Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives and Toward a More
Holistic Definition
Author(s): Christian N. Thoroughgood, Katina B. Sawyer, Art Padilla and Laura Lunsford
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 151, No. 3 (September 2018), pp. 627-649
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45022688
Accessed: 26-06-2022 01:51 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2018) 151:627-649
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0551-016-3257-9
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric
Perspectives and Toward a More Holistic Definition
Christian N. Thoroughgood1 • Katina B. Sawyer1 • Art Padilla2 * Laura Lunsford3
Received: 8 February 2016/ Accepted: 28 June 2016 /Published online: 6 July 2016
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract Over the last 25 years, there has been an
balanced understanding of destructive leadership, it is
increasing fascination with the "dark" side of leadership.
important to adopt more integrative approaches that are
The term "destructive leadership" has been used as an
overarching expression to describe various "bad" leader
based in the contemporary leadership discourse and that
behaviors believed to be associated with harmful conse-
and conducive environments as interdependent elements of
recognize flawed or toxic leaders, susceptible followers,
quences for followers and organizations. Yet, there isa abroader destructive leadership process. To this end, we
general consensus and appreciation in the broader leaderoffer a critique of the destructive leadership literature,
ship literature that leadership represents much more than
propose a broader definition of destructive leadership, and
the behaviors of those in positions of influence. It ishighlight
a
gaps in our understanding of leaders, followers,
dynamic, cocreational process between leaders, followers,
and environments in contributing to destructive leadership
and environments, the product of which contributes processes.
to
Finally, we conclude by discussing strategies for
group and organizational outcomes. In this paper, we argue
examining destructive leadership in a broader, more
holistic fashion.
that, despite this more holistic recognition of leadership
processes within the broader leadership literature, current
conceptualizations and analyses of destructive leadershipKeywords Destructive leadership • Toxic leadership •
continue to focus too heavily on behaviors and characterLeadership processes • Followers • Environments
istics of "bad" leaders. In our view, to achieve a more
It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet.
E3 Christian N. Thoroughgood
Christian.Thoroughgood@gmail.com
Katina B. Sawyer
Katina.Sawyer@gmail.com
Art Padilla
-Miyamoto Musashi (Kaufman 2003, p. 12)
Leadership has critical implications for groups, organiza-
tions, and societies. When it succeeds, its constituents
prosper. When it goes wrong, teams lose, armies are
defeated, organizations falter, and societies suffer. The
Padilla2005 @ gmail .com
Laura Lunsford
lglunsfo @email. arizona.edu
1 Department of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 E.
Lancaster Avenue, Suite 119, St. Mary's Hall, Villanova,
PA 19085, USA
2 Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, 1130
East Helen Street, McClelland Hall 417,
P.O. Box 210108, Tucson, AZ 85721-0108, USA
3 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona - South,
1503 E. University of Boulevard, P.O. Box 210068, Tucson,
AZ 85721, USA
bankruptcies of Enron and Worldcom, the tragic events at
Jonestown, the scandals at Penn State and in the Catholic
Church, and the widespread poverty in Germany after the
fall of Hitler all highlight the destructive potential of
leadership on organizations of various forms and purposes.
Yet, when destructive leadership episodes occur, news
headlines often focus on leaders, rather than the group
processes and the larger historical, institutional, and societal forces that also contribute to the outcomes.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
628
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
et
al.
(b)field
destructive
gro
Even
within
the
of
leadersh
have
not
been
immune
to
leader-c
as
(c)
a
dynamic
ti
term
Third,
based
on
a
"destructive
leadership"
has
areas expression
of
conceptua
as
an
overarching
f
standing
of
leaders
behaviors
(e.g.,
hostility,
coerc
destructive
leader
believed
to
be
associated
with
n
discuss
role
o
followers
and/or
the the
organizati
2007;
Ferris
et counterproductivit
al.
2007;
Krasikov
With
respect
to
2011;
Schyns
and
Schilling
2013
consider
follower
articles
comprising
special
issu
different
follower
(e.g.,
Leadership
Quarterly,
vol.
the Hansbrough
developmental2
(e.g.,
Schyns
and
Finally,
we(e.g.,
discu
professional
conferences
"
Measurement, levels,
Antecedents,
and
including
in
Yet,
a
more
and
balances),
mac
holistic
understandin
con
requires technological
recognition
that
l
and
beliefs)
influen
outcomes
are
rarely
the
prod
ership
their
critically
shape
de
(Lieberson
and
O'Connor
person
Salancik
in
the
ship"
and
broader
has
been
dynamic,
and
outcomes.
Pfeffer
1977).
leadership
too
Indeed
literatu
narrowly
defin
Leader-Centrism and
Destructive Leadership
cocreated
process
bet
the
environment
(Avolio
2007
leadership literature has traditionally
leadertime,
the The
confluence
of been
thes
Over
centric, focusing on traits
and behaviors
related to leader
group,
organizational,
and
even
so
in
their
constructiveness
or
emergence ("Does this person look
like destru
a leader?") and
perceived effectiveness
("Is
this person doing a good
This
paper
focuses
on
destructive
job?") outcomes
(Kaiser et al. 2008). A smaller
body of research
the
harmful
they
cr
and
their
examines how
leaders shape
group processes
("How did
constituents.
We
make
three
literature.
the teamwe
play?") and
fewer assess group
outcomes
, or how
First,
offer
a
critiq
leader's group
performs ("Did the team win or
lose?").
ceptualizations a of
destructive
lead
Bearing
in
mind
the
general
belief
that
leadership
reflects
a
clarifying
prior
discussions
(
process
that involves
social influence
to achieve
Thoroughgoodgroup
et
al.
2012),
we
ar
group goals (Hogan
et al. 1994), some have pointed
out
of
a
broader
leadership
pro
nition
that the literaturecurrent
tells us more about how leaders are
ership
literature,
leade
regarded than about whether their groups
actually perform
destructive
leadership
continue
well and reach
their goals (Kaiser et al. 2008). This focus alt
behaviors.
More
specifically,
claim
and
to
on perceptions of leaders the
neglects the reality
that leaders
acknowledge
roles
of
who are generally liked may be associated
with poor perin
leadership
processe
time
destructive
Second,
zational
tion
of
forming teams and organizational
decline ("bad" leader- ove
leadership
largely
ship outcomes),
while systems,
leaders who are generally dislikedins
drawing
on
may betheories,
associated with high-performing teams
and orgaecology
we
offe
nizational success
("good" leadership outcomes). that
destructive
leadership
i
Moreover, even when
group processes andour
group out- int
leadership
discourse.
While
comes are considered,
the critical roles
of followers , the
the
role
of
"bad"
leader
behaviors
environments
in which leaders and from
followers interact, anda
and
research
will
profit
m
time are
frequently overlooked. Despite recent advanceview,
one
that
recognizes
destr
ments (e.g., Carsten
et al. 2010; Uhl-Bien et al. 2014),
cocreated
process
between
leade
are often viewed
as passive that
recipients of leaders'
over followers
time
and
bett
influence
and
instruments
for
attainment
of
a
leader's
realities.
Specifically,
an
incl
ronments
goals, while the environment tends
to be treated as a
destructive
leadersh
moderator
of
the
effects
of
leaders
on
followers.
Moreover,
flawed,
toxic,
or
ineffe
acknowledge
involving
followers,
and
most
studies ignore the role of time, masking
changes in
conducive
environm
Ö Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 629
more
attributions, even when f
trajectory that leadership processes
mayleader-based
take over time
(Shamir 2011). Thus, even though we
situations
claim toare
appreciate
clearly involved in the resu
these factors, we often fail to truly integrate
them
into our
et al. 2002).
Individualists
are socialized i
definitions and analyses of leadership
phenomena.
people
as individual units; as such, they are li
Similarly, existing perspectives on to
destructive
leader- characteristics when exp
person-centered
ship are primarily leader-centric, focusing
traits and
ior andon
outcomes
(Morris and Peng 1994).
behaviors believed to produce "destructive"
Third,consequences
much of the leadership literature is a
for followers and organizations. Traits
comprise, among
psychologists'
traditional emphasis on traits
others, narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and a personalized
as opposed
to higher macro-level processes m
need for power (e.g., House and Howell
1992;
to fields
likeRosenthal
sociology, institutional econom
and Pittinsky 2006). Behaviors have fallen
under various
and political
science. Since the 1930s, psyc
overlapping follower-directed concepts
(see Thoroughgood
developed
many of the guiding theories
et al. 2012), including petty tyranny
(Ashforth
1994),
shaping
leadership
research (House and A
abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), and
supervisor
underWhile
the contribution
of trait and behav
mining (Duffy et al. 2002) and, to should
a lessernot
degree,
orgabe minimized,
one might ask
nization-relevant concepts, such
as toxic leadership
understanding
of leadership might be more c
(Lipman-Blumen 2005) and leader derailment
(McCall
and with a broader focus. A
had the field
started
Lombardo 1983). While the formerargue
tend that
to include
perresearchers
who study destruc
ceptions of coercion, abuse, and arbitrariness,
latter question.
should ask the
a similar
tend to include reports of, among other
things,the
corruption,
Finally,
simultaneous analysis of leader
sabotage, and theft (Einarsen et al.and
2007;
Thoroughgood
environments
is difficult given all the f
et al. 2012b) (see Table 1). Although
leader
traits
and
sider. It is much easier to utilize traditional
behaviors are relevant and worthy ofmeasure
study, we
argue that
perceptions
of leaders. As Hunt and
they alone do not capture the whole "story"
of destructive
"Questionnaires
seem to be with us always. T
leadership processes nor do they ensure
destructive
too that
quick
and easy" (2001, p. 454). Stil
leadership outcomes will occur.
coworkers (Hunt and Dodge 2001; Hunt an
argued that such challenges do not excuse qu
Explaining Leader-Centrism
studies nor should they preclude the use of b
approaches.
Why do so many articles and stories stress the role of
Two General
Leader-Centric
leaders in destructive leadership episodes
andProblems
often with
overlook the roles of followers and environments
in Destructive
contributDefinitions of
Leadership
ing to the results? First, there is a fascination with
leadership outcomes, particularly destructive
ones.problems
Brutal
There are two general
with leader-centric defi-
dictators, political scoundrels, andnitions
deceitful
CEOs
invite
of destructive
leadership.
First, these definitions
assumeto
thatorganizational
certain leader behaviors are sufficient for
speculation on the "dark" traits related
toxicity and decay. It is unsettling to
consider
thatoutcomes
those to occur, regardless of
destructive
leadership
who lead firms, political institutions,
whether universities,
they eventually result and
in any serious damage to the
religious groups may also be narcissistic
group or not. psychopaths,
This overlooks the possibility that adequate
despite being able to create some positive
change.
