Comparing models of follower outcomes: destructive and constructive leader behavior

Abstract

PurposeTo provide evidence-based recommendations on the types of leader behaviors organizations should target for a better return on leader training investment the authors draw on the destructive and constructive leadership behavior model and the bad is stronger than good proposition to examine the following question: Compared to constructive leader behavior, does destructive leader behavior have a greater effect on follower outcomes or is something more nuanced occurring?Design/methodology/approachThe authors used Qualtrics online panels to collect data (N = 211 and N = 342) from full-time office-based participants. They used multivariate latent regression and dominance weights analyses to examine the relative strength of destructive versus constructive leader behaviors on followers' satisfaction with leader, and task performance.FindingsAcross both samples, leader hypocrisy and leader social undermining had relatively stronger effects on follower satisfaction with leader. Leader knowledge hiding had a relatively strong effect on follower task performance. Leader ethical conduct had the strongest association with follower satisfaction with leader in both samples. Hence, the authors' results were aligned with the bad is stronger than good proposition.Originality/valueThe authors' show that white-collar organizations can benefit from improved follower attitudes and performance by reducing leader hypocrisy and social undermining (destructive behavior) while simultaneously promoting leader ethical conduct (constructive behavior).

The Investments in Human Capital within the Human Capital Management and the Impact on the Enterprise’s Performance

“…In addition, the traditional method of return on investment (ROI) has been adjusted in different ways by several authors [59][60][61][62][63]. Another metric designed is the training investment value (TIV) [22,64], or the return on talent [65][66][67][68][69][70].…”

When leadership goes awry: the nexus between tyrannical leadership and knowledge hiding

“…Organisations prioritising psychological safety often experience higher employee engagement, job satisfaction and productivity (Frazier et al , 2017). In particular, employees who feel a high level of psychological safety may be more likely to voice their opinions, share their ideas and take risks without fear of adverse outcomes when confronted with tyrannical leadership (Mharapara et al , 2022).…”

Under the mask: The double-edged sword effect of leader self-sacrifice on employee work outcomes

“…To deal with these negative emotions, employees may retaliate ( Bharanitharan et al, 2021 ; Zhao et al, 2022 ); however, they do not want this retaliation to cause serious harm to their careers ( Bruk-Lee and Spector, 2006 ), so they may actively reduce their extra-role behavior, that is, organizational citizenship behavior. Second, when employees perceive that a leader’s true intentions are inconsistent with the values they hold, they perceive their leader as a “hypocrite,” which can make them uncomfortable ( Simons, 2002 ; Greenbaum et al, 2015 ; Zhao et al, 2022 ) and reduce their liking of the leader ( Mharapara et al, 2022 ). They will then reduce their organizational citizenship behavior because work output that exceeds the prescribed range may become a tool for leaders to seek personal gain for themselves, a scenario that employees do not want ( Williams and Anderson, 1991 ).…”

“…They will then reduce their organizational citizenship behavior because work output that exceeds the prescribed range may become a tool for leaders to seek personal gain for themselves, a scenario that employees do not want ( Williams and Anderson, 1991 ). Finally, leadership hypocrisy undermines employees’ quest for stability ( Mharapara et al, 2022 ). Since a leader’s true intentions are elusive and may change at any time, it becomes difficult for a good relationship to be established between employees and leaders.…”