in tasks and duties beyond what is formally required.

The exchange of resources and opportunities is central to LMX development (Liden & Graen, 1980 ) and depending on the resources/opportunities that are valued by the exchange partners (Graen & Cashman, 1975 ), different “currencies of exchange” may be salient to LMX (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 ; Law et al., 2010 ). Liden and Maslyn ( 1998 ) (see also Dienesch & Liden, 1986 ) developed a conceptualization of LMX comprising four dimensions reflecting different aspects of these currencies: affect (i.e., mutual affection based on interpersonal attraction), loyalty (i.e., the expression of public support for the goals and the other member’s character), contribution (i.e., the amount, direction and quality of work toward mutual goals), and professional respect (i.e., the perception of reputation and excellence). While many studies have adopted a unidimensional view of LMX (Dulebohn, Wu, & Liao, 2017 ), it is likely that high LMX is derived from different dimensions depending on circumstances (Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001 ), such as the leadership style adopted (Lee, 2005 ). Thus, the very nature of laissez-faire leadership may indicate which dimension of LMX is more likely to be solicited.

As laissez-faire leadership involves unfulfilled responsibilities, these leaders set standards that lower the value of work-related exchanges (Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ). Therefore, the task-related behaviors of employees (Graen & Scandura, 1987 ; Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2005 ) and employees’ own efforts to develop LMX (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001 ) may be limited. With laissez-faire leadership, the contribution dimension of LMX, which refers to the “perception of the amount, direction, and quality of work-oriented activity each member puts forth toward the mutual goals (explicit or implicit) of the dyad” (Dienesch & Liden, 1986 , p. 624), is likely affected (e.g., Lee, 2005 ). From the employee’s perspective, LMX’s contribution reflects the subordinate’s willingness to help the leader and contribute to his or her goals. Following social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), laissez-faire leaders do not encourage subordinates to contribute to mutual goals over what is included in their job descriptions as they may think they do not receive their dues (e.g., support, recognition) in the relationship with the leader. It is also likely that LMX’s contribution dimension is mostly affected in response to laissez-faire leadership because it is the only dimension that reflects the exchange from a behavioral perspective. The other dimensions ( affect , loyalty , and respect ) do not refer to the behavioral component of the exchange relationship. Laissez-faire leaders echo to this dimension by not taking actions that would signal support and recognition to subordinates. It is thus the absence of constructive behaviors (Kelloway et al., 2006 ) in laissez-faire leaders that makes LMX’s contribution mostly affected.

However, as theory has stipulated that because of limited resources and time, leaders differentiate among followers (Dansereau Jr., Graen, & Haga, 1975 ; Graen & Cashman, 1975 ; Graen & Scandura, 1987 ; Liden & Graen, 1980 ; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2005 ), distinct LMX relationships are found across followers (Boies & Howell, 2006 ; Chen et al., 2018 ; Erdogan & Bauer, 2010 ; Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, 2009 ; Herdman, Yang, & Arthur, 2017 ; Le Blanc & González-Romá, 2012 ; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006 ; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010 ). Thus, while laissez-faire leadership may lend itself to poor LMX relationships, particularly in regard to its contribution dimension, there may be variability in the extent to which employees’ relationships with their leaders are impacted by laissez-faire leadership. One factor that may explain this variability relates to employees’ self-concepts (Jackson & Johnson, 2012 ), which we now discuss.

Levels of the Self-concept

Leadership practices do not operate in a vacuum (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017 ). Rather, leaders’ behavior interacts with the characteristics of followers (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007 ). Such interactionist perspective suggests that a better understanding of leaders’ influence can be gained by accounting for followers’ expectations about leaders’ behavior. To illustrate such individual differences, research has identified the self-concept as an important background construct that guides individuals’ reactions to leaders’ behavior (Lord et al., 1999 ). The self-concept is a self-regulatory mechanism that drives self-esteem and organizes self-relevant knowledge (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ). As a chronic representation of identity that promotes a self-definition anchored at the individual, relational, or collective level, the self-concept influences how people feel, think, and behave (Lord & Brown, 2004 ; Markus & Wurf, 1987 ). Research has shown that the levels of the self-concept influence employees’ interpretations of leaders’ behavior (Chang & Johnson, 2010 ; Jackson & Johnson, 2012 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ; Lord et al., 1999 ; Wu et al., 2010 ) and influence leaders’ effectiveness (Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ; Lord et al., 1999 ). By extension, we expect the self-concept to play a similar role regarding laissez-faire leadership.

Three levels of the self-concept have been identified (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Brickson, 2000 ; Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ; Lord et al., 1999 ; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001 ; Sedikides, Gaertner, & O’Mara, 2011 ). The collective self-concept involves the self-definition derived from belonging to groups such as organizations or teams; the relational self-concept involves a focus on dyadic relationships as a source of identity; and the individual self-concept stresses an individual’s uniqueness and self-interests (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Lord et al., 1999 ; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001 ; van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). Even though the different levels may coexist within the same person, individuals differ regarding the importance they place on each level of the self-concept (Brewer & Chen, 2007 ).

Although the employee self-concept has been shown to exert a moderating role on leader effectiveness, this effect has been mostly studied using the collective self-concept (Hogg, 2001 ; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003 ; Lord et al., 1999 ; Lord & Brown, 2004 ; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003 ). However, the relational self-concept has been largely overlooked. This is surprising because individuals are more likely to be affected by threats at the relational level than by those at the collective level of the self (Gaertner et al., 2012 ). Moreover, the relational identity becomes relevant when one looks at the outcomes of the leader’s actions from the perspective of the dyadic relationship (i.e., LMX; Chang & Johnson, 2010 ; Lord et al., 1999 ; Schyns & Day, 2010 ). As subordinates with strong relational self-concepts place a premium on dyadic exchanges (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016 ) and affective bonds with specific others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ), their self-worth should be particularly dependent on how their leader responds to their relational expectations.

Moderating Role of the Relational Self-concept

Reliable role performance is rooted in how interactions between leader and subordinate unfold and whether the partners’ role expectations are fulfilled (Graen & Scandura, 1987 ). By abdicating the responsibilities related to their role, laissez-faire leaders violate subordinates’ role expectations (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003 ; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a ; Skogstad et al., 2007 ). However, the discrepancy between employees’ expectations and leaders’ behavior is likely stronger among employees with a relational self-identity because these employees are particularly sensitive to the fulfillment of role expectations (Andersen & Chen, 2002 ). Indeed, these employees have important relational needs, entertain affective ties with significant others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Flynn, 2005 ; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016 ), and expect dyadic partners to engage in behaviors that satisfy their relational expectations. Therefore, they are likely to feel frustrated if their leader does not engage in actions liable to maintain the relationship vivid and constructive.

Laissez-faire leaders may discourage employees from investing resources in LMX (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007 ; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012 ). Per the tenets of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), a balance is expected between inputs and contributions in LMX relationships (Kuvaas, Buch, Dysvik, & Haerem, 2012 ). As laissez-faire leaders fall short of maintaining balanced relationships (e.g., they delay decisions and do not take actions when needed), employees with relational self-concepts would experience this as a threat to their identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ; Flynn, 2005 ). This is so because they tend to define themselves in terms of their relations with others (Ferris, Yan, Lim, Chen, & Fatimah, 2016 ). Employees with a relational self-concept may thus experience their sense of self-worth as being undermined by the laissez-faire behavior of their leader (Swann Jr., Chang-Schneider, & Angulo, 2007 ), which would lower their motivation to cooperate with him or her (Tyler, 2003 ). As a result, employees with a relational self-concept may thrive to protect themselves by reducing their contribution to the relationship (Flynn, 2005 ). Thus, the lack of reciprocity (Herdman et al., 2017 ) instilled by laissez-faire behaviors would encourage these employees to reduce their contributions to the attainment of mutual goals, which represents an integral aspect of LMX (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001 ). In sum, these employees would fall back on formal and contractual obligations (Erdogan & Liden, 2002 ; Liden & Graen, 1980 ; Shore, Bommer, Rao, & Seo, 2009 ).

Hypothesis 1 : The employee’s relational self-concept will moderate the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and LMX-Contribution such that this relationship will be stronger (vs. weaker) and negative when the relational self-concept is high (vs. low).

Affective Organizational Commitment

AOC reflects an emotional attachment to and identification with one’s organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990 ; Meyer & Allen, 1997 ). It is the most impactful component of organizational commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001 ) and the most robust predictor of work-related behaviors (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007 ). Multiple studies have reported a positive relationship between LMX and AOC (Dulebohn et al., 2012 ; Gerstner & Day, 1997 ; Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000 ). AOC is one the most studied outcomes of LMX (Eisenberger et al., 2010 ; Meyer, 2016 ; Wayne et al., 2009 ). Liden and Maslyn ( 1998 ) theorized that the contribution dimension of LMX reflects a willingness to complete tasks that go beyond one’s job description and benefit the organization as a whole. Thus, more specifically, LMX-Contribution should be positively related to AOC (Greguras & Ford, 2006 ; Lee, 2005 ; Shore & Wayne, 1993 ). Indeed, since leaders carry out responsibilities and make decisions on behalf of the organization, they are seen as representing the organization (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997 ) and as agents connecting employees to the organization (Seers & Graen, 1984 ). Therefore, positive exchange relationships between leaders and employees as reflected in strong LMX-Contribution should ultimately result in stronger AOC ( Eisenberger, Aselage, Sucharski, & Jones, 2004 ).

