Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
While discussion of laissez-faire leadership in the literature has been relatively scarce (cf. Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008), laissez-faire leadership has been associated with negative outcomes including stress, demotivation, or organizational outcomes (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1994; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Kelloway et al. , 2005; Skogstad et al. , 2007). Laissez-faire leadership is considered as non-strategic or absent leadership which is at the opposite end of transformational and/or transactional leadership (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008) as most empirical studies on laissez-faire leadership have adapted the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Consequently, laissez-faire leadership has been generally viewed as being ineffective whereas most research in transformational leadership and transactional leadership points out the effectiveness of the two leadership styles in a wide range of contexts including subordinates' job satisfaction or organizational effectiveness (e.g. Barling et al. , 1996; Lowe et al. , 1996; Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
These studies highlight the importance of the presence of leadership, while laissez-faire leadership is considered as a lack of leadership of any kind and/or a zero leadership by failing to provide subordinates with information or feedback (Bass and Avolio, 1990). However, this paper argues that it is not laissez-faire leadership per se , but the extant definition and the subsequent measurement of it, which leads to a one-dimensional negative view and outcome of laissez-faire leadership. In other words, laissez-faire leadership may not always be equal to avoidance, ignorance, neglect, and indifference toward the needs of their followers (Skogstad et al. , 2007) as currently suggested. For example, even though a manager/a leader is expected to carry out many activities including monitoring subordinates' performance (Podsakoff et al. , 2000), there are also times that subordinates appreciate being left alone to manage their own affairs. A hands-off approach by a leader can allow employees to feel respected and autonomous, suggesting that there are beneficial effects of low or non-involvement on the part of leaders.
Notions of dependency (Eisenbeiß and Boerner, 2013), self-controls, self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 1980), empowerment (Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014; Ford and Fottler, 1995) as well as self-leadership (Manz and Sims, 1989) also warn against over-involvement by leaders and at the same time suggest the possible merits of less or non-involvement...