How are Leader-Member Exchange and Servant Leadership Related to Job burnout? The Mediating Role of Workplace Bullying

1. Introduction

For nearly half a century, the concept of burnout [1,2] has remained a widely studied topic and is considered to be the most well-known and devastating psychosocial risk. Indeed, burnout has various psychological and bodily consequences [3,4,5,6]. For example, [6] found effects such as cognitive impairment, empathy loss, exhaustion, poor job performance, and social withdrawal. For [1], burnout is a “syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who work with people”. It is a response to the chronic emotional burden that develops when caring for people over an extended period of time, particularly when they are in need or suffering. Burnout is the product of an interaction between the individual and the occupational world, occurring above all in professions with high emotional, mental, and affective demands (e.g., nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers, safety, and security, etc.) [7,8,9], but also in the distribution and banking-insurance sectors [10]. Based on these findings, a number of studies exploring human leadership styles have suggested that servant leadership and leader-member exchange (LMX) leadership can reduce the risk of burnout among employees. Consequently, promoting these leadership styles could help reduce risks such as bullying and burnout among employees. For example, LMX can prevent the risk of burn out [11]. Servant leadership reduces burnout [12,13], increases positive job attitudes, performance, and sustainability [14]. It can help to improve their psychological health and overall performance [15,16]. Several studies suggest that certain leadership styles can influence the emergence of counterproductive behaviors [17], while other studies highlight the essential role of benevolent leaders [18,19]. Certainly, leader support can protect from bullying and its serious consequences, such as burnout. However, to our knowledge, the literature does not distinguish between the effects of different types of positive leadership in relation to bullying and burnout. In particular, we don’t know whether servant leadership is likely to be influenced by the mediating role of bullying, or whether servant leadership will have a persistent burnout-reducing effect. In comparison, it is important to know whether personalized and dyadic leadership such as LMX, aimed at transformation, autonomy and skill enhancement, can be affected by bullying, which would have a negative role on burnout.

Our study makes new contributions to the literature and provides a scientific reflection on how different positive leaderships can be impacted by bullying and on the role of bullying as an interface between these leaderships and burnout.

Based on the aforementioned studies and reflections, the first aim of this study was to examine the relationships between servant leadership, the quality of leader-member exchange, and burnout. The second aim was to analyze the role of workplace bullying as a mediator between positive leadership styles (servant and LMX) and the two dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization).

The strengths of this study lie in the choice of two positive leadership styles to understand their respective and specific links with bullying and burnout. The servant style is representative of the ethical style. The choice of the LMX style has two advantages: It focuses on the “leader-member exchange” and the dyadic nature of the relationship. In addition, the LMX style encompasses democratic, transformational, transactional and authentic styles. Our study also addresses the lack of research on the relationship between servant leadership and psychological health and fills a gap in the literature by measuring the links between servant leadership, bullying and burnout. Although studies have been conducted on the relationships between the variables in pairs, this paper remedy the lack of literature on the relationships between the four variables. With a few rare exceptions, the consequences of bullying on burnout in different leadership contexts (servant or LMX) have not been studied in certain fields, such as the commercial and financial sector. In the distribution and banking sectors, for example, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are linked to extrinsic efforts and over-commitment [20], to increased pressure, nervous fatigue, and frustration in the face of process changes, digital technologies and the restructuring of departments and missions, and to a certain loss of control due to competition and product changes. For example, branch employees are in daily contact with people with severe economic problems, and are required to sell financial products in highly competitive contexts [20]. Constant efforts and adaptations require working too hard and make employees feel washed out and at the end of their rope (emotional exhaustion) and lead them to become less sensitive and more impersonal (depersonalization).

