↓ Skip to main content

Different Shades—Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different Shades—Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen A. Schmid, Armin Pircher Verdorfer, Claudia V. Peus

Abstract

Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms. From reviewing the literature, we conclude that three major forms of destructive leader behaviors are described: (1) follower-directed destructive behaviors, i.e., genuine abusive forms of destructive leadership, (2) organization-directed behaviors, i.e., behaviors such as stealing from the organization or embezzlement, and (3) self-interested destructive leader behavior, i.e., leader who exploit others to reach their goals. One can easily imagine that these three types of leader behavior have very different effects on followers. Unfortunately, so far, there is no empirical evidence to support this, since comparative research in the field of destructive leadership is scarce. With this paper, we aim to address this gap: In two studies, an experimental and a field study, we examine the differential impact of these three different destructive leader behaviors on two important outcomes: first, their impact on different emotional reactions of followers, the most proximal outcome to a social interaction. Second, we examine a key outcome in leadership research: followers' turnover intention. The results suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior do impact followers differently. Whereas all three behaviors had a positive relationship with negative affect, follower-directed destructive behaviors had the strongest relation out of the three. As expected, all three types of destructive behavior relate to turnover intention, yet, the results of our study suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior relate to different urgencies of turnover intention. We conclude that a tailored approach to destructive leadership, whether in research or practice, seems necessary, as diverse types of destructive leader behaviors affect employees differentially.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 21 14%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Lecturer 10 6%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 59 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 40 26%
Psychology 23 15%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 61 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,752,222
of 23,764,938 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,523
of 31,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,815
of 331,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#115
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,764,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.