THE IMPACT OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT EMPLOYEES

(1)

1 MASTER THESIS

THE IMPACT OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

ON STUDENT EMPLOYEES

-MSc BA Small Business & Entrepreneurship-

By

Thijs Hanema

Date: August 15, 2018 Name: Thijs Hanema Student number: S2790858 Supervisor: M.J. Brand

Faculty of Economics and Business - University of Groningen Co-assessor: S. Costa

Faculty of Economics and Business - University of Groningen Program: MSc Small Business & Entrepreneurship

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

Over the past few decades, there has been a growing interest for the dark side of leadership. In particular quantitative researchers, and to a smaller extend qualitative studies, investigated the effects of destructive leadership on followers in general. Nevertheless, none of these papers tried to distinguish different types of followers. Therefore this qualitative research aims at gaining new insights into the consequences of destructive leaders on student followers in particular. Results indicate that student employees are emotionally affected by a destructive leader, resulting in job dissatisfaction and subsequently ends in reduced effort, performance and intentions to quit the job. The latter result is specific for students, who perceive their job as unimportant and temporary and therefore quit the job without difficulty. Several other factors (e.g. work nature), play a prominent role in understanding how destructive leadership influences student followers.

Key words: Destructive leadership, student followers, job satisfaction, behavioural

(3)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

A wide variety of academic researchers have addressed the concept of constructive forms of leadership and their positive effects on an organization (Kelloway et al., 2006). Likewise, these researchers all focus on the positive effects leaders have on followers, such as increased motivation, performance, and positive work-related attitudes (Tepper, 2007). However, relatively limited researches have addressed the issue of destructive leadership on followers (Tepper, 2000). This low development of destructive leadership studies can be considered as unjustified, because destructive leadership is a substantial problem. Hubert & van Veldhoven (2001) report a prevalence rate of 10% in the Netherlands, indicating that one out of ten managers shows destructive leadership behaviour. In fact, emotional abuse as a result of the leader is one of the most occurring issues in businesses (Kampen, 2015). This clearly shows that there is a ‘dark side’ to leadership that can seriously harm the well-being of followers. Therefore, the goal of this study is to understand how destructive leadership influences followers. The qualitative method of this research aims at discovering new concepts and mechanisms that help to explain the nature of the consequences of destructive leadership on followers.

To specify, this qualitative study is particularly focused on students employees that are affected by destructive leadership. First of all, there has been a lack of focus on young employees in the literature; majority of organizational research prefer to focus on fulltime employees (Barling, 1990). Nevertheless, student employees are the full time employees of the future and show significantly different attitudes and behaviour compared to older generation employees (Loughlin & Barling, 2001). One of these differences is the fact that young employees value the relationship with their employees above their relationship with the business, while older generations are highly loyal towards the company (Karp et al., 2002). Secondly, the Netherlands has over 700.000 students of which 70% has a side job, showing that student employees play a pivotal role on the labour market (Nibud, 2017). Thus, one could consider it a gap as this group of employees is fully ignored in the literature. In fact, it is important to understand how young student employees in particular react to destructive leadership, as they might do so in a completely different way than full time employees.

(5)

5 employees, would certainly be interested in knowing how these employees react to destructive leadership. With these insights, an entrepreneur understands the attitudes and behaviour of its employees better, and can thus, apply the right leadership style himself or, hire a manager with the right skills to optimize the performance of such a start-up. Thus, the outcomes of this research could be used by entrepreneurs and small business owners to understand their employees and to overcome the negative effects of destructive leadership.

In overview, concerning theoretical implications, this particular study is worth investigating in since limited researchers have investigated the consequences of destructive leadership on employees qualitatively. Therefore, a number of scholars have called for a qualitative examination of the outcomes of destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007). On top of that, none of these qualitative researches have focused on student employees in particular. In fact, students might react in a different way to destructive leadership compared to full time employees, as they hold different work related values (Loughlin & Barling, 2001). Therefore, this focus constitutes to the existing literature on destructive leadership. Concerning practical implications, this study is particularly interesting for entrepreneurs and small business owners in order to understand this new generation employees and how they are affected by destructive types of leadership.

To conclude, there is certainly a research gap surrounding the problem that one does not know how student employees in particular react to destructive leadership and what kind of effects this has on their emotions, behaviour and subsequently for the business.

Therefore, the main research question is formulated as follows:

“How does destructive leadership affect student employees?”

In order to answer the main research question, the following sub questions will be answered to guide the research.:

RQ1: “How does destructive leadership affect student followers emotionally?” RQ2: “How does destructive leadership further affect followers’ behaviour?”

(6)

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

First of all, leadership in general will be briefly analysed as an introduction. Secondly, the concept of destructive leadership will be analysed utilizing a wide variety of sources. Thirdly, the consequences of destructive leadership will be explored, divided into emotional and behavioural consequences. Furthermore, a specific section is dedicated to analyse the specific behaviour of student employees. Finally, a conceptual framework was made to illustrate the theory analysed in the literature review.

2.1 LEADERSHIP IN GENERAL

The general concept of leadership in business is well developed in the literature (Schyns & Schilling, 2012). Scholars differ in the conceptualization of leadership in their studies. Some of them distinguish between several leadership styles e.g. transformational and transactional (Rothfelder et al., 2012), others incorporate ethical leadership (Çelik et al., 2015). In fact, Jing & Avery (2016) criticize this poor consistency and argue that the literature on leadership lacks agreement and coherence because researchers do not make a clear distinction between different styles when studying the concept. Nonetheless, the core of leadership is about influencing a team of followers in order to accomplish specific goals that are set by management (Robbins & Coulter, 2007). Thus, a leader can be seen as a crucial aspect and is therefore a key success factor of any business (Tsai et al., 2010).

