Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model for the relationships between type of leadership and outcomes.

Figure 2. Flowchart of literature search.

Table 1. Overview of the studies included in the literature review.

Author, year	Country	Description of Sample	N	Study Design	Leadership^b	Scale	Predictors	Outcomes	Mediators/moderators	Score ^c
Johansen et al, 2017	Norway	Cadets at the Norwegian Defence University College and the Armys leadership dev. program	167	Crosssectional	A,	Destrudo L	No	Organisational comittment, work engagement, burnout	No	32
Sadler et al., 2017^a	US	Army and Air Force. Reserve, National Guard and Active component Servicewomen. US	1330	Crosssectional	A, C	Negative leadership behavior/items	No	Risk of sexual assault	No	23
Fors Brandebo et al., 2016	Estonia, Sweden, Switzerl., Netherl.	Students at National Defence Academies in Estonia, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherland	533	Crosssectional	A, P, C	Destrudo L	No	Propensity to leave, trust, workplace atmosphere, emotional exhaustion,	No	35
Olsen et al., 2016^a	Norway	Cadets at the Naval Academy, Norway	16	Longitudinal	P, C	MLQ	Sleep		No	25
Chou et al., 2015	Taiwan	China Armed Forces. Platoon leaders in Taiwan	1077	Crosssectional	A, C	Paternalistic Leadership (PL) Scale	No	Task performance, intention to leave, occupational commmitment, supervisors identification	No	28
Taylor et al., 2015	US	US Army. Lieutenants, Captains and Majors Lieuteneant Colonels	116	Crosssectional	P, C	MLX-5X	No	Leader effectiveness	No	23
McGurk et al., 2014	US	US Army. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan	773	Crosssectional	A, C	Non-Commissioned Officers Leadership scale	No	PTSD caseness	Combat exposure	35
Nahum-Shani et al., 2014	US	US Air Force. Deployed. Active duty, the reserve and the Guard	1009	Longitudinal	A, C	Supervisor undermining, supervisor support	No	General health, job strain	Self-Esteem, quality of work life	38
Chi et al, 2013	Taiwan	Ministry of National Defence, Taiwan. Offisers	254	Crosssectional	A	Abusive Supervision	No	Work Withdrawal, emotional exhaustion	Emotional exhaustion	36
Gallus et al., 2013	US	US military units and service members. In US	2025	Crosssectional	A	Toxic Leadership Scale 15	No	Job satisfaction, unit civility, organizational comittment,	Toxic leadership congruence, unit civility	32
Hannah et al., 2013	US	US army soldiers, national guard, army reserve. In Iraq	1428	Crosssectional	A	Abusive Supervision	No	Moral courage, report intention, beeing disiplined, values identification,	Moral courage, identification with org. values	35
Schiena et al., 2013	Belgium	Belgium Armed forces. Commanding officers, leaders of detachment. Crises missions (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya)	17	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ-5X	No	Extra effort, effectiveness, satisfaction	No	25
Britt et al., 2012^a	US	US Armed forces. Active duty soldiers. Afghanistan	951	Longitudinal	A, C	The Leadership Scale	No	Barriers to mental health treatmment	No	27
Larsson et al., 2012	Sweden	Swedish Armed Forces. Conscript soldiers, NCO, Officers cadets, Majors	421	Crosssectional	A, P	Destrudo L	No	Lack of motivation/propensity to leave	No	35
Johnsen et al., 2009^a	Norway	Cadets at the Naval Academy, Norway	71	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ-5X	Hardi-ness	No	No	24
Reed et al, 2009	US	Military Senior Service College. US. Mixed sample. US	168	Crosssectional	A	Petty Tyranny in Organisation Scale	No	Jobb satisfaction levels, inclination to remain in service	No	19
Eid et al., 2008	Norway	Cadets at the Naval Academy, Norway	68	Longitudinal	P, C	MLQ-5X	Hardi-ness	MD grades	No	33
Luria, 2008	Israel	Soldiers in Fighting brigades. Israel	105	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ		Safety climate strength	Cohesian	34
Cole et al, 2007	US	Air Force Materiel Command. US. Company grade officers, field grade officers, enlisted, civilians	780	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ-5X	No	Work commitment, emotional exhaustion,	Group members consensus	35
Duffy et al., 2006	US	Soldiers. US National Guard	370	Crosssectional	A	Abusive supervision, supervisors undermining	No	Trust in supervisor, job involvement, job satisfaction, negative affectivity	Supvervisor undermining	31
Olsen et al., 2006	Norway	Cadets. Norwegian Naval Academy	147	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ-5X	Moral reason ing, moral identity	No	No	35
Bass et al., 2003	US	US Army. Light infantry rifle platoon leaders	72	Longitudinal	P, C	MLQ-5X	No	Performance, cohesion, potency	No	37
Zellars et al., 2002	US	Air National guard. National guard members	373	Crosssectional – two level	A	Abusive supervision, supervisor undermining	No	OCB, affectivity, procedural justice	Prosedural justice and OCB role definitions.	33
Yammarino et al., 1993^a	US	US Navy offisers	186	Longitudinal	P, C	MLQ	Acad. and mil. performance	Satisfaction, effectiveness, early promotion, appraised performance	No	29
Roush et al, 1992	US	US Navy. Midshipman	90	Crosssectional	P, C	MOQ (MLQ)	No	Ekstra effort	No	29
Bass et al, 1991	US	US Naval Academy	115	Crosssectional	P, C	MLQ-11	No	Superior rated performance, early promotion	No	33
Yammarino et al, 1990	US	US Naval Academy, offisers	608	Crosssectional	P	MLQ-11	No	Ekstra effort, satisfaction, effectiveness	No	33

