A bully as an archetypal destructive leader.

Group norms provide the foundation for behavior and for the continuity of the group. Norms provide direction about what group members should do, ought to do, are expected to do, under given circumstances (Homans, 1968). If a norm is a goal that the group wishes to reach and the leader is a bully, the goal can easily be transposed into a personal goal of the bully thus reducing the satisfaction of the group members. This subjugation of group norms into personal goals of the bully will influence both commitment level and willingness to support the norms of the group.

The solidarity among group members may increase turnover in the group. Higher levels of turnover are associated with low satisfaction of group members as well as lack of identity with group norms and/or goals (Brown, 2000). High turnover reduces group performance, probably reducing the rewards to group members. Although these rewards may be implicit (i.e., prestige of belonging to a group), they are important to the members of the group who are conforming to group norms and membership requirements. Therefore, the cost of membership in the group increases and return from being a group member decreases due to the influence of the bully. The group outcomes can also influence the organizational impact of the bully and/or destructive leader.

Organizational Characteristics

One of the causalities of destructive leadership is the perceived distributive justice (DJ) in the organization. DJ refers to the perceived fairness with the decision outcomes in the organization (Konovsky, 2000; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). Group members may be willing to accept short-term imbalances in outcomes (i.e., rewards vs. costs) if they believe that over the length of the employment, outcomes accurately reflect equity. When rewards are acceptable, employees view the relationship with the organization as beneficial and may reciprocate with additional inputs. If DJ is not perceived, the social exchange becomes tenuous and may yield negative organizational outcomes (cf., aggression and dissatisfaction with employment). Bullies have significant influence on the equitable distribution of rewards. A bully has discretion over the allocation of rewards to members of the organization as well as implicit perceptions that others in the organization receive rewards (or reduced costs) out of synch with performance. The perception of inequity can negatively affect performance (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Konovsky, 2000).

Closely related to the DJ is procedural justice (PJ). The concept of PJ refers to the process, and the perceived fairness of that process, associated with the distribution and/or allocation of goods or services in limited supply (Konovsky, 2000; Lind & Tyler, 1988). PJ focuses on perceived fairness of decision-making procedures and on the attitudes of those directly involved in those decisions and can be viewed as social policy within an organization (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). The arbitrary nature of the bully leader undermines the PJ mechanism in the organization, in that the bully overrides the standard operating procedures to gain or maintain power and control over others in the organization. The absence of trust in the organization reduces the perception of fairness and equity in the process of distribution of both rewards and sanctions and influences commitment to the organization (Ganesan, 1994; Li-Ping Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996).

The breakdown of the organizational justice system (DJ/PJ) creates perceptions of inequity in the organization, which may lead to incivility (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). Absent the rules of fairness, the interaction between members of the organization can begin to mimic the behavior of the bully (Bond, 2004; Crawford, 1999; Mikula et al., 1990). The resulting incivility (i.e., rudeness and negative acts) can spread throughout the organization and can become the socially accepted means of interaction (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The bully therefore becomes the model of interaction with others, due to the lack of sanctions against the bullying activities observed by others in the organization (Coyne et al., 2003).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

If incivility becomes the behavioral norm in an organization led by a bully, then a "spiral of silence" can occur at the organizational level as it did with the observers to the bullying act (Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997; Jeffres, Neuendorf, & Atkin, 1999; Turner & Sparrow, 1997). This type of collective reaction to bullying is subscribed to by members of an organization when the threat of retaliation is high or when there are no organizational sanctions against the bully (Alberts, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Tracy, 2005; Delbecq, 2001; Taylor, 1982). The collective-level phenomenon is a passive response to a destructive leader who has power over those in the organization.

Employees may feel they cannot communicate upwardly about the incivility of the bully given the day-to-day impact of the bully on their performance. Many scholars have argued that silence is a potentially dangerous impediment to change and development but that in conditions of destructive leadership, the upward flow of information can be severely restricted (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994; Morrison, 2000; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992). If destructive leaders can have such a negative impact on the organization, it would seem appropriate to develop means to keep their potentially destructive influence in check. The issue of how to minimize bullying becomes of paramount importance.

Addressing the Impact of the Destructive Leader

A destructive leader can take many forms. A relatively common form of destructive leader is that of the bully. The bully can practice on subordinates, peers, and even with weak superiors. Therefore, to gain insight into the impact of the bully, one has to take into consideration not only the dyadic relationship between the bully and the bullied, but also the impact of the bully on groups, as well as the organization.

As we have tried to elucidate, many of the effects of bullying are straightforward. To effectively assess the consequences of bullying in an organizational context, one must determine and/or identify the myriad unintended impact of the bullying activity. The externalities of bullying have both negative and positive impact, may be overt or covert, but importantly can have serious consequences for all in an organization. Past researchers have spent a great deal of effort on understanding the conflict between the bully and the victim. In the future, there is a need for a more systemic approach to analyzing the nature of bullying and the outcome(s) of bullying activities. Figure 4 depicts the nature of a systematic approach to addressing bullying activities in an organization (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 provides a template for future research relative to the bully/destructive leader: (a) research on bullying needs to encompass three levels (e.g., individual dyadic relationships, the bully and the group, and the impact of the bully on the organization); (b) there needs to be a temporal aspect attached to bullying (i.e., what should be done ex ante to predict or address bullying acts, during the bullying event and after the bully has engaged others in the organization); and (c) an assessment of the target of the bullying. This format provides the key dimensions to recognizing, controlling, and reducing the impact of bullying. If bullying is associated with destructive leadership, then it would seem wise to more closely monitor bullying and not permit bullying acts to permeate the fabric of an organization.

Summary and Conclusion

Destructive leaders who bully others and assert the prepotency of their goals over those of the organization can have a significant negative effect on an organization. Beyond the direct impact on the victims of the bully, the organization suffers the negative consequences of bullying in myriad forms (e.g., a dysfunctional organizational culture). The incivility that is promulgated by the bully can spread contagiously throughout an organization. The lack of support and "caring" may reduce the probability of the occurrence of synergistic advantages. This contagion in the organization is proportionally greater when the bully has a leadership position in the organization.

To gain insight into the destructive leader behavior of a bully, one must undertake a careful multilevel analysis that examines the individual, group, as well as the organizational conditions that permit the bully to engage in bullying activities. At an individual level, the characteristics of the bully are the foundation for the critical assessment of bullying in an organization. Both the victim and the observer(s) of the bullying activities play a large part in the frequency, infiltration, influence, and outcomes associated with bullying. The dynamics of groups found in the organization can become barriers to (i.e., collectively can counteract the bullying acts) or stimulants of (i.e., the group and its leaders are too weak or do not address the threat emanating from the bullying activities) bullying behavior. Finally, absent an effective mechanism to address bullying in an organization, the entire culture of an organization can become dysfunctional and have a negative impact on many positive outcomes (cooperation, retention, assistance to others, and the ability to hire new employees).