destructive behavioural leadership

7/30/2019 Destructive Behavioural Leadership

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/destructive-behavioural-leadership 1/16

The Prevalence of DestructiveLeadership Behaviour

Merethe Schanke Aasland, Anders Skogstad, Guy Notelaers, MortenBirkeland Nielsen and Sta ˚ le Einarsen

Department of Psychosocial Science, Christies Gate 12, University of Bergen, N-5015 Bergen, Norway

Corresponding author email: [email protected]

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadershipbehaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in arepresentative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimationmethods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC)analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5%

(OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly.Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailingover more active ones. The results showed that laissez-faire leadership behaviour wasthe most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyalleadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the leastprevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders displayconstructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not eitherconstructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspectiveon what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

Introduction

So far, research on destructive forms of leader-ship has mainly focused on its detrimental effectson subordinates (Bies and Tripp, 1998; Tepper,2000; Zellars, Tepper and Duffy, 2002). However,few studies have investigated the prevalence of such destructive leadership in contemporaryworking life (e.g. Schat, Frone and Kelloway,

2006). While some researchers claim that destruc-

tive or abusive leadership constitutes a low base-rate phenomenon (e.g. Aryee et al ., 2007), othersbelieve it to be a substantial problem in manyorganizations, in terms of both its prevalence andconsequences (Burke, 2006; Hogan, Raskin andFazzini, 1990). In organizational climate researchfrom the mid-1950s to 1990, 60%–75% of allemployees typically reported that the worstaspect of their job was their immediate supervisor(Hogan, Raskin and Fazzini, 1990). In the USA, job pressure has been cited in 75% of workers’compensation claims in which mental stressors

were the main cause of absenteeism, and 94% of those claims were allegedly caused by abusivetreatment by managers (Wilson, 1991). Thus, agrowing body of evidence documents that leadersbehave in a destructive manner, be it towardstheir subordinates (Bies and Tripp, 1998; Tepper,2000, 2007), towards the organization itself ortowards both (Kellerman, 2004; Vredenburgh

The present project is a collaborative project betweenthe University of Bergen and Statistics Norway, which

collected the data. The project was made possible by joint grants from two Norwegian employer associations(the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise and theNorwegian Association of Local and Regional Autho-rities), and the Norwegian government (the NationalInsurance Administration) and their FARVE programme.We would like to thank Bengt Oscar Lagerstrm andMaria Hstmark of Statistics Norway and Stig BergeMatthiesen of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, for their contribution to the data collection.

British Journal of Management, Vol. 21, 438–452 (2010)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x

r 2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, OxfordOX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



and Brender, 1998). The prevalence of destructiveleadership has serious implications for theorieson leadership and for measures of leadership, aswell as for the recruitment, training and devel-opment of leaders. The aim of the present studyis thus to contribute to the growing body of

literature on destructive leadership by investigat-ing the prevalence of four forms of destructiveleadership behaviour derived from the Destruc-tive and Constructive Leadership (DCL)behaviour model (Einarsen, Aasland and Skog-stad, 2007) employing a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce.

Conceptualizations of destructive leadership

Many concepts have been used to describedestructive forms of leadership, such as ‘abusive

supervision’ (Tepper, 2000) and ‘petty tyranny’(Ashforth, 1994), referring to leaders who behavein a destructive manner towards subordinates, byintimidating subordinates, belittling or humiliat-ing them in public or exposing them to non-verbal aggression (Aryee et al ., 2007). Conceptssuch as authoritarian (Adorno et al ., 1950; Bass,1990a), Machiavellian (Christie and Geis, 1970),autocratic (Kipnis et al ., 1981), narcissisticleadership (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985) andpersonalized charismatic leadership (House andHowell, 1992) emphasize similar but not over-

lapping behaviours. However, these conceptsmainly focus on control and obedience, and lesson the abusive aspect of leadership.

Leaders may also behave destructively in a waythat primarily affects the organization (Keller-man, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005), potentiallyleading to negative consequences for the execu-tion of tasks, quality of work, efficiency andrelations with customers and clients (Padilla,Hogan and Kaiser, 2007). Concepts frequentlyused to describe such behaviour are ‘flawedleadership’ (Hogan, 1994), ‘derailed leadership’

(McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Shackleton, 1995),the ‘dark side of leadership’ (Conger, 1990),‘toxic leadership’ (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) and‘impaired managers’ (Lubit, 2004). Such leadersneglect, or even actively prevent, goal attainmentin the organization by, for example, sabotagingsubordinates’ task execution, by working towardsalternative goals than those of the organization(Conger, 1990), by stealing resources such asmaterials, money or time, or by encouraging

employees to engage in such activities (Altheideet al ., 1978).

Considering the breadth of the concepts usedto describe destructive leaders, it seems clear thatdestructive leadership is not one type of leader-ship behaviour, but instead involves a variety of

behaviour. Taking this diversity into account, thepresent study uses the overarching concept of ‘destructive leadership’, defined as ‘systematicand repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor ormanager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabota-ging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources,and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates’ (Einar-sen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007, p. 208). Hence,destructive leadership is about systematicallyacting against the legitimate interest of the

organization, whether by abusing subordinatesor by working against the attainment of theorganization’s goals, including any illegal beha-viour. The definition emphasizes repeated de-structive behaviour as opposed to a single actsuch as an isolated outburst of anger orspontaneous misbehaviour. However, if mistakesor outbursts of anger become repeated, theyrepresent destructive leadership according to thedefinition irrespective of their intentions orantecedents. Furthermore, destructive leadershipis about behaviour that violates, or is in opposi-

tion to, what is considered to be the legitimateinterest of the organization. Including legitimateinterest is in accordance with Sackett andDeVore’s (2001) definition of ‘counterproductiveworkplace behavior’, narrowing what an organi-zation may expect from its leaders to what mustbe seen as legitimate, legal, reasonable and justifiable behaviour in a given cultural setting.Hence, what is perceived as destructive behaviourmay vary between cultures and societies and alsoover time (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007).

In accordance with the above definition, the

DCL model (see Figure 1) describes four mainkinds of destructive leadership behaviour target-ing either subordinates and/or the organization(Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007). Cate-gorizing leadership behaviour as subordinate-oriented and organization-oriented is not new.However, while many models of leadershipbehaviour, such as the managerial grid developedby Blake and Mouton (1985) and the full range of leadership model (Avolio, 1999; Bass and Riggio,

Destructive Leadership Behaviour 439

r 2009 British Academy of Management.



2006), are based on the assumption that leader-ship behaviour can be seen on a continuum fromlow to high with regard to constructive leadershipbehaviour, the present model views leadershipbehaviour on a continuum from highly ‘anti’ tohighly ‘pro’ (Aasland, Skogstad and Einarsen,2008).