Note: ^aStudies not included in the meta-analysis, ^b Forms of leadership; Active Destructive (A), Passive Destructive (P), Constructive (C), ^c Metodological quality score (0–40).

Table 2. Meta-analyses results for the relationship between active, passive destructive leadership, constructive leadership and different predictors and outcomes.

Variables	K	N	Mean r	Mean r cor	95% CI	Q	I^2	PI
Active and Passive destructive	22	10,716	-.30	-.33	-.37 to -.22	372.08***	94.36	-.61 to .10
Leader Performance	7	2,073	-.29	-.27	-.39 to -.17	26.75***	77.57	-.58 to .07
Effectiveness	4	809	-.36	-.45	-.45 to -.26	4.35	31.10	-.63 to -.00
Other	3	1,264	-.19	-.19	-.29 to -.08	3.29	39.11	-.85 to .70
Attitude & Behavior	18	9,644	-.27	-.32	-.37 to -.17	431.21***	96.06	-.64 to .20
Job satisfaction	5	3,188	-.33	-.49	-.50 to -.14	80.60***	95.04	-.80 to .39
Extra effort	3	715	-.19	-.00	-.54 to .21	21.51***	90.70	-.99 to .99
Intention to leave	3	2,031	-.18	-.22	-.26 to -.09	7.52*	73.39	-.84 to .69
Other	13	8,340	-.29	-.33	-.41 to -.16	441.31***	97.28	-.70 to .26
Well being & health	6	3,516	-.30	-.35	-.38 to -.23	27.86***	82.05	-.53 to -.03
Burnout	4	1,734	-.34	-.39	-.41 to -.27	7.19	58.25	-.58 to -.04
Other	2	1,782
Active destructive	12	8,598	-.29	-.32	-.39 to -.17	330.23***	96.67	-.65 to .18
Leader performance	1	1,077
Attitude & Behavior	11	7,825	-.28	-.32	-.40 to -.15	360.24***	97.22	-.68 to .25
Well being & health	5	2,736	-.30	-.34	-.39 to -.20	26.91***	85.13	-.60 to .07
Passive destructive	12	3,072	-.29	-.33	-.37 to -.21	48.90***	77.51	-.53 to -.01
Leader performance	6	996	-.33	-.42	-.40 to -.25	6.57	23.93	-.49 to -.15
Attitude & behavior	9	2,773	-.26	-.30	-.37 to -.14	65.72***	87.83	-.59 to .14
Well being & health	2	1,313
Constructive	13	4,902	.32	.34	24 to .39	72.53***	83.46	.05 to .54
Leader performance	6	1,465	.22	.26	.17 to .27	3.79	0.00	.15 to .29
Attitude & behavior	9	3,830	.38	.39	.28 to .47	68.37***	88.30	.04 to .64
Well being & health	4	3,095	.25	.30	.17 to .32	14.77**	79.68	-.10 to .54
Transformational LS	8	1,405	.33	.41	.28 to.38	3.51	0.00	.27 to .39
Transactional LS	9	1,510	.28	.27	.15 to .40	41.68***	80.81	-.17 to .63

Note. K = number of samples; N = total sample size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; Q = test for homogeneity; I² = percent of true heterogeneity; PI = prediction interval.

*p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001. When K < 3 no analyses were conducted.

LS = Leadership.

Table 3. Results of the Categorical Moderator Analyses for the Different Correlations between Destructive Leadership and Different Predictors and Outcomes.

