1

Destruktiv ledelse:«Some highlights from 15

years of research

Professor Ståle EinarsenUniversitetet i Bergen

Destruktiv ledelse• 25 års forskning om mobbing og kränkande

särbehandling i arbeidslivet

• 15 års forksning på destruktiv ledelse

• Manglende fokus i litteraturen på destruktive aspekter ved ledelse– Destruktiv ledelse er fravær av konstruktiv

ledelse

– Noe fokus i populærvitenskaplig litteratur

Blake and Moutons Managerial Grid

The full range leadership model(Bass & Avolio, 1988; 1990; 1994; 2004;

2004)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)• http://www.mlq.com.au/flash_frlm.asp

Full Range of Leadership ModelFull Range of Leadership Model Leadelsesforskning handler om beteende og prosesser som

øker effektivitet i organisasjoner

2

Feil spørsmål?

• Hva kjennetegner/gjør gode og effektive ledere?

• Hva gjør/kjennetegner ledere?

Ulike begreper som blir brukt

• Helsefarlige ledere (Kile, 1990)

• Brutal bosses (Hornstein, 1996)

• Crazy bosses (Bing, 1992)

• Psykopater (Furnham & Taylor, 2004)

• Intolerable bosses (Lombardo & McCall, 1984)

• Smålige tyranner (Ashforth, 1994)

• Abusive supervision (Bies & Tripp, 1998)

• Bullies (Namie & Namie, 2000)

• Trakasserende ledere (Brodsky, 1976)

• Bad leaders (Kellerman, 2004)

• Toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005)

• Abusive supervision (Tepper 2000)

Destruktiv ledelse Destruktiv ledelse

• Betende-perspektivet

• Personlighetsperspektivet

• Maktperspektivet

• Situasjonsperspektivet

A definition

“The systematic and repeated behaviour of a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the goals, tasks and effectiveness of his/her organisation and/ornegatively effects the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates” .

(Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007)

3

Oppgaveorientering

+

Menneske-orientering

+

”Laissez-faire”

God ledelse

Oppgaveorientering

+

Oppgaveorientering

-

Menneske-orientering

+

-Menneske-orientering

God ledelseStøttende, men illojal

ledelse

Avsporet ledelse

Tyranniskledelse

average score

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

Has humiliated you, or other employees, i f you /they fail to live up to his/her standards?

Has imitated, or made faces (e.g. rol led eyes, stuck out tongue etc.) at you or other employees to show that he/she is not satisfied with. ..

Has spread inco rrect informat ion about you or your co-workers, in order to harm your/their position in the firm?

Has given you a dressing down on the phone, hung up on you or sent you a crass emai l because he/she thought you had done a bad ...

Attributes the company's success to his/her own abil ities rather than the ab ilities of the employees?

Has used his/her posi tion in the firm to p rofit financiallly/materially at the company's expense?

Regards his/her sta ff more as competitors than as par tners?

Has made i t more di fficult fo r you to express your views at a meeting, either by giving you too l ittle speaking time or by placing you last?

Has steered away from showing concern abou t results

Has avoided making decisions?

Has avoided ge tting involved in in your work

Is likely to be absent when needed?

Has behaved in a friendly manner and encouraged you/your co-workers to extend your/their lunch b reak?

Has encouraged you to enjoy extra privileges at the company's e xpense?

Has encouraged you, or your co-workers, to ta ke extra cof fee/cigarette breaks as a reward for good wo rk effort?

Has encouraged you or your co-workers to do private work/run private errands during working hours?

no negative style reported 39%

supportive but disloyal 10%

sometimes laissez-faire sometimes supportive butdisloyal 17%

sometimes till often laissez faire 19%

sometimes destructive 11%

destructive 6%

6 Grupper

• Ingen destruktive handlinger (39%)• Støttende men illojal (10%)• Litt Laisses-fair + litt støttende/illojal (17%)• En del Laisses fair (19%)

• Noe destruktiv (Tyrannisk + avsporet + Laisses-fair) (11%)

• Mye Destruktiv (6%)

4

Planer om å slutteIntentions to leave over the next 12 months

1,5

1,7

1,9

2,1

2,3

2,5

2,7

2,9

3,1

3,3

3,5

no negative stylereported

supportive butdisloyal

sometimeslaissez-fairesometimes

supportive butdisloyal

sometimes tilloften laissez

faire

sometimesdestructive

destructive

aver

age

Correlations with constructive leadership

• Tyrannical r= -.21 (p<.001)

• Supportive disloyal leadership r= .29 (p<.001)

• Derailed leadership r= -.35 (p<.001)

• Laisseaz-fair leadership r= -.37 (p<.001)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Nuances in destructive leadership ?

