Organizational Integrity as Antidote: Solutions for Minimizing Destructive Leadership

As an employee, I would wager a hefty bet that at some point in your career, you’ve likely experienced the impact of destructive leadership. Whether directly or indirectly, it can permeate an organization like a bad case of lice: challenging to see, incredibly irritating and damaging, impactful to everyone in close proximity, and difficult to remedy. Workplace bullying, playing favorites, stealing credit, discrimination, neglect, and social undermining are merely a few examples of how destructive leadership plays out in the workplace, which poses a threat to both organizational success and employee health and well-being (Erickson et al., 2015; Laurijssen et al., 2023). 

Well, stop hiring people with destructive personalities and tendencies, right? Great in theory, but difficult in practice. In fact, it may be nearly impossible to vet and screen out potentially toxic employees and leaders during your interview process (Muchinsky, 2022). If you’ve ever experienced a close relationship with someone with a Dark Triad personality disorder (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism), you know firsthand how difficult it was to see who they really were at the onset of the relationship. They were probably charming, interesting, and love-bombed you so much you were floating 10 feet from your body for the first few weeks or months. It isn’t until the initial new relationship energy wears off that you might start recognizing toxic traits, and the same goes for working relationships. Destructive people, regardless of any sort of formal personality disorder diagnosis, often come across as intelligent, interesting, charming, and usually seem like they are the “perfect” person for the job—the corporate unicorn, if you will.

If avoiding hiring a destructive person is difficult, what can your organization do instead? Long story short, it’s the culture of the organization that contributes to the expression or repression of toxic traits. Destructive leadership isn’t that difficult to mitigate; the key is that the organization facing this issue needs a strong backbone to address it effectively. Using evidence-based strategies to combat destructive leadership can help organizations avoid the costly consequences of dysfunctional teams, high turnover rates, legal issues, and negative impacts on employee health and well-being, such as stress, depression, and strained work relationships (Erickson et al., 2015; Laurijssen et al., 2023). 

What is Destructive Leadership? 

I use “destructive leadership” as an umbrella term that encompasses behaviors such as workplace bullying, self-serving behavior, abusive leadership/supervision, toxic leadership, unethical behavior, laissez-faire leadership and neglect, authoritarian or controlling leadership, harassment, and social undermining. For a more formal definition of the term, we can look to Einarsen et al. (2007), who define destructive leadership as: 

The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness, and/or the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates (p. 2).

This definition highlights the dual nature of destructive leadership: it harms not only subordinates or the organization but also both simultaneously. An important distinction to consider when defining destructive leadership is that intent is not a defining characteristic, but impact is (Einarsen et al., 2007). 

Destructive Leadership Can Erode Your Company from the Inside Out

At first glance, some may not be overly concerned about destructive leadership because it seems to affect only a few people in an organization, but this is far from the reality. At the organizational level, destructive leadership contributes to reduced employee morale, productivity, and commitment, as well as increased employee turnover and a decline in organizational citizenship behaviors, thereby increasing organizational costs (Erickson et al., 2015). More seriously, it has been linked to embezzlement, fraud, white-collar crimes, physical abuse, and reckless decision-making, which leaves organizations vulnerable to a range of legal, financial, criminal, and ethical issues (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). At the team level, destructive leadership can instigate a multitude of dysfunctional processes and behaviors, often promoting distrust and conflict (Wisse & Rus, 2022). Overall, a team with a destructive leader may be riddled with turmoil, a pervasive undertone of fear, and communication breakdowns, which often result in reduced creativity and continuity, thereby reducing output, quality, and effectiveness (Wisse & Rus, 2022). Lastly, individuals under a destructive leader experience higher levels of stress, fatigue, loss of concentration, and dissatisfaction at work. They may also experience victimization and fear of speaking up to human resources or upper management (Erickson et al., 2015; Wisse & Rus, 2022). 

Minimizing Destructive Leadership Behavior Is Simple, but Requires Integrity and Commitment Organization-Wide

• What are the unwritten norms in your organization? 

• Is it customary for people to climb over one another to fight for a promotion or a client? 

• Or are they collaborative and team-oriented? 

