The leadership and work–life balance literatures are not well-integrated, yet both examine the management of employees. Leadership theory is work-centric in conceptualizing leadership styles and underemphasizes nonwork influences on leaders’ and subordinates’ nonwork outcomes. Work–life studies overlook leadership theory regarding how work–life support reflects but one aspect of what leaders do. Competing narratives coexist over whether work–life support mutually benefits work and nonwork outcomes (a synergistic “dual agenda” view) or if one comes at the expense of the other (a “dueling outcomes” view). Based on our review of 127 studies, we define work–life supportive leadership as a leadership characteristic when leaders (a) prioritize actions to provide active support for employees’ needs and preferences for managing work, family, and personal life roles; and (b) are experienced by subordinates as exhibiting such behaviors. We find clear support for the dual agenda view and observe that work–life supportive leadership is embedded within many leadership styles. Future research can advance each field’s understanding of leader work–life support dynamics. For future research, we direct leadership scholars to focus on work–life supportive leadership’s impact on subordinates’ job performance and nonwork outcomes and work–life scholars to broaden their research focus to encompass leadership and the work domain holistically.

Kossek E.E., Perrigino M.B., Russo M., Morandin G. (2023). Missed Connections Between the Leadership and Work–Life Fields: Work–Life Supportive Leadership for a Dual Agenda. THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 17(1), 181-217 [10.5465/annals.2021.0085].

Missed Connections Between the Leadership and Work–Life Fields: Work–Life Supportive Leadership for a Dual Agenda

Russo M.;Morandin G.
2023

Abstract

The leadership and work–life balance literatures are not well-integrated, yet both examine the management of employees. Leadership theory is work-centric in conceptualizing leadership styles and underemphasizes nonwork influences on leaders’ and subordinates’ nonwork outcomes. Work–life studies overlook leadership theory regarding how work–life support reflects but one aspect of what leaders do. Competing narratives coexist over whether work–life support mutually benefits work and nonwork outcomes (a synergistic “dual agenda” view) or if one comes at the expense of the other (a “dueling outcomes” view). Based on our review of 127 studies, we define work–life supportive leadership as a leadership characteristic when leaders (a) prioritize actions to provide active support for employees’ needs and preferences for managing work, family, and personal life roles; and (b) are experienced by subordinates as exhibiting such behaviors. We find clear support for the dual agenda view and observe that work–life supportive leadership is embedded within many leadership styles. Future research can advance each field’s understanding of leader work–life support dynamics. For future research, we direct leadership scholars to focus on work–life supportive leadership’s impact on subordinates’ job performance and nonwork outcomes and work–life scholars to broaden their research focus to encompass leadership and the work domain holistically.
2023
Kossek E.E., Perrigino M.B., Russo M., Morandin G. (2023). Missed Connections Between the Leadership and Work–Life Fields: Work–Life Supportive Leadership for a Dual Agenda. THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 17(1), 181-217 [10.5465/annals.2021.0085].
Kossek E.E.; Perrigino M.B.; Russo M.; Morandin G.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Kossek et al. 2023.pdf

Open Access dal 25/01/2024

Tipo: Postprint
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione 1.07 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.07 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/954753
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact