Destructive leadership impact on employees performance

EFFECTS OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE’S PERFORMANCE
Munira Hassan Ali Tharwani
Limkokwing University of Creative Technology
Inovasi 1
Jalan Teknokrat
Off, Jalan, Malaysia
Mehreen Raheel
University of British Columbia - Vancouver, Canada
Yousuf Ali
Aga Khan University - Institute for Educational Development - Karachi, Pakistan
Shazmina Saher
Inovasi 1
Jalan Teknokrat
Basit Zafar
Inovasi 1
Jalan Teknokrat
Abstract
The purpose ofthis paperis to identify the traits of destructive leadership as experienced in an educationalsetting
and investigate its impact on teachers’ performance in terms of their commitment to work, the perceived
meaningfulness of their work and their innovative behavior. A total of 90 Pakistani teachers from elementary
schools in public and private sectors took part in this cross-sectional study. The data was collected through an
online questionnaire and analyzed quantitatively to establish correlation between the identified variables of this
study.Results of the study showthat toxic leadership, bullying, abusive supervision and narcissistic attitude show
as the traits ofdestructive leadership in some of the educationalsettings in Pakistan.Furthermore, these destructive
leadership traits have a significant negative impact on teachers’ commitment to work. However, the nature of this
service industry and teachers’passion towards their work could explain how destructive leadership has not been
able to effect teachers’ perceived meaningfulness of their work and their innovative behavior. This study
contributes to the scarce knowledge of how traits of destructive forms of leadership showin educational settings
in Pakistan and effects of destructive leadership on different aspects of teachers’ performance at work.
1.0 Introduction and Background of the Study:
Nwachukwu (1988) defines leader as the one who provides direction and guidance to the employees in an
organization, supports them by prioritizing their needs and facilitates them to achieve organizational goals. A
leader helps the employees reach towards its goals by motivating and binding the teamtogether.
Bullying, abusive supervision, toxic behaviourand narcissism reflect destructive leadership styles (Schmidt,
2008). In recent years, some research studies have focused on destructive leadership and its effects on
subordinates and organization (Ghislieri, Cortese, Molina & Gatti, 2019; Hou, 2017, Lyu et al., 2016). Although
several interventions have improved the situation in industrial organizations as they implemented different

models to improve organizations’ performance and mitigate the dark traits of leadership, it is still an area of
concern for academic leadership in Pakistan.
While working in Pakistan, the authors have realized that the academic culture in an educational setting is
negatively affected by destructive leadership styles where employees are subjected to harsh behaviorand rudeness
from their leaders.
It is perceived that destructive leadership provoke negative outcomes and it is felt across all levels
i) Individual level,
ii) The group level, and
iii) The organization level.
Destructive leadership negatively effects employees’ quality of work, productivity and job satisfaction (Schmidt,
2008). It is not unusualto proclaim that destructive personalities carry persona and charm which manipulate and
influence the behaviorof the workforce through manipulation, push and force to achieve personaltargets (Lipman-
Bluemen, 2005). Destructive leadership has a negative impact on their workforce by influencing their attitude,
needs and behavior.Destructive leaders usually disregard the wellbeing of their staff and demand excessive work;
for examples, staff are frequently called for additional tasks on off days and are also required to take extra
workload in case of staff shortages without any remuneration. Destructive leadership tries to deal with their
employees in a manner that suits to their personal interest. They enjoy their own monopoly to detect, pull out,
punish and retrain employees as per their wish. In an educational setting, destructive leadership targets teachers
who become vulnerable victims, taking a more submissive role and enduring the powerful behavior of their
leaders.
1.1 Problem Statement
All organizations, including educational organizations, consider their employees as valuable asset and employ
strategies to make them more committed towards their jobs However, there still exists destructive form of
leadership which toxifies the environment and results in low job performance. A need, therefore, arises to
investigate several traits of destructive leadership revolving around toxic, bossy,abusive supervision,narcissism
and measure the effect of it on employees’ performance which create low productivity and effectiveness.It may
cause harm and threatens the sustainability of the organization in terms of employees’ performance. It is apparent
that destructive leadership impacts an organization’s performance at individual and group levels. In order to
mitigate the negative impact of destructive leadership on an organization, it is important to study the situation
empirically and provide informed interventions for improved performance. Hence, this study aims to identify the
different traits of destructive leadership and its impact on staff’s performance. For the purpose of this study,a few
traits through which the destructive leadership usually shows itself in an organization will be focused. These traits
include toxic behaviour, bossy attitude,abusive supervision and narcissism. Additionally, the staff’s performance
will be explored in terms of commitment, meaningfulness of work, and innovation. This research paperidentifies
the gap in literature around the impact of destructive leadership on teachers’ performance and attempts to bridge
it. This article proposes that the presence of destructive leadership deteriorates the employees’ performance and
effects the quality of innovativeness of the work while displaying a large gap in the commitment of the
organization.
1.2 Research Questions
1. How traits of destructive leaders are corelated with each other?
2. How destructive leadership effect the commitment of the employees?
3. How destructive leadership effect the meaningful work of the employees?
4. How destructive leadership effect the innovative approach of the employees?
1.3 Research Objective

