Leaders' Gender, Perceived Abusive Supervision and Health

Does gender matter? The impact of gender and gender match on the relation between destructive leadership and follower outcomes

BACKGROUND

Destructive leadership has been linked to negative consequences for both organizations and followers. Research has also shown that leader gender affects follower perceptions of leadership behavior and follower outcomes [1-3]. However, knowledge is limited as to whether this also applies to destructive leadership [4]. This study aims to combine gendered organization theory with destructive leadership research to investigate the role that gender plays in the relation between destructive leadership behavior and follower outcomes.

METHODS

The data were collected in collaboration with Statistic Sweden. It is a representative sample from the working population in Sweden. We used a two-wave survey design and included 1,121 participants in the analysis.

RESULTS

The results from structural equation models indicated that destructive leadership has negative consequences for follower burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention 6 months later. The results also showed that followers reported a greater intention to leave the organization if the leader was the same gender and used destructive leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study contributes to destructive leadership research by showing that the gender of both the leader and follower matters for the relation between destructive leadership behavior and follower outcomes. Additionally, our study makes a theoretical contribution by integrating a gender research perspective into destructive leadership research.

Associations of abusive supervision among collegiate athletes from equity-deserving groups

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in abusive/supportive coach supervision experienced by collegiate athletes across race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and disability; determine the impact of coach characteristics on abusive supervision prevalence; and explore outcomes related to team culture, athlete autonomy, perceived coach leadership skills and perceived concern for athletes' well-being.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of the 2021-2022 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) myPlaybook survey on 3317 athletes (aged ≥18 years). The survey captured self-reported demographics, sport type (team vs individual, lean vs non-lean) and multiple validated measures reflecting abusive/supportive coaching styles. Structural equation modelling identified associations while controlling for confounders.

RESULTS

Overall, 18.6% (n=618) of athletes reported some form of abusive supervision. After adjusting for covariates, participating in team sport (OR=1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and having a disability (OR=1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31) were associated with higher odds of reporting abusive supervision. No significant differences were found based on athlete race/ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation. Coaches demonstrating attentiveness to athletes' needs (OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) and respect for their input (OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00) had lower odds of reported abusive supervision.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-fifth of this NCAA cohort experienced abusive coach supervision. Disability and team sport participation were significantly associated with increased reports, whereas race/ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation showed no significant differences. In disabled and team sport athletes, sustained verbal/non-verbal abuse had a negative impact on athletes' perception of team culture, autonomy, coaches' leadership skills and coaches' concern for their well-being. Coaching and leadership styles remain critical educational targets for providing safe sport environments for all athletes.

Does Structural Empowerment of Nurse Leaders Moderate the Relationship Between Destructive Leadership and Nursing Outcomes?-A Cross-Sectional Study

AIM

To describe how nursing staff assess their superiors' destructive leadership and nurse leaders' structural empowerment. A further aim is to examine the associations between destructive leadership and staff outcomes and how nurse leaders' structural empowerment moderates these associations.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The data were collected during November 2022-April 2023. Nursing staff assessed their work well-being, commitment, decision-making and career advancement. Destructive leadership was evaluated using the Employment Precariousness Scale and some additional questions. Nurse leaders' structural empowerment was assessed using the Conditions For Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II. The data were analysed using statistical methods including linear regression.

RESULTS

Nursing staff (n = 381) assessed destructive leadership as rare, but it negatively associated with their commitment, decision-making, career advancement and work well-being. Nurse leaders' (n = 97) structural empowerment had a positive association with nursing staff outcomes. The interaction between destructive leadership and nurse leaders' structural empowerment positively affected the work well-being and commitment of nursing staff. The models explained 32% of nurses' work well-being and 19% of their commitment.

CONCLUSION

Destructive leadership undermines nursing staff outcomes. Structural empowerment of nurse leaders should be enhanced to protect against destructive leadership and other protective factors should be explored in the future to identify and prevent destructive leadership.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION

Organisations should provide nurse leaders with appropriate resources and support to enhance their empowerment and opportunities to improve their leadership skills and expertise and should develop ways of identifying destructive leadership patterns and policies to resolve situations in which destructive leadership occurs.

IMPACT

A work environment that empowers nurse leaders may reduce the effect of destructive leadership on staff well-being, commitment, decision-making and career advancement. The significance of protective factors against destructive leadership should be explored using more robust methods in future research.

REPORTING METHOD

A STROBE checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

None.

Unraveling Abusive Supervision Climate in Aircrew Workplaces: The Roles of Temporary Organizational Features, Trust, and Gender Dynamics

This study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of the contextual antecedents underlying abusive supervision. It provides a fresh perspective on how subordinates' perceptions of an abusive supervision climate are shaped in temporary work environments. By developing a robust model, this research examines the relationships between temporary organizational characteristics (i.e., temporariness and membership flexibility), trust in ad-hoc supervisors, and perceived abusive supervision climates. We tested the hypothesized model using data from 340 aircrew engaged in temporary and constantly shifting supervisor-subordinate relationships. The results revealed that: (a) temporariness has a direct negative relationship with trust in ad-hoc supervisors, whereas membership flexibility positively affects this trust; (b) the link between temporariness/membership flexibility and a perceived abusive supervision climate is mediated by trust in ad-hoc supervisors. Furthermore, this study highlights gender interactions in a transactional context, indicating that: (c) females perceive a stronger negative association between trust and abusive supervision climates compared to males; and (d) the relationship between temporariness/membership flexibility and trust in ad-hoc supervisors is significant for women and men, respectively. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of considering the unique organizational characteristics of temporary work settings when examining abusive supervision. It also emphasizes the role of gender in shaping subordinates' perceptions of a workplace victimization climate, particularly in situations where leader-member exchanges are ephemeral and contractual.

The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership

Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention.

Plain Language Summary

Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact with arousal and their behavior.