As argued above, we expect a higher relational self-concept to be associated with a more negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and LMX-Contribution. Following a social exchange account (Blau, 1964 ), this effect should extend to the indirect relationship between laissez-faire leadership and AOC. That is, employees with strong relational self-concepts should feel that their needs and expectations are unfulfilled when their leaders abdicate their responsibilities because dyadic relationships occupy a central place in these individuals’ self-definitions. This feeling would encourage them to reduce their contribution to mutual goals. In turn, this decreased contribution would penalize employee commitment to the organization because the relative quality of the exchange relationship with the supervisor tends to generalize to the attachment to the organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002 ).

Hypothesis 2 : The employee’s relational self-concept will moderate the indirect relationship between laissez-faire leadership and AOC through LMX-Contribution such that this indirect relationship will be stronger (vs. weaker) and negative when the relational self-concept is high (vs. low).

Sample and Procedure

Data were gathered through survey questionnaires that were administered in three waves with intervals of four months. Participants were recruited through the alumni association of a French business school. Prospective participants received an email inviting them to participate in an online study of job attitudes based on three questionnaires administered over several months. They were informed of the study objectives and ensured that participation was voluntary and responses would be kept confidential. The criteria for participation were having (a) salaried employment and (b) an identifiable supervisor. To encourage participation, the respondents had the opportunity to make a $5 gift to a charity of their choice at each wave of the surveys. The questionnaires were answered in French or English. At time 1, we measured the self-concept levels, laissez-faire leadership, LMX dimensions, AOC, and demographics, among other variables. The LMX dimensions were measured again at time 2, while AOC was also measured at time 3. The baseline (i.e., time 1) levels of the mediator (i.e., LMX-Contribution) and outcome (i.e., AOC) variables were controlled for while examining the moderation effect of the relational self-concept in the relationships among laissez-faire leadership, LMX-Contribution, and AOC. This approach provided a strong test of the longitudinal moderated mediation effects (Maxwell & Cole, 2007 ).

Excluding careless respondents ( n  = 4) and participants who left supervisors or organizations during the study period ( n  = 60), there remained 449 respondents at time 1, 182 at time 2, and 120 at time 3 (i.e., 27% response rate). We first examined whether respondent attrition across time was randomly distributed. Specifically, we conducted a logistic regression analysis with time 1 self-concept levels, laissez-faire leadership, LMX dimensions, AOC, and demographics predicting the probability of remaining in the sample at time 3 (Goodman & Blum, 1996 ). The logistic regression model was nonsignificant ( χ 2 (13) = 15.15, ns ) and none of the predictors was significant, indicating random attrition. Because the data were missing completely at random across time, we used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation within structural equations modeling (see Results section) to test hypotheses (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ). This estimation procedure uses all the available information from the covariance matrix ( N  = 449) and is the recommended method for dealing with missing data (Newman, 2009 ).

In the final sample used for analyses, age averaged 37.67 years ( SD  = 9.00), organizational tenure averaged 6.07 years ( SD  = 5.67), and tenure with the supervisor averaged 2.95 years ( SD  = 2.28). Most of the participants were women (63%), worked full-time (92%), had a graduate-level education (94%), and were employed in organizations of 1000 or more employees (56%). They worked in various industries, such as finance and insurance (15%), professional, scientific and technical services (11%), manufacturing (7%), health care and social assistance (5%), retail trade (5%), and information and cultural industries (4%).

When needed, French versions of the English scales were created using a translation-back-translation procedure (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003 ). Responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), unless otherwise specified.

We measured laissez-faire leadership at time 1 using a 7-item version (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008a , 2008b ) of the laissez-faire scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1991 ). A sample item is “[In the past few weeks] my immediate supervisor avoided making decisions about my work,” with response options of 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .93.

LMX-Contribution

Participants answered the 12-item multidimensional measure of LMX (LMX-MDM) developed by Liden and Maslyn ( 1998 ) at time 1 and time 2, which contains four 3-item scales pertaining to the four LMX dimensions. The internal consistency for the 3-item LMX-Contribution scale was .79 at time 1 and .80 at time 2. A sample item is “I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description.” For exploratory purposes, we also measured the other LMX dimensions using their respective 3-item scales: affect (e.g., “I like my supervisor very much as a person”; α  = .90 at time 1 and .91 at time 2); loyalty (e.g., “My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake”; α  = .91 at time 1 and .90 at time 2); and professional respect (e.g., “I admire my supervisor’s professional skills”; α  = .94 at time 1 and .95 at time 2).

We measured AOC at time 1 and time 3 using an adapted version (Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, & Stinglhamber, 2005 ) of Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s ( 1993 ) 6-item scale that was developed for international replications (cf., Meyer, Barak, & Vandenberghe, 1996 ). A typical item is “I feel emotionally attached to this organization.” The alpha coefficient for this scale was .93 at time 1 and time 3.

Relational Self-concept

The relational self-concept was measured at time 1 through a 5-item scale developed by Selenta and Lord ( 2005 ) and used in Johnson et al. ( 2006 ). A factor analysis of the scale items indicated that one item (“Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person”) had a low loading on the factor (< .40) and reduced its internal consistency. Hence, we dropped that item from the scale. The remaining 4-item scale had a reliability of .71. A sample item is “If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacrificing my time or money.”

Control Variables

While testing our hypotheses and model, we controlled for the individual and collective levels of the self-concept, as other researchers have done (e.g., Johnson & Chang, 2008 ; Johnson et al., 2006 ). Indeed, as the three levels of the self-concept are generally correlated with one another (Kashima & Hardie, 2000 ), controlling for the individual and collective self-concepts helps avoid confounding effects. The individual ( α  = .82) and collective ( α  = .77) self-concepts were each measured at time 1 by a 5-item scale from Selenta and Lord ( 2005 ) (see also Johnson et al., 2006 ). Sample items include “I often compete with my friends” and “It is important to me to make a lasting contribution to groups that I belong to,” respectively.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

First, as a preliminary test, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through Mplus 7.31 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010 ) and maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to examine the dimensionality of the LMX measure at time 2. We allowed the errors of items 7 and 8 of the scale to correlate, which is recommended when there is wording similarity (Marsh et al., 2010 , 2013 ). The four-factor model of time 2 LMX yielded a good fit ( χ 2 (47) = 87.00, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .043) and outperformed a one-factor model ( Δ χ 2 (6) = 599.09, p  < .001), supporting the idea of treating LMX dimensions (e.g., LMX-Contribution) separately. Similarly, the eight-factor model including the four LMX dimensions at time 1 and time 2 yielded a good fit ( χ 2 (212) = 558.06, CFI = .95, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06) and outperformed a two-factor model (time 1 LMX vs. time 2 LMX) ( χ 2 (27) = 1717.26, p  < .001) and a one-factor model ( χ 2 (28) = 2124.89, p  < .001).

Second, we tested the distinctiveness of our variables within the hypothesized eight-factor model (i.e., time 1 laissez-faire leadership, time 1 self-concept levels, time 1 LMX-Contribution, time 1 AOC, time 2 LMX-Contribution, and time 3 AOC) and compared this model with more parsimonious models using a nested sequence approach (Bentler & Bonett, 1980 ). The FIML method was used because it relies on all the available information from the covariance matrix (e.g., Enders, 2010 ; Fitzmaurice, Laird, & Ware, 2004 ; Graham, 2009 , 2012 ) and is the recommended approach in longitudinal research when respondent attrition across time is random (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ). The errors of parallel items were allowed to correlate across time (Geiser, 2012 ). In addition, the errors of two pairs of items of the same constructs were allowed to correlate within time due to wording similarity (Marsh et al., 2010 , 2013 ) (i.e., laissez-faire: items 1 and 2; individual self-concept: items 1 and 5). These specifications were incorporated in the test of the longitudinal model (Little, 2013 ).

The CFA results are reported in Table ​ Table1. 1 . The hypothesized eight-factor model yielded a good fit ( χ 2 (663) = 1373.00, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05). Moreover, this model was superior to any simpler model obtained by merging specific factors ( p  < .01). Our variables were thus distinguishable. As evidence of convergent validity, in the eight-factor model, loadings were significant ( p  < .001) and sizeable (standardized factor loadings ranged from .48 to .90).

Fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis models

N  = 449, based on full information maximum likelihood estimation. df , degrees of freedom; CFI , comparative fit index; TLI , Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA , root mean square error of approximation; T1 , time 1; T2 , time 2; T3 , time 3; AOC , affective organizational commitment; LMX-C , leader-member exchange, contribution dimension; RSC , relational self-concept; CSC , collective self-concept; ISC , individual self-concept

* p  < .01

Measurement Invariance

Because our theoretical model controlled for time 1 LMX-Contribution and AOC, we needed to establish that their measurement was invariant across time to ensure that the construct meaning remained stable (Cole & Maxwell, 2003 ; Millsap, 2011 ). A sequential approach was adopted (e.g., Vandenberg & Lance, 2000 ) where increasingly stringent constraints were added to the CFA model of LMX-Contribution and AOC. Robust maximum likelihood (MLR) was used to test measurement invariance. The results are shown in Table ​ Table2. 2 . As we proceeded to test the sequence of constraints from configural invariance, to weak invariance (i.e., loadings), strong invariance (i.e., loadings and thresholds), and strict invariance (i.e., loadings, thresholds, and uniquenesses), the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ 2 values were nonsignificant at each step for both LMX-Contribution and AOC. 1 This finding indicates strict invariance for both variables across time, stable psychometric properties, and suitability for longitudinal analysis (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989 ; Cheung & Lau, 2012 ). Thus, these specifications were added to the longitudinal tests of our hypotheses.

