Some limitations or our study are based in the data available from primary research. Probably the biggest drawback of our meta-analysis is that all our analyses are based on correlation. Most available research into destructive leadership is cross-sectional in nature (with the notable exception of some of tipper’s studies). We therefore can not draw conclusion about causal effects. In addition, studies on destructive leadership and its outcomes tend to use self-report data only. This means that there is a potential for a method bias. However, the correlation difference we found between the different outcome variables will likely be similar but might differ in strength when method bias is avoided. While using self-report data only is a clear limitation, the issue lies in the nature of the research: A lot of the constructs summarized under destructive leadership explicitly refer to the perception of leader hostility as a defining attribute of destructive leadership. In addition, some of the outcomes are highly subjective.
Give that the field is relatively new, there were limits as to the possibility of analyzing moderations. We found large within studies heterogeneity which point to moderating influence. However given the limited amount of moderators included in primary research, we were not able to include moderators here other than one on the measurement of destructive leadership.
Relatedly, we summarized different outcomes into categories to achieve a larger number of studies included in our individual analyses. However, that means that we cannot say much about differentiated effects. For example, under the heading of counterproductive work behavior different behaviors such as organizational and interpersonal deviance, active as well as passive counterproductive behavior are summarized. This limits in how far differentiated relationships between destructive leadership and outcomes could be examined.
We found only two studies which examined the relationship between destructive leadership and performance: De Hoogh and Den Hharton assessed perceived top management team effectiveness. Detert, Ttrevino, Burris, and Andiappan used different measures on the organizational level such as operating profit and actual turnover. De Hoogh and Den Hartong found no relationship between despotic leadership and organizational performance. Detert and colleagues only found one significant relationship out of the five day tested and that was with product loss (in this case, food loss). From these two studies, we can nit derive a clear conclusion regarding the relationship between destructive leadership and organizational performance. It seems that most of the results point to a zero or rather low relationship which is probably due to the fact that there are a myriad of influences on organizational performance and (bad) leadership is only one of them. In addition, based on our definition, we focused narrowly on destructive leadership rather than more general destructive leader behavior.
Finally, all meta-analyses may be subject to the file drawer problem. This refers to the tendency that negative or inconclusive results often remain unpublished by their authors. With regard to our study, this bias may cause an overestimation of effects concerning the consequences of destructive leadership. While to our knowledge there still is no silver bullet to solve this problem, we tried to minimize it by directly contacting colleagues working in this field asking for unpublished studies.