CarolKauffman.com/KnowledgePhilantropy Dissonant Leadership Literature Reviews

All of the references used here can be found in the literature review articles. All of the reviews are public access and can be found in Google Scholar are in CarolKauffman.com. go to About, then Knowledge Philanthropy part of the Pay it Forward vision of Marshall Goldsmith, MG100 Coaches. Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusivesupervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology andOrganizational Behavior, 4, 123-152. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of management, 39(5), 1308-1338. Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2014). Toxic leadership: Tracing the destructive trail. International Journal of Management, 5(10), 18-24. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137.

I hope these notes are useful to you. That papers are in the Knowledge Philanthropy section of Carol Kauffman.com For visual learners and the quickest overview I copied diagrams from the Bennett and Kariskova Reviews. I also used a compilation of these to organize the zillions of bullet points below pulling out the key research insights. This was for my use – so forgive typos etc as I pull this together for you to get a sense of the massive research literature on toxic or destructive leadership. What is missing is Liz Wiseman’s concept of the “Accidental Diminisher.” For many of the leaders studied and labeled toxic, there is a larger story. The pressures on these leaders and how these fall into the category that is key to my coaching, the gap between Intent & Impact. This leads to my main goal in coaching, to help leaders

Create the Impact they Want All of the references used here can be found in the literature review articles. All of the reviews are public access and can be found in Google Scholar are in CarolKauffman.com. go to About, then Knowledge Philanthropy part of the Pay it Forward vision of Marshall Goldsmith, MG100 Coaches. Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusivesupervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology andOrganizational Behavior, 4, 123-152. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of management, 39(5), 1308-1338. Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2014). Toxic leadership: Tracing the destructive trail. International Journal of Management, 5(10), 18-24. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137.

Bennett:

About 10% of employees have been abused.

Impact of negative leadership Consequences

IMPACTS OF NEGATIVE LEADERSHP Outcomes & Conseqeunces: TEPPER Consequences

• Morale, functioning psychological health, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) & quitting • Tardiness, and perception of organizational justice • Responses similar to PTSD, cortisol levels, insomnia, depression, self medicating, Chen 2014) • Lowered moral courage (Hannah 2013) • (Lowered B&B, not in Tepper) note: B&B theory or anything from positive leadership is in this article.

KRASICOVA (consequences of destructive goals & destructive methods of influence) “Even minor acts of DL may incur substantial harm if they are not counteracted immediately and become chronic (Duffy 2002)

• Destructive Goals: DGs impact on the organization. waste reources, block key tasks, org reputation, divert resources, possible illegal activities with risk.

• Goals: impact on people, create role conflict, dysfunctional political env which increases stress, possible risk from actions, if dissent can lose their job.

• Destructive methods: o Direct impact: Psychological/physical health, family life, job and life satisfaction (Hoobler/Brass

2006, Tepper 2000) and subsequent turnover, short term success – low term failure o Secondary impact: turnover job loss, morale

• Consequences over time -- o Are there longitudinal studies and imp to examine short and long term effects.

MEHTA – Consequences – THE SILENT KILLER

• Creating an environment that rewards agreeing and reprimanded for challenging. o Decrease in enthusiasm, creativity, autonomy and Innovativeness o Silencing Voice o Subordinates whispering in hallways as the climate shifts according to the mood of the leader o “do not develop toxic tendencies in a day, in fact their style evolved over a period of time. It

became highly toxic, when it was left unquestioned by superiors or peers.” § Silence from the powers in the organization

o Followers avoid disagreements, afraid of reprisal o Leaders become rigid and adamant, blind to suggestions or innovation o Subordinates treated as objects vs. assets, leads to decay of morale and self esteem (Macklem

2005)

• Negative org. outcomes not only because of the leader, but also the followers and the env. They create.

