Search results

Grounded on the conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study examines the relationship between tyrannical leadership and knowledge hiding. Additionally, this study aims to investigate the mediating role of psychological distress and the moderating role of psychological safety.

Data was gathered from 435 employees in the corporate sector in China. The study used the partial least squares structural equation modelling approach to assess the proposed connections and analysed the data collected with the help of SmartPLS 4 software.

In the study, it was found that there is a positive relationship between tyrannical leadership and knowledge hiding, and this association is mediated by psychological distress. Additionally, the results asserted that the positive effect of tyrannical leadership on knowledge hiding through psychological distress is less pronounced when there is a greater degree of psychological safety.

Leaders should avoid being tyrannical and adopt a supportive leadership style. They should be aware of the effects of their behaviour on employee well-being, provide resources to help employees cope with distress and foster a culture of psychological safety. This approach promotes knowledge sharing, innovation and employee well-being within the organisation.

This study contributes to the existing literature by investigating a new factor that influences knowledge hiding: tyrannical leadership. Furthermore, it explains that employees who experience tyrannical leadership are more prone to psychological distress, such as anxiety and fear, and are likelier to engage in knowledge-hiding behaviours. Finally, the study identifies psychological safety as a factor that can mitigate the negative effects of tyrannical leadership on knowledge hiding.

The extant literature on work–life balance (WLB) has generally overlooked the interrelationship between leadership and WLB. Does leadership have any impact on employees' use of WLB policies and practices? To answer this question, this article considers the social exchange theory as well as transformational and transactional leadership in an investigation of the impact of leadership on WLB.

The study employs qualitative data from 32 semi-structured interviews to achieve the study’s objectives.

The research reveals that leadership does matter in WLB. The study findings reveal that both the transactional and transformational leadership styles result in the establishment of strong reciprocal relationships between leaders and employees in terms of using WLB policies and practices. Managers only sanction the use of WLB policies and practices only as a reward for excellent performance or when they are completely sure the outcome will favour the organisation. The study concludes that the desire to achieve WLB has often led many employees to go the extra mile in carrying out their work duties, which is rewarded with an approval to use WLB policies and practices. These non-contractual exchanges emphasise reciprocity and are based on trust.

The extent to which the findings of this research can be generalised is constrained by the size and nature of the research sample.

Many managers are transactional leaders, and they purposefully allow their employees to use WLB policies and practices only as a reward for meeting targets and for excellent performance. This means that employees who fall short of the required targets and expected performance are not permitted to use WLB policies and practices. This finding implies that such employees experience incessant work–family conflict, which may have negative implications for their work engagement, overall well-being and work performance.

This study demonstrates that leadership is relevant to WLB. It shows that transformational leadership is supportive of WLB, as it considers employees' work performance and non-work outcomes. The results and practical implications of this study aids the understanding of the non-contractual exchanges involved in manager–employee relationships, which is crucial for ensuring employees' achievement of WLB and for organisations to achieve their goals.

The purpose of the article is to provide further evidence for the work environment hypothesis. According to the work environment hypothesis and as documented by empirical evidence, organizational factors play a crucial role in the development of workplace bullying. However, to better understand and prevent bullying at work and establish sustainable, responsible and ethical workplaces, it is crucial to understand which organizational factors are particularly important in the development of bullying and how these factors, independently and combined, act as precursors to bullying over time. One prominent theory that explains how organizational and individual factors interact is the affective events theory (AET).

In a two-wave, time-lagged study (N = 364), the authors apply AET to test and explain the interplay of organizational factors in the development of bullying at work.

The results revealed that supportive and fair leadership moderates the relationship between role stress and exposure to workplace bullying.

Knowledge of the buffering role of supportive and fair leadership practices is important when implementing organizational interventions aimed at preventing bullying at work.

Although previous studies have shown the general protecting effects of supportive leadership on exposure to bullying, the current study indicates that high level of supportive and fair leadership practices decreases the level of exposure to bullying, even when role ambiguity and role conflict are relatively high.