military leadership essay

MS 402: Company Grade Leadership Revision Date: 30 September 2019
Lesson 18: Preventing Counterproductive Leadership Student Reading
Pre-Class Readings
NOTE: The readings enclosed in this handout are excerpts from a variety of sources. Some of these sources include Army doctrine with a direct correlation to the regulatory expectations of the content being discussed, while other sources may include products from industry, having an indirect, yet relevant correlation. Regardless, these readings are meant to serve as formative information resources towards instilling a foundation of knowledge on the subject(s) that will be discussed in future classes. Please reference the following pages, as shown in the Table of Contents below and engage the reading in the manner prescribed (i.e. read, skim, or review).
Table of Contents
Read:
• ADP 6-22, Para. 1-14 through 1-22, pp. 1-3 through 1-4; Para. 6-20 through 6-28, pp. 6-4 through 6-6; and Para. 8-45 through 8-50, pp. 8-7 through 8-8.
• Toxic Leadership: What are we talking about? Army, AUSA. (pp. 47-52).
• The Toxic Triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. TheLeadership Quarterly. 18 (2007) 176–194.
The ArmyARMY LEADERSHIP
1-14. The Army experience over more than two centuries is that most people have leadership potential and can learn to be effective leaders. The ability to influence others is a central component of leadership. As a result, leader development has long been an Army priority (see FM 6-22 for more information regarding leader development). This development begins with education, training, and experience, and requires understanding about what Army leaders do and why
1-15. Leadership is the activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization. Leadership as an element of combat power, coupled with information, unifies the warfighting functions (movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, protection and command and control). Leadership focuses and synchronizes organizations. Leaders inspire people to become energized and motivated to achieve desired outcomes. An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.
INFLUENCING
1-16. Influencing is persuading people do what is necessary. Influencing entails more than simply passing along orders. Through words and personal example, leaders inspire purpose, provide direction, and when required motivation.
PURPOSE
1-17. Leaders provide clear purpose for their subordinates. Purpose gives subordinates a reason to achieve a desired outcome. Leaders convey purpose through direct means such as requests, directives, or orders. Leaders inspire subordinates to do their best by instilling a higher purpose that rises above self-interest. They explain why something should or must be done and provide context whenever possible. Subordinates who understand why they are doing something difficult and discern the higher purpose are more likely to do the right thing when leaders are not present to direct their every action.
31 July 2019 ADP 6-22 1-3
Chapter 1
DIRECTION
1-18. Direction is telling others what to do. Providing effective direction requires that leaders communicate the desired end state for the direction they provide. To accomplish a mission, leaders prioritize tasks, assign responsibility, supervise, and ensure subordinates perform to standard. They ensure subordinates clearly understand their guidance, while allowing subordinates the opportunity to demonstrate initiative within the overall commander’s intent. Providing clear direction allows subordinate initiative to adapt their tasks within the commander’s intent when circumstances change.
1-19. The Army requires leaders who provide direction and subordinates who can execute without the need for continuous guidance. The Army needs leaders who understand, train, and employ mission command during the course of their duties. Mission command is the Army’s approach to command and control that empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation (ADP 6-0). Mission command recognizes that no single person in an organization or unit can make every important decision at every critical moment, nor can a single person keep up with the number of simultaneous decisions organizations require during combat or other time-constrained environments. See ADP 6-0 for further discussion about mission command.
MOTIVATION
1-20. Motivation is the will and initiative to do what is necessary to accomplish a mission. While motivation comes from within, others’ actions and words affect it. A leader’s role in motivation is at times to understand others’ needs and desires, to align and elevate individual desires into team goals, and to inspire others to accomplish those larger goals, even if it means risking their lives. At other times, such as time constrained or dangerous situations, the leader gets subordinates to do things quickly and explain the reasons why later.
1-21. Indirect approaches to motivation can be as successful as direct approaches. Setting a personal example can sustain the drive in others. This becomes apparent when leaders share hardship and risk with subordinates. Leaders who personally share hardship and risk demonstrate to subordinates that they are invested in the outcome and willing and able to do what they ask subordinates to do. Indirect approaches such as these build confidence about the judgment, commitment, and attitude of the leader.
1-22. How leaders motivate others matters. There are practices that are always positive, while others are good or bad depending on the context of the situation. There are those who can inspire others to act because they respect the leader’s judgment, respect that the leader earned. Earning this type of personal respect takes time, so leaders may need to motivate others initially based upon the authorities and respect inherent in their duty position. In either case, leaders should be judicious about using pressure or threat of punishment when motivating others, because doing so too often or when unnecessary breeds resentment and low morale. Aspiring leaders observe many different methods others use to motivate subordinates, and should remember and practice those that were most effective while avoiding those that negatively affected an organization.
1-4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Chapter 6
CREATES A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT/FOSTERS ESPRIT DE CORPS
6-20. Army leaders ensure that they create the conditions for a positive environment, build trust and cohesion on their team, encourage initiative, demonstrate care for their people, and enhance esprit de corps by
6-4
Developsconnecting current operations to the unit’s traditions and history. Army leaders are approachable when they encourage open, candid communications and observations. Approachable leaders show respect for others’ opinions, even if contrary or non-doctrinal. To be approachable, leaders remain objective when receiving bad news and encourage subordinates to be open and candid in their communication.
6-21. Culture and climate describe the conditions in which a leader leads. Leaders have direct and indirect effects on culture and climate. Culture refers to the environment of the Army as an institution and of major elements or communities within it. All leaders affect the climate at their respective echelon, which may eventually affect the Army’s culture.
6-22. Culture is a longer lasting and more complex set of shared expectations than climate. Culture consists of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize the larger institution over time. The Army’s culture is deeply rooted in tradition. Leaders refer to Army’s culture to impress on Army personnel that they are part of something bigger than themselves. Soldiers and DA Civilians uphold the Army’s culture to honor those who have gone before and those who will come after.
6-23. Climate is a shorter-term experience than culture and reflects how people think and feel about their organization. Climate depends upon a network of personalities within a unit that changes as Army personnel come and go. A unit’s climate, based on shared perceptions and attitudes, affects mutual trust, cohesion, and commitment to the mission. A positive climate ensures Soldiers and DA Civilians are engaged and energized by their duties, work together as teams, and show respect for each other.
