Many Roads to Failure: An Exploratory Vignette Study of Destructive Leadership

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the differences between destructive leadership in two different contexts: crisis management and usual circumstances. The specific research questions are as follows: What is the relationship between destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances and destructive leadership behaviours in crisis management? Are destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances or in crisis management the best predictors of trust in the leader and subordinate performance?Design/methodology/approachQuestionnaire responses were obtained from 337 individuals who had experience from handling various societal crises, such as terror attacks and forest fires. The respondents represented four different organisations: municipalities, county administrative boards, the police and the emergency service.FindingsThe results from the study reveal that there is a strong association between destructive leadership in usual circumstances and destructive leadership during crisis management. The study indicates that everyday leadership matters the most. It is above all behaviours in usual circumstances that show the strongest associations with trust in the leader and subordinate performance. The results also show that it is especially task-related, passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours that show the strongest association with the studied outcome variables.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations related to measurements and self-reported data are discussed.Practical implicationsThe study emphasises the importance of paying attention to leaders’ task- and strategic-oriented behaviour as well as the importance of building trusting relationships with the subordinates.Originality/valueThe need for industry-specific studies of destructive leadership has been highlighted and this study contributes with knowledge from the crisis management context.

Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms. From reviewing the literature, we conclude that three major forms of destructive leader behaviors are described: (1) follower-directed destructive behaviors, i.e., genuine abusive forms of destructive leadership, (2) organization-directed behaviors, i.e., behaviors such as stealing from the organization or embezzlement, and (3) self-interested destructive leader behavior, i.e., leader who exploit others to reach their goals. One can easily imagine that these three types of leader behavior have very different effects on followers. Unfortunately, so far, there is no empirical evidence to support this, since comparative research in the field of destructive leadership is scarce. With this paper, we aim to address this gap: In two studies, an experimental and a field study, we examine the differential impact of these three different destructive leader behaviors on two important outcomes: first, their impact on different emotional reactions of followers, the most proximal outcome to a social interaction. Second, we examine a key outcome in leadership research: followers' turnover intention. The results suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior do impact followers differently. Whereas all three behaviors had a positive relationship with negative affect, follower-directed destructive behaviors had the strongest relation out of the three. As expected, all three types of destructive behavior relate to turnover intention, yet, the results of our study suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior relate to different urgencies of turnover intention. We conclude that a tailored approach to destructive leadership, whether in research or practice, seems necessary, as diverse types of destructive leader behaviors affect employees differentially.

Previous research on destructive leadership has mostly focused on the destructive behaviors and outcomes and less attention has been paid to how to cope with and handle this kind of stressor. The overall aim of this study is to gain a deepened understanding of how subordinates and superiors react to (cope with and manage) destructive leadership behaviors and if and how organizational culture is perceived to influence the chosen strategies. This study used a grounded theory approach and is based on interviews with 26 individuals in the Swedish Armed Forces who had experience of a destructive leader, either as their superior or as their subordinate. The data represents both women and men, different ages, civilian and military backgrounds, and a variety of ranks and branches. The results suggest that the process surrounding being exposed to, coping with, or managing destructive leadership behavior, both from a subordinate and superior perspective, can be understood as a destructive loop. In this loop, individuals relate to, are constrained by, and participate in the coproduction and reproduction of environmental constraints present in the organization. Subordinates use mostly emotion-focused strategies (such as withdrawal) when dealing with destructive leadership, while superiors use problem-focused strategies (e.g., direct action against the leader). Environmental constraints (organizational, cultural, and norm-related) function as enablers of the destructive behavior and barriers to effective coping-management strategies. By combining the perspectives of subordinates and superiors on destructive leadership, the authors add to the literature by painting a picture of how contextual aspects constrain constructive actions and strategies when dealing with the stress of being exposed to destructive leadership. The destructive loop highlights how destructive behavior can be coproduced and reproduced, placing the phenomenon of destructive leadership within a broader organizational hierarchy.

