Week 9

Destructive leadership in crisis management

Maria Fors Brandebo Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, The Swedish Defence University,

Karlstad, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to contribute to increased knowledge of destructive leadership in crisis management. The specific research questions are: (1) What types of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified in leaders in crisis management? and (2) Why are these behaviours considered destructive in this context? Design/methodology/approach –About 21 informants involved in crisismanagement at regional, local and operational levels in Sweden were interviewed. They were selected since they had recently been involved in severe accidents and/or crises (e.g. terror attacks, forest fires). A grounded theory analysis of interview data yielded two core variables: destructive leadership behaviours, and appraisal: interpretation of leader behaviour. Findings –The study identified seven different destructive leadership behaviours: four task-related and three relationship-related. Task-related behaviours primarily led to negative consequences for the task/crisis. Relationship-related behaviours have negative consequences for subordinates’ job satisfaction, well-being and/ or sense of meaningfulness. The paper relates the identified behaviours to existing leadership ideals within crisis management and discusses behaviours that appear to be unique for the crisis management context. Practical implications – The paper highlights the fact that great crisis managers are not always good at managing relationships, which may have negative implications for crisis management in the long term. Originality/value – Destructive leadership is a research field that is rapidly expanding. However, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of destructive leadership behaviours and what makes an individual appraise a leader as destructive in crisis management.

Keywords Destructive leadership, Crisis management, Leadership, Laissez-faire leadership

Paper type Research paper

Introduction Leadership in the event of accidents and public crises means leading under pressure. In these situations, leaders move from an everyday context to a riskier zone characterised by uncertainty and ambiguity. Effective leaders who are able to manage both these contexts form a vital prerequisite for success. During severe crises, expectations are high on leaders and as stated in the Guardian “crisis has defined political leaders” (Smee, 2020). A recent example is the Australian PrimeMinister Scott Morrison, who has received massive criticism during the bush fires in Australia that started at the end of 2019. Morrison has been described, among other things, as passive and disconnected. Research indicates that contexts characterised by stress and risks can contribute to leaders more often using destructive leadership behaviour, even if the leaders, in more normal circumstances, would not be prone to this (Fors Brandebo et al., 2016; Padilla et al., 2007). These types of behaviours may impact the leader him/herself (e.g. lack of trust), the organisation (subordinates’ perception of the organisation is negatively affected) and the subordinates (e.g. worsened health, decreased job satisfaction) (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Research on destructive leadership has rapidly increased in the last decade. However, within the field of crisis management, research on destructive leadership is still scarce. There is a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of destructive leadership behaviour and what makes an individual appraise a leader as being destructive in this context. The aim of this study is therefore to address these questions.

Destructive leadership

567

This work was supported by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency [grant number 2016-7048].

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm

Received 20 February 2019 Revised 7 July 2019

16 October 2019 15 January 2020

25 February 2020 Accepted 9 March 2020

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Vol. 41 No. 4, 2020 pp. 567-580

© Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739

DOI 10.1108/LODJ-02-2019-0089

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Studies on leadership in crisis management have primarily focussed on how leaders solve crises and/or collaborate with other actors. Less attention has been paid to psychological aspects, specifically the relationship between the leader and his/her subordinates. It can be assumed that it is particularly important to gain knowledge of destructive leadership in this specific type of context since great values are at stake: not only economic values but also values concerning the individuals who may not be able to perform their best or whose health is impaired, which in turn also affects the handling of crises. Even if individual leaders tend to end up in the spotlight during crises, a crisis is handled by many more individuals who are affected by the leader and who has to stay on top of things. A crisis can be a great strain for those involved in solving it. Whether the crisis is brief but intense or prolonged, a destructive leader can be presumed to put additional pressure on an already stressful situation. It is therefore important to study destructive leadership in crisis management.

Osborn et al. (2002) argue that leadership is embedded in the context implying that leadership behaviour may change when the context changes. By gaining more knowledge about destructive leadership in crisis management, the field of destructive leadership will increase its knowledge about what context-specific destructive leadership behaviour is. Comparing previous studies on leadership in crisis management with general leadership theories/constructs suggests that the differences are mainly related to different contextual factors and requirements, that is, the leader must be able to handle highly dynamic and unpredictable environments and public scrutiny, with the possibility of catastrophic consequences for not only the organisation but also society and its citizens (Boin et al., 2016; Sweeney et al., 2011). Given this, it becomes relevant to study destructive leadership in the crisis management context and to see whether leadership is expressed differently in this specific context. A review of how destructive leadership can be defined and described in terms of behaviour is as follows.

Destructive leadership Destructive leadership can be 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 subordinates.” (Einarsen et al., 2007, p. 208). Schyns and Schilling (2013) propose another definition of destructive leadership: “A process in which over a longer period of time the activities, experiences and/or rselationships of an individual or the members of a group are repeatedly influenced by their supervisor in a way that is perceived as hostile and/or obstructive.” (p. 141). Both definitions stress that the behaviour is repeated over time and that it does not need to be volitional. The consequences of the behaviour matter, not the intention. The definition by Schyns and Schilling (2013) does not include the anti-organisational dimension but focusses on the results and the subordinates’ perception of the leader’s behaviour. This paper takes its point of departure in both these definitions by viewing destructive leadership as systematic and repeated behaviour that is considered destructive by the leader’s subordinates. That is, it is the effect of the leader’s behaviour that counts, not the intention.