Variable	QB	K	N	Mean r	95% CI	Q	I^2
Active and passive
All outcomes
Place	1.99
Military base		16	7579	-.33	-.35 to -.31	278.96***	94.62
Military School		4	936	-.34	-.40 to -.29	8.10*	62.95
Deployed		2	2201	-.12	-.16 to -.08	0.93	0.00
Level	0.73
Midle		3	954	-.36	-.41 to -.30	8.68*	76.95
Low		15	8478	-.28	-.30 to -.26	349.10***	95.99
Conditions	1.92
Operational		4	3227	-.17	-.20 to -.13	14.14**	78.78
Training		5	482	-.33	-.41 to -.24	7.77	48.52
Normal duty		13	7007	-.34	-.36 to -.32	271.71***	95.58
Continent	0.74
North America		13	7927	-.31	-.33 to -.29	312.34***	96.16
Europe		6	1353	-.26	-.31 to -.21	14.18*	64.75
Asia		3	1436	-.22	-.27 to -.17	32.73***	93.89

Note. Q_B = test for subgroup differences (mixed-effect model); K = number of samples; N = total sample size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; Q = test for homogeneity; I² = percent of true heterogeneity; the results of the moderator analyses were reported for categorical variables with at least two studies. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

*Johansen, R. B., & Platek, T. A. (2017). Destructive leader behavior in the norwegian armed forces. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8. doi:10.4172/2151-6200.1000255

 Google Scholar

**Sadler, A. G., Mengeling, M. A., Booth, B. M., O´Shea, A. M. J., & Tomer, J. C. (2017). The relationship between us military officer leadership behaviors and risk of sexual assault of reserve, national guard, and active component servicewomen in nondeployed locations. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 147–155. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21917618.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Fors Brandebo, M., Nilsson, S., & Larsson, G. (2016). Leadership: Is bad stronger than good? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 690–710.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

**Olsen, O. K., Pallesen, S., Torsheim, T., & Espevik, R. (2016). The effect of sleep deprivation on leadership behaviour in military officers: An experimental study. Journal of Sleep Research, 25, 683–689. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27231096.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Taylor, T. Z., Psotka, J., & Legree, P. (2015). Relationships among applications of tacit knowledge and transformational/transactional leader styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36, 120–136.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*McGurk, D., Sinclair, R. R., Thomas, J. L., Merrill, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2014). Destructive and supportive leadership in Extremis. Military Behavioral Health, 2, 240–256.

 Google Scholar

*Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M. M., Lim, S., & Vinokur, A. D. (2014). Supervisor support: Does supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the adverse effects of supervisor undermining? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 484–503. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24490969.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Chi, S.-C. S., & Liang, S.-G. (2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 125–137.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gallus, J. A., Walsh, B. M., van Driel, M., Gouge, M. C., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable cruelty: A multilevel examination of the impact of toxic leadership on U.S. military units and service members. Military Psychology, 25, 588–601.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hannah, S., John., M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W., … Doty, J. (2013). Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 579–592. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23647209.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Schiena, R. D., Letens, G., Van Aken, E., & Farris, J. (2013). Relationship between leadership and characteristics of learning organizations in deployed military units: An exploratory study. Administrative Sciences, 3, 143–165.

 Google Scholar

**Britt, T. W., Wright, K. M., & Moore, D. (2012). Leadership as a predictor of stigma and practical barriers toward receiving mental health treatment: A multilevel approach. Psychological Services, 9, 26–37. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000300541400003.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Larsson, G., Fors Brandebo, M., & Nilsson, S. (2012). Destrudo‐L. Development of a short scale designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33, 383–400.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

**Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Pallesen, S., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2009). Predicting transformational leadership in naval cadets: effects of personality hardiness and training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2213–2235. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000269581600009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36, 5–18.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Eid, J., Helge Johnsen, B., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growing transformational leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 4–23.

 Google Scholar

*Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength – How leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 42–53.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cole, M. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Leadership consensus as a cross-level contextual moderator of the emotional exhaustion–Work commitment relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 447–462.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 105–126.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Olsen, O. K., Eid, J., & Johnsen, B. H. (2006). Moral behavior and transformational leadership in norwegian naval cadets. Military Psychology, 18, 37–56. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000243006000004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207–218.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

**Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quartely, 4, 81–102.

 Google Scholar

*Roush, P., & Atwater, L. E. (1992). Using MBTI to understand transformational leadership and self-perception accuracy. Military Psychology, 4, 17–34.

 Google Scholar

*Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 437–454. <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1991GR60400007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975–995. <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1990EF19800003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar