British Journal of Management, Vol.

21, 438–452 (2010)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x

The Prevalence of Destructive

Leadership Behaviour
Merethe Schanke Aasland, Anders Skogstad, Guy Notelaers, Morten
Birkeland Nielsen and Ståle Einarsen
Department of Psychosocial Science, Christies Gate 12, University of Bergen, N-5015 Bergen, Norway
Corresponding author email: merethe.aasland@psysp.uib.no

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership
behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a
representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation
methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC)
analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5%
(OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly.
Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing
over more active ones. The results showed that laissez-faire leadership behaviour was
the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal
leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least
prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display
constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either
constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective
on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

Introduction 2006). While some researchers claim that destruc-

So far, research on destructive forms of leader-
ship has mainly focused on its detrimental effects
on subordinates (Bies and Tripp, 1998; Tepper,
2000; Zellars, Tepper and Duffy, 2002). However,
few studies have investigated the prevalence of
such destructive leadership in contemporary
working life (e.g. Schat, Frone and Kelloway,
The present project is a collaborative project between
the University of Bergen and Statistics Norway, which
collected the data. The project was made possible by
joint grants from two Norwegian employer associations
(the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise and the
Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Autho-
rities), and the Norwegian government (the National
Insurance Administration) and their FARVE programme.
We would like to thank Bengt Oscar Lagerstrm and
Maria Hstmark of Statistics Norway and Stig Berge
Matthiesen of the Faculty of Psychology, University of
Bergen, for their contribution to the data collection.
tive or abusive leadership constitutes a low base-
rate phenomenon (e.g. Aryee et al., 2007), others
believe it to be a substantial problem in many
organizations, in terms of both its prevalence and
consequences (Burke, 2006; Hogan, Raskin and
Fazzini, 1990). In organizational climate research
from the mid-1950s to 1990, 60%–75% of all
employees typically reported that the worst
aspect of their job was their immediate supervisor
(Hogan, Raskin and Fazzini, 1990). In the USA,
job pressure has been cited in 75% of workers’
compensation claims in which mental stressors
were the main cause of absenteeism, and 94% of
those claims were allegedly caused by abusive
treatment by managers (Wilson, 1991). Thus, a
growing body of evidence documents that leaders
behave in a destructive manner, be it towards
their subordinates (Bies and Tripp, 1998; Tepper,
2000, 2007), towards the organization itself or
towards both (Kellerman, 2004; Vredenburgh

