Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Procedure/Sample
Data Analysis
Results
Analysis Concerning Groups of Targets
Discussion
Methodological Issues
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Sociology
General Social Sciences

The Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour

Profile image of Guy NotelaersGuy Notelaers
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8551.2009.00672.X
visibility

…

description

15 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Destructive Leadership: A Theoretical Review, Integration, and Future Research Agenda
James M LeBreton

Journal of Management, 2013

In this article, we propose a framework for understanding destructive leadership that summarizes the extant destructive leadership research and extends it in new directions. By reviewing the current literature on destructive leadership and drawing on organizational leadership theory and the more general research on deviant behaviors in organizations, we identify the underlying features and mechanisms that define destructive leadership. Recognizing that each form of destructive leadership currently studied (e.g., abusive supervision, petty tyranny, and pseudo-transformational leadership) addresses aspects of destructive leadership but fails to capture the complete picture of the phenomenon, we clarify the boundaries among the constructs studied within the domain of destructive leadership, address some ambiguities about the nature of destructive leadership, make explicit some characteristics of destructive leadership that set it apart from other forms of leading, and integrate this thinking into a theoretical model that helps us understand the manifestations of destructive leadership, and their antecedents and consequences.

View PDFchevron_right
Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors
Jeremy D Mackey, Gang Wang

We draw from social psychological and resource-based theories to meta-analytically examine curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors (i.e., job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and workplace deviance). Overall, our meta-analytic results demonstrate that relationships between destructive leadership and followers' workplace behaviors are essentially linear. The limited evidence of curvilinear relationships we did find supports the application of social psychological theories when examining high levels of destructive leadership.

View PDFchevron_right
Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour and its Determinants in Northwest Ethiopia
Publishing India Group

International Journal on Leadership, 2022

Destructive leadership behaviours and their effects on the organisation have received little attention in terms of research and theory development. As a result, the goal of this research is to look into the prevalence and determinants of destructive leadership behaviour in the Awi Zone. The study used cross-sectional data collected from 947 employees in Northwest Ethiopia, using a stratified sampling technique, to achieve its objectives. After the data was analysed through descriptive statistics, it was found that approximately 65% of the public-sector employees in the Awi Zone are vulnerable to destructive leadership. Personal behaviour, ineffective decision-making, management incompetency, and political behaviour were identified as determinants of destructive leadership behaviour. Finally, the researcher recommended that organisations be selective in their hiring and promotion practices, because personal behaviour is the most important factor in destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, organisations need to intentionally and consistently promote an environment in which employees feel free to speak up about their leaders' behaviour, which they believe violates not only their own, but also the company's values.lores the possibilities/opportunities for further research on employee voice and leader-member exchange within other disciplines, and to show how this could lead to a better understanding of the concepts of employee voice and leader-member exchange.

View PDFchevron_right
Destructive leadership
Sara Branch

Organizational Dynamics, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Harmful Leader Behaviors: Toward an Increased Understanding of How Different Forms of Unethical Leader Behavior Can Harm Subordinates
Vithor R Franco

Journal of Business Ethics, 2021

Research on unethical leadership has predominantly focused on interpersonal and high-intensity forms of harmful leader behavior such as abusive supervision. Other forms of harmful leader behavior such as excessively pressuring subordinates or acting in self-centered ways have received less attention, despite being harmful and potentially occurring more frequently. We propose a model of four types of harmful leader behavior (HLB) varying in intensity (high vs low) and orientation (people/ relationships or tasks/goals): Intimidation, Lack of Care, Self-Centeredness, and Excessive Pressure for Results. We map out how these relate to other constructs in the unethical leader behavior field in order to integrate the existing work on how leaders can cause harm to followers. Next, in five studies (N = 35, N = 218, N = 352, N = 160, N = 1921 in 196 teams), we develop and test a new survey instrument measuring the four proposed types of perceived HLB. We provide initial validity evidence for this new measure, establish its psychometric properties, and examine its nomological network by linking the four types of HLB to related leadership constructs and soft and hard outcome correlates at the individual and team level. We find that HLB is negatively related to constructive forms of leadership (e.g., ethical and transformational) and positively to unethical ones (e.g., abusive supervision). HLB is also related in the expected direction to job satisfaction, engagement, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, deviance, and objectively recorded team-level stress-related absenteeism.

