Understanding engaging and disengaging leadership behaviours within the Dutch Police Force: a qualitative study

The Dutch Police Force is urgently seeking ways to strengthen its leadership in response to significant internal and external challenges. These include rapid technological and digital developments, emerging forms of crime, immigration pressures, social unrest, international tensions and political volatility. Effectively addressing these complex issues requires leadership of the highest quality. Since its 2013 reorganization into a single national body of 65.000 employees, leadership has become more distant due to scale and geographical dispersion. This shift has contributed to anonymization within teams, reducing attention to employee well-being, functioning and development (Sollie and Landman, 2021). There is a need for leadership that contributes to the improvement of the connection between leaders and employees, to maximalize employees’ well-being, functioning and development (Hoorn et al., 2022). Research shows that Dutch police leadership has long emphasized control, tasks and short-term goals – such as staffing and workload – over people, profession, and long-term development (Princen, 2015; Tops, 2012). Despite repeated recognition in internal reports, sustained investment in employee care and professional growth remains limited. More insight is therefore needed into how police leaders can practically foster people- and development-oriented leadership and the conditions that enable it.

Scholarly knowledge of police leadership remains limited and there is a significant gap between general leadership theories and the practical realities of police leadership, which needs to be narrowed by taking the police context into account (Filstad et al., 2024).

Previous leadership concepts have proven to be of limited value for police leaders and police organizations. For instance, New Public Management (NPM) increased managerial workload, imposed stricter controls and reduced opportunities for daily interaction with employees (Butterfield et al., 2005). Similarly, transformational leadership was introduced as a normative, context-independent model that did not align with police practice (Brown and Li, 2023). Moreover, transformational leadership emphasizes transforming employees rather than empowering and supporting them (Get et al., 2024). Knowledge and practical frameworks on the “dark side” of police leadership remain scarce and are largely absent in police leadership reviews (Filstad et al., 2024), in contrast to the more established body of leadership research within military studies (Fosse et al., 2019). This is important for it hinders well-being, functioning and development of employees.

What distinguishes leadership in police or military environments is that it heavily dependents on trust, more so than in other sectors (Kolditz, 2007). A breakdown in trust can have catastrophic consequences, including severe injury or death (Fors Brandebo et al., 2016). Trust in leadership is paramount to ensuring effective and safe operations.

In the broader world of leadership research, it has been extensively examined how different forms of leadership impact employees. However, there is a notable gap in understanding the factors that influence leadership behaviours (Stempel et al., 2023; Tafvelin et al., 2023). The few studies that do address this issue mainly focus on either constructive or destructive leadership behaviour. This focus is unfortunate, because real-life leaders exhibit a mix of positive and negative behaviours (Skogstad et al., 2014; Breevaart and Zacher, 2019). Therefore, there has been a call for a more integrative approach to leadership, one that acknowledges the complexity of leadership behaviours (Hancock et al., 2023). Two such behaviours are engaging leadership behaviour (ELB) and disengaging leadership behaviour (DLB), which respectively fall under the categories of constructive and destructive leadership behaviours. They seem to fit the knowledge gap of improving the people- and development-oriented side of (Dutch) police leadership.

ELB is defined as leadership behaviour that facilitates, strengthens, connects and inspires employees to increase their work engagement, through the satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness and meaning (Schaufeli, 2015). By contrast, DLB refers to leadership behaviour that coerces, erodes, isolates and demotivates employees through frustrating employees’ psychological needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness and meaning, which diminishes their motivation and work engagement (Schaufeli, 2021; Nikolova et al., 2021). These leadership behaviours are based on self-determination theory (SDT), which underscores the importance of satisfying individuals’ innate psychological needs to foster motivation and well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2017).

ELB can be considered constructive leadership behaviour as it is perceived as supportive and inspiring to employees. ELB involves granting employees freedom and responsibility, fostering collaboration and offering development opportunities. In contrast, DLB can be considered destructive leadership behaviour, as it is perceived as harmful either to employees or to the organization (Einarsen et al., 2007). DLB harms employees by coercing them into specific work methods, depriving them of developmental opportunities or isolating employees, e.g. through inaction in situations of problematic team dynamics, ultimately resulting in their isolation.

Engaging and disengaging leadership are promising new leadership concepts, for they are rooted in motivational theory and have a solid theoretical foundation (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013; Mazzetti and Schaufeli, 2022). These concepts are fundamentally opposing because frustration of basic needs involves actively thwarting them, whereas not satisfying them entails a lack of stimulation or laissez-faire behaviours (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). Furthermore, studies have underscored the (conceptual) difference between the absence of positive leadership behaviour and leadership behaviour that actively frustrates employees (Einarsen et al., 2007; Aasland et al., 2010).

The limited number of studies addressing the potential consequences of engaging leadership reveal that it is positively associated with work engagement (Van Tuin et al., 2020; Rhamadani et al., 2019) and has a positive relationship with employability, performance and commitment (Schaufeli, 2015), employee learning and innovative job behaviour (Rahmadani et al., 2020). Disengaging leadership is positively associated with the emotional exhaustion of employees (Nikolova et al., 2021).

Studies on ELB and DLBs are scarce and have not yet been examined in the police context, to the best of our knowledge. ELB and DLB are promising, solid theoretically based and relatively new perspectives on leadership; therefore, we argue this study is innovative in the field of police leadership. Moreover, this study integrates the context of police leaders, addressing the call for more acknowledgement of the context-dependent nature of police leadership (Filstad et al., 2024).

This study aims to explore engaging and disengaging leadership behaviours within the context of the Dutch Police Force. Our research contributes to police leadership literature, theoretical understanding of ELB and DLB and provides practical implications for leadership development in law enforcement through promoting ELB and reducing DLB. To promote ELB and reduce DLB in police organizations, it is important to recognize how these behaviours manifest and identify contributing factors. This qualitative study aims to explore: (1) how ELB and DLB appear within the Dutch Police Force and (2) which contextual and individual factors influence these behaviours. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 39 police supervisors and officers. Thematic template analysis is conducted using a priori codes.

The theoretical frame in this study is the job demands resources model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). The concepts of ELB and DLB were initially developed aiming to integrate leadership in the JD-R model (Schaufeli, 2015), because of its profound role in managing and balancing job demands and resources of their employees. Until 2015, leadership had only been considered a job resource in the JD-R model, rather than being recognized for its own impact. Because so much is still unknown about ELB and DLB, we examined the antecedents of related leadership behaviours as entry points for exploring the possible antecedents of ELB and DLB.

The JD-R model differentiates between job demands and job, personal and organizational resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Job demands require physical, cognitive or emotional effort (Demerouti et al., 2001), while resources mitigate these demands, facilitate goals and promote growth. Personal resources relate to resilience and control (Hobfoll et al., 2018), and organizational resources provide systemic support (Albrecht et al., 2018). The model posits two psychological processes: a motivational process driven by resources enhancing engagement and performance, and a stress process triggered by demands impairing health. Although well established for job performance, its application to leadership behaviour, particularly supervisory behaviours like ELB and DLB, remains limited (Geibel et al., 2022). Empirical findings on demands and resources as antecedents of leadership behaviour are discussed below.

Job Demands, e.g. workload, role ambiguity and stress. Research on leadership behaviour antecedents emphasizes workload’s impact on both constructive and destructive behaviours. Workload – amount of tasks or time pressure – is positively linked to passive destructive leadership and negatively to supportive leadership (Tafvelin et al., 2023; Stein et al., 2020). Role ambiguity, or unclear role boundaries, relates to passive destructive leadership, stress mediates the relationship between work stressors and active destructive leadership (Tafvelin et al., 2023).

Job resources, e.g. job autonomy and support. Job autonomy is the freedom to plan, organize and decide one’s work and is an essential resource for leaders and followers a like (Gilbert et al., 2024). Leader autonomy is positively related to leader’s transformational leadership behaviour, which is positively related to employee’s autonomy (Stempel et al., 2023). Transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990) is related to ELB because they both emphasize the importance of inspiring and empowering employees (Schaufeli, 2015). Support is mentioned as another job resource that predicts organizational behaviour (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Different forms of support exist, e.g. superior support, peer support and support of followers. A lack of support from senior managers inhibits the capability of police supervisors to support their employees, shows one empirical study (Sharafizad et al., 2025). However, studies regarding the effects of support on leadership behaviour are scarce.

Organizational resources, e.g. strategic alignment, clarity of organizational goals and senior leadership support, have been found to relate to the engagement and performance of leaders (Albrecht et al., 2018). Strategic alignment is understood as communicating priorities to clarify contributions. Organizational culture, particularly collectivism emphasizing loyalty and cooperation, also shapes leadership behaviour (Hofstede, 1991). Cultures with high collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and power distance may foster destructive leadership behaviours (Luthans et al., 1998). Power distance refers to authority differences between high- and low-status employees (Hofstede, 1991) and may relate to DLB.

Besides culture, organizational structure, including span of control and centralization, affects leadership behaviour. Span of control – the number of subordinates per supervisor – is negatively associated with constructive and positively with passive destructive leadership (Lundmark et al., 2020), with medium spans (30–40) promoting active leadership (Jacobsen et al., 2023). Centralization concentrates power, often leading to less constructive leadership, employee apathy and dependency (Padilla et al., 2007). It also predicts leader emotional exhaustion and turnover intention, thus acting as an organizational demand (Knudsen et al., 2009).

Personal resources, e.g. motivation and self-regulation. Research grounded in SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2017) and full range leadership theory (Bass and Avolio, 1990) links autonomous motivation to transformational leadership (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2020). Leaders’ basic psychological need satisfaction predicts positive leadership behaviour (Decuypere et al., 2022). Self-regulation, another personal resource, is related to leadership behaviour; its failure is associated with destructive and abusive leadership and inversely with transformational leadership (Tafvelin et al., 2023).

In sum, we presumed that both certain job demands (e.g. workload, role ambiguity) and resources (e.g. job autonomy, support) can be factors potentially impacting ELB and DLB. This explorative study is a first step in providing insights in what factors act as potential antecedents to both leadership behaviours (theoretical contribution), giving directions for further research and being a starting point for developing interventions for promoting ELB and preventing DLB within the Dutch Police Force from contextual perspective (practical contribution).

This study used a qualitative research design based on two sorts of data collection, focus groups and semi-structured interviews to gain in-depth knowledge about engaging and disengaging leadership within the Dutch Police Force. The Dutch police force is a single national organization (65.000 employees) with a centralized leadership structure, divided into ten regional units, two central specialized units, a police academy and a service centre. A central Force Command is responsible for policy and strategic decisions for the entire force. Ten regional units cover specific geographic areas, each led by a Chief Constable and divided into districts with Robust Frontline Teams.

Research aim 1 was researched by means of focus groups with employees and interviews with supervisors, research aim 2 was studied through interviews with supervisors. The results indicate which findings come from supervisors and which from employees. This multilevel perspective, supervisor and employee, was chosen for cross-validation. The interview method was chosen for research aim 2, to prevent the experience of mutual loss of face by interviewing leaders individually about disengaging practices. Regarding researching employees, we aimed at stimulating more exchange and joint reflection on experiences, to contribute to the “richness” of the data. To ensure complete and transparent reporting, the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist were used as a guideline to perform this study (Tong et al., 2007). The study’s protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of [anonymized for peer review] (correspondence 21 May 2024, registration number: Ceto_RP653).

Participants were recruited via flyers, purposive sampling, snowball sampling and convenience sampling via the first author’s personal network. Flyers contained the researcher’s contact details, and interested individuals reached out by email. Eligibility was assessed by the researcher, after which participants received verbal and written study information emphasizing voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw at any time. Focus group participants were required to be Dutch Police employees in permanent positions, supervised by the same manager for at least six months. Interview participants were supervisors in permanent positions who had led the same team for at least six months. Those willing to participate contacted the researchers directly by email. Written informed consent was obtained prior to interviews and focus groups.

In total 39 police officers participated in this study, 18 employees and 21 supervisors. Participants came from seven different regional units, a central unit and the Police Service Centre. Data collection ended after 21 interviews and 3 focus groups (3*6 employees), as data saturation (COREQ-checklist, Tong et al., 2007) had been reached (no new information emerged). Sample 1 (employees) consisted of 18 employees 11 women, and 7 men, with ages from 27 to 63 years old (M = 46.0; SD = 11.0). Education level varied from lower professional education (N = 8) to higher professional education (N = 6) and university (N = 4) and their occupation was police officer, employee or specialist in policing, investigation or support services. The interview sample consisted of 21 supervisors; 9 women, and 12 men, with ages from 34 to 63 years old (M = 52.1; SD = 8.8). Education level varied from higher professional education (N = 13) and university (N = 8) and their occupation was executive of the Dutch Police Force (e.g. chief of one of 14 Dutch Police divisions), tactical supervisor (middle managers within the 14 Dutch Police divisions) and operational supervisor (directly in charge of leading people) within police operation or staff.

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. Topic lists were developed and used based on the research objectives and the theoretical framework. The topic list of the semi-structured interviews consisted of an introduction (aim study, confidentiality, consent voice recorder), a middle (examples of guiding and developing employees, contributing to contextual and individual factors of this behaviour, examples difficult situations in guiding and developing employee, contributing to contextual and individual factors of this behaviour) and an end (summary, follow up study and results, thanking participant). For the focus groups, only the middle part differed: participants were first asked to give examples of situations where their supervisor motivated them in their work and second, of situations where their supervisor demotivated them in their work.

A pilot test with two supervisors from the first author’s network was conducted to refine the interview topic list, ensuring questions were open, neutral, and suitable for addressing the research questions. The revised lists were applied flexibly, allowing participants space to elaborate. Focus group topics included, for example, weekly supervisor contact and demotivating leadership behaviours; interview topics included challenges in leading people and organizational factors supporting engaging leadership. Participants were asked to reflect on recent experiences using open-ended questions (e.g. “Which … ?”, “How … ?”, “Can you give an example?”). Focus groups (approx. 90 min) were held at police facilities across regions, while semi-structured interviews (approx. 60 min) were conducted at participants’ workplaces or police facilities. Data saturation (COREQ; Tong et al., 2007) was achieved after three focus groups (18 employees) and 21 interviews, with saturation evident from interview 18 onward, aligning with prior evidence that it can occur after 12 interviews (Guest et al., 2006). Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted from June to the end of August 2024.

Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using ATLAS.ti Web (v9.11.3; ATLAS, 2023) and Template Analysis (Brooks et al., 2015), a method suited to exploratory research seeking to uncover underlying behavioural mechanisms. This approach balances flexibility with analytical structure and was applied with theoretical sensitivity to the Job Demands–Resources model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), while remaining open to additional factors influencing ELB and DLB.

The same analysis procedure was applied to focus group and interview data. Phase 1 involved repeated reading for familiarization. In Phase 2, relevant fragments on ELB, DLB, and contributing factors were coded using a priori themes: job demands, resources, personal resources, collective culture and organizational structure. Phase 3 abstracted and categorized codes into main and sub-themes. Phase 4 involved reviewing and refining themes to align with research questions, resulting in a coding template developed from theory and initial transcripts, with inter-coder reliability ensured. Phase 5 identified main categories and sub-themes, refining leadership behaviours based on Schaufeli’s (2015, 2021) framework, with some additional behaviours noted. Phase 6 finalized the template in ATLAS.ti and extracted supporting quotes to substantiate findings.

Collection and analysis of data was alternated in what Braun and Clarke (2006) describe as a “recursive process”, during which the researchers continuously reflected on, compared, discussed and adjusted the coding (to ensure confirmability) until consensus on the outcomes was reached.

The results (Figure 1) are categorized based on the four categories of ELBs (Schaufeli, 2015): strengthening, connecting, inspiring and facilitating. Additionally, the participants described other leadership behaviours that employees mentioned as engaging, which did not fit the four categories.

First, a majority of supervisors and employees mentioned strengthening leadership behaviours. Within the police context, this behaviour contains giving feedback, support in professional development, giving challenging work, expressing clear expectations and appreciation and being a high-quality sparring partner. By way of illustration, one employee explained how she had received support in her professional development:

Second, a majority of supervisors and employees mentioned connecting leadership behaviours. Availability and being involved towards employees, individually and towards the team, are important aspects for police officers regarding connecting leadership behaviour. Showing involvement with employees, for example, explained by a supervisor as follows:

Third, the majority of supervisors and a few employees mentioned inspiring leadership behaviours. Leading by vision and being a role model in change are inspiring leadership behaviours within the police context. For example, being a role model, explained by a supervisor as follows:

Fourth, half of the supervisors and the majority of employees mentioned facilitating leadership behaviours, explained as leaders giving freedom on how to perform work and responsibility, and standing up for the team and its position in the organization. For example, one supervisor explained giving employees the freedom to decide how to perform work:

Other ELBs that employees mentioned and did not seem to fit the categories of Schaufeli. For example, taking action in protecting employees' physical and mental health when needed, mentioned by half of the employees and some of the supervisors, explained as follows:

According to this employee, being sent on leave by her supervisor and having the chance to take care of a serious personal issue, contributed to the protection of her well-being and motivation.

Work demands such as the workload of the supervisor (mentioned by approximately one-third of the supervisors) and negative leadership behaviour from the senior supervisor (mentioned by about half of the supervisors) are factors hindering ELB. Supervisors experienced workload as an obstacle to devoting time and attention to their employees. To illustrate the negative leadership behaviour of a senior supervisor, one supervisor explained:

Another supervisor wants to be available for his employees, but explained that workload made this difficult:

Various job and organizational resources were mentioned as factors contributing to ELB by all supervisors, for example: support, trust and safety in relation to the senior supervisor and management team peers, autonomy supported by the senior supervisor and organization, and opportunities for growth. Organizational structure was mainly experienced as an obstacle for ELB mentioned by all supervisors, e.g. organizational complexity and rigidity, centralization, and span of control. Supervisors explained how centralization of the Dutch Police Force in 2013, led to the intricacy of the organization’s structure and processes, which had a negative impact on their sense of being in control and in the communication and efficacy within the police organization. Organizational rigidity is explained by a supervisor as follows:

One supervisor noted that the rigidity of supportive services limited flexibility, consumed time and energy, and reduced attention for the team. A minority identified organizational culture as a barrier to ELB, citing high power distance and a culture of fear. High power distance was said to impede open communication, trust and voice, while fear-based cultures fostered punishment, distrust and survival-oriented behaviour. About half of the supervisors mentioned individual factors that supported ELB, such as motivation to perform meaningful work, and positive and negative experiences with previous supervisors.

The results (Figure 1) are categorized based on the four categories of DLB (Schaufeli, 2015; Nikolova et al., 2021): coercing, eroding, isolating and discouraging. In addition, additional results were found; other leadership behaviours that employees mentioned as disengaging, which did not fit the four categories of DLB.

First, coercing leadership behaviours were described by half of the supervisors and one-quarter of the employees, excessive control of people is the central factor of this category. Within the police context, this appears mainly through micromanagement and coercing in giving orders. To illustrate micromanagement, one employee reports:

According to this police employee, her supervisors’ behaviour is frustrating for her, for she is a high educated specialist, who can execute her job and will deliver on time. She feels hindered and distrusted by the controlling behaviour of her supervisor.

Second, eroding leadership behaviours were mentioned by a minority of the supervisors and employees. Within the police context, this is mainly experienced in the lack of offering structure and accountability, for example, illustrated by an employee:

According to these employees, their supervisor pays no attention to if, and what individual team members achieve, which frustrates their motivation.

Third, isolating leadership behaviours was described by half of the supervisors and a minority of the employees. This contains behaviours ranging from a lack of offering attention to employees and the team to blaming or sacrificing supervisors or employees lower in rank. To illustrate, a lack of attention to the team, an employee explained:

According to this employee, she missed involvement and attention for her well-being from her supervisor in the hard and difficult moments of work, for example, after a resuscitation.

The fourth category is discouraging leadership behaviours, described by half of the supervisors and employees. For example, not giving direction and not involving employees with expertise, because rank and position often overrule expertise. One employee explained the latter as follows:

According to this employee, he is not taken seriously regarding his expertise on a certain policing method because of his position as a police officer, although he is a highly educated expert on the subject. The ones in higher formal positions and their supervisors are listened to, although their knowledge might not be up to date or not based on scientific research.

Besides leadership behaviours that fitted the framework of Schaufeli, other DLBs were mentioned by participants. These behaviours range from incompetent leading, hiding to avoid taking responsibility, avoiding intervening in case of dysfunctional team behaviour to discrepancy between word and deed. A quarter of the employees and some of the supervisors described incompetent leading as disengaging. They explained this as leading without knowledge and skills for the position and the assignment, e.g. leading up to poor decision making. Other DLBs were window dressing and covering up problems, experienced by one-quarter of the supervisors and a minority of employees, as illustrated by an employee as follows:

According to this employee, his superior wanted him to stop his research to hide its poor quality from the outside world.

Work demands that a minority of supervisors experienced as factors contributing to DLB were distressing or complex situations with employees and an authoritarian senior supervisor. One supervisor explained having an authoritarian senior supervisor as follows:

A minority of leaders identified limited feedback from senior supervisors or colleagues as a factor contributing to DLB. About one-quarter cited a culture of fear, characterized by power and control, punishment for mistakes, and pervasive distrust. Some leaders also linked their socialization within the police – where authoritarian behaviour was normalized – to DLB. Conversely, self-knowledge, supported by feedback and awareness of one’s impact on colleagues, was perceived as mitigating DLB. One supervisor explained socialization as follows:

This supervisor explained how he initially learned dominant, coercive behaviour as it was both expected and effective during the early stages of his career as a police supervisor.

This study aimed to explore engaging and disengaging leadership behaviours and their antecedents within the context of the Dutch Police Force. Our research contributes to police leadership knowledge, theoretical understanding of ELB and DLB and provides practical implications for leadership development in law enforcement.

Our study contributes to police leadership literature by theoretical and empirical-based research on what leadership behaviours engage and disengage employees and what contextual and individual factors enable these leadership behaviours. It shows the practical realities and experiences of police leaders and officers.

A variety of engaging and DLBs are experienced within the Dutch Police Force, providing a nuanced understanding of leadership dynamics in this setting. These findings not only expand police leadership literature on constructive leadership, but also on harmful or destructive leadership as well, which to date, is limited. The concepts of engaging and DLB fit the police context, they are recognizable for leaders and employees.

