Destruktiv ledelse Destruktiv ledelse: «Some highlights from 15 years of research

Transkript

1 Destruktiv Destruktiv : «Some highlights from 15 years of research 25 års forskning om mobbing og kränkande särbehandling i arbeidslivet 15 års forksning på destruktiv Professor Ståle Einarsen Universitetet i Bergen Manglende fokus i litteraturen på destruktive aspekter ved Destruktiv er fravær av konstruktiv Noe fokus i populærvitenskaplig litteratur Blake and Moutons Managerial Grid The full range leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 1988; 1990; 1994; 2004; 2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Full Range of Leadership Model Leadelsesforskning handler om beteende og prosesser som øker effektivitet i organisasjoner 1

2 Feil spørsmål? Hva kjennetegner/gjør gode og effektive ledere? Hva gjør/kjennetegner ledere? Ulike begreper som blir brukt Helsefarlige ledere (Kile, 1990) Brutal bosses (Hornstein, 1996) Crazy bosses (Bing, 1992) Psykopater (Furnham & Taylor, 2004) Intolerable bosses (Lombardo & McCall, 1984) Smålige tyranner (Ashforth, 1994) Abusive supervision (Bies & Tripp, 1998) Bullies (Namie & Namie, 2000) Trakasserende ledere (Brodsky, 1976) Bad leaders (Kellerman, 2004) Toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) Abusive supervision (Tepper 2000) Destruktiv Destruktiv Betende-perspektivet Personlighetsperspektivet Maktperspektivet Situasjonsperspektivet A definition The systematic and repeated behaviour of a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the goals, tasks and effectiveness of his/her organisation and/or negatively effects the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates. (Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007) 2

3 Menneskeorientering God Støttende, men illojal Menneskeorientering God Laissez-faire Oppgave orientering Oppgave orientering - Oppgave orientering Avsporet - Menneskeorientering Tyrannisk 2,5 average score no negative style reported 39% 6 Grupper 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 supportive but disloyal 10% sometimes laissez-faire sometimes supportive but disloyal 17% sometimes till often laissez faire 19% Has enco urag ed you or your co-workers to do private work/run private errands during working ho urs Has encourag ed you, or your co-workers, to ta ke extra coffee/cigarette breaks as a reward for good wo rk effort Has enco urag ed you to enjoy extra privileges at the company's e xpens e Has behaved in a friendly manner and encouraged you/your co-workers to extend y our/their lunch b rea Is likely to be abse nt when needed? Has avoided ge tting involved in in your work Has avoided ma king decisions? Has steered a way from showing con cern abou t results Has made it more difficult fo r you to express your vie ws at a m eetin g, eith er by giving yo u too little speaking time or by placing you Regards his/her sta ff more as comp etitors than as partners? Has used his/her positio n in th e firm to p rofit financiallly/materially at the company's expen Attributes the company's success to his/her own abilities rather than the ab ilities of the employee Has given you a dressin g down on th e phone, hung up o n you or sent you a crass because he/she thought you had done a ba Has spread inco rrect information ab out yo u or your co-workers, in order to harm yo ur/their position in the fi Has imitated, or made faces (e.g. rolled eyes, stuck out tongue etc.) at you or other em ployees to sho w that he/she is not satisfied wi Has humiliated yo u, or other employee s, if you /they fail to live u p to his/her standard sometimes destructive 11% destructive 6% Ingen destruktive handlinger (39%) Støttende men illojal (10%) Litt Laisses-fair litt støttende/illojal (17%) En del Laisses fair (19%) Noe destruktiv (Tyrannisk avsporet Laisses-fair) (11%) Mye Destruktiv (6%) 3

4 average 3,5 3,3 3,1 2,9 2,7 2,5 2,3 2,1 1,9 1,7 1,5 no negative style reported Planer om å slutte supportive but disloyal Intentions to leave over the next 12 months sometimes laissez-faire sometimes supportive but disloyal sometimes till often laissez faire sometimes destructive destructive Correlations with constructive leadership Tyrannical r= -.21 (p<.001) Supportive disloyal leadership r=.29 (p<.001) Derailed leadership r= -.35 (p<.001) Laisseaz-fair leadership r= -.37 (p<.001) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level Nuances in destructive leadership? Leaders, Positive and negative emotions in leader-subordinate relationships rather a population of grey suits than black demons or white angels! Emotions in leader-subordinate relations (Glasø & Einarsen, 2006) Epithets of affect at work Proud Respected Frightened Threatened Appalled Disliked Despondent Well Haughty Impatient Uneasy Tense Calm Expectant Acknowledged Full of hatred Embarrassed Harassed Reckless Glad Uncertain Elated Shocked Cared for Uncomfortable Sexual attracted Disappointed Enthusiastic Bored Hopeful Confident Degraded Peaceful Ashamed Timid Strained Terrified Desperate Despised Resigned Insulted Wanted Liked Envious Insecure Frustrated Grumpy Worried Admired Loved Unwell Excited Jealous Inspired Caring Humiliated Hurt Happy Angry Content Inadequate Remorseful Being in love Grateful Wanted Anxious Shy Sad Annoyed Relieved Recognition- Content, glad, well, excited, enthusiastic, inspired, liked, grateful, acknowledged, taken care of, interested, expectant, wanted, respected, proud, caring, confident, well, happy, admired, loved, calm, peaceful and relieved α =.95. Frustration Frustrated, resigned, uneasy, annoyed, sad, angry, bored, disappointed, impatient, worried, uncomfortable, hurt, shocked, despondent and grumpy α =.93. Violation Harassed, insulted, degraded, desperate, full of hatred, despised, humiliated, disliked, frightened, ashamed, threatened and appalled α =.92. Uncertainty Uncertain, embarrassed, anxious, shy and unwell α =.86. 4

5 1. Will DLB predict job performance among crisis managers? We studied: active & passive destructive focal, constructive as control Utvalg (Kant et al., submitted) 65 kandidater til beredskapslederrollen 260 simuleringer 31% (20 st) stryk Laissez-faire Can we train leaders to become more constructive and less destructive (passive and active)? DLB Active: no significant reduction DLB Passive: medium size reduction 95% CI of the CLB: near medium size increase Simulation 1 Variable Kant, Skogstad, Hystad, Hetland, & Einarsen. (submitted). Poor and perilous. Simulation4 difference M SD M SD Lower Upper t df p DLB-Active Cohen's d DLB-Passive CLB Kant, Skogstad, Hystad, Hetland, & Einarsen. (submitted). Poor and perilous. 5

6 Our context for studying abusive supervision Sample Cross-sectional work environment survey among maritime employees working on ferries on the Norwegian coast Total sample (N=427), including 82 teams complete with a Captain (n=82) and subordinates (n=177) 100% male captains and 85% male crewmembers Instruments Abusive supervision; 7 item version from the Destructive leadership scale (Aasland, Skogstad & Einarsen 2010), α 0.81 Trait anger: 12 item version of the State- Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1996), α 0.75 Trait anxiety: 20 item version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970), α 0.88 Role ambiguity: 5 item version (Rizzo et al., 1970), α 0.81 Role conflict: 5 item version (Rizzo et al., 1970), α 0.82 Age, gender, years in team Hva forklarer kapteinenes tyranniske atferd Kant et al (2013), Fig. 1, p 115 Leders trekk sinne Den underordnedes trekk angst Underordnedes rollekonflikt Underordnedes kjønn Interaksjon mellom kapteins trekk sinne og 1) ansatte med høy trekk sinne? 2) Ansatte med lav trekk sinne? 3) Ansatte med høy trekk angst? 6

7 Takk for oppmerksomheten! 7