Different forms of destructive leadership are prevalent in organizations, but rarely studied together. Additionally, most studies take an individual-level view on the consequences of destructive leadership. However, while most supervisors lead teams, it remains unclear how destructive leadership behaviours affect team processes and outcomes from a multilevel perspective. Building on this premise, we analysed the relationship of abusive supervision and laissez-faire leadership with OCB on the individual and teamlevel. As an important team process, we considered team trust as a mediating mechanism. Further, we investigated whether laissez-faire leadership is more harmful to OCB compared to abusive supervision. We tested our proposed model in a three-wave study with data from 658 team members out of 149 teams. Bayesian multilevel analysis generally supported our assumptions: Abusive supervision lowered team trust and subsequently OCB at the individual and team-level, whereas laissez-faire was not related to team trust on the team-level. Additionally, our results indicated that laissez-faire was more harmful to OCB than abusive supervision on both levels. Finally, implications for theory and practical use in organizations are discussed.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop and evaluate a leadership development program with focus on transformational leadership and communication. It is explored whether these aspects of leadership can be trained in the course of a two-day intervention. Furthermore, it is tested if pre-training differences among leaders have an influence on the effectiveness of participating in the leadership intervention. Design/methodology/approach In the study, 38 leaders took part in the two-day training session. The control group consisted of 59 leaders. Information was collected from participating leaders’ followers (n=356) on pre- and post-training measures of transformational leadership as well as on communication skills (attentive and impression-leaving style). Findings Results show that transformational leadership behaviors improved more after training in the experimental group (EG) than they did in the control group. Also, ratings of the attentive communication style improved more in the EG compared to the control group. Furthermore, participants of the leadership development program benefitted to different degrees from their training. Participants who initially had a medium score showed the best improvement. Originality/value The present study advances the scope of leadership development by also considering the trainability of communication skills. Also, insights on the contingency of training effects are provided.

Purpose Work ability as a predictor of early retirement or lengthy/frequent sick leaves becomes more and more relevant due to the demographic change. Therefore, factors, which affect employees’ work ability, need to be further examined with a theoretical base. According to Karasek’s job demands–control (JDC) model, high job demands and low control are related to poor employee health. The subsequent job demands–control support (JDCS) model proposed that a lack of support, also from leaders, has a negative impact on health indicators. This article looked at whether destructive leadership reinforces the negative influence of high job demands on employees’ work ability. Methods We used the BAuA Working Time Survey waves 2015, 2017, and 2019 (BAuA-WTS), which are representative of employees in Germany. Our data set covers 2448 respondents, who took part in all three waves. Central to the analyses were the variables job demands, control, destructive leadership, and work ability. Results Results from pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) and fixed effect (FE) models revealed that job demands influenced work ability negatively, whereas neither control by the employee nor the interaction of job demands and control was significant regarding effecting work ability in the FE models. Destructive leadership exerted a negative effect on work ability and moderated job demands significantly in the FE models meaning a further decrease in work ability. Conclusion Leadership behavior should be further examined as an important factor for work ability.

No abstract

No abstract