Previous research on laissez-faire leadership and stress has focused on between-person differences by looking at general ratings of leader behaviours. Yet, researchers have demonstrated a high situational contingency of leadership behaviours that call for a more detailed analysis of within-person differences. We adopt a role theory perspective to explain why daily laissez-faire leadership is linked to daily stress of followers. Also drawing on role theory, we further explain fluctuations of supervisors’ laissez-faire leadership behaviour over time in relation to follower perceptions of day-specific stress. Finally, we also take followers’ level of neuroticism into perspective to describe when followers are particularly vulnerable to laissez-faire leadership. We conducted a diary study spanning over 5 days within 1 working week to test whether daily laissez-faire leadership and its variability were positively related to followers’ daily stress and whether these relations were moderated by follower neuroticism. A total of 201 participants completed the diary surveys (M = 4.79 days × 201 participants = 963 data points) and provided information in an initial survey. Results gave support for most of our hypotheses and showed a positive relationship between daily laissez-faire leadership and daily stress as well as a positive relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress. Neuroticism moderated the positive relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress in the way that the relationship between laissez-faire leadership variability and daily stress was stronger for individuals with high neuroticism.

Background: The negative effect of unfavorable working conditions and long-term work stress on health has been demonstrated in previous research. To address these challenges, systematic approaches such as psychosocial risk assessments (PRA) have been developed in many countries worldwide. Despite legal obligations, psychosocial risk assessments are rarely carried out in micro and small-sized enterprises (MSE). Even though those enterprises constitute a large proportion of the general workforce, this area remains largely untouched by research. In order to enable starting points for a greater dissemination in organizational practice, the present study explores barriers and drivers of psychosocial risk assessments in micro and small-sized enterprises. Methods: A total of 18 owners and managers from 15 micro and small-sized enterprises in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. A qualitative approach was applied: Content analysis was used to analyze the data, using deductive as well as inductive coding techniques. Results: The following barriers emerged from the interviews: Negative PRA image, stigmatization of mental health, lacking acceptance of employees, fear of excessive authority interference, ignorance of PRA, not understanding the necessity, inappropriate approach, and limited resources. The identified drivers were: Easy access to PRA material, external support from experts, renaming the term “workplace risk assessment”, understanding content and benefit of PRA, simplify and revise PRA process, and noticeable consequences of PRA execution and non-execution. The results are comparable with those in larger companies. They emphasize the importance of mental health education, improving the process of psychosocial risk assessments, and the ongoing support in overcoming limited financial as well as human resources. Conclusions: To improve implementation of PRA in organizational practice, a simplification of the process is proposed, accompanied by information campaigns and an improvement in the health literacy of owners and managers of MSE. In view of the results, the full revision of the PRA approach should also be considered.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to develop and evaluate a leadership development program with focus on transformational leadership and communication. It is explored whether these aspects of leadership can be trained in the course of a two-day intervention. Furthermore, it is tested if pre-training differences among leaders have an influence on the effectiveness of participating in the leadership intervention.Design/methodology/approach: In the study, 38 leaders took part in the two-day training session. The control group consisted of 59 leaders. Information was collected from participating leaders’ followers (n=356) on pre- and post-training measures of transformational leadership as well as on communication skills (attentive and impression-leaving style).Findings: Results show that transformational leadership behaviors improved more after training in the experimental group (EG) than they did in the control group. Also, ratings of the attentive communication style improved more in the EG compared to the control group. Furthermore, participants of the leadership development program benefitted to different degrees from their training. Participants who initially had a medium score showed the best improvement.Originality/value: The present study advances the scope of leadership development by also considering the trainability of communication skills. Also, insights on the contingency of training effects are provided.