Leaders,

rather a population of ‘grey suits ’ than

black demons

or white angels !

Positive and negative emotions in leader-subordinate relationships

Positive and negative emotions in leader-subordinate relationships

Epithets of affect at work

ProudRespectedFrightenedThreatenedAppalledDislikedDespondentWellHaughtyImpatientUneasyTenseCalmExpectant

AcknowledgedFull of hatredEmbarrassedHarassedRecklessGladUncertainElatedShockedCared forUncomfortableSexual attractedDisappointedEnthusiastic

LikedEnviousInsecureFrustratedGrumpyWorriedAdmiredLovedUnwellExcitedJealousInspiredCaringHumiliated

BoredHopefulConfidentDegradedPeacefulAshamedTimidStrainedTerrifiedDesperateDespisedResignedInsultedWanted

HurtHappyAngryContentInadequateRemorsefulBeing in loveGratefulWantedAnxiousShySadAnnoyedRelieved

Emotions in leader-subordinate relations (Glasø & Einarsen, 2006)

Recognition - Content, glad, well, excited, enthusiastic, inspire d, liked, grateful, acknowledged, taken care of, interested, expectant, wanted, respected, proud, caring, confident, well, happy, admired, loved, cal m, peaceful and relieved α = .95.

Frustration – Frustrated, resigned, uneasy, annoyed, sad, angry, bored, disappointed, impatient, worried, uncomfortable, hu rt, shocked, despondent and grumpy α = .93.

Violation – Harassed, insulted, degraded, desperate, full of ha tred, despised, humiliated, disliked, frightened, ashamed, threaten ed and appalled α = .92 .

Uncertainty – Uncertain, embarrassed, anxious, shy and unwell α = .86.

5

1. Will DLB predict job performance among crisis managers?

We studied: active & passive destructive focal, constructive as control (Kant et al., submitted)

Laissez-faire

Utvalg

• 65 kandidater til beredskapslederrollen

• 260 simuleringer• 31% (20 st) stryk

Kant, Skogstad, Hystad, Hetland, & Einarsen. (submitted). Poor and perilous.

Can we train leaders to become more constructive and less destructive (passive and active)?

Simulation 1 Simulation4

95% CI of the

difference

Variable M SD M SD Lower Upper t df p Cohen's d

DLB-Active 2.62 0.89 2.51 0.84 -0.40 0.16 -0.81 17599 .42 -0.13

DLB-Passive 3.24 1.10 2.73 0.92 -0.84 -0.18 -2.99 34640 .01 -0.50

CLB 4.51 0.83 4.89 0.91 0.10 0.65 2.71 9507 .01 0.43

DLB Active: no significant reduction

DLB Passive: medium size reduction

CLB: near medium size increase

Kant, Skogstad, Hystad, Hetland, & Einarsen. (submitted). Poor and perilous.

6

Our context for studying abusive supervision

Sample• Cross-sectional work environment

survey among maritime employees working on ferries on the Norwegian coast

• Total sample (N=427), including 82 teams complete with a Captain (n=82) and subordinates (n=177)

• 100% male captains and 85% male crewmembers

• Abusive supervision; 7 item version from the Destructive leadership scale (Aasland, Skogstad & Einarsen 2010), α0.81

• Trait anger : 12 item version of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1996), α 0.75

• Trait anxiety : 20 item version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970), α 0.88

• Role ambiguity : 5 item version (Rizzo et al., 1970), α 0.81

• Role conflict : 5 item version (Rizzo et al., 1970), α 0.82

• Age, gender, years in team

Instruments

Hva forklarer kapteinenes tyranniske atferd

•Leders trekk sinne•Den underordnedes trekk angst•Underordnedes rollekonflikt•Underordnedes kjønn

•Interaksjon mellom kapteins trekk sinne og 1) ansatte med høy trekk sinne?2) Ansatte med lav trekk sinne?3) Ansatte med høy trekk angst?

Kant et al (2013), Fig. 1, p 115

7

Takk for oppmerksomheten!