6-24. A healthy Army culture and organizational climate will exhibit six overarching characteristics (see AR 600-100 ):
z The Army culture and unit climate foster unity, cohesion, and trust.
z The culture promotes and rewards mental agility, the ability to break from established paradigms, recognize new patterns or circumstances, and adopt new solutions to problems.
z The Army supports the selection of leaders and rewards members who demonstrate the ability to sense and understand the environment quickly to exploit fleeting opportunities or counter unexpected threats.
z The Army requires and rewards delegation of authority on the part of leaders, and the understanding and prompt, thorough execution of leader’s intent (two levels up) by subordinates.
z The Army selects and rewards leaders who provide clear priorities and focus their unit’s time and organizational energy on their mission.
z The Army culture is one of inclusion that demands diversity of knowledge and perspectives to accomplish missions ethically, effectively, and efficiently.
ESTABLISHING A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT
6-25. Leaders make it a point to dialogue with subordinates about the conditions of their lives and the unit to get a sense of the climate. Communicating goals openly provides subordinates a clear vision to achieve. Communication between subordinates and leaders is essential to achieve and maintain a positive climate. Leaders inspire and motivate subordinates to bring creative and innovative ideas forward and they seek feedback from subordinates about the climate. Openly taking part in unit events and activities increases the likelihood that subordinates perceive leaders are concerned about the group’s welfare and has the group’s best interests at heart.
6-26. Leaders are ethical standard-bearers for the organization, responsible for establishing and maintaining a professional climate wherein all are expected to live by and uphold the Army Values. Other staff specialists—the chaplain, staff judge advocate, inspector general, and equal employment opportunity specialist—assist leaders and assess the organization’s climate. Regardless of available expert assistance, the ultimate responsibility to create and maintain an ethical climate rests with the leader.
6-27. Setting the right example does not necessarily mean subordinates will follow it. Some may feel that circumstances justify misconduct. Therefore, leaders must monitor the organization’s ethical climate and take prompt action to correct any discrepancies. It is important for subordinates to have confidence in the organization’s ethical environment because much of what is necessary in combat conflicts with societal
31 July 2019 ADP 6-22 6-5 Chapter 6
values that individuals bring into the Army. Strong commitment to the Army Values, Army Ethic, and Warrior Ethos by the commander fosters a unit’s ethical climate.
6-28. Leaders need to continually assess the organizational climate, realize the importance of development, and work to limit any zero-defect mentality. Recognizing the importance of long-term sustainability and sharing and encouraging feedback (both positive and negative) should be a priority for all team members. Leaders create positive climates by treating all fairly, maintaining open and candid communications between other leaders and subordinates, and creating and supporting learning environments.
6-6
This Page Intentionally Left BlankLeadership in PracticeCOUNTERPRODUCTIVE LEADERSHIP
8-45. The Army expects all leaders to live the Army Values and demonstrate the positive characteristics described by the leader attributes and core leader competencies. Effective leadership is essential for realizing the full potential of an organization’s combat power and can compensate for deficiencies in other warfighting functions. The opposite is also true; counterproductive leader behaviors can negate combat power advantages.
8-46. Counterproductive leadership is the demonstration of leader behaviors that violate one or more of the Army’s core leader competencies or Army Values, preventing a climate conducive to mission accomplishment. Counterproductive leadership generally leaves organizations in a worse condition than when the leader arrived and has a long-term effect on morale and readiness. The term toxic has been used when describing leaders who have engaged in what the Army now refers to as counterproductive leadership behaviors. Counterproductive leadership is incompatible with Army leadership doctrine and Army Values. It often violates regulations and can impede mission accomplishment.
8-47. All leaders are susceptible to displaying counterproductive leadership behaviors in times of stress, high operational tempo, or other chaotic conditions to achieve short-term results. Counterproductive leadership decreases followers’ well-being, engagement, and undermines the organization’s readiness and ability to accomplish the mission in the long term. It can have an adverse effect on the unit with cascading results, such as lowering morale, commitment, cohesion, effectiveness, readiness, and productivity. Counterproductive leadership behaviors prevent establishing a positive organizational climate and interfere with mission accomplishment, especially in highly complex operational settings. Prolonged use of counterproductive leadership destroys unit morale, trust, and undermines the followers’ commitment to the mission. Counterproductive leadership can also decrease task performance, physical and psychological well-being, and increase negative outcomes such as depression or burnout.
31 July 2019 ADP 6-22 8-7 Chapter 88-48. Army leaders can and will make mistakes, so distinguishing between occasional errors of judgment and counterproductive behavior is important. Counterproductive leadership can include recurrent negative leader behaviors and more serious one-time behaviors that have a damaging effect on the organization’s performance and subordinate welfare. Infrequent or one-time negative behaviors do not define counterproductive leadership. Often, counterproductive leadership behaviors have harmful effects on individuals or a unit when several instances occur together or take place frequently.
8-49. Counterproductive leadership spans a range of leader conduct that can be organized into several broad categories that are useful to inform strategies for identifying and addressing such behaviors. Counterproductive leadership is not limited to these behaviors listed below. Leaders can demonstrate more than one of the behaviors and their conduct can span multiple categories:
z Abusive behaviors—includes behaviors that involve a leader exceeding the boundaries of their authority by being abusive, cruel, or degrading others. These behaviors are contrary to what is required for the moral, ethical, and legal discharge of their duty. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, bullying, berating others for mistakes, creating conflict, ridiculing others because of the authority held, domineering, showing little or no respect to others, insulting or belittling individuals, condescending or talking down to others, or retaliating for perceived slights or disagreements.
z Self-serving behaviors—includes behaviors that result from self-centered motivations on the part of the leader, where they act in ways that seek primarily to accomplish their own goals and needs before those of others. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, displaying arrogance, lacking concern or empathy for others, taking credit for others’ work, insisting on having their way, distorting information to favor own ideas, exaggerating accomplishments or abilities, putting own work and accomplishments ahead of others’ and the mission, displaying narcissistic tendencies, or exhibiting a sense of entitlement.
z Erratic behaviors—includes behaviors related to poor self-control or volatility that drive the leader to act erratically or unpredictably. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, blaming others, deflecting responsibility, losing temper at the slightest provocation, behaving inconsistently in words and actions, insecurity, or being unapproachable.
