The end of laissez-faire leadership? Problematizing and revitalizing a neglected construct

Leadership approaches defined by inaction, such as laissez-faire leadership, remain understudied, leaving theory ill-equipped to address organizational challenges where knowing when to step back may be as important as knowing when to act. Where such work exists, it largely frames leader inaction as dysfunctional, reducing laissez-faire leadership to a one-dimensional negative construct. This framing constrains theoretical development by obscuring when, why, and under what conditions leader non-intervention might be appropriate or effective. To address this gap, we conduct a problematizing review of the laissez-faire leadership literature to examine how implicit assumptions have constrained theoretical development. We identify six such assumptions: (1) leadership necessarily involves action; (2) existing definitions adequately capture the construct; (3) negative findings are independent of measurement choices; (4) laissez-faire leadership is inherently negative; (5) current theoretical approaches sufficiently capture leader inaction; and (6) laissez-faire leadership reflects a stable leader tendency. We argue that these assumptions have restricted theoretical development and reinforced a pattern of largely unchallenged negative findings. Drawing on signaling theory and leader role theory, we reconceptualize laissez-faire leadership as leader behavioral non-intervention. Building on this reconceptualization, we outline a step-by-step agenda for future research that advances new conceptual, theoretical, and methodological approaches to studying leader non-intervention and clarifies when and why laissez-faire leadership may produce a range of outcomes. Together, this framework opens new avenues for theory development, empirical research, and leadership practice.