Bad bosses and despotism at workplace: A systematic review of the despotic leadership literature

Abstract

Over the years, the concept of despotic leadership (DL) has emerged as a hot topic in academic and professional debates on leadership. To this end, this study aims to synthesize existing literature on despotic leadership in business management scholarship. We utilize a systematic literature review technique to systematically identify, select, and evaluate existing scholarly publications on despotic leadership to highlight emerging topics, theories, and the consequences of despotic leadership at the workplace. In addition, we also provide a set of specific research questions for advancements of DL in management and leadership research as well as to clarify its conceptual and operationalization ambiguities. The findings of this review are categorized as follows, i) theory and conceptualization of DL, ii) state-of-the-art research profiling, iii) key thematic areas, and iv) future agenda. The key implications of this review for theory and practice are discussed.

1. Introduction

Over the years, the dark sides of leadership are emerging as a hot topic in the academic and professional literature. The recent past has witnessed an unparalleled rise in scholarly publications on dark leadership in management, psychology, and business ethics research [1]. In this vein, several of the different dark leadership concepts have been identified and examined, such as supervisor undermining [2], abusive supervision [3], petty tyranny [4], destructive leadership [[5], [6], [7]], and despotic leadership [8]. Notably, among other negative aspects of leadership, the concept of despotic leadership (DL) has emerged as a new paradigm by attracting the widespread attention and interest of scholars from various academic disciplines (e.g., management, business ethics, and organizational behavior).

DL entails behaviors that affect followers, including corruption, reality fabrication, coercion, and unlawful or criminal actions [7]. DL refers to a leader's actions that are driven by self-interest and aimed at achieving power, dominance, and superiority. However, arrogance, deceitfulness, authority, manipulation, bossy, and unforgiving are the common characteristics of such leaders [9,10]. Overall, we characterize DL as a selfish leadership that is ethically uncertain and centered on personal benefits at the cost of followers' interests. Previous studies have reported that the unethical and unfair behaviors of despotic leaders can lead to various destructive outcomes at both micro and macro levels (i.e., for leaders, followers, and the organization) [[11], [12], [13]]. Although there have been recent advances in the management and psychology literature on the effects of despotic leadership at work [14], further research is required for a more nuanced understanding of this concept and its consequences [15,16]. The significance of this topic warrants further exploration due to its profound impact on individuals, organizations, and society [11,13]. Moreover, given the newness and emerging nature of this concept, the existing literature on DL is fragmented. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the extant literature is needed to provide a clear and compelling explanation of what is known and what still needs to be known. In this regard, a literature synthesis can contribute to the current discourse on leadership, provide practical insights for leaders and organizations, and pave the way for more ethical leadership practices in the future. To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive synthesis of the literature on DL is missing, yet no systematic literature reviews are available on this topic. Hence, this study is an attempt to comprehensively and critically analyze the notion of DL by undertaking a state-of-the-art systematic literature review (SLR) to fill this obvious gap in the existing literature. Doing so, the current study uses the SLR approach for systematically managing the diverse knowledge body in the field of DL to advance the theory, and for the guidance of practice and policy frameworks. More specifically, this review study answers the following research questions (RQs).

RQ1

What is the research profile of despotic leadership in business management literature?

RQ2

What are the key streams of research in existing despotic leadership literature?

RQ3

What are the key knowledge gaps and limitations in existing despotic leadership literature? And what are the future research avenues to extend the academic debate on despotic leadership?

RQ1 aims to underline the general characteristics of DL in business management literature. We primarily focused on the descriptive characteristics of scholarly publications, such as publication timelines, key journals, influential authors, country contexts, research types, and methodologies. RQ2 seeks to select, review, and synthesize the main findings of extant research on DL, consequently, to categorize extant literature into key thematic areas. In addition, we also utilize bibliometric techniques to highlight the network of key topics and themes. RQ3 aims to critically analyze the existing body of knowledge on DL to identify knowledge gaps and limitations in present research followed by the recommendations of future research agenda for further knowledge advancements in leadership and organization science literature.

This review adds to the established body of knowledge in multiple ways. First, it is the first SLR on DL which refines theory by systematically defining, comprehensively synthesizing, and critically analyzing the existing literature on DL and its devastating impacts on the workplace. Second, the synthesis of empirical results generated from this SLR would enable the academicians and scholars to continue their research studies in this area by taking the stock for further generalizability of existing empiricism in a variety of contexts (i.e., industrial, geographical, cultural, etc.). Another unique feature of this SLR is that it gives a comprehensive bird eye view of the available research on DL and provides a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon and its various outcomes. In addition, the results of this review also execute a complete mapping of the research profile of the DL literature and content analysis to reveal the underpinning theories and the underlying themes in the form of triggers, mediators, moderators, and outcomes for subordinates and organizations as a whole. In addition to these, this review also presents a critical analysis that highlights the gaps in the DL literature. Finally, it proposes new research directions in a variety of fields, which may help scholars in advancing the theory of DL by objectively evaluating the contents and contributions of existing literature. As a result, the results of this SLR offers an agenda for expanding the scholarly discussions in this field of study for knowledge advancement.

