Running Head: Destructive Leader Behavior in the Norwegian Armed Forces

Abstract

Recent research indicates that destructive leadership might have a detrimental effect on a wide range of outcomes across the organization. However, few studies have focused on the military context. The present study examined the extent to which destructive leader behavior was related to individual work-related attitudes and feelings among military personnel in the Norwegian Armed forces (N=170). Dependent variables were (1) Burnout, (2) Work Engagement, and (3) Organizational Commitment. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that destructive leader behavior significantly predicted Burnout and Work Engagement. This is the first study that examines, and in parallel confirms the unique influence of destructive leadership on important work environment variables among members of the Norwegian armed forces. Despite the fact that the respondents in this sample most likely have above average psychological robustness, they still appear to be significantly influenced by destructive leader behavior. At the same time, our findings also indicate that respondents are able to maintain their organizational commitment despite destructive leader behavior. This study thus represents a unique step towards establishing knowledge about the interplay between destructive leader behavior and psychosocial related phenomena, forming a potential basis for theoretical and practical developments.

Curtailing the Impact of Abusive Supervision on Counter-productive Work Behaviors: Using Conservation of Resource Lens to Analyze the Moderating Role of Work Engagement

“…The leaders/supervisors do so by consistently humiliating their subordinates, invading their privacy, reminding them of their past mistakes or failures, giving them silent treatment, breaking promises made to them, and putting them down in public (Tepper, 2000). Nevertheless, in certain scenarios the destructive behaviors might be indispensable, particularly when there prevails an environment of low performing followers (Rohansen & Platek, 2017).…”

“…Destructive behaviors of leaders have the potential to cause severe damage to the organization and its constituents (employees), by endangering the wellbeing of its internal stakeholders (Rohansen & Platek, 2017). Abusive supervision (AS) has been found to be the most prominent form of destructive leadership and nearly 273 articles have been published by the leading journals on AS in the last five years (Bhattacharjee & Sarkar, 2022).…”

Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The primary instrument found to measure passive forms of destructive leadership was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (87% of the studies, see Table 1), though different versions of it were applied. Three of the studies used the instrument, Destrudo L, which is specifically designed to measure destructive leadership behaviour in the military context and includes both active and passive forms of destructive leadership (Fors Brandebo et al, 2016;Johansen & Platek, 2017;Larsson, Fors Brandebo, & Nilsson, 2012).…”

“…Bass and Yammarino (1991) found that subordinate ratings of laissez-faire leadership were negatively related to superior-rated performance and superiorrated early promotion. Nine studies (33%) examined factors related to subordinate well-being and health (Britt, Wright, & Moore, 2012;Chi & Liang, 2013;Cole & Bedeian, 2007;Fors Brandebo et al, 2016;Johansen & Platek, 2017;Luria, 2008;McGurk et al, 2014;Nahum-Shani, Henderson, Lim, & Vinokur, 2014;Sadler, Mengeling, Booth, O´Shea, & Tomer, 2017). The studies indicated that subordinate reports of laissez-faire leadership behaviour were related to emotional exhaustion (Fors Brandebo et al, 2016 ;Cole & Bedeian, 2007) and PTSD caseness (McGurk et al, 2014) as well as reduced subordinate general health (Nahum-Shani et al, 2014).…”

“…The studies indicated that subordinate reports of laissez-faire leadership behaviour were related to emotional exhaustion (Fors Brandebo et al, 2016 ;Cole & Bedeian, 2007) and PTSD caseness (McGurk et al, 2014) as well as reduced subordinate general health (Nahum-Shani et al, 2014). A total of 16 studies (59%) examined attitudinal and behavioural outcomes among subordinates (Bass et al, 2003;Chi & Liang, 2013;Chou et al, 2015;Cole & Bedeian, 2007;Duffy et al, 2006;Fors Brandebo et al, 2016;Gallus et al, 2013;Hannah et al, 2013;Johansen & Platek, 2017;Larsson et al, 2012;Reed & Bullis, 2009;Roush & Atwater, 1992;Schiena et al, 2013;Yammarino & Bass, 1990;Yammarino et al, 1993;Zellars et al, 2002). As an example, in a study of 2572 military employees, Hannah et al (2013) found that abusive supervision was negatively related to the moral courage of followers and their identification with the core values of the organisation.…”