To address the research problem, the researcher (first author) tried to obtain answers of the research questions by
leading the research project. While the other two authors provided assistance in the tool development, data
collection and analysis.
In general, the specific objective ofthis study is to determine the traits ofdestructive leadership and its relationship
with employees’ performance with reference to employees’ commitment, meaningful work and innovative
behavior.
1- To identify the relationship between traits of destructive leadership revolving around narcissist, toxic,
abusive supervision and bullying.
2- To identify the relationship of Destructive Leadership with employee performance relating to employees’
commitment.
3- To identify the relationship of Destructive Leadership with employee performance relating to employees’
meaningful work
4- To identify the relationship of Destructive Leadership with employee performance relating to innovative
behavior of employees.
2.0 Literature Review
Organizations tend to have low efficiency due to highly bossy leaders as decis ion making is centered around them
which deprive their employees and make them powerless with very little autonomy. As per research studies
individual’s mental and emotional involvement related to decision making creates and contributes towards group
goals and share responsibility.
The need for employees to be autonomous and participative in decision making is a basic drive of motivation and
commitment towards organization goals and their productivity. The destructive demeanor of leader deprives the
employees of their basic drive hence affect their commitment and engagement towards their work which
ultimately produce meaningless work
It is clear that without effective leadership it is difficult to maintain quality and profitability as the leader steers
the direction of the subordinates (DuBin, 2009).
2.1 Traits and Characteristics of Dark Leadership
2.2 Key Elements of Destructive Behaviour
Bullying
Bullying leads the target to come to a silence or isolation. As Hoel and Cooper (2001) described this act as group
of certain individuals who receive negative actions from one or several persons and they find it difficult to defend
themselves against this act. Einarson, Hoel, ZSapf and Cooper (2003) characterized bullying as offending,
isolating and criticizing target work tasks.
Pelletier (2010) pointed that bullying is the mental or physicalforce used against weaker orsubordinate to exercise
authority. For any activity to be considered as bullying, it has to occur regularly or repeatedly over a period of
time (e.g. about six months or more).
Toxic Leadership
Reed (2004) postulated that there are three common characteristics amongst toxic leaders:
1- Indifference to the wellbeing of the staff.
2- An apparent motive of self- interest over others
3- A negatively driven personality trait affecting organizational climate.
Lipman-Bluemen (2005) attributed different destructive qualities for the toxic leader:
- Egoistic behavior – overambitious goal rotating around self-progress and power