2. Theoretical background and conceptual boundaries of DL

The past three decades witnessed a rise in scholarly interest to investigate the negative aspects of leadership styles [17,18]. In this vein, numerous concepts related to negative leadership have been investigated by researchers. Although there is no obvious definition of negative leadership in the extant literature, however, the negative consequences and some sort of misconduct or abuse by the leaders are frequently shared in various definitions [19,20]. Nonetheless, negative leadership can be classified based on a variety of aspects, such as whether the abuse is physical or mental, whether it is intentional or not, and whether it is a stable trait or a temporary state. The phenomena of petty tyrannical leadership served as the starting point for preliminary research on negative leadership [4], which has gotten significant scholarly attention since then. Fig. 1 below highlights the historical evolution of despotic leadership.

Fig. 1.

Negative leadership styles. Source: Adapted from Mukarram et al., 2021

Notably, several of the dark leadership styles are identified in current literature including petty tyranny (i.e., leaders that use their position of authority) [21], toxic leadership (i.e., leaders with suppressed personal attributes and long-lasting negative effects on people, families, and organizations) [22], abusive leadership (i.e., supervisors frequently engage in aggressive verbal and nonverbal behaviors) [3], destructive leadership (i.e., leaders violating the legitimate organizational interests) [23] derailed leadership [5], and despotic leadership which is utilization of powers for personal dominance and to suppress others [20].

As stated by Mukarram et al. [19], the word despot, in Greek means "master" or "one with ultimate power," which is the source of the term despotism. In Greek folklore, the phrase has been used to describe a variety of kings and governments [19]. It generally alludes to a governmental system where a single being maintain the powers. Likewise, despotic leaders are arrogant, insensitive to the needs of employees, and use their power unjustly [20]. Although there are some conceptual overlaps and dissimilarities in negative leadership philosophies, among other dark leadership styles, DL is usually perceived as the most damaging and self-centered type. DL may be perceived as a toxic environment that causes stress and, in turn, mental arousal [24]. Table 1 below presents a brief description and a few comparisons of DL and other dark leadership styles.

Table 1.

Despotic leadership and related concepts.

Negative Leadership	Description	Similarities and Differences with DL
Despotic Leadership [20]	- is characterized by an autocratic approach, where leaders exercise absolute power and control over others - "focused on personal dominance and authoritarian behavior that benefits the self-interest of the leader" and is "self-aggrandizing and exploitative of others". - Their focus is the focus is to maintain dominance and suppress dissent	–
Destructive Leadership [23]	- “Systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization's goals, tasks, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction of subordinates".	- To pursue their advantages and interests, destructive leaders go against the interests of their organizations. - Destructive leaders don't listen to feedback, prioritize their own ideas and objectives, engage in excessive self-promotion and self-interest to advance themselves, are dishonest and inconsistent, and change their minds about the rules they've established, lack moral principles, as well as lack humanistic values, social justice, and fairness [25].
Petty Tyranny [4]	- the use of power and authority in a repressive, unpredictable, and vengeful manner. - playing top favorites & deprecate perffooormeeers - a lack of consideration, and a forceful style of conflict resolution, discouraging initiative, and no contingent punishment. - One who uses power over others is known as a petty tyrant - They typically do not rely on their staff members to assist them in achieving their goals; instead, they usually do it by themselves.	- DL and petty tyrannical leadership are examples of negative leadership that are based on the power differential between the leader and the followers. - Tyrannical leadership is the exercise of power and authority in a repressive, and vengeful manner, they belittle subordinates and they have a forcing style of conflict resolution like they only force their employees to accept their point of view and don’t want to hear no on his demands. Whereas despotic leaders do have bossy nature but they don’t have a forcing style of conflict resolution.
Abusive Leadership [3]	- the degree to which supervisors exhibit aggressive verbal and nonverbal abuses/behaviors consistently, excluding physical contact. - These damaging behaviors include humiliating others in public, throwing temper tantrums, and acting carelessly.	- Despotic leadership and abusive leadership have some conceptual overlaps as both, despotic and abusive leaders entail unethical behaviors - But abusive leader exhibits aggressive verbal and nonverbal language & behaviors, whereas despotic leaders don’t use abusive language with their employees.
Toxic Leadership [22]	- “a process by which leaders cause substantial and long-lasting harm to their followers, non-followers, and their organizations, through destructive behavior and/or dysfunctional personal qualities”. - Toxic leaders are mostly focused on seizing and holding onto power by using intimidation and fear tactics.	- TL has also received wide coverage in the academic and professional literature. - Both TL and DL styles capture harmful methods to destroy the mental health of employees. - Under toxic leadership employees are under heavy stress for longer periods because they use fearful tactics to be in power whereas despotic leaders don’t use fear tactics.
Unethical Leadership [26]	- a leadership style characterized by behaviors and actions that disregard ethical principles and moral values. - Unethical leaders often prioritize their self-interests over the well-being of their team or organization, by engaging in unethical practices such as dishonesty, manipulation, abuse of power, and lack of transparency.	- DL mainly focuses on the utilization of power to suppress others, while UL may manifest in various forms, such as manipulation, dishonesty, or exploitation without the level of dominance seen in DL. - UL encompasses a broad range of behaviors that violate ethical standards, such as dishonesty, favoritism, abuse of power, and lack of transparency. DL is more specifically associated with autocratic control and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.
Self-protective Leadership [27]	- a style characterized by leaders' primary focus on safeguarding their own interests and protecting themselves from potential threats or failures. - These leaders prioritize their own security, reputation, and personal success at the expense of others or the organization.	- Self-protective leadership is self-focused in comparison with DL which is others’ focused. Self-protective leaders try to safeguard their own interests, reputation, and security, while despotic leaders exercise absolute power and control to dominate and suppress others.