View PDFchevron_right
Impact of Destructive Leadership on Senior Military and Civilian Employees
George Reed
View PDFchevron_right
Patterns of power and leadership: Understanding Total Behaviour Leadership
Andrew Hede

2005

View PDFchevron_right
Re-Assessment of Leadership Behavior Taxonomy Constructs: Construct Validation Analysis
Mehtap Özşahin

Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2019

Despite of the huge number of leadership behavior description measures in the literature, construct assessment and validation studies are very rare in literature. In this sense, this survey, which focused on the construct re-assessment and validation of leadership behavior taxonomy, is expected to contribute to leadership literature. Yukl's Leadership Behavior Taxonomy (LBT) is focused on and the constructs of LBT have been evaluated in terms of content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and predictive validity in this study. The survey was conducted on 445 middle level managers of 188 large-scale firms operating in manufactory industry and 550 managers operating in service industry in Turkey. Data obtained from 445 middle level managers operating in manufacturing industry and 550 managers operating in service industry were analyzed through the SPSS and AMOS statistical packet programs. The findings of this survey revealed that 23 items-three factors-LBT model has better fit for the managers of both manufacturing and service industry in Turkey.

View PDFchevron_right
Emergence of Destructive Leader: Proposed Definition and Formulation of Model
Publishing India Group

abstract Destructive leader behaviour is instrumental in creation of toxic workplace environment. With limited literature available, we propose to provide a comprehensive definition encompassing the phenomenon of destructive behaviour which has not been defined so far. In this paper, we have highlighted the emergence of destructive leaders primarily on account of three factors, namely: (i) conducive internal workplace environment (for destructive leader to operate), (ii) destructive leaders' characteristics and traits, and (iii) the vulnerable followers. Research in previous decade reflected the researchers' belief on factors that foster destructive leaders. The conclusions of the previous research lack coherence and are disjointed, and as yet, no comprehensive model has been presented to systematically examine these factors. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present an integrative model of destructive leader behaviour. In our proposed model, we have outlined the confluence of the three factors leading to toxic environment which further contributes to the organisational degradation. The model may provide an opportunity for future research in the field of emerging leadership on mistreatment, destructive behaviour, and non-performing organisations.

View PDFchevron_right
Explicit leader behaviour: A review of literature, theory development, and research project results
Romie F Littrell, Romie F Littrell

Journal of Management Development, 2013

This article introduces the theoretical underpinnings of a project that contributes to the empirical field research study literature concerning societal cultural and individual value priority effects on explicit preferred leader behaviour of employed businesspeople, and in some cases business students. The article then reviews research studies and results related to the theories and operationalisations.

View PDFchevron_right

References (78)

