Studies have used a range of terms to describe

abusive leadership such as narcissist leadership used by Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) and Kets de Vries
( 2004); petty tyranny used by Ashforth (1994, 1997); workplace aggression used by Baron and Neuman, (1998) and
Schat and Kelloway (2000); emotional abuse by Keashly (1998); perceived leader integrity by Craig and Gustafson
(1998); workplace bullying by Hoel and Cooper (2001); supervisor undermining Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and
Pagon, M. (2002); bad leadership by Kellerman (2004); toxic leaders by Lipman-Blumen (2005); abusive
supervision by Tepper, (2007); leader bullying by Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R.L., Buckley, R.M. and
Harvey, M.G. (2007) and destructive leadership by Einarsen, S., Schanke Aasland, M. and Skogstad, A. (2007) and
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007). There is no agreement on one name and one definition. It has made
difficult to take a broad view in the research.

Ashforth (1994, 1997) defines petty tyranny as a manager’s use of power and authority cruelly, erratically, and
unkindly. He finds following six dimensions of a petty tyrant:behaving in an illogical and conceited manner; putting
down subordinate; lacking kindness for other; forcing divergence ruling; discouraging inventiveness and using
non-contingent penalty.

Einarsen et al. (2007) define destructive leadership as repetitive behavior of a leader that infringes the acceptable
interest of the organization. Destructive leadership can embrace behaviors directed toward employees, organizational
goals and efficacy. Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G, (1999) assert that leaders who have ‘dark-side traits’, including
argumentativeness, interpersonal insensitivity, narcissism, impulsivity, perfectionism and fear of failure. Ashforth (1994)
explains that this type of leadership causes low self-esteem, poor performance, no team
functioning, stress, helplessness and work alienation.

Although there are obvious similarities among these concepts, researchers have yet to adopt a common definition or
conceptual framework of destructive leadership. While “abusive supervision” is defined as “subordinates'
perceptions of
the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours,
excluding
physical contact” by Tepper (2000), p.178, Hornstein (1996) describes an abusive leader as “onewhose primary
objective is
the control of others, and such control is achieved through methods that create fear and intimidation” (Hornstein,
1996).
Ashforth (1994) describes a petty tyrant as “someone who uses their power and authority oppressively, capriciously,
and
perhaps vindictively” (p.126). Kile (1990), using the term health endangering leaders, defines these leaders as
someone
“who behaves in such a manner towards subordinates that the subordinates develop poor health, and attribute these
health
problems to the leader's behaviours” (p. 26). Lipman-Blumen (2005) describes “toxic leaders” as “leaders who act
without
integrity by dissembling and engaging in various other dishonourable behaviours” (p. 18), including behaviours such
as
“corruption, hypocrisy, sabotage and manipulation, as well as other assorted unethical, illegal, and criminal acts” (p.
18).

The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest
of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and
effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates.

It depends on the leader’s level in an organizational hier- archy; lower ranking leaders have fewer malevolent op-
tions than senior leaders. Think of leaders as existing in three levels: 1) First line; 2) Middle; 3) Senior. First line
supervisors destroy their teams almost exclusively through their behavior. There is a reasonably well de- fined
taxonomy of bad managerial behavior captured by our dark side measure of personality [13]; these behav- iors
include: bullying, harassing, exploiting, lying, be- traying, manipulating-in short, denying subordinates their basic
humanity. These behaviors alienate the subordi- nates, who in response, engage in a wide range of passive and
aggressive behaviors that undermine the perform-ance of the team. They also retaliate actively with law suits and,
at times, direct violence. Destructive leaders at the second or middle level have at their disposal the full range of
behavioral options just described. In addition, they can destroy their teams by making bad tactical deci-sions which
are, through exercising bad judgment. The scope of the damage created by bad tactical decisions is relatively
limited, for example a mid-level manager routinely overspends the budget. Senior leaders have much greater
discretion to act destructively [14]. They can avail themselves of the full range of behavioral op-tions described
above-bullying, exploitation, harassment, etc. In addition, like mid-managers, they are empowered to make bad
tactical decisions. But it is at the level of strategic decision making that senior managers can be most destructive,
and in ways that vastly exceed the ca-pacity of lower level managers.

The big reason most people behave badly is that they are self-centered; they are preoccupied with their own
agendas, and unable or unwilling to consider how their actions might affect oth-ers [15]. These self-centered focus
behaviors are caused by insecurity and arrogance [16]. People who are inse-cure lack of confidence and are
primarily concerned with their own psychic survival; they live in a nearly constant state of panic, and react
emotionally to real and imagi-nary perceived threats. If a subordinate makes a mistake, it may reflect badly on the
“leader”, who then reacts an-grily and disproportionately to the subordinate’s mistake. When confronted with
data indicating that they have made bad decisions, they explode and blame the mistake on external factors [17].

Based on 57 previously published studies, Schyns and Schilling (2013) conclude that there is a high correlation
between a leader’s destructive behaviour and attitudes towards the leader.

The original stream of research concerning leader behavior patterns, and its later variants such as Path–Goal theory,
examined behaviors that involved supporting others by structuring their work, encouraging participation, and
providing counsel and empathy. The trait approach to leadership (see Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986) has been
integrated with the behavioral stream to some extent, and the focus of trait research has tended to be on traits and
behaviors that are either appealing for subordinates

More recent leadership research has tested what can be roughly categorized as the
new theories of leadership, including charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998),
transformational leadership theories (e.g., Bass, 1985), and most recently authentic leadership (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). These theories are more normative than the trait and behavioral theories, as
they
postulate what leaders should do to engage and motivate subordinates. Here again, the primary focus is on positive
traits and behaviors, such as exhibiting courage, inspiring others, providing intellectual stimulation and
individualized
support, serving as a positive role model, and encouraging self-sacrifice. As reviewed by Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader
(2004), research on “destructive personal attributes that contribute to harmful or negative leadership influences […]
has
begun to provide a counter-perspective to the overwhelming body of research that has pointed to the personality
attributes that facilitate leadership” (p. 113).

The nascent
literature on abusive supervision (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001) is an important first step in developing a more
scientific understanding of destructive leadership. This research has identified consequences of abusive leadership
(Tepper, 2000) and has examined how and under what conditions subordinates are undermined or otherwise abused
by
certain leaders (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002).

Although critical
to understanding follower reactions, attributions and other perceptions about leaders may be significantly influenced
by
the history of the leader–member relationship and biases (attributional or motivational) on the part of subordinates.
Starting in the 1970's with House's
(1971) Path–Goal theory of leadership, researchers examined how particular norms for leader behavior (e.g., high
initiating structure) influenced relationships between subordinates' perceptions of job characteristics and their
personal
outcomes such as psychological strain, job dissatisfaction, and organizational commitment

Leadership consideration had a less

favorable effect on supervision satisfaction, attendance, and the desire to stay employed by the organization among
subordinates with more enriched jobs.

The attitudinal variables of turnover intentions, overall job satisfaction, workload satisfaction, and organizational
commitment have been examined as outcomes in the leadership substitutes literature and, as we noted above, the
characteristic behaviors of persons prone to negative emotionality may be expected to have a deleterious influence
on
subordinate morale.

Further, negatively affected

subordinates may experience lower levels of satisfaction and commitment and, as a result, seek to cope by
considering
employment elsewhere.