UGOCHUKWU ONOGU
INTERN
MCPENIEL INTERNSHIP TASK 1
3/10/22
1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3
BAD LEADERSHIP & ITS IMPACT ....................................................................................................... 4
Abusive leadership .............................................................................................................................. 4
Bullying ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Toxic leadership ................................................................................................................................... 6
THE EMERGENCE OF BAD LEADERS ............................................................................................... 8
Advice for leaders ................................................................................................................................ 8
Advice for followers ............................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 10
References ............................................................................................................................................... 11
1
2
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Model of destructive and constructive leadership behavior (Einarsen, Aasland, &
4
Skogstad, 2007)
Figure 2: toxicity of the leadership dimension loadings
2
7
3
INTRODUCTION
"Bad people make bad leaders." At first look, the aforementioned sentence will almost
certainly elicit a nod from anybody who reads it. This may be true in some circumstances,
but not as a general rule.
Peter’s principle states that “The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency
in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every
employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach a level of
respective incompetence.”
Peter’s principle simply expressed, indicates that because someone excelled in a
capacity doesn’t suggest the person would flourish in a leadership position that comes in
form of a “promotion”. Hence not all who perform badly as leaders (Bad leadership) are
“Bad leaders”.
This document is aimed at critically investigating this concept and exploring the link
between these two components (Bad Leaders & Bad Leadership) and eventually verifying
if truly there's a karma impact or not.
3
4
BAD LEADERSHIP & ITS IMPACT
From internet research the term ‘BAD LEADERSHIP’ has a lot of definitions. However,
Einarsen, Aasland,& Skogstad (2007) created a model that best describes all sides of this
subject matter as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Model of destructive and constructive leadership behavior (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007)
Figure 1’s correlations make it obvious which behaviors are regarded destructive
leadership (anti-subordinate and/or anti-organization behavior) and which behaviors are
considered constructive leadership (pro-subordinate and/or pro-organization behavior).
Each destructive leadership approach combines the bad leadership traits that are covered
in more detail below.
Abusive leadership
According to Tepper (2000) and Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley (2004), Leaders that
are deemed abusive are differentiated by their deeply offensive activities, which include
“public mockery, violent outbursts, thoughtless actions including rudeness, favoritism,
non-contingent punishment, and coercion”.
4
5
Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, and Marinova (2012) revealed that the impacts of
abusive supervision extended beyond the supervisor-subordinate social context, which
appears to be a common indicator of harmful leadership styles, according to multiple
studies.
Tepper (2007) found three factors that contribute to abusive supervision: perceived
psychological contract violations, unfavorable emotions, and organizational injustice.
According to Aryee, Chen, Sun, and Debrah (2007) argument, supervisors' views of
interpersonal unfairness and authoritarian leadership style combine to affect abusive
supervision as a counterproductive activity. More so than procedural justice,
subordinates' judgments of interactional fairness explain how abusive supervision affects
emotional organizational commitment.
Bullying
According to Pelletier (2010), bullying is the use of mental or physical strength against
someone who is likely to be in a weaker or subordinate position to the one who is bullying.
Schmidt (2008) observed that bullying differed sufficiently from supervisory abuse, such
as abusive supervision, in breadth and purpose.
Bullying at work is defined by Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper (2003) as bothering,
insulting, socially excluding, or negatively impacting someone's job activities. Bullying, or
mobbing, must occur regularly and habitually (e.g., weekly) and over a length of time
(e.g., about six months) in order for the term to be associated to a specific activity,
interaction, or process.
Bullying that fosters teamwork in a supervised boot camp training activity, for example, is
not necessarily harmful. Alexander, MacLaren, O'Gorman, and Taheri (2012) discovered
that workplace bullying increased group cohesion, citing a long history of quasi-abusive
practices used by military leaders in boot camp and Special Forces training as examples
of toxic leadership behaviors that can actually build camaraderie and feelings of
connectedness among followers.
Bullying appears to be mostly a state inferred by a susceptible target of aggressive
behavior. Hoel and Cooper (2001) defined this construct as "one or more individuals over
5
6
time who believe themselves to be on the receiving end of negative behaviors from one
or more others, in a setting where the target of bullying has trouble defending himself or
herself against these activities."
Toxic leadership
Lipman-Blumen (2005), a pioneer in toxic leadership research, classified it as "...a
process in which leaders, through damaging action and/or dysfunctional personal
attributes, inflict severe and enduring suffering on their followers, organizations, and nonfollowers alike.
Toxic leaders demonstrate detrimental activities that weaken the morale, motivation, and
self-esteem of their followers. According to Lipman-Blumen (2005), toxic leaders exhibit
the following dysfunctional characteristics: a lack of ethics, insatiable ambition, arrogance,
and big egos. Toxic leaders present a daily challenge to suffering subordinates, which
typically leads in unwanted organizational stress, negative values, and despair. According
to Lipman-Blumen (2005), the type and degree of unfavorable repercussions that an
individual toxic leader creates may fluctuate depending on the circumstances.
According to Steele (2011), toxic leaders are often not incompetent or poor in terms of
fulfilling established mission objectives. He mentioned multiple times that they are
powerful leaders with the necessary things, but in the wrong intensity and with the
improper final end-state, namely self-promotion above everything else.
Finally, in the authors' factor analysis, Schmidt's quantitative study (see Figure 2)
incorporated factor loadings of toxic leadership characteristics to illustrate the amount to
which a factor explains a variable.
6
7
Figure 2: toxicity of the leadership dimension loadings
In summary, each destructive leadership style consists of a special combination of
unfavorable leadership traits.
7
8
THE EMERGENCE OF BAD LEADERS
A number of important and fundamental questions must be posed and addressed in order
to comprehend this issue. These concerns include:
These questions include:
•
Why isn’t the process of identifying who will be a good leader failsafe?
•
How should organizations handle a brilliant candidate who blatantly lacks critical
leadership abilities but nonetheless appears to be able to produce outstanding
results?
•
Why aren’t bad leaders recognized long before they bring woe to shareholders?
The process of selecting leaders is the first stage. Typically, businesses select their top
executives from a pool of applicants who have been vetted in managerial positions over
several years. So how come the arrogant people get hired? Isn't there evidence of
egotistic or self-serving behavior before they are chosen? Are front-line employees and
direct reports being called into question? (James MacGregor, 1978)
Once a candidate has been chosen, additional steps can be done to reduce the likelihood
of poor leadership. The following suggestions are made for both leaders and followers:
Advice for leaders
•
Determine what stakeholders value: To show the legitimacy of their approach,
leaders must create and publish a clear description of their proposed strategy and
long-term vision. Feedback from stakeholders will either support or contradict the
plan, and competent leaders will respond positively to new information. (Robert J.,
2007)
•
Listen to other views: Leaders' proclivity to make poor judgments can be
reduced if they establish a network of peers and others who can provide them
advice and criticism. Leaders must embrace dissent and promote other ideas even
from within their own ranks of rebels. (Robert J., 2007)
•
Rely on the team: The team must support the leader's vision in order for it to be
implemented. Furthermore, research indisputably demonstrates that communal
decisions are better than individual ones (although "group thought" is always a
8
9
risk). Teams may help leaders create scenarios that investigate possible futures
and explain the consequences of taking different actions. . (Robert J., 2007)
•
Foster a culture of integrity: Internalizing the organization's ideals will be made
easier by developing a clear set of values and a code of conduct. Penalties are
imposed for violations, while commendations are given for upholding the code. In
the end, the company's principles are internalized, and its employees act morally
out of instinct. . (Robert J., 2007)
•
Cultivate personal awareness: This is the most difficult task, since leaders, who
are frequently isolated from stakeholders, can be lured by power; they find it simple
to lie to themselves to satisfy their desires or world views. Leaders must have the
ability to balance their own interests with the greater good, certainty and context,
and intuition with facts. . (Robert J., 2007)
Advice for followers
•
Give feedback: Although offering feedback might be hazardous, it must be forceful
and daring since poor leaders seldom ever support opposing viewpoints. The final
tactic for a follower may be to locate another job if the leader does not want to
listen. . (Robert J., 2007)
•
Develop coalitions: "Strength comes in numbers" Followers may speak louder
and move change forward faster by finding friends and working together. The
dangers of bureaucracy and over centralization will be guarded against by a power
balance. . (Robert J., 2007)
•
Regulate the organization: Governing authorities must intervene to safeguard
stakeholder rights when self-regulation fails. examples are laws mandates
independent audits, CEO and CFO certification of reports, and whistleblower
protection. . (Robert J., 2007)
9
10
Conclusions
It's evident that terrible leadership and bad leaders have a symbiotic relationship. Even
while a bad leader does not always mean an incompetent leader, the growth of one is
the first symptom of a culture of 'bad leadership' in that business. As a result, if bad
leadership is sowed, bad leaders will undoubtedly be reaped.
10
11
References
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A
definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper., C. (2003). Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace. International perspectives in research and practice. Taylor & Francis,
London,, 165-184.
James MacGregor, B. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic Leadership: A Conceptual Framework. Claremont, CA:
Claremont GraduateUniversity.
Matthew, A., Andrew, M., Kevin, D. O., & Babak, T. (2012). “He just didn’t seem to understand
the banter”: Bullying or simply establishing social cohesion? Tourism Management
33(5), 1245–1255.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & M. S. (2012). A Trickle-Down
Model of Abusive Supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65 , 325-357.
Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric.
Leadership, 6(4)., 373–389.
Robert J., A. (2007). Bad leaders: how they get that way and what to do about them. Strategy
and Leadership, 12-17.
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and Validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale. . College
Park: University of Maryland.
Steele, J. P. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of toxic leadership in the U.S. Army: A two
year review and recommended solutions. . Center for Army Leadership,, 1-37.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and
Research Agenda. Journal of Management, June, 33(3), , 261-516.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the Relationships
BetweenCoworkers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Fellow Employees’
Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 455-465.
11