Abstract

Leadership represents much more than the behaviours of those in position of influence. It is a
dynamic cocreational process, between leaders, followers and the environment. Analyses of DL
focus too heavily on behaviours and characteristics of bad leaders. Important to adopt more
integrative approaches, contemporary leadership discourse, recognize flawed or toxic leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments as interdependent elements of destructive
leadership process. Broader definition of DL. Gaps in understanding of leaders, followers, and
environments. Strategies for examining DL in a broader more holistic fashion.

Body

Destructive leadership, overarching expression for bad leader behaviours; associated with negative
consequences for followers and/or the organization.

Rarely the product of a single factor or person. Def… too narrowly defined. Vary in their
constructiveness or destructiveness. The role of followers, environments, and time in leadership
processes, current def of DL overlooked.

Systems, institutional, and organizational ecology theories. DL cocreated process between leaders,
followers, and environments over time that better capture organizational realities.

Areas of conceptual inconsistency and gaps in our understanding of leaders, followers, and
contexts as they relate to DL process. Role of intentions, negative influence versus
counterproductivity, and active vs passive behaviours. Environmental element at multiple levels,
including institutional (internal /external checks and balances), macroenvironmental (social,
economic, technological conditions), and cultural (societal attitudes and beliefs) influences.

Leader-Centrism and bad leadership

General belief that leadership reflects a group process that involves social influence to achieve group
goals. The literature tells us more about how leaders are regarded than about whether group
perform well and reach their goals. Neglects the reality that leaders who are generally well-liked.
Neglects the reality that leaders who are generally liked may be associated with poor performing
teams and organizational decline (“bad” leadership outcome), while leaders who are generally
disliked may be associated with high-performing teams, and organizational success (“good”
leadership outcomes).

The critical role of followers, the environments in which the leader and followers interact, and
time are frequently overlooked. Viewed as passive recipients of leader influence and instruments
for attainment of a leader’s goals, while the environment tends to be treated as a moderator of the
effects of leaders on followers. Most studies ignore the role of time.

Leader-centric, focusing on traits and behaviours believed to produce “destructive” consequences

for followers and organizations. They alone do not capture the whole story of destructive leadership
process nor do they ensure that destructive leadership outcomes will occur.

Explaining Leader-Centrism

There is fascination with leadership outcomes, particularly destructive ones. Narcissistic

Psychopaths. A human tendency to extoll leaders when an organization succeed and blame them
when it fails. Individualistic societies tend to make more leader-based attributions, even when
followers and situations are clearly involved in the results. Individualists likely to attend to person-
centred behaviours characteristics when explaining behaviour and outcomes. Reflection of
psychologists’ traditional emphasis on traits and behaviours as opposed to higher macro-level
processes more inherent to fields like sociology etc. It is much easier to utilize traditional surveys
that measure perceptions of leaders.

Two General Problems with Leader-Centric Definitions of Destructive Leaderships.

Assume that certain leader behaviours are sufficient for DL outcomes to occur. Overlooks the
possibility that adequate check and balances may remove a leader before he/ she can harm the
group or organization. Followers may oppose dysfunctional leaders. Might even lead to gains for
some organizations and their members. Difficult to link “bad” leader behaviours clearly with
destructive leadership outcomes across all contexts.

Second, leader-centric conceptualizations do not incorporate the roles of followers and

environmental conditions in DL process. Leader-centric definitions do not address the roles of
followers and environments in explaining why DL process happens or why they persist long enough
to produce destructive outcomes for organizations and their constituents.
Systems, Institutions, and Organizational Ecology Theories

System theories maintain that outcomes at the collective level are a product of the interactions of
individuals comprising the system. Emphasize the interdependence of personnel in organizations;
impact of external environments on organizational structures and functions.

Leaders and followers are constrained and influenced by one another and by internal (e.g.,
organizational rules, policies, etc.) and external (e.g., government laws, regulations, etc.)
environmental conditions.

Seldom a sole reflection of individual leaders and their behaviours. Interlocking nature of systems
and interactions between leaders and followers at multiple levels.