• People feel: helpless, reduces autonomy, erratic job situation, frustration. • Counterproductive work behavior (Duffy, 2002) • People experience injustice, and then retaliate, can be uncooperative etc. • Individual outcomes: lack of motivation, decreased job satisfaction (Tate 2009) more turnover, stress

and lowered organizational commitment. • Followers often hate them, but toxic leaders often overperform bc of need for recognition and ability

to self promote • • Experienced as self esteem, leads to lower lef-efficacy, and lower performance (Kusy & Holloway 2009) • Presented with the choice, conform or leave • In military, Erode unite cohesion, reduce team spirit, even mutiny, loss of trust commitment,

misinterpreting communication (Ashford 1997)

Leader & Leadership Factors

LEADERS Leader factors (can think of it as L – social influence process, Bass, 2008) TEPPER: Leader factors

• L. Self definition as being separate or distinctive from others (more abusive) Johnson 2012) • Motivated by self interest and need to show superiority (Cross 2011) • Need to differentiate themselves entitlement. • Abusive behavior is also in context of the other ways the leader acts, some positive. • The uneven leaders have greater negative impact vs. ones that are abusive and not supportive. (Duffy,

2002, Lina 2012, Xu 2015. As they create more uncertainty so more resource depleting (I would add this is intermittent ratio reinforcement creating greater agitation bc each time, it’s the will I get praised or killed? Praised or killed and greater loss of a sense of control).

• Feeling or being incompetent leading to abusive behaviors. • Lower EI (Zhang & Bednall less politically skilled (Whitman 2013) • Lower in train self control (Punct 2014) • Lower in mindfulness (Liang 2016)

• Poor sleep quality (Barnes 2015) leading to ego depletion leading to abusive supervision • Presence of family-to-work conflict again, via ego depletion, more or women. (Barnes 2015)

o Dispositional self control can influence when stress at home impact abusive behavior • Need research in traits, often used as controls, (Barnes 2015, Collins & Jackson 2015) esp;

o Negative affectvity and trait anxiety, neuroticism) • (dup of what can lead) becoming more “politically savvy” eg emotional and social agility • Leadership incompetence so abusivne supervision is only one of a couple of choices (Tepper, 2017).

• I haven’t seen anything here on leader’s values, purpose etc!!

KRASICOVA – Leader Factors

• Personality factors: o Dispositional tendencies of slef itnerst over others o Tendencies to justify harm doing o Impaired self regulation o Characteristics of negative bias.

• Psychopathology

o Dark triad

• Level of control/hierarchy - Leader Discretion (Finkelstein/Hambrick 1990, o More likely to act on intentions when the L thinks he has more control over their behavior o Macro-level factors, (Kaiser/Hogan 2007) org size, culture control or retribution mechanisms in

place. o How many people are involved in a decision, (Kets de Vries, 1989) – less discretion o Micro-level: individuals hierarchical position (Kaiser/Hogan 2007) and (follower disposition, see

followers)

• Not in her doc but she suggests including o Social dominance orientation, leader derailiment (Hogan 2001)

• The centrality of the leader in the social network – eg more central, either formally or informally can exert greater power, access to more resources and more “discretion” for DL

MEHTA – leader factors

• Complex because they have varying levels and types of toxicity and can be inspiring in other situations

Behaviors seen in the leader: TEPPER - behaviors

• Examples: derogatory comments, outbursts, undermining. • What is the line between abrasive and abusive, tough love vs. demeaning or undermining others seen

as cold and calculating, w/ hostile intent: blaming, taking credit. • Rudeness

KRASICOVA: behaviors

• Sustained verbal and non verbal behaviors (Tepper 2000) • Playing favorites, authority for personal purposes and belittling (Ashforth 2003, Reed 2009) • Personal goals over follower and org needs, use of manipulation. • Cultivate dependence on leader and favoritism • Cultivating competition among followers • Restricting intellectual independence • “Relentless, hard driving methods he uses to steer the org toward achieving this vision (Ma, 2004) • Creating an empire, recognized as a maestro or a savior (Ma, 2004)

MEHTA –

• Bullying, threatens yells • Mood swings determine the climate of the office • When leaders get higher level positions impact is greater. • These leaders don’t think they are toxic but acting w/ best interest of others.

• Many leaders seen as toxic at moments, so look at the whole – eg employee performance, job satisfaction.