Some scholars divide destructive leadership behaviours into active and passive forms (Einarsen et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2012). Active behaviours include, for example, arrogance, unfairness, threatening or punishing subordinates. Passive behaviours can be exemplified by leaders who do not show an active interest, do not dare to confront others or are poor at structuring and planning (Larsson et al., 2012). While active forms represent more deliberate and volitional behaviours, passive forms are regarded as behaviours that leaders use when they have more or less abdicated from supervisor responsibilities and duties (Einarsen et al., 2007). Skogstad et al. (2014) state that passive behaviours can be defined as a follower-centred form of avoidance-based leadership and is thus perceived as a volitional and active avoidance

LODJ 41,4

568

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

of subordinates when they are in need of leadership and support. Laissez-faire leadership has also been highlighted as the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour (Aasland et al., 2010). Another important point of departure of this paper is to take into account different types of destructive behaviours and not limit the study to just examining one type of behaviour. No previous studies of destructive leadership have been conducted in the crisis management context, but a review of findings related to general leadership aspects in this specific context is presented in the following section.

Leadership in crisis management Crisis management “is an ongoing process to prevent or reduce negative consequences involving activities before, during and after a crisis” (Hede, 2018, p. 4). In this paper a crisis is defined as a societal collective crisis, which means that it collectively affects several individuals at the same time and is handled by societal organisations and institutions, usually several in collaboration (Hede, 2018). These organisations and institutions can be at regional, local or operational levels. Examples of societal crises are terror attacks, social unrest, forest fires, hurricanes or transport accidents. Leaders in crisis management often have to manage two different contexts, the normal and the crisis context (Boin et al., 2016). Also, the leader must lead within his/her own organisation while at the same time collaborating with other organisations (Uhr, 2017). All of this is often performed under the watchful eye of society and the media, placing extra strain on the leader. Uhr (2017) suggests three leadership archetypes to mirror intra-organisational ideals in crisis management. These three ideals are based on common conceptual framings of leadership related to personal traits, principal leadership styles/behaviours and the three-skills approach (technical skills, human skills, conceptual skills). Nonetheless, the suggested ideals may be dysfunctional in this type of collaborative context. Uhr takes his point of departure in leadership traits and styles that have a potential conflict with what a leader requires during multi-organisational responses to emergencies and crises. Leaders are recruited based on how well they perform their job in their own organisation, which is not always what is necessary for collaboration. The first archetype, the Competitive Leader, is often extrovert. The leader enjoys social attention and is competitive. This is negative from a crisis management perspective since several organisations are often involved. This type of leadership may also affect the working group’s performance negatively.

The Perfect Commander is based on command structures where clear orders/directives result in quick responses. This type of authoritarian leadership emphasises the individual before the collective. An individual leader may become the “hero” that saves the situation. The Chief Mechanic is the third archetype, and this type of leader is recruited based on relevant technical skills and experience. Consequently, the leader is selected based on specialised knowledge rather than on leadership competence. These archetypes are, as noted, related to collaboration during emergencies and crises. However, based on definitions of destructive leadership (see further), it can be assumed that these behaviours may lead to negative consequences for the organisation and or/the subordinates in the organisation as well. For example, Bass and Riggio (2006) suggest that transformational leadership is the most effective leadership model/style which is not compatible with an authoritarian leadership style. In other words, these leadership ideals may lead to destructive leadership behaviours.

In crises, situational awareness is often diffuse, the time horizon shorter and there are several potential outcomes. The uncertainty in the crisis, sometimes combined with extensive media coverage, can result in leaders using passive destructive behaviours even if they, under normal circumstances, are considered to be effective leaders (Fors Brandebo and Larsson, 2012). Studying destructive leadership in a crisis management context is important from several aspects. First, research indicates that destructive leadership is more common in

Destructive leadership

569

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

organisations that are characterised by structural and organisational instability, uncertainty/ perceived risk and greater freedom of action for leaders, which makes it easier for them to abuse their authority (Howell and Avolio, 1992; Padilla et al., 2007). Second, Fors Brandebo et al. (2016) propose that leaders with a high workload and/or stress in their work are more prone to using passive destructive leadership behaviours directed at their subordinates since they do not have sufficient time to be clear and structured, to be engaged or to take care of things.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to increased knowledge about destructive leadership in crisis management. The specific research questions are:

(1) What types of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified in leaders in crisis management and do these behaviours differ from behaviours found in other contexts?

(2) Why are these behaviours considered destructive in the crisis management context?

Due to the lack of research on destructive leadership in crisis management, this study will have an inductive approach, using grounded theory to investigate the aforementioned research questions. Grounded theory has been suggested to be preferable when studying leadership because of the wide variety of variables that impact leadership (Glaser, 1992; Parry, 1998).

