The Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership Dispositions, Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Burnout

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Terence G. Leary Florida Gulf Coast University Raymond Green and Katy Denson Texas A & M University at Commerce Gerald Schoenfeld Florida Gulf Coast University Tracy Henley and Hal Langford Texas A & M University at Commerce

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine, from the subordinates perspective, the relationship of dysfunctional leadership dispositions to employee engagement, job satisfaction and burnout. Design/methodology/ approach: A eld study survey was used to capture three categories of dysfunctional dispositions and three employee variables from employees engaged in dyadic relationships with leaders. Multiple regression analysis was used to test relationships hypothesized to exist between dysfunctional behaviors and employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. Findings: Leadership factors associated with intimidation and avoiding others have a signicant relationship with employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. In this case, factors associated with charm, manipulation,
Terence G. Leary, Department of Psychology, Florida Gulf Coast University & Terence G. Leary & Associates; Raymond Green and Katy Denson, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University at Commerce; Gerald Schoenfeld, Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University; Tracy Henley, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University at Commerce; Hal Langford, College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Texas A & M University at Commerce. The authors thank Ashley Palmer, Consultant at Hogan Associates, for her outstanding customer service and support regarding the study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Terence G. Leary, PhD, Social & Behavioral Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Boulevard South, Ft. Myers, Florida 33965. E-mail: terencegleary@aol.com or tleary@fgcu.edu
112
The Psychologist-Manager Journal 2013, Vol. 16, No. 2, 112130 2013 American Psychological Association 1088-7156/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/h0094961

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

113

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ingratiation, and building alliances appear unrelated to employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. Practical limitations/implications: Although a framework for examining dysfunctional leadership was used in this study, there may be other frameworks of equal or greater merit that elucidate the relationship between dysfunctional leader dispositions and employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. Multisource data are especially encouraged to overcome the limitations of data collected from one source. Practical implications: Dysfunctional dispositions may produce signicant behaviors in leaders that inuence an employees ability to function in an organization and jeopardize organizational success. More extensive scrutiny of both overt and covert dysfunctional dispositions should occur during the leader-hiring process and for succession planning in order to prevent the ascension of highly dysfunctional leaders. Originality/value: While many studies explore the functional side of leadership, few examine the relationship between overt and covert dysfunctional leader dispositions and employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout from the subordinates perspective.
Keywords: dysfunctional leadership, employee engagement, job satisfaction, burnout

Manifested as an abundance of dysfunctional dispositions, managerial incompetence is devastating to employee engagement and job satisfaction, and contributes signicantly to employee burnout. Adjusted for ination, the estimated costs of failed managers ranges from $500 thousand to $2.7 million per leader (Devries & Kaiser, 2003; Smart, 1999). Bad managers cause misery among subordinates and are major health hazards, causing enormous medical costs (Ashford, 1994; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007; Tepper, 2000). Furthermore, 75% of working adults rate their direct superior as the most stressful aspect of their job, degrading their quality of life (Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010; Curphy, 2008). Improved organizational effectiveness is attainable by identifying and modifying leadership strengths and dysfunctional dispositions that inuence employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. Historically, the popularity and delusional optimism of positive psychology has led to excessive focus on leadership strengths (Kaiser, 2009) to the detriment of failure to address weaknesses demonstrated by leaders. Too strong a focus on leadership strengths obscures the notion that leadership weaknesses exist, which increases derailment (Gentry, Mondore, & Cox, 2007; Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988). A strengths-only perspective is misguided and simplistic (Kaiser, 2009); addressing weaknesses as well, such as dysfunctional characteristics, provides a balanced perspective for developing leaders. Counterbalancing the strengths-only perspective, Hogan and Hogan (2009) developed an assessment termed the Hogan Development Scale (HDS) to measure dysfunctional dispositions on the basis of Horneys (1950) taxon-

