arbiter
JournalsAccount

Strengths- Versus Deficits-Based Leadership

Jixin Wang et al.

Journal of Personnel Psychology2026https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000380article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Abstract: Strengths-based leaders help employees amplify their strengths, whereas deficits-based leaders support employees in remediating their deficiencies. Despite their different foci, we argue that both types of leadership facilitate employees to perform well. We hypothesize that strengths-based and deficits-based leadership are crucial resources that are positively related to employee task performance and innovative behavior. Additionally, we hypothesize that employee strengths use positively mediates the relationship between strengths-based leadership and its outcomes, while negatively mediating the relationship between deficits-based leadership and its outcomes. We tested our mediation model among 599 Chinese workers using a three-wave study. Results showed that strengths-based (but not deficits-based) leadership was uniquely related to employee innovative behavior and task performance through employee strengths use. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000380

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jixin2026,
  title        = {{Strengths- Versus Deficits-Based Leadership}},
  author       = {Jixin Wang et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Personnel Psychology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000380},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Strengths- Versus Deficits-Based Leadership

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.