r 2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
and Brender, 1998). The prevalence of destructive
leadership has serious implications for theories
on leadership and for measures of leadership, as
well as for the recruitment, training and devel-
opment of leaders. The aim of the present study
is thus to contribute to the growing body of
literature on destructive leadership by investigat-
ing the prevalence of four forms of destructive
leadership behaviour derived from the Destruc-
tive and Constructive Leadership (DCL)
behaviour model (Einarsen, Aasland and Skog-
stad, 2007) employing a representative sample of
the Norwegian workforce.
Conceptualizations of destructive leadership
Many concepts have been used to describe
destructive forms of leadership, such as ‘abusive
supervision’ (Tepper, 2000) and ‘petty tyranny’
(Ashforth, 1994), referring to leaders who behave
in a destructive manner towards subordinates, by
intimidating subordinates, belittling or humiliat-
ing them in public or exposing them to non-
verbal aggression (Aryee et al., 2007). Concepts
such as authoritarian (Adorno et al., 1950; Bass,
1990a), Machiavellian (Christie and Geis, 1970),
autocratic (Kipnis et al., 1981), narcissistic
leadership (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985) and
personalized charismatic leadership (House and
Howell, 1992) emphasize similar but not over-
lapping behaviours. However, these concepts
mainly focus on control and obedience, and less
on the abusive aspect of leadership.
Leaders may also behave destructively in a way
that primarily affects the organization (Keller-
man, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005), potentially
leading to negative consequences for the execu-
tion of tasks, quality of work, efficiency and
relations with customers and clients (Padilla,
Hogan and Kaiser, 2007). Concepts frequently
used to describe such behaviour are ‘flawed
leadership’ (Hogan, 1994), ‘derailed leadership’
(McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Shackleton, 1995),
the ‘dark side of leadership’ (Conger, 1990),
‘toxic leadership’ (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) and
‘impaired managers’ (Lubit, 2004). Such leaders
neglect, or even actively prevent, goal attainment
in the organization by, for example, sabotaging
subordinates’ task execution, by working towards
alternative goals than those of the organization
(Conger, 1990), by stealing resources such as
materials, money or time, or by encouraging
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
439
employees to engage in such activities (Altheide
et al., 1978).
Considering the breadth of the concepts used
to describe destructive leaders, it seems clear that
destructive leadership is not one type of leader-
ship behaviour, but instead involves a variety of
behaviour. Taking this diversity into account, the
present study uses the overarching concept of
‘destructive leadership’, defined as ‘systematic
and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or
manager that violates the legitimate interest of
the organization by undermining and/or sabota-
ging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources,
and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-
being or job satisfaction of subordinates’ (Einar-
sen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007, p. 208). Hence,
destructive leadership is about systematically
acting against the legitimate interest of the
organization, whether by abusing subordinates
or by working against the attainment of the
organization’s goals, including any illegal beha-
viour. The definition emphasizes repeated de-
structive behaviour as opposed to a single act
such as an isolated outburst of anger or
spontaneous misbehaviour. However, if mistakes
or outbursts of anger become repeated, they
represent destructive leadership according to the
definition irrespective of their intentions or
antecedents. Furthermore, destructive leadership
is about behaviour that violates, or is in opposi-
tion to, what is considered to be the legitimate
interest of the organization. Including legitimate
interest is in accordance with Sackett and
DeVore’s (2001) definition of ‘counterproductive
workplace behavior’, narrowing what an organi-
zation may expect from its leaders to what must
be seen as legitimate, legal, reasonable and
justifiable behaviour in a given cultural setting.
Hence, what is perceived as destructive behaviour
may vary between cultures and societies and also
over time (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007).
In accordance with the above definition, the
DCL model (see Figure 1) describes four main
kinds of destructive leadership behaviour target-
ing either subordinates and/or the organization
(Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007). Cate-
gorizing leadership behaviour as subordinate-
oriented and organization-oriented is not new.
However, while many models of leadership
behaviour, such as the managerial grid developed
by Blake and Mouton (1985) and the full range of
leadership model (Avolio, 1999; Bass and Riggio,
440
Pro-subordinate
Supportive–disloyal
Leadership
Behaviour
Laissez-faire
Anti-organization
Derailed
Leadership
Behaviour
Anti-subordinate
Figure 1. A model of destructive leadership behaviour
2006), are based on the assumption that leader-
ship behaviour can be seen on a continuum from
low to high with regard to constructive leadership
behaviour, the present model views leadership
behaviour on a continuum from highly ‘anti’ to
highly ‘pro’ (Aasland, Skogstad and Einarsen,
2008).
Hence, the subordinate dimension describes
leadership behaviour ranging from anti-subordi-
nate behaviour to pro-subordinate behaviour.
Anti-subordinate behaviour illegitimately under-
mines or sabotages the motivation, well-being or
job satisfaction of subordinates, involving beha-
viour such as harassment and mistreatment of
subordinates (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad,
2007). Pro-subordinate behaviour fosters the
motivation, well-being and job satisfaction of
subordinates, including taking care of and
supporting them in accordance with organiza-
tional policies. Organization-oriented behaviour
may also range from anti-organization behaviour
to pro-organization behaviour, where the former
violates the legitimate interest of the organization
by working in opposition to the organization’s
goals, values and optimal use of resources, by
stealing from the organization, by sabotaging the
organization’s goals, or even by being involved in
corruption (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad,
2007). Anti-organizational behaviour can also
be described as counterproductive workplace
behaviour directed at the organization (Fox and
Spector, 1999; Sackett and DeVore, 2001). Pro-
organizational behaviour is about working to-
M. S. Aasland et al.
Constructive
Leadership
Behaviour
Leadership Pro-organization
Behaviour
Tyrannical
Leadership
Behaviour
wards the fulfilment of the organization’s goals,
setting clear and unambiguous objectives, mak-
ing or supporting strategic decisions and imple-
menting legitimate organizational change.
By crosscutting the two dimensions, the DCL
model presents five categories of leadership
behaviour, one of which is constructive, three of
which are actively destructive – tyrannical,
derailed, and supportive–disloyal leadership be-
haviour (Einarsen Aasland and Skogstad, 2007) –
and one of which is passive: laissez-faire leader-
ship, situated in the middle of the proposed
model. Constructive leadership is in accordance
with the legitimate interest of the organization,
showing both pro-subordinate and pro-organiza-
tion behaviour to some degree. Constructive
leadership is about displaying behaviour that
involves supporting and enhancing the goal
attainment of the organization, making optimal
use of organizational resources, as well as
enhancing the motivation, well-being and job
satisfaction of subordinates. Such leadership
behaviour can also be described using concepts
such as transactional (Bass et al., 2003), trans-
formational (Bass et al., 2003), charismatic (e.g.
Conger and Kanungo, 1987) and empowering
leadership (e.g. Conger and Kanungo, 1988).
However, the focus of the present paper is on
destructive leadership behaviours.
Tyrannical leadership behaviour is about dis-
playing pro-organizational behaviour combined
with anti-subordinate behaviour. Strictly speak-
ing, such leaders may behave in accordance with
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
the legitimate goals, tasks and strategies of the
organization. However, they typically obtain
results not through, but at the expense of,
subordinates (Ashforth, 1994; Ma, Karri and
Chittipeddi, 2004). Tyrannical leaders may hu-
miliate, belittle and manipulate their subordi-
nates in order to ‘get the job done’. Because
tyrannical leaders may behave constructively in
terms of organization-oriented behaviour while
at the same time displaying anti-subordinate
behaviour, subordinates and superiors may eval-
uate the leader’s behaviour quite differently. What
upper management may see as a strong focus on
task completion may at the same time be seen by
subordinates as abusive leadership or even bully-
ing (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad, 2007).
Derailed leadership is about displaying both
anti-organizational and anti-subordinate beha-
viour. Such leaders may bully, humiliate, manip-
ulate or deceive, while simultaneously engaging
in anti-organizational behaviour such as absen-
teeism, fraud or otherwise stealing resources from
the organization (Aasland, Skogstad and Einar-
sen, 2008; McCall and Lombardo, 1983). Conger
(1990) focuses on similar themes in his study of
‘the dark side’ of leadership, in which he
recognizes that leaders may use their charismatic
qualities for personal gain and abusively turn
against what is good for both followers and the
organization.
Supportive–disloyal leadership consists of pro-
subordinate behaviour combined with anti-orga-
nizational behaviour. Such leaders motivate and
support their subordinates, while simultaneously
stealing resources from the organization, be it
materials, time or financial resources (Altheide
et al., 1978; Ditton, 1977). Supportive–disloyal
leaders may give employees more benefits then
they are entitled to at the expense of the
organization, encourage low work ethics and
misconduct and lead their subordinates to be
inefficient, or towards other goals than those of
the organization, all of this while behaving in a
comradely and supportive manner. They may
also commit embezzlement or fraud, or encou-
rage subordinates to enrich themselves through
such anti-organizational behaviour (Einarsen,
Aasland and Skogstad, 2007). This form of
leadership behaviour has some features in com-
mon with the leadership style that Blake and
Mouton (1985) termed ‘country club manage-
ment’, as both forms of leadership behaviour
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
441
reflect an overriding concern with establishing
camaraderie with subordinates and ensuring their
well-being. However, while country club manage-
ment involves a minimum of focus on production
and efficiency, thus being low on the organiza-
tion-oriented dimension, leaders who behave in a
supportive but disloyal manner behave destruc-