Method Participants The selection of participants followed grounded theory guidelines and was governed by a desire to find informants with a wide variety of experience. About 21 individuals working with crisis management at regional, local and operational levels participated in the study. To be included in the study, the informants needed experience from crisis management during societal crises in recent years. The number of informants was determined by the criterion of conceptual saturation. As the last interviews did not contribute new aspects or findings, additional interviews were not conducted.

Twelve of the informants were male and nine were female. Eight of the informants currently worked at a county administrative board, four of them at a municipality, six were from the emergency services and three from the police force. However, the majority of informants had recently held positions in other organisations so their interviews contributed experience from several of these contexts. About 18 of the informants held leadership positions but mostly shared their experiences of destructive leadership from a subordinate perspective. The other three were co-workers without a leadership role/position. Three counties were selected based on the fact that they had recently been involved in severe accidents and/or crises (e.g. terror attacks, forest fires). Key posts were identified and a few contacts were provided by colleagues with a background in crisis management. These contacts were asked to suggest other individuals in positions relevant for the study. In other cases, relevant individuals were found by contacting organisations and asking for names of those holding specific positions. As a result, the snowball sampling method was implemented. The author had no previous relationship with any of the informants or selected organisations, and there is no identified power imbalance between the author and the informants.

Data collection The participants were treated according to the norms of the Swedish Ethical ReviewBoard in Stockholm. The research project underwent ethical vetting by the Board (Protocol 2017/5:10

LODJ 41,4

570

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

EPN). Data were collected by interviews, following a prepared interview guide. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions and individually adapted follow-up questions covering the following themes: background questions (age, position, etc.), destructive leadership behaviour during crisis management (e.g. “What do you consider to be destructive leadership behaviour during crisis management?” “Why do you consider this behaviour destructive?”) and in everyday conditions (e.g. “Do you perceive that the leader’s behaviour during crisis management differs from the leader’s behaviour in normal circumstances?”), trust (e.g. “Is your trust in the leader affected (by the specific behaviour) in any way?”) and performance (e.g. “Is your work situation affected by the leader’s behaviour?”). The answers to the two questions related to trust and performance were usually provided by the informant when answering the first question about experience of destructive leadership during crisis management (the behaviour was related to its consequences).

When the informants were contacted, they received an email with information about the aim of the study. In the email, the term “problematic leadership” was used instead of destructive leadership since the latter may lead to certain associations for individuals who lack knowledge of the concept (e.g. associations to psychopathic or narcissistic behaviour). Before the interview, the informants were informed about the correct term (destructive leadership) but were not given any specific definition until the interview was completed. The informants were asked to describe leadership behaviour that they considered problematic or destructive without any further instructions from the author.

The interviews took place over a brief period of time (October–December 2017) mainly at the informants’ workplaces in Sweden. Eight interviews were conducted by Skype for Business or by phone. The interviews were recorded and generally lasted about 90 min. All interviews were conducted and analysed by the author.

Data analysis Some interviewswere conducted, transcribed and analysed before repeating the process with additional interviews – a procedure that facilitated the development of the emerging core variables. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the constant comparative method introduced by Glaser and Strauss (1967), the first step being the open coding process. Data were examined line by line in order to identify descriptions of actions, thought patterns and feelings associated with the interview themes. The codes derived were formulated in words resembling those used by the informants. For example, the statement “No prestige. It’s a crisis. Everyone fetches coffee. You do what is necessary. When this is not so, it becomes extremely difficult.” was coded as “Prestige”. Codes were then compared to verify their descriptive content and to confirm that they were based on the data.

The second step involved sorting the codes into different categories. The aforementioned example, “Prestige”, was sorted into the category “Ego-centric”. This was achieved by comparing interview transcriptions, codes and categories, also analysing codes and categories with respect to the selection criteria, meaning that comparisons were made between the different organisations and roles occupied by the informants. In the end, each category was represented by a large majority of the informants. Only three of the informants had a limited experience of destructive leadership and these three informants contributed only a few examples each of destructive behaviours. Most of the informants contributed examples that could be related to almost every final category. The third step consisted of fitting the categories together using the constant comparative method. In practice, analysis steps were not strictly sequential; the author moved backwards and forwards, constantly re- examining interview data, codes and categories. This resulted in two final core variables. The aforementioned example, “Ego-centric”, was sorted into the core variable “Destructive leadership behaviours”.

Destructive leadership

571

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Results This paper suggests that destructive leadership in a crisis management context can be understood as a process beginning with subordinates interpreting the leader’s behaviour as destructive. This occurs when the leader’s behaviour is perceived as obstructive when it comes to accomplishing the task (the subordinate’s task or the accident/crisis as awhole) and/ or exerts a negative impact on the subordinate’s job satisfaction, well-being and/or sense of meaningfulness. This negatively affects subordinates’ ability andmotivation to carry out the task. Two core variables emerge from the data and together they describe the leadership behaviours that are considered destructive and explain why they are destructive: destructive leadership behaviours and appraisal: interpretation of leader behaviour. The general features of the two variables are presented as follows:

Destructive leadership behaviours Seven different types of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified – either task- or relationship-related. Task-related destructive leadership behaviours are (1) over-controlling, not involving others, (2) lack of decisiveness, avoiding responsibility, (3) ambiguity and (4) becoming stressed, losing control.

