Search results

The term “destructive leadership” has been utilized as an overarching expression to refer to various “bad” leader behaviors thought to be associated with damaging outcomes for followers and organizations. Yet, there is a recognition in the broader leadership literature that leadership involves much more than the behaviors of leaders. It is a dynamic, cocreational process that unfolds between leaders, followers, and environments, the product of which results in group outcomes. In this chapter, I argue that in order to achieve a more balanced view on destructive leadership, it is vital to develop more integrative approaches that are grounded in the contemporary leadership discourse and that recognize flawed or toxic leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments as interdependent elements of a broader destructive leadership process. To this end, I provide a critique of the extant literature, propose a broader definition of destructive leadership, and discuss strategies to examine destructive leadership in a broader, holistic manner.

Harvard authority on leadership, Barbara Kellerman, indicts the deficiencies of the leadership industry and she argues that we can do better.

This interview offers a bold prescription for training effective leaders[4].

To be effective, the leadership development process must adopt and achieve three goals: educate leaders, train leaders and develop leaders.

Bad leadership puts on vivid display the unbreakable link between leaders and followers – a link that the leadership industry willfully ignores precisely because there’s no money in it.

There is precious little evidence that the leadership industry has in any meaningful, measurable way benefited society.

A “no holds barred” look at the leadership training industry and some potent suggestions on how to improve it.

The author argues that the causes of this current epidemic of bad leadership include the leaders' personality disorders, akrasia (weakness of will), flawed values, and avoidance of reality. The complicity of followers also contributes.

The author offers a twin‐scenario model. In one case stressed leaders become pragmatists. In the other they act out this alternative: The would‐be visionary, seduced by power and a growing sense of certitude, first becomes isolated and then gets lost. When plans fail to deliver wins, the leader grows tyrannical, wields power wrongly, and devolves into a fallen star and self‐serving “decider,” often surrounded by fawning acolytes.

The subsequent emergence of bad leadership can be averted if leaders will pay attention to the welfare of stakeholders, listen to alternative points of view and perspectives, rely on their team for support, foster a culture of integrity, and cultivate personal awareness. Followers must give honest feedback and develop coalitions to foster a balance of power within the organization. If all else fails, externally‐imposed regulation may be necessary.

The author offers practical advice to both leaders and followers to enable them to avoid the perils of the bad leadership.

By identifying the causes and likely cures for bad leadership and bad followership the author makes it easier for stakeholders to address the problem and take action and for boards to select the right candidates for leadership roles, a critical board responsibility.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the experiences of employees who are exposed to dysfunctional behaviors by their leaders in a healthcare organization.

This study employed a qualitative methodology drawing on 25 semi-structured interviews with administrative and clinical employees working in a healthcare setting operating in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

This study’s findings provide insights into dysfunctional leadership phenomena based on employees’ personal experiences with dysfunctional leaders. Dysfunctional leaders have several harmful behaviors, such as behaving in abusive ways, marginalizing others, engaging in favoritism, and degrading employees. This study also demonstrated that the leaders’ negative behavior directly influences employees to leave their jobs, contributes to feelings of alienation at work, reduces their commitment, and frequently creates serious psychological and physical problems. This study also discovered that over time the negative effects of a dysfunctional leader do not stop at employees; it also filters through to other areas such as the organizational environment and family life.

Dysfunctional leadership is under-studied within the context of the Middle Eastern region. Therefore, this study’s findings provide theoretical and practical implications. It provides information about employee experiences and how dysfunctional behavior influences individuals and, ultimately, organizational life. Furthermore, this study has value to practitioners by offering suggestions for organizational interventions for creating more effective policies and programs to support employees’ careers and well-being.

This paper aims to explore how businesses can deal with a bad manager?

This paper researches the impact of leadership.

Bad management can affect employee morale, performance, attitude and engagement.

This paper includes a research amongst employees on the impact of leadership.

It matters who leads. Answering the research question will help to achieve early recognition of revanchist leadership and its harmful effects and help to determine why it emerges and how it works and spreads. This article is to encourage further study of its widening presence and of the remedies.

Through two contemporary case studies, this article seeks a better understanding of “revanchist leadership” and identify its distinct and permanent properties (DNA) and the way it works (modus operandi). Thus, it will simultaneously demonstrate that revanchist leadership is not a uniquely historic but a recurring and contemporary phenomenon. Based on an analysis of both public leadership theory and leadership practice, the authors conceive of leadership as a multi-faceted concept, made of the following four components. First is leadership as a person, i.e. the personal characteristics, traits, style and skills of the individual leader. Second is leadership as the position, i.e. the work of leading people, with a focus on the formal role and responsibilities. Third is leadership as a process, i.e. the work of enabling leadership, with a focus on coordinating, facilitating and directing internal and external parties. And fourth is leadership as embodiment of a common purpose, i.e. the work of leadership serving the greater good, both as an individual and the collective. In addition to this so called “4-P model” (Hopman and van den Berg, 2015; Grint, 2010) of public leadership, it is important that in order to understand leadership, the psychological, political, institutional, historical and geographical contexts determine to a large extent the impact of leadership, but the authors assume that – ultimately – there remains an element of personal choice of options and opportunities available [1]. To answer the research question, the authors follow a case-based approach. The descriptions and analyses of the cases are not only based on literature but also informed by personal experience in diplomatic work in the area's mentioned. It is important to focus not only on the persons of the leaders but also on their followers, as well as the political, institutional and international context. As part of this analysis, (ab)use of institutions and the leading political-historical narratives that underpin revanchist policies are taken into account [2].

