web viewadding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader...

Running head: HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?1

Have you Been Skunked?Further Exploration of the Dysfunctional Leadership Phenomenon

Kevin Rose, Ed.D.Assistant Professor

University of [email protected]

Brad Shuck, Ed.D.Assistant Professor


Matt Bergman, PhD.Assistant Professor


College of Education and Human Development1905 S. 1st Street

Louisville, KY 40292

A Working Paper Submitted for Presentation at the 16th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice

Leadership, Management, and Talent Development Stream

HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?

Abstract

Dysfunctional leadership is a phenomenon of great concern for individuals and

organizations because of the impact leaders can have on performance, productivity, and

organizational outcomes. Thus, organizations should be concerned with identifying and

appropriately dealing with those leaders that exhibit dysfunctional behaviors towards

their subordinates. The purpose of this study is to operationalize the construct of

dysfunctional leadership and to understand the negative outcomes for employees working

for a dysfunctional leader.. This study builds upon and expands previous conceptual work

we undertook in the area of dysfunctional leadership and we seek to provide an enhanced

empirical understanding of the domain of dysfunctional leadership.

Keywords: leadership, dysfunction, job stress, engagement

2


Thousands of employees in the US endure dysfunctional leadership in their

current workplace and many more have, at one time or another, felt the oppressive and

burdensome psychological stresses of working for one of these individuals (Keashly &

Neuman, 2005). Indeed, even employees’ families can feel the damaging effects of a

dysfunctional leader at work (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Given the documented negative

effects dysfunctional leaders can have on employees and organizations, it is surprising

that these behaviors are still reported so widely. Our initial work on leadership

dysfunction (Rose, Shuck, Twyford, & Bergman, 2015) described a scenario in which

negative leader behaviors contributed to negative outcomes for employees. Unlike some

other forms of negative leader behaviors, we posit that dysfunctional leadership is more

ordinary and mundane, rather than overtly apparent in its manifestation.

Over time, these simple aggressive acts can have major impacts on employees

(Rafferty, Restubog, & Jimmieson, 2010). Thus, it becomes important to not only

measure dysfunctional leadershp, but to also understand more fully the consequences of a

dysfunctional leader for employees. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to empirically

operationalize the construct of dysfunctional leadership and to understand the negative

outcomes for employees working for a dysfunctional leader. In our previous work, we

metaphorically desecribed these dysfunctional leaders as “skunks” and those who suffer

the consequences of dysfunctional leaders as being “skunked.” Drawing from previous

research we now hope to provide empirical evidence that describes an employee’s state

when working with a dysfunctional leader. In the following sections we will explain our

conceptualization of dysfunctional leadership, discuss the consequences for employees

3


(what it means to be skunked), describe our intended methodological approach, and

explore connects to HRD theory and practice.

Defining Dysfunctional Leadership

Several conceptualizations of bad leadership exist in the extant management and

HR literature. For example, Anderson and Pearson (1999) described the phenomenon of

workplace incivility as consisting of “deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm [a]

target” (p. 457). This kind of behavior may occur between many combinations of

workplace arrangements (e.g. coworker to coworker, leader to subordinate, subordinate to

leader), regardless of the power differential that exists. Uncivil behaviors like rudeness,

taking unduly long breaks, or badmouthing others are startlingly common in the

workplace (Reio & Ghosh, 2009). Similar to workplace incivility, the concept of

workplace bullying has gained important scholarly attention. These kinds of behaviors

are distinguishable from workplace incivility in that bullying occupies a space of greater

negativity and intensity than incivility (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Like incivility, the

individuals involved in bullying can vary in their positional influence.

Although these kinds of counterproductive behaviors (Fox, Spector, & Miles,

2001) are detrimental to all working relationships, it becomes particularly insidious when

leaders manifest them towards their subordinates. Boddy (2006) described the concept of

organizational psychopaths as individuals who exhibit psychopathic behaviors in their

workplaces and noted that these individuals are indeed rare, making up only a very small

percentage of leaders. These kinds of individuals have been described as lacking a

conscience and “not driven by any notion of social responsibility or commitment to

employees” (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010, p. 3). Organizations unwittingly

4


allow corporate psychopaths into their ranks because negative behaviors are often

masked or outweighed by other characteristics. Perhaps less egregious is the leader

described as abusive. Tepper (2000) described abusive supervision as “the sustained

display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178).