114

Leary et al.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

omy of awed interpersonal tendencies. Horneys initial taxonomy of 10 neurotic needs was later summarized into three overarching themes. The rst, namely, Moving Away from people, is characterized by individuals who manage insecurities by avoiding true connection with others. As a dysfunction (Hogan & Hogan, 2009), the mechanism includes the following ve dispositions: Excitable (e.g., volatile, frequent emotional outbursts), Skeptical (e.g., cynical, distrustful, and argumentative), Cautious (e.g., indecisive and reluctant to take risks), Reserved (e.g., aloof, detached, uncommunicative, passively avoidant), and Leisurely (e.g., procrastination, stubbornness, quietly resentful, and passively aggressive). The second theme, Moving Against, involves dealing with self-doubts by behaving in dominant and intimidating ways. As a dysfunction, this mechanism involves Bold (e.g., arrogant, narcissistic, and grandiose), Mischievous (e.g., impulsive and nonconforming), Colorful (e.g., dramatic and distractible), and Imaginative (e.g., creative, eccentric). The third theme, Moving Toward, involves attempts to manage ones insecurities by building alliances in which the threat of criticism is minimized. As a dysfunction, these mechanisms are Diligent (e.g., overly meticulous and inexible) and Dutiful (e.g., eager to please, reluctant to act, and dependent). These characteristics or dysfunctional dispositions are not discrete behaviors that negatively impact an organization, but are pervasive, more subtle patterns that create problems for managers, subordinates, and ultimately from a business perspective, key stakeholders (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). The probability of counterproductive behaviors (e.g., yelling, acts of workplace violence, and frequently missed due dates) both manifest and reect the strength of these underlying dysfunctional dispositions (e.g., excitable, leisurely, and bold dispositions).
DYSFUNCTION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Though sparse in comparison to a strength-based approach, dysfunction in organizations is a topic that appears in various forms in literature. However, dysfunction topics such as aggressive and antisocial behaviors are fragmented (Grifn & Lopez, 2005), and do not always include leaders. For example, Aquino and Byron (2002) suggest that workgroup members who exhibit either high or low levels of dominating behavior reported being more frequent targets of personally injurious behaviors than those who were perceived as moderately dominating. Some studies focus on the combined effect of the position and power of both target and instigator. Cortina and Magley (2009) found that employees who experienced frequent and varied incivility from instigators who were perceived as powerful generally appraised these uncivil encounters more negatively.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

115

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

In an early study of employee dysfunction, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) argued that a perceived cause-effect relationship between mismanagement and the need for workforce reductions coupled with a curt, abrupt notication process can be perceived as abusive, precipitating hostility and rage among laid-off recipients. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) also argue for a causal relationship in which perceived deep levels of leader-subordinate dissimilarity evoke perceived relationship conict, which produces lower evaluations of subordinate performance; this cycle, in turn, inadvertently reinforces higher levels of abusive supervision. Some studies delve into deeper sources of dysfunction, exploring issues such as leadership psychopathology and employee mental health, and the realization that research is badly needed to link relationships between these variables (Boddy, 2006). Disparate terminology used to investigate abusive behaviors on subordinates overlaps (Tepper, 2007), making it difcult to construct meaning from a fragmented literature. Literature that draws from grounded theory is needed to both identify sources of dysfunction and dene it within a framework of leaders/ superiors and followers/subordinates.

BALANCED RESEARCH

A shift to a balanced perspective, evaluating both functional and dysfunctional leadership characteristics, is attributed to Bentz (1985); McCall and Lombardo (1983); Lombardo et al. (1988); and Arneson, MillikenDavies, and Hogan (1993). Identication of dysfunctional characteristics derailers that devastate employee morale, accelerate burnout, and destroy careers across industriesprompted the notion that leadership failure is related more to the presence of undesirable dysfunctional qualities than to a lack of functional or desired qualities. Dysfunctional characteristics are less about lacking the right stuff and more about possessing the wrong stuff (Lombardo et al., 1988). Subsequent reviews and ndings by Lombardo et al. (1988); Eichlinger and Lombardo (2003), and Gentry et al. (2007), in addition to consistent perspectives and taxonomies developed by Finkelstein (2003); Dotlich and Cairo (2003), and Hogan (2007), converge on personality defects characterized by decient interpersonal skills, troubled relationships, and insensitivity to others. Leadership behaviors (e.g., overt outbursts, arrogant actions, frequently missed commitments, and resentful comments) associated with these deciencies disrupt the interpersonal relationships needed to build a team and corrupt the judgment needed to guide performance (Hogan et al., 2010). Logically extended, from subordinates perspective, these behaviors disengage, reduce job satisfaction, and accelerate burnout (Hogan, 2007; Hogan et al., 2010).

116

Leary et al.

DYSFUNCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The conceptual distinction between functional and dysfunctional personality dispositions was further claried by Hogan and colleagues (Benson & Campbell, 2007). Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994) suggested that the traditional Five Factor Model (FFM) represents functional personality characteristics (Cullen, 2001). The FFM dimensions include extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. High scores reect strengths (presence of the right stuff), and describe social performance (reputation) at its best. Results from a meta-analysis linking personality to leadership using the FFM suggested a signicant relationship between these functional dimensions and leadership effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ivies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Dysfunctional dispositions reect a negative side of personality (Borden & Buckingham, 2000); the presence of these tendencies does not reect the absence of functional characteristics; rather, they represent a distinctly different construct from the FFM, neither subsumed by the FFM dimensions nor measured on the same continuum. Dysfunctional characteristics aligned with counterproductive behaviors neutralize or degrade job performance and interfere with the ability to capitalize on strengths revealed through the FFM (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Dysfunctional characteristics can be either overt, active, and manifest (e.g., excitable) or covert, passive, and indirect (e.g., leisurely/reserved; Skogstad et al., 2007). Little attention is given to dysfunctional dispositions as correlates of employee outcomes and perceptions, since most researchers concentrate on lack of functional rather than presence of dysfunctional traits and the resultant behaviors.

DYSFUNCTION AND ENGAGEMENT, JOB SATISFACTION, AND BURNOUT Employee Engagement

Kahns (1990) denition of engagement includes a harnessing of organization members to work roles. Engagement during work performance is simultaneously cognitive (consistent with identity), emotional (positive affect), physical (motivating effort), and existential (offering meaning). Disengagement refers to work role uncoupling, characterized by withdrawal and defensiveness either physically, cognitively, or emotionally (Kahn, 1990). Environmental circumstances (e.g., personality of managers) directly inuence employee engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Hogan, 2007; Hogan et al., 2010). Employee engagement is not job satisfaction (a cognitive

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

117

and affective state only), job involvement (a source of positive self-worth), or organizational commitment (an aspect of engagement without positive affect; Kahn, 1990). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, which measures vigor (e.g., physical/motivating effort), absorption (e.g., positive affect), and dedication/ meaningfulness (e.g., enthusiasm and purpose), clearly aligns with Kahns perspective (engagement). This synergy provides a useful way to measure engagement as people express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance. Leader personality modies employee engagement, which in turn mediates behavior (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Employee engagement predicts employee outcomes, organizational success, and nancial performance (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; Richman, 2006). Good leadership enhances employee engagement (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Links between leadership and employee engagement and between employee engagement and corporate performance make leadership gaps an urgent concern (Leslie & Chandrasekar, 2009). The purpose of this study is to extend the HDS as a framework for examining, from a subordinates perspective, the relationship of the behaviors aligned with three categories of dysfunctional leader dispositions (Moving Away, Moving Against, Moving Toward) as correlates of employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. Within Moving Away, overt dysfunctional leader behaviors associated with the Excitable disposition, such as yelling and belittling, may divert valuable attention from the task to self-protection and preservation, reducing engagement among subordinates; feeling threatened and humiliated is a negative affective state that may reduce vigor and absorption (key components of engagement). Similarly, dysfunctional leader behaviors (argumentative and retaliatory) associated with the Skeptical disposition result in hesitation to act (reduced vigor); employees may feel threatened (negative affective state) and withdraw and disengage. Covert dysfunctional leader behaviors (infrequent communication, not visible, or unavailable) aligned with Reserved and those associated with Leisurely (untimely, nonspecic feedback; private comments degrading top management) may have an insidious, negative impact on employee engagement. Behaviors such as infrequent communication (reserved) and unclear or untimely dialogue (leisurely) frustrate employees. This negative affective state (frustration) may prevail, creating dissatisfaction at work until leaders effectively communicate and provide direct feedback. Within the Moving Against category, dark side leader behaviors associated with the Bold disposition, characterized by acts of disrespect (derogatory comments and/or blaming others), divert energy from meaningful

