Destructive Leaders

Emphasising the positive side of leadership fits within the positive organisational behaviour framework that literature has produced in recent years. However, the destructive leadership must not be neglected. Several studies have addressed this topic coining destructive leadership as "aversive" or "bad", for example. Since destructive leadership is a fairly common problem in many organisations and subordinates will experience it at some point in their careers, "understanding and preventing destructive leadership may be as important as, or even more important than, understanding and enhancing positive aspects of leadership".

This study adopts the definition of destructive leadership by Einarsen et al.: "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". The characteristics and behaviours usually associated with destructive leadership include acting in a hostile manner towards subordinates, annoying and inconsistent behaviour, inability to listen to others, inability to delegate and prioritise, showing favouritism and acting differently towards different people, controlling behaviour, or inability to develop and motivate subordinates.

Along this line, Padilla et al. propose an integrated approach to destructive leadership that entails three elements that form a "toxic triangle": leaders, followers, and environment. Consequently, destructive leadership drives not solely from a dysfunctional leader, but also from the confluence of destructive leaders interacting with vulnerable subordinates and conducive environments. The reason why subordinates accept a controlling and destructive leader is related to their need for security, a sense of group belonging, and some stability in an unpredictable world. In turn, the indicators of a caustic environment are: instability, perceived threats, corrosive cultural values, and a lack of control mechanisms.

Personality traits play also an important role when describing destructive leadership. Recent literature refers narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In addition, leaders are more likely to express destructive traits when the organisational context allows them to do so. An acid environment "communicates" to people that such behaviours are acceptable (e.g., leaders who manifest these behaviours do not suffer any consequences) and that destructive leadership is the most effective way of achieving the objectives (e.g., established rewards systems value results over ethical conduct).

One can imagine the serious consequences of destructive leadership for organisations and the negative effects it could have on subordinates. Several studies report a significant decrease in psychological well-being, individual performance, job satisfaction, self-confidence, and motivation. The damaging consequences for organisations include: high turnover, high absenteeism, and low organisational commitment. Research focusses primarily on the impact of a destructive leader on subordinates. But additional research on the consequences of destructive leadership at the organisational level is required. Filling in this lacuna is especially relevant and urgent because the organisational outcomes of a destructive leadership may be linked to the lack of organisational success, threatening organisational survival.

Destructive leadership can jeopardise organisational innovation, among other organisational outcomes. The literature shows that the leader is a key element in promoting organisational innovation. Addressing leadership from a negative perspective means accepting that destructive leaders can prevent innovation, the development of new solutions, and engaging in creative endeavours. Subordinates may fear negative consequences of choices, and this is potentially harmful for organisational innovation, since innovation typically requires making risky decisions. Destructive leadership actively constrains employees from learning by error, whereas positive leadership promotes a receptive attitude to accept and learn from errors.

This study follows the definition of organisational innovation by Wang and Ahmed: "to open up new markets by combining strategic direction with innovative behaviours and processes". According to these authors, behavioural innovation reflects a sustained behavioural openness to change and thus towards innovation. Destructive leadership seems to limit or restrict the organisation's ability to innovate. A leader exerting great pressure on subordinates negatively affects their willingness to suggest new ideas for a product or service. Such a leader is not able to recognise good business opportunities, neither is he/she able to ensure the success of a company's products in the marketplace. Consequently,

H1. Destructive leadership is negatively related to behavioural innovation.