1.1. Servant Leadership and Burnout

The servant style of leadership puts employees at the center of the leadership system, since they are the main generations of value. The servant leader must first and foremost serve his or her employees, before directing or controlling them [14,15]). In addition, the servant leader fosters a culture of support, autonomy and caring within the company, which can reduce work-related stressors such as excessive expectations, lack of recognition and constant pressure for high performance [11,16,21]. This protective dimension of the servant leader fosters a healthier, more encouraging and more rewarding work environment. For example, the servant leader is always interested in helping people in the community, does what he can to make an employee’s job easier, may be sensitive to employees’ personal concerns, and takes the time to talk to an employee about more personal matters. There are currently few studies on the relationship between servant leadership and burnout, which is a state of chronic exhaustion and frustration caused by unrealistic expectations [5]. Some studies have found negative relationships between servant leadership and work-related ill-being. A study involving 401 employees from 49 companies in different sectors obtained a negative relationship between servant leadership and burnout [22]. They concluded that this leadership style has a positive effect on reducing the risk of burnout. For some authors [23,24], employees who benefit from servant leadership are less likely to develop burnout because they receive the support and resources they need to face organizational challenges. The above-mentioned studies show that the servant leader is attentive to the needs of employees, the work environment, autonomy, improved job satisfaction and personal development, all of which help to reduce the sources of burnout. In the light of the reported links, we formulated our first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: 

Servant leadership is negatively related to burnout.

1.2. Leader-Member Exchange and Burnout

High quality leader-member exchange corresponds to a greater amount of information exchange, as well as greater trust, support, and interaction. In turn, the employee achieves or even surpasses his or her set of objectives [25]. More specifically, the quality of leader-member relationships is a key factor influencing burnout in employees [26,27,28]. Burnout has been shown to can arise from chronic stress resulting from exposure to work overload combined with a lack of autonomy and long-term involvement with people in emotionally demanding situations [2,8]. Other studies have found negative relationships between social support and burnout. For example, [8]) found that supervisor support exerts a mediating effect between informational justice, procedural justice, and emotional exhaustion. Studies have shown significant negative relationships between LMX and burnout. Low quality exchanges occurring between an employee and a demanding leader can be a source of tension that makes employees vulnerable to burnout due to insufficient social support from the hierarchy [4,9,29]. It has been shown that in high-quality LMX relationships, where employees receive more social support, employees are better able to manage and control work pressures due to their healthy, harmonious, and empowering work environment [26,27,30]. For example, high-quality LMX manifest through clear communication to reduce workplace tension, by the leader’s recognition of each employee’s achievements and potential. LMX leadership includes being close to and supportive of employees who know where they’re going and how they can work effectively. These behaviors can help reduce burnout. Accordingly, we formulated our second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: 

The quality of leader-member exchange is negatively related to burnout.

1.3. The Mediating Role of Bullying in Burnout

Behavior is generally considered abusive or hostile when it deviates from the formal and/or informal norms of the organization with the intention of causing suffering to a specific person. This characteristic is found in the various definitions of bullying-related phenomena [31] Bullying manifests itself as hostile acts repeated over time, and aimed at harming others [31,32,33]. For [31], workplace bullying is a psychological process involving repeated, destructive behaviors that affect an employee’s relationships, working conditions, and integrity. What’s more, it generates distress [34] and is detrimental to psychological health, leading directly to burnout, depression, and asthenia [35,36,37]. Several studies have highlighted significant relationships between bullying and burnout [8,19,38,39]. For example, emotional exhaustion has been consistently linked to exposure to workplace bullying [19]. Another study in the healthcare sector showed that the effect of bullying on emotional exhaustion was mediated by social support [8]. In a study of 434 workers, [38] highlighted a positive link between workplace bullying and emotional exhaustion, as well as the mediating role of workplace bullying between perceived supervisor support and emotional exhaustion. These studies led us to formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: 

Workplace bullying is positively related to burnout.

