Why Destructive Leadership Persists Despite Being Largely Preventable

The rise of destructive leadership is posing a critical threat to organizational and employee well-being. Destructive leadership refers to the systematic and repeated behaviors by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violate the legitimate interests of the organization by undermining or sabotaging its goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness, and/or by harming the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007). Survey evidence indicated that most managers felt ill-prepared to communicate with staff (Harris Poll & Interact, 2019), and only a fraction possessed the naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior needed for effective leadership (Gallup, 2015). When supervisory behavior becomes harmful, the consequences include spiraling stress, clinical anxiety, and major talent loss (Tepper, 2000; Nahum-Shani, Henderson, Lim, & Vinokur, 2014).

This article reviews the prevalence of destructive leadership, analyzes its psychological and economic costs, and synthesizes the most recent empirical findings on how leadership either steadies or destabilizes groups during adversity. It also explains why poorly equipped “accidental” managers persist and distills evidence-based remedies that combine rigorous selection, skills training, self-awareness practices, and redesigned remote-work protocols.

Leadership Revealed by Challenge

Heifetz and Linsky (2017) argue that leadership becomes most visible when groups confront disruptive challenges that threaten their sense of safety and identity. In such moments, a leader must hold collective anxiety, facilitate honest reflection, and guide meaning-making. Yet when the leader is themselves the stressor, those same dynamics can magnify distress. Recent scholarship on crisis sense-making shows that leaders who adopt a pragmatic, fact-oriented framing during uncertainty reduce social harm, whereas those who cling to purely charismatic rhetoric amplify it (Medeiros et al., 2022).

The Prevalence and Impact of Destructive Leadership

A Harris Poll of 616 U.S. managers found that 69% feel uncomfortable even talking with their employees (Harris Poll & Interact, 2019). Gallup’s longitudinal research demonstrates that only about one in ten individuals exhibit the naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that predict strong management performance; however, organizations frequently promote employees into supervisory roles based on technical expertise rather than these management-related strengths (Gallup, 2015). This mismatch is further complicated by Gallup’s 2025 State of the Workforce Report, which finds that only 44% of managers globally have received training in management, contributing to widespread disengagement and a decline in manager motivation. The report also highlights that training and development for managers can significantly improve engagement and team performance, with trained managers 22% more engaged than their untrained peers, and their teams seeing an 18% boost in engagement (Gallup, 2025).

Academic research supports the importance of selecting and developing managers based on behavioral and leadership traits. Board and Fritzon (2005) found that senior business managers often display personality traits associated with effective leadership, such as confidence and decisiveness, but may also exhibit traits linked to subclinical personality disorders, underscoring the complexity of leadership selection. Notably, these traits are not always negative; some can be adaptive in management roles, but their presence highlights the need for careful assessment and ongoing development. Similarly, Kaiser, Hogan, and Craig (2008) maintain that a leader’s influence and effectiveness stem more from their actions and personal qualities—like establishing structure and showing consideration—than from their official position or title alone. These findings collectively emphasize the need for organizations to move beyond technical competence and invest in identifying, training, and supporting managers who possess and develop the behavioral patterns associated with successful leadership.

Because managers alone account for roughly 70% of the variance in team engagement, ineffective supervision can drain motivation across entire business units (Gallup, 2023). Employees sense the fallout: three-quarters of workers identify their boss as the worst and most stressful part of their job (American Psychological Association, 2017). The problem is global. In the United Kingdom, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reported that poor line management doubles the odds that employees will say work harms their mental health (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2023). In Canada, close to half of the surveyed professionals report experiencing burnout, and nearly a third indicate that burnout is increasing each year (Robert Half Canada, 2025).

Psychological and Economic Costs

The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization estimate that depression and anxiety—conditions strongly exacerbated by destructive supervision—consume 12 billion working days and US$1 trillion in productivity every year (World Health Organization & International Labour Organization, 2024). Managerial burnout intensifies the spiral: 36% of supervisors report high burnout and are significantly more likely to quit, eroding psychological safety for their teams (Robinson, 2024).

When the Leader Is the Challenge

Adaptive-leadership theory labels the capacity to contain uncertainty “holding the heat” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2017). Empirical work during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that leaders who shifted from visionary appeals to pragmatic sense-making achieved better societal outcomes (Medeiros et al., 2022). Complementary evidence shows that leaders’ self-awareness and emotional intelligence buffer group distress. A qualitative study of executives indicated that mindfulness practice accelerates leader self-insight and reduces reactive, harmful behaviors (Laine, 2023). Cross-sector survey research likewise found that emotionally intelligent crisis leaders sustain morale and organizational resilience under pressure (Sharma, 2024). Parallel data from Nigerian school principals suggest that emotional intelligence significantly improves crisis-management effectiveness (Nkup et al., 2024). These findings underscore the idea that leadership is most needed when a group’s “collective nervous system” becomes dysregulated. Yet, that same moment is when a destructive leader can do the greatest damage.

