CHAPTER 1
GOAL SETTING AS AN ANTECEDENT OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
A relatively new stream of research has emerged that examines the dark, or destructive, side of leadership. This research examines negative leader behaviors in several forms including abusive supervision, petty tyranny, destructive leadership, social undermining, workplace aggression, and workplace bullying. Recently, scholars have begun to consider the reasons why leaders choose to engage in these negative behaviors toward their subordinates. In this chapter, we review extant research on antecedents of negative supervisory behaviors. Then, we add to these findings by presenting a theoretical model that suggests aspects of goals and reward systems can act as contextual antecedents of destructive leader behaviors. Despite the vast literature in support of goal setting theory, a small but emerging line of research suggests that goals can have negative consequences. We draw on this research, as well as research on stress, to propose that goal difficulty and goal-contingent reward can contribute to destructive leader behaviors through the effects these characteristics have on levels of stress.
Most of the academic research on leaders and the leadership process has focused on positive, romantic conceptions of leader behaviors (e.g., transformational, charismatic, ethical leadership), and how these behaviors have positive impacts on followers (e.g., self-efficacy; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) and on organizations as a whole (e.g., group potency; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). Literally, thousands of studies have examined supervisor-subordinate interactions and have explored the effects of various positive, socially acceptable leadership behaviors (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1998). With few exceptions (e.g., Kellerman, 2004; Kets de Vries, 2006; Luthans, Peterson, & Ibrayeva, 1998), however, “social scientists have avoided the dark side of leadership” (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007, p. 177), leaving the leadership literature positively skewed in its contribution to both theory and practice.
A relatively new stream of research, however, has emerged to describe leader behaviors that are dark and overtly destructive to individual achievement and positive group functioning, such as sabotaging subordinates’ success, acting physically violent or aggressive toward subordinates, and exhibiting nonphysical hostility toward subordinates. Most conceptions of negative leader behaviors take the form of nonphysical interactions between supervisors and subordinates. Destructive supervisors, for example, make angry public outbursts directed towards subordinate, openly ridicule subordinates, take credit for other’s successes, and blame subordinates for organizational failures (Keashley, Trott, & MacLean, 1994). These types of destructive behaviors have fallen under a number of different headings, including abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994, 1997), and destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007). Additionally, the literature on the dark side of organizational behavior (e.g., workplace aggression ; Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006; social undermining; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; workplace bullying; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001) has given particular attention to negative behaviors by those at supervisory levels. In Table 1.1 we provide a summary of the definitions of each of these behaviors (see also, Keashley & Jagatic, 2003).
While destructive behaviors by leaders can fall into a number of categories, each varying on the level of direct contact with a victim and the extent of physical and verbal abuse, we consider destructive behaviors in this paper to be those labeled as physical/active/direct and verbal/active/ direct by Keashley and Jagatic (2003), representing overt and aggressive behavior by a leader on culpable subordinates. That said, we do not see our proposed model as limited to those two categories. Indeed, destructive behavior can reveal itself in many ways, and although not yet studied in the literature, the antecedents of these diverse behaviors are likely to be similar.