Hence, the subordinate dimension describesleadership behaviour ranging from anti-subordi-nate behaviour to pro-subordinate behaviour.Anti-subordinate behaviour illegitimately under-

mines or sabotages the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates, involving beha-viour such as harassment and mistreatment of subordinates (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad,2007). Pro-subordinate behaviour fosters themotivation, well-being and job satisfaction of subordinates, including taking care of andsupporting them in accordance with organiza-tional policies. Organization-oriented behaviourmay also range from anti-organization behaviourto pro-organization behaviour, where the formerviolates the legitimate interest of the organization

by working in opposition to the organization’sgoals, values and optimal use of resources, bystealing from the organization, by sabotaging theorganization’s goals, or even by being involved incorruption (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad,2007). Anti-organizational behaviour can alsobe described as counterproductive workplacebehaviour directed at the organization (Fox andSpector, 1999; Sackett and DeVore, 2001). Pro-organizational behaviour is about working to-

wards the fulfilment of the organization’s goals,setting clear and unambiguous objectives, mak-ing or supporting strategic decisions and imple-menting legitimate organizational change.

By crosscutting the two dimensions, the DCLmodel presents five categories of leadershipbehaviour, one of which is constructive, three of which are actively destructive – tyrannical,derailed, and supportive–disloyal leadership be-haviour (Einarsen Aasland and Skogstad, 2007) – and one of which is passive: laissez-faire leader-

ship, situated in the middle of the proposedmodel. Constructive leadership is in accordancewith the legitimate interest of the organization,showing both pro-subordinate and pro-organiza-tion behaviour to some degree. Constructiveleadership is about displaying behaviour thatinvolves supporting and enhancing the goalattainment of the organization, making optimaluse of organizational resources, as well asenhancing the motivation, well-being and jobsatisfaction of subordinates. Such leadershipbehaviour can also be described using concepts

such as transactional (Bass et al ., 2003), trans-formational (Bass et al ., 2003), charismatic (e.g.Conger and Kanungo, 1987) and empoweringleadership (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988).However, the focus of the present paper is ondestructive leadership behaviours.

Tyrannical leadership behaviour is about dis-playing pro-organizational behaviour combinedwith anti-subordinate behaviour. Strictly speak-ing, such leaders may behave in accordance with

Pro-subordinate

Anti-subordinate

Anti-organization Pro-organization

Derailed

Leadership

Behaviour

Tyrannical

Leadership

Behaviour

Supportive–disloyal

Leadership

Behaviour

Constructive

Leadership

BehaviourLaissez-faire

Leadership

Behaviour

Figure 1. A model of destructive leadership behaviour

440 M. S. Aasland et al.




the legitimate goals, tasks and strategies of theorganization. However, they typically obtainresults not through, but at the expense of,subordinates (Ashforth, 1994; Ma, Karri andChittipeddi, 2004). Tyrannical leaders may hu-miliate, belittle and manipulate their subordi-

nates in order to ‘get the job done’. Becausetyrannical leaders may behave constructively interms of organization-oriented behaviour whileat the same time displaying anti-subordinatebehaviour, subordinates and superiors may eval-uate the leader’s behaviour quite differently. Whatupper management may see as a strong focus ontask completion may at the same time be seen bysubordinates as abusive leadership or even bully-ing (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007).

Derailed leadership is about displaying bothanti-organizational and anti-subordinate beha-

viour. Such leaders may bully, humiliate, manip-ulate or deceive, while simultaneously engagingin anti-organizational behaviour such as absen-teeism, fraud or otherwise stealing resources fromthe organization (Aasland, Skogstad and Einar-sen, 2008; McCall and Lombardo, 1983). Conger(1990) focuses on similar themes in his study of ‘the dark side’ of leadership, in which herecognizes that leaders may use their charismaticqualities for personal gain and abusively turnagainst what is good for both followers and theorganization.

Supportive–disloyal leadership consists of pro-subordinate behaviour combined with anti-orga-nizational behaviour. Such leaders motivate andsupport their subordinates, while simultaneouslystealing resources from the organization, be itmaterials, time or financial resources (Altheideet al ., 1978; Ditton, 1977). Supportive–disloyalleaders may give employees more benefits thenthey are entitled to at the expense of theorganization, encourage low work ethics andmisconduct and lead their subordinates to beinefficient, or towards other goals than those of

the organization, all of this while behaving in acomradely and supportive manner. They mayalso commit embezzlement or fraud, or encou-rage subordinates to enrich themselves throughsuch anti-organizational behaviour (Einarsen,Aasland and Skogstad, 2007). This form of leadership behaviour has some features in com-mon with the leadership style that Blake andMouton (1985) termed ‘country club manage-ment’, as both forms of leadership behaviour

reflect an overriding concern with establishingcamaraderie with subordinates and ensuring theirwell-being. However, while country club manage-ment involves a minimum of focus on productionand efficiency, thus being low on the organiza-tion-oriented dimension, leaders who behave in a

supportive but disloyal manner behave destruc-tively towards the organization, thus behaving inan anti -organizational manner (Aasland, Skog-stad and Einarsen, 2008). Hence, the absence of constructive leadership behaviour is not the sameas the presence of destructive leadership beha-viour (Kelloway, Mullen and Francis, 2006).

However, destructive leadership is not necessa-rily limited to such active and manifest behaviouras described above. Buss (1961) describes aggres-sive behaviour along three principal axes, namelyphysical versus verbal, active versus passive and

direct versus indirect aggression. Consequently,destructive leadership behaviour may also in-clude passive and indirect behaviour (Skogstadet al ., 2007). Kelloway and colleagues (2005) alsoacknowledge this in their study of ‘poor leader-ship’, in which they differentiate between anactive, abusive leadership style and a passive one.Avoidant or passive leadership, which is alsoreferred to as ‘laissez-faire leadership’ (Bass,1990b), represents a leadership style in whichthe leader has been appointed to and stillphysically occupies the leadership position, but

in practice has abdicated the responsibilities andduties assigned to him or her (Lewin, Lippitt andWhite, 1939). Such leaders may avoid decision-making, show little concern for goal attainmentand seldom involve themselves with their sub-ordinates, even when this is necessary (Bass,1990b). Ashforth (1994) emphasizes the impor-tance of passive destructive behaviour in hisconceptualization of the petty tyrant, including‘lack of consideration’ and ‘discouraging initiative’as two of six dimensions. Thus, the systematicabsence of positive behaviour is conceptualized

as destructive leadership behaviour. Indepen-dently of the causes of passive or laissez-faireleadership behaviour, be it a result of incompe-tence, lack of knowledge or strategic intent toharm, it clearly violates the legitimate interest of the organization as well as legitimate expecta-tions of subordinates, and it may thus harm boththe organization and the subordinates (Frischerand Larsson, 2000; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008;Skogstad et al ., 2007).





Aim of the study

A small but growing body of studies exists ondestructive forms of leadership behaviour. How-ever, these studies are mostly limited to thecharacteristics of such destructive leadership andits effects on subordinates. Apart from two

studies investigating the prevalence of leadershipaggression (Hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001;Schat, Frone and Kelloway, 2006), we know littleabout how prevalent various forms of destructiveleadership behaviour are. Such knowledge is of great importance, especially since efforts todevelop effective interventions against such be-haviour may depend on the prevalence of thephenomenon (Zapf et al ., 2003). Moreover,further theoretical developments specifically re-lating to destructive leadership, as well as toleadership in general, depend on an estimate of

the prevalence of destructive leadership beha-viour. Nuanced information in this regard mayalter our perception of leadership as a phenom-enon and lay the foundation for how muchattention should be devoted to this aspect of leadership in future leadership training anddevelopment (Burke, 2006). Hence, the aim of the present study is to investigate, on the basis of a representative sample of subordinates, theprevalence of the four forms of destructiveleadership behaviour laid out in the DCL model.