Indeed, leaders have a direct impact on the behaviour of subordinates and need to use a proper style according to the employees’ specific demands, in order to have a positive influence on them (Tepper, 2000). Only in this way a company can accomplish the goals and enhance employee satisfaction (Bargal & Schmid, 1989). This suggests that the consequences of destructive leadership are twofold, impacting both the organizational goals and the followers. In fact, leadership, when done wrong, is more harmful to a company and its employees than a proper leadership style according to Skogstad et al. (2015). This indicates that leadership is a hygiene factor, according to Herberg’s motivation theory, meaning that leadership can only cause dissatisfaction and bad organizational results when done wrong, but does not have similar positive effects when done in the right way (Herberg, 2005)

(7)

7 2.2 DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

Even though successful leadership styles dominate the current leadership literature, the concept of destructive leadership has gained attention from researchers the last two decades (Tepper, 2007). The majority of these researches are quantitative in nature, identifying the causes and consequences of these destructive forms of leadership on the organisation and its employees. Nevertheless, there are limited studies exploring the nature of these relationships (Einarsen et al., 2007). Only few qualitative studies have investigated the consequences of destructive leadership on followers, which will be discussed in the next session.

First of all, a problem concerning destructive leadership, is a lack of general agreement on the definition of the concept (Krasikova et al., 2013). Nonetheless, according to Schyns & Schilling (2012), a significant amount of scholars have taken the definition of Einarsen et al. (2007), to define destructive leadership:

“Destructive leadership behaviour is defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a

leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates.”

(8)

8

this behaviour on a regular basis. Moreover, the concept encompasses two types of consequences: managers that harm organisational members & managers that harm the organisation itself. Figure 1 above illustrates this division where the x-axis represents the organisational consequences and the y-axis represents the followers’ consequences. Based on this division, three destructive leadership styles can be characterised. First of all, a supportive, disloyal leader harms the organisational goals but does not harm the follower’s well-being. Secondly, when a leader harms the follower but does not harm organisational goals is called a tyrannical leader . Finally, a derailed leader harms both the organisational goals and the followers’ well-being (Einarsen et al., 2007).

However, there is little consensus over the definition of destructive leadership. After an analysis of different quantitative studies, it can be concluded that researchers differ in the conceptualization of destructive leadership. For example, Krasikova et al. (2013) operationalize destructive leadership as harmful behaviour embedded in the process of leading, and therefore exclude harmful behaviour that is not part of the actual leading process. This operationalization of destructive leadership is significantly different from the previous definition of Einarsen et al. (2007). In fact, these scholars would not characterize gossiping by the leader as being destructive leadership behaviour, while Einarsen et al (2007) would consider gossiping as part of anti-subordinate behaviour. This different view on destructive leadership by researchers could influence the outcomes of such a study.

Besides, bad leadership is not always conceptualized as destructive leadership in the literature. In fact, the concept is also translated to abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), workplace bullying (Vartia, 2001), or tyrannical leadership.The definition of abusive supervision by Tepper (2007) introduces a perspective from the follower to judge destructive leadership, where the subordinate’s perception decides whether a leader is being destructive or not. One could argue that this adds a subjective aspect to the concept and thus, researching destructive leadership could be done by focusing only on the perspective of the followers. Moreover, various destructive leadership definitions introduce specific behaviours that describe the concept. S elf-aggrandizing behaviour, belittle subordinates, lack consideration, forcing style of conflict resolution and discourage initiative are examples of behaviours that have been explained as destructive (Ashforth, 1994).

(9)

9

laissez faire leadership, as a passive style should be included as being destructive leadership (Torsheim et al., 2007). Indeed, taking into the argument made based on the definition of Einarsen et at. (2007), it seems legit to include laissez faire leadership behaviour into the operationalization of destructive leadership in this paper, because it was concluded by Skogstad et al. (2014) that laissez faire behaviour could possibly harm the organization and the followers. In fact, (Neuman et al., 2011) argue that passive, indirect behaviour (e.g. failing to provide followers with information and feedback) can also be detrimental for subordinates.

It can be argued that definitions differ significantly from one another. Some definitions contain highly specific behaviours, while the initial one of Einarsen et al. (2007) is more of an ambiguous term. To conclude, this analysis focusing on the definitions of bad forms of leadership reveal that there are significant differences between scholars. Choosing for a narrow focus of a definition could lead to completely different results between studies on the same concept, which is analysed in the coming section. Therefore, destructive leadership, as shown in the conceptual framework in section 2.8, is operationalized in this study by including all behaviours explained above.

2.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

As stated before, Einarsen et al. (2007) introduced destructive leadership outcomes in organisational and follower terms. Schilling & Schyns (2013) acknowledge that there is a dark side to leadership that could harm a business and its employees dramatically. In fact, followers reported relative lower job satisfaction when faced with a destructive leader than satisfied followers with a constructive leader (Skogstad et al., 2015). This conclusion creates the interest for exploring the consequences of destructive leadership in more detail.

(10)

10 Analysing these consequences, one could conclude that different categories of consequences emerge from theory. A first distinction that can be made is between the emotional and behavioural consequences of followers. The emotional consequences take place in the mind of the follower (e.g. reduced self-esteem), while behavioural consequences affect the performance of the company directly (e.g. counterproductive work behaviour). Secondly, one could distinguish between work related and private life consequences. In fact, in his study, Tepper (2007) attempted to categorizes these consequences of abusive supervision by distinguishing between attitudes, resistance, aggression and deviance, performance contributions, psychological distress and family wellbeing. He came to this categorization of consequences based on the literature review he mad. In Tepper’s theory, one could recognize the different types of consequences: psychological distress (emotional), performance contributions (behavioural) and family wellbeing (personal life consequences).

Nonetheless, all these results come from quantitative researches, so the nature of the relationships are not explained. This means that one is not certain about how destructive leadership specifically influences the emotional and behavioural consequences and what factors and mechanisms play a role. It might be the fact that emotional consequences influence behavioural consequences or, private life consequences influence work related consequences. Therefore, in the conceptual framework of section 2.8, the categorical consequences are clearly listed in order to find out in what order destructive leadership influences followers emotionally and behaviourally. Moreover, personal life consequences are taken into account in the relationship (concept E in the framework).

2.4 JOB SATISFACTION

(11)

11

Job satisfaction results in the end to positive job performance and organizational commitment which ensures organizational success (Spector, 2003). Other scholars confirm this by arguing that job satisfaction is one of the most important necessities for an employee to be successful, happy and productive (Ay & Avarolu, 2010). Nevertheless, job satisfaction, as a measurement, can also be negative. This means that an employee holds negative emotions and attitudes towards the job, resulting in negative behaviour. “Job dissatisfaction can result in feelings of helplessness, burnout, resentment, anger, and fatigue” (Brooke, 2006). These negative emotions will result in employee behaviour like aggression, complaining, psychological withdrawal and company withdrawal, with physical and mental health issues as result (Knoop, 1987). For any company this can be potentially disastrous.

