4.1 Article

Multifactor leadership styles and new exposure to workplace bullying: a six-month prospective study

期刊

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 139-151

出版社

NATL INST OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH, JAPAN
DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0152

关键词

Aggression; Bullying at work; Cohort; Harassment; Longitudinal study; Management styles; Psychosocial work factor; Prevalence

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [22-4839]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25893208] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the prospective association between supervisor leadership styles and workplace bullying. Altogether 404 civil servants from a local government in Japan completed baseline and follow-up surveys. The leadership variables and exposure to bullying were measured by Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised, respectively. The prevalence of workplace bullying was 14.8% at baseline and 15.1% at follow-up. Among respondents who did not experience bullying at baseline (n=216), those who worked under the supervisors as higher in passive laissez-faire leadership had a 4.3 times higher risk of new exposure to bullying. On the other hand, respondents whose supervisors with highly considerate of the individual had a 70% lower risk of new exposure to bullying. In the entire sample (n=317), passive laissez-faire leadership was significantly and positively associated, while charisma/inspiration, individual consideration, and contingent reward were negatively associated both after adjusting for demographic and occupational characteristics at baseline, life events during follow-up, and exposure to workplace bullying at baseline. Results indicated that passive laissez-faire and low individual consideration leadership style at baseline were strong predictors of new exposure to bullying and high individual consideration leadership of supervisors/managers could be a preventive factor against bullying.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据