Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences

Vol 8 Issue 4 pp. 1-13

[Link]

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Exploitative Leadership Research: A Comprehensive Overview

Iftikhar Hussain1 *, Sajjad Hussain2 , Waqas Noor3 , Engineer Danish Gul Khattak, PE4
1,2,3,4 Department of Business Administration, Foundation University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract— This study aims to provide a comprehensive yet concise review of the research on exploitative leadership, structured within
a chronological framework. It begins by outlining the early historical context of leadership studies, tracing the development of exploitative
leadership as a distinct concept within the broader category of destructive or negative leadership. The review highlights the evolution of
the term, exploring its relevance across diverse academic disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and political science, each of which
contributes unique perspectives to the understanding of this phenomenon. Key queries addressed include how exploitative leadership has
diverged from other destructive leadership forms, such as abusive supervision or authoritarian leadership, and what speci􀅫ic character-
istics de􀅫ine exploitative leaders. The study also investigates the various outcomes associated with this leadership style, with a particular
focus on how it in􀅫luences behavioural and attitudinal responses in the workplace. This analysis is framed within multiple theoretical
frameworks, including social exchange theory and the conservation of resources model, offering a rich, interdisciplinary approach to un-
derstanding its impact. In conclusion, the study identi􀅫ies and discusses emerging trends in exploitative leadership research, suggesting
future directions for empirical investigation and theoretical re􀅫inement, particularly in light of ongoing changes in organizational struc-
tures and leadership dynamics.

Index Terms— Exploitative leadership, self-interest of leadership, Egoistic behavior, Antecedents, mechanisms, Undermining

Received: 9 February 2024 ; Accepted: 28 April 2024; Published: 25 July 2024

Introduction

The realm of leadership encompasses a vast scope, characterized by intricate complexities and formidable challenges in its execution. Its
interpretation undergoes shifts across different locations, eras, and cultural contexts (Stone & Patterson, 2021). Through historical and
philosophical lenses, the concept of leadership remains in a constant state of progression. Currently, there exist more than 1000 de􀅫ini-
tions for leadership, spanning over many diverse leadership styles and encompassing different prominent leadership theories (Dugan,
2024; Silva, 2016). Due to its integrally social and cultural nature, de􀅫ining leadership introduces intricacies and a range of perspectives,
leading to challenges in its practical application. Despite the intricate and sometimes daunting aspects of leadership, its fundamental
core revolves around the idea of providing service. The central concept of "service" holds a paramount position in the realm of leader-
ship, transcending various de􀅫initions and conceptual frameworks. This is primarily because, regardless of the context, service forms the
foundational backbone of leadership (Tedla et al., 2022).

*
Email: [Link]@[Link]

© 2024 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences (JMPHSS). All rights reserved.
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

The history of leadership is as old as humankind itself, with its foundations rooted in the thoughts of Plato, Laozi, and other leading
thinkers (Sułkowski, Dacko-Pikiewicz, & Szczepań ska Woszczyna, 2024). In modern management sciences, leadership studies gained
signi􀅫icant attention in the early 20th century with contributions from 􀅫igures like Frederick Taylor, who introduced scienti􀅫ic manage-
ment, and others who developed various leadership theories, such as trait theory, contingency theory, and participative leadership (Stone
& Patterson, 2021; Tedla et al., 2022). Since then, substantial efforts have been made to identify, categorize, and explain many aspects of
leadership, encouraging broad corporate and social examination of varied leadership styles and behaviors (Mehraein, Visintin, & Pittino,
2023; Nawaz & Khan, 2016).
The study of leadership has evolved through several main phases, including the Great Man Theory, which posits that leaders have
leadership traits when they are born, and such traits are possessed by extraordinary individuals (Peters, 2023; Samul, 2020; Spector,
2016). Trait theory expanded on this by suggesting that speci􀅫ic physical and personality characteristics distinguish leaders from non-
leaders (Nawaz & Khan, 2016; Peters, 2023). Contingency theories introduced the idea that effective leadership depends on situational
factors (Amghar, 2022; (Luthans & Stewart, 1977), while style and behavior theories focused on the various methods leaders use to in-
teract with their teams (Benmira & Agboola, 2021; Warrick, 1981). Process leadership theories emphasized the actions and behaviors
leaders employ to manage and in􀅫luence their organizations (Dugan, 2024; Greenleaf, 1977). Transactional leadership theory views
leadership from a different perspective as a sequence of interactions between leaders and followers (Bass, 1985; Dong, 2023), while
transformational leadership theory highlights the importance of inspiring and engaging followers for a higher purpose (House & Shamir,
1993; Ladkin & Patrick, 2022). Based on a leader's approach and behaviour, leadership styles and characteristics can be classi􀅫ied as
either constructive or destructive. Constructive leader emphases on encouraging and mounting followers to achieve organizational goals
(Arasli, Arici, & Kole, 2020), while destructive leadership is regarded as by behaviors that damage both the organization and its employees
(Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013).
Exploitative leadership (EL), a form of destructive leadership, has increasingly become a focal point in leadership studies due to
its detrimental impact on both subordinates and organizations. While various destructive leadership styles, such as abuse of authority
(Tepper, 2000), hubris (Sadler-Smith, Akstinaite, Robinson, & Wray, 2017), and despotism (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008), have been
extensively studied, EL remains relatively underexplored. Despite its less overtly aggressive nature, EL is distinct and uniquely harmful.
Schmid, Pircher Verdorfer, and Peus (2019) highlighted that this leadership style involves acting egoistically, exerting undue pressure, and
hindering subordinates' development, thereby contributing to a toxic work environment.

