A bully as an archetypal destructive leader.

Leaders do not necessarily have the best interests of the organization in mind when they make decisions. Many times, leaders treat their own personal goals as more important in relation to the goals of the organization and frequently adopt a short-term decision horizon. Thus, leaders become destructive and make decisions for their own good at the expense of the organization. This article examines the bully as a leader and how the bully creates a dysfunctional environment where the bullied, the observer, and the organization suffer negative impact due to the decisions made by the bully. The externalities of bullying (i.e., unintended explicit and/or implicit consequences of bullying activities on the members of the organization) are discussed to highlight the importance of examining the spillover impact of bullying activities in organizations. In addition, the authors propose a method to address the negative impact of those who engage in bullying on the organizational as a whole.

Keywords: bullying; destructive leaders; externalities; multilevel analysis; intervention strategies to address bullying

**********

Leaders are not always interested in effecting change for the purpose of benefiting the organization and its members as a whole; rather, the leader maybe more interested in personal outcomes (thereby, becoming a destructive leader).

--O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, and Connelly, 1995

Leaders may not have the best of intentions in mind when they assume the leadership of an organization. Throughout the history of modern management, the annals of destructive leaders have been chronicled, with such "villains" as John D. Rockefeller, Henry Clay Frick, Henry Ford, Armand Hammer, Harold Geneen, Ivan Boesky, and the like. The popular press (e.g., Deutschman, 2005) is replete with examples of corporate leaders who would appear to abuse their top management position for their own benefit at the expense of employees and the organization as a whole (e.g., Leona Helmsley, Al Dunlap, Andrew Fastow, George Steinbrenner, Donald Trump, and Kenneth Lay, to name just a few).

It is not unusual to have a leader's personal goals overshadow those of the organization and, at the end of the leader's tenure, there are frequently negative consequences for the employees as well as for the organization. This inversion of goals can certainly be seen in the political arena as well, where leaders seek a leadership position to further their own personal ambitions from which frequently they have significant material gains. The destructive leader (i.e., striving for personal gains over collective organizational interests and/or focusing on short-term gains over long-term organizational goals) has become a concern of the academic community and would appear to be a fecund area of in-depth investigation by researchers (Illies, 2001).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The study of destructive leaders has examined personal as well as situational characteristics that promote the emergence of destructive leaders. Seven personal characteristics have been identified that could contribute to the emergence of destructive leaders and that might lead to the occurrence of destructive, counterproductive behaviors by a leader. They are as follows: a) narcissism, b) fear, c) outcome uncertainty, d) power motives, e) object beliefs, f) negative life themes, and g) lack of self-regulation (Mumford, O'Connor, Clifton, Gessner, Johnson, Connelly, & Zaccaro, 1993; Mumford, Costanza, Connelly, & Johnson, 1993; Mumford, Connelly, Helton, Strange, & Osburn, 2001).

At the same time, researchers have identified a number of situational and/or environmental conditions that facilitate the emergence of the propensity to be destructive that may result in counterproductive acts of the destructive leader. The situational variables that have been identified are a) alienation, b) nonsupportive family, c) negative role models, d) life stressors, e) competitive pressures, f) exposure to negative superiors or peer groups, and g) financial need of the individual (Gessner, O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, & Smith, 1995; Mumford et al., 2001).

Given the personal attributes of destructive leaders in the "right" environment (e.g., situational variables) it is not uncommon for leaders to move from a constructive orientation to a destructive orientation in their behavior. When a comparison of the two types of leaders (e.g., constructive vs. destructive) is made, one can readily understand the potential negative impact of leaders who take on a destructive persona (see Figure 1). The lack of positive leadership attributes of the destructive leader underscores the potential negative outcomes for the organization as well as for "others" in the organization in which the destructive leader is located.

The destructive leader can have a direct and/or indirect impact on those at the same level in the organization (i.e., peers) as the leader and, at the same time, have a negative consequence on individuals at different levels (i.e., subordinates and in some cases superiors). Therefore, to gain insight into the dysfunctional repercussions of destructive leaders, a multilevel analysis of destructive leaders is appropriate. Cross-level assessment of a leader's impact requires examining the leader's characteristics and behavior. Those who are victims of the bully must be taken into consideration, as well, to effectively address bully activities.

The objectives of this article are fourfold. First, bullying is examined as a unique form of destructive leadership. Second, the externalities of destructive leaders are examined in light of the unintended consequences or negative outcomes when destructive leaders are in power. Third, the conditions that promote bullying and/or other forms of destructive leadership are examined from an individual, group, and organization perspective. Finally, the consequences of ongoing bullying activities for individuals (i.e., the bully, bullied, and "others"), groups, and organization as whole are explored.

Bullying as a Form of Destructive Leadership

One category of destructive leaders is that of bullies in an organization. Bullying is considered to be "a destructive process consisting of a succession of hostile statements and/or actions which, if taken in isolation, may seem harmless, but whose constant repetition has pernicious effects" (Leymann, 1996, pp. 165-166). This is repeated inappropriate behavior, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical, or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work (Doyle, 2001). There are three reoccurring elements found in the myriad definitions of bullying behavior, those being: a) the persistent nature of the action, b) effects suffered by the bullied individual(s) and not necessarily the intentions of the bully, and c) the potentially devastating effects of the bullying activity on the bullied individual (Soares, 2002).

Researchers have categorized bullying activities into five groups: (a) name-calling by a bully in public (Averill, 1983; Andersson & Pearson, 1999), (b) scapegoat failure on a stigmatized individual or group in the organization (Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990; Robinson & Bennett, 1997), (c) increased work pressure to perform on one individual and/or group beyond the level of expectations of others in the organization (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998; Youngs, 1986), (d) sexual harassment of co-workers generally by individuals with a power differential (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Bies & Tripp, 1998; Terpstra & Baker, 1991; Tata, 1993), and (e) physical abuse or harm to a stigmatized individual or group (Brodsky, 1976; Einarsen, 1999).

All of the aforementioned create stress and apprehension and may have a salient effect on the motivation, commitment, mental health, and, ultimately, the performance of the individual who is the target of the bullying (Niedl, 1995; Sheehan, 1999; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Wilson, 1991; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996).

It is hypothesized that bullying will only take place if a bully feels he or she has the blessing, support, or at least, the implicit permission of superiors and other coworkers to behave in this manner (Einarsen, 1999). At the same time, if the tolerance for bullying increases in an organization, the socially accepted norms of civil behavior can quickly change to incivility and bullying behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Ferriss, 2002). At the same time, there are those in the organization who begin to feel that bullying is a natural phenomena and that their role is deserved to be the victim of the bullying activities due to their poor self-image, low level of self-efficacy, or past experiences with bullies (Felson & Steadman, 1983; Olweus, 1978; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993; R. Sparks, Glenn, & Dodd, 1977).

The victims of bullying exhibit behaviors such as fear, anxiety, and levels of dissatisfaction with the organization that directly reduce their performance level and effectiveness in their position (Aquino, 2000; Aquino & Byron, 2002). Therefore, the negative externalities associated with bullying acts need to be examined to gain insights into their negative outcomes for victims as well as for the organization as a whole.

Externalities Associated With the Destructive or Bully Leader