Atoxic leader is a person who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse condition than it was in. Toxic leaders therefore create an environment that may be detrimental to employees, thus lowering overall morale in the organization.[1]
In his 1994 journal article "Petty Tyranny in Organizations" Blake Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as "petty tyrants", i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace.[2]
In 1996 Marcia Lynn Whicker popularized the term "toxic leader".[3]
The basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/or insular, intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corruptoraggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.[4]
Characteristics that may be present in a toxic leader include those in 'Factor 1' in Robert D.Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, which includes the following traits:
The United States Army defines toxic leaders as commanders who put their own needs first, micro-manage subordinates, behave in a mean-spirited manner or display poor decision-making.[6] A study for the Center for Army Leadership found that toxic leaders in the army work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates, and usually do so without considering long-term ramifications to their subordinates, their unit, and the Army profession.[7]
Ashforth proposed the following six characteristics to define petty tyranny:[8][9]
Heavy running costs and a high staff turnover/overtime rate are often also associated with employee related results of a toxic leader.[12]
In their book, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—and How We Can Survive Them, Jean Lipman-Blumen explained that there was and still is a tendency among contemporary society to seek authoritative, even dominating characteristics among our corporate and political leaders because of the public's own personal psycho-social needs and emotional weaknesses.
Lipman-Blumen noticed "toxic leadership" was not about run-of-the-mill mismanagement. Rather, it referred to leaders, who, by virtue of their "dysfunctional personal characteristics" and "destructive behaviours" "inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm" not only on their own followers and organizations, but on others outside of their immediate circle of victims and subordinates, as well. A noted rule of thumb suggests that toxic leaders leave their followers and others who come within their sphere of influence worse off than they found them either on a personal and/or corporate basis.
Lipman-Blumens' core focus was on investigating why people will continue to follow and remain loyal to toxic leaders. She also explored why followers often vigorously resist change and challenges to leaders who have clearly violated the leader/follower relationship and abused their power as leaders to the direct detriment of the people they are leading. Lipman-Blumen suggests there is something of a deeply psychological nature going on. She argues the need to feel safe, specialness and in a social community all help explain this psychological phenomenon.
InBad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Barbara Kellerman suggests that toxicity in leadership (or simply, "bad leadership") may be analysed into seven different types:
In his book, Understanding Ethical Failures in Leaders, Terry L. Price argues that the volitional account of moral failures in leaders do not provide a complete account of this phenomenon. Some have suggested that the reason leaders misbehave ethically is because they willingly go against what they know to be wrong. Professor Price however, offers an alternative analysis of leaders who excuse themselves from normally applicable moral requirements. He argues that a cognitive account for ethical failures in leaders provides a better analysis of the issues involved in all the ethical conundrums under the rubric of "toxic leadership". Leaders can know that a certain kind of behavior is generally required by morality but still be mistaken as to whether the relevant moral requirement applies to them in a particular situation and whether others are protected by this requirement. Price demonstrates how leaders make exceptions of themselves, explains how the justificatory force of leadership gives rise to such exception-making, and develops normative protocols that leaders should adopt.
Notes
Bibliography
Further reading