When
checks and balances
(e.g., internal
oversight committees,
disastrous outcomes occur, we often
fail
to ask,
"What
external
regulatory
bodies)
may remove a leader before he
factors, in addition to the leader, or
contributed
to the
she can seriously harm
the group or organization; that
results?"
followers may oppose dysfunctional leaders and prevent
A second reason is a popular perception
of leadership
long-term damage
to the organization and its constituents;
that looks to leaders for answers to or
group
and
organizathat some
"bad"
leader behaviors (e.g., aggression,
tional problems. For instance, romantic
of leaders
autocratic views
decision-making)
might even lead to gains for
tend to attribute unequal weight to some
their
organizations
impact
and
on
their
group
members in certain contexts.
outcomes (Meindl et al. 1985). Meindl's
research
conFor example,
based on current
definitions, leadership under
firmed a human tendency to extoll former
leaders
when
an orgaNCAA
basketball
coach, Bobby Knight, would
nization succeeds and blame them
when
it fails;
yet,
largely
be considered
"destructive"
due to his aggressive
Meindl warned against leader-centric
explanations.
Relatstyle
of leading. This is despite
the fact that Knight led the
edly, members of individualistic societies
tend
to
make
Indiana Hoosiers
to 3
National
and 1 1 Big Ten
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
630
C.
Table
N.
1
Thoroughgood
Concepts
associated
et
al.
with
Concept Definition Emphasis Process between Aggregate Author(s)/study
leaders, followers, destructive
and environments group or
that unfolds over time organizational
outcomes
Destructive leadership The systematic and repeated behavior by Leader No No Einarsen et al.
a leader, supervisor, or manager that behaviors (2007) and
violates the legitimate interest of the Aasland et al.
organization by undermining and/or (2010)
sabotaging the organization's goals,
tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/
or the motivation, wellbeing, or job
satisfaction of subordinates
Volitional behavior by a leader that can Leader No No Krasikova et al.
harm or intends to harm a leader's behaviors (2013)
organization and/or followers by
(a) encouraging followers to pursue
goals that contravene the legitimate
interests of the organization and/or
(b) employing a leadership style that
involves the use of harmful methods of
influence with followers, regardless of
justification for such behavior
A process in which over a longer period Leader No No Schyns and
of time the activities, experiences and / behaviors Schilling
or relationships of an individual or the (2013)
members of a group are repeatedly
influenced by their supervisor in a way
that is perceived as hostile and/or
obtrusive
Abusive supervision Subordinates' perceptions of the extent to Leader No No Tepper
which supervisors engage in the behaviors (2000, 2007)
sustained display of hostile verbal and and Tepper
nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical et al. (2007)
contact
Petty tyranny The use of one's power and authority in Leader No No Ashforth
an oppressive, capricious, and perhaps behaviors (1994)
vindictive fashion (e.g., arbitrariness
and self-aggrandizement, belittling
others, lack of consideration, a forcing
style of conflict resolution, discouraging
initiative, and noncontingent
punishment)
Supervisor undermining Behavior by a supervisor that is intended Leader No No Duffy et al.
to hinder, over time, the ability to behaviors (2002, 2006)
establish and maintain positive
interpersonal relationships, work-related
success, and favorable reputation (e.g.,
saying derogatory things about a
subordinate, rejecting subordinates,
belittling subordinates' ideas,
withholding needed information, failing
to defend a subordinate)
Toxic leadership A process in which leaders, by virtue of Leader No Yes Lipman-
their destructive behaviors and their traits and Blumen
dysfunctional personal qualities or behaviors (2005, 2006)
characteristics, inflict serious enduring
harm on the individuals, groups,
organizations, communities, and even
nations that they lead
â Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
resear
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 631
Table 1 continued
Concept Definition Emphasis Process between Aggregate Author(s)/study
leaders, followers, destructive
and environments group or
that unfolds over time organizational
outcomes
Strategic bullying Strategically selected tactics of influence Leader No No Ferris et al.
by leaders designed to convey a behaviors (2007)
particular image and place targets in a
submissive, powerless position whereby
they are more easily influenced and
controlled, in order to achieve personal
and/or organizational objectives
Pseudotransformational Refers to a leader's emphasis on Leader No No Barling et al.
leadership advancing their own self-serving traits and (2008) and
objectives at the expense of followers behaviors Bass and
and the organization through Steidlmeier
dominance, coercion, and manipulation; (1999)
pseudotransformational leaders seek
power at the expense of others, are
unreliable, deceptive, calculating, and
self-centered
Personalized Involves a leader's (a) use of personal Leader No No House and
charismatic leadership dominance and authoritarian behavior, traits and Howell
(b) pursuit of self-interest and self- behavior (1992) and
aggrandizement, and (c) exploitation of McClelland
others. Personalized charismatic leaders (1975)
tend to be narcissistic, impetuous, and
impulsively aggressive
Managerial tyranny Involves a leader's singular, obsessive, Leader No No Ma et al. (2004)
crystal-clear vision and the relentless, behavior
hard-driving methods he uses to steer
the organization toward achieving this
vision expeditiously; tyrants may be
motivated by organizational objectives,
but may also view them as means to
attaining their own selfish ends
Aversi ve leadership Involves leader behaviors that primarily Leader No No Bligh et al.
rely on coercive power, including the behavior (2007) and
use of threats, intimidation, and Pearce and
reprimands
Sims
(2002)
championships,
won
661
leadership
centage)
games
episode
at
Indiana,
had
a
player
gr
ducive
environment
and
is
revered
by
most
of
his
playe
leaders
and
dysfun
Thus,
leader-centric
taught
them
(Feinstein
2012).
Simi
fectionism
Jobs,
was
during
to
his
link
and
callousness,
followers
and Appl
envir
strong
force
behind
A
leadership
process
a
tenure
from to
1997
to
201
enough
produce
"bad"
and their constituents.
leader
behaviors
cl
leadership
Second,
do
not
outcomes
across
cont
To be clear, our intention
is not to excuse orall
to make any
and
relatedly,
leader-cent
moral judgments about certain
"bad" leader behaviors.
incorporate
the
Rather, we seek
to present aroles
pragmatic view on of
the limi- follo
conditions
address
flawed,
in
why
or
toxic,
how
organizations.leaders,
Thus, the choice of acceptance or
rejection
motivations,
of
destructive
leadership
tations of focusing solely on these behaviors
in order to
certain
types
of
follo
spur a broader discussion
of destructive leadership
in
th
self-images,
and
behav
is left with the readers. In the following
sections, we
dis-
followers
consciously
cuss more specific challenges related to the two
partici
general
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
632
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
et
al.
their actions, and sharing
their interpretations.
These
problems
discussed
above
and
de
interpretations, or "typifications," reflect attempts
to clasdefinition
of
destructive
leader
sify behaviors and actors
into categories
(e.g., leadersintr
problems.
However,
we
first
dictate orders, subordinates follow them), which individutional,
and
organizational
ecolog
theoretical foundation for our discussion.
als use to respond to behaviors in a similar fashion (Berger
and Luckmann 1967). Institutionalization reflects the process through which behaviors become repeated over time
Systems, Institutional, and Organizational Ecology and ascribed similar meaning by individuals. Similar to a
Theories
systems view, institutional theories would suggest patterns
of dysfunctional, or toxic, leader behavior and their outcomes cannot be analyzed in a vacuum by focusing only on
To understand better the importance of previously overRather, they would suggest such behaviors must be
looked elements of destructive leadership processes, leaders.
we
analyzed via a process-based lens, one that considers the
draw on systems, institutional, and organizational ecology
social environment (e.g., followers, organizational norms
theories. These theories provide a useful lens to begin
and history) in which they, over time, become accepted and
developing a more complete perspective on destructive
ingrained in the underlying social fabric of organizations.
leadership in organizations.
Systems theories (Katz and Kahn 1978; Von Bertalanffy Finally, from a more macro-level view, organizational
ecology focuses on explaining how social, economic, his1968, 1972; Senge 1990; Weick 1979) maintain that outtorical, and political conditions impact the birth, survival,
comes at the collective level are a product of the interacand decline of organizations and their structure over time
tions of individuals comprising the system. These theories
emphasize the interdependence of personnel in organiza-(Hannan 1993). It views long-term changes in organizations' internal "forms" as a result of selection processes
tions, as well as the impact of external environments on
organizational structures and functions (Kast and Rosen-(Aldrich 1979), whereby structural inertia undermines
organizational adaptation in the face of shifting environzweig 1972). Individuals reflect embedded components of
mental demands. Organizations unable to adapt are
a broader interdependent collectivity; structured roles are
or "selected out," by those better suited to meet
assumed to be interrelated such that they form a networkreplaced,
of
such demands. Specifically, changes at the population level
interconnections and reciprocal relationships among people
are a product, in part, of variations, or any intended or
occupying them. What this means for leadership processes
is that leaders and followers are constrained and influenced
unintended changes that organizational members create via
their efforts to adjust to other members and to alter the
by one another and by internal (e.g., organizational rules,
organization's relationship to the environment (Baum and
policies, etc.) and external (e.g., government laws, regulations, etc.) environmental conditions. Systems theoriesAmburgey 2000). For example, the strategic initiatives of
leaders represent variations. In turn, certain variations,
thus remind us that leadership outcomes, whether constructive or destructive, are seldom a sole reflectionwhether
of
planned or accidental, prove more beneficial in
individual leaders and their behaviors. Rather, it is the
addressing changing conditions and are thus "selected for"
interlocking nature of systems and interactions between
by the environment, while others are not and are thus
leaders and followers at multiple levels within a particular "selected out" (Hannan and Freeman 1977). As such,
environment that must be examined.
organizational survival and failure depend on the interac-
Institutional theories provide a complementary
tion between an organization's internal "form" and enviapproach to understanding organizations and the behavior ronmental conditions (Freeman 1982).
Applied to leadership, an ecological perspective suggests
of their members, including leaders and followers. They
consider the processes through which organizational that the environment is ultimately what determines the
structures, such as norms, rules, routines, and schémas,
outcomes of leadership processes. As such, it stands in
become established guidelines for social behavior (Scott contrast to traditional adaptation views on organizational
1987). These theories have several variations. Particularly
survival (Astley and Van de Ven 1983), which focused on
relevant to our analysis, one set of theories maintains that, the strategic decisions of leaders in shaping their organizathrough ongoing interaction, a social order develops in tions' relationship to the environment. Such views stressed
organizations based on members' acceptance of a shared the traits, skills, and abilities of leaders in shaping organisocial reality (Berger and Luckmann 1967). This concep- zational success or decay, deflecting attention away from
tion is taken for granted as defining the "way things are environmental forces, internal and external to organizations,
and/or should be done" and, in turn, leads to repeated which also influence leadership outcomes (Baum 1999). Put
patterns of behavior (Zucker 1977, 1987). Specifically, simply, ecological theories remind us that while leaders do
social order is a product of individuals acting, interpreting impact their organizations' futures, environments play a
ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 633
destructive group
or organizational
powerful role in constraining leader-follower
activities
and outcomes that compromise the quality of
life for
internal and external conthus leadership outcomes. Just as environments
can
deter
"bad" leaders and followers from stituents
creating
destructive
and detract
from their group-focused goals or
purposes.