Tests of measurement invariance across time

Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used. df , degrees of freedom; CFI , comparative fit index; TLI , Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA , root mean square error of approximation; SB , Santorra-Bentler scaled

* p  < .05

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability coefficients are reported in Table ​ Table3. 3 . Laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to time 2 LMX ( r  = − .22, p  < .01) but unrelated to time 3 AOC ( r  = − .15, ns ). Time 2 LMX-Contribution was positively related to time 3 AOC ( r  = .36, p  < .01). The relational self-concept was unrelated to laissez-faire leadership ( r  = − .04, ns ) and time 2 LMX-Contribution ( r  = .04, ns ) but positively correlated with time 3 AOC ( r  = .18, p  < .05).

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables

Correlations are based on the data available at a given time: T1 N  = 449, T2 N  = 182, T3 N  = 120. For gender, 1 = male, 2 = female. T1 , time 1; T2 , time 2; T3 , time 3; LMX , leader-member exchange; AOC , affective organizational commitment. Cronbach’s alphas are reported in parentheses along the diagonal

* p  < .05; ** p  < .01

Hypothesis Testing

We tested our hypotheses through latent moderated structural equation modeling (LMS; Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken, 2015 ; Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ) and maximum likelihood (i.e., FIML) estimation using numerical integration and raw data. We used the XWITH command in Mplus and robust standard errors estimation. By considering the measurement errors of the observed variables and factoring in the nonnormally distributed interactions of the latent variables, the LMS approach generates reliable estimates and unbiased standard errors, and has increased power to detect interaction effects (Cheung & Lau, 2017 ; Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ). Thus far, LMS is the most efficient and unbiased approach to testing interactions among latent variables (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ; Schermelleh-Engel, Werner, Klein, & Moosbrugger, 2010 ).

As LMS does not assume multivariate normality, commonly used fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI, TLI; Maslowsky et al., 2015 ) are not provided. We therefore followed the recommended two-step approach (Dimitruk, Schermelleh-Engel, Kelava, & Moosbrugger, 2007 ; Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ) to test our hypotheses. We first assessed the fit of a baseline model where the interaction between laissez-faire and the relational self-concept was constrained to zero. We then compared this model with a model including the interaction term. The two models were compared using a log-likelihood difference test (D-2LL; Dimitruk et al., 2007 ) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) indices (Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ). A significant D-2LL value indicates that the augmented model should be retained as the best model (Dimitruk et al., 2007 ), while smaller values for the AIC and BIC are needed to ensure that there is no dramatic loss of information relative to the baseline model (Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017 ). We used 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from 5000 bootstrap samples (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004 ) in Mplus and the ML estimator for testing the significance of the moderation and moderated mediation effects predicted in Hypotheses 1–2.

Hypothesis 1. The baseline model including the main effects of laissez-faire leadership and relational self-concept on time 2 LMX-Contribution, controlling for time 1 LMX-Contribution and the main effects of individual and collective self-concepts, yielded a good fit to the data ( χ 2 (311) = 636.83, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05). However, the moderated model outperformed the baseline model (D-2LL(1) = 10.29, p  < .01). Moreover, this model displayed smaller values for the AIC (27,594.32 vs. 27,601.25) and BIC (27,984.48 vs. 27,987.31). Thus, the moderated model was retained. As shown in Table ​ Table4, 4 , the interaction between laissez-faire leadership and the relational self-concept predicting LMX-Contribution was significant ( B  = − .67, SE  = .28, p  < .05). The interaction is graphed in Fig.  1 . Laissez-faire leadership was significantly negatively related to LMX-Contribution ( B  = − .34, SE  = .15, p  < .05) when relational self-concept was high (1 SD above the mean) but unrelated to LMX-Contribution ( B  = .26, SE  = .14, ns ) when relational self-concept was low (1 SD below the mean). Moreover, the difference between these two relationships was significant ( B  = − .60, SE  = .25, p  < .05). Interestingly, the relationship between laissez-faire leadership and LMX-Contribution was significantly negative ( p  < .05) when relational self-concept had a standardized value of at least .245 but was significantly positive ( p  < .05) when relational self-concept had a standardized value of − .572 or lower. Hypothesis 1 is thus supported.

Path analysis results for the moderation and moderated mediation models

N  = 449, based on full information maximum likelihood estimation. B , unstandardized beta coefficient; SE , standard error; CI , confidence interval; T1 , time 1; T2 , time 2; T3 , time 3; LMX-C , leader-member exchange, contribution dimension; RSC , relational self-concept; CSC , collective self-concept; ISC , individual self-concept; AOC , affective organizational commitment

* p  < .05; ** p  < .01; *** p  < .001

Interaction between laissez-faire leadership and relational self-concept (RSC) predicting LMX-Contribution. Relationships are shown at one 1 SD below and above the mean of RSC

Hypothesis 2. The moderated mediation relationship predicted in Hypothesis 2 was tested following Sardeshmukh and Vandenberg’s ( 2017 ) recommendations. We first specified a mediation model including (a) the main effects of laissez-faire leadership and relational self-concept on time 2 LMX-Contribution, controlling for time 1 LMX-Contribution, and on time 3 AOC, controlling for time 1 AOC, and (b) the effect of time 2 LMX-Contribution on time 3 AOC. Moreover, the model controlled for the main effects of the individual and collective self-concepts on time 2 LMX-Contribution and time 3 AOC. This baseline model showed an acceptable fit ( χ 2 (688) = 1328.24, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05). We then compared this model with a moderated mediation model in which relational self-identity moderated the first stage of the mediated relationship between laissez-faire leadership and time 3 AOC through time 2 LMX-Contribution. The latter model outperformed the baseline model (D-2LL(1) = 9.31, p  < .01) and displayed smaller values for the AIC (35,619.84 vs. 35,627.67) and BIC (36,161.97 vs. 36,165.69). Thus, this model was retained and used to examine the conditional indirect effects of interest.

Using bootstrapping, the indirect relationship between laissez-faire leadership and time 3 AOC through time 2 LMX-Contribution was found to be significantly negative ( B  = − .05, SE  = .03, 95% CI [− .111, − .002]) when relational self-concept was high (1 SD above the mean) but nonsignificant ( B  = .04, SE  = .02, 95% CI [− .004, .098]) when relational self-concept was low (1 SD below the mean) (Table ​ (Table4). 4 ). Moreover, the difference between these two relationships was significant ( B  = − .09, SE  = .05, 95% CI [− .197, − .007]). Notably, the conditional indirect effect of laissez-faire leadership was significantly negative ( p  < .05) when relational self-concept had a standardized value of at least .387. Hypothesis 2 is thus supported. The path estimates associated with the moderated mediation model as obtained by standardizing the data before analysis (e.g., Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000 ; Maslowsky et al., 2015 ) are reported in Fig.  2 . 2

Standardized parameter estimates for the moderated mediation model. T1, time 1; T2, time 2; T3, t3; LMX, leader-member exchange; AOC, affective organizational commitment. For the sake of parsimony, control variables (i.e., individual and collective self-concepts) are omitted (their effects are reported in Table ​ Table4). 4 ). Correlations among exogenous variables are not shown. * p  < .05; ** p  < .01; *** p  < .001

Additional Analyses

We explored the possibility that a relational self-concept could moderate the indirect relationship between laissez-faire leadership and time 3 AOC through the other dimensions of (time 2) LMX, namely affect, loyalty, and professional respect. Using the same procedure as for testing Hypothesis 2, we found the baseline models to display a good fit (LMX-Affect: χ 2 (688) = 1196.57, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04; LMX-Loyalty: χ 2 (688) = 1167.63, CFI = .94, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04; LMX-Professional respect: χ 2 (688) = 1210.72, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .04). However, the moderated mediation model with time 2 LMX-Affect, LMX-Loyalty, and LMX-Professional respect as alternative mediators did not improve over the baseline model (D-2LL(1) = 2.61, ns ; D-2LL(1) = 3.30, ns ; and D-2LL(1) = 1.65, ns ; respectively). This finding indicates that the relational self-concept did not moderate the indirect relationship between laissez-faire leadership and time 3 AOC through the other dimensions of time 2 LMX.

Similarly, we examined whether the collective and individual self-concepts exerted a similar moderating effect in our mediation model. The baseline model (which was identical in both cases) displayed a good fit ( χ 2 (688) = 1328.24, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05). Unexpectedly, for both self-concept levels, we found that the moderated mediation model improved over the baseline model (D-2LL(1) = 5.75, p  < .05 (collective self-concept); and D-2LL(1) = 5.77, p  < .05 (individual self-concept)). In these models, the interaction between laissez-faire and the collective ( B  = − .40, SE  = .17, p  < .05) and the individual ( B  = − .29, SE  = .13, p  < .05) self-concept were significant predictors of LMX-Contribution. The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and LMX-Contribution was significantly negative at high levels (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) of the collective ( B  = − .32, SE  = .13, p  < .05) and individual ( B  = − .26, SE  = .11, p  < .05) self-concept but nonsignificant at low levels (1 SD below the mean) of these moderators ( B  = .19, SE  = .15, ns ; and B  = .10, SE  = .12, ns ; respectively). Differences between the two relationships were also significant for both the collective and the individual self-concept ( B  = − .52, SE  = .22, p  < .05; and B  = − .36, SE  = .16, p  < .05, respectively).

Moreover, the indirect effect of laissez-faire leadership on AOC through LMX-Contribution was significantly negative ( B  = − .05, SE  = .02, 95% CI [− .113, − .006]) when collective self-concept was high (1 SD above the mean) but nonsignificant ( B  = .03, SE  = .02, 95% CI [− .004, .108]) when it was low (1 SD below the mean); the difference between the two effects was significant ( B  = − .08, SE  = .04, 95% CI [− .208, − .013]). In contrast, the indirect effect of laissez-faire leadership on AOC was nonsignificant at both high ( B  = − .04, SE  = .02, 95% CI [− .083, .000]) and low ( B  = .02, SE  = .02, 95% CI [− .022, .055]) levels of individual self-concept and did not differ across levels of this moderator ( B  = − .05, SE  = .03, 95% CI [− .116, .000]). We elaborate on these results in the discussion.

This study demonstrates that the relational self-concept acts as an important individual difference variable that affects the strength of the relationships among laissez-faire leadership, the LMX contribution dimension, and AOC. Using a three-wave longitudinal study, these relationships were found to be stronger and negative among employees with strong relational self-concepts. As such, this study is a preliminary attempt to examine the mechanisms and boundary conditions that explain how laissez-faire leadership practices affect subordinates’ reactions. Our conclusions are particularly robust given the use of a longitudinal approach that controlled for the baseline levels of the mediator and outcome variables. The next sections outline the implications of this study for our understanding of laissez-faire leadership.

Theoretical Implications

The overriding goal of the present study was foremost to address the theoretical gap surrounding the mechanisms and boundary conditions specifying when and how laissez-faire leadership is expected to relate to AOC. This research endeavor was timely given recent calls to increase our understanding of the effects of laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008 ; Wong & Giessner, 2018 ; Yang, 2015 ) and the need to account for subordinates’ characteristics in examining these effects (Nielsen, Skogstad, Gjerstad, & Einarsen, 2019 ). Building on the identity orientation framework (Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ), we posited that a relational self-concept drives an employee’s perception and evaluation of the appropriateness of laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Specifically, because dyadic relationships with significant others (e.g., supervisors) are an important part of an employee’s self-definition, employees with strong relational self-concepts have high expectations about their leaders’ behavior. Laissez-faire leadership violates these expectations, resulting in a reduced willingness of employees to contribute to the mutual goals associated with the relationship. As such, this study furthers our knowledge of the role of employees’ characteristics, which are usually neglected in studies about negative leadership (Schyns & Schilling, 2013 ). It also contributes to a growing body of literature that has highlighted the role of the employee self-concept as an important trait-like variable to consider in work settings (e.g., van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ).

The present results are consistent with the view that, even if laissez-faire leadership is a form of passive leadership, it can have destructive effects (e.g., Skogstad et al., 2007 ) because it can damage the employee-supervisor relationship and organizational commitment, at least when employees have strong relational self-concepts. This view extends the LMX literature, which has traditionally focused on the outcomes rather than on the predictors of LMX (Erdogan & Liden, 2002 ; Yukl, O’Donnell, & Taber, 2009 ). Furthermore, our results demonstrate that different styles of leadership may foster different aspects of LMX (e.g., Lee, 2005 ) and provide further support to the benefits of considering a disaggregated approach to the study of LMX. Moreover, previous research has mostly investigated leadership antecedents that may foster LMX, such as transformational leadership (e.g., Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005 ), neglecting those leadership styles that act as negative antecedents of LMX. The present results suggest that LMX is affected by negative forms of leadership, which should encourage researchers to examine negative reciprocity as a specific mechanism accounting for the sensitivity of LMX to negative leadership.

Nonetheless, the present findings suggest that the negative effects of laissez-faire leadership are not universal. Rather, these effects particularly occur when employees hold strong relational self-concepts. As such, the relational self-concept is particularly important to explain the impact of laissez-faire leadership on AOC, possibly because individuals with relational self-concepts are more inclined to direct their affective reactions toward their exchange partners (Flynn, 2005 ), which are then generalized to the organization. Consequently, it appears important to consider the intraindividual context of laissez-faire leadership. Our results also echo Johnson and Chang’s ( 2008 ) proposition that individual differences may calibrate employees’ relative sensitivity to the antecedents of AOC. The present findings indicate that employees with low relational self-concepts do not reduce their contribution to mutual goals when they are exposed to laissez-faire leadership. They may even increase this contribution when they hold very low relational self-concepts. Thus, laissez-faire leadership cannot be said to be universally detrimental to employees’ relationship with supervisors and attachment to the organization. This observation goes against the literature that has concluded to consistent negative effects of laissez-faire leadership across situations and contexts (e.g., Bass & Bass, 2008 ).

As self-concepts and their associated needs shape the perception and interpretation of what constitutes appropriate leader behavior, it is actually the congruence between leader behavior and employees’ expectations and needs that would drive employee reactions (e.g., Wong & Giessner, 2018 ). Thus, leaders need to adjust their behavior to followers’ characteristics, an argument set forth by the theories of situational or contingent leadership (Fiedler, 2006 ; Vroom & Jago, 2007 ; Yukl, 2010 ). By extension, one may think that followers differ in their needs for leadership and that it is the nonresponse to employees’ specific needs that has the largest influence (de Vries, Roe, & Taillieu, 2002 ). In sum, this study provides a preliminary answer to Bass and Bass’s ( 2008 , p. 1193) call for addressing the question of “when is laissez-faire leadership appropriate and effective?”

Directions for Future Research

Unexpectedly, all three levels of the self-concept were found to enhance the impact of laissez-faire leadership. Therefore, in addition to the relational expectations associated with the relational self-concept, other mechanisms may come into play. One potential mechanism is that individuals may be sensitive to any threat to their self-definitions and the accomplishment of the goals they are striving for (e.g., Leavitt & Sluss, 2015 ). Laissez-faire leaders would have negative effects because they would fall short of meeting the expectations and goals associated with all three self-concept levels. We speculate that when any level of the self-concept is high, a feeling of identity threat will emerge from exposure to laissez-faire leadership. For example, as employees with strong individual self-concepts are committed to achieve career goals (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010 ), they may be frustrated by laissez-faire leaders because they do not take actions that facilitate their career progress. Similarly, employees with strong collective self-concepts take the well-being of their workgroup to heart (Johnson et al., 2010 ) and may thus be disappointed to see laissez-faire leaders not working at building cohesion within their workgroup, which would threaten their identities as members of the group. This may reduce their contributions to mutual goals and ultimately AOC. In line with these avenues for future inquiry, past research has suggested that the same leadership style may influence multiple identity-related processes among employees (e.g., Wu et al., 2010 ). Future research is needed to examine how laissez-faire leadership can threaten the achievement of the goals associated with each of the self-concept levels.

Another avenue for future research would be to examine why leaders engage in laissez-faire behaviors. Do they simply engage in laissez-faire behaviors unknowingly or because they do not have the desire, the knowledge, or the resources to fulfill their prescribed role? Courtright, Colbert, and Choi ( 2014 ) suggested that leaders may engage in such behaviors due to developmental challenges and emotional exhaustion. Studying the antecedents of and potential explanations for such behaviors would increase our knowledge regarding when laissez-faire leadership behaviors emerge in the workplace, hence contributing to leadership development (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014 ). While these reasons may differ across leaders, identifying those factors that foster laissez-faire practices would help work against its potentially harmful effects and implement interventions that limit their occurrence. For example, examining leaders’ own self-concept levels would be worthwhile (van Knippenberg et al., 2004 ). Speculatively, leaders with strong individual self-concepts may be more focused on their own ambitions and personal goals, thus neglecting employees’ needs, which may pave the way for laissez-faire behaviors. These leaders may want to move up the corporate ladder and think that a management position is a step toward this goal, even in the absence of a personal desire to supervise employees. Previous research has associated the individual self-concept with more frequent abusive behaviors (Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao, & Chang, 2012 ). This logic could be extended to laissez-faire leadership, with stronger individual self-concepts making leaders more prone to engage in laissez-faire behaviors.

More generally, laissez-faire leadership remains an understudied form of leadership. One area where more work is needed concerns the similarities and differences between laissez-faire leadership and other destructive forms of leadership. In a recent meta-analysis of destructive leadership in military contexts, Fosse, Skogstad, Einarsen, and Martinussen ( 2019 ) found that active-destructive leadership (e.g., abusive supervision, supervisor undermining) and passive-destructive leadership (e.g., laissez-faire) had similar negative relationships with job performance, job attitudes, and employee health and well-being. However, as LMX was not included in the outcomes addressed in this meta-analytic review, it remains unclear how the different forms of destructive leadership distinctively contribute to undermine LMX development and whether some LMX dimensions are particularly affected by them. Future research should thus attempt to disentangle the effects of the different forms of destructive leadership on LMX development.