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

118

Leary et al.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

work to that of self-protection and preservation. Feeling angry and humiliated (negative affective state) fosters disengagement as well as retaliation. Dysfunctional leader behaviors (deceptive actions and taking cavalier risks) associated with the Mischievous disposition may negatively impact leader credibility. Feeling vulnerable and exposed to impulsive, poorly calculated risks, employees might divert energy from the task to seeking more prudent leadership. Finally, dysfunctional leader behaviors (overcommitting and poor listening skills) within the Colorful disposition and those (impractical solutions and eccentric suggestions) aligned with the Imaginative disposition may divert employees attention from the development of meaningful solutions to that of frivolous, unrealistic alternatives, with a low likelihood of execution and/or success. This may erode their dedication to tasks, thereby limiting engagement. Within the Moving Toward category, dysfunctional behaviors (inaction, avoiding tough decisions, and not backing subordinates) of the Dutiful leader divert the subordinates preoccupation with tasks to self-preservation. Feeling exposed by a leaders inaction and/or threatened by his or her lack of support (increasing employee vulnerability) redirects energy toward selfpreservation and may also limit employee engagement. Finally, overt dysfunctional behaviors (excessive micromanagement and frequent criticism) of the Diligent disposition may redirect employees attention from the task to feelings of anger and frustration (negative affect) toward the immediate leader. Overbearing actions and/or frequent criticisms erode engagement and reduce satisfaction with the employment situation. This discussion provides the foundation for the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a: Moving away dysfunctional dispositions are negatively correlated with engagement. Hypothesis 1b: Moving against dysfunctional dispositions are negatively correlated with engagement. Hypothesis 1c: Moving toward dysfunctional dispositions are negatively correlated with engagement.

Job Satisfaction

As previously stated, job satisfaction is not synonymous with employee engagement; it is a cognitive (consistent with identity) and emotional state (positive affect) lacking motivational and existential components. Though job satisfaction lacks the unique, broadly encompassing characteristics of

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

119

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

engagement, the isomorphic link between these constructs reinforces the supposition that job satisfaction is a facet of employee engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Richman, 2006). Therefore, the relationship between dysfunctional leader behaviors and job satisfaction within all three categories should parallel, that of employee engagement. As a result, the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 2a: Moving away dysfunctional dispositions are correlated negatively with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2b: Moving against dysfunctional dispositions are correlated negatively with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2c: Moving toward dysfunctional dispositions are correlated negatively with job satisfaction.

Burnout

Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, and Jackson (1996) argued that burnout is a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job. As a syndrome, this is dened by three dimensions. Emotional exhaustion is the depletion of emotional and physical resources. Increased cynicism reects callous, dehumanized perceptions of others. Reduced personal efcacy suggests dissatisfaction relative to job accomplishments. The development of this empirically based, multidimensional model dominates the burnout literature (Leiter & Maslach, 1988; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Within the Moving Away category, frequently demonstrated dysfunctional behaviors associated with one or more of the following states Excitable (yelling and belittling), Skeptical (frequent arguments and retaliatory acts), Cautious (not decisive), Leisurely (passively aggressive acts), and Reserved (not visible and unavailable) may accelerate emotional exhaustion and increase cynicism. As a result, diversion of energy from a state of eustress (positive emotion) to that of distress (negative emotion) may rapidly erode within the employment arrangement. Dysfunctional leader behaviors (demeaning comments and deecting blame) within the Bold disposition will redirect energy to self-protection and preservation. Chronic exposure to such stressors may engender emotional exhaustion and cynicism, creating in all likelihood, a negative affective state (withdrawal, humiliation).

120

Leary et al.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Other dysfunctional behaviors associated with Mischievous (deceptive acts), Colorful (excessive commitments), and Imaginative (unrealistic, impractical alternatives) dispositions may reduce trust and/or credibility with the leader. These interpersonal stressors may redirect energies from the task to that of seeking more prudent leadership. Prolonged exposure to the dysfunctional leadership behaviors associated with Dutiful (inaction and not backing employees) and/or Diligent (criticism and frequent nitpicking) dispositions may engender distrust and increase frustration. Physical and emotional stressors associated with these dispositions may also divert positive energy (eustress) from the task to feeling threatened and distressed (a negative affective state). Based on this discussion, we offer the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3a: Moving away dysfunctional dispositions are positively correlated with burnout. Hypothesis 3b: Moving against dysfunctional disposition are positively correlated with burnout. Hypothesis 3c: Moving toward dysfunctional disposition are positively correlated with burnout. Taken together, the nine hypotheses developed above suggest a model of dysfunctional dispositions correlating with three employee self-perceptions: (a) employee engagement, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) burnout. The model tested in this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A model of dysfunctional dispositions and bivariate relationships (positive [] or

negative []) to employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

121

METHOD Participants

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A convenience sample included 150 participants consisting of 110 undergraduate and 40 graduate MBA students attending three universities located in the southern United States. Ninety-three respondents (62%) were women and 57 (38%) were men. The mean age was 31.8 (minimum 18; maximum 68; median 30; SD 11.79). Study requirements restricted participation to subjects who worked at least 30 hours per week, reporting to an immediate manager for at least 6 months. Only participants born in the United States were eligible to participate, because of the possible impact of cultural differences regarding what constitutes dysfunctional dispositions. All participants completed a survey online, which was used to collect data for the study.
Procedures