The purpose of this study was to test the impact of school principals’ destructive leadership behaviour on teachers’ perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) via psychological capital (PsyCap) within a structural equation model. The study was conducted with causal research design. In this study, destructive leadership was taken as the independent variable, OCB as the dependent variable and PsyCap as the mediator variable. The study participants consisted of 253 high school teachers working in 21 of the schools selected from various school districts in the central districts of a metropolitan using the stratified sampling method. The data were collected with Destructive Leadership Questionnaire, PsyCap Questionnaire and OCB Questionnaire. Path analysis was conducted to enable associating measurement errors in both latent and observed variables. The research findings demonstrated that destructive leadership had negative impact on PsyCap and OCB while PsyCap had positive impact on organizational citizenship behavior. It was concluded that the mediator impact of PsyCap regarding the impact of destructive leadership on OCB was negative. Based on the negative impacts of destructive behaviours on teachers, defining and involving specific characteristics of destructive leaders and their consequences for schools and teachers into educational practices and policies would be helpful to prevent tendencies toward destructive behaviours. In this regard, applying systematic and effective selection process, using effective feedback mechanism and teacher participation in the management process may help eliminate destructive leadership.

Although Leadership is mostly viewed under a positive light, there is growing research on leadership’s negative impacts, a new field that has been called destructive leadership. This paper reviews the literature on destructive leadership and verifies if Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap) of the followers can help prevent the occurrence of destructive leadership behaviours. 98 teams of a retail chain, comprising 567 employees, reported on their PsyCap, prosocial behaviours, and leaders’ destructive behaviours. Results show that teams with high PsyCap neutralized the negative impact of one behaviour of destructive leadership in one of the measures of prosocial behaviours.

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5% (OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly. Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing over more active ones. The results showed that laissez‐faire leadership behaviour was the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

BackgroundDestructive leadership has been linked to negative consequences for both organizations and followers. Research has also shown that leader gender affects follower perceptions of leadership behavior and follower outcomes [1, 2–3]. However, knowledge is limited as to whether this also applies to destructive leadership [4]. This study aims to combine gendered organization theory with destructive leadership research to investigate the role that gender plays in the relation between destructive leadership behavior and follower outcomes.MethodsThe data were collected in collaboration with Statistic Sweden. It is a representative sample from the working population in Sweden. We used a two-wave survey design and included 1,121 participants in the analysis.ResultsThe results from structural equation models indicated that destructive leadership has negative consequences for follower burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention 6 months later. The results also showed that followers reported a greater intention to leave the organization if the leader was the same gender and used destructive leadership.ConclusionsOur study contributes to destructive leadership research by showing that the gender of both the leader and follower matters for the relation between destructive leadership behavior and follower outcomes. Additionally, our study makes a theoretical contribution by integrating a gender research perspective into destructive leadership research.

This study aimed to determine the influence of destructive leadership behaviors on employees' meaning of work and work productivity, using a longitudinal research design. Local government organizations in a municipality in Sweden were invited to participate in the study. Self-rated questionnaire data on employees' meaning of work and work productivity was collected at four time points over a period of 18 months, and 582 employees responded to the questionnaire on one or more occasions. A 4-item Destructive Leadership Scale (DLS) was developed and used at the first time point to assess the destructive leadership behaviors of incoherent planning, assigning unnecessary tasks, ambiguous expectations, and autocratic behavior. Latent growth models were used to analyze the influence of destructive leadership on the change in employees' meaning of work and work productivity over the 18-month period. The results show that destructive leadership has a significant negative influence on employees' meaning of work (β = -0.44, p = 0.02) and work productivity (β = -0.46, p = 0.04). The effect sizes were greater than those identified in previous cross-sectional studies, indicating that the effects of destructive leadership may accumulate and become more important over time. Important destructive leadership behaviors include incoherent planning, assigning unnecessary tasks, ambiguous expectations, and autocratic behavior. These behaviors have a significant negative effect on employees' meaning of work and work productivity. Proactive assessment of destructive leadership behaviors is warranted to improve future selection and training of managers.