An inappropriate management style and a lack of social support has been show to increase bullying and burnout [40]. Certain positive leadership styles (servant, LMX) can decrease bullying and burnout. For example, servant leadership is negatively related to antisocial behaviors [41,42] and helps in discouraging workplace bullying [43,44]. In addition, some studies have shown that servant leadership can help employees cope with the negative consequences of workplace bullying, such as burnout, by offering emotional support and resources to improve their psychological health [11,45]. LMX is also negatively linked to bullying [43,46]. A study [47] showed negative relationships between LMX and bullying, and between LMX and organizational cynicism. A structural equation analysis [39] showed that workplace bullying played a mediating role between social support from supervisors and emotional exhaustion. The authors also found significant effect of bullying between LMX and the organizational cynicism. Additionally, bullying acts (e.g., verbal attacks, humiliations, physical attacks, negative emotions as fear or psychological terror), will function as a mechanism that will alter the effects of positive leadership. These acts ruin and undermine the positive role of positive leaderships prevent the positive protective role of leadership against burnout and therefore against emotional fatigue and the need to distance oneself (depersonalization). Negative acts of bullying will mediate the relationship between leadership support and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (personal withdrawal). In the case of servant leadership, the employee feels deprived of help and support through isolation, sidelining, devaluation and aggression, which exhausts and leads to distancing. In the case of LMX leadership, the specific, dyadic relationship is altered by attacks from others, such as humiliation and the denigration of skills, leading to a sharp loss of energy, a loss of confidence and a loss of the relationship as a pivot and source of positive transformation at work. These studies led us to formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: 

Bullying plays a mediating role in the relationship between servant leadership and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and a mediating role between LMX and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.

Finally, the aim of this study, based on the hypothetic model (Figure 1), was to predict burnout based on a model including two psychosocial independent variables (leadership servant, LMX) and one mediator (bullying).

2. Methods

2.1. Procedure

Participants were asked to fill out a self-administered, entirely anonymous, voluntary online questionnaire. To minimize response bias, we used different instructions and various response scales, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2012). A letter that accompanied the questionnaire explained the purpose of the study and reminded the participants to remain confidential by avoiding any identifying clues. Communication channels included LinkedIn, e-mail, and direct contact with companies. We processed all of the collected data using SPSS software (version 25). Scale-reliability testing and first-order correlation analysis were performed. To test for the role of bullying as a mediator between leadership styles (servant, LMX) and burnout, we used [49] method. The Macro Process approach [49] tests the links in the mediation model. Link C’ (the direct effect) is the effect of an IV on the DV where the effects of the MVs are controlled. The mediation (indirect) effect is MV effect on DV when IV is controlled. Link C is the total effect of an IV on the DV; it is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects). We used Model 4 to test mediations. This approach examines direct and indirect relationships using regressions and a non-parametric bootstrapping method that generated 10,000 alternative samples. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee and Research in Human and Social Sciences of the University of Lille [2021-504-S94].

2.2. Participants

The questionnaire was filled in by 228 workers from France (Hauts-de-France region). The sample (Table 1) comprised 155 women (67.98%) and 73 men (32.89%). Their average age was 35 (SD = 12.45) and the average length of employment was eight years (SD = 10.1). Of the 228 participants, 82.02% worked in the private sector and had an initial level of education that included high school plus two years of university (30.7%), high school plus three to four years of university (26.3%) or high school plus five or more years of university (22.36%). Participants came from the business (N = 174 or 76.32%) and finance (N = 54 or 23.68%) professions. At the time of the survey the majority of the participants had a family: 32.45% lived alone with at least one child and 31.57% were living with a partner and had at least one dependent. The rest (28.5%) were single without children.

For each variable, a normality test was performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to verify the normality of the parent population. The distribution of the variables leader servant (p = 0.001), LMX (p = 0.000), moral harassment at work (p = 0.000), emotional exhaustion (p = 0.000) and depersonalisation (p = 0.00) does not correspond to a normal distribution. Nevertheless, the coefficient of symmetry (skewness) reveals a leftward skewness for bullying (S = 1.077), depersonalisation (S = .851) and emotional exhaustion (S = .867), as well as a rightward skewness for servant leader (S = -.478) and LMX (S = -.541). The discrepancy between the mean of the variables and their theoretical mean explains these asymmetries. For example, the mean of the bullying (M = 1.58) was lower than its theoretical mean (MT = 2.5).