Leader authority – undermining the recipients slene of self esp with the ability to think, that they are stupid and get them to undermine themselves Restricting intel indep is interesting, see it SDT and also blocking development, pushing socialized slef.. the fear of “my way or the highway” the opposite of the “I’s” of Transf Lship.

Antecedents – what leads to it? What can lead to a L becoming Abusive? Antecedents TEPPER – Antecedents. Social learning and absorbing it and role models

• Family history and early sense of what is ok (Kiewitz 2012) o Esp family undermining and parent’s marital aggression (Garcia 2014, Kiewitz 2012) o Self control and emotional regulation can buffer exposure to aggression in childhood. o Undermining effect stronger when lower levels of trait self control (they decide this effect is

because of lower regulation, but causality not clear) • But others w same backgrounds don’t

o diff = angry rumination (CBT ACT) (Garcia 2014 o neg interpretation of one’s life (intervention = narrative work, possibly crucible work) o (as above, trait self control)

• Not being politically savvy Ferris 2005) (Intervention, increasing capacity to observe/dev more forms of influencing, they see as “astute observers of social interaction, have a flexible and subtle influence style, have the ability to develop rich social networks. Emotion and social agility, eg this helps you to NOT bully others)

• Personal sensitivity to threat (Tepper, 2017) MEHTA – Antecedents.

Organization factors & Culture TEPPER – Org factors TEPPER

• Aggressive social norms (Mawritz 2014a Restubog 2011) • Org not having sanctions against it (Zhang & Bednall 2016 meta analysis) • But others in same c// do not:

o Conscientiousness is a buffer (Mawritz, 2014a) o They see issue is recruitment vs. trying to build conscientiousness or its proxy.

• Similar to org culture accepting aggression, supervisor hostility more normaotive in some cultures,

typically more hierarchical ones. Studies, more in Anglo vs. Asian. (Vogel 2015 and Mackey 2015 meta-analysis)

• Moral exclusion, some fall outside the scope of deserving justice (Opotow, 1995) or are perceived as having no utility (objectified)

• The general level of complexity inherent in leadership – multiple demands decision making, strategy, execution, difficult client interactions, and as stress goes up, negative emotions go up and harder to suppress impulses (Tepper, 2017, this article)

• Time based work stress rel to self regulation impairment (Burton) & difficult work goals (Mawritz 2014b) and ethical challenges, emotional labor (Yam 2016)

KRASICOVA - org factors “organizations should actively seek to reduce likelihood of DL by minimizing the conditions that promote such leadership and/or minimizing its negative impact if it occurs”

• Organization doesn’t provide enough resources to parallel demand • Leaders doesn’t give sufficient compensation to motivate followers, (good transactional leadership of

contingent rewards (Jude & Piccolo, 2004) • Org implicitly supports highly aggressive methods to achieve goals • Org rewards outcomes only, and not “how” things are done. No contingencies for neg but “successful”

leadership. o In the extreme, task perf more imp that ethical considerations.

• Org context supports seeing subordinates as immature, low skills and motivation and not seeing why the goals matter, so increase structure, directiveness and autocracy.

• Organizations need to discover if it is happening, destructive influence is observable and sicne associated with activation (Anderson/Bushman 2002) harder for leader to control and rumors begin.

o If so, will they confront it? Maybe depending on if the behavior can be seen as justifiable and the amount of hard it’s done.

o And has the DL helped meet org goals, seen as necessary (Ma 2004), can even be celebrated o Much more likely when the DL picks destructive goals, vs. methods.

• Is there a goodness of fit issue: eg follower performance may be positive in specific situations or

emergencies that need quick and accurate decisions eg emergencies, deadlines, high-stress occupations, and negative in other contexts. NOTE: army is autocratic, not nec destructive.

• If the organization has a high density social network – a lot of intercommunication which might make more social support available and protect followers

• How strong is the org culture and can a stronger identification with a positive culture and internalizing it’s values reduce the likelihood of DL (eg Marijn and Paul P)

o Aligning leaders values and goals with the organization and active promotion of positive org expectations. Create strong cultural pressure, eg, this is NOT how we do things here.

