Different Shades—Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership

Abstract

Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms. From reviewing the literature, we conclude that three major forms of destructive leader behaviors are described: (1) follower-directed destructive behaviors, i.e., genuine abusive forms of destructive leadership, (2) organization-directed behaviors, i.e., behaviors such as stealing from the organization or embezzlement, and (3) self-interested destructive leader behavior, i.e., leader who exploit others to reach their goals. One can easily imagine that these three types of leader behavior have very different effects on followers. Unfortunately, so far, there is no empirical evidence to support this, since comparative research in the field of destructive leadership is scarce. With this paper, we aim to address this gap: In two studies, an experimental and a field study, we examine the differential impact of these three different destructive leader behaviors on two important outcomes: first, their impact on different emotional reactions of followers, the most proximal outcome to a social interaction. Second, we examine a key outcome in leadership research: followers' turnover intention. The results suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior do impact followers differently. Whereas all three behaviors had a positive relationship with negative affect, follower-directed destructive behaviors had the strongest relation out of the three. As expected, all three types of destructive behavior relate to turnover intention, yet, the results of our study suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior relate to different urgencies of turnover intention. We conclude that a tailored approach to destructive leadership, whether in research or practice, seems necessary, as diverse types of destructive leader behaviors affect employees differentially.

Impact of exploitative leadership on psychological distress: A study of nurses

“…The research on exploitative leadership is currently in the starting stage. Until now, only two studies have directly investigated exploitative leadership (for reference, see Schmid, Pircher Verdorfer, & Peus, 2018; Schmid et al., 2019). Both studies were conducted in Germany.…”

“…Both studies were conducted in Germany. The first study tested the impact of exploitative leadership on employee emotions and turnover intention, whereas the second study revealed its two adverse outcomes, namely workplace deviance and job burnout (Schmid et al, 2018; Schmid et al., 2019). Apart from its negative consequences for employees, there is very little known about this leadership style.…”

“…Apart from its negative consequences for employees, there is very little known about this leadership style. Schmid et al (2018), Schmid et al (2019) have called for identifying different underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions that exist between exploitative leadership and adverse employee outcomes. The two existing studies have tested the outcomes of exploitative leadership in various public and private organizations; however, there is still a scarcity of research on its association with health‐related outcomes such as psychological distress, particularly in the nursing domain.…”

“…The extant research on exploitative leadership suggests its negative employee outcomes, such as workplace deviance (Schmid et al, 2019). Schmid et al (2018) are of the view that exploitative leaders disrupt the emotional well-being of employees as a result of which they display negative behaviours. The nursing literature has also exposed the dark side of leadership by studying destructive leadership as the predictor of negative employee behaviours (Haider et al, 2018;Khan et al, 2019).…”

Jeopardies of Aversive Leadership: A Conservation of Resources Theory Approach

“…A careful analysis of the existing literature reveals that with only a few exceptions ( Pearce and Sims, 2002 ; Bligh et al, 2007 ; Spain et al, 2016 ; Skogstad et al, 2017 ), leadership research is saturated with studies highlighting the positive side of a leader. However, with an increase in awareness regarding the costs associated with dark leadership style and its negative and dysfunctional consequences, researchers are realizing that there is a strong need to examine dark leadership styles in different contexts ( Karakitapoğlu-Aygün and Gumusluoglu, 2013 ; Arnulf et al, 2016 ; Schmid et al, 2018 ).…”