Bad to the Bone

Abstract

Although destructive leader behavior is an increasingly popular area of study, little is known about its content or dimensionality at a broad level. In this study, an inventory of destructive behaviors was developed through inductive and deductive methods. Across multiple studies, three behavioral dimensions emerged and were used to create a measure of the construct. Results provide support for the instrument's construct and criterion validity and its predictive validity over abusive supervision. The study highlights the progress and limitations of prior research, suggests directions for future studies, and provides a practically useful measure of destructive leader behavior in organizations.

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

“…One of the most recent constructs describes a more prevalent form: exploitative leadership (Schmid et al, 2017) refers to genuinely self-interested leader behaviors, such as using followers for personal gain and taking credit for followers' work. Other researchers have pointed to destructive leader behaviors such as accepting bribes, stealing, or making personal use of company property (Einarsen et al, 2007; Thoroughgood et al, 2012). …”

“…At the same time, efforts have been made to integrate and organize these different approaches (Einarsen et al, 2007; Thoroughgood et al, 2012; Krasikova et al, 2013; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In the present work, we follow the seminal taxonomy provided by Einarsen et al (2007), who describe destructive leadership behavior along two dimensions: destructive leader behaviors targeting the followers versus destructive behaviors that target the organization.…”

“…In the present work, we follow the seminal taxonomy provided by Einarsen et al (2007), who describe destructive leadership behavior along two dimensions: destructive leader behaviors targeting the followers versus destructive behaviors that target the organization. This distinction is well established and commonly used when it comes to organizing empirical evidence on destructive leadership (Aasland et al, 2010; Thoroughgood et al, 2012; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In addition, we follow the work of Schyns and Schilling (2013), who concluded that the core of destructive leadership lies in the hostile or hindering nature of the leader's behavior.…”

“…Thoroughgood et al (2012) described organization-directed destructive leadership around behaviors that violate the established rules and social norms of conduct in an organization. There is a broad variety of behaviors that fall under this category—for instance, theft (e.g., stealing small materials such as pens, but also money or time), talking negatively about the organization, using company properties for personal gain, as well as fraud or corruption, and even substance abuse at work (Thoroughgood et al, 2012).…”

“…We argue that the target of the leader behavior and the level of hostility are key factors in understanding the potentially unique effects of different types of destructive leader behavior on followers. Specifically, we focus in our study on three constructs of destructive leadership: (1) abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), as a behavior high on hostility focusing on the follower; (2) exploitative leadership (Schmid et al, 2017), as a behavior low on hostility focusing on the follower; and (3) organization-directed destructive leadership (Thoroughgood et al, 2012), as a behavior low on hostility focusing on the organization.…”