Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34659034›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2021

Leadership and Job Demands-Resources Theory: A Systematic Review.

Lars G Tummers, Arnold B Bakker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. "How do we want to be led?" Team aspirations and adaptive leadership in virtual and hybrid work.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Article
  3. Uncovering Pathways to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS): Presenteeism and Psychosocial Safety Climate in the JD-R-OHS Model.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lars G TummersSchool of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Arnold B BakkerCenter of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of leadership and Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory. We have analyzed 139 studies that study the relationship between leadership and Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory. Based on our analysis, we highlight ways forward. First, research designs can be improved by eliminating endogeneity problems. Regarding leadership concepts, proper measurements should be used. Furthermore, we point toward new theory building by highlighting three main ways in which leadership may affect employees, namely by: (1) directly influencing job demands and resources, (2) influencing the impact of job demands and resources on well-being; and (3) influencing job crafting and self-undermining. We hope this review helps researchers and practitioners analyze how leadership and JD-R theory can be connected, ultimately leading to improved employee well-being and organizational performance.

Indexed as

job demandsjob demands-resources theoryjob resourcesleadershipsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34659034
PMCPMC8514935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.