Method

Procedure/Sample

Questionnaires were sent by regular mail to arepresentative sample of 4500 employees, ran-domly drawn from the Norwegian CentralEmployee Register during spring 2005, with tworeminders. The sampling criteria were employeesbetween 18 and 65 years of age, employed duringthe last six months in a Norwegian company with

five or more employees, and with mean workinghours of more than 15 hours per week. A total of 57% responded (N52539), which is somewhatabove average for surveys of this kind (Baruchand Holtom, 2008).

The mean age was 43.79 years (SD511.52),(range 19 to 66). The sample is representative of the working population in Norway, except for aminor overrepresentation of women (52% versus47%; Hstmark and Lagerstrm, 2006).

Measures

Data were collected by a questionnaire measuringdemographic variables, exposure to bullying,observed leadership behaviour of the respon-dent’s immediate superior, job satisfaction, sub- jective health complaints and various aspects of

the psychosocial working environment. Onlydemographic variables and questions related toleadership behaviour are included in the presentstudy.

Leadership behaviour was measured using 22items from the destructive leadership scale(Einarsen et al ., 2002). Tyrannical leadership

behaviour was measured using four items (Cron-bach’s alpha50.70). Examples of items included‘has humiliated you, or other employees, if you/they fail to live up to his/her standards’ and ‘hasspread incorrect information about you or your

co-workers, in order to harm your/their positionin the firm’. Derailed leadership behaviour wasmeasured by four items (Cronbach’s alpha50.71),examples of items being ‘has used his/her positionin the firm to profit financially/materially at thecompany’s expense’ and ‘regards his/her staff moreas competitors than as partners’. Supportive–

disloyal leadership behaviour was measured by fouritems (Cronbach’s alpha50.65). Examples of items measuring this type of leadership behaviourare ‘has behaved in a friendly manner by encoura-ging you/your co-workers to extend your/theirlunch break’ and ‘has encouraged you to enjoyextra privileges at the company’s expense’. Laissez- faire leadership behaviour was measured by fouritems (Cronbach’s alpha50.72) from the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio,1990), an example being ‘has avoided makingdecisions’. To prevent response set among theparticipants, constructive leadership behaviour inthe form of employee-centred, production-centredand change-centred leadership was included usingsix items from Ekvall and Arvonen (1991)

(Cronbach’s alpha5

0.87), examples being ‘givesrecognition for good performance’ and ‘en-courages innovative thinking’. Items measuringconstructive leadership behaviour were distribu-ted randomly among the items measuring de-structive forms of leadership.

Four response categories were employed(‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘quite often’ and ‘veryoften or nearly always’), and the respondentswere asked to report on leadership behaviour





which they had experienced during the last sixmonths.

To ensure the internal validity of the scalesmeasuring the destructive forms of leadership, aseries of exploratory factor analyses was con-ducted. The model that yielded the best fit to the

data was a five-factor solution (w25

467.10;df 5199; comparative fit index (CFI)50.95; goodness of fit index (GFI)50.88: consis-tent Akaike information criterion (CAIC)5933.01; root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA)50.026) supporting the internalvalidity of the scale, which measures fourdestructive forms of leadership behaviour inaddition to constructive leadership behaviour.Table 1 shows the fit statistics for all the factorsolutions.

Data analysis

Two methods are used to estimate the prevalencerate of destructive leadership: the operationalclassification method (OCM) and latent classcluster (LCC) analysis. The former defines aspecific criterion that classifies respondents aseither exposed or not exposed to destructiveleadership, based on their reports of theirimmediate superiors’ behaviour, a method com-monly used in research on workplace bullying(e.g. Nielsen et al ., 2009). As the definition of

destructive leadership emphasizes repeated andsystematic behaviour, the classification criterionemployed was exposure to one or more types of destructive leadership behaviour during the lastsix months, ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearlyalways’. Destructive leadership behaviour that isreported ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearlyalways’ is coded as 1, whereas all other frequen-cies are coded as 0. All instances are then addedup and, when the sum is zero, the respondent is

not considered to be exposed to destructiveleadership; otherwise, the respondent is consid-ered to be exposed.

Although a common method of reportingprevalence rates, some weaknesses have beenpointed out concerning the OCM (Notelaers

et al ., 2006). First, the cut-off point provided bythe OCM is an arbitrary choice that reduces acomplex phenomenon to a simple either–orphenomenon. Second, the number of items usedmay influence the prevalence rate (Agervold,2007). Third, subordinates who are frequentlyexposed to a wide range of specific destructiveleadership behaviour, but where each specificbehaviour only occurs ‘sometimes’, are notregarded as being exposed to destructive leader-ship. Of course, a low level of exposure to manydifferent types of destructive leadership beha-

viour may still reflect a systematic pattern in theleader’s behaviour.

To compensate for these potential weaknesses,we applied LCC analysis, which is a systematicway of classifying research subjects into homo-geneous groups based on similarities in theirresponses to particular items, in our case theitems describing the behaviour of their immediatesupervisor. LCC analysis thus identifies mutuallyexclusive groups based on the distribution of observations in an n-way contingency table of discrete variables (i.e. observed destructive leader

behaviour). A goal of traditional LCC analysis isto determine the smallest number of latentclasses, T , which is sufficient to explain (accountfor) the associations observed between themanifest variables (the reported leadership beha-viour) (Magidson and Vermunt, 2004). Theanalysis typically begins by fitting the T 51 class(only one group of destructive leadership beha-viour is reported) baseline model, which speci-fies mutual independence among the variables.

Table1. Fit statistics for the factor analyses solutions

Model Satorra-Bentler

scaled w2

df RMSEA CFI GFI CAIC

One factor: Leadership behaviour 3949.76 209 0.093 0.81 0.52 4329.39

Two factor: Constr uctive and des tructive leader ship behaviour 1654.05 208 0.058 0.88 0.64 2042.32

Three factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, destructive

(laissez-faire, derailed and tyrannical) leadership behaviour

821.56 206 0.038 0.93 0.81 1227.08

Four factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, laissez-faire,

destructive (derailed and tyrannical) leadership behaviour

572.40 203 0.030 0.94 0.82 1003.80

Five factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, laissez-faire,

derailed, tyrannical leadership behaviour

467.10 199 0.026 0.95 0.88 933.01





Assuming that this null model does not providean adequate fit to the data, a one-dimensionalLCC model with T 52 classes (that distinguishesbetween destructive and non-destructive leader-

ship behaviours) is then fitted to the data. Thisprocess continues by fitting successive LCCmodels to the data, increasing the number of classes each time – thus implicitly introducingmultidimensionality – until the simplest modelthat provides an adequate fit is found (Goodman,1974; McCutcheon, 1987), and a model is foundin which the latent variable can explain all of theassociations among the reported behaviours (cf.Magidson and Vermunt, 2004).

