Elsevier

The Leadership Quarterly

Volume 24, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 138-158
The Leadership Quarterly

How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001Get rights and content

Abstract

While the focus on constructive leadership still dominates leadership research, an increasing number of studies investigate different forms of destructive leadership. This meta-analysis integrates different conceptualizations of destructive leadership and analyzes the relationship between destructive leadership and outcome variables. The search for articles yielded more than 200 studies of which 57 could be included in the meta-analysis. Results indicate the expected negative correlations with positive followers' outcomes and behaviors (e.g., attitudes towards the leader, well-being, and individual performance) and positive correlations with negative outcomes (e.g., turnover intention, resistance towards the leader, counterproductive work behavior). As expected, the highest correlation arises between destructive leadership and attitudes towards the leader. Surprisingly, the next highest correlation was found between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behavior. After discussing the results, an agenda for future research is proposed. Given the negative impact of destructive leadership, more knowledge is especially necessary regarding what triggers destructive leadership.

Introduction

Traditionally, research into leadership has often been guided by the quest to find the most effective person or method to lead. Popular concepts such as transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985) but even more recent developments such as ethical (e.g., Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005) or authentic leadership (e.g., Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) focus on positive leader behavior and its effects. Sometimes the term ‘leadership’ is even limited to an exercise of personal influence resulting in enthusiastic commitment of followers: “proponents of this view argue that a person who uses authority and control over rewards, punishments, and information to manipulate or coerce followers is not really ‘leading’ them” (Yukl & van Fleet, 1992: 148). However, a recent stream of research (often under the label of ‘supervision’ or ‘supervisory behavior’) acknowledges that there is also a dark side to leadership (Conger, 1990): Regardless of what researchers and practitioners may consider ideal, some leaders behave in ways that are detrimental to their followers and often the organization as a whole.

There are two main reasons for the growing interest in the dark side of leadership: First, there is the question of the prevalence of and costs as a result of destructive leaders. While Aryee, Sun, Chen, and Debrah (2008) consider abusive supervision, as the one concept that has dominated empirical research in this area, as a “low base rate phenomenon” (p. 394), other studies report a strong prevalence of destructive leader behaviors in organizations. For example in the Netherlands, Hubert and van Veldhoven (2001) report a prevalence rate of about 11%. Even higher prevalence rates have been found in a Norwegian study (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010) where about a third of employees report to have been subject to some type of destructive leadership behavior “often” within the six months prior to the questioning. In the US, abusive supervision affects an estimated 13.6% of U.S. workers (Tepper, 2007) at a cost of $ 23.8 billion annually for US-companies (e.g., due to employee absenteeism, employee turnover, and lowered effectiveness; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). These numbers underline the high practical importance of this area of research.

The second reason for the interest in destructive leader behaviors stems from the findings that their effects on individual followers are quite severe. A large variety of outcomes have been studied in relation to destructive leadership behaviors. Examples include effects on job tension and emotional exhaustion (e.g., Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007), resistance behavior (e.g., Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006), deviant work behavior (e.g., Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), reduced family well-being (e.g., Hoobler & Brass, 2006), and intention to quit and job satisfaction (e.g., Tepper, 2000). Both prevalence rates and potential serious effects of destructive leader behaviors make it a concept worthwhile of deeper investigation.

While for some time, a lot of literature focusing on detrimental aspects of leadership was narrative in nature (e.g., Lipman-Blumen, 2004, Sutton, 2007), making quantitative research syntheses next to impossible, research in this area has now also attracted substantial interest from quantitative researchers. Tepper (2007) stated in his qualitative literature review that most of the studies on abusive supervision have been conducted during just the last few years. Thus, the time seems ripe for a meta-analysis, quantifying the effect sizes that we can expect when leaders show destructive behaviors.

