In terms of the full range of leadership models, which leadership behavior is the least effective?

Full-Range Leadership Model

The Full-Range Leadership Model was conceptualized by Bass and Avolio and includes three leadership styles: Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, and Laissez-Faire leadership.

Transformational leadership is characterized by four factors [the four Is]: Idealized Influence [giving employees personal attention to promote their development and achievement], Inspirational Motivation [exerting a powerful, confident, and dynamic presence while communicating high-performance expectations], Intellectual Stimulation [encouraging employees to think of an old problem in a new way], and Individualized Consideration [displaying role model behaviors through personal achievements, character, and behavior]. “Transformational leaders integrate creative insight, persistence and energy, intuition and sensitivity to the needs of others to ‘forge the strategy-culture alloy’ for their organizations.” [Bass & Avolio, 1993, p. 112]. Transformational leadership style has been associated with stress reduction in employees [Sosik & Godshalk, 2000], organizational commitment [Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996], team performance [Lim & Ployhart, 2004], and with employees’ psychological well-being [Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007].

Transactional leadership is characterized by two factors: Contingent reward and Management-by-exception. “Essentially, transactional leaders develop exchanges or agreements with their followers, pointing out what the followers will receive if they do something right as well as wrong. They work within the existing culture, framing their decisions and action based on the operative norms and procedures characterizing their respective organizations” [Bass & Avolio, 1993, pp. 112–113]. Transactional leaders are task-oriented in their leadership style as opposed to being people-oriented. From what I have found in my research, transactional leadership does not have the positive impact of transformational leadership and does not trigger the negative impacts of Laissez-Faire leadership.

Laissez-Faire Leadership is defined as the “absence” of leadership and avoidance of intervention. Leaders who use this leadership style will delay making decisions, will not give feedback, and will not reward their employees for good performance; in fact, there is little to no effort put into motivating employees or recognizing their work at all [Avolio, Bass, & Zhu, 2004]. Laissez-Faire leaders are absent when employees need them. Research has shown that Laissez-Faire leadership style is related to lower job satisfaction and lower satisfaction with one’s immediate supervisor [Judge & Piccolo, 2004]. I have added Laissez-Faire Leadership style in this section on positive leadership only to give a complete portrait of the Full-Range Leadership Model, but it is not a positive leadership style. In fact, we found that psychopathic leaders score higher on Laissez-Faire leadership and lower on both Transactional and Transformational leadership styles [Mathieu et al., 2015].

1.4 Defining Toxic Leadership

From a review of a broad spectrum of the literature on destructive leadership and all of its subcategories [Craig & Kaiser [2013] claim that there are six: unethical leadership, abusive supervision, a dark/evil side of leadership, negligent/laissez-faire leadership, narcissistic leadership, and, especially, toxic leadership] written by the most frequently cited authors on the topic [i.e., Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005c; Pelletier, 2010; Reed & Olsen, 2010; Whicker, 1996], a definition of the term “toxic leadership” was developed for the study that preceded this book:

Toxic leadership requires egregious actions taken against some or all of the members, even among peers, of the organization a leader heads; actions that cause considerable and long-lasting damage to individuals and the organization that often continue even after the perpetrator has left the organization.

This definition was used to identify librarians in academic libraries who have experienced or witnessed toxic leadership in their work situations. Unlike Tepper’s [2000] notion of abusive supervision, this definition accommodates the notion that a leader’s dysfunctional behavior entails more than actions that occur in one-to-one relationships between supervisors and supervisees. It keeps open the possibility that a leader’s or a co-worker’s behavior can impact an entire organizational culture. Of course, the term toxic leadership also narrows the focus a little, because it excludes assumptions about sexual harassment or physical harm, which are normally explicitly covered by the terms destructive leadership and workplace violence.

There are a few additional aspects to my use of the term toxic leadership that should be noted here. First, this definition assumes that, once toxicity has spread throughout the whole organization, those who are able to do so may attempt to stop or at least slow down the behavior by appealing to a more senior administrator, while other employees will choose to be silent and remain neutral [Henley, 2003; Kellerman, 2004; Whicker, 1996]. After exposing the toxic situation many employees can begin to focus again on their work and the mission of the organization. Also, once the situation has been acknowledged by a higher authority in the organization, those suffering from residual psychological and emotional damage may then contemplate seeking help to begin the healing process [Frost, 2003; Lubit, 2004; Kusy & Holloway, 2009]. Those seeking help may include abused employees, witnesses, and whistle-blowers, among others. This definition is deliberately broad and should continue to evolve and solidify as more research on toxic leadership in academic libraries is undertaken.