The significance of the topic of DL lies in its relevance to understanding and addressing detrimental leadership behaviors and their impact on individuals, organizations, and society as a whole [11,13]. While previous research has identified limitations and gaps in the study of despotic leadership, it is essential to emphasize the importance of further exploration for the following reasons. First, DL has been linked to negative consequences such as reduced employee morale, decreased job satisfaction, increased turnover rates, and lower organizational performance [16,28,29]. By examining despotic leadership more comprehensively, we can gain insights into how these detrimental behaviors affect organizational well-being and identify strategies to mitigate their impact. Second, the existence of DL in the workplace raises ethical concerns due to its abuse of power, lack of transparency, and disregard for the rights and well-being of followers [11,30]. Exploring this topic helps us understand the ethical dimensions of leadership and guides promoting ethical conduct and responsible leadership practices.

Third, previous studies have highlighted that DL can be associated with increased stress levels, burnout, and negative psychological outcomes for employees [15,31]. In today's fast-paced and demanding work environments, understanding the implications of despotic leadership on employee health and well-being is crucial for promoting positive work environments and supporting employee flourishing. Fourth, DL can also have broader societal implications beyond the organization. Examining this topic allows us to understand its potential impact on social dynamics, trust in institutions, and the overall functioning of society. This knowledge can inform efforts to foster ethical leadership practices and promote social responsibility.

3. Research methodology

The primary goal of this review study is to create a database of literature on DL in the workplace. We adopted the SLR technique for collecting and screening the existing research on despotic leadership following formal protocols and a systematic search strategy [[32], [33], [34]]. SLR is the best suitable method when scholars aim to review and evaluate a broad spectrum of knowledge on the topic of interest [35,36]. The main aim of this review is to find, analyze, and synthesize the current DL literature to advance our current understanding as well as for further advancement of research on this topic, in line with recent literature review studies (e.g. Refs. [37,38],), SLR is the most appropriate choice to address the research questions of the current review.

3.1. Review protocol development

After finalizing the RQs and scope of this review, the review process started with the development of a standard review protocol. At this stage, we finalized three key decisions, i) the selection of keywords, ii) the selection of databases, and iii) specifying inclusions/exclusion criteria (Table 2). First, we selected a list of appropriate keywords to identify all the relevant literature on despotic leadership in the workplace. Next, we chose two scholarly databases (i.e., Scopus, and Web of Sciences) for the identification of relevant studies to include in this review. Additionally, we used Google Scholar for secondary searches to identify any additional articles pertinent to our review. Lastly, we developed the criteria for the inclusion/exclusion of selected studies to ensure the further relevancy and quality of the papers.

Table 2.

Search keywords, databases, and exclusion/inclusion criteria.

3.2. Selection of studies

We first executed the following keywords string to identify all related literature on despotic leadership at work: leader* AND despot*. During our systematic review and analysis process, we searched these keywords to find relevant articles several times. However, our final search was conducted on 05-01-2023 which resulted in the identification of 320 potentially relevant articles in Scopus (n = 196) and Web of Science (n = 124). Next, we filtered our search based on the type (i.e. articles + reviews) and language (i.e., English) resulting in a total of 234 articles (WOS-104; Scopus-130). By focusing on articles and review papers and employing a clearly stated selection criterion, we aim to provide a comprehensive and reliable synthesis of the existing DL literature. This review only considered articles and review papers because the articles and review papers are commonly recognized as reliable and credible sources of information in SLRs as they undergo rigorous peer review processes [37]. Moreover, these sources provide in-depth analysis, synthesis of existing research, and theoretical frameworks relevant to the DL.