Practical Implications

Organizations should train leaders to detect, reduce, and understand the implications of laissez-faire behaviors, just as they do for positive leadership practices. This approach would help practitioners to know not only when to act but also when not to act. Practitioners should be aware that appropriate actions may not only depend on situations per se but on an employee’s specific needs as well. Discrepancies between the leader’s behaviors and the employee’s expectations or specific needs may explain the relative impact of laissez-faire leadership. Therefore, interventions implemented to increase the quality of relationships between employees and leaders and to foster organizational commitment must be adapted based on employees’ levels of the self-concept because these levels drive their expectations. As our research has shown, even individuals who tend to focus on contributing to others’ well-being (i.e., with a strong relational self-concept; Brewer & Gardner, 1996 ) are still capable of developing attitudes and behaviors that go against their natural tendencies. Thus, laissez-faire leadership may result in the relational potential of employees being wasted because it promotes inappropriate behaviors. Practitioners should take the time to get to know their employees’ needs and self-concepts, communicate on these aspects, and strive to fulfill employees’ expectations. Hence, organizations should pay greater attention to the diversity of employees’ characteristics to fully realize the potential of their employees. Recognizing the diversity of identity-related expectations should be reflected in programs and practices, such as recruitment and socialization processes (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016 ), that are tied to employees’ self-concept orientations (Pratt, 2000 ). By taking advantage of these diverse opportunities, organizations could build stronger bonds and hope for better performance and increased retention among employees.

Limitations

As study measures were self-reported, common method bias may be an issue (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012 ). Nonetheless, self-reports might be appropriate given our focus on perceptions of self-identity levels and attitudes in the workplace (Conway & Lance, 2010 ; Spector, 2006 ). Previous research on the self-concept has indeed traditionally relied on self-report measures (Byrne, 2002 ). Moreover, our longitudinal analysis controlled for the baseline levels of both the mediator (i.e., LMX-Contribution) and outcome (i.e., AOC) variables, thus considerably reducing any endogeneity related to our findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ) and lending confidence to their robustness. Furthermore, because our hypotheses focused on the interaction between laissez-faire leadership and the relational self-concept, common method variance is unlikely to have affected the findings (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010 ). We also recognize that this study used a specific sample of highly educated employees from a culturally individualistic context. It is possible that different results would be found in a collectivistic culture, as self-concepts are known to be developed in relation to the social context and to vary across cultures (Oyserman, 2001 ). Hence, people from a Western culture would have stronger individual self-concepts, while those from Eastern countries would possess stronger collective identities (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997 ). Nonetheless, even if some findings seem to support a universalist perspective of the self (Sedikides et al., 2011 ), future research is needed to further examine the generalizability of our findings. Finally, we used the LMX-MDM measure (Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ) to capture the social exchange-based relationship between employees and leaders. However, this instrument has been criticized for providing an imperfect assessment of social exchange, leading to the development of leader-member social exchange (LMSX) as an alternative measure of the construct (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2007 ). It would be worth exploring whether the current findings could be replicated using this alternative measure of social exchange relationships in employee-supervisor dyads.

The present study indicates that laissez-faire leadership negatively relates to AOC through decreased levels of the LMX contribution dimension but only when the employee’s relational self-concept is high. As such, this study highlights how relational expectations can strengthen the (negative) impact of laissez-faire leadership and reveals that it is through employees’ reduced contribution to mutual goals that AOC comes to be affected by laissez-faire leadership. We hope the present study will encourage future attempts at exploring the conditions and mechanisms associated with the effects of laissez-faire leadership in organizations.

1 Note that we did not allow the errors of T1 item 1 and T2 item 1 to correlate in the invariance tests of the LMX-Contribution scale across time because the models including that specification did not converge.

2 Although our study controlled for the baseline levels of the mediator (LMX-Contribution) and AOC, the data were not cross-lagged, making it possible that AOC drives LMX-Contribution over time. To examine this possibility, we used data from a separate sample to test a cross-lagged model of LMX-Contribution and AOC over a period of 6 months. These data were part of a larger project examining job attitudes and the study was conducted in French. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from the network of the research team. The time 1 sample comprised 312 respondents. In this initial sample, 22 participants changed organizations and 37 participants changed supervisors before the time 2 survey (i.e., six months later), hence were dropped, reducing the sample to 253 individuals. In this sample, 119 participants provided usable responses at time 2. We first examined whether attrition over time was randomly distributed by conducting a logistic regression analysis predicting the probability of remaining in (vs. being dropped from) the final sample among time 1 respondents ( N  = 253) using time 1 variables (i.e., LMX-Contribution and AOC) as predictors. The logistic regression model was nonsignificant ( χ 2 (2) = 3.51, ns ) and none of the predictors was significant. This indicates that data were missing completely at random (MCAR; Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ) over time, allowing us to examine our cross-lagged model using all the available information from the covariance matrix ( N  = 253) through the FIML method and MLR in Mplus (version 7.31 was used; Muthén & Muthén, 2010 ). In the sample ( N  = 253), 63% of the participants were female, average age was 38.77 years ( SD  = 10.22), and average organizational tenure was 7.89 years ( SD  = 6.05). Participants worked in a variety of industries such as professional, scientific and technical services (23%), health services and social assistance (18%), and finance, insurance, real estate and public administration (16%). AOC was measured using the same 6-item, adapted version of Meyer et al.’s ( 1993 ) original scale (Bentein et al., 2005 ) as in the main study. The same 3-item scale of LMX-Contribution from the LMX-MDM instrument (Liden & Maslyn, 1998 ) as in the main study was also used. The internal consistency was good for both AOC ( α s = .88 and .89 at time 1 and time 2, respectively) and LMX-Contribution ( α s = .76 and .74 at time 1 and time 2, respectively). The strict invariance model was used for AOC and the weak invariance model was used for LMX-Contribution because adding further constraints revealed significant differences with less constrained models of invariance. Nonetheless, retaining weak invariance still allows testing the relations among latent constructs (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000 ). The cross-lagged model yielded a good fit to the data ( χ 2 (141) = 223.77, p  < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05). In this model, time 1 LMX-Contribution was significantly related to time 2 AOC ( B  = .24, SE  = .09, p  < .01), controlling for its autoregressive effect ( B  = .67, SE  = .08, p  < .001). In contrast, time 1 AOC did not relate to time 2 LMX-Contribution ( B  = .01, SE  = .10, ns ), controlling for its autoregressive effect ( B  = .74, SE  = .13, p  < .001). These results provide support for the idea that LMX-Contribution temporally precedes AOC, which is consistent with the model presented in Fig.  2 .

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Véronique Robert, Email: [email protected] .

Christian Vandenberghe, Email: [email protected] .

• Aasland MS, Skogstad A, Notelaers G, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management. 2010; 21 :438–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen NJ, Meyer JP. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1990; 63 :1–8. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersen SM, Chen S. The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review. 2002; 109 :619–645. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aryee S, Chen ZX, Sun LY, Debrah YA. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92 :191–201. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashforth BE, Schinoff BS. Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2016; 3 :111–137. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio BJ. Full range leadership development. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM. Transformational leadership: Industrial military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Multifactor leadership questionnaire (form 5X) Center for Leadership Studies: School of Management, Binghamton University; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM, Bass R. The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. 4. New York: Free Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass BM, Stogdill RM. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. 3. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology. 2001; 5 :323–370. doi: 10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentein K, Vandenberg RJ, Vandenberghe C, Stinglhamber F. The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90 :468–482. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.468. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980; 88 :588–606. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernerth JB, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, Giles WF, Walker HJ. Leader-member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007; 28 :979–1003. doi: 10.1002/job.443. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boies K, Howell JM. Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2006; 17 :246–257. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer MB, Chen Y-R. Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review. 2007; 114 :133–151. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer MB, Gardner W. Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 71 :83–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brickson S. The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review. 2000; 25 :82–101. doi: 10.2307/259264. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buch R, Martinsen ØL, Kuvaas B. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior: The mediating role of economic leader–member exchange relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2015; 22 :115–124. doi: 10.1177/1548051813515302. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne BM. Validating the measurement and structure of self-concept: Snapshots of past, present, and future research. American Psychologist. 2002; 57 :897–909. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.897. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin. 1989; 105 :456–466. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang C-H, Johnson RE. Not all leader–member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational identity. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21 :796–808. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Che XX, Zhou ZE, Kessler SR, Spector PE. Stressors beget stressors: The effect of passive leadership on employee health through workload and work–family conflict. Work & Stress. 2017; 31 :338–354. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1317881. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen XP, He W, Weng LC. What is wrong with treating followers differently? The basis of leader–member exchange differentiation matters. Journal of Management. 2018; 44 :946–971. doi: 10.1177/0149206315598372. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung GW, Lau RS. A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods. 2012; 15 :167–198. doi: 10.1177/1094428111421987. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung GW, Lau RS. Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods. 2017; 20 :746–769. doi: 10.1177/1094428115595869. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003; 112 :558–577. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway JM, Lance CE. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010; 25 :325–334. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Courtright SH, Colbert AE, Choi D. Fired up or burned out? How developmental challenge differentially impacts leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014; 99 :681–696. doi: 10.1037/a0035790. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dansereau F, Jr, Graen G, Haga WJ. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1975; 13 :46–78. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day DV, Fleenor JW, Atwater LE, Sturm RE, McKee RA. Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly. 2014; 25 :63–82. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Cremer, D. (2003). A relational perspective on leadership and cooperation: Why it matters to care and be fair. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 109–122). London, UK: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781446216170.n9.
• de Vries RE, Roe RA, Taillieu TC. Need for leadership as a moderator of the relationships between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002; 13 :121–137. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00097-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Den Hartog DN, Van Muijen JJ, Koopman PL. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 1997; 70 :19–34. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dienesch RM, Liden RC. Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review. 1986; 11 :618–634. doi: 10.5465/amr.1986.4306242. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dimitruk P, Schermelleh-Engel K, Kelava A, Moosbrugger H. Challenges in nonlinear structural equation modeling. Methodology. 2007; 3 :100–114. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.3.3.100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dulebohn JH, Bommer WH, Liden RC, Brouer RL, Ferris GR. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management. 2012; 38 :1715–1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dulebohn JH, Wu D, Liao C. Does liking explain variance above and beyond LMX? A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review. 2017; 27 :149–166. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dumdum UR, Lowe KB, Avolio BJ. A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In: Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ, editors. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science; 2002. pp. 35–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :569–591. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Einarsen S, Aasland MS, Skogstad A. Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007; 18 :207–216. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R, Aselage J, Sucharski IL, Jones JR. Perceived organizational support. In: Coyle-Shapiro J, Shore L, Taylor S, Tetrick L, editors. The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. pp. 207–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE, Gonzalez-Morales MG, Steiger-Mueller M. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95 :1085–1103. doi: 10.1037/a0020858. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F, Vandenberghe C, Sucharski IL, Rhoades L. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :565–573. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Enders CK. Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epitropaki O, Kark R, Mainemelis C, Lord RG. Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly. 2017; 28 :104–129. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erdogan B, Bauer TN. Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95 :1104–1120. doi: 10.1037/a0020578. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erdogan B, Liden RC. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In: Neider LL, Schriesheim CA, editors. Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2002. pp. 65–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferris DL, Yan M, Lim VK, Chen Y, Fatimah S. An approach–avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal. 2016; 59 :1777–1800. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0221. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fiedler FE. The contingency model: A theory of leadership effectiveness. In: Levine JM, Moreland RL, editors. Small groups: Key readings. New York: Psychology Press; 2006. pp. 369–381. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH. Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flynn FJ. Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2005; 30 :737–750. doi: 10.2307/20159165. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fosse TH, Skogstad A, Einarsen SV, Martinussen M. Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2019; 28 :708–722. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1634550. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaertner L, Sedikides C, Luke M, O’Mara EM, Iuzzini J, Jackson LE, Cai H, Wu Q. A motivational hierarchy within: Primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012; 48 :997–1013. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geiser C. Data analysis with Mplus. New York: Guilford Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerstner CR, Day DV. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82 :827–844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman JS, Blum TC. Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management. 1996; 22 :627–652. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graen GB, Cashman JF. A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In: Hunt JG, Larson LL, editors. Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press; 1975. pp. 143–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graen GB, Scandura TA. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1987; 9 :175–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham JW. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009; 60 :549–576. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham JW. Missing data: Analysis and design. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greguras GJ, Ford JM. An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2006; 79 :433–465. doi: 10.1348/096317905X53859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson D, Liden R, Glibkowski B, Chaudhry A. LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2009; 20 :517–534. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herdman AO, Yang J, Arthur JB. How does leader-member exchange disparity affect teamwork behavior and effectiveness in work groups? The moderating role of leader-leader exchange. Journal of Management. 2017; 43 :1498–1523. doi: 10.1177/0149206314556315. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinkin TR, Schriesheim CA. An examination of "nonleadership": From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008; 93 :1234–1248. doi: 10.1037/a0012875. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinkin TR, Schriesheim CA. A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) The Leadership Quarterly. 2008; 19 :501–513. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg MA. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2001; 5 :184–200. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg MA, Martin R, Weeden K. Leader-member relations and social identity. In: van Knippenberg D, Hogg MA, editors. Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 18–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg MA, van Knippenberg D. Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2003. pp. 1–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson EM, Johnson RE. When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 :488–501. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RE, Chang CH. Relationships between organizational commitment and its antecedents: Employee self-concept matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2008; 38 :513–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00315.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RE, Chang C-H, Yang L-Q. Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review. 2010; 35 :226–245. doi: 10.5465/amr.35.2.zok226. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RE, Saboe KN. Measuring implicit traits in organizational research: Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research Methods. 2011; 14 :530–547. doi: 10.1177/1094428110363617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RE, Selenta C, Lord RG. When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2006; 99 :175–201. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RE, Venus M, Lanaj K, Mao C, Chang C-H. Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012; 97 :1262–1272. doi: 10.1037/a0029043. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge TA, Piccolo RF. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004; 89 :755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kashima ES, Hardie EA. The development and validation of the relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2000; 3 :19–48. doi: 10.1111/1467-839X.00053. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelloway EK, Mullen J, Francis L. Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006; 11 :76–86. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelloway EK, Sivanathan N, Francis L, Barling J. Poor leadership. In: Barling J, Kelloway EK, Frone MR, editors. Handbook of work stress. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2005. pp. 89–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitayama S, Markus HR, Matsumoto H, Norasakkunkit V. Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997; 72 :1245–1267. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.72.6.1245. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein A, Moosbrugger H. Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika. 2000; 65 :457–474. doi: 10.1007/BF02296338. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuvaas B, Buch R, Dysvik A, Haerem T. Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 :756–765. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavelle JJ, Rupp DE, Brockner J. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management. 2007; 33 :841–866. doi: 10.1177/0149206307307635. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law KS, Wang H, Hui C. Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee task performance and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2010; 27 :625–646. doi: 10.1007/s10490-009-9141-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Blanc PM, González-Romá V. A team level investigation of the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 2012; 23 :534–544. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leavitt K, Sluss DM. Lying for who we are: An identity-based model of workplace dishonesty. Academy of Management Review. 2015; 40 :587–610. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0167. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J. Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2005; 26 :655–672. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633728. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Erdogan B, Wayne SJ, Sparrowe RT. Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2006; 27 :1–24. doi: 10.1002/job.409. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Graen G. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal. 1980; 23 :451–465. doi: 10.2307/255511. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Maslyn JM. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management. 1998; 24 :43–72. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Sparrowe RT. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2000; 85 :407–416. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little TD. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, Brown DJ. Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly. 2001; 12 :133–152. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00072-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, Brown DJ. Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lord RG, Brown DJ, Freiberg SJ. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1999; 78 :167–203. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2832. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe KB, Kroeck KG, Sivasubramaniam N. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly. 1996; 7 :385–425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004; 39 :99–128. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H, Wurf E. The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology. 1987; 38 :299–337. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh HW, Abduljabbar AS, Abu-Hilal MM, Morin AJS, Abdelfattah F, Leung KC, Xu MK, Nagengast B, Parker P. Factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity of TIMSS math and science motivation measures: A comparison of Arab and Anglo-Saxion countries. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105 :108–128. doi: 10.1037/a0029907. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh HW, Ludtke O, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Morin AJS, Trautwein U, Nagengast B. A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment. 2010; 22 :471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslowsky J, Jager J, Hemken D. Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2015; 39 :87–96. doi: 10.1177/0165025414552301. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslyn JM, Uhl-Bien M. Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86 :697–708. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslyn JM, Uhl-Bien M. LMX differentiation: Key concepts and related empirical findings. In: Graen GB, Graen JA, editors. Global organizing designs (LMX leadership: The series) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; 2005. pp. 73–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods. 2007; 12 :23–44. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer JP. Handbook of employee commitment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452231556.
• Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78 :538–551. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer, J. P., Barak, I. & Vandenberghe, C. (1996). Revised measures of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to organizations . Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
• Meyer JP, Herscovitch L. Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review. 2001; 11 :299–326. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Millsap E. Statistical methods for studying measurement invariance. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide, version 6.1. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman DA. Missing data techniques and low response rates: The role of systematic nonresponse parameters. In: Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ, editors. Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009. pp. 7–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen MB, Skogstad A, Gjerstad J, Einarsen SV. Are transformational and laissez-faire leadership related to state anxiety among subordinates? A two-wave prospective study of forward and reverse associations. Work & Stress. 2019; 33 :137–155. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2018.1528307. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oyserman D. Self-concept and identity. In: Tesser A, Schwarz N, editors. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intraindividual processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2001. pp. 499–517. [ Google Scholar ]
• Padilla A, Hogan R, Kaiser RB. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly. 2007; 18 :176–194. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ployhart RE, Vandenberg RJ. Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management. 2010; 36 :94–120. doi: 10.1177/0149206309352110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 :879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012; 63 :539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt MG. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2000; 45 :456–493. doi: 10.2307/2667106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sardeshmukh SR, Vandenberg RJ. Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation modeling approach. Organizational Research Methods. 2017; 20 :721–745. doi: 10.1177/1094428115621609. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6 , 169–215. 10.1177/1094428103251542.
• Schermelleh-Engel K, Werner CS, Klein AG, Moosbrugger H. Nonlinear structural equation modeling: Is partial least squares an alternative? AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis. 2010; 94 :167–184. doi: 10.1007/s10182-010-0132-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schyns B, Day DV. Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2010; 19 :1–29. doi: 10.1080/13594320903024922. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schyns B, Schilling J. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly. 2013; 24 :138–158. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedikides C, Brewer MB. Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedikides C, Gaertner L, O’Mara EM. Individual self, relational self, collective self: Hierarchical ordering of the tripartite self. Psychological Studies. 2011; 56 :98–107. doi: 10.1007/s12646-011-0059-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seers A, Graen GB. The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1984; 33 :283–306. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(84)90025-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selenta C, Lord RG. Development of the levels of self–concept scale: Measuring the individual, relational, and collective levels. University of Akron: Unpublished manuscript; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shore LM, Bommer WH, Rao AN, Seo J. Social and economic exchange in the employee-organization relationship: The moderating role of reciprocation wariness. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2009; 24 :701–721. doi: 10.1108/02683940910996752. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shore LM, Wayne SJ. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78 :774–780. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.774. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siemsen E, Roth A, Oliveira P. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods. 2010; 13 :456–476. doi: 10.1177/1094428109351241. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skarlicki DP, Folger R. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997; 82 :434–443. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skogstad A, Aasland MS, Nielsen MB, Hetland J, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2014; 222 :221–232. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000189. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skogstad A, Einarsen S, Torsheim T, Aasland MS, Hetland H. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2007; 12 :80–92. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skogstad A, Hetland J, Glasø L, Einarsen S. Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity. Work & Stress. 2014; 28 :323–341. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.957362. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spector PE. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods. 2006; 9 :221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swann WB, Jr, Chang-Schneider C, Angulo S. Self-verification in relationships as an adaptive process. In: Wood J, Tesser A, Holmes J, editors. Self and relationships. New York: Psychology Press; 2007. pp. 49–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tepper BJ. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal. 2000; 43 :178–190. doi: 10.2307/1556375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tepper BJ. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management. 2007; 33 :261–289. doi: 10.1177/0149206307300812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler TR. Justice, identity, and leadership. In: van Knippenberg D, Hogg MA, editors. Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2003. pp. 94–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg B, Steensma H. Future interaction expectation and the use of soft and hard influence tactics. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 2003; 52 :55–67. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg D, Hogg MA. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2003; 25 :243–295. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Knippenberg D, van Knippenberg B, De Cremer D, Hogg MA. Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. 2004; 15 :825–856. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. 2000; 3 :4–70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom VH, Jago AG. The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist. 2007; 62 :17–24. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang D, Chen ZX. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal. 2005; 48 :420–432. doi: 10.2307/20159668. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wayne SJ, Coyle-Shapiro JA-M, Eisenberger R, Liden RC, Rousseau DM, Shore LM. Social influences. In: Klein HJ, Becker TE, Meyer JP, editors. Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2009. pp. 253–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wisse B, Sleebos E. When change causes stress: Effects of self-construal and change consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2016; 31 :249–264. doi: 10.1007/s10869-015-9411-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong SI, Giessner SR. The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management. 2018; 44 :757–783. doi: 10.1177/0149206315574597. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu JB, Tsui AS, Kinicki AJ. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal. 2010; 53 :90–106. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu E, Huang X, Lam CK, Miao Q. Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2012; 33 :531–543. doi: 10.1002/job.768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yammarino FJ, Spangler WD, Bass BM. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly. 1993; 4 :81–102. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(93)90005-E. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang I. Positive effects of laissez-faire leadership: Conceptual exploration. Journal of Management Development. 2015; 34 :1246–1261. doi: 10.1108/JMD-02-2015-0016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang I, Li M. Can absent leadership be positive in team conflicts? An examination of leaders’ avoidance behavior in China. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2017; 28 :146–165. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-12-2015-0083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G. Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukl G, O’Donnell M, Taber T. Influence of leader behaviors on the leader-member exchange relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2009; 24 :289–299. doi: 10.1108/02683940910952697. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zellars KL, Tepper BJ, Duffy MK. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87 :1068–1076. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1068. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Laissez-Faire Leadership?

