INTRODUCTION

Leadership is a strange paradox: the same behaviour can be either functional or dysfunctional depending on intent, motive, context and consequences. It can be seen as constructive by senior management and destructive, or even tyrannical, by subordinates. The same leader can be loved and hated in equal measure (e.g. Margaret Thatcher). The same power and symbols of office can lead to physical illness in some and provide intellectual stimulation in others. The same tactics that result in enhanced performance can also result in employee suicide (e.g. France Telecom, cited in Schumpter, 2009), which in itself is an amazing paradox given the amount of money and depth of legislation aimed at employee welfare in modern organisations. How then are we to understand such a complex phenomenon?

Gabriel (2004) suggests that dividing leaders into good and bad “is naïve” (p143) because effective leaders can suddenly fail and mediocre leaders can suddenly shine. He says that the factors that account for the difference between success and failure are innumerable and not all of them can be anticipated. Kets de Vries (2006) says that positive leader behaviours such as assertiveness, confidence and creativity are underpinned by a moderate measure of self-esteem whereas at the other end of the spectrum dysfunctional leadership behaviour, manifest in self-centeredness, grandiosity, lack of empathy, and exploitation, can have devastating consequences.

This paper examines the literature on dysfunctional leadership.

The literature on the subject of leadership is vast. Everyone has a view on what leadership is, but few agree on its definition. Despite more than half a century of research since Stodgill’s (1974) quip that, “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it” (p7), there is still dissensus around whether it can be taught, or whether its effectiveness can be measured, or predicted, and indeed whether it should be defined as person, or as result, or as position or as process (Northouse, 2010). Nevertheless, Northouse (2010) points out that there is some consensus around the view that leadership is (a) a process, (b) involves influence, (c) occurs in groups, and (d) involves common goals (p3). This suggests that leaders must know how to galvanise and mobilise a group of people and also how to direct them so as to achieve results without the use of threats or violence.

Although most of the literature focuses on what makes leadership effective and often presents leaders as paragons of virtue, there is ample evidence to the show that some of them often resort to the use of threats and violence to achieve their aims, for example, notable despots include Caligula, Joseph Stalin, Edi Amin, and Pol Pot. However, this paper is not about national despotic rulers who enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering on others, and whose ambitions caused misery and oppression and led to the death of millions. The focus of this paper is primarily organisational leadership. There is a small but growing literature that provides evidence of the destructive nature of some organisational leaders who achieve their aims by tyrannising their subordinates, for example “Chainsaw Al” (Al Dunlop, ex CEO of Scott Paper and later Sunbeam), and those who have a tendency to engage in abusive behaviour, such as Robert Maxwell.

Since Tepper’s (2000) systematic examination of abusive supervision there is growing interest in the negative behaviours in organisations and the effect of these on employee’s job and life satisfaction, and organisational commitment. According to Kets de Vries, (2001) it has long been recognised that the “shadow-side” of leadership can negatively affect other people in the organisation and even, in extreme cases, bring down the organisation itself. The literature on workplace stressors support this view and show that unhealthy work environments include, “those that threaten safety, that undermine the creation of social ties, and that are conflictual, abusive or violent”, (Taylor et.al, 1997). In a review of 75% of workers’ compensation claims in the USA, Wilson (1991) found that mental stressors were the main cause of absenteeism and 94% of those claims were the result of abusive treatment by managers. In addition, research on negative behaviour at work found that 5-10% of employees were subjected to bullying at any one time, and Unison (1997) found that 40% of participants had experienced bullying from a leader during their career. Lombardo & McCall (1984) found that of 73 managers interviewed, 74% had experienced an ‘intolerable boss’. More recently, Wu & Hu (2009) found that core self-evaluations were negatively related to abusive supervision, whereas abusive supervision was positively related to emotional exhaustion. Aasland et al., (2010) found that dysfunctional forms of leadership come in many different shapes. According to their research it is highly prevalent and constitutes a serious problem in contemporary working life (p449).