Personality likely plays an important role for destructive leadership, but research is still in its infancy. In this chapter, we review empirical evidence along four lines of research: (1) Leaders’ personality traits predict their destructive leadership behavior (direct relation), also in regard to the situations that individuals seek and enter (situation activation), (2) situational characteristics can attenuate or strengthen the relations of leaders’ personality traits with destructive leadership behavior (trait activation), (3) subordinates’ personality traits shape reactions to experienced destructive leadership (trait activation), and (4) examining subordinates’ personality traits as antecedents of destructive leadership carries the danger of victim blaming. We summarize these four lines of research in a model that captures the role of personality for destructive leadership. These findings can be used by organizations and HR professionals in job design, job advertisements, and job selection to reduce levels of destructive leadership and its consequences.

IntroductionThis study aimed to determine how destructive leadership and organizational commitment relate to each other across time.MethodsOver 18 months, a self-rated questionnaire was distributed at four timepoints to employees of local government organizations in a municipality in Sweden; 582 employees responded to the questionnaire on at least one occasion. The Destructive Leadership Scale was used to measure destructive leadership, and the Commitment to the Workplace scale was used to measure organizational commitment. A second-order parallel-process latent growth curve model was used to test if initial levels of destructive leadership predict later change in organizational commitment, if initial levels of organizational commitment predict later change in destructive leadership, and if changes in destructive leadership are associated with simultaneous changes in organizational commitment.ResultsThe results show that the initial levels of destructive leadership negatively predicted change in organizational commitment (β = −0.66, p < 0.001), the initial levels of organizational commitment negatively predicted change in destructive leadership (β = −0.84, p < 0.002), and the rate of change in destructive leadership was strongly and negatively associated with the rate of change in organizational commitment (r = −0.96, p < 0.001).DiscussionThe findings indicate that destructive leadership affects the work environment in a negative way by undermining employee’s organizational commitment. At the same time, managers are negatively affected by uncommitted employees, exacerbating destructive leadership behaviors.

The literature on destructive leadership is characterized by different behaviors. The most influential categorization describes destructive leadership along two dimensions: The follower and the organization (Einarsen et. al, 2007). Recently it was proposed to add a third dimension in order to describe destructive leaders behaviors more comprehensively: Leader self-interest (Schmid et al., 2014). In the present study, we investigated these three dimensions more closely and contrasted the self-interested leadership behaviors with follower-directed destructive leadership behaviors and organization-directed destructive leadership behaviors. Specifically, we tested whether these different destructive leader behaviors influence followers differently. The results suggest that self-interested leadership does indeed influence differential outcomes compared to leaders behaving in a follower directed destructive manner or leaders behaving in a manner that harms the organization.

There is a growing awareness that destructive leadership has a significant negative impact on employe outcomes. However, little is known about the content and dimensionality of this multidimensional concept, and there are few reliable measures available for organizations and researchers to evaluate these behaviors. Based on a representative sample (N = 1132) of the Swedish workforce, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to examine the factor structure and validity of an easy-to-use multidimensional destructive leadership measure (Destrudo-L)in the general Swedish work context; second, to identify destructive leadership profiles using latent profile analysis (LPA), and determine in what way they are related to employe outcomes; third, to examine the prevalence of destructive leadership using population weights to estimate responses of a population total in the Swedish workforce (N = 3100282). Our analysis supported the structural validity of Destrudo-L, reflecting both a global factor and specific subdimensions. We identified seven unique destructive leadership profiles along a passive and active continuum of destructive leadership behaviors, with the active showing a less favorable relation to employe outcomes. Finally, we found that a substantial proportion of the Swedish workforce report being exposed to destructive leadership (36.4–43.5%, depending on method used). Active destructive leadership was more common in the public sector and passive destructive leadership in the private. Given the potentially severe effects and the commonness of these behaviors, we argue that organizations should work actively with strategies to identify and intervene, to prevent and to handle the manifestation of these harmful behaviors.