Regarding these conclusions of job dissatisfaction on organisational success, one could be sceptical about the division of Einarsen et al. (2007). These researchers argue that a destructive style exists that is successful for the organisation but at the cost of the employee’s well-being. However, several researchers conclude that job dissatisfaction and the negative emotions concerned with it lead to counterproductive work, which thus harms the business in the end as well. The last notion indicates that no successful leadership style exists that harms the well-being of employees.

2.5 ANTECEDENTS OF JOB SATISFACTION

It is worth noting that several other factors influence the level of job satisfaction of employees, hence, their emotional well-being. Tsai et al. (2010) agree with this statement and argue that leadership is not the sole predictor of the concept. In fact, job satisfaction is dependent on several other work related aspects. A widely acknowledged job satisfaction measurement (JSS) distinguishes between several job elements, which are (1) pay and remuneration, (2) promotion opportunities, (3) immediate supervisor, (4) communication within the organization (5), appreciation, recognition, and rewards for good work, (6) operating policies and procedures, (7) people you work with, (8) job tasks themselves (Spector, 1985). As it can be seen here, the leader or manager, indicated as immediate supervisor, is not the sole factor responsible for high or low job satisfaction. For students in particular, it was concluded by Karp et al. (2002) that salary and colleagues are the most important variables for job satisfaction.

(12)

12 2010). Hence, in section 2.8, these job dimensions listed above are included in the framework ,indicated as “D”, and might therefore moderate the relationship. In the method chapter, it is explained how these dimensions are operationalized in the actual research.

2.6 BEHAVIOURAL CONSEQUENCES OF JOB DISSATISFACTION

According to empirical research findings, the most compelling behavioural consequences resulting from job dissatisfaction are low commitment, turnover intent and work performance (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). Other frequent consequences are absenteeism and quitting the job (Tepper, 2007). Hershcovis & Barling (2010) also found that destructive leadership decreases the work effort of employees. On top of that, Martin (2015) found that the negative emotional effects of destructive leadership cause deviant behaviour in an employees’ personal life. In fact, subordinates would avoid spending time with family and friends as a result of destructive leadership behaviour. However, it is not known whether these private life consequences result directly from destructive leadership or if it results from their emotional consequences (e.g. whether emotional consequences play a mediating role in this relationship.

Thus, the literature demonstrates how many different behavioural consequences of leadership exist. However, there is still nothing known about how behavioural consequences are related to destructive leadership and what factors explain that particular behaviour. Therefore, this research aims at explaining how and why followers react and behave to destructive leadership the way they do. This should fill the current gap in literature concerning the consequences.

2.7 STUDENT EMPLOYEES

(13)

13 emotions were mostly associated with intentions to leave the job, according to Grandey & Brauburger (2002). Indeed, taking into account the fact that young employees do not want to sacrifice their private life, is seems likely that destructive leadership does have a limited impact on their private life. Comparing both conclusions it becomes clear that emotional and behavioural consequences differ between the two generations, based on different values between generations. Nevertheless, no effort was done to particularly research the consequences of destructive leadership on student employees in current literature.

Therefore, this research fills the literature gap on destructive leadership by both focusing on student employees in particular and, by doing qualitative research concerning how the nature of relations between destructive leadership and its emotional & behavioural consequences are established.

2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Finally, the research framework is illustrated below, along with a proper explanation and justification of the concepts.

Figure 2: Conceptual framework of destructive leadership and its consequences on student employees

(14)

(15)

15

3. RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

First of all, the main goal of the thesis is to understand how destructive leadership emotionally and behaviourally influences student followers. In fact, this paper aims at understanding the nature of relationships between destructive leadership and its consequences, as well as discovering concepts that play a role in this relationship. Thus, an attempt is made to explore how student employees in particular react to destructive leadership styles.

The researcher needs to get a detailed grasp on the experiences of these participants in order to understand the phenomenon. According to Corbin & Strauss. (2008), qualitative research allows researchers to discover rather than test variables, like one does in a quantitative research. Taking into account the main goal of the research, the qualitative research method seems the best fit, as it aims at discovering instead of testing. Besides, the objectives of a qualitative study, which are to describe variation, to describe and explain relationships, and describe individual experiences form a perfect match with the particular research objective (Namey, 2005). Moreover, qualitative research is also preferable as it allows the researcher to be more flexible. In fact, participants have the opportunity to respond more elaborately and in greater detail than is typically the case with quantitative methods (Namey, 2005). In order to find new concepts that help to explain why and how destructive leadership influences followers, the interviewer needs to get as rich information as possible from the participants. This can only be done by posing open questions and be flexible, which are typical aspects of a qualitative research. Regarding the possible qualitative research methods, a case study can be considered as most appropriate for this study, as it corresponds with the nature of a case study. According to the literature, a case study is:

“a description and analysis of an individual group or phenomenon with the purpose to identify variables, structures, forms and orders of interaction between the participants in the situation (theoretical purpose), or, in order to assess the performance of work or progress in development” (Starman, 2013).

In fact, this study is an analysis of individual students who have dealt with a destructive leader (the case), with the purpose to identify consequences and variables (new structures) in order to understand how and why students react to destructive leadership in the way they do. The basis for this study is the main research question: “How does destructive leadership influence student

(16)

16 considered when researching a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question. This research does not aim at finding a positive or negative relationship between the concepts in the framework (figure 2), but is specifically focused on finding specific mechanisms, factors that play a role and that explain these relationships.

3.2 PARTICIPANT SELECTION

For this research, student employees were approached. It was important to select participants that met some critical demographic characteristics.

a. Followed a full time study

b. Employed part time beside their study

c. Worked for at least one supervisor during their career

All participants met the requirements above. The majority of the participants worked in the hospitality industry, while several others were active in the service industry like a supermarket or cleaning company. Beforehand, the specific industry was not one of the selection criteria’s, as this would increase the difficulty of finding qualified interviewees. The first five interviewees were friends or acquaintances. For the search of eight other respondents, snowball sampling was used. Snowball technique is a method used to find new participants by asking current interviewees to recommend others for interviewing (Creswell, 2014).

