This article conceptualizes destructive speech strategies of managers as a distinct communicative mechanism influencing organizational outcomes. Despite extensive research on destructive leadership, abusive supervision, and workplace incivility, the communicative processes through which managerial behavior affects employees remain underexplored. The study aims to develop a conceptual framework explaining how destructive speech strategies influence employee engagement, productivity, and turnover intention, and to examine their implications for organizational costs. The analysis is based on social exchange theory, conservation of resources theory, and the job demands–resources model. The proposed framework suggests that systematically enacted destructive verbal practices may trigger a sequence of interrelated processes, including negative affective reactions, reduced reciprocity, lower cooperation, increased uncertainty, and resource depletion. These processes are associated with decreased engagement and job satisfaction and may ultimately contribute to turnover intention. The study contributes to the literature by isolating the communicative dimension of managerial influence as a distinct analytical level and by linking micro-level speech practices to organizational outcomes. It is argued that destructive speech strategies should be understood not as isolated interpersonal incidents but as a systemic factor generating organizational costs. The practical implications include framing managerial communication as a manageable organizational variable, enabling interventions aimed at improving engagement, reducing turnover, and enhancing organizational effectiveness. The paper also highlights the relevance of these findings within the Russian organizational context.
destructive speech strategies, managerial communication, destructive leadership, abusive supervision, workplace incivility, employee engagement, turnover intention, organizational costs, social exchange theory, conservation of resources theory, job demands-resources model
1. Kibanov A.Ya. Upravlenie personalom organizacii. – M.: INFRA-M, 2019. – 695 s.
2. Lazarev A.I. Konsentologiya kak perspektivnoe napravlenie dlya mezhdisciplinarnyh issledovaniy i iskusstvennogo intellekta // Zhurnal sociologicheskih issledovaniy. – 2024. – T. 9. – № 3. – S. 28–47.
3. Lazarev A.I. Ot analiza k proektirovaniyu: metayazyk Obschey teorii zhivogo slova kak funkcional'naya osnova dlya formirovaniya konsentnogo tipa soznaniya i ego algoritmizacii v sistemah II // Zhurnal filologicheskih issledovaniy. – 2026. – T. 11. – № 1. – S. 37–63.
4. Prigozhin A.I. Metody razvitiya organizaciy. – M.: MCFER, 1995. – 863 s.
5. Blau P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. – New York: Wiley, 1964. – 352 p.
6. Hobfoll S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress // American Psychologist. – 1989. – Vol. 44. – No. 3. – P. 513–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
7. Hobfoll S.E., Halbesleben J., Neveu J.-P., Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences // Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. – 2018. – Vol. 5. – P. 103–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
8. Demerouti E., Bakker A.B., Nachreiner F., Schaufeli W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout // Journal of Applied Psychology. – 2001. – Vol. 86. – No. 3. – P. 499–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
9. Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art // Journal of Managerial Psychology. – 2007. – Vol. 22. – No. 3. – P. 309–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
10. Schaufeli W.B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., Bakker A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach // Journal of Happiness Studies. – 2002. – Vol. 3. – No. 1. – P. 71–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
11. Lee R.T., Ashforth B.E. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout // Journal of Applied Psychology. – 1996. – Vol. 81. – No. 2. – P. 123–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
12. Halbesleben J.R. B.A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences // Work & Stress. – 2010. – Vol. 24. – No. 2. – P. 102–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047-12
13. Tett R.P., Meyer J.P. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings // Personnel Psychology. – 1993. – Vol. 46. – No. 2. – P. 259–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
14. Mackey J.D., Frieder R.E., Brees J.R., Martinko M.J. Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review // Journal of Management. – 2021. – Vol. 47. – No. 8. – P. 1940–1965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997
15. Cortina L.M., Magley V.J., Williams J.H., Langhout R.D. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact // Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. – 2001. – Vol. 6. – No. 1. – P. 64–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
16. Andersson L.M., Pearson C.M. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace // Academy of Management Review. – 1999. – Vol. 24. – No. 3. – P. 452–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259136
17. Namin B.H., Øgaard T., Røislien J. Workplace incivility and turnover intention in organizations: A meta-analytic review // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. – 2022. – Vol. 19. – No. 1. – Art. 25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010025
18. Hom P.W., Lee T.W., Shaw J.D., Hausknecht J.P. One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research // Journal of Applied Psychology. – 2017. – Vol. 102. – No. 3. – P. 530–545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
19. Allen D.G., Bryant P.C., Vardaman J.M. Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies // Academy of Management Perspectives. – 2010. – Vol. 24. – No. 2. – P. 48–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.51827775
20. Gallup. State of the Global Workplace: 2023 Report. – Washington, DC: Gallup Press, 2023.
21. Buckingham M., Goodall A. The feedback fallacy // Harvard Business Review. – 2019. – Vol. 97. – No. 2. – P. 92–101.
22. Deloitte. 2023 Global Human Capital Trends: New Fundamentals for a Boundaryless World. – New York: Deloitte Insights, 2023.
23. Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. – 2nd ed. – Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001. – 596 p.
