Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate if the thesis “bad is stronger than good” also holds true for a number of leadership issues, more specifically: trust in the immediate leader, emotional exhaustion, work atmosphere and propensity to leave. Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire responses were obtained from military personnel in Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands (n=625). Findings – Multiple regression analyses revealed a certain pattern. Constructive leadership behaviours showed stronger positive associations with trust in the immediate supervisor and work atmosphere, than destructive leadership behaviours showed negative associations. On the other hand, destructive leadership behaviours showed stronger positive associations with emotional exhaustion and propensity to leave, than constructive leadership behaviours showed negative associations. This suggests that constructive leadership behaviours possibly have a greater impact on positive phenomenon and/or phenomenon associated with work-related relationships. On the other hand, destructive leadership behaviours appear to have a greater impact on negative phenomena with a stronger personal meaning. The results also show that the passive forms of destructive leadership are the behaviours that had the strongest impact on the investigated dependent variables. Research limitations/implications – Limitations related to item construction, common method variance, response set tendencies, translation of the instruments, and lack of response rate are discussed. Practical implications – The results emphasize the importance of focusing on both constructive and destructive leadership at the selection stage, as well as during training of military leaders. Focusing on them separately obstructs optimal leader development and prevents leaders from gaining authentic self-knowledge. The results also point at the importance of including both aspects of leadership in leader evaluation processes. Originality/value – The use of both constructive and destructive leadership behaviours with respondents from multiple nations in the same analysis.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to increased knowledge of destructive leadership in crisis management. The specific research questions are: (1) What types of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified in leaders in crisis management? and (2) Why are these behaviours considered destructive in this context?Design/methodology/approachAbout 21 informants involved in crisis management at regional, local and operational levels in Sweden were interviewed. They were selected since they had recently been involved in severe accidents and/or crises (e.g. terror attacks, forest fires). A grounded theory analysis of interview data yielded two core variables: destructive leadership behaviours, and appraisal: interpretation of leader behaviour.FindingsThe study identified seven different destructive leadership behaviours: four task-related and three relationship-related. Task-related behaviours primarily led to negative consequences for the task/crisis. Relationship-related behaviours have negative consequences for subordinates' job satisfaction, well-being and/or sense of meaningfulness. The paper relates the identified behaviours to existing leadership ideals within crisis management and discusses behaviours that appear to be unique for the crisis management context.Practical implicationsThe paper highlights the fact that great crisis managers are not always good at managing relationships, which may have negative implications for crisis management in the long term.Originality/valueDestructive leadership is a research field that is rapidly expanding. However, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of destructive leadership behaviours and what makes an individual appraise a leader as destructive in crisis management.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop a short and easy to use yet psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context. Design/methodology/approach -First, examples of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context were collected using a qualitative approach. Second, these examples were operationalised and pilot tested, which resulted in a 20-item questionnaire called Destrudo-L. Third, data were collected from three Swedish military groups (n ¼ 428). Dimensionality of the instrument was analysed using structural equation modelling. Conventional psychometric assessments of reliability and validity were performed. Findings -A nested hierarchical model with a general factor and the following specific factors emerged: arrogant, unfair; threats, punishments, overdemands; ego-oriented, false; passive, cowardly; and uncertain, unclear, messy. Meaningful subgroup differences and relationships with a criterion variable (lack of motivation/propensity to leave) were found. More use of active forms was reported by subordinates of younger military commanders and more use of passive forms was marked by subordinates of senior military managers. Practical implications -The instrument is easy to administer and interpret (norm values are provided) and can be used in leader evaluation, as well as leader development, contexts. Originality/value -The main contribution is methodological -the development of a new scale. Additional findings are a strong positive correlation between active and passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours in a military context, as well as significant differences between groups with different ranks.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether constructive or destructive leadership behaviors are the best predictors of soldiers' experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. Data were collected among 300 employed soldiers using a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about the immediate leader's constructive and destructive leadership, meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. The results show that the constructive leadership factor inspiration and motivation was the best predictor of both experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction. None of the destructive leadership factors gave a significant contribution to the models although both the passive and active forms of destructive leadership showed a weak to moderate significant, negative correlation with experienced meaningfulness of work and general job satisfaction.

Purpose This study aims to investigate the differences between destructive leadership in two different contexts: crisis management and usual circumstances. The specific research questions are as follows: What is the relationship between destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances and destructive leadership behaviours in crisis management? Are destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances or in crisis management the best predictors of trust in the leader and subordinate performance? Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire responses were obtained from 337 individuals who had experience from handling various societal crises, such as terror attacks and forest fires. The respondents represented four different organisations: municipalities, county administrative boards, the police and the emergency service. Findings The results from the study reveal that there is a strong association between destructive leadership in usual circumstances and destructive leadership during crisis management. The study indicates that everyday leadership matters the most. It is above all behaviours in usual circumstances that show the strongest associations with trust in the leader and subordinate performance. The results also show that it is especially task-related, passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours that show the strongest association with the studied outcome variables. Research limitations/implications Limitations related to measurements and self-reported data are discussed. Practical implications The study emphasises the importance of paying attention to leaders’ task- and strategic-oriented behaviour as well as the importance of building trusting relationships with the subordinates. Originality/value The need for industry-specific studies of destructive leadership has been highlighted and this study contributes with knowledge from the crisis management context.