COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969
WARNING
This material has been reproduced and communicated
to you by or on behalf of Monash University pursuant
to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act).
The material in this communication may be subject to
copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or
communication of this material by you may be the
subject of copyright protection under the Act.
Do not remove this notice.
MGX3991 Leadership Principles and Practice
Week 8
DESTRUCTIVE
LEADERSHIP
Session Objectives
1. To understand the definition, nature, and elements
of destructive leadership.
2. To examine how (a) negative childhood
experiences; (b) perceptions of power, and (c)
charisma may contribute to the development of
destructive leadership.
3. To discuss the impacts of destructive leaders on
followers through the examples of Dennis
Kozlowzki, Lee Iacocca, and Jim Jones.
Interchangeable Terms
• toxic (Lipman-Bluemen, 2005)
• bad (Kellerman, 2004)
• destructive (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007)
• narcissistic (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006)
• tyrants (Ashfort, 1994)
• bullies (Namie & Namie, 2000)
• abusive (Tepper, 2000)
• derailed (McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Schackleton, 1995)
Five Features of Destructive Leadership
Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007
1. Is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive; there are
good and bad results in most leadership situations
2. Its process involves dominance, coercion, and
manipulation rather than influence, persuasion, and
commitment
3. Its process has a selfish orientation, focusing more
on the leader’s needs than those of the larger group
4. Its outcomes compromise the quality of life of
constituents and detract from organisation’s vision
5. The destructive outcomes are products of leaders,
followers, and environment
The Toxic Triangle
Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser (2007)
14/09/15
2
The Susceptible Circle
Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate (2012)
Outcome of Influence Attempt
Effective Leadership?
Cult leadership
Totalitarian leadership
Communist leadership
‘Freedom fighter’ leadership
Power is a powerful narcotic –
animating, life-sustaining, addictive.
The people who have it generally
have worked hard to obtain it and
are not overkeen to let it go
Manfred Kets De Vries
Special Education to Power and Domination
10
Power Base and Potential Outcomes
Internalization Identification Compliance Resistance
Referent Likely Likely Possible Possible
Expert Likely Likely Possible Possible
Legitimate Unlikely Possible Likely Possible
Reward Unlikely Possible Likely Possible
Coercive Very Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely
Outcome of Influence Attempt
Measuring Bases of Power
• Does a person have one or more of the five bases of
power? Affirmative responses to the following questions
can answer this question:
– The person can make things difficult for people, and you want to
avoid getting him or her angry (coercive power)
– The person is able to give special benefits or rewards to people,
and you find it advantageous to trade favours with him or her
(reward power)
– The person has the right, considering his or her position and
your job responsibilities, to expect you to comply with legitimate
requests (legitimate power)
– The person has the experience and knowledge to earn your
respect, and you defer to his or her judgment in some matters
(expert power)
– You like the person and enjoy doing things for him or her
(referent power)
14/09/15
3
Being powerful is like being a lady.
If you tell people you are, you aren’t
Margaret Thatcher
The ‘Romanticized’ Notion of
Leadership
• The tendency to attribute the organizational success or
failure wholly to the leader’s personality and intelligence
(Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985)
• As a socially constructed reality, leadership is perceived
in the followers’ minds as the apparent answer to
understanding the complex interplay of many
organizational elements
• The tendency to focus on the individual leaders merely
serves two social functions: (1) heroic salvation by the
leader in a world that constantly needs saving, and (2) a
way for followers to escape responsibilities for their
actions or inactions, and blame it to the leader on
negative consequences.
Weberian View of Charisma
• “A quality of an individual personality by virtue of which
he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed
with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically
exceptional qualities” (Weber, 1947)
• It is based neither on rules, positions, or traditions but
rather on followers’ perceptions and convictions that
leaders possess a divinely inspired gift and qualities
• The conception of ‘charisma’ from the domain of
theology to sociology to political science to psychology
and management
Neo-Weberian View of Charisma
• Prominent researchers in this area include Bass,
Avolio, Conger, Kanungo, House, Shamir, Howell,
and Yukl
• The new version emphasizes emotions and values
rather than rational processes
• The exclusive characteristics of charismatic leaders
are
• tendency to dominate
• a strong conviction in their own beliefs
• a need to influence others
• high self-confidence
The Various Faces of Charismatic Leaders
• Military and Political Heavyweights
• Alexander the Great, Adolph Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Winston
Churchill, Norman Schwartzkopf, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph
Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Colin Powell,
• Social and Religious Leaders
• Ayatollah Khomeini, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Reverend
Jim Jones, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson
Mandela.
• Corporate champions
• Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, Mary Kay Ash, Anita Roddick
Source: Kets de Vries, 1989; Yukl, 1990
Their claimed possession of personal magnetism and heroic qualities have strong effects on
followers, societies, countries, or organizations.
Charismatic Leaders and Org. Performance
• Charismatic leadership behaviors produce higher followers
performance by increasing followers’ perceived selfefficacy
(the belief in one’s capabilities to organise and
execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments)
• The effects of charismatic leadership on performance are
likely to be higher if the following situational variables
occur:
• Poorly defined and hard-to-measure performance goals
• Unclear means to achieve goals
• Uncertain environment
• The leader’s inability to link extrinsic rewards to individual
performance.
• Stressful groups
• The structure of the organisation is organic
14/09/15
4
Charismatic and Noncharismatic Leaders
Noncharismatic Leaders Charismatic Leaders
Likableness: Shared perspective makes leader
likable
Shared perspective and idealised
vision make leader likable and an
honorable hero worthy of
identification and imitation
Trustworthiness: Disinterested advocacy in persuasion
attempts
Passionate advocacy by incurring great
personal risk and cost
Relation to status
quo:
Tries to maintain status quo Creates atmosphere of change
Future goals: Limited goals not too discrepant from
status quo
Idealised vision that is highly
discrepant from status quo
Articulation: Weak articulation of goals and
motivation to lead
Strong and inspirational articulation of
vision and motivation to lead
Competence: Uses available means to achieve goals
within framework of existing order
Uses unconventional means to
transcend the existing order
Behavior: Conventional, conforms to norms Unconventional, counter–normative
Influence: Primarily authority of position and
rewards
Transcends position; personal power
based on expertise and respect and
admiration for the leader
A Case in Point
Dennis Kozlowzki, ex-CEO of Tyco
Asch Conformity Experiment
Evidence for the power of conformity and normative
social influence (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987)
Attain social reward and avoid social punishment
Further reserarch indicate that observed conformity is an
example of the depersonalisation process; individuals
expect to hold the same opinions as others in their
ingroup.
“What are you working on”
“Followership”
“What? Run that by me again”
“Followership-the flip side of leadership
“Oh, you mean the people who need to be told what to do. The sheep?”
Not the Sheep!
“No, I mean people who know what to do without being told – the
people who act with intelligence, independence, courage, and a
strong sense of ethics. I’m interested in what separates exemplary
followers from those who perpetuate the negative stereotypes. I
believe the value of followers to any organization is enormous.
Sheep
Passive Low
Yes People
Dependent, Uncritical thinking
Active
Effective
Followers
Alienated
Followers
Survivors
Independent, Critical thinking
Kelley, R. ( 1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec
Five Types of Followers
• Sheep
– passive followers who choose to do only the minimum of what is
required
• Yes people
– active followers who carry out any orders given to them uncritically
• Survivors:
– Mediocre people who always be where the opportunities are.
• Alienated followers
– Critical people who are adept at pointing out the negative aspects in
others, and tend to overlook the positive ones
• Effective followers
– Active, independent followers with critical thinking ability
14/09/15
5
In the Eye of the Beholder
Since charisma is of utmost importance to charismatic
and transformational leaders, and their legitimacy is very
much based on followers’ beliefs, and not so much on
the leaders’ quality, the leader is likely to attempt to
shape and maintain the impression of a charismatic
leader
Such leaders depend on image management skills to
build the desired images that they assume will be valued
by their potential followers
The Dark Side of Charismatic Leadership
History is full of accounts of charismatic leaders who
cause untold death, destruction, and misery in the
process of building an empire, leading a revolution, or
founding a new religion. Many entrepreneurs who
founded prosperous companies were tyrants and
egomaniacs. Negative charismatics are likely to have
a narcissistic personality and a personalized power
orientation. They emphasize devotion of followers to
themselves rather than to ideological goals, which are
used only as a means to manipulate followers”
(Yukl, 1990:231)
The IMPACTS on Followers
1.Followers’ unquestioning acceptance of the leader
2.Trust in the correctness of the leader’s belief
3.Willing obedience to the leader
4.Affection for the leader
5.Emulation of and identification with the leader
6.Similarity of followers’ beliefs to those of the leader
Find capable leader
Perceived need
for leadership
Develop leadership
capabilities
throughout
organization
Delay
Belief in
helplessness
Learned Helplessness
Adapted from Kofman and Senge, 1995
Learned Helplessness
As the relationship between charismatic leaders
and followers grows, followers gradually learn
to be helpless in the absence of the leader.
Leaders, in turn, encourage their blind obedience
even further by building the followers’ confidence.
As followers become more and more oriented
to seek approval and confirmation from their
leaders, their desire to please the leaders turns
into a sense of duty and obligation
(Conger, 1989)
As (charismatic leaders’) subordinates identify
more and more with their leader, they develop
a certain dependency…(they) often describe
the critical significance of their leader’s approval
as a source of confirmation. Indeed, it becomes
the principal measure of self-worth
(Conger, 1989)
Learned Helplessness
14/09/15
6
Learned Helplessness
As a result, followers grow accustomed to thinking
and acting only in reaction to external authority,
namely leaders.
Obtaining the leaders’ approval of the utmost
importance for them in any given context.
They eventually become conditioned to reacting to
leaders’ directions; becoming loyal order-takers
Covert Slavery
The charismatic leader is able to forge a bond with
followers that can result in commitment and performance
quite beyond the ordinary. But a price may be paid for
this achievement. For in this special relationship between
the charismatic leader and the subordinate, a state of
great dependency is often created
(Conger, 1989)
Covert Slavery
• All the admirable actions followers demonstrate spring
not from their own initiatives and conscious choice, but
out of the leaders’ commands given in an appealing
manner.
• When these covert slaves are stationed in places where
the leaders or their influence are not present for a
period of time, they become passive followers.
• The most severe damage would be on their mental
attitudes. They are happy in their comfort zone, and
choose to stay the way they are. Their existence and
security is threatened whenever they are given freedom
since freedom means independence, and independence
means responsibility.
• As a transformational leader known for his inspiring, powerful,
engaging, and confident style, Lee Iacocca reduced his annual
salary to one dollar to transform Chrysler Corporation.
• That particular action was done to “convince employees of the
need for sacrifice and extra effort” (Bass, 1985, p.15).
• However, the genuineness of such an action as it could merely
be nothing but a foxy tactic to impress followers and manipulate
their responses to reciprocate.
• Lessons learned:
– When leaders focus on image-building instead of integritybuilding,
they might be liable to portray distorted messages
of who they actually are, and what they stand for
Lee Iacocca (1)
• Iacocca’s vision is to manufacture and market Ford Pinto whose
weight was no more than 2000 pounds and cost no more than US
$2000 dollars to achieve higher short-term profit.
• Attracted by his inspiring $2000/2000 pound vision, his employees
designed and manufactured the car despite their awareness of its
serious defect: a major lack of safety requirements which could
lead to death from burning.
• The decision to proceed to the manufacturing stage was made
after a disgraceful cost-benefit analysis revealed, in effect, that it
was cheaper to pay for burn injuries and deaths than to change the
car’s design.
• Lesson Learned:
– The very characteristics that distinguish charismatic leaders
from others could result in both constructive and destructive
ends
Lee Iacocca (2)
1. Believe that they have been raised by their god to
accomplish what others have failed to do
2. Demand blind loyalty and unquestioning obedience
3. Foster child-like dependence and total submission
4. Provide an intense sense of identity and family, and
create an overwhelming sense of acceptance,
belongingness, and significance (love bombing)
5. Believe that they alone have been entrusted with the
truth and teach their own interpretations of the Scripture
6. Bypass the individual rational process
7. Draw the attention and allegiance of their followers to
themselves (unity in them, not in a higher being)
8. Attack other leaders or groups
9. Make the followers afraid to leave the group
Nine Marks of A Cult Leader
(e.g., Jim Jones)
14/09/15
7
What similarities do the
following people have?
Harold Geneen of ITT
Alfred Sloan of the GM
Edwin Land of Polaroid
Roberto Goizueta of Coca-Cola.
The worst thing you can say about a leader is that
on the day he or she left, the organization collapsed.
When that happens, it means the so-called leader has
sucked the place dry. He or she hasn’t built.
They may have been effective operators,
but they have not created the vision.
Louis XIV was supposed to have said,
L’etat, c’est moi! (The state, that’s me!).
He died in the early eighteenth century
and the long, not-so-slow slide into
the French Revolution immediately begun.
Peter Drucker
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment
Stanley Milgram’s conclusion
“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without
any particular hostility on their part, can become agents
in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the
destructive effects of their work become patently clear,
and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with
fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people
have the resources needed to resist authority” Milgram, S. (1974). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine
Conclusion: The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the
most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority
TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW