Sasha Korobov
Academic and research departments
About
My research project
Destruction in hubristic leadershipMy research is in the emerging field of destructive leadership, and my primary focus is on destructive hubristic leadership, and its antecedents, enablers, warning signs, and impacts on organisation and personnel health.
Supervisors
My research is in the emerging field of destructive leadership, and my primary focus is on destructive hubristic leadership, and its antecedents, enablers, warning signs, and impacts on organisation and personnel health.
My qualifications
Affiliations and memberships
Prior to my doctoral studies, I spent over a dozen years as a corporate communications consultant in organisations including NASA, Network Rail and the University of Surrey. I still practice as a corporate and leadership coach and enjoy the opportunity to apply my findings in leadership studies to my work. I am also a fellow of the Higher Education Academy and enjoy engaging with students to apply real-life scenarios to management and leadership theory.
News
In the media
ResearchResearch interests
My research and professional focus is on how destructive leadership emerges and why traditional leadership interventions fail. Self-deception in leadership has consequently emerged as a key research interest.
Research interests
My research and professional focus is on how destructive leadership emerges and why traditional leadership interventions fail. Self-deception in leadership has consequently emerged as a key research interest.
Publications
Highlights
Sadler‐Smith, E., Cojuharenco, I., Akstinaite, V., Hill, A. and Korobov, S. (2026). Linguistic Markers of Destructive Leadership: An Exploratory Cross‐domain Study. British Journal of Management.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.70100
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 a destructive leader (Donald Trump) and a non-destructive leader (Kamala Harris) during the 2024 United States presidential election campaign. Study 2 extends the analysis to business leadership in the medical technology sector by comparing speeches by a 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 and intervening to prevent harmful outcomes taking hold.
Additional publications
Book chapter from forthcoming edited work, titled: Contemporary Leadership Theory and Development: Global Research and Practice (2027)
Chapter title: Self-deception, Hubris and Unintended Consequences in Leadership
Eugene Sadler-Smith, Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, UK
Sasha Korobov, Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, UK
Abstract
Hubris is a well-documented contributory factor to leadership failure, yet its relationship with self-deception is underexplored in the literature and relevant to a number of significant high-profile leadership failures, both past and present. This chapter argues that self-deception is a critical but overlooked antecedent of hubristic leadership which can help to explain why leaders systematically overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes while underestimating the likelihood of negative outcomes and thereby increasing the chances of unintended negative consequences. By examining self-deception through the lenses of core self-evaluation, Hubris Syndrome, reasoning processes, and leader-follower-context relationships and drawing on cases from business and politics, we propose that hubris, self-deception, and unintended negative consequences form an interconnected triad at the heart of destructive leadership. Our conclusion is that that those leaders most in need of self-correction are, paradoxically, least capable of achieving it because not only do they deceive others but they unconsciously deceive themselves also.