Associations of ambivalent leadership with distress and cortisol secretion

The Influence of Authoritarian-Benevolent Leadership on Subordinates' Work Engagement: A Social Information Processing Perspective

Purpose

The dynamic and complex external environment calls for leaders to be both benevolent and authoritarian to cope with the mutually exclusive demands in the management process. But few research paid attention to the dark side of leaders' inconsistent behaviors on employees' work outcomes. Based on social information processing theory, this study investigated the impact of authoritarian-benevolent leadership on subordinates' work engagement and explored the mediating role of leader-member exchange ambivalence and the moderating role of trait mindfulness.

Methods

A two-wave time-lagged survey approach was employed and data from 309 employees from three Chinese companies were collected. R 4.2.1 and SPSS 26.0 were used to test our hypotheses.

Results

The findings demonstrated how subordinates were influenced in their work engagement by authoritarian-benevolent leadership and leader-member exchange ambivalence and emphasized the value of maintaining a high level of trait mindfulness. This study indicated that (1) authoritarian-benevolent leadership was negatively associated with work engagement, which was mediated by leader-member exchange ambivalence; (2) subordinates' trait mindfulness moderated the relationship between leader-member exchange ambivalence and work engagement; (3) the indirect effect of authoritarian-benevolent leadership on subordinates' work engagement through leader-member exchange ambivalence was moderated by subordinates' trait mindfulness.

Conclusion

This study reveals the dark side of authoritarian-benevolent leadership and deepens our understanding of the mechanism underlying the effect of authoritarian-benevolent leadership on subordinates' work engagement from a new theoretical perspective. Practical implications are provided for managers to effectively develop authoritarian-benevolent leadership skills and improve subordinates' work engagement.

The relationship between ambivalence towards supervisor's behavior and employee's mental health

Ambivalence in social interactions has been linked to health-related outcomes in private relationships and recent research has started to expand this evidence to ambivalent leadership at the workplace by showing that ambivalent supervisor-employee relationships are related to higher stress levels in employees. However, the mental health consequences of ambivalent leadership have not been examined yet. Using a multilevel approach, this study estimated associations of ambivalent leadership with mental health indicators (depression, anxiety, vital exhaustion, fatigue) in 993 employees from 27 work groups. A total effect of ambivalent leadership was found for all four mental health measures, as well as within-group and between-group effects. The consistent relationships of ambivalent leadership with higher symptoms of mental ill-health at the individual- (i.e., within-group) and the group-level (i.e., between-group) support the existence of an un-confounded association, as well as group effects of collective ambivalence.

Good or Bad? The Ambivalent Leader-Follower Relationships

Researchers have emphasized the positive and negative influences of ambivalent leader-follower relationships, but it is not clear when the ambivalent relationship is associated with good or bad influences. To answer this question, we reviewed the definition and identified 10 different types of ambivalent leader-follower relationships. Further, we demonstrate that the negative outcomes (more inflexibility, disengagement, and worse performance) can be explained by the workplace stressor perspective, and that the positive outcomes (more flexibility, engagement, and better performance) can be explained by paradox view. Finally, drawing from conservation of resources (COR) theory, we integrate workplace stressor framework and the paradox view to address when the ambivalent leader-follower relationship is beneficial or detrimental for followers. We proposed that the degree of ambivalence, support from the third party, and integrative complexity of follower will influence the possible positive or negative influences. Limitations and future directions were also discussed.

Covariation of psychobiological stress regulation with valence and quantity of social interactions in everyday life: disentangling intra- and interindividual sources of variation

While the overall effects of social relationships on stress and health have extensively been described, it remains unclear how the experience of social interactions covaries with the activity of psychobiological stress in everyday life. We hypothesized that the valence as well as quantitative characteristics of social interactions in everyday life would attenuate psychobiological stress. Sixty healthy participants provided data for the analyses. Using an ecological momentary assessment design, participants received 6 prompts on their smartphone for 4 days. At each prompt, they reported on social interactions since the last prompt (any occurrence, frequency, duration, quality, and perceived social support), current subjective stress, and provided one saliva sample for the analyses of cortisol (sCort) and alpha-amylase (sAA). Experiencing any contact within days as well as higher daily levels of contact quality and perceived social support were associated with reduced levels of sCort. Furthermore, on a daily level, experiencing at least one contact in-between prompts more often as well as having more contacts on average attenuated the sAA output. Perceived social support and contact quality as well as higher daily contact durations were associated with lower subjective stress. For sCort, daily levels of stress moderated the effects of experiencing any contact within days while daily perceived social support moderated the effects of subjective stress. For sAA, experiencing at least one contact in-between prompts more often on a daily level moderated the effects of subjective stress. There were no between-person effects throughout all analyses. The results show ecologically valid evidence for direct attenuating effects of social interactions on psychobiological stress as well as for the stress-buffering hypothesis in everyday life. Increasing the quantity and improving the valence of social interactions on an intrapersonal level can possibly reduce psychobiological stress and prevent its consequences.

Benefits of being ambivalent: The relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases

Ambivalence refers to the experience of having both positive and negative thoughts and feelings at the same time about the same object, person, or issue. Although ambivalence research has focused extensively on negative consequences, recently, scholars turned their lens to the positive effects of ambivalence, demonstrating beneficial effects on judgements and decision-making processes. So far, this work has focused on state ambivalence, which is ambivalence as a direct response to a specific stimulus. However, there are substantial individual differences in ambivalence: Some people are just more ambivalent than others. Taking a first step in understanding how these individual differences relate to judgement and decision-making, we examine the relationship between trait ambivalence and cognitive bias in social judgements tasks. Specifically, we look at two of the most pervasive and consequential attribution biases in person perception: correspondence bias and self-serving bias. We find a negative relationship between trait ambivalence and correspondence bias. The higher individuals are in trait ambivalence, the smaller their bias towards attributing behaviour to a person's disposition (Study 1A and B). We find the same for self-serving bias (Study 2A and B). In sum, we show that trait ambivalence is negatively related to cognitive bias in person perception.

Complex assessment of relationship quality within dyads

Higher quality relationships have been linked to improved outcomes; however, the measurement of relationship quality often ignores its complexity and the possibility of co-occurring positivity and negativity across different contexts. The goal of this study is to test the added benefit of including multiple dimensions, contexts, and perspectives of relationship quality from both individuals in predicting marital functioning. The Social Relationships Index assessed positive and negative dimensions of relationship quality under neutral, positive, and support-seeking contexts for 183 heterosexual married couples. Models showed that the inclusion of multiple dimensions of relationship quality across all three contexts improved prediction of marital functioning for both women and men. The use of multidimensional multicontextual relationship quality assessments is highly recommended.

Social Ambivalence and Disease (SAD): A Theoretical Model Aimed at Understanding the Health Implications of Ambivalent Relationships

The protective influence of social relationships on health is widely documented; however, not all relationships are positive, and negative aspects of relationships may be detrimental. Much less is known about the relationships characterized by both positivity and negativity (i.e., ambivalence). This article provides a theoretical framework for considering the influence of ambivalent relationships on physical health, including reasons why ambivalence should be considered separately from relationships characterized as primarily positive (supportive) or primarily negative (aversive). We introduce the social ambivalence and disease (SAD) model as a guide to understanding the social psychological antecedents, processes, and consequences of ambivalent relationships. We conclude by highlighting gaps in the literature and features of the SAD model that may serve as a guide to future research on potential health-relevant pathways of ambivalent relationships.