z Leadership incompetence—includes ineffective leadership behaviors that result from a lack of experience or willful neglect. Incompetence can include failure to act or acting poorly. While incompetent leadership can arise from reasons unrelated to counterproductive leadership, it is included as a category often associated with arrogant or abusive leaders who are not aware of their shortcomings and do not seek to correct their shortcomings. Conversely, some leaders lacking competence are aware of their shortcomings, which lead them to behave in counterproductive or negative ways to cover up their shortcomings or mistakes. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, unengaged leadership, being passive or reactionary, neglecting leadership responsibilities, displaying poor judgment, poorly motivating others, withholding encouragement, failing to clearly communicate expectations, or refusing to listen to subordinates.
z Corrupt behaviors—includes behaviors that violate explicit Army standards, regulations, or policies. Violations may range from behaviors subject to administrative discipline to criminal actions subject to discharge or incarceration. Specific examples include, but are not limited to, dishonesty, misusing government resources or time, creating a hostile work environment, EEO/SHARP violations, or violating Section 3583 (Requirement of Exemplary Conduct), Title 10, United States Code, AR 600-100, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
8-50. As the Army moves into increasingly more complex operational environments, it is critical that leaders rely on positive behaviors to influence others and achieve results. The Army is committed to stopping these negative behaviors and promoting positive work environments. All leaders are susceptible to counterproductive behaviors, so they must monitor their personal behavior. Commanders and leaders have a responsibility to monitor and take action to eliminate counterproductive leadership. All Army members who witness these behaviors have a responsibility to prevent, intervene, counter, or mitigate them. Soldiers and DA Civilians must be willing to confront and address these behaviors in their units and should leverage their chains of command to assist and involve relevant installation resources where and when necessary.
8-8 ADP 6-22 31 July 2019
This Page Intentionally Left BlankToxic Leadership:
What are We Talking About?
By LTG Walter F. Ulmer Jr.
The American Army is, of necessity, a hierarchical bureaucracy. Disciplined response to authority remains a bedrock value. Ten years of complex operations conducted typically with notable professionalism by a true volunteer force must be unique in history. And that noteworthy effort followed decades of erratic funding and potentially traumatic alterations of structure.
Our Army is also a remarkably introspective institution. Studies of leadership and command climates abound. Since “good leadership” is commonplace, headlines about “toxic leaders” should (and do) draw attention. Recent military journals provided sad details of conspicuous relief of Army and Navy commanders. The reason for concern about any toxic leaders, particularly in our senior ranks, is apparent: Talented people in the 21st century expect to work in healthy climates, where strong bonds of mutual trust facilitate mission accomplishment and support long-term institutional strength. Toxic leaders corrupt healthy climates. Indeed, their very presence, even in small numbers, undermines confidence in the institution’s commitment to high standards of leadership.
Defining ‘Toxic Leader’
Defining toxic leader is the first priority before addressing numbers, impact, cause and solution. Webster’s defines toxic as poisonous, not far from destructive or harmful. Naturally, the definition varies with the culture: Some routine styles of command aboard the HMS Bounty would not be tolerated today. Soldiers today have suitably high expectations about the kind of leader behavior we have identified as doctrine.
In response to a Secretary of the Army tasking in 2003, U.S. Army War College faculty and students stated that toxic leaders “are focused on visible short-term mission accomplishment…provide superiors with impressive, articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions…[but] are unconcerned about, or oblivious to, staff or troop morale and/or climate … [and] are seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible, and petty.” This definition reminds us that not all elements of a toxic personality are independently destructive. We prize “articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions.” The phrase in the 2003 definition, “are seen by the majority of subordinates,” is significant. In determining leader toxicity, group consensus is powerful.
The U.S. Army War College study, “Leadership Lessons at Division Command Level-2010: A Review of
Division Commander Leader Behaviors and Organizational Climates in Selected Army Divisions after Nine Years of War,” surveyed and interviewed 183 officers from four divisions just returning from deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The study summarized officer views of toxic leaders as “self-serving, arrogant, volatile, and opinionated to the point of being organizationally dysfunctional … very persuasive, responsive, and accommodating to their seniors.” In those interviews, the report continued, “it seemed clear that officers were not describing the ‘tough but fair,’ or even the ‘oversupervisor,’ or the ‘not really good with people,’ or even the ‘rarely takes tactical initiative.’” These officers’ perceptions make a discernible, important distinction between tough and toxic. An assessment of a leader as inferior or even unsatisfactory based on decision-making inadequacies, clumsy interpersonal skills or lack of drive did not automatically label him as toxic. It is also possible to “make tough, sound decisions on time,” “see the big picture [and] provide context and perspective,” and “get out of the headquarters and visit the troops”—the top behaviors of a highly regarded senior leader as reported in a 2004 division commander study—and still be conspicuously toxic as judged by a majority of subordinates. In other words, while all toxic officers are ultimately poor leaders, not all poor leaders are toxic. The forthcoming version of Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, Army Leadership notes, “Toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization and mission performance.” A recent study on ethical behavior by the Army Center of Excellence for the Professional Military Ethic, “ACPME Technical Report 2010-01: MNF-I Excellence in Character and Ethical Leadership (EXCEL) Study,” stated, “The Army should develop leaders who understand the line between being firm … and being abusive; and identify and separate those found to be abusive.” Identify and separate are the important words.
A proposed definition: Toxic leaders are individuals whose behavior appears driven by self-centered careerism at the expense of their subordinates and unit, and whose style is characterized by abusive and dictatorial behavior that promotes an unhealthy organizational climate. Other observations about toxic leaders from surveys, interviews and literature—most derived from research and discussions about senior leaders or managers—are:
• They rarely take blame or share glory.
• They are not toxic all the time, or to all people.
• They are rarely if ever toxic when in the company of “the boss.” • They sometimes have good ideas and accomplish good things.
• They can be charming when the occasion fits.
• They are frequently described as extremely bright and hard-working.
• They often have a coterie of devoted “fans” who keep appearing on their staffs.
• Most have been seen as toxic by subordinates since early in their career.
• Their boss either does not know or pretends not to know, and almost never records, their abuse of subordinates.
Numbers of Toxic Leaders
Because there is no standard definition of toxic, because perceptions about a superior’s behavior are subjective, because our Army culture puts loyalty to the leader and ability to absorb hardship of all kinds high on the attribute list, and because a degree of harshness has characterized some highly regarded officers, estimates of the numbers of toxic leaders are just that—estimates. The data become less subjective, however, when we can assess also the impact of toxic leadership on the climate of the organization.
The best current reference on the toxic leader issue is the Center for Army Leadership (CAL) “Technical Report 2011- 3,” which garnered some national press recently. Estimates of toxic leaders in that study, which assessed both noncommissioned and commissioned officers, ranged into the 20 percent level. That very high number might have resulted in part from a broad interpretation by respondents of a toxic leader, although study members took efforts to ensure that toxicity was differentiated from simply poor leadership. A recent survey at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, however, found a figure of nearly 18 percent. Whatever the numbers are today, the sense of the officer corps is that there are undoubtedly toxic leaders among us with the possibility that their numbers are decreasing somewhat from some undetermined past date.
One slice of information on percentages of perceived toxic leaders among colonels and general officers—the level constituting the greatest potential danger to operational effectiveness and retention of high-quality people—comes from informal surveys of some students at the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and the Army War College over a period of 15 years. (See the chart on the next page.) These data describing colonels and generals are derived from inputs from successful student officers who had been treated well by the institution.
The percentages of senior leaders perceived by their subordinates to be outstanding/transformational (30–50 percent) would be viewed as remarkably high in any organization. Those figures are a tribute to persistent Army efforts to develop and select good leaders. The “toxic” numbers, however, are also remarkable. They deserve an institutional response. A mission command culture could be strangled by this percentage of toxic senior leaders in the force. A very good soldier and scientist, LTC Larry Ingraham, now deceased, commented on the dramatic differences among subordinate reputations of senior officers, saying that the personnel system that cannot distinguish between the revered and the despised must have a fundamental flaw.
Why Toxic Leaders Survive in Our Culture
Military environments are fertile ground for both growing outstanding leaders and tolerating tyrants. As a culture we value cooperation, loyalty and respect for authority. We honor a “can-do” attitude. We build unit pride and are uncomfortable with malcontents. We rightly prize mission accomplishment. As long as the mission is relatively short-term, before a destructive climate raises its ugly head, the toxic can-do personality can prosper. Subordinates are reluctant to identify their boss as toxic. They feel a loyalty and do not want to embarrass their unit. They want to “survive” themselves and not be written off as troublemakers. In addition, it takes a very strong and perceptive boss to identify a subordinate as toxic and take action. Most actions to relieve a toxic leader were set in motion only after a public spectacle forced an investigation that uncovered toxic leadership as a root cause.
Considerable work has been done in the social, behavioral and cognitive sciences on toxic or destructive leaders. An article in the June 2007 issue of The Leadership Quarterly, “The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments,” provides an excellent summary, stating, “Three components of charisma apply to destructive leaders: vision, self-presentational skills, and personal energy.” It is interesting to see how closely these descriptions apply to current Army officers. The referenced paper explains the role of the narcissistic personality whose “sense of entitlement often leads to self-serving abuses of power.” The fact that toxic behavior is typically linked to a substantially compromised personality does not augur well for on-the-job remediation or development as an institutional solution.
Although alerted for years to the issue, as an institution we have been reluctant to confront it directly. We have put faith in incremental adjustments to education, training and development systems. There has been little urgency to act systematically. The rarely conspicuous cases were handled individually with apparently rare exploration of underlying cultural issues. This was partly because our institution has performed well overall, because of our often “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality, and because the senior leader time and energy needed to fix complex internal systems were understandably captured by immediate crises that demanded their attention. Our institution is by no means broken, but it deserves some refurbishing.
There are lingering doubts within the Army about implementing remedial programs that would give subordinates any formal voice in the personnel management process. The predominant fear is of an eventual weakening of the chain of command. There are understandable suspicions also that many reports of toxic leadership are from dissatisfied subordinates who failed to meet the legitimate expectations of demanding bosses. That contention is not supported by recent studies but could provide a rationale for avoiding the unpleasant business of digging into complex personnel systems. The toxic leader phenomenon is a slowly growing organizational cancer that can be tolerated by resilient people for a long time before causing sharp institutional pain.
Solution Concepts
We are correctly cautious in adopting practices that have even a remote possibility of compromising command authority. Even admitting there are toxic leaders in our midst is problematic for a few officers. For the vast majority of officers a pretension that there are none seems patently dishonest. In any case, staying on the current path has no rational hope for solving the problem. Meanwhile, tolerance for toxic leaders among current members of the force is conspicuously low. Perceived institutional nonchalance about the situation is a serious contradiction of espoused Army values. The desired mission command culture depends heavily on an environment of mutual trust that only high-quality leaders can produce.
Two of the categories used in data collected from selected CGSC and War College student samples during 1996–2010 Estimates in population
Essentially transformational: Inspirational, encouraging, puts mission and troops first; coaches, builds teams and a healthy climate; sets high standards for self and others; generates and reciprocates trust. 30–50 percent
Essentially toxic: Alienates and abuses subordinates; creates a hostile climate; often rules by fear; rejects bad news; seen as self-serving and arrogant; is skillful in upward relationships; usually bright, energetic and technically competent. 8–10 percent
Various ongoing initiatives must be integrated into a comprehensive program in which education of the officer corps on objectives, concepts and details of these initiatives would play a major role. As the CAL 2011 report states, “This problem must be attacked simultaneously at several levels.” A near-term goal is precluding toxic leaders from getting into the pool of colonels who are general officer candidates—a practice that if carefully explained and fairly implemented could by itself rejuvenate faith in Army promotion and selection systems and reinforce important Army values by practicing what we preach. Such initiatives include the following.
Institute a system for regularly reporting the results of command climate surveys. This effort should parallel systems for reporting other elements of the readiness system, with Army-wide collection of periodic data. Battalion-size units and staffs at division level and higher should be the primary targets for standardized climate assessments.
Climate assessments have been around longer than the 360 process and remain an important tool for commanders. They have never been collected Army-wide with the same comprehensive regularity as materiel and training readiness reports, although we emphasize that troop morale is a vital ingredient in combat power.
Climate surveys can be designed for user convenience, are a method of reinforcing Army values and can provide advance warning of toxic leadership. (Determination of who has access to climate data and the levels of consolidation and review of reports are issues requiring careful attention.)
Provide selection boards with supplemental information from subordinates. This will enhance the validity of the top-down information now available and is the heart of any serious attempt to rid the institution of the toxic leader. Exclusively top-down assessments have failed to eliminate toxic leaders from hierarchical organizations, even those with generally solid reputations such as the U.S. Army.