Full range model of leadership

Avolio [1999] advanced a model of leadership from organizational psychology labeled the FRML. As the name implies, Avolio believed that effective leaders use a variety of leadership behaviors. The FRML focuses on three broad types of leadership behaviors labeled transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. According to the model, the least effective leadership behaviors are laissez-faire, more effective are transactional, while transformational are the most effective.

Laissez-faire leadership behaviors are defined as a near avoidance or complete lack of leadership [Avolio, 1999; Burns, 1978]. Leaders who engage in laissez-faire leadership are doing so because they cannot decide what to do, do not care about the outcome, avoid taking responsibility, and/or are content with waiting for another person to take action. However, Avolio [1999] indicated that there are times when laissez-faire leadership is appropriate [e.g., when an athlete leader does not view the task or situation to be important or critical], and it is the frequency with which the athlete leader engages in laissez-faire behaviors that will determine that individual's perceived effectiveness.

Transactional leadership is referred to as leadership that acknowledges and targets the self-interests of the members of the team as a means of influence [Avolio, 1999]. Transactional athlete leaders create contingencies and agreements with their followers [i.e., teammates] that outline specific behaviors and how teammates will be rewarded or disciplined. Typically, rewards are given to teammates after they behave in a manner that meets the leader's approval, while punishments are given to teammates after they engage in behaviors that go against the expectations of the leader. Athlete leaders using transactional leadership engage in corrective and constructive behaviors. For instance, corrective behaviors are characterized by an athlete leader encouraging a change in the teammate's actions [e.g., be more cooperative with teammates] in order to avoid being reprimanded [e.g., negative feedback]. Constructive behaviors are characterized by an athlete leader rewarding positive or approved behavior as a means of encouraging teammates to behave according to the leader's or group's standards. Avolio [1999] noted that transactional leadership behaviors are foundational to the development of transformational leadership. This process is established when an athlete leader gains the trust of his/her teammates by upholding agreements and contingencies. The key characteristic differentiating transactional leadership from transformational leadership is that the latter emphasizes encouraging teammates to act beyond their self-interests to achieve more for the good of the group. That is, transformational leadership can be viewed as a special, expanded case of transactional leadership, in that both transformational and transactional leadership are linked to the achievement of goals and objectives [Avolio, 1999]. However, these two types of leadership differ on the process by which the leader motivates teammates [Hater & Bass, 1988].

Consequently, transformational leadership is viewed as the process of an athlete leader broadening and elevating the interests of teammates, generating awareness and acceptance amongst teammates for the purposes and mission of the group, and motivating teammates to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group with the ultimate goal of helping teammates become future leaders [Burns, 1978]. Transformational athlete leaders use one or more of the following four behaviors to encourage their teammates to grow into leaders: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Idealized influence is displayed when an athlete leader acts in ways that promote trust, admiration, and respect. When those views and feelings are established, the athlete leader is seen as a role model. In turn, teammates begin to identify with the athlete leader and emulate their leader's behavior. Inspirational motivation is displayed when an athlete leader behaves in ways that motivate and inspire his/her teammates by providing understanding and meaning to the tasks the teammates are asked to complete. An athlete leader providing inspirational motivation is thought-provoking, enthusiastic, and optimistic. This type of leadership enhances team spirit.

Intellectual stimulation is displayed when an athlete leader stimulates his/her teammates to be creative and innovative. The athlete leader promotes team norms that encourage teammates to seek and obtain knowledge and to have the ability to challenge their own perspectives and the perspectives of others. This allows teammates to question assumptions, reframe problems, and approach recurring situations with fresh and new perspectives. As the teammates start to act on their new thoughts and perspectives, the athlete leader, in turn, begins to reconsider his/her own perspective. Therefore, the team, as a whole, is intellectually stimulated.

Individual consideration is displayed when an athlete leader views and treats each of his/her teammates as individuals with unique needs. The athlete leader may take on the role of a mentor, coach, teacher, confidant, and/or counselor to support the teammate in achieving his/her goals. In other words, the athlete leader has a personalized approach to match each teammate's needs and desires, and these differences amongst teammates are regularly evaluated so that the athlete leader can determine whether he/she should maintain or change leadership behaviors.