Our definition
lends
itself to most, if not all,
results (e.g., when government agencies
adopt
greater
regulations on organizational activities), contexts
environments
can
- from businesses
andalso
nonprofits, such as univer-
overwhelm "good" leaders and followers
to the point
sities and government
agencies,at
to religious groups to
which "destruction" ensues (e.g., political
when
industries
are It incorporates three
and
military institutions.
uncertain, limiting leaders' abilityessential
to develop
enact
features ofand
destructive
leadership: group proeffective organizational changes).
cesses , group outcomes, and a dynamic timeframe (see
Taken together, although systems,
Fig. 1).institutional, and
ecological theories differ in their focus
First, consistent
andwith
scope
systems, with
institutional, and ecorespect to explaining the complexities
of organizational
logical theories,
as well as more integrative views in the
life, each points to the importance of
adopting
leadership
literature, a
thisbroader,
definition goes beyond the
contextualized understanding of leadership
specific traits and
processes
behaviors of leaders.
andWe do not define
their outcomes - one that includes the
vital
role
of
leaders,
destructive leadership as a "bad" leader or as something
but also the environments in which they
operate
over
time. to followers
that is done,
consciously
or unconsciously,
In terms of destructive leadership processes,
systems
and
(e.g., hostility) or the
organization (e.g.,
theft). Rather, we
institutional theories would emphasize
that dysfunctional
view destructive
leadership as a social, or group, process
involves interactions
between flawed,
leader behaviors and their outcomesthat
cannot
be analyzed
in toxic, or inefisolation from the environments, internal
and
external
to
fective leaders,
susceptible
followers,
and conducive
organizations, in which such behaviors
are
shaped
environments.
Leader
actions or and
inactions are a part
reinforced over time. From a macro-level
view,
ecological
of these processes,
but not
these processes alone. As such,
theories further suggest that even well-intentioned
leaders
we depart from definitions that
view destructive leadership
can be associated with organizationalsolely
"destruction"
due to
in terms of leader behaviors
(e.g., Einarsen et al.
the constraints that uncertain environments
lead2007; Krasikova place
et al. 2013;on
Schyns
and Schilling 2013).
ers to devise and implement changes fast
enough
to ismeet
Second, because
leadership
a group process (Avolio
changing demands. Unfortunately, few
attempts
have
beengroup outcomes
et al. 2003;
Hollander 1964),
it involves
made to use these theories to develop(Kaiser
a broader
et al. 2008). Weperspective
believe the concept of destructive
on leadership phenomena (Wielkiewicz
Stelzner
leadership should and
be based on
a similar understanding. In
2005). Below, we use these theories
to the
derive
a more
our view,
extent to which
leadership processes, in their
balanced view of destructive leadership.
entirety, are "destructive" should be determined based on
the degree to which they, by and large, harm the welfare of
Toward a More Holistic Definition of Destructive
Leadership
the group they are meant to serve, not whether certain
leader behaviors are viewed negatively by some followers.
As such, destructive leadership entails negative outcomes
to the group, with certain processes between leaders, fol-
Drawing on the underlying principles of systems, institu-
lowers, and environments being more likely to result in
tional, and ecological theories, as well as more integrative
these outcomes than others.
approaches in the leadership literature, we suggest that
more holistic conceptualizations of destructive leadership
should explicitly include followers, environments, and
Third, our definition implies a dynamic time frame.
Destructive leadership is typically not a static phenomenon
that can be captured via cross-sectional accounts of leader
time. In our view, destructive leadership reflects a special
behavior. Leadership processes change trajectories over
case of more general leadership situations, with the key
time depending on the evolving interactions among leaders,
difference residing in the degree to which the behaviors of
flawed, toxic, or ineffective leaders (i.e., individuals with
followers, and the environment. Thus, they are seldom
entirely "constructive" or "destructive"; they involve
outcomes that fall along a constructive-destructive con-
certain traits and characteristics) interact, over time, with
followers and environments that are weak, susceptible, or
conducive, leading to aggregate destructive outcomes for
groups, organizations, and their constituents. Specifically,
tinuum. Determining whether a leadership process is largely "destructive" requires an examination of whether it
resulted in outcomes that, on balance, were harmful to a
we define destructive leadership as a complex process of
group once it has exhausted its course (e.g., a CEO step-
influence between flawed , toxic , or ineffective leaders ,
ping down, a president's term ending, a coach retiring). As
susceptible followers , and conducive environments , which
our earlier examples of Bobby Knight and Steve Jobs
unfolds over time and , on balance, culminates in
highlight, whether one agrees with their styles or not, it is
Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
634
C.
N.
Feature
and
1:
Thoroughgood
Group
Susceptible
Processes
Followers
et
al.
involving
Flaw
interacting
w
i
Subordinate Ratings of [' Average Reported Effects on
"Bad" Leader Behaviors | ' Subordinate Criteria (e.g.,
(e.g., hostility, theft) v Job Satisfaction, CWB)
^
I
Cultural and Societal Elements '
/ ^ I • Assumes certain leader behaviors are sufficient to produce destructive ¡
/ ^ Macro-Environmental Elements v | leadership outcomes, regardless of whether they do so or not
/
y
-
/ / . ^ leadership processes and their outcomes for groups and organizations !
/
/
X
/
External
Checks
Organizational
and
Balances
'
'
ļ
j
'
j / Checks and Balances ļ
^ ^^Suswptible Followers ^ ^
IhIIIIIIIIIIIH
Feature 3: Dynamic Time Frame
Flg.
1
A
more
holistic
tough to argue, upon reflection, that the leadership episodes
conceptualizatio
leader-centric views, broader perspectives on leadership
phenomena are not new. For example, the contingency
they presided over were destructive in their totality. We
discuss these features of our definition in greater detail
theories (e.g., House 1971; Fiedler 1964) sought to identify
below.
how characteristics of followers and the environment
Feature 1: A Social or Group Process
theories made important strides in incorporating followers
impact a leader's influence on followers. Although these
and environments into the leadership discourse, they
As Avolio (2007) noted, "[Understanding leadership phe- focused largely on leaders' effects on followers, rather than
nomena] requires an examination that considers the rele-
on the interactions between leaders, followers, and envi-
vant actors, context (immediate, direct, indirect), time, ronments that comprise leadership processes and that shape
history, and how all of these interact with each other to their outcomes.
create what is eventually labeled leadership" (p. 25).
Recently, there has been a growing trend toward more
Similarly, other writers have pointed out that the terms integrative approaches that do not define leadership phe-
"leader" and "leadership" are not the same and thatnomena in terms of leader behaviors. For example, social
leadership processes involve more than the behaviors ofidentity theory (Hogg 2001) defines leadership as a group
leaders (see Table 2). These more contemporary views on process, whereby a leader's endorsement and influence
leadership align with systems and institutional theories,depend on whether he or she is seen as prototypical of the
which again focus on the interactions between a system's group's identity. Echoing a systems and institutional perinterrelated parts rather than on one part in isolation. As spective, complexity theory (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007) distinsuch, these theoretical traditions both maintain that orga- guishes between leaders and leadership, suggesting the
nizational phenomena represent dynamic social processeslatter is an interactive process created by networks of
(Astley and Van de Ven 1983; Scott 1987). In our view, the interdependent agents embedded in context (e.g., political,
concept of "destructive leadership" should be based on ahistorical, organizational). As Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) noted,
similar understanding. Indeed, despite the pervasiveness of "Leadership is too complex to be described as only the act
& Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 635
Table 2 Notable criticisms of leader-centric approaches
Uhl-Bien et al. (2007): Leadership theory has largely focused on leaders - the actions of indiv
complex systems and processes that comprise leadership. . .Much of leadership thinking has fail
the influential act of an individual or individuals but rather is embedded in a complex interplay
(pp. 299-302).
Avolio (2007): Leadership theory and research has reached a point in its development at whic
integration - considering the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, taking into acco
context - for continued progress to be made in advancing both the science and practice of le
practical question: Should [leadership theories] have started with a more integrative focus that
contingencies? (p. 27)
House and Aditya (1997): The dominant portion of leadership theories and research is primarily c
and their immediate followers or with supervisory behaviors. It is almost as though leadership
relationships exist in a vacuum (p. 44).
Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001): Most theories of organizational leadership in the psychological litera
leadership is typically considered without adequate regard for the structural contingencies that
maintain, however, that organizational leadership cannot be modeled effectively without atte
Howell and Shamir (2005): [Existing theories] focus almost exclusively on the impact of leader
and behaviors. However, beyond paying lip service to the importance of followers, few scholars
empirically assess the role of followers in the leadership process (p. 96).
Vroom and Jago (2007): Leadership is a process, not a property of a person (p. 18).
of an individual or individuals. . .it is a followers
complex interplay
of
by (a) encouraging
followers
many interacting forces" (p. 314). Shared
and
distributed
goals
that
contravene the legitimate intere
theories (e.g., Gronn 2002; Pearce and
Conger 2002)
also(b) employing a leaders
organization
and/or
involves
define leadership as a process, not athat
behavior
orthe
setuse
of of harmful methods of
behaviors of a particular leader. Importantly,
these more
with followers,
regardless of justifications
integrative views underscore the multilevel
of
behavior nature
(p. 1310).
leadership phenomena. As Yammarino and Dansereau
According to this definition, such behavior
(2011) noted, failing to integrate micro- and macro-levels
are, by their nature, sufficient to produc
of analysis leads to an incomplete understanding of leadleadership. However, what if individuals (a) r
ership phenomena, leading to faulty measures, improper
low, or actively oppose, the leader's orders a
analytic techniques, and invalid conclusions. They argued
unaffected by the leader's methods of in
that theory building and testing can only be advanced if
focusing solely on the leader's behavior an
higher levels are explicitly viewed as the context for, or
followers and their reactions to such behavio
boundaries on, lower levels (i.e., individual behaviors
this definition makes it hard to determine (a)
occurring in group settings; individual and group behaviors
"led" and (b) what is being "destroyed." Furt
occurring within a broader organizational context) (see also
(a) checks and balances, internal or external
Johns 2006).
nization, remove the leader from power befo
Understanding destructive leadership requires a similar,
can seriously damage the long-term perform
more integrative perspective. Defining destructive leaderorganization and the wellbeing of its member
ship in terms of "bad" leader behaviors is useful for
organizational, industry, or societal context is
clarifying the leader component of destructive leadership
certain "bad" leader behaviors (e.g., aggressio
processes. Yet, as systems, institutional, and ecological
decision-making) are expected or even ne
theories would together suggest, it does not capture other
organizational performance and survival (e.g.
important elements of these processes, including followers'
marked by uncertainty, military settings, hi
reactions to "bad" leader behavior, the evolution of dystance societies)? By overlooking the enviro
functional leader-follower relationships over time, or the
text, this definition assumes that certain lea
embeddedness of these relationships in the broader his-
will inevitably result in "destructive" effect
torical, institutional, industry, and societal context. As an
nizations and their constituents, regardless of
example, Krasikova et al. (2013) recently conceptualized
do so or not. Below, we elaborate on these
destructive leadership as:
consistent with systems, institutional, and e
Volitional behavior by a leader that
harm or some of these simplistic a
ories,can
we highlight
intends to harm a leader's organization
and/or
leader-centric
definitions to point out broade
Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
636
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
et
al.
environmental factors that must be considered when
rights abuses, and gross economic mismanagement. Like
other cases of destructive leadership, this example is
illustrative given it highlights the process by which a
Bearing in mind limitations of leader-centric approaches
defining destructive leadership.
and in concert with the growing trend toward more flawed
inte- leader, working in unison with susceptible followers
grative views on leadership phenomena, we maintain and
thatan environment marked by defective institutions, can
have
destructive leadership is not simply a "bad" behavior or
set devastating outcomes for even whole societies.
of behaviors of a leader, but rather involves complex
Taken together, although leader-centric definitions of
destructive
leadership are useful, they do not account for the
interactions among flawed, toxic, or ineffective leaders
and
expansiveness of these processes within organizations. As
susceptible followers, which unfold over time within
systems, institutional, and ecological theories would sugmultiple layers of context. Thus, in our view, followers'
gest,
conformity to or active collusion with "bad" leaders
arefollowers and environments must also be considered.