The 2010 Division Commander Study recommends: “Revise significantly the process for selection to O-6 command to ensure that there are no future candidates for Division Command who have been identified clearly as toxic leaders. Specifically, provide boards selecting brigade-level commanders with supplemental data summarizing leadership behavior assessments taken from a sample of officers who had served as company commanders or principal staff offices when the individuals being considered were their battalion commanders.” The description of a proposed pilot study of this procedure explains that the assessments of subordinates are taken usually one to three years after the candidate for O-6 command has departed the previous battalion-level command. (This is NOT use of a 360 “feedback” process. That process, designed for enhanced self-awareness and continuing growth as a leader, is used only for that purpose. It must be maintained absolutely separate from any subordinate input designed and denoted as part of the promotion, selection or assignment process.)
Given the limitations of the current database on officer performance, there may not be opportunities for the personnel management process to reliably and systematically identify the toxic leader earlier than selection for O-6 assignments. A carefully designed and closely monitored pilot program (over several years), however, may uncover possibilities for earlier intervention and would in itself indicate the Army’s commitment to confront the problem.
Establish a general officer steering committee. This will report to the Chief of Staff, perhaps led by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, to coordinate, guide and oversee the implementation of systems modifications and innovations necessary to address comprehensively the toxic leader issue while simultaneously enhancing the quality of command climates.
Do not spend additional resources on further external studies. All the necessary experience and expertise are available within Army agencies. The key is to coordinate and integrate ongoing efforts into a comprehensive program in which education of the officer corps on the toxic leader issue should play a conspicuous role.
In light of the current commitment and attention of Army senior leaders, the urgency of creating supportive climates that will motivate and retain high-quality people, and the recognition that viable solutions for solving the problem and strengthening the institution are at hand, the time seems ripe for action. References:
Ulmer, W. (2012). Toxic leadership: What are we talking about? Army, AUSA. (pp. 47-52). See also https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/Ulmer_0612.pdfThis Page Intentionally Left Blank
Toxic Triangle
By Art Padilla, Robert Hogan, and Robert B. Kaiser
The following exert is from “The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments” originally published in The Leadership Quarterly (2007).
Abstract
Destructive leadership entails the negative consequences that result from a confluence of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. We review how destructive leadership has been discussed in the literature and note that it has not been clearly defined. Building on prior research, we develop a definition of destructive leadership that emphasizes negative outcomes for organizations and individuals linked with and affected by them. Then we outline the toxic triangle: the characteristics of leaders, followers, and environmental contexts connected with destructive leadership.
Process or outcomes?
Some authors focus on destructive leadership as a process. They emphasize syndromes such as narcissism and psychopathy that are associated with alienation and betrayal or behaviors like manipulation, intimidation, coercion, and one-way communication. From this viewpoint, destructive leadership is something leaders do, independent of the outcomes from these behaviors. Other writers underscore the negative outcomes experienced by organizations and their members, including followers and external stakeholders or personally by the leader. Either way, destructive leadership results in undesirable outcomes.
Scholars focusing on the processes of: what destructive leaders do, emphasize behavior, describing several destructive behaviors common to narcissistic leaders, such as ignoring reality, overestimating personal capabilities, and disregarding the views of others. Hogan and associates provide a taxonomy of “dark side” personality dimensions, each related to leader behaviors that alienate coworkers, disrupt teams, and undermine group performance. From the perspective of process, moreover, constructive leadership involves mutually agreed upon goals with followers working toward organizational objectives. This happens whether the objectives are developed mutually or unilaterally by a trusted leader. Destructive leadership, on the other hand, involves imposing goals on constituents without their agreement or regard for their long-term welfare. Such a process is ultimately alienating (even if followers concur with the leader’s goals initially) because, over the longer term, the process fails to make goals personally meaningful to followers.
Defining destructive leadership as a process assumes that a leader’s bad intentions are an essential component of destructiveness. It also assumes that certain behaviors are inherently destructive. But negative leader behaviors can be placed on a continuum ranging from ineffective/incompetent to unethical/evil. Although unethical and evil actions are obviously bad, it is more difficult to establish that grandiosity or egocentrism are wicked. Furthermore, dark side leader personalities are usually associated with positive effects, at least in the short term, and this makes it difficult to equate them clearly with destruction. It is the long-term negative ramifications that prompt the “destructive” label.
Destructive leadership is less frequently viewed as an outcome. Nonetheless, if leaders, in combination with followers and contexts, harm constituents or damage organizations, then destructive leadership has occurred. This is consistent with the dictionary definition of “destructive”: causing destruction or designed…to destroy (Merriam-Webster, 2006). It is also compatible with Conger’s disastrous outcomes, as narcissistic leader’s damage “followers’ psychological well-being.” If destructive leadership is defined in terms of harmful outcomes, then it is possible for “good” leaders to produce bad outcomes, and “bad” leaders to produce desirable outcomes. The worst political and business leaders—Hitler, Stalin, Charles Keating, Dennis Kozlowski—brought some value to their constituents. And even highly regarded leaders sometimes make unfortunate mistakes—for example, Coca Cola’s respected CEO, Roberto Goizueta, was associated with the “new Coke” debacle.
Definition of destructive leadership
Our view of destructive leadership distinguishes between occupying a leadership role and being effective in that role. We view leadership as a functional resource for group performance; it involves influencing individuals to forego, for a limited time, their selfish, short-term interests and contribute to long-term group goals within an environmental or situational context. All significant human achievement requires leadership to unite people, channel their efforts, and encourage their contribution toward the goals of the collective enterprise. Thus, leadership effectiveness concerns how well a group is able to accomplish its purpose. In this view, leadership is a value-neutral term; it connotes social influence vis-à-vis group performance regardless of the context. 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; the essence of destructive leadership concerns negative organizational outcomes, and certain processes are more likely than others to lead to such outcomes.
We therefore agree with Burns that Hitler was destructive because he led the German people into external domination and poverty, not because he was a racist who ignored staff feedback while pursuing a personal agenda. However, we disagree with Burns’ view that Hitler was not a leader; on the contrary, we agree with Kellerman that Hitler was a prime example of destructive leadership. We also believe Mother Teresa was a constructive leader. She was effective in improving the quality of life for her constituents—the poor and destitute of the world. She was less than perfect as a person because of the questionable means she sometimes used to achieve that goal.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we define destructive leadership in terms of five features:
1. Destructive leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: there are both good and bad results in most leadership situations.
2. The process of destructive leadership involves dominance, coercion, and manipulation rather than influence, persuasion, and commitment.
3. The process of destructive leadership has a selfish orientation; it is focused more on the leader’s needs than the needs of the larger social group.
4. The effects of destructive leadership are outcomes that compromise the quality of life for constituents and detract from the organization’s main purposes.