tively towards the organization, thus behaving in
an anti-organizational manner (Aasland, Skog-
stad and Einarsen, 2008). Hence, the absence of
constructive leadership behaviour is not the same
as the presence of destructive leadership beha-
viour (Kelloway, Mullen and Francis, 2006).
However, destructive leadership is not necessa-
rily limited to such active and manifest behaviour
as described above. Buss (1961) describes aggres-
sive behaviour along three principal axes, namely
physical versus verbal, active versus passive and
direct versus indirect aggression. Consequently,
destructive leadership behaviour may also in-
clude passive and indirect behaviour (Skogstad
et al., 2007). Kelloway and colleagues (2005) also
acknowledge this in their study of ‘poor leader-
ship’, in which they differentiate between an
active, abusive leadership style and a passive one.
Avoidant or passive leadership, which is also
referred to as ‘laissez-faire leadership’ (Bass,
1990b), represents a leadership style in which
the leader has been appointed to and still
physically occupies the leadership position, but
in practice has abdicated the responsibilities and
duties assigned to him or her (Lewin, Lippitt and
White, 1939). Such leaders may avoid decision-
making, show little concern for goal attainment
and seldom involve themselves with their sub-
ordinates, even when this is necessary (Bass,
1990b). Ashforth (1994) emphasizes the impor-
tance of passive destructive behaviour in his
conceptualization of the petty tyrant, including
‘lack of consideration’ and ‘discouraging initiative’
as two of six dimensions. Thus, the systematic
absence of positive behaviour is conceptualized
as destructive leadership behaviour. Indepen-
dently of the causes of passive or laissez-faire
leadership behaviour, be it a result of incompe-
tence, lack of knowledge or strategic intent to
harm, it clearly violates the legitimate interest of
the organization as well as legitimate expecta-
tions of subordinates, and it may thus harm both
the organization and the subordinates (Frischer
and Larsson, 2000; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008;
Skogstad et al., 2007).
442
Aim of the study
A small but growing body of studies exists on
destructive forms of leadership behaviour. How-
ever, these studies are mostly limited to the
characteristics of such destructive leadership and
its effects on subordinates. Apart from two
studies investigating the prevalence of leadership
aggression (Hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001;
Schat, Frone and Kelloway, 2006), we know little
about how prevalent various forms of destructive
leadership behaviour are. Such knowledge is of
great importance, especially since efforts to
develop effective interventions against such be-
haviour may depend on the prevalence of the
phenomenon (Zapf et al., 2003). Moreover,
further theoretical developments specifically re-
lating to destructive leadership, as well as to
leadership in general, depend on an estimate of
the prevalence of destructive leadership beha-
viour. Nuanced information in this regard may
alter our perception of leadership as a phenom-
enon and lay the foundation for how much
attention should be devoted to this aspect of
leadership in future leadership training and
development (Burke, 2006). Hence, the aim of
the present study is to investigate, on the basis of
a representative sample of subordinates, the
prevalence of the four forms of destructive
leadership behaviour laid out in the DCL model.
Method
Procedure/Sample
Questionnaires were sent by regular mail to a
representative sample of 4500 employees, ran-
domly drawn from the Norwegian Central
Employee Register during spring 2005, with two
reminders. The sampling criteria were employees
between 18 and 65 years of age, employed during
the last six months in a Norwegian company with
five or more employees, and with mean working
hours of more than 15 hours per week. A total of
57% responded (N 5 2539), which is somewhat
above average for surveys of this kind (Baruch
and Holtom, 2008).
The mean age was 43.79 years (SD 5 11.52),
(range 19 to 66). The sample is representative of
the working population in Norway, except for a
minor overrepresentation of women (52% versus
47%; Hstmark and Lagerstrm, 2006).
M. S. Aasland et al.
Measures
Data were collected by a questionnaire measuring
demographic variables, exposure to bullying,
observed leadership behaviour of the respon-
dent’s immediate superior, job satisfaction, sub-
jective health complaints and various aspects of
the psychosocial working environment. Only
demographic variables and questions related to
leadership behaviour are included in the present
study.
Leadership behaviour was measured using 22
items from the destructive leadership scale
(Einarsen et al., 2002). Tyrannical leadership
behaviour was measured using four items (Cron-
bach’s alpha 5 0.70). Examples of items included
‘has humiliated you, or other employees, if you/
they fail to live up to his/her standards’ and ‘has
spread incorrect information about you or your
co-workers, in order to harm your/their position
in the firm’. Derailed leadership behaviour was
measured by four items (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.71),
examples of items being ‘has used his/her position
in the firm to profit financially/materially at the
company’s expense’ and ‘regards his/her staff more
as competitors than as partners’. Supportive–
disloyal leadership behaviour was measured by four
items (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.65). Examples of
items measuring this type of leadership behaviour
are ‘has behaved in a friendly manner by encoura-
ging you/your co-workers to extend your/their
lunch break’ and ‘has encouraged you to enjoy
extra privileges at the company’s expense’. Laissez-
faire leadership behaviour was measured by four
items (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.72) from the Multi-
factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio,
1990), an example being ‘has avoided making
decisions’. To prevent response set among the
participants, constructive leadership behaviour in
the form of employee-centred, production-centred
and change-centred leadership was included using
six items from Ekvall and Arvonen (1991)
(Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.87), examples being ‘gives
recognition for good performance’ and ‘en-
courages innovative thinking’. Items measuring
constructive leadership behaviour were distribu-
ted randomly among the items measuring de-
structive forms of leadership.
Four response categories were employed
(‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘quite often’ and ‘very
often or nearly always’), and the respondents
were asked to report on leadership behaviour
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
which they had experienced during the last six
months.
To ensure the internal validity of the scales
measuring the destructive forms of leadership, a
series of exploratory factor analyses was con-
ducted. The model that yielded the best fit to the
data was a five-factor solution (w2 5 467.10;
df 5 199; comparative fit index (CFI) 5
0.95; goodness of fit index (GFI) 5 0.88: consis-
tent Akaike information criterion (CAIC) 5
933.01; root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) 5 0.026) supporting the internal
validity of the scale, which measures four
destructive forms of leadership behaviour in
addition to constructive leadership behaviour.
Table 1 shows the fit statistics for all the factor
solutions.
Data analysis
Two methods are used to estimate the prevalence
rate of destructive leadership: the operational
classification method (OCM) and latent class
cluster (LCC) analysis. The former defines a
specific criterion that classifies respondents as
either exposed or not exposed to destructive
leadership, based on their reports of their
immediate superiors’ behaviour, a method com-
monly used in research on workplace bullying
(e.g. Nielsen et al., 2009). As the definition of
destructive leadership emphasizes repeated and
systematic behaviour, the classification criterion
employed was exposure to one or more types of
destructive leadership behaviour during the last
six months, ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearly
always’. Destructive leadership behaviour that is
reported ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearly
always’ is coded as 1, whereas all other frequen-
cies are coded as 0. All instances are then added
up and, when the sum is zero, the respondent is
Table 1. Fit statistics for the factor analyses solutions
Model Satorra-Bentler
scaled w2
One factor: Leadership behaviour 3949.76
Two factor: Constructive and destructive leadership behaviour 1654.05
Three factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, destructive
(laissez-faire, derailed and tyrannical) leadership behaviour
Four factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, laissez-faire,
destructive (derailed and tyrannical) leadership behaviour
Five factor: Constructive, supportive–disloyal, laissez-faire,
derailed, tyrannical leadership behaviour
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
443
not considered to be exposed to destructive
leadership; otherwise, the respondent is consid-
ered to be exposed.
Although a common method of reporting
prevalence rates, some weaknesses have been
pointed out concerning the OCM (Notelaers
et al., 2006). First, the cut-off point provided by
the OCM is an arbitrary choice that reduces a
complex phenomenon to a simple either–or
phenomenon. Second, the number of items used
may influence the prevalence rate (Agervold,
2007). Third, subordinates who are frequently
exposed to a wide range of specific destructive
leadership behaviour, but where each specific
behaviour only occurs ‘sometimes’, are not
regarded as being exposed to destructive leader-
ship. Of course, a low level of exposure to many
different types of destructive leadership beha-
viour may still reflect a systematic pattern in the
leader’s behaviour.
To compensate for these potential weaknesses,
we applied LCC analysis, which is a systematic
way of classifying research subjects into homo-
geneous groups based on similarities in their
responses to particular items, in our case the
items describing the behaviour of their immediate
supervisor. LCC analysis thus identifies mutually
exclusive groups based on the distribution of
observations in an n-way contingency table of
discrete variables (i.e. observed destructive leader
behaviour). A goal of traditional LCC analysis is
to determine the smallest number of latent
classes, T, which is sufficient to explain (account
for) the associations observed between the
manifest variables (the reported leadership beha-
viour) (Magidson and Vermunt, 2004). The
analysis typically begins by fitting the T 5 1 class
(only one group of destructive leadership beha-
viour is reported) baseline model, which speci-
fies mutual independence among the variables.
df RMSEA CFI GFI CAIC
209 0.093 0.81 0.52 4329.39
208 0.058 0.88 0.64 2042.32
821.56 206 0.038 0.93 0.81 1227.08
572.40 203 0.030 0.94 0.82 1003.80
467.10 199 0.026 0.95 0.88 933.01
444 M. S. Aasland et al.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all continuous measures (N 5 2539)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Age 43.79 11.52 –

2 Number of employees in enterprise 279 835.9 0.00 –
3 Mean working hours per week 37.49 10.36 0.01 0.05* –
4 Tyrannical leadership 0.11 0.26 0.10** 0.02 0.02 –
5 Derailed leadership 0.21 0.38 0.04 0.01 0.07** 0.60** –
6 Supportive–disloyal leadership 0.29 0.38 0.10** 0.09** 0.08** 0.03 0.01 –
7 Constructive leadership 1.44 0.66 0.05* 0.03 0.04* 0.21** 0.29** 0.35** –
8 Laissez-faire leadership 0.57 0.52 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.38** 0.54** 0.08** 0.37** –

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Assuming that this null model does not provide
an adequate fit to the data, a one-dimensional
LCC model with T 5 2 classes (that distinguishes
between destructive and non-destructive leader-
ship behaviours) is then fitted to the data. This
process continues by fitting successive LCC
models to the data, increasing the number of
classes each time – thus implicitly introducing
multidimensionality – until the simplest model
that provides an adequate fit is found (Goodman,
1974; McCutcheon, 1987), and a model is found
in which the latent variable can explain all of the
associations among the reported behaviours (cf.
Magidson and Vermunt, 2004).
Different from traditional cluster methods
(such as K-means clustering), LCC analysis is
based on a statistical model that can be tested
(Magidson and Vermunt, 2002a). In conse-
quence, determining the number of latent classes
is less arbitrary than when using traditional
cluster methods (Notelaers et al., 2006). It can
thus be seen as a probabilistic extension of K-
means clustering (Magidson and Vermunt,
2002b). The LCC analysis will thus determine
whether different groups exist among the respon-
dents with respect to exposure to destructive
leadership behaviour based on similarities in their
response patterns (Notelaers et al., 2006). As the
sample size in the present study is large, the level
of significance was set to po0.01.
Results
The inter-correlations, means and standard de-
viations for all the continuous measures used in
the study are reported in Table 2.
Prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour
using the OCM
Destructive behaviour by superiors proved to be
quite common, as 83.7% reported exposure to
some kind of such behaviours. Yet, according to
the operational criterion, 33.5% of the respon-
dents reported exposure to at least one destruc-
tive leadership behaviour ‘quite often’ or ‘very
often or nearly always’ during the last six months
(Table 3). Employing this criterion, 21.2% were
exposed to one or more instances of laissez-faire
leadership behaviour, while 11.6% reported one
or more instances of supportive–disloyal leader-
ship behaviour. Furthermore, the prevalence of
derailed leadership was 8.8%, with the prevalence
rate of tyrannical leadership behaviour being
3.4% (Table 3).
LCC analysis concerning groups of targets
The LCC analysis showed six separate clusters of
reported leadership behaviour (see Table 4). For
each of the six groups of respondents, Table 4
summarizes the profile output,1 retaining condi-
tional probabilities by calculating the average
conditional probability of each group responding
‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or
nearly always’ to the items measuring the different
forms of destructive leadership behaviour.
The first cluster, which we labelled ‘no-destruc-
tiveness’, included 39% of the respondents in the
sample. This cluster is characterized by a high
conditional probability of answering ‘never’ to
any of the items measuring the four kinds of
1
The profile output can be obtained by contacting the
first author of the paper.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Destructive Leadership Behaviour 445

Table 3. Exposure to constructive and destructive leadership behaviour ‘quite often’ or more often

Number of instances of behaviour exposed to

0 1 2 3 4 or morea

Constructive behaviour 29.1 12.4 10.4 11.7 35.9

Tyrannical behaviour 96.6 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1
Derailed behaviour 91.2 6.1 1.7 0.7 0.3
Supportive–disloyal behaviour 88.3 8.8 2.3 0.4 0.1
Laissez-faire behaviour 78.8 13.1 4.8 2.4 0.9
All destructive behaviourb 66.6 17.9 7.8 3.5 4.3

Frequency in per cent for rows (N 5 2539).

a
The constructive behaviour list consists of six items. The tyrannical, derailed, popular but disloyal lists each consist of four items.
b
‘All destructive behaviour’ is the sum of all tyrannical, derailed, supportive–disloyal and laissez-faire items (16 items).

Table 4. Average conditional probabilities (for all items concerned) expressed as percentages

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Non- Laissez- Sometimes laissez-faire, Sometimes Supportive– Highly
destructiveness faire sometimes supportive– destructive disloyal abusive
disloyal

Size 0.39 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.06

Never 0.91 0.75 0.665 0.57 0.78 0.42
Sometimes 0.09 0.21 0.29 0.36 0.17 0.33
Quite often 0 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.16
Very often/nearly always 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.09

destructive leadership behaviour. Hence, these
subordinates claim not to observe any kind of
destructive behaviour on the part of their
immediate superior.
A second cluster of respondents, comprising
19% of the respondents, was labelled ‘laissez-
faire’ given their higher conditional probability of
reporting exposure to items measuring laissez-
faire leadership and their low conditional prob-
abilities of reporting any tyrannical, derailed or
supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour. Al-
most every item associated with laissez-faire
leadership is reported more frequently in this
cluster compared with the ‘no-destructiveness’
cluster: ‘has avoided making decisions’ (62%
‘sometimes’ and 12% ‘quite often’), ‘is likely to
be absent when needed’ (61% ‘sometimes’ and
17% ‘quite often’), ‘has avoided getting involved
in your work’ (58% ‘sometimes’ and 24% ‘quite
often’) and ‘has steered away from showing
concern about results’ (43% ‘sometimes’ and
6% ‘quite often’).
The third cluster was labelled ‘sometimes
laissez-faire and sometimes supportive–disloyal’,
as these subordinates report that their superiors
show some level of both these two kinds of
behaviour. This cluster contained 17% of the
respondents. Nearly every item associated with
laissez-faire leadership is reported less frequently
in this cluster than in the ‘laissez-faire’ cluster.
However, these respondents have a high prob-
ability of answering ‘sometimes’ to items measur-
ing both laissez-faire and supportive–disloyal
leadership behaviour. Examples of items with a
high average probability of being reported ‘some-
times’ by these respondents are ‘has behaved in a
friendly manner by encouraging you/your co-
workers to extend your/their lunch break’ (68%
‘sometimes’, 15% ‘quite often’), ‘has encouraged
you, or your co-workers, to take extra coffee/
cigarette breaks as a reward for good work effort’
(61% ‘sometimes’, 8% ‘quite often’), ‘is likely to
be absent when needed’ (60% ‘sometimes’ and
11% ‘quite often’), ‘has avoided making deci-
sions’ (56% ‘sometimes’ and 6% ‘quite often’)
and ‘has avoided getting involved in your work’
(52% ‘sometimes’ and 6% ‘quite often’). The
probability of these respondents reporting any
tyrannical or derailed leadership behaviour is
very low.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