  1. Aasland, M. S., A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (2008). 'The dark side of leadership: defining and describing destructive forms of leadership behaviour', Organizations and People, 15, pp. 20-28.
  2. Adorno, T. W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N. Sanford (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.
  3. Agervold, M. (2007). 'Bullying at work: a discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study', Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, pp. 161-172.
  4. Altheide, D. L., P. A. Adler, P. Adler and D. A. Altheide (1978). 'The social meaning of employee theft'. In J. M. Johnson and J. D. Douglas (eds), Crime at the Top: Deviance in Business and the Professions, pp. 90-124. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
  5. Aryee, S., Z. X. Chen, L. Sun and Y. A. Debrah (2007). 'Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model', Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 191-201.
  6. Ashforth, B. (1994). 'Petty tyranny in organizations', Human Relations, 47, pp. 755-778.
  7. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development. Building the Vital Forces in Organizations. London: Sage.
  8. Bamberger, P. A. and S. B. Bacharach (2006). 'Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account', Human Relations, 59, pp. 1-30.
  9. Baruch, Y. and B. C. Holtom (2008). 'Survey response rate levels in organizational research', Human Relations, 61, pp. 1139-1160.
  10. Bass, B. M. (1990a). 'Authoritarianism, power orientation, Machiavellianism, and leadership'. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, pp. 124-139. New York: Free Press.
  11. Bass, B. M. (1990b). 'Laissez-faire leadership versus motivation to manage'. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, pp. 544-559. New York: Free Press.
  12. Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). Transformational Leader- ship Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  13. Bass, B. M. and R. E. Riggio (2006). Transformational Leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. Bass, B. M., B. J. Avolio, D. I. Jung and Y. Berson (2003). 'Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership', Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 207-218.
  15. Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer and K. D. Vohs (2001). 'Bad is stronger than good', Review of General Psychology, 5, pp. 323-370.
  16. Bies, R. J. and T. M. Tripp (1998). 'Two faces of the powerless. Coping with tyranny in organizations'. In R. M. Kramer and M. A. Neale (eds), Power and Influence in Organizations, pp. 203-219. London: Sage.
  17. Birkland, A., T. M. Glomb and D. S. Ones (2008). 'A cross- cultural comparison of senior leader wrongdoing'. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11 April, San Francisco, CA.
  18. Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton (1985). The Managerial Grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
  19. Bligh, M. C., J. C. Kohles, C. L. Pearce, J. E. G. Justin and J. F. Stovall (2007). 'When the romance is over: follower perspectives of aversive leadership', Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, pp. 528-557.
  20. Bretz, R. D. J., G. T. Milkovich and W. Read (1992). 'The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: concerns, directions, and implications', Journal of Manage- ment, 18, pp. 321-352.
  21. Burke, R. J. (2006). 'Why leaders fail. Exploring the dark side'. In R. J. Burke and C. L. Cooper (eds), Inspiring Leaders, pp. 239-248. London: Routledge.
  22. Buss, A. H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. London: Wiley.
  23. Cardy, R. L. and G. H. Dobbins (1994). Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Pub- lishing.
  24. Christie, R. and F. L. Geis (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
  25. Conger, J. A. (1990). 'The dark side of leadership', Organiza- tional Dynamics, 19, pp. 44-55.
  26. Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1987). 'Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings', Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637-647.
  27. Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1988). 'The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice', Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 471-482.
  28. Ditton, J. (1977). Part-time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage. London: Billings.
  29. Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster and M. Pagon (2002). 'Social undermining in the workplace', Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 331-351.
  30. Einarsen, S., M. S. Aasland and A. Skogstad (2007). 'Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and a conceptual model', Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 207-216.
  31. Einarsen, S., A. Skogstad, M. S. Aasland and A. M. S. B. Lseth (2002). ''Destruktivt lederskap: a˚rsaker og konsek- venser' ['Destructive leadership: predictors and conse- quences']'. In A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (eds), Ledelse paG odt og Vondt. Effektivitet og Trivsel [Leadership for Better or Worse. Efficiency and Job Satisfaction], pp. 233-254. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
  32. Ekvall, G. and J. Arvonen (1991). 'Change-centered leadership: an extension of the two-dimensional model', Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, pp. 17-26.
  33. Fox, S. and P. E. Spector (1999). 'A model of work frustration- aggression', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 915- 931.
  34. Frischer, J. and K. Larsson (2000). 'Laissez-faire in research education -an inquiry into a Swedish doctoral program', Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 131-155.
  35. Goodman, L. A. (1974). 'The analysis of systems of qualitative variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part 1: A modified latent structure approach', American Journal of Sociology, 79, pp. 1179-1259.
  36. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). 'A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires', Organizational Research Methods, 1, pp. 104-121.
  37. Hinkin, T.R and C. A. Schriesheim (2008). 'An examination of ''nonleadership''. From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission', Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1234-1248.
  38. Hogan, R. (1994). 'Trouble at the top: causes and consequences of managerial incompetence', Consulting Psychology Journal, 46, pp. 9-15.
  39. Hogan, R., R. Raskin and D. Fazzini (1990). 'The dark side of charisma'. In K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds), Measures of Leadership, pp. 343-354. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
  40. Hstmark, M. and B. O. Lagerstrm (2006). 'Underskelse om arbeidsmilj: destruktiv atferd i arbeidslivet' ['A study of work environment: destructive behaviours in working life'].
  41. Dokumentasjonsrapport 44, Statistisk sentralbyra˚/Statistics Norway, Oslo.
  42. House, R. J. and J. M. Howell (1992). 'Personality and charismatic leadership', Leadership Quarterly, 3, pp. 81-108.
  43. Hubert, A. B. and M. van Veldhoven (2001). 'Risk sectors for undesirable behaviour and mobbing', European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp. 415-424.
