Web viewAdding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader...
Click here to load reader
Transcript of Web viewAdding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader...
Running head: HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?1
Have you Been Skunked?Further Exploration of the Dysfunctional Leadership Phenomenon
Kevin Rose, Ed.D.Assistant Professor
University of [email protected]
Brad Shuck, Ed.D.Assistant Professor
University of [email protected]
Matt Bergman, PhD.Assistant Professor
University of [email protected]
College of Education and Human Development1905 S. 1st Street
Louisville, KY 40292
A Working Paper Submitted for Presentation at the 16th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice
Leadership, Management, and Talent Development Stream
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Abstract
Dysfunctional leadership is a phenomenon of great concern for individuals and
organizations because of the impact leaders can have on performance, productivity, and
organizational outcomes. Thus, organizations should be concerned with identifying and
appropriately dealing with those leaders that exhibit dysfunctional behaviors towards
their subordinates. The purpose of this study is to operationalize the construct of
dysfunctional leadership and to understand the negative outcomes for employees working
for a dysfunctional leader.. This study builds upon and expands previous conceptual work
we undertook in the area of dysfunctional leadership and we seek to provide an enhanced
empirical understanding of the domain of dysfunctional leadership.
Keywords: leadership, dysfunction, job stress, engagement
2
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Thousands of employees in the US endure dysfunctional leadership in their
current workplace and many more have, at one time or another, felt the oppressive and
burdensome psychological stresses of working for one of these individuals (Keashly &
Neuman, 2005). Indeed, even employees’ families can feel the damaging effects of a
dysfunctional leader at work (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Given the documented negative
effects dysfunctional leaders can have on employees and organizations, it is surprising
that these behaviors are still reported so widely. Our initial work on leadership
dysfunction (Rose, Shuck, Twyford, & Bergman, 2015) described a scenario in which
negative leader behaviors contributed to negative outcomes for employees. Unlike some
other forms of negative leader behaviors, we posit that dysfunctional leadership is more
ordinary and mundane, rather than overtly apparent in its manifestation.
Over time, these simple aggressive acts can have major impacts on employees
(Rafferty, Restubog, & Jimmieson, 2010). Thus, it becomes important to not only
measure dysfunctional leadershp, but to also understand more fully the consequences of a
dysfunctional leader for employees. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to empirically
operationalize the construct of dysfunctional leadership and to understand the negative
outcomes for employees working for a dysfunctional leader. In our previous work, we
metaphorically desecribed these dysfunctional leaders as “skunks” and those who suffer
the consequences of dysfunctional leaders as being “skunked.” Drawing from previous
research we now hope to provide empirical evidence that describes an employee’s state
when working with a dysfunctional leader. In the following sections we will explain our
conceptualization of dysfunctional leadership, discuss the consequences for employees
3
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
(what it means to be skunked), describe our intended methodological approach, and
explore connects to HRD theory and practice.
Defining Dysfunctional Leadership
Several conceptualizations of bad leadership exist in the extant management and
HR literature. For example, Anderson and Pearson (1999) described the phenomenon of
workplace incivility as consisting of “deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm [a]
target” (p. 457). This kind of behavior may occur between many combinations of
workplace arrangements (e.g. coworker to coworker, leader to subordinate, subordinate to
leader), regardless of the power differential that exists. Uncivil behaviors like rudeness,
taking unduly long breaks, or badmouthing others are startlingly common in the
workplace (Reio & Ghosh, 2009). Similar to workplace incivility, the concept of
workplace bullying has gained important scholarly attention. These kinds of behaviors
are distinguishable from workplace incivility in that bullying occupies a space of greater
negativity and intensity than incivility (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Like incivility, the
individuals involved in bullying can vary in their positional influence.
Although these kinds of counterproductive behaviors (Fox, Spector, & Miles,
2001) are detrimental to all working relationships, it becomes particularly insidious when
leaders manifest them towards their subordinates. Boddy (2006) described the concept of
organizational psychopaths as individuals who exhibit psychopathic behaviors in their
workplaces and noted that these individuals are indeed rare, making up only a very small
percentage of leaders. These kinds of individuals have been described as lacking a
conscience and “not driven by any notion of social responsibility or commitment to
employees” (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010, p. 3). Organizations unwittingly
4
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
allow corporate psychopaths into their ranks because negative behaviors are often
masked or outweighed by other characteristics. Perhaps less egregious is the leader
described as abusive. Tepper (2000) described abusive supervision as “the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178).