Table 1.1. Constructs That Capture Destructive Leader Behaviors
| Construct | Definition |
|---|---|
| Abusive supervision | Subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). |
| Petty tyranny | Managers’ use of power and authority oppressively, capriciously, and vindictively (Ashforth, 1997). |
| Supervisor aggression | Supervisor behavior “that is intended to physically harm a worker or workers in the work-related context” (Schat et al., 2006). |
| Supervisor undermining | Supervisor “behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work- related success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002). |
| Destructive leadership | Supervisor “behaviors by a leader … that violate the … interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates” (Einarsen et al., 2007). |
| Workplace bullying | Occurs when an individual “persistently over a period of time, is on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several others, in a situation where the one at the receiving end may have difficulty defending him or herself against these actions” (Zapf & Einarsen, 2001, p. 369). |
| Victimization | “The individual’s self-perception of having been exposed, either momentarily or repeatedly, to aggressive actions emanating from one or more other persons” (Aquino, 2000, p. 172). |
Although destructive leader behaviors affect a relatively small portion of the workforce (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), these behaviors tend to be very costly for supervisors and the organizations they lead, in terms of both the psychological burden for subordinates and the tangible economic costs to the organization (e.g., missed work, lack of employee effort, and outright sabotage by those affected). A number of studies have shown these negative leader behaviors are associated with both micro- (e.g., job and life dissatisfaction, Tepper, 2000; psychological distress, Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007; deviant behavior, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; subordinate performance, Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007) and macrolevel outcomes (e.g., fraudulent accounting, Carpenter & Reimers, 2005; firm performance, Hmieleski & Ensley, 2007). In fact, Tepper et al. (2006) reported that destructive leader behaviors (e.g., abusive supervision) in U.S. corporations lead to increases in absenteeism and health care costs and decreases in productivity, which cost these organizations approximately $23.8 billion annually.
Because of the substantial costs of destructive leader behaviors, scholars have begun to consider the reasons why leaders choose to engage in these negative behaviors toward their subordinates. Some of these destructive behaviors appear to be the results of characteristics of the leaders themselves (e.g., trait anger, Hershcovis et al., 2007; hostility, Schaubroeck, Walumbwa, Ganster, & Kepes, 2007; threatened egotism; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996), characteristics of followers (e.g., low self-esteem, Bardes & Ambrose, 2008; negative self-evaluations, Padilla et al., 2007), and characteristics of the work environment (e.g., organizational injustice, Tepper et al., 2006; Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; psychological contract violation, Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Whereas examinations of the dispositional antecedents of transformational (Bono & Judge, 2004) and ethical leadership behaviors (e.g., Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) are well developed, similar examinations of destructive leader behaviors are only in their infancy. Thus, it is imperative for researchers to continue to investigate the factors that contribute to destructive leader behaviors.
In this chapter, we do just that. We extend research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors by examining aspects of the supervisors’ goals and reward systems as additional contextual antecedents of leader behavior. In particular, we present a theoretical model that suggests an attribute of leaders’ goals (viz., goal difficulty) and a characteristic of the leaders’ reward systems (viz., goal-contingent rewards—the extent to which the leaders rewards are contingent upon goal attainment) act as antecedents of destructive leader behavior. We draw on a small but emerging stream of research that proposes organizational goal-setting can have negative consequences (e.g., Barsky, 2008; Latham, 1986; Latham & Locke, 2006; Locke & Latham, 1990; Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009). Our model also draws on the stress literature to consider a leaders’ level of psychological stress as the mechanism by which these contextual attributes encourage negative leader behaviors.
Thus, the ideas presented in this chapter make two contributions to the literature on leadership and motivation. First, we propose two new contextual antecedents of destructive leader behaviors, namely, goal difficulty and goal-contingent rewards. Second, we add to research on goal-setting by suggesting that difficult goals and goal-contingent reward may lead to negative outcomes in the form of destructive behaviors by an organization’s leader. In the next sections of this paper, we briefly review research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors, discuss the potential negative consequences of goal-setting, and present our theoretical model of relationships between goals and leader behavior.
ANTECEDENTS OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
For the most part, research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors has taken an interactionist perspective and has examined both individual and situational factors that contribute to these types of negative behaviors. Much of this research has examined characteristics of leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive work environments as antecedents (e.g., Bardes & Ambrose, 2008; Padilla et al., 2007). In what follows, we use this framework to present brief discussions of extant research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors.
Characteristics of Leaders
Some destructive leader behaviors are a direct function of individual characteristics of the leaders themselves. For example, leaders who score high on measures of negative personality traits, such as trait anger (Bardes & Ambrose, 2008), hostility, and negative affectivity (Schaubroeck et al., 2007), are more likely to engage in destructive supervisory behaviors such as ridiculing subordinates and criticizing employees in public. Similar results are reported in research on workplace aggression, which notes individual differences, such as a hostile attribution bias (i.e., the tendency to believe others have hostile intentions, Neuman & Baron, 1998), trait anger, and negative affectivity (Hershcovis et al., 2007), are associated with aggressive behavior. Also, some have noted that leaders, who abuse power, are charismatic, are narcissistic, have experienced negative life events, or have an ideology for hate, are likely to exhibit destructive leader behaviors toward followers (Padilla et al., 2007). Taken together, this research suggests that leaders who possess socially undesirable traits are more likely to engage in destructive behaviors.