Although the phenomenon of destructive leadership is ubiquitous and its negative impact on the higher education (HE) sector is global, it is still an area underexplored, and the few studies on it focus attention predominantly on the HE context of the developed world. This study used the HE context of Ghana as an example of a developing country to determine, from subordinate perceptions, the prevalence of destructive leadership behaviors among heads of departments (HoDs). Five hundred and forty-six respondents from 180 higher education institutions across the country were involved in a cross-sectional survey based on a modified version of the Destructive Leadership Questionnaire (DLQ). The research found that although subordinates generally thought the behaviors of HoDs in Ghanaian HE were destructive, the perceptions varied significantly according to the type of institution. Also, subordinates’ statuses and demographics influenced how they perceived the destructive leadership behaviors of HoDs. Furthermore, gender, age, and years of employment significantly varied with the perceived prevalence of destructive leadership behaviors of HoDs in Ghanaian HEIs. The research mainly recommended a more nuanced approach to dealing with the phenomenon of destructive leadership so that the public and private dichotomy in the prevalence of destructive leadership behaviors in global HE may be addressed.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to increased knowledge of destructive leadership in crisis management. The specific research questions are: (1) What types of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified in leaders in crisis management? and (2) Why are these behaviours considered destructive in this context?Design/methodology/approachAbout 21 informants involved in crisis management at regional, local and operational levels in Sweden were interviewed. They were selected since they had recently been involved in severe accidents and/or crises (e.g. terror attacks, forest fires). A grounded theory analysis of interview data yielded two core variables: destructive leadership behaviours, and appraisal: interpretation of leader behaviour.FindingsThe study identified seven different destructive leadership behaviours: four task-related and three relationship-related. Task-related behaviours primarily led to negative consequences for the task/crisis. Relationship-related behaviours have negative consequences for subordinates' job satisfaction, well-being and/or sense of meaningfulness. The paper relates the identified behaviours to existing leadership ideals within crisis management and discusses behaviours that appear to be unique for the crisis management context.Practical implicationsThe paper highlights the fact that great crisis managers are not always good at managing relationships, which may have negative implications for crisis management in the long term.Originality/valueDestructive leadership is a research field that is rapidly expanding. However, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of destructive leadership behaviours and what makes an individual appraise a leader as destructive in crisis management.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to investigate if the thesis “bad is stronger than good” also holds true for a number of leadership issues, more specifically: trust in the immediate leader, emotional exhaustion, work atmosphere and propensity to leave.Design/methodology/approach– Questionnaire responses were obtained from military personnel in Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands (n=625).Findings– Multiple regression analyses revealed a certain pattern. Constructive leadership behaviours showed stronger positive associations with trust in the immediate supervisor and work atmosphere, than destructive leadership behaviours showed negative associations. On the other hand, destructive leadership behaviours showed stronger positive associations with emotional exhaustion and propensity to leave, than constructive leadership behaviours showed negative associations. This suggests that constructive leadership behaviours possibly have a greater impact on positive phenomenon and/or phenomenon associated with work-related relationships. On the other hand, destructive leadership behaviours appear to have a greater impact on negative phenomena with a stronger personal meaning. The results also show that the passive forms of destructive leadership are the behaviours that had the strongest impact on the investigated dependent variables.Research limitations/implications– Limitations related to item construction, common method variance, response set tendencies, translation of the instruments, and lack of response rate are discussed.Practical implications– The results emphasize the importance of focusing on both constructive and destructive leadership at the selection stage, as well as during training of military leaders. Focusing on them separately obstructs optimal leader development and prevents leaders from gaining authentic self-knowledge. The results also point at the importance of including both aspects of leadership in leader evaluation processes.Originality/value– The use of both constructive and destructive leadership behaviours with respondents from multiple nations in the same analysis.