Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model

A Descriptive Literature Review of Harmful Leadership Styles: Definitions, Commonalities, Measurements, Negative Impacts, and Ways to Improve These Harmful leadership Styles

“…Glaser and Strauss (1967), Ashforth (1994), Miles and Huberman (1994), Hornstein (1996, Tepper (2000), Patton (2002), Lipman-Blumen (2005), Einarsen, et al (2007)--all as cited in Pelletier (2010 Pelletier's (2010) quantitative research endeavored to determine which behaviors are worse than others (p. 85). For Pelletier's findings, see Figure 7.…”

“…Thus, in addition to promoting a culture of fairness, organizations should train supervisors in interpersonal relationship skills and be made aware that their treatment of subordinates shapes their subordinates' perceptions of interactional justice and subsequent reactions. (p. 200) Einarsen and Skogstad (2007) offered that future research should attempt to empirically distinguish among the destructive leadership behaviors identified in our framework (e.g., their etiology, antecedents, and consequences).…”

“…Gallus, Walsh, Driel, Gouge, and Antolic (2013), this harmful leadership style has deep roots both psychologically and organizationally. Einarsen and Skogstad (2007) The relationships in Figure 1 establish understandable boundaries between what is considered constructive leadership (pro-subordinate and pro-organization behavior) and what is inferred as destructive (anti-subordinate and/or anti-organization behavior. Each harmful leadership style is a blend of negative leader behavior covered later in the section entitled Commonalities.…”

Editorial

“…While the work environment of excessive job demands, poor autonomy and lack of job control has long been shown as central to understanding concepts such as bullying (Baillien et al, 2011;Lewis et al, 2017), other descriptions such as ineffective leadership (Einarsen et al, 2007) and organizational change (Salin and Hoel, 2011) have also been cited as contributory components. It is therefore not surprising that new public management (NPM) should be cited as a potential contributor to why public sector work should be so troubled, possibly because concepts of 'dignity, justice [and] quality of life' are elusive in NPM environments (Diefenbach, 2009, p. 900).…”

From “<i>Cogito Ergo Sum</i>” to “<i>Vivo Ergo Sum</i>”: Current Theoretical Trends and Changing Perspectives in Leadership

“…This trend reflects the tendency towards aesthetic and pathos side of leadership studies. Secondly, destructive leadership covers cases where leaders misbehaved, acted in ways contrary to the well-being of followers and/or the organization, and the setting where there are destructive followership, as well (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007). This category can be said to be also a reply to ethical calls for leadership studies.…”