The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership

Abstract

Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention. Plain Language Summary Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact with arousal and their behavior.

Pakistani public sector employees burning with a low blue flame: a case of expanded attribution-emotion model of workplace aggression about perceived organizational obstruction and job neglect

“…Moreover, the perception of such negative actions by an organization promotes stressful conditions that trigger negative emotional reactions (Douglas et al, 2008). Such mistreated employees generally experience feelings of injustice, anger and frustration that can result in hostile behaviors to harm the harm-doer (Emmerling et al, 2023;Peng et al, 2019) by engaging in employee deviance (Ambrose et al, 2002;Hershcovis et al, 2007;McLarty et al, 2021;Sischka et al, 2021;Wiegand, 2023). Therefore, the current study, with the theoretical lens of attribution-emotion model of workplace aggression (Harvey et al, 2010), supports the causal attribution of POO triggering frustration that sparks other-directed non-hostile behavior in the form of job neglect.…”

“…Therefore, the employees have to wait for a longer duration for their due rights, which is a major trigger for frustrating them (Nasir and Bashir, 2012). In this regard, it is noteworthy that individuals experience a greater level of frustration because of external factors, especially when they are inhibiting and obstructing their goals (Emmerling et al, 2023). It is pertinent to consider that such frustration generally results in negative behavioral reactions (Harold et al, 2016) characterized by covert hostility and anger-type responses (Gonz alez-G omez and Hudson, 2023).…”

Is it fair? How and when exploitative leadership impacts employees' knowledge sharing

“…Although it is not hostile or aggressive in nature (Schmid et al ., 2019), exploiting others to gain leaders' self-interest will still have negative impacts on employees. Meanwhile, abusive supervision is often impulsive and negative, while exploitative leadership manifests itself in more deliberate and destructive behavior (Schmid et al ., 2019; Emmerling et al ., 2023). Therefore, the influence mechanism of exploitative leadership on employees' knowledge-related behaviors may be different from that of abusive supervision.…”

“…Unlike abusive supervision, which is hostile to followers (Tepper, 2000(Tepper, , 2007, exploitative leaders may express their demands in an open and friendly manner (Schmid et al, 2019). While abusive supervision underestimates the self-interest characteristics of leaders, exploitative leaders attach greater importance to their own interests and are more deliberate and destructive (Schmid et al, 2019;Emmerling et al, 2023). Thus, the impact mechanism of exploitative leadership on employee behavior would be different from that of abusive supervision.…”

“…In fact, destructive leadership has many forms of expression and is constantly redefined. Abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000(Tepper, , 2007 and exploitative leadership (Schmid et al, 2019) are the two structures in the study of destructive leadership so far (Schmid et al, 2019;Emmerling et al, 2023). Considering leaders' important roles in employees' behaviors, the relationship between exploitative leadership/abusive supervision and knowledge-related behaviors is becoming the focus of leadership research.…”