- Low integrity showing leaders as not trustworthy
- Non-ethical demeanor, cannot discriminate between right and wrong
- Poor decision makers and blame others if the decision is wrong
Whicker (1996) prescribed toxic leaders as street fighters, malcontent and malicious people who succeed their
position by tearing down others and control others through personal selfishness and cleverness.
To put it more clearly, Tavanti (2011) argues that people who are difficult to deal with are not necessarily “toxic”.
It may be pointed out that an autocratic and occasionally abusive behavior may not be considered as toxic to the
one who is charming and smart who may be toxic (Decoster, Camps, Stouten, Vandevyvere &Tripp, 2013).
Several writers have postulated that toxic leaders might be highly capable in their jobs but they create a non -
encouraging climate amongst their peers and subordinate thereby negatively affecting their job performances
(Hobman, Restubog,Bordia & Tang,2009). Goldman (2009a, 2009b) suggests thatthere are overlapping behavior
of toxic leader such as egocentric (narcissism) and controlling (bullying).
Narcissism
Narcissism refers to self-praise with an egocentric personality. The leaders are perceived to have insatiable desire
to get acknowledged for high superiority, intelligence and remarkable personality. Narcissist leaders satisfy their
constraint feeling of inferiority through receiving praises and affirmation oftheir superiors (Judge, Lepine & Rich,
2006). Khoo and Burch (2008) asserted that narcissist leaders are in the pursuit of admiration which lead them to
employ tactics of gaining attention through charm and charisma; however, when performing they are observed to
be in-effective. In otherwords, narcissists feel themselves superior and disregard the presence and importance of
others. They turn co-workers against them when they deploy strategies of attaining their own goal and interest
over others, and perceive the surrounding as threats to their position (Crocker & Park, 2004).
Abusive Leadership
Mawriz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne and Marinova (2012) asserted that abusive leadership has negative supervisor-
subordinate relationship which has ever-lasting effects on subordinates. Tepper (2007) elaborated the effects of
this leadership as having severe negative effects on the subordinates. The dominance trait of this leadership is
reflected in rudeness,inflicting pain, belittling workers, poorworking relationship,exerting pressure and exposing
past mistakes. It inflicts pain, anguish and fear amongst employees.
2.3 Effects on Employee’s Performance
Destructive leadership highlights consistent behavior that degrades and belittles workforce and is detrimental to
the organization. The degree of its effects varies from person to person and the extent to which it is perceived. For
this study, the concept of employees’ performance was deconstructed to focus on three aspects, including
commitment to work, meaningfulness of work and innovation at work.
Destructive Leadership and Employee’s Commitment to the Organization:
A research conducted by Magazine, Williams and Williams (1996) pointed out commitment as feelings, opinions
and intentions that bind the individuals to stay with the organization for a longer period. Legge (2005) related
Attitudinal Commitment with individual’s attitude and feelings towards the serving organization. It constitutes
three factors namely identification, involvement and loyalty. Normative Commitment has been defined as
phenomenon where individuals are psychologically attached to the organization as to feel his/her logic of
responsibility to the organization (Gruen, Summers & Acito, 2000).
Fang, Cheng & Chen (2009) elaborated the role of effective leader who increases the employee’s organizational
commitment and enhances their attachment to the company by giving access to enjoy their work and familiarizing
themwith organization’s goals and values.In otherwords, he/she aligns the employee’s role with the organization
goals and values. Hence, the leaders’ behavior and style influence the employees performance (Keskes, 2014).
Hence, we can derive the fact that when employees are committed with the organization, they stay loyal and have
less intention to leave the organization. They show positive attitude and it gears towards positive performance of
their jobs. Becker (1960) asserts that there are binding mechanisms to retain employees with the organization such

as leadership styles,outcomes of employee efforts or rewards corresponding to their jobs which make it difficult
for employees to walk away to any other organization.
Destructive Leadership and Meaningful of Employees’ Work:
The second aspect of employees’ performance that is focused in this study is meaningfulness of work. Ashmos
and Duchon (2000) suggest that meaningfulness adds life to work. It innately derives employees towards job
satisfaction. When employees find their job meaningful, they tend to gain joy and pride out of their work and
realize how their job contributes for the good of larger community. Leiter, Harvie and Frizzell (1998) argue that
workers in a service industry are better able to give quality service to their clients if they find their work
meaningful. Their research data revealed that clients are usually more satisfied with the work of those who find
their work inherently meaningful. It was explained that when employees find their work meaningful, they regard
their work as important and are able to relate their work to their personal goals. Consequently, these employees
are more willing and motivated to provide best services to theirclients.Ghislieri, Cortese,Molino and Gatti (2019)
explain that when employees consider their work meaningful, it allows them to demonstrate their potentials and
directs them to achieve their purpose.It brings a deep sense of fulfillment among workers who see a significant
impact of their work on the lives of those whomthey serve.
Destructive Leadership and Innovative Behavior:
The third aspect of the research is focused on innovation. Innovation goes beyond good ideas it is making ideas
operate commercially and technically (Tedd & Bessant,2009). Leadership plays an important role in innovation,
since employees are relying on their leaders for any newconstruct in their organization in terms of communication,
information, resources and support (Kanter, 1988). However, in presence of destructive behaviour, there exist a
decreased positive behaviour (Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler & Ensley, 2004). Leadership style can be a constraint or
an opportunity that affects the behaviour of the employees that consecutively effect the working style of the
employees, therefore, there is an important role of leader in enhancing performance and innovation. It can be
concluded from self-motive theory (Leary, 2007) that if employees work in a restricted way of fear and scare,
their reflection is observed in their attitude and job performance (Adams & Bray, 1992).