Problem statement, research question, and signi􀅮icance of study

Although leadership studies are becoming more popular, there is still a lack of a clear and complete overview of exploitative leadership,
an important but less explored type of leadership (Syed et al., 2023). Most researchers only looked at speci􀅫ic parts of it, which results
in a limited understanding of its key features, causes, and effects. This incomplete picture makes it dif􀅫icult for researchers and profes-
sionals to fully understand how exploitative leadership affects organizations (Emmerling, Peus, & Lobbestael, 2023). A more thorough
review is needed to bring together existing knowledge, which can help guide future studies on the topic (Jimbun, Mohamed, Mahomed,
& Subramaniam, 2022). This study aims to investigate how exploitative leadership is linked to employees' willingness to take on tasks
beyond their job responsibilities. By exploring the underlying causes, in􀅫luencing factors, and conditions that may affect this relationship,
the research seeks to improve our understanding of exploitative leadership and its harmful consequences. Given the signi􀅫icant negative
consequences of EL, it is crucial to understand its impact on various employee behaviors and organizational outcomes. This study aims to
explore the intricate relationship between EL, its antecedents, and the mechanisms through which EL can affect employees (mediators),
moderators, and outcomes.
The current study offers a concise overview of EL as this leadership style recently has gained the clear attention of scholars due
to its detrimental consequences, which are not immediately apparent and can harm organizations badly. The study is divided into 􀅫ive
sections. The 􀅫irst section delineates and de􀅫ines EL, tracing its historical origins by detailing the contexts and situations from which the
conception of EL originates. The second section delves into the signi􀅫icance of EL by exploring and comparing analogous constructs. It
meticulously compares and contrasts these constructs to highlight similarities that underscore universal themes while also addressing
key distinctions that delineate unique aspects of EL in various contexts. The third section offers a comprehensive analysis of how EL
impacts behavioral and performance outcomes through different mechanisms, encompassing both supervisor-directed outcomes and
organizational-directed outcomes. The fourth section elucidates the methodology used in conducting this review research paper, detailing
the approach and frameworks utilized. In the 􀅫ifth section, emerging trends in EL research are highlighted, offering insights into evolving
areas which need further inquiries. The concluding section provides a comprehensive discussion and synthesis of 􀅫indings, culminating
in a de􀅫initive conclusion.

2
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Literature Review

Evolution of exploitative leadership: from historical origins to current constructs

The history of leadership stretches back to early times, with introductory ideas on sense-making leadership evolving from the ideas of
thinkers like Plato and Laozi. The concept of leadership in modern sciences, however, has its origins in the early 20th century, notably with
the advent of Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scienti􀅫ic Management. Signi􀅫icant contributions in this era were made by Stogdill, who used
trait theory in the early 20th century. In 1939, Kurt Lewin introduced his own leadership style, and in 1976, Max Weber developed the
idea of charismatic authority. The 1960s brought Fred Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership, followed by Rensis Likert's participative
leadership theory in 1967. In the mid-1970s, the concepts of situational leadership emerged, as did the path-goal theory of leadership.
In 1970, Robert Greenleaf 􀅫irst introduced the idea of servant leadership and further developed the concept in 1977. The 1980s through
2011 marked the era of Bernard Bass's transformational leadership. Bruce Avolio and Fred Luthans developed the theory of authentic
leadership in 2008.
In modern sciences, constructive or positive leadership gained more attention from scholars than negative or destructive leader-
ship. Destructive leadership, as described by Krasikova et al. (2013), refers to “intentional actions by a leader that can damage or aim
to damage the organization and the followers. This can occur in two main ways: (a) by inspiring employees to follow goals that go in
contradiction with the genuine bene􀅫its of the organization, or (b) by using a leadership approach that involves employing detrimental
approaches to inspire followers, regardless of any rationalizations for such behaviour” started gaining the attention of researchers after
Howell (1988) very 􀅫irst introduced personalized charismatic leadership as self-centred and self-interested behaviour of leadership. Af-
terwards researchers found different constructs and types of destructive leadership including Ashforth (1994) petty tyranny of leadership,
leader bullying, leader incivility, abusive leadership, leader undermining, corrupt leadership and evil leadership, toxic leadership, leader
narcissism and tyrannical leadership, leaders exclusion, Derailed Leadership, Aversive Leadership, Pseudo-Transformational Leadership,
Despotic Leadership, negative leadership, and insincere leadership, Destructive Leadership, Abusive supervision is amongst the worst
kind of leadership (Hussain, Ahmed, Gulzar, Usman, & Hussain, 2020) while positive and ethical leaders promote improved satisfaction
and better performance (Fayyaz, Ahmad, Hussain, & Arshad, 2019). The following table from Mackey, Ellen III, McAllister, and Alexander
(2021) presents various destructive leadership styles of other ELs, along with their de􀅫initions and the researchers who 􀅫irst provided
operational de􀅫initions and developed scales to measure these variables.