Recent Empirical Insights

New studies clarify how destructive supervision unfolds in modern work arrangements. Remote abusive behavior lowers employees’ life satisfaction by fueling obsessive work passion and work–life conflict (Saha et al., 2024). When supervisors do not provide social support, extensive telework can become burdensome, lowering engagement and increasing feelings of isolation among employees (Hodžić et al., 2024). Digital surveillance tools erode trust; electronic performance monitoring predicts privacy concerns and turnover intentions even when leader–member relations are strong (Wolff et al., 2024). Sector-specific evidence from 770 nurses shows that abusive supervision increases absenteeism and exit plans through heightened stress, endangering already strained health systems (Labrague, 2024).

Root Causes of Destructive Leadership

Destructive leadership often stems from flawed selection processes, inadequate leadership training, and organizational cultures that tolerate or even reward toxic behaviors (Matsuda, 2010; Matos et al., 2018). Many organizations promote employees based on technical skills or charisma rather than leadership potential, leading to a mismatch between role requirements and incumbent capabilities (Matsuda, 2010). Additionally, outdated workplace norms and a focus on short-term results can perpetuate harmful leadership practices, even when their negative impact is well understood (Smith, 2019; Pelletier, 2012).

Hiring practices that fail leadership

Many organizations struggle to assess leadership potential before promoting individuals. Traditional face-to-face interviews often overvalue charisma and likability, resulting in mediocre leaders. Nearly half of assessed leaders rank in the bottom quartile for core leadership talents such as strategic thinking and energy harnessing (Kaiser et al., 2008). Behavioral interviews, psychometric tests, and 360-degree reviews are rarely combined, despite evidence that such multi-method approaches improve retention and performance (Kaiser et al., 2008; Board & Fritzon, 2005). Biased hiring tools, such as AI systems trained on non-representative data, can exacerbate inequity in leadership pipelines.

Lack of formal leadership training

The Chartered Management Institute found that 82% of newly appointed U.K. managers receive no formal leadership training, creating a vast population of “accidental managers” ill-equipped for relational work (Chartered Management Institute, 2023). When combined with the prevailing assumption that technical excellence suffices for promotion, these gaps perpetuate destructive patterns.

Cluster B in leadership

Cluster B personality disorders—characterized by dramatic, emotionally unstable, or antagonistic behavior—are estimated to affect approximately 1–2% of the general population (Zimmerman et al., 2012). However, research suggests that certain leadership roles may attract or retain individuals with these traits at higher rates. Board and Fritzon (2005) found that senior business managers exhibited higher rates of personality disorder traits than the general population, though not as high as psychiatric or forensic populations. There is limited evidence for specific prevalence rates among CEOs or top executives, but the literature acknowledges that leadership roles may attract individuals with higher levels of narcissistic or psychopathic traits compared to the general public (Board & Fritzon, 2005; Babiak & Hare, 2006).

Why Destructive Leadership Persists

Despite the availability of best practices and evidence-based solutions, destructive leadership remains a persistent challenge in many organizations. This is often due to organizational inertia, a reluctance to challenge entrenched norms, and insufficient systems for monitoring and addressing leadership behavior (Matsuda, 2010; Baboș & Rusu, 2020). The phenomenon of the “accidental manager”—individuals promoted without adequate preparation or support—further exacerbates the problem (Matsuda, 2010). Without robust accountability and a commitment to long-term cultural change, destructive leadership practices can continue unchecked.

Evidence-Based Remedies

Evidence-based solutions emerge at three interlocking levels. Selection processes must diagnose leadership potential before promotion; Gallup’s talent-assessment research shows substantial performance gains when organizations honor fit over tenure (Gallup, 2015). Skills can be taught: an Occupational Health Science framework identifies six mental-health-supportive supervisor behaviors—ranging from emotional support to early recognition of distress—that safeguard employee well-being (Hammer et al., 2024). Added, self-regulation matters. Mindfulness development enhances leader composure (Laine, 2023), while emotional-intelligence coaching strengthens crisis communication (Sharma, 2024). Organizations that pair these individual-level strategies with structural changes—manageable spans of control, outcome-based rather than surveillance-based remote oversight, and continuous line-manager coaching—report lower turnover and higher engagement (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2023).

Effective leadership begins with rigorous selection. Organizations that adopt multipronged hiring processes—including behavioral interviews, simulations, psychometrics, and 360-degree feedback—reduce mis-hires and build leadership pipelines with integrity. While there is increasing recognition of the risks associated with personality disorders in leadership, evidence-based screening for Cluster B traits is not yet widely standardized or validated for use in corporate hiring (Babiak & Hare, 2006). Instead, best practices focus on multi-method assessment and ongoing monitoring for leadership fit.