2.1 Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
2.2 Research Hypothesis
Hypothesis No. 1
There is a significant correlation between destructive leader comprising of independent variables of Toxic,
Bullying, Abusive Supervision and Narcissist Leader - PROVED
Hypothesis No. 2
There is a significant relationship between destructive leader comprising of toxic, bullying, abusive supervision
and narcissist to employee commitment to work undereffective performance of employee - PROVED
Hypothesis No. 3
and narcissist to meaningfulness of work under effective performance of employee - REJECTED
Hypothesis No. 4
and narcissist to innovative behaviour of employee - REJECTED
3.0 Research Methodology
5.1 Research Design
Using a quantitative research approach,this research project followed a survey research design to investigate the
relationship between destructive leaders and its effect on the performance of employees. Most of the researches
in the past used the same. The quantitative approach is effective and useful for collecting, analyzing and retrieving
useful information (Mathiyaz, Kagan & Deoki, 2010).
3.2 Description of Questionnaire
The items included in the questionnaire are adopted from related research studies (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000;
Janssen,2000; Leiter, Harvie & Frizell, 1998; Mowday,Steers & Porter, 1979; Scott & Bruce, 1994). This helped
the researcher to ensure the reliability of the tool. Furthermore, Cronbach’s Alpha was conducted to test the
reliability of the instrument. The analysis showed a value of 0.884 which is close to 1. This indicated that the
questionnaire has high consistency reliability (Robert, 2012). The questionnaire is in English. There are three
sections in this questionnaire. Section A collected demographic details of the participants, Section B contains 20

items that describe the traits of destructive leaders and Section C contains 31 items that aimed to illustrate how
the performance of leadership effects the employees. Four points Likert Scale is used in Section B and Section C
that range from “Strongly Disagree” to ‘Strongly Agree”. The respondents are required to state their agreement
level by selecting on the scale of 1 to 4. Nominal scale is used for Section A.
3.3 Sample Size
According to Roscoe (1995) the principles to determine sample size must be more than 30 and less than 500
suitable of most of the research. Accordingly the sample size of this standing is 90.
4.0 Data Analysis and Discusssion
Descriptives Frequency (f) Percentage %
Gender
Male
Female
25
65
27.8
72.2
No. of Years Experience
Less than 2 years
Between 2 and 5 years
Between 6 and 10 years
More than 10 years
14
22
21
33
15.6
23.3
24.4
36.7
Table 3.1 Demographic Details
Table 3.1 provides the demographic analysis of the respondents.90 teachers participated in the survey, of which
25 identified themselves as males (27.8%) and 65 as females (72.2%). Moreover, 33 teachers of these teachers
have more than 10 years of experience while 57 teachers have less than 10 years of experience.
4.1 Analysis of the Traits of Destructive Leadership:
Tables 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate the traits of a toxic leader, a bullying leader, a leader who uses abusive
supervision and a narcissistic leader respectively.
Traits of a Toxic Leader
Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Demeaning and Degrading 5 5.6 10 11.1 42 46.7 33 36.7 90 100
Showing Favouritism 6 6.7 10 11.1 38 42.2 36 40 90 100
Trusting Employees 22 24.4 51 56.7 11 12.2 6 6.7 90 100
Presenting Toxic Ideas as Noble Vision 6 6.7 17 18.9 49 54.4 18 20 90 100
Being Rigid 1 1.1 12 13.3 44 48.9 33 36.7 90 100
Ignoring others’ Comments and Ideas 5 5.6 14 15.6 41 45.6 30 33.3 90 100
Looking after theNeeds of others 24 26.7 54 60 7 7.8 5 5.6 90 100
Table 3.2 Frequency Table for Items related to the Traits of a Toxic Leader
Traits of a Bullying Leader
Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Ridiculing 3 3.3 15 16.7 55 61.1 17 18.9 90 100
Harassing 7 7.8 20 22,2 41 45.6 22 24.4 90 100
Emotionally Unpredictable and Volatile 4 4.4 18 20 40 44.4 28 31.1 90 100
Using Brutal Force to Influence others 4 4.4 24 26.7 45 50 17 18.9 90 100