Over-controlling, not involving others (active). This behaviour is perceived to be a result of leaders who are too task- and/or goal-focussed. The leader takes over other peoples’ tasks and/or does not keep others informed. These leaders are often described as over-ambitious. The result of this kind of behaviour is that subordinates feel excluded and uninvolved. The leader deviates from structures, chooses not to use pre-defined roles and functions but instead takes over or asks people from other units or organisations to take over subordinates’ tasks. The subordinates feel by-passed and disregarded since they expect the leader to let them exercise the responsibilities and roles they have been assigned to and/or prepared for.

We have a plan, but it is never followed, the boss simply chooses a few people. Some of them are experts but some are [the boss’s] mates. And they go in and fix things and make calls instead of following the plan. It is easier for them because they know each other. Incredibly exclusive. No one knows what they do.

Leaders on strategic levels may become too operational during crisis management. They take over, consciously or unconsciously, the task of leaders at lower, operational levels. If a strategic leader physically moves to the crisis scene or to a command centre where the leader is not normally stationed, subordinate leaders may feel that the leader has taken over. This creates uncertainty in the organisation when subordinate leaders do not know what is expected of them and what the superior leader’s intentions are.

This could have upset the entire crisis leadership. Uncertainty fills the room as to who makes the decisions as soon as a higher rank enters the room he/she becomes responsible and this creates a risk. I had been leading operations, then two higher ranks entered the room, and when they started discussing both important issues and small details the chain of command became unclear, who decides what and what is my mandate? The risk is a decision vacuum where you do not dare take decisions.

This category also includes the leader not highlighting or giving credit to others, being over- controlling or having a need to micro-manage. Micro-management is often perceived as the leader lacking trust in his or her subordinates. This category also deals with the leader being dominant in terms of shouting others down and/or being perceived as taking up a lot of space.

Some leaders do not seek support for decisions or do not involve subordinates/ collaborating actors in decision-making or the management of the crisis or accident. It appears that the leader prefers to make all the decisions alone. One consequence of not including others in the decision process is that subordinates are not as prepared as they could be when they are placed in a position where they need to take initiative or make decisions.

LODJ 41,4

572

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Expressing yourself clearly and daring to make quick decisions are very valuable talents in the crisis management context; however, they may also lead to leaders being perceived as insensitive. The leader fails to gather other viewpoints, alternatives and solutions that individuals in the group/unit may have knowledge of. The leader chooses to act on his/her own conviction in time-critical situations.

Lack of decisiveness, avoiding responsibility (passive). The leader seems to avoid responsibility, assign responsibility to others, not deal with situations and/or become paralysed in a crisis situation. Lack of decisiveness and avoiding responsibility also manifest themselves as conflict avoidance, cowardice, lack of commitment or disinterest. Another aspect deals with decision-making. The leader lacks courage, does not want or does not dare to make decisions or takes too long. Lack of decisiveness and avoiding responsibility appear to be most difficult in critical situations where consequences for society and affected individuals are great. The leader is expected to take responsibility and make decisions. However, it is reported that leaders think it is better to do nothing than to do something incorrectly. This is suggested as the contributing cause to why leaders do not dare to make decisions or take responsibility. One subordinate explains it as the leader “getting away with it legally but not morally”. There are no formal consequences for not making a decision but the moral consequence is that your subordinates lose their trust in you. The next time the same leader is in a leading position during a crisis/accident, subordinates have negative expectations for how the leader will manage the situation.

Civilian leaders lacking experience of crisis management may be prone to assigning responsibility to operational leaders who are more used to making quick decisions under pressure. This can sometimes be favourable (e.g. if the leader is too inexperienced to make well-informed decisions) but strategic leaders should have an overall, strategic perspective which operational leaders often lack. By giving away responsibility, the crisis may be managed without this perspective since it is not in the mandate of operational leaders/ organisations. It alsomeans that subordinates feel that they have been deprived of their tasks and become passive while waiting for decisions and actions from the operational level.

Another aspect of this category deals with leaders who do not get a grip on things, do not make things happen. Operations do not materialise or move forward and subordinates wait for directives and direction. The leader is not familiar with relevant issues and/or rejects responsibilities/tasks.

People who become paralysed or who do not get things done in a planned crisis management, or especially in an unplanned crisis management process, end up in some sort of crisis. They think they are ready. They have both training and some experience, but they just stand there and do nothing instead. OK, it could be a one-off thing, but if it recurs when they are in charge of leading a crisis, then it becomes a destructive, problematic leadership style. Nothing gets done and you end up in a time crunch.

Another aspect concerns the leader being absent or withdrawn. During crises and accidents, there is a limited period of time for the leader to be accessible and present. If the leader, in everyday conditions, is often absent, subordinates tend to interpret absence during a crisis as deliberate withholding/avoidance rather than the consequence of a heavy workload.