Moreover, another selection criteria, that could only be tested during the interview, is the experience with a destructive leader. The respondents must have had experience with a supervisor that showed characteristics of a destructive leader, according to theory analysed in the literature review. In order to assure this, an interview checklist was made to clearly judge whether the respondent has dealt with a destructive leader. This can be found in table 1 below, as well as in appendix A.

3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

(17)

17

the nature of the relationship (Morgan, 1998). Concerning the number of conducted interviews, the concept of theoretical saturation was used, developed by Corbin & Strauss (2008). These scholars argue that there is no need for more qualitative interviews when no new conceptual insights are generated from the data collection. Indeed, after the 13th in-depth interview, it could be concluded that this point of theoretical saturation was reached. In fact, the last couple of interviews did not yield any new concepts for this research and did overlap with the findings of the other interviews. Therefore, one could conclude that enough information was gathered in order to assure that the study can be replicated, which is the most important aspect of theoretical saturation (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

In addition to interviews, the JSS job satisfaction survey was conducted on the participants. This job satisfaction survey aims at quantitatively measuring the level of job satisfaction according to several job dimensions. This is a questionnaire made by Spector (1985) to evaluate job satisfaction based on several job characteristics. The job satisfaction survey is independent from the specific interview questions for this research and was conducted two times, before the interview and right after, in order to secure reliable responses. In fact, responses might be influenced by the negativity of the interview and therefore calls out negative emotions that might influence the respondent. Nevertheless, responses were similar of every employee that conducted the two surveys. The aim of the job satisfaction survey in addition to the semi structured in-depth interviews is twofold:

1: It facilitates the conversation about their experiences. It helps the respondent to think of their side job thoroughly.

2: Mainly to discover which job dimensions play a pivotal role on the impact of destructive leadership on job satisfaction and behaviour and how.

The job satisfaction survey results are not used for quantitative calculations, but facilitates the qualitative conversation. In fact. Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) argue that just one data collection method is insufficient for a thorough view on the research topic. That is why triangulation of research methods was used to create a better understanding. Triangulation was done by obtaining quantitative and qualitative data through in-depth interviews and the job satisfaction survey. Trough the adoption of triangulation, the instrument reliability was increased.

(18)

re-18 listen and transcribe the data properly. The semi-structured interview contained three rough categories. The first one aiming at identification of the destructive leader, the second at identifying the emotional consequences and the last one at identifying behavioural consequences. The table below illustrates the conceptualization of each concept and therefore assures the research is closely related to previous literature. Moreover, the interview questions are connected to a certain part of the conceptual framework (last column of table 1). Furthermore, the interview checklist that was used during the interview can be found in appendix A, as well as a justification of the interview questions in appendix D.

Table 1: Operationalization of the research concepts

Concept Main question Interview question Theory Model

Destructive leadership Has the respondent dealt with destructive leadership? 1. Beinvloed de manager ook de organisatiedoelen door zijn leidinggeven?

Einarsen et al.,2007 A 2. Kleineren, vernederen of te manipuleren om bepaalde taken of resultaten te behalen? Einarsen,Skogstad & Glaso, 2010 A 3. Vaak afwezig, verantwoordelijkheid vermijden, fraude, stelen? Einarsen et al. 2007 A

4. Vijandig verbaal, non-verbaal gedrag? Tepper, 2007 A 5. Pesten, intimideren, bedriegen Einarsen et al. 2007 A 6. Eenmalig of systematisch voorkomen van gedrag? Tepper, 2007 A 7. Is de manager oneerlijk, geeft geen aandacht je, ontmoedigd initiatief, dwingend

Ashforth, 1994 A

8. Geen leiding, late beslissingen, geen

Bass and Avolio, 2000)

(19)

19

feedback, geen erkenning voor werk, geen

betrokkenheid, geen informatie en instructies

Neuman & Baron, 2005 Destructive leadership on job satisfaction How does destructive leadership affect job satisfaction of the student followers? 7. Verandering van emoties ten opzichte van werk als gevolg van manager?

Hoppock, 1935 B,1

8. Invloed van andere dimensies op relatie?

Spector, 1985 D, 6

9. Beinvloed op korte of lange termijn?

Lam, Zhang & Baum, 2000 1 Destructive leadership on behaviour How does destructive leadership further affect followers’ behaviour

10. Inzet, omzet intentie, prestatie veranderingen?

Hershcovis & Barling, 2010

C,2,3

11. Ziekmelden of stoppen met het werk?

Tepper, 2007 1 C,2,3

12. Gedrag gevolg van verandering werktevredenheid (3) of niet (2)? 2,3 13. Invloed op prive gebied? Martin, 2015 E,5

Job satisfaction How satisfied is the respondent with the job?

(20)

20 3.4 ANALYSIS PLAN

Data of the qualitative interviews was analysed using a method employed by Creswell (2014). It consists of six steps to add rigor to the analysis. The six steps included (1) organize and prepare the collected data for analysis; (2) read all the data and record thoughts; (3) code the data and develop a qualitative codebook; (4) identify categories/themes from the coding; (5) decide how the themes will be presented; and (6) interpret the findings. The analysis of the data, concerning the transcripts and the codebooks are included in appendices C and D in order to be fully transparent about the data analysis.

Organize and read the data. First of all, each interview was transcribed by listening to the

recording of the interview. The transcription contains a proper and precise overview of what was said during the interview. After transcribing, the data was read by the researcher several times to fully understand the participants answers. For the purpose of the length of this paper, a random selection of three out of 13 interview transcripts were chosen to include in appendix D.

Coding the data. Secondly, the interview transcripts were coded. The qualitative codebook can

be found in appendix C. This highly extensive codebook consists of three parts, categorized according to the research questions. Codebook A is based on destructive leadership characteristics that were mentioned by the respondents. The second codebook consists of codes related to job satisfaction, which are emotional consequences. The last codebook consists of behavioural consequences. The codebook is written in the original language, which is Dutch, in order to secure authenticity and reliability of the data.

Identify categories. The three codebooks are structured as follows. The first column lists the

respondent, numbered from 1 to 13. The second column lists the original quotes in Dutch, related to destructive leadership in codebook A, emotional consequences in appendix B, and behavioural consequences in codebook C. The last column consists of the most important codes that resulted from the quotes.