2.3. Measures

To test these hypotheses, we carried out the present study using a self-reported on-line questionnaire consisting of several scales and factual questions. All questionnaires were administered in French.

Burnout. We used [50], Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), which includes 14 items assessing emotional exhaustion (e.g., I feel exhausted at the end of a working day) and depersonalization (e.g., I’ve become more insensitive to people since I’ve had this job). All items were rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). The French Validation of MBI-GS [51] revealed excellent internal consistency for the two dimensions of MBI. Cronbach’s alpha was .89 for emotional exhaustion and .61 for depersonalization.

Servant leadership. We used [52] scale which encompasses two main aspects of servant leadership: ethical behavior and priority given to subordinates’ concerns. It comprised 14 items, with two items representing each of the seven dimensions (e.g., “My supervisor makes the personal development of employees a priority”). Subordinates rated their supervisor on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86.

Leader-member exchanges. We used the [53] scale, originally validated in English by [54]. To assess the quality of the relationship between superior and subordinate, we opted for a unidimensional approach to the construct [54]. It was used with some recommendations. In particular, [55] suggest that the questionnaire be completed only by the subordinate, and not by the dyad. Which has seven items (e.g., “I can count on my superior to support me if I really need it”). Participants were asked to self-assess each item on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale has been translated in French by [56] who validated it with an alpha above .70. Cronbach’s alpha was .87.

Workplace Bullying. We used [57] Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ), which includes 20 items describing various negative acts perceived as bullying when they occur regularly (e.g., Someone withholds information you need and thus makes your work difficult). The response categories ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (several times a week). The psychometric properties of the French version of the NAQ-R are similar to those of the original version [57]. Cronbach’s alpha was .82.

3. Results

3.1. Correlationnal Analyses

The mean scores obtained (Table 2) indicated a relatively high level of emotional exhaustion (M = 2.01) and depersonalization (M = 1.05), which may seem surprising at first glance. However, analysis of the lowest scores showed that the majority of the study participants did not feel harassed (M = 1.58). Based on the correlation analysis, servant leadership was negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion (r = -.36, p < .01), depersonalization (r = -.28, p < .01), and workplace bullying (r = -.41, p < .01). LMX was negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion (r = -.39, p < .01), depersonalization (r = -.23, p < .01), and workplace bullying (r = -.28, p < .01). Bullying was positively correlated with emotional exhaustion (r = .25, p < .01) and depersonalization (r = .33, p < .01), the two dimensions of burnout.

3.2. Mediations Analyses

We used the SPSS 25.0 macro [49,58] to examine the mediation hypotheses. The method [58] uses regressions to compute the mediation effect (Figure 1), also known as the indirect effect, by multiplying link A (the effect of an IV on a mediating variable, or MV) by link B (the specific effect of an MV on the DV). Link C shows how an IV affects the DV overall. In order to confirm the moderating effect that workplace bullying plays in the relationships between leadership servant and job burnout and between LMX and job burnout, this study employs the bootstrapping approach.

The results (Figure 2 and Figure 3) show the mediating effects of bullying in the relationship between leadership style and emotional exhaustion. First, workplace bullying played an indirect role in the relationship between servant leadership and burnout. The indirect effect was significant at p < .01, with β = -.28 (95% CI: [-.45; -.15] for emotional exhaustion and -.11 (95% CI: [-.24; -.01]). We observed significant direct links between servant leadership and emotional exhaustion (C’ = -.57; p < .001). There were also direct links between servant leadership and depersonalization (C’ = -.36, p < .001). These results mean that servant-leadership effects on emotional exhaustion (-.28) and depersonalization (-.11) were mediated by workplace bullying.

Secondly, workplace bullying played a mediating role in the relationship between LMX and burnout. The significant indirect effect on burnout occurred via workplace bullying at p < .01, with β = -.15 (95% CI: [-.27; -.07]) when it was emotional exhaustion and β =-.07 (95% CI: [-.15; -.02]) for depersonalization. Significant direct links between LMX and emotional exhaustion, and between LMX and depersonalization were observed (respectively, C’ = -.54; p < .001; C’ = -.22, p < .001). These results showed that LMX effects on emotional exhaustion (-.15) and depersonalization (-.07) were mediated by workplace bullying.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study is to provide a more comprehensive explanation of how caring leadership styles, as perceived by employees, reduce the consequences of workplace bullying as a mediating factor influencing burnout. The results confirm our hypotheses concerning the consequences of servant leadership and LMX on burnout. Specifically, workplace bullying plays a central role in the relationship between servant leadership and emotional exhaustion, as well as depersonalization. In addition, workplace bullying plays a central role in the relationship between the quality of exchange between the leader and the members and emotional exhaustion, as well as depersonalization. The results highlight the relevance of our independent variables and their significant links with the two dimensions of burnout in the business and finance sectors. Servant leadership (H1) and LMX (H2) were negatively and significantly correlated with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, validating hypotheses 1 and 2. These results are in line with studies revealing a negative relationship between servant leadership and LMX are negatively correlated with burnout [4,23,24,28]. Consequently, the more the leader is perceived as being serving via a high quality relationship, the more employees feel support and recognition from their leader, which can potentially have an effect on burnout. Our study contributes to research on job burn-out in a number of ways. Firstly, many researchers have highlighted the role of leaders in employees’ experience of burnout [60,61]. As leaders play a crucial role in burnout research, we have attempted to provide a more comprehensive explanation by analyzing the direct effects of servant leaders and LMX on employee burnout. This study explains how the two leadership styles studied here can create a work environment where employees feel supported, appreciated and involved, thus reducing sources of stress and improving employee well-being.

Workplace bullying was positively linked here to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, confirming Hypothesis 3. This result is in line with previous studies showing that workplace bullying participates in organizational ill-being [35] (Amini et al., 2023) and is a cause of burnout [8,19,38,39]. Furthermore, our results showed that workplace bullying played a mediating role between servant leadership, the quality of leader-member exchanges, and the burnout dimensions. Consequently, Hypothesis 4 whereby workplace bullying plays a mediating role between the two positive leadership’s styles (servant leadership, LMX) and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization was validated. Indeed, workplace bullying appears to be a significant mediator that can lead to burnout [8,22,38,39,40]. Employees who feel that their superiors treat them fairly and respectfully tend to increase their self-confidence, which in turn encourages them to establish good relationships with their superiors and colleagues, thereby reducing burnout and bullying. We noted that perceptions of servant and LMX leadership can vary and often do not have the same effects on employees. These “caring” leadership styles seen to offer emotional support to employees. Which can be crucial in preventing burnout by enabling employees to share their concerns and difficulties [23,24]. An emotionally supportive environment can also deter bullying, insofar as employees feel more inclined to support each other [4,23,29]. As a result, employees can benefit from higher quality exchanges with their leader, since he or she places priority on their psychological health. Moreover, in a preexisting negative relationship, servant leadership and LMX may play a crucial role in preventing burnout and bullying by creating a positive, collaborative work environment based on respect, open communication, and mutual support. This claim is supported by the direct effects of this type of leadership on emotional exhaustion and depersonalization [44,62]. When employees have a high level of trust in their leaders, this plays an essential role in reducing burnout and hostile behavior. In this way, when employees see their superiors as professionally competent, a positive relationship with them will be perceived as a more useful and advantageous resource for them. The results of our research thus confirm research that has shown that leadership capacity and trustworthiness encourage a sense of power and effectiveness, which has an impact on employees’ behavior and attitudes towards organizations, including burnout [64].