Ambiguous (passive). Being ambiguous means that the leader is unclear in his/her communication and fails to pass information and/or notify others. The category egocentric includes withholding information. The difference is that in this case it is interpreted as a deliberate action chosen in order to gain something or to disadvantage the other party. Failing to pass on information or notify others does not need to be intentional or deliberate. The leader may not understand that the information is important to others, does not have time or chooses not to prioritise information dissemination. Another aspect concerns leaders who do not ensure that information reaches the intended recipients.

Destructive leadership

573

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Being ambiguous also deals with not giving clear direction, framework and structure or being unclear as to what the problem is. The leader cannot prioritise. Subordinates may have to lead and direct themselves (e.g. find directions and/or prioritise tasks) based on how they interpret the leader’s insufficient directives. This may lead to several different interpretations and subordinates working towards different goals. In the initial phase of a crisis, it is particularly important to elucidate structures, resource allocation and mandates.

Most often, when you start up crisis management, you are a step behind and you will have to put in resources afterwards, which means that you have to put in people and resources at different stages and it is easy to get a little behind. You are trying to catch up with the crisis so it is incredibly important to give the right message to those who arrive to follow up. Otherwise, you will work in different directions, it may be frustrating and everything will be vague. Initially, the first problem is to set a clear goal and a clear direction, what you want to do.

Becomes stressed, loses control (passive). This includes behaviours such as not being able to handle strain and stress, losing control or exaggerating. It also includes perceived mood swings. A leader who cannot handle stress may have difficulty with his/her job. Other individuals have to devote time and energy to calming and supporting the leader. Often this person is of a higher rank. This implies that two leaders suddenly become unavailable in a crisis situation. Exaggerating means that the leader becomes stressed during an incident and exaggerates the magnitude of the crisis. The leader may, for example, launch the crisis management system although other actors interpret the situation as less critical (the leader is perceived as crying wolf).

The next three categories are considered relationship-related: (1) egocentric, (2) threats and punishments and (3) does not show respect and understanding.

Egocentric (active). The leader is perceived as making decisions or acting in ways that benefit the leader or the leader’s unit rather than onwhat benefits the solution of the crisis as a whole. Egocentric leaders are often perceived as prestige-seeking which is negative for crisis management where cooperation is important.

Another aspect of egocentrism is leaders who elevate themselves and/or their units while at the same time trying to undermine others. Leaders may deliberately withhold or angle information. Sometimesmedia are used as a tool for this. Leadersmay, for example, usemedia to publicly criticise other organisations or leaders during or after a crisis. During crises and accidents, it may be possible to acquire extra resources. Leaders sometimes appear to use this opportunity for their own benefit to secure resources that may be useful even after the crisis.

I feel this, that they purposely try to gain advantages. It is easier to get a step ahead of others in these situations.

Egocentrism also manifests itself as leaders taking credit for others’ work or trying to exaggerate their own significance. Another aspect deals with leaders’ need to be recognised, to be the centre of attention and/or be involved, taking decisions. Leaders may also try to protract the crisis in order to be able to stay in the limelight. As long as the organisation is in a crisis mode, the leader gains more attention and importance than in normal conditions.

Egocentric behaviour also appears when the leader favours certain subordinates or is more interested in particular types of crises and accidents. In the latter case the leader is more engaged in this type of crisis management and/or allocates more resources.

Threatens, punishes (active). This category refers to behaviours such as aggression, meanness and unpleasantness to subordinates or collaborating actors. The category also includes punishing others when they fail to meet expectations or make mistakes.

Then there is the father figure who gives a clip round the ear when staff make a mistake rather than leading and showing correct behaviour. This is how it is done! Then they sit and wait, do not participate, just move in when something goes wrong. This is very poor behaviour in my world.

LODJ 41,4

574

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Other behaviours in this category include divide and rule techniques, bullying and/or deliberately excluding others.

Does not show respect and understanding (active). The behaviours in this often manifest themselves as lack of ability to cooperate. The intention is sometimes interpreted as negative, that is, an unwillingness to cooperate. At other times it deals with an unwillingness to understand and become familiar with others’ needs or conditions. Leaders may not be able to see the big picture and prefer to engage in territoriality. They have difficulties seeing things from perspectives other than that of their own unit and organisation. This often leads to difficulties for subordinates in performing their work since collaboration actors may gain a negative opinion of their unit/organisation, which impacts on cooperation. Another aspect deals with the leader lacking respect and acceptance for others and particularly for diversity. This may include lack of respect for women, civilians or uniformed staff or different competencies.