(21)

(22)

22

4. RESULTS

(23)

23 4.1 IDENTIFYING THE DESTRUCTIVE LEADER

During the interviews, participants were asked to describe their manager thoroughly. The question resulted in significant data about the leader they were facing. In order to classify each manager as being destructive, data of each participant was compared to characteristics of a destructive leader from the literature. To make sure each participant dealt with a destructive leader, the data of each interview should contain characteristics similar to that of a destructive leader. These characteristics could be of different leadership styles that were analysis in the literature review.

After a detailed analysis of the interviews, it can be seen that each leader shows a significant amount of destructive leadership characteristics. In appendix C, a detailed overview of the characteristics compared to the codes can be found. Codebook A in appendix C functions as evidence for the claims made in this section. Therefore, this codebook is indispensable when reading section 4.1 of the results and thus functions as a tool to understand the results.

4.1.1 Laissez faire style

First of all, numerous respondents faced leaders with characteristics of a laissez faire style. As reported by respondents 2, 6, 11 and 13, the leader failed to give proper instructions during the first phase of their working period. Respondent two reported:

(2.3) “Almost nothing was explained to me, I just had to work while I never had worked in a restaurant before.”

This shows similarities with a statement of respondent 11, saying:

(11.1) “In the first weeks, I had no instructions, they did not explain anything.”

Also other respondents reported characteristics of a laissez faire leadership style. These characteristics vary from absence of information, feedback, to absence of the leader in general. Respondents 7 and 13 said:

(7.1) “The manager was most of the time not present.” and (13.2) “The managers were always gone.”

In summary, based on theory about laissez-faire leadership, respondents 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 had to deal with managers adopting this leadership style. Below, an overview of family codes regarding laissez faire leadership is listed. The codes can be found back in original language in codebook A, Appendix C. For example, 2.3 stands for respondent 2, quote 3.

(24)

24

4.1.2 Mixed characteristics

Despite the previous effort to classify each manager in a specific leadership style, one could argue that it is an impossible task to categorize each manager towards a specific style of destructive leadership. The literature on destructive leadership is, justly, not in agreement with a single definition of destructive leadership. From the results of this research it can be noted that a leader that adopts a laissez faire leadership style, also portrays behaviour of a tyrannical

2.3 “Almost nothing was explained to me, I just had to work while I never had worked in a restaurant before.”

2.4 I was left alone, without instructions but at the same time when I made a mistake he said it in an angry way, he could not just calmly explain it when I did something wrong.”

2.6 “I did tasks wrong, but it was because nothing was explained to me”

2.8 “He was always quiet, did not say a lot”

2.12 “He said very little but what he said was very unfriendly” 6.2 “She had given me very bad instructions, she only explained

something when I had to do that task at that moment” 7.1 “The manager was most of the time not present”

7.4 “There was no briefing anymore so we didn’t know what to expect during the night”

11.1 “In the first weeks, I had no instructions, they did not explain anything.”

11.2 “During meetings I had no clue what they were talking about because they never explained it to me”

11.3 “They leave me alone”

11.4 “She never asks me how it is going, never explain tasks to me” 11.5 “I never get feedback for my work, never get instructions, I am

completely left alone in my job.”

12.3 “But she never knows anything, she was never there, sometimes she was walking around looking how people were working but then she left again. She didn’t give a real team spirit”

13.2 “The managers were always gone.”

(25)

25 leader. Therefore, it is not correct to classify the leaders in the interview to a particular leadership style. Looking at codebook A in appendix C, it can be noticed that every manager shows at least four signs of a destructive leader. For that reason, it is not worth making an overview of family codes for every leadership style, as respondents mentioned all kind of different destructive leadership styles.

4.1.3 Systematic, repeated behaviour

An important aspect of a destructive leader, according to the theory of Einarsen et al. (2007), is that the destructive behaviour repeats over time. This systematic aspect of behaviour is one of the few aspects literature agrees on. Therefore, the respondents should have dealt with the behaviour they described on a regular basis. Looking at the results, every respondent reported repeated behaviour of some of destructive leadership characteristics. The overview below is a proof that every respondent dealt with a destructive leader that showed repeated behaviour,

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on repeated behaviour

1.15 “Manager continued like that from the second time till I quit” 2.12 “It was always unfriendly, always little talking and if he said

something it was unfriendly”

3.3 “You never get a compliment, only negativity and never something positive”

4.12 “It happened more often, my colleagues had the same problem with the manager, he never does anything when you asked him. Yes it happened more often”

5.9 “It was structural”

6.5 “Yes in the beginning it happened regularly” 7.5 “I have to deal with that on a daily basis”

8.7 “Luckily, it was not only me, else, I would have felt alone, but the whole team had the same”

9.3 “He was always really negative” 10.4 “That actually happened every day”

11.7 “It happened every week, so systematically”.

12.2 “She was all the time micro managing, all the time hammering on what you were doing”

(26)

26 4.2 EMOTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

This section, dealing with the influence of destructive leadership on job satisfaction, covers the emotional responses of students dealing with a destructive leader. Thus, it aims at answering research question: “How does destructive leadership affect student followers emotionally?” First of all, the results of the job satisfaction survey reveal that the respondents were clearly dissatisfied with their managers. Table 2 below shows the scores; out of 13 respondents, 6 were highly dissatisfied, 6 were dissatisfied and one respondent reported neutral. It is worth noticing that this respondent was dissatisfied in the beginning, but it changed during the working period. It is now important to clarify how destructive leadership negatively affects satisfaction and trough which emotions. Moreover, what factors play a prominent role in this relationship. Table 2: Job satisfaction scores, leadership dimension

Highly dissastisfied Dissastisfied Neutral Satisfied Highly satisfied

Scores 6 6 1 0 0

4.2.1 Personality dependent

The first thing that became clear from the interviews is that the emotional consequences of a destructive leader vary based on different personalities. Respondent 2 mentioned that she is highly sensitive for negative comments and that it makes her feel insecure. Moreover, she mentioned that others dealt with this negativity much easier than her. In fact, respondent 10 mentioned he didn’t become insecure of the negative comments and tried to enter into conflict with the manager. Moreover, respondent 6 mentioned she got angry and tried to get a conversation with the manager to improve the situation. This shows that one personality would get insecure and tries to avoid contact, while the other gets mad and tries to get a conversation with the manager. Comparing these findings with theory of Tepper (2007), it can be concluded that these respondents differ in their level of agreeableness and consciousness. In fact, a respondent that is low on both characteristics (i.e. argumentative & impulsive), like respondent 6, suffers less intense than someone who is high on either agreeableness or consciousness, like respondent 2. A clear overview of these different emotional consequences can be seen in the table below.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on personality differences