After compiling an initial database of DL studies (n = 234), we discarded 77 duplicates and selected 157 articles for their potential inclusion in this review for subsequent analysis. Our initial screening of the titles and abstracts of the identified papers revealed that the majority of the identified papers were related to country leadership and political science discipline. Next, we downloaded all articles and performed an in-depth review of the full text of all selected studies. This process was double-checked by two authors to identify if any relevant articles are missed during the full-text analysis. With consensus 30 papers were selected for further analysis. Afterward, we performed a backward/forward snowballing using Google Scholar to identify any additional potentially relevant articles. We identified 13 articles which increased the final sample of papers in our review to 43 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Sample selection process.

3.3. Data coding and analysis

After selecting 43 relevant papers for further review and analysis, we coded each article on several dimensions, including author name, year of publication, source of publication, the title of the paper, type of the paper, utilized methods, geographical contexts, main purpose, main findings, limitations, and suggested future avenues. To minimize the author's subjectivity, a standardized data extraction protocol was used [32]. We developed a separate database in MS Excell spreadsheet for coding purposes. In addition, we also utilized the bibliometric software Vosviewer to analyze the intellectual structure of DL literature. In line with the recent SLRs (e.g., Khizar, Iqbal, and Rasheed, 2021), we performed our analysis in the following order, i) descriptive quantitative analysis, ii) thematic network analysis, iii) qualitative literature synthesis, and iv) critical review and analysis.

4. Results

4.1. Research profiling

Fig. 3, Fig. 4a, Fig. 5 and Table 3, Table 4 below present a summary of the research profile of the DL literature. Our review of existing literature on DL suggests the growing trend in scholarly publications on this topic as more than half (n = 29; 67%) of the selected articles were published in the last two years. The scholars have predominantly utilized the quantitative research techniques in DL research while the majority of research on this topic is conducted in Asian countries contexts. The maximum number of research publications is based on the data collected from Pakistan (n = 28) followed by the USA (n = 4) and China (n = 2). Moreover, concerning the publication outlets, the research on DL is mostly featured in Leadership Quarterly (n = 3), Journal of Business Ethics (n = 2), and Journal of Business Research (n = 2). Table 3 highlights that Haq and De Clercq as most productive authors with 4 publications on DL. However, Raja and Syed both published 3 studies on DL that received 464 and 371 citations on Google Scholar (see Table 5) (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 3.

Year-wise publications.

Fig. 4a.

Publication types Fig. 4b Publication methods.

Fig. 5.

Geographical contexts. Note: Figure above presents the geographical contexts of two or more studies.

Table 3.

Top contributing authors of Despotic Leadership research (publishing >2).

Author	Publication	Citation	Cites per Publication
Haq I.U.	4	275
De Clercq D.	4	239
Raja U.	3	464
Syed, F.	3	371
Azeem M.U.	3	192
Naseer S.	2	347
Mackey J.D.	2	146
Mcallister, C.P.	2	146
Fatima, T.	2	130
Nauman, S.	2	127
Rasool, S.F.	2	99
Asghar, M.Z.	2	72
Ahmed, I.	2	54
Iqbal, J.	2	51
Islam, T.	2	43

Table 4.

Search keywords, databases, and exclusion/inclusion criteria.

Sr. No	Journal Name	Frequency	Citations	Journal Quality
				Indexing	Impact factor
1	Leadership Quarterly	3	3315	W/S	9.924
2	Journal of Business Research	2	145	W/S	10.969
3	Kybernetes	2	07	W/S	2.352
4	Journal of Business Ethics	2	956	W/S	6.331
5	International Journal of Managing Projects in Business	1	10	W/S	2.951
6	Leadership	1	391	W/S	3.183
7	Leadership and Organization Development Journal	1	44	W/S	3.923
8	Personnel Psychology	1	59	W/S	5.470
9	Personnel Review	1	63	W/S	3.228
10	International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management	1	42	W/S	9.321
11	Journal of Business and Psychology	1	491	W/S	6.604
12	Behavioral Sciences	1	12	W/S	2.286
13	Environmental Science and Pollution Research	1	39	W/S	5.190
14	International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	1	60	W/S	4.614
15	Frontiers in Psychology	1	83	W/S	4.232
16	Sustainability	1	03	W/S	3.889
17	International Journal of Psychology	1	71	W/S	2.291
18	Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios	1	03	W/S	1.198
19	Africa Journal of Management	1	22	W/S	–
20	Asia Pacific Management Review	1	58	W/S	–
21	Global Journal of Emerging Science	1	02	W/S	–
22	Independent journal of management & production	1	08	W/S	–
23	International Review of Management and Business Research	1	02	W/S	–
24	International transaction journal of engineering management & applied sciences & technologies	1	13	W/S	–
25	Journal of asian finance economics and business	1	03	W/S	–
26	Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government	1	01	W/S	–
27	Journal of management and economic research	1	09	W/S	–
28	Journal of Management Development	1	24	W/S	–
29	Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology	1	14	W/S	–
30	Journal of Public Affairs	1	37	W/S	–
31	Journal of Strategy and Management	1	73	W/S	–
32	Management Research Review	1	07	S/G	–
33	Management Science Letters	1	30	S/G	–
34	Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science	1	17	S/G	–
35	Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences	1	01	S/G	–
36	Review of Economics & Development Studies	1	12	S/G	–
37	Sir Syed Journal of Education & Social Research	1	4	S/G	–
38	World Applied Sciences Journal	1	13	S/G	–

