Chapter 15: Understanding the Antecedents of Unintentional Leader Errors: A Multilevel Perspective

There is general consensus among leadership researchers that highly effective leadership is a relatively rare phenomenon. DeVries and Kaiser (2003), for example, stated that half of all managers may qualify as incompetent. Focusing on subordinate perceptions, this number may be even greater; Hogan and Kaiser (2005) cite statistics showing that 65% to 75% of workers from the general population consider their boss to be the worst part of their job. Such figures emphasize the point that, although transformational, ethical, and authentic leaders may be ideal, they are difficult to find.

There is, however, some disconnection between the frequency with which negative leadership occurs and the amount of research that has been devoted to truly understanding the antecedents, nature, and outcomes of negative leadership. Until relatively recently, leadership research has tended to consider negative leadership as simply an absence of positive leadership (Ashforth, 1994). Recent research on topics such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1987), destructive leadership (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007), and negative leadership (Tate & Jacobs, 2009), however, demonstrate that many manifestations of negative leadership reflect behaviors that are unique from positive behaviors. For example, trying too hard to please others, administering punishments awkwardly and inconsistently, and failing to address important issues (or ignoring critical information while doing so) represent more than a failure to engage in positive behaviors. In fact, Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad (2007) distinguished four types of leadership based on whether leadership is positive or negative for subordinates and/or the organization.