Linguistic Markers of Destructive Leadership: An Exploratory Cross‐domain Study

Abstract This article examines how destructive leadership in politics and business is reflected in distinctive patterns of language use. Drawing on Pennebaker's psycholinguistic theory and his Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analytical framework, we report two studies. Study 1 (politics) compares campaign speeches by an acknowledged destructive leader (Donald Trump) and a non‐destructive leader (Kamala Harris) during the 2024 US presidential election campaign. Study 2 extends the analysis to business leadership in the medical technology sector by comparing speeches by an acknowledged destructive leader (Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos) and a non‐destructive leader (Omar Ishrak, Medtronic). Consistent linguistic markers across both studies were pronoun usage and negative emotional tone: destructive leaders displayed more self‐reference (‘I‐talk’) than collective reference (‘We‐talk’) and greater third‐person plural reference (‘They‐talk’) relative to other personal pronouns, along with a more negatively valenced emotional tone. By contrast, clout, analytical thinking and surface‐form indicators of linguistic simplicity were less consistent, while authenticity appeared context dependent. These findings contribute to destructive leadership theory and suggest that ‘at‐a‐distance’ linguistic analysis which entails the systematic examination of leaders’ natural language use without direct access or interaction has practical value for diagnosing destructive leadership in hard‐to‐reach populations and may also have a role to play in intervening to prevent harmful outcomes taking hold.