Agreement was secured by Hogan Assessment Systems (HAS) to provide a platform for all four assessment instruments. Following approval by the respective deans at all institutions and the approval of the study by the institutional review boards (IRBs) of the host universities, the instructors were notied, the email addresses were collected, and eligible students were invited to participate in the online survey. The invitation to participate included a welcome statement and an informed consent form. The completion time for all four surveys was approximately 40 min. The HAS provided unique user IDs and passwords to a student administrator, who assigned them to prospective participants. Both were embedded in the welcome/eligibility statement. Participants were directed to complete four assessment instruments on the survey, including identication and demographic items (age and gender). Participants were given two weeks to complete the survey assessment. Two reminders were sent to all eligible individuals who consented to participate. Each participant assessed his or her immediate leader in terms of dysfunctional dispositions. Incomplete assessments (missing data, misaligned IDs or passwords, etc.) were removed to maximize data integrity.
Measurement

The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) is a 168-item, self-reporting questionnaire assessing 11 dysfunctional dispositions, categorized into three

122

Leary et al.

global scales aligned with Horneys (1950) concept of awed interpersonal tendencies (Moving Away, Moving Against, and Moving Toward). The HDS identies applicants whose behaviors erode relationships because of awed interpersonal strategies. High HDS scores indicate an increased likelihood that dysfunctional behaviors will emerge under stressful conditions. Participants were instructed to respond to each item from the perspective of their immediate leader. Sample items included My mood can change quickly and I take pride in organizing my work. A unique aspect of this study focused on subordinates assessments of an immediate leaders dysfunctional dispositions (from the perspective of the eye of the beholder) versus a leaders self-assessment of these characteristics. Meta-analytic studies by both Connelly and Ones (2010) and Oh, Wang, and Mount (2011) reinforce the extraordinary value and incremental advantage of using other (observer) reports to assess a leaders personality. In fact, operational validities of observer ratings linking FFM traits to overall leader performance were signicantly more accurate than self-reported ratings (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011). According to Kaiser and Overeld (2010), the best data source to assess an individuals leadership style may be subordinates in the work unit, as in an upward feedback process. Therefore, although the psychometrics (HDS) was based on self-reported data, subordinates ratings of immediate leaders were considered a viable alternative to evaluating a leaders performance/disposition. The conceptual derivation of the 11 Hogan Development Survey scales from Horneys (1950) three-themed taxonomy aligns with empirical results reported by several researchers (Benson & Campbell, 2007; Dotlich & Cairo, 2003; Furnam & Crump, 2005; Hogan & Hogan, 2009; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004). Employee engagement was assessed using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (WES; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzales-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). This instrument consists of three scales, each composed of several items. Six items capture vigor; ve, dedication; and six, absorption. All items were scored on a seven-point frequency rating scale ranging from Never (0) to Always (6). High scores on vigor, dedication, and absorption indicate engagement. An overall employee engagement score was determined by obtaining the mean of all items. Sample items included When I am working, I forget everything else around me and My job inspires me. Job satisfaction was assessed using the Brayeld and Rothe (1951) instrument. Responses for ve items on a Likert scale ranged from Never (0) to Strongly Agree (6). Sample items included I feel fairly well satised with my present job and I nd real enjoyment in my work. This The BrayeldRothe instrument was previously utilized in prior leadership studies (Bono & Judge, 2007; Ozer, 2008).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

123

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Burnout was assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS; Maslach et al., 2001). The development of this empirically based, multidimensional survey dominates the eld (Leiter & Maslach, 1988; Maslach et al., 2001). This instrument consists of three subscales composed of exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efcacy. An overall burnout score was calculated by averaging the scores of all items on the scale. Sample items included I feel emotionally drained from my work and I feel burnout from my work.

