Search results

Existing research on social inequalities in leadership seeks to explain how perceptions of marginalized followers as deficient leaders contribute to their underrepresentation. However, research must also address how current leaders restrict these followers' access to leadership opportunities. This conceptual paper offers the perspective that deficiencies in leaders' behaviors perpetuate social inequalities in leadership through an illustrative application to research on gender and leadership.

The authors situate existing research on gender and leadership within broader leadership theory to highlight the importance of inclusivity in defining destructive and constructive leadership.

Previous scholarship on gender inequalities in leadership has focused on perceptions of women as deficient leaders. The authors advocate that researchers reconceptualize leaders' failures to advance women in the workplace as a form of destructive leadership that harms women and organizations. Viewing leaders' discriminatory behavior as destructive compels a broader definition of constructive leadership, in which leaders' allyship against sexism, and any other form of prejudice, is not a rare behavior to glorify, but rather a defining component of constructive leadership.

This paper highlights the important role of high-status individuals in increasing diversity in leadership. The authors suggest that leader inclusivity should be used as a metric of leader effectiveness.

The authors refocus conversations on gender inequality in leadership by emphasizing leaders' power in making constructive or destructive behavioral choices. The authors’ perspective offers a novel approach to research on social inequalities in leadership that centers current leaders' roles (instead of marginalized followers' perceived deficits) in perpetuating inequalities.

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.

The 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?

About 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.

The 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.

The 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.

Destructive 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.

Much of the cross-cultural research addresses the ongoing debate regarding the convergence or divergence of leadership theories and models in countries having different cultures and socio-economic conditions. This chapter aims to integrate destructive leadership and culture by pointing out the plausible cultural norms and values inducing or preventing destructive leadership. The chapter firstly provides brief definitions of culture and destructive leadership along with the cultural dimensions used to categorize the societies. Additionally, the chapter reviews the research findings pertaining to the perception of destructive leadership in different cultures and societies. While acknowledging the existence of universals regarding negative/dark leadership behaviours, the divergence regarding the understanding and enactment of the leadership is also stressed out.

This 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?

Questionnaire 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.

The 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.

Limitations related to measurements and self-reported data are discussed.

The 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.

The need for industry-specific studies of destructive leadership has been highlighted and this study contributes with knowledge from the crisis management context.

A plethora of research has been carried out both in terms of addressing different conceptualizations of destructive leadership and its relationship with various outcomes. In this vein, this chapter focuses on the relationship between destructive leadership and followers' well-being. In particular, it addresses the current state of inquiry about the plausible effects of destructive leadership on the followers' mental and physical health, including experiences of stress, emotional exhaustion, and negative affectivity. Furthermore, it presents empirical research exploring the underlying mechanisms of this relationship. Finally, it proposes the implementation of occupational interventions to prevent and/or reduce destructive leadership behaviors and later provides recommendations for prospective research. Thus, the current chapter contributes to the extant literature by providing a comprehensive view regarding the detrimental effects of destructive leadership on the followers' well-being as well as offering insight into how to deal with its negative effects.

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.

Questionnaire responses were obtained from military personnel in Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands (n=625).

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.

Limitations related to item construction, common method variance, response set tendencies, translation of the instruments, and lack of response rate are discussed.

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.

The use of both constructive and destructive leadership behaviours with respondents from multiple nations in the same analysis.

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the types of leader behaviors organizations should target for a better return on leader training investment the authors draw on the destructive and constructive leadership behavior model and the bad is stronger than good proposition to examine the following question: Compared to constructive leader behavior, does destructive leader behavior have a greater effect on follower outcomes or is something more nuanced occurring?

The authors used Qualtrics online panels to collect data (N = 211 and N = 342) from full-time office-based participants. They used multivariate latent regression and dominance weights analyses to examine the relative strength of destructive versus constructive leader behaviors on followers' satisfaction with leader, and task performance.

Across both samples, leader hypocrisy and leader social undermining had relatively stronger effects on follower satisfaction with leader. Leader knowledge hiding had a relatively strong effect on follower task performance. Leader ethical conduct had the strongest association with follower satisfaction with leader in both samples. Hence, the authors' results were aligned with the bad is stronger than good proposition.

The authors' show that white-collar organizations can benefit from improved follower attitudes and performance by reducing leader hypocrisy and social undermining (destructive behavior) while simultaneously promoting leader ethical conduct (constructive behavior).

Organizations are investing their resources to identify effective leaders; however, the most commonly utilized assessments of leadership potential do not cover the social cognitions of individuals. Trait assessments, which are explicit in nature, also have other problems, including faking and socially desirable responding. In this chapter, we highlight the importance of leaders' implicit reasoning processes, with a particular focus on cognitive biases, in an attempt to understand how destructive leaders frame the world, situations and people and how they justify their choice of behaviours and decisions. Empirical evidence in the literature supports the valid use of implicit reasoning measurements in organizational contexts. Thus, we first summarize and list the cognitive biases of destructive leaders as identified in the literature. We then turn our focus on Machiavellian leaders as they have been associated with destructive leadership. We present the most common six cognitive biases and justification mechanisms of Machiavellian leaders based on our qualitative analysis of interview responses from 72 employees. We aim to encourage researchers and practitioners to make use of the literature on implicit reasoning and to further contribute to developing measures assessing such implicit reasoning processes.

The literature on destructive leadership has largely ignored the perspective of the subordinate, especially in terms of conflict coping mechanisms. This study aims to integrate research on destructive leadership and subordinates’ voice behaviour as a conflict coping mechanism. Drawing on the social exchange, conservation of resources and social identity theories, it argues that destructive leadership negatively affects employees’ voice behaviour and that this relationship is moderated by subordinate personality and organization climate.

The proposed model was tested on a sample of 275 professionals working in the banking and insurance sector in India using a temporal research design with data collected in two phases six months apart. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was used for data analysis.

The results support the main effect relationship between destructive leadership and subordinates’ voice behaviour and the moderation of subordinates’ personality and organizational climate. Temporal analysis indicates that the nature of some relationships changed across the two time periods.

A greater understanding of destructive leader behaviour and resultant coping strategies of subordinates is likely to provide insights for managers facing such situations. The findings of this study will inform the creation of redressal and voice mechanisms in organizations.

This is among the first studies to examine the impact of negative forms of leadership on subordinates’ conflict coping mechanisms using a temporal lag design across two time periods.