Search results

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.

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.

A growing body of research with contributions from different parts of the world documents accounts and analyses of negative behaviors by persons in leadership positions. Researchers today are acknowledging and paying increasing attention to the consequences of leadership that is characterized as being destructive. The chapter outlines organizational outcomes of destructive leadership and aims to emphasize the person–situation interaction in explaining these organizational phenomena. Both the direct outcomes that result from poor decision-making and the indirect effects that emerge as a consequence of the destructive leader's negative impact on the followers are discussed.

As the literature reveals an ongoing debate on the lack of agreement for a comprehensive conceptualization and definition of destructive leadership, the measurement of the construct is still problematic. Therefore, this chapter aims to review and summarize the current ways of measuring destructive leadership. A systematic review was conducted to examine the destructive leadership instruments. This chapter covers both qualitative and quantitative instruments in assessing destructive leadership and provides a brief overview of the scale development of the instruments. In addition to destructive leadership scales, commonly used harmful leadership scales such as abusive, tyrannical and toxic scales were also included for comparison purposes.

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.

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.

Line managers can make or break organizational interventions, yet little is known about what makes them turn in either direction. As leadership does not occur in a vacuum, it has been suggested that the organizational context plays an important role. Building on the intervention and leadership literature, we examine if span of control and employee readiness for change are related to line managers' leadership during an organizational intervention.

Leadership is studied in terms of intervention-specific constructive, as well as passive and active forms of destructive, leadership behaviors. As a sample, we use employees (N = 172) from 37 groups working at a process industry plant. Multilevel analyses over two time points, with both survey and organizational register data were used to analyze the data.

The results revealed that span of control was negatively related to constructive leadership and positively related to passive destructive leadership during the intervention. Employee readiness for change was positively related to constructive leadership, and negatively related to both passive and active destructive leadership.

Our findings suggest that contextual factors need to be assessed and considered if we want line managers to engage in constructive rather than destructive leadership during interventions.

The present study is the first to address line managers' making or breaking of organizational interventions by examining the influence of context on both their destructive and constructive leadership.

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.

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.

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.