Table I
Destructive variables
Construct De􀅫inition Reference
Destructive Intentional actions by a leader can damage or aim to damage the organiza- Krasikova et al.
Leadership tion and the followers. This can occur in two main ways: (a) by inspiring (2013)
employees to follow goals that go in contradiction with the genuine bene-
􀅫its of the organization, or (b) by using a leadership approach that involves
employing detrimental approaches to inspire followers, regardless of any ra-
tionalizations for such behaviour.
Abusive Super- Subordinates' views on the degree to which supervisors consistently display Tepper (2000)
vision aggressive oral and gestures, reactions, or actions, but excluding physical
exchange.
Aversive Leader- Leadership behaviours that focus on employing threats, intimidation, and Bligh, Kohles,
ship punishment. Pearce, Justin,
and Stovall
(2007)
Corrupt Leader- The leadership engages in deceitful, dishonest, or unethical behaviours to Kellerman
ship the extent that surpasses the norm, prioritizing their own self-interest over (2004)
the public good.
Derailed Leader- Leaders exhibit behaviors that are harmful to subordinates (e.g., bullying, Einarsen et al.
ship humiliation) and detrimental to the organization (e.g., absenteeism, fraud) (2007)
while engaging in destructive practices.
Despotic Lead- Leader’s characterized by self-aggrandizement and exploitation, driven by De Hoogh and
ership individual supremacy and demanding conduct that serves the leaders own Den Hartog
bene􀅫its. (2008)
Evil Leadership The leader and followers engage in extreme acts of cruelty, using pain as a Kellerman
tool for exerting power and in􀅫licting substantial physical and psychological (2004)
harm.

3
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Cont...
Construct De􀅫inition Reference
Insincere Lead- Leaders employ a range of covert and deceptive tactics to attain own objec- Schilling (2009)
ership tives at the cost of others, avoiding direct con􀅫lict.
Insular Leader- The leader and followers neglect or overlook the health and well-being of Kellerman
ship individuals outside their immediate group or organization. (2004)
Leader Bullying Persistent negative actions over an extended period make it challenging for Einarsen and
the affected individual to respond or defend themselves. Skogstad (1996)
Leader Exclu- Leaders exclude followers from important workplace connections, activities, Scott (2007)
sion or events.
Leader Incivility Subtle, low-level misconduct with unclear intentions to cause harm, marked Andersson and
by impoliteness and disregard. Pearson (1999)
Leader Narcis- Leaders act based on their own excessive self-centred desires, prioritizing Rosenthal & Pit-
sism their personal needs above the needs and interests of their followers and tinsky (2006)
organizations.
Leader Under- Actions aimed at obstructing the formation and maintenance of positive re- Duffy, Ganster,
mining lationships, professional success, and a good reputation. and Pagon
(2002)
Negative Lead- Negative leadership is when they are involved in usually unpopular activi- Schilling (2009)
ership ties, reaching from unproductive to damaging aspects.
Personalized Leaders focus on their personal gain and foster unequal relationships by ma- Howell (1988)
Charismatic nipulating and undermining the authority of their followers.
Leadership
Pseudo- Leaders push their own self-serving goals by exerting dominance and con- Barling, Christie,
Transformational trol over their followers, prioritizing their own glori􀅫ication over shared val- and Turner
Leadership ues or collective goals. (2008)
Petty Tyranny An individual who wields power in an arbitrary, harsh, and vengeful manner, Ashforth (1994)
exerting dominance over others.
Toxic Leader- People with harmful behaviours and maladaptive traits create a long-lasting Lipman-Blumen
ship and severe negative impact on those they lead. (2005)
Tyrannical Lead- Leaders who achieve outcomes by sacri􀅫icing their subordinates and align- Einarsen et al.
ership ing their actions with organizational objectives while in􀅫licting harm on their (2007)
followers.

The concept of exploitative leadership

The notion of EL (which is a form of destructive and negative leadership) was 􀅫irst introduced by Schmid et al. (2019) in their research
paper. Schmid, Pircher Verdorfer, and Peus (2018) de􀅫ined EL as a headship style in which leader exploits others for their self-interest. On
the other side, Wright and Ferris (1997) mentioned that in the intimidating interdependence of material bene􀅫its and interests, exploita-
tion prioritizes the self-interest or well-being of the exploiter at the cost of the exploited. Schmid et al. (2018) further expanded on this
concept, linking EL to self-interested behaviours and creating a framework to measure this destructive style. Exploitative leaders, driven
by personal ambition, often manipulate, coerce, and dishonestly exploit their subordinates' abilities, time, and resources, undermining
not only the well-being of their followers but also the long-lasting health of the organization itself (Elsaied, 2022; Metin-Orta, 2021;
Schmid et al., 2019).
Characterized by self-promotion and the pursuit of personal power, EL dismisses ethical considerations and focuses on short-term
gains at the cost of sustainable organizational development (Schmid et al., 2019). This leadership style fosters a climate of mistrust and
discontent through tactics such as manipulation and coercion, leading to a host of negative outcomes for subordinates (Lyu, Wu, Ye, Kwan,
& Chen, 2023; Wang, Ren, Chadee, & Sun, 2021); Abdulmuhsin2021). Moreover, exploitative leaders tend to overburden followers with
menial tasks, sti􀅫ling their growth and development (Schmid et al., 2019). Overall, EL is considered a form of negative and damaging
leadership, as it involves leaders engaging in damaging approaches to gain self-bene􀅫it from their subordinates (Fatima & Majeed, 2023;
Schmid et al., 2018).

Dimensions of exploitative leadership in current construct

EL can manifest in various ways, including leaders acting sel􀅫ishly, manipulating others, and pressuring or overburdening followers. The
dimensions of an EL can be drawn based on an interview study by Schilling (2009) and (May, Peus, & Frey, 2010). There are four key
dimensions of EL identi􀅫ied by Schmid et al. (2019) based on the scale developed to measure this variable. Agreeing with Schmid et al.

4
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

(2019), the 􀅫irst dimension of EL involves leaders acting egoistically by preferring their own objectives while giving the least priority to
the needs of others and captivating acclaim for the work done by others (Stouten & Tripp, 2009; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). The
second dimension involves an exploitative leader exerting pressure and manipulating followers by using in􀅫luence tactics, such as applying
excessive pressure or manipulating them to achieve self-serving goals. Leaders often apply excessive pressure and harsh timelines on fol-
lowers, using manipulative rather than overtly aggressive tactics to achieve goals that serve their self-interest (May et al., 2010; Schilling,
2009). The third dimension involves overburdening followers, where leaders delegate additional tasks to already overloaded followers,
often in a way that seems friendly but ultimately serves the leader's self-interest. To further their own goals, the leader may adopt an
overtly amicable manner; this behaviour sets it apart from other damaging leadership styles, which frequently stem from bullying. (Tep-
per, 2000) The fourth dimension of EL involves under-challenging followers, where leaders assign monotonous tasks or obstruct their
career advancement to prevent growth and development while this approach contrasts sharply with Constructs of positive leadership,
including servant leadership (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).

How is an Exploitative Leader Different from an Abusive Leader, Narcissistic Leader, or Machiavellian Leader?

EL is characterized by a leader who prioritizes their own self-interest, employing various tactics to exploit their followers for personal
gain. While there are other leadership styles that also involve pursuing self-interest through the manipulation of others, these approaches
differ from EL in their speci􀅫ic characteristics and methods. Both narcissism and Machiavellianism are fundamentally driven by self-
interest. Narcissists are often marked by their arrogance and manipulative behaviour toward others (Paulhus, 1998) and are known to
take undue credit for others' achievements, showing greed in pursuing self-interest (Rauthmann, 2012). Such leaders' focus is on their
own needs, validation, and approbation, seeking gigantic attention while showing a lack of empathy for others. In contrast, Machiavel-
lians are distinguished by their use of deceptive interpersonal strategies and their ability to lie persuasively in the hunt for their own goals
(Geis & Moon, 1981). Machiavellian achieves purposes using cunning and deceptive approaches to stay in power and take advantage of
others' works or achievements, while exploitative leaders act egoistically, exert pressure, manipulate followers, overburden followers,
and challenge followers and hinder them from achieving their goals Schmid et al. (2018). On the other side, an abusive supervisor uses
explicit hostility and aggression, manifesting as verbal abuse and bullying, with the intent of asserting dominance and exerting control
over subordinates through intimidation, while EL, through covert manipulation and deceit, exploits followers for personal gain without
resorting to overt aggression (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision directly undermines the emotional well-being of followers through
harsh treatment (Liang et al., 2022), while EL employs deceptive practices that, although less immediately apparent, similarly compro-
mise trust and morale Schmid et al. (2019). The former is characterized by direct confrontation (Pradhan, Srivastava, & Mishra, 2020),
whereas the latter relies on indirect manipulation to achieve self-serving goals (Lyu et al., 2023). Abusive supervision resembles reactive
aggression, characterized by impulsive and emotional responses. In contrast, exploitative leadership aligns with proactive aggression,
which is premeditated and calculated (Emmerling et al., 2023).

Past studies on exploitative leadership and its outcomes Table 2 provides an overview of research on exploitative leadership since
this variable was introduced and operationalized by (Schmid et al., 2018). This variable has since prompted further investigations across
various industries. However, the body of literature on EL remains relatively sparse, underscoring the need for additional research (Fatima
& Majeed, 2023). The existing literature highlights the detrimental effects of EL on employee’s emotions, development, performance,
burnout, decreased job satisfaction, decreased well-being, decreased organizational commitment, and workplace bias (Fatima & Majeed,
2023; Wang et al., 2021; Wu, Sun, Ye, Kwan, & Yang, 2021). The 􀅫irst literature review on EL was published by Jimbun et al. (2022).
Subsequently, further studies have been published, examining new issues stemming from EL. Table 2 includes not only the outcomes from
major studies identi􀅫ied in (Jimbun et al., 2022) study but also those highlighted in more recent research published between 2021 and
2024.

So based on previous researches on destructive leadership in general and exploitative leadership in speci􀅫ic we can hypothesize that
‘exploitative leadership has negative impacts on follower’s behaviors.’ And the next table two presents a proof mentioning the results of
existing researches on EL.

5
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Table II
Outcomes of exploitative leadership
Author Sector and Location Theory Result
Alajhar, Bajaba, and Full-time employees, Conservation of Re- EL was a predictor of psychological distress with
Yaqub (2024) USA sources Theory, Equity perceived distributive injustice as a mediator.
Theory
Huang, Li, and Tang MBA students and em- HRD The developmental HR strongly improved creative
(2024) ployees in China ideas while EL was lower, with reciprocation obli-
gation mediating these impacts.
S. Bajaba, Al-Judibi, Saudi Arabain Employ- SET EL negatively affects work passion, while trust in
Basahal, and Alsab- ees leaders plays a mediating role.
ban (2024)
Wang, Ren, Chadee, Manufacturing and ser- CRT It was proved that work meaningfulness and an-
and Chen (2024) vices industry, China other variable, moral potency, both mediated the
relationship between EL and ethical silence.
Khalid and Aftab Banking, Telecommu- (CRT) EL was found to correlate positively with knowl-
(2024) nication, and higher edge withholding through hostile attribution bias
education sector, Pak- and perceived job insecurity.
istan
Pircher Verdor- Various sectors, Ger- SET EL and Abusive Supervision through perceived
fer, Belschak, and many LMSX decreases satisfaction with leadership.
Bobbio (2024)
Guo, Luo, and Cheng Industry, China Appraisal Theory of Dis- EL has positive relations with approach-oriented
(2024) crete Emotions and also a positive correlation with avoidance-
oriented counterproductive work behaviours
(CWB), with anger serving as a mediating factor.
El-Sayed Aly, Wahba, Hospitals, Egypt SET, Moral Disinterment EL was negatively correlated with passion for work
and Abdel-Aleem Theory in nurses.
(2023)
Ye, Chen, Wu, and Hospitality Industry, Social Identity Theory EL was positively linked to social loa􀅫ing, mediated
Kwan (2023) China by employees' perceived insider status (PIS).
Mahmood, Zahur, Public sector organiza- CRT EL reduces psychological well-being and job satis-
and Al Hassan tions, Pakistan faction by promoting dehumanization.
(2023)
Khan and Tariq Banking Sector, Pakistan Social Cognitive Theory EL directly affects employee expediency, and Per-
(2023) ceived injustice mediates this relationship.
Huang, Li, and Tang Saudi Arabia Industry Social Cognitive Theory EL positively impacts unethical pro-organizational
(2023) behaviours (UPOB), and this relationship was fully
mediated by moral disengagement.
(Lyu et al., 2023) The manufacturing Social Cognitive Theory EL positively affects both employees' organiza-
industry China tional deviance and employees' interpersonal de-
viance indirectly by way of moral justi􀅫ication.
Majeed, Fatima, and Textile sector, Pakistan EL was found to be positively related to employee
Irshad (2023) procrastination through state suspicion (SS) and
supervisor-based cynicism.
Emmerling et al. NA NA Mentioned passive behaviour (turnover, with-
(2023). drawal) as an outcome of EL, while low arousal
(shame, depression, insecurity) mediates