Characteristics of Followers
Beyond the stable individual differences of leaders, certain personality traits and individual dispositions of followers enhance the likelihood of destructive behavior by leaders in a work context. Similar to the suggestion that desirable traits in followers enhance the effectiveness of positive forms of supervisory behavior (e.g., charisma and follower efficacy; Howell & Shamir, 2005), passive and undesirable dispositions among followers are likely to make destructive leader behaviors more common and more accepted without recourse. Einarsen (1999), for example, found that victims of workplace bullying reported that their own shyness and lack of conflict management skills contributed to being bullied. Similarly, Aquino and Bradfield (2000) suggested that victims of aggressive behaviors in the workplace tend to have both submissive characteristics, such as shyness, nonassertiveness, and passivity, as well as provocative characteristics, such as aggressiveness and negative affectivity.
Researchers have also examined the interaction of followers’ characteristics with leader and/or situational factors, emphasizing the extent to which followers’ characteristics contribute to negative behavior by leaders. For example, Tepper et al. (2006) found that subordinates’ negative affectivity moderated the relationship between supervisors’ perceptions of procedural injustice and abusive supervision, such that the relationship between injustice and abuse emerged only when subordinates had a negative disposition. Bardes and Ambrose (2008) examined the role of subordinates’ self esteem on the relationship between supervisors’ trait anger and abusive supervision, noting that the relationship between anger and abusive behavior was strongest towards subordinates who had low self-esteem. Additionally, in suggesting a “toxic triangle” (i.e., the interplay of characteristics of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive situations), Padilla et al. (2007) posit that followers’ characteristics of unmet needs, negative self-evaluations, psychological immaturity, and selfishness can contribute to destructive leader behaviors. Thus, research on followers’ characteristics has suggested that (a) followers’ characteristics provoke and/or (b) interact with aspects of the situation or with characteristics of the leader to trigger and exaggerate destructive leader behaviors.
Characteristics of Work Environments
Of course, in researching antecedents of destructive leader behaviors, scholars also acknowledge that the situation matters (Padilla et al., 2007) and have examined the extent to which contextual factors induce counterproductive behavior by organizational leaders. Perceptions of systemic procedural injustice (Tepper et al., 2006), interactional injustice (Aryee et al., 2007), and psychological contract violation (i.e., the perception that the organization did not give what was promised; Hoobler & Brass, 2006) are associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, such that leaders retaliate against the organization by being abusive to organization members. Additionally, in separate reviews on workplace aggression, Neuman and Baron (1998) suggested that provocation, frustrating events, unfair treatment, and aggressive norms may be situational antecedents of aggressive behavior, while Herschcovis et al. (2007) found that distributive injustice, procedural injustice, interpersonal conflict, and situational constraints (e.g., availability of resources) were predictors of aggressive behavior. Similarly, Salin (2003) noted that downsizing, restructuring, competition, reward systems, and perceived power imbalances are environmental factors that contribute to bullying behaviors. Finally, Padilla et al. (2007) argued that environmental instability and overt threats to financial security encourage a defensive stance among organizational managers, which often reveals itself in behaviors that are aggressive, destructive, and toxic for the organization, its members and constituents.