* Note: indexing: W (Web of Science), S (Scopus), G (Google Scholar).

Table 5.

Major clusters and keywords for Despotic Leadership research.

Keyword	Cluster	Occurrences	Total Link Strength
Abusive supervision	1	8	3
Cwb		7	2
destructive leadership		13	5
Leadership		8	4
meta analysis		7	2
Narcissism		6	3
self-efficacy		5	2
Bullying behavior	2	4	2
Conservation of resource theory		12	5
Despotic leadership		37	29
Islamic work ethics		3	2
Job stress		3	2
Creativity	3	5	3
Job satisfaction		6	3
Psychological distress		10	3
Transformational leadership		8	3
Turnover intention		5	2
Counterproductive behavior	4	4	2
Emotional exhaustion		8	4
Pakistan		7	2
Work-family conflict		4	2
Job performance	5	2	2

Fig. 6.

Keyword network of Despotic Leadership research (Red: destructive leadership - Green: despotic leadership - Blue: psychological distress – Yellow: emotional exhaustion – Purple – job performance).

4.2. Network analysis

This section presents the network analysis using Vosviewer. Network analysis uses keyword co-occurrence of DL literature and consolidates a variety of concepts, topics, and keywords by their thematic similarities. Fig. 6 below presents a visual mapping of five major clusters while Table 5 presents the details regarding the keywords in each cluster, their occurrences, and the strength of their linkages.

The network analyses provide insights into different dimensions of despotic leadership, including its impact on leadership behaviors, employee well-being, job performance, and negative workplace outcomes. The clusters indicate the diverse range of factors that have been examined concerning despotic leadership, highlighting both the breadth and depth of research in this area.

Cluster 1 seems to be focused on the negative aspects of leadership, particularly abusive supervision, destructive leadership, and narcissism. The presence of meta-analysis suggests that there is a body of research that has systematically examined these topics. Moreover, self-efficacy (i.e. individuals' belief in their ability to perform tasks successfully) may be explored in the context of how it is impacted by abusive or destructive leadership behaviors. Cluster 2 appears to revolve around the detrimental effects of despotic leadership and related factors. Bullying behavior, conservation of resource theory (which explores how individuals manage and allocate their resources), and Islamic work ethics (highlighting the influence of religious values on work behavior) may provide insights into the dynamics of despotic leadership. Job stress is likely examined as a consequence of despotic leadership, and its impact on employee well-being.

Cluster 3 encompasses factors related to employee well-being and performance. Creativity, job satisfaction, and turnover intention are all important aspects of employee engagement and retention. Transformational leadership, which is often seen as the opposite of despotic leadership potentially highlights the positive link with creativity, job satisfaction, and reducing turnover intention. Psychological distress could be examined as an outcome resulting from despotic leadership and its effects on the psychological health of employees. Next, Cluster 4 focuses on negative workplace outcomes such as counterproductive behavior, emotional exhaustion, work-family conflict, and their potential relationship with despotic leadership. The inclusion of Pakistan suggests that there may be a regional focus within the literature, possibly examining the impact of despotic leadership specifically within that context. Finally, Cluster 5 is centered around job performance, indicating that studies have explored the relationship between despotic leadership and employee performance outcomes. It would be interesting to see how despotic leadership influences job performance and whether there are mediating factors or strategies that can mitigate its negative impact.

4.3. Content analysis/qualitative synthesis

After conducting the descriptive analysis of existing DL research, rather than using predetermined themes/clusters, we used an inductive content analysis technique to delineate key themes and subthemes directly from the DL literature during our review and analysis to see how DL literature has evolved and advanced in various contexts [39,40].

4.3.1. Theories in DL research

The fundamental mechanisms that link despotic leadership to its effects have been studied using a variety of theories. Here, we concentrate on theories that have been used frequently in DL research: i) conservation of resources theory (COR), ii) self-regulation theory, iii) social exchange theory, iv) social identity theory, and v) social learning theory.