Table 3.3 Frequency Table for Items related to the Traits of a Bullying Leader
Traits of a Abusive Supervision
Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Holds employeeresponsible for things
outside their job description
3 3.3 17 18.9 45 50 25 27.8 90 100
Speaks poorly about other employees in
the workplace
3 3.3 20 22.2 38 42.2 29 32.2 90 100
publicly insults employees 3 3.3 20 22 41 45.6 26 28.9 90 100
Tells Employees that they are
incompetent
6 6.7 12 13.3 44 48.9 28 31.1 90 100
Table 3.4 Frequency Table for Items related to the Traits of Abusive Supervision
Traits of a Narcissistic Leader
Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Had a sense of personal achievement 2 2.2 13 14.4 47 52.2 28 31.1 90 100
Assumes that he/she is meant for the
highest rank of the organization
1 1.1 13 14.4 39 43.3 37 41.1 90 100
Believes that he/she is capable than
others
2 2.2 8 8.9 42 46.7 38 42,2 90 100
Believes that he/she is an extraordinary
person
0 0 13 14.4 44 48.9 33 36.7 90 100
Tells Employees that they are
incompetent
1 1.1 14 15.6 55 61.1 20 22.2 90 100
Table 3.5 Frequency Table for Items related to the Traits of Narcissistic Leader
Toxic
Leader
(Mean)
Bullying
(Mean)
Abusive
Supervision
(Mean)
Narcissist
(Mean)
N Valid 90 90 90 90
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.7698 2.9194 3.0250 3.1844
Median 2.7143 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000
Mode 2.71 3.00 3.00 3.00
Std. Deviation .40559 .66285 .68496 .56745
Table 3.6a Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Traits
Mean_Toxic
Leader
Mean_Bullying
Leader
Mean_ Abusive
Supervision
Mean_Narcissist
Leader
Mean_Toxic
Leader
Pearson
Correlation
1 .783**
.716**
.474**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 90 90 90 90
Mean_Bullying
Leader
Pearson
Correlation
.783**
1 .838**
.554**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 90 90 90 90
Mean_ Abusive
Supervision
Pearson
Correlation
.716**
.838**
1 .510**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 90 90 90 90
Mean_Narcissist
Leader
Pearson
Correlation
.474**
.554**
.510**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 90 90 90 90
**. Correlation is significantatthe 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3.6b Analysis of Correlation between Leadership Traits
Table 3.6a indicates that most of the respondents agreed that they had worked with a toxic leader (M= 2.77, S.D=
0.40), a bullying leader (M= 2.92, S.D= 0.66), an abusive supervisor (M= 3.02, S.D= 0.68), and a narcissistic
leader (M= 3.18, S.D= 0.57). This confirmed that the respondents had experienced descrtuctive leadership during
their professional careers. Post-hoc analysis ofthe data indicates that the four leadership traits that were identified
for the purpose of this study to define destructive leadership were significantly correlated with p<.001 as shown
in table 3.6b. This proved our first hypothesis: There is a significant correlation between destructive leader
comprising of independent variables of Toxic, Bullying, Abusive Supervision and Narcissist Leader.
4.2 Analysis of Employee’s Perceived Performance in the Presence of Destructive Leadership:
Table 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 illustrate the employees’ perceived performance while working in the leadership of an
individual who showed above identified traits of destructive leadership. A represented in the conceptual
framework, the employees’ performance was deconstructed in terms of commitment to work, meaningful work
and innovative behavior respectively.
Commitment to
Work1 Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Item 1 21 23.3 50 55.6 16 17.8 3 3.3 90 100
Item 2 14 15.6 53 58.9 17 18.9 6 6.7 90 100
Item 3 2 2.2 17 18.9 66 73.3 5 5.6 90 100
Item 4 13 14.4 57 63.3 18 20 2 2.2 90 100
Item5 14 15.6 55 61.1 16 17.6 5 5.6 90 100
Item 6 18 20 51 56.7 14 15.6 7 7.8 90 100
Item 7 1 1.1 6 6.7 74 82,2 9 10 90 100
Item 8 20 22.2 50 55.6 13 14.4 7 7.8 90 100
Item 9 1 1.1 8 8.9 58 64.4 23 25.6 90 100
Item 10 22 24.4 46 51.1 16 17.8 6 6.7 90 100
Item 11 0 0 12 13.3 60 66.7 18 20 90 100
Item 12 0 0 9 10 58 64.4 23 25.6 90 100
Item 13 9 10 49 54.4 27 30 5 5.6 90 100
Item 14 27 30 48 53.3 11 12.2 4 4.4 90 100
Item 15 4 4.4 11 12.2 56 62.2 19 21.1 90 100
Table 3.7 Frequency Table for Items related to Commitment to Work
1
1: I am willingto put in a great deal of effort beyondthat normally expectedin order tohelp this organization be successful. 2: I talk
up this organization to myfriends as a great organizationtowork for. 3: I feel verylittleloyalty to this organization.4: I wouldaccept
almost any type ofjobassignment in ordertokeepworkingforthis organization.5: I findthat myvalues andthe organization’s values
are very similar. 6: I am proudto tell others that I am part of this organization.7: I couldjust as well be workingfor a different
organizationas longas the type ofwork was similar. 8: This organizationreally inspires theverybest in me in the way of job
performance. 9: It wouldtake verylittlechange in my present circumstances tocause me toleavethis organization. 10: I am extremely
glad that I chose this organizationtowork for over others I was consideringat thetime I joined. 11: There’s not toomuch to be gained
by stickingwith this organizationindefinitely.12: Often.I findit difficult toagree withthis organization’s policies onimportant
matters relatingto its employees.13: I reallycareabout thefate of this organization.14: Forme this is thebest of all possible
organizations for whichtowork. 15: Decidingto workforthis organizationwas a definite mistakeon mypart.