RESULTS

Means, SDs, intercorrelations, and Cronbachs alpha values for the variables used in this study are shown in Table 1. Ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis was used to test the nine hypotheses discussed and developed in this study, as illustrated in Figure 1. Standardized beta values and associated p values are reported to suggest support or no support for the hypotheses. A p value of .05 was used to assess the signicance of the relationships implied by the model. The reliability coefcients for Moving Away, Moving Against, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout exceeded 0.7, suggesting adequate internal reliability for research in the social sciences. The reliability calculated for the Moving Toward construct was 0.27. Although low in comparison to the reliability coefcients calculated for the other constructs in the study, the Moving Toward construct was included in subsequent analyses, since it has been shown to be reliable in other studies, and for completeness in examining the dysfunctional dispositions identied in the extant literature (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). The Moving Away construct indicated a negative relationship with employee engagement ( 0.63; p value 0.01), suggesting support for H1a. H2a was similarly supported with a negative relationship between Moving Away and job satisfaction ( 0.81; p value 0.01). A positive
Table 1. Means, SDs, Intercorrelations, and Reliability M 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
a

SD 17.16 24.10 23.92 1.21 1.62 1.23

1 0.73 0.22 0.04 0.35 0.39 0.44

2 0.82 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.13

Moving away Moving against Moving toward Engagement Job satisfaction Burnout

78.24 64.37 52.97 4.22 3.35 2.24

0.27 0.44 0.05 0.02

0.93 0.85 0.74

0.91 0.82

0.91

Cronbachs alpha is shown on the diagonal. p .01.

124

Leary et al.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

relationship between Moving Away and burnout suggests support for H3a ( 0.65; p value 0.01). The hypotheses related to Moving Against and Moving Toward were not supported. These results are summarized in Table 1. Squared multiple correlations for the three variables were 0.38 for employee engagement, 0.63 for job satisfaction, and 0.43 for burnout. A key discovery (regression analyses) regarding the relative contribution of dysfunctional dispositions to the multivariate equation indicated that covert manifestations (behaviors), associated with passive aggression, may negatively impact the criteria variables to a much greater degree. Specically, for burnout, both reserved (passively avoidant) and leisurely (passively aggressive) dispositions contributed to the equation. A trend toward significance was demonstrated by the Excitable disposition (overt aggression); however, this did not contribute signicantly to the multivariate equation. For job satisfaction, the Leisurely (passive aggression) disposition alone contributed signicantly to the equation. Even though a trend toward signicance was demonstrated by the Excitable disposition, neither Reserved nor Excitable dispositions contributed signicantly to the multivariate equation. For employee engagement, even though a trend toward signicance was evident for the leisurely disposition, none (three dispositions) contributed to the equation (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Results of this study partially support Horneys model (1950) of dysfunctional dispositions, as modeled by Hogan and Hogan (2001, 2009), as predictors of employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. The Moving Away category correlated with all three constructs, suggesting that from the employees perspective, leader behavior aligned with Excitable, SkeptiTable 2. Summary Table: Contribution of Beta Factors for Dysfunctional Dispositions Within Moving Away Findings Variable Employee engagement Job satisfaction Burnout

Excitable () 0.144 0.166 0.147

Reserved () 0.148 0.111 0.233

Leisurely () 0.172 0.229 0.200

denotes a trend toward signicance; for job satisfaction and Excitable (), p 0.061. denotes a statistically signicant contributor to the multivariate equation at the p .05 level. denotes a statistically signicant contributor to the multivariate equation at p .01 level. for employee engagement and Leisurely, () p .054; for burnout and Excitable (1), p 0.088.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

125

cal, Cautious, Reserved, and Leisurely have serious implications for employee engagement, job satisfaction and burnout. Overt behaviors aligned with dysfunctional dispositions include callous and serious outbursts and belittling comments. Such destructive behaviors are active and typify petty tyrants (Skogstad et al., 2007). A unique aspect of this study focused on subordinates assessments of an immediate leaders dysfunctional dispositions (from the perspective of the eye of the beholder) versus a leaders self-assessment of these characteristics. This represents an innovative alternative to self-report measurements, only. Even though Meta-analytic studies (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011) reinforce the extraordinary value and incremental advantage of using other (observer) reports, the use of subordinate assessments to assess leader performance are rare. Dysfunctional leadership behaviors are not always active (e.g., yelling and outbursts), but can also be covert, passive, and indirect (e.g., procrastination-not meeting deadlines, nonspecic directives; Skogstad et al., 2007). Passively destructive leadership is best exemplied by both a reserved disposition (e.g., passive avoidance), demonstrated by insensitivity, aloofness, and detachment, and a leisurely disposition (e.g., passive aggression), characterized by procrastination, tardiness, and failure to set expectations (Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Studies linking passive leadership with negative organizational outcomes and/or burnout are scarce (Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005). This study bridges the gap by suggesting a signicant relationship between leadership behaviors aligned with Moving Away dispositions and employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout. The important discovery that covert versus overt dysfunctional leadership dispositions have a greater negative relationship to engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout preempts the nding that the Moving Away category, in general, signicantly predicts the multivariate equations for each construct. The combination of both active and passive dispositions within this category blurs the unique contributions of each to the criterion variables. The leisurely (passive aggression) and reserved (passive avoidance) dispositions, the passive components in the Moving Away construct, were found to be better predictors than overt dispositions such as excitable, another component of Moving Away. Unlike the Excitable and Reserved dispositions, Leisurely indicates a more prominent relationship with employee engagement and job satisfaction. Although burnout showed relationships with all the three dispositions (excitable, reserved, and leisurely), the passive dispositions (reserved and leisurely) have a stronger relationship with burnout than the overt disposition (excitable). Regarding future research, the question remains whether leadership behaviors associated with passive dispositions are stronger predictors of negative employee outcomes than overt dispositions, strengthening the argument that possessing the wrong stuff may be a better predictor of negative employee outcomes than lacking the right stuff (Lom-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