• Org needs to monitor, alter what factors may not reduce DL and control via admin channels. o Monitor with vigilance, and safe ways to report o Punishment, incentive, consequences and contingencies, o Looking at the how, not just the what

MEHTA – org factors

• Toxic behaviors “Failure to curb such destructive and toxic beahvior allowed ruthless leaders…. To fulfill illicit goals.

• Can be an incubator via. Counterproductive policies eg: unreasonable goals, internal competition and a culture of blame (Lipman-bluemen 2005)

• Demand unreasonable profits (Macklem 2005) • (also in L impact, silencing” “do not develop toxic tendencies in a day, in fact their style evolved over

a period of time. It became highly toxic, when it was left unquestioned by superiors or peers.” Silence from the powers in the organization

• Compensation doesn’t feel based on merit, or leaders have personal agendas • Then these behaviors are modled by rising leaders. • Organizations need to monitor

INDIVIDUAL AND IDENTITY TEPPER identity Identity threat: up, down, sideways and within.

• Threat -> power, control or competence issues -> not able to be desired self -> hostile behavior as a way to repair narc, damage. (Intervention: rethinking, emotion regulation, ACT, mindfulness)

• Pressure to prove your worth (Intervention, challenge socialized self) • Leader threatened by boss, abuses (Hoobler & Hu 2013) displaced aggression as they feel wronged • Self-regulation impairment and managing thoughts, emotions and impulses that interfere with ability

to identify and meet performance standards or monitor their impact and modify behavior. • Ego depletion from attempts to regulate and bolster mental energy, will power or support (Baumeister

2007) KRASICOVA identity Leader Personality

• Leader attribution style: hostile attribution (others are malevolent), • Victimization bias – of inequality or injustice, others gain from me • Motive to agress bias, - striking out at injustice etc. • Negative trait affectivity – see world and life as stressful (Spector Zapf 2000) • Paranoid, skeptical or argumentative, Hogan) so selectively attend to signs of mistreatment and see

goals thwarted as responsibility of others • Dark triad (see leader factors)

Goal blockage (which can connect with identity threat or org factors)

• DL can come from goal blockage, then depending on disposition and org factors can lead to DL. • (pos response to goal blockage: participation, delegation, consultation etc) • Goals blocked creates strain, which triggers a chain of thoughts about solutions, but what is the sense-

making process?

• If the L is depleted may not o have the energy to think clearly. o May want to retaliate on followers (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) or o Frustration – aggression (Berkowitz, 1989, Dollard et al 1939) o Negative exp leads to negative emotion reaction to aggression to harm the source of frustration

(Anderson & Bushman 2002) OR vent to less powerful target (Tedeschi, Norman 1985) Displaced aggression (Ayree 2007)

o Leader external locus of control (Perlow/ Latham 1993) AND hostile attributional style (Douglas/Martinko 2001) and devaluing subordinates as incompetent or the org as exploiting so.. OTHERS are at fault and DL can be rationalized away.

• Self regulation impairment and lowered resources can lead to low self control and anger o Cannot produce more constructive responses due to poor emotion regulation

(Ashforth/Humpphrey) and not enough energy for the emotional labor and attention to the most relevant information or Role overload (Wang 2010)

o So go with the “simplest, less taxing and more satisfying at the moment ption – purse a harmful goal or use harmful methods of influence.

o Other work stressors eg interpersonal conflict draining the leader beyond capacity and then unable to regulate, also depending on dispositional characteristic eg high level s of train anger and affect imapris slef regulation.

o (CK may leap to conclusions, jump into action mode w/ leaning back at the larger picture) Note: here the vulnerability can be dispositional or temporary overload due to org challenges.

MEHTA – identity

• Stems from threat to status, power and control • Can be minor changes in exec’s authority and accomplishment, which have taken a lot of work, creates

psychological insecurity and creat defensive reactions. • Feel reputation at stake.