Once leaders are selected, training must focus on self-awareness, emotional intelligence (EI), and adaptive sense-making. Mindfulness training enhances leader self-regulation (Laine, 2023), while EI coaching improves crisis response and team resilience (Sharma, 2024; Nkup et al., 2024). During crises, leaders with pragmatic framing and strong EI buffer team anxiety and sustain engagement (Medeiros et al., 2022). Structural practices such as manageable spans of control, outcome-oriented oversight, and continuous feedback loops further reinforce healthy leadership systems (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2023).

Photo by Clara Rayes @clararayes via Unsplash.

Conclusion

Leadership failures are not incidental—they are systemic, with roots in flawed hiring practices, overreliance on charisma, and the unchecked rise of Cluster B–type executives. The effects are costly: poor organizational culture, high turnover, and spiraling mental health issues, undermining productivity. Yet the problem is not intractable. By implementing evidence-based hiring methods, developing emotional and adaptive capacities, and actively screening for high-risk personality profiles (where empirically supported), organizations can disrupt destructive leadership. In doing so, they not only prevent the worst outcomes—they also cultivate workplaces that thrive through crisis and grow stronger in community and purpose.

References:

American Psychological Association. (2017, August 7). Your boss might be bad for your health. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/heres-why-your-boss-might-be-bad-for-your-health/

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. HarperCollins.

Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001634304

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2023, May 3). The importance of people management: Analysis of its impact on employees. https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/press-releases/poor-managers-impact/

Chartered Management Institute. (2023). Leadership and the accidental manager problem.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

Gallup. (2015). State of the American manager: Analytics and advice for leaders. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236579/one-people-possess-talent-manage.aspx

Gallup. (2023, October 16). How to improve employee engagement in the workplace. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/285674/improve-employee-engagement-workplace.aspx

Gallup. (2025). State of the Workforce Report. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/state-of-the-workplace

Hammer, L. B., Dimoff, J., Mohr, C. D., & Allen, S. J. (2024). A framework for protecting and promoting employee mental health through supervisor supportive behaviors. Occupational Health Science, 8, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-023-00171-x

Harris Poll, & Interact. (2019). Managers are uncomfortable communicating with employees [White paper].

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of change (Rev. ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.

Hodžić, S., Hisrich, R., & Siročić, T. (2024). When telework becomes a burden: The role of supervisor social support. Applied Psychology, 73, 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12491

Jantjies, S. D. (2024). Investigating toxic leadership’s influence on employee turnover intention in a clinical research organisation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 0. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2571

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96

Laine, S. J. (2023). The relations between leader development, self-awareness, and mindfulness. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023(1), Article 16778. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2023.16778abstract

Labrague, L. J. (2024). Stress as a mediator between abusive supervision and clinical nurses’ work outcomes. International Nursing Review, 71, 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12961

Medeiros, K. E., Crayne, M. P., Griffith, J. A., Hardy, J. H., & Damadzic, A. (2022). Leader sense-making style in response to crisis: Consequences and insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111406

Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M., Lim, S., & Vinokur, A. D. (2014). Does supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the adverse effects of supervisor undermining on the health and well-being of employees? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035032

Nkup, Y. N., Jide, O. N., Magit, H., Bentu, R., & Tijjani, M. A. (2024). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness during organizational crisis among secondary-school administrators. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(11), 337–347.

Robert Half Canada. (2025, March 25). Nearly half of Canadian workers feel burned out. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/nearly-half-of-canadian-workers-feel-burned-out-836629738.html

Robinson, B. L. (2024, September 26). Thirty-six percent of managers report alarming levels of stress and burnout in 2024. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2024/09/26/managers-report-stress-and-burnout-in-2024/

Saha, T., Singh, R., & Prasad, D. (2024). Nightmare in remote mode: Evidence of remote abusive supervision in Indian organizations. IIMB Management Review, 36(4), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2023.10.003

Sharma, A. (2024). The role of emotional intelligence in crisis leadership: Effects on employee morale and organizational resilience. International Journal of Advanced Research, 12(10), 828–848. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/17211

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

Wolff, M. S., White, J. C., & Abraham, M. (2024). The threat of electronic performance monitoring: Exploring the role of leader-member exchange on employee privacy invasion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 154, 103999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103999

World Health Organization & International Labour Organization. (2024, October 10). Mental health at work: Fact sheet. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/promotion-prevention/mental-health-in-the-workplace

Zimmerman, M., Chelminski, I., & Young, D. (2012). The frequency of personality disorders in psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 35(2), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.002