Over the past half-century, leadership paradigms have evolved from transactional dynamics between leaders and followers to a transformative, authentic exploration of individual and organizational outcomes. Recent scholarly attention has turned towards evaluations of harmful or "dark" leadership traits and behaviors. However, prevailing literature on destructive leaders primarily delves into leader-centric evaluations of traits, antecedents, and consequences, leaving a significant gap in understanding follower-driven perspectives on evaluations of destructive leaders. This study advocates for a second-order meta-analysis (SOMA) to scrutinize the interplay between evaluations of destructive leaders, the nomological network of concepts surrounding followers’ evaluations, and the relative importance of potential predictors of such evaluations. The existing body of research predominantly concentrates on the potential correlates of evaluations of destructive leader behavior (DLB), encompassing concepts such as counterproductive work behavior, turnover intention, burnout, commitment, and job performance, with limited clarity on what might proceed or derive from such evaluations of DLBs. Additionally, a noteworthy portion of scholarly discourse revolves around abusive supervision, creating a conspicuous void regarding other forms of evaluations of DLBs. Finally, while primary meta-analytic inquiries abound in the field, their findings sometimes present conflicting results, necessitating a secondary meta-analytic exploration encompassing diverse variables, including follower traits and various manifestations of destructive leadership behaviors. This study takes stock of the limitations and opportunities in the extant literature and presents a roadmap for a cleaned-up concept space. Drawing from a systematic review of 256 articles, this study meticulously analyzes 30 articles for SOMA regarding destructive leadership behaviors, supplemented by 10 additional first and second-order meta-analyses from applied psychology literature focusing on individual differences. While coding over 37 follower differences, 68 DLB outcomes, and five destructive leadership constructs as correlates, numerous missing correlates primarily relate to outcome associations, demographics, and personality metrics. Additional analyses and meta-analytic effect size estimations were employed to address initially blank correlation matrix correlates tied to personality factors, demographics, and attitudes. In total, 184 (total k = 10,818 & total n = 2,384,935) meta-analytic estimates were produced, not including those derived from Metabus.org.Key findings underscore the significant influence of follower individual differences, particularly negative and positive affect, on evaluations of destructive leadership. Moreover, emotional stability, a trait within the Five Factor Model of Personality, emerges as potentially strongly linked to followers' assessments of destructive leadership behaviors. However, demographics display limited predictive power in these evaluations. Methodologies such as relative weights analysis and incremental predictive validity were utilized to expand upon second-order meta-analytic effect size estimates concerning individual differences. Additionally, the study also reveals robust correlations between destructive leadership and individual behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes. Notably, constructs like Transactional and Authentic Leadership, typically viewed positively, exhibit positive associations with destructive leadership, while Ethical Leadership demonstrates a notable negative correlation with Abusive Supervision. Overall, this study offers comprehensive analyses of leader individual differences and their ramifications on evaluations of destructive leadership, highlighting gaps and avenues for future exploration in the realms of leadership and applied psychology.