Several leadership behaviours were identified that are perceived as engaging by both employees and supervisors. Some do not directly fit the behavioural categories defined by Schaufeli (2015). These behaviours might be particularly relevant within the police context when aiming to enhance the well-being and development of employees. They emphasize social safety and the protection of employees, which are critical elements in high-risk environments such as law enforcement. These findings can be situated within the broader theoretical discourse on leadership in safety-sensitive contexts, including police and military organizations (Kolditz, 2007). Kolditz (2007) argues that leadership in such environments heavily dependents on trust, more so than in other sectors. Consequently, these findings underscore the importance of considering trust, protection and safety when enhancing ELBs within police organizations. Trust can be seen as the groundwork on which engaging leadership is built.

Additional DLBs were experienced as well. These behaviours seem to be related to themes like underqualification of supervisors, avoidance and neglect. Based on our study, we argue that not only active leadership behaviour but also avoiding (passive) leadership behaviour might hinder the satisfaction of the basic needs. Leadership behaviours like hiding behind others or behind bureaucratic systems to avoid taking responsibility and avoiding intervening in case of dysfunctional behaviour of team members, are both mentioned by employees as decreasing their work engagement. So, we reason that passive leadership behaviour could also diminish or hinder the satisfaction of the basic needs.

Regarding contributing to the theoretical understanding of ELB and DLB, this study provides a first exploration of possible antecedents of engaging and disengaging leadership, leading up to a wide range of attributing factors in leaders’ environment. The JD-R model serves as an appropriate theoretical framework for explaining how both contextual and individual factors contribute to ELB and DLB.

Another insight this exploratory study offers, is that disengaging leadership at the senior level may hinder the expression of engaging leadership at lower levels. Some supervisors appear to internalize DLBs from their senior leaders, while others continue to display ELB toward their employees, despite experiencing emotional exhaustion, burnout or illness. The former phenomenon, known as the “cross-over” or “trickle-down” effect, may have a significant influence on the occurrence of both ELB and DLB. This finding highlights the potential cascading effect of leadership behaviours across organizational levels.

Our findings also indicate that complex interactions between organizational and individual demands and resources can impact leadership behaviours. For instance, a high span of control combined with a significant power distance was perceived by some supervisors as a barrier to ELB. In such cases, supervisors felt overwhelmed by the large number of employees under their care, with insufficient authority to adjust team visit frequencies, thereby hindering their ability to engage effectively with their teams.

Our study provides know-how for police leaders about what leadership behaviours (de-) motivate employees and implications for (policy in) police organizations to develop leadership.

Police leaders can increase work engagement and performance of employees by providing attention, being available and reliable, which requires time, prioritizing and being predictable. It also means communicating clear expectations and evaluating them. For employees, it is important to know what is expected of them. Employees need autonomy in how to perform their tasks. Allocate time for team- and professional development. It is also important to address dysfunctional behaviours in a team, when not limited, these behaviours demotivate employees.

To decrease emotional exhaustion, burnout, and turnover of employees, police leaders can reflect on the question if they might be micromanaging, window dressing or concealing problems sometimes. Mostly these behaviours occur unintentionally, and it takes self-reflection and courage to see this darker side of one’s own leadership behaviour. It offers a chance to develop as a leader.

To promote engaging leadership, senior supervisors and management team colleagues should provide more support, police organizations should ensure more job autonomy and a “fit” with position or assignment. At the same time, it is important to ensure leader’s workload is reasonable, tackle dysfunctional or authoritarian senior leaders and organizational complexity is reduced. For example, when workload is high, e.g. workdays are fragmented by numerous meetings, less time is available for interacting with employees to support or guide them. Additionally, a reasonable span of control is needed as well, supervisors in our study ranged from 5 to 290 employees in their team, for the latter giving individual attention was not possible.

Police organizations can also actively reduce and prevent DLB, reduce workload, organizational complexity, authoritarian leadership and any prevailing culture of fear. Besides this, focus on identifying, addressing and preventing DLB to reduce emotional exhaustion, burnout and turnover within the organization.

