Cited by 73Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWork-Family Balance ChallengesWorkaholism, burnout, and well-being

Far Away, So Close? The Role of Destructive Leadership in the Job Demands–Resources and Recovery Model in Emergency Telework

Open access
Dolce, Valentina, Vayre, Emilie, Molino, Monica, Ghislieri, Chiara·2020·Social Sciences

Abstract

During the Covid-19 pandemic, people started teleworking intensively, which has led to some benefits in terms of economic continuity, but also some complaints. International teams of scholars have pointed out the new work-related challenges, underlining leaders’ role in successfully managing them. This study aimed at investigating the role of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model during the Covid-19 pandemic. In detail, this study intended to assess (1) whether destructive leadership is positively associated with off-work-hours technology-assisted job demand (off-TAJD) and cognitive demands, as well as whether it decreases autonomy, (2) whether two demands—off-TAJD and cognitive demands—and two resources—social support and autonomy—are respectively negatively and positively related to recovery, and (3) whether recovery mediates the relationship between demands, resources, and exhaustion. A total of 716 French remote workers (61% were women) took part in this study. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire. A multi-group structural equation model was used to test the hypotheses. The findings confirmed a significant association between destructive leadership, the two job demands, and autonomy; furthermore, all three variables mediated the relationship between destructive leadership and recovery. The findings showed the key role played by recovery as a mediator between, on one hand, off-TAJD, cognitive demands, autonomy, and social support, and, on the other hand, exhaustion. This study highlighted the role of destructive leadership, job resources, job demands, and recovery as determinants of exhaustion, illustrating their relationships in a sample of remote workers. Practical implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/socsci9110196

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Leadership can influence technostress indirectly by altering individual resources such as autonomy, workaholism, and recovery.

    “For instance, by altering individual resources like autonomy (Bartsch et al. 2021;Dolce et al. 2020), workaholism (Molino et al. 2019), and recovery (Dolce et al. 2020).”

    From Leadership and technostress: A systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Dolce et al. 2020

    The Discussion reports that destructive leadership was indirectly associated with exhaustion through autonomy and recovery in remote workers. It does not report technostress as the outcome of that pathway. The citing sentence attributes workaholism to Molino et al. (2019), not to Dolce et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Destructive leadership's effect on exhaustion is fully mediated by autonomy, cognitive demands, off-work hour technology-assisted job demands and recovery in French remote workers.

    “Destructive leadership's effect on exhaustion was fully mediated by autonomy, cognitive demands, off-work hour technology-assisted job demands and recovery in the sample of French remote workers.Destructive leadership is positively related to off-work hour technology-assisted job demands”

    From Leadership and technostress: A systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Dolce et al. (2020)

    The Discussion reports that autonomy, cognitive demands, off-work-hours technology-assisted job demands, and recovery mediate indirect relationships between destructive leadership and exhaustion. The Results also report a positive indirect association with exhaustion, and the Abstract describes the sample as French remote workers. The paper does not establish that destructive leadership’s relationship with exhaustion was fully mediated; its explicit finding of full mediation concerns the relationship between off-work-hours demands and exhaustion through recovery. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Destructive leadership is positively related to off-work hour technology-assisted job demands.

    “Destructive leadership's effect on exhaustion was fully mediated by autonomy, cognitive demands, off-work hour technology-assisted job demands and recovery in the sample of French remote workers.Destructive leadership is positively related to off-work hour technology-assisted job demands”

