Key Signposts on the Road towards Dysfunction: Be Aware and Take Care! (original) (raw)
… Mistakes, and Ethical …, 2010
Negative forms of leadership have recently become a popular topic of study, yet most of the attention has focused on intentionally committed behaviors. To address other forms of negative leadership, the present review will discuss the nature and antecedents of leader errors. We propose an error taxonomy based on Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, and Hein’s (1991) behavioral framework and explore the antecedents of these errors at leader, group, and organization levels of analysis. The review has implications for practice by highlighting factors that should be controlled in order to reduce the frequency of errors. Finally, the review will discuss how leader errors should be incorporated into empirical research and the antecedents and out- comes of errors upon which future research should focus. For practitioners and researchers alike, the review will enhance the understanding of what errors are and why they occur.
Leaders make mistakes: A multilevel consideration of why
Errors make up a substantial portion of the fabric of leadership, yet we know very little about how and why they occur. Using Fleishman et al.'s (1991) behavioral taxonomy as a foundation, we offer a multilevel theoretical framework for understanding the causes of leader error — discussing leader, group and organization level influences. The results of the effort reveal several key themes, including the negative impact of timeframe, complex influence of expertise, causes of rigidity in problem solving, and the key role of the subordinate in minimizing the negative impacts of error. A closer consideration of these themes reveals several practical and theoretical implications for reducing the frequency and severity of leader errors. We conclude with a discussion of directions for future research. Leaders must make the difficult decisions — the " tough calls " few of us want to make. Some must choose between pursuing a radically new product line, or remaining on a current strategic path that may grow stagnant in the future (Rickard, 1995). Others must decide to engage in cutbacks with the hopes they will help the company survive, even when it is unclear if the same cutbacks will send the organization into a financial tailspin (Ettlie, 2006). Coaches pick the final play of the game, fire chiefs decide if a building can be saved, and military commanders choose where to position their troops. What must be realized is that these decisions are characterized by risk — and with risk comes error. Not every choice will prove correct and no leader, regardless of how successful, lives an error free life (Bedell-Avers, 2008). Thus, an understanding of how and why these errors occur is a pressing matter for leaders, and for the vast majority of us who must live with their decisions. Evidence of the negative impacts of leader errors is readily available and, in many cases, highly visible. Case studies of Three-Mile Island, for example, reveal a number of management errors occurring in the early stages of the disaster — errors that might have been avoided under more careful leadership. A widely cited example of leader error is also seen in reports on the Challenger space shuttle explosion (Violanti, 2006). Despite having evidence of likely equipment and material failure (e.g., O-rings), team leaders either chose to disregard warnings or failed to receive such warnings — errors resulting in a launch that proved disastrous (Reason, 1990). One need not only focus on large-scale disasters to witness the impact of leader errors. In his review of three organizations and the leaders within them, Nutt (2004) illustrated just how impactful leader errors can be to business. An overzealous CEO at Quaker foods, for example, let his overconfidence after prior successes drive strategic decision making resulting in an acquisition of a product-line, Snapple, incongruent with the strategic plan and culture of the organization. The end result was an initial 10% loss in Quaker foods and a 1.4 billion loss in the eventual sale of Snapple. Although additional cases exist, the above should suffice to make our basic point: the examination of leader errors and their causes is essential. More centrally, gaining an understanding of error antecedents will help to establish comprehensive theoretical models of error as well as, more pragmatically, to develop interventions aimed at limiting the frequency, severity, and negative impact of error. Thus, the thrust of this effort is twofold: 1) to propose a definition and taxonomy of leader error and, more The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Dysfunctional Leadership in the Public Service
2017
Dysfunctional leaders, habitually depicting narcissistic behaviour, are distressingly detrimental to the wellbeing of individual employees and an organisation in its entirety. To enhance the wellbeing of both individual employees and organisations at large, it is essential to understand the harmful consequences of dysfunctional leaders and to acquire knowledge on how to manage such leaders. This understanding depends upon mindfulness of their behaviour and an awareness of who they are. The article elucidates the characteristic traits of dysfunctional leaders based on their behaviour, which is often imprinted in a psychological origin. Self-Psychology Theory is used to delineate the psychological origin of the dysfunctional leader's behaviour. As the underlying psychosomatic causes to leaders' behaviour are often unheeded in Public Administration, the phenomenon of dysfunctional leadership is not approached from a traditional management perspective, but rather from a psycholo...
Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model
The Leadership Quarterly, 2007
This paper proposes a definition and a descriptive model of destructive leadership behaviour. Destructive leadership behaviour is defined as the systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation's goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of his/her subordinates. Three categories of such destructive leadership are identified in the proposed model: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive-disloyal leadership behaviour. The model may provide a useful link between the field of leadership and research on bullying, counterproductive behaviour, and aggression at work. The model contributes to a more nuanced concept of destructive leadership showing how destructive leadership behaviours also may have constructive elements.
Leadership and Afflictions of Mind
Purushartha a Journal of Management Ethics and Spirituality, 2013
Leadership in the context of business organizations is complex and has been an important field of study. This paper is concerned with finding the reasons for success and failures in business leadership position. It has been explained that the major cause of leadership failures lies in the presence of afflictions in the mind of the leader which acts as the obstruction in performing the leadership role to perfection. These mind afflictions are the negativities that directly or indirectly affect the required functioning and often lead to leadership failures.
Destructive Leadership: A Theoretical Review, Integration, and Future Research Agenda
Journal of Management, 2013
In this article, we propose a framework for understanding destructive leadership that summarizes the extant destructive leadership research and extends it in new directions. By reviewing the current literature on destructive leadership and drawing on organizational leadership theory and the more general research on deviant behaviors in organizations, we identify the underlying features and mechanisms that define destructive leadership. Recognizing that each form of destructive leadership currently studied (e.g., abusive supervision, petty tyranny, and pseudo-transformational leadership) addresses aspects of destructive leadership but fails to capture the complete picture of the phenomenon, we clarify the boundaries among the constructs studied within the domain of destructive leadership, address some ambiguities about the nature of destructive leadership, make explicit some characteristics of destructive leadership that set it apart from other forms of leading, and integrate this thinking into a theoretical model that helps us understand the manifestations of destructive leadership, and their antecedents and consequences.
FIGURE 1 TOXIC TRIANGLE : ELEMENTS IN THREE DOMAINS RELATED TO DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP Note
2019
A A BASIC ASSUMPTION about establishing a values-based safety culture is that topmost management is supportive and drives down needed changes. Lovelace (2012) agrees: Society romanticizes the idea of leadership and its influence on the organization and its members. With minor exception, the majority of researchers who examine leaders, their behaviors and the outcomes they produce focus on the positive, while ignoring the negative and even destructive behaviors and influence of certain leaders. Yet not all organizations have CEOs or vice presidents who foster a supportive leader-development environment; some are dismissive or even hostile (Winn & Dykes, 2017). But much worse and working under the radar of this romanticized ideal of leader development are toxic leaders who work for themselves or against the goals of their parent organizations, resulting in a poisonous, dysfunctional environment. When the toxic leader creates a hostile workplace, it results in negative but pervasive consequences that trickle down and create a stressful environment that adversely affects the subordinate's professional and personal life. This covert, destructive behavior is a stressor that costs organizations billions of dollars KEY TAKEAWAYS • Toxic leaders work for themselves or against the goals of their organizations, resulting in a dysfunctional environment. • This article seeks to help management understand how organizational conditions can allow some leaders to become toxic. • It describes how workers and managers can defend themselves and their organizations against toxic leaders. • Finally, it explains how authentic leaders can build a culture of morale and improved organizational resilience.