Byare
shifting the focus toward a more holistic view, a more
necessarily a part of destructive leadership processes, as
realistic
understanding of destructive leadership is possible.
broader institutional factors (e.g., a lack of checks
and
balances), macro-environmental conditions (e.g., crises,
2: Destructive Group or Organizational
industry uncertainty), and societal forces (e.g., powerFeature
dis-
tance) that shape, reinforce, and allow dysfunctional Outcomes
leader-follower relationships to occur over time and, in turn,
destructive leadership also requires consideration
cause serious harm to the long-term performance of Defining
the
outcomes. Like other leadership concepts, destructive
group and the welfare of its constituents. Again, of
this
leadership is typically defined and assessed in terms of the
broader perspective does not minimize "bad" leader
average reported effects of certain "bad" leader behaviors
behaviors. Rather, it alludes to a broader set of processes
on subordinate criteria (e.g., job satisfaction, citizenship
that occur between "bad" leaders, susceptible followers,
behavior). Yet, few studies consider group or organizaand conducive environmental conditions that, together,
may eventually be labeled "destructive leadership". tional outcomes. Indeed, Kaiser et al. (2008) found in a
review of ten meta-analyses that only 18 % of studies in
By adopting a broader lens, we can begin to understand
theof
leadership literature utilized group or organizational
the complex dynamics underlying real-world cases
outcomes as criteria. In pointing out this weakness, Kaiser
destructive leadership. For example, whether we examine
al. (2008), like others (e.g., Lord et al. 1984; Hogan et al.
destructive leadership episodes in religious groups et
(e.g.,
1994), underscored the critical distinction between how
The People's Temple, Branch Davidians), political dictaleaders and their behaviors are perceived (i.e., how inditorships (e.g., Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's
viduals generally feel about or the extent to which they
Cambodia), or corporations (e.g., Enron, Worldcom), what
is clear is that such episodes all involved followersapprove
who of a leader) and how their teams and organizations
actually perform. They noted that while understanding how
turned a blind eye, obeyed, or actively colluded with "bad"
leaders, as well as environments that allowed such leaders
leaders are perceived provides useful information about
individual leaders, it does not tell us about the actual outto assume power and pursue their goals. As a specific
comes of leadership processes (i.e., whether the group
example, under Idi Amin, the "Butcher of Uganda,"
achieved its goals and was better off because of
300,000 people were slaughtered in a campaign of ultimately
genocide and elimination of Amin' s rivals. Under his orders,
a leadership process or not), which again are a product of
more than leaders. From this perspective, it is not how
military officers conducted public executions, while secret
individual
leaders are regarded by certain subordinates that
police tortured and murdered thousands of suspected dismatters when evaluating leadership, but rather how their
sidents. Further, Amin' s reign cannot be viewed in isolagroups
tion from the factors that brought his regime to power
and and organizations actually perform over time.
Echoing this view, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) stated that
that allowed it to remain for so long. For instance, while
"Leadership
is about the performance of teams, groups,
Uganda was still a British colony and despite Amin'
s
and
organizations; good leadership promotes effective
penchant for cruelty as a soldier, he was promoted by
the
British to "Afande," the most powerful position a team
Blackand group performance, which enhances the wellbeing of incumbents; bad leadership degrades the quality of
African could hold in the colonial army. This provided
life for everyone associated with it. [Because] leadership is
Amin the chance to seize power in a military coup in 1971.
collective phenomenon, it follows that leadership should
The regime's ability to secure power was enhanced bya the
evaluated in terms of the performance of the group over
public's attraction to Amin' s charisma and naïve beliefbethat
time" (pp. 169-172). Thus, leadership processes reflect
the military government would remain only until elections
functional tools for group performance; they involve
could be held. Eight years later, Uganda had been transinfluence in pursuit of collective enterprises that have
formed into a state riddled by ethnic persecution, human
â Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 637
of and reactions
many of these behaviors
consequences for a group's long-termperceptions
performance
and,toin
turn, the welfare of its constituents. may vary across different individuals. For example,
of anger
are a part of measures of both
Extending this logic to destructive expressions
leadership,
it should
be noted first that we do not diminish
the importance
of and "abusive" (Tepper
"tyrannical"
(Ashforth 1994)
examining certain individuals' subjective
of
2000) leaderevaluations
behavior. However,
studies suggest subordi"bad" leader behavior, including perceptions
of
hostility
nates low on
agreeableness
mayor
actually react positively to
intimidation, and their reported effects
on displays
individuals'
a leader's
of anger job
(Van Kleef et al. 2010). Such
attitudes, wellbeing, and behavior. individuals
Yet, consistent
with
expect less civility
and are less sensitive to
inconsiderate
behavior
(Graziano et al. 1996). As such,
Kaiser et al. (2008) and as our earlier
examples
of Bobby
Knight and Steve Jobs further highlight,
survey
they may
accept a evaluations
leader's hostility given social conflict is
of "bad" leader behaviors tell us more about the leader
less distracting (Suis et al. 1998) and more motivating to
being evaluated than they do about whether a leadership
them (Van Kleef et al. 2010). Further, some people
process harmed, by and large, a group's ability to achieve
underreport supervisor hostility, while others, such as those
its goals and left it worse off than before. Although Jobs
with negative affect or a hostile attribution bias, may
rubbed some subordinates the wrong way, Apple flourished
overstate their exposure (Martinko et al. 201 1; Tepper et al.
during his tenure, in part due to Jobs' vision, but also many
2006). Indeed, as Chan and McAllister recently pointed
out:
exceptional engineers and a company culture that deman-
ded excellence. This is not to dismiss reports of mistreat-
Empirical findings in this domain have often been
ment from some who worked under him. Yet, given
discussed and interpreted as evidence concerning
leadership results are also a product of followers and
abusive treatment of a more objective and indepenenvironmental conditions, as well as functional acts of
dently verifiable sort. However, employee responses
leaders that may co-occur with "bad" behaviors over time,
... are shaped by the mind-states of followers as well
just because some subordinates report certain "bad" leader
behaviors does not ensure "bad" leadership outcomes will
ensue.
as the behavior of supervisors. Indeed, deliberative
and attribution processes internal to employees have
important roles to play in determining not only
Thus, from our perspective, destructive leadership has
whether and to what extent . . . supervisory action and
more to do with whether certain leaders, in conjunction
inaction are interpreted and understood as being
abusive, but also the nature of employee affective,
group's long-term performance and, in turn, the collective
cognitive, and behavioral responses ... (2014, p. 44)
wellbeing of its constituents. From this view, Knight and
Jobs presided over leadership episodes that were
largely
Thus,
one person's definition of "abusive" behavior
with certain followers and environments, actually harm a
constructive for their groups, despite their personal
diffimay differ
from another person's, making it difficult to
culties in interacting with certain subordinates
and stakeobjectively
conclude that such behaviors will equally affect
holders. In contrast, Enron, for example, was all
anpeople
instance
to the of
same degree or in the same ways. Further,
destructive leadership given corrupt leaders, with
the
aid
of
one person's toxic leader may be another person's hero,
conforming and colluding followers, a lack ofdepending
internal on
and
the needs of followers and their unique
external checks and balances, and a culture of
greed, led
relationships
with the leader (Lipman-Blumen 2005). For
the company into bankruptcy - degrading the instance,
quality of
life
some
people are more likely to idolize charis-
for employees and investors alike. Concepts
involving
matic
leaders despite mistreatment given such leaders are
perceptions of "bad" leader behavior, such
ableas
to "abusive
satisfy their needs for security, meaning, and group
supervision" or "petty tyranny," may very well
be a part
of and Curtis 1993; Deutsch 1980). Furmembership
(Curtis
destructive leadership processes and deserve research.
Yet,
ther, subordinates with high leader-member exchange
they do not capture the expansiveness of these
processes.
relationships
with leaders have reported certain "toxic"
Before proceeding to our definition's final feature,
sev- yelling when deadlines are missed, ridibehaviors (e.g.,
eral additional observations about leader-centric definitions
culing an employee's work) as less "toxic" (i.e., less likely
should be noted in order to further highlight the utility of to demoralize, upset, or leave an enduring effect on them)
focusing on group outcomes as opposed to certain inter-
(Pelletier 2012).
personally "bad" leader behaviors. First, by defining and
assessing destructive leadership in terms of these behav-
harmful effects across all contexts appears to be problem-
iors, it is assumed that they are, by nature, universally
harmfùl to all followers (and presumably groups and
organizations). However, leader-follower dynamics are
seldom as clear-cut as implied by many analyses. Indeed,
Second, assuming that these behaviors always lead to
atic as well. Indeed, how such behaviors are defined, perceived, and reacted to depends on the social, cultural, and
organizational context. For example, actions that are more
generally regarded as "abusive" in low power distance
Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
638
C.
N.
societies
high
Thoroughgood
more
2012).
even
al.
be In less
impactful
addition to culture,
perceptions of and reactions to and
may
power
et
distance
wher
these leader behaviorssocieties
may also depend on organizational
culturally
(Hof
norms and normative
conditions. For example, leader "abuse" might
Prior
be
GLOBE
results
suggest
be defined very differently
in the military, hospital
emer-
preferable
to
democratic
gency rooms, blue-collar
industries (e.g., construction,
l
trucking,
logging,
etc.),
the
NFL,
and
other
high-stakes
on
power
distance,
collectivism,
m
tainty
avoidance,
situations including
requiring swift decision-making and many
safety. In
n
these andAsia,
other contexts, aggressive
leader behaviors can and
Southern
Europe,
Central
Middle
East
(Javidan
al. pro2006
also build toughness, establish et
a chain of command,
mote adherence to safety as
standards,"bad"
and cultivate a col- lea
Westerners
perceive
preferred
cultures.
lective identity
among group members. This may
mean the
even
necessary
for
or
environmental turbulence and stress. More generally, dur-
Unqualified
the
ated
by
for
democ
to make difficult decisions and restore order (Janis and
since
the
end
of
Wo
Mann 1977). Indeed, Beer and Nohria's (2000) discussion
society
post
support
ing times of crisis, people often look to autocratic leaders
autonomy
has
been
the
individual
U.S.
gro
difference between group
success
or failure
in the face of
Muczyk
et
al.
noted:
As
WWII
leadership
literatur
of Theory E change initiatives, which stress shareholder
American
scholars.
C
value via drastic layoffs and restructuring, points to the
predispositions
found
harsh reality that autocratic leaders are sometimes needed
assimilated
into
the
leadersh
for corporate turnaround efforts that require bold, time-
democratic
were
sciously
or
democracy
is
tain
words,
take
on
otherwise.