• Do your employees feel protected and safe enough to say something when they witness or experience behavior that isn’t right? 

• Or do they grin and bear it for fear of retaliation? 

• How much awareness does your organization even have about your employees’ lived experiences at work? 

These are great questions to ask yourself when you’re trying to assess how fertile the grounds of your organization are to either suppress or enable destructive behaviors. Shifting your organization’s experience with destructive behaviors isn’t a one-and-done workshop or simply firing the bad apple (although that might be necessary). Instead, it’s the day-in, day-out culture and context that your organization upholds that bolsters your guardrails against destructive behaviors. Ultimately, it’s your organization and its leaders who need to maintain ethical boundaries, integrity, authenticity, clear rules, and an organizational context that signals, “We won’t accept that here!” to safeguard against destructive behavior effectively—in addition, tempering the importance of competitiveness and power, utilizing transformational leadership, and supporting employee self-esteem round out your ability to transform your company into a firm, psychologically safe, and growth-oriented organization that has no time or space for destructive leadership and behaviors. 

If They Can, They Will: Clear Rules, Boundaries & Ethical Organizational Context Are Kryptonite for Destructive Leaders

Trait Activation Theory suggests that certain traits, like the dark triad traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, are unlikely to change, no matter what. Yet the expression of those traits can be altered depending upon social and situational cues (Barelds, 2018). This theory posits a fundamental truth: that the environment, culture, and interpersonal dynamics within an organization can embolden or hinder the activation of negative traits like narcissism, psychopathy, and authoritarianism in the workplace, and this finding is supported by evidence from multiple research studies (Barelds, 2018; Belschak et al., 2015; Erickson et al., 2015; Laurijssen et al., 2023; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016; Wisse et al., 2019; Wisse & Rus, 2022). Quite simply, your organization’s environment and unwritten rules and norms are the most impactful (and controllable) tool you have to dry up the water that destructive leaders need to survive. 

Take a moment to reflect on your organization's values and how you communicate them to your staff. Is it obvious? Is it more covert? Does your organization have specific values (it’s fine if you don’t, but now is a great time to consider them)? 

When your organization articulates its values, specifically values like respect, fairness, and professionalism, it fosters a culture of ethics, integrity, and collaboration. That foundation of a strong ethical and collaborative culture is maintained by upholding clear rules, boundaries, and consequences for behavior that violates the organization's guidelines and expectations (Laurijssen et al., 2023). In their experimental study, Laurijssen et al. (2023) found that clear rules and procedures directly reduced abusive supervision by primary psychopathic leaders. In addition, they observed that the absence of clear rules, procedures, and boundaries was even more detrimental, triggering leaders with primary psychopathy to engage in higher levels of abusive supervision, suggesting that the lack of structure actually amplifies harmful behavior (Laurijssen et al., 2023). Ultimately, having clear rules, boundaries, and pathways to address destructive behavior is the most crucial element in making your organization one in which destructive leaders (and employees) cannot engage in damaging ways. Your organization’s culture and context can either extinguish the fuel for destructive behavior or pour lighter fluid on it. 

“Never Fight Fair—That’s Not How You Win” 

- James Patterson

Authoritarian, competitive, and strong hierarchical organizational structures, a business structure that I primarily view as the “business model of the past,” pose another opportunity for destructive leadership expression in the workplace (Erickson et al., 2015; Wisse et al., 2019). These cutthroat, do-or-die structures promote intense competition, prioritize the bottom line above all else, and often leave subordinates powerless to speak up and critique leadership behaviors safely (Erickson et al., 2015; Wisse et al., 2019). It is essential that organizations not only create and implement strong ethical values within their culture but also visibly highlight expected leader behavior (Erickson et al., 2015; Wisse & Rus, 2022). In addition, mechanisms for reporting, raising concerns, and openly discussing workplace behavior contribute to an ethical, highly collaborative culture that supports efforts to minimize destructive leadership (Wisse et al., 2019; Wisse & Rus, 2022).

Two types of power influence destructive behavior in the workplace: perceived position power (how powerful we think and feel we are) and fear of losing power. When Machiavellians, and sometimes psychopaths, perceive their position power to be high, rather than low, abusive supervision increases (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Interestingly, Wisse and Sleebos (2016) did not find a significant effect among Narcissists in their research. However, psychopathy and Machiavellianism are often called the “malicious two” because they are more closely linked to severe malevolence and negative views of others, unlike narcissism, which is seen as “less sinister.” This distinction might explain why narcissists are found to be less likely to engage in abusive supervision and destructive leadership in general (Rauthmann and Kolar, 2012).

Does the fear of losing power lead to more self-serving behavior? When someone has power, they enjoy a range of benefits: control over resources and time, and freedom from external control (Galinsky et al., 2015). It’s unsurprising that when one encounters the fear of losing power, they might be more inclined to participate in destructive leadership, particularly self-serving behavior as a means of self-preservation (Wisse et al., 2019). Furthermore, organizational environments can contribute to heightened fear of losing power, particularly in highly competitive and cutthroat cultures. When power is unstable, it contributes to higher stress levels (Wisse et al, 2019). Competitive climates only reward the most successful individuals within an organization. The means of becoming the “best” are not necessarily dependent on intelligence, fairness, or ingenuity; in fact, these systems often reward the one who gets ahead, regardless of the ethics or means used to get there. These competitive cultures require colleagues to compete with one another to reach the top, thereby fostering an environment of uncertainty and instability (Wisse et al., 2019). Rivalry, competition, and so-called cutthroat work environments have been shown to increase negative relationships, mistrust, and exploitative behavior, all of which are linked to destructive leadership, especially self-serving behavior (Wisse et al., 2019). Meanwhile, organizational climates that are perceived as communal, collaborative, and team-oriented do not show a correlation between fear of power loss and self-serving behavior (Wisse et al., 2019). 

Transformational Leadership as a Tool to Motivate Machiavellians?

If leadership and culture can block (or enable) dark triad personalities from displaying destructive traits and behaviors, can leadership enhance positive behaviors? Surprisingly or perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer is a resounding yes. Transformational leadership has been shown to positively influence numerous work outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which you often think of as going “above and beyond” (Belschak et al., 2015). There’s a specific type of OCB that is less prevalent, called challenging OCB, which involves questioning procedures and norms and speaking up about discrepancies or injustices in the workplace. Individuals with Dark Triad traits, particularly Machiavellians, are generally more self-serving, with motives such as self-promotion and the desire to impress others, including supervisors (Belschak et al., 2015). Belschak et al. (2015) used this premise to hypothesize that transformational leaders could promote Machiavellians toward OCB. Consistent with their hypothesis, they found that challenging OCB was significantly and positively associated with transformational leadership, and that high levels of transformational leadership were positively associated with the challenging OCB of high-level Machiavellians. 

So why did this happen? 

Transformational leadership is correlated with autonomy and intrinsic motivation (i.e., a sense of wanting to do something because it’s fulfilling in some way, not merely because of the rewards you receive). We know from Self-Determination Theory that autonomy and intrinsic motivation are linked together. Belschak et al. (2015) found that Machiavellians respond favorably to transformational leadership because of the autonomy it provides. That sense of autonomy increases intrinsic motivation, which in turn increases challenging OCB behaviors. So, yes, transformational leadership can steer Machiavellians toward beneficial behaviors that ultimately help the organization, in addition to the host of benefits that transformational leadership offers to all followers. 

The Perfect Target: Low Self-Esteem 

In addition to organizational or social cues and constructs, Trait Activation Theory suggests that destructive leaders may also target specific victims who are perceived as vulnerable targets of opportunity (Barelds et al., 2018). Individuals with low self-esteem are more likely to accept mistreatment, have a lower ability to defend themselves against exploitation, and are less likely to speak up or push back against unethical treatment, thereby creating opportunities for destructive leadership behaviors to prevail unchecked (Barelds et al., 2018). Simply put, when leaders high in psychopathy engage with subordinates with low self-esteem, they are more likely to engage in self-serving behaviors than with subordinates with high self-esteem (Barelds et al., 2018). 

While an individual’s work on self-esteem extends beyond the workplace, organizations can still support and facilitate it. Training and workshops on self-esteem enhancement, as well as access to mental health services as part of benefits packages, can be great avenues for supporting employees' self-esteem. In addition, as mentioned above, creating an organizational environment in which speaking up and not tolerating mistreatment is not only acceptable but also expected helps employees feel safe doing so.

If you don’t want destructive leadership in your workplace, you must make it explicitly clear that such behavior is not tolerated and that you are consciously creating a psychologically safe environment where even your shyest employee feels comfortable saying something. 

Protecting People by Transforming Systems

It’s no secret that destructive leadership behaviors harm organizations, teams, and individuals; yet, many who rise to the top of organizations exhibit these behaviors. The key to stopping this behavior from taking hold in your organization isn’t just to weed it out (although that helps), but to build a fortress of ethical standards so solid that there’s no room for it to sneak through. Without clear organizational guardrails, a strong ethical and collaborative environment, and transformational leadership, you risk leaving the door open for destructive leadership to seize so-called “crimes of opportunity” (Barelds, 2018; Laurijssen, 2023). 

As we’ve discussed, tempering destructive behavior isn’t a one-time fix but a complex strategy. In practice, focusing primarily on the organizational context, then applying transformational leadership, and finally boosting followers' self-esteem can be used to prevent and reduce destructive leadership behaviors. Organizations that establish clear rules, boundaries, and expectations for their employees, provide easy and safe ways to report unethical behavior, showcase desired behaviors through leadership modeling, foster a culture of collaboration instead of intense competition and rivalry, and maintain transparency, especially regarding stability and power, are likely to have the strongest defense against destructive leadership within their organization (Barelds et al., 2018; Belschak et al. 2015; Erickson et al., 2015; Laurijssen et al., 2023; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016; Wisse et al., 2019; and Wisse & Rus, 2022). Additionally, supporting employees through confidence- and self-esteem-building practices may help them feel secure in speaking up when they witness destructive behaviors (Wisse & Rus, 2022). 

If you’re not sure where to start, I like to come back to Wisse & Rus (2022)’s concise and easy-to-remember saying: shift, suppress, and sever. Our first step is to shift behavior, whether at the organizational, leader, or follower level; then suppress patterns that support unwanted behaviors; and finally sever ties, which may involve firing destructive employees or those who incite negativity, and potentially even closing a company if extreme measures are necessary. You may need to take time to brainstorm and clarify your organization’s values, then develop a plan to communicate them and your standards of behavior effectively and clearly to your employees. Getting clarity on who you are, what you do, why you do it, and the kind of organization you want to be is the essential first step in safeguarding your company from destructive behaviors. 

If you’re feeling lost and need clarity, I help organizations identify hidden gaps in communication and understanding and develop long-term strategies to progress. Contact me to discuss how I can assist in restoring integrity to your business.

Contact Me

References: 

• Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

• Barelds, D. P. H., Wisse, B., Sanders, S., & Laurijssen, L. M. (2018). No regard for those who need it: The moderating role of follower Self-Esteem in the relationship between leader psychopathy and leader Self-Serving behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01281

• Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015b). Leading Machiavellians: How to Translate Machiavellians’ selfishness into Pro-Organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934–1956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484513

• Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

• Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, S. (2015). Destructive leadership: causes, consequences and countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 44, 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.003

• Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 3: Interpersonal Relationships, 421–460. 

• Laurijssen, L. M., Wisse, B., Sanders, S., & Sleebos, E. (2023). How to neutralize primary psychopathic leaders’ damaging impact: rules, sanctions, and transparency. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(2), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05303-x

• Muchinsky, S.S.H.P. M. (2022). Psychology Applied to Work (13th ed.). Hypergraphic Press. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780974934563

• Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-dominant narcissist, hostile-submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-dominant psychopath? Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.021

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

• Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019

• Wisse, B., Rus, D., Keller, A. C., & Sleebos, E. (2019). “Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it”: the combined effects of leader fear of losing power and competitive climate on leader self-serving behavior. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1635584

• Wisse, B., & Rus, D. (2022). Shift, suppress, sever. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 230(4), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000492