(27)

27

2.A “Personally, I am really sensitive for a negative manager” 2.B “I became really insecure, I didn’t dare to ask anything and to

make mistakes”

2.D “I think other employees could cope with it more easily” 10.F “No it did not make me insecure, I am confident and that is why

I just went to the manager for a conversation”

4.2.2 Side job perception

An interesting factor that influences the emotional consequences of destructive leaders is the student’s perception of the job. More precisely, the results show that students perceive their job as unimportant and temporary, and therefore mitigate the negative emotional consequences of destructive leadership. Moreover, the ease of switching to another job reduces the emotional consequences as well. Respondent 4 said:

(4.E) “I was already looking for another job. Because it was a side job, and it did not belong to me, I could separate it from my feelings. If it was a permanent job, I would be more emotionally influenced by it”

Quotes of respondents 6 & 8 indicating this particular side job perception as well:

(6.H) “But because I cared very little about the job it didn’t emotionally influence me. I think if I would have worked there every day it would have had a bigger impact”

(8.K) “Of course I wasn’t always looking forward to it, but it was a side job in the end. If it was fulltime, I would find it much worse. You can quit whenever you want”

Respondents 9 and 10 mentioned similar things that indicate their indifferent opinion about the side job and therefore had reduced emotional consequences of the manager. Even respondents 2 and 11, who both had significant negative emotional consequences, reported that at a certain moment they realized it is only a side job, temporary and is not really part of them and ensured that emotional consequences decreased to a minimum. Below, the overview of family quotes that indicate that this particular perception of a side job significantly decreases the relationship between destructive leadership and emotional consequences.

(28)

28

4.E “Because it was a side job, and it did not belong to me, I could separate it from my feelings. If it was a permanent job, I would be more emotionally influenced by it”

6.H “But because I cared very little about the job it didn’t

emotionally influence me. I think if I would have worked there every day it would have had a bigger impact”

8.K “Of course I wasn’t always looking forward to it, but it was a side job in the end. If it was fulltime, I would find it much worse. You can quit whenever you want”

9.G “For me personally it didn’t influence me because it was only a side job”

10.H “After problems I thought just let it go, it is only a side job, not a job where I want to grow further, so it did not make me

insecure”

11.J “What helped me a lot in order to not take it personally anymore is knowing I won’t stay there for long anymore”

12.H “Because I didn’t see it as a serious job. I saw it as a side job to quickly earn some money. In this way I could separate it”

4.2.3 Perception of colleagues

The perception of colleagues by the respondents had also an important impact on the emotional consequences of the respondents. This goes in two ways, when the respondent is dissatisfied about colleagues, the negative emotional consequences get worse. Respondent 2 mentioned:

(2.G) “I just wanted to have fun with colleagues but it didn’t work because they were also unfriendly and moody. That is why I became even more insecure”

From the other side, when an employee is satisfied about the colleagues, it mitigates the negative emotional consequences of the destructive leader. Respondent 1 & 12 said:

(1.G) “Because I was satisfied with my colleagues it mitigated the influence of the manager, but it didn’t take it away completely”

(12.D) “So if she was not there I was happy because I had nice colleagues, and they supported and it was always fun”

(29)

29 between destructive leadership and the emotional consequences of student employees. This result is in line with theory of Karp et al. (2002), who found that young employees value their relationship with colleagues more than their relationship with the company. A full overview of family quotes indicating this influence can be seen below.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on perception of colleagues

2.G “I just wanted to have fun with colleagues but it didn’t work because they were also unfriendly and moody. That is why I became even more insecure”

1.G “Because I was satisfied with my colleagues it mitigated the influence of the manager, but it didn’t take it away completely” 12.D “So if she was not there I was happy because I had nice

colleagues, and they supported and it was always fun” 8.J “Because I had friends who worked there as well I could talk

with them about it and they had the same feeling, that’s why I could separate myself from emotional harm”

11.I “That feeling got better because colleagues told me the boss was doing things wrong, I could talk about it”

4.2.4 Lack of motivation

What becomes evident from the results is that destructive leadership significantly decreases the level of motivation of employees. First of all, the absence of leadership leads to an indifferent, careless mindset of the employee. A quote of respondent 4 clearly depicts this mindset:

(4.B) “Yeah at that moment I thought by myself, fuck of you don’t have any interest in me, so then I also don’t care about the company. You start working with less satisfaction”

(30)

30 a serious loss of motivation. Another statement of respondent 13 shows how this indifference of an employee develops as a result of destructive leadership:

(13.B) “If you have the feeling they are not there for you and they don’t care to make you a profitable employee, then you start to not giving care anymore and just give the clients anything they want, sometimes extra things to not get angry customers. Also myself I eat things from the restaurant, I don’t care”

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on decreased motivation

4.B “Yeah at that moment I thought by myself, fuck of you don’t have any interest in me, so then I also don’t care about the company. You start working with less satisfaction”

1.E “Yeah I was much less motivated” 5.D “Yeah you are less motivated”

13.B “If you have the feeling they are not there for you and they don’t care to make you a profitable employee, then you start to not giving care anymore and just give the clients anything they want, sometimes extra things to not get angry customers. Also myself I eat things from the restaurant, I don’t care”

7.K “If I get treated like that, I just can’t work properly anymore because of a lack of motivation”

8.B “Because the manager was really negative all the time we became demotivated while you need motivated employees” 9.D “So I wasn’t really motivated by the manager”

4.2.5 Time span

(31)

31

(11.E) “Because it became harder and harder to deal with the negative comments of the manager, I felt bad and became less and less satisfied”

Respondent 2 said something similar:

(2.H) “My bad feelings got worse, when I knew I had to work with the manager, I more and more got a feeling I do not want to work here anymore”

This shows that the negative emotional consequences get worse after repeated contacts with destructive elements of leadership.