We define dysfunctional leadership using many of the same characteristics as
incivility and abusive supervisions, but offer a definition that encompasses the power
differential extant in a leader-subordinate dyad and includes behaviors that are, prima
facie, not necessarily heinous and unforgiveable. We also acknowledge the issue of
subordinate perception as noted previously by Schyns and Schilling (2013), Tepper
(2000), and others that makes defining this construct difficult. That is to say, some may
perceive certain actions as dysfunctional while others do not. Taking these issues into
account, we defined a dysfunctional leader as someone “in a position of influence, status,
and resource differential overtly exhibiting verbal and nonverbal behavior that impairs
operational function of individuals, teams, and organizations” (Rose, et al., 2015, p. 67).
The kinds of behaviors we see included in this definition are leaders who unnecessarily
question a subordinate’s actions, focus on weaknesses rather than strengths, obscure or
withhold important information, cause employees to doubt their self-efficacy, and, in
general, contribute to frustration, fear, and disengagement.
Consequences for Employees
No one likes working for a bad boss. To cope with situations in which a
dysfunctional leader is present, individuals resort to several tactics. Unfortunately, many
of these tactics are counterproductive to both the work environment and family/social
environments outside of work and could lead to unhealthy lifestyle choices (i.e., over
5
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
eating, drinking heavily, etc.). Employees coping with a dysfunctional leader may
experience negative affective states such as lower self-esteem (Burton & Hoobler, 2006;
Hornstein, 1996), psychological distress (Demir & Rodwell; 2012, Tepper, 2000), and
emotional exhaustion (Aryee, Sun, Chen, & Debrah, 2008). These negative states
engender symptoms such as psychological withdrawal and disengagement as well as
decreased motivation and higher intention to leave the organization (Boddy,
Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010; Tepper, 2000). Research has suggested that these various
mental and psychological states can manifest into behaviors like avoidance and
aggression as well as withdrawal of positive behaviors (OCB) (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &
Galvin, 2010; Raferty & Restubog, 2010).
Consequences for Organizations
In the aggregate, employee reactions to dysfunctional leaders can be exceptionally
detrimental to organizations. Clearly, for some employees, leaving the organization and
taking their experience and institutional knowledge with them is an option exercised
when faced with a dysfunctional leader (Tepper, 2000). For those that decide to stay in
the organization, their chosen coping techniques and the subsequent impact on the
organization are perhaps more subtle, but equally as damaging. For instance, in-role
work effort is diminished thereby reducing overall productivity and profitability.
Additionally, discretionary effort is reduced, interfering with the “social machinery of
organizations” (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983, p. 654). Employees may also find the
organization to blame for a leader that is not properly dealt with (Shoss, Eisenberger,
Restubog, Zagenczyk, 2013). In the aggregate and over time, the effects of dysfunctional
leadership can be deleterious to organizations.
6
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Method
To examine dysfunctional leadership as a distinct construct, we propose
developing a battery of scales grounded in definitions offered from the literature. We
note that while conceptually similar to abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),
bullying (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011), and workplace incivility (Reio & Ghosh, 2009), we
maintain that dysfunctional leadership is distinct from like constructs due to the power
differential that exists between the leader and the subordinate as well as the severity of
the perceived behavior. Unlike a corporate psychopath or an abusive supervisor, a
dysfunctional leader may not be as obvious in his or her negative tendencies – and they
may be blissfully unaware of their own dysfunction.
We propose using an online survey battery of items taken from the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen, Hoel & Notelaers, 2009) to measure
dysfunctional leadership. Although developed to measure workplace bullying, many
items on this instrument are salient to dysfunctional leadership. For example, items such
as “had information withheld that affected your performance” and “been ignored,
excluded, or isolated from others” seem to fit our definition of and taxonomy of
dysfunctional leadership well (Rose et al., 2015). Even items such as “been shouted at or
targeted with spontaneous anger (or rage)” are seemingly connected with definitions of
bullying; such behavior aligns with the upper quadrant of the dysfunctional leader
behavior taxonomy proposed by Rose et al. (2015) from which we drew our inspiration.
To address the second part of this study’s purpose, we have identified outcome
variables that we have theoretically and conceptually positioned as describing an
individual’s state of being “skunked.” For the purpose of this study, we focus on
7
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
variables that describe psychological, cognitive, and affective states rather than
behavioral outcomes such as absenteeism, turnover, and counterproductive workplace
behavior. Outcome variables to be included in the study are self-esteem (Rosenberg,
1965), engagement (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010), burnout (Iverson, Olekalns, &
Erwin, 1998), and job stress (Jamal & Baba, 1992).
Given the sensitive nature of the topic, our implementation protocol is to deploy
the survey via social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Vine) to recruit participation. While
this method of participant recruitment does introduce limitations to the study, it also
facilitates the gathering of data from a wide variety of participants and bypasses
potentially limiting roadblocks in organizations such as social desirability (see Kolb &
Owen, 2014). We seek only participation from employed (full time or part time) adults.
Structural equation modeling, path analysis, and exploratory factor analysis
(Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) will be used to determine loadings of items measuring
abusive supervisions, bullying, workplace incivility, and our proposed scale of
dysfunctional leadership. These procedures will help us understand those distinctive
factors that may be related to construct of dysfunctional leadership. We note, however,
that there are certain limitations to this study. First, though we argue in previous
literature that dysfunctional leadership is a distinct construct from other negative
leadership behaviors identified, we are aware that empirical investigation may not
support this idea. Second, the method by which data will be collected (social media) may
provide access to wider audience, but may provide a very heterogeneous sample.
Further, when conducting a survey via social media, we cannot necessarily guarantee that
8
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
participants meet our sample requirements (employed adults), but will attempt to guide
unqualified individuals out of the survey.
Implications for HRD Theory and Practice
The study and understanding of leadership practices is a paramount concern for
HRD practitioners and scholars alike. Leaders in organizations have responsibility for
both individual as well as team performance and they achieve performance through a
variety of behaviors. When those behaviors are positive such as those embodied in
transformational leadership (Bass, 1991), situational leadership (Hersey, Blanchard &
Johnson, 2012), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), authentic leadership (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005), and others, the affects on employees is similarly positive. In turn, the
organization benefits through various means. However, poor leadership behaviors have a
congruent affect in that employees and organizations are impacted negatively. Thus, with
a focus on organizational performance and human development and well-being (Swanson
& Holton, 2009), HRD practitioners are well-suited to influence and develop the
leadership capacities of individuals in organizations. In short, HRD practitioners seek to
develop positive leadership behaviors and mitigate negative ones. Understanding the
commonplace issue of dysfunctional leadership can provide practitioners with yet another
lens through which to examine individual behavior in organizations.
As noted previously, dysfunctional leadership has nomological overlap with other
constructs such as incivility, bullying, corporate psychopathy, abusive supervision, and
other similar negative sets of behaviors. Our conceptualization of dysfunction both adds
to the theoretical understanding of these leadership behaviors as well as seeks to further
understand the cognitive and affective states of employees suffering under such a leader.
9
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
These states may be further linked to behaviors such as absenteeism, counterproductive
work behaviors, or turnover, although we draw short of hypothesizing such a linkage.
Adding to the theoretical understanding of the conceptual notion of a dysfunctional leader
in addition to the consequences thereof further extends empirical research around
leadership behavior and may provide new avenues for practitioners to influence and
intervene to protect both individuals and organizations.
10
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
References
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and
contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the
moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review,
4(3), 393-411.
Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature
review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84.
doi:10.1177/1523422311410651
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organisational
psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461-1475.
Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The influence of corporate
psychopaths on corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment to
employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 1-19.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 340-355.
11
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Demir, D., & Rodwell, J. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents and consequences of
workplace aggression for hospital nurses. Journal of nursing scholarship, 44(4),
376-384. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2012.01472.x
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and
harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the
Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress: An International Journal
of Work, Health, & Organisations, 23(1), 24-44.
doi:10.1080/02678370902815673
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in
response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator
tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research, 25(2), 186-192.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2012). Management of organizational
behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Iverson, R. D., Olekalns, M., & Erwin, P. J. (1998). Affectivity, organizational stressors,
and absenteeism: A causal model of burnout and its consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 52(1), 1-23. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1556
12
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Jamal, M. & Baba, V. V. (1992). Shiftwork and department-type related to job stress,
work attitudes and behavioral intentions: A study of nurses. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 449-464.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and
management. Employee Rights & Employee Policy Journal, 8, 335-523.
Kolb, S. & Owen, J. (2014). Fear of extradyadic involvement: Contextual, relationship,
intrapersonal and partner factors. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy,
13(3), 1-22. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.921264
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as
displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125.
Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York, NY: Riverhead.
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on
followers' organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive
supervision. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270-285. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2010.00732.x
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining
the cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates'
psychological health. Work & Stress, 24(1), 36-55. doi:
10.1080/02678371003715135
Reio, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility:
Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237-264.
13
HAVE YOU BEEN SKUNKED?
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.
Rose, K. J., Shuck, M. B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative
review exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications
for those employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review,
14(1), 64-90. doi: 10.1177/1534484314552437
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses. Order
No. 1453699
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming
the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational
support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(1), 158.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
14