Laissez-Faire Leadership: How It Fuels Workplace Bullying
Research indicates that leadership styles significantly impact workplace bullying. This research article highlights the complex relationship between laissez-faire leadership’s role in workplace bullying.
Understanding Workplace Bullying: Definitions & Statistics
Workplace bullying is "the persistent exposure to interpersonal aggression and mistreatment from colleagues, superiors or subordinates"(Einarsen et al., 2009, p. 24). According to the 2024 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, nearly half of all American employees experience such misery (Namie, 2024). Manifestations of bullying acts are:
Verbal Aggression: A Common Bullying Tactic: Psychological harassment through destructive communication, characterized by persistent insulting, threatening, and demeaning verbal interactions that systematically undermine an individual's professional dignity (Hershcovis et al., 2015; Sansone & Sansone, 2015).
Digital Harassment: Cyberbullying in the Modern Workplace: Cyberbullying enables persistent harassment through digital communication channels, offering unprecedented accessibility and the potential for continuous psychological harm (Eurofund, 2024; Slonje & Smith, 2008). The pervasive nature of digital communication allows perpetrators to target victims beyond traditional workplace boundaries.
Social Marginalization: The Impact of Exclusion: Deliberate exclusion strategies involving systematic isolation from critical professional interactions, decision-making processes, and collaborative networks (Gamian-Wilk, 2013; O’Reilly & Banki, 2016). This bullying technique undermines an individual's sense of belonging. Research has shown long-term social exclusion significantly deteriorates an employee's well-being (Gamian-Wilk & Madeja-Bien, 2021).
Sabotage: Undermining Professional Performance: Intentional undermining of professional performance through strategic workflow disruption, information withholding, and systematic erosion of work-related resources (Björkelo, 2013).
Relational Manipulation: A Complex Form of Bullying: This complex interpersonal aggression involves deliberate tactics such as triangulating workplace relationships, strategically spreading rumors, systematically destroying professional reputations, and intentionally disrupting social networks (Hauge et al., 2007). By exploiting interpersonal dynamics and communication channels, perpetrators aim to undermine the targeted employee's credibility, social support, and organizational standing. These calculated interventions can profoundly impact an individual's professional functioning, psychological safety, and long-term career trajectory, making relational manipulation a particularly insidious form of workplace bullying.
Photo by Jehyun Sung @jaysung via Unsplash.
Laissez-Faire Leadership: A Hands-Off Approach
1. Defining Laissez-Faire Leadership: Minimal Involvement & Direction
Laissez-faire leadership is a passive, hands-off leadership style characterized by minimal leader involvement, communication, guidance or direction, and avoidance of decision-making. Laissez-faire leadership delegates decision-making entirely to employees. Employees also bear most of the responsibility for the outcomes. A study in Norway by Robert and Vandenberghe (2021) found that 21% of employees had experienced laissez-faire behaviors from their leaders in the previous six months. The frequency of laissez-faire leadership differs across industries, organization size, countries, cultural contexts, and gender (Hauge et al., 2007; Hoel et al., 2010; WBI, 2024).
2. Gender Differences in Laissez-Faire Leadership: Research Findings
Houghton et al., 2021 found that the prevalence of laissez-faire leadership differs by gender. Their meta-analysis of 45 studies revealed that male leaders are more likely to exhibit a laissez-faire leadership style than female leaders. In contrast, women adopt a more transformational leadership style and frequently engage in reward behaviors. Female leaders are also more likely to embrace a participative approach, less aligned with the hands-off, laissez-faire nature. Several theoretical frameworks can explain the predisposition towards or away from laissez-faire leadership*.
3. The Dark Side of Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership, while in some contexts associated with fostering innovation and creativity (Rassa & Emeagwali, 2020), has been linked to numerous negative outcomes well-documented across multiple studies. This leadership style is consistently associated with decreased employee performance, particularly when stronger structure and direction are needed (Lundmark et al., 2021; Skogstad et al., 2014; Woodrow & Guest, 2017).
4. The Negative Impact of Laissez-Faire Leadership on Workplace Dynamics
Laissez-faire leadership often creates a leadership vacuum, resulting in several adverse outcomes:
Role Ambiguity and Stress: A Direct Result of Laissez-Faire Leadership: Houghton et al. (2021) found that this leadership style positively correlates with employee stress, causing role conflict and ambiguity.
