Key Signposts on the Road towards Dysfunction: Be Aware and Take Care! (original) (raw)
Related papers
… 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...
Leadership malpractice: exposing the reality underpinning unleaderly behaviour
International Journal of Contemporary Management
Background A mounting body of research literature is highlighting the prevalence of serious malpractice by persons in leadership positions. Arguably, too many of those appointed to a leadership position believe that they have the right to act in any way that they choose. They believe that the title of ‘leader’ affords them the licence to act with little regard for others. But just because a person has been appointed to a leadership position, this does not automatically make them a leader. Nor does it imply that everything they do is leadership. Thus, the impetus for this article is the acknowledgement that it's time to clearly distinguish what truly constitutes leadership from that which is its antithesis – leadership malpractice. Not to do so only allows serious leadership malpractice to become normalised as acceptable leadership activity. Research Aim Therefore, the aim of this article is to first use research literature to describe the growing concern about the prevalence of ...
Individual differences in leadership derailment
PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2000
With the rise of corporate scandals, employees are starting to question the true intentions of their leaders. This apparent lack of integrity among leaders in the United States has called into question the nature of leadership. Much research has focused on the positive aspects of leadership, or those things that leaders do well. Unlike previous research, this study examines the important role that the dark side of personality can play in understanding ineffective leadership. The study examined the impact of a leader's dysfunctional interpersonal tendencies on multi-rater evaluations. Results indicated that (a) dysfunctional behaviors associated with arrogance, cautiousness, volatility, and skepticism negatively influenced ratings of performance and (b) dysfunctional behaviors showed differential effects across rater groups.
The Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour
This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5% (OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly. Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing over more active ones. The results showed that laissez-faire leadership behaviour was the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.
Bad leaders: How they get that way and what to do about them
Strategy & Leadership, 2007
ver the past few years, the media has chronicled the misadventures of a mugbook full of corporate scoundrels. Some of the notables making lurid headlines were Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron executives, Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco, and convicted WorldCom chief executive Bernard J. Ebbers. But should these scandals make us reflect on the wider problems of corporate leadership? True, such convicted malefactors total just a small percentage of the Fortune 500. But there are also many CEOs who have been forced to resign in recent years because they failed leadership 101, and a scandal involving the backdating of options has raised questions about the judgment of even remarkable leaders like Steve Jobs of Apple. As one indication of the widespread climate of disenchantment with leadership, Business Week now publishes a feature on the year's ''worst leaders.''[1] So it's not clear whether we're witnessing an epidemic of misbehavior, or merely watching corporate leadership under more intensive scrutiny in the post Sarbanes-Oxley environment. But in either case, several fundamental questions need to be answered. They include: Why aren't bad leaders recognized long before they bring woe to shareholders? Why isn't the process of anticipating who will be a good leader failsafe? And how can organizations deal with a brilliant candidate who obviously lacks important leadership skills but seems to be capable of delivering impressive results?