This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, we cannot draw definitive conclusions regarding the directionality of the relationship between the contributing factors and engaging and DLBs. Existing research suggests that leadership behaviours themselves can influence the perception of job demands and resources. For instance, when supervisors exhibit positive leadership behaviours, it can lead to more favourable affective responses and a positive perception of one’s job demands and resources (Nikolova et al., 2019). Therefore, longitudinal quantitative research designs would be necessary to explore these causal relationships more thoroughly. Second, a methodological limitation arises from a potential selection effect. Supervisors who exhibit high levels of DLB may have been less inclined to participate in this study, which could skew the sample and limit the generalizability of the findings. Third, the credibility of the results related to DLB warrants attention. Many supervisors may be reluctant to openly discuss undesirable leadership behaviours such as coercion or isolation, regardless of their intentions or the context. This reluctance to acknowledge such behaviours may have led to an underreporting of DLB. Notably, supervisors were more likely to describe DLB exhibited by their senior leaders than to acknowledge it in their own behaviour, particularly when reflecting on the factors that hindered their own ELB.

Further research is needed to determine the prevalence of both ELB and DLB and how they are related. This is important for a better understanding of both types of behaviour and their combinations in practice. One of the few studies on prevalence indicates that around 40% of employees experience only constructive leadership behaviour during the last six months, versus between 33.5 and 61% (depending on the estimation method and definition) that report their immediate superiors showing some kind of consistent and frequent destructive leadership (Aasland et al., 2010). Thus, destructive leadership behaviour is not a low base-rate phenomenon, but something most employees will probably experience during their working life. It is as yet unknown if this applies to DLB as well. DLB, like coercing leadership behaviour, should be prevented or stopped, for the well-being of employees, but perhaps it appears in such low rates that investing in knowledge is not feasible. And what implications arise when a supervisor exhibits both sorts of behaviours? These are unsolved issues.

Additionally, more research within the police context is needed on destructive leadership and interventions to diminish and prevent it, for focusing on enhancing constructive leadership is only half the work needed to improve the quality of police leadership in the reality of practice. For positive outcomes, for example, trust in the immediate leader, is built by constructive leadership behaviours; however, emotional exhaustion, work atmosphere and propensity to leave are more influenced by destructive leadership behaviours (Fors Bandebo et al., 2016).

In our study, additional ELB and DLB were found within the police context. It remains to be examined if these also appear within other organizational contexts. Another suggestion, for future research, is taking another theoretical perspective, e.g. identity theory, for example, drawing on the theory of coercive action (for explaining DLB), reestablishing power and agency in reaction to perceived threats to a leaders’ identity (Tepper et al., 2017).

A final direction for research is the possible trickle-down effect of ELB and DLB, which is a crossover effect that is a possible mechanism of some sort of transfer of leadership behaviour from senior to junior supervisor, which has been found in other leadership research (Hannah et al., 2024). Longitudinal multilevel analysis is suggested.

This study identifies both engaging and disengaging leadership behaviours as outlined by Schaufeli (2015, 2021), within the police context, along with additional leadership behaviours. The results of this exploratory study provide initial insights into the potential antecedents of both engaging and DLBs, offering directions for future research. They also serve as a foundation for developing interventions aimed at promoting ELB and preventing DLB in policing contexts.

Practice guidelines for police leaders: increase work engagement and performance of employees by providing attention, clear expectations, and autonomy to employees. Allocate time for team and professional development, be available and reliable. Address dysfunctional behaviours and stop micromanaging, window dressing and concealing problems to decrease emotional exhaustion, burnout and turnover of employees.

Practice guidelines for police organizations: enhance conditions for ELB and prevent from contributing to DBL, by ensuring a good job fit for leaders, manageable spans of control, support from senior leaders and the management team. Reduce workload, organizational complexity, authoritarian leadership and any prevailing culture of fear. Focus on identifying, addressing and preventing DLB to reduce emotional exhaustion, burnout and turnover within the organization.