4.1. Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

There are several limitations to this study. First, our cross-sectional design did not allow us to draw conclusions about the causality operating between the explanatory variables and burnout. According to [65], using the self-report method is justified in several cases, and the common method bias can be controlled by taking certain precautions. The first precaution we took was to choose validated scales. The second precaution was to avoid conceptual overlap in items by choosing clearly different concepts. As recommended [63], we chose self-reported responses because they explicitly focus on participants’ direct perceptions. Second, a methodological limitation is the use of a self-reported questionnaire, which is likely to generate acquiescence, social desirability and other biases [64,66]. The servant leadership scale has not been subjected to extensive psychometric validation. Despite the high cronbach’s alpha, this version should be validated. In addition, participants’ fear of expressing themselves in the context of bullying may lead to a retraction bias on certain items. Consequently, it is suggested that a complementary qualitative approach be used to deepen our understanding of these issues. Third, the study was conducted in a specific geographic and cultural context (Hauts de France region). Although this region is representative of France, with a balance between metropolises, large cities and rural areas, future research should consider cross-cultural studies to explore whether the findings hold true in different cultural settings. Four, our sample was not representative of all trades and sectors as we chose two specific sectors. Broadening the sample to include other industries would enable us not only to identify areas that are particularly prone to other types of organizational ills, but also to identify leadership styles that focus on organization, power, and support. In addition, the inclusion of more questions on managerial practices and leaders’ ability to manage their mental health satisfactorily could offer a more comprehensive perspective. Finally, as a research avenue, the role of other forms of leadership could be tested as mediators between the two styles of leadership and burnout, for example telepressure at work and cyberbullying. These variables are an extension of traditional bullying [31].

4.2. Practical Implications

The study highlights that the experience of workers depends on the nature of the relationship between leadership styles, workplace bullying and burnout. It is emphasized that every organization should pay particular attention to psychosocial risks in the workplace. For this reason, it is essential to put in place what is known as primary prevention of psychosocial risks at work [67] (Gent & Quinton, 2018). To avoid burnout, it is advisable to ensure that the organization of work and the constraints it imposes do not overwhelm employees or call into question the rules and values of their profession [8]. Indeed, organizations must take into account the social support of colleagues and hierarchy as essential elements in managing organizations. Rather than creating an atmosphere of excessive competitiveness, which could lead to conflictual relations or even counter-productive actions between employees, it seems essential for organizations to promote benevolent leadership styles. This contributes to the emergence of positive behaviors towards the organization by creating the emergence of behaviors of organizational citizenship and mutual aid between colleagues [68], thus promoting a positive work atmosphere and reducing the risk of burnout. Workplace bullying and burnout are linked by stressful situations, which explains the mediating effects of workplace bullying between leadership styles and both aspects of burnout. These types of leaders have a crucial role to play in business and finance, as they ensure that employees are protected from the harmful consequences of workplace bullying and burnout. It is essential for commercial and financial organizations to ensure that the procedures used to make decisions offer individuals the opportunity to express their views and comply with the principles of consistency, accuracy and impartiality. They must also set limits, prioritize tasks, delegate effectively where necessary, cultivate resilience and adopt a flexible approach to certain situations. In addition, it is vital that organizations offer individuals the opportunity to communicate in suitable working environments, in order to cope with the workload and reduce the risk of burnout. In addition, conducting individual and collective professional interviews would enable the difficulties encountered by each individual to be identified precisely, thus preventing very high work demands. Training can focus on employee support, power sharing, ethical values and organizational justice.

5. Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is unprecedented in that it is the only one to highlight the links between two positive leaderships (LMX and servant leadership) and burnout, taking into account the deleterious role of bullying. Workplace bullying plays a mediating role between servant leadership on the one hand, and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the other. Workplace bullying plays a mediating role between LMX and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. These positive and protective psychosocial resources (LMX and servant leadership) offer emotional support that decrease workplace bullying and emotional exhaustion.