Meaningful Work2
Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Item 16 44 48.9 40 44.4 3 3.3 2 2.2 90 100
Item 17 27 30 25 27.8 30 33.3 8 8.9 90 100
Item 18 42 46.7 18 20 21 23.3 9 10 90 100
Item 19 5 5.6 14 15.6 55 61.1 16 17.8 90 100
Item 20 24 26.7 27 30 29 32.2 10 11.1 90 100
Item 21 5 5.6 15 16.7 57 63.3 13 14.4 90 100
Item 22 4 4.4 9 10 66 73.3 11 12.2 90 100
Table 3.8 Frequency Table for Items related to Meaningful Work
Innovative
Behaviour3 Strongly
Disagree
Freq Per
Disagree
Freq Per
Agree
Freq Per
Strongly
Agree
Freq Per
Total
Freq Per
Item 23 4 4.4 8 8.9 62 68.9 16 17.8 90 100
Item 24 3 3.3 5 5.6 62 68.9 20 22.2 90 100
Item 25 3 3.3 10 11.1 57 63.3 20 22.2 90 100
Item 26 4 4.4 11 12.2 55 61.1 20 22.2 90 100
Item 27 4 4.4 15 16.7 56 62.2 15 16.7 90 100
Item 28 2 2.2 19 21.1 57 63.3 12 13.3 90 100
Item 29 2 2.2 13 14.4 60 66.7 15 16.7 90 100
Item 30 2 2.2 15 16.7 58 64.4 15 16.7 90 100
Item 31 2 2.2 12 13.3 64 71.1 12 13.3 90 100
Table 3.9 Frequency Table for Items related to Innovative Behaviour
2
16: I experience joyin mywork. 17: I believe others experience joy as a result ofmy work. 18: My spirit is energizedby my work.
19: The workI do is connectedto what I thinkis important in life. 20: I look forwardtocomingto workmost days. 21: I see
connection betweenmywork andthe largersocial goodofmy community. 22: I understandwhat gives my workpersonal meaning.
3
23: I create newideas for difficult issues. 24: I Search out newworkingmethods, techniques, or instruments.25: I generate original
solutions for problems. 26: I mobilizesupport for innovative ideas. 27: I acquire approval for innovativeideas. 28: I make important
organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas. 29: I transform innovativeideas intouseful applications. 30: I introduce
innovative ideas intothe workenvironment in a systematic way. 31: I evaluate theutility ofinnovative ideas.