Summary
This brief review has identified recent research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors. Although this research has fallen under various headings (e.g., abusive supervision, workplace aggression, destructive leadership), it all gives evidence of characteristics of leaders, followers, and situations that contribute to destructive supervisory behaviors. In what follows, we add to this research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors and suggest additional situational antecedents by positing a theoretical model linking goal-setting to destructive acts by leaders.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF GOAL SETTING
A central tenet of goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), one of the most dominant and enduring theories in organizational behavior (Mitchell & Daniel, 2003), is the notion that goals are precursors to actions (Latham, 2007). Goal setting theory states that specific, difficult goals serve to enhance one’s self-regulation by focusing attention on specific objectives and directing effort towards goal-relevant behavior. Goals further enhance the intensity and persistence used to attain an objective while providing feedback for the success of one’s effort.
There are more than 1,000 studies that report the positive effects of goal setting (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003) on performance, persistence, and motivation. In many of these studies, results suggest that specific, challenging goals yield superior results in terms of performance and persistence to goals that are vague and easy to attain. Indeed, the vast majority of studies on the goal setting process find that specific, challenging goals, when paired with commitment to those goals, have a positive influence on a host of positive outcomes (Latham, Locke, & Fassina, 2002; Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke & Latham, 2002).
Despite the strong evidence in favor of challenging goals, however, several recent papers argue that difficult goals may actually drive individuals to engage in a host of counterproductive behaviors, such as lying about one’s progress towards a stated goal, undermining colleagues who have competing goals, or unethical handling of customer interactions for achievement of a narrow, goal-directed benefit (Ordóñez et al., 2009). Latham and Locke (2006), the founders of goal setting theory, have themselves suggested that there are possible “pitfalls” of goal-setting, but Schweitzer, Ordóñez, and Douma (2004) were the first to empirically study negative consequences of goal-setting. In a laboratory study, Schweitzer and his colleagues examined the effect of goal setting on ethical decision making. Participants in the study were given unmet performance goals and were provided the opportunity to overstate their performance in order to obtain specific goals. As the authors noted, participants with specific, challenging, unmet goals were more likely to lie about their performance (i.e., engage in unethical behavior) than participants who were simply asked to “do their best.” This effect was strongest among participants who were just barely “falling short of goals,” highlighting the potential consequences of a strong desire for goal attainment.
Following Schweitzer et al. (2004), Barsky (2008) attempted to extend the research on the goals and ethics, considering the mechanisms by which goals influence unethical behavior, the attributes of goals that are the strongest predictors of unethical behavior, and how individual differences moderate these relationships. Barsky presented a theoretical model that linked goal attributes (e.g., difficulty, specificity, content) and goal-setting practices (e.g., level of participation, rewards) to unethical behavior through two mediating mechanisms, ethical recognition and moral disengagement. Ethical recognition occurs when a decision-maker becomes morally aware such that decision processes recognize an issue as having “ethical” implications, while moral disengagement refers to the process by which one convinces himself that ethical standards do not apply to him in a particular context, most often by separating moral reactions from unethical conduct by disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation (Fiske, 2004). These are two psychological factors that serve as underpinnings of ethical behavior.
Barsky (2008) suggested that (a) performance goals can interfere with an individual’s ethical recognition (i.e., the awareness that an action will harm others) by directing attention toward achieving those goals and away from assessing the ethicality of behaviors, and (b) goal-setting practices, such as assigning goals and tying rewards to goal attainment, may lead to moral disengagement (i.e., the process of rationalizing behaviors; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996) by providing justifications to engage in unethical behavior. Similarly, Schweitzer and his colleagues have noted the potential “side effects” of goal setting (Ordóñez et al., 2009), such as distorted risk preferences, unethical behavior, decreases in learning, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Although the assertions by Barsky and Ordóñez et al. have been vehemently disputed by Locke and Latham (2009), on grounds that criticisms of goal setting theory are not derived from inductive assessments of existing empirical studies, a number of questions remain regarding the possible negativity of goal setting, supporting additional examination of the theory’s “pitfalls” (Latham & Locke, 2006).