446
The fourth cluster, which was labelled ‘some-
times destructive’, comprised 11% of the respon-
dents. These respondents face ‘sometimes’
destructive leadership behaviour in a variety of
forms, be it laissez-faire, tyrannical or derailed
leadership. Items measuring laissez-faire leader-
ship behaviour are more frequently reported than
in the ‘sometimes laissez-faire and sometimes
supportive–disloyal’ cluster, and items measuring
tyrannical and derailed leadership behaviour are
also more frequently reported, examples being
‘has humiliated you, or other employees, if you/
they fail to live up to his/her standards’ (45%
‘sometimes’, 7% ‘quite often’), ‘regards his/her
staff more as competitors than as collaborators’
(43% ‘sometimes’, 10% ‘quite often’), ‘has made
it more difficult for you to express your views at a
meeting, either by giving you too little speaking
time or by placing you last’ (37% ‘sometimes’,
6% ‘quite often’) and ‘has imitated or made faces
(e.g. rolled eyes, stuck out tongue etc.) at you or
other employees to show that he/she is not
satisfied with your/others’ work efforts’ (36%
‘sometimes’, 7% ‘quite often’).
The fifth cluster of respondents, comprising
10% of the respondents, only report exposure
to ‘supportive–disloyal’ leadership behaviour.
Nearly every item associated with supportive–
disloyal leadership is reported more frequently in
this cluster than in the ‘sometimes laissez-faire
and sometimes supportive–disloyal’ cluster: ‘has
encouraged you, or your co-workers, to take
extra coffee/cigarette breaks as a reward for good
work effort’ (60% ‘sometimes’, 27% ‘quite
often’), ‘has behaved in a friendly manner by
encouraging you/your co-workers to extend
your/their lunch break’ (60% ‘sometimes’, 26%
‘quite often’), ‘has encouraged you to enjoy extra
privileges at the company’s expense’ (35% ‘some-
times’, 10% ‘quite often’) and ‘has encouraged
you or your co-workers to do private work/run
private errands during working hours’ (35%
‘sometimes’, 4% ‘quite often’).
The sixth cluster was labelled ‘highly abusive’
and comprised 6% of the respondents in the
study. Respondents in this cluster report high
exposure to laissez-faire, tyrannical and derailed
leadership behaviour. Their response patterns are
characterized by a higher average probability of
reporting that such behaviour occurs ‘quite often’
and/or ‘very often or nearly always’ than all the
other clusters. Again, laissez-faire leadership
M. S. Aasland et al.
behaviour seems to dominate, but respondents
also report excessive exposure to tyrannical and
derailed leadership behaviour. Examples of items
that are frequently reported by respondents in
this cluster are ‘has avoided getting involved in
your work’ (40% ‘quite often’, 23% ‘very often
or nearly always’), ‘is likely to be absent when
needed’ (35% ‘quite often’, 29% ‘very often or
nearly always’), ‘attributes the company’s success
to his/her own abilities rather than the abilities of
the employees’ (29% ‘quite often’, 19% ‘very
often or nearly always’), ‘has avoided making
decisions’ (34% ‘quite often’, 22% ‘very often or
nearly always’), ‘regards his/her staff more as
competitors than as collaborators’ (27% ‘quite
often’, 12% ‘very often or nearly always’), ‘has
made it more difficult for you to express your
views at a meeting, either by giving you too little
speaking time or by placing you last’ (19% ‘quite
often’, 11% ‘very often or nearly always’), ‘has
steered away from showing concern about
results’ (19% ‘quite often’, 11% ‘very often or
nearly always’) and ‘has humiliated you, or other
employees, if you/they fail to live up to his/her
standards’ (15% ‘quite often’, 6% ‘very often or
nearly always’). The LCC analysis shows that as
many as 61% of all subordinates experience
systematic exposure to varying forms and com-
binations of destructive leadership, with laissez-
faire leadership again being the dominant form.
Laissez-faire leadership may exist in isolation
with either a low or a high frequency, or it may
occur in combination with either supportive–
disloyal leadership or tyrannical and derailed
leadership, again in more or less intense form.
Discussion
The present study shows that destructive leader-
ship behaviour is very common. Depending on
the estimation method, between 33.5% and 61%
of all respondents report their immediate super-
iors as showing some kind of consistent and
frequent destructive leadership during the last six
months, while only about 40% report no
exposure whatsoever to such leadership beha-
viour. Thus, destructive leadership behaviour is
not a low base-rate phenomenon, but something
that most subordinates will probably experience
during their working life. The observed preva-
lence rates are far higher than those reported by
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
Schat, Frone and Kelloway (2006) and Hubert
and van Veldhoven (2001). Schat, Frone and
Kelloway (2006) found that, during the last 12
months, 13.5% of the respondents were exposed
to aggression from their superior, and, likewise,
Hubert and van Veldhoven (2001) found an
average prevalence rate of about 11%. However,
these two studies only investigated one form of
destructive leadership behaviour, namely aggres-
sive behaviour. Consequently, they did not
measure passive forms of destructive leadership
nor destructive forms of leadership that may also
include constructive elements. Furthermore,
these studies did not measure destructive beha-
viour targeting the organization. Hence, measur-
ing a broader range of destructive leadership
behaviour, as was the case in the present study,
will probably yield higher prevalence rates than
measuring a narrower range of behaviour.
Participants in this study reported exposure to
all four forms of destructive leadership behaviour
described in the presented conceptual model.
While some 3.5% had been exposed to tyrannical
leadership behaviour during the last six months,
some 9% reported exposure to derailed leader-
ship behaviour. About 11.5% had been exposed
to supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour.
Laissez-faire leadership behaviour had the high-
est prevalence rate at 21.2%, all according to the
OCM.
As, to our knowledge, no other studies have
investigated the prevalence of tyrannical leader-
ship behaviour as operationalized in the present
study, it is difficult to evaluate whether a
prevalence rate of about 3.5% should be con-
sidered high, average or low. However, if we look
at the item level, this form of leadership
behaviour overlaps with behaviour classified as
abusive (Bies and Tripp, 1998) or aggressive
leadership (Hubert and van Veldhoven, 2001;
Schat, Frone and Kelloway, 2006). Thus, one can
compare the prevalence rate for tyrannical
leadership behaviour with the prevalence rates
obtained in the study by Schat, Frone and
Kelloway (2006) and the study by Hubert and
van Veldhoven (2001). Although Schat, Frone
and Kelloway found a prevalence rate of 13.5%
for people who reported some kind of exposure
to aggressive behaviour from their superior, only
5.5% reported frequent exposure to such beha-
viour. Furthermore, Schat, Frone and Kelloway
measured exposure to aggressive behaviour dur-
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
447
ing the last 12 months, while the present study
has a time frame of only six months. In the study
by Hubert and van Veldhoven (2001), only 2.1%
of the respondents reported frequent (‘often’ or
‘always’) exposure to aggression from their
leader. Thus, it can be concluded that the
prevalence rate of tyrannical leadership beha-
viour in the present study is comparable to these
studies.
About 9% of the respondents reported that their
immediate leader displayed derailed leadership
behaviour, which, in addition to anti-subordinate
behaviour, also involves anti-organizational be-
haviour, potentially making these leaders more
visible to upper management, compared with
leaders who display tyrannical leadership beha-
viour. The prevalence rate of exposure to this
form of leadership behaviour could therefore be
expected to be lower than for tyrannical leader-
ship behaviour. That was not the case, however.
Again the explanation may be that we measure
leadership behaviour over a six-month period, as
the potential positive effect tyrannical leadership
behaviour may have on the organization’s goal
attainment is claimed to decline, and eventually
disappear, over time (Ma, Karri and Chittipeddi,
2004), eventually developing into derailed leader-
ship behaviour. Furthermore, experiencing anti-
subordinate behaviour such as bullying, humilia-
tion or harassment may have such a profound
effect on some subordinates that organiza-
tion-oriented behaviour, be it constructive or
destructive, is of minor importance to them. This
assumption is supported by Baumeister and
colleagues (2001), who found that bad experi-
ences have a much stronger impact than good
ones, resulting in a ‘horns’ effect, whereby the
leader is only perceived in negative terms.
Supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour had
a prevalence rate of about 11.5% according to
the OCM, and it was the second most prevalent
form of destructive leadership in the present
study. This form of leadership behaviour involves
behaving in a comradely and supportive manner
towards subordinates, while at the same time
violating the legitimate interests of the organiza-
tion by, for example, working towards alternative
goals to those of the organization, stealing from
the organization or encouraging subordinates to
engage in such activities (Einarsen, Aasland and
Skogstad, 2007). To our knowledge, this form of
destructive leadership behaviour has not been
448
investigated in earlier studies on destructive
leadership. However, a recent qualitative, cross-
cultural study focusing on observations of senior
leaders’ wrongdoing in ten different countries
(Birkland, Glomb and Ones, 2008) showed that
anti-organizational behaviour was reported more
often than anti-subordinate behaviour, support-
ing the high prevalence rates of both derailed and
supportive–disloyal leadership in the present
study. Moreover, this form of destructive leader-
ship may be underestimated in the present study
as leaders at different levels in an organization
have a continual opportunity to misuse their
power and position for personal gain (Conger,
1990), relatively often without being noticed by
subordinates. With such extensive opportunities
to conceal these forms of destructive behaviour,
we believe that a prevalence rate of some 11.5%
should be considered a conservative estimate and,