5. Destructive organizational outcomes are not exclusively the result of destructive leaders, but are also products of susceptible followers and conducive environments.
These five elements describe what destructive leadership is; the toxic triangle identifies the leader, follower, and environmental factors that make it possible.
Our first point is that destructive leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: most leadership results in both desirable and undesirable outcomes. Leaders, in concert with followers and environmental contexts, contribute to outcomes distributed across a destructive–constructive continuum. Outcomes associated with destructive leadership are found primarily at the negative end of that spectrum. Constructive leadership can sometimes yield bad results, but their outcomes are largely located at the spectrum’s constructive end. Emphasizing outcomes highlights the distinction between destructive leadership as a process and its consequences.
Second, destructive leadership involves control and coercion rather than persuasion and commitment. The distinction between leadership and dominance goes back at least to Freud. Tyranny and dominance are a negative prototype in implicit leadership theory—most working adults consider despotic control to be the antithesis of desirable leadership.
Third, destructive leadership has a selfish orientation. It focuses on a leader’s objectives and goals, as opposed to the needs of constituents and the larger social organization. Efforts to maintain a destructive leader’s regime thus often preclude developing, empowering, and involving followers.
Fourth, the effects of destructive leadership are seen in organizational outcomes that compromise the quality of life for constituents (whether internal or external to the organization) and detract from their main purposes. Negative organizational outcomes are the product of dysfunctional leader behaviors and susceptible followers interacting in the context of a contributing environment. Followers must consent to, or be unable to resist, a destructive leader. In such cases, leadership results in bad consequences for the group; hence, destructive leadership.
Finally, destructive organizational outcomes also depend on susceptible followers and conducive environments. Most research on destructive leadership, like leadership more broadly, is “leader-centric” and the roles of followers and environmental contexts have not received adequate attention. We now attempt to remedy this focus.
The toxic triangle
Leadership of any type springs from the interplay of an individual’s motivation and ability to lead, subordinates’ desire for direction and authority, and events calling for leadership. This view is consistent with a systems perspective focusing on the confluence of leaders, followers, and circumstances rather than just the characteristics of individual leaders. Our model of the toxic triangle is portrayed in Figure 1; the elements of the model are elaborated below. Although these variables interact in complex ways, for the purposes of exposition we discuss them one domain at a time.
Destructive leaders
The first component of the toxic triangle concerns the characteristics of destructive leaders. Our analysis of the literature suggests five critical leader factors: charisma, personalized use of power, narcissism, negative life themes, and an ideology of hate.
Charisma
Most scholarly analyses of destructive leadership identify charisma as a central characteristic. Not all charismatic leaders are destructive. There is evidence, for instance, that charismatic U.S. presidents are more effective across a range of criteria than non-charismatic presidents—even though some charismatic leaders have made some big mistakes (e.g., U. S. President John Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco or British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s Gallipoli disaster). Nonetheless, destructive leaders typically are charismatic. Consider the following list: in government, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor; in business, John Delorean, Joe Nacchio, Jeff Skilling; in religious cults, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. Well known destructive leaders seem generally to be considered charismatic.
Research indicates that destructive leadership and charisma are empirically linked. The literature suggests that even when charismatic leaders are not destructive, they can still be dangerous. Researchers have romanticized charismatic leadership; some have observed that certain charismatic leaders abuse their power for self-serving ends while “exaggerating positive achievements and taking unwarranted credit…covering up mistakes and failures…blaming others for mistakes… and limiting communication of criticism and dissent”. This might explain why there seems to be no direct link between CEO charisma and organizational performance. Researchers have observed that “the risks involved in charismatic leadership are at least as large as the promises.” Thus, not all charismatic leaders are destructive, but most destructive leaders are charismatic.
Three components of charisma apply to destructive leaders: vision, self-presentational skills, and personal energy. Charismatic leaders are able to sell a vision of a desirable future. According to some, destructive leaders articulate a vision of a world characterized by threat and insecurity, where personal safety depends on the domination and defeat of rivals. It may be argued that constructive charismatic leaders offer a vision that emphasizes benefits to social institutions whereas destructive leaders articulate visions that enhance their personal power. Themes of enhanced personal power in a hostile world characterize the visions of destructive leaders and are associated with negative life events.
Personalized Need for Power
Ethics distinguish constructive from destructive charismatic leaders. Ethical leaders use position power to serve others. Whereas, unethical ones use power for personal gain and self-promotion. Unethical leaders use control and coercion to impose their goals while censuring opposing views. Control can be overt, as when neighborhood watch groups spy on citizens (e.g., East Germany, North Korea, Cuba) or it can be a subtle appeal to follower needs for authority, security, belongingness in a safe community, or fear of isolation, imprisonment, or death. Destructive leaders describe dissidents and rivals in terms designed to devalue and isolate them while promoting in-group solidarity—e.g., Hitler’s portrayal of Jews as unsanitary or Castro’s description of dissidents as immoral.
Narcissism
Narcissism is closely linked to charisma and the personalized use of power, and involves dominance, grandiosity, arrogance, entitlement, and the selfish pursuit of pleasure. Many authors argue narcissism is correlated with destructive leadership. In extreme cases—Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein—“malignant narcissism” is associated with hyper-aggressiveness and sadistic, exploitative personal relationships. Narcissistic leaders are self-absorbed, attention-seeking, and ignore other’s viewpoints or welfare. They often claim special knowledge or privilege and demand unquestioning obedience and their sense of entitlement often leads to self-serving abuses of power, and their leadership style is typically autocratic.
Their grandiose dreams of power and success cause narcissists to ignore the external environment or test their judgment, and their grand visions often defy successful implementation. Narcissism seems related to historian Paul Kennedy’s notion of imperial overstretch—stretching a country or empire’s resources to dangerous vulnerability (e.g., Napoleonic France or Hitler’s Germany at the end of World War II). Narcissism has also been linked to overreach in business—making ill-advised acquisitions of firms in unrelated sectors and paying more than market value to acquire them.
Negative Life Themes
Researchers observed that leaders who harm their organizations or social systems also speak about themselves in terms of negative life stories. A negative life story reflects “the extent to which the leader had a destructive image of the world and his or her role in the world” and can be traced to early life experiences. Childhood adversity is sometimes associated with positive lessons for those who overcome them. However, parental discord, low socioeconomic status, paternal criminality, maternal psychiatric disorder, and child abuse are common themes for exploitive adults. Josef Stalin’s childhood was characterized by an abusive and alcoholic father who beat his wife and young son. A childhood friend described how the beatings made Stalin as cruel as his father. Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro also experienced considerable childhood distress.