We address some of these questions by suggesting that goal-directed reward systems can contribute to an additional form of “bad” behavior, namely destructive leader behaviors. We integrate research on goal-setting, stress, and aggressive behavior to propose a theoretical model that links an attribute of goals (goal difficulty) and a goal-setting practice (goal-contingent reward) to destructive leader behaviors (e.g., abusive supervision, undermining, bullying). Because there is considerable research supporting the positive effects of goal setting, we were also interested in exploring why goal-setting may lead to leader aggression. As such, we also suggest the leader’s level of stress can mediate the relationship between goal-setting and destructive leader behaviors.
GOALS, STRESS, AND DESTRUCTIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
Consistent with the notion of potential negative consequences of goal setting (e.g., Barsky, 2008; Latham & Locke, 2006; Schweitzer et al., 2004), the primary purpose of this manuscript is to describe aspects of goals and reward structures that serve as contextual antecedents of destructive leader behaviors. Specifically, we suggest that the difficulty of a leader’s goal and the extent to which a leader’s rewards are tied to goal accomplishment contribute to destructive leader behaviors through the effects they have on a leader’s level of psychological stress. Our theoretical model is shown in Figure 1.1.
Leaders’ Goal Difficulty and Stress
Stress is defined as “an individual’s psychological response to a situation in which there is something at stake and where the situation taxes or exceeds the individual’s capacity or resource” (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004, p. 883). This definition is derived from Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive theory of stress, which suggests that when an individual is exposed to a potential stressor, he or she engages in cognitive appraisals of the stressor and decides if it is something that (a) will cause harm and (b) can be managed. Lazarus and Folkman propose that stress arises when a potential stressor is deemed to be challenging (a challenge stressor, which gives opportunities for growth, learning, or success) or threatening (a hindrance stressor, which hinders growth, learning, or success) and when demands exceed available resources.
Figure 1.1 Proposed relationships among variables.
The cognitive theory of stress and its definition provide a platform for consideration of the link between difficult goals and psychological stress. There are two main reasons to propose that this relationship exists. First, difficult goals create stress because they can be perceived as threatening. Locke and Latham (1990) report that goal setting introduces a potential threat, in that the mere existence of goals creates pressure to perform and the threat of failure. All goals, but challenging and difficult goals in particular, make it apparent that there are specific, difficult standards by which performance will be evaluated, thus making salient the potential for failure to meet those standards. The threat of failure associated with difficult goals and standards make it more likely that goals will be appraised as threatening.
Second, difficult goals may create perceptions of an imbalance between demands and resources. As mentioned previously, stress arises from judgments that particular demands exceed available resources (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Because difficult goals create challenging demands, individuals who regard their goals as particularly difficult may feel that they do not possess the resources (e.g., skills, abilities, time) required for goal accomplishment, creating a perceived imbalance of demands and resources, an imbalance that increases feelings of stress.
Although very few studies have empirically tested the link between goals and stress reactions (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002), those that have find a positive effect. For example, White, Mitchell, and Bell (1977) conducted a laboratory experiment in which they measured perceived pressure caused by goal setting. Compared to having no goals, participants with challenging goals felt more stress from greater pressure to perform and greater chances of failure. Also, Nebeker (1987) conducted a work simulation experiment in which computer operators were given various types of goals and incentives. The study found that those who were assigned goals with difficult standards experienced higher stress than those assigned easier standards. Furthermore, in a study of individuals performing a heuristic maze task, Huber (1985) found that specific, difficult goals created excessive stress, which hampered performance.
Thus, drawing on the cognitive theory of stress and empirical research that has linked difficult goals to stress, we propose when leaders are given difficult goals, they will be likely to experience higher levels of stress.
Proposition 1: Leaders’ goal difficulty is positively related to leaders’ levels of stress.
Leaders’ Goal-Contingent Reward and Stress
Aspects of leaders’ reward systems can also contribute to the leaders’ levels of stress. One such attribute is goal-contingent reward, which we define as the extent to which the leaders’ rewards are contingent upon goal attainment. In describing the cognitive theory of stress, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest that the degree of stress an individual experiences is shaped by perceptions of the consequences tied to the stressor. When the stakes are high and explicitly tied to the stressor, psychological stress will increase.