Corporate psychopathy and antipersonnel crime

Psychopathic individuals are not afraid to use and abuse others to obtain what they want. Babiak and Hare [2006, p. 140] describe the modus operandi of corporate psychopaths as follows: “They take advantage of communication weaknesses, organizational systems and processes, interpersonal conflicts, and general stressors that plague all companies. They abuse coworkers and, by lowering morale and stirring up conflict, the company itself. Some may even steal and defraud” [Babiak & Hare, 2006, pp. 139–140].

Studies using the B-Scan have found that leaders presenting psychopathic traits are more prone to using negative leadership styles [Laissez-Faire leadership] and less likely to use positive leadership styles [Transactional and Transformational leadership] [Mathieu, Neumann, Babiak, & Hare, 2015]. Moreover, psychopathic traits in leaders predicted abusive leadership and had a negative impact on employee job satisfaction and turnover intentions [Mathieu & Babiak, 2016b]. Finally, psychopathy traits in leaders predict higher psychological distress and work–family conflict for employees [Mathieu et al., 2015]. In fact psychopathic traits seem to predict employee attitudes better than leadership style [Mathieu & Babiak, 2015]. Indeed, psychopathic traits in leaders predicted employees’ work motivation, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and job neglect even when controlling for leadership style [Mathieu & Babiak, 2016b].

As far as workplace harassment, a study by Mathieu and Babiak [2016c] indicated that psychopathy is a stronger predictor of harassment in the workplace than personality traits included in the HEXACO model of personality [Honesty/humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness]. It is thus clear that psychopathic individuals are not only likely to be associated with corporate fraud, but they also seem to cause a lot of damage to employees within the organization.

The role of leadership behavior

Process models of leadership often reflect the hypothesis that leader traits predict leader outcomes through leadership behaviors [e.g., Antonakis et al., 2012; DeRue et al., 2011; Tuncdogan et al., 2017]. In other words, leadership behaviors should explain important parts of the relationship between traits and leadership success [Dinh & Lord, 2012]. For readers who are looking for a model of leader behavior, we recommend the review by Behrendt, Matz, and Göritz [2017].

Specific patterns of leadership behaviors are often described as leadership styles. The full-range leadership model—comprising transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership—is probably one of the most renowned frameworks for leadership styles [Furtner, Baldegger, & Rauthmann, 2013]. There is empirical evidence that leader characteristics such as experience, intelligence, and conscientiousness indirectly influence leader performance through transformational/charismatic leader behaviors [Cavazotte, Moreno, & Hickmann, 2012]. A metaanalytic investigation has shown that leader Big Five traits are related to transformational/charismatic leadership [subdimensions as well as overall measure] and indirectly linked to leader performance; further, specific combinations of the traits show different relationships with transformational leadership [Deinert, Homan, Boer, Voelpel, & Gutermann, 2015]. Jung and Sosik [2006] found that charismatic leaders possess higher levels of self-monitoring, self-actualization, motive to attain social power, and self-enhancement values; they also have followers with higher levels of follower extra effort and organizational citizenship behavior.

The relationship between leader traits, behaviors, and leadership outcomes might be nonlinear in their nature. For example, Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, and De Fruyt [2018] found an inverted U-shaped relationship between charismatic leader personality and observer-rated leader effectiveness. This curvilinear relationship was fully mediated by leader behavior: Leaders with a lack of charisma were shown to be less effective because they lack strategic behavior [e.g., communicating a collective vision, collective identity]; however, leaders with too much of charisma were shown to be less effective as they lack operational behavior [e.g., short-term handling and monitoring of daily tasks]. In line with the latter finding, Vergauwe et al. [2018] argued that too much charisma might be maladaptive and lead to missing support of the day-to-day work from followers properly. The results point to the fact that the leader's traits and behaviors must fit situational requirements and leader traits interact with each other; in this study, leader adjustment—the leaders’ ability to remain self-composed and adjusted or to cope with stressful events—moderated the relationship between leader charisma and leader effectiveness in such a way that high levels of leader adjustment shifted the turning point [where charisma starts being too much] to higher levels of charisma [Vergauwe et al., 2018].

Zaccaro [2007] generally identified a lack of coherent and meaningful conceptual construction of attributes linked to leadership behavior: “Leadership represents complex patterns of behavior, likely explained, in part, by multiple leader attributes […]” [Zaccaro, 2007, p. 6]. To understand variance in leadership behavior, Zaccaro [2007] claimed that future research should address the complex interplay and combinations of different leader characteristics and look at the role of situational variance [although the situation might not be that critical in explaining differences between leaders and nonleaders]. Further, distinguishing between trait-like and state-like individual differences more clearly and based on modern personality theories might also help to better understand the complex relationship between leader characteristics, behaviors, and leadership outcomes—as some attributes will be more fundamental and stable over time and across situations, whereas others may not [Zaccaro, 2007].

