104 The Impact of Dark Leadership on Organizational ... - CiteSeerX

The Impact of Dark Leadership on Organizational Commitment and Turnover By Sara G. Weaver, Norfolk Iron & Metal and George B. Yancey, Emporia State University Academic Citation: Sara G. Weaver and George B. Yancy, “The Impact of Dark Leadership on Organizational Commitment and Turnover,” Kravis Leadership Institute, Leadership Review, Vol. 10, Summer 2010, pp. 104 – 124. About the Authors: Sara G. Weaver recently completed her Masters degree in IndustrialOrganizational Psychology from Emporia State University. She now works at Norfolk Iron & Metal (NIM). Note: the data used in this article were not collected at NIM. George B. Yancey is an Associate Professor of Psychology and the Director of the Industrial-Organizational Psychology Program at Emporia State University. Email: [email protected] Keywords: Dark leadership, turnover, affective involvement

Abstract In this study of 80 employees working for a manufacturing company in a mid-sized, mid-western town, dark leadership was found to be inversely related to the workers’ affective commitment to the organization and to the workers’ intent to remain with the organization. We examine how organizations can do a better job of identifying and dealing with dark leadership.

People devote much of their adult life to work. The quality of a person’s life is, therefore, strongly influenced by the quality of his or her work life. Fred Herzberg (1968) argued in his two-factor theory of job satisfaction that supervision is a contextual factor, more important for influencing job dissatisfaction than job satisfaction. We would agree. When a person has a reasonable supervisor, he or she can focus on the job at hand. However, a worker’s immediate supervisor often wields considerable power over his or her daily life, and a bad supervisor can make work life a living hell for some workers. It has been established that unhappy, dissatisfied workers are more likely to leave their organizations (Mobley, 1977; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001), especially when the economy is strong (Carsten, & Spector, 1987; Trevor, 2001). Also, unhappy, dissatisfied workers are less committed to their organizations (Allen & Meyer, 1996). The purpose of this study was to examine whether dark leaders drive their subordinates away from their organization, either physically, by encouraging employees to leave, or psychologically, by lowering employees’ commitment to their organization. By identifying the negative organizational consequences of dark leadership, perhaps

Leadership Review, Kravis Leadership Institute, Claremont McKenna College, Vol. 10, Summer 2010

104

organizations will be persuaded to be less tolerant of dark leaders’ destructive behaviors and to build human resource systems for leadership promotion, appraisal, and development that reduce dark leadership.

What is Dark Leadership? McIntosh and Rima (1997) identified five types of dark leaders: (1) the narcissistic leader, (2) the compulsive leader, (3) the paranoid leader (4) the co-dependent leader, and (5) the passive-aggressive leader. Of these five types, McIntosh and Rima (1997) noticed that narcissism is the most frequently researched type of dark leadership, but they feel that all types of dark leadership have the potential to cause organizational turmoil. Narcissistic leaders. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), “Narcissistic personality disorder is a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p.685). While narcissists are highly motivated to gain the esteem of others and to receive affirmation of their superiority (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), these desires are driven by a need to compensate for repressed feelings of inferiority. Their self esteem is very fragile (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In their quest for admiration, it is not unusual for narcissists to seek out positions of leadership. Initially, their boasting, charm, and sense of entitlement can be charismatic and help them to rise into leadership positions. However, as Khoo and Burch (2008) observed, once in leadership positions, narcissistic leaders are not particularly effective. The process of gaining admiration and affirmation from others is ultimately selfdefeating for narcissists because the tactics they employ. For example, by derogating others and focusing on their goals at the expense of others’ goals, interpersonal relationships are undermined (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) and coworkers turn against them (Crocker & Park, 2004). Thus, while narcissists may view themselves as superior leaders, others will form the opposite conclusion. Because they are hyper alert to perceived threats, narcissists find threats in their surroundings. When their self-concept is threatened, as it frequently is, narcissists often respond aggressively to the perceived threat (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Penny and Spector (2002) found that highly narcissistic people experience anger more frequently and are more likely to express their anger by engaging in counterproductive work behavior. Another characteristic of narcissists is their lack of empathy for others (Brown & Bosson, 2001). This may shed some light on Soyer, Ravenpor, and Kopelman’s (1999) finding that narcissists were more at ease with ethically questionable sales behaviors. It may be difficult for narcissist to empathize with the victims of their unethical behavior.


