Educational leadership studies have largely focused on the positive aspects of leadership. However, knowledge of the dark side of leadership in educational contexts remains limited. This systematic review aimed to reveal the contextual and methodological trends of destructive leadership studies in education, to synthesise the prevalence, behavioural patterns, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators of destructive leadership and provide directions for future research. A descriptive and thematic analysis was conducted on 47 high-quality empirical studies. The findings indicate destructive leadership in education produces four broad categories of outcomes: (a) teacher behaviours and professional outcomes, (b) organisational outcomes, (c) individual outcomes and (d) leader-directed outcomes. Additionally, the prevalence, behavioural patterns, antecedents and mediators/moderators of destructive leadership, as well as the contextual and methodological trends of the studies, were identified. This systematic review synthesises existing evidence and outlines directions for future research in educational leadership. The review may also serve as a foundation for future research on destructive leadership in education. Furthermore, given the multidimensional effects of destructive leadership, this study provides practical insights for policymakers and educational decision-makers.
AaslandMSSkogstadANotelaersG, et al. (2010) The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management21(2): 438–452.
2.
AfariogunAA (2014) Relationship between principals' leadership styles and teachers' job performance in senior secondary schools in Ondo State. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria.
3.
*AkmanY (2016) The relationship between destructive leadership and job burnout: A research on teachers. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama12(3): 627–653.
4.
*AlaneziA (2022) Toxic leadership behaviours of school principals: A qualitative study. Educational Studies50(6): 1200–1214.
5.
AlexanderPA (2020) Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research90(1): 6–23.
6.
*AliNGulzarRAliH, et al. (2021) Impact of abusive supervision and feedback avoidance on employee creativity with mediated and moderated effect in a private school system. Multicultural Education7(7): 596–605.
7.
*Al-OmariAA (2021) The destructive leadership of schools’ principals and its relation to teacher’s job satisfaction in Jordan. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review8(2): 62–73.
8.
AnderssonLMPearsonCM (1999) Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review24(3): 452–471.
9.
*AnjumSAhmadIDarMU, et al. (2023) Impact of abusive supervision on job performance in education sector of Pakistan: Moderated mediation of emotional intelligence and workplace ostracism. Global Business Review: 1–25. 10.1177/09721509231169360.
10.
*ArliÖSenerHEMeydanCH (2023) The role of school managers’ toxic leader behaviors in the effect of teachers’ core self-evaluations on job satisfaction, organizational cynicism and burnout. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education]38(2): 231–247.
11.
*ArvinNTabariAKorkA, et al. (2021) The mediating role of organizational fairness in the relationship between toxic leadership and organizational trauma in education teachers of Yasouj city. International Journal of Innovation Management and Organizational Behavior (IJIMOB)1(4): 25–37.
12.
AshforthB (1994) Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations47(7): 755–778.
13.
AshforthBE (1997) Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de L'Administration14(2): 126–140.
14.
*BabatundeMMONurudeenO (2020) Influence of toxic leadership behaviour on teachers’ diligence and productivity in Lagos State Senior Secondary Schools, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Evaluation6(2): 36–46.
15.
*BakırMErçetinŞŞ (2014) The relationship between the toxic leadership behaviors of school principals and the organizational happiness of teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET)11(3): 780–796.
16.
*BalabanFKazancı-TınmazA (2024) An examination of how toxic leadership behaviours of school principals relate to teachers’ perceived stress. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research11(1): 86–99.
17.
BarlingJChristieATurnerN (2008) Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics81: 851–861.
18.
BerkovichIEyalO (2021) Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and moral reasoning. Leadership and Policy in Schools20(2): 131–148.
19.
*BitewBAAleneMShiferawG (2024) Antecedents and prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour: The case in primary and middle level schools. Education3-13: 13.
20.
BjörkqvistKÖstermanKHjelt-BäckM (1994) Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior20(3): 173–184.
21.