Perceptions that the stakes are high may exist when rewards are contingent upon goal attainment. Companies vary in the methods by which they reward employees for their efforts. In many objective-oriented organizations, the distribution of rewards (e.g., salary increases, promotions, bonuses) is based primarily on goal attainment (Latham et al., 2002; Locke & Latham, 1990). We focus on this type of reward system, which we refer to as goal-contingent rewards.
There are two main reasons to expect goal-contingent reward is related to feelings of stress, both of which are based on the notions that goal-contingent rewards make it obvious that something of value is at stake and create a potential threat of failure. First, tying rewards to goal attainment can make it apparent that valued outcomes are at stake. As mentioned, stress arises in response to situations in which there is something at stake and where the demands of the situation exceed an individual’s resources (LePine et al., 2004). When an individual is exposed to a potential stressor and what is at stake is extremely salient, the stressor is more likely to increase levels of stress. With goal-contingent reward, the negative consequences (or the stakes) of not attaining the goal are extremely obvious, which could also increase feelings of stress.
Second, goal-contingent rewards can increase an individual’s awareness that a potential threat of failure exists. An individual involved in this type of reward system is very aware that not fulfilling the goal will result in failure to attain some type of valued outcome (e.g., compensation, promotion, bonus) and thus, may be more likely to perceive that the potential for failure exists. This may make them more likely to experience stress.
The relationship between contingent rewards and stress has been empirically supported in research on stress reactions to pay systems. Types of pay systems vary on a continuum of the extent to which an employee’s compensation is based on individual job performance (Shirom, Westman, & Melamed, 1999). Piece-rate pay is the most common performance-contingent reward system, whereby employees’ wages are determined exclusively on an individual job performance or output (e.g., commissions given to a sales person for meeting his quotas).
There are a limited number of studies that have examined the relationship between pay systems and stress. Those that have, however, have provided evidence that employees who receive piece-rate pay exhibit significantly higher levels of stress than those who do not (Shirom et al., 1999). For example, in a study of professional typists doing computer-based data entry, Schleifer and colleagues (Schleifer & Amick, 1989; Schleifer & Okogaba, 1990) found that levels of anxiety were higher during periods of piece-rate pay as compared to periods without piece-rate pay. Findings such as these indicate that piece-rate payment systems can lead to psychological stress and that an individual’s level of anxiety is at least partially dependent on the extent to which rewards (e.g., compensation) depend on goal attainment.
Hence, drawing on the stress literature, particularly the link between contingent reward systems and stress, we suggest that leaders are more likely to experience high levels of stress when their rewards are highly contingent on goal attainment.
Proposition 2: Leaders’ goal-contingent reward is positively related to leaders’ levels of stress.
Leaders’ Stress and Destructive Leader Behaviors
A considerable amount of research has suggested that stress and stressful events can be meaningful triggers of destructive behavior. A meta-analysis conducted by Hershcovis et al. (2007) reported individuals use workplace aggression as a way of coping with stress that results from workplace stressors, in the form of situational constraints (e.g., scarcity of resources) and interpersonal conflict. Similarly, research has found that job stress resulting from role ambiguity, role conflict, interpersonal conflict, and situational constraints is related to aggressive and counterproductive action (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992). In addition, a number of studies have reported that workplace stressors, such as excessive workload or constraints on resources, are related to counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2005).
Also, research that supports the link between stress and abusive behavior can be found in studies that relate negative emotions associated with stress to aggressive behavior. Stress is characterized by negative emotions, such as fear, anger, and anxiety (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and these emotions are consistently related to aggressive behavior. For example, the meta-analysis by Herschcovis et al. (2007) found that anger and negative affectivity (which captures distressing emotions such as fear and anxiety) were strong predictors of workplace interpersonal aggression.
As such, we propose that when leaders experience higher levels of stress, they will be likely to engage in destructive leader behaviors.
Proposition 3: Leaders’ stress will be positively related to destructive leader behaviors.