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Characteristics

Disadvantages.

• Leaders' Strengths

When to Avoid

Tips to improve, are you a laissez-faire leader.

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of  leadership style  in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Researchers have found that this is generally the leadership style that leads to the lowest productivity among group members.

This leadership style can have both benefits and possible pitfalls. There are also certain settings and situations where laissez-faire leadership might be the most appropriate.

To help make laissez-faire leadership more effective, leaders can check in on work performance and give regular feedback. It's also helpful for leaders to recognize when this style should be best utilized, such as with team members who are experts at what they do.

Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by the following:

• Hands-off approach
• Leaders provide all training and support
• Decisions are left to employees
• Comfort with mistakes
• Accountability falls to the leader

While "laissez-faire" implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group members for consultation and feedback. They might provide direction at the beginning of a project, but then allow group members to do their jobs with little oversight.

This approach to leadership requires a great deal of trust. Leaders need to feel confident that the members of their group possess the skills, knowledge, and follow-through to complete a project without being micromanaged .

Here's how laissez-faire leadership could look in different settings:

• In school : The teacher is more of an observer while students are able to do as they wish. There is a lack of expectations and discipline in the classroom.
• At work : Leaders and supervisors stand back and let their employees make decisions and may let them set their own deadlines. They don't offer much feedback.
• In government : A political leader who exhibits laissez-faire leadership would leave decisions to subordinates and provide little direction.

Like other types of leadership, the laissez-faire style has its advantages.

• It encourages personal growth . Because leaders are so hands-off in their approach, employees have a chance to be hands-on. This leadership style creates an environment that facilitates growth and development.
• It encourages innovation . The freedom given to employees can encourage creativity and innovation.
• It allows for faster decision-making . Since there is no micromanagement, employees under laissez-faire leadership have the autonomy to make their own decisions. They are able to make quick decisions without waiting weeks for an approval process.

To benefit from these advantages, certain preconditions have to be met. For instance, if your team is full of highly skilled and experienced people, capable of working on their own, this approach might work. Since these group members are experts and have the knowledge and skills to work independently, they are capable of accomplishing tasks with very little guidance.

This style is particularly effective in situations where group members are more knowledgeable than the group's leader.   The laissez-faire style allows them to demonstrate their deep knowledge and skill surrounding that particular subject.

This autonomy can be freeing to some group members and help them feel more satisfied with their work. The laissez-faire style can be used in situations where followers have a high level of passion and  intrinsic motivation  for their work.

Because the laissez-faire style depends so heavily on the abilities of the group, it is not very effective in situations where team members lack the knowledge or experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. This can lead to poor job performance and less job satisfaction.

Some possible disadvantages of the laissez-faire style include:

• Lack of role clarity : In some situations, the laissez-faire style leads to poorly defined roles within the group. Since team members receive little to no guidance, they might not really be sure about their role within the group and what they are supposed to be doing with their time.
• Poor involvement with the group : Laissez-faire leaders are often seen as uninvolved and withdrawn, which can lead to a lack of cohesiveness within the group. Since the leader seems unconcerned with what is happening, followers sometimes pick up on this and express less care and concern for the project.
• Low accountability : Some leaders take advantage of this style as a way to avoid responsibility for the group's failures. When goals are not met, the leader can blame members of the team for not completing tasks or living up to expectations.
• Passivity : At its worst, laissez-faire leadership represents passivity or even an outright avoidance of true leadership. In such cases, these leaders do nothing to try to motivate followers, don't recognize the efforts of team members, and make no attempts at involvement with the group.

If team members are unfamiliar with the process or tasks, leaders are better off taking a more hands-on approach. They can switch back to a more delegative approach as team members gain more experience.

Strengths of Laissez-Faire Leaders

If you have a more laissez-faire approach to leadership, there are areas and situations where you might tend to do better.

• In creative fields : Working in a creative field where people tend to be highly motivated, skilled, creative, and dedicated to their work can be conducive to obtaining good results with this style.
• When working with self-managed teams: Laissez-faire leaders typically excel at providing information and background at the start of a project, which can be particularly useful for self-managed teams.
• During the early stages of a project : By giving team members all that they need at the outset of an assignment, they will then have the knowledge they need to complete the task as directed.

For example, a delegative leader might excel in a product design field. Because team members are well-trained and highly creative, they likely need little in the way of direct management. Instead, an effective leader can provide minimal oversight and guidance and still produce high-quality results.

Even in situations where a laissez-faire leadership style may be helpful, such as in a creative field or with self-managed teams, it may pay to utilize a variety of leadership approaches at different phases of the work process.

Laissez-faire leadership may be most effective during the early phases when a product or idea is being brainstormed or created. Once the design is in place and ready for production, however, it may be best to switch to a style that involves more direction and oversight.