Different from traditional cluster methods(such as K -means clustering), LCC analysis is

based on a statistical model that can be tested(Magidson and Vermunt, 2002a). In conse-quence, determining the number of latent classesis less arbitrary than when using traditionalcluster methods (Notelaers et al ., 2006). It canthus be seen as a probabilistic extension of K -means clustering (Magidson and Vermunt,2002b). The LCC analysis will thus determinewhether different groups exist among the respon-dents with respect to exposure to destructiveleadership behaviour based on similarities in theirresponse patterns (Notelaers et al ., 2006). As the

sample size in the present study is large, the levelof significance was set to po0.01.

Results

The inter-correlations, means and standard de-viations for all the continuous measures used inthe study are reported in Table 2.

Prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour

using the OCM

Destructive behaviour by superiors proved to bequite common, as 83.7% reported exposure to

some kind of such behaviours. Yet, according tothe operational criterion, 33.5% of the respon-dents reported exposure to at least one destruc-tive leadership behaviour ‘quite often’ or ‘veryoften or nearly always’ during the last six months(Table 3). Employing this criterion, 21.2% wereexposed to one or more instances of laissez-faireleadership behaviour, while 11.6% reported oneor more instances of supportive–disloyal leader-ship behaviour. Furthermore, the prevalence of derailed leadership was 8.8%, with the prevalencerate of tyrannical leadership behaviour being3.4% (Table 3).

LCC analysis concerning groups of targets

The LCC analysis showed six separate clusters of reported leadership behaviour (see Table 4). Foreach of the six groups of respondents, Table 4summarizes the profile output,1 retaining condi-tional probabilities by calculating the averageconditional probability of each group responding‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or

nearly always’ to the items measuring the differentforms of destructive leadership behaviour.

The first cluster, which we labelled ‘no-destruc-tiveness’, included 39% of the respondents in thesample. This cluster is characterized by a highconditional probability of answering ‘never’ toany of the items measuring the four kinds of

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all continuous measures (N 52539)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Age 43.79 11.52 –

2 Number of employees in enterprise 279 835.9 0.00 –

3 Mean working hours per week 37.49 10.36 0.01 0.05* –

4 Tyrannical leadership 0.11 0.26 À 0.10** 0.02 0.02 –

5 Derailed leadership 0.21 0.38À

0.04 0.01 0.07** 0.60** – 6 Supportive–disloyal leadership 0.29 0.38 À 0.10** À 0.09** 0.08** À 0.03 À 0.01 –

7 Constructive leadership 1.44 0.66 À 0.05* 0.03 0.04* À 0.21** À 0.29** 0.35** –

8 Laissez-faire leadership 0.57 0.52 À 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.38** 0.54** À 0.08** À 0.37** –

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

1The profile output can be obtained by contacting thefirst author of the paper.





destructive leadership behaviour. Hence, thesesubordinates claim not to observe any kind of destructive behaviour on the part of their

immediate superior.A second cluster of respondents, comprising

19% of the respondents, was labelled ‘laissez-faire’ given their higher conditional probability of reporting exposure to items measuring laissez-faire leadership and their low conditional prob-abilities of reporting any tyrannical, derailed orsupportive–disloyal leadership behaviour. Al-most every item associated with laissez-faireleadership is reported more frequently in thiscluster compared with the ‘no-destructiveness’cluster: ‘has avoided making decisions’ (62%

‘sometimes’ and 12% ‘quite often’), ‘is likely tobe absent when needed’ (61% ‘sometimes’ and17% ‘quite often’), ‘has avoided getting involvedin your work’ (58% ‘sometimes’ and 24% ‘quiteoften’) and ‘has steered away from showingconcern about results’ (43% ‘sometimes’ and6% ‘quite often’).

The third cluster was labelled ‘sometimeslaissez-faire and sometimes supportive–disloyal’,as these subordinates report that their superiors

show some level of both these two kinds of behaviour. This cluster contained 17% of therespondents. Nearly every item associated with

laissez-faire leadership is reported less frequentlyin this cluster than in the ‘laissez-faire’ cluster.However, these respondents have a high prob-ability of answering ‘sometimes’ to items measur-ing both laissez-faire and supportive–disloyalleadership behaviour. Examples of items with ahigh average probability of being reported ‘some-times’ by these respondents are ‘has behaved in afriendly manner by encouraging you/your co-workers to extend your/their lunch break’ (68%‘sometimes’, 15% ‘quite often’), ‘has encouragedyou, or your co-workers, to take extra coffee/

cigarette breaks as a reward for good work effort’(61% ‘sometimes’, 8% ‘quite often’), ‘is likely tobe absent when needed’ (60% ‘sometimes’ and11% ‘quite often’), ‘has avoided making deci-sions’ (56% ‘sometimes’ and 6% ‘quite often’)and ‘has avoided getting involved in your work’(52% ‘sometimes’ and 6% ‘quite often’). Theprobability of these respondents reporting anytyrannical or derailed leadership behaviour isvery low.

Table 4. Average conditional probabilities (for all items concerned) expressed as percentages

Cluster 1

Non-

destructiveness

Cluster 2

Laissez-

faire

Cluster 3

Sometimes laissez-faire,

sometimes supportive–

disloyal

Cluster 4

Sometimes

destructive

Cluster 5

Supportive–

disloyal

Cluster 6

Highly

abusive

Size 0.39 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.06

Never 0.91 0.75 0.665 0.57 0.78 0.42

Sometimes 0.09 0.21 0.29 0.36 0.17 0.33

Quite often 0 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.16

Very often/nearly always 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.09

Table3. Exposure to constructive and destructive leadership behaviour ‘quite often’ or more often

Number of instances of behaviour exposed to

0 1 2 3 4 or morea

Constructive behaviour 29.1 12.4 10.4 11.7 35.9

Tyrannical behaviour 96.6 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1

Derailed behaviour 91.2 6.1 1.7 0.7 0.3Supportive–disloyal behaviour 88.3 8.8 2.3 0.4 0.1

Laissez-faire behaviour 78.8 13.1 4.8 2.4 0.9

All destructive behaviourb 66.6 17.9 7.8 3.5 4.3

Frequency in per cent for rows (N52539).aThe constructive behaviour list consists of six items. The tyrannical, derailed, popular but disloyal lists each consist of four items.b‘All destructive behaviour’ is the sum of all tyrannical, derailed, supportive–disloyal and laissez-faire items (16 items).





The fourth cluster, which was labelled ‘some-times destructive’, comprised 11% of the respon-dents. These respondents face ‘sometimes’destructive leadership behaviour in a variety of forms, be it laissez-faire, tyrannical or derailedleadership. Items measuring laissez-faire leader-

ship behaviour are more frequently reported thanin the ‘sometimes laissez-faire and sometimessupportive–disloyal’ cluster, and items measuringtyrannical and derailed leadership behaviour arealso more frequently reported, examples being‘has humiliated you, or other employees, if you/they fail to live up to his/her standards’ (45%‘sometimes’, 7% ‘quite often’), ‘regards his/herstaff more as competitors than as collaborators’(43% ‘sometimes’, 10% ‘quite often’), ‘has madeit more difficult for you to express your views at ameeting, either by giving you too little speaking

time or by placing you last’ (37% ‘sometimes’,6% ‘quite often’) and ‘has imitated or made faces(e.g. rolled eyes, stuck out tongue etc.) at you orother employees to show that he/she is notsatisfied with your/others’ work efforts’ (36%‘sometimes’, 7% ‘quite often’).