We define dysfunctional leadership using many of the same characteristics as

incivility and abusive supervisions, but offer a definition that encompasses the power

differential extant in a leader-subordinate dyad and includes behaviors that are, prima

facie, not necessarily heinous and unforgiveable. We also acknowledge the issue of

subordinate perception as noted previously by Schyns and Schilling (2013), Tepper

(2000), and others that makes defining this construct difficult. That is to say, some may

perceive certain actions as dysfunctional while others do not. Taking these issues into

account, we defined a dysfunctional leader as someone “in a position of influence, status,

and resource differential overtly exhibiting verbal and nonverbal behavior that impairs

operational function of individuals, teams, and organizations” (Rose, et al., 2015, p. 67).

The kinds of behaviors we see included in this definition are leaders who unnecessarily

question a subordinate’s actions, focus on weaknesses rather than strengths, obscure or

withhold important information, cause employees to doubt their self-efficacy, and, in

general, contribute to frustration, fear, and disengagement.

Consequences for Employees

No one likes working for a bad boss. To cope with situations in which a

dysfunctional leader is present, individuals resort to several tactics. Unfortunately, many

of these tactics are counterproductive to both the work environment and family/social

environments outside of work and could lead to unhealthy lifestyle choices (i.e., over

5


eating, drinking heavily, etc.). Employees coping with a dysfunctional leader may

experience negative affective states such as lower self-esteem (Burton & Hoobler, 2006;

Hornstein, 1996), psychological distress (Demir & Rodwell; 2012, Tepper, 2000), and

emotional exhaustion (Aryee, Sun, Chen, & Debrah, 2008). These negative states

engender symptoms such as psychological withdrawal and disengagement as well as

decreased motivation and higher intention to leave the organization (Boddy,

Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010; Tepper, 2000). Research has suggested that these various

mental and psychological states can manifest into behaviors like avoidance and

aggression as well as withdrawal of positive behaviors (OCB) (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &

Galvin, 2010; Raferty & Restubog, 2010).

Consequences for Organizations

In the aggregate, employee reactions to dysfunctional leaders can be exceptionally

detrimental to organizations. Clearly, for some employees, leaving the organization and

taking their experience and institutional knowledge with them is an option exercised

when faced with a dysfunctional leader (Tepper, 2000). For those that decide to stay in

the organization, their chosen coping techniques and the subsequent impact on the

organization are perhaps more subtle, but equally as damaging. For instance, in-role

work effort is diminished thereby reducing overall productivity and profitability.

Additionally, discretionary effort is reduced, interfering with the “social machinery of

organizations” (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983, p. 654). Employees may also find the

organization to blame for a leader that is not properly dealt with (Shoss, Eisenberger,

Restubog, Zagenczyk, 2013). In the aggregate and over time, the effects of dysfunctional

leadership can be deleterious to organizations.

6


Method

To examine dysfunctional leadership as a distinct construct, we propose

developing a battery of scales grounded in definitions offered from the literature. We

note that while conceptually similar to abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),

bullying (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011), and workplace incivility (Reio & Ghosh, 2009), we

maintain that dysfunctional leadership is distinct from like constructs due to the power

differential that exists between the leader and the subordinate as well as the severity of

the perceived behavior. Unlike a corporate psychopath or an abusive supervisor, a

dysfunctional leader may not be as obvious in his or her negative tendencies – and they

may be blissfully unaware of their own dysfunction.

We propose using an online survey battery of items taken from the Negative Acts

Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers, 2009) to measure

dysfunctional leadership. Although developed to measure workplace bullying, many

items on this instrument are salient to dysfunctional leadership. For example, items such

as “had information withheld that affected your performance” and “been ignored,

excluded, or isolated from others” seem to fit our definition of and taxonomy of

dysfunctional leadership well (Rose et al., 2015). Even items such as “been shouted at or

targeted with spontaneous anger (or rage)” are seemingly connected with definitions of

bullying; such behavior aligns with the upper quadrant of the dysfunctional leader

behavior taxonomy proposed by Rose et al. (2015) from which we drew our inspiration.

To address the second part of this study’s purpose, we have identified outcome

variables that we have theoretically and conceptually positioned as describing an

individual’s state of being “skunked.” For the purpose of this study, we focus on

7


variables that describe psychological, cognitive, and affective states rather than

behavioral outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover, and counterproductive workplace

behavior. Outcome variables to be included in the study are self-esteem (Rosenberg,

1965), engagement (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010), burnout (Iverson, Olekalns, &

Erwin, 1998), and job stress (Jamal & Baba, 1992).

