Laissez-Faire Leadership and Affective Commitment: the Roles of Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Relational Self-concept

• Published in: Journal of business and psychology Vol. 36; no. 4; pp. 533 - 551
• Main Authors: Robert, Véronique, Vandenberghe, Christian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-08-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Business and Management; Community and Environmental Psychology; Employee behavior; Employees; Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Leader-member exchange; Leadership; Original Paper; Personality and Social Psychology; Psychology; Social exchange theory; Social Sciences; Laissez-faire leadership; Affective organizational commitment; Leader-member exchange; Identity orientation framework; Social exchange theory; Relational self-concept
• ISSN: 0889-3268; 1573-353X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10869-020-09700-9

Although the detrimental effects of laissez-faire leadership are well documented, research on the underlying mechanisms and the boundary conditions associated with these effects remains scarce. Using the identity orientation framework and social exchange theory, we propose that employees with stronger relational self-concepts are more likely to be affected by laissez-faire leadership. As these employees define themselves through dyadic relationships, they may react more negatively to laissez-faire leadership by diminishing their contributions to mutual goals and reducing their affective organizational commitment. These predictions were tested within a three-wave longitudinal study through structural equations modeling analyses with full information maximum likelihood estimation on a sample of employees from multiple organizations (
N
 = 449). As predicted, the relational self-concept was associated with a stronger negative effect of laissez-faire leadership on the contribution dimension of leader-member exchange and a stronger negative indirect effect on affective organizational commitment. The implications of these findings for our understanding of the mechanisms related to laissez-faire leadership are discussed.