The
sensitive decisions. It should be noted that this uncom-
pr
strengthened
by
the
fortable tension between two things we value and always
such
as
"autocratic"
want together, effectiveness and niceness, has been a point
pejorative
connotation
ir
of discussion for centuries. Indeed, as Machiavelli argued
denotation
(Muczyk
and
Adler
200
long ago, leaders often must sacrifice kindness for practical
the
entire
corpus
of
leadership
re
effectiveness or ignore the feelings of some constituents to
objectively,
the
unqualified
accept
promote the greater good. Although Machiavelli believed
a
[leaders]
is
conclusion
matter,
1998, p. 40).
largely
a
leap
of
fait
in acting with virtue and being kind when possible, he also
based
on
empirical
rese
on
believed that a leader's use of force and manipulative
logic
and
experience
In discussing the paradoxical nature of "managerial
tyranny," Ma et al. (2004) similarly pointed out the role of
influence were, at times, inevitable costs of dealing with
the world as it is, not how we feel it should be.
In sum, without minimizing certain individuals' reports
of and negative responses to specific "bad" leader behav-
culture in shaping responses to autocratic forms of leading,
iors, it is important to recognize that (a) not all subordi-
stating that:
nates within the same context or across different contexts
Any analysis or discussion of "tyrannical" management sty les... gets mixed up with idealistic consider-
ations. For example, to most Americans, the
governance style of many East Asian countries... is
clearly inimical and antithetical to American ideals.
But the fact remains that it is precisely those governance styles ...that have transformed those countries
into economic juggernauts. Seemingly, the vast
majority of the populations in those countries are
comfortable with the trade-offs between economic
properity and personal freedoms. The experience of
these countries illustrates... that there are certain
contexts in which tyrannical styles of management
will necessarily report or respond in the same ways to these
behaviors; and that (b) "bad" leader behaviors, whether
objectively real or subjectively perceived, do not ensure
"bad" leadership outcomes for the group. Thus, in our
view, destructive leadership is a matter of group results, not
whether certain leader behaviors are viewed unfavorably
by some followers. This is not to suggest leader behaviors
are not a part of destructive leadership; they clearly are.
But also, given leadership is a collective process that
involves followers and the context, group results should be
carefully considered.
Feature 3: Dynamic Time Frame
produce needed results... Thus, the tyrannical behavDespite the reality that leadership processes are dynamic
ior of the most celebrated leaders is paradoxical in
and unfold over time, most leadership studies assume that
nature and motivates us to develop a deeper
observed relationships are not time-contingent (Hunter
understanding.
et al. 2007). Shamir (2011) noted that the dominant
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 639
paradigm in leadership research, which
suggests setbacks
certain for the group, while largel
short-term
behaviors of leaders impact more proximal
subordinate
leadership
episodes may produce benefits f
criteria (e.g., job motivation), is atemporal
lowersand
andoverlooks
short-term gains for the group. T
that these leader inputs and their effects
may
change over
view,
defining
a leadership process as "d
time. For example, a coach's "tough love"
mayan
initially
be of whether the process c
requires
evaluation
frustrating and demotivating to players.
Yet,
over
time,
outcomes that were, on balance, harmful to t
they may come to appreciate the coach's
style andand,
become
organization
in turn, the collective goals
motivated as a result of it. However, ing
by of
overlooking
the
its constituents.
If destructive leadership
role of time, these dynamic effects
on players
and the
terms
of outcomes
that are, in their totality, d
team's long-term performance are masked.
This issue
of
the group,
this leaves
room for "good" lead
time is exacerbated by the fact that leadership
processes,
"bad" outcomes
and "bad" leaders to create
comestheories,
in the short
term.
consistent with systems and institutional
do not
involve one-way influence but rather interactions between
leaders and followers over time. These
time-varying
Temporariness
of Destructive Leadership O
interactions, in turn, shape the long-term outcomes of
leadership processes for groups and organizations.
As such,are worth noting regardin
Several observations
given leadership processes change trajectories
outcomes,depending
especially with respect to destructiv
on the evolving interactions between First,
leaders,
ourfollowers,
definition does not suggest that a gr
and the environment, their aggregate zation,
outcomes
not
be
ormay
even
society
be entirely "destro
apparent for some time.
leadership episode to be labeled "destruc
To understand destructive leadership,
a dynamic
time
groups
and organizations
experience multip
frame must also be applied. As suggested
episodesabove,
across detertheir lifespans that tend to va
mining whether a leadership process
is "destructive"
constructiveness
or destructiveness. For ex
requires an evaluation of whether the process,
in its
totality,
Germany
under
Hitler was clearly a case of
harmed a group or organization's long-term
performance
leadership,
but Germany today is a thriving a
and, in turn, the quality of life of constituents.
Without
country once
again. The point is that for man
taking a dynamic view, it is difficultincluding
to evaluate
the
"de- (e.g., leaders and follow
mortality
structiveness" or "constructiveness"
of most
leadership
attrition
(e.g.,
leaders and their groups retiring),
episodes given their cumulative results
take
to
(e.g., leaderstime
and their
administrations coming
develop and tend to fall along a continuum,
from
absoend), or removal (e.g., leaders and their reg
lutely terrible to absolutely great, with
mostfrom
falling
some- leadership outcomes, des
ousted
power),
where in the middle. In fact, research
and practical
constructive,
are temporary. Most groups, org
observation indicate that leaders produce
"good" and
and both
civilizations
have risen and fallen, pro
"bad" effects in the short term (Aasland
al. and
2010;
declined,et
won
lost, and many have vanish
Rayner and Cooper 2003). For example,
under- the
widely leadership episodes have a
extinct
suggesting
andbecame
an end. a top U.S.
admired Roberto Goizueta, Coca-Cola
firm. Yet, Goizueta' s tenure as CEO is Second,
also associated
with
although
leadership episodes have
the widely publicized "New Coke" life,
fiasco
that
cost
the
and an eventual
conclusion, of which the o
company millions. On the flip side, destructive
leadership
at times, easy
to evaluate, often their outcom
processes often involve some positiveunclear
gains, at
least
in the
and
ambiguous.
Even for profession
short term. For example, even the most
U.S.tyrannical
presidents,regimes
where there are clear starts and e
have brought some value to their constituents.
Under
administrations
due to contracts and term limit
Mussolini, Italy suffered widespread
devastation
its
ences
of leaders to
and
their administrations may
military, economy, and architecturalafter
treasures
to his or terms end. For exampl
theirdue
contracts
Obama
Administration
be attributed all the bla
regime's alignment with Hitler during
World
War II. Yet,
in the regime's early days, Italians profited
from improved
U.S. financial
crisis of 2008 and, conversely
public transportation, public works development,
and job
Clinton Administration
be assigned all the cre
opportunities, which provided stability,
a sense of
national
economic
prosperity
in the late 1990s? Cle
pride, and relief from the economic administrations
and political crises
of
and their
actions or inactions ma
the time.
Assessing leadership outcomes is complicated fu
These observations point to the reality,
asthat
unsettling
as itseldom be a consensus amon
fact
there will
may be, that even highly constructive
leadership episodes
constituents,
even for leadership episodes wide
often involve misfortune for some followers
costly or highly effective. As n
as abject and
disasters
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
640
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
et
al.
assess. While
some writers exclude unintended acts from
some
individuals
will
f
their definitions, others include cases
of thoughtlessness,
constructive
leadership
episodes,
inevitably
from
and ineptitude. For instance, Einarsen
et al.
generallyignorance,
destructive
episod
(2007) argue that intent matters
little,persona
while Krasikova
regardless
of
However,
there
et al. (2013) suggest
destructive
involves
typically
be
a leadership
majority
leaders consciously
or unconsciously choosing potentially
eventual
outcomes:
destr
will
episode's
harmful goals or methods of influence.
It is interesting
to
somewhere
in
between.
Our
point
have
starts
ends
(none
las
considerand
why some leaders
would intentionally
engage in
sodes
mining
actions that
might harm their groups. One
possibility is
whether
specific
episodes
waiting
to
with
that they cannot
help it; they
are simply "bad" people
evaluate
the
totality
sensitive
behavior. Another
to
possibility
the
is thatmisfortu
some leaders may
we
remain
be
negatively
purpose
in
of
intend to do "bad"
things and cannot
control their
once who
they
have
exhausted
them
is
to
believe their actions will help by
preserve their
or
affected
a control
given
perhaps make their groups
safer or more
prosperous.
highlight
the
complex
Whether
due to uncontrollable impulses
or self-delusion,
organizations.
Having
discussed
definition,
our
some leaders
may deliberately
do things that areas
others would
below
we
discuss
t
of
as "bad"
and that may, under the right
environknowledge regard
of
leaders,
followe
mental circumstances, leave and
their groups and
organizaleadership
provid
tions worse off
than before.
broader
approach.
destructive
using
our
In our view, leader intentions are relevant just as
leader behaviors are, but inevitably the group's welfare
Leaders
and
is
harmed or it is not. "Bad" leader intentions do not
Destructive
Lead
guarantee "bad" leadership outcomes, just like "good"
leader intentions do
not guarantee "good" leadership
As
we
have
noted,
flawed
or
to
outcomes.
Under certain conditions, a well-intentioned
central
to
any
destructive
leade
leaderhistoriometric
unaware of environmental changes or else inept
unique
series
of
st
could produce leaders
disastrous results via a massive
blunder. qu
phies
of
historical
into
ford
(2006)
personalized
Further, intent
invariably matters little given group and
and
O'Connor
et
organizational outcomes
reflect more than
what leaders
leaders,
who
focus
on
As noted earlier,
organizationalto
ecology predicts
regardless
of do.
the
costs
othe
that
under
conditions
of
environmental
(House
and
Howell
1992), uncertainty,
were
are severe constraints on leaders'
ability to reliharm
to
social there
systems.
Thus,
it
i
ably devise and enact changes that increase the
chances
that
leader
characteristics
(e.g.,
of organizational
success and survival in the
face of
power
motives,
charisma)
and
b
competition. In this view, the
even well-intentioned
leaders
theft)
have
received
overw
can be associated
organizational
"destruction" Yet
in
writers
(Padilla
et with
al.
2007).
uncertain
environments. Furthermore, effective
checks
several
areas
of
conceptual
confus
destructive
and balances and competent, autonomous
followers may
leadership,
including
the effects of intentionally
or unintentionally
tive
influence nullify
versus
counterpr
"bad" leader behaviors on the group's
performance.
versus
passive
behaviors.
We
seek
Finally, it is difficultIn
to distinguish
clearly
between a
these
issues
below.
so
doing
mistake or act of incompetence
and a deliberate act of
attempts
to
develop
an
"all-inclus
malice; it
is challenging enough to fathom
why indileadership
(e.g.,
Einarsen
et
al.
2
do what they do, let various
alone reliably assess
mayviduals
involve
"
whether they do so with intent.
Evaluating whether a
ecological,
systems,
leader's goals
and actions are purposely
harmful also
what
is
equally
critical
are
the
creates the
potential for social desirability in self-report
environments
in
cocreating
destr
processes
alluded
to
by
measures and invalid inferences about the inner states
in observational
data (Krasikova et al. 2013). Be
Intentionalityof leaders
and
Volitional
We do not observe intentions, only behaviors and outcomes. Thus, we complicate
argue destructive leadership may result di
Leader
intentions
regardless
of a leader's intent. is
leadership
given
intent
difficu
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 641
contribute to destructive outcomes. Blockbuster's lack of
Negative Influence versus Counterproductivity
strategic planning and failure to adapt to online and kiosk-
Negative influence (e.g., coercion) and
counterproductive
based
movie rentals, for example, contributed to the closwork behavior (CWB) (e.g., theft) areing
often
in
of 3500considered
stores nationwide
in the U.S., thousands of lost
the literature. Some suggest destructive
jobs,leadership
and the firm'sinvolves
eventual bankruptcy in 2011 (de la
the former, but not the latter (Schyns
and2011).
