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

Abstract

There is a growing awareness that destructive leadership has a significant negative impact on employe outcomes. However, little is known about the content and dimensionality of this multidimensional concept, and there are few reliable measures available for organizations and researchers to evaluate these behaviors. Based on a representative sample (N = 1132) of the Swedish workforce, the aim of this study is threefold: first, to examine the factor structure and validity of an easy-to-use multidimensional destructive leadership measure (Destrudo-L)in the general Swedish work context; second, to identify destructive leadership profiles using latent profile analysis (LPA), and determine in what way they are related to employe outcomes; third, to examine the prevalence of destructive leadership using population weights to estimate responses of a population total in the Swedish workforce (N = 3100282). Our analysis supported the structural validity of Destrudo-L, reflecting both a global factor and specific subdimensions. We identified seven unique destructive leadership profiles along a passive and active continuum of destructive leadership behaviors, with the active showing a less favorable relation to employe outcomes. Finally, we found that a substantial proportion of the Swedish workforce report being exposed to destructive leadership (36.4–43.5%, depending on method used). Active destructive leadership was more common in the public sector and passive destructive leadership in the private. Given the potentially severe effects and the commonness of these behaviors, we argue that organizations should work actively with strategies to identify and intervene, to prevent and to handle the manifestation of these harmful behaviors.

Beware of Non-Supportive Leaders : Moderating Effects of Supportive Leadership on the Risks and Effects of Workplace Bullying

“…In the present thesis the level of perceived support is measured which results in the dimension of high versus low perceived support. But low supportive leadership-or even nonsupportive leadership-should probably, to a large extent, also overlap with concepts such as abusive and/or antisocial forms of leadership (e.g., Lundmark et al, 2021). That low levels of supportive leadership is not the same as laissez-faire leadership is indicated in the sensitivity analysis in the present thesis.…”

“…There are many forms of leadership models, or leadership constructs, but in general three overall meta-categories of leadership have been widely studied: (a) change-oriented leadership, (b) task-oriented leadership, and (c) relation-oriented leadership (e.g., Derue et al, 2011;Yukl et al, 2002). In addition, there is also a meta-category of different types of active or passive destructive leadership (e.g., Lundmark et al, 2021;Skogstad et al, 2007). In the last 20 years, a category of so-called ethicalor moral-oriented leadership also has emerged (e.g., Brown et al, 2005;Michel et al, 2010).…”

“…The reason for this sensitivity analysis was that laissez-faire leadership-that is, passive, avoidant, and absent leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994)-has been described as a strong risk factor for bullying (Skogstad et al, 2007) and has also been shown to act as a moderator in prospective studies of the relationship between conflicts and workplace bullying (Ågotnes et al, 2018). However, being active and present is not conceptually the same as being supportive as there are forms of active destructive leadership (e.g., Aasland et al, 2009;Lundmark et al, 2021). To pinpoint the actual support dimension in the measured leadership, the passive-active leadership dimension was adjusted for using the AL scale.…”

“…Laissez-faire leadership has been shown to increase the risks of workplace bullying, both directly (Dussault & Frenette, 2015;Hoel et al, 2010;Skogstad et al, 2007) and as a moderator (Ågotnes, 2022). Being active and present is, however, not the same as being supportive while there are forms of active leadership that are of a destructive character (e.g., Aasland et al, 2009;Lundmark et al, 2021), for example, autocratic leadership (Agervold, 2009;Hoel et al, 2010) or tyrannical leadership (Hauge et al, 2007). To pinpoint the support dimension in terms of caring, listening, showing respect, and creating confidence and trust, a sensitivity analysis was carried out where the active-passive dimension of the perceived leadership was adjusted for.…”

“…One may, however, also ask to what extent non-supportive leadership behaviours reflect a destructive leadership style. Managers with a leadership style characterised by no or low care and respect for the employees and where the employees lack a sense of trust and safety in relation to their supervisor should probably be described as destructive (Aasland et al, 2009;Lundmark et al, 2021).…”