Researchers have described how a traumatic childhood can dispose individuals to destructive leadership. A leader’s vision typically reflects enduring life themes. Moreover, childhood experiences of powerlessness are associated with using coercive influence techniques. Abused children often distance themselves from others and compartmentalize (or disassociate) painful issues. For example, former U.S. President William Clinton describes the “parallel lives” he lived while dealing with his alcoholic and violent father. This allowed young Clinton to ignore intractable problems while addressing other challenges, and might explain his apparent indifference to the genocide in Rwanda during his second term. The ability to ignore the feelings of others and exploit them for personal gain is a defining feature of psychopathy, but is also associated with narcissism and the unsocialized use of power.
Ideology of Hate
A comparison of destructive and constructive leaders suggests that the rhetoric, vision, and worldview of destructive leaders contain images of hate—vanquishing rivals and destroying despised enemies. The anti-Semitic fomentations of Hitler and Foday Sankoh’s hatred of the urban elite of Sierra Leone contrast sharply with Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of racial equality and Gandhi’s model of passive resistance.
Childhood hardships seem to lead to an ideology of hate—and perhaps a reaction formation in which self-hatred is turned outward. For example, Stalin hated authority, in part because persons with power reminded Stalin of his father. Stalin engaged in many violent acts as he climbed the Bolshevik hierarchy, and his rule was merciless and cruel; he routinely authorized the murder of fellow Russians—including members of his own cabinet. Whatever the source of the anger and resentment, hate is a key component of the worldview of destructive leaders and it legitimizes the use of violence and retribution. Hateful themes also emerge in the world of business. An article in the Wall Street Journal described how senior managers at Enron created a culture of intimidation. CFO Andrew Fastow had a cube on his desk with the inscription: “When ENRON says it’s going to ‘rip your face off’… it means it will rip your face off!”
Summary
Destructive leaders are characterized by charisma, personalized needs for power, narcissism, negative life history, and an ideology of hate. A single element is probably insufficient: hateful individuals driven by a selfish need for power but lacking rhetorical skills and stamina might not achieve significant power. Similarly, skilled public speakers with a benevolent worldview and socialized motives are less likely to be destructive. Although these characteristics might be necessary for destructive leadership, they are not sufficient. In many contexts, and in conjunction with particular followers, potentially destructive leaders might not achieve power. This raises the topics of followers and the environmental contexts.
Susceptible Followers
Followers have been studied less often than leaders, yet their role in the leadership process is obviously pivotal emphasized the need for followers to accept a leader’s authority. Modern relational theories also recognize the role of followers in the leadership process. But why are certain followers unable or unwilling to resist domineering and abusive leaders? Some researchers suggest that these individuals need safety, security, group membership, and predictability in an uncertain world. Some followers actually benefit from destructive activities and thus contribute to the toxic vision of the leader. At the group level are needs for social order, cohesion, identity, and the coordination of collective activity. There is also a natural tendency for people to obey authority figures, imitate higher-status individuals, and conform to group norms.
Unmet Basic Needs
Researchers have argued that the basic needs of followers must be met before their higher aspirations can be engaged. The same holds for destructive leadership. The global economic depression of the 1930s and the aftermaths of World War I left many citizens of Germany, Russia, and Italy on the brink of poverty and starvation prior to the rise of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Today, the most impoverished countries in the world (e.g., much of Central and West Africa, portions of South America) are also ruled by the most corrupt governments. Evidently, poor people living in daily fear are easier to control.
Charles Manson’s followers, although from privileged backgrounds, were characterized by feelings of emptiness and alienation from mainstream society. Destructive leaders can attract followers by offering them a sense of community and a group in which to belong.
Negative Core Self-Evaluations
Self-esteem, locus of control, and self-efficacy form a higher-order personality factor they call core selfevaluations. It is defined as “basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves.” These beliefs influence the processing of self-relevant information and affect individual responses to environmental demands. Core self-evaluations are related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, motivation, and occupational performance. Moreover, research indicates that self-esteem, locus of control, and self-efficacy are linked to a vulnerability to destructive leadership.
Self-esteem concerns the basic appraisal people make of their overall value as human beings. Low selfesteem distinguishes followers from leaders. Individuals with low self-esteem often wish to be someone more desirable, which prompts them to identify with charismatic leaders. It has been argued that persons with low self-esteem are more likely to identify with a charismatic person because such leaders want to control and manipulate others, and these followers feel they deserve such treatment.
Low maturity
Research on ego development, moral reasoning, and the self-concept suggest that psychologically immature individuals are more likely to conform to authority and to participate in destructive acts. Freud (1921) argued that, in a crowd, peoples’ superegos collapse and are replaced symbolically by the leader, who then becomes the individual’s guide to action. Conformity can lead to immoral behavior and, consequently, according to Freud, mature adults must be prepared to oppose their leaders. This point is still relevant, as work suggesting that conforming people are at risk for harming others (e.g., shocking a stranger to death). The theory of moral development states that people who respect rules are capable of immoral behavior in the name of authority. Such behavior is most likely among adults in the “conventional” ranges of ego development, which includes between 60 and 75% of Western adults. Thus, psychological maturity is needed to oppose destructive authority.
Ambition
Although destructive leadership creates negative outcomes for organizations, some members might prosper. They will be individuals close to the leader and others willing to implement the destructive vision. Ambitious people for status and sometimes engage in exploitative relations, and may be willing to follow coercive policies if it will advance their personal agendas.
The notion that ambitious people will follow destructive leaders in pursuit of status contradicts the view that normal German citizens were duped into supporting Hitler’s genocidal policies. Others have noted that Hitler’s staff, and other parts of the German government contained ambitious people who understood that status in the Nazi hierarchy depended on pleasing Hitler. Routine administrative processes [were central] to the implementation of the Holocaust… the nature and dynamics of these bureaucratic processes are not unique to Nazi Germany… but instead are entirely consistent with modern organizations and the technical–rational approach to administration. References to the “final solution” came from the top of the Nazi hierarchy, and certain officials began to compete by implementing policies designed to please der Führer. “Participation in the Final Solution did not result so much from explicit orders systematically disseminated, as through self-recruitment by the zealous and ambitious servants of the Third Reich in response to the impulses and hints they perceived emanating from the center of power.”