Appraisal: interpretation of leader behaviour What determines whether a behaviour is interpreted as destructive or constructive by subordinates? In crisis management, a crisis usually needs to be managed urgently under time pressure, with ambiguous information. Failing may lead to severe consequences. The subordinate interprets the leader’s behaviour as destructive if it is perceived as impeding and/ or complicating the possibility to solve the crisis or the subordinate’s opportunities to carry out his/her tasks and/or if the behaviour affects the subordinate’s job satisfaction, well-being and/or sense ofmeaningfulness. There is an expectation that the leaderwill take action and be determined. However, at the same time, subordinates expect to be involved and be allowed to carry out their tasks. A behaviour may be interpreted as constructive in one situation but destructive in another. For example, a leader who is perceived as having the courage to make tough, rapid decisions may be considered constructive during a phase of the crisis where this is necessary. However, the same type of behaviour may be considered destructive in situations where there is more time for dialogue and reflection (i.e. the behaviour is perceived as complicating the accomplishment of the task). The leader’s actions contribute to the crisis being handled well but at the same time leave subordinates feeling steamrollered and excluded. The problem was solved but at the expense of relationships with subordinates since they did not get the opportunity to carry out their tasks.

To summarise the results section, seven destructive leadership behaviours have been identified – either task-related (e.g. ambiguous, over-controlling, not involving others) or relationship-related (e.g. egocentric, not showing respect and understanding). What determines if a behaviour is interpreted as destructive or constructive is related to expectations in this specific context (and its different phases).

Discussion The aim of this paper is to contribute to increased knowledge of destructive leadership in crisis management. The specific research questions were: (1) What kind of destructive leadership behaviours can be identified in leaders in crisis management and do these behaviours differ from behaviours found in other contexts? and (2)Why are these behaviours considered destructive in the crisis management context?

Seven different destructive leadership behaviours were identified, either task- or relationship-related. Previous studies show that destructive leadership behaviours can be directed towards the organisation or towards subordinates (Einarsen et al., 2007). The task- related behaviours can be defined as behaviours that primarily lead to negative consequences for the task (in this case the crisis). The relationship-related behaviours can be regarded as

Destructive leadership

575

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

behaviours that have negative consequences for subordinates’ job satisfaction, well-being and/or sense of meaningfulness. Task-related behaviours can, of course, also impact negatively on subordinates. If the leader complicates, prevents or delays the management of the task (crisis), then subordinates are substantially affected.

The crisis management context is characterised by uncertainty and ambiguity, and often lives or valuable resources are at stake (Boin et al., 2016). Destructive leadership in this context is therefore closely related to subordinate experiences of not being able to perform their job (i.e. not handling the crisis as effectively as possible). However, even in those cases where the crisis is successfully solved, the subordinates may still feel a lack of job satisfaction andmeaningfulness (they were not allowed to participate, exercise their responsibilities) and/ or a negative impact on their well-being (feeling humiliated when excluded, stress due to unclear directions). This highlights the importance of the question of who or what the destructive behaviour is directed at, the organisation/task or the subordinates? Krasikova et al. (2013) state that organisations aremore prone to act when leaders have destructive goals compared to when leaders use destructive behaviours towards subordinates.

The behaviours identified in this study raise a question: how context-specific is destructive leadership? Do these behaviours differ from behaviours suggested in other contexts? This study contributes to knowledge that indicates that perceptions of leadership behaviours are related to contextual conditions. Comparing the behaviours identified in this study with other concepts of negative leadership reveals that most of the behaviours are also known in other contexts (Einarsen et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2012; Tepper, 2000). However, three behaviours are not as highlighted in previous studies: over-controlling, does not involve others; becomes stressed, loses control; and does not show respect and understanding. Overcontrolling, does not involve others has been suggested as destructive behaviour by Schilling (2009), who uses the term Restrictive Leadership. Schilling’s (2009) term includes behaviours such as not involving/passing over subordinates and not offering scope for/ empowering subordinates. Otherwise, this aspect is not common within the destructive leadership research field. The crisis management context involves high stress levels and time constraints. It is suggested that these conditions lead to subordinates expecting the leader to behave in a certain way or possess certain characteristics that they would not expect of the leader in another context/situation. For example, stress and time constraints may lead to leaders not having the time (or the will) to involve others and the need to over-control in order to solve the crisis and gain control of the situation. The same may be said about becomes stressed, loses control. An ordinary context is not as characterised by stress and pressure as the crisis management context, which may explain why this type of behaviour is not considered destructive or has not been highlighted as destructive. However, Fors Brandebo et al. (2016) suggest that stress may be a cause of destructive leadership. This paper contributes to knowledge that lack of stress management may be regarded not only as a cause of destructive leadership behaviour but also as actual destructive behaviour, which has not been noticed in previous studies.

A necessity for crisis management is cooperation (Boin et al., 2016). Smaller as well as larger societal crises normally involve several different actors from different organisations, both civilian, such as municipalities and different government agencies, and the emergency services. This imposes considerable demands on leaders to be flexible and to be able to create consensus between individuals from different organisational cultures and structures. In ordinary organisations, leaders generally do not have to manage being exposed (in terms of having to cooperate) to somany different professions and organisations to the same extent or under the same circumstances (stress, time pressure). Not showing respect and understanding is therefore highlighted in the crisis management context as destructive leadership behaviour. The aforementioned line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that although most behaviours identified in this study are known in other contexts, a few of the

LODJ 41,4

576

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

behaviours that are considered destructive may be related to the specific context and its conditions.

