l’habilitation comportementale des employés
Léandre Alexis Chénard-Poirier, Université de Montréal Alexandre J. S. Morin, Concordia University Jean-Sébastien Boudrias, Université de Montréal Nicolas Gillet, Université François-Rabelais de Tours
Abstract
This study investigates how supervisors combine destructive leadership behaviors (DLB; operationalized as petty tyranny) and constructive leadership behaviors (CLB; operationalized as transformational leadership) and if these combinations elicit the within- domain exacerbation phenomenon. This phenomenon proposes that exposure to an uncertain leadership style from supervisors who combine both DLB and CLB should have more deleterious consequences on followers’ thriving and behavioral empowerment than exposure to supervisors relying more exclusively on DLB. The within-domain exacerbation
phenomenon was tested using a person-centered mixture regression approach with a sample of 2104 Canadian employees from a police organization. Three profiles were identified:
Supervisors displaying mostly CLB, supervisors displaying mostly DLB, and uncertain supervisors displaying a combination of CLB and DLB. Followers exposed to uncertain supervisors, showed the lowest levels of thriving and behavioral empowerment, followed by followers of supervisors who mostly rely DLB, and finally by followers of supervisors who mostly rely on CLB. Results also revealed that followers of uncertain supervisors react positively to any leadership clarification.
Key words: Within-domain exacerbation; petty tyranny; transformational leadership; thriving at
Résumé
Cette étude examine comment les gestionnaires amalgament des comportements de leadership destructif (opérationnalisé par le leadership tyrannique) et constructif
(opérationnalisé par le leadership transformationnel) et si ces combinaisons élicitent le phénomène d’exacerbation intra-source. Ce phénomène propose que des gestionnaires présentant un style de leadership combinant des comportements destructifs et constructifs puissent être plus délétères pour l’épanouissement au travail et l’habilitation comportementale des employés que des gestionnaires faisant un usage plus exclusif de comportements
destructifs. Une méthode d’analyse centrée sur les personnes de « mixture regression » a été utilisée sur un échantillon de 2104 employés canadiens œuvrant dans une organisation policière. Trois profils de leadership ont été identifiés : des gestionnaires montrant plus de comportements constructifs, des gestionnaires montrant plus de comportements destructifs et des gestionnaires plus incertains montrant une combinaison de comportements destructifs et constructifs. Les employés soumis à des gestionnaires plus incertains ont montré les niveaux les plus faibles d’épanouissement et d’habilitation, suivi par les employés de gestionnaires plus destructifs, puis par les employés de gestionnaires plus constructifs. Les résultats montrent aussi que les employés de gestionnaires plus incertains réagissent positivement à toute clarification du leadership.
Mots-clés : Exacerbation intra-source, leadership tyrannique, leadership transformationnel, épanouissement au travail, habilitation comportementale, analyse centrée sur les personnes
Introduction
Destructive leadership behaviors (DLB) are defined in their active form as methods of influence directed toward followers and perceived as a sustained display of hostility and/or obstructiveness (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). As a broad category, DLB have fallen under different headings such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000, 2007), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994, 1997) and social undermining (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002). Exposure to DLB has been found to predict lower levels of performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah, 2007; Mackey, Frieder, Brees & Martinko, 2017), family life quality and life satisfaction (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Tepper, 2000), and work-related attitudes such as commitment and job satisfaction (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Likewise, DLB has been shown to predict a variety of undesirable outcomes (Martinko, Harvey, Brees & Mackey, 2013), including anxiety, tension, depression and emotional
exhaustion (Aryee, Sun, Chen & Debrah, 2008; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart & Carr, 2007), counterproductive work behaviors and deviance (Mackey et al., 2017; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and turnover intentions (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).
Although leaders who demonstrate DLB regularly in their interactions with employees represent a low base-rate phenomenon (Aryee et al., 2008), recent prevalence studies show that a moderate use of DLB is much more prevalent (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen et Einarsen, 2010). Taking into account high prevalence of DLB and general behavioral
complexity observed in supervisors’ leadership profiles, Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2010) proposed it would be improbable for the high number of leaders who occasionally rely on DLB (e.g., Aasland et al., 2010) not to also rely on constructive leadership behaviors
(CLB). CLB refer to leadership behaviors aimed at attaining organizational goals and improving employees’ motivation, well-being, and satisfaction (Aasland et al., 2010). However, to our knowledge no study has investigated if and how leaders combine DLB and CLB in more complex and nuanced leadership profiles. As suggested by Tepper, Simon and Park (2017), we have yet to position DLB within a broader spectrum of leadership behaviors, namely, CLB. Answering this question could be of the utmost importance for employees’ well-being and performance.
Importantly, mixed messages inherent to the exposure to a combination of DLB and CLB are likely to create some form of cognitive dissonance (van den Bos & Lind, 2002) and to increase the salience of occasional DLB (Lian, Ferris et Brown, 2012) in a way that is could be problematic for exposed employees (Duffy et al., 2002). This phenomenon, referred to as within-domain exacerbation, states that a leader simultaneously perceived as a source of stress (i.e., DLB) and support (i.e., CLB) should have more deleterious consequences on followers than a leader simply perceived as a source of stress (Hobman Restubog, Bordia & Tang, 2009; Major & Zubek, 1997). Unfortunately, research evidence related to the within-domain
exacerbation phenomenon in the workplace remains limited. The present study aims to take the first step in investigating DLB and CLB combinations presented by immediate supervisors and expanding knowledge on the within-domain exacerbation phenomenon by examining the joint effects of exposure to well-established types of DLB (petty tyranny; Ashforth, 1994, 1997) and CLB (transformational leadership; Bass & Bass, 2008) on two work-related
outcomes encompassing employees’ well-being (thriving at work) and work-related behaviors (behavioral empowerment). To do so, we rely on an emerging hybrid mixture regression
which provides a way to simultaneously meet both aims, while considering the possibility that the mechanisms involved in the within-domain exacerbation phenomenon might differ across distinct subpopulations of employees exposed to different leadership combinations.