Destructive Leadership Barling’s (2014) book chapter and Krasikova et al.’s (2013) article both centered on destructive leadership. While Barling provided an overview of destructive leadership, Krasikova et al. proposed a specific framework that can actually be applied to the organizational setting. According to Barling (2014), many people have experienced or heard of destructive leaders, either directly or indirectly. The destructive leadership (DL) could be recognizable (e.g., abusive supervision) or not (e.g., laissez faire leadership). Black Ashforth originally introduced the “petty tyrant” concept, and it led to abusive supervision by Bennet Tepper. According to Tepper, the plausible antecedents of abusive supervision were abusive leaders’
…show more content…
Also, negative experience such as parental undermining affected abusive supervision, especially the managers who were low on the self-control level. Being treated fairly was important to humans because it made people feel valued and belonged. Among the types of fairness (e.g., distributive, procedural, & interpersonal fairness), interpersonal (un)fairness was related to DL. Unethical leadership (moral disengagement, pseudo-transformational leadership, and need for power) was a big part of DL. Bandura proposed a model of moral disengagement, outlining three major mechanisms of moral disengagement (how the reprehensible conduct, any detrimental effects, and the victims were perceived). Interestingly, unethical behaviors were based on active and rational through processes, and every leader, even considerable leaders, could fall into unethical behaviors. Both transformational leaders and pseudo-transformational leaders (PTLs) had high inspirational motivation. However, PTLs were under the scope of unethical leaders, because PTLs had low idealized influence, low intellectual stimulation, and low individual consideration. Lastly, unethical leadership might be shown to gain (or hold) the …show more content…
Krasikova et al. (2013) suggested a framework that can be used to reduce DL in organizations. By definition, DL was distinguished from other harmful constructs. That is, DL was the behaviors that happened during leading others (unlike CWBs, and aggression), and it should be harmful (unlike effective task performance, OCBs, and constructive forms of leading) and volitional (unlike poor task performance, safety incidents, and ineffective leadership). The proposed model explained how goal blockage was linked to destructive leadership, consequences of the destructive leadership, and how leader characteristics and organizational context affected the entire process. In detail, leaders’ goal blockage could occur when leader’s goals and organization’s goals were misaligned (case 1), or achievement of leader’s goals (either aligned with the organization’s goals or not) was threatened by followers (case 2). Then, goal blockage would make leaders pursue destructive goals (case 1), or choose destructive methods to influence followers (case 2). The goal blockage would be impacted by leaders’ characteristics, such as the implicit motive to aggress, negative trait affectivity, and paranoid tendencies, as well as organizational contextual factors, such as limited organization’s resources, and incompetent, unmotivated, or intentionally uncooperative followers. Next, leaders’ characteristics (e.g.,
Also, negative experience such as parental undermining affected abusive supervision, especially the managers who were low on the self-control level. Being treated fairly was important to humans because it made people feel valued and belonged. Among the types of fairness (e.g., distributive, procedural, & interpersonal fairness), interpersonal (un)fairness was related to DL. Unethical leadership (moral disengagement, pseudo-transformational leadership, and need for power) was a big part of DL. Bandura proposed a model of moral disengagement, outlining three major mechanisms of moral disengagement (how the reprehensible conduct, any detrimental effects, and the victims were perceived). Interestingly, unethical behaviors were based on active and rational through processes, and every leader, even considerable leaders, could fall into unethical behaviors. Both transformational leaders and pseudo-transformational leaders (PTLs) had high inspirational motivation. However, PTLs were under the scope of unethical leaders, because PTLs had low idealized influence, low intellectual stimulation, and low individual consideration. Lastly, unethical leadership might be shown to gain (or hold) the …show more content…
Krasikova et al. (2013) suggested a framework that can be used to reduce DL in organizations. By definition, DL was distinguished from other harmful constructs. That is, DL was the behaviors that happened during leading others (unlike CWBs, and aggression), and it should be harmful (unlike effective task performance, OCBs, and constructive forms of leading) and volitional (unlike poor task performance, safety incidents, and ineffective leadership). The proposed model explained how goal blockage was linked to destructive leadership, consequences of the destructive leadership, and how leader characteristics and organizational context affected the entire process. In detail, leaders’ goal blockage could occur when leader’s goals and organization’s goals were misaligned (case 1), or achievement of leader’s goals (either aligned with the organization’s goals or not) was threatened by followers (case 2). Then, goal blockage would make leaders pursue destructive goals (case 1), or choose destructive methods to influence followers (case 2). The goal blockage would be impacted by leaders’ characteristics, such as the implicit motive to aggress, negative trait affectivity, and paranoid tendencies, as well as organizational contextual factors, such as limited organization’s resources, and incompetent, unmotivated, or intentionally uncooperative followers. Next, leaders’ characteristics (e.g.,