However, the interesting occurrence that happens with student employees that suffer emotionally from a destructive leader, is that at a certain moment they realize the unimportance of the job and that it is not worth it to suffer from it. At this point all emotional consequences disappear and their emotional attitude change to indifference. Quotes of respondents 2 and 11 clearly show this:

(2.K) “At one moment in time there was a change. I talked to myself this is only an ice cream bar you can do this, there is no reason to feel bad”

(11.J) “Now I don’t take it personal anymore. I realised it had bad consequences on my feelings and I felt really bad. Now I don’t feel bad from it anymore because I know it is only a temporary job and I won’t stay there forever”

Both statements show that because of the perception of the side job, and knowing it is temporary, the respondents stopped being emotionally bonded to the organization, leading to an indifferent mindset. The complete overview that proves this sequence in emotional consequences over time can be seen below.

Respondent and quote number Family codes on time frame of emotional consequences

2.H “My bad feelings got worse, when I knew I had to work with the manager, I more and more got a feeling I do not want to work here anymore”

2.K “At one moment in time there was a change. I talked to myself this is only an ice cream bar you can do this, there is no reason to feel bad”

(32)

32

11.J “Now I don’t take it personal anymore. I realised it had bad consequences on my feelings and I felt really bad. Now I don’t feel bad from it anymore because I know it is only a temporary job and I won’t stay there forever”

1.A “In the beginning I thought let it go, I just continue to work, but after the second day I thought fuck you I don’t want to work here anymore, I am done with it”

4.G, 4.H “In the beginning I felt bad after he reacted in such a negative way. But after a few times you realise it is only a side job and then you don’t worry about it anymore”

4.2.6 Short summary

In short, job satisfaction, operationalized as the emotional perception towards the job, is seriously affected by destructive leadership. Depending on personality, respondents felt sad, angry, moody, demotivated and insecure. Especially the latter, as well as sadness depends heavily on personality. All respondents noted signs of decreased motivation and satisfaction of their work.

Furthermore, the student employees’ particular perception of the side job decreases the emotional impact of destructive leadership. In fact, emotional consequences like sadness and insecurity are often absent because student employees perceive their side job as unimportant and temporary.

(33)

33 4.3 BEHAVIOURAL CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP

This section covers the behavioural consequences of student employees as a result of destructive leadership. This implies all observable behaviour, that both impact the students themselves and the company. Moreover, it reveals the factors that explain why students behave the way they do as a result of destructive leadership.

4.3.1 Decreased effort

The results showed that a significant number of respondents acknowledged reduced effort during their work. Respondents mentioned they were doing less extra tasks when managed by a destructive leader, compared as they would normally do. Respondent 10 illustrates this statement:

(10.III) “I did my job like I think it had to be done, but nothing more than that. The feeling to work really hard and do extra things I had the first year with the other manager was completely gone with the second one. I just didn’t care anymore”

However, decreased effort is not only portrayed as doing less extra things, but also doing the normal pursuits with less effort. Respondent 13 compared her effort during a job with a destructive leader and a constructive leader and said that she wanted to put much more effort when the manager explained everything clearly, and be positive, instead of being absent and negative all the time.

(13.VIII) “The new managers explained everything well, they were friendly and gave compliments. In that way you want to put effort in working if you see the managers put effort in you as well”

Moreover, a significant number of respondents mentioned reduced effort as a result of their lack of motivation, and their careless mindset towards the company. The negativity of a destructive leader directly impacts the level of effort as a student employee needs recognition for his work. This notion corresponds to the theory of Gursoy & Karadag (2013) who concluded that younger generations want immediate recognition for their work, compared to older generations. Indeed, when this recognition is absent, and negativity is there all the time, student employees put less effort because they will get negative feedback anyway. The table below supports the claim made in this paragraph.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on effort changes

(34)

34

1.VIII “My effort was less but my performance stayed more or less the same because I don’t want to be an asshole towards the guests” 2.VII “I didn’t work hard for him, absolutely not”

2.VIII “If I had a nice manager who stimulated me positively, I would have worked more often and I would have taken more initiative” 4.I “Yeah my effort decreased, I just didn’t care anymore. That’s

why I left eventually”

5.IV “I was less focused, forgot to do things. Extra tasks you would normally do I didn’t do anymore, because I thought it doesn’t matter anyways”

6.II “My effort decreased, I just did less things”

9.III “With the other manager, everybody wanted to help, was more motivated and the atmosphere was much better”

10.III “I did my job like I think it had to be done, but nothing more than that. The feeling to work really hard and do extra things I had the first year with the other manager was completely gone with the second one. I just didn’t care anymore”

11.III “I did much less for them, less motivation. When a task wasn’t finished I just went home, I didn’t care about it, just put less effort because they are not satisfied anyways”

13.VIII “The new managers explained everything well, they were friendly and gave compliments. In that way you want to put effort in working if you see the managers put effort in you as well”

4.3.2 Decreased performance & productivity

Closely related to reduced effort, performance & productivity is also significantly affected by destructive leadership. First of all, because of lower effort, productivity decreased subsequently. Respondent 2 said that if the manager was more supportive, she would be much more productive during work. .

(2.IX) “I just waited till someone shouted at me. However when I had worked there for a longer time, I would have been much more productive if the manager gave me some confidence. Then, I would have fixed tasks myself but now I just didn’t dare to do that”

Another statement of respondent 6 clarifies the reduced productivity as a result of little effort:

(35)

35 Moreover, performance is also impacted in some cases. Respondent 4 said he stopped doing his work properly because of the negative characteristics of the manager. Respondent 5 also reported reduced performance because of a loss of satisfaction:

(5.III) “ You are going to work with aversion, then you do your tasks worse. Yes it definitely had an impact”

Respondent 7 revealed increased communication mistakes daily, causing the hospitality company she worked for to lose 3 points on a yearly hygiene test. This shows that destructive leadership, directly impacts the performance of individual employees and subsequently the performance of a business.

