Search results

The role of dark side personality characteristics in the workplace has received increasing attention in the organizational sciences and from leadership researchers in particular. We provide a review of this area, mapping out the key frameworks for assessing the dark side. We pay particular attention to the roles that the dark side plays in leadership processes and career dynamics, with special attention given to destructive leadership. Further, we examine the role that stress plays in the emergence of leaders and how the dark side plays into that process. We additionally provide discussion of the possible roles that leaders can play in producing stress experiences for their followers. We finally illustrate a dynamic model of the interplay of dark leadership, social relationships, and stress in managerial derailment. Throughout, we emphasize a functionalist account of these personality characteristics, placing particular focus on the motives and emotional capabilities of the individuals under discussion.

A cursory review of behavioral ethics research reveals a growing interest in what scholars regularly refer to as the “dark side,” a genre of studies in which concepts that are generally regarded as positive and good are shown to be associated with some sort of negative or bad outcomes. We employ philosophical and institutional lenses to explain why any concept would have a dark side and why researchers would be drawn to it. We then take a social scientific point of view to consider how the dark side of various constructs is typically revealed. Finally, we discuss the implications of dark side research, paying particular attention to the negative implications (no irony intended) focusing on the dark side has for the practice of research and the practice of management.

The full-range leadership theory, and the distinction between transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviour has strongly influenced leadership theory and research in the last several decades. However, in spite of its impact on theory and practice, it has a few shortcomings, as, in its essence, it disregards several essential aspects of a leader’s behaviour, such as the dark side of leadership behaviour. Therefore, to capture various leader behaviours, we provide a more comprehensive leadership model named the “complete full range of leadership”.

Based on reviewing the relevant theoretical and empirical literature, we propose an extended theoretical model, which addresses the existing shortcomings of the full range leadership model.

First, we added a new active and more destructive facet of leadership style named active, destructive leadership style. Second, based on existing empirical findings, we restructured the transactional facet of full-range leadership by collapsing its components into two new distinct facets representing active constructive leadership style and passive destructive leadership style. Finally, drawing on Hersey and Blanchard’s model, we add a new passive and constructive facet named passive constructive leadership.

Our suggested “complete full range of leadership” contributes to leadership theory by addressing the gap between existing theory and empirical findings, making a clear distinction between lack of leadership and delegation and by comprising the dark side of leadership with its bright side into one comprehensive leadership model.

A number of years ago, David McClelland, in his studies of managerial motivation, identified two types of power: egoistic (using others for personal gain) and social (facilitating group cooperation and effort for the achievement of the general good). Clearly, the power motive is intimately related to the concept of leadership. However, over the last several decades, a school of thought has arisen which equates leadership with “doing the right thing”. Defining leadership in such an ethical light is both misleading and dangerous. At the same time, little has been done to address the role of followers in the influence process, and transformational models of leadership have exacerbated this problem. Failure to acknowledge the role of followers and to examine the “dark side” of leader‐follower dynamics can distort efforts to understand influence processes in an authentic way. This paper provides balance to this discussion and identifies a number of critical implications for leadership education.

We review the literature to determine how discretion, defined as the freedom to make decisions, moderates the relationship between leader personality and organizational performance. Discretion increases with level in organizations so that top executives have the most discretion and the greatest opportunity to impact organizational performance. We describe how personality drives executive actions and decision making, which then impacts organizational performance; the more discretion a leader has, the more leeway there is for his or her personality to operate. Finally, using research and contemporary business examples, we illustrate the dynamics linking personality, discretionary freedom, and destructive leadership in and of organizations.

This chapter focuses on a proposed framework of irresponsible leadership (IRL) that might emerge in our schools under certain circumstances. A second purpose is to analyze potential ways to prevent its rise, based on previous models of educational leadership. Broadly, IRL is composed of five elements: narrow view of education, a business-like view of the teacher–student relations, a Narcissist and ego-centrist view, self-centered decision making, and emotional unawareness and poor emotion regulation. Unsurprisingly, IRL results in decreased levels of teachers’ and students’ well-being, unethical school climate, a lack of social responsibility in the teacher lounge, and school failure. To prevent these and related results, three major leadership models in education – participative, moral and social justice, and instructional – were analyzed.