Leaders in crisis management are often assessed and noticed based on how well the crisis is managed. They often gain reputations based on their previous achievements such as being a “fixer” or “decider” (Boin et al., 2016). This paper highlights that leaders may be competent as crisis managers but at the expense of their relationship to subordinates. For example, a leader who solves the crisis well by taking over subordinates’ tasks or driving subordinates on by using threats and punishments will most likely be acknowledged for accomplishing the task even if the leader is in fact a destructive leader. This raises the question of how subordinates can gain a hearing if they are treated badly by their leader? Accountability is often discussed within crisis management but usually related to what went wrong, why it went wrong and how the consequences were handled, not related to interpersonal relationships (Br€andstr€om, 2016; Mulgan, 2014).

Another aspect worth considering is the fact that leadership ideals within the crisis management context may contribute to leaders using destructive leadership behaviour. Uhr (2017) describes three leadership archetypes that appear to be common in crisis management. Based on these, what ideals does this context mediate and highlight? The competitive leader and the perfect commander may become an egocentric leader experiencing problems with empathy and cooperating with others. These leaders are over-controlling, do not involve others and want to be the sole hero in the spotlight. The chief mechanic may have the knowledge, skills and experience but may become a leader who experiences difficulties in taking action and involving his/her subordinates. The destructive leadership behaviours identified in this study may, in other words, be consequences of the ideals that prevail within crisis management.

This study describes seven different destructive leadership styles, highlighting the specific aspects of the crisis management context that may influence perceptions of destructive leadership (e.g. stress, time constraints and ability to cooperate). The results reveal that some of the behaviours may be considered destructive due to the specific requirements and conditions of the context. These results contribute to knowledge that leadership behaviours may be context-specific. In order to understand why these behaviours are considered destructive, expectations must also be taken into consideration since the results also suggest that expectations of leaders are context-specific as well. Based on the previous discussion regarding leadership ideals in the crisis management context, it can be assumed that expectations are biased. This study results show that subordinates expect leaders to take responsibility andmake decisions, be clear and allow subordinates to exercise their responsibilities and roles. The opposite of this, or any behaviour that counteracts it, is considered destructive.

Regarding the study’s practical implications, as discussed earlier, this study shows that destructive leadership can be both task- and relationship-related. Previous studies show that leaders in crisis management are often assessed and noticed based on their ability to accomplish a task (Boin et al., 2016), not on howwell they handle relationships. It is important for crisis management organisations to create systems for evaluation where impact on relationships is also included. A leader cannot solve andmanage a crisis alone (even if a single leader may get the credit) and what happens to an organisation’s emergency preparedness if subordinates are dissatisfied and unmotivated? Research shows that subordinates of destructive leaders often show higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion (Fors Brandebo et al., 2016; Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Tepper, 2000), implying that this may have severe consequences for how well the organisation is prepared the next time a crisis occurs.

A few of the behaviours identified in this study (over-controlling, not involving others, becoming stressed, losing control, not showing respect and understanding) have not been particularly emphasised in other contexts, indicating that destructive leadership may be

Destructive leadership

577

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

context-specific. This knowledge may be significant in leadership education. When teaching about destructive leadership, it is important to highlight that the same type of behaviourmay not have the same impact in different contexts and situations. For example, a leader who makes rapid and tough decisions during a stressful situation may be considered constructive while the same leader may be considered destructive if he/she uses the same behaviour when the situation is not as stressful (when there is time to involve subordinates). Leaders need to gain insight into the importance of considering the specific requirements and conditions of the context and adapt their leadership accordingly.

A last practical implication concerns how researchers categorise destructive leadership behaviours. Researchers often sort destructive leadership behaviours into active and passive forms (see, e.g. Einarsen et al., 2007; Larsson et al., 2012). Categorising the identified behaviours in the study into task- and relationship-related behaviours contributes to support for how leaders can be perceived as successful and effective while at the same time being destructive towards subordinates. Also, behaviours may not need to be directed directly towards the subordinates in order to be considered destructive. Krasikova et al. (2013) have previously suggested a distinction between (1) encouraging followers to pursue destructive goals and (2) using destructive methods of influence with followers. The results from this study distinguish between the leader using destructive methods towards subordinates in pursuit of goals (regardless if they are conflicting with the goals of the subordinates and/or the organisations) and the leader using destructive methods of influence with followers. This is more in line with the definition of Einarsen et al. (2007) which includes organisational directed behaviour. It can be argued that behaviours that are directed at the task (or the organisation) indirectly harm the subordinates. For example, a leader having difficulties collaborating with other actors may lead to difficulties for the subordinates in performing their work (other actors may assume a negative attitude towards the subordinates since they represent the same organisation). Dividing leadership behaviours into task- and relationship- related behaviours is not a new invention, it is rather well established in leadership literature (see, e.g. Yukl, 2006). However, this categorisation has not previously been suggested for destructive leadership behaviours.

