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
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.
Negative life themes (e.g., negative events--death of parents,
financial impoverishment, physical harm, or lasting deformity and the
like--in the life of an individual) can influence the willingness of an
individual to become aggressive in social settings. Socially destructive
acts by a bully may be based on a desire of the bully to
"make-up" for the negative life events in the past of the
bully (Mumford et al., 2001). This feeling of retaliation against others
is justified in the bully's perceptions of mistreatment and/or
disadvantage due to circumstances beyond his or her own control. These
negative perceptions can lead to the bully's exhibiting high levels
of greed, self-absorption, physical and/or verbal aggression, and
devaluing others in a group or organization (Van Fleet & Van Fleet,
1998). The negative life themes scar the bully so that aggression
against others (those that have not been negatively affected by life
events) becomes an acceptable interpersonal behavior.
A final characteristic of a bully that that may be deemed of
importance is evil (i.e., continuous infliction of a highly negative
state on another for a brief state of pleasure for the bully or due to a
slight annoyance to the bully) (Darley, 1992). Frequently, the bully may
posses a quality of evilness and can be considered having the cardinal
trait of being an evildoer (Allport, 1937). The resulting "agentic
state" (i.e., not governed by one's own conscience but rather
the conscience has been "switched-off") facilitates a
situation where the bully acts without remorse (Millgram, 1974). There
are "bad" people and, unfortunately, they work in
organizations, as illustrated by popular novels where Hannibal Lector is
a "productive" member of society or when "Charles
Manson" shows up for work. There are individuals who have innate
destructive tendencies that if not controlled, will result in the
infliction of pain and suffering on those in an organization (Darley,
1992).
The bullied. Just as the bully can affect the level of bullying
activity in an organization, so too the individual(s) being bullied may
have a salient influence on the occurrence and/or impact of bullying.
There are a number of characteristics that may encourage and perpetuate
bullying in organizations. Almost anyone can become the victim of
bullying, yet there is a widely held belief that individuals with
specific characteristics are primary targets for bullying activities
(Aquino, 2000; Aquino & Byron, 2002; Felson & Steadman, 1983;
Olweus, 1978; Schwartz et al., 1993; R. Sparks et al., 1977).
Frequently, the victim exhibits anxiety and fear (i.e., a feeling
of dissatisfaction and/or anxiety due to perceived risk or danger). It
has been proffered that individuals become targets of harmful bullying
activities because they exhibit victim characteristics (Aquino, Grover,
Bradfield, & Allen, 1999; Aquino, 2000). Victimization is an
individual's self-perception of having been the target of bullying,
either momentarily or over time, from one or more persons and having
become inured to the situation (Aquino & Byron, 2002).
Victims can be passive, not well connected in the organization, or
not essential to the work group (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen,
1999; Aquino, 2000). This lack of identification with bases of power
signals to the bully that these individuals are likely or passive
targets of bullying behaviors. This situation can escalate into a
learned helplessness of the bullied individual, thus perpetuating the
bullying or bullied cycle (Kelly, Jennings, & Dran, 1999). The lack
of power of the bullying victims heightens their likelihood on the
bully's radar, insuring that they will continue to be bullied
absent some sort of intervention.
There are a number of characteristics believed to be present in
victims of bullies. These factors are as follows: (a) passive and/or
submissive personality that indicates an "easy target," (b)
low self-esteem individuals who believe that they deserve to be bullied
because of their inadequacies, (c) belonging to vulnerable groups that
lack influence in the organization, (d) being a member of the
"out-group" versus the powerful "in-group," (e) lack
of political influence and/or political skill, and (f) having adopted a
learned helplessness and accepting their victimization (Aquino, 2000;
Aquino & Byron, 2002; Aquino, Douglas, & Martinko, 2004; Aquino
et al., 1999). These characteristics are not only observed by the bully
but also by others in the organization. The victim "deserves"
to be bullied and if he or she is not the target, then we as
"others" might become the intended target of the bully. Thus,
the characteristics of the observers of bullying should be examined.
The "observer(s)." The reaction of "others" to
bullying behavior can delineate the parameters of acceptance of the
bullying behavior in an organization. One key issue is that the
acceptance of the bully's behavior may encourage bullying to
continue in the organization. The "others" region of
rejection, relative to the bullying act, becomes the set point that is
used to determine the level of acceptance of the bullying behavior.