Besides, decreased performance and productivity is caused by the fact that employees could not do their work anymore as a result of the destructive leadership. Respondent 8 said that she could not act happy to guests because of her negative emotions as a result of the negativity. Moreover, respondent 11 said that her productivity decreased because of a lack of information of the manager, and therefore could not do her work properly anymore. Below, a table with family quotes on decreased productivity and performance can be found.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on decreased productivity and performance

2.V “I didn’t dare to make mistakes, so I avoided more and more

tasks and situations”

2.IX “I just waited till someone shouted at me. However if I had

worked there for a longer time, I would have been much more productive if the manager gave me some confidence. Then, I would have fixed tasks myself but now I just didn’t dare to do that”

2.XIV “I did tasks wrong but that’s because nobody explained it to

me”

4.II “I just thought it wasn’t a good manager, so I didn’t do my work

properly anymore, then I got fired”

5.III “You are going to work with aversion, then you do your tasks

worse. Yes it definitely had an impact”

6.II “I just did less tasks so the tasks I did were well executed” 7.V “This year we lost 3 points on a yearly check because of the

(36)

36 7.VIII “That influenced me as well. I didn’t do my tasks properly

anymore. The next day nobody tells you that, so then it doesn’t matter anymore if you work well or not”

8.I “I just couldn’t do my work properly anymore bacause of him” 11.I “So I tried to ask others how to do a task but in that way you are

always behind with work”

12.I “ I worked with as much effort as normally, however the quality

of the work decreased because I was too focused on the manager. I couldn’t just relax and focus on the job. Then tasks go wrong”

13.II “Accompaniment was the biggest problem. If the managers had

explained me tasks better, then I would have worked better and I would have put more effort in the job”

4.3.3 Avoidance of work

Another result of destructive leadership, closely related to reduced productivity, is the avoidance of work, reported by several respondents. This avoidance takes several forms: respondent 2 and 6 would cancel work.. Moreover, during work, respondent 2 would avoid certain situations, because she was scared to make mistakes, which was bad because certain tasks were not done properly anymore, she said. Moreover, respondent 5 would avoid certain jobs because of his dissatisfaction towards the absence of the manager. Respondent 7 avoided work by changing her contract from 20 hours to 8 hours a week because she just didn’t want to work anymore. Respondent 11 would avoid work and her manager because of the constant negativity. Finally, respondent 13 would avoid work during busy moments by going to the toilet, or outside during busy moments, because of her careless attitude. The quotes below function as proof for the fact that student employees avoid work as a result of the destructive leader.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on avoiding work

2.II “I often tried not to come. He would ask me to work and I said no I can’t”

2.III “Sometimes I went to the toilet for a long time or do tasks to not be around with the manager”

(37)

37

6.IV “I called in sick much quicker. When I felt bad, or when i was not looking forward working, I would just call in sick or just not come, because they didn’t treat me well so I thought I don’t have to work then”

7.II “It decreased a lot, before I worked 20 hours a week and now only 6 to 8 because I just don’t want to be there”

11.II “I try to avoid the work and her because I don’t want to have all this negativity on me all the time”

13.VI “I tried to avoid the work in busy situations, I would say I’m going to the toilet. And then I would just go outside”

4.3.4 Quitting the job

The intention to quit the job was most frequently mentioned by the respondents out of all consequences. In fact, most of the respondent left the company because of the manager. Respondents 1,2,3,10,11,12 and 13 left the company because of their dissatisfaction towards the manager. Respondent 4 got fired because his effort and performance decreased tremendously as a result of his dissatisfaction. Respondents 5 and 6 had the intention to quit but after conversations with the manager the leadership style improved which made them stay. Else, they would have left the company as well. Respondent 7 is still working at the company in question but will leave soon if the manager does not change. Moreover, the managers of respondents 8 and 9 got fired, because of the decreased performance of the company. This lead to a much better atmosphere with satisfied employees, reported respondent 9. Several respondents argued that the ease of switching to another job facilitated the intention to quit. These results reveal that quitting the job and leaving the company is the most frequent consequence of this study, as 10 out of 13 respondents had quit intentions or actually quit the job. The overview of the quotes concerning quit intentions can be found below.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on quit intentions

1.II “I thought, if you are that disrespectful, I will never come back here”

(38)

38

2.XII “I was looking for another job because I knew I wasn’t going to carry this for a long time. Then I got an offer and I quit the job”

3.I “The manager was one of the reasons why I was looking for another job”

4.IV “After three and a half month I was done with the manager” 6.VIII “I would have quit if the situation did not improve”

7.III “If nothing changes on a short term, if the manager is not able to get the structure back in the organization, I will quit” 10.I “When I heard the manager was trying to betray me, I quit

immediately”

12.V “A lot of employees quit because of the manager”

12.VIII “The way the manager treated us, I realized that I don’t want to work here anymore”

13.VII “I was working there only during pre-season, after that I asked for a translocation because of the manager”

4.3.5 Nature of work mitigating reduced performance

What became clear from the interviews is that the nature of the work itself moderated the relationship between destructive leadership and decreased performance. If the tasks for an employee are more stressful and challenging, the respondents will put less effort in their duties, leading to reduced performance. In fact, respondent 3 mentioned that because of his unchallenging work nature, he did not perform less than he would have performed with a good manager, because the work is not intense anyway. Nevertheless, if the work would have been challenging, he would work less quickly because of a loss of motivation and satisfaction, respondent 3 admitted. The quote below supports this argument.

(3.V) “Performance did not change, but that’s because of the work, it was really easy. But when you have to work really hard, and when the manager is really negative, then I would have worked less hard”

(39)

39 performance was not impacted just because of this particular aspect of the work. The statements of both interviewees explain the previous assumption.

Respondent and quote number Family quotes on work nature mitigating impact on performance

1.VIII “My effort was a little less but performance was still good because I don’t want to be antisocial towards the guests” 3.V “Performance did not change, but that’s because of the work, it

was really easy. But when you have to work really hard, and when the manager is really negative, then I would have worked less hard”

12.VI “I wanted to make the guests happy. They pay and if my performance decreases, it is bad for them. I am not going to influence their experience because of my bad manager, that is unfair”

13.V I had the feeling, it is not the fault of the guests, so towards them I behaved the same. They should not suffer from my bad

experience with the manager”

4.3.6 Salary & colleagues mitigating consequences

Other mitigating concepts concerning quit intention that came forward in the interviews are satisfaction of salary & colleagues. In fact, respondents that were highly satisfied with their salary and/or colleagues, had reduced intentions to quit the company. Respondent 11 is still working at the company in question, just because of her satisfaction towards salary:

(11.VII) “I would have quit if my salary was lower, it is my main reason I am still working there”

Also respondent 10 said that he stayed longer at the company just because he was satisfied with colleagues and salary:

(10.V) “That is why I wanted to stay in the first place. It was not nice with the manager but with the other colleagues we had a good time. Also the salary was really good. Else, I would have left”

THE IMPACT OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT EMPLOYEES