as such, as representing a serious problem for
organizations.
In the present study, laissez-faire leadership
behaviour showed the highest prevalence rate,
with 21.2% of the respondents reporting that they
experienced at least one such leadership beha-
viour ‘quite often’ or ‘very often or nearly always’
during the last six months. Lack of adequate
leadership, which is the case for laissez-faire
leadership, is passive behaviour that may be
harder to detect and intervene against than more
active forms of destructive leadership behaviour,
and it may also be more easily tolerated by senior
managers (Skogstad et al., 2007). However,
according to the LCC analysis, destructive leader-
ship is not an either–or phenomenon, but more a
compound phenomenon with respect to both its
nature and frequency. Based on this analysis,
laissez-faire leadership behaviour is reported in
three different forms, either as a stand-alone
phenomenon, in combination with supportive–
disloyal leadership behaviour or as part of a
compound phenomenon in which respondents
report exposure to both tyrannical and derailed
leadership behaviour as well as to laissez-faire
leadership. Nineteen per cent of the respondents
reported some laissez-faire leadership behaviour
according to this analysis, while an additional
17% were exposed to a low-frequency combina-
tion of laissez-faire and supportive–disloyal lea-
dership behaviour. Moreover, 11% of the
respondents reported being exposed to tyrannical,
derailed and laissez-faire leadership behaviour at
M. S. Aasland et al.
a medium frequency, while some 6% of the
respondents reported high exposure to all these
three destructive forms of leadership. Hence,
laissez-faire leadership seems to be much more
prevalent than indicated by the use of the OCM.
The present study focuses on exposure to
destructive leadership behaviour during a six-
month period. Hence, the behaviours reported in
the different clusters are not necessarily experi-
enced simultaneously. Laissez-faire leadership be-
haviour may over time evolve into more active
forms of destructive leadership behaviour, in the
same way that tyrannical leadership behaviour
may evolve into derailed leadership behaviour over
time (Ma, Karri and Chittipeddi, 2004). However,
longitudinal studies are needed to investigate
whether such an escalation process is involved.
According to the LCC analysis, about 17% of
the respondents reported consistent and systema-
tic exposure to supportive–disloyal leadership
behaviour in combination with laissez-faire lea-
dership behaviour. Moreover, 10% reported
more frequent exposure to supportive–disloyal
leadership behaviour alone. Hence, low-fre-
quency supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour
seems fairly common in Norwegian working life.
Supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour may
even be perceived as just ‘being nice’, and not
as constituting destructive behaviour. However,
over time, even low-frequency supportive–dis-
loyal leadership may entail considerable expense
for the organization. Additionally, our results
show that highly abusive leaders display a range
of different forms of behaviour, be it laissez-faire,
derailed or tyrannical behaviour. A total of 17%
of the respondents report such compound nega-
tive behaviour, even though only 6% report it
happening on a very frequent basis.
Thus, the results substantiate our assumption
that destructive leadership is a phenomenon
comprising different classes of behaviour. Focus-
ing on aggression by a leader (Hubert and van
Veldhoven, 2001; Schat, Frone and Kelloway,
2006) or abusive supervision only (Tepper, 2007)
may therefore result in a too constricted focus,
resulting in a partial picture of the complex
phenomenon of destructive leadership. Further-
more, moderate correlations exist between the
different forms of destructive leadership behaviour
and constructive leadership behaviour (Table 2),
indicating that destructive leadership is not some-
thing that exists apart from constructive leader-
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
ship but is an integrated part of the behavioural
repertoire of leaders. A similar conclusion can be
drawn from an English study on harassment by
managers (Rayner and Cooper, 2003) in which, of
72 managers evaluated by subordinates, only
11.1% were exclusively perceived as being a
‘tough manager’, with 9.7% of the managers
being exclusively perceived as ‘angels’. In the same
study, about 28% of the managers were evaluated
as either ‘tough managers with supporters’,
‘middlers with victims’ or as ‘angels with victims’.
Thus, leaders behave both destructively and
constructively, demonstrating different behaviour
and different combinations of behaviour in rela-
tion to different subordinates, who again may
react differently (Rayner and Cooper, 2003). This
has implications for leadership research, which, in
the past, has mainly seen leadership as being either
constructive or destructive, with the latter being
an anomaly. Furthermore, experiencing both
constructive and destructive behaviour from the
same source may have more distressing effects on
the target than being exposed to destructive
behaviour alone (Duffy, Ganster and Pagon,
2002; Major et al., 1997).
Methodological issues
A notable strength of the present study is its use
of a representative sample of the Norwegian
workforce (Hstmark and Lagerstrm, 2006).
Previous research in this field has mainly been
carried out in small non-representative samples,
giving rise to uncertainty about the general-
izability of the findings. Furthermore, the present
study employs two methods of calculating pre-
valence rates. While the OCM implicitly assumes
that only two groups of respondents exist (those
exposed and those not exposed), the LCC
method identifies several different groups with
respect to observations of destructive leadership
in one’s immediate superior (Notelaers et al.,
2006), taking both the nature and the frequency
of the behaviour into account. Research on
bullying in the workplace shows that the LCC
method displays better construct and predictive
validity than the OCM (Notelaers et al., 2006).
Thus, the LCC method seems to result in a more
convincing and comprehensive estimate of the
prevalence of destructive leadership.
A limitation of the present study that should be
mentioned is that the Cronbach’s alpha of the
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
449
supportive–disloyal leadership behaviour sub-
scale of the destructive leadership scale is low,
thus questioning the internal consistency of this
subscale (Hinkin, 1998). Consequently, the re-
sults obtained using this subscale should be
interpreted with caution, and the subscale should
be investigated further in future studies.
The present study is based on subordinates’
appraisal. Phillips and Lord (1986) distinguish
between two types of accuracy in such leader
appraisals, namely classification accuracy and
behavioural accuracy. Classification accuracy
refers to the ability to adequately classify a
person’s behaviour, while behavioural accuracy
is the ability to detect the presence of a specific
type of behaviour (Bretz, Milkovich and Read,
1992). If classification accuracy is lacking, sub-
ordinates may be influenced by a ‘halo’ (Thorn-
dike, 1920) or ‘horns’ effect (Bligh et al., 2007).
The halo effect consists of an overall positive
evaluation of a leader based, for example, on a
single positive characteristic or action (Thorn-
dike, 1920), while the horns effect refers to the
reverse situation in which an overall negative
appraisal is made based on one salient failure or
negative characteristic (Bligh et al., 2007), which
may prevent subordinates from noticing the
variety and nuances in their leader’s behaviour.
However, Cardy and Dobbins (1994) emphasize
that subordinates are valid sources of informa-
tion, as they are often well placed to observe and
evaluate their leader’s performance and leader-
ship style. Moreover, as negative experiences and
information are processed more thoroughly than
are positive information and experiences (Bau-
meister et al., 2001), subordinates’ appraisals of
destructive leadership behaviour probably have
high behavioural accuracy.
Conclusion
Destructive forms of leadership behaviour are
highly prevalent, at least in their less severe
forms, including the passive form of laissez-faire
leadership. Considering the negative effects of
destructive leadership for both subordinates and
the organization documented in several studies
(Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006; Mitchell and
Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000), destructive lea-
dership constitutes a serious problem in con-
temporary working life. Furthermore, destructive
450
leadership behaviour comes in many shapes and
forms, categorized along two basic dimensions,
namely pro-organizational versus anti-organiza-
tional behaviour and pro-subordinate versus
anti-subordinate behaviour, meaning that a leader
over a period of time may display constructive as
well as destructive behaviour.
A high prevalence rate of destructive leader-
ship behaviour has important implications for
theory development regarding destructive leader-
ship in particular, but also for leadership research
in general. Leaders who behave in a destructive
manner are not exceptional, nor can they be
referred to as a few deviants, at least not as
experienced by their subordinates. Moreover,
destructive leadership behaviour is not a phe-
nomenon that exists apart from constructive
leadership, but must be viewed as an integral
part of what constitutes leadership behaviour.
Including this ‘dark side’ of leadership, a more
accurate and nuanced understanding of the very
phenomenon of leadership behaviour may
emerge, which in turn may contribute to the
general understanding of both the nature and
effectiveness of leadership, and to the develop-
ment and management of leaders (Burke, 2006).
Leaders may behave destructively for a variety
of reasons, be it their personality, incompetence,
perceived injustice or threat to their identity,
financial reasons, low organizational identifica-
tion etc. Future studies should investigate the
antecedents of the different forms of destructive
leadership behaviour identified in this paper, as
such knowledge could help us prevent such
behaviour among leaders and develop tools for
organizational reactions and the rehabilitation of
leaders who act in breach of the legitimate
interest of the organization.
References
Aasland, M. S., A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (2008). ‘The dark
side of leadership: defining and describing destructive forms
of leadership behaviour’, Organizations and People, 15, pp.
20–28.
Adorno, T. W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N.
Sanford (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York:
Harper.
Agervold, M. (2007). ‘Bullying at work: a discussion of
definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study’,
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, pp. 161–172.
Altheide, D. L., P. A. Adler, P. Adler and D. A. Altheide
(1978). ‘The social meaning of employee theft’. In J. M.
M. S. Aasland et al.
Johnson and J. D. Douglas (eds), Crime at the Top: Deviance
in Business and the Professions, pp. 90–124. Philadelphia, PA:
J. B. Lippincott.
Aryee, S., Z. X. Chen, L. Sun and Y. A. Debrah (2007).
‘Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a
trickle-down model’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp.
191–201.
Ashforth, B. (1994). ‘Petty tyranny in organizations’, Human
Relations, 47, pp. 755–778.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development. Building the
Vital Forces in Organizations. London: Sage.
Bamberger, P. A. and S. B. Bacharach (2006). ‘Abusive
supervision and subordinate problem drinking: taking
resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account’,
Human Relations, 59, pp. 1–30.
Baruch, Y. and B. C. Holtom (2008). ‘Survey response rate
levels in organizational research’, Human Relations, 61, pp.
1139–1160.
Bass, B. M. (1990a). ‘Authoritarianism, power orientation,
Machiavellianism, and leadership’. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass
& Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, pp. 124–139. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990b). ‘Laissez-faire leadership versus motivation
to manage’. In B. M. Bass (ed.), Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook
of Leadership. Theory, Research and Managerial Applications,
pp. 544–559. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). Transformational Leader-
ship Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M. and R. E. Riggio (2006). Transformational
Leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., B. J. Avolio, D. I. Jung and Y. Berson (2003).
‘Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, pp. 207–218.
Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer and K. D.
Vohs (2001). ‘Bad is stronger than good’, Review of General
Psychology, 5, pp. 323–370.
Bies, R. J. and T. M. Tripp (1998). ‘Two faces of the powerless.
Coping with tyranny in organizations’. In R. M. Kramer and
M. A. Neale (eds), Power and Influence in Organizations, pp.
203–219. London: Sage.
Birkland, A., T. M. Glomb and D. S. Ones (2008). ‘A cross-
cultural comparison of senior leader wrongdoing’. Paper
presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11 April, San
Francisco, CA.
Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton (1985). The Managerial Grid III.
Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Bligh, M. C., J. C. Kohles, C. L. Pearce, J. E. G. Justin and J. F.
Stovall (2007). ‘When the romance is over: follower
perspectives of aversive leadership’, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 56, pp. 528–557.
Bretz, R. D. J., G. T. Milkovich and W. Read (1992). ‘The
current state of performance appraisal research and practice:
concerns, directions, and implications’, Journal of Manage-
ment, 18, pp. 321–352.
Burke, R. J. (2006). ‘Why leaders fail. Exploring the dark side’.
In R. J. Burke and C. L. Cooper (eds), Inspiring Leaders, pp.
239–248. London: Routledge.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. London:
Wiley.
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Destructive Leadership Behaviour
Cardy, R. L. and G. H. Dobbins (1994). Performance Appraisal:
Alternative Perspective. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Pub-
lishing.
Christie, R. and F. L. Geis (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism.
New York: Academic Press.
Conger, J. A. (1990). ‘The dark side of leadership’, Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 19, pp. 44–55.
Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1987). ‘Toward a behavioral
theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings’,
Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637–647.
Conger, J. A. and R. N. Kanungo (1988). ‘The empowerment
process: integrating theory and practice’, Academy of
Management Review, 13, pp. 471–482.
Ditton, J. (1977). Part-time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling
and Pilferage. London: Billings.
Duffy, M. K., D. C. Ganster and M. Pagon (2002). ‘Social
undermining in the workplace’, Academy of Management
Journal, 45, pp. 331–351.
Einarsen, S., M. S. Aasland and A. Skogstad (2007).
‘Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and a
conceptual model’, Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 207–216.
Einarsen, S., A. Skogstad, M. S. Aasland and A. M. S. B.
Lseth (2002). ‘‘Destruktivt lederskap: årsaker og konsek-
venser’ [‘Destructive leadership: predictors and conse-
quences’]’. In A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (eds), Ledelse på
Godt og Vondt. Effektivitet og Trivsel [Leadership for Better
or Worse. Efficiency and Job Satisfaction], pp. 233–254.
Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Ekvall, G. and J. Arvonen (1991). ‘Change-centered leadership:
an extension of the two-dimensional model’, Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 7, pp. 17–26.
Fox, S. and P. E. Spector (1999). ‘A model of work frustration–
aggression’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, pp. 915–
931.
Frischer, J. and K. Larsson (2000). ‘Laissez-faire in research
education – an inquiry into a Swedish doctoral program’,
Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 131–155.
Goodman, L. A. (1974). ‘The analysis of systems of qualitative
variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part
1: A modified latent structure approach’, American Journal of
Sociology, 79, pp. 1179–1259.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). ‘A brief tutorial on the development of
measures for use in survey questionnaires’, Organizational
Research Methods, 1, pp. 104–121.
Hinkin, T.R and C. A. Schriesheim (2008). ‘An examination of
‘‘nonleadership’’. From laissez-faire leadership to leader
reward omission and punishment omission’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1234–1248.
Hogan, R. (1994). ‘Trouble at the top: causes and consequences
of managerial incompetence’, Consulting Psychology Journal,
46, pp. 9–15.
Hogan, R., R. Raskin and D. Fazzini (1990). ‘The dark side of
charisma’. In K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds), Measures of
Leadership, pp. 343–354. West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America.
Hstmark, M. and B. O. Lagerstrm (2006). ‘Underskelse om
arbeidsmilj: destruktiv atferd i arbeidslivet’ [‘A study of
work environment: destructive behaviours in working life’].
Dokumentasjonsrapport 44, Statistisk sentralbyrå/Statistics
Norway, Oslo.
House, R. J. and J. M. Howell (1992). ‘Personality and
charismatic leadership’, Leadership Quarterly, 3, pp. 81–108.
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
451
Hubert, A. B. and M. van Veldhoven (2001). ‘Risk sectors
for undesirable behaviour and mobbing’, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp.
415–424.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership. What it is, How it
Happens, Why it Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kelloway, E. K., J. Mullen and L. Francis (2006). ‘Divergent
effects of transformational and passive leadership on employ-
ee safety’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, pp.
76–86.
Kelloway, E. K., N. Sivanathan, L. Francis and J. Barling
(2005). ‘Poor leadership’. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway and
M. R. Frone (eds), Handbook of Work Stress, pp. 89–112.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kets de Vries, F. R. and D. Miller (1985). ‘Narcissism and
leadership: an object relations perspective’, Human Relations,
38, pp. 583–601.
Kipnis, D., S. Schmidt, K. Price and C. Stitt (1981). ‘Why do I
like thee: is it your performance or my orders?’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 66, pp. 324–328.
Lewin, K., R. Lippitt and R. K. White (1939). ‘Patterns of
aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social cli-
mates’, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp. 271–301.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Why
We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and
How We Can Survive Them. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lubit, R. (2004). ‘The tyranny of toxic managers: applying
emotional intelligence to deal with difficult personalities’,
Ivey Business Journal, 68, pp. 1–7.
Ma, H., R. Karri and K. Chittipeddi (2004). ‘The paradox of
managerial tyranny’, Business Horizons, 4, pp. 33–40.
Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002a). ‘Latent class modeling
as a probabilistic extension of K-means clustering’, Quirk’s
Marketing Research Review, 20, pp. 77–80.
Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2002b). ‘Latent class models
for clustering: a comparison with K-means’, Canadian
Journal of Marketing Research, 20, pp. 37–44.
Magidson, J. and J. K. Vermunt (2004). ‘Latent class models’.
In D. Kaplan (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative
Methodology for the Social Sciences, pp. 175–198. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Major, B., J. M. Zubek, M. L. Cooper, C. Cozzarelli and C.
Richards (1997). ‘Mixed messages: implications of social
conflict and social support within close relationships for
adjustment to a stressful life event’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, pp. 1349–1363.
McCall, M. W. J. and M. M. Lombardo (1983). Off the Track: Why
and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Technical Report
No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Mitchell, M. S. and M. L. Ambrose (2007). ‘Abusive super-
vision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of
negative reciprocity beliefs’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, pp. 1159–1168.
Nielsen, M. B., A. Skogstad, S. B. Matthiesen, L. Glas, M. S.
Aasland, G. Notelaers and S. Einarsen (2009). ‘Prevalence of
workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across time and
estimation methods’, European Journal of Work and Organi-
zational Psychology, 18, pp. 81–101.
452 M. S. Aasland et al.

Notelaers, G., S. Einarsen, H. De Witte and J. K. Vermunt
(2006). ‘Measuring exposure to bullying at work: the validity
and advantages of the latent class cluster approach’, Work
and Stress, 20, pp. 288–301.
Padilla, A., R. Hogan and R. B. Kaiser (2007). ‘The toxic
triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and
conducive environments’, Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp.
176–194.
Phillips, J. S. and R. G. Lord (1986). ‘Notes of the practical and
theoretical consequences of implicit leadership measurement’,
Journal of Management, 12, pp. 31–41.
Rayner, C. and C. L. Cooper (2003). ‘The black hole in
‘‘bullying at work’’ research’, International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 4, pp. 47–64.
Sackett, P. R. and C. J. DeVore (2001). ‘Counterproductive
behaviors at work’. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K.
Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of Industrial,
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145–164.
London: Sage.
Schat, A. C. H., M. R. Frone and E. K. Kelloway (2006).
‘Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce:
findings from a national study’. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling
and J. J. Hurrell (eds), Handbook of Workplace Violence, pp.
47–90. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shackleton, V. (1995). ‘Leaders who derail’. In V. Shackleton
(ed.), Business Leadership, pp. 89–100. London: Thomson.
Skogstad, A., S. Einarsen, T. Torsheim, M. S. Aasland and H.
Hetland (2007). ‘The destructiveness of laissez-faire leader-
ship behavior’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
12, pp. 80–92.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’,
Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). ‘Abusive supervision in work organiza-
tions: review, synthesis, and research agenda’, Journal of
Management, 33, pp. 261–289.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). ‘A constant error on psychological
rating’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, pp. 25–29.
Vredenburgh, D. and Y. Brender (1998). ‘The hierarchical
abuse of power in work organizations’, Journal of Business
Ethics, 17, pp. 1337–1347.
Wilson, B. (1991). ‘U.S. businesses suffer from workplace
trauma. Here’s how to protect the mental health of your
work force – and the fiscal health of your company’,
Personnel Journal, 70, pp. 47–50.
Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia (2003). ‘Empirical
findings on bullying in the workplace’. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional
Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Re-
search and Practice, pp. 103–126. London: Taylor & Francis.
Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper and M. K. Duffy (2002). ‘Abusive
supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship
behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 1068–1076.

Merethe Schanke Aasland is a licensed clinical psychologist, currently working as a research fellow
and a PhD student at the University of Bergen completing her PhD thesis on destructive leadership
in organizations. She is also a member of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. Main research topics
are leadership, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying.

Dr Anders Skogstad is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and member
of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. He is a specialist in work and organizational psychology,
Norwegian Psychological Association. His main research topics are destructive leadership in
organizations, psychosocial factors at work, counterproductive behaviours and workplace bullying.

Guy Notelaers is currently funded by the Norwegian Research Council to deliver a PhD on a stress-
oriented approach to explain workplace bullying, and is a member of the Bergen Bullying Research
Group. His main research topics are methods and statistics in the area of work and organizational
research.

Morten Birkeland Nielsen has a PhD in psychology and is currently employed as a postdoctoral
research associate at the University of Bergen. He is a member of the Operational Psychology
Research Group and the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are workplace
bullying, destructive leadership, whistle-blowing and research methodology.

Dr Ståle Einarsen is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, and managing
director of the Bergen Bullying Research Group. His main research topics are destructive leadership
in organizations, creativity and innovation, workplace bullying and sexual harassment.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.