The fifth cluster of respondents, comprising10% of the respondents, only report exposureto ‘supportive–disloyal’ leadership behaviour.Nearly every item associated with supportive– disloyal leadership is reported more frequently inthis cluster than in the ‘sometimes laissez-faire

and sometimes supportive–disloyal’ cluster: ‘hasencouraged you, or your co-workers, to takeextra coffee/cigarette breaks as a reward for goodwork effort’ (60% ‘sometimes’, 27% ‘quiteoften’), ‘has behaved in a friendly manner byencouraging you/your co-workers to extendyour/their lunch break’ (60% ‘sometimes’, 26%‘quite often’), ‘has encouraged you to enjoy extraprivileges at the company’s expense’ (35% ‘some-times’, 10% ‘quite often’) and ‘has encouragedyou or your co-workers to do private work/runprivate errands during working hours’ (35%

‘sometimes’, 4% ‘quite often’).The sixth cluster was labelled ‘highly abusive’

and comprised 6% of the respondents in thestudy. Respondents in this cluster report highexposure to laissez-faire, tyrannical and derailedleadership behaviour. Their response patterns arecharacterized by a higher average probability of reporting that such behaviour occurs ‘quite often’and/or ‘very often or nearly always’ than all theother clusters. Again, laissez-faire leadership

behaviour seems to dominate, but respondentsalso report excessive exposure to tyrannical andderailed leadership behaviour. Examples of itemsthat are frequently reported by respondents inthis cluster are ‘has avoided getting involved inyour work’ (40% ‘quite often’, 23% ‘very often

or nearly always’), ‘is likely to be absent whenneeded’ (35% ‘quite often’, 29% ‘very often ornearly always’), ‘attributes the company’s successto his/her own abilities rather than the abilities of the employees’ (29% ‘quite often’, 19% ‘veryoften or nearly always’), ‘has avoided makingdecisions’ (34% ‘quite often’, 22% ‘very often ornearly always’), ‘regards his/her staff more ascompetitors than as collaborators’ (27% ‘quiteoften’, 12% ‘very often or nearly always’), ‘hasmade it more difficult for you to express yourviews at a meeting, either by giving you too little

speaking time or by placing you last’ (19% ‘quiteoften’, 11% ‘very often or nearly always’), ‘hassteered away from showing concern aboutresults’ (19% ‘quite often’, 11% ‘very often ornearly always’) and ‘has humiliated you, or otheremployees, if you/they fail to live up to his/herstandards’ (15% ‘quite often’, 6% ‘very often ornearly always’). The LCC analysis shows that asmany as 61% of all subordinates experiencesystematic exposure to varying forms and com-binations of destructive leadership, with laissez-faire leadership again being the dominant form.

Laissez-faire leadership may exist in isolationwith either a low or a high frequency, or it mayoccur in combination with either supportive– disloyal leadership or tyrannical and derailedleadership, again in more or less intense form.

Discussion

The present study shows that destructive leader-ship behaviour is very common. Depending onthe estimation method, between 33.5% and 61%

of all respondents report their immediate super-iors as showing some kind of consistent andfrequent destructive leadership during the last sixmonths, while only about 40% report noexposure whatsoever to such leadership beha-viour. Thus, destructive leadership behaviour isnot a low base-rate phenomenon, but somethingthat most subordinates will probably experienceduring their working life. The observed preva-lence rates are far higher than those reported by





Schat, Frone and Kelloway (2006) and Hubertand van Veldhoven (2001). Schat, Frone andKelloway (2006) found that, during the last 12months, 13.5% of the respondents were exposedto aggression from their superior, and, likewise,Hubert and van Veldhoven (2001) found an

average prevalence rate of about 11%. However,these two studies only investigated one form of destructive leadership behaviour, namely aggres-

sive behaviour. Consequently, they did notmeasure passive forms of destructive leadershipnor destructive forms of leadership that may alsoinclude constructive elements. Furthermore,these studies did not measure destructive beha-viour targeting the organization. Hence, measur-ing a broader range of destructive leadershipbehaviour, as was the case in the present study,will probably yield higher prevalence rates than

measuring a narrower range of behaviour.Participants in this study reported exposure to

all four forms of destructive leadership behaviourdescribed in the presented conceptual model.While some 3.5% had been exposed to tyrannicalleadership behaviour during the last six months,some 9% reported exposure to derailed leader-ship behaviour. About 11.5% had been exposedto supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour.Laissez-faire leadership behaviour had the high-est prevalence rate at 21.2%, all according to theOCM.

As, to our knowledge, no other studies haveinvestigated the prevalence of tyrannical leader-ship behaviour as operationalized in the presentstudy, it is difficult to evaluate whether aprevalence rate of about 3.5% should be con-sidered high, average or low. However, if we lookat the item level, this form of leadershipbehaviour overlaps with behaviour classified asabusive (Bies and Tripp, 1998) or aggressiveleadership (Hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001;Schat, Frone and Kelloway, 2006). Thus, one cancompare the prevalence rate for tyrannical

leadership behaviour with the prevalence ratesobtained in the study by Schat, Frone andKelloway (2006) and the study by Hubert andvan Veldhoven (2001). Although Schat, Froneand Kelloway found a prevalence rate of 13.5%for people who reported some kind of exposureto aggressive behaviour from their superior, only5.5% reported frequent exposure to such beha-viour. Furthermore, Schat, Frone and Kellowaymeasured exposure to aggressive behaviour dur-

ing the last 12 months, while the present studyhas a time frame of only six months. In the studyby Hubert and van Veldhoven (2001), only 2.1%of the respondents reported frequent (‘often’ or‘always’) exposure to aggression from theirleader. Thus, it can be concluded that the

prevalence rate of tyrannical leadership beha-viour in the present study is comparable to thesestudies.

About 9% of the respondents reported that theirimmediate leader displayed derailed leadershipbehaviour, which, in addition to anti-subordinatebehaviour, also involves anti-organizational be-haviour, potentially making these leaders morevisible to upper management, compared withleaders who display tyrannical leadership beha-viour. The prevalence rate of exposure to thisform of leadership behaviour could therefore be

expected to be lower than for tyrannical leader-ship behaviour. That was not the case, however.Again the explanation may be that we measureleadership behaviour over a six-month period, asthe potential positive effect tyrannical leadershipbehaviour may have on the organization’s goalattainment is claimed to decline, and eventuallydisappear, over time (Ma, Karri and Chittipeddi,2004), eventually developing into derailed leader-ship behaviour. Furthermore, experiencing anti-subordinate behaviour such as bullying, humilia-tion or harassment may have such a profound

effect on some subordinates that organiza-tion-oriented behaviour, be it constructive ordestructive, is of minor importance to them. Thisassumption is supported by Baumeister andcolleagues (2001), who found that bad experi-ences have a much stronger impact than goodones, resulting in a ‘horns’ effect, whereby theleader is only perceived in negative terms.

Supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour hada prevalence rate of about 11.5% according tothe OCM, and it was the second most prevalentform of destructive leadership in the present

study. This form of leadership behaviour involvesbehaving in a comradely and supportive mannertowards subordinates, while at the same timeviolating the legitimate interests of the organiza-tion by, for example, working towards alternativegoals to those of the organization, stealing fromthe organization or encouraging subordinates toengage in such activities (Einarsen, Aasland andSkogstad, 2007). To our knowledge, this form of destructive leadership behaviour has not been





investigated in earlier studies on destructiveleadership. However, a recent qualitative, cross-cultural study focusing on observations of seniorleaders’ wrongdoing in ten different countries(Birkland, Glomb and Ones, 2008) showed thatanti-organizational behaviour was reported more

often than anti-subordinate behaviour, support-ing the high prevalence rates of both derailed andsupportive–disloyal leadership in the presentstudy. Moreover, this form of destructive leader-ship may be underestimated in the present studyas leaders at different levels in an organizationhave a continual opportunity to misuse theirpower and position for personal gain (Conger,1990), relatively often without being noticed bysubordinates. With such extensive opportunitiesto conceal these forms of destructive behaviour,we believe that a prevalence rate of some 11.5%

should be considered a conservative estimate and,as such, as representing a serious problem fororganizations.

In the present study, laissez-faire leadershipbehaviour showed the highest prevalence rate,with 21.2% of the respondents reporting that theyexperienced at least one such leadership beha-viour ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearly always’during the last six months. Lack of adequateleadership, which is the case for laissez-faireleadership, is passive behaviour that may beharder to detect and intervene against than more

active forms of destructive leadership behaviour,and it may also be more easily tolerated by seniormanagers (Skogstad et al ., 2007). However,according to the LCC analysis, destructive leader-ship is not an either–or phenomenon, but more acompound phenomenon with respect to both itsnature and frequency. Based on this analysis,laissez-faire leadership behaviour is reported inthree different forms, either as a stand-alonephenomenon, in combination with supportive– disloyal leadership behaviour or as part of acompound phenomenon in which respondents

report exposure to both tyrannical and derailedleadership behaviour as well as to laissez-faireleadership. Nineteen per cent of the respondentsreported some laissez-faire leadership behaviouraccording to this analysis, while an additional17% were exposed to a low-frequency combina-tion of laissez-faire and supportive–disloyal lea-dership behaviour. Moreover, 11% of therespondents reported being exposed to tyrannical,derailed and laissez-faire leadership behaviour at

a medium frequency, while some 6% of therespondents reported high exposure to all thesethree destructive forms of leadership. Hence,laissez-faire leadership seems to be much moreprevalent than indicated by the use of the OCM.

The present study focuses on exposure to

destructive leadership behaviour during a six-month period. Hence, the behaviours reported inthe different clusters are not necessarily experi-enced simultaneously. Laissez-faire leadership be-haviour may over time evolve into more activeforms of destructive leadership behaviour, in thesame way that tyrannical leadership behaviourmay evolve into derailed leadership behaviour overtime (Ma, Karri and Chittipeddi, 2004). However,longitudinal studies are needed to investigatewhether such an escalation process is involved.

According to the LCC analysis, about 17% of

the respondents reported consistent and systema-tic exposure to supportive–disloyal leadershipbehaviour in combination with laissez-faire lea-dership behaviour. Moreover, 10% reportedmore frequent exposure to supportive–disloyalleadership behaviour alone. Hence, low-fre-quency supportive–disloyal leadership behaviourseems fairly common in Norwegian working life.Supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour mayeven be perceived as just ‘being nice’, and notas constituting destructive behaviour. However,over time, even low-frequency supportive–dis-

loyal leadership may entail considerable expensefor the organization. Additionally, our resultsshow that highly abusive leaders display a rangeof different forms of behaviour, be it laissez-faire,derailed or tyrannical behaviour. A total of 17%of the respondents report such compound nega-tive behaviour, even though only 6% report ithappening on a very frequent basis.

Thus, the results substantiate our assumptionthat destructive leadership is a phenomenoncomprising different classes of behaviour. Focus-ing on aggression by a leader (Hubert and van

Veldhoven, 2001; Schat, Frone and Kelloway,2006) or abusive supervision only (Tepper, 2007)may therefore result in a too constricted focus,resulting in a partial picture of the complexphenomenon of destructive leadership. Further-more, moderate correlations exist between thedifferent forms of destructive leadership behaviourand constructive leadership behaviour (Table 2),indicating that destructive leadership is not some-thing that exists apart from constructive leader-





ship but is an integrated part of the behaviouralrepertoire of leaders. A similar conclusion can bedrawn from an English study on harassment bymanagers (Rayner and Cooper, 2003) in which, of 72 managers evaluated by subordinates, only11.1% were exclusively perceived as being a

‘tough manager’, with 9.7% of the managersbeing exclusively perceived as ‘angels’. In the samestudy, about 28% of the managers were evaluatedas either ‘tough managers with supporters’,‘middlers with victims’ or as ‘angels with victims’.Thus, leaders behave both destructively andconstructively, demonstrating different behaviourand different combinations of behaviour in rela-tion to different subordinates, who again mayreact differently (Rayner and Cooper, 2003). Thishas implications for leadership research, which, inthe past, has mainly seen leadership as being either

constructive or destructive, with the latter beingan anomaly. Furthermore, experiencing bothconstructive and destructive behaviour from thesame source may have more distressing effects onthe target than being exposed to destructivebehaviour alone (Duffy, Ganster and Pagon,2002; Major et al ., 1997).

Methodological issues

A notable strength of the present study is its useof a representative sample of the Norwegian

workforce (Hstmark and Lagerstrm, 2006).Previous research in this field has mainly beencarried out in small non-representative samples,giving rise to uncertainty about the general-izability of the findings. Furthermore, the presentstudy employs two methods of calculating pre-valence rates. While the OCM implicitly assumesthat only two groups of respondents exist (thoseexposed and those not exposed), the LCCmethod identifies several different groups withrespect to observations of destructive leadershipin one’s immediate superior (Notelaers et al .,

2006), taking both the nature and the frequencyof the behaviour into account. Research onbullying in the workplace shows that the LCCmethod displays better construct and predictivevalidity than the OCM (Notelaers et al ., 2006).Thus, the LCC method seems to result in a moreconvincing and comprehensive estimate of theprevalence of destructive leadership.

A limitation of the present study that should bementioned is that the Cronbach’s alpha of the

supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour sub-scale of the destructive leadership scale is low,thus questioning the internal consistency of thissubscale (Hinkin, 1998). Consequently, the re-sults obtained using this subscale should beinterpreted with caution, and the subscale should

be investigated further in future studies.The present study is based on subordinates’appraisal. Phillips and Lord (1986) distinguishbetween two types of accuracy in such leaderappraisals, namely classification accuracy andbehavioural accuracy. Classification accuracyrefers to the ability to adequately classify aperson’s behaviour, while behavioural accuracyis the ability to detect the presence of a specifictype of behaviour (Bretz, Milkovich and Read,1992). If classification accuracy is lacking, sub-ordinates may be influenced by a ‘halo’ (Thorn-

dike, 1920) or ‘horns’ effect (Bligh et al ., 2007).The halo effect consists of an overall positiveevaluation of a leader based, for example, on asingle positive characteristic or action (Thorn-dike, 1920), while the horns effect refers to thereverse situation in which an overall negativeappraisal is made based on one salient failure ornegative characteristic (Bligh et al ., 2007), whichmay prevent subordinates from noticing thevariety and nuances in their leader’s behaviour.However, Cardy and Dobbins (1994) emphasizethat subordinates are valid sources of informa-

tion, as they are often well placed to observe andevaluate their leader’s performance and leader-ship style. Moreover, as negative experiences andinformation are processed more thoroughly thanare positive information and experiences (Bau-meister et al ., 2001), subordinates’ appraisals of destructive leadership behaviour probably havehigh behavioural accuracy.