  44. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership. What it is, How it Happens, Why it Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  45. Kelloway, E. K., J. Mullen and L. Francis (2006). 'Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employ- ee safety', Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, pp. 76-86.
  46. Kelloway, E. K., N. Sivanathan, L. Francis and J. Barling (2005). 'Poor leadership'. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway and M. R. Frone (eds), Handbook of Work Stress, pp. 89-112. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  47. Kets de Vries, F. R. and D. Miller (1985). 'Narcissism and leadership: an object relations perspective', Human Relations, 38, pp. 583-601.
  48. Kipnis, D., S. Schmidt, K. Price and C. Stitt (1981). 'Why do I like thee: is it your performance or my orders?', Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, pp. 324-328.
  49. Lewin, K., R. Lippitt and R. K. White (1939). 'Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social cli- mates', Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp. 271-301.
  50. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians -and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lubit, R. (2004). 'The tyranny of toxic managers: applying emotional intelligence to deal with difficult personalities', Ivey Business Journal, 68, pp. 1-7.
  51. Ma, H., R. Karri and K. Chittipeddi (2004). 'The paradox of managerial tyranny', Business Horizons, 4, pp. 33-40.
  52. Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002a). 'Latent class modeling as a probabilistic extension of K-means clustering', Quirk's Marketing Research Review, 20, pp. 77-80.
  53. Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002b). 'Latent class models for clustering: a comparison with K-means', Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20, pp. 37-44.
  54. Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2004). 'Latent class models'. In D. Kaplan (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences, pp. 175-198. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  55. Major, B., J. M. Zubek, M. L. Cooper, C. Cozzarelli and C. Richards (1997). 'Mixed messages: implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life event', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, pp. 1349-1363.
  56. McCall, M. W. J. and M. M. Lombardo (1983). Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Technical Report No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
  57. McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  58. Mitchell, M. S. and M. L. Ambrose (2007). 'Abusive super- vision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs', Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 1159-1168.
  59. Nielsen, M. B., A. Skogstad, S. B. Matthiesen, L. Glas, M. S. Aasland, G. Notelaers and S. Einarsen (2009). 'Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across time and estimation methods', European Journal of Work and Organi- zational Psychology, 18, pp. 81-101.
  60. Notelaers, G., S. Einarsen, H. De Witte and J. K. Vermunt (2006). 'Measuring exposure to bullying at work: the validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach', Work and Stress, 20, pp. 288-301.
  61. Padilla, A., R. Hogan and R. B. Kaiser (2007). 'The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments', Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 176-194.
  62. Phillips, J. S. and R. G. Lord (1986). 'Notes of the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership measurement', Journal of Management, 12, pp. 31-41.
  63. Rayner, C. and C. L. Cooper (2003). 'The black hole in ''bullying at work'' research', International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, pp. 47-64.
  64. Sackett, P. R. and C. J. DeVore (2001). 'Counterproductive behaviors at work'. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145-164. London: Sage.
  65. Schat, A. C. H., M. R. Frone and E. K. Kelloway (2006). 'Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: findings from a national study'. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling and J. J. Hurrell (eds), Handbook of Workplace Violence, pp. 47-90. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  66. Shackleton, V. (1995). 'Leaders who derail'. In V. Shackleton (ed.), Business Leadership, pp. 89-100. London: Thomson.
  67. Skogstad, A., S. Einarsen, T. Torsheim, M. S. Aasland and H. Hetland (2007). 'The destructiveness of laissez-faire leader- ship behavior', Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, pp. 80-92.
  68. Tepper, B. J. (2000). 'Consequences of abusive supervision', Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 178-190.
  69. Tepper, B. J. (2007). 'Abusive supervision in work organiza- tions: review, synthesis, and research agenda', Journal of Management, 33, pp. 261-289.
  70. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). 'A constant error on psychological rating', Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, pp. 25-29.
  71. Vredenburgh, D. and Y. Brender (1998). 'The hierarchical abuse of power in work organizations', Journal of Business Ethics, 17, pp. 1337-1347.
  72. Wilson, B. (1991). 'U.S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Here's how to protect the mental health of your work force -and the fiscal health of your company', Personnel Journal, 70, pp. 47-50.
  73. Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia (2003). 'Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace'. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Re- search and Practice, pp. 103-126. London: Taylor & Francis.
  74. Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper and M. K. Duffy (2002). 'Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior', Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 1068-1076.
  75. Merethe Schanke Aasland is a licensed clinical psychologist, currently working as a research fellow and a PhD student at the University of Bergen completing her PhD thesis on destructive leadership in organizations. She is also a member of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. Main research topics are leadership, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying.
  76. Dr Anders Skogstad is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and member of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. He is a specialist in work and organizational psychology, Norwegian Psychological Association. His main research topics are destructive leadership in organizations, psychosocial factors at work, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying. Guy Notelaers is currently funded by the Norwegian Research Council to deliver a PhD on a stress- oriented approach to explain workplace bullying, and is a member of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are methods and statistics in the area of work and organizational research.
  77. Morten Birkeland Nielsen has a PhD in psychology and is currently employed as a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Bergen. He is a member of the Operational Psychology Research Group and the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are workplace bullying, destructive leadership, whistle-blowing and research methodology.
  78. Dr Sta˚le Einarsen is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and managing director of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are destructive leadership in organizations, creativity and innovation, workplace bullying and sexual harassment.

Related papers

Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model
Anders Skogstad

The Leadership Quarterly, 2007

This paper proposes a definition and a descriptive model of destructive leadership behaviour. Destructive leadership behaviour is defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates. Three categories of such destructive leadership are identified in the proposed model: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive-disloyal leadership behaviour. The model may provide a useful link between the field of leadership and research on bullying, counterproductive behaviour, and aggression at work. The model contributes to a more nuanced concept of destructive leadership showing how destructive leadership behaviours also may have constructive elements.

View PDFchevron_right
Bad to the Bone: Empirically Defining and Measuring Destructive Leader Behavior
Christian Thoroughgood

Although destructive leader behavior is an increasingly popular area of study, little is known about its content or dimensionality at a broad level. In this study, an inventory of destructive behaviors was developed through inductive and deductive methods. Across multiple studies, three behavioral dimensions emerged and were used to create a measure of the construct. Results provide support for the instrument’s construct and criterion validity and its predictive validity over abusive supervision. The study highlights the progress and limitations of prior research, suggests directions for future studies, and provides a practically useful measure of destructive leader behavior in organizations.

View PDFchevron_right
Destructive Behaviours and Leadership: The Source of the Shift from a Functional to Dysfunctional Workplace?
Nada Kakabadse

International Journal of Social Science Studies, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Destructive Leadership: From Retrospective to Prospective Inquiry (Antecedents of Destructive Leadership)
Tarık Atan

Archives of Business Research, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
The Impact of Prevalent Destructive Leadership Behaviour on Subordinate Employees in a Firm
Foday P . Sankoh

American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2013

This paper examines the impact of destructive leadership behaviours experienced by subordinate employees. Structured questionnaires based on the petty Tyranny in organizations scale to explore the scope and nature of destructive leadership were used. The study further explores the relationship among leadership experiences, various measures of subordinates' satisfaction and turnover level. The results showed that despite the central role of leadership holds for many firms in Hanoi, Vietnam, subordinate employees reported experiencing toxic destructive leadership. There was a significant negative relationship among destructive leadership, all measures of satisfaction and turnover level. Surprisingly, there was not a significant negative impact on turnover level (inclination to remain in the employment) among the subordinate population.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Organizational Psychology
  • Social Research Methods and Meth...
  • Sociology of Work
  • Social Sciences
  • Research Methods and Methodology

    • Cited by

    Association of Workplace Bullying and Workplace Vulnerability in the Psychological Distress of Chilean Workers
    Andrés González