While meta-analyses already exist in the area of constructive leadership (i.e., Judge and Piccolo, 2004, Judge et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2011) as well as in the field of general workplace harassment/aggression (i.e., Bowling & Beehr, 2006), a comprehensive quantitative review of destructive leadership is still absent. To our knowledge, only Hershcovis (2011) has undertaken such an endeavor. However, her intention was to meta-analytically compare supervisor-initiated aggression to other constructs of workplace aggression. Hence, she does not give a full overview of the consequences of destructive leadership but rather focuses on some outcome variables selected based on their usefulness for this comparison. Other meta-analyses have only focused on specific aspects of destructive leadership (i.e., supervisor aggression, Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; non-contingent punishment, Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

In summary, while there is increasing evidence that destructive leaders cause serious problems for followers, organizations and society, research in this area is lacking both an integration of the diverse concepts and a comprehensive, quantitative review of the consequences of destructive leadership. Such a review will not only provide a state-of-the-art overview of our knowledge in this area but also prospects for future theoretical and empirical developments. In fields of research like destructive leadership that are in a relatively early stage, a major problem concerns the inconsistency of the terminology (cp. Tepper, 2007). Hence, we will start by limiting the focus of our review by discussing the boundaries of destructive leadership and distinguishing it from the broader concept of destructive leader behavior. We will then discuss the different constructs of destructive leadership used in previous research to develop a definition and conclude which concepts we will include in our meta-analysis and why. Subsequently, we will briefly review prior research in this area and derive assumptions regarding the relationship between destructive leadership and different outcomes, before explaining how we conducted this meta-analysis and what the results were. We end with a discussion regarding what we know about destructive leadership so far and directions for future research.

Section snippets

Distinguishing destructive leader behavior and destructive leadership?

It is not an easy task to define destructive leadership for two main reasons. First, as already mentioned, some researchers claim that leadership can by definition only be positive (see Yukl & van Fleet, 1992). They reject the concept of destructive leadership as being an oxymoron and advocate for different terms to capture the negative side of leader behavior (e.g., supervision, management, or headship). Second, and perhaps as a consequence of this view, we see a rather scattered landscape of

Different conceptualizations and a definition: what is destructive leadership?

Even though concepts such as the negative side of charismatic leadership (often called personalized charisma, Howell, 1998) or narratives about political leaders such as Hitler or Stalin (e.g., Burns, 2003, Kellerman, 2004) have been part of the leadership discussion for a long time, the quantitative study of destructive leadership is a relatively recent one. Different conceptualizations of similar ideas have emerged almost at the same time. Examples of such conceptualizations include abusive

Sharpening the focus: what is not destructive leadership?

An important issue raised by this definition of destructive leadership is the question as to whether or not laissez-faire leadership (non-leadership) can be included as a type of destructive leadership. Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) argue in this direction and state that destructive leadership can take both active, manifest as well as passive, indirect forms. Skogstad and colleagues (2007) underline that not only the direct forms of supervisor hostility but also a

Destructive leadership and outcomes: theoretical framework

Conducting a meta-analysis means that in terms of the constructs examined, we have to rely on research that has been conducted so far in the area for the selection of outcome variables. In reviewing the relevant literature in the field, we found that most of the outcomes of destructive leadership are assessed from a followers' point of view. Theoretically, and in line with our definition of destructive leadership, focusing on follower-related outcomes makes sense, as part of our definition is

Search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria

In order to identify articles to be included in the meta-analysis, we used three approaches (following procedures of other meta-analyses; cp. Judge and Piccolo, 2004, Judge et al., 2004, Hershcovis and Barling, 2010). First, we reviewed the reference list of Tepper's (2007) overview article. Second, we conducted a literature research in PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Web of Science to identify further studies. As there is at this stage not a unitary term in use for destructive leadership, we

Results

Table 4 depicts the results of our meta-analyses. The results are very much in line with our expectations, showing that destructive leadership is negatively related to positive leader-related concepts and positively related to negative leader-related concepts, thus supporting H1. As we only found studies examining positive job-related attitudes to include in our meta-analyses, we can only in part support H2 in so far as destructive leadership is negatively related to positive job-related

Discussion

The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize quantitatively the relationships that destructive leadership has with leader-related, job-related, organization-related, and more general person-related outcomes. One of the most interesting results of our meta-analysis is the fact that the pattern of results is not only as expected but also how narrow the confidence intervals are. This means that we can be rather confident in drawing conclusions about the expected strength and direction of the

Limitations of the study

Some limitations or our study are based in the data available from primary research. Probably the biggest drawback of our meta-analysis is that all our analyses are based on correlations. Most available research into destructive leadership is cross-sectional in nature (with the notable exception of some of Tepper's studies, e.g., Tepper et al., 2009). We, therefore, cannot draw conclusions about causal effects. In addition, studies on destructive leadership and its outcomes tend to use