Conclusion

Destructive forms of leadership behaviour arehighly prevalent, at least in their less severeforms, including the passive form of laissez-faireleadership. Considering the negative effects of destructive leadership for both subordinates andthe organization documented in several studies(Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006; Mitchell andAmbrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000), destructive lea-dership constitutes a serious problem in con-temporary working life. Furthermore, destructive





leadership behaviour comes in many shapes andforms, categorized along two basic dimensions,namely pro-organizational versus anti-organiza-tional behaviour and pro-subordinate versusanti-subordinate behaviour, meaning that a leaderover a period of time may display constructive as

well as destructive behaviour.A high prevalence rate of destructive leader-ship behaviour has important implications fortheory development regarding destructive leader-ship in particular, but also for leadership researchin general. Leaders who behave in a destructivemanner are not exceptional, nor can they bereferred to as a few deviants, at least not asexperienced by their subordinates. Moreover,destructive leadership behaviour is not a phe-nomenon that exists apart from constructiveleadership, but must be viewed as an integral

part of what constitutes leadership behaviour.Including this ‘dark side’ of leadership, a moreaccurate and nuanced understanding of the veryphenomenon of leadership behaviour mayemerge, which in turn may contribute to thegeneral understanding of both the nature andeffectiveness of leadership, and to the develop-ment and management of leaders (Burke, 2006).

Leaders may behave destructively for a varietyof reasons, be it their personality, incompetence,perceived injustice or threat to their identity,financial reasons, low organizational identifica-

tion etc. Future studies should investigate theantecedents of the different forms of destructiveleadership behaviour identified in this paper, assuch knowledge could help us prevent suchbehaviour among leaders and develop tools fororganizational reactions and the rehabilitation of leaders who act in breach of the legitimateinterest of the organization.

References

Aasland, M. S., A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (2008). ‘The darkside of leadership: defining and describing destructive forms

of leadership behaviour’, Organizations and People, 15, pp.

20–28.

Adorno, T. W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N.

Sanford (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York:

Harper.

Agervold, M. (2007). ‘Bullying at work: a discussion of

definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study’,

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, pp. 161–172.

Altheide, D. L., P. A. Adler, P. Adler and D. A. Altheide

(1978). ‘The social meaning of employee theft’. In J. M.

Johnson and J. D. Douglas (eds), Crime at the Top: Deviance

in Business and the Professions, pp. 90–124. Philadelphia, PA:

J. B. Lippincott.

Aryee, S., Z. X. Chen, L. Sun and Y. A. Debrah (2007).

‘Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a

trickle-down model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp.

191–201.

Ashforth, B. (1994). ‘Petty tyranny in organizations’, Human

Relations, 47, pp. 755–778.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development. Building the

Vital Forces in Organizations. London: Sage.

Bamberger, P. A. and S. B. Bacharach (2006). ‘Abusive

supervision and subordinate problem drinking: taking

resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account’,

Human Relations, 59, pp. 1–30.

Baruch, Y. and B. C. Holtom (2008). ‘Survey response rate

levels in organizational research’, Human Relations, 61, pp.

1139–1160.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). ‘Authoritarianism, power orientation,

Machiavellianism, and leadership’. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass

& Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research, and

Managerial Applications, pp. 124–139. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990b). ‘Laissez-faire leadership versus motivation

to manage’. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook

of Leadership. Theory, Research and Managerial Applications,

pp. 544–559. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). Transformational Leader-

ship Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M. and R. E. Riggio (2006). Transformational

Leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., B. J. Avolio, D. I. Jung and Y. Berson (2003).

‘Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational

and transactional leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology,

88, pp. 207–218.

Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer and K. D.

Vohs (2001). ‘Bad is stronger than good’, Review of General Psychology, 5, pp. 323–370.

Bies, R. J. and T. M. Tripp (1998). ‘Two faces of the powerless.

Coping with tyranny in organizations’. In R. M. Kramer and

M. A. Neale (eds), Power and Influence in Organizations, pp.

203–219. London: Sage.

Birkland, A., T. M. Glomb and D. S. Ones (2008). ‘A cross-

cultural comparison of senior leader wrongdoing’. Paper

presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11 April, San

Francisco, CA.

Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton (1985). The Managerial Grid III .

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Bligh, M. C., J. C. Kohles, C. L. Pearce, J. E. G. Justin and J. F.

Stovall (2007). ‘When the romance is over: followerperspectives of aversive leadership’, Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 56, pp. 528–557.

Bretz, R. D. J., G. T. Milkovich and W. Read (1992). ‘The

current state of performance appraisal research and practice:

concerns, directions, and implications’, Journal of Manage-

ment, 18, pp. 321–352.

Burke, R. J. (2006). ‘Why leaders fail. Exploring the dark side’.

In R. J. Burke and C. L. Cooper (eds), Inspiring Leaders, pp.

239–248. London: Routledge.

Buss, A. H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. London:

Wiley.





Cardy, R. L. and G. H. Dobbins (1994). Performance Appraisal:

Alternative Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Pub-

lishing.

Christie, R. and F. L. Geis (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism.

New York: Academic Press.

Conger, J. A. (1990). ‘The dark side of leadership’, Organiza-

tional Dynamics, 19, pp. 44–55.

Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1987). ‘Toward a behavioral

theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings’,

Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637–647.

Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1988). ‘The empowerment

process: integrating theory and practice’, Academy of

Management Review, 13, pp. 471–482.

Ditton, J. (1977). Part-time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling

and Pilferage. London: Billings.

Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster and M. Pagon (2002). ‘Social

undermining in the workplace’, Academy of Management

Journal , 45, pp. 331–351.

Einarsen, S., M. S. Aasland and A. Skogstad (2007).

‘Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and a

conceptual model’, Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 207–216.

Einarsen, S., A. Skogstad, M. S. Aasland and A. M. S. B.

Lseth (2002). ‘‘Destruktivt lederskap: arsaker og konsek-

venser’ [‘Destructive leadership: predictors and conse-

quences’]’. In A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (eds), Ledelse pa

Godt og Vondt. Effektivitet og Trivsel [Leadership for Better

or Worse. Efficiency and Job Satisfaction], pp. 233–254.

Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Ekvall, G. and J. Arvonen (1991). ‘Change-centered leadership:

an extension of the two-dimensional model’, Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 7, pp. 17–26.

Fox, S. and P. E. Spector (1999). ‘A model of work frustration–

aggression’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 915–

931.

Frischer, J. and K. Larsson (2000). ‘Laissez-faire in research

education – an inquiry into a Swedish doctoral program’,

Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 131–155.Goodman, L. A. (1974). ‘The analysis of systems of qualitative

variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part

1: A modified latent structure approach’, American Journal of

Sociology, 79, pp. 1179–1259.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). ‘A brief tutorial on the development of

measures for use in survey questionnaires’, Organizational

Research Methods, 1, pp. 104–121.

