A bully as an archetypal destructive leader.

A critical issue related to the concept of bullying in organizations is the unintended consequences of these activities. For two decades, economists have modeled the unintended costs and/or benefits of exchange to third parties--individuals who are not directly involved in the exchange transaction or consequences of the exchange (Browning & Browning, 1987; Griffin & Bromley, 1982; McKean & Browning, 1975; Storey, 1978). The concept of externalities of bullying behavior is at the crux of the constructive and destructive leader debate. What are the unintended costs and consequences of destructive leaders' bullying activities in an organization? Are these costs spread beyond the bully (e.g., destructive leader) and the bullied to others in the organization? Can bullying become a prevailing attitude within an organization that results in negative organizational consequences?

Past researchers have categorized those affected by these resulting externalities: a) first order: impact of unintended and/or unanticipated consequences of parties involved in the exchange process, and b) second order: impact of unintended and/or unanticipated consequences of parties not involved in the exchange process (Nason, 1989; Mundt, 1993; Mundt & Houston, 1996). The distinction is that the bully and those bullied have both explicit (i.e., overt sexual harassment) as well as implicit (i.e., intention of the bullied individual to leave the organization due to the hostile work environment) consequences from bullying. At the same time there may be unintended consequences in the organization where the bullying act(s) occur. Essentially, those uninvolved in the bullying process may suffer the consequences of the destructive act of bullying (Redmond, 2005).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Two examples illustrate the difference between first- and second-order externalities. In the first case, an employee is routinely the target of hostile statements and actions (i.e., bullied) in an organization and the conflict and/or stress associated with the bullying activities reduces the input of the bullied individual. The unanticipated and/or unintentional outcome of the bully directly affects one of the two members involved in the interaction. There are potential dysfunctional consequences of the bullying event for the bullied indiviudal. For example, others may scorn and/or empathize with the bullied individual and suffer some consequences.

The incivility may become public and potential new employees will not interview for positions in an organization. The "injured party" is one who was not a part of the bullying process or resulting environment but is of the potential population of perspective employees. In both cases, there are explicit and implicit costs associated with the externalities to the parties involved in the exchange process as well as those outside of the process (Mundt, 1993; Mundt & Houston, 1996).

In an effort to develop strategies to address the externalities of bullying in organizations, the concept of externalities needs to be fully delineated. Figure 2 illustrates the potential intention and/or unintentional, explicit and/or implicit impact of bullying in an organization (see Figure 2). There are two levels or orders of impact of the unintentional impact of bullying. The delineation of bullying to include noninteracting individuals (i.e., observers) and the implicit nature of the outcome of bullying (i.e., reduction in morale) help to illustrate the far-reaching effect of an overt destructive act. Under this expanded view of externalities, the first order (i.e., individual-to-individual) involved in the bullying event remains the same. But in addition, there can be first-order externalities between the individual and an organization because both the individual and organization can be a party to the bullying act.

Beyond the direct participants in the bullying process, a variety of secondary effects can affect the organization's culture and thereby create negative consequences for individuals not directly involved in the bullying act. This "spillover" can ultimately have a deleterious impact on the organization as whole. By recognizing the indirect and implicit nature of bullying, one gains a clearer understanding of the full destructive nature of bullying in an organization. The negative nature of bullying is accentuated when the bully is a leader in the organization. To gain insight from a leaders' standpoint, there are three levels of analysis that need to be examined: a) individual characteristics (bully, bullied, and "others"), b) group characteristics, and c) organizational characteristics. Each of these levels will be discussed separately, but the interaction of the levels should not be underestimated; particularly when the bully is a leader in the organization. The outcomes of bullying are rarely confined to just one person in an organization (Dejours, 2001).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Underlying Conditions That Encourage and/or Support the Destructive Bully in an Organization

The destructive nature of bullies occurs over time and is captured in the cumulative impact of repeated bullying behaviors or acts perpetrated by the bully against other individuals or groups (Dick & Rayner, 2004). But, at the same time, the cumulative negative consequences to the organization should not be overlooked (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Rayner, 1998). To gain insight into the pervasive nature of the impact of a bully, group as well as organization levels must be examined separately as well as in conjunction with each other (i.e., the interaction amount of the three levels) (Dick & Rayner, 2004; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Einarsen, 1999; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002) (see Figure 3).

Individual Characteristics

There are three individuals who are involved in any bullying event--the bully, the victim of bullying, and individuals who observe the bullying event. The characteristics of each of these individuals can have a potent impact on the event itself, as well as the probability of future bullying. Each of these individuals will be discussed to illustrate how these characteristics may influence the nature of the bullying event.

The bully. There are a number of personal characteristics of a bully that influence the nature and/or outcome of the bullying event. Envy (i.e., the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation) is the unbridled desire to have what others have and the willingness to aggressively wrest these assets (Bedeian, 1995). The bullying act is an attempt to gain these attributes or to publicly devalue the attributes that the bully secretly desires. The key to the envy of the bully is relative to what is possessed by the bullied (i.e., the other person has more, better, or more desirable attribute or status than the bully). Envy is the desire for something that others are perceived to have more of than the bully and that the bully desires to possess (Miner, 1990). Some bullies will publicly devalue what the bully envies, while privately coveting the attribute. This inconsistency creates tension and stress, which drives the bully to act out against those in the group that have the desired status and/or attribute (Parrott, 1991).

Another characteristic of many bullies is destructive narcissism (i.e., a grandiose and in most cases, an inflated sense of self-importance, arrogance, preoccupation with power and/or wealth, excessive seeking of admiration, and at the same time, a sense of entitlement and a lack of concern for and devaluation of others). It is supported by a high level of expressive self-confidence and unrelenting drive to attain prestige and power (Kernberg, 1985, 1998). Many bullies exhibit destructive narcissism in their rise to positions of power and/or influence. Career progress is oftentimes facilitated by these negative characteristics, almost as though the organization values self-promotion and the devaluation of others in the organization.

This seeming contradiction in valuing negative attributes can have an impact on the organization culture and can impact the morale and performance of others in the organization. The truly destructive narcissistic manager has difficulty in maintaining control when challenged and will frequently become enraged and, if observed for a long time, will become paranoid (Lubit, 2002). The pathology of destructive narcissism revolves around the relationship between dominance (by the bully) and submission on the part of the individual(s) being bullied (Hogan & Hogan, 2004).

Two interrelated characteristics of bullies, fear and antisocial behavior, stimulate bullying activities in an organization. Fear (i.e., the feeling of perceived risk or danger or a strong dislike of some condition is a basic emotion of individuals) is a strong motivator of the bully to control social interactions and the environment as a whole. In an effort to "control" one's fear, frequently the bully will become systematically aggressive to reduce the source of his or her fear (e.g., inadequacy, lack of social standing, or lack of authority or organizational position), increasing the rate and severity of the bullying activities.

The antisocial behavior of the bully plays directly into the escalation of bullying activities, thereby being a self-fulfilling prophecy where aggression appears to be the only avenue for the bully to maintain control. At the same time, the bullied individual learns to "accept" the aggression of the bully as a normal part of his or her job (Soares, 2002). The continuation of antisocial behavior may escalate to psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorders for the bully.