Opposing Authenticity: Destructive Leaders

For followers, the experience of crisis in their relationship with their leader often turns their worldview upside down, especially when hidden facets of their leader’s personality are revealed. The realization of deception by their leader is very painful but the learning outcomes can be enlightening and fascinating. What’s more, though, is that as followers or leadership students and/or educators we need to consider more than our own disappointment with the leader’s behaviors and actions: we have to think of the long-term implications for past, present and future individuals that are affected.

In their article: “The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments” (Padilla et al, 2007), the authors present a comprehensive review on destructive leaders. I tried to distill the elements from it that seemed most relevant for the use of learning to recognize destructive leaders that operate in our midst. Let’s keep one consideration in mind, however: the authors point out that when we focus on the outcomes of destructive leadership we should note that most leadership can result in both desirable and undesirable outcomes. I think that’s important. Black and White thinking does not really help us when we want to categorize good or bad, authentic or inauthentic, or constructive or destructive leadership. Leadership is one of the most complex phenomena of human behavior because it is almost always embedded in an external environment and influenced by ideological, emotional, social, economic, or political factors. This makes it hard to identify clear types of leadership from an epistemological viewpoint.

Signs of destructive leader behavior

What followers can do is look at leader behaviors. The above mentioned article points at a few signs of destructive leader behaviors: ignoring reality, overestimating personal capabilities and disregarding the view of others. If we stick to a benevolent definition of leadership for now we soon recognize these behaviors as counterproductive to the organization’s goals as well as the welfare of all constituents.

Let me give a few examples: For a leader to ignore reality can involve denying negative long-term implications of current policies, or simply lacking transparency about the status quo. To overestimate personal capabilities can mean to be impulsive, irresponsible and extraordinary punitive; a lack of delegation skills, control mania and the claim of exclusive knowledge about a certain topic are examples that I have witnessed. To disregard the view of others can reach from not listening to their concerns and opinions to blaming dissenters of dishonesty and (gross) misconduct.

Sometimes, these leaders show signs of narcissism, embodied by grand visions powered by grandiose dreams of success. The problem is only that narcissistic people spoil their own potential for succeeding by demanding unquestioning obedience because they think they are entitled to ignore input by others.

Preconditions for destructive leadership

The authors also stress the fact that destructive leaders can grow under certain circumstances: they have vulnerable followers and a favorable environment for their purposes. I claim that for the purposes of guarding themselves from destructive leaders, followers need to be more self-aware. For example they need to be aware of the degree to which they need the safety and security of group membership, and predictability in an uncertain world. That includes the knowledge that destructive leaders let some individuals prosper, particularly those that are closer to the leader. Ambitious followers may be willing to follow the leader’s policies and ideologies to advance their own agendas; to avoid falling prey for a destructive leader, therefore, followers must be more aware of their own priorities.

Interesting is also the environment these leaders create: the article describes these environments as “systems without sharing of control – for example corporations lacking independent board oversight…”. Leaders might justify this as “discretion”, the freedom from institutional constraints, but that also allows them to abuse their power. The authors point out that the “concept of managerial discretion suggests that destructive leadership is most likely in senior jobs (where there is less supervision), in younger and smaller organizations with limited governance mechanisms, and in high-growth and rapidly transforming industries.” Good to know.

Quick Reference Check for Destructive Leadership

Sometimes it can be hard to see the wood for the trees. The wish to belong to a group is an inherently strong desire of human nature and strong leaders can convey the message of exclusivity and belonging convincingly. And, negative leaders come in many varieties: from ineffective and incompetent to unethical and evil.

The authors’ summary when it comes to identifying destructive leadership is this:

“Deciding whether leadership is constructive or destructive is a matter of long-term group performance: how well did the team perform relative to its competition in achieving its goals? The test of toxic leadership, from this perspective, is a matter of outcomes…”

Therefore, followers should also take on the responsibility of foresight and anticipation when they first feel that they might be witnessing destructive leadership. The long-term implications and consequences of future generations of followers could be at stake.

For comments, feedback and questions please contact me at andrea@derlercoaching.com

Reference:

Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B., 2007. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.