A new study published in the journal Work & Stress goes against popular opinion that a “transformational leadership” style always leads to improved employee health, performance, and job satisfaction, and suggests instead that inspirational leaders can sometimes put undue stress on their teams, potentially leading to poor outcomes at work.
A new study published in the journal Work & Stress goes against popular opinion that a “transformational leadership” style always leads to improved employee health, performance, and job satisfaction, and suggests instead that inspirational leaders can sometimes put undue stress on their teams, potentially leading to poor outcomes at work.
“Transformational leaders,” as CIO puts it, “encourage, inspire and motivate employees to innovate and create change that will help grow and shape the future success of the company.” This style of leadership is all about empowerment and leading employees to adopt a greater sense of accountability and personal investment in their jobs.
As the new study acknowledges, this style of leadership is widely accepted to lead to “positive employee well-being,” including improved employee health and things like fewer missed days at work or increased performance.
But, researchers found that transformational leaders who often encourage their employees to go above and beyond their basic job duties and inspire them to be ‘high performing’ at all times can actually create a type of high-pressure environment for some employees that leads to a higher number of absences from work and potentially even negative health outcomes.
As lead author Professor Karina Nielson said, the link between this inspirational leadership style and employee outcomes is complicated and, although generally thought of as a positive approach to leadership, is not without some risk to the employee. As she says, “It is possible that high-performance expectations pose a risk” to employee health as leaders who consistently make an effort to inspire their employees to be high performing may inadvertently be promoting “self-sacrifice … for the greater good of the group by encouraging [employees] to ignore their illnesses and exert themselves.”
As as a result, Prof. Nielson found that employees who were particularly vulnerable health-wise (those who were already suffering from poor health) were at the greatest risk for experiencing negative outcomes from this type of leadership, specifically by needing to take an even greater number of sick days.
These types of leaders are also more likely to put pressure on their employees “to perform above and beyond the call of duty” in workplaces where employee absences are more likely to be considered in a manager’s own performance report.
Nielson’s study found a direct correlation between company cultures with “transformational leaders” and a significant increase in the number of sick absences for workers who already were suffering from poor or compromised health.
“The assumption that ‘more transformational leadership is better’ does not hold over time,” said one of the study’s authors. Instead of treating all employees the same and constantly pushing for high performance, the author says “Managers need to strike a balance, they can still encourage staff to perform well, but in a way that is not at the expense of their health and well-being.”
While the study was not a definitive indictment against “transformational leadership,” it does suggest that leaders who choose to adopt this approach should be trained in recognizing and prioritizing employee well-being into the strategies they develop so that their expectations for high performance also takes into account an employee’s own personal health.
