Nexus between Despotic Leadership, Faculty Performance, and Faculty Behavior: A Case of a Pakistani Public University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55737/qjssh.171513462Keywords:
Despotic Leadership, HODs, Employees, Performance, Pakistan, Public University, EducationAbstract
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.
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