Zusammenfassung. Die Erfassung psychosozialer Belastung bei der Arbeit im Rahmen der Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung (GBU) verfolgt das Ziel, arbeitsbedingte psychische Belastungen zu messen und mögliche Gefährdungen zu verringern oder gänzlich zu vermeiden. Gängige Verfahren der GBU sind allerdings noch nicht an das veränderte Arbeitsumfeld angepasst, welches im Zuge der fortschreitenden technischen Entwicklung unter dem Schlagwort Industrie 4.0 zusammengefasst wird. Auf Basis von qualitativen Interviews mit 38 betrieblichen und überbetrieblichen Expert_innen des Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutzes zeigt sich, dass Anpassungen bei der GBU bezogen auf deren Durchführungsprozess und deren Inhalte notwendig sind, um den Herausforderungen, die durch die veränderte Arbeitswelt entstehen, zu begegnen. Die Expert_innen benennen neuartige, veränderte Belastungen sowie konkrete Anforderungen an den Prozess der GBU. Die Ergebnisse der qualitativen Interviews werden abschließend kritisch reflektiert und mit bestehender Forschung verknüpft.

Purpose: The psychosocial risk assessment is a systematic intervention process for organizations that aims at improving psychosocial working conditions as well as employee health. Based on a screening of working conditions, interventions to reduce risk factors are implemented and evaluated. What is missing for most screening instruments however are cut-off values to categorize working conditions into uncritical vs. critical, whereas the latter indicates an elevated risk for illness. To estimate and evaluate cut-off values, two studies were conducted using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Methods: In Study 1, a sample of 229 participants answered an online survey on depression (PHQ) and psychosocial working conditions using a questionnaire (DYNAMIK) that covers five factors important to workers' health: workload, boundary permeability, participation, leader support, and usability. Using the ROC analysis, criterion-related cut-off values were generated to predict depressive symptoms. In Study 2, these cut-off values were used to classify working conditions in the two categories of ‘critical’ and ‘uncritical’ in an independent sample (N = 295). It was tested for differences in the results of the two groups concerning the direct criterion of depressive symptoms and the indirect criterion of effort-reward imbalance. Results: In Study 1, cut-off values differed between the five scales and showed different values for sensitivity and specificity. In Study 2, participants exposed to critical working conditions reported more depressive symptoms as well as an effort-reward imbalance. Conclusions: Cut-off values are useful to identify working conditions as either critical or uncritical. This knowledge is important when deciding which working conditions should be optimized within the context of psychosocial risk assessment.

Background: Leaders in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are exposed to increased stress as a result of a range of challenges. Moreover, they rarely have the opportunity to participate in stress management trainings. Therefore, KMU-GO (ger: Kleine und mittlere Unternehmen – Gesundheitsoffensive; en: small and medium-sized enterprises – health campaign) aims at conducting and evaluating such a stress management training. The focus of evaluation does not only lie on the effects on leaders participating but also on their employees. Methods: The study is planned as a 2 × 3 mixed design with two groups (intervention and waiting control group) as a between factor and point in time (at baseline, 6 and 12 months later) as a within factor. We aim at collecting data from N = 200 leaders. Based on the results of a preceding assessment, an already successfully implemented stress management training was adapted to SME needs and now serves as the framework of this intervention. The stress management training comprises one and a half days and is followed by two booster sessions (each 180 min) about 3 and 6 months after the training. The main focus of this intervention lies on specifying leaders stress reactivity while at the same time investigating its effects on employees’ mental health. Further dependent variables are leaders´ depression and anxiety scores, effort-reward imbalance, sick days and psychophysiological measures of heart rate variability, hair cortisol, and salivary alpha-amylase. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted from a societal and employers’ point of view. Discussion: Stress management is a highly relevant issue for leaders in SMEs. By providing an adequate occupational stress management training, we expect to improve leaders´ and also employees` mental health, thereby preventing economic losses for SMEs and the national economy. However, collecting data from employees about the success of a stress management training of their leader is a highly sensitive topic. It requires a carefully planned proceeding ensuring for example a high degree of transparency, anonymity, and providing team incentives. Trial registration: The KMU-GO trial is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS): DRKS00023457 (05.11.2020)