An aggressive stance by the observers is less likely to occur when
they have neither the power to control nor authority to sanction the
bully. Furthermore, involvement may draw attention as a potential target
of bullying (i.e., aggressive, dominating social behaviors can influence
vulnerability to bullying if the bully cannot be confined; Aquino &
Byron, 2002). Frequently, the observers will remain in a passive role
until there is an indication (i.e., negative sanctions) that the
bullying behavior will not be tolerated.
Bullying activities can encourage acquiescence. The behavior that
occurs most frequently is that of the "spiral of silence"
(Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001). As developed by Noelle-Neumann (1974),
the "commonwealth (i.e., shared beliefs of groups and to a lesser
extent global organizations) is held together by prevailing views,
habits, and prescribed behavior; from which none can deviate without
running the risk of being ostracized" (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, p. 6).
Employees and/or managers are willing to ignore what they know is
"wrong" for fear they will be isolated or that support will be
withdrawn (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).
The withholding of judgment by an "observer" of bullying
is believed to indicate that there is a significant emotional component
to the bullying activity. The fear perceived by "observers"
does not have to be accurate relative to the potential retaliation of
the bully; in fact, the power comes from the misperception of the
"observer," which is commonly referred to as "pluralistic
ignorance" (i.e., withholding personal opinion to mimic or support
the perceived group or organizational position on an issue)
(O'Gorman, 1986). The observer is normally a passive participant in
the bullying act but one that is essential to reducing the occurrence of
bullying in an organization.
Group Characteristics
Although most researchers have examined the dyadic relationship
between the bully and the bullied (e.g., Aquino & Lamertz, 2004;
Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Felson, 1992; Leymann &
Gustafsson, 1996; Namie, 2003; Smith, Singer, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003);
much can be learned from examining the impact of bullying on the
functioning of groups. A group may not be the target of bullying but the
concomitant impact on the functioning of the group may be significant
(Bowes-Sperry & O'Leary-Kelly, 2005; Delbecq, 2001; Einarsen,
Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; O'Gorman, 1986). It would appear
that there are a number of related group issues that could be influenced
by a bully, particularly as a destructive leader (Greer, 2000).
Individuals evaluating group membership prior to joining a
particular group can do so through observation and interaction with
group members. This reconnoitering on the part of a potential member may
have significant input on the decision to join a group (Brown, 2000).
One of the primary inputs to a decision to join may be the nature and/or
quality and/or reputation of the leadership in the group. Groups with
leaders who are destructive (e.g., a bully) may have greater difficulty
in attracting new group members due to the negative opinions of the
leader (Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001; Zapf, 1999). In addition, there
could be tension and stress in the group indicating dysfunctional
dynamics, which could influence the willingness of potential members to
join (Strube & Garcia, 1981). Without new membership, or interest in
joining the group, the group may atrophy and lose vitality as a group.
A group member's social identity is partly defined by the
group and the role in the group (Turner, 1982). If social identity is
directly affected by the bully in the group, then the individual group
member will have a conflicted social image. In addition, the personal
image (i.e., how the individual refers to self-descriptions) may also be
affected given the turmoil the individual experiences in a group with a
bully leader. The level of stress and lack of continuity in the group
will be heightened when the group is led by a bully (Druskat &
Wolff, 2001; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Zapf, 1999). The
foundation of group membership, group identity, is directly related to
the bully's
influence on the group and group processes.
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).
Bullying has traditionally been viewed as "beating-up" on
another person in an organization. All too frequently, bullying has been
viewed solely as a deviant behavior of an individual (i.e., innate
characteristics that manifest themselves into antisocial behavior) while
overlooking the social manifestations of the bullying environment. To
effectively address bullying, a multilevel assessment of the bullying
act needs to be undertaken. The destructive leader can have far-reaching
negative consequences for many coworkers and deleteriously influence
many facets of the organization as a whole.
References
Alberts, J., P. Lutgen-Sandvik, & S. Tracy (2005, May).
Workplace bullying: A case of escalated incivility. Paper presented at
the International Communication Association's Annual Conference,
New York.
Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.
New York: Holt. Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat?
The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of
workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict
management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171-193.
Aquino, K., & Byron, K. (2002). Dominating interpersonal
behavior and perceived victimization in groups: Evidence for a
curvilinear relationship, Journal of Management, 28(1), 69-87.
Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt anger
in response to victimization: Attributional style and organizational
norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,
152-164.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G.
(1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and
self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 260-272.
Aquino, K. & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of
workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in
dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89, 1023-1034.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression:
Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38,
1145-1160.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and
workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential
causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.