Burke (2006) suggests that rather than focus on what makes a leader effective, a more accurate definition of leadership might emerge by exploring the “dark-side”. He suggests that understanding destructive leadership could contribute to a better understanding of leadership’s effectiveness and development.

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on destructive leadership. Taking a cue from Burke (2006) it is hoped a review of the ‘dark-side’ behaviours will enhance understanding of the phenomenon of effective leadership.

WHAT IS DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP?

Tepper (2002) proposed that a variety of behaviours fall under the concept of destructive leadership, such as petty tyrants, bullies, derailed leaders, intolerable bosses, psychopaths and harassing leaders. His research shows that the concept is not limited to the mere absence of leadership, as suggested by the focus on effective leadership in the literature, but that what constitutes destructive leadership lacked an agreed definition which made it difficult to compare and contrast the findings of different studies.

The evolution of the term ‘destructive leadership’ can be seen in the various attempts of researchers to come to terms with the concept. For example, as far back as 1990, Kile (1990, cited in Einarsen et al,) used the term ‘health endangering leaders” which he described as leaders behaving to their subordinates in such a manner that the subordinates develop poor health. Ashforth (1994) talks of petty tyrants and describes them as those who “use their power and authority, oppressively, capriciously, and perhaps vindictively” (p126). In comparison, Hornstein (1996) focused on the notion of oppressive control of others. He says an abusive leader is “one whose primary objective is control of others, and such control is achieved through methods that create fear and intimidation”, and Tepper (2000) introduced the notion of social constructionism when he said that abusive supervision was, “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact”( p.178).

More recently, Kellerman (2004) and Lipman-Blumen (2005) focus on the effect of destructive leadership on the organisation when they talk about corruption. For example, Kellerman (2004) makes the point that leaders can put their self-interest before the interest of the organisation and become involved in “corruption, lying, cheating and stealing”, and Lipman-Blumen (2005) includes the word ‘corruption’ when describing ‘toxic leaders’ as those “who act without integrity by dissembling and engaging in various other dishonourable behaviours” (p18), such as, hypocrisy, sabotage, and manipulation as well as assorted, unethical, illegal and criminal acts, in her list of behaviour that depicts a destructive leader. Wicker (1996) describes toxic leaders as “maladjusted, malcontent, malevolent and even sometimes malicious, succeed in tearing others down and glory in fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers”. She says they create a tense working environment so much so that communication is stifled.

From the above it would seem that the term “destructive leadership” is a catchall phrase for all manner of misdemeanours in the workplace, and as such it does not help enlightenment. However,

Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2007) propose a definition of destructive leadership behaviour that captures almost all of the above. They define it as:

“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 his/her subordinates” (p1).

This definition is particularly useful because it includes the individual and organisation, thereby acknowledging that destructive leaders can negatively impact both employees and/ or the organisation. Unlike previous definitions, this one is sufficiently broad to encapsulate Buss’ (1961) aggressive behaviours: physical and verbal, active and passive, and direct and indirect aggression. An example of passive-physical-indirect behaviour could be the failure to sufficiently protect an employee in a hazardous work environment (e.g. the construction industry), and an example of passive-verbal-indirect behaviour could be a leader failing to communicate important information such as the date of a meeting, or failing to provide feedback on something that needs attention (Neuman & Baron, 2005). The definition encapsulates Kellerman’s (2004) and Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) corruption by “lying, cheating and stealing”, as well as Sackett and DeVore’s (2001) ‘counterproductive workplace behaviour’, which they defined as illegal, immoral and deviant behaviours.

The words, systematic, repeated and legitimate are essential bedrocks in the Einarsen et al (2007) definition. Occasional instances of thoughtlessness and uncharacteristic behaviour are excluded by the definition’s clarification that the behaviour must be systematic and repeated. As a result there is little chance that the occasional ‘bad day’ (Einarsen, 2007) will lead to accusations of destructive leadership. To qualify as destructive the behaviour must be repeated and systematic and it must violate the lawful interests of the organisation.

In contrast to Tepper’s (2000) experience this definition allows for greater comparison between studies because it begins to be clear what destructive leaders