    From Leadership and technostress: A systematic literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Dolce et al. (2020)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Aasland, Merethe S., Anders Skogstad, Guy Notelaersand, and Ståle Einarsen. 2010. The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management 21: 438-52.
  2. Brewer, Ernest W., and Leslie Shapard. 2004. Employee burnout: A meta-analysis of the relationship between age or years of experience. Human Resource Development Review 3: 102-23.
  3. Chatterjee, Arijit, and Donald. C Hambrick. 2007. It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 52: 351-86.
  4. Demerouti, Evangelia, Karina Mostert, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2010. Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15: 209-22.
  5. Einarsen, Ståle, Anders Skogstad, and Merethe S. Aasland. 2010. The nature, prevalence, and outcomes of destructive leadership: A behavioral and conglomerate approach. In When Leadzership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures. Edited by Birgit Schyns and Tiffany Hansbrough. Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing, pp. 145-71.
  6. Einarsen, Ståle, Merethe S. Aasland, and Anders Skogstad. 2007. Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly 18: 207-16.
  7. Fosse, Thomas H., Anders Skogstad, Ståle V. Einarsen, and Monica Martinussen. 2019. Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 28: 708-722.
  8. Ghislieri, Chiara, Claudio G. Cortese, Monica Molino, and Paola Gatti. 2019. The relationships of meaningful work and narcissistic leadership with nurses' job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management 27: 1691-99.
  9. Grabo, Allen, Brian R. Spisak, and Mark van Vugt. 2017. Charisma as signal: An evolutionary perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 28: 473-85.
  10. Greer, Tomika W., and Stephanie C. Payne. 2014. Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of successful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 17: 87-111.
  11. Gualano, Maria R., Giuseppina Lo Moro, Gianluca Voglino, Fabrizio Bert, and Roberta Siliquini. 2020. Effects of Covid-19 Lockdown on Mental Health and Sleep Disturbances in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 4779.
  12. Harvey, Paul, Jason Stoner, Wayne Hochwarter, and Charles Kacmar. 2007. Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 18: 264-80.
  13. Higgs, Malcolm. 2009. The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management 9: 165-78.
  14. Hoobler, Jenny M., and Daniel J. Brass. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 1125-33.
  15. Kaluza, Antonia J., Diana Boer, Claudia Buengeler, and Rolf van Dick. 2020. Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination. Work Stress 34: 34-56.
  16. Kinnunen, Ulla, Taru Feldt, Marjo Siltaloppi, and Sabine Sonnentang. 2011. Job demands-resources model in the context of recovery: Testing recovery experiences as mediators. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20: 805-32.
  17. Krasikova, Dina V., Stephen G. Green, and James M. LeBreton. 2013. Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management 39: 1308-38.
  18. Little, Tood D., William A. Cunningham, Golan Shahar, and Keith F. Widaman. 2002. To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 9: 151-73.
  19. Martinko, Mark J., Paul Harvey, Jeremy R. Brees, and Jeremy Mackey. 2013. A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34: S120-37.
  20. Mello, Jeffrey A. 2007. Managing Telework Programs Effectively. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 19: 247-61.
  21. Moreno-Jiménez, Bernardo, Margarita Mayo, Ana I. Sanz-Vergel, Sabine Geurts, Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz, and Eva Garrosa. 2009. Effects of work-family conflict on employees' well-being: The moderating role of recovery strategies. Journal of Occupational Health 14: 427-40.
  22. Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan, and Zaje A. Harrell. 2002. Rumination, depression, and alcohol use: Tests of gender differences. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 16: 391-403.
  23. O'Boyle, Ernest H., Donelson R. Forsyth, George C. Banks, and Michael A. McDaniels. 2012. A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 557-79.
  24. Pailhé, Ariane, Anne Solaz, and Arthur Souletie. 2019. How do women and men use extra time? Housework and childcare after the French 35-h workweek regulation. European Sociological Review 35: 807-24.
  25. Purvanova, Radostina K., and John P. Muros. 2010. Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77: 168-85.
  26. Schyns, Birgit, and Jan Schilling. 2013. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 24: 138-58.
  27. Shimazu, Akihito, Sabine Sonnentag, Kazumi Kubota, and Norito Kawakami. 2012. Validation of the Japanese version of the recovery experience questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health 54: 196-205.
  28. Skinner, Ellen A., Kathleen Edge, Jeffrey Altman, and Hayley Sherwood. 2003. Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin 129: 216-69.
  29. Sonnentag, Sabine, and Ute-Vera Bayer. 2005. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10: 393-414.
  30. Tepper, Bennett J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management 33: 261-89.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., & Ghislieri, C.
Affiliations
  • Université Lumière Lyon 2 (FR)
  • Research Group in Social Psychology (GRePS), Institute of Psychology, University Lumière Lyon 2, 69676 Bron, France
  • University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
Molino, Monica
Venue
Social Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-31
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
196
ISSN
2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3095959950
Cited by
73
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1
FWCI
13.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
Keywords
destructive leadership, job demands-resources model, recovery, cognitive demand, autonomy, social support, exhaustion, remote workers, remote work, COVID-19 pandemic, occupational stress

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review