Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model St��le Einarsen ���, Merethe Schanke Aasland, Anders Skogstad University of Bergen, Norway, Department of Psychosocial Science, Christiesgate 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway Abstract This paper proposes a definition and a descriptive model of destructive leadership behaviour. Destructive leadership behaviour is defined 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. Three categories of such destructive leadership are identified in the proposed model: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive���disloyal leadership behaviour. The model may provide a useful link between the field of leadership and research on bullying, counterproductive behaviour, and aggression at work. The model contributes to a more nuanced concept of destructive leadership showing how destructive leadership behaviours also may have constructive elements. �� 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Leadership Destructive Abusive Tyrannical Derailed Disloyal Aggression Deviance 1. Introduction Little research and theory development has addressed destructive leadership behaviours and the potential negative effects of such behaviours on the organisation (Tepper, 2000) comparatively more research has investigated constructive, effective or successful leadership (Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2006). Traditionally, leadership research focuses on factors associated with effective leadership, often with an implicit assumption that ineffective leadership simply reflects the absence of leadership (Ashforth, 1994). However, research on destructive aspects of leadership clearly document that this phenomenon includes a variety of different behaviours that is not limited to the mere absence of effective leadership behaviour (Ashforth, 1994 Bies & Tripp, 1998 Einarsen, Skogstad, Aasland, & L��seth, 2002 Kelloway et al., 2006 Tepper, 2000). Recent research on bullying at work has documented that some 5%���10% of employees are subjected to bullying at any one time (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003), where as much as 80% of the cases involve a superior in the role as the alleged bully (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). In an English study some 40% of the participants reported that they had experienced bullying from a leader during their working career (UNISON, 1997). In a study among 73 managers, Lombardo & McCall (1984) discovered that as many as 74% of them had experienced an intolerable boss. Namie & Namie (2000) found that 89% of those experiencing bullying at work perceived leaders as the main bully. Studies like these clearly document that leaders may actively The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207���216 www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua ��� Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 55 58 90 79 fax: +47 55 58 98 79. E-mail addresses: stale.einarsen@psysp.uib.no (S. Einarsen), merethe.aasland@psysp.uib.no (M.S. Aasland), anders.skogstad@psysp.uib.no (A. Skogstad). 1048-9843/$ - see front matter �� 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

behave in a destructive manner towards subordinates. In addition, sabotage, theft, and corruption among managers have been documented (Altheide, Adler, Adler, & Altheide, 1978 Dunkelberg & Jessup, 2001 Kellerman, 2004 Lipman-Blumen, 2005), although existing empirical research in this domain is limited. Several authors have therefore recently called for a closer examination of the characteristics and outcomes associated with destructive leadership (Kellerman, 2004 Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005). Burke (2006) posits that by exploring the ���dark side��� of leadership, a more accurate view of leadership may emerge, which again may contribute to the general understanding of leadership effectiveness and leadership development. Based on a literature review, Baumeister, Bratlavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs (2001) conclude that there is overwhelming support to the notion that negative events in social interactions have a stronger effect than do positive events. Hence, understanding and preventing destructive leadership may be as important, or even more important, than understanding and enhancing positive aspects of leadership. The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to propose a definition of destructive leadership behaviour that captures the different destructive behaviours described within this research field, and (2) to propose a conceptual model of leadership behaviour that incorporates the notion that a destructive leader may simultaneously show both destructive and constructive behaviour. With this model we aim to expand the research field of leadership behavior to also include potentially destructive elements of leadership. Second, we contribute to a more nuanced concept of destructive leadership behaviour by arguing that some leaders may display behaviour consisting of both constructive and destructive elements. 2. A definition of destructive leadership Researchers have proposed a number of concepts that arguably fall within the domain of destructive leadership that is aimed at subordinates. These include ���abusive supervisors��� (Hornstein, 1996 Tepper, 2000), ���health endangering leaders��� (Kile, 1990), ���petty tyrants��� (Ashforth, 1994), ���bullies��� (Namie & Namie, 2000), ���derailed leaders��� (Schackleton, 1995), ���intolerable bosses��� (Lombardo & McCall, 1984), ���psychopaths���(Furnham & Taylor, 2004), and ���harassing leaders���(Brodsky, 1976). Destructive actions directed against the organisation have also been identified (e.g., working towards goals other than those defined by the organisation), examples being Lipman-Blumen's (2005) concept of ���toxic leaders��� and McCall & Lombardo's (1983) concept of leader derailment. 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 anabusive leader as ���one whose 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). Kellerman (2004) also points out that leaders may involve themselves in corruption, by lying, cheating and stealing, or otherwise putting their self-interest ahead of the organisation's legitimate interest. Ultimately, an inclusive concept of destructive leadership should account for destructive behaviour aimed at both subordinates and at the organisation. With that in mind, we propose the following definition of destructive leadership: 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. 2.1. An all-inclusive concept Our definition encompasses behaviours in two domains, that is, behaviours directed toward subordinates and behaviours directed toward the organisation itself. Vrendenburgh & Brender (1998) note that managers have the 208 S. Einarsen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 207���216