Schilling
Merced
Further, 2013).
leaders who stress exploitation of
For example, Krasikova et al. (2013)current
suggest
destructive
products
while overlooking the need to explore new
leadership entails behaviors that overlap
with
other negamarkets
and technologies
are often associated with firms
tive actions (e.g., CWB, hostility), but
that
are "embedded
that
experience
stagnated innovation and sizeable business
losses
over time
(Benner
and Tushman 2003). As such, we
in the process of leading" (p. 3). They
argue
such
behaviors include encouraging followers toargue
pursue
"destructive"
that destructive
leadership may entail active and
goals and using "destructive" modes of
influence.
Yet,
like
passive
forms of "bad"
leader
behavior, although they are
not sufficient
to ensure destructive
results will occur.
other leader-centric views, this assumes
destructive
lead-
ership has occurred because the leader enacts certain
behaviors. However, if followers do not comply, it is again
not clear who is being "led" or what Followers
is being and
"destroyed."
Destructive Leadership
As Hollander (1993) noted, "Without followers, there are
plainly no leaders or leadership" (p.
29). are
Also,
what
is
Followers
the principle
defenders
against dysfunctional
"destructive" influence to one personleaders
may(Kelley
be innocuous
or
2008). Yet, certain
people, by nature of
acceptable to another. Thus, we arguetheir
that
these
behaviors
traits
and relationships
with leaders and institutions,
do not ensure destructive leadership
occurred
given
mayhas
comply
with or even
actively participate in destructive
their effects depend on followers andleadership
the environment.
processes. However, with a few exceptions, the
Moreover, despite qualitative differences
between
roles of followers
in destructive leadership remain underCWBs and negative influence tactics,
similar
tohighlight
otherthree notable gaps in our
explored.
Below, we
writers (e.g., Einarsen et al. 2007; Craig
and Kaiser
2012), and destructive leadership,
understanding
of followers
we believe both can be involved in destructive
leadership
including (a) followers'
susceptibilities, (b) their cocreprocesses. That is, while leader CWBs
reflect
ational do
rolesnot
and influences
in destructive leadership epiexplicit forms of influence like coercion,
they
may over time.
sodes, and (c) their
development
implicitly influence followers to enact "bad" behaviors and
pursue potentially harmful goals. Indeed,
modeling
ethical
Follower
Susceptibilities
behavior, for example, is a key facet of transformational
(Bass 1985) and ethical theories of leader
behavior
(Brown
Previous
research has
tended to focus on the power of
and Treviño 2006). When leaders are
freeinto
engage
situations
shaping
people'sin
compliance with unethical or
CWB, they act as role models for deviant
and
questionable behavior
authorities. Milgram's
(1963) studies of obeimplicitly convey its acceptability dience,
(Treviño
et al.revealed
2006).
for example,
the willingness of particiWithout adequate controls, leader CWBs
permeate
an
pants can
to abandon
their moral
inclinations not to harm others
organization and place it on a path to in
destruction
the presence of(Ashforth
authority figures, while the Stanford
et al. 2008). Enron is an example, whereby
Jeff Skilling's
Prison Experiment
(Haney et al. 1972) showed how obemark-to-market accounting practices dience
and the
can subversion
be shaped by aof
legitimizing ideology and
oversight controls created a culture
of corruption
institutional
support. Yet, and
little is known regarding why
greed.
certain people, due to their personal histories and disposi-
tions, comply with or collude in destructive leadership
processes. Such knowledge is vital given people differ in
their reactions to flawed leaders no matter how powerful
the situation (Kelman and Hamilton 1989). As Berkowitz
Some writers omit passive leader behaviors from their
definitions, noting qualitative differences between these
(1999) warned, failing to account for follower susceptibehaviors and active forms of toxicity (Schyns and Schilbilities limits our understanding of genocide and other realling 2013). Yet, like other writers (e.g., Einarsen et
al. cases of destructive leadership.
world
2007), we believe an inclusive definition of destructive
In an attempt to illuminate the influence of personal
leadership should include passive behaviors, such
factors
as on followers' unique vulnerabilities, Thoroughgood
delaying decisions, showing a lack of action or initiative,
or (2012a) developed a typology of susceptible folet al.
neglecting one's duties as a leader. This is because alowers,
leaexpanding on Padilla et al. 's (2007) distinction
between conformers and colluders. While the former are
der's passivity, under the right circumstances, may
Active Versus Passive Behaviors
â Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
642
C.
N.
prone
Thoroughgood
to
toxic
act
ref
misguided
mission. yet
Base
of
followers,
i
Thoroughgood
types
al.
obedience,
the
latter
Such
research
or
formers
et
(lost
of
et
al.
(2012a)
propo
rounding
their
souls,
authoritarians
destructive
leade
colluders
(opportunists
a
proposed
that
an
u
of
this
taxonomy
is
ou
processes
requires
discussion
lights
with
a
key
point:
there
are
diffe
tives.
A
role-base
construe and
enact their follower roles and the effectsepisod
of
destructive
leadership
these
processestheir
for
role behavior.different
A constructionist approach considers reas
with
low
strong
self-concept
clarity,
how following behaviors work in combination
with leading
needs
n
for
security,
behaviors to
construct leadership processes andaffilia
their out-
souls)
may
be comes.
vulnerable
to
pers
Thus, from this perspective, leadership
processes
and
exploitation
by
charismatic
require leading
behaviors,
but also following behaviors Howell
and
Shamir
In
otherwise leadership 2005).
cannot take place (Hollander
1993;con
Uhl-Bien
et
al.
2014).
authoritarianism
and
cognitive
rigi
comply
with
prescribe
temeyer
order
flawed
leaders
due
Extending these approaches
to destructive leadership,
t
duty
key questions
to
emerge
obey
regarding followers
authorit
within these
a
and
processes. From
aa role-based
preference
approach, how might confo
formers and colluders construe
and enact their follower
discipline
(Chirumbolo
1981)
and
Based
on
these
roles differently,
susceptibilities,
producing unique effects on leaders, leaemerge.
For
example,
are
some
f
der-follower relations, and the
group? With
respect to
conformers, lost souls might construe
their follower roles
take
part
in
destructive
leadershi
the
leader
and in
environment?
That
terms of loyalty, obedience, and dependence on leaders
key"
for self-affirmation,
leading to subservience, emulation
of
patterns
exist
whereby
matc
and
leaders,
leaders, and attempts
within
to garner their approval.
certain
As such,
lowers
destructive
avellian
in
loosely
and
w
regulated
ethical restraints on
corporations,
their use of power (Howell and Shamir
power
tarian
leadership
they may overempower self-serving
outcomes
leaders by fueling
followers
their needs for
may
power, causing conspire
their leaders to forgo any
are
more
easily
2005).
In terms of colluders,
opportunists,achieve
who follow
followers
tend
to gain
form
dysfunctional
leaders for personal
(see Thoroughgood "to
dominant
leaders
et al. 2012b), may(e.g.,
define their followerSon
roles in transacHin
tional terms. In exchangesettings
for financial or political out-wh
military
comes, they
may act assuggestive
"yes" men, engaging in flattery,
questions
are
o
especially
These
in
potential withholding
topics
criticism, and
for
using manipulation
future
to further
many
Susceptible
Influences
s
the leader's goals. This, in turn, may promote hubris in
their leaders.
Follower
Roles
and
From a constructionist approach, the broader question
that emerges is how follower conforming and colluding
behaviors
interact over time with actionsa
or inactions
of
Once
followers
become
part
of
processes,
as
systems
andpassive,
insti
certain leaders (whether unethical, incompetent,
or
otherwise flawed) within certain
to create
suggest,
their
actions
orcontexts
inactions
and
their
outcomes.
few
a
destructive group outcomes?Yet,
Consistent with Uhl-Bien
cocreational
roles
of
followers
i
et al. (2014), we argue
that destructive
leadership processes
episodes.
Most require
frame
followers
as
combined acts of dysfunctional
leading and folthan
key
contributors
dysfu
lowing, which are left unchecked into
the environment.
relationships, Conformers
conducive
environ
and colluders must "grant" flawed
leaders
outcomes.
For
example,
the
closes
influence and "claim" their follower
roles in these
proted
to
tions
cesses (Derue
and Ashford 2010).in
Thus, when
conformers
followers'
roles
dysfunc
comes
suggest
low
from
studies
victi
(through dependence,
blind obedience, or on
passivity) and
irritating
aspects
of
colluders (via
complicity or collaboration)
permitfollow
such
performance)
prompt
leaders'
leaders influence
and allow them to pursue their
goals, they
fail to fulfill
their vitalof
role as checks
on their leaders'
2006,
2011)
and
use
coercion
pliance
(Krasikova
et
al.
power. Such following
behaviors
shape2013).
leader-follower
Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 643
instance, an entrenched
culture of greed may augment an
dynamics marked by a lack of healthy scrutiny
and centralized power in the leader.
opportunistic colluder' s desires for wealth and power. In
sum,
it isfollowing
important to consider the dynamic nature of
In sum, the unique follower roles
and
recognizing that their motivations
behaviors of susceptible individuals, susceptible
as wellfollowers,
as their
interactions with flawed leaders, occupy for
a more
following
central
may change
role
over time.
in destructive leadership episodes than they have been
granted to date. Consistent with systems theories, leaders
Environments
and Destructive
and followers operate within the constraints
they impose
on
Leadership
one another and jointly shape the relationships that influinclude the
contexts, circumstances and
ence leadership outcomes (Howell andEnvironments
Shamir 2005).
As
conditions
in which
leaders and followers interact over
such, more inclusive views on destructive
leadership
hinge
time. Environments
on a greater appreciation for the cocreational
roles involve
that three categories of factors that
either promote or constrain dysfunctional leader-folsusceptible followers play within these may
processes.
lower relations: institutional , macro-environmental , and
cultural. Below, we list some of the factors that fall under
Susceptible Follower Change and Development
these broad categories. In so doing, we draw on the fields
of political
science, sociology,
and institutional economics,
Followers, like leaders, undergo cognitive
changes
as a
focus on legal,
economic, and governmental instiresult of the environments they inhabit.which
For example,
social
tutions
and their effects on behavior. Understanding these
identity models (e.g., Hogg 2001) suggest
leader-follower
relations are a function of social-cognitive
factors
processes
offers insight
that
into how conducive environments
cause individuals to redefine themselves based on distinct
develop, become institutionalized, and shape dysfunctional
features of an in-group, leading to changes in their atti- forms of leading and following.
tudes, motivations, and behaviors over time. With respect
to destructive leadership processes, similar changes in Institutional Elements
followers may take place over time. For instance, Castro's
Pioneros, Mao's Red Guard, and the Hitler Youth all
Institutional elements include major bodies that define,
underscore the transformative potential of vulnerable fol- influence, and prescribe certain practices and behaviors,
lowers who internalize a leader's toxic vision. Staub (1989) including legal, political, government, and collective bodfurther noted how groups and societies marked by genocide ies and institutions. Institutions can be efficient and func-
travel along a "psychological continuum of destruction."
tional at one extreme or inefficient and corrupt at the other.