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    Workplace bullying has been identified as a global problem because of its growing magnitude and the harmful effects in victims and organizations. Workplace vulnerability is a component of job precarious1ness that reflects insecurity, fear, and labor uncertainty. This paper aims to analyze the associations between the exposure to workplace vulnerability and psychological distress, and to explore the associations between exposure to workplace bullying and psychological distress, by sex. A cross-sectional and probabilistic survey was applied to a randomly-selected valid sample of 1995 salaried workers in three main metropolitan areas of Chile. Chi-square test and logistic regression models controlling for confounders were tested. Female workers were more exposed to workplace vulnerability and presented a higher prevalence of psychological distress. Among women who were vulnerable, one of three reported psychological distress (30.8%), which is higher than men (16.5%). Workers exposed to...

    View PDFchevron_right
    The Trouble with Leadership: Theories of Good and Troubled Leadership and their Ethical Implications
    Anona Armstrong

    The Palgrave Handbook of Leadership in Transforming Asia, 2017

    View PDFchevron_right
    Laissez-Faire Leadership and Affective Commitment: the Roles of Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinate Relational Self-concept
    Christian Vandenberghe

    Journal of Business and Psychology, 2020

    Although the detrimental effects of laissez-faire leadership are well documented, research on the underlying mechanisms and the boundary conditions associated with these effects remains scarce. Using the identity orientation framework and social exchange theory, we propose that employees with stronger relational self-concepts are more likely to be affected by laissez-faire leadership. As these employees define themselves through dyadic relationships, they may react more negatively to laissez-faire leadership by diminishing their contributions to mutual goals and reducing their affective organizational commitment. These predictions were tested within a three-wave longitudinal study through structural equations modeling analyses with full information maximum likelihood estimation on a sample of employees from multiple organizations (N = 449). As predicted, the relational self-concept was associated with a stronger negative effect of laissez-faire leadership on the contribution dimensi...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Workplace Bullying and Medically Certified Sickness Absence: Direction of Associations and the Moderating Role of Leader Behavior
    Anne-Marthe Indregard

    Frontiers in Psychology, 2019

    The aim of this study was to determine (1) associations between workplace bullying and subsequent risk and duration of medically certified sickness absence, (2) whether employees' perceptions of supportive, fair, and empowering leader behavior moderate the association between bullying and absence, and (3) whether prior sickness absence increases the risk of being a new victim of bullying. Altogether, 10,691 employees were recruited from 96 Norwegian organizations in the period 2004-2014. The study design was prospective with workplace bullying and leader behavior measured at baseline and then linked to official registry data on medically certified sickness absence for the year following the survey assessment. For analyses of reverse associations, exposure to bullying was reassessed in a follow-up survey after 24 months. The findings showed that workplace bullying was significantly associated with risk (risk ratio = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.13-1.34), but not duration (incidence rate ratio = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.89-1.25) of medically certified sickness absence after adjusting for age, gender, and supportive, fair, and empowering leader behavior. None of the indicators of leader behavior moderated the association between bullying and sickness absence (both risk and duration). Adjusting for baseline bullying, age, and gender, prior long-term sickness absence (>21 days) was associated with increased risk of being a new victim of bullying at follow-up (odds ratio = 1.86; 95% CI = 1.28-2.72). Effective interventions toward workplace bullying may be beneficial with regard to reducing sickness absence rates. Organizations should be aware that long-term sickness absence might be a social stigma as sick-listed employees have an increased risk of being bullied when they return to work.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Disengaging Leadership Scale (DLS): Evidence of Initial Validity
    Judith Semeijn

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021

    The main goal of this study was to develop a scale for measuring Disengaging Leader-ship (DEL) behaviors and to provide preliminary evidence for the validity of this new instrument. Developing such new measures is needed given current concepts that tap into negative leadership behaviors are rarely based on a sound theoretical framework. Drawing on the core premises of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) regarding employees’ basic needs and, more specifically, building on its more recent extended framework, including employees’ needs frustration, we derived four dimensions that constitute Disengaging Leadership behaviors (coercive disengaging leadership, isolating disengaging leadership, eroding disengaging leadership, and demotivating disengaging leadership). To examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of the new Disengaging Leadership Scale (DLS), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and reliability analyses were conducted. Results supp...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved