Following the call of recent reviews on leadership and well-being, the purpose of this study is to examine how and when two contrasting leadership styles, transformational leadership (TFL) and passive-avoidant leadership (PAL), are related to employees’ anxiety and thereby either promote or inhibit employees’ well-being. Using the prominent job demands-resources (JD-R) model as a theoretical framework, we propose that the relationship between leadership behavior and anxiety is mediated by organizational job demands, namely, role ambiguity (RA), and job resources, namely, team climate for learning (TCL), as well as moderated by autonomy as important job characteristic. A sample of 501 knowledge workers, working in teams in a German research and development (R&D) organization, answered an online survey. We tested moderated multiple mediation models using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results demonstrated that the relationships between TFL as well as PAL on the one hand and anxiety on the other hand were fully mediated by RA and TCL. Job autonomy moderated the quality of the leadership–job demand relationship for TFL and PAL. This paper contributes to understanding the complex relationship between leadership and followers’ well-being taking into account a combination of mediating and moderating job demands and resources. This is the first study that examines the effects of TFL and PAL on well-being taking into account the job demand RA and team processes and autonomy as resources.

This article in the journal Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO) presents a qualitative study which aims at conceptualising digitalisation anxiety. The increasing spread of digital technologies has consequences for how we live, work, and communicate. Alongside positive opportunities, digitalisation also involves risks and can lead to negative reactions such as anxiety. We conducted 26 interviews examining the psychological roots of digitalisation anxiety. We found that the digitalisation megatrend evokes anxieties related not only to individual or organisational changes, but also broader societal considerations. Based on our results, we suggest interventions that could help organisations, teams, and individuals cope with the triggers of digitalisation anxiety in order to improve people’s feelings and experiences related to digitalisation.

The increasing spread of digital technologies and respective consequences for the way we live, work, and communicate can evoke feelings of tension and discomfort. This so-called digitalisation anxiety is related to existing and future technologies, includes the process of digitalisation in everyday life, and refers to multiple levels (the individual, organisations, and society). Existing scales measuring technology-related fears due not adequately reflect these features. Therefore, we developed the German version of the Digitalisation Anxiety Scale (DAS). Having generated items based on a qualitative interview study (Study 1, n = 26), we demonstrated the DAS’s factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity in Study 2a (n = 109) and test-retest reliability in Study 2b (n = 30). In Study 3 (n = 223), the scale’s structure was confirmed and correlates of digitalisation anxiety were examined. The final version of the DAS consists of 35 items with a four-factor structure (societal triggers for digitalisation anxiety, triggers related to interaction and leadership, triggers within oneself and triggers resulting from the digitalisation implementation process). Digitalisation Anxiety had negative relationships with well-being and performance. The scale allows practitioners and researchers to measure and benchmark individuals’ levels of digitalisation anxiety, and to track changes over time. The scale can inform interventions aiming at reducing digitalisation anxiety and stress resulting from digitalisation.