According to the COR theory, stress is caused by an actual or threatened loss of resources, and the losses of the resources is more obvious than the gains [41]. This potential or real loss in the supervisor-subordinate relationship leads to lower positive behaviors of employees. They become emotionally exhausted which consequently affects their task performance negatively. Grandey and Caropanzano [42] claim that negative work stressors interfere with employees' ability to carry out their family responsibilities, consequently, this can lead to inter-role conflict (i.e., work-family conflict and life dissatisfaction), which has a detrimental impact on the work-family interface. In addition, the leaders despotic behaviors may lead to lower positive behaviors from employees in cultures with high collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance [43]. Employees whose primary energy reserves have been depleted at work, especially as a result of unethical and self-serving leadership actions, may be less able to display strong engagement and trust, which will negatively impact task performance.

Social exchange theory is one of the most popular theories in organizational psychology research related to individual behavior in the workplace [44]. Social exchange entails a give-and-take interaction(s) between two parties that result in reciprocity (Emerson, 1976). These interactions are often two-way and dependent on how each party behaves [44]. Social exchange theory postulates that employees develop a reciprocal interdependent relationship with their managers and their organizational behaviors are contingent on the treatment they receive from their managers [45]. Given the unethical practices, self-serving behaviors of the despotic leaders [14,20], the followers lose concentration or motivation to make valuable contributions to the development of the organization. Moreover, despotic leaders exploit their authority and position to attain their goals, and in turn, their followers may act by exhibiting less cooperation and altruistic attitudes toward the leader, coworkers, and the organization.

4.3.2. Outcomes/consequences of DL

We evaluated and content-analyzed the chosen articles to subdivide existing literature into three key themes 1) Individual level-consequences, 2) group-level consequences, and 3) organizational-level consequences.

4.3.2.1. Individual-level consequences

Individual-level consequences are related to how despotic leaders affects employees' attitude and behaviors. Despotic leaders are found to be involved in humiliation and other immoral activities in an organization. They are known as a social stressor that leads to an employee suffering physically and mentally. To this end, prior studies have identified many variables that fall into individual-level consequences such as employee performance, job satisfaction, and intention to leave the organization [16,46,47].

Previous studies have highlighted that DL has a direct relation with employee performance [14,48,49]. Employees who are working under despotic leaders are afraid of unfair treatment and loss of their position in an organization so they are not able to raise their voices instead they reduce their outcome performance and remain silent in an organization. DL hurts work performance and also increases the perception of employees' job insecurity [48]. Due to the unethical behavior of leaders, the employees cant engage with their work because leaders do not appreciate their work instead they act as a hurdle and discourage creativity, employee performance, and engagement with the workplace it will not only affect employees' performance but also employees will stop doing productive work.

Previous studies have suggested a significant link between DL and turnover intention [24,28,49,50]. It is reported that as a result of despotic leader’s humiliation and disrespect employees either do bad work in an organization or show a lack of devotion to complete their assigned tasks or completely withdraw from their jobs by quitting the organization. This is because their leaders discourage their creativity and do not show concern for employees’ work rather than focus on their own ′interests. Therefore, employees are more likely to leave their job when their supervisors are dominant and abusive, and they are not treated well and disgraced by their supervisors. In addition, DL is also directly and positively related to employees’ work-family conflict. That is, despotic leaders not only affect the work of employees but also their family life. For example, when emotionally exhausted employees carry their workplace aggression to home may negatively affect their families [46,51]. Moreover, emotional exhaustion is another outcome of DL that affects an individual’s well-being and develops a negative attitude and employees feel helpless and lose self-esteem. DL develops emotional exhaustion in employees and employees lose their interest in work lower morale of employees also affects their well-being and work-life yet a positive link was concluded between DL and "emotional exhaustion” in existing literature [52,53]. Moreover, when an employee is trying hard to cope with stress eventually results in psychological stress and burnout. Scholars have reported that a lower level of job satisfaction and engagement in the employee is caused by psychological distress and is positively related to emotional exhaustion and it increases life dissatisfaction [46].

4.3.2.2. Group-level consequences

The second theme in our review is the group-level or relational consequences of DL. Despotic leaders are engaged in erroneous behaviors and examine low ethical standards. Such leaders use harmful methods in dealing with employees which cause anxiety and depression among employees, thus, they are not able to fulfill their duties. However, employees working under despots might intend to leave an organization because of high job stress levels. Against this background, employees’ intention to leave an organization because of job stress created by the despotic leader is weakened by the supervisor’s support [28]. Social support from coworkers not only helps the employee to feel better about their work and get relief from stress it also protects the organization’s well-being.