C

MEDIATORS AND DYNAMICS Mediators – pathways:

TEPPER - mediators

Abuse leads to effect via (can draw interventions from these ) • decrease in affective commitment (Tepper 2008) A sign to notice – perhaps it surfaces in engagement

scores? What is a way for a leader to catch this issue? • interactional justice (Wang 2012) • need satisfaction (Lian 2012) Then how to manage when needs are thwarted, and there isn’ta direct

way to get them met. • perceived org support (Shoss 2013) • ego depletion (Thau & Mitchell 2010)

• increased anger, supervisor directed avoidance bc of fear, compassion (? By who?) not a factor (Simon 2015). This important study was a within-person longitudinal study.

• Anger wrt prove them wrong, increased attention, fear of negative eval in order to avoid further hostility. (Tepper, this article)

• LMX MEHTA –mediators

C THE PATHWAY TO ABUSIVE LEADERSHIP

Dynamics: (where to break this chain of events) No where do I yet see anything about a good person succumbing to pressure. Do not see the “superman syndrome” This points to a plan: look at the “trail” or mindset and chain of responses for each leader. Here are a number of options. I should develop more – eg. K. who talks of cognitive overload, overwhelm etc. TEPPER dynamics

• Threat -> power, control or competence issues -> not able to be desired self -> hostile behavior as a way to repair narc, damage.

START THINKING ABOUT IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS. • Neg interpersonal exp -> undermine sense of being values/accepted -> anger and aggression (Smart

2009, Simon 2015) -> sense of being disrespected and status challenged -> aggression to reclaim power.

• L. attempts to be charismatic -> unfavorable respone -> neg. affect and correction via aggression (Pundt 2014)

• High dominant leader sees high performing report -> threat -> counter to culture -> assert (Khan 2016) • AL exp “unjust” threat from above -> threatens dignity (narc injury) -> neg affect -> restores justice

(Greenberg & Scott 1996) o Moderators (makes it worse) if authoritarian L style (Aryee 2007) and o hostile attribution bias (Hoobler & Brass 2006) o how imp. status and power make AL more sensitive (Barrick, 2013)

• But many are not vulnerable even when caught in these dynamics – look at internal threats – really Medusa in the Mirror.

• Entitlement -> I deserve more + self interest + need for power + authoritarian L style that expects obedience (Cheng 2004) -> abusive potential esp when followers have lower organization-based self esteem, these followers say the L as abusive

• Poor regulation -> less able to ID perf demands, monitor impact and modify it -> exhaustion -> constraints on choices available (Baumeister, 2007) cognitive overload (Krasikova, on my excel sheet) more vulnerability to being abusive. Esp w/ high complexity and pressure.

KRASICOVA- dynamics KRASICOVA The antidote for many of these is leader responsibility, eg self awareness/self responsibility

therefore the only “solutions” are externalization and its ramifications. Notice these all “end” with DL but in fact create a feedback loop.

• L characteristics -> L & Org goals misaligned -> L choses DL either -goas or – L style -> harm ot org and followers -> (responses to harm: discovery and countervailing actions)

• L characteristics ->goals thwarted by followers -> frustration/emotion regulation/self image damage (ego/status) developmental factors (level of Cs) -> destructive L -> (as previous)

• L neg bias (hostile, victimization, aggressive, paranoid, neg trait affectivity) • Leader behavior/characteristics -> stakeholders exp of b mistreated -> intentional blockage or

restriction of info and resources (also Tepper, 2001) -> victimization/aggression -> emotional dysregulation -> DL

• Leader not providing resources, or appropriate demands/timeframes/ lack of inspiration or other followership positive actions -> decreased followership motivation (Locke , Latham 1988) -> Follower underperformance / Follower-follower peer pressure to underperform -> then how leader responds etc. (leader’s choice starting the cycle then leading to abusive leadership)

• Org doesn’t give resources -> (L characteristics) -> negative affect -> regulation via DL. o Org chooses to give resources to others -> pattern (Salin, 2003)

• Org context (harm doing is acceptable/ DL achieves goals -> leader discretion -> (mediated L characteristics) -> L DL -> harm despite possible business success.