126

Leary et al.

bardo et al., 1988). Dysfunctional dispositions may be likened to an undetectable cancer; the presence of healthy habits (manifestations of functional dispositions) does not preclude negative consequences. Focusing too intently on functional dispositions and leadership reveals only part of the equation. Moving Against and Moving Toward dispositions were not found to be related to these criterion variables. Within the Moving Against category, Benson and Campbell (2007) suggested that leader behaviors associated with an optimal level of narcissism (bold disposition) during difcult economic times has a reverse effect, inspiring employees (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). As several scholars have observed, the air of supreme condence and dominance (hallmarks of narcissism), is in some cases, exactly what inspires a group of followers (Hogan et al., 1994; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). As visionaries, these productive narcissists are ideal leaders for tough times inspiring great numbers of followers (Maccoby, 2004). Current economic conditions may mitigate the deleterious effects of behaviors associated with narcissism; inspiration and condence may preempt demeaning comments/arrogant actions, minimizing the negative characteristics of narcissists. The negligible relationship of mischievous, colorful, and imaginative dispositions to the criterion variables may indicate that leader behaviors associated with these dysfunctions seem charming, witty, eccentric, or odd (Hogan & Hogan, 2009), especially at lower organizational levels. The nonsignicance of the Moving Toward effects may be because of the very low reliability measurement ( .27). Also, the relationship of the Moving Toward category with employee outcomes may be because of the somewhat innocuous manifestation of these dysfunctional dispositions (e.g., diligent and dutiful) under stress, especially in contrast to higher impact dysfunctional dispositions within the Moving Away category. For example, overly diligent behaviors (e.g., micromanagement) pale in comparison to the more egregious behaviors of direct personal affronts (e.g., yelling), which is aligned with the Excitable disposition or vague direction or unavailability during a work-related crisis (aligned with covert dispositions). The negligible relationship of behaviors aligned with the Dutiful disposition (e.g., obsequious and indecisive) demonstrated by leaders under stress, may be more exposed at higher organizational levels, since sole responsibility for decisionmaking depends on these leaders (i.e., cannot delegate upward). This may clearly expose the deciency of this leader in executing decisions at this level. At lower organizational levels, behaviors associated with this dysfunction may be transparent; upward delegation of decisions may be still an option, and such leaders will be viewed as harmless, good corporate citizens by subordinates. The results of this study reinforce the critical nature of an effective selection process when hiring or promoting leaders who embody a minimum

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

127

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

of dysfunctional leader dispositions, especially those aligned with the Moving Away category. The evidence that covert dysfunctional dispositions also have a negative relationship with employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout reinforces the importance of a screening process that identies these less obvious, insidious characteristics that are not easily detected during behaviorally based interviews. As cited by Hogan et al. (2010), executive selection rarely involves personality testing (Sessa, Kaiser, Taylor & Campbell, 1998), and when it does, it typically focuses on bright side characteristics. Personality evaluations that identify dysfunctional characteristics are essential to the evaluation process and may also detect the more insidious covert dysfunctional dispositions (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004). For existing leaders, signicant improvementthat is, reduction in the frequency or intensity of behaviors associated with dysfunctional dispositions can be used as a benchmark for succession planning (e.g., movement to the next higher organizational level).