6
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Cont...
Author Sector and Loca- Theory Result
tion
A. Bajaba, Ba- Public and pri- Social Identity Theory EL negatively impacts voice behaviour
jaba, and Alsab- vate sector Saudi through organizational identity.
ban (2023) Arabia
Sun, Wu, and Hotel Industry, SET EL adversely affects the service quality of
Kwan (2023) China employees working in the hospitality in-
dustry, with LMX acting as a mediator.
(Fatima & Ma- Hotel Industry, Conservation of Re- Exploitative leaders increase psycholog-
jeed, 2023) Pakistan source Theory ical distress and emotional complexity
among hotel employees.
Ye, Lyu, Wu, and Private hotel in- Organizational Justice EL indirectly in􀅫luences employees' ser-
Kwan (2022) dustry, China Theory vice sabotage by depleting their resources.
Akhtar et al. Education Sec- CRT There exists serial mediation of facades of
(2022) tor of Pakistan conformity with depression between EL
and absenteeism.
Zahur, Swati, and The banking sec- Social Exchange Theory EL causes reduced employee creativity
Butt (2022) tor in Pakistan and decreased psychological well-being
of employees by causing emotional ex-
haustion. However, interaction avoidance
moderates this relationship.
Elsaied (2022) Telecom Sector, Ego depletion theory EL in􀅫luenced organizational cynicism;
Egypt emotional exhaustion mediated this rela-
tionship.
Costa et Medium and Social Cognitive Theory EL was negatively impacting innovation
al.,(2021) large companies implementation.
in Italy and
Croatia
Syed et al., Service sector, Cognitive Appraisal The- EL recuses performance and increases
(2021) Pakistan ory turnover intentions by encouraging
knowledge-hiding actions or behaviour.
Wang et al. Hospitality, Ego Depletion Theory In the hospitality industry, EL reduces in-
(2021) China novative green behaviour, with emotional
exhaustion serving as a mediator.
Wan et al., IT, manufac- Ego Depletion Theory EL negatively impacts employee innova-
(2020) turing, retail, tive behaviour.
􀅫inance, educa-
tion, China
Wu et al. (2021) Hospitality, SET and LMX EL detrimentally impacts the service per-
China formance of frontline hospitality employ-
ees.
Abdulmuhsin Public universi- Knowledge-based View, Signi􀅫icant negative impact of EL on
(2021) ties, Iran SET, LMX knowledge management.
Guo et al. (2024) High technology CRT EL is associated with increased knowledge
company China hiding and greater psychological distress.
Majeed et al. Nurses, Pakistan CRT Negative affectivity was found to mediate
(2023) EL and psychological distress in nurses,
while psychological detachment dimin-
ishes the strength of this relationship.
Schmid et al. Various or- N/A EL related to turnover intention.
(2019) ganizations
Germany
Schmid et al. Information Cognitive-Relational EL showed a nearly signi􀅫icant negative
(2018) technology and Theory impact on job satisfaction.
communication,
Germany