Viewed this way, the dynamics of the holocaust were less a matter of mindless conformity, and then a function of individual efforts to get ahead, regardless of the human cost. The same dynamics are potentially at work in every organization; the collapse of Enron shows that, when there are opportunities to profit, ambitious colluders are easy to recruit.
Congruent Values and Beliefs
Individuals whose beliefs are consistent with those of a destructive leader are likely to commit to his or her cause. It has been suggested that the power of transformational leadership comes from the alignment of the goals of leaders and followers. The link between similarity and attraction is a robust social psychological phenomenon. Empirical studies show that greater leader–follower value similarity leads to greater follower satisfaction, commitment, and motivation.
When followers link leaders with salient aspects of their own self-concept, emotional attachments form. The closer the leader is to the follower’s self-concept, the stronger the bond and the greater the motivation to follow. To complete the cycle, behaving in ways that are consistent with the leader’s vision and the follower’s self-concept boosts self-esteem and self-efficacy. Thus, followers (e.g., Ernesto “Ché” Guevara) with worldviews that are similar to those of a destructive leader (Castro) are more likely to join the cause.
Unsocialized Values
Followers’ values are also relevant in their own right. Specifically, individuals who endorse unsocialized values such as greed and selfishness are more likely to follow destructive leaders and engage in destructive behavior. Ambitious but under-socialized followers are likely to engage in destructive acts, especially if they are sanctioned or encouraged by a leader.
Summary
Two types of followers support destructive leadership. Conformers passively allow bad leaders to assume power because their unmet needs and immaturity make them vulnerable to such influences. Colluders support destructive leaders because they want to promote themselves in an enterprise consistent with their worldview.
Conducive Environments
The third domain in the toxic triangle is the environmental context that envelops leaders, followers, and their interactions. Most leadership scholars recognize that the “situation” matters. Our review suggests that four environmental factors are important for destructive leadership: instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and absence of checks and balances and institutionalization.
Instability
During times of instability, leaders can enhance their power by advocating radical change to restore order. Leaders taking power in unstable environments are also granted more authority because instability demands quick action and unilateral decision making. But once decision-making becomes centralized, it is often difficult to take back. The structural stability of the social system—the extent to which rules of governance are clearly defined and consistently applied over time—is also important. For example, in modern post-communist countries, major policy decisions are frequently based on ad hoc negotiations among elites. Shrewd leaders can exploit fluid and transient structures closed to external scrutiny.
Perceived Threat
Related to structural and organizational instability is the perception of imminent threat. This can range from feelings of mistreatment (e.g., Germans after Versailles) to the desperate economic and social situations in Somalia and Zimbabwe to a beleaguered corporation facing bankruptcy. When people feel threatened, they are more willing to accept assertive leadership. Research on terror management theory illustrates how threat increases followers’ support and identification with charismatic leaders, particularly non-participative leaders. One study found that when people were made more aware of their own death, their preference for charismatic leaders increased and preferences for participative leaders declined. Another study suggested that reminding people about the mortal dangers of terrorism increased support for U.S. President George W. Bush and his counter-terrorism policies.
Two points about the role of environmental threats are important. First, objective threats are not necessary; all that is needed is the perception of threat. Second, leaders often perpetuate the perception of threat or an external “enemy” (e.g., Bush’s references to the war on terror or Apple’s Steve Jobs reference to IBM as “Big Brother”) in order to strengthen their power and motivate followers.
Cultural Values
Culture concerns and preferences afford certain social conditions that will enable emergent leadership. Some propose that “dark leaders” are likely to emerge in cultures that endorse the avoidance of uncertainty, collectivism (as opposed to individualism), and high power distance. Uncertainty avoidance involves the extent to which a society feels threatened by ambiguous situations; in such societies, people look to strong leaders to provide hope. Dictators exploit followers’ needs for security by providing structure, rituals, and rules that offer easy solutions to complex problems.
Cultures that emphasize cooperation and group loyalty, as well as in-group/out-group distinctions, are defined as collective. Such cultures prefer strong leaders to bring people together, in part to absolve the citizens of working out conflicts directly and to provide solidarity and group identity. Finally, “power distance” has been defined to mean: the difference in privilege and authority between high- and lowstatus individuals. In high power-distance cultures, especially those with low educational levels and large disparities in wealth distribution, followers are more tolerant of the power asymmetries that characterize tyranny and despotism.
Absence of Checks and Balances and Institutionalization
Strong organizations (and nations) tend to have strong institutions and strong countervailing centers of power. The Federalist Papers suggested the need for checks and balances to avoid the abuses of absolute power, while highlighting the dangers of unilateral control. In this model, multiple branches of government have independent authority and responsibility; each branch can also place limits on the power of others. Systems without such sharing of control—for example, corporations lacking independent board oversight—allow individuals or parties to usurp power.
Although leaders need discretion to do their jobs, discretion also allows destructive leaders to abuse their power. 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. These conditions characterized Enron at the height of its popularity on Wall Street.
A culture of dependency and apathy among followers can also contribute to the centralization of power. Such an ethos, particularly when combined with instability and ineffective institutions, concentrates power in a leader, leading to greater follower dependence and weakening of opposition and dissidence. The political science literature discusses centralization under the concept of “presidentialism.” While there is no directly analogous notion in the management literature, the work on empowerment and decentralization of authority is similar. Centralized governance systems that rely on the top of the organization for decisions stand in sharp contrast to structures based on autonomous political units with effective and professional institutions that share responsibility and authority for governance.
Summary
The third leg of the toxic triangle concerns contextual factors that support destructive leadership. It is hard for destructive leaders to succeed in stable systems with strong institutions and adequate checks and balances on power and control. Effective institutions, system stability, and proper checks and balances, along with strong followers, will tend to trump attempts to take over the system.
This, however, is not the entire story about conducive environments. Conducive environments contribute to the emergence of destructive leadership but destructive leaders and colluding followers are sometimes able to take over. Once destructive administrations achieve power, they will consolidate their control by undermining existing institutions and laws. Our distinction here entails both a temporal dimension and the interaction among the elements of the toxic triangle model. They do this by replacing constructive institutions with those designed to enhance central control; by eliminating rivals and dissidents; by manipulating the media and exploiting educational systems, using propaganda to legitimize the process.
References:
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (2007) 176–194. See also https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/222521379_The_toxic_triangle_Destructive_leaders_susceptible_followers_and_conducive _environments
Figure 1. The Toxic Triangle: Elements in three domains related to destructive leadership.
Approximate price: $22
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..

With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.