Nexus between Despotic Leadership, Faculty Performance, and Faculty Behavior: A Case of a Pakistani Public University

Authors

  • Humera Amin Lecturer, Department of ELPS, Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  • Faisal Amjad PhD Scholar (Special Education), Department of Special Education, Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  • Muhammad Amin Associate Professor, Department of ELPS, Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  • Sundas Zahra Kayfi PhD Scholar (ELPS), Department of ELPS, Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
  • Kashi Younas Founder and Director of Education, Chopan Trust, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55737/qjssh.171513462

Keywords:

Despotic Leadership, HODs, Employees, Performance, Pakistan, Public University, Education

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of despotic leadership on the output of university faculty members. The study was conducted by using a mixed methods technique in accordance with the pragmatism paradigm. The population of the study was the 74 permanent faculty members of the one Public Sector University's two campuses located in Lahore, Pakistan. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to interview 15 faculty members through a convenient sampling technique. Thematic analysis was used to examine the qualitative data, while descriptive analysis percentage (%) and frequency(f) were used to examine the quantitative data. The results demonstrate that faculty members may become uncomfortable and agitated due to the hostile behavior of the HODs, which could lead to a negative work environment and a decreased desire to share ideas. The unfavorable work environment and decreased job satisfaction are caused by the bad behavior of HODs. The HODs' menacing actions have a clear detrimental impact on staff members' performance, foster a hostile work atmosphere, and jeopardize faculty members' mental health. Based on the research findings, it is recommended that HODs should behave civilly toward faculty members. The HODs could also receive leadership training from the experts.

Author Biography

  • Muhammad Amin, Associate Professor, Department of ELPS, Division of Education, University of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.

References

Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.002

Aronson, E. (2019). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de L’Administration, 18(4), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00260.x

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.

Batistic, S., Cerne, M., & Vogel, B. (2017). Just how multi-level is leadership research? A document co-citation analysis 1980–2013 on leadership constructs and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.007

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Chapter I - Why Machiavelli? In R. Christie & F. L. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 1-9). Academic Press.

De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., Raja, U., Azeem, M. U., & Mahmud, N. (2018). When is an Islamic work ethic more likely to spur helping behavior? The roles of despotic leadership and gender. Personnel Review, 47(3), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-06-2017-0192

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002

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

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2018). Despotic leadership and organizational deviance. Journal of Strategy and Management, 11(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-04-2017-0029

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471388

Lee, M. R. (2016). Leading virtual project teams: Adapting leadership theories and communications techniques to 21st-century organizations. Auerbach Publications.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 69(3), 1-40. https://assess.connectiveleadership.com/documents/why_followers_rarely_escape_their_clutches.pdf

Lubit, R. (2004). The tyranny of toxic managers: Applying emotional intelligence to deal with difficult personalities. Ivey Business Journal, 68(4), 1–7.

Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M. B. L., & Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader-member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.09.005

Raja, U., Haq, I. U., De Clercq, D., & Azeem, M. U. (2019). When ethics create misfit: Combined effects of despotic leadership and Islamic work ethic on job performance, job satisfaction, and psychological well‐being. International Journal of Psychology, 55(3), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12606

Schilling, J. (2009). From Ineffectiveness to Destruction: A Qualitative Study on the Meaning of Negative Leadership. Leadership, 5(1), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008098312

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic Leadership in Social dilemmas: a Threat to Group Stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00061-1

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835

Published

2024-06-30

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Amin, H., Amjad, F., Amin, M., Kayfi, S. Z., & Younas, K. (2024). Nexus between Despotic Leadership, Faculty Performance, and Faculty Behavior: A Case of a Pakistani Public University. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.55737/qjssh.171513462

Similar Articles

1-10 of 182

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)