Increased Risk of Bullying: The Numbers Don't Lie: Tsuno et al. (2014) reported that employees under laissez-faire leaders have a 4.3 times higher risk of experiencing workplace bullying.
Conflict Escalation: Laissez-Faire Leadership Enables Bullying: By allowing high levels of conflict among employees, laissez-faire leadership enables and escalates workplace bullying (Glambek et al., 2018; Hollis, 2019; Skogstad et al., 2007; Stolz et al., 2022)
5. Leadership Vacuum: Consequences of Absentee Leadership
The absence of active leadership creates opportunities for others to step in and lead, often resulting in negative behaviors:
Emergence Performance-Oriented Individuals: High-Achievers Take Charge: Individuals with a high performance-prove goal orientation might take charge under laissez-faire leadership. They view the lack of direct supervision as an opportunity to demonstrate competence and are motivated to showcase their abilities for recognition (Vandewalle, 1997; Zhang et al., 2023).
Emergence of Power and Control Seeking Narcissistic Employees: Brunell et al. (2008) found that narcissistic individuals have a higher tendency to emerge as leaders in leaderless group situations.
Exploitation by Bullies: When the Abscent Boss Enables Abuse: Ågotnes et al. (2018) demonstrated in a Norwegian longitudinal study that employees involved in workplace conflict became victims of bullying within two years under laissez-faire leadership5.
Daily Impact on Bullying Behaviors: The Escalation Under Pressure: Ågotnes et al. (2021) showed that the positive relationship between daily work pressure and exposure to bullying-related negative acts was only present with higher levels of laissez-faire behavior from immediate leaders.
6. Long-Term Organizational Consequences of Laissez-Faire Leadership
The ongoing lack of intervention in laissez-faire leadership can lead to:
Institutionalization of Bullying: When Harmful Behaviors Become the Norm: Hollis (2019) noted that workplace bullying can become institutionalized when leadership fails to intervene, transforming harmful behaviors into normalized organizational practices.
Low Psychological Safety: Creating a Climate of Fear: Nielsen et al. (2022) found that laissez-faire leadership creates an environment lacking proper conflict resolution, intervention, and psychological safety.
Employee Well-being: Long-term effects: Robert and Vandenberghe (2022) found a significant link between laissez-faire leadership and a decline in positive mental health, accompanied by an increase in depressive symptoms over time in their study of 1,003 participants.
Conclusions & Practical Implications: Mitigating the Risks of Laissez-Faire
The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and workplace bullying is complex but significant. To mitigate the adverse effects:
Adopt Engaged Leadership Styles: A More Effective Approach: Leaders should transition to more active, transformational leadership approaches.
Implement Training Programs: Building Awareness and Skills: Develop awareness programs on leadership styles and their impacts on workplace dynamics.
Establish Clear Policies: Preventing Workplace Bullying: Create and enforce comprehensive workplace behavior and bullying prevention policies.
Regular Assessments: Monitoring Leadership Effectiveness: Conduct periodic evaluations of leadership effectiveness and workplace climate.
Promote Gender Diversity: Balancing Leadership Styles: Encourage gender diversity in leadership positions to balance leadership styles.
Open Communication Channels: Fostering Feedback and Resolution: Establish mechanisms for employee feedback and conflict resolution.
By addressing these issues proactively, organizations can create a more positive, productive, and psychologically safe work environment for all employees.
*Note: The predisposition of men towards laissez-faire leadership can be understood through several theoretical frameworks. Eagly and Karau's (2002) role congruity theory posits that societal expectations promote men as independent leaders, which correlates with the hands-off nature of laissez-faire leadership. Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions theory indicates that men exhibit greater comfort with power distance, enabling them to delegate responsibilities without close supervision. Additionally, Bandura's (1997) social cognitive theory suggests that men report higher levels of self-efficacy in leadership, which may encourage confidence in adopting less involved leadership styles. In contrast, women may avoid laissez-faire leadership due to stereotype threat. Hoyt and Murphy (2016) noted that societal biases often expect women to be nurturing and supportive. Consequently, women who adopt a laissez-faire style may confront biases that question their competence and challenge their ability to project authority (Houghton et al., 2021). Furthermore, Minasyan and Tovmasyan (2020) found that women prefer group-based decision-making, valuing team input and collaboration.