*BlaseJBlaseJ (2002) The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly38(5): 671–727.
22.
BlasèJBlasèJDuF (2008) The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration 46(3): 263–301.
23.
BlighMCKohlesJCPearceCL, et al. (2007) When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership. Applied Psychology56(4): 528–557.
24.
BraunS (2017) Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: A review at multiple levels of analysis and implications for future research. Frontiers in Psychology8: Article 73.
25.
*BrookerMCummingT (2019) The ‘dark side’ of leadership in early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood44(2): 111–123.
26.
ÇelebiNGünerAGHYıldızV (2015) Developing toxic leadership scale. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education4(1): 249–268.
27.
ChengBSChouLFWuTY, et al. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology7(1): 89–117.
28.
CortinaLMMagleyVJWilliamsJHet al. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(1): 64–80.
29.
*DarNAhmadSBadarK, et al. (2024) Unraveling the link between innovative work behavior and despotic leadership: The roles of supervisor conflict and dispositional resistance to change trait. International Journal of Conflict Management35(4): 816–834.
30.
DavenportNSchwartzRDElliottGP (1999) Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Bonus Books.
31.
De HooghAHDen HartogDN (2008) Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly19(3): 297–311.
32.
*DemirkasimogluN (2018) The role of abusive supervision in predicting teachers’ withdrawal and revenge responses. Cultura y Educacion30(4): 693–729.
33.
*de WetC (2014) Educators’ understanding of workplace bullying. South African Journal of Education34(1): 1–16.
34.
Dixon-WoodsMAgarwalSJonesD, et al. (2005) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy10(1): 45–53.
35.
*DoganÜAslanH (2024) Investigation of the relationship between school principals’ toxic leadership behaviors and teachers’ perceptions of organizational gossip. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies11(2): 145–154.
36.
DuffyMKGansterDCPagonM (2002) Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal45(2): 331–351.
37.
DuffyMKGansterDCShawJD, et al. (2006) The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes101(1): 105–126.
38.
EinarsenSAaslandMSSkogstadA (2007) Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly18(3): 207–216.
39.
EinarsenSSkogstadA (1996) Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology5(2): 185–201.
40.
EinarsenSSkogstadAGlasøL (2013) When leaders are bullies: Concepts, antecedents, and consequences. In: The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development. Springer, 129–154.
41.
EinarsenSVSkogstadAAaslandMS (2023) Destructive leadership. In: PoffDCMichalosAC (eds) Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 540–546.
42.
ElangovanALin XieJ (2000) Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate work attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal21(6): 319–328.
43.
*EmirieTBGebremeskelMM (2024) The prevalence and effect of destructive leadership behavior on teachers’ organizational commitment in the post-COVID-19 period: A case study of secondary schools in Amhara Regional State. Cogent Education11(1): 2392426.
44.
FischerTTianAWLeeA, et al. (2021) Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. Leadership Quarterly32(6): Article 101540.
45.
FosseTHAndersSEinarsenSV, et al. (2019) Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology28(5): 708–722.
46.
GhamrawiNShalTGhamrawiNA, et al. (2025) A step-by-step approach to systematic reviews in educational research. European Journal of Educational Research14(2): 549–566.
47.
GoughDThomasJOliverS (2017) An introduction to systematic reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
48.
GumusSBellibasMSEsenM, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 25–48.
49.
GumusSBellibasMSGumusE, et al. (2020) Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: A bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management40(1): 23–44.
50.
HallingerP (2018) Surfacing a hidden literature: A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(3): 362–384.
51.
HallingerPKovacevicJ (2021) Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(1): 5–30. Article 1741143219859002.
52.
HammadWHilalYYBellibasMS (2024) Exploring the link between principal instructional leadership and differentiated instruction in an understudied context: The role of teacher collaboration and self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management38(4): 1184–1203.
53.
HassanSUHaddawyP (2013) Measuring international knowledge flows and scholarly impact of scientific research. Scientometrics94(1): 163–179.
54.
*HassanTBerkovichI (2024) Principal's abusive leadership and teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: The moderating roles of duration of relationship and group size. International Journal of Educational Management38(2): 374–390.
55.
*HeCXiongJZhangY, et al. (2023) Destructive leadership and turnover intention among Chinese rural kindergarten teachers: The mediation of ego depletion and the moderation of kindergarten affiliation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(3): Article 2030.
56.
HiggsM (2009) The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management9(2): 165–178.
57.
HilalYYGardner-McTaggartA (2025) School leadership at times of crises: Surveillance as support. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 10.1177/17411432251393782.
58.
HinkinTRSchriesheimCA (2008) A theoretical and empirical examination of the transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Leadership Quarterly19(5): 501–513.
59.
HuCYWuTYWangYH (2011) Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive supervision measure across workers from Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Psychology145(2): 111–131. Article Pii 933013705.
60.
*ImhangbeOSOkechaREObozuwaJ (2019) Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ job performance: Evidence from Edo State, Nigeria. Educational Management Administration & Leadership47(6): 909–924.
61.
Johan HaugeLSkogstadAEinarsenS (2007) Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress21(3): 220–242.
62.
*KaradagEDulayS (2021) The effects of destructive leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of psychological capital. Egitim Ve Bilim-Education and Science46(208): 453–474.
63.
*KarsMInandiY (2018) Relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviors and teachers’ organizational trust. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research74): 145–164.
64.
KellermanB (2004) Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
65.
*KhalidS (2022) Abusive leadership as predictor of employee voice behavior among school teachers: Role of employee power distance. Journal of Positive School Psychology6(8): 4928–4938.
66.
KhizarHMUTareenAKMohelskaH, et al. (2023) Bad bosses and despotism at workplace: A systematic review of the despotic leadership literature. Heliyon9(9): Article e19535.
67.
KhumaloSS (2019) Analyzing abusive school leadership practices through the lens of social justice. International Journal of Educational Management33(4): 546–555.
68.
*KılıçY (2022) A comparative study on democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles of public and private school principals. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi8(2): 128–141.
69.
KılıçYYılmazE (2018) Developing the scale of leadership styles of school administrations. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research 5(27): 3006–3016.
70.
*KleinJBentolilaA (2019) Principals bully teachers at schools: Causes, examples, and consequences. International Journal of Leadership in Education22(6): 651–669.
71.
*KoçMHFidanT (2020) Teachers’ opinions on ethical and unethical leadership: A phenomenological research. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice26(2): 355–400.
72.
*KoçakSDemirhanG (2023) The effects of toxic leadership on teachers and schools. International Journal of Education Technology & Scientific Researches8(23): 1907–1948.
73.
KoomsonS (2022) Job commitment, total quality management, information communication technology adoption, toxic leadership and job demands: a conceptual framework for student retention. PSU Research Review8(2): 403–410.
74.
Krasikova DV (2011) Predictors of destructive leadership and followers' responses to its manifestations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana.
75.
KrasikovaDVGreenSGLeBretonJM (2013) Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management39(5): 1308–1338.
76.
*KüçükÖDemirtaşZ (2021) The intermediary effect of psychological capital on the relationship between toxic leadership behaviors of school administrators and school effectiveness. The Journal of Educational Reflections5(1): 1–13.
77.
KurtTTerziAR (2005) İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin yöneticilik davranışlarının öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığına etkisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi 33(166): 98–111.
78.
LabragueLJ (2023) Toxic leadership and its relationship with outcomes on the nursing workforce and patient safety: A systematic review. Leadership in Health Services37(2): 192–214.
79.
LarssonGBrandeboMFNilssonS (2012) Destrudo-L: Development of a short scale designed to measure destructive leadership behaviours in a military context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal33(4): 383–400.
80.