7
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Methodology

A meticulous approach was taken to amass studies on exploitative leadership that were published till June 2024 in order to compile and
combine pertinent data. The goal was to create an extensive analysis that may serve as a representation of the quantitative research on
EL. The subsequent research methodologies were utilized:
Available content was found in journals (peer review especially), books, conference papers, PhD level dissertations, and different
research reports. Most of the articles were taken from APA, Elsevier, Emerald, and Sage journals, as well as JSTORE and Science Direct.
Wiley's online library was also used to access literary works. Other than the aforementioned platforms, Google, Google Scholar, and Pro-
Quest are great sources of information on searched content or topics. For searching the related contents, topics like destructive leadership,
EL, negative leadership style, toxic leaders and outcomes, counter work productive behaviours and antecedents, negative communication
behaviour, personality traits and performance, employee organization relationship, negative emotions and aggressive behaviours, etc.,
were used.
After about 150 publications were reviewed, 100–110 pertinent ones were chosen and cited in the creation of the study. About 15 to
20 speci􀅫ic works—such as scholarly articles, theses, book sections, technical documents, research briefs, and conference papers —that
addressed EL in professional settings were downloaded because the idea of EL is still relatively new and has not been the theme of much
research.
As the present study emphasises the outcomes of EL, It emphasizes the interactive dynamic of 'a dyadic relationship' in the leader-
ship and their cohorts or followers. Data can be collected from leaders and followers as well. It is bene􀅫icial to collect data from both for
a complete understanding of dyadic leadership relationships (Gooty & Yammarino, 2011). Leaders' goals, actions, intentions, and self-
perceptions of their leadership style can all be inferred from data collected from leaders. On the other hand, data collected from followers
highlights how they understand and are affected by the leader's actions, providing insight into the ef􀅫icacy and outcomes of the leader-
ship approach. This dual viewpoint provides a more thorough and complex understanding of the leadership dynamic and its effects. To
enhance effectiveness, a time-lagged approach can be employed for data collection, where leaders and followers provide their responses
at different intervals, ranging from weeks to months. This method helps reduce or mitigate common method variance by capturing data
at separate points in time, thus offering a more accurate re􀅫lection of the dynamics between leadership and followership (Podoskoff et al.,
2003).
There are different scales available for different leadership styles to collect measure variables and collect data from leadership or
followers. Likewise, researchers have developed different scales to measure different destructive leadership styles. For example, cccc
established a scale to measure abusive supervision, which is one of the most extensively used. Although the complete 15-item form is used
in many studies, a few researchers (Baumeister et al., 2001, for example) use smaller forms that have three to thirteen items. The initial
scale designed, developed, and validated to measure EL was created by Schmid et al. (2018). This scale consists of 15 items speci􀅫ically for
assessing EL. To date, no alternative scales have been developed or tested for this construct, and none of the researchers have identi􀅫ied
a shorter version of Schmid’s scale. Scale items used in exploitative leadership are attached in the annexure.
In this scale, the 􀅫irst three items assess egoistic acts of leadership. Items four through six evaluate whether leadership exerts pressure
for personal gain. Items seven to nine are designed to measure whether leadership assigns tedious tasks while undermining followers.
Items ten to twelve are utilized to assess whether leaders take credit for others' work. Finally, items thirteen to 􀅫ifteen measure whether
leaders manipulate subordinates to further their own interests.

Limitations and Future Directions

Given are a few limitations which must be addressed in future studies:

A key limitation is that our focus was on management sciences journals only. All the articles accessed and reviewed were from the
management sciences domain, which predominantly covers topics mostly relevant to management sciences only, while leadership is one
of the most studied topics in management sciences. We didn't include insights from 􀅫ields like political science, sociology, education, and
the public sector. A more comprehensive understanding could be gained by integrating 􀅫indings from these varied disciplines.
Another limitation is that, despite our efforts to target a comprehensive range of research studies on exploitative leadership, some
relevant studies may have been inadvertently excluded due to constraints in accessing all research journals and the potential for human
error.
This study primarily addresses the concept of EL and its consequences without delving into the examination of potential antecedents.
In the future, studies should be carried out to 􀅫ill this gap by investigating the antecedents of exploitative leadership and exploring the
driving forces that gave rise to the occurrence of this leadership style.
The meta-analytic review by Jimbun et al. (2022), which covers around 70 studies and an additional 80 studies this article is covering,
reveals that nearly all of the research utilized Schmid et al. (2018) scale as a compound, holistic measure without examining its dimensions

8
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

separately. None of the studies assessed or discussed the individual dimensions separately. Therefore, future research could focus on
measuring and analyzing the impacts of each dimension of exploitative leadership separately. Future studies could also explore how each
dimension leads to different outcomes and the varying magnitudes of their effects.
The era of polarized and isolated environments is over. With globalization and a more diverse workforce, organizations now deal
with people from different cultures and perspectives. This requires a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding. In today's world,
organizations face fast-changing environments and new challenges. This means they need fresh ideas and innovative management ap-
proaches, as past experiences may not always be helpful or relevant (Fang, 2010). Table 2 shows that most of the studies are done in the
West and China only, and there are hardly a few studies from Pakistan or other continents like Australia and African countries. So, in the
future, researchers might focus on countries from these continents to validate the existence of and measure of exploitative leadership in
those cultures.
Since the introduction of EL’s scale developed by Schmid et al. (2018), subsequent research has consistently employed this same scale
to measure the construct. However, there is a pressing need for the creation of new scales that incorporate additional and previously over-
looked dimensions of exploitative leadership. These new scales should be rigorously designed and validated across diverse organizational
settings and cultural contexts.
An additional limitation in existing studies is that exploitative leadership is typically measured using follower-rated scales. Future
research should consider incorporating supervisor-rated assessments as well to capture both perspectives and provide a more compre-
hensive understanding.

Conclusion

The study sought to synthesize eight years of research on exploitative leadership by providing a concise overview of the literature on
this construct, which was much needed. The researchers reviewed the outcomes linked to exploitative leadership, the theories used
to underpin the research models, as well as the countries and organizations where these studies were conducted. They also identi􀅫ied
several limitations and proposed future directions for research on exploitative leadership. The study underscored the need for more
comprehensive actions to comprehend this concept, as suggested by other researchers (Syed et al., 2023), emphasizing the signi􀅫icance of
developing new scales to measure its other features. Such scales would allow for a more in-depth exploration of exploitative leadership
across various contexts that have been largely overlooked in studies over the past seven to eight years.