• Org in trouble, downsized, verge of bankruptcy, M&A -> scarce resources ->perceived unfairness (negative attribution bias) -> dysregulation/displaced aggression -> DL

Some future research she suggests would be a good way to think of interventions. Experience sampling methodology (Beal/Weiss 2003): Can look at L experience, choice, emotional and behavioral reactions, online. Then use event-contingent recording, eg L responses to specific events) then can ases L exp of goal blockage, measure affect and thoughts tirggere by it and gain insights to how L can make sense of such experience. MEHTA – dynamics Threat -> psychological insecurity -> creates defensive reactions -> more vulnerability -> identify and reputation threat intensified -> unable to use emotional regulation -> experience even more pressure to perform -> feeling exposed -> triggers toxic behavior. Addicted to power -> Org needs leader to decrease power/authority -> focus energy to protect power -> do anything to remain relevant -> may overlook other success factors -> increase vulnerability -> toxic behavior Unhealthy working environment -> threat etc.. then circles back to more unhealthy env. General interventions: DL not the only option K. talks about Leader Discretion, aka CHOICE. L can: shift goals when blocked, find ways to motivate followers, Find new ways to motivate followers,

Increase followers PEA by strength orientation of other positive leader behavior. K goes to what leader characteristics and context faicilitate, but what about a focus on how to create an IDP on how to manage behaviro C

FOLLOWERS & STAKEHOLDERS Follower factors or behaviors: TEPPER follower factors TEPPER

• Is the person singled out or is the AL targeting others (social comparison, eg if I’m alone, impacts the range of responses, eg cognitive, affective and behavioral) – (Duffy 2006)

• This section, Tepper context, how followers challenge the supervisor’s identity. • Identity threat when can’t get reports to perform (and so lowers your status) • Or, provocative, aggravating display behavior for correcting & lower performing. (Elias, 1986) • Appearing vulnerable and unable to retaliate, being submissive (Elias 1986) • Avoiding the supervisor (Lian 2014, Simon 2015), they think because that will be viewed negatively, eg

being disrespected • Seen as deeply dissimilar to the supervisor (Tepper 2011) • Follower low in conscientiousness or high neuroticism in part bc of performance (Wang 2015) • Follower neg. affect from low emotional stability, low conscientious (Henle & Gross 2014) • Follower core self evaluation (Neves 2014, Wu & Hu, 2009) • Low coworker support (Neves 2014) • Seen as “high maintenance” eg require substantial amts of tangile and intangible resources (Tepper &

Simon, 2015) • Behaviorl risk factors, counterproductive work behaviors, seen as needy, dependent, self interested or

passive, negative affect (Tepper & Simon) • Low maintenance – conscientious, and agreeable, less abusive supervision (Zhang & Benall 2016) • It’s a dance…

KRASICOVA - follower factors KRASKICOVA

• Followers impacted by poor leadership and feel unable or unmotivated to support the leader, which may increase negative Lship

• Peers impacted by destructive Lship and prupsefully restrict reosurces (Neuman & Baron 1998) • Followers or peers repaying mistreatment (Duffy 200) • Characteristics of followers (that give DL the sense they can engage in DLship0

o Introversion, aggressiveness, neuroticism, abrasive personalitity traitsnegative core self evaluations (Aquino/Bradfield 2000, Ferris, zinko 2007, Padila Hogasn/Kaiser 2007)

o Leader-target power imbalance (Salin, 2003) • Followers responses to DL

o Avoiding or confronting leader, seeking social support, formal reporting (Knapp 1997) o Perception of organizational support, or lack)

MEHTA –follower factors (CK) if the followers have a strong need for recognition, pleasing the toxic leader may lead to putting extra effort.

• Some experience the toxic leader as charismatic, and followers can appreciate how the leaders break through road blocks.

• Some followers have internal needs that allow these leaders to make them feel safe, promise of future rewards, and liking being at the center.

• In chaos these leaders often promise a predictable world, the leaders feel comfortable promising success and a simple, controllable world.

