Suchergebnisse

This article examines the distinct "Viking" leadership style of top leaders in the Norwegian industry that has evolved from a harsh and violent history. Earlier studies have reported that Norwegian leaders at the middle manager level rate high in transformational leadership traits due to a strong feminine culture and a low power distance society, yet Norwegians are also highly individualistic which differs significantly from other national cultures with feminine traits and collective societies. This unique cultural combination is becoming a cross-cultural issue as the Norwegian society is becoming more heterogeneous, particularly in work settings. Understanding how this leadership style differs from other cultures, even in Scandinavia, is important to help leaders better understand the effects of their leadership style on performance. In this study, we explored four of the original Hofstede national cultural dimensions, specifically, power distance, femininity–masculinity, individualism–collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance and examined how these are reflected at the top leadership level within the Norwegian industry using a national leadership study of Norwegian top leaders ( N = 917). We also examined how these self-reported leadership styles affected perceived organizational results in the form of innovation and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Our findings suggest that Norwegian top leaders do exhibit transformational leadership traits, and that these traits have a positive influence on OCB, which further had a positive relationship to organizational performance in the form of innovation and change results. We also found that power distance and a collectivistic orientation predicted OCB, while only power distance predicted innovation and change among the Hofstede cultural dimensions. Of the four Hofstede dimensions, only one moderating effect was found for predicting OCB, the link between transformational leadership and power distance, suggesting that leaders with low power distance and high transformational leadership orientation are most connected with OCB.

PurposePrevious studies have demonstrated that perceived job insecurity climate denotes an individual-level stressor. The present study reiterated this notion and investigated whether leadership responsibility moderated the association between perceived job insecurity climate and work-related strain about one year into the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.Design/methodology/approachA sample of full-time workers (N = 1,399) in the USA was recruited, comprising 663 leaders and 763 non-leaders. Employing a cross-sectional design, the authors hypothesized that perceived job insecurity climate would be associated with work-related strain (i.e. burnout, absenteeism and presenteeism) and that these associations were stronger for employees with leadership responsibilities compared to non-leaders.FindingsFindings revealed main effects of perceived job insecurity climate on burnout but not on absenteeism or presenteeism. Furthermore, leadership responsibility moderated the associations between perceived job insecurity climate and two out of three burnout measures in the hypothesized direction. The findings also revealed interaction effects regarding absenteeism and presenteeism, indicating that these associations are only positive and significant for employees with leadership responsibilities.Practical implicationsPerceptions of widespread job insecurity engender strain among leaders while simultaneously implying a heightened need for effective leadership. Organizations and practitioners should take the present findings into consideration when implementing preventive and restorative measures to address leaders' health and organizational competitiveness when job insecurity increases.Originality/valueThis study found that, as an individual stressor, perceived job insecurity climate is more detrimental to employees with leadership responsibility than to non-leaders.

This study investigates the relationship between the work unit's conflict management styles and bullying at work. Inspired by the Dual Concern framework, the authors assume a positive relationship between avoiding, forcing and yielding and bullying and a negative relationship between problem-solving and bullying. Moreover, they expected these relationships to be intensified by conflict frequency. The results ( N = 5062) reveal an unsatisfactory fit when not taking into account conflict frequency as a moderator. A multigroup SEM accounting for the moderating role of conflict frequency (five groups) does yield an acceptable fit: the 'very rarely' and 'yearly' group, and the 'monthly' and 'weekly' group show equal path coefficients. The 'daily' conflict group has its own parameters. Forcing and avoiding associate positively and problem-solving associates negatively with bullying; and these relationships intensify as a function of conflict frequency. There is no relationship between yielding and bullying at work within the various conflict frequency groups.