105

During a crisis situation, King (2007) contends that an organization with a narcissistic leader will have greater difficulty transforming the crisis and uncertainty back to a state of stability. For subordinates who must serve a narcissistic leader, chaos can become the normal state. Latham (2008) lamented that effective ways of coaching narcissists to become productive team players in the work place have yet to be found. Compulsive leaders. According to the DSM-IV-TR, “Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is a pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 685). A compulsive leader wants to maintain absolute power. The organization is another area of his or her life that must be controlled. For this reason, compulsive leaders sometimes excel at those aspects of management that focus on attention to details. On the other hand, they install highly bureaucratic policies and structures, fail to delegate, and supervise their subordinates too closely (De Vries, 1994). Over time, their followers may rebel against their constant pressure to obtain perfection. Compulsive leader often become workaholics, devoting so much time to work that friendships and leisure activities are ignored. Their obsession with perfection can lead them to miss deadlines. They can be morally inflexible and overly judgmental of themselves and others. They often insist that things be done their way (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Paranoid leaders. According to the DSM-IV-TR, “Paranoid personality disorder is a pattern of distrust and suspiciousness such that other’s motives are interpreted as malevolent” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 685). People with a paranoid personality often misinterpret compliments as criticisms. What is more, they bear long grudges for these perceived insults and are quick to counterattack (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Lipman-Blumen (2006) observed that paranoid leaders are hostile toward anyone whom they perceive attempting to undermine them, and that may include many people. Despite the innocence of a remark or an action, the paranoid leader presumes that there are hidden intentions behind it. His or her fear drives the paranoid leader to attempt to control his or her subordinates by watching their every move, requiring extreme reporting, or scheduling frequent staff meetings. Over time, the paranoid leader’s subordinates learn to keep all their opinions to themselves. Thus, the paranoid leader’s hostility not only creates fear and anxiety, but employees are less likely to share innovative ideas. Subsequently, the only initiative exercised in such an organization is that which the paranoid leader forces upon the workforce (Williams, 2005). Co-dependent leaders. Co-dependency does not fall within the realm of personality


106

disorders. According to Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier (1996). Codependency can be defined as an addiction to people, behaviors, or things. Codependency is the fallacy of trying to control interior feelings by controlling people, things, and events on the outside. To the codependent, control or lack of it is central to every aspect of life. The codependent may be addicted to another person. In this interpersonal codependency, the codependent has become so elaborately enmeshed in the other person that the sense of self - personal identity - is severely restricted, crowded out by that other person’s identity and problems. (p. 11) Whitfield (1992, p.816) stated that “co-dependence is not only the most common addiction, it is the base addiction out of which all our addictions and compulsions emerge.” Because co-dependents have difficulty distinguishing where their own person stops and that of others begin, sometimes they allow other people to intrude upon them without protest, and sometimes they indiscriminately invade the personal lives of others (Cook & Goff, 2002). Seldom do co-dependent leaders reveal their true feelings to others. Instead, they often display what they believe others expect of them. When their expectations are not fulfilled, they may feel immense disappointment, insult, and loss of control that may lead to an intense narcissistic rage (Miller, 1981). But most of the time they hold their disappointments and anger inside, like a personal time bomb (Cook & Goff, 2002). Codependents over-personalize everything (Cermak, 1986) and they are always on the lookout for potential insults (Cook & Goff, 2002). Their hyper sensitivity puts tremendous pressure on their subordinates to walk on eggshells when asking questions or voicing concerns. It should not be surprising that co-dependents bring their self defeating behaviors to work with them (Schaef & Fassel, 1988). A work unit can quickly become distressed by the appointment of a co-dependent leader. He or she often evinces poor workplace habits, such as social loafing and poor organizational citizenship behaviors, but the co-dependent leader’s greatest weakness lies in his or her inability to manage conflict. Absences from work, withdrawal from responsibilities, or poor work performance are typical responses to conflict by the co-dependent leader, and as Thomas, Moore, and Scott (1996) noted, the ability to resolve conflicts is an important characteristic of a successful leader. Passive aggressive leaders. According to the DSM-IV-TR, “there is insufficient information to warrant inclusion” of passive aggressive personality disorder as an official category in the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 759). However, it is under consideration as a possible category. A person with a passive aggressive, or negativistic, personality disorder is characterized by the following behaviors: (1) the person passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks; (2) the person complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others; (3) the person is sullen and argumentative; (4) the person unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority; (5) the person expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate; (6) the