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, our implementation protocol is to deploy

the survey via social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Vine) to recruit participation. While

this method of participant recruitment does introduce limitations to the study, it also

facilitates the gathering of data from a wide variety of participants and bypasses

potentially limiting roadblocks in organizations such as social desirability (see Kolb &

Owen, 2014). We seek only participation from employed (full time or part time) adults.

Structural equation modeling, path analysis, and exploratory factor analysis

(Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) will be used to determine loadings of items measuring

abusive supervisions, bullying, workplace incivility, and our proposed scale of

dysfunctional leadership. These procedures will help us understand those distinctive

factors that may be related to construct of dysfunctional leadership. We note, however,

that there are certain limitations to this study. First, though we argue in previous

literature that dysfunctional leadership is a distinct construct from other negative

leadership behaviors identified, we are aware that empirical investigation may not

support this idea. Second, the method by which data will be collected (social media) may

provide access to wider audience, but may provide a very heterogeneous sample.

Further, when conducting a survey via social media, we cannot necessarily guarantee that

8


participants meet our sample requirements (employed adults), but will attempt to guide

unqualified individuals out of the survey.

Implications for HRD Theory and Practice

The study and understanding of leadership practices is a paramount concern for

HRD practitioners and scholars alike. Leaders in organizations have responsibility for

both individual as well as team performance and they achieve performance through a

variety of behaviors. When those behaviors are positive such as those embodied in

transformational leadership (Bass, 1991), situational leadership (Hersey, Blanchard &

Johnson, 2012), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), authentic leadership (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005), and others, the affects on employees is similarly positive. In turn, the

organization benefits through various means. However, poor leadership behaviors have a

congruent affect in that employees and organizations are impacted negatively. Thus, with

a focus on organizational performance and human development and well-being (Swanson

& Holton, 2009), HRD practitioners are well-suited to influence and develop the

leadership capacities of individuals in organizations. In short, HRD practitioners seek to

develop positive leadership behaviors and mitigate negative ones. Understanding the

commonplace issue of dysfunctional leadership can provide practitioners with yet another

lens through which to examine individual behavior in organizations.

As noted previously, dysfunctional leadership has nomological overlap with other

constructs such as incivility, bullying, corporate psychopathy, abusive supervision, and

other similar negative sets of behaviors. Our conceptualization of dysfunction both adds

to the theoretical understanding of these leadership behaviors as well as seeks to further

understand the cognitive and affective states of employees suffering under such a leader.

9


These states may be further linked to behaviors such as absenteeism, counterproductive

work behaviors, or turnover, although we draw short of hypothesizing such a linkage.

Adding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader

in addition to the consequences thereof further extends empirical research around

leadership behavior and may provide new avenues for practitioners to influence and

intervene to protect both individuals and organizations.

10


References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility

in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and

contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the

moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review,

4(3), 393-411.

Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the

root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature

review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84.

doi:10.1177/1523422311410651

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organisational

psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461-1475.

Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The influence of corporate

psychopaths on corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment to

employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 1-19.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision.

Journal of Managerial Issues, 340-355.

11


Demir, D., & Rodwell, J. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents and consequences of

workplace aggression for hospital nurses. Journal of nursing scholarship, 44(4),

376-384. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2012.01472.x

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and

harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the

Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress: An International Journal

of Work, Health, & Organisations, 23(1), 24-44.

doi:10.1080/02678370902815673

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in

response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator

tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309.

doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing

Research, 25(2), 186-192.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2012). Management of organizational

behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Iverson, R. D., Olekalns, M., & Erwin, P. J. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors,

and absenteeism: A causal model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 1-23. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1556

12


Jamal, M. & Baba, V. V. (1992). Shiftwork and department-type related to job stress,

work attitudes and behavioral intentions: A study of nurses. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 449-464.

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and

management. Employee Rights & Employee Policy Journal, 8, 335-523.

Kolb, S. & Owen, J. (2014). Fear of extradyadic involvement: Contextual, relationship,

intrapersonal and partner factors. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy,

13(3), 1-22. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.921264

Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as

displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125.

Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York, NY: Riverhead.

Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on

followers' organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive

supervision. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270-285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8551.2010.00732.x

Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining

the cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates'

psychological health. Work & Stress, 24(1), 36-55. doi:

10.1080/02678371003715135

Reio, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility:

Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237-264.

13


Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and

effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.

doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.

Rose, K. J., Shuck, M. B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative

review exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications

for those employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review,

14(1), 64-90. doi: 10.1177/1534484314552437

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses. Order

No. 1453699

Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming

the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational

support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 98(1), 158.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its

nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43(2), 178-190.

14

web viewadding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader...

Documents