9.4 The Darkside of Leadership

The Darkside of Leadership 

The Darkside of Leadership is a label given to toxic or destructive leadership. Lipman-Blumen (2006) defines a toxic leader as someone who exhibits specific dysfunctional personal characteristics, enhances oneself at the expense of others, and engages in destructive behaviors that leave their followers and organizations worse off than when they found them. Some of these dysfunctional personal characteristics include lack of integrity, hypocrisy, untrustworthiness, insatiable ambition, inability to admit mistakes, amorality, cowardice from making difficult decisions, failure to act in leadership situations, and reckless disregard of consequences (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). Toxic leaders may also clearly disregard followership or others deemed an out-group as they pursue endeavors that benefit themselves.

Generally, when we envision a toxic leader, we may think of world leaders such as Hitler or even fictitious villainous leaders from Disney films. (Looking at you, Scar.) The outcomes of toxic leadership are often harmful, but not necessarily all the time. Bad leaders can bring value, and good leaders can produce bad outcomes. Good leaders can fall into or be forced into toxicity when they encounter difficult situations that can lead to traps, gaps, and inconsistencies. Argyris (2010) discusses that toxic traps often occur when a leader does not act to address an issue or does not act in a way that they espouse. This type of situation is where we often encounter toxic leadership in our lives and careers. Destructive outcomes are also not the sole fault of the leaders but can be attributed to a combination of leadership, followership, and the situation.

Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) created the Toxic Triangle model that outlines the key components that make destructive leadership possible. Let us look at their research findings to understand the complexity of toxic leadership better.  

Destructive Leaders

Padilla et al. (2007) identify five critical factors that characterize destructive leaders. These are: 

1. Charisma: Destructive leaders are often charismatic, which can help them gain followers and support for their destructive agendas. Charisma is "a magnetic charm and appeal, a special personality characteristic that gives a leader exceptional powers of influence" (Northouse, 2020, p. 28). Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa, and John F. Kennedy (JFK), the former President of The United States, exhibited high charisma for their strong communication skills and ability to inspire and motivate people through vision.

2. Personalized use of power: Destructive leaders use their power for personal gain and self-promotion rather than using it to serve others. 

3. Narcissism: Destructive leaders are often narcissistic. Narcissists are often considered arrogant, self-absorbed, entitled, hostile, and fragile (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). However, they may also be clear on internal reasoning, self-reliant, free from psychological restraints, and willing to seek out confrontation of ideas when the confrontation is well-supported (Argyris, 2010). Narcissists have good social skills and make positive first impressions because they come across as bold and competent (Johnson & Hackman, 2018). This duality of narcissists being adverse while also being productive is what may prove problematic when attempting to deal with a narcissist leader. The toxicity may only exist or be apparent some of the time. 

4. Negative life themes: Destructive leaders may have experienced negative life events or traumas that shape their worldview and contribute to their destructive behavior. 

5. Ideology of hate: Destructive leaders often promote an ideology of hate, which can be directed towards specific groups or individuals and can fuel destructive behavior. This ideology may surface in figuratively hateful or violent language such as "we are going to kill the competition."

In the business world, examples of leaders who fit the characteristics of the toxic triangle include Enron's former CEO, Jeff Skilling, and WorldCom's former CEO, Bernie Ebbers. These leaders were known for their charismatic leadership styles, personalized use of power, and unethical behavior that led to the downfall of their companies.

Susceptible Followers

Padilla et al. (2007) identify two types of susceptible followers in the context of destructive leadership: 

1. Conformers: Conformers are followers who comply with destructive leaders out of fear. They may passively allow bad leaders to assume power because their unmet needs and immaturity make them vulnerable to such influences. While low self-esteem does not guarantee falling susceptible to a toxic leader, it may increase the chance of overlooking toxic tendencies. Followers may also tolerate toxic leaders for simply reasoning that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." Sometimes, we allow toxic leaders to remain in their positions once identified because we might not know how to remove them or feel we will get caught in the crossfire if we get too involved.

2. Colluders: Colluders are followers who actively participate in a destructive leader's agenda. They support destructive leaders because they want to promote themselves in an enterprise consistent with their worldview. Colluders seek personal gain through association with a destructive leader, being chosen and at the center of the action. Being in the center of the action is desirable because knowing that your work is meaningful and recognized is stimulating and being part of the chosen offers at least the illusion of being seen/known and part of something meaningful. Nevertheless, there can be a threat to your social existence for not being a part of the center once you have experienced it. Lipman-Blumen (2006) uses the term exile to describe the severity of this threat. A major pitfall of the threat of exile is that those in the center who fear falling short of the expectations of being in the center can be driven to feel that they must insatiably prove themselves, potentially causing burnout and toxic behaviors. This idea of falling short can also become apparent in those vying to be in the center and cause unwanted behaviors from desperation for wanting to be in the center.

These two types of susceptible followers demonstrate different motivations and behaviors in their relationship with destructive leaders. Conformers are motivated by fear and a desire to minimize negative consequences, while colluders are motivated by self-interest and personal gain. While these categorizations can provide insights into the dynamics of followership in the context of destructive leadership, they do not explain why followers fall into these motivations and behaviors. There are psychological reasons that influence followership, often aligning with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Lipman-Blumen (2006) explores how our human needs for safety and security, to feel chosen or special, and to feel part of a community or group can be the motivations driving followership behavior.  

Conducive Environments

Padilla et al. (2007) identify several contributors to conducive environments in the context of destructive leadership:

1. Instability: Environmental instability is an important factor for destructive leadership. Situations of instability can create opportunities for destructive leaders to exploit and gain power.

2. Perceived threat: When individuals perceive a threat, whether real or manufactured, it can contribute to a conducive environment for destructive leadership. Leaders may manipulate perceived threats to consolidate their control.

3. Cultural values: Organizations endorsing cultural values such as uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, and power distance are more likely to experience destructive leadership. You may recognize these values from Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory and the GLOBE project that were discussed earlier. Recalling those definitions, consider how each value may present a conducive environment for toxic leadership. Cultures and organizations with high uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for risk-taking and often rely on rules, social norms, and structure. In times of crisis or conflict, the level of uncertainty can rise, and those within the organization may seek leadership from whoever provides this. If collectivism is held in high value, group members are likely to support a leader galvanizing for a cause that is claimed to be in the best interest of the larger group; however, just because something is claimed to be utilitarian does not mean that it is. If power distance is high, group members accept that power is distributed unequally and obey authority without question.    

4. Absence of checks and balances and ineffective institutions: Inadequate institutional checks and balances can create an environment where destructive leaders can consolidate power and control. Weak institutionalization can allow destructive leaders to undermine existing institutions and laws. Toxic leadership may occur when power becomes absolute or unchecked, and it may be continued by those who do not want to question the choices or processes for fear of losing their positions.

In crisis, and specifically in danger, we as a collective population can become needy for leaders who can step up and often place more than usual levels of trust in them. A study by Cohen et al. (2004) examined the situation's impact on people's gravitation toward certain types of leaders. During psychologically distressing times, charismatic (visionary) leaders seem to surface, gaining followers through admiration and promises to serve people's needs for psychological security. Cohen et al. (2004) found that the task-oriented leader was most popular across the control group and those who participated in the mortality salience questions, the questions about death. However, the only candidate type to increase in ratings and votes with the introduction of mortality was the charismatic leader, highlighting that a vision in times of uncertainty is favored.

Additionally, Lipman-Blumen (2006) talks about how authoritarian leaders see a spike in popularity at the beginning of a crisis because we are so thankful to have someone in leadership to look to. However, inevitably, we cede this power to individuals who are imperfect, drive nontoxic leaders to toxicity because of these burdens, and often invite authoritarianism without knowing how long it may stay. We are often willing to give up some freedoms because of our need for security and demand for security. An example of this would be the Transportation Security Authority (TSA), created in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.

From Darkness to Light

Learning about toxic leadership creates awareness, allowing us to identify it, act in situations where we experience it, and avoid it ourselves. Padilla et al. (2007) advocate for identifying potentially destructive leaders in the selection/development process, promoting a culture of empowerment to help followers feel comfortable raising issues and balance power, and increasing accountability and oversight to help mitigate toxic or destructive leadership situations.

If you find yourself in a situation with toxic leadership, identify the reasons (or myths) keeping you from addressing the behaviors, and cautiously call the leader to account. The word cautiously is used because there are layers of uncertainty to wrestle with. When you do not have the resources to face the potential outcome of losing your job, protecting basic needs above psychological or ethical needs often takes precedence. Additionally, if there is hesitation in holding the leader accountable on your own, take note of other followers who may be experiencing or noticing toxicity and cautiously work together.

References:

Argyris, C. (2010). Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford University Press.

Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2004). Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psychological Science, 15(12), 846–851. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064057

Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). Leadership: A communication perspective, Seventh Edition. Waveland Press.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians--and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press, USA.

Nickerson, C. (2023, October 24). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory & examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-theory.html

Northouse, P. G. (2020). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.005

Transportation Security | Homeland Security. (2024, January 9). https://www.dhs.gov/topics/transportation-security