107

person voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune; and (7) the person alternates between hostile defiance and contrition (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, pp.734-735). In their investigation of defensive, self interested organizational politicos, Ashforth and Lee (1990) identify employees who convey aggressive feelings through passive means. Examples include verbal indirectness, verbal passivity, indirect and physically passive behaviors, action avoidance, blame avoidance, change avoidance, resistance, “passing the buck,” playing dumb, over-conforming, depersonalizing, smoothing and stretching, stalling, playing safe, justifying, scapegoating, misrepresenting, escalating commitment, resisting change, and protecting turf. To that list Wetzler and Morey (1999) add obstructionism and passive deceit, and Millon (1993) adds "negativism." As Johnson and Klee (2007) conclude: Because individuals in the working world are dependent on the actions and behavior of so many others, one person's spiral into passive-aggressive behaviors can initiate a rippling flow of negative behaviors that poison any work interface, creating local to global repercussions. The reader may have noticed a number of similarities between the different types of dark leadership. That is not surprising given the fact that there is often comorbidity (when the same individual has at least two different disorders) with personality disorders (Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, & Kessler, 2007). Consequences of Dark Leadership Research indicates that employees with abusive supervisors tend to have lower levels of organizational commitment, life and job satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational justice. They engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors. Finally, they tend to have higher levels of turnover, conflict between work and family, emotional exhaustion, and psychological distress (Ashforth & Lee, 1997; Tepper, 2000; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004; Wu & Hu, 2009). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) estimate the cost of abusive supervision for U.S. corporations (in terms of absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity) to be approximately $24 billion annually. The authors were particularly interested in the impact of dark leaders on employees’ organizational commitment and turnover intentions. The best known model of organizational commitment is Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three dimensional model which identifies three components: affective, continuance, and normative commitment. For employees with strong affective commitment, their sense of personal identity is based on their organizational membership and they are emotionally attached to their organization. Employees with strong continuance commitment remain with their organizations because the costs associated with leaving the organization are too high. Employees who feel a strong normative commitment to the organization remain because they feel that they “ought” to stay based on a sense of obligation and duty.


108

Of the three components of organizational commitment, affective commitment is most predictive of employee retention (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Somers, 1995; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Glazer & Kruse, 2008) and employee job performance (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002; Luchak & Gellatly, 2007). If dark leaders drive down their employees’ affective commitment, the organization could lose valuable personnel. In addition, employee job performance could suffer. One theory of employee turnover is the job embeddedness model (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). This model suggests that an employee will be more likely to remain with his or her organization to the extent that he or she has strong connections to the organization and the community. Thus, if dark leaders lower employees’ affective commitment, this could make them feel less embedded within the organization and, subsequently, more likely to leave. Another theory of employee turnover is Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) unfolding model. An important aspect of their model is the idea employees often leave a job because of a “shock,” which they define as “a particular, jarring event that initiates the psychological analyses involved in quitting a job" (p. 51). In support of this idea, Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, and Inderrieden (2005) found that in more than 60% of voluntary turnover cases, the employee left due to a shock, rather than an accumulation of job dissatisfactions. Because of the shocking nature of their behavior, over time dark leaders may provide their subordinates with many shocks that motivate the employees to leave. Theoretically, dark leaders could impact employee turnover through either the job embeddedness model or the unfolding model. Hypotheses The first hypothesis was in six parts. We predicted that each type of dark leadership (Narcissistic, Compulsive, Paranoid, Co-dependent, and Passive-aggressive) would be inversely related to affective commitment. We also predicted that overall dark leadership would be inversely related to affective commitment. The second hypothesis was also in six parts. We predicted that each type of dark leadership (Narcissistic, Compulsive, Paranoid, Co-dependent, and Passive-aggressive) would be positively related to intent to turnover. We also predicted that overall dark leadership would be positively related to intent to turnover. Methods Participants The participants were employees at a manufacturing company in a mid-sized, midwestern town. The company has approximately 100 employees, but only 90 were


