A Commentary on Palmer et al. (2024): How the Third-Party Perspective Changes the Leadership-Culture Equation

Palmer et al. (2024) make a significant contribution to understanding how cultural values shape the relationship between destructive leadership and followers’ job satisfaction. However, incorporating a broader methodological approach that considers not only followers' personal experiences of destructive leadership, but also their experiences witnessing destructive leadership could further enrich these findings. Drawing on the literature on vicarious mistreatment (e.g., Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004), I propose that including third parties – those who directly or indirectly witness destructive leadership – can offer a more nuanced understanding of how cultural values influence the relationship between destructive leadership and followers’ job satisfaction. In this commentary, I argue that the third-party perspective provides a compelling explanation for Palmer et al.’s (2024) unexpected findings regarding performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, and future orientation values. In doing so, this commentary extends Palmer et al.’s (2024) framework by shifting from a leader-follower lens to a more dynamic, culturally embedded social process.

The Missing Perspective: Why Third Parties Matter

Moving beyond the traditional dyadic view of workplace mistreatment, research increasingly recognizes the pivotal role of third parties in the mistreatment process (Dhanani & LaPalme, 2019). Rather than being passive observers, third parties can display a range of responses which can profoundly shape how mistreatment unfolds (Bowes‐Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005). Indeed, research suggests that third parties can influence the organizational culture and structures that either perpetuate or prevent the escalation of mistreatment (Vranjes, Griep, et al., 2023). For instance, when a third party confronts the perpetrator, they signal that destructive leadership will not be tolerated, whereas remaining silent or siding with the perpetrator may reinforce harmful leadership behaviors. These third-party reactions are guided by cultural frameworks, as highlighted by Palmer et al. (2024), meaning third-party reactions are shaped by the norms and values of the cultures in which they operate. Research has suggested that culture can shape how employees perceive (Escartín et al., 2010) and communicate about observed mistreatment (Meares et al., 2004). Fairness perceptions also vary across countries, with cultural values playing a role in shaping these differences (Kim & Leung, 2007). Fairness perceptions are central to how third parties interpret workplace mistreatment, influencing their understanding of events, their attitudes toward those involved, and ultimately, their responses to mistreatment (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). In high power-distance cultures, for example, third parties are more likely to accept authoritative behaviors, including destructive actions (Daniels & Greguras, 2014), making them less likely to challenge authority. Taken altogether, third-party reactions are far from neutral, but rather culturally contingent and reflect active engagement with the cultural context that shapes perceptions of what is appropriate and fair.

Implications for Cultural Moderation

The presence and actions of third parties can deepen our understanding of how cultural values shape the relationship between destructive leadership and followers’ job satisfaction. Third parties can directly affect how victims experience and respond to destructive leadership, such as by challenging the perpetrator or by supporting the victim – for example, by helping them reinterpret the situation or guiding their decision on how to address the mistreatment (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). Beyond their direct support, third parties can also shape the broader organizational response to mistreatment. Their reactions serve as social signals, affecting how other third parties assess and interpret destructive leadership (Latané & Darley, 1970). Additionally, when a third party challenges destructive leadership, the leader may experience identity threat, which can escalate rather than resolve the situation (Vranjes, Lyubykh, et al., 2023). Through direct support or cascading effects, third parties can thus impact the destructive leadership dynamics, indirectly affecting the victim’s experience.

Revisiting the Findings through a Third-Party Lens

The variability in third-party reactions introduces dynamics that are not adequately captured by focusing solely on leader-follower interactions, thereby offering a plausible explanation for Palmer et al.’s (2024) unexpected findings related to performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, and future orientation values.

Cultures Where Third Parties Reinforce Destructive Leadership

Contrary to expectations, higher levels of performance orientation values strengthened the negative relationship between destructive leadership and followers’ job satisfaction. In cultures with higher levels of performance orientation values, “followers are more likely to expect a competitive environment with direct communication, demanding goals, and critical feedback” (Palmer et al., 2024, p. 14). This competitive environment may lead third parties to prioritize results over interpersonal concerns. As these cultures reward performance improvement and innovation rather than loyalty and cooperation (House et al., 2004), third parties may tolerate or even enable destructive leadership if it is perceived as beneficial for performance. In particularly competitive environments, third parties may even experience schadenfreude, deriving satisfaction from the victim’s struggles (Li et al., 2018).

