Resource collapse at work: why neglect can be as toxic as hostility for employee resources

Purpose The devastating effects of destructive leadership are well established, yet the pathways through which this harm occurs remain poorly understood. Drawing on Conservation of Resources theory, this study examines how two conceptually distinct forms of destructive leadership -laissez-faire and aversive - shape employees' psychological capital (PsyCap) and, in turn, their well-being at work and in life. Although aversive leadership may actively deplete resources and laissez-faire may fail to provide them, the differential effects of these leadership styles remain unclear, and PsyCap's vulnerability to depletion is similarly underexplored. Design/methodology/approach We conducted a three-wave survey of 315 Australian employees. Findings The results showed that both leadership styles significantly eroded PsyCap. However, neither leadership style had a direct effect on work or life well-being once PsyCap was included in the model. Instead, PsyCap fully mediated each leadership–well-being relationship. Originality/value The comparable negative effects of laissez-faire and aversive leadership on PsyCap indicate that chronic neglect can be as damaging as overt hostility. Drawing on COR theory, the study contributes to the destructive leadership literature by identifying PsyCap as the proximal mechanism through which both active (aversive) and passive (laissez-faire) leadership erode employee well-being. It further extends well-being research by demonstrating cross-domain spillover from work to life through depletion of personal resources. In practice, organisations must curb both hostile and passive leadership behaviours while investing in PsyCap-building interventions to safeguard well-being across work and life domains.