109

available on the day the survey was administered. Of those 90, 80 responded. We had planned to collect a number of demographic variables, but the plant manager felt that the employees would be reluctant to complete the surveys if they were included. In order to gain access, we complied with his wishes. Measures Dark leadership. To measure dark leadership, we created 26 items based on McIntosh and Rima’s (1997) five dimensions. To assess the content validity of the items, a Q-sort was conducted with 15 psychology graduate students. They were asked to place each item into one of the five dimensions of dark leadership. The graduate students successfully placed 25 of the 26 items into the correct category, using the Chi Square goodness-of-fit test to analyze the results. The ambiguous item was eliminated. The participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed, on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with the 25 statements about their direct supervisor. Twelve of the items were worded positively and 13 of the items were worded negatively. Examples of positive and negative items for each category are provided in Table 1. The positive items were reverse scored so that a high score would indicate greater dark leadership. Using coefficient alpha, the internal consistency of the 6 dark leadership dimensions were as follows: narcissistic (.80), compulsive (.28), paranoid (.74), co-dependent (.23), passive aggressive (.51), and overall dark leadership (.89). A factor analysis of the 25 dark leadership items, using varimax rotation, revealed a single factor with an Eigenvalue of 8.7 that explained 35% of the variance. Thus, it appears that the participants were unable to discriminate between the different types of dark leadership.

Table 1 Sample Dark Leadership Statements Category

Positive Statement

Negative Statement

Narcissistic

My supervisor is humble, never arrogant.

My supervisor craves the respect of others and needs confirmation of his/her “superiority.”

Compulsive

My supervisor views mistakes My supervisor is a workaholic. as opportunities to learn.


110

He/she does not demand absolute perfection.

Paranoid

My supervisor trusts his/her subordinates.

My supervisor is convinced that others are trying to take away from his/her performance.

Co-dependent

My supervisor shares information.

My supervisor over-personalizes issues within the organization.

Passive Aggressive My supervisor is optimistic and rarely complains of personal misfortune.

My supervisor expresses envy or resentment towards those apparently more fortunate.

Affective organizational commitment. This measure was composed of the six items from Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) Affective Commitment Scale. A sample item is “I feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organization.” Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the development of this scale with student nurses, Meyer, Allen, and Smith found the internal consistency to be .87 when measured at time one and .85 when measured at time two. Meyer, Allen, and Smith also found that their measure of Affective Organizational Commitment was distinct from their measures of continuance and normative commitment. Using coefficient alpha, the internal consistency of this measure was .84 in our study. Turnover intention. This measure came from the three items in Colarelli’s (1984) Intent to Quit Scale. A sample item is “I am planning to search for a new job during the next 12 months.” Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Saks (2006) reported that the internal consistency of this measure was .82. Using coefficient alpha, the internal consistency of this measure was .91 in our study. Demographics. The only demographic variable that was recorded was the initials of participant’s direct supervisor so we could examine the impact of individual supervisors. Procedure The data were collected at three all-employee meetings. The meetings were split for first shift, second shirt, and third shift. The meetings were split so that there would be a


111

greater sense of privacy for the employees because they would be less crowded. The plant manager of the company designated 5 to 10 minutes at the beginning of each meeting for data collection. The first step was to hand out and briefly discuss a cover letter that addressed the nature of the project and the participants’ rights. The second step was to pass out the surveys. The surveys were enclosed in manila envelopes to protect participant confidentiality. The third step was to administer the surveys. Employees were instructed to remove the survey and begin. They had approximately 5 minutes to complete the survey. The fourth step was to collect the surveys. The employees were instructed to place their surveys back into the envelopes and seal them. Then the surveys were collected and the participants were thanked. Results Descriptive statistics for all measures are found in Table 2. For each of the dark leadership measures, a score of 5 would be the highest, most pathological score and a score of 1 would be the lowest and healthiest score. On all of the dark leadership dimensions, the employees rated their supervisors below the midpoint of 3. In other words, on average the supervisors were perceived positively by their subordinates. Of the five types of dark leadership, the codependency behaviors received the highest average, 2.8, compared to the other types of dark leadership. However, because the participants were unable to discriminate between the different types of dark leadership, as was indicated in the Methods section, we do not think too much should be made of this finding. Also depicted in Table 2, the employees’ average score for affective commitment was 3.1, just above the midpoint of 3. This would indicate that the typical employee is only somewhat committed to the organization. The employees’ average score for intent to turnover was 2.4, which suggests that most employees plan to remain with the company. Table 2 Correlations between Dark Leadership, Affective Commitment, and Turnover Intentions Variables

N

M

SD

1

2

1. Narcissistic Dark Leadership

80

2.6

.79

1.00

2. Paranoid Dark

80

2.7

.48

.82

1.00

80

2.4

.58

.67

.62

3

4

5

6

7

8

Leadership 3. Compulsive Dark

1.00


112

Leadership 4. Co-dependent Dark

80

2.8

.51

.62

.62

.54

1.00

79

2.4

.50

.67

.65

.45

.43

1.00

80

2.6

.49

.91

.90

.79

.78

.77

1.00

80

3.1

.77

-.55

-.47

-.47

-.31

-.53

-.56

1.00

80

2.4

1.10

.56

.50

.53

.36

.49

.58

-.65

Leadership 5. Passive Aggressive Dark Leadership 6. Overall Dark Leadership 7. Affective Commitment 8. Turnover Intention

1.00

Note: To compute M and SD, the total scores were divided by the number of items in each measure because each measure had a different number of items, but all measures used the same 5-point Likert scale. In this way, comparisons were made easier. Note: p < .001 for all the correlations in the table above

As stated above, hypothesis one was in six parts. It was hypothesized that each of the five dimensions of dark leadership would be inversely related with affective commitment. In addition it was hypothesized that overall dark leadership would be inversely related with affective commitment. All six parts of the first hypothesis were supported. The correlations can be seen in Table 2. The strongest correlation with affective commitment was overall dark leadership (r = -.56, p < .001). Of the five types of dark leadership, the relationship between narcissist dark leadership and affective commitment was the strongest (r = -.55, p < .001). The correlation between co-dependent dark leadership and affective commitment was the weakest (r = -.31, p < .001). Hypothesis two was in also in six parts. It was hypothesized that each of the five dimensions of dark leadership would be positively related to intent to turnover. In addition it was hypothesized that overall dark leadership would be positively related to intent to turnover. All six parts of the second hypothesis were also supported. The correlations can be seen in Table 2. The strongest correlation with intent to turnover was overall dark leadership (r = .58, p < .001). Of the five types of dark leadership, the relationship between narcissist dark leadership and intent to turnover was the strongest (r = .56, p < .001). The correlation between co-dependent dark leadership and to intent to turnover was the weakest (r = .36, p < .001). A regression analysis was conducted in which the five dark leadership dimensions were regressed onto affective commitment to examine whether certain dark leadership


113

dimensions would combine to explain more of the variance in affective commitment. Narcissistic dark leadership and passive aggressive dark leadership combined to explain 35% of the variance in affective commitment. However, overall dark leadership explained 31% of the variance in affective commitment. Another regression analysis was conducted in which the five dark leadership dimensions were regressed onto turnover intention to examine whether certain dark leadership dimensions would combine to explain more of the variance in turnover intention. Narcissistic dark leadership and compulsive dark leadership combined to explain 36% of the variance in turnover intention. Overall dark leadership explained 34% of the variance in turnover intention. Thus, in the interest of parsimony, it makes more sense to explain affective commitment and turnover intention with a single variable, overall dark leadership, rather than with multiple variables because the single variable performs almost as well. This would be consistent with the factor analysis results, mentioned in the Methods section, which indicated that the participants were unable to discriminate between the different types of dark leadership. When examining the dark leadership practices of the different supervisors, strong individual differences emerged (F(8, 46) = 4.75, p < .001). As can be seen in Table 3, supervisor C’s dark leadership score was .82 standard deviations above the mean, which was significantly greater than the dark leadership scores of supervisors D, G, and H. There were also significant differences between the supervisors regarding the level of affective commitment of their subordinates (F(8, 46) = 2.38, p < .05), but post hoc tests were unable to uncover where the differences were. Finally, there were significant differences between the supervisors regarding the level of turnover intention of their subordinates (F(8, 46) = 2.69, p < .05). As can be seen in Table 3, supervisor C’s subordinates were .86 standard deviations above the mean on turnover intentions, which was significantly greater than the turnover intentions of supervisors E’s subordinates. Thus, a picture emerges of supervisor C who is not only seen as a dark leader by his or her subordinates, but supervisor C’s subordinates have plans to leave the organization, and although not statistically significant, supervisor C’s subordinates also have lower affective commitment. This does not mean that supervisor C’s dark leadership behavior caused his or her subordinates to have less commitment to the organization and want to leave the organization, but it is a possibility. At the opposite end, supervisor G’s dark leadership score was .70 standard deviations below the mean, which was significantly different from supervisor C. But supervisor G was not the mirror image of supervisor C. While his/her subordinates’ turnover intention was .55 standard deviations below the mean, his or her subordinates’ only had typical affective commitment (.05 standard deviations above the mean). This is consistent with Herzberg’s (1968) notion that supervision is a contextual factor, more important for driving job dissatisfaction than job satisfaction.


