HRM 4597 Temple University Destructive Leadership Behavior Article Essay Read Einarsen et al. ArticleAnswer the following questions:What general insights d

HRM 4597 Temple University Destructive Leadership Behavior Article Essay Read Einarsen et al. ArticleAnswer the following questions:What general insights did you get from reading this article?Destructive leadership behavior versus deviant employee behavior, what causes what and how?Can these problem behaviors be solved? How can they be solved? Please be specific and give examples.What role does the organization as a whole play in fostering or eliminating such behaviors? Again, please be specific. How does this article reinforce what we have learned about EI?Should this article be used again in this class, why/why not? The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207 – 216
www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model
Ståle Einarsen ⁎, Merethe Schanke Aasland, Anders Skogstad
University of Bergen, Norway, Department of Psychosocial Science, Christiesgate 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway
Abstract
This paper proposes a definition and a descriptive model of destructive leadership behaviour. Destructive leadership behaviour
is defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the
organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation,
well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates. Three categories of such destructive leadership are identified in the proposed
model: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour. The model may provide a useful link between the field
of leadership and research on bullying, counterproductive behaviour, and aggression at work. The model contributes to a more
nuanced concept of destructive leadership showing how destructive leadership behaviours also may have constructive elements.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Leadership; Destructive; Abusive; Tyrannical; Derailed; Disloyal; Aggression; Deviance
1. Introduction
Little research and theory development has addressed destructive leadership behaviours and the potential negative
effects of such behaviours on the organisation (Tepper, 2000); comparatively more research has investigated
constructive, effective or successful leadership (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2006). Traditionally, leadership research
focuses on factors associated with effective leadership, often with an implicit assumption that ineffective leadership
simply reflects the absence of leadership (Ashforth, 1994). However, research on destructive aspects of leadership
clearly document that this phenomenon includes a variety of different behaviours that is not limited to the mere
absence of effective leadership behaviour (Ashforth, 1994; Bies & Tripp, 1998; Einarsen, Skogstad, Aasland, &
Løseth, 2002; Kelloway et al., 2006; Tepper, 2000). Recent research on bullying at work has documented that some
5%–10% of employees are subjected to bullying at any one time (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003), where as much
as 80% of the cases involve a superior in the role as the alleged bully (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). In an
English study some 40% of the participants reported that they had experienced bullying from a leader during their
working career (UNISON, 1997). In a study among 73 managers, Lombardo & McCall (1984) discovered that as many
as 74% of them had experienced an intolerable boss. Namie & Namie (2000) found that 89% of those experiencing
bullying at work perceived leaders as the main bully. Studies like these clearly document that leaders may actively
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 55 58 90 79; fax: +47 55 58 98 79.
E-mail addresses: stale.einarsen@psysp.uib.no (S. Einarsen), merethe.aasland@psysp.uib.no (M.S. Aasland), anders.skogstad@psysp.uib.no
(A. Skogstad).
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
208
S. Einarsen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207–216
behave in a destructive manner towards subordinates. In addition, sabotage, theft, and corruption among managers
have been documented (Altheide, Adler, Adler, & Altheide, 1978; Dunkelberg & Jessup, 2001; Kellerman, 2004;
Lipman-Blumen, 2005), although existing empirical research in this domain is limited.
Several authors have therefore recently called for a closer examination of the characteristics and outcomes
associated with destructive leadership (Kellerman, 2004; Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005). Burke
(2006) posits that by exploring the “dark side” of leadership, a more accurate view of leadership may emerge, which
again may contribute to the general understanding of leadership effectiveness and leadership development. Based on a
literature review, Baumeister, Bratlavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs (2001) conclude that there is overwhelming support to
the notion that negative events in social interactions have a stronger effect than do positive events. Hence,
understanding and preventing destructive leadership may be as important, or even more important, than understanding
and enhancing positive aspects of leadership.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to propose a definition of destructive leadership behaviour that captures the
different destructive behaviours described within this research field, and (2) to propose a conceptual model of
leadership behaviour that incorporates the notion that a destructive leader may simultaneously show both destructive
and constructive behaviour. With this model we aim to expand the research field of leadership behavior to also include
potentially destructive elements of leadership. Second, we contribute to a more nuanced concept of destructive
leadership behaviour by arguing that some leaders may display behaviour consisting of both constructive and
destructive elements.
2. A definition of destructive leadership
Researchers have proposed a number of concepts that arguably fall within the domain of destructive leadership that
is aimed at subordinates. These include “abusive supervisors” (Hornstein, 1996; Tepper, 2000), “health endangering
leaders” (Kile, 1990), “petty tyrants” (Ashforth, 1994), “bullies” (Namie & Namie, 2000), “derailed leaders”
(Schackleton, 1995), “intolerable bosses” (Lombardo & McCall, 1984), “psychopaths”(Furnham & Taylor, 2004), and
“harassing leaders”(Brodsky, 1976). Destructive actions directed against the organisation have also been identified
(e.g., working towards goals other than those defined by the organisation), examples being Lipman-Blumen’s (2005)
concept of “toxic leaders” and McCall & Lombardo’s (1983) concept of leader derailment.
Although there are obvious similarities among these concepts, researchers have yet to adopt a common definition or
conceptual framework of destructive leadership. While “abusive supervision” is defined as “subordinates’ perceptions of
the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding
physical contact” by Tepper (2000), p.178, Hornstein (1996) describes an abusive leader as “one whose primary objective is
the control of others, and such control is achieved through methods that create fear and intimidation” (Hornstein, 1996).
Ashforth (1994) describes a petty tyrant as “someone who uses their power and authority oppressively, capriciously, and
perhaps vindictively” (p.126). Kile (1990), using the term health endangering leaders, defines these leaders as someone
“who behaves in such a manner towards subordinates that the subordinates develop poor health, and attribute these health
problems to the leader’s behaviours” (p. 26). Lipman-Blumen (2005) describes “toxic leaders” as “leaders who act without
integrity by dissembling and engaging in various other dishonourable behaviours” (p. 18), including behaviours such as
“corruption, hypocrisy, sabotage and manipulation, as well as other assorted unethical, illegal, and criminal acts” (p. 18).
Kellerman (2004) also points out that leaders may involve themselves in corruption, by lying, cheating and stealing, or
otherwise putting their self-interest ahead of the organisation’s legitimate interest.
Ultimately, an inclusive concept of destructive leadership should account for destructive behaviour aimed at both
subordinates and at the organisation. With that in mind, we propose the following definition of destructive leadership:
The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest
of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and
effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates.
2.1. An all-inclusive concept
Our definition encompasses behaviours in two domains, that is, behaviours directed toward subordinates and
behaviours directed toward the organisation itself. Vrendenburgh & Brender (1998) note that managers have the
S. Einarsen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207–216
209
opportunity to abuse both organisational members and/or the organisation through their use and misuse of power.
Hence destructive leadership may undermine or sabotage the well-being, motivation and satisfaction of subordinates,
as well as the effectiveness of the organisation by targeting tasks, resources and goals. Second, unlike Tepper’s (2000)
definition of abusive supervision, we include all physical and verbal behaviour in our definition of destructive
leadership. In explaining the different behaviours that the proposed definition includes, it may be useful to apply Buss’
(1961) classification of aggressive behaviours, which distinguishes between three dimensions; physical versus verbal
aggression, active versus passive aggression, and direct versus indirect aggression. An all-inclusive concept of
destructive leadership must include behaviour from each domain. Consequently, destructive leadership behaviours are
not necessarily active and manifest, but may also constitute passive and indirect behaviours. An example of passivephysical-indirect behaviour may be a leader who fails to protect a subordinate’s welfare, for example in a working
environment with potential safety risks (Neuman & Baron, 2005). An example of passive-verbal-indirect behaviour
may be a leader failing to provide a subordinate with important information or feedback (Neuman & Baron, 2005).
Yet, in order for any behaviour to be defined as destructive according to the proposed definition, the leader must
perform the behaviour systematically and repeatedly and violating the legitimate interest of the organisation. On the
other hand, the proposed definition does not include any intent to harm as a qualifying element, highlighting that
instances of thoughtlessness as well as ignorance and incompetence may be included in the concept. Because these
three elements are unique to our definition, we explain them in greater detail below.
2.2. Systematic and repeated behaviour
The proposed definition of destructive leadership behaviours focuses on repeated and systematic behaviours. Hence,
the definition excludes isolated misbehaviour such as an uncharacteristic outburst of unjustified anger. On this issue we
follow the European research tradition on bullying in the workplace, which emphasizes that “in order for the label
bullying to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g.
weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months)” (Einarsen et al., 2003). The focus on systematic and repeated
behaviours has important implications. One must accept that leaders occasionally make poor decisions, or otherwise
have a “bad day” at work. It is only when this behaviour becomes systematic and repeated that it can be classified as
destructive behaviour. Hence, it is only when leaders make mistakes repeatedly or repeatedly act aggressively towards
subordinates that they may be characterised as being destructive. Such a criterion is also supported by Tepper (2000)
who focuses on sustained displays of hostile behaviours in his definition of abusive supervision.
2.3. No call for intent
Many researchers do not make explicit whether their definition of destructive leadership includes the intention to
cause harm (Ashforth, 1994; Ma, Karri, & Chittipeddi, 2004; Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998), whereas others explicitly
exclude unintentional behaviour from their definition (Bies & Tripp, 1998; Kile, 1990). It is our position that the
definition should not include intent, because what makes leadership destructive has less to do with the leaders’
intentions than with the outcomes of the leaders’ behaviour. Furthermore, any isolated and therefore potentially
accidental behaviour is already excluded in the definition through the focus on systematic and repeated behaviour.
Destructive leadership behaviour may therefore include behaviours that were not intended to cause harm, but as a result
of thoughtlessness, insensitivity, or lack of competence, undermines subordinates and/or the organisation. Rayner,
Hoel, & Cooper (2002) also argue that intent may create an artificial barrier for an operational definition of hostile
behaviours at work, as it is difficult to verify an actor’s intentions (see also Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999).
In the case of organisational theft, which may be seen as one example of destructive behaviour in organisations,
Greenberg (1997) argues that there are distinct differences based on whether the intent of the theft is of an antisocial or
a prosocial nature. Parallel to this, Altheide et al. (1978) found that theft in organisations may be considered
“…ritualistically and symbolically tied to becoming a successful employee, one who gets along well” (p. 101). Based on
this assumption Greenberg (1997) distinguishes between the actor’s intentions, whether they are prosocial or
antisocial, and between the targets of this behaviour being either the employer or co-workers. By crosscutting these
two dimensions, he identifies four distinct social motives for a theft; Approval, Support, Even the score and Thwart
(Greenberg, 1997, p.89). In the case of the Approval motive, the theft is motivated by a prosocial intent directed toward
the organisation. Leaders, for instance, may then participate in stealing from the organisation because they wish to
210
S. Einarsen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207–216
behave in accordance with norms expressed or supported by their own superiors. Hence, their behaviours may be a
result of observational learning more than an explicit intent to harm. A Support motive, which is based on a prosocial
intent in order to support colleagues, means that the thief, in our case a leader, may only behave in accordance with
group norms condoning the behaviour. When behaving in accordance with an Even the score motive, the theft is
conducted with an antisocial intent as opposed to the previous two motives, and the target of this intention is the
employer. In this situation, the thief wishes to harm or strike back at the employer. For instance, as revenge from a
perceived injustice by the employer, a leader may take part in stealing. In the last scenario, the Thwart motive, the
intent of the thief is again antisocial, but the target is one’s colleagues.
In all these cases, the leader’s theft behaviour arguably has the effect of sabotaging and undermining the
organisation, irrespective of the actor’s intentions. We would argue that the same is true for other kinds of destructive
behaviour. Yet, although the intent or motive behind the leader’s behaviour is not included in the proposed definition, it
is important not to underestimate the significant part intent may play in subjective judgements made by subordinates
and superiors when labelling a leader as destructive (Tepper, 2000).
2.4. The legitimate interest of the organisation
According to our definition, behaviours are destructive if they violate the legitimate, that is, the rightful and lawful,
interests of the organisation. Webster’s New Word Dictionary offers several explanations of the word “legitimate”: 1)
“allowed by law or custom; lawful, 2) staying or being within the law, 3) logical correct; reasonable, 4) justifiable or
justified, 5) following established rules, standards etc.” Hence, legitimate interests are about what is lawful, justifiable
and in the best interest of an organisation, the latter being defined by established internal rules and by internal formal
power structures and procedures. By including “legitimate interest” in the definition, we follow Sackett & DeVore
(2001) in their definition of “counterproductive workplace behavior.”
Sackett & DeVore (2001) state that behaviours violating the legitimate interest of the organisation, to a certain
degree overlap with the related terms, illegal, immoral, or deviant behaviours. These concepts have different
connotations, with illegal behaviours defined in terms of laws and the jurisdiction in which the organisation functions,
immoral behaviours defined in terms of a particular cultural value system, and deviant behaviours defined in terms of
behaviours that deviate from a norm (Sackett & DeVore, 2001). If, for example, a majority of leaders in an organisation
have grown accustomed to bill their organisation for private dinners and holidays, one might say that they are behaving
in accordance with the norm of that particular organisation, and therefore it will not be defined as deviant behaviour.
However, based on the proposed definition, this behaviour will be considered destructive because it violates the
legitimate interest of the organisation, which is the optimal use of financial, material and human resources in the
service of the organisation and its owners. Likewise, a behaviour that opposes a legitimate decision, goal or strategy of
the firm, is to be regarded as destructive from the moment these decisions, goals or strategies are enforced. Hence, not
altering one’s behaviour in times of change may be seen as destructive if these changes can be said to be in accordance
with legitimate interests of the organisation.
Of course, an organisation cannot freely determine its legitimate interests. Some behaviours, for example that a
leader resigns his position and the organisation for a personal career improvement, may of course represent behaviour
that is contrary to the organisation’s interest, yet do not carry the connotation of wrongdoing that accompanies
behaviours viewed as illegal, immoral, or deviant. Thus, it cannot be regarded as violating any legitimate interest of the
organisation.
Further, both employees and employers are obligated to behave in accordance with national or international norms,
laws, and agreements. Leadership behaviour may be considered destructive only if it violates the legitimate interests of
the organisation as defined by a given society at a given point in time (Einarsen, Nielsen, Raknes, & Skogstad, 2005).
This implies of course that what will be perceived as destructive behaviour may vary between different societies over
time. For example, new laws condemning smoking in public buildings imply that while smoking in your own office
was not considered destructive behaviour before the ban, it will violate an organisation’s legitimate interest after the
law is implemented. Many kinds of leadership behaviours that are considered destructive today, may have been
regarded as being in accordance with the legitimate interest of the organisation at another point in time (Christie &
Geiss, 1970). For instance, Ironside & Seifert (2003) describe the established leadership philosophy during the
beginning of the industrial revolution as follows; “Their need to secure the adaptation of workers from the rhythms of
agricultural and domestic work to the discipline of factory production resulted in management regimes in which fines,
S. Einarsen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207–216
211
beatings, sackings, and all forms of harassment and abuse were the daily experience of the majority” (p.383). Hence,
what may be defined as a legitimate use of the organisations total resources, including its employees, depends on the
legal, historic and cultural context of the organisation.
3. A conceptual model of leadership behaviour
The second aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual model of destructive leadership behaviour that is congruent
wi…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment