Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Since the turn of the millennium, a growing academic interest has emerged regarding the dark side of leadership, both in general and specific contexts. Characteristics of military organisations may either reduce or exaggerate the prevalence and impact of destructive leadership. It is therefore pertinent to explore antecedents and outcomes of destructive leadership in the military context as compared to other settings. Here, we systematically reviewed the current literature and performed a meta-analysis of destructive forms of leadership in a military context. The reviewed studies (K = 27) primarily employed context-free instruments, applied cross-sectional designs, and examined outcomes of destructive leadership. Both active (e.g., abusive supervision) and passive (e.g., laissez-faire) forms of destructive leadership were examined in the meta-analysis (K = 22, N = 10,716). The mean correlation to performance, attitude, health, and well-being was −.29 for active destructive leadership, −.29 for passive forms of destructive leadership and, in comparison, .32 for constructive and effective forms of leadership. Our findings demonstrate that passive and active forms of destructive leadership in a military context may contribute equally to detrimental outcomes, and that successful strategies to prevent and handle consequences of destructive leadership must address both forms of unwanted leadership behaviour. ARTICLE HISTORY

Leader Power and Agency-Communion Orientations as Moderators of the Effects of Organizational Characteristics on Workplace Bullying

“…In addition, the overpowering leader is also similar to what some have called the destructive leader (e.g., Einarsen et al, 2007 ; Ferris et al, 2007 ; Fosse et al, 2019 ; Mackey et al, 2019 ). Destructive leadership involves systematic behavior that undermines and/or sabotages the organization’s or subordinate’s goals or well-being (Ståle Einarsen et al, 2007 ).…”

The effects of performance feedback on organizational citizenship behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Notwithstanding, the present work is not the first attempt to apply a rigorous methodology, yet traditionally pertaining to clinicians, into work and organizational applied settings informed the present study to a large extent. For example, previous efforts of applying a similar type of rigorous secondary research can be found in the fields of supply chain management (e.g., Durach et al, 2017), knowledge management (e.g., Tranfield et al, 2003), and leadership in the military (e.g., Fosse et al, 2019).…”

“…We accounted for the expected heterogeneity of the included studies by using a random-effects meta-analysis, which considers the variation due to heterogeneity and is based on the additional File 3 (comprehensive meta-analysis calculations random effects) contained in Neyeloff et al (2012). According to this model, the effect sizes in a population may vary; thus, sample, measurement instrument or study design can also influence the observed effect (Borenstein et al, 2009; see also Fosse et al, 2019).…”

Appetite for Destruction: A Psychometric Examination and Prevalence Estimation of Destructive Leadership in Sweden

“…Hence, with few exceptions (e.g., Thoroughgood et al, 2012), most recent studies also exclude non-social behaviors, and organize destructive leadership behaviors into two main categories: active/direct and passive/indirect (e.g., Fosse et al, 2019;Kaluza et al, 2019;Trépanier et al, 2019;Lundmark et al, 2020).…”