Group members experience psychological shifts whereby
When institutional structures and processes are weak or
their motivations and inhibitions regarding harming out- absent, destructive leadership outcomes are more likely to
group members change as they learn by doing and adopt
occur.
attitudes that justify their behaviors. Some followers may
develop a fanaticism for their group's ideology - as
Lack of Checks and Balances
shocking as it may be. Further, bystanders may undergo
parallel shifts whereby they begin to devalue and distance While leaders require discretion to do their jobs, unconthemselves from victims, even becoming active contribu- strained authority provides opportunities for leaders an
tors to the group in some cases. Similar processes may their followers to engage in toxic or ill-advise behavior.
unfold in businesses, political institutions, and other orga- lack of scrutiny is associated with weak institutional sys
nizations, whereby unethical behavior becomes entrenched, tems, including a lack of checks and balances on powe
justified, and, in turn, results in the socialization of new- Checks and balances can be internal and external. The most
comers into unethical conduct (Ashforth and Anand 2003). important internal check is an organization itself: organi-
Recognition of followers' developmental trajectories zations that establish controls on their operations are able
leads to many questions. For example, how might follow- to more effectively regulate unethical or misguided leaderers' motivations for conforming and colluding shift as a follower interactions. Internal checks include governing
result of exposure to their leaders, the dynamics among
boards and other organizational processes and proce-
group members, and the context? As alluded to earlier, dures - including fraud control systems, interdepartmental
crosschecking, and ethics codes, committees, and com-
those with a malleable self-concept, negative self-views,
and strong needs for group affiliation and a sense of pur- munication networks. Indeed, research suggests fraud is
pose (lost souls) may become active colludere as they greater in companies with weak governing boards than in
internalize a leader's values. Followers' motives for conthose with stronger, more independent ones. For example,
forming or colluding may also intensify over time. Fororganizations lacking formal separation of the CEO and
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
644
C.
chair
N.
of
Thoroughgood
et
al.
follower
activities
board
positions
and
p
the
conse
members destructive
and
weaker
oversig
the
lack
of
well-fu
greater
fraud
(Beasley
1996;
Beasl
and
rapid
technol
a
lack
of
sufficient
counsel
by
bo
problem
below.
strategic
mistakes
on
the
part
of
board
Other
internal
toring
controls,
Macro-environmental
Elements
systems,
are
also
such
as
critical
e
t
leader-follower
relations
(Trevi
Macroenvironmental
factors
represent
broader
social,
these
control
mechanisms,
thes
economic, and technological forces that
reduce organizainstitutional
momentum.
For
exam
tional
transparency,an
decrease initial
checks and balances, and
(2003)
discussed
how
cor
entrenched
that
tance,
ers,
in
heighten
followers' dependence on leaders. The paradox
is
organizations,
leadi
that some situations may require greater
authority be
corruption.
Socializa
excuse
allocated
to leaders to promote quick, efficient of
responses to
desirability,
suc
environmental demands. Yet, issues ariseto
when certain
corruption
surpas
industry
features (e.g., complexity, instability)
are paired
of
external
checks
i
or
even
allowing
Examples
expert
field,
function
a
watchdog
of
leaders
Instability
coverage.
In
cases
involvin
news
involved
as
with susceptible government
followers and flawed or toxic leaders.
and
a
parties
are
typically
for
Leaders can increase their media
power during times of crisis and
tices
shortly
after
scruti
instability when needs
for clarity and order demand
a
altogether.
While
leaders
in
oth
leader with the perceived
to resolve the crisis
and
China
engage
inability
similar
act
those
(Conger and Kanungo 1987).
Under such conditions,
countries
might
preven
tend to be granted
greater authority given instability
despite leaders
the
media's
vital
r
two
Thus,
sance,
the
leadership
dence
and
extent
to
it
requires swift action
and often which
unilateral decisions (Janis
and Mann 1977). Such was thetends
case following the 9/11 to
outcomes
is
va
attacks when U.S. President
George Bush felt empowered
vibrancy
across
culture
to enact controversial
antiterrorism provisions under
the
Experts
provide
checks
and
bal
U.S. Patriot
Act. Further, instability is related to percepbility
to
media
reports,
offerin
tions of threat, which increase acceptance
support for
objectivity.
However,
a andlack
of
u
ages
leaders (Cohen et al. 2004) and foster centralized
unhealthyautocratic
environments
wh
decision-making
in firms (Keats and Hitt 1988). Threat
relations
remain
unexamined.
A
perceptionsexplosion
can stem from internal (e.g., massive layoffs) in
Horizon
oil
rig
th
or external stressors (e.g., interviewed
market volatility). They can also
journalists
e
range from
feelings of mistreatment
(e.g., Germany
after
experts
who
lent
credibili
example,
neering
Versailles) to desperate economic
conditions (e.g.,
by
BP.
The
constant
media
stor
Mugabe's Zimbabwe)
to insolvency in a beleaguered
other
firms
that
contributed
regarding
the
to
destroying
to
pay
a
Fisheries
corporation.
spill.
Three
years
la
evidence
related
to
Complexity
and
Dynamism
$200,000
fine,
a
voluntar
the
and
Wildlife
Foundat
Environmental complexity and
dynamism may also reduce
of
probation
(Krauss
2013).
checks and balances on leaders'agencies
power. Companies residFinally,
government
(e.g
ing in industries in
characterized
by rapid technological
play
an
added
role
regulating
b
advancements and changing markets
are harder to police
firms.
Yet,
inadequate
funding
an
given regulators must
constantly adapt to and monitor
the
U.S.
financial
regulatory
sy
networks
of transactions and differentiated
roles
effectiveness complex
of
such
agencies
(
G
10
meet
nations
financial
the
tasks (Baucus and Near 1991). of
The interconnectedness
(aand group
ten
annually
U.S.
of
to
economies in
consult
the form of global firms that move
and
across
coll
national borders with
ease, avoiding local taxes and
regumatters),
which
possess
system
lations
needs
in the process, further greater
diminishes oversight and
agencies,
indu
creating
extends the potential
chances
reach of destructive leadership
for
ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
a
coor
tox
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 645
processes. For example, in addition
tototop
executives'
ability
expose
the rich inner workings of complex socialeffective lobbying of congressional organizational
leaders for
favorable
processes
(Silverman 2010). For example, in
laws, Enron operated at a time when
U.S. lawmakers
a case analysis
of Bristol Royal Infirmary, a hospital that
generally favored deregulation of the
wasenergy
subject to industry
the longest medical
inquiry in UK history,
conditions that allowed leaders to conceal
long-term
Fraher (2014)
adopted a consystems approach to examine how
certain
leader, follower,
and environmental factors worked
tracts and complex financial trades
(McLean
and Elkind
2003). Regulatory accounting practices
permittedover
Enron
tofrom the pediatric cardiac
in combination,
7 years
bring more opaqueness to already complex
surgicaland
program's
difficult-tostart to its conclusion, to produce
destructive outcomes, such as the deaths of dozens of
regulate financial tools.
babies undergoing surgery. Fields such as anthropology,
Cultural and Societal Elements
sociology, and history all use ethnographic methods, which
provide a more complete understanding of social systems
analysis of human interactions in natural enviCulture comprises the attitudes, beliefs, and valuesvia
ofclose
a
ronments.
Leadership episodes entail complex patterns of
group, organization, region, or country and consists
of
among leaders and followers, followers and
multiple dimensions (Hofstede et al. 1990). Stylesinteractions
of
other followers, and leaders and leaders, all within
leading in a U.S.-headquartered firm might be relatively
egalitarian, reflecting the national and company culture,
specific contexts. Qualitative studies help unravel such
detect themes and explanatory variables, and
while management of an Indonesian subsidiary of the patterns,
same
firm may have a more authoritarian style, reflecting
produce
that new theory. Thus, they often spur shifts in the
nation's traditions. Leader-follower relations can be
way researchers think about and approach research
greatly shaped by the culture in which they reside.questions.
Culture
may produce additive effects that increase the conduciveSecond, leadership scholars have showed a growing
ness of environments to destructive leadership outcomes.
interest in historiometric analysis, a unique procedure
Based on Hofstede' s (1984) work, unhealthy environments
permitting access to data not attainable using traditional
(e.g., Hunter et al. 2011; Yammarino et al. 2013).
are likely to exist in cultures and organizations surveys
high on
power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance.
Historiometry relies on the coding of qualitative data
Power distance leads to tolerance of unequal power
difobtained
from verifiable historical sources into quantitative
ferentials and less dissent (Javidan et al. 2006). In collecindices, which are then analyzed using traditional statistical
tivistic societies, leaders hold greater potential influence
analysis. With respect to leadership, data are most often
derived
given collectivists tend to prefer strong leaders who
bringfrom academic biographies of historical leaders.
not without limitations (see Ligon et al. 2012,
people together and create group cohesion (LuthansWhile
et al.
1998). Finally, uncertainty avoidance leads to greater
Shamir 2011), historiometry permits tracking of various
psychological, behavioral, and environmental factors that
reliance on leaders for clarity and security; for example,
shape
leadership processes. Mumford (2006), for example,
dictators often exploit these needs by providing
rules,
examined the years spanning 120 historical leaders' rise to,
regulations, and rituals that offer easy solutions to complex
of, and fall from power. As such, historiometric
problems (Heifetz 1994). Together, these factorsheight
reduce
analysis can be used to compare factors related to leaders,
scrutiny and undermine the independence and empowerment of potential dissenters.
followers, and environments over time and how they
combine in unique ways to impact group and organizational outcomes.
Third, it is possible that well-planned longitudinal
analyses could be employed to shed light on the ways in
Strategic Approaches to Studying Destructive
which leaders, followers, and environments interact over
Leadership Processes
time to shape destructive outcomes. Yet, given the likely
difficulties of accessing longitudinal survey data across
To examine destructive leadership in a more holistic
lengthy leadership episodes (e.g., a CEO's tenure), future
fashion, we recommend several approaches. First, followinvestigations
might target shorter, yet meaningful, periing others (e.g., Avolio et al. 2009), we encourage more
ods - for example, the entire life of a temporary project
inductive investigations utilizing qualitative analysis.
Such studies might use meaningful start (e.g.,
Qualitative studies focus on human interactions team.
as they
appointment of a team's leader) and end points (e.g., team
unfold in natural settings and can account for temporal
disbandment).
Although such analyses may lack the
changes in leadership processes over time. Interviews,
case
breadth and depth of qualitative and historical studies, they
studies, and other qualitative methods are rare in leadership
research, yet they provide many advantages, such provide
as the the advantage of greater quantitative rigor.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
646
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
Conclusion
et
al.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,
10, 181-217.
Destructive leadership processes reflect complex mosaicsBaucus, M., & Near, J. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be
that cannot be understood by focusing primarily on leaders. predicted? An event history analysis. Academy of Management
By defining destructive leadership strictly in terms of lea- Journal, 34, 9-36.