Institutional theories consider the processes through which organizational structures, such as
norms, rules, routines, and schemas, become established guidelines for social behaviour; a social
order develops in organizations based on members’ acceptance of a shared social reality; leads to
repeated patterns of behaviour

Institutionalization reflects the process through which behaviours become repeated over time and
ascribed similar meaning by individuals; suggest patterns of dysfunctional, or toxic, leader
behaviour and their outcomes cannot be analysed in a vacuum by focusing only on leaders;
behaviours must be analysed via a process-based lens, one that considers the social environment

Organizational ecology; how social, economic, historical, and political conditions impact the birth,
survival, and decline of organizations and their structure over time; selection processes;
Organizations unable to adapt are replaced, or ‘‘selected out,’’ by those better suited to meet such
demands.

Unintended changes that organizational members create via their efforts to adjust to other
members and to alter the organization’s relationship to the environment; selected out; survival and
failure depend on the interaction between an organization’s internal ‘‘form’’ and environmental
conditions

Ecological perspective; environment is ultimately what determines the outcomes of leadership

processes. remind us that while leaders do impact their organizations’ futures, environments play a
powerful role in constraining leader–follower activities and thus leadership outcomes.
Environments can also overwhelm ‘‘good’’ leaders and followers to the point at which ‘‘destruction’’
ensues.
Importance of adopting a broader, contextualized understanding of leadership processes and their
outcomes—one that includes the vital role of leaders, but also the environments in which they
operate over time.

Towards a more holistic definition of destructive leadership

A complex process of influence between flawed, toxic, or ineffective leaders, susceptible followers,
and conducive environments, which unfolds over time and, on balance, culminates in destructive
group or organizational outcomes that compromise the quality of life for internal and external
constituents and detract from their group-focused goals or purposes.

three essential features of destructive leadership: group processes, group outcomes, and a dynamic
timeframe

view destructive leadership as a social, or group, process that involves interactions between flawed,
toxic, or ineffective leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Depart from
definitions, leader behaviours. Because leadership is a group process, it involves group outcomes

“destructive” the extent to which they, by and large, harm the welfare of the group they are meant
to serve, not whether certain leader behaviours are viewed negatively by some followers.

Definition implies dynamic time frame; Leadership processes change trajectories over time;
seldom entirely ‘‘constructive’’ or ‘‘destructive’’; they involve outcomes that fall along a
constructive-destructive continuum.

Feature 1: A Social or Group Process

Understanding leadership phenomena requires an examination that considers the relevant actors,
context (immediate, direct, indirect), time, history, and how all of these interact with each other to
create what is eventually labelled leadership’’; represent dynamic social processes; concept of
‘‘destructive leadership’, similar understanding.

Contingency theories: characteristics of followers and the environment impact a leader’s influence
on followers; focused largely on leaders’ effects on followers, rather than on the interactions
between leaders, followers, and environments that comprise leadership processes and that shape
their outcomes.

Social identity theory: leadership as a group process, whereby a leader’s endorsement and
influence depend on whether he or she is seen as prototypical of the group’s identity.
Complexity theories: networks of interdependent agents embedded in context; ‘‘Leadership is too
complex to be described as only the act of an individual or individuals…it is a complex interplay of
many interacting forces’’; failing to integrate micro- and macro-levels of analysis leads to an
incomplete understanding of leadership phenomena, leading to faulty measures, improper analytic
techniques, and invalid conclusions.

Volitional behaviour by a leader that can harm or intends to harm a leader’s organization and/or
followers by (a) encouraging followers to pursue goals that contravene the legitimate interests of the
organization and/or (b) employing a leadership style that involves the use of harmful methods of
influence with followers, regardless of justifications for such behaviour.

Such behaviours of leaders are, by their nature, sufficient to produce destructive leadership; makes
it hard to determine (a) who is being ‘‘led’’ and (b) what is being ‘‘destroyed.’’ Further, what if (a)
checks and balances, internal or external to the organization.

Expected or even necessary for organizational performance and survival; definition assumes that
certain leader behaviours will inevitably result in ‘‘destructive’’ effects for all organizations and their
constituents.

destructive leadership is not simply a ‘‘bad’’ behaviour or set of behaviours of a leader, but rather
involves complex interactions among flawed, toxic, or ineffective leaders and susceptible followers,
which unfold over time within multiple layers of context.

it alludes to a broader set of processes that occur between ‘‘bad’’ leaders, susceptible followers,
and conducive environmental conditions that, together, may eventually be labelled ‘‘destructive
leadership’’.

such episodes (Hitler – Germany, Pol Pot – Cambodia) all involved followers who turned a blind eye,
obeyed, or actively colluded with ‘‘bad’’ leaders, as well as environments that allowed such
leaders to assume power and pursue their goals.

highlights the process by which a flawed leader, working in unison with susceptible followers and an
environment marked by defective institutions, can have devastating outcomes for even whole
societies.

