Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 25:9:1289.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01289. eCollection 2018.

Different Shades-Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership

Ellen A Schmid  1 , Armin Pircher Verdorfer  1 , Claudia V Peus  1
Affiliations

Different Shades-Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership

Ellen A Schmid et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms. From reviewing the literature, we conclude that three major forms of destructive leader behaviors are described: (1) follower-directed destructive behaviors, i.e., genuine abusive forms of destructive leadership, (2) organization-directed behaviors, i.e., behaviors such as stealing from the organization or embezzlement, and (3) self-interested destructive leader behavior, i.e., leader who exploit others to reach their goals. One can easily imagine that these three types of leader behavior have very different effects on followers. Unfortunately, so far, there is no empirical evidence to support this, since comparative research in the field of destructive leadership is scarce. With this paper, we aim to address this gap: In two studies, an experimental and a field study, we examine the differential impact of these three different destructive leader behaviors on two important outcomes: first, their impact on different emotional reactions of followers, the most proximal outcome to a social interaction. Second, we examine a key outcome in leadership research: followers' turnover intention. The results suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior do impact followers differently. Whereas all three behaviors had a positive relationship with negative affect, follower-directed destructive behaviors had the strongest relation out of the three. As expected, all three types of destructive behavior relate to turnover intention, yet, the results of our study suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior relate to different urgencies of turnover intention. We conclude that a tailored approach to destructive leadership, whether in research or practice, seems necessary, as diverse types of destructive leader behaviors affect employees differentially.

Keywords: dark side of leadership; destructive leadership; differential effects; exploitative leadership; turnover intention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Destructive leadership types. The mentioned constructs are not exhaustive but reflect the most typical construct for each category.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Research model. + + + indicates the strongest hypothesized effect; DL, destructive leadership; TOI, turnover intentions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aasland M. S., Skogstad A., Notelaers G., Nielsen M. B., Einarsen S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. Br. J. Manage. 21, 438–452. 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x - DOI
    1. Aguilar R. J., Nightingale N. N. (1994). The impact of specific battering experiences on the self-esteem of abused women. J. Fam. Violence 9, 35–45. 10.1007/BF01531967 - DOI
    1. Aquino K., Grover S. L., Bradfield M., Allen D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Acad. Manage. J. 42, 260–272. 10.2307/256918 - DOI
    1. Ashforth B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Hum. Relat. 47, 755–778. 10.1177/001872679404700701 - DOI
    1. Ashkanasy N. M., Dorris A. D. (2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav. 4, 67–90. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113231 - DOI