DISCUSSION
Research on various forms of destructive leader behaviors has found that these supervisory behaviors are associated with a number of negative outcomes (e.g., employee job and life dissatisfaction, Tepper, 2000; deviant behavior, Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; counterproductive behavior, somatic complaints, Duffy et al., 2002). Recently, scholars have begun to examine why leaders choose to engage in behaviors that are disruptive and destructive to organizational functioning (e.g., Hogan & Hogan, 2001). This chapter adds to the literature on antecedents of abusive supervision by examining situational factors that may be determinants of destructive supervisory behaviors. Specifically, we propose a theoretical model that suggests leaders’ difficult goals and goal-contingent rewards contribute to destructive behaviors through the effect these factors have on leaders’ feelings of stress. Below we discuss the implications of this theoretical model and mention avenues for future research.
Implications
Our theoretical model makes contributions to research on goal setting, stress, and destructive leader behaviors. First, the model contributes to the literature on goal setting. Most research on goal setting has examined the effects of attributes of goals and goal setting practices on positive outcomes. Only a few studies have examined negative outcomes (e.g., Barsky, 2008; Schweitzer et al., 2004). Our model adds to this limited research on the possible negative outcomes of goal setting by proposing that difficult goals and goal-contingent reward systems contribute to destructive leader behaviors.
Our model also adds to research on stress by suggesting the mediating effects of psychological stress on the effects of difficult goals and goal-contingent rewards on destructive leader behaviors. Research on stress suggests a sequence in which stressors lead to an appraisal process (hindrance or challenge stress), which in turn, leads to outcomes (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Our model proposes a similar sequence and suggests difficult goals are stressors that can lead to feelings of stress, which in turn, can lead to destructive leader behaviors. The model also suggests goal-contingent rewards can be stressors that can have the same effect.
Finally, our theoretical model contributes to the limited research on antecedents of destructive leader behaviors. The main purpose of this chapter was to suggest additional contextual antecedents of destructive supervisory behaviors. Our model suggests that difficult goals, goal-contingent rewards, and stress may contribute to destructive leader behaviors, and the relationship between difficult goals and goal-contingent reward and destructive behaviors is explained by the mediating effect of stress. These propositions add to research that has linked situational factors to various forms of destructive leader behaviors
Future Research
Of course, our theoretical model should be empirically tested. In addition, this chapter brings to light a number of avenues for future research. First, the relationship between difficult goals and destructive leader behaviors should be further examined. Much research on goal setting suggests difficult goals lead to positive outcomes such as higher performance and job satisfaction. Our theoretical model does not dispute these findings, but we suggest that difficult goals can also lead to negative outcomes, such as destructive behaviors by leaders. The next plausible step in the examination of difficult goals and negative outcomes, then, is investigations of the conditions under which difficult goals are more or less likely to lead to negative outcomes (e.g., abusive supervision, unethical behavior, counterproductive behavior). This should include examinations using the interactionist perspective and should investigate the moderating effects of characteristics of leaders and followers that may increase the likelihood that difficult goals will lead to negative behaviors. Some supervisor characteristics commonly associated with aggressive behavior could influence the goals-negative outcomes relationship, such as trait anger (e.g., Bardes & Ambrose, 2008; Herschcovis et al., 2007), hostile attribution bias (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 1998), and negative affectivity (e.g., Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). In addition, the moderating effects of attributes of the difficult goals themselves should be examined (e.g., goal commitment, participation in goal setting, number of goals).
Second, future research should continue to examine the link between difficult goals and stress. To more fully examine this effect, researchers should investigate how difficult goals are differentially related to both challenge and hindrance stress. Examining this link between difficult goals and the different types of stress will assist in our understanding of why difficult goals have been found to be related to both positive and negative outcomes. Research has found that challenge stressors are positively related to positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and negatively related to negative outcomes, such as turnover and withdrawal behaviors, whereas hindrance stress had opposite relationships with those outcomes (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). Perhaps, difficult goals lead to positive outcomes when they are perceived as challenge stressors, but lead to negative outcomes when perceived as hindrance stressors. Additionally, future research should address the factors that contribute to perceptions of difficult goals as a challenge or hindrance.