Bedeian, A. (1995). Workplace envy. Organization Dynamics, 23(4),
49-56.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless:
Coping with tyranny. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and
influence in global organizations (pp. 203-219). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression: From context to
coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 62-78.
Bowes-Sperry, L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or
not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 288-306.
Brodsky, C. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: Lexington Books,
DC Heath.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes (2nd ed.). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.'
Browning, E. & Browning, J. (1987). Public finance and the
price system. (37th Ed). New York: Macmillan.
Coyne, I., Chong, P., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self
and peer nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates,
individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 209-228.
Crawford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organizations: The
etymology of the word "bully". International Journal of
Manpower, 20(1-2), 86-94.
Darley, J. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil.
Psychological Inquiry, 3(2), 199-218.
Dejours, C. (2001, April 10). Desolation et Harcelement Moral
[Desolation and moral harassment]. Le Monde, p. 10.
Delbecq, A. L. (2001). "Evil" manifested in destructive
individual behavior: A senior leadership challenge, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 10(3), 221-226.
Deutschman, A. (2005, July). Is your boss a psychopath? Fast
Company, Issue 96, 44-46.
Dick, G., & Rayner, C. (2004, February). Exploring the
workplace bullying construct: An evidence-based approach (Working Paper
Series). Canterbury, UK: Canterbury Business School, University of Kent.
Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. (2001, March). Building the emotional
intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 82-90.
Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining
in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.
Dutton, J., & Ashford, S. (1993). Selling issues to top
management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397-428
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(2), 16-27.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B., & Matthiesen (1994). Bullying and
harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality:
An exploratory study. European Work and Organisational Psychologist,
4(4), 381-401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in
research and practice. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Felson, R., & Steadman, H. (1983). Situational factors in
disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology, 21, 59-74.
Felson, R. (1992). Kick'em when they're down:
Explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal
aggression and violence. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 1-17.
Ferriss, A. (2002). Studying and measuring civility: A framework,
trends, and scale. Sociological Inquiry, 72(3): 376-392.
Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, W. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos?
Recognizing middle management's strategic role. Academy of
Management Executive, 8(4), 477-486.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in
buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1-19.
Gessner, T., O'Connor, J., Mumford, M., Clifton, T., &
Smith, J. (1995). Situational variables influencing the propensity for
destructive acts: Taxonomy development and validation. Current
Psychology, 12, 303-325.
Glomb, T., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work
groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(4), 486-496.
Glynn, C., Hayes, A., & Sbanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support
for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of
survey studies on the "spiral of silence." Public Opinion
Quarterly, 61(3), 452-463.
Greer, J. M. (2000). Destructive cycles in organizations. Human
Development, 21(1), 10-14.]
Griffin, R.C. & Bromley, D.W. (1982). Agricultural runoff as a
nonpoint externality: A theoretical development. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 64, 547-553.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. (1999). Workplace bullying.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14,
189-230.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2004). Dominance and submission. In J.
Burns, G. Goethais, & G. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership
(pp. 231-245). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire/Sage.
Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Copying with bullying in
the workplace. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10(4), 485-495.
Homans, G. (1968). The human group, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Illies, J. (2001). Effective versus destructive leader behavior:
The motivating role of personal values. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Jeffres, L., Neuendorf, K., & Atkin, D. (1999). Spirals of
silence: Expressing opinions when the climate of oppression is
unambiguous. Political Communication, 16, 115-131.
Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001). Slings and arrows of
rudeness: Incivility in the workplace. Journal of Management
Development, 20(8), 705-713.
Kelley, S., Jennings, K., & Dran, A. (1999 April). Learned
helplessness in toddlers of depressed and non-depressed mothers. Poster
presentation at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Kernberg, O. (1985). Borderline conditions and pathological
narcissism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Kernberg, O. (1998). Ideology, conflict and leadership in groups
and organizations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D., & Sapienza, H. (1995). Building
commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams:
The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
60-84.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its
impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489-511.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at working and
the development of post-traumatic stress disorders. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251-275.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165-184.
Li-Ping Tang, T., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. (1996). Distributive
and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 61(3), 25-31.
Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of
procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Lubit, Roy (2002). The long-term organizational impact of
destructively narcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive,
16(1), 127-138.
McKean, R.N. & Browning, J.M. (1975). Externalities from
government and non-profit sectors. Canadian Journa