Meaningful
Work
(Mean)
Commitment
to Work
(Mean)
Innovative
Behaviour
(Mean)
N Valid 90 90 90
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 2.3966 2.0452 2.9815
Median 2.2857 2.0000 3.0000
Mode 2.29 1.93 3.00
Std. Deviation .52197 .44074 .55148
Table 4.0 Descriptive Analysis of Employees' Perceived Performance in Destructive Leadership
Given that the participants of the survey had worked with destructive leadership, the data in the table 4.0 most of
the participants lacked commitment to work (M = 2.04, S.D= 0.44) in the given situation. Gallus, Walsh, Driel,
Gouge and Antolic (2013) also drew similar results and described in detail the implications of toxic leadership on
the organization with factors as decreased job satisfaction, work-life conflict, deviation from work, higher turn-
overintentions alongwith drug and alcohol abuse. In the same way, Elle (2012) highlighted toxic leader possessing
character which wipe out trust, create work-aversion among employees and build a negative organizational
climate. Tepper’s (2007) results also resonated with the findings of this study as he had elaborated that under this
leadership there is employee work alienation and disengagement towards work and thus adversely affect the
commitment of the employees and their intention to stay with the organization. This suggests that there is a
profound effect of teachers being resistant to stay with the organization in the presence of destructive leadership.
The post-hoc analysis ofthe data established a significant negative correlation between destructive leadership and
employees’ commitment to work in an educational setting with a value of p<.05 at .014 (see table 4.1). This
suggests that the teachers who work with descructive leaders lack commitment to work; with very limited desire
to stay with the organization for a longer time, and do not think that the said organization is the best for their
professionalcareers. The respondentsindicated in the questionnaire that they feel more inclined to leave th eir jobs
for a better opportunity as the destructive traits of leaders obstruct their performance.
Mean_Destructive
Leadership
Mean_Commitment to
Work
Mean_Destructive
Leadership
Pearson Correlation 1 -.258*
Sig. (2-tailed) .014
N 90 90
Mean_Commitment to
Work
Pearson Correlation -.258*
1
N 90 90
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.1 Correlations of Destructive Leadership with the Commitment to Work
This proved our second hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between destructive leader comprising
of toxic, bullying, abusive supervision and narcissist to employee commitment to work under effective
performance of employee.
With reference to the descriptive analysis of data related to meaningfulness of work, it is found that teachers
working with destructive leadership continue to find meaningfulness of their work (M= 2.40, S.D= 0.52). Having
said that, the post-hoc analysis ofthe data indicate that the relationship between the traits of destructive leadership
and meaningful work is negative.However, the value of significance could not be achieved as shown in table 4.2.
Ghisleri et al. (2019) also found a negative relationship between narcissistic leadership and meaningful work. In
a service industry, where act of giving the best services to the clients is valued, a narcissistic leader who
dominantly portrays self‐ interest and the lack of concern for others negatively impact the meaningfulness of
work among employees. This analysis of the data and authors’own experience of teaching in different schools in
Pakistan indicate that teachers’tend to find meaningfulness of their work by helping their students learn and grow
into becoming a happy humanbeing. Teaching students on its own is a self-rewarding experience for them, hence
desctructive leadership may not significantly influence the ways in which teachers find meaning in their own
work. While in the classroom, the teachers feel intrinsically motivated by staying closer to their goal of achieving
students’ engagement and achievement.