Hinkin, T.R and C. A. Schriesheim (2008). ‘An examination of

‘‘nonleadership’’. From laissez-faire leadership to leader

reward omission and punishment omission’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1234–1248.

Hogan, R. (1994). ‘Trouble at the top: causes and consequences

of managerial incompetence’, Consulting Psychology Journal ,

46, pp. 9–15.Hogan, R., R. Raskin and D. Fazzini (1990). ‘The dark side of

charisma’. In K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds), Measures of

Leadership, pp. 343–354. West Orange, NJ: Leadership

Library of America.

Hstmark, M. and B. O. Lagerstrm (2006). ‘Underskelse om

arbeidsmilj: destruktiv atferd i arbeidslivet’ [‘A study of

work environment: destructive behaviours in working life’].

Dokumentasjonsrapport 44, Statistisk sentralbyra ˚ /Statistics

Norway, Oslo.

House, R. J. and J. M. Howell (1992). ‘Personality and

charismatic leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, 3, pp. 81–108.

Hubert, A. B. and M. van Veldhoven (2001). ‘Risk sectors

for undesirable behaviour and mobbing’, European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp.

415–424.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership. What it is, How it

Happens, Why it Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Kelloway, E. K., J. Mullen and L. Francis (2006). ‘Divergent

effects of transformational and passive leadership on employ-

ee safety’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, pp.

76–86.

Kelloway, E. K., N. Sivanathan, L. Francis and J. Barling

(2005). ‘Poor leadership’. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway and

M. R. Frone (eds), Handbook of Work Stress, pp. 89–112.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kets de Vries, F. R. and D. Miller (1985). ‘Narcissism and

leadership: an object relations perspective’, Human Relations,

38, pp. 583–601.

Kipnis, D., S. Schmidt, K. Price and C. Stitt (1981). ‘Why do I

like thee: is it your performance or my orders?’, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 66, pp. 324–328.

Lewin, K., R. Lippitt and R. K. White (1939). ‘Patterns of

aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social cli-

mates’, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp. 271–301.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Why

We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and

How We Can Survive Them. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Lubit, R. (2004). ‘The tyranny of toxic managers: applying

emotional intelligence to deal with difficult personalities’,

Ivey Business Journal , 68, pp. 1–7.

Ma, H., R. Karri and K. Chittipeddi (2004). ‘The paradox of

managerial tyranny’, Business Horizons, 4, pp. 33–40.

Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002a). ‘Latent class modeling

as a probabilistic extension of K-means clustering’, Quirk’s

Marketing Research Review, 20, pp. 77–80.

Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002b). ‘Latent class modelsfor clustering: a comparison with K-means’, Canadian

Journal of Marketing Research, 20, pp. 37–44.

Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2004). ‘Latent class models’.

In D. Kaplan (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative

Methodology for the Social Sciences, pp. 175–198. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Major, B., J. M. Zubek, M. L. Cooper, C. Cozzarelli and C.

Richards (1997). ‘Mixed messages: implications of social

conflict and social support within close relationships for

adjustment to a stressful life event’, Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72, pp. 1349–1363.

McCall, M. W. J. and M. M. Lombardo (1983). Off the Track: Why

and How Successful Executives Get Derailed . Technical Report

No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Mitchell, M. S. and M. L. Ambrose (2007). ‘Abusive super-

vision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of

negative reciprocity beliefs’, Journal of Applied Psychology,

92, pp. 1159–1168.

Nielsen, M. B., A. Skogstad, S. B. Matthiesen, L. Glas, M. S.

Aasland, G. Notelaers and S. Einarsen (2009). ‘Prevalence of

workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across time and

estimation methods’, European Journal of Work and Organi-

zational Psychology, 18, pp. 81–101.





Notelaers, G., S. Einarsen, H. De Witte and J. K. Vermunt

(2006). ‘Measuring exposure to bullying at work: the validity

and advantages of the latent class cluster approach’, Work

and Stress, 20, pp. 288–301.

Padilla, A., R. Hogan and R. B. Kaiser (2007). ‘The toxic

triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and

conducive environments’, Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp.

176–194.

Phillips, J. S. and R. G. Lord (1986). ‘Notes of the practical and

theoretical consequences of implicit leadership measurement’,

Journal of Management, 12, pp. 31–41.

Rayner, C. and C. L. Cooper (2003). ‘The black hole in

‘‘bullying at work’’ research’, International Journal of

Management and Decision Making, 4, pp. 47–64.

Sackett, P. R. and C. J. DeVore (2001). ‘Counterproductive

behaviors at work’. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K.

Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial,

Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145–164.

London: Sage.

Schat, A. C. H., M. R. Frone and E. K. Kelloway (2006).

‘Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce:

findings from a national study’. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling

and J. J. Hurrell (eds), Handbook of Workplace Violence, pp.47–90. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shackleton, V. (1995). ‘Leaders who derail’. In V. Shackleton

(ed.), Business Leadership, pp. 89–100. London: Thomson.

Skogstad, A., S. Einarsen, T. Torsheim, M. S. Aasland and H.

Hetland (2007). ‘The destructiveness of laissez-faire leader-

ship behavior’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

12, pp. 80–92.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’,

Academy of Management Journal , 43, pp. 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). ‘Abusive supervision in work organiza-

tions: review, synthesis, and research agenda’, Journal of

Management, 33, pp. 261–289.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). ‘A constant error on psychological

rating’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, pp. 25–29.

Vredenburgh, D. and Y. Brender (1998). ‘The hierarchical

abuse of power in work organizations’, Journal of Business

Ethics, 17, pp. 1337–1347.

Wilson, B. (1991). ‘U.S. businesses suffer from workplace

trauma. Here’s how to protect the mental health of your

work force – and the fiscal health of your company’,

Personnel Journal , 70, pp. 47–50.

Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia (2003). ‘Empirical

findings on bullying in the workplace’. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,

D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional

Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Re-

search and Practice, pp. 103–126. London: Taylor & Francis.Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper and M. K. Duffy (2002). ‘Abusive

supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship

behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 1068–1076.

Merethe Schanke Aasland is a licensed clinical psychologist, currently working as a research fellowand a PhD student at the University of Bergen completing her PhD thesis on destructive leadershipin organizations. She is also a member of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. Main research topicsare leadership, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying.

Dr Anders Skogstad is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and member

of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. He is a specialist in work and organizational psychology,Norwegian Psychological Association. His main research topics are destructive leadership inorganizations, psychosocial factors at work, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying.

Guy Notelaers is currently funded by the Norwegian Research Council to deliver a PhD on a stress-oriented approach to explain workplace bullying, and is a member of the Bergen Bullying ResearchGroup. His main research topics are methods and statistics in the area of work and organizationalresearch.

Morten Birkeland Nielsen has a PhD in psychology and is currently employed as a postdoctoralresearch associate at the University of Bergen. He is a member of the Operational PsychologyResearch Group and the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are workplacebullying, destructive leadership, whistle-blowing and research methodology.

Dr Sta ˚ le Einarsen is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and managingdirector of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are destructive leadershipin organizations, creativity and innovation, workplace bullying and sexual harassment.





Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

destructive behavioural leadership

Documents