Lipman-BlumenJ (2005) Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader2005(36): 29–36.
81.
Lipman-BlumenJ (2006) The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians–and how we can survive them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82.
MackeyJDEllenIIIMcAllisterBP, et al. (2021) The dark side of leadership: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. Journal of Business Research132: 705–718.
83.
MackeyJDFriederREBreesJR, et al. (2017) Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management43(6): 1940–1965.
84.
MackeyJDMcAllisterCPMaherLP, et al. (2019) Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers’ workplace behaviors. Personnel Psychology72(1): 3–47.
85.
*Mannix-McNamaraPHickeyNMacCurtainS, et al. (2021) The dark side of school culture. Societies11(87): 1–19.
86.
*MaqboolSZafeerHMIMaqboolS, et al. (2024) Stance of numerous leadership styles and their effect on teaching to sustain academic performance at the high school level. Heliyon10(16): Article e36438.
87.
MartinkoMJHarveyPBreesJR, et al. (2013) A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior34: S120–S137.
88.
*MavrommatidouSTheriouGChatzoudesD, et al. (2023) The impact of head teacher incivility on teacher engagement and safety behavior in secondary schools: The mediating role of perceived insider status. Journal of Educational Administration61(5): 441–458.
89.
MehraeinVVisintinFPittinoD (2023) The dark side of leadership: A systematic review of creativity and innovation. International Journal of Management Reviews25(4): 740–767.
90.
*MerrittABWangY (2022) Destructive leaders in schools: Can they be instructional leaders?NASSP Bulletin106(2): 109–132.
91.
MitchellMSAmbroseML (2007) Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology92(4): 1159.
92.
MitchellMSRiveraGTrevinoLK (2023) Unethical leadership: A review, analysis, and research agenda. Personnel Psychology76(2): 547–583.
93.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. & PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine151(4): 264–269.
94.
MoorsG (2012) The effect of response style bias on the measurement of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology21(2): 271–298.
95.
*NastiezaieNVahdaniAPorkiA, et al. (2022) The effect of despotic leadership on work alienation with the mediating of work boredom. International Journal of Psychological Studies14(2): 54–63.
*OkçuVAyİSevgiM, et al. (2023) Investigation of the relationship between school principals’ narcissistic leadership behaviors and teachers’ organizational trust and organizational cynicism levels (path analysis). Research in Educational Administration & Leadership8(1): 43–86.
98.
OplatkaI (2023) Studying negative aspects in educational leadership: The benefits of qualitative methodologies. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership8(3): 549–574.
99.
*OrangeA (2018) Workplace bullying in schools: Teachers’ perceptions of why they were mistreated. The Educational Forum82(4): 390–405.
100.
*OrunbonNO (2020) Toxic leadership behaviour, followership characteristics and their productivity in lagos state senior secondary schools. Journal of Education and Practice11(11): 30–42.
101.
*OrunbonNOIbikunleGA (2023) Principals’ toxic leadership behaviour and teachers’ workplace ıncivility in public senior secondary schools, lagos state, Nigeria. EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation3(2): 202–213.
102.
*ÖztenISaglamAÇ (2023) The relationship between dark leadership behaviors of school principals and organizational power distance perceptions of teachers. The Excellence in Education Journal12(3): 97–151.
103.
ÖztenİSağlamA (2023) Validity and reliability study of the dark leadership scale. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences 15: 31–53.
104.
PadillaAHoganRKaiserRB (2007) The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly18(3): 176–194.
105.
*ParlarHTürkoğluMECansoyR (2022) Exploring how authoritarian leadership affects commitment: The mediating roles of trust in the school principal and silence. International Journal of Educational Management36(1): 110–129.
106.
*ParveenKQuang Bao TranPKumarT, et al. (2022) Impact of principal leadership styles on teacher job performance: An empirical investigation. Frontiers in Education7: Article 814159.
107.
PizzolittoEVernaIVendittiM (2023) Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly73(2): 841–871.
108.
RosenthalSAPittinskyTL (2006) Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly17(6): 617–633.
109.
RyanPOdhiamboGWilsonR (2020) Destructive leadership in education: A transdisciplinary critical analysis of contemporary literature. International Journal of Leadership in Education24(1): 57–83.
110.
*SamC (2023) How unethical leadership shapes teachers’ behaviors and experiences at work. International Journal of Leadership in Education26(4): 624–644.
111.
*SamCCecileH (2021) What are the practices of unethical leaders? Exploring how teachers experience the “dark Side” of administrative leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(2): 303–320.
112.
Savin-BadenMMajorCH (2007) Using interpretative meta-ethnography to explore the relationship between innovative approaches to learning and their influence on faculty understanding of teaching. Higher Education54: 833–852.
113.
SchefflerMBrunzelJ (2020) Destructive leadership in organizational research: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics125(1): 755–775.
114.
SchmidEAPircher VerdorferAPeusC (2019) Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management45(4): 1401–1433.
115.
SchmidEAPircher VerdorferAPeusCV (2018) Different shades—different effects? Consequences of different types of destructive leadership. Frontiers in Psychology9: 1289.
116.
SchmidtAA (2008) Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
117.
SchynsBSchillingJ (2013) How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly24(1): 138–158.
118.
ShawJBEricksonAHarveyM (2011) A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly22(4): 575–590.
119.
ShawJBEricksonANassirzadehF (2014) Destructive leader behaviour: A study of Iranian leaders using the destructive leadership questionnaire. Leadership10(2): 218–239.
120.
SmithNFredricks-LowmanI (2020) Conflict in the workplace: A 10-year review of toxic leadership in higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education23(5): 538–551.
121.
*SnowNHickeyNBlomN, et al. (2021) An exploration of leadership in post-primary schools: The emergence of toxic leadership. Societies11: 54.
122.
*SuleaCFilipescuRHorgaA, et al. (2012) Interpersonal mistreatment at work and burnout among teachers. Cognition, Brain, Behavior16(4): 553–570.
123.
TepperBJ (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal43(2): 178–190.
124.
TepperBJ (2007) Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management33(3): 261–289.
125.
TepperBJDuffyMKHenleCA, et al. (2006) Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology59(1): 101–123.
126.
TheelenHVan den BeemtAden BrokP (2019) Classroom simulations in teacher education to support preservice teachers’ interpersonal competence: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education129: 14–26.
127.
ThoroughgoodCN (2013) Follower susceptibility to destructive leaders: Development and validation of conformer and colluder scales. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
128.
ThoroughgoodCNSawyerKBPadillaA, et al. (2018) Destructive leadership: A critique of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics151: 627–649.
129.
ThoroughgoodCNTateBWSawyerKB, et al. (2012) Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies19(2): 230–255.
130.
UymazA (2013) A study of development of destructive leadership scale. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi24(75): 37–57.
131.
*VahdaniAKordiEKavoosiE (2022) The effect of despotic leadership on teachers’ deviant behaviors with the mediating role of organizational anomie. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation3(4): 134–139.
132.
ValentineJC (2009) Judging the quality of primary research. In: CooperHHedgesLVValentineJC (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 103–125.
133.
WalkerAHallingerP (2015) A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in east Asia. Journal of Educational Administration53(4): 554–570.
134.
*WoestmanDSWasongaTA (2015) Destructive leadership behaviors and workplace attitudes in schools. NASSP Bulletin99(2): 147–163.
135.
ZhangJLLiuJ (2018) Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management35(3): 719–744.
136.
ZhangYLiuXXuS, et al. (2019) Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management45(6): 2474–2497.
137.
ZhangYCBednallTC (2016) Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics139(3): 455–471.
138.
ZhangYCLiaoZY (2015) Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management32(4): 959–987.