Regarding the study’s research implication: asmentioned earlier, in the field of destructive leadership, it has not been common to divide destructive leadership behaviours into task- and relationship-related ones. Usually, behaviours are divided into active and passive forms. This study may contribute with new ways of approaching the research field by taking into consideration whether or not the behaviour is destructive towards the task or relationships and by highlighting that these two aspects can be conflicting.

Another research implication that this current study contributes is the indication that subordinates’ expectations in a specific context affect what types of behaviours are considered destructive. Most studies on destructive leadership do not take context into consideration or, at least, do not putmuch effort into describing specific contextual conditions in relation to their subjects and results. This study suggests that the different contexts’ requirements and conditions may be important aspects to take into consideration when studying destructive leadership and that these aspects should be carefully described and analysed in relation to the results.

Limitations The first limitation of this study is that it is based on self-reported data. The informants have contributed their experiences of destructive leadership. It is difficult to know if these statements are accurate or influenced by their view of leaders. However, based on “the truth lies in the eye of the beholder” these experiences are real to the informants and should therefore be considered as such.

LODJ 41,4

578

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

A second concern is that a choice of qualitative methodology with a limited number of informants prevents the drawing of generalisable conclusions. Further work is necessary to evaluate the representativeness of these results. However, it should be pointed out that the majority of the informants had experienced the same types of behaviours (although the examples and situations differed). These behaviours can also be related to other studies of destructive leadership which strengthen the validity of this study.

Future studies Future studies regarding destructive leadership should continue to examine how context- specific these types of behaviours are. The results from this study indicate that the same type of behaviourmay be considered constructive in everyday conditionswhile destructive during a crisis. Also, research on destructive leadership in crisis management should continue to study consequences. How is the management of a crisis affected by destructive leadership directed at subordinates (if the leader, at the same time, is successful in accomplishing the task)? Another proposal is to continue studying leadership ideals within the crisis management context. What are the prevailing ideals for which leaders are recruited, promoted and acknowledged? And how do these ideals relate to destructive leadership? In smaller countries many leaders within the crisis management sector receive the same education and attend the same schools. This implies that leaders may be socialised into certain leadership styles and norms. Future studies could contribute more knowledge about this.

References

Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Birkeland Nielsen, M. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 438-452.

Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E. and Sundelius, B. (2016), The Politics of Crisis Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Br€andstr€om, A. (2016), Crisis, Accountability and Blame Management. Strategies and Survival of Political Office- Holders, Crismart Report, Vol. 44, FHS/Crismart, Stockholm.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.

Fors Brandebo, M. and Larsson, G. (2012), “Influence of IED attacks on leadership: dealing with the invisible enemy”, Res Militaris, Vol. 2.

Fors Brandebo, M., Nilsson, S. and Larsson, G. (2016) “Leadership: is bad stronger than good?”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 690-710.

Glaser, B. (1992), Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago IL.

Hede, S. (2018), “Crisis management: psychological challenges for leaders”, Dissertation, Karlstad University Studies, 2018:38.

Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992), “The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or liberation?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 43-54.

Krasikova, D.V., Green, S.G. and LeBreton, J.M. (2013), “Destructive leadership: a theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 308-1338.

Destructive leadership

579

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025

Larsson, G., Fors Brandebo, M. and Nilsson, S. (2012), “Destrudo-L: development of a short scale designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 383-400.

Mulgan, R. (2014), “Accountability deficits”, in. Bovens, M., Goodin, R.E. and Schillemans, T. (Eds), Oxfordhandbook of Public Accountability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 545-549.

Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G. and Jauch, L.R. (2002), “Toward a contextual theory of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 797-837.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007), “The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 176-194.

Parry, K.W. (1998), “Grounded theory and social process: a new direction for leadership research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-105.

Schilling, J. (2009), “From ineffectiveness to destruction: a qualitative study of the meaning of negative Leadership”, Leadership, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 102-128.

Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013), “How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes”,, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 138-158.

Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L. and Einarsen, S. (2014), “Is avoidant leadership a root cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role ambiguity”, Work and Stress, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 323-341.

Smee, B. (2020), “Death of the salesman? How Scott Morrison’s PR nous deserted him in the bushfires”, The Guardian: International Edition, January 3, available at: https://www. theguardian.com/australia- news/2020/jan/04/death-of-the-salesman-how-scott-morrisons-pr- nous-deserted-him-in-the-bushfires.

Sweeney, P.J., Matthews, M.D. and Lester, P.B. (2011), Leadership in Dangerous Situations, Naval Institute Press, Maryland.

Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-190.

Uhr, C. (2017), “Leadership ideals as barriers for efficient collaboration during emergencies and disasters”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 301-312.

Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

About the author Maria Fors Brandebo (PhD in psychology, Karlstad University, Sweden) is an associate professor at the Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University. She has published articles, books, chapters in books and research reports within the fields of military leadership, trust, military recruitment and retention, destructive leadership and job satisfaction. Maria Fors Brandebo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

LODJ 41,4

580

Downloaded from http://www.emerald.com/lodj/article-pdf/41/4/567/1939416/lodj-02-2019-0089.pdf by Walden University LLC user on 31 July 2025