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is known as an employee’s willingness to perform positive actions that benefit their coworkers and advance the organization's functions. Our review highlighted the negative association between DL and OCB [14]. For instance, followers working under despotic leaders shows less cooperation and become less focused or they are not willing to contribute effectively toward organizational progress. Moreover, previous studies have suggested that Islamic work ethics (IWE) plays a significant role to minimize the destructive effects of DL. Although DL promotes job dissatisfaction and contributes to organizational deviance, by incubating the IWE in an organization all the negative outcomes of DL can be minimized. For instance, if the co-workers and employees hold high IWE they exhibit hard work, and devotion and encourage helping behavior and cooperation among employees at the workplace [54,55].

4.3.2.3. Organizational-level consequences

Prior research on despotic leadership has generally focused on the fact that internal factors, such as top management and organizational culture in contrast with despotic leadership, are more important in determining organizational career growth and deviance [56,57]. Workplace deviance is a voluntary activity that breaches organizational standards and so endangers the well-being of an organization, its members, or both.

Previous studies have suggested that despotic leaders do poorly in terms of having an ethical norm of conduct, personal commitment, concern for others, taking responsibility for one's actions, and self-evaluation, and when employees are working under despot leaders in case if they are not able to retaliate towards them, they directly retaliate against the organization. Therefore, workplace deviance emerges because when employees feel unappreciated and unrespected by their bosses are more likely to participate in organizational deviance [56]. Additionally, they lose concentration or willingness to actively contribute to organizational growth.

Despotic leaders have little respect for others and act in ways that are not effective. They are exploitative and self-centered, prone to be ignorant of the needs of the employees, and show little care for the effects of their actions on the organization and the employees. Employees avoid doing particular acts or refrain from doing them because they fear retaliation from their leader, it not only affects their attitude but also how well they perform at work. Employees in unethical and corrupt environments may not be able to perform well and this ultimately affects organizational growth [58].

Our review highlighted that DL is often linked with counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) of employees [[59], [60], [61]]. When despotic leaders work for their interest and don't bother the interest of their employees and treat them unethically then employees also tend to behave in the same manner and stop doing productive work and show a lack of interest in the well-being of the organization and involve in counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) to retaliate. Employees become so frustrated and inclined to retaliate in the same manner as they are being treated and intend to violate the principles of the organization.

Moreover, when employees are working with despotic leaders, ultimately, they feel unwanted at the organization because their supervisor only shows concern about their interests which creates an environment of tension and destroys the well-being of employees which has a significant influence on employees’ work, and their work meaningfulness decreases. Previous studies have reported that organizational justice weakens the link between DL and employees' work meaningfulness [62]. Although the decreased work from employees will directly affect the organization's growth, organizational justice plays a significant role in the modification of employees' perception. Employees feel valued at the workplace as organizational justice increases the sense of inner satisfaction and regardless of despotic leaders employees work for the growth and betterment of the organization.

5. Gaps and limitations in the extant literature and future agenda

A critical analysis of existing DL studies has revealed many gaps and limitations. Table 6 below presents the knowledge gaps in extant DL literature and suggests the areas of future research for further development of knowledge in this field. In addition, we also propose specific research questions as a reference point for future scholars to extend the scholarly debate in this line of research.

Table 6.

Knowledge gaps in current DL literature and future agenda.

Gaps/Limitations in Current DL Research	Future Research Direction	Potential Research Questions (PRQ)
Employees’ attitudes, namely, job satisfaction and turnover intention are mostly studied. Multi-level triggers and outcomes analysis is missing current literature.	Future studies should investigate the impact of different negative leadership styles, on employees’ work outcomes. Employees’ behaviors such as voice, creativity, and knowledge sharing behavior should be investigated. The triggers and consequences of DL in other sectors, cultures, and contexts (e.g., hospitality, tourism, and airline industries) should be studied. Moreover, the multi-level (i.e. micro, meso, macro) antecedents and outcomes of DL should be examined.	PRQ1a) How negative leadership will impact employees' work outcomes? PRQ1b) What is the impact of DL on employee behavior? PRQ1c) How despotic leadership will impact different sectors of hospitality? PRQ1d) In what ways does multi-level modeling enhance our understanding of despotic leadership?
The DL phenomenon is mainly published in the journals of business management sciences, it might be a possibility to flourishing research in other domains.	In future research, the phenomenon of DL should also be examined in other disciplines as well as multidisciplinary research is required.	PRQ2) How does despotic leadership development conjointly happen in various disciplines-fields (e.g., political sciences, sociology, the public sector, and the education sector)?
More cross-sectional research is available on this topic, however, a lack of longitudinal studies was found	Future studies should design longitudinal studies to see any variations in the triggers and/or outcomes of DL over time.	PRQ3) How do longitudinal research designs (vs. cross-sectional) can contribute to literature?
Demographic variables and other internal/eternal contingencies are less studied as moderators in current DL research	“Future research should focus on replicating this study across different cultural contexts”	PRQ4) What will be the impact of DL on job performance in individualistic cultures?
Data was collected from one country which might constrain the generalizability of the results.	More research is needed to conduct cross-country comparisons to investigate any cultural and/or contextual variations in the triggers and/or outcomes of DL.	PRQ5) Are there any contextual (or cultural) similarities (or differences) of outcomes of DL in other countries? PRQ6) Are there any similarities (or differences) in the outcomes of DL in other (public/private) organizations of Pakistan?
Limited research is available on the impact of DL on the ethical climate and justice climate of the organization.	Future studies should utilize multi-methods and collect data from multiple sources in DL research.	PRQ7) What will be the impact of DL on the ethical climate and justice climate of the organization?
All the respondents were male. All information was collected through self-reports.	Future studies need to keep in mind both genders Future research should conduct statistical methods or other sources to collect information	PRQ8) What will be the differences/similarities in the outcomes of DL from gathering the data from both genders? PRQ9) What other methods can complement the existing information of DL?

6. Discussions and implications

Over the years, scholarly research on both the dark side of leadership (e.g., Refs. [1,18]) and the brighter sides of leadership (e.g., Refs. [57,63,64]) are gaining equal importance from academicians and practitioners around the globe. The main goal of this review was to enhance the understanding of the existing research conducted on DL. In this vein, this review clarifies the definitional ambiguities and highlights the theoretical approaches utilized in the existing DL literature. On the whole several relevant relationship and outcomes of behavioral and attitudinal nature were studied. Various research gaps and limitations were identified which can contribute to empirical and theoretical research to be held in the future. The figure below presents a holistic picture of the DL literature. However, our review and analysis have highlighted that the antecedent and triggering factors of DL have received considerably very limited attention from the scholars, however, our framework and the future research agenda would complement each other to guide future scholars for further knowledge developments in this field. Fig. 7 below presents an overall holistic picture of extant literature on DL and further guides future development of knowledge in this field of study.

Fig. 7.

Synthesized framework of Despotic Leadership research.

6.1. Theoretical implications

This review offers several implications for the theory and literature of DL. We discovered that there is a lot of scholarly and practical interest in DL research and our study adds to the theoretical understanding of DL in many ways. Firstly, this study presents the first comprehensive SLR on the topic of DL and builds a knowledge structure of existing literature by summarizing the key findings of previous studies. Second, this review contributes to the advancement of knowledge within the DL literature by simplifying the extant literature into key outcome themes and discussing all existing approaches and definitions of DL. Third, this study highlights the triggers and antecedents, and outcome variables of DL which are of much practical usage in organizational contexts. Lastly, this review highlights the gaps in the extant literature on despotic leadership which directs future researchers to consider other variables, factors, and contexts for further advancements in theory.

6.2. Practical implications

This study could have several practical ramifications. In organizations, ethical behavior is critical, and ethical failures can be costly. The positive characteristics such as high integrity and ethical orientation should be considered for managerial selection rather than selecting those who serving their self-interest and exploiting others. Since integrity metrics that are now available are frequently fudged, our findings show that encouraging ethical leadership and discouraging DL in businesses may be made easier if leaders were chosen for their positions in part based on their social responsibilities. Hence, we suggest practitioners to note that even absolute presence of DL in the workplace can lead to various deviant behaviors and decreases organizational citizenship behaviors. Furthermore, our findings suggest that most followers who perceive less despotic leadership than others are likely to engage in few or no deviant behaviors. As a result, any workplace misbehavior might be a sign of a skewed social interaction between followers and their leaders. Finally, we suggest managers, supervisors, and leaders to constantly monitor the actions of their subordinates at workplace and their perceptions towards leadership to ensure constructive environments and devise appropriate policies.

6.3. Limitations of this review

As with any research study, this review is not an exception to limitations. Although a standard SLR technique was utilized in this review, the readers ought to consider the theoretical and practical implications of this review in light of the subsequent limitations. This section outlines the limitations of this review so the readers may appropriately understand and contextualize the findings. The quality of the information presented in main studies that are included in this review and analysis limited our meta-analytic data. The conference papers, books, and essays were not included in this review. Moreover, we also applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria to shortlist and select the most relevant studies in our sample (see Table 2). Lastly, articles published in languages other than English were also excluded.

7. Conclusion

This SLR study examines research on DL at work over the previous two decades and provides a thorough examination of research themes, theoretical frameworks, and measurement concerns. We also identify areas that have been understudied to direct future study in workplace despotic leadership. The goal of this review was to look into the nature, causes, and effects of despotic leadership, as well as the boundary conditions and underlying mechanisms. According to our review, a lot of research has been done on the outcomes of DL, but research on the antecedents of despotic leadership has been relatively neglected. This research has identified some areas of despotic leadership at work that have been understudied, as well as prospective research directions. This research used an SLR methodology to conduct a thorough examination of the existing literature on despotic leadership in the workplace, resulting in enlightening discussions for both theory and practice.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.