IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v50y2025i3p895-916.html

How disinhibition explains reward omission leadership

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Jackson
  • Christian Criado-Perez

    (UNSW Australia Business School, Kensington, NSW, Australia)

  • Benjamin R. Walker

    (Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia)

  • Anar Purvee

    (University of the Humanities, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia)

Abstract

Disinhibition is a lack of restraint manifesting as tactless, uncivil, and inappropriate behavior; reward omission leadership is the failure of a leader to reward desirable behavior. We hypothesize disinhibition is associated with reward omission leadership. We test this possibility by associating an objective measure of disinhibition and personality models of disinhibition with reward omission leadership. In S1 ( N  = 166), the go/no-go task and personality models of disinhibition were generally associated with reward omission leadership. In S2 ( N  = 176), using multi-actor ratings, personality models of disinhibition were generally associated with reward omission leadership. In S3 ( N  = 91 junior managers; 273 employees), the tested personality model of disinhibition was associated with reward omission leadership using employee ratings from a non-Western organization. Results suggest disinhibition predicts reward omission leadership and sheds light on what is meant by disinhibition. JEL Classification: D23

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Jackson & Christian Criado-Perez & Benjamin R. Walker & Anar Purvee, 2025. "How disinhibition explains reward omission leadership," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 50(3), pages 895-916, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:50:y:2025:i:3:p:895-916
    DOI: 10.1177/03128962241270855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03128962241270855
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/03128962241270855?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryan Neo & Martin Sellbom & Sarah F. Smith & Scott O. Lilienfeld, 2018. "Of Boldness and Badness: Insights into Workplace Malfeasance from a Triarchic Psychopathy Model Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 187-205, April.
    2. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    2. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    3. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    4. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Chi Trieu, 2023. "Who’s who: how uncertainty about the favored group affects outcomes of affirmative action," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 252-292, December.
    9. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Albano, Gian Luigi & Cipollone, Angela & Paolo, Roberto Di & Ponti, Giovanni & Sparro, Marco, 2024. "Scoring rules in experimental procurement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    12. Draganac, Dragana & Lu, Kelin, 2025. "Pricing asset beyond financial fundamentals: The impact of prosocial preference and image concerns," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Zylbersztejn, Adam & Babutsidze, Zakaria & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2024. "How beautiful people see the world: Cooperativeness judgments of and by beautiful people," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 296-308.
    14. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    15. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    16. Sébastien Foudi, 2024. "Are risk attitude, impatience, and impulsivity related to the individual discount rate? Evidence from energy-efficient durable goods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 627-661, June.
    17. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    18. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    19. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Alcocer, Christian Diego & Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Shupp, Robert, 2020. "Naive and sophisticated mixing: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 157-173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:50:y:2025:i:3:p:895-916. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.