Feature 2: Destructive Group or Organizational Outcomes

few studies consider group or organizational outcomes; only 18 % of studies in the leadership
literature utilized group or organizational outcomes as criteria; underscored the critical distinction
between how leaders and their behaviours are perceived and how their teams and organizations
actually perform.

it is not how individual leaders are regarded by certain subordinates that matters when evaluating
leadership, but rather how their groups and organizations actually perform over time.

[Because] leadership is a collective phenomenon, it follows that leadership should be evaluated in

terms of the performance of the group over time’’; functional tools for group performance; do not
diminish the importance of examining certain individuals’ subjective evaluations of ‘‘bad’’ leader
behaviour.

destructive leadership has more to do with whether certain leaders, in conjunction with certain
followers and environments, actually harm a group’s long-term performance and, in turn, the
collective wellbeing of its constituents.

Concepts involving perceptions of ‘‘bad’’ leader behaviour, such as ‘‘abusive supervision’’ or ‘‘petty
tyranny,’’ may very well be a part of destructive leadership processes and deserve research; by
defining and assessing destructive leadership in terms of these behaviours, it is assumed that they
are, by nature, universally harmful to all followers. Seldom as clear-cut, vary across different
individuals.

expressions of anger are a part of measures; subordinates low on agreeableness may actually react
positively to a leader’s displays of anger; some people underreport supervisor hostility, while others,
such as those with negative affect or a hostile attribution bias, may overstate their exposure; one
person’s definition of ‘‘abusive’’ behaviour may differ from another person’s; some people are
more likely to idolize charismatic leaders despite mistreatment given such leaders are able to satisfy
their needs for security, meaning, and group membership

actions that are more generally regarded as ‘‘abusive’’ in low power distance societies may be less
impactful and viewed as less unfair in high power distance societies where autocratic influence is
more culturally normative; may even be preferable to democratic leaders in societies high on power
distance, collectivism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance, including many nations in Eastern and
Southern Europe, Asia etc; even necessary for group performance

the tendency for certain words, such as ‘‘autocratic’’ and ‘‘directive,’’ to take on a pejorative
connotation irrespective of their denotation. The governance style of many East Asian countries…is
clearly inimical and antithetical to American ideals. Trade-offs between economic prosperity and
personal freedoms.

may also depend on organizational norms and conditions; might be defined very differently; may
mean the difference between group success or failure in the face of environmental turbulence and
stress.

People often look to autocratic leaders to make difficult decisions and restore order; autocratic
leaders are sometimes needed for corporate turnaround efforts that require bold, time-sensitive
decisions; Machiavelli argued long ago, leaders often must sacrifice kindness for practical
effectiveness.

(a) not all subordinates within the same context or across different contexts will necessarily report or
respond in the same ways to these behaviours; and that (b) ‘‘bad’’ leader behaviours, whether
objectively real or subjectively perceived, do not ensure ‘‘bad’’ leadership outcomes for the group.

Destructive leadership is a matter of group results, not whether certain leader behaviours are
viewed unfavourably by some followers; leadership is a collective process, group results should be
carefully considered.

Feature 3: Dynamic Time Frame

Most leadership studies assume that observed relationships are not time-contingent; suggest
certain behaviours of leaders impact more proximal subordinate criteria (e.g., job motivation), is
atemporal and overlooks that these leader inputs and their effects may change over time.

issue of time is exacerbated by the fact that leadership processes, consistent with systems and
institutional theories, do not involve one-way influence but rather interactions between leaders
and followers over time. These time-varying interactions, in turn, shape the long-term outcomes of
leadership processes for groups and organizations. As such, given leadership processes change
trajectories depending on the evolving interactions between leaders, followers, and the
environment, their aggregate outcomes may not be apparent for some time.

leaders produce both ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ effects in the short term; even highly constructive
leadership episodes often involve misfortune for some followers and costly short-term setbacks for
the group, while largely destructive leadership episodes may produce benefits for some followers
and short-term gains for the group.
If destructive leadership is defined in terms of outcomes that are, in their totality, destructive to the
group, this leaves room for ‘‘good’’ leaders to create ‘‘bad’’ outcomes and ‘‘bad’’ leaders to create
‘‘good’’ outcomes in the short term.

Temporariness of Destructive Leadership Outcomes

definition does not suggest that a group, organization, or even society be entirely ‘‘destroyed’’ for a
leadership episode to be labelled ‘‘destructive.’’ Most groups and organizations experience multiple
leadership episodes across their lifespans that tend to vary in their constructiveness or
destructiveness.

leadership episodes have a start, a life, and an end; often their outcomes are more unclear and
ambiguous.

inevitably some individuals will fare poorly from largely constructive leadership episodes, while some
will fare well from generally destructive episodes.

leadership episodes have starts and ends (none last forever) and that determining whether specific
episodes are destructive requires waiting to evaluate the totality of group outcomes associated with
them once they have exhausted their course

Leaders and Destructive Leadership

personalized leaders, who focus on enhancing their power regardless of the costs to others and the
organization, were associated with greater harm to social systems.

not surprising that leader characteristics (e.g., narcissism, personalized power motives, charisma)
and behaviours (e.g., coercion, theft) have received the overwhelming attention from writers

conceptual confusion regarding leaders and destructive leadership, including (a) intentions, (b)
negative influence versus counterproductivity, and (c) active versus passive behaviours

‘‘all-inclusive’’ view of destructive leadership

Intentionality and Volatility Behaviours

intent is difficult, if not impossible, to assess; intent matters little; destructive leadership involves
leaders consciously or unconsciously choosing potentially harmful goals or methods of influence.
they cannot help it; believe their actions will help preserve their control or perhaps make their groups
safer or more prosperous.

leader intentions are relevant just as leader behaviours are, but inevitably the group’s welfare is
harmed, or it is not.

under conditions of environmental uncertainty, there are severe constraints on leaders’ ability to
reliably devise and enact changes that increase the chances of organizational success and survival
in the face of competition. In this view, even well-intentioned leaders can be associated with
organizational ‘‘destruction’’ in uncertain environments. Furthermore, effective checks and balances
and competent, autonomous followers may nullify the effects of intentionally or unintentionally
‘‘bad’’ leader behaviours on the group’s performance.

it is difficult to distinguish clearly between a mistake or act of incompetence and a deliberate act
of malice.

Evaluating whether a leader’s goals and actions are purposely harmful also creates the potential for
social desirability in self-report measures and invalid inferences about the inner states of leaders in
observational data

Negative Influence versus Counterproductivity

Negative influence (e.g., coercion) and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB); encouraging
followers to more destructive goals; assumes destructive leadership has occurred because the
leader enacts certain behaviours. ‘‘Without followers, there are plainly no leaders or leadership’

When leaders are free to engage in CWB, they act as role models for deviant behaviour and
implicitly convey its acceptability; can permeate an organization and place it on a path to
destruction.

Active Versus Passive Behaviours

an inclusive definition of destructive leadership should include passive behaviours, such as delaying
decisions, showing a lack of action or initiative, or neglecting one’s duties as a leader. passivity,
under the right circumstances, may contribute to destructive outcomes.

leaders who stress exploitation of current products while overlooking the need to explore new
markets and technologies are often associated with firms that experience stagnated innovation and
sizeable business losses over time

destructive leadership may entail active and passive forms of ‘‘bad’’ leader behaviour
Followers and Destructive Leadership

(a) followers’ susceptibilities, (b) their cocreational roles and influences in destructive leadership
episodes, and (c) their development over time.

Follower Susceptibilities

Milgram’s (1963) studies of obedience; Stanford Prison Experiment

Such knowledge is vital given people differ in their reactions to flawed leaders no matter how
powerful the situation; failing to account for follower susceptibilities limits our understanding of
genocide and other real-world cases of destructive leadership.

distinction between conformers and colluders; prone to obedience, the latter actively engage in a
leader’s toxic or misguided mission.

three types of conformers (lost souls, authoritarians, and bystanders) and two types of colluders
(opportunists and acolytes).

there are different followers associated with destructive leadership episodes who become a part of
these processes for different reasons.

low self-concept clarity, negative self-views, and strong needs for security, affiliation, and meaning
(lost souls) may be vulnerable to personal identification with and exploitation by charismatic leader

those marked by authoritarianism and cognitive rigidity (authoritarians) may comply with flawed
leaders due to hierarchical values that prescribe a duty to obey authorities unconditionally
(Altemeyer 1981) and a preference for leaders who exemplify order and discipline

Susceptible Follower Roles and Cocreational Influences

Most frame followers as passive victims, rather than key contributors to dysfunctional leader–
follower relationships, conducive environments, and destructive outcomes.

irritating aspects of followers; prompt leaders’ hostility; use of coercion to induce follower
compliance

does not capture the complexities surrounding their unique roles in and contributions to
destructive leadership episodes. role-based approach focuses on how individuals construe and
enact their follower roles and the effects of their role behaviour.
leadership processes require leading behaviours, but also following behaviours— otherwise
leadership cannot take place

conformers, lost souls; may over empower self-serving leaders by fuelling their needs for power,
causing their leaders to forgo any ethical restraints on their use of power

colluders, opportunists; transactional terms; promote hubris in their leaders.

destructive leadership processes require combined acts of dysfunctional leading and following,
which are left unchecked in the environment.

Conformers; fail to fulfill their vital role as checks on their leaders’ power.

the unique follower roles and following behaviors of susceptible individuals, as well as their
interactions with flawed leaders, occupy a more central role in destructive leadership episodes
than they have been granted to date.

operate within the constraints they impose on one another and jointly shape the relationships
that influence leadership outcomes

Susceptible Follower Change and Development

Followers, like leaders, undergo cognitive changes as a result of the environments they inhabit;
noted how groups and societies marked by genocide travel along a ‘‘psychological continuum of
destruction.’’

group members change as they learn by doing and adopt attitudes that justify their behaviours.
Some followers may develop a fanaticism

bystanders; begin to devalue and distance themselves from victims, even becoming active
contributors to the group in some cases

unethical behaviour becomes entrenched, justified, and, in turn, results in the socialization of
newcomers into unethical conduct.

important to consider the dynamic nature of susceptible followers, recognizing that their
motivations for following may change over time.

Environment and Destructive Leadership

institutional, macro-environmental, and cultural

Institutional Elements

influence, and prescribe certain practices and behaviours, including legal, political, government, and
collective bodies and institutions; When institutional structures and processes are weak or absent,
destructive leadership outcomes are more likely to occur.

Lack of Checks and Balances

A lack of scrutiny is associated with weak institutional systems, including a lack of checks and
balances on power.

Internal checks; organizations that establish controls on their operations are able to more effectively
regulate unethical or misguided leader– follower interactions.

fraud is greater in companies with weak governing boards than in those with stronger, more
independent ones.

fewer outside board members and weaker oversight controls demonstrate greater fraud; result in
strategic mistakes on the part of leaders; critical to curbing dysfunctional leader–follower relations

external checks; media, the expert field, and government agencies.

watchdog of leaders and followers through news coverage; Experts provide checks and balances by
adding credibility to media reports, offering facts, and increasing objectivity. However, a lack of
unbiased experts encourages unhealthy environments where toxic leader–follower relations remain
unexamined; government agencies

The problem is exacerbated by the lack of well-funded and competent regulatory agencies and rapid
technological innovation

Macro-environmental elements

Instability

Leaders can increase their power during times of crisis and instability when needs for clarity and
order demand a leader with the perceived ability to resolve the crisis; granted greater authority
given instability requires swift action and often unilateral decisions; increase acceptance and support
for autocratic leaders; can stem from internal (e.g., massive layoffs) or external stressors (e.g.,
market volatility); feelings of mistreatment; desperate economic conditions

Complexity and Dynamism

Companies residing in industries characterized by rapid technological advancements and changing
markets are harder to police given regulators must constantly adapt to and monitor complex
networks of transactions and differentiated roles and tasks

Cultural and Societal Elements

Leader–follower relations can be greatly shaped by the culture in which they reside. Culture may
produce additive effects that increase the conduciveness of environments to destructive leadership
outcomes.

collectivistic societies, leaders hold greater potential influence given collectivists tend to prefer
strong leaders who bring people together and create group cohesion

uncertainty avoidance leads to greater reliance on leaders for clarity and security

reduce scrutiny and undermine the independence and empowerment of potential dissenters.

Strategic Approaches to Studying DL Process

encourage more inductive investigations utilizing qualitative analysis; expose the rich inner workings
of complex social organizational processes

growing interest in historiometric analysis, a unique procedure permitting access to data not
attainable using traditional surveys; relies on the coding of qualitative data obtained from verifiable
historical sources into quantitative indices, which are then analyzed using traditional statistical
analysis.

well-planned longitudinal analyses could be employed to shed light on the ways in which leaders,
followers, and environments interact over time to shape destructive outcomes.