Purpose: This study aims to investigate the differences between destructive leadership in two different contexts: crisis management and usual circumstances. The specific research questions are as follows: What is the relationship between destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances and destructive leadership behaviours in crisis management? Are destructive leadership behaviours in usual circumstances or in crisis management the best predictors of trust in the leader and subordinate performance? Design/methodology/approach: Questionnaire responses were obtained from 337 individuals who had experience from handling various societal crises, such as terror attacks and forest fires. The respondents represented four different organisations: municipalities, county administrative boards, the police and the emergency service. Findings: The results from the study reveal that there is a strong association between destructive leadership in usual circumstances and destructive leadership during crisis management. The study indicates that everyday leadership matters the most. It is above all behaviours in usual circumstances that show the strongest associations with trust in the leader and subordinate performance. The results also show that it is especially task-related, passive forms of destructive leadership behaviours that show the strongest association with the studied outcome variables. Research limitations/implications: Limitations related to measurements and self-reported data are discussed. Practical implications: The study emphasises the importance of paying attention to leaders' task- and strategic-oriented behaviour as well as the importance of building trusting relationships with the subordinates. Originality/value: The need for industry-specific studies of destructive leadership has been highlighted and this study contributes with knowledge from the crisis management context.