Methodological suggestions for future research

Most of the studies we found are cross-sectional and mono-method. Future research should, therefore, try to collect longitudinal data to determine the direction of the relationship. It is not inconceivable that destructive leadership is a reaction of a leader towards an adverse situation in the workplace (e.g., low follower commitment, high counter-productive work behavior). Ideally, leaders would be assessed from a point in time when they first lead a team in order to examine if their

Future research and theoretical developments

The limitations of our study not only stress the importance of advancing empirical research on destructive leadership in different ways but also underline the necessity of developing a comprehensive theoretical model. While this endeavor is beyond the scope of our paper, the results of our study lead to several suggestions for future research in the area of destructive leadership and point to necessary “ingredients” of a theoretical model. The starting point for the development of a

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis shows the expected negative effects of destructive leadership and thereby confirms the urgency for organizations to deal with prevalent destructive leadership and avoid the occurrence of destructive leadership in the first place. Some of the effect sizes we found are rather substantial, underlining the importance of leaders and leadership in organizations. In terms of the future of destructive leadership research, this meta-analysis has shown many gaps in our

References (118)

  • P. *Harvey et al.

    Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2007)
  • K. *Kiazad et al.

    In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' Machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory power

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2010)
  • V.K.G. *Lim et al.

    Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees' work attitude and behavior

    Information Management

    (2009)
  • K.B. Lowe et al.

    Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (1996)
  • J.P. Meyer et al.

    Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences

    Journal of Vocational Behavior

    (2002)
  • A. Padilla et al.

    The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2007)
  • D.L. Paulhus et al.

    The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellism, and psychopathy

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2002)
  • P.M. Podsakoff et al.

    Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (2006)
  • J.A. *Rooney et al.

    Development and initial validation of a measure of supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors

    Journal of Vocational Behavior

    (2007)
  • R. Rosenthal

    The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1979)
  • D.L. Sackett

    Bias in analytic research

    Journal of Chronic Diseases

    (1979)
  • B.J. *Tepper et al.

    Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (2009)
  • M.S. Aasland et al.

    The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour

    British Journal of Management

    (2010)
  • S. *Aryee et al.

    Examining the mediating and moderating influences on the relationships between abusive supervision and contextual performance in a Chinese context

  • S. *Aryee et al.

    Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • S. *Aryee et al.

    Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure

    Management and Organization Review

    (2008)
  • B.E. Ashforth

    Petty tyranny in organizations

    Human Relations

    (1994)
  • B.E. *Ashforth

    Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences

    Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

    (1997)
  • P.A. *Bamberger et al.

    Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account

    Human Relations

    (2006)
  • M. Bardes et al.

    Aspects of goals and reward systems as antecedents of destructive leadership

  • B.M. Bass

    Leadership and performance beyond expectations

    (1985)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Bad is stronger than good

    Review of General Psychology

    (2001)
  • R.J. Bies et al.

    The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues

  • M. *Biron

    Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and organizational deviance

    Human Relations

    (2010)
  • M. *Bligh et al.

    When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership

    Applied Psychology: An International Review

    (2007)
  • M. Borenstein et al.

    Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2

    (2005)
  • N.A. Bowling et al.

    Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2006)
  • N.A. *Bowling et al.

    Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis

    Work and Stress

    (2010)
  • D. *Breaux et al.

    Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision

    Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

    (2008)
  • E. Brunswick

    Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments

    (1956)
  • J. Burns

    Transformational leadership

    (2003)
  • E.R. *Burris et al.

    Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2008)
  • H.C. *Chen et al.

    Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates' psychological health

    International Journal of Human Resource Management

    (2009)
  • J.A. Colquitt et al.

    Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2001)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory Professional Manual

    (1992)
  • J.R. *Detert et al.

    Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • M.K. *Duffy et al.

    Birds of a feather? How supervisor–subordinate dissimilarity moderates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes

    Group Organization Management

    (2003)
  • M.K. *Duffy et al.

    Social undermining in the workplace

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2002)
  • K.E. *Dupre et al.

    Workplace aggression in teenage part-time employees

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2006)
  • S. Einarsen et al.

    The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition

  • Cited by (654)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    References included in the meta-analysis.

    View full text