The purpose of this study is to test the mechanism of visionary leadership on subordinates' work withdrawal behavior through cognitive strain and psychological contract violation, and also to reveal the possible dark side of visionary leadership. The moderation effects of subordinates' facades of conformity and leader behavioral integrity in the cognition–affect dual-path process are also discussed.

This study conducted a three-wave longitudinal survey. The data were collected from 574 employees and their superiors in several Chinese enterprises. The authors used Mplus 7.4 and adopted a bootstrapping technique in the data analysis.

Visionary leadership has positive effects on cognitive strain and psychological contract violation; cognitive strain and psychological contract violation mediate the relationship between visionary leadership and work withdrawal behavior, respectively. Subordinates' facades of conformity and leader behavioral integrity moderate the positive effects of visionary leadership on cognitive strain and psychological contract violation, as well as the indirect effect of visionary leadership on subordinates' work withdrawal behavior through cognitive strain and psychological contract violation.

This study reveals the underlying mechanism of visionary leadership's negative impact on job outcome through the cognition and affective reaction of subordinates to visionary leadership, and broadens the scope of visionary leadership research. It also provides some practical suggestions on how to transmit the organizational vision effectively and reduce subordinates' work withdrawal behavior.

This chapter reviews ethical challenges confronting nonprofit administration in relation to organizational managerial practices and leadership behaviors. Through a theoretical model of nonprofit-specific toxic leadership, it reviews the dynamics of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments in cases of unethical and corrupt nonprofit organizational behaviors. It provides a case for prioritizing oversight responsibilities of the board of directors, board supervision, promoting ethical culture in organizational leadership, and implementing policies for addressing destructive and corrupt nonprofit leaders. It reflects on how nonprofit toxic leadership primarily erodes public trust in the nonprofit sector and concludes with practical recommendations for recentering positive behaviors congruent with the nonprofit's social and public good mission.

In the past, leadership scholars have tended to focus on leadership as a force for good and productivity (Ashworth, 1994; Higgs, 2009; Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). However, recently attention has been given to the ‘dark side’ of leadership (see Higgs, 2009; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). The aim of this chapter is to explore dark leadership from the perspective of the narcissistic leader using a fictional character from a popular film.

Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994 (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) as an operational definition of narcissistic personality disorder we explore the psychology of the narcissistic leader through a fictional character study in a popular film.

We have created a psychological profile of a narcissistic leader which identifies specific behavioural characteristics within a toxic organizational culture.

This study has implications for employees within any organizational culture. It is significant because it can illustrate how dark leadership can impact negatively within organizations.

The use of actual living persons on which to base case study material in the study of dark leadership is problematic and constrained by ethical issues. However, the use of characters in fiction, such as contemporary film and drama, represents an excellent source of case study material. Given that little empirical works exists on narcissistic leaders and leadership, the chapter adds originality and value to the field.

The common notion that leaders should be ethical, good, responsible and trustworthy has been strongly challenged in the fields of business and politics worldwide. Due to the high prevalence of unethical leadership by immediate supervisors and decline in trust in leaders (Cowart, Gilley, Avery, Barber, & Gilley, 2014), scholars started to pay closer attention to the dark sides and destructive aspects of leadership. Many different concepts are suggested to define the dark side of leadership, and each of them captures similar but distinct dimensions. In this vein, Einarsen and colleagues' (2007) constructive and destructive leadership model serves as an umbrella concept for different types of dark sides of leadership, covering concepts which have been studied separately such as abusive supervision, tyrannical leadership, petty tyranny, toxic leadership and leader derailment. The present chapter aims to provide a summary of the definitions of these interrelated constructs to acknowledge some other leadership (e.g., paternalistic leadership, pseudo-transformational leadership) and personality styles (e.g., Machiavellianism, narcissism) that have not been considered in this framework and to provide suggestions for future research.