Schyns, B., Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta- analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 138-158.

Essence

The essence of the article in The Leadership Quarterly, 24 (2013) entitled "How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes" by Birgit Schyns and Jan Schilling is that there is significant correlation between destructive leadership and the attitudes of followers towards the leader and counterproductive work. The study shows that bad leadership can cripple a workplace environment and organizational culture, that it can lower morale, reduce productivity, and effect bad attitudes among employees. This finding is important because it reinforces the argument that positive leadership is invaluable for a corporation and that, as Sanders (2006) notes in his study on workplace environments, likeability in managers is a major factor in successful organizations.

The study performs a literature review of over 200 prior studies, utilizing 57 of them for meta-analysis. Through meta-analysis of these studies, the researchers were able to locate and identify correlations between destructive leadership and various dependent variables, such as attitude, workplace behavior, productivity and individual performance. The study focuses on destructive leadership rather than on positive leadership so as to fill a gap in the literature available on leadership effects in the workplace.

Strengths

The focus on "the dark side of leadership" is especially helpful for highlighting the costs of poor leadership (Schyns, Schilling, 2013, p. 138). By pointing out the negative impacts of poor leadership in organizations, the study implies that positive leadership is all the more important so as to avoid such pitfalls, as cost in terms of morale, productivity, and discipline. In order to underscore its objective, the study defines destructive leadership and discusses various types of leadership that might be incorporated for future analysis, such as non-leadership, negative leadership and supportive-disloyal leadership. Essentially, leadership styles can be complex arrangements of positive and negative qualities and characteristics. To this end, the researchers use "verbal, non-verbal, and physical behavior" cues to form the parameters by which they assess destructive leadership (p. 142). This is one of the strengths of the article because it clearly defines "destructive leadership," which gives readers a precise idea of the characteristics and qualities under analysis.

Another strength of the study is that it provides a theoretical framework, which is the "followers' point-of-view" -- a framework that focuses on "follower-related outcomes" (p. 142). However, it also notes that outcomes can be defined in a variety of ways: there are, for instance, "leader-related concepts, job-related concepts, organization-related concepts, and individual follower-related concepts" (p. 142). Each of these relates to outcomes that are affected by destructive leadership. As a result of this assessment, the study includes each of these concepts in its overall meta-analysis as it attempts to identify correlations. In defining each of these concepts and the qualities and characteristics that go with them, the study provides more parameters that can be used to guide future workplace organization and leadership studies.

Thus, the main strength of this study is that it does well in defining what it is about, providing adequate definitions of terms, approaches, and categories for assessment.

The study's method of coding destructive leadership is also one of its strengths as it shows explicitly how frequently specific qualities were identified among 104 articles found in PsychINFO. The term "abusive supervision," for instance, was recorded in 46 of the 104 articles; the term "negative leadership" was identified in 13 of them. At the same time, the method of correlating the study's variables and analyzing them was the work of the two researchers working together for 2/3 of the literature, and working separately for 1/3. This method is somewhat questionable as it suggests that a degree of qualitative assessment was utilized in this meta-analysis, as correlation was mainly dependent upon the ability of the researchers to ascribe some relationship between the IV and DV in each case.

Criticism

This analysis leads to the main criticism of the study, which is that it does not provide an exacting framework for analysis. Because of its meta-analysis approach, this is perhaps understandable, given the nature of the study and its attempt to compress a large amount of data into a more easily digestible and focused framework. But the presentation does not lend itself as one that could be readily duplicated with an exact...

The research might have benefited from testing a hypothesis with a more exact framework for analysis. This one, while stated and explained, was not as clear-cut or explicit as one would have hoped.
Thus, another of the weaknesses of the article is its assessment of the strengths of the relationships, such as job-related concepts and destructive leadership. It operates under the assumption that "attitudes and behaviors that are directed towards the 'destructive' leader would be more strongly related to destructive leadership than relationships to job- or organization-related attitudes and behaviors" (p. 144). However, this assumption may have undermined the study in the sense that it did not.

While the method is a meta-analysis of relevant literature (in which quantitative data was available), a qualitative approach may have also been helpful in understanding the way in which destructive leadership is harmful for organizations. This study focuses solely on quantitative data published in prior studies and while this is certainly not a weakness or a reason for criticism, it should be noted that qualitative assessments can provide deeper insight into a problem and a greater understanding of how a phenomenon works in terms of causes, effects, relationships, and the applications of solutions (as in the case of action research). For this study, qualitative assessments were discarded as being impractical for the meta-analysis but for this reason the study is obviously limited in terms of scope. This is a simple critique and a small one but an important one to make lest reviewers forget or ignore the positive impact that something as qualitative as a phenomenological study can bring to the subject (Cresswell, 2007; Denscombe, 2010; Lin, 2013).

Thus, the study does not really add anything new to existing literature -- it merely describes relationships that have already been more or less uncovered in a new light. In other words, it re-categorizes quantified data into a new grouping that provides an alternative perspective on the situation. This could be considered evaluation research as a result. While it is therefore helpful in terms of providing an alternative theoretical take on leadership and its effects, there is nothing particularly revelatory about the theory or about the findings. A study rooted in action research, however -- something along the scope of what Sanders (2006) does or Pink (2011) or Lovas and Holloway (2009) -- may have been more efficacious by providing something previously untried. As far as this study goes, it does set about filling the gap in literature addressing the relationship between destructive leadership and effects within the workplace, but is it a gap necessarily in need of being addressed? While the study is evocative in its evidence-based approach, its relevance may be overshadowed by the already understood need for optimum leadership. The question that remains is how to achieve it.

Application

Granted, optimum leadership may be achieved by applying some of the findings within this study in a reverse-application method. For instance, it might be recommended that leaders should avoid being abusive, bossy, despotic, narcissistic, negative, petty, psychopathic, toxic, and tyrannical. But this should be a foregone conclusion and each is only a negative application. One should like to have a positive application so as to have a better guide to go by. For Sanders (2006), the positive application is likeability, as it creates and fosters a culture of responsibility, respect, and higher all-around morale. For the researchers of this study, the purpose is to show that by doing x, y, and z, leaders can do more harm than good; therefore, x, y and z should be avoided. And indeed such a finding can be applied in a practical sense.

First it demands understanding these terms, however: for example, what does it mean to be "petty," or "narcissistic" or "abusive." One way to apply the results of this study would be to define these terms for workplace organizers and leaders so that they can understand, identify and avoid them. This should not be meant as a one-pillar process to success, but rather as part of a multi-driver formula towards a better and more productive workplace environment. Thus, when coupled with directives on how a leader should behave, this study can serve as a relevant and applicable source of information in terms of offering the negative side of how a leader should not behave.

As far as future research is concerned, this study could serve as a solid foundation for other approaches. The researchers themselves recommend a "longitudinal data" approach as a means of establishing "the direction of the relationship" in terms of whether negativity is flowing from workers to leaders first or vice-versa (p. 150). The fact that this is a question worth investigating implies…