The case-based analysis shows a similarity of the two cases, although the two cases developed largely independently, with a time difference of about 20 years and under quite different historic and geographic conditions. This support the research hypothesis that revanchist leadership might be considered a distinct style of political leadership, with specific defining elements, a so called “DNA” and modus operandi of its own that emerges and grows gradually, when enabling historical and mass psychological contexts are present. The presence of such an enabling context might also serve as a warning indicator of risks (the analogy of a recurring political virus is tempting). The work of Kellerman on “bad leadership”, Lipman Blumen on “toxic leadership,” provides a useful conceptual framework to better understand, analyze and recognize revanchist leadership in two empirical cases. In part IV, the authors describe defining elements (a so-called “DNA”) of revanchist leadership and the risk of revanchist leadership to spread like a “political virus”. The authors conclude with the recommendation that revanchist leadership and its defining feature (“DNA”) be further researched, in order to be better able to recognize revanchist leadership at an early stage and to facilitate a structured assessment of the extent, this type of leadership is present today and by implication represent a threat to peace and security of other nations. This is relevant as the current times are characterized by uncertainty, heightened anxiety and increased tensions among nations as well as at times frightened populations, which form a fertile ground for the growth of revanchist leadership, as history teaches us.

The authors conclude with the recommendation that revanchist leadership and its defining feature (“DNA”) be further researched, in order to be better able to recognize revanchist leadership at an early stage and to facilitate a structured assessment of the extent, this type of leadership is present today and by implication represent a threat to peace and security of other nations. As a counterpoint the concept of “Partnership in Leadership” is introduced, as a remedial approach that deserves further attention.

It first demonstrates that this specific type of leadership, although unethical and harmful, can be effective in the short term from the point of view of the revanchist leader's intent, despite high human costs. Second – paradoxical as it may sound – the primary drive of the revanchist leader is not external (the object of the revanche) but internal (the determination to obtain and maintain internal power at all costs). Both factors make this style an attractive option for other public leaders, in a context of increased uncertainty.

Better understanding should help to remedy the threat posed by revanchist leadership to international peace and security. The authors will briefly discuss the – important but incomplete – countermeasures of the international community in the two cases. As a counterpoint the concept of “Partnership in Leadership” is introduced, as a remedial approach that deserves further attention.

It first demonstrates that this specific type of leadership, although unethical and harmful, can be effective in the short term from the point of view of the revanchist leader's intent, despite high human costs. Second – paradoxical as it may sound – the primary drive of the revanchist leader is not external (the object of the revanche) but internal (the determination to obtain and maintain internal power at all costs). Both factors make this style an attractive option for other public leaders, in a context of increased uncertainty. The instrumentalization of uncertainty described in the two cases in this stud, may serve as a warning of the existence of dangers of revanchist leadership today. The uncertainty born out of accelerating globalization, job and income insecurity and destabilizing demographic trends, the challenges of a multicultural society, has incentivized some public leaders in Europe and elsewhere to fan the flames of anxiety to justify autocratic and revanchist leadership styles, ignore agreed international rules and norms and prioritize geopolitical competition over cooperation. They set the sights of the nation on a glorious and powerful past as compass for the future. Several add to that revanchist claims of spheres of influence in neighboring countries. Better understanding should help to remedy the threat posed by revanchist leadership to international peace and security. The authors will briefly discuss the – important but incomplete – countermeasures of the international community in the two cases. As a counterpoint the concept of “Partnership in Leadership” is introduced, as a remedial approach that deserves further attention.

Unethical leadership represents one of the most serious obstacles to the development of organizations and societies. Although a range of empirical studies have investigated unethical leadership behaviour in different contexts, studies on this issue are almost non-existent within the Algerian context. This study aims to explore the role of social and organizational factors in shaping unethical leadership behaviour within Algerian public organizations.

A series of in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 leaders from public organizations. The collected data were analysed using a thematic approach with ATLAS.ti 8 software.

The reported social and organizational factors fall into five themes: social values, organizational culture, corruption, peer influence and political environment.

Given the grave consequences of unethical leadership behaviour, this study contributes to our understanding of the role of social and organizational factors in shaping unethical leadership behaviour in an understudied context. This can help in mitigating the factors that lay the ground for these destructive and unethical behaviours in public organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a model of abusive leadership as experienced by young workers. Abusive leadership is understood to be subjective and as such this research seeks to explore the experience of abusive leadership through a qualitative approach.

Drawing on interviews with 30 young workers who identified themselves as having a “bad” boss, this study employs a constructivist grounded theory approach in order to identify behaviours, moderators and outcomes of abusive leadership.

A definition and model of abusive leadership as experienced by young workers is proposed. The model details 11 behaviours, five moderators and six individual and two organizational outcomes of abusive leadership.

The adoption of a constructivist grounded theory approach reveals several unique factors that moderate the relationship between behaviors and outcomes of abusive leadership in young workers. By grounding the model in the actual experiences of young workers, the paper offers possibilities for future research on abusive leadership and young workers and across demographic groups.