Previous research stresses the importance of leaders’ subjective well-being not only for their own health but also for their employees’ well-being and performance (Arnold, 2017; Byrne et al., 2014; Courtright et al., 2014; Harms et al., 2017; Inceoglu et al., 2018; Kaluza et al., 2020; Montano et al., 2017). For example, higher subjective well-being in leaders has been linked to more effective leadership (Byrne et al., 2014; Courtright et al., 2014; Kaluza et al., 2020), which in turn has been associated with more favorable health- and work-related outcomes among employees (Arnold, 2017; Harms et al., 2017; Inceoglu et al., 2018; Montano et al., 2017).
However, surprisingly little is known about changes in subjective well-being in the years before and after becoming a leader. Starting a leadership position often relates to benefits, including a higher status, income, power, and control. At the same time, being a leader typically relates to higher responsibilities, more work, higher time pressure, supervisory tasks, and representative functions, which can be stressful. Therefore, starting a leadership position might have favorable but – at the same time – also unfavorable effects on subjective well-being (Barling & Cloutier, 2017; Debus et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018).
Consistent with this idea, becoming a leader has been linked to higher stress (e.g., higher exhaustion) but also to higher job satisfaction (Debus et al., 2019). However, little is known about changes in general life satisfaction and different facets of affect (e.g., happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger) before and after transitioning into a leadership role. Improved knowledge on this topic is crucial from a basic and applied perspective: From a basic perspective, it helps to resolve whether Set-Point Theory (Lucas, 2007) applies not only to major life events but also to major occupational transitions: Are well-being changes in emergent leaders transient or do they last for a long time? From an applied perspective, it helps to understand the mental health challenges that come along with being a leader, providing target points for interventional research and personnel development (Kaluza et al., 2020; Roche et al., 2014). For example, promoting specific well-being facets in (emergent) leaders might enhance leadership success, occupational health, and organizational growth. This study focuses on (a) well-being differences between leaders and non-leaders as well as (b) well-being changes before and after starting a leadership position.
1.1 Subjective Well-being
Subjective well-being is defined as subjective evaluation of one’s life and comprises a cognitive and an affective component (Diener et al., 2009). Cognitive well-being refers to life satisfaction and affective well-being refers to positive and negative affect. Life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect have been shown to be moderately correlated but clearly separable dimensions (Diener et al., 2009). Moreover, affective well-being can be divided into more nuanced sub-facets such as happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger (Möwisch et al., 2019).
1.2 Leadership Differences Between Leaders and Non-leaders
Previous research indicates that subjective well-being tends to be higher in leaders vs. employees in non-leadership positions (Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1997; Li et al., 2018; Sherman et al., 2012; Skakon et al., 2011). For instance, Li and colleagues (2018) compared psychological and physiological well-being indices between leaders and non-leaders from different samples and found that leaders tended to be more satisfied with their lives compared to non-leaders. (Skakon et al., 2011) found that leaders experienced lower emotional stress than non-leaders, but cognitive, behavioral, and physiological stress indices did not differ significantly between both groups.
Sherman and colleagues (2012) showed that levels of anxiety and cortisol were lower in leaders vs. non-leaders and in leaders with more vs. less powerful positions. These effects were partially due to differences in perceived control. More broadly, a higher status and more power in social hierarchies in and outside occupational contexts have been linked to more positive and less negative affect (van Kleef & Lange, 2020; Witkower et al., 2020), lower stress, and lower cortisol secretion (Sherman & Mehta, 2020).
1.3 Theoretical Assumptions
Research on person-situation transactions (Buss, 1987; Caspi & Roberts, 2001) and person-environment fit (Caplan, 1987; Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016) indicates that psychological characteristics and work-related experiences influence each other over time (Denissen et al., 2014; Nye & Roberts, 2019). It is thus plausible to assume that leadership emergence relates to (changes in) subjective well-being: Subjective well-being might affect whether people do or do not become leaders (selection effects). At the same time, subjective well-being might change in preparation for and in reaction to a leadership role.
1.3.1 Selection Effects
Higher subjective well-being has been associated with specific personality traits, including higher extraversion, emotional stability, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and perceived control (Anglim et al., 2020; Asselmann et al., 2022; DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). In turn, such characteristics have been linked to occupational success and effective leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Furnham, 2018; Furnham & Crump, 2015; Judge et al., 2002, 2009; Wells et al., 2016). Therefore, people who feel better might be more likely to become leaders.
1.3.2 Well-being Changes Before and After Becoming a Leader
According to the Job Demand-Control Model (Karasek, 1979), two job characteristics are essential for subjective well-being among employees: Job demands and job control. Job demands include, for example, high responsibilities, a heavy workload, time pressure, role conflicts, as well as physical and emotional demands. Job control refers to the ability to influence tasks and activities at work, as indicated, for example, by high autonomy and decision-making authority. The model assumes that higher job demands relate to lower well-being, while higher job control relates to higher well-being, which has been supported by previous research (Crawford et al., 2010; Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2020; Häusser et al., 2010; Nixon et al., 2011; Bosma et al., 1997).
Leadership positions are typically characterized by high job demands (e.g., high responsibilities) and at the same time high job control (e.g., high decision-making authority; Barling & Cloutier, 2017; Li et al., 2018). Therefore, becoming a leader might promote but also hamper subjective well-being.
In their Dual-Pathway Model, Li and colleagues (2018) assume that being a leader relates to higher job demands, which in turn relates to lower subjective well-being. At the same time, leadership relates to higher job control, which in turn relates to higher subjective well-being. In two cross-sectional studies, the authors compared job demands, job control, and different well-being indices between employees in leadership and non-leadership positions. Consistent with their ideas, leadership had an indirect negative effect on subjective well-being (e.g., life satisfaction) through higher job demands. At the same time, leadership had an indirect positive effect on subjective well-being through higher job control. Moreover, longitudinal analyses revealed that job demands and job control were initially higher and increased more strongly in employees who did vs. did not start a leadership position over time (Li et al., 2018). However, longitudinal changes in subjective well-being in the years before and after becoming a leader were not examined.
Similarly, another longitudinal study found that starting a leadership position was indirectly related to higher exhaustion and work-to-family conflict through higher time pressure, an indicator of higher job demands (Debus et al., 2019). At the same time, becoming a leader was indirectly related to higher job satisfaction through higher participation in decision-making, an indicator of higher job control. However, whether the transition related to opposite changes in general life satisfaction and/or different emotions was not assessed.
Taken together, none of these previous studies focused on nuanced well-being changes in the years before becoming a leader (anticipation effects) and in the years after this transition (socialization effects). Thus, additional research is needed to resolve how life satisfaction and different facets of affect change at different junctions before, during, and after transitioning into a leadership role. Set-Point Theory (Lucas, 2007) assumes that subjective well-being fluctuates around a person-specific set-point over time. That is, subjective well-being might temporarily change due to positive or negative life experiences, but it bounces back to its set-point in the long term. In line with these ideas, leaders might experience particularly pronounced well-being changes in the first year of being a leader, which attenuate in the following years.
1.4 Gender Differences
To date, it has not been resolved whether well-being changes in the years before and after becoming a leader vary by gender. Role Congruity Theory posits that female (vs. male) gender stereotypes are less congruent with leadership roles, leading to less positive perceptions and evaluations of female leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Consistently, previous research found that female and male leaders not only differed in their leadership behavior (Eagly & Johnson, 1990), but were also perceived and evaluated differently (Bass & Bass, 2009; Eagly et al., 1992). For example, women tended to lead in a more participative but less directive way (Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and were devalued more often when adopting a stereotypically masculine (e.g., directive) leadership style (Eagly et al., 1992). Thus, becoming a leader might be more difficult and stressful (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and thus relate to less favorable well-being changes in women vs. men.
1.5 Age Differences
Moreover, little is known about age differences: On the one hand, younger (vs. older) individuals might be more flexible and energetic, more easily adjust to work-related changes, and thus experience more positive well-being changes when starting a leadership position (Walter & Scheibe, 2013).
On the other hand, older people tend to have more knowledge, skills, experience, and occupational network contacts, which facilitates transitioning into a leadership role (Seibert et al., 2017; Walter & Scheibe, 2013). Thus, it is also plausible to argue that older individuals experience more positive well-being changes before and after becoming a leader.
Aims.
Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), this study focused on (a) well-being differences between leaders and employees in non-leadership positions as well as (b) well-being changes in the years before and after becoming a leader, including the role of gender and age. In the SOEP, not only cognitive well-being (i.e., life satisfaction) but also four facets of positive (i.e., happiness) and negative (i.e., sadness, anxiety, and anger) affect were assessed and considered in the analyses.
In the total sample (including leaders and non-leaders), we analyzed selection effects to investigate well-being differences between non-leaders and leaders-to-be (in the years before becoming a leader). We modeled post-transition differences to examine well-being differences between non-leaders and leaders (in the years after becoming a leader).
In leaders, we analyzed anticipation effects to study gradual well-being changes in the five years before starting a leadership position and socialization effects to study gradual well-being changes in the five years after starting a leadership position. We analyzed short-term effects to examine well-being differences in the first year of being a leader vs. all other years. Finally, we modeled long-term effects to investigate well-being differences more than one year after starting a leadership position vs. the years before.
Furthermore, we explored changes in job characteristics in the years before and after becoming a leader: Weekly working hours were considered as an indicator of job demands. Leaders’ monthly gross labor income was considered as a potential benefit because it typically increases through promotions and has been partially linked to subjective well-being, especially life satisfaction (although this link tends to decrease beyond a certain income level; Kahneman & Deaton 2010). (Job control was not assessed in the SOEP and thus could not be considered.)
Hypotheses.
Based on previous findings on well-being differences between leaders and non-leaders (Jurkiewicz & Massey, 1997; Li et al., 2018; Sherman et al., 2012; Skakon et al., 2011), we hypothesize that leaders are more satisfied with their lives, happier, less sad, less anxious, and less angry than non-leaders, both in the years before becoming a leader (selection hypothesis) and in the years after this transition (post-transition hypothesis). Similarly, we assume that both female and male leaders are more satisfied, happier, less sad, less anxious, and less angry than same-sex non-leaders, respectively (gender hypothesis 1).
In line with the Job Demand-Control Model (Karasek, 1979) and Dual-Pathway Model (Li et al., 2018), we assume that becoming a leader relates to increased life satisfaction and positive affect (due to the benefits of a leadership position) but also to increased negative affect (due to the costs of being a leader). In line with Set-Point Theory (Lucas, 2007), we expect that these changes are most pronounced shortly after the transition and attenuate in the long run, leading to the following hypotheses: All well-being facets (i.e., life satisfaction, happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger) increase in the years before becoming a leader (anticipation hypothesis). Life satisfaction, happiness, sadness, anxiety, and anger are higher in the first year (short-term hypothesis) and after the first year (long-term hypothesis) of being a leader (vs. all other years), but these effects attenuate over time (socialization hypothesis). In women, becoming a leader relates to less favorable well-being changes compared to men (e.g., a smaller increase in life satisfaction and happiness but a larger increase in sadness, anxiety, and anger; gender hypothesis 2). Interactions with age are tested exploratorily.