Mean_Destructive
Leadership
Mean_ Meaningfulness of
Work
Mean_Destructive
Leadership
Pearson Correlation 1 -.041
N 90 90
Mean_Meaningfulness of
Work
Pearson Correlation -.041 1
N 90 90
Table 4.2 Correlations of Destructive Leadership with the Meaningfulness of Work
The data analysis rejects the third hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between destructive leader
comprising of toxic, bullying, abusive supervision and narcissist to meaningfulness of work under effective
performance of employee. However, the negative relationship that emerged in the data analysis could not be
totally overlooked. Rosso, Dekas and Wrzesniewski (2010) and Ghisleri et al. (2019) have ascertained a positive
relationship between meaningful work and job outcomes. These outcomes relate to motivation at work,
employees’ engagement and attendance at work, stress among employees, and their job satisfaction.If destructive
behaviour of the leadership is overlooked then it will become the cause of teacher burn-out who may lose the
sense of meaningfulness of their work.
The descriptive data analysis of the items related to innovative behaviour of teachers have scored a very high
mean indicating that teachers continue to engage in innovative work despite the presence ofdestructive leadership.
Hence, the results rejected the fourth hypothesis: There is a significant relationship betweendestructive leader
comprising of toxic, bullying, abusive supervision and narcissist to innovative behaviour of employee.
5.0 CONCLUSION
This research paper discusses a study on the traits of destructive leadership and how it impacts the teachers’
performance in schools. The quantitative analysis of the data collected through a questionnaire concludes that
destructive leadership shows its traits by way of toxic behaviour which is amplified by rigidity, distrust and
egocentrism. A destructive leader tends to abuse its subordinates by ridiculing and harassing them emotionally.
Lastly, a destructive leader demonstrates abusive supervision and narcissism in their work behaviour. This study
also concluded that destructive leadership has a significantly negative influence on teachers’commitment to work.
Additionally, presence of destructive leadership is likely to influence the meaningfulness that teachers find in th eir
work. Hence, it is important that the destructive behaviour of leadership are mitigated before it becomes a cause
of teacher burn-out and attrition resulting in the unstability of the school organization.

References:
Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measurement.
Journal of Management Inquiry,9,134–145.
Becker,H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 32-40.
Cerne,M., Nerstad,C. G. L., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2014), What goes around comes around:
Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal,
57(1), 172-192.
Crocker, J. & Park,L. E., (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin,130, 392-
414.
DuBrin, A. J. (2009). Leadership research findings.practice, and skills (2nd ed.). Mason: South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Elle, S.A. (2012). Breaking the toxic leadership paradigmin the U.S. army. Carlise Barracks:US
Army War College.
Fang, C. H, Chang, S. T., & Chen, G. L. (2009). Applying structural model to study of the
relationship model among leadership style, satisfaction, organization commitment and performance in
hospital industry. In 2009 International Conference on E-business and Information SystemSecurity
(pp. 1-5).
Gallus, J. A.,Walsh, B. M., Driel, M. V., Gouge, M. C.,& Antolic E. (2008). Intolerable cruelty: A
multilevel examination of the impact of toxic leadership on U.S. military units and service members.
Military Psychology 25(6),88-601.
Ghislieri, C.,Gatti, P. Molino, M., & Cortese, C. G.(2017). Work-family conflict and enrichment in
nurses: Between job demands, perceived organizational support and work-family backlash. Journal of
Nursing Management, 25(1),65-75.
Ghislieri, C.,Cortese, C. G., Molino, M., & Gatti, P. (2019). The relationships of meaningful work
and narcissistic leadership with nurses’ job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(8),
1691-1699.
Hoel, H.,& Cooper, C. (2001). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Unpublished Report
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology UMIST,30.
Hou, X. (2017). Multilevel influence of destructive leadership on millennial generation employees'
innovative behavior. Social Behavior and Personality,45(7),1113-1125.
Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1998). Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can
the right kind of commitment be managed? Journal of management studies, 36(3),307-333
Janssen,O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3),287-302.
Judge, T. A.,LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the
narcissistic personality to self and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership and task and
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 762-776.
Kanter,R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for
innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior,10. 169-211.

Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology,
58,317-344.
Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities, basingstoke. London:
Macmillan Press.
Lipman-Bluemen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership:A conceptual framework. Claremont:Claremont
Graduate University.
Leiter, M. P.,Harvie, P.,Frizzell, C.(1998). The correspondence of patient satisfaction and nurse
burnout. Social Science and Medicine, 47(10). 1611-161
Lyu, Y., Zhou, X., Li, W., Wan, J.,Zhang, J., & Qiu, C. (2016). The impact of abusive supervision on
service employees’ proactive customer service performance in the hotel industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,28(9),1992-2012.
Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis
examination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen’s affective and continuance commitment
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 241-250.
Mowday, R. T., Steers,R. M., & Porter,L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2),224-247.
Nwachukwu, C.C. (1988). Management theory and practice. Onitsha:Africana FEP Publishing.
Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric.
Leadership, 6(4), 373-389.
Robert, F. D. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications.Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Schmidt, A. A.(2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. College Park:
University of Maryland.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3),261-516.

Destructive leadership impact on employees performance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Destructive leadership impact on employees performance

Similar to Destructive leadership impact on employees performance (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (10)

Destructive leadership impact on employees performance