Search results

Grounded on the conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study examines the relationship between tyrannical leadership and knowledge hiding. Additionally, this study aims to investigate the mediating role of psychological distress and the moderating role of psychological safety.

Data was gathered from 435 employees in the corporate sector in China. The study used the partial least squares structural equation modelling approach to assess the proposed connections and analysed the data collected with the help of SmartPLS 4 software.

In the study, it was found that there is a positive relationship between tyrannical leadership and knowledge hiding, and this association is mediated by psychological distress. Additionally, the results asserted that the positive effect of tyrannical leadership on knowledge hiding through psychological distress is less pronounced when there is a greater degree of psychological safety.

Leaders should avoid being tyrannical and adopt a supportive leadership style. They should be aware of the effects of their behaviour on employee well-being, provide resources to help employees cope with distress and foster a culture of psychological safety. This approach promotes knowledge sharing, innovation and employee well-being within the organisation.

This study contributes to the existing literature by investigating a new factor that influences knowledge hiding: tyrannical leadership. Furthermore, it explains that employees who experience tyrannical leadership are more prone to psychological distress, such as anxiety and fear, and are likelier to engage in knowledge-hiding behaviours. Finally, the study identifies psychological safety as a factor that can mitigate the negative effects of tyrannical leadership on knowledge hiding.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the psychological and motivational processes involved in the relationship between two forms of destructive leadership (tyrannical and laissez-faire) and employee health (burnout, affective commitment and job performance). Drawing on self-determination theory, this paper links tyrannical and laissez-faire leadership to employee health through psychological need frustration and poor-quality (controlled) work motivation.

A total of 399 Canadian nurses took part in this cross-sectional study. Structural equational modelling analyses were conducted.

Results show that tyrannical leadership frustrates nurses’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, whereas laissez-faire leadership frustrates nurses’ need for autonomy only. The frustration of needs for autonomy and competence predicts low-quality (controlled) work motivation, which is consequently associated with impaired health (burnout and lower affective commitment as well as performance).

This study contributes to the scarce knowledge regarding the distinct outcomes of destructive forms of leadership and uncovers the specific psychological and motivational pathways through which these types of leadership influence employees’ health.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which emotional experiences mediate the relationships between employees’ perception of considerate and/or tyrannical leadership behaviors and their work engagement and intention to leave the organization. The notion of symmetric and asymmetric relationships between specific kinds of leadership behavior, emotional reactions, and followers’ attitudinal outcomes is also examined.

Employing a survey design, the variables were assessed in a cross-sectional sample of 312 employees.

The study confirmed the notion of symmetric relationships between specific kinds of leadership behavior, emotional reactions, and followers’ attitudinal outcomes. Contrary to the general notion that “bad is stronger than good,” the results indicated that positive emotions were equal or stronger mediators than the negative ones regarding the two outcomes measured in the present study.

The paper is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first paper which examines simultaneously how constructive and destructive leadership styles, and positive and negative affects, are related to employee attitudes outcomes, and evokes a discussion when bad is stronger than good or vice versa regarding leadership outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.