C

COPING AND MANAGING ABUSE Coping w Abusive Supervision: TEPPER This subdomain is the most disjointed what is missing is: “they do not tell us what they do that works. This would be my question if I interview him. Don’t really know how pp cope and what coping strategies work best. Areas: Individual differences that influence coping Usually studied as moderator of relationship between sup and coping such as wellbeing and motivation Best if: less susceptible to emotional contagion (Wu & Hu 2009) How to reduce emotional contagion, either through mindfulness, CBT, ACT, even just increasing awareness that it is an issue. But also, next step, what emotions are more contagious to you than others? Anxiety? Anger? Tension? Disdain? What do you catch or not Higher EI (Hu 2012) This one is obvious – develop ways to build it. Socially Adaptable (Mackey 2013) Higher core slef evaluation (Zhang 2014) This connects to identity threats. How can the leader or the followers have a different relationship to themselves? Self compassion and understanding balanced by good work ethic. Political savvy This was in section (p144 Tepper 2017) for supervisors, (Ferris, 2005) but also for followers, to be strategic. Dev networks. May good lessons in here to increase social awareness and intelligence. Coping strategies pp prefer and don’t But in this area they “do not shed light on the effectiveness of the coping strategy.” Look at coping prefs, usually between abusive sup and being hostile to the sup and other and family members. Or indiv or istuational moderators that suggest what coping mechanimsm people will use. Drinking Withdrawal behavior (Mawritz, 2014a) need to understand this better. One study w/drawal is seen as disrespect and draws more attention, and then more abuse. But strategic withdrawal would be different. So INCREASE POLITICAL SAVVY OF THE FOLLOWERS, NOT JUST THE LEADERS. Voice (Greenbaum)

See all the studies on this – how to self encourage speaking up. Maybe think of the metaphor of the rafts on the water I came up with for Stefan.. Comparative effectiveness Moderating effects of coping on rel between abusive sup and indicators of it being effective, but no way to compare which work better. Beneftis of not avoiding but directly confronting (Frieder, 2015, Nandkeolyar 2014, Tepper 2007) And?? Benefits of upward hostility (Teppper 2015) Should look at these, taken literally each of these could be incredibly dangerous. So the point is – dipping the toe in the water – and does a shark come out to bite them? (Fernando…. Help me not bite my people….). Remember the studies of women confronting abusers and getting more severely beaten. As advice this needs to be much more sophisticated. Ingratiation (Harvey 2007) Not sure if they mean it helps or hurts… Tepper lists but doesn’t cite that strategies range from: Developing plans, taking steps to remove stressors, seek advie or sympathy, compartmentalization or denial or focus on what you can learn (Carver 1989) A good list: these are INTERNAL INTERVENTIONS. Far less dangerous. KRASICOVA MEHTA – Organizations need to monitor toxic leadership behaviors Have mentors work. With leaders to evaluate how they interact w/ reports, provide feedback, identify these patterns early. Reeducate toxic leaders Boards need to use their power and influence to curb rogue leaders. These behaviors won’t disappear w/o leadership with responsible and ethical corporate guardians. Theories: they use these to see what mediates the rel. between abuse sup and outcome and may show how targets are impacted.

Important General Points

IMPORTANT GENERAL POINTS

Important Points: • Abuse is the perception of the event, research is on reporting the experience not observing it. • Some don’t see the same behavior as abusive. If abuse is the perception…. Back to it ias an EFFECT not

necessarily the same for most people – this is evidence based. • Subjective experience when followers have hostile attribution style, feel entitled, less agreeable,

emotionally stable or extroverted • Leader: all these point to possible interventions, how to mnage hostile attribution style and work with

ego-centric as well as emotion regulation.

• Interesting confound – abusive supervision connection w/ report performance, but the performance is rated by that supervisor…

• The experimental study on 4 FB, contempt condition were angrier but performed better (Melwani & Barsade) practical advice, unclear, contempt had an interesting impact, made peope more angry but they performed better. I wonder if this is a more unique population or something about contempt makes you rise or fall depending on your makeup and past experience. This is what “Carol, that’s a long shot” did to me. Perhaps it is a challenge to someone’s core slef and there is an internal mandate to re-proove yourself. Depending on level of consciousness it can be prove to the other, or prove to yourself, or sense of sublimating or harnessing the aggression.

