Destructive Leadership and Absenteeism

Destructive leadership:
Exploring conflict and
absenteeism
Peter Crellin
Overview
• Destructive leadership
• Task
• Power, influence, and leadership
• A conceptual antecedent
• Absenteeism
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Destructive leadership...
•
What is destructive leadership (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007)
• Oxymoron? “Lasting, meaningful opportunities for the pursuit of happiness”
(Burns, 2003, p. 29)
• Process vs. outcome
• Five features:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Seldom absolutely/entirely destructive
Involves dominance, coercion, and manipulation rather than influence, persuasion, and
commitment
Selfish orientation: focused on leader’s needs rather than larger social group’s needs
Effects are outcomes that compromise constituent quality of life and detract from
org.’s main purposes
Outcomes are not exclusively the result of destructive leaders, but are also products
of susceptible followers and conducive environments
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Destructive leadership...
•
What is destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007)
• Anti-subordinate and anti-organizational behaviour
• Three main types: tyrannical, derailed, supportive-disloyal
Anti-subordinate
behaviour
Supportivedisloyal
Constructive
Anti-organisation
behaviour
Pro-organisation
behaviour
Derailed
Tyrannical
Anti-subordinate
behaviour
• Also “laissez-faire” (passive and inactive, and fits into any one of the other types)
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
5
Destructive Leadership
• Schyns & Schilling (2012)
• Many types of DL used in literature (they identify 12)
• Destructive leadership (DL) is not the same thing as
destructive leader behaviour (DLB)
• DL is follower focused (influence based) and relates
to the leadership task, DLB affects organisations and
followers and is not necessarily related to the
leadership task
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
The Sheffield MBA
Links
• See:
• Horizon: Good and Evil:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmAyxpAFS1s
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
7
Destructive Leadership
• Trait theories implicate psychopaths and narcissists
• Psychopaths constitute < 1% of general population
• Organisational selection systems may favour
psychopathic/narcissistic traits/behaviours for more
senior positions (e.g., board member)
• Destructive leader behaviour can occur at any level
• Explanations must consider other factors including
leader characteristics, follower characteristics, goals and
stress, and organisational environment
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
8
Task
• Arrange into small groups of (male and female
only) and elect a leader
• To discuss briefly reasons for your group (male
or female) being better at making a cup of tea
• Leader will select (after agreeing with group)
and quickly present three key arguments that
emerge
• Group with most convincing arguments will win
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
9
Task
• Leaders switch groups (male leader join female
group and female leader join male group)
• Convince your new group that your gender is
better at making tea using the three arguments
you gave
• A “conversion” count will be taken at the end
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
10
Task reflection
• How easy was it to influence lead/influence the first
group?
• How easy was it to lead/influence the second group?
• What means of influence would you use in the face of
continued defiance?
• How long would you remain in the group?
• Would continued frustration cause you to act in an antisocial way?
• What could be done to avoid resorting to DLB?
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Power, influence, and leadership...
• Influence is a necessary part
of/skill in leadership
Position power
Personal power
Behaviour
• Power is potential influence
• All types of power are connected
• Use a number of strategies that
target cognition, behaviour, affect,
or overall attitude
• An example: Transformational
leadership (limiting resistance)
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Attitude
Cognition
Affect
My approach…
Control
(C)
Ostracism
(O)
(OC)
(IOC)
(IC)
(IO)
Injustice (I)
•
•
•
•
Broad assumptions
Injustice, legitimacy, and group acceptance
Influence, control, aggression, and culture
Which type of destructive?
Broad assumptions...
•
There is no such thing as a “destructive leader,” there are only destructive
behaviours
•
Behaviours only are differentially labelled ‘destructive’ by different parties
after they have occurred and as part of a sensemaking process
•
Followers and context shape characteristics and cause destructive
behaviour to varying degrees in accordance with those characteristics
•
Senseless to assume development occurs only prior to occupancy of a
position
•
“Good people” can become “bad” (Hany, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Milgram,
1965)
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Injustice, legitimacy, and
group acceptance...
• Selection injustice
• Legitimate power undermined
• Group rejection (personal power and the
“out-group” problem)
• Injustice-Delegitimize-Ostracize (IDO)
process
Follower
perceptions of
injustice prior
to/during leader
selection
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Follower perceptions
of legitimacy of leader
selection process/
leader
Actual follower
group acceptance
Influence, control, aggression,
and culture...
• Influence and control
• Leader aggression
• Perpetual destruction
Supportive-disloyal
Tyrannical/Derailed
Leader’s
expectation/perception
of follower
compliance/change
Actual
follower
compliance
/change
Leader influence behavior
-+
?
Followers’
perceptions
of destructive
behaviour
Actual follower
group acceptance
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
?
Leader perception
of follower group
acceptance
-+
(follower perceived)
Which type of destructive?
• Depends on leader’s attribution of blame,
personality, and learned strategies for (a)
gaining social acceptance and (b) gaining
control
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
17
Where does absenteeism come in?
• Intuitively DL and DLB would lead to absenteeism
• US cost for absenteeism, health care, and lost
productivity is estimated at $23.8 bil (Tepper et al.,
2006)
• No UK statistics
• The links between DL, DLB, and absenteeism are not well
explored (mainly indirect assumptions)
• Determining the exact causes of absenteeism is difficult
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
18
The “winning” side
• Power/control will pass between the leader and
followers
• Injustice and the power struggle creates
emotional fluctuations that require psychological
resources
• Wellbeing is affected as a result
• If power/control eventually stabilises on one
side, the frustration and lowered wellbeing of
the “losing” side could lead to absenteeism
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
19
What can be done?
• Prescribing interventions is difficult given the lack of
research in the area
• Provide rationale and sense of control to followers
during decision making
• Provide support to leaders prior to, during, and following
important changes/decisions
• Provide mediation prior to or after the emergence of
conflict
• Approach in a similar way to other forms of conflict
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield
Summary
•
Destructive leadership is characterised by anti-follower and antiorganizational behaviour
•
Current theories of antecedents place heavy emphasis on leader traits and
the way those traits interact with environments and followers
•
Influence (i.e., control) is required by all active leaders
•
In practice, less emphasis on traits is important,
•
Any leader can become destructive if faced with control issues stemming
from follower group ostracism
•
Destructive leadership and destructive leader behaviour are intuitively
linked to absenteeism
•
The prevention and remedy of destructive leader behaviour is important to
safeguard employees and organisations
28/08/2014 © The University of Sheffield

Download Report