Almeida Juliana Guedes, Hartog Deanne N Den, De Hoogh Annebel H B, Franco Vithor Rosa, Porto Juliana Barreiros
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Leadership & Management, P.O. Box 15953, 1001 NL Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, São Francisco University, Rua Waldemar César da Silveira, 105, Jardim Cura D'ars (SWIFT), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Bus Ethics. 2022;180(1):215-244. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04864-7. Epub 2021 Jun 28.
Research on unethical leadership has predominantly focused on interpersonal and high-intensity forms of harmful leader behavior such as abusive supervision. Other forms of harmful leader behavior such as excessively pressuring subordinates or acting in self-centered ways have received less attention, despite being harmful and potentially occurring more frequently. We propose a model of four types of harmful leader behavior (HLB) varying in intensity (high vs low) and orientation (people/relationships or tasks/goals): Intimidation, Lack of Care, Self-Centeredness, and Excessive Pressure for Results. We map out how these relate to other constructs in the unethical leader behavior field in order to integrate the existing work on how leaders can cause harm to followers. Next, in five studies ( = 35, = 218, = 352, = 160, = 1921 in 196 teams), we develop and test a new survey instrument measuring the four proposed types of perceived HLB. We provide initial validity evidence for this new measure, establish its psychometric properties, and examine its nomological network by linking the four types of HLB to related leadership constructs and soft and hard outcome correlates at the individual and team level. We find that HLB is negatively related to constructive forms of leadership (e.g., ethical and transformational) and positively to unethical ones (e.g., abusive supervision). HLB is also related in the expected direction to job satisfaction, engagement, psychological safety, knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, deviance, and objectively recorded team-level stress-related absenteeism.
对不道德领导行为的研究主要集中在人际层面以及诸如辱骂性监督等高强度形式的有害领导行为上。其他形式的有害领导行为，如过度给下属施压或以自我为中心的行为，尽管具有危害性且可能更频繁发生，但却较少受到关注。我们提出了一个关于四种有害领导行为（HLB）类型的模型，这些行为在强度（高与低）和导向（人员/关系或任务/目标）上有所不同：恐吓、缺乏关怀、自我中心以及对结果的过度施压。我们梳理了这些行为与不道德领导行为领域中其他构念的关系，以便整合现有的关于领导者如何对下属造成伤害的研究。接下来，在五项研究中（196个团队中的样本量分别为 = 35、 = 218、 = 352、 = 160、 = 1921），我们开发并测试了一种新的调查工具，用于测量所提出的四种感知到的有害领导行为类型。我们为这一新测量方法提供了初步的效度证据，确立了其心理测量特性，并通过将四种有害领导行为类型与相关的领导构念以及个体和团队层面的软、硬结果相关因素相联系，来检验其理论网络。我们发现，有害领导行为与建设性的领导形式（如道德型和变革型领导）呈负相关，与不道德的领导形式（如辱骂性监督）呈正相关。有害领导行为在预期方向上还与工作满意度、敬业度、心理安全感、知识共享、知识隐藏、偏差行为以及客观记录的团队层面与压力相关的旷工现象有关。
