<p>Destructive leadership in higher education institutions has garnered increasing scholarly attention due to its manifestation in forms such as authoritarianism, cronyism, exploitative behaviour, and other toxic practices. Emerging research suggests that these maladaptive leadership styles may have developmental roots, particularly shaped by early family socialization experiences. Despite growing interest, systematic examinations of the intersection between family influence and destructive leadership in academic settings remain limited. This study addresses that gap by presenting a theoretically informed and context-sensitive bibliometric review of the evolving scholarly discourse on this topic. Drawing on 9,452 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (2020–2025), we analysed a refined subset of 1,000 publications using CiteSpace (version 6.3.R1 64-bit). The resulting co-citation network comprises 235 nodes and 999 links, mapping the intellectual structure, thematic clusters, and citation dynamics of the field. Our analysis identified nine major research clusters, covering themes such as “dynamic antecedent,” “creative mindset,” “toxic leadership,” “customer incivility,” “destructive leadership,” “knowledge hiding,” “service sabotage,” “job neglect,” and “vicarious abusive supervision.” These clusters were derived through CiteSpace’s multi-step refinement process, including default thresholds for citation bursts, betweenness centrality, and clustering algorithms. Clusters like Dynamic Antecedent and Creative Mindset highlight links between early family socialization and leadership behaviour. Keywords such as ‘parenting style’ and ‘emotional regulation’ often co-occur with ‘abusive supervision,’ indicating leadership dysfunctions reflect early relational patterns. This suggests destructive leadership stems not just from institutions or dispositions but from developmental roots in the family. The study further contextualizes these themes within broader debates on neoliberalism, managerialism, and institutional reform in higher education, showing how systemic pressures and governance shifts may interact with individual and developmental factors to produce destructive leadership behaviours. Geographically, the United States, Germany, China, and England emerge as leading contributors, underscoring the global relevance and academic maturity of this interdisciplinary field. Ultimately, our findings advocate for integrative research frameworks that bridge individual, familial, and institutional perspectives to advance a more holistic understanding of leadership dysfunction in higher education.</p>