Export Publication

The publication can be exported in the following formats: APA (American Psychological Association) reference format, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) reference format, BibTeX and RIS.

Export Reference (APA) 
Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. & Esteves, F. (2023). Coproducing leadership: A reason to resist destructive leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 44 (2), 189-204
Export Reference (IEEE) 
M. T. Almeida et al.,  "Coproducing leadership: A reason to resist destructive leaders", in Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 189-204, 2023
Export BibTeX 
@article{almeida2023_1716213585000,
	author = "Almeida, T. and Ramalho, N. and Esteves, F.",
	title = "Coproducing leadership: A reason to resist destructive leaders",
	journal = "Leadership and Organization Development Journal",
	year = "2023",
	volume = "44",
	number = "2",
	doi = "10.1108/LODJ-09-2021-0427",
	pages = "189-204",
	url = "https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-09-2021-0427/full/html"
}
Export RIS 
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Coproducing leadership: A reason to resist destructive leaders
T2  - Leadership and Organization Development Journal
VL  - 44
IS  - 2
AU  - Almeida, T.
AU  - Ramalho, N.
AU  - Esteves, F.
PY  - 2023
SP  - 189-204
SN  - 0143-7739
DO  - 10.1108/LODJ-09-2021-0427
UR  - https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-09-2021-0427/full/html
AB  - Purpose: Follower's individual differences have been receiving increased attention in studying destructive leadership because followers may enable or disable it. One of these yet under-researched features is the role of followers' leadership coproduction beliefs (a role construal) in explaining their resistance to destructive leaders. Departing from the proactive motivation theory, this paper explores the robustness of coproduction beliefs by testing its ability to predict followers' resistance to destructive leaders across four situations – abusive supervision, exploitative leadership, organization directed behaviors and laissez-faire. Design/methodology/approach: With a sample of 359 participants that answered a scenario-based survey, the present study tests the relationship between coproduction beliefs and resistance behaviors in the four mentioned groups, while controlling for alternative explanations. A multigroup analysis was conducted with PLS-SEM. Findings: Constructive resistance is always favored by coproduction beliefs independently of the leader's type of destructive behavior. Dysfunctional resistance, however, is sensitive to the leader's type of destructive behavior. Originality/value: This paper extends knowledge on the role of coproduction beliefs as an individual-based resource against destructive leaders.
ER  -