9
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

References

Abdulmuhsin, Z. R. A. . A. M. M., A. A. (2021). How exploitative leadership in􀅫luences on knowledge management processes:
the moderating role of organizational citizenship behaviour. International journal of organizational analysis.. doi:
[Link]
Akhtar, M., Huo, C., Syed, F., Safdar, A., Rasool, A., Husnain, M., … Sajjad, M. S. (2022, 07). Carrot and stick approach: The
exploitative leadership and absenteeism in education sector. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022
.890064
Alajhar, N. A., Bajaba, S., & Yaqub, M. Z. (2024). The unseen scars: How and when exploitative leadership fuels psychological
distress through the lens of perceived distributive injustice and victim sensitivity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 1-24. doi:[Link]
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? the spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of manage-
ment review, 24(3), 452-471. doi:[Link]
Arasli, H., Arici, H. E., & Kole, E. (2020). Constructive leadership and employee innovative behaviors: a serial mediation
model. Sustainability, 12(7), 2592.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human relations, 47(7), 755-778.
Bajaba, A., Bajaba, S., & Alsabban, A. (2023). Exploitative leadership and constructive voice: The role of employee adaptive
personality and organizational identi􀅫ication. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 10(4),
601-623. doi:[Link]
Bajaba, S., Al-Judibi, Z., Basahal, A., & Alsabban, A. (2024). The broken trust: how exploitative leadership damages employee
work passion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-16.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test of a
model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851-861. doi:[Link]
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40. doi:[Link]
0090-2616(85)90028-2
Benmira, S., & Agboola, M. (2021). Evolution of leadership theory (online 􀅫irst). BMJ leader, 5, 3-5. doi:[Link]
10.1136/leader-2020-000296
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E., & Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of
aversive leadership. Applied Psychology, 56(4), 528-557. doi:[Link]
De Hoogh, A. H., & 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. doi:[Link]
Dong, B. (2023). A systematic review of the transactional leadership literature and future outlook. Academic Journal of
Management and Social Sciences, 2(3), 21-25. doi:[Link]
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of management Journal, 45(2),
331-351. doi:[Link]
Dugan, J. P. (2024). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A de􀅫inition and conceptual model.
The leadership quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological 􀅫indings in public and private organizations. European
Journal of Work and Organizational psychology, 5(2), 185-201. doi:[Link]
Elsaied, M. (2022). Exploitative leadership and organizational cynicism: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Lead-
ership & Organization Development Journal, 43(1), 25-38. doi:[Link]
El-Sayed Aly, R. I., Wahba, N. M., & Abdel-Aleem, M. M. (2023). Nurses' passion for work: Its' relation to organizational dehu-
manization, exploitative leadership, and deviant behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Assiut Scienti􀅲ic Nursing
Journal, 11(34), 65-77. doi:[Link]
Emmerling, F., Peus, C., & Lobbestael, J. (2023). The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal
in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership.
Organizational Psychology Review, 13(3), 237-278. doi:[Link]

10
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Fang, T. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-con􀅫idence: Re􀅫lection on hofstede (2007) and beyond. In
(Vol. 27, p. 155-170). Springer. doi:[Link]
Fatima, T., & Majeed, M. (2023). Detriments of exploitative leadership in the hotel industry: Role of conspiracy beliefs and
forgiveness climate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(7), 2624-2644.
Fayyaz, H., Ahmad, S., Hussain, I., & Arshad, M. (2019). Ethical leadership: A drive to success. Journal of Managerial Sciences,
13(3), 135-141.
Geis, F. L., & Moon, T. H. (1981). Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(4), 766.
doi:[Link]
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Dyads in organizational research: Conceptual issues and multilevel analyses. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 14(3), 456-483. doi:[Link]
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: PaulistPress,.
Guo, L., Luo, J., & Cheng, K. (2024). Exploitative leadership and counterproductive work behavior: A discrete emotions
approach. Personnel Review, 53(2), 353-374. doi:[Link]
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. In M. M. C. . R. Ayman (Ed.),
(chap. Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories.). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The illusive factor in organizational effectiveness. In . R. K. J. Conger (Ed.), (chap.
Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Huang, J., Li, Y., & Tang, C. (2023). Leader's desire for promotion, workplace anxiety and exploitative leadership: the moder-
ating effect of machiavellianism. Career Development International, 28(6/7), 706-720. doi:[Link]
CDI-10-2022-0292
Huang, J., Li, Y., & Tang, C. (2024). Developmental human resource and exploitative leadership interact to in􀅫luence em-
ployees' creative idea championing and application. Human Resource Development Quarterly. doi:[Link]
10.1002/hrdq.21525
Hussain, I., Ahmed, Q. M., Gulzar, A., Usman, U., & Hussain, S. (2020). Group Cohesion: A Therapy Against Abusive Supervision.
International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 11(12). doi:https://
[Link]/10.14456/ITJEMAST.2020.235
Jimbun, J. L., Mohamed, R., Mahomed, A. S. B., & Subramaniam, A. (2022). Global landscape on exploitative leadership: A
bibliometric analysis. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 6(1), 22-48.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Khalid, K., & Aftab, S. (2024). Exploitative leadership and vertical knowledge withholding: Examining multiple mediational
effects. SAGE Open, 14(2), 21582440241238615. doi:[Link]
Khan, N., & Tariq, A. (2023). How perceived injustice mediate the relationship of exploitative leadership and employee
expediency. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(4), 162-175.
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. doi:[Link]
Ladkin, D., & Patrick, C. B. (2022). Whiteness in leadership theorizing: A critical analysis of race in Bass’ transformational
leadership theory. Leadership, 18(2), 205-223. doi:[Link]
Liang, L. H., Coulombe, C., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., Hanig, S., Ferris, D. L., & Keeping, L. M. (2022). Can two wrongs make a right?
the buffering effect of retaliation on subordinate well-being following abusive supervision. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 27(1), 37.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader, 2005(36),
29-36.
Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977). A general contingency theory of management. Academy of management Review, 2(2),
181-195.
Lyu, Y., Wu, L.-Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Chen, Y. (2023). Rebellion under exploitation: How and when exploitative leadership
evokes employees’ workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(3), 483-498. doi:[Link]
s10551-022-05207-w