• The research on adusiv sup & productivity is skimpy and Tepper believes it’s in spite of rather than because.

• The point of knowing antecedents is to inform practitioners Th is the point. • Abuse trickles down (Liu 2012, Mawritz 2012) (through for Liu, only when L intention wasn’t

destructive) If abuse trickles down it is really the responsibility of top leadership to overcome blind spots and see the abuse. Also, in light of research that while some hostility increses performance that is by far the minority. So there are many questions leaders of org. should ask themselves…. First, how do they even know it is happening? They can look at some of the signs, lower engagement. But how often does top leadership look at 360s down the food chain. Can HR do some scanning, what % of people have hostile leadership FB? How much denial is there as being hostile employers does not fit with their identity? Or, that leader at the very top may be idealistic etc, but it stops there or with the exco Eg. Penny: the top team gets things, but below the top team there is less buy in, or as in TriNet, there is internictine warfare even though the exco get along and collaborate with eachother. How empowered does the top team need to be in order to see and shift the atttitudes of the teams below them, and then below to their skip downs.

• How does abusive supervision fit (or not) into general leadership competency models, is it somehow a part of having an inspiring vision, having people feel protected by a powerful leader? Tepper says, costs of the style make using it for instrumental reasons a bad idea unless there are truly no other options. In stepping back and looking at organizations where there are leaders using “tough” leadership, how does the abrasive style fit into their overall leadership competencies? So often you see the rainmaker – as the hostile leader.

o The approach here is OVERUSED STRENGTHS. Haven’t seen that anywhere! This is the what got you here issue as well. Their aggression leads to great business development, but they can’t downshift it. OR the pressure that drives being a great rainmaker then goes sideways to push people beyond their limits.

• While some evidence and speculation suggests downward supervision can be useful, most work suggests it undermines individual, team and org. functioning.

• I’VE NOT SEEN: o Positive psychology and theory of emotions here, prob no empirical work? But there could be

with Cameron and Dutton o How what is expected of a leader shifts at the top and the abrasive style is then punished vs.

rewarded. o Overused strength

§ How to use VIA or other strengths profiles to identify areas to build, or how to use strengths in new ways to increase positive influencing style.

o Good hearted. o SUPERMAN PROBLEM, I think of this with AZ, Pascal is brilliant, retains everything, drives

people and has the expectation others could perform as well as he could, if they just tried hard enough. ELITE STORY. (REMEMBER T AT IDEO)

o Also saw this with Bob Darren at (Health Dialog) who scared people, had him wait longer to send his reviews of work because his speed and accuracy where terrifying

o James at AHOLD, his intelligence cowed people -- o Tim at IDEO, so smart it silenced others, he had NO idea o Me, I was shocked when i was told I was intimidating. Then I listned to myself on tape... o Compare all of these with ideal leadership, o what is the road from abusive to abrasive to neutral to positive to pygmalion and optimal

leadership? Krasikova:

• “essence of Lship lies in identifying goals and influencing followers to pursue them (Yukl, 2006) • DLeadershi = bad goals or “destructive actions to mobilize followers to attain goals set by the leader” • Differentiating intentional nd unintentional harm (Craig & Kaiser, Kelloway 2005, Lipman-Blumen

2005b Thoroughgood 2012 – mostly chapters, but ask Rob Kaiser) • Intent to harm can be outside Cs awarenss (James & LBreton 2010, 2012) and leader develops

rationalization for behavior to protect ego and sense of slef (James, LeBreton 2010) • Diff between abusive and passive, laiseez-faire Lship.. Kelloway 2005) • She thinks qualitative methods such as open ended questions or surverys, to et at the real experience

of the leaaders, esp if asked about how they decide how to be. on. Displaced aggression Social learning Social exchange Need satisfaction (SDT?) (wang Affective events Victim precipitation theory Moral exclusion theory Multi-motive model

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539?casa_token=2gdjWP5B8nEAAAAA%3AhEZnW6faQJrblPASHUABXjP4qjc6L58YKJXFKEQBQ2mUSvTdAqqf8VU-N479mLUeYoKmL98Dqnks