9.1 Laissez-faire leadership

Laissez-faire leadership is characterized by “the avoidance or absence of leadership” [Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 756]. Leaders using this style try not to influence followers, instead allowing them to spend time as they please. In the absence of leadership, subordinates find their own ways to pursue work-related goals and even have the freedom to create their own work-related goals, outside the influence of the leader. Although the leader does not directly influence followers, followers may still view the leader as an essential resource. Laissez-faire leaders, while avoiding influencing followers, are still responsible for their followers' actions and progress. Followers can, therefore, rely on the leader as a “safety net” of sorts, allowing them to take risks within their work roles. Followers may see this aspect of the leader as a valuable resource for their own interests and creativity, and self-expand to include the leader in the self.

2.1.4 Passive leadership

This type of leadership reflects inactive behavior, such that individuals take little action within their leadership role [DeRue et al., 2011]. Common examples include passive management by exception and laissez-faire leadership [Yukl, 2013]. A number of studies have shown that older leaders are more likely to exhibit such passive behaviors. Zacher, Rosing, and Frese [2011], for example, uncovered a positive relationship between age and passive-avoidant leadership, and Doherty [1997] reported more passive management by exception [but not laissez-faire] among older rather than younger athletic directors. Similarly, Schubert [1988] found older mayors to act more passively during municipality council meetings. Interestingly, this type of behavior may not necessarily reflect ineffective leadership; passivity was particularly pronounced among older mayors when they also had greater political experience [i.e., longer council tenure]. Further, there was some evidence for a curvilinear relation, with mayors becoming more active until their mid-50s and then increasing sharply in passivity.

Finally, we note that a few studies have reported non-significant age effects on passive leadership [Barbuto et al., 2007; Oshagbemi, 2004]. Moreover, Zacher and Bal [2012] uncovered an interactive relation. Age and passive leadership were positively related only when the subordinates who rated a leader's behavior held unfavorable age stereotypes.

2.2 Behavioral theories

After the suspension of the trait approach, leadership scholars turned to identifying specific behaviors and behavioral dimensions that would distinguish effective leaders from ineffective ones. Early behavioral researchers differentiated between authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors [Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939]. The behavioral approach was significantly advanced by two large-scale efforts: the Ohio State University and the University of Michigan studies. In 1945, the Ohio State leadership studies began the exploration of descriptive dimensions of leadership behavior and developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire [LBDQ]. Factor analyses of the LBDQ consistently revealed that leadership behaviors could be reliably categorized along the dimensions of consideration and initiating structure [Fleishman, 1953; Stogdill & Coons, 1957]. Similarly, the University of Michigan studies revealed a distinction between employee-centered and production-centered leadership behaviors [Kahn & Katz, 1953; Katz & Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951; Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950; Likert, 1961; Mann, 1965].

A third, less well-known stream of behavioral research was conducted at Harvard University through laboratory observations. This research emphasized the dual role of leadership in terms of task and social leaders [Bales, 1954]. In summarizing the Harvard Laboratory Studies on leadership, Bales [1954] referred to the term “co-leadership,” suggesting that it might be beneficial for groups to allocate the task and relational leadership roles to different individuals, moving the locus of leadership from the individual to the collective.

All three research centers emphasized the distinction between task- and people-oriented leadership behaviors, but they diverged on the relative emphasis of each dimension in predicting leadership effectiveness. Similarly, Blake and Mouton's [1964] managerial grid training continued the focus on this two-dimensional view and categorized leadership behaviors along the dimensions of concern for production and concern for people.

Behavioral approaches to leadership, like the trait theories that preceded them, primarily emphasized the leader as the locus of leadership. Behaviors are used as an indicator to differentiate effective from ineffective leaders; an approach particularly apparent in Kahn and Katz's [1953] work on distinguishing between production-oriented and employee-oriented supervisors. It is important to note, however, that behavioral scholars began to recognize the “situational nature of leadership” [Fleishman, 1953: 6] and the existence of behavior by situation interactions [e.g., Mann, 1965] relatively early into this line of inquiry. Nevertheless, the primary mechanism of leadership in the behavioral theories was indeed behaviors.

Theoretical insights