A.H.B. de Hoogh

Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout.

This study examined the moderating role of personality traits in the relationship between leader behavior and burnout. In two samples, employees (N = 91; N = 190) filled out the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey and rated their leaders autocratic and charismatic leader behavior and their own neuroticism and internal work locus of control. As expected, neuroticism and internal work locus of control moderated the relationship between leader behavior and burnout. Charisma was associated with lower burnout, particularly for individuals low on internal locus. The relationship between autocratic leadership and burnout was positive for neurotic individuals, whereas for emotionally stable individuals this relationship weakened. These results were consistent across two independent samples: one with individual employee ratings of managers leadership styles and the other with aggregate ratings of managers leadership styles among employees in diverse organizations. Thus, although charismatic and autocratic leader behavior may respectively act to hinder or enhance overload and stress, the relationship between these leadership styles and burnout differs for followers with different traits.

Ethical leadership: the socially responsible use of power

Powerful leaders can have a substantial impact on the lives of followers and the fate of groups, organizations, and even societies. The potential for beneficial use or misuse of power has led researchers to focus on the ethical aspects of leadership. A recent series of unprecedented media scandals regarding ethical lapses of high-level business managers has placed the ethical aspects of leadership at the forefront of everyones attention. Despite this growing interest, however, there is very little theoretically driven research that examines which types of leader behavior should be seen as ethical. Moreover, although preliminary research on ethical leadership suggests positive effects of such leadership (e.g., Brown et al. 2005), it does not yet explain when and why ethical leadership has its effects. Finally, why some people in a leadership situation choose to behave in a principled and ethical manner whilst others (at times) do not, is not yet sufficiently clear. Here, we deal with these points from a power and influence perspective. The use of power and leadership are intertwined concepts, the power to influence others forms a part of most definitions of leadership. Thus, not surprisingly, the power concept contributes to our understanding of ethical leadership in important ways. First, the socially responsible use of power is a key element of ethical leadership, and, in this chapter, we discuss ethical leadership from this perspective.

Angels and demons: The effect of ethical leadership on Machiavellian employees' work behaviors

Machiavellians can be characterized as goal-driven people who are willing to use all possible means to achieve their ends, and employees scoring high on Machiavellianism are thus predisposed to engage in unethical and organizationally undesirable behaviors. We propose that leadership can help to manage such employees in a way that reduces undesirable and increases desirable behaviors. Studies on the effects of leadership styles on Machiavellian employees are scarce. Here we investigate the relationship of ethical leadership with prosocial (helping colleagues or affiliative OCB) and antisocial work behavior (knowledge hiding and emotional manipulation) for employees who are higher or lower in Machiavellianism. The effect of an ethical leadership style on employees predisposed to engage in unethical behaviors has not been investigated so far. In a cross-sectional multi-source survey study among a sample of 159 unique leader–follower dyads, we find interaction effects between leadership and employee Machiavellianism for prosocial and antisocial work behavior. As expected, employee Machiavellianism comes with reduced helping behavior and increased knowledge hiding and emotional manipulation, but only when ethical leadership is low. Under highly ethical leaders, such increases in organizationally undesirable behaviors of Machiavellian employees do not occur. While the cross-sectional design precludes conclusions about the direction of causality, findings of our study suggest to further explore (and from a practical perspective to invest in) ethical leadership as a potential remedy for undesirable behavior of Machiavellian employees.