What difference does it make? A laboratory experiment on the effectiveness of health-oriented leadership working on-site compared to the digital working context

Abstract

Background Health-oriented leadership (HoL) represents an important workplace resource for employees. However, as opportunities to work from home increase, the question arises, whether leadership is more or less effective in digital working contexts compared to working on-site. Methods The current research investigates, whether the effectiveness of health-oriented leadership in terms of staff care is influenced by the working context. In a laboratory experiment with a 2 (no staff care vs. staff care) x 2 (working on-site vs. digital) mixed design (N = 60), a moderating effect of the working context on the relationship between staff care and employees’ mental exhaustion, heart rate, heart rate variability, engagement and job satisfaction was tested. Results Results uncovered positive effects of staff care on employees’ mental exhaustion and work-related attitudes in both conditions (d = 1.09–1.91). As expected, the results indicate that the effects on employees’ engagement (d = 0.65) and job satisfaction (d = 0.72) are weaker when working digital. Conclusion Findings show that the effectiveness of staff care might differ between working on-site and working digital. In order to maintain the effectiveness of staff care, leaders and employees should keep regular face-to-face contact also when mainly working from home. The study ties in with research on digital leadership and leadership effectiveness, and contributes to the deeper understanding of situational contingencies of health-specific leadership during the process of digitization.

“That was one of my most difficult and biggest challenges”: experiences, preconditions and preventive measures of health-oriented leadership in virtual teams – A qualitative study with virtual leaders

“…Overall, according to current research, initial quantitative studies demonstrated the effectiveness of StaffCare also for digital, remote work contexts during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 9 , 19 – 21 ]. Three of these studies analyzed StaffCare in comparison between office and home office [ 9 , 20 , 21 ]. Their findings indicated i.e.…”

“…Their findings indicated i.e. positive effects of StaffCare on employees’ well-being [ 20 ] as well as negative effects on employees’ mental exhaustion [ 21 ] and psychosomatic complaints [ 20 ] in both work contexts whereas two studies found lower effectiveness of StaffCare on employees’ engagement and job satisfaction in home office in comparison to office [ 9 , 21 ]. Furthermore, two other studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that, one, telework-oriented leadership (including StaffCare) affected teleworkers’ happiness well-being via strain by ensuring communication and information exchanges between teleworkers [ 60 ] and, two, that the positive relationship between StaffCare and follower health was stronger in times of crisis [ 61 ].…”

“…According to current research, this theoretical model has been predominantly studied in traditional, face-to-face work contexts, indicating a positive impact on follower health [ 18 ]. Initial quantitative studies on HoL in digital, remote collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that high levels of SelfCare among leaders had a positive impact on, among others, their own health, well-being, and job satisfaction [ 9 ], and that high levels of StaffCare had a positive impact on employee (mental) health and wellbeing [ 19 ], also when compared to office-based collaboration [ 9 , 20 , 21 ]. Study results by Klebe and colleagues showed that ICT hassles weakened the positive relationship between StaffCare and employees’ mental health [ 19 ].…”