11
 Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Mackey, J. D., Ellen III, B. P., McAllister, C. P., & Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of leadership: A systematic literature
review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. Journal of Business Research, 132, 705-718. doi:https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2020.10.037
Mahmood, S., Zahur, H., & Al Hassan, S. (2023). Erosion of employees’ well-being and satisfaction through exploitative
leadership and dehumanization. the moderating role of resilience. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(2), 235-247.
Majeed, M., Fatima, T., & Irshad, M. (2023). A wolf in sheep's clothing: The perils of exploitative leadership. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 53(6), 1216-1230. doi:[Link]
May, D., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2010). Negative fü hrung: Merkmale, konsequenzen und bezü ge zu konstruktiver fü hrung
[negative leadership: Characteristics, consequences and relation to constructive leadership]. In 7th workshop of the
section for work and organizational psychology of the german psychological society, münster, germany.
Mehraein, V., Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2023, March). The dark side of leadership: A systematic review of creativity and
innovation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(4), 740--767. doi:[Link]
Metin-Orta, I. (2021). Destructive leadership and management hypocrisy: Advances in theory and practice. In (chap. The
Impact of Destructive Leadership on Followers' Well-being). Leeds, EN: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Nawaz, Z., & Khan, I. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Leadership, 16(1), 1-7.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of
personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1197.
Peters, M. A. (2023). Who leads, who follows? critical review of the 􀅫ield of leadership studies: from the ‘great man’& trait
theory to equity & diversity leadership in the biodigital era. Beijing International Review of Education, 5(1-2), 25-50.
doi:[Link]
Pircher Verdorfer, A., Belschak, F., & Bobbio, A. (2024). Felt or thought: Distinct mechanisms underlying exploitative
leadership and abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 192(2), 363-383. doi:[Link]
s10551-023-05543-5
Pradhan, S., Srivastava, A., & Mishra, D. K. (2020). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: The mediating role of psy-
chological contract violation and supervisor directed aggression. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 216-234.
doi:[Link]
Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social conse-
quences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 487-496.
doi:[Link]
Sadler-Smith, E., Akstinaite, V., Robinson, G., & Wray, T. (2017). Hubristic leadership: A review. Leadership, 13(5), 525-548.
doi:[Link]
Samul, J. (2020). The research topics of leadership: Bibliometric analysis from 1923 to 2019. International Journal of
Educational Leadership and Management, 8(2), 116-143.
Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: A qualitative study on the meaning of negative leadership. Leader-
ship, 5(1), 102-128. doi:[Link]
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. (2019). Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of
exploitative leadership. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1401-1433.
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. V. (2018). Different shades—different effects? Consequences of different types
of destructive leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1289.
Scott, K. D. (2007). The development and test of an exchange-based model of interpersonal workplace exclusion. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky.
Silva, A. (2016). What is leadership? Journal of business studies quarterly, 8(1), 1.
Spector, B. A. (2016). Carlyle, Freud, and the great man theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12(2), 250-260.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2021). The history of leadership focus. In S. K. Dhiman & G. E. Roberts (Eds.), The palgrave
handbook of servant leadership (p. 1-27). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from [Link]
10.1007/978-3-030-69802-7_38-1 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69802-7_38-1
Stouten, J., & Tripp, T. M. (2009). Claiming more than equality: Should leaders ask for forgiveness? The Leadership Quarterly,
20(3), 287-298. doi:[Link]

12
Journal of Management Practices, Humanities and Social Sciences 8(4) 1-13

Sułkowski, Ł., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., & Szczepań ska Woszczyna, K. (2024). Philosophy and leadership: An evolution of leader-
ship from ancient times to the digital age. England, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Sun, Z., Wu, Y., Long-Zeng and Ye, & Kwan, H. K. (2023). The impact of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’
proactive customer service performance: A self-determination perspective. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 35(1), 46-63.
Tedla, B. A., et al. (2022). An essence of leadership, its styles: A review and personal account commentary. International
Journal of Health Sciences(II), 175-183. doi:[Link]
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. doi:https://
[Link]/10.5465/1556375
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional
measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249-267. doi:[Link]
Wang, Z., Ren, S., Chadee, D., & Chen, Y. (2024). Employee ethical silence under exploitative leadership: The roles of work
meaningfulness and moral potency. Journal of Business Ethics, 190(1), 59-76. doi:[Link]
-023-05405-0
Wang, Z., Ren, S., Chadee, D., & Sun, C. (2021). The in􀅫luence of exploitative leadership on hospitality employees’ green
innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 99, 103058.
doi:[Link]
Warrick, D. D. (1981). Leadership styles and their consequences. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, 3, 155-72.
Wright, P., & Ferris, S. P. (1997). Agency con􀅫lict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(1), 77-83.
Wu, L., Sun, Z., Ye, Y., Kwan, H. K., & Yang, M. (2021). The impact of exploitative leadership on frontline hospitality employees’
service performance: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 96, 102954.
doi:[Link]
Ye, Y., Chen, M., Wu, L., & Kwan, H. K. (2023). Why do they slack off in teamwork? Understanding frontline hospitality
employees’ social loa􀅫ing when faced with exploitative leadership. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
109, 103420. doi:[Link]
Ye, Y., Lyu, Y., Wu, L., & Kwan, H. K. (2022). Exploitative leadership and service sabotage. Annals of Tourism Research, 95,
103444. doi:[Link]
Zahur, H., Swati, S., & Butt, M. A. (2022). Attrition of creativity and psychological well-being by exploitative leader: A
moderated mediation model. Journal of Workplace Behavior, 3(2), 34-49.

13