Finally, additional mediators of the relationships between difficult goals and goal-contingent reward and destructive leader behaviors should be examined. The current study examined stress as the explanatory mechanism. However, it is possible that additional explanations for this relationship exist. As such, future research should attempt to explain the relationship between goals and goal-setting practices and abusive supervision by examining additional mediators. Barsky’s (2008) work on the link between attributes and goals and goal-setting practices and unethical behavior sheds light on possible mediators of moral disengagement and ethical recognition. Also, Latham and Locke (2006) suggest goal setting can have negative consequences if the goals, or possibility of not attaining the goal, threatens the individual’s self-esteem. Thus, threats to self-esteem may be a mediator of the relationship between goals and abusive supervision.
CONCLUSION
There is a need to understand factors that may contribute to a supervisor’s destructive behavior. Our theoretical model integrates research on goal-setting, stress, and aggressive behavior and suggests stress mediates the relationship between leaders’ difficult goals and destructive leader behaviors and leaders’ goal-contingent reward and destructive leader behavior. This chapter is the first to suggest these relationships, and by doing so, makes theoretical contributions to research on goal setting, stress, and destructive leader behaviors. Future research should empirically examine these relationships.
REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organizational Science, 11, 525-537.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-201.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778.
Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126-140.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 364-374.
Bardes, M., & Ambrose, M. L. (2008, August). Abusive supervision: An examination of its antecedents. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Barsky, A. (2008). Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 63-81.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Bono, J. E., & Judge T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.
Carpenter, T. D., & Reimers, J. L. (2005). Unethical and fraudulent financial reporting: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 115-129.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft, and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667-682.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 16-26.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leader behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.
Fiske, S. (2004). Social Beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and copying during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-932.
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, 291-309.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263.
Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-238.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2007). The effects of entrepreneur abusive supervision. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 40-5 1.
Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125-1133.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.
Huber, V. L. (1985). Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy on performance on a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 492-504.
Keashley, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International research and practice perspectives (pp. 31-61). London: Taylor & Francis.
Keashley, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace : A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kets de Vries, M. (2006). The spirit of despotism: Understanding the tyrant within. Human Relations, 59, 195-220.
Latham, G. P. (1986). Job performance and appraisal. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 332-340.
Latham, G. P., Locke, E. A., & Fassina, N. E. (2002). The high performing cycle: Standing the test of time. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), The psychological management of individual performance. A handbook in the psychology of management in organizations (pp. 201-228). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883-891.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2009, August). Has goal setting gone wild, or have its attackers abandoned good scholarship? Academy of Management Perspectives, 17-23.
Luthans, F., Peterson, S., & Ibrayeva, L. (1998). The potential for the “dark side” of leadership in post-communist countries. Journal of World Business, 33, 185-201.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225-254). New York: Wiley.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.
Nebeker, D. M. (1987). Computer monitoring, feedback, and rewards: Effects of workstation operators’ performance, satisfaction and stress (unpublished manuscript). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009, February). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 6-16.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 76-194.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438-454.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213-1232.
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C., & Kepes, S. (2007). Destructive leader traits and the neutralizing influence of an “enriched” job. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 236-251.
Schleifer, L. M., & Amick, B. C. (1989). System response time and methods of pay: Stress effects in computer-based tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 23-39.
Schleifer, L. M., & Okogaba, O. G. (1990). System response time and methods of pay: Cardiovascular effects in computer-based tasks. Ergonomics, 33, 1495-1509.
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004) Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 422-432.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. A. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
Shirom, A., Westman, M., & Melamed, S. (1999). The effects of pay systems on blue-collar employees’ emotional distress: The mediating effects of objective and subjective work monotony. Human Relations, 52, 1077-1097.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In P. E. Fox & S. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169-1180.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and workgroup psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-1286.
White, S. E., Mitchell, T. R., & Bell, C. H. (1977). Goal setting, evaluation apprehension, and social cues as determinants of job performance and satisfaction in a simulated organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 665-673.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice—an introduction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 369-373.