114

Table 3 Supervisor Ratings

Supervisors

N

z-score of Dark Leadership

z-score of Affective Commitment

z-score of Turnover Intentions

A

3

.39

-0.75

.26

B

3

.33

.99

.26

C

13

.82 a

-0.79

.86 a

D

13

-0.59 b

.20

-0.23

E

4

-0.34

.32

-0.88 b

F

4

-0.11

.65

-0.65

G

3

-0.70 b

.05

-0.55

H

8

-0.31 b

-0.28

.37

I

4

.01

-0.11

-0.42

Note: 5 supervisors do not appear in this table because they did not have the minimum of 3 subordinates rating them. Note: Each individual’s raw score on each dimension was converted to a z-score. Note: Within each column, means that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 based on Tukey post hoc analyses. Discussion We wanted to examine whether the subordinates of dark leaders have greater intentions to leave their organization and lower affective commitment to their organization. We found that they do. Twenty years ago, Hogan (1989) examined the impact of leader behaviors on leadership ineffectiveness. He found three major causes for poor leadership.


115

The first cause was lack of leadership training. Many organizations just promote the best performer into a leadership role without providing any training and that often leads to poor leadership. Organizations that train their leaders tend to get better leaders. The second cause was cognitive deficiencies. Poor leaders are unable to learn from mistakes and are unable to plan ahead and think strategically. The third cause was insecure personality. Hogan described three types of insecure leaders: the paranoid/passiveaggressive leader, the high likability floater leader who never challenges anyone, and the narcissist leader. Although their behaviors differ, the result is the same, poor leadership. Our study supports his third cause, insecure personality. The subordinates of the dark leaders in our study were more psychologically withdrawn and were planning to physically withdraw. Social exchange theory may provide some insight into the strong connection between dark leadership and low affective commitment. Social exchange relationships unfold over time. When one party helps another party, obligations for future reciprocation are created. Over time, a series of mutual, back and forth exchanges emerge. However, the nature of the obligations are often unspecified and unclear (Blau, 1964). Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, and Tse (2009) argue that when subordinates experience negative exchanges with their supervisors, the subordinates’ negative emotions can spread to other group members through a process of emotional contagion. This can destroy trust and enhance negative emotions for the entire work team. For example, Epitropaki and Martin (1999) found a significant relationship (r = .39) between the quality of leader-member exchanges and organizational commitment. On the other hand, Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman, & Rupp (2009) discovered that leaders who model good relational behaviors build social capital within their work group. Team members collaborate more, communicate more openly, and trust one another more. In turn, they found that work teams with greater social capital enjoyed greater vigor and better performance. Thus, the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and his or her subordinates can have a cascading effect on the emotions and behaviors of the team members in a positive or negative direction. Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) unfolding model of turnover, which posits that employees often leave a job because of a “shock,” may provide a possible explanation for the relationship between dark leadership and turnover intention. In their social exchanges, the behavior of dark leaders can be shocking when they violate the norms of social exchange. For example, some of the interpersonal tactics employed by narcissists, such as derogating others and focusing on their goals at the expense of others’ goals, can destroy the process of building mutually helping social exchanges and can turn the narcissist’s subordinates against him or her. The same goes for the other types of dark leaders when their behaviors lead subordinates to cry in outrage, “I cannot believe he did that!” If dark leaders drive employees away from a company, it can be costly. Abbasi and Hollman (2000) calculated the aggregate cost of turnover on American business to be $11


116

billion a year. However, subordinates with abusive supervisors not only withdraw. Anderson and Pearson (1999) contend that incivility in the workplace frequently escalates. Coworkers often reciprocate the uncivil behavior they receive from colleagues by responding with more severe forms of aggression. Thus, interpersonal conflict can lead to coworker-targeted aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007). Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that employees with abusive supervisors were more likely to negatively reciprocate by engaging in supervisor-directed misbehavior. Jones (2008) found that employees treated with lower interpersonal and informational justice engaged in more counterproductive work behaviors that were directed toward their supervisor. A significant amount of the variance in the relationship could be explained by the employees’ desire for revenge against their supervisor. Occasionally, the desire for revenge can explode into workplace violence. For example, in 1995 Willie Woods, an electrician who worked for the city of Los Angeles, shot and killed four of his supervisors. He “felt he was being picked on and singled out.” He was also upset about his performance evaluation (“Disgruntled L.A. electrician,” 1995). Limitations This study has some limitations that limit the implications we can draw from the findings. Because of its correlational design, we cannot imply that dark leadership causes a loss in affective commitment or an increase in employee turnover intentions. Another limitation is that the data were collected at a single organization. Thus, we cannot generalize the results to other organizations. Finally, although the overall sample was 80, most of the supervisors were in charge of small groups. Subsequently, the probability of type II errors (false negatives) was enhanced. With those limitations noted, this study did find a strong inverse relationship between dark leadership and workers’ affective commitment to their organization and a strong positive relationship between dark leadership and workers’ intent to leave their organization. Even during a recession year (the data were collected during the spring of 2009), a higher percentage of the subordinates with the dark leaders were thinking about leaving, and dissatisfied employees are less likely to leave their organizations during economic downturns (Carsten & Spector, 1987; Trevor, 2001). Implications If an organization can identify its dark leaders, then it may be able to exclude them from leadership positions in its selection and promotion decisions, or it may be able to identify training needs for dark leaders so that they will have less of a destructive impact on the organization. At many organizations, supervisors only receive performance appraisals from their supervisor. Performance appraisal feedback from multiple sources, such as subordinates, peers, customers, and self, as well as from one’s supervisor, provides different perspectives when evaluating an individual’s job performance. This additional data can improve an organization’s ability to identify dark leaders. Subordinate feedback


117

would be especially beneficial in uncovering dark leaders who abuse their power. A multiple-source feedback system would help an organization maintain accountability, which would keep leaders from nurturing their dark side. Instead, the leaders would be forced to devote more energy to their followers’ needs than to their own. In addition to setting up organizational systems that minimize the destructive impact of dark leaders, we can all probably do a better job of examining our own dark leadership tendencies. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) pointed out that all leaders have some combination of positive and negative factors. McIntosh and Rima (1997) observed that the dark side is present in all of us and that those of us who ignore it will face major problems as leaders, but leaders who face their dark side can convert it to a positive use. Carl Jung (1938) called the unconscious part of ourselves that we repress and deny the shadow side. About it, he wrote: Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions. (p. 131) We owe it to ourselves and those around us to explore our shadow side and the role it plays in disrupting our personal relationships and life ambitions, and that requires us to invest our courage, energy, and time.


118

References Abbasi, S.M., & Hollman, K.W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, 29, 333-334. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 252-271. Ashforth, B.E., & Lee, R.T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43, 621-648. Ashforth, B.E., & Lee, R.T. (1997). Burnout as a process: Commentary on Cordes, Daughterly, and Blum. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 703-708. Bass, B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brown, R.P., & Bosson, J.K., (2001). Narcissus meets Sisyphus: Self-love, self-loathing, and the never-ending pursuit of self-worth. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 210-213. Bushman, B.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229. Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D.A., & Rupp, D.E. (2009). How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1553–1561. Carsten, J.M., & Spector, P.E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 374-381.


119

Cermak, T.L. (1986). Diagnosing and treating co-dependence. Minneapolis: Johnson Institute. Colarelli, S.M., (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633-642. Cook, R.A., & Goff, J.L. (2002). Coming of age with self-managed teams: Dealing with a problem employee. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 485-496. Croker, J., & Park, L.E., (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392-414. Dasborough, M.T., Ashkanasy, N.M., Tee, E.Y.J., & Tse, H.H.M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 571585. De Vries, M.K., (1994). The leadership mystique. Academy of Management Executive, 8, 70-80. Disgruntled L.A. electrician hunts down, shoots to death four supervisors. (1995, July 20). Houston Chronicle, p. 15A. Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D. & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining and social support in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (1999). The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader-member exchanges and employees' work attitudes and well-being. Joumal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 72, 237-240. Glazer, S., & Kruse, B. (2008). The role of organizational commitment to occupational stress models. International Journal of Stress and Management, 15, 329-344. Hemfelt, R., Minirth, F., & Meier, P. (1996). Love is a choice: Breaking the cycle of addictive relationships. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting work place aggression: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 338-398. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time, how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, January-February, 53-62. Hogan, R. (1989, June). The darker side of charisma. Paper presented at the 13th Annual


120

Meeting of International Personnel Management Association-Assessment Council, Orlando, FL. Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R, Lee, T.W., & Inderrieden, E.J. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are and how organizations can manage them. Human Resource Management, 44, 337-352. Johnson, N.J., & Klee, T. (2007). Passive-aggressive behavior and leadership styles in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 68, 4828-4846. Jones, D.A. (2008). Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525-542. Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762-776. Jung, C.G. (1938). Psychology and religion: The Terry lectures. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press (contained in Psychology and Religion: West and East Collected Works Vol. 11). Khoo, H.S., & Burch, G.J. (2008). The 'dark side' of leadership personality and transformational leaders: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 86-97. King, G., III. (2007). Narcissism and effective crisis management: A review of potential problems and pitfalls. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15, 183-193. Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707. Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Barton, S.M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233-250. Latham, G.P. (2008). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lee, T.W., & Mitchell, T.R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89.


121

Lenzenweger, M.F., Lane, M.C., Loranger, A.W., & Kessler, R.C. (2007). DSM-IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biological Psychiatry, 62(6), 553-564. Lipman-Blumen, J., (2006). Allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians–and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Luchak, A.A., & Gellatly, I.R. (2007). A comparison of linear and nonlinear relations between organizational commitment and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 786-793. Maynard, D.C., & Ferdman, B.M. (2009). The marginalized workforce: How I-O psychology can make a difference. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 46(4), 25-29. McIntosh, G.L., & Rima, S.D. (1997). Overcoming the dark side of leadership: The paradox of personal dysfunction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Meyer, J. P, & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. New York: Basic Books. Millon, T. (1993). Negativistic (passive-aggressive) personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 7, 78-85. 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., & Lee, T.W. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 189-246.


122

Mobley, W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237-240. Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196. Penny, L.M., & Spector, P.E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619. Schaef, A.W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 4959. Soyer, R.B., Rovenpor, J.L., & Kopelman, R.E. (1999). Narcissism and achievement motivation as related to three facets of the sales role: Attraction, satisfaction and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 285-304. Stucke, T.S., & Sporer, S.L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened: Narcissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and aggression following ego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509-532. Tepper, B.J. (2000).Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M.D. (2004). Moderators of the relationship between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465. Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A., & Lambert, L.S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123. Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,46(2), 259-293. Thomas, P., Moore, C.S., & Scott, K.S. (1996). The relationship between self efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality factors, Journal of


123

Organizational Behavior, 17, 349–362. Trevor, C.O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 621-638. Wetzler, S., & Morey, L.C. (1999). Passive-aggressive personality disorder: The demise of a syndrome. Psychiatry, 62, 49-59. Whitfield, C.A. (1992). Co-dependence, addictions, and related disorders. In Lowinson, J. H. Ruiz, P. M., & Robert B. (Eds). Substance Abuse. Comprehensive Textbook, 2nd ed., 816–831. Baltimore, Maryland. Williams, D.F., (2005). Toxic leadership in the U.S. Army. USAWC strategy research project. http://www.strategic studiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil3.pdf Wu, T., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group and Organization Management, 34(2), 143-169. Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J., & Duffy, M.K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076.


124