طراحی مدل عوامل موثر بر پس آیندهای رهبری پرخاشگر در محیط کسب و کار با رویکرد فراتحلیل

Introduction and Objective:

Aggression in the workplace, and specifically the aggressive leadership style, is one of the most challenging and complex phenomena in the fields of organizational psychology and human resource management, exerting profound and extensive impacts on the individual and collective performance of employees. Aggressive leadership, characterized by aggressive, humiliating, threatening behaviors, and constant criticism, not only destroys intra-organizational relationships but also leads to numerous negative consequences, including decreased job motivation, increased stress and anxiety, job burnout, and ultimately a decline in organizational efficiency and productivity. Global statistics indicate that the prevalence of this phenomenon is concerning; reports suggest that approximately 30 to 34 percent of employees in the United States and Iran face aggressive behaviors, while this figure is estimated between 3.5 to 10 percent in more developed countries such as Japan and Europe. Although past research has shown that individual characteristics such as personality and gender, as well as organizational factors like organizational culture, can play a role in the occurrence of aggression, the role of leadership in shaping or curbing these behaviors is undeniable. However, existing literature contains conflicting results; some studies have reported a positive relationship, while others have reported insignificant findings. This research gap and the lack of a comprehensive perspective highlight the necessity of conducting a study aimed at a meta-analytic investigation of the consequences (outcomes) of aggressive leadership in the business environment to provide the necessary scientific clarity for a more precise understanding of this phenomenon.



Methodology:

This research is applied in terms of purpose and falls under the category of quantitative and meta-analytic studies in terms of execution nature. The execution process of this study was designed and implemented exactly according to the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. The statistical population of the research included all scientific-research articles (internal and international) published between 2011-2024 (Solar Hijri) and 2000-2024 (AD) that addressed the topic of aggressive leadership outcomes. A comprehensive search for articles was conducted in reputable domestic databases (SID, Noormags, Magiran) and international databases (ScienceDirect) using main and combined related keywords. After extracting articles and removing duplicates, the screening process was carried out based on inclusion criteria (including quantitative studies reporting correlation coefficients and access to full text) and exclusion criteria (qualitative and review studies). Finally, 15 eligible articles possessing the necessary criteria were selected using purposive sampling and entered the analysis phase. The powerful CMA2 software (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software, Version 2) was utilized for data analysis. To examine heterogeneity among studies, Cochran's Q test and the I² index were used; to assess publication bias, the funnel plot and Egger’s linear regression test were employed; and to determine the stability of results and the number of missing studies, the Duval and Tweedie methods and Rosenthal's Fail-Safe N were utilized.



Findings:

The results of the meta-analysis of the 15 selected studies indicated that the consequences of aggressive leadership can be classified into five main categories: 1) Individual psychological consequences (such as decreased self-esteem and self-efficacy, and weakened mental health), 2) Motivational and organizational commitment factors (including decreased job motivation, productivity, and commitment), 3) Organizational and workplace environment factors (such as decreased organizational justice, job security, and increased organizational silence), 4) Negative and stress-inducing factors (including increased work stress, emotional exhaustion, and job burnout), and 5) Deviant workplace behaviors (such as bullying and propensity for violence). Estimates showed that the fixed and random combined effect sizes of the meta-analysis review of aggressive leadership consequences were 0.645 and 0.621, respectively, indicating the significant impact of this leadership style on the mentioned outcomes. However, homogeneity tests demonstrated the existence of very large heterogeneity (I² = 99.99%) among the studies. Given that the meta-analysis sample size (15 articles) was less than the standard for statistical subgroup analysis, a qualitative approach was adopted to explain the source of this heterogeneity. Investigations revealed that cultural differences (domestic vs. international studies) and diversity in organization types (educational, industrial, healthcare) were the main factors for this diversity. Furthermore, publication bias tests (including Rosenthal and Egger's methods) showed that despite the limited number of studies, the research findings possess high stability, and there is a need for 938 studies with a zero effect to invalidate the current findings.



Discussion and Conclusion:

Accurate identification and classification of aggressive leadership consequences can assist managers and organizational leaders in adopting appropriate management and intervention strategies by gaining a deeper understanding of the destructive effects of these behaviors on employees' motivation, mental health, and performance. The findings of this research are consistent with previous studies in the field of organizational psychology and emphasize that aggressive leadership is a serious risk factor for the health of the business environment. It is recommended that managers prevent the occurrence of aggressive behaviors by promoting an organizational culture based on respect, justice, and transparency, and by training ethical leadership skills. Furthermore, considering the limitations of this study (such as the low number of articles), it is suggested that future researchers examine other consequences, such as opportunism, by conducting more empirical studies with larger samples and fill the existing gaps in the literature.