Destructive Leadership Behaviors Research Articles

How contextual is destructive leadership? A comparison of how destructive leadership is perceived in usual circumstances versus crisis

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 in crisis management

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.

Mediating role of Information silence between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior: Evidence from Tanner sector of Pakistan

Mediating role of Information silence between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior: Evidence from Tanner sector of Pakistan

When Something Is Not Right: The Value of Silence

Employees facing destructive leader behavior or evidence of unethical or illegal action often remain silent, and such silence has been argued to be problematic. We argue that the management literat...

Linguistic Markers of CEO Hubris

This article explores the link between CEOs’ language and hubristic leadership. It is based on the precepts that leaders’ linguistic utterances provide insights into their personality and behaviours; hubris is associated with unethical and potentially destructive leadership behaviours; if it is possible to identify linguistic markers of CEO hubris then these could serve as early warnings sign and help to mitigate the associated risks. Using computational linguistics, we analysed spoken utterances from a sample of hubristic CEOs and compared them with non-hubristic CEOs. We found that hubristic CEOs’ linguistic utterances show systematic and consistent differences from the linguistic utterances of non-hubristic CEOs. Demonstrating how hubristic leadership manifests in CEO language contributes to wider research regarding the diagnosis and prevention of the unethical and potentially destructive effects of hubristic leadership. This research contributes to the wider study of hubris and unethical leadership by applying a novel method for identifying linguistic markers and offers a way of militating against the risk of unethical and destructive CEO behaviours induced or aggravated by hubristic leadership.

Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior.

Research on abusive supervision has predominantly focused on the consequences for victims while overlooking how leaders respond to their own abusive behavior. Drawing from the literature on moral cleansing, we posit that supervisors who engage in abusive behavior may paradoxically engage in more constructive leadership behaviors subsequently as a result of feeling guilty and perceiving loss of moral credits. Results from two experience sampling studies show that, within leaders on a daily basis, perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior led to an increase in experienced guilt and perceived loss of moral credits, which in turn motivated leaders to engage in more constructive person-oriented (consideration) and task-oriented (initiating structure) leadership behaviors. In addition, leader moral attentiveness and moral courage strengthen these indirect effects by amplifying leaders' awareness of their immoral behavior and their willingness and determination to make reparations for such behavior. Our research contributes to the theoretical understanding of leaders' responses toward their own abusive supervisor behavior and provides insights into how and when destructive leadership behaviors may, paradoxically, trigger more constructive behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Effect of Positive Psychological Capital in Preventing Destructive Leadership Behaviours in a Portuguese Retail Chain

The Effect of Positive Psychological Capital in Preventing Destructive Leadership Behaviours in a Portuguese Retail Chain

Different Shades-Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership.

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.

How do self-efficacy, narcissism and autonomy mediate the link between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behaviour

Previous research points to the adverse effect of destructive leadership on counterproductive work behaviour (CWB), yet the mechanism by which destructive leadership engenders or aggravates CWB has yet to be thoroughly studied. Drawing on general theories of despotic leadership, CWB and Organisational Behavior, we proposed and tested a model in which self-efficacy, autonomy and narcissism mediate the effect of destructive leadership on CWB. Results of survey data predicated on 845 respondents employed in various Israeli industries indicate that autonomy and self-efficacy attenuate the adverse effect of destructive leadership on CWB, whilst narcissism aggravates self-efficacy’s attenuating impact on CWB. This study sheds further light on the ways in which autonomy, self-efficacy and narcissism shape adverse workplace settings.

When Destructive Leadership and Organizational Behaviors in a Health System Form a Disruptive Work Environment

This paper focuses on a particular sector within the healthcare industry –– disability support services in a New Zealand context. As in almost any healthcare situation, a critical element is two bottom line dynamics, which are human and financial considerations. Some of the characteristics of human behavior, which this paper will give attention on, are that it can be disruptive especially when associated with poorly performing leaders and/or managers that are often referred to as uncivil, toxic, and threatening (Holloway & Kusy, 2010). Moreover, this case study addresses leadership activities concerning a general manager and three group managers from a government-related entity in the healthcare sector.

The Impact of Constructive and Destructive Leadership on Soldier's Job Satisfaction.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether constructive or destructive leadership behaviors are the best predictors of soldiers' experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. Data were collected among 300 employed soldiers using a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about the immediate leader's constructive and destructive leadership, meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. The results show that the constructive leadership factor inspiration and motivation was the best predictor of both experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. None of the destructive leadership factors gave a significant contribution to the models although both the passive and active forms of destructive leadership showed a weak to moderate significant, negative correlation with experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction.

Destructive Leadership Behavior: An Exploratory Study in Chile

ABSTRACTThe darker side of leadership is unexplored. To help fill this gap, this study focuses on the subordinate’s perspective of destructive leadership behaviors. The purpose of this article is to identify the most frequent destructive leadership behaviors in small elementary schools in Chile through a qualitative approach. According to the data, leaders who are frequently labeled as destructive exhibit autocratic leadership, poor communication, inconsistent/erratic behavior, and poor strategic skills. Through an analysis of the idiosyncratic Chilean context, we aim to contribute to the international discussion surrounding the darker side of leadership and suggest theoretical considerations and implications for the field.

Multilevel Influence of Destructive Leadership On Millennial Generation Employees' Innovative Behavior

I applied affective events theory to explore the multilevel influence of destructive leadership on the innovative behavior of millennial generation employees. Participants were 223 employees from 32 work groups at 3 companies in mainland China. Results showed that both actual group destructive leadership and destructive leadership as perceived by the millennial employees, had a negative influence on innovative behavior via the mediation of employees' individual affective responses. In addition, the multilevel negative influence of actual group destructive leadership on the millennial employees' innovative behavior was mediated by group affective tone. In this study, I revealed the multilevel value of affective events in the relationship between destructive leadership and millennial employees' innovative behavior, and offered insight into how to control the negative effects of destructive leaders and inspire innovative behavior in millennial employees.

지역경찰 현장관리자의 파괴적리더십 결정요인

지역경찰 현장관리자의 파괴적리더십 결정요인

Running Head: Destructive Leader Behavior in the Norwegian Armed Forces

Recent research indicates that destructive leadership might have a detrimental effect on a wide range of outcomes across the organization. However, few studies have focused on the military context. The present study examined the extent to which destructive leader behavior was related to individual work-related attitudes and feelings among military personnel in the Norwegian Armed forces (N=170). Dependent variables were (1) Burnout, (2) Work Engagement, and (3) Organizational Commitment. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that destructive leader behavior significantly predicted Burnout and Work Engagement. This is the first study that examines, and in parallel confirms the unique influence of destructive leadership on important work environment variables among members of the Norwegian armed forces. Despite the fact that the respondents in this sample most likely have above average psychological robustness, they still appear to be significantly influenced by destructive leader behavior. At the same time, our findings also indicate that respondents are able to maintain their organizational commitment despite destructive leader behavior. This study thus represents a unique step towards establishing knowledge about the interplay between destructive leader behavior and psychosocial related phenomena, forming a potential basis for theoretical and practical developments.

Different Shades Of Destructive Leadership: Differential Effects Of Destructive Leaders On Followers

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.

Destructive leader behavior

This article provides insights into the important but relatively unexamined issue of destructive leadership in a non-Western country. Although tentative, the article also provides some guidance for expatriate managers in adapting their own behavior to avoid being categorized as “destructive” by non-Western subordinates. In the following pages, we report the findings of a study of destructive leader behaviors among convenience samples of Australian, American, and Iranian leaders. No differences were found between Australian and American leaders in regard to the nature and frequency of destructive behaviors. As a result, the Australian and American data were combined and compared to a sample of Iranian leaders. Destructive leader behavior was measured using the Destructive Leadership Questionnaire developed by Shaw et al. (2011). Although relatively small in magnitude, results consistently indicated that the worst, middle, and best leaders differed significantly from one another in both samples in terms of the level of destructive leader behavior exhibited. In general, the pattern was similar for both the Australian–American and Iranian samples, although small, consistent differences were observed across the two samples.

Destructive Leadership Behaviors and Workplace Attitudes in Schools

The study investigated destructive leadership behaviors (DLBs) and their influence on K-12 workplace attitudes (subordinate consideration for leaving their job, job satisfaction, and levels of stress). Quantitative survey method was used to gather data from experienced professional educators. Analyses of data show that the practice of DLB exists across all school leadership levels. Subordinate-directed behavior had the highest incidence of DLB, and principals and females experienced higher levels of DLB. DLB had negative correlation with job satisfaction, job stress, and consideration for leaving. Despite high levels of job satisfaction, respondents experienced feelings of stress and consideration for leaving their job.

Leadership: is bad stronger than good?

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.

Fight, Flight or Freeze: Common Responses for Follower Coping with Toxic Leadership.

Sustained destructive leadership behaviours are associated with negative outcomes that produce serious workplace problems, yet there is scant research into how followers effectively cope with toxic leader behaviours. Despite numerous attempts to develop typologies of coping behaviours, there remains much to learn, especially in relation to this specific workplace stressor. This mixed method research investigates the coping strategies reported by 76 followers to cope with the psychological, emotional and physical consequences of their leader's adverse behaviour. Coping instances were categorized using two existing theoretical coping frameworks, and the ability of these frameworks to explain responses to real-world experiences with toxic leadership are discussed. Common coping strategies reported included assertively challenging the leader, seeking social support, ruminating, taking leave and leaving the organization. Organizational interventions to increase effectiveness of follower coping with the impact of toxic leadership are also discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.