Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of psychological contract breach on destructive by developing a moderated mediation model. The model focuses on the mediating role of moral identity and moral disengagement and the moderating role of moral belief.

This study conducted a three-wave questionnaire survey and used 377 matched-sample data to test the hypotheses. PROCESS bootstrapping program in SPSS and confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS software were adopted in this study.

Results reveal that psychological contract breach has a positive effect on destructive leadership behavior, and the relationship is mediated by moral identity and moral disengagement; moral belief not only moderates the relationship between psychological contract breach and destructive leadership behavior, but also moderates the mediation effect of moral identity and moral disengagement.

First, this study enriches the destructive leadership behavior literature by verifying psychological contract breach as an antecedent. Second, this study discusses the role of morality in the formation mechanism of destructive leadership behavior by testing the mediating effect of moral identity and moral disengagement and the moderating effect of moral belief.

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.

For many years, researchers from management, psychology, sociology, and other disciplines have studied not only the differences that gender makes in the style of managers' leadership but also how the gender of the subordinates affects their perceptions about the different behavior of male and female leaders. Those studies mostly focused on gender and constructive leadership styles, thus neglecting potential destructive aspects of leadership. Therefore, this chapter aims to understand the relationship between men and women and the observations of employees regarding the destructive leadership behaviors of both male and female managers. The results of the study, which was conducted with 130 participants who have been working under different managers, highlight several issues and interpret them in terms of the different psychological and sociological theories and models.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the fundamental content and structure of destructive leadership within the Chinese cultural context, through surveys of employees in Chinese organizations.

Methodologies such as documentary analysis, interview and survey were used in the study, and surveys were conducted on over 1,300 employees from Beijing, Shanghai and other cities in Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces. Then the content and structure of destructive leadership perceived by Chinese employees were examined using multiple statistical techniques including EFA (exploratory factor analysis) and CFA (confirmatory factor analysis).

The results of the survey showed that destructive leadership in Chinese organizations consists of four factors: corruption, excoriation of subordinates, abuse of subordinates and the loss of professional morality. The authors then compared the structure with relevant Western research findings and revealed their similarities and differences.

The structure of Chinese destructive leadership not only reflects the characteristics of Chinese culture, but also reflects the characteristics of current Chinese organizational management, which have practical implications for identifying management problems in Chinese organizations and improving workplace leadership behavior.

This is the first paper of its kind in mainland China to empirically explore the theoretical model of destructive leadership within the context of Chinese culture, which will facilitate future research by offering a theoretical basis and research instrument.

Research has overwhelmingly focused on the positive side of leadership in the past. However, research into negative aspects of leadership is picking up pace. This chapter will provide an overview of two prominent aspects of negative leadership, namely, abusive supervision and laissez-faire leadership. Research has shown that both types of leadership have significant negative consequences both for organisations as a whole as well as individual followers. Examples include lower job satisfaction, stress, as well as lowered performances and a higher likelihood of counter-productive work behaviour. Both abusive supervision and laissez-faire researchers acknowledge that these leadership styles take effect through the perception of followers. That is, they consider that the same behaviour can be interpreted differently by different followers and will, hence, lead to different follower-related outcomes. Abusive supervision and laissez-faire are, however, very different in terms of the actual leader behaviours described. While abusive supervision is a style that is actively destructive, laissez-faire is destructive via lack of support for followers' goal achievement. We end the chapter with an outlook for future research, notably an attempt to systematise future research into destructive leadership with respect to the different forms it can take.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a short and easy to use yet psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context.

First, examples of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context were collected using a qualitative approach. Second, these examples were operationalised and pilot tested, which resulted in a 20‐item questionnaire called Destrudo‐L. Third, data were collected from three Swedish military groups (n=428). Dimensionality of the instrument was analysed using structural equation modelling. Conventional psychometric assessments of reliability and validity were performed.

A nested hierarchical model with a general factor and the following specific factors emerged: arrogant, unfair; threats, punishments, overdemands; ego‐oriented, false; passive, cowardly; and uncertain, unclear, messy. Meaningful subgroup differences and relationships with a criterion variable (lack of motivation/propensity to leave) were found. More use of active forms was reported by subordinates of younger military commanders and more use of passive forms was marked by subordinates of senior military managers.

The instrument is easy to administer and interpret (norm values are provided) and can be used in leader evaluation, as well as leader development, contexts.

The main contribution is methodological – the development of a new scale. Additional findings are a strong positive correlation between active and passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context, as well as significant differences between groups with different ranks.

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.

Follower's individual differences have been receiving increased attention in studying destructive leadership because followers may enable or disable it. One of these yet under-researched features is the role of followers' leadership coproduction beliefs (a role construal) in explaining their resistance to destructive leaders. Departing from the proactive motivation theory, this paper explores the robustness of coproduction beliefs by testing its ability to predict followers' resistance to destructive leaders across four situations – abusive supervision, exploitative leadership, organization directed behaviors and laissez-faire.

With a sample of 359 participants that answered a scenario-based survey, the present study tests the relationship between coproduction beliefs and resistance behaviors in the four mentioned groups, while controlling for alternative explanations. A multigroup analysis was conducted with PLS-SEM.

Constructive resistance is always favored by coproduction beliefs independently of the leader's type of destructive behavior. Dysfunctional resistance, however, is sensitive to the leader's type of destructive behavior.

This paper extends knowledge on the role of coproduction beliefs as an individual-based resource against destructive leaders.