Generally, this leadership style is not suitable for:

• Situations where efficiency and high productivity are the main concerns . Some people are not good at setting their own deadlines, managing their own projects, and solving problems on their own. Under this leadership style, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members do not get enough guidance or feedback from leaders.
• Situations that require great oversight, precision, and attention to detail . In high stakes and high-pressure work settings where every detail needs to be perfect and completed in a timely manner, a more authoritarian or managerial style may be more appropriate.
• People who aren't good at setting deadlines or managing projects . Using a laissez-faire approach in this type of scenario can lead to missed deadlines and poor performance, particularly if group members are unsure of what they need to be doing or do not have the skills they need to perform tasks with little to no direction.

To make laissez-faire leadership more effective, you can try:

• Checking in on group performance
• Giving useful and consistent feedback
• Creating incentives to help increase and maintain motivation
• Making sure team members know their roles within the group
• Ensuring group members have the knowledge and expertise for the project or task at hand

Try our fast and free quiz to find out if you tend towards laissez-faire leadership or one of the other styles.

This leadership styles quiz was reviewed by Rachel Goldman, PhD, FTOS .

Often dismissed as a style that leads to poor group outcomes, laissez-faire leadership can be effective in a variety of situations. If you tend to be more of a laissez-faire leader, you may find it helpful to think about the sort of situations this style might excel.

In settings where the group needs more oversight or direction, you may find that you need to consciously focus on adopting a more authoritarian or democratic approach .   By examining your own style, you can hone your skills and become a better leader .

Anbazhagan S, Kotur BR. Worker productivity, leadership style relationship .  IOSR-JBM . 2014;16(8):62-70. doi:10.9790/487x-16846270

Amanchukwu RN, Stanley GJ, Ololube NP. A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management . Management . 2015;5(1):6-14. doi:10.5923/j.mm.20150501.02

Al-Malki M, Juan W. Impact of laissez-faire leadership on role ambiguity and role conflict: Implications for job performance . Int J Innov Econ Dev . 2018;4(1):29-43. doi:10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.41.2003

İhtiyaroğlu N. Analyzing the relationship between happiness, teachers’ level of satisfaction with life and classroom management profiles . UJER . 2018;6(10):2227-2237. doi:10.13189/ujer.2018.061021

Mostofi A. The effect of class management types (Authoritative, democratic, laissez-faire) on teacher professional development among Iranian EFL teachers . JALLR . 2019;5(5):248-265.

Barling J, Frone MR. If only my leader would just do something! Passive leadership undermines employee well-being through role stressors and psychological resource depletion . Stress Health . 2017;33(3):211-222. doi:10.1002/smi.2697

Vullinghs JT, De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN, Boon C. Ethical and passive leadership and their joint relationships with burnout via role clarity and role overload . J Bus Ethics . 2020;165(4):719-733. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4084-y

Sfantou DF, Laliotis A, Patelarou AE, Sifaki-Pistolla D, Matalliotakis M, Patelarou E. Importance of leadership style towards quality of care measures in healthcare settings: A systematic review . Healthcare (Basel) . 2017;5(4). doi:10.3390/healthcare5040073

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Understanding the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style and What Makes It So Effective

• by Louis Carter

Laissez-faire is a French word that translates into English as “ leave alone “ . This implies letting things thing happen without any interference. Therefore, a laissez-faire leader would be someone with a “hands-off” approach to managing and leading followers or subordinates.

A primary reason why some leaders adopt a laissez-faire leadership style is that they have complete trust in their ability of those under them. You won’t find laissez-faire leaders micromanaging or getting too involved in the activities of their subordinates. Instead, they help them achieve their goals by encouraging the use of skills, available resources, and innovation. Some of the most prominent and successful laissez-faire leaders include Warren Buffett, Queen Victoria, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Mellon.

Here, I look to provide you with an understanding of the laissez-faire leadership style and what can make it so effective using the available literature on the subject, examples, and case studies.

What Is the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style?

Laissez-faire leadership grants full freedom to subordinates or followers to function how they want and with what they want; a laissez-faire leader leaves followers with as many roles and choices as possible. Laissez-faire management, like the financial system, is characterized by a will to let people operate without interference. This style may or may not work for you. The best leaders used a battery of leadership styles that are useful for different situations. I will give you some tips on how to make the Laissez-faire leadership style work if you choose to give it a shot.

Adopting this leadership style means giving the team full power and freedom. With laissez faire leadership, you provide your team with the requisite tools and resources to perform their duties, but how they carry out their duties will be up to them. In order words, they will be free to make their choices.

While it is not acceptable in every scenario, laissez-faire leadership can be an effective way to lead, provided the circumstances favor such an approach to leadership. One example of this is the construction of the Panama Canal.

Initiated in 1904, the construction of the Panama Canal was one of the most groundbreaking projects of the early 20th century. The project was headed by the then U.S President Theodore Roosevelt. The construction of the Panama Canal in 1914 was an engineering feat worth celebrating because the project was complete successfully despite being plagued by accidents and geographical hurdles.

However, the Panama Canal would have never materialized if President Roosevelt did not have the willingness to delegate responsibilities and decision-making to those having the necessary skills and experience for the job.

The Characteristics of a Laissez-Faire Leader

Although “laissez-faire” is the traditional term for this style and suggests a fully hands-off attitude, many leaders remain accessible to and free for followers or subordinates seeking guidance and feedback. Laissez-faire leadership, unlike conventional authoritarian leadership , is not rigid. Instead, this leadership approach is distinguished by the following characteristics:

1. Effective Delegation

Leaders using this approach are able to delegate each job or assignment to the most skilled worker. This is critical because proper delegation is critical to the productivity of the workplace.

2. Freedom of Choice

As long as workers perform tasks effectively, those who work under laissez-faire leadership are free to decide how they want to get the job done.

3. Sufficient Resources and Tools

Although each worker is free to decide the procedures to use to complete the work, laissez-faire leaders generally have the willingness and ability to provide each person with all the materials and resources required to complete each activity optimally.

4. Constructive Criticism

Despite the fact that workers are free to make their own choices, laissez-faire leaders are prepared to offer constructive feedback when required.

5. Taking Control As Needed

Although workers are given full freedom and are free to make their own choices, laissez-faire leaders can step in and take control of matters if there is an urgent need for it.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Being a Laissez-Faire Leader

While a laissez-faire leadership style is effective in many situations, it generally requires having full faith in the abilities and “commitment to the cause” of the followers or subordinates. Leaders need to feel assured that, without being micromanaged, those under them can utilize their expertise and experience to get the job done. This is the reason a laissez-faire leadership style has both its advantages and disadvantages. Some of them are briefly discussed below.

The Benefits of Being a Laissez-Faire Leader

The following are some key benefits of being a laissez-Faire Leader:

Encourage Personal Growth —Since leaders have a hands-off approach to management, workers have an opportunity and incentive to be hands-on. Therefore, this style of leadership creates an atmosphere that makes learning and development easier and faster.

Encourage Innovation —Inventiveness and innovation can be stimulated by the independence granted to workers.

Allow for Faster Decision-Making —The absence of micromanagement means that those under laissez-faire leadership are encouraged to make their own choices. They can make decisions quickly without having to wait a long time for approval.

The Drawbacks of Laissez-Faire Leadership

The laissez-faire approach relies too strongly on the group’s skills. Therefore, it is not very reliable in situations where the followers lack the expertise or experience needed to perform tasks and make decisions. Perhaps, this is the reason a 2007 study published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology finds it laissez-faire as a destructive leadership style. The following are some of the main reasons to forgo a laissez-faire leadership style:

No Clarity of Role —The laissez-faire approach contributes to loosely established responsibilities within the team in certain situations. Because team members get little or no instruction, they might not even be sure about their position within the team and what they are expected to do with their time.

Poor Involvement with the Group —Laissez-faire leaders are frequently seen as unengaged and detached, which can contribute to the group’s lack of cohesion.

Low Accountability —Some leaders use this approach as a way to escape accountability for the shortcomings of the group. The leader will then hold group members responsible for not completing assignments or meeting standards when objectives are not achieved.

As seen above, the laissez-faire leadership style has both advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, you will need to weigh the pros of this leadership style against its cons to determine whether adopting this approach to leadership is a good option for you. One suggestion would be having a more hands-on approach to leadership when group members are unaware of their roles or responsibilities. As group members gain more experience and become aware of their work, you may adopt a more delegated approach, such as a laissez-faire leadership style.

Follow Me On My YouTube Channel

Featured posts.

Five Key Questions to Ask Yourself When Co-Creating

When it comes to involving others to co-creating, get in the mindset of putting others first. Focus on the design of the communication to get

Want Acceptance Of Your Solutions? Shut Up!

Leaders in the workplace often struggle with gaining acceptance for ideas or solutions to problems. It does not matter if your ideas are brilliant if

5 Most Valuable Leadership Philosophy Examples to Understand

Use our tools, guides, and processes to develop, assess, and become even more successful in living your leadership philosophy. We have helped over 42,000 accomplished

Want to learn more about the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style ? Join today other 42.000 accomplished leaders who have become more effective and successful as a result of our program below.

• Executive Coaching
• Leadership Styles

Conversations

• Organizational Culture

Contact Louis

• [email protected]

Leadership Philosophy DIY Guide

Join other 42.000 accomplished leaders who have become more effective and successful as a result of our programs.

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions