What theory and research teach us about how and why leaders may become destructive
Introduction
In the business field, leadership has been an important strategy that is highly considered in any organization’s success. Many organizations only focus on the bright side of leadership, forgetting the dark side where the leaders become destructive. This drives the organizational purpose into the ground and dampens the competitive edge of the organization, among other negative impacts (Judge, Piccolo, and Kosalka, 2009). Theory and research and has given a clear definition of destructive leaders as those leaders, either a supervisor or a manager who violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining the goals and effectiveness of an organization. This essay will discuss what theory and research teach us about how and why leaders may become destructive.
Discussion
How leaders become destructive
Leaders in an organization may become destructive following several reasons. Theory and research explain how leaders may become destructive and the ways how they become catastrophic. These leaders become destructive by having negative personality traits like narcissism, where the leader is driven by a high degree of self-love (Maccoby, 2004). These leaders exhibit a high degree of self- love where they believe that they are so unique and entitled to praise and admiration. This personality makes them view other people in the organization as inferior, and this makes these leaders insensitive and hostile to others. Through this, these leaders tend to even interpret information in such a way that the decisions made will only lean towards enhancing their reputation rather than for the good of the organization and others, and this makes leaders destructive. Another negative personality that makes the leader destructive is hubris, where the leaders have an excess sense of self-worth, which is characterized by excess pride. This makes them very defensive, especially when they receive critical feedback, and this makes them even go the extra mile of questioning the competence of the evaluator, and this makes them devalue the negative evaluations made. This makes the leaders make irrational decisions, which can, in turn, lead to financial losses in the organization. Due to possession of this trait by leaders, theory and research have proved that leaders become destructive by the property of negative characteristics. Machiavellianism is another trait that theory and research have shown that make leaders destructive. This trait is characterized by the desire of leaders to gain personal power, and this makes the leaders cunning and manipulative, where they use any means available to gain political power. As a result of this trait, the leaders are only devoted to taking control over their followers and maximizing opportunities for their power and not for the good of the organization (Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser, 2007). This makes the leader become destructive since he is geared towards achieving his own power and not for the best of the organization.
Theory and research have also shown that leaders become destructive when they feel that their personal goals, like promotion, finances, among others, are not well considered by the organization. By the feeling that their personal goals are not being met by the organization, this makes them use other means to fulfill their goals (McCartney and Campbell, 2006). These ways may involve the leaders become corrupt, and this makes the leader become destructive since his or her actions will not be towards the success of the organization but for personal gains and personal achievements.
Leaders may become destructive by the engaging board in the daily operations of the organization. This involvement of the board in the organization contributes to negative impacts inside and outside the organization, and this makes the leaders have no say since their normal operations in the organization are interfered with (Krasikova, Green, and LeBreton, 2013). This involvement makes the leaders feel that their operations are not trusted. Also, during hiring, the board only selects the leaders who are defensive, and this makes the leaders become more destructive when they fully join the organization. This lack of trust by the board that the leaders will make proper administrative decisions for the company makes leaders become destructive as the theory and research explain.
Why leaders may become destructive based on theory and research
Theory and research have shown various reasons why leaders may become destructive. For example, greed by the leaders makes the leader become destructive since he or she will only make decisions or even lure others in order to fit his or her desires (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). This greed makes the leaders become corrupt since, through corruption, they will gain extra finances, and this will make them achieve their own goals in a quick way. These leaders will be driven by greed and will not follow the morals and ethics of the organization, and this, in turn, makes the organization experience reduced profits, and this leads to organizational failure.
Organizational norms are another reason why leaders may become destructive. This is because you find that some organizations have norms that only focus on the organization itself and not the leaders (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In such an organization, you find that the norms are not inclusive, and the benefits are only for the organization and not the supporting groups who are the leaders an also the employees. This makes the lasers become destructive since the organizational norms do not feature them anywhere.
Short term involvement of the leaders in an organization makes the leaders become destructive where the board does not have future plans for the leaders in the organization. This is facilitated where the retention of leaders in the organization is not given consideration (Eubank and Mumford, 2010). This short term involvement of the leaders makes them maximize more on the given opportunity since they know they may not have any other chance to be leaders in the organization and this makes them come up with various ways of focusing more on themselves, and this makes them become more destructive, and this makes the organization lag behind in terms of success since the leaders are only concerned with their own interests and not the interests of the organization.
The environment is another reason why the leaders may become destructive, which is characterized by leaders and followers interact over time (Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad, 2007). For instance, theory and research explain that the macro environment, which is comprised of technological forces, leads to reduced transparency in the organization and also interferes with checks and balances. This environment makes the leaders engage in toxic behavior, especially where there is a lack of checks and balances, and this makes them become destructive leaders.
Followers are also another reason why leaders become destructive. Theory and research have shown that followers are also the reason why leaders may become destructive, especially where the followers only act and follow every decision that the leaders make and do not question anything (Shaw, Erickson and Harvey, 2011). This gives the leaders a lot of power where they can interfere with information and decisions in the organization, and the followers will still comply with the decision without question. This makes the leaders think that they are employing good leadership styles and that the implementation of their policies is being followed to the latter, and this gives the leader a false impression that he is a good leader, and this makes him continue being a destructive leader. This is caused by followers who only follow what the leaders do and do not question, and this makes the leader come up with decisions that only focus on his interests, thus undermining the interests of the organization and thus becoming a destructive leader since he devoted to controlling his followers.
Conclusion
Many organizations today are failing as a result of destructive leaders who are the key people in an organization. These leaders become destructive in different ways and because of different reasons. They become destructive by possessing negative traits like narcissism, where the leaders feel they are special, and this makes them arrogant, thus becoming destructive leaders because of the high degree of self- love. Hubris, among other negative traits, makes the leaders become destructive. They also become destructive when they feel that their personal goals are not considered as a promotion. Engaging board in the daily operations of the organization also makes the leaders become destructive. Research and theory also give various reasons why the leaders may become destructive where most leaders are driven by greed, and this makes them come up with other ways like being corrupt, and this makes them destructive. Organizational norms are also a reason why leaders become destructive since some norms are aggressive and are only meant to benefit the organization and not the leaders and the other employees. Short term involvement of the leaders in the organization, environment, and followers are also reasons why leaders may become destructive, as shown by research and theory.
Q1. How might the demographic context, in which we work, affect our leadership ambition? Justify your answer with reference to theory and research
Introduction
Many people in a working environment, for instance, an organization, desire to become leaders in the feature, and others may never wish to be leaders in the future based on the demographic context in which the individuals work. This demographic context consists of the environment, size, age, gender, among other factors. This essay will discuss how the demographic context in which we work to affect our leadership ambition with reference to theory and research.
Discussion
The demographic context in which we work affects our leadership ambition in different ways. For instance, in a working environment where some individuals have higher potential, feedback may have a high ambition of becoming leaders in the near future, unlike those individuals who lower potential feedback. This is because the individuals in an organization who have higher potential feedback become more exposed since they interact more with those in higher-level who are the leaders, and this makes them have a higher ambition of becoming leaders in the future (Steffens et al., 2018). Through their interaction, they are able to learn more about leadership and various leadership styles which they can use when they become leaders. This interaction prepares them in a great way, and in one way or the other, their desire to become a leader increases, thus increasing their leadership ambition. Theory and research show that a great number of individuals who have higher potential feedback in a working place have a higher ambition of becoming a leader since they are more exposed. Those individuals with lower potential feedback theory and research show that a greater number of them have a lower ambition of ever becoming leaders in the future since the demographic context in which they work in dictates otherwise about them having the desire of becoming leaders in the future and this lowers their ambition of becoming leaders since they have lower potential feedback.
Age is another demographic context that affects leadership ambition in the area in which we work in. For instance, if a population is made up of the old people, it is clear that the leadership of that working environment is constituted of the old people and this increases ambition for the old people working in that organization since they feel they have a higher opportunity of becoming leaders in the near future in the organization since the old people are the dominant age of individuals in the organization and occupying the leadership roles (Elfenbein and O’Reilly, 2007). These individuals will have a higher ambition of becoming leaders in the future, unlike the young. Theory and research show that most of the young people in such a working environment will have a lower ambition of becoming leaders in the near future since the age gap does not allow them to fit in the leadership level. This age difference, which is a constitute of demographic context, affects the leadership ambition of the individuals in a given working environment wherein an organization that the majority of the old people are in the lead levels have a higher ambition than the young individuals. The same application also applies in the working environment where the young individuals have occupied the leadership levels. In this case, young people will have a higher ambition of becoming leaders, unlike the old, since their age is in a high chance of becoming leaders.
The race is another demographic context that affects leadership ambition in which we work in. This is influenced by race, which is a dominant race at the leadership level. For instance, if an organization is a racist one, theory and research show that the dominant race has a higher ambition of becoming leaders, unlike the minority race (Moore, 2005). This leadership ambition in the area we work in will be influenced by race since the dominant race will have a high potential of becoming leaders, and this will increase their morale of becoming leaders in that given working environment. The minority race will have a lower or even no ambition of becoming leaders in such an organization. This demographic context highly influences leadership ambition in a working environment.
Sex is another demographic context that affects leadership ambition in which we work in. This is influenced wherein an organization where the males occupy a large percentage of the leaders in an organization, males in this organization will have higher leadership ambition since their gender has a higher chance of occupying leadership levels in that given organization. In this case, the females will have a lower ambition of becoming leaders since their sex dictates otherwise in such an organization. In such male dominance organizations, research and theory have proved that males have higher leadership ambition than females (Harman and Sealy, 2017). In another case where the females are the dominant sex in the leadership levels, females in this working environment will have a stronger desire to become leaders since they already have role models who are of their same-sex occupying those leadership levels in an organization. This will motivate them even more, and their ambition to become leaders in the near future will increase. Males in this context will have a lower ambition of becoming leaders in the future in that organization since their sex does not give them a higher opportunity of becoming a leader in such a working environment.
The leadership of the organization is another demographic context that affects leadership ambition in which we work in. This leadership organization influences the leadership ambitions of the other individuals working in that organization since these individuals will be motivated by the good leadership that the organization has (Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993). Theory and research show that in an organization where good leadership is portrayed, many individuals in that working environment have a higher leadership ambition since they feel motivated to be part of that good leadership. In the case where an organization has poor leadership, the individuals in that organization will have a lower ambition of becoming leaders in such an organization.
Conclusion
The demographic context has proved to affect leadership ambitions among individuals in an environment we work in. This has been proved through theory and research, where age in an organization has affected leadership ambition where the old and young influence leadership ambition. Sex has also proved to affect leadership ambition in an environment people work in. Race and leadership of the organization itself have as a constitute of demographic context, also affects leadership ambition in an environment people work in. Individuals with higher potential feedback also affect the leadership ambition of the individuals in the organization.
References
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
Elfenbein, H. A., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person-culture fit on group process and performance. Group & Organization Management, 32(1), 109-142.
Eubanks, D. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2010). DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP. When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures, 23.
Harman, C., & Sealy, R. (2017). Opt-in or opt-out: exploring how women construe their ambition at early career stages. Career Development International.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The leadership quarterly, 20(6), 855-875.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308-1338.
Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 92-92.
McCartney, W. W., & Campbell, C. R. (2006). Leadership, management, and derailment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Moore, R. G. (2005). Religion, race, and gender differences in political ambition. Politics & Gender, 1(4), 577-596.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 575-590.
Steffens, N. K., Fonseca, M. A., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F. A., Stoker, J. I., & Pieterse, A. N. (2018). How feedback about leadership potential impacts ambition, organizational commitment, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 637-647.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 897-917.