Limitations and Future Research

A key limitation to this study is the use of students as participants in this study. However, to counterbalance this, all participants were concurrently working at least 30 hours a week (mostly in jobs external to the university) and reported to their immediate leader (primarily at lower levels in the organization) for at least six months. By not limiting the survey to college freshmen (average participant age: 31.8 years), this opportunity enabled us to seek participants at the next level of employee in an effort to provide some evidence for external validity. Future studies should also focus on collecting data from manager/subordinate dyads within the same unit at all organizational levels in the actual workplace. Second, data were collected from a single source, inviting common method bias. This type of self-reported bias may result from an illusory correlation between predictor and criterion variable in which participants may focus on maintaining consistency between cognitions and attitudes producing relationships that might not otherwise exist in real-life settings (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A recommendation for preventing this in future research includes obtaining measures of the predictor and criterion variables from different sources; for example, the leader rates subordinate engagement, burnout, job satisfaction, and studies in which the subordinate measures the leader on dispositions. If this is not feasible, another viable option is to separate the measurements of predictor and criterion variables temporally (time lag); temporal separation allows previously recalled information to leave the short-term memory (STM), thereby reducing biases associated with immediate retrieval (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

128

Leary et al.

Finally, expanding the scope beyond that of US participants would enhance the knowledge of how dysfunctional dispositions relate to employee engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout from a multicultural perspective.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

REFERENCES
Aquino, K., & Byron, K. (2002). Dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization in groups: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Journal of Management, 28, 69 87. Arneson, S., Milliken-Davies, M., & Hogan, J. (1993). Validation of personality and cognitive measures for insurance claims examiners. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 459 473. Ashford, B. (1994). Petty tyrants in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755778. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR Magazine, 49, 44 51. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48 52. Benson, J. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2007). To be or not to be, linear: An expanded representation of personality and its relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 232249. Bentz, V. J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A thirty-year perspective of research devoted to the discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organizational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44, 14611475. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Workplace emotional regulation: A review of the trait and its role in supervision and leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 13571367. Borden, M., & Buckingham, M. (2000). Trying to overcome weakness? This man says, Please stop. Fortune. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/ 2000/12/18/293130/index.htm Brayeld, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307311. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 10921122. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and proles of responses to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 272288. Cullen, D. (2001). Focus on strengths to maximize workers output. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/moneybooks/2001 02-12-strengths.htm Curphy, G. J. (2008). Dr. Gordy test results. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipkeynote.net/ Devries, D. L., & Kaiser, R. B. (2003, November). Going sour in the suite: What you can do about executive derailment. Workshop presented at the Maximizing Executive Effectiveness meeting of the Human Resources Planning Society, Miami, FL. Dotlich, D. L., & Cairo, P. C. (2003). Why CEOs fail. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Eichlinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2003). Knowledge summary series: 360-degree assessment. Human Resources Planning, 26, 34 44. Finkelstein, S. M. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learn from their mistakes. New York, NY: Portfolio. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79 87. Furnam, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types and disorders: An examination of the relationship between three self-report measures. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167184.

Relationship Among Dysfunctional Leadership

129

Gentry, W. A., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2007). An exploratory study of managerial derailment characteristics and personality preferences. Journal of Management Development, 26, 857 873. Grifn, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). Bad behavior in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 988 1005. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268 269. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2002). Well being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haiti (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Managerial derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 555575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493504. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40 51. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York, NY: Norton. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ivies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765780. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692724. Kaiser, R. B. (2009). The perils of accentuating the positive. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press. Kaiser, R., & Overeld, D. (2010). The leadership value chain. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13, 164 183. Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89 112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 9, 297308. Leslie, J. B., & Chandrasekar, A. (2009). Managerial strengths and organizational weaknesses. In R. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of accentuating the positive (p. 29). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press. Lombardo, M. M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 199 216. Maccoby, M. (2004). The productive narcissist: The promise and peril of visionary leadership. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Macey, W. A., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 330. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Psychological Review, 52, 397 422. McCall, M., & Lombardo, M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Tech. Rep. No. 21. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). Dark side personality styles as predictors of task, contextual and job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 356 362. Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the ve-factor model of personality traits: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762772. Ozer, M. (2008). Personal and task-related moderators of leader-member exchange among software developers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1174 1182.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

130

Leary et al.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 903. Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce, how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36 39. Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. J. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617 633. Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), MBI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample conrmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 7192. Sessa, V. I., Kaiser, R., Taylor, J. K., & Campbell, R. J. (1998). Executive selection. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 80 92. Smart, B. D. (1999). Topgrading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100 108. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261289. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279 294.