The Dark Side of Leadership and Its Impact on Followers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Dark Side of Leadership and Its Impact on Followers Author Webster, Victoria Joy Published 2016 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Applied Psychology DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1567 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/368169 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The Dark Side of Leadership and Its Impact on Followers Vicki Joy Webster BA (Hons) School of Applied Psychology Griffith University Queensland Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 31 October 2015 i Abstract Over the past two decades research has studied the “dark side of leadership” under the research stream of destructive leadership, variously described as abusive, aversive, derailing, toxic, and tyrannical leadership. While there has been significant research into the consequences of destructive leadership, there has been limited investigation of its antecedents. It has been proposed by a number of researchers, investigating a leader trait approach to leadership, that “dark side” traits (socially undesirable traits that can have negative implications for work success and the well-being of employees) exhibit a curvilinear relationship with key outcomes (e.g., leader and follower performance, follower engagement, and follower well-being): that is, there exist negative consequences for extremely low or high “bright side” personality traits (behavioural traits leaders seem to exhibit when they are performing at their best) and positive consequences for moderate dark side personality traits. Extreme levels of some bright side (e.g., independence, assertiveness, charisma) and dark side (e.g., ego-centred, intimidating, manipulative) traits have been identified as antecedents to exhibiting destructive leadership behaviours. Sustained demonstration of destructive leadership behaviours are associated with harmful outcomes that lead to serious problems for employees in the workplace. Yet there is scarce research into the coping strategies followers employ to cope with destructive leadership. This research consists of three studies that investigate destructive leadership from both the leader and follower perspective. This research identifies traits that may predispose leaders to engage in destructive leadership behaviours, and explores a range of leadership behaviours that are perceived by subordinates to be harmful to well-being, from derailing behaviours to more extreme forms of destructive leadership behaviours. The research also identifies common strategies employed by followers to cope with their leader’s adverse ii behaviour; and evaluates the effectiveness of an intervention to increase follower well-being in the context of destructive leadership. Study 1 employed a cross-sectional design and a self-report measure to identify personality traits that predict or inhibit a predisposition to exhibit destructive leadership behaviours, and explores possible self-regulation traits as mediators, based on trait-activation theory. To date there has been limited investigation of antecedents to destructive leadership. It is important to understand the mechanisms by which leaders may activate derailing traits through failure of self-regulation. This understanding will then inform the design of leadership development activities that aim to assist leaders to avoid derailment. Analysis of data from 300 managers (profiled for recruitment or development purposes across a number of organisations) revealed that high levels of the personality trait independence, typically viewed as a bright side trait, was significantly related to derailing traits (ego-centred, intimidating, manipulating, micro-managing and passive-aggressive). These associations were significantly mediated by levels of leaders’ negative affectivity, which reduced the effect of self-regulation traits (emotional control, self-awareness, and stress tolerance). The results are discussed in terms of the theoretical implications for activation of derailing leadership traits, and practical implications for the selection and development of managers. Study 2 employed a cross-sectional design and self-report, qualitative responses to an online survey completed by respondents (N = 76) who perceived they worked for a “toxic leader”. Data were analysed to confirm destructive leadership behaviours perceived by respondents as toxic, together with the psychological, emotional, and physical consequences of perceived destructive leadership behaviours at the individual level through the voices of affected followers. Respondents’ coping strategies to deal with the effect of destructive leadership behaviours were analysed against two organising theoretical coping frameworks: Yagil, Ben-Zur, and Tamir’s (2011) Coping with Abusive Supervision scale; and Skinner, iii Edge, Altman and Sherwood’s (2003) family of coping strategies. Implications for coping theory in the context of destructive leadership are discussed. This research extends our understanding of which coping strategies might be protective against harm from destructive leadership, which are ineffective in this context, and which may contribute to escalated leader engagement in destructive leadership behaviours. Study 3 presents a quasi-experimental evaluation of a secondary stress prevention intervention, a four-hour resiliency training session, to improve followers’ well-being in general and, specifically, when subjected to destructive leadership behaviours. The intervention was based on four theoretical frameworks that have previously been found to effectively minimise the negative effects of stress: stress innoculation therapy, acceptance commitment training, resiliency, and career resilience. Repeated-measures data for psychological, affective, and physical well-being were collected immediately before the intervention and after the training session, and then three months post the intervention. Both intervention process and outcome results were evaluated. Results indicated a positive effect of the resiliency training intervention on follower well-being, with a significant increase in affective well-being and a significant decrease in psychological distress three months post the intervention. No effect was found for physical well-being. A significant increase in participants’ knowledge, confidence, and motivation to use resiliency techniques was found immediately post the training session. Additional analyses to test the mediation effects of participant coping strategies on the association between manager relationship and well-being found significant effects at Time 1 only. Avoidance coping mediated the association between poor manager relationship (low manager support and low manager interpersonal justice) and psychological and affective well-being, such that psychological and emotional distress were reduced, suggesting these coping mechanisms may be adaptive to destructive leadership, at least in the short term. This research demonstrates that an individual intervention conducted iv to enhance follower resiliency to destructive leadership behaviours can effectively improve psychological and affective well-being over time. Furthermore, this research is designed to address commonly cited limitations of intervention research, including lack of empirically- based interventions, lack of longitudinal research, lack of evaluation of implementation processes, and failure to address potential mediating effects. Practical implications are discussed, including recommended changes to research design to improve the efficacy of interventions aiming to mitigate the harm of destructive leadership to followers. Finally, theoretical and practical implications of the results from the three studies in this thesis are discussed. This research contributes to a better understanding of the antecedent traits and characteristics that predispose a leader to engage in destructive leadership behaviours, highlighting the role of the trait negative affectivity in suppressing self-regulation traits. Practical implications for addressing leader derailment focus on organisational interventions to develop leaders’ resilience and capacity to deal effectively with negative emotions, such as frustration or fear of failure, to prevent them activating their trait predisposition and engaging in destructive behaviours. This research also advances understanding of theoretical coping mechanisms followers engage in when subjected to destructive leadership behaviours, and confirms previous research propositions that employees are likely to employ ineffective coping strategies in this situation. Some support is provided for the utility of existing coping frameworks within the context of followers responding to destructive leadership. Support is also provided for the utility of secondary stress prevention interventions (e.g., resiliency training for followers) in improving the well- being of participants over time, in the context of destructive leadership. Implementation of primary, secondary, and tertiary stress management interventions is recommended in order to protect followers from the occupational stressor of destructive leadership. Collaboration between academics and practitioners is called for in researching this phenomena and v influencing organisations to pro-actively address this significant workplace stressor in order to protect the psychosocial safety and well-being of managers and employees. Key Words: Abusive