Similarly, Palmer et al.'s (2024) findings indicated that higher levels of in-group collectivism values did not buffer the negative relationship between destructive leadership and followers' job satisfaction. In these cultures, employees prioritize collaboration and harmony within their organizations (House et al., 2004). Even when victims of destructive leadership are part of the in-group, third parties may discourage confrontation with leaders and foster a culture of forced cooperation, instead relying on subtler influence tactics to preserve relationships (Erdogan & Liden, 2006). This aligns with Zapf et al. (1996), who found that victims of workplace bullying received less social support despite higher levels of teamwork and cooperation, likely due to forced collaboration. A pressure to cooperate negatively impacts victims by increasing their dependence on peers, which fosters unresolved conflicts and perpetuates bullying.

In both these cultures, the third party’s tacit or even strong endorsement of destructive leadership behaviors to achieve results or to preserve organizational harmony could obscure the expected moderating role of performance orientation and in-group collectivism values, respectively. As a result, followers may feel unsupported, amplifying the distress caused by destructive leadership and further diminishing their job satisfaction.

Cultures Where Third Parties Challenge Destructive Leadership

Palmer et al. (2024) theorized that higher levels of uncertainty avoidance values would exacerbate the negative relationship between destructive leadership and followers' job satisfaction. In cultures with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance values, employees seek structure and consistency, and as such, value and expect predictable leadership interactions (House et al., 1999). From a third-party perspective, the fact that the effect ran counter to expectations could be explained by their difficulty, like followers, in coping with the unpredictable nature of destructive leadership (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). This may lead third parties to challenge such leadership to address the inconsistency. Alternatively, third parties may align with established power structures, particularly when the perpetrator is central within the social network (Hershcovis et al., 2021). In such cases, they may encourage victims to reinterpret the situation to minimize the perceived threat to organizational stability.

In exploring future orientation, Palmer et al. (2024) hypothesized that cultures with higher levels of future orientation values, with a strong emphasis on long-term planning and outcomes (House et al., 1999), would strengthen the negative effect of destructive leadership on followers’ job satisfaction. However, in future-oriented cultures, the focus on long-term goals may create a disconnect between the immediate needs of followers and the broader strategic priorities to reach future goals. In these cultures, third parties may prioritize long-term organizational success over addressing the immediate harm caused by destructive leadership. As a corollary, third parties may be more inclined to help followers reframe the situation, such as to help followers understand the bigger picture.

Consequently, third parties may challenge destructive leadership, either by confronting the leader about their destructive behaviors or by supporting the victim in reinterpreting the situation, thereby countering the expected effect of uncertainty avoidance and future orientation values.

Integrating the Third-Party Perspective to Understand Cultural Dynamics in Destructive Leadership

The growing recognition of the third-party perspective is crucial for advancing our understanding of destructive leadership. Third parties do more than observe – they actively shape the progression of destructive leadership and influence how its effects are interpreted. By incorporating the third-party perspective, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between leadership, workplace culture, and employee outcomes. While Palmer et al. (2024) offer an important and solid foundation in exploring these dynamics, their unexpected findings regarding cultural values such as performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, and future orientation values raise important questions as to why these findings emerged as they did. The third-party perspective not only helps to explain these results but also holds significant potential for advancing leadership research. By broadening the lens to include the third-party perspective, we shift the focus from a leader-follower dynamic to a more comprehensive and actionable framework. This shift opens new pathways for fostering healthier organizational environments by addressing the cultural and interpersonal processes that sustain or mitigate mistreatment and ultimately improving employee outcomes. While these explanations are rooted in existing research, further empirical testing is necessary to refine and validate them, and I look forward to the exploration of these ideas in future research.