Baum, J. R. (1999). Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,
der behaviors, leader-centric views implicitly assume that
"bad" leader behaviors are sufficient to create "bad"
& W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp.
77-114). London: Sage.
leadership outcomes, despite the reality that it is difficult
to A. C., & Amburgey, T. L. (2000). Organizational ecology.
Baum, J.
In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizalink these behaviors unequivocally with destructive outtions (pp. 304-326). Oxford: Blackwell.
comes for all groups, organizations, and their constituents.
Beasley, M. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the
This is because the effects of these behaviors depend board
on of director composition and financial statement fraud.
contingencies related to followers and the environment.
Accounting Review, 71, 433-465.
Beasley,of
M., Carcello, J., Hermanson, D., & Lapides, P. (2000).
Relatedly, leader-centric views mask the influences
Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of industry traits
followers and environments, despite the fact that such
and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons,
factors are vital parts of destructive leadership processes.
14, 441-454.
Without more balanced perspectives, potential solutions
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard
Business Review, 78, 133-141.
are not easily apparent because the process is not explained
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration,
and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited.
organizational outcomes and the contributing roles ofAcademy
fol- of Management Review, 28, 238-256.
as a whole. By transcending beyond leaders and toward
lowers and environments over time, more effective
soluBerger,
P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of
reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York:
tions and preventative remedies are possible.
Anchor Books.
Berkowitz, L. (1999). Evil is more than banal: Situationism and the
concept of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3,
246-253.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E., & Stovall, J. F.
References
(2007). When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of
aversive leadership. Applied Psychology, 56, 528-557.
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., &
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
behaviour. British Journal of Management, 21 , 438-452.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor,
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A
qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543-562.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg:
Chan, M. L. E., & McAllister, D. (2014). Abusive supervision
University of Manitoba Press.
through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of
Management Review, 39, 44-66.
Chirumbolo, A. (2002). The relationship between need for cognitive
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption
closure and political orientation: The mediating role of authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 603-610.
in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25 ,
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations ,
47, 755-778.
1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Treviño, L. K.
Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg,
J. (2004). Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality salience on
(2008). Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationshiporiented leaders. Psychological Science, 15, 846-851.
Management Review, 33, 670-684.
Astley, W. G., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). Central perspectives and
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory
debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarof charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of
terly, 28, 245-273.
Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:
Craig, S. B., & Kaiser, R. B. (2012). Destructive leadership. In M.
Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review G. Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp.
of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
439-454). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for
Curtis, J. M., & Curtis, M. J. (1993). Factors related to susceptibility
leadership theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 25-33.
and recruitment by cults. Psychological Reports, 73, 451-460.
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership
de la Merced, M. (201 1, April 7). Judge approves Dish's $320 million
models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D.
deal for Blockbuster. The New York Times.com. http://dealbook.
R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology : nytimes.com/2011/04/07/judge-approves-dishs-320-million-dealfor-blockbuster/?ref=blockbusterinc&_r=0.
Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 277-307). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Derne, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test of a model.
follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35, 627-647.
Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851-861.
Deutsch, A. (1980). Tenacity of attachment to a cult leader: A
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta- psychiatric perspective. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137,
tions. New York: Free Press.
1569-1573.
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 647
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social
undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45 , 331-351.
M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29-47). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M.House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.
(2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101 ,House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of
105-126.
leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). DestructiveHouse, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic
leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the
Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 207-216.
Feinstein, J. (2012). Season on the brink. New York: Simon and
charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their conseSchuster.
quences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.
Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M.
Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). Leadership déjà vu all over again.
G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced
The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 435-458.
perspective on destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1997). Systems motivation, leadership, and
18, 195-206.
teaching in an innovative academic setting. In J. L. Bess (Ed.),
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveTeaching well and liking it: The motivation of faculty in higher
ness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
education (pp. 219-247). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
psychology (pp. 149-190). New York: Academic Press.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The
Fraher, A. L. (2014). A toxic triangle of destructive leadership at
Bristol Royal Infirmary: A study of organizational Munchausen
typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435-446.
syndrome by proxy. Leadership, 12, 1-19.
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., Thoroughgood, C., Johnson, J. E., &
Freeman, J. (1982). Organizational life cycles and natural selection
Ligon, G. S. (2011). First and ten leadership: A historiometric
processes. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in
investigation of the CIP Leadership Model. The Leadership
Organizational Behavior (pp. 1-32). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Quarterly, 22, 70-91.
Galanter, M. (1980). Psychological induction into the large-group:
Findings from a modern religious sect. The American Journal ofJanis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological
Psychiatry, 137, 1574-1579.
analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: U.S.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996).
Free Press.
Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case forJavidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In
the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from
agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 820-835.
Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 67-90.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on OB. Academy of
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423-451.
Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1972). Interpersonal dynamics
in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and
fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96-110.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory:
Penology, 1, 69-97.
Hannan, M. T. (1993). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Applications for organization and management. Academy of
Management Journal, 15, 447-465.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. Lģ (1978). The social psychology of organiHannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of
zations. New York: Wiley.
organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
Kaufman, S. (2003). Musashi's book of five rings: The definitive
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
interpertation of Miyomoto Musashi's classic book of strategy.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. North Clarendon. VT: Tiittle Publishing.
(2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring aKeats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages
more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 1165-1185.
among environmental dimensions, macroorganizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31,
570-598.
Hitt, G. (2009, February). Bank regulation. Wall Street Journal
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I.
(Eastern ed.), p. A.2.
Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Bluemn (Eds.), The art of followership:
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: international differ-
ences in work-related values. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990).
How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp.
5-15). San Francisco: Wiley.
Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,
286-316.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research
leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psycholo- agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308-1338.
Krauss, C. (2013, July 25). Halliburton pleads guilty to destroying
gist, 49, 493-504.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. evidence after Gulf spill. New York Times, p. Bl.
Review of General Psychology, 9, 169-180.
Lian, H., Ferris, L., & Brown, D. (2012). Does power distance
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It
depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.
Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. Oxford: 107-123.
Oxford Universitv Press.
Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organiza-
Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A
perspective on relational features of leadership. In M.
tional performance: A study of large corporations. American
Sociological Review, 37, 117-130.
â Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
648
C.
N.
Thoroughgood
et
al.
Rosenthal, S. D.
A., & Pittinsky,
T. L. &
(2006). Narcissistic
leadership.
Ligón,
G.
S.,
Harris,
J.,
Hunter,
S
The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617-633. approache
lives:
What
historiometric
G. R., &
Pfeffer, J. (1977). Constraints on administrative
ship
Quarterly, Salancik,
23,
1104-1133.
discretion:
The limited influence ofToxic
mayors on city budgets.
Lipman-Blumen,
J.
(2005).
leade
Urban Affairs Quarterly,
12, 475-498.
masquerade
as
noble
visions.
Leader
Schnatter,
J. (2008, October 25). Where
were the allure
Boards? Wall Street
Lipman-Blumen,
J.
(2006).
The
of
destructive
Journal (Eastern
edn.), All.corrupt
bosses
and
poli
Schyns, B., &York:
Hansbrough, T. (2010).Oxford
When leadership goes wrong:Univ
survive
them.
New
Destructive
leadership,
mistakes,
and ethical
failures. GreenLord,
R.
G.,
Foti,
R.
J.,
&
De
Vader,
C.
wich, CT: IAP-Information
Age Publishing.
categorization
theory:
Internal
structur
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad Organizati
are the effects of bad
and
leadership
perceptions.
leaders?
A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its
performance,
34,
343-378.
outcomes. The Leadership
24, 138-158.
Luthans,
F.,
Peterson,
S., Quarterly,
&
Ibrayeva,
E
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence
of institutional
theory.
"dark
side"
of
leadership
in
post-comm
Administrative
Science Quarterly,
32, 493-511.
of
World
Business,
33,
185-201.
Ma,
H.,
Karri,
Senge, P. (1990).
The fifth
discipline: The art and science of the
R.,
&
Chittipeddi,
K
learning organization.
New York: Currency Doubleday.
tyranny.
Business
Horizon
Shamir,
B. (2011). Leadership takes time: P.,
Some implications
of (not)
M.
J.,
Harvey,
Sikora,
managerial
Martinko,
Perceptions
of
taking time seriously in leadership
research. The Leadership
abusive
supervision:
Quarterly,
22, 307-315.
attribution
style.
The
Leadership
Qua
J. B.,
Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). AM.
method for
McCall,
M.
W.
J.,Shaw,
&
Lombardo,
M.
(1
measuring destructive leadershipget
and identifying
types of
how
successful
executives
derailed
destructive
leaders in organizations.
The Leadership
Quarterly,
Greensboro,
NC:
Center
for
Creative
575-590.
McClelland,
D.
C. 22,
(1975).
Power:
The
i
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical
Irvington.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The
amazing rise and the scandalous fall of Enron. New York:
Penguin Group.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance
of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and
Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
Muczyk, J. P., & Adler, T. (2002). An attempt at a consentience
regarding formal leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 2-17.
Muczyk, J. P., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Leadership style and the
turnaround executive. Business Horizons, 41, 39-46.
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A
handbook. SAGE Publications Limited.
SIOP. (2009). Destructive leadership: Measurement, antecedents, and
outcomes. In Symposium conducted at the 24th annual meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
New Orleans, LO.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V.
(2007). Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making:
High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing
authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 67-81.
Staub, E. (1989). The evolution of bystanders, German psycho-
analysts, and lessons for today. Political Psychology, 10,
39-52.
Suis, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and
its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity
to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 88-98.
comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy
O'Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., &
of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
An historiometric study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529-555.
Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive superviassumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
3-72.
sion. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle:Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of
Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive enviabusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level disronments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
similarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279-294.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007).
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership
Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and
as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams:
subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management
An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transforJournal, 50, 1169-1180.
mational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics:Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W.
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.
(2012a). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers
associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership QuarPelletier, K. (2012). Perceptions of and reactions to leader toxicity:
terly. 23. 897-917.
Do leader-follower relationships and identification with victim
matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 412-424.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The black hole in "bullying at
(2012b). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring
destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizawork" research. International Journal of Management and
tional Studies, 19, 230-255.
Decision Making, 4, 47-64.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Destructive Leadership: A Critique of Leader-Centric Perspectives... 649
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds,
Vroom,
S. J.
V. H.,
(2006).
& Jago, Behavioral
A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in
leadership.
American Psychologist,
ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of
Management
, 32 , 62, 17-24.
951-990.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading,
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity MA: Addison- Wesley.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2011). Multi-level issues in
leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age
to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 ,
evolutionary theory, organization science, and leadership. The
298-318.
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1042-1057.
F. J., Mumford, M. D., Serban, A., & Shirreffs, K.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K.Yammarino,
(2014).
Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The
(2013). Assassination and leadership: Traditional approaches and
Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.
historiometric methods. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 822-841.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & van Knippenberg, D. Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational
(2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders'
leadership: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski
emotions and followers' personalities shape motivation and team
(Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership (pp. 3-41). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827-1834.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory : Foundations,
development, applications. New York: George Braziller.
persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual
theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 407-426.
Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 99.233.195.66 on Sun, 26 Jun 2022 01:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms