Toxic Leadership

Certain leadership skills are appropriate at different stages in the leader’s career. For example, the ability to step back and see the “helicopter view” is not as useful to a first-line leader as a senior executive. It is essential to have the right leadership skills at the right time; otherwise what might ordinarily be considered as a “good” skill suddenly becomes inappropriate. Beyond inappropriate leadership skills, leaders might also exhibit “dark” behaviours (e.g. aggressive, arrogant, bullying etc.). Then we can have “toxic” leadership; but is this entirely the leader’s “fault” or is the root cause contextual?

According to Einarsen et al., toxic leadership destroys value and can manifest itself against the company (i.e. disloyal) or against the employees (i.e. tyrannical). Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser proposed that toxic leadership is actually a consequence of three interdependent forces and is not just a case of the leader behaving badly. Their theory (which appears in The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 2007, pp176-194) asserts that three forces have to be present in order to witness toxic (or “destructive”) leadership.Here’s a summary followed by further considerations (“et alors”).

Toxic Leadership

When all of the three forces are aligned and noted as below, then the leader can become destructive:

The leader...

·         Is charismatic but functions narcissistically (e.g. egotistical, intolerant of others, etc.)

·         Is motivated by personal power (individually or in the organisational context)

The followers...

·         Are insecure or “vulnerable” and need to be led

·         Are in agreement with the leader if they are ambitious

The environment...

·         Exhibits cultural preferences to avoid uncertainty

·         Exhibits instable “governance” and there might be a sense of “menace”

Et alors?

At first glance, the above is actually good news as it appears that just one of these forces needs to be removed to ensure that toxic leadership does not emerge; however, this is easier said than done! Moreover, it seems that unfortunately, none of the forces are stand-alone and can therefore not be singled-out or isolated. For example, even the high personal drive on behalf of the leader – the motivation for personal power – might be contextual. According to Herzberg, “satisfaction” motivators include achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth. So why are some people more motivated by “power” (responsibility and advancement) rather than a sense of “development” (achievement and recognition)? The references can be cultural: both corporate and national.

In a hierarchical corporate culture where power is usually centralised and limited to the “top”, employees might be motivated to “advance” so that they can actually have some power. In cultures with a high “power distance”, there is (according to Hofstede) an acceptance and an expectation that power will be distributed unequally. At once and at the same time the “followers” need to be led and there might be a greater motivation on behalf of the “leader” to obtain that rare-but-significant power. Further, if the prevailing culture is one where uncertainty is ordinarily avoided then the leader can assume power by providing certainty (e.g. taking bold decisions).

So if bad leadership is principally contextual, what can be done to avoid it? Depending on cultural references, “followers’” who need to be led cannot always be changed; and in the wider context of the “environment” and again culturally, it is difficult to address (for example) uncertainty avoidance. It would appear that the only thing that can be changed is the leader. When a particular cultural context means that there is a higher risk that bad leadership might emerge, then even more attention has to be paid to developing leaders! In particular, timing is everything – leaders have to be equipped with the right leadership skills at the right time in their development so their leadership skills are, if not “good”, then at least appropriate!