Who’s to Blame: The Toxic Triangle
| “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority…”
— Lord Acton (1887) |
It is not always easy to identify the cause of organizational destruction. The blame cannot always fall upon poor leadership. The judgment of bad leadership relies not just upon the actions of the leader but also on the perception of followers, and the outcomes of situations (Kaiser, Hogan & Craig, 2008). Perception is everything. Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser on researching destructive leadership suggest that it is a process that depends upon multiple variables including leader behavior, follower behavior, and the context of situations. Destructive outcomes resulting from the “process” are the usual determining factors of destructive leadership. However, the above researchers add “If destructive leadership is defined in terms of harmful outcomes, then it is possible for “good” leaders to produce bad outcomes, and “bad” leaders to produce desirable outcomes”(Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser,2007). A leaders’ behavior alone does not always lead to a destructive outcome but is often accompanied by follower behaviors that enhance or permit destructive outcomes and/or situations that are ripe for disaster. Consider as an example, the leadership perceptions of Stalin, Hitler, and Castro, to many they are great leaders and to others evil dictators responsible for death and destruction. Their leadership occurred because of their dynamic personalities but also with the help of loyal followers, and during times of political, economic, and social dysfunction that permitted their rise to leadership. These three determinants together form a toxic triangle that becomes the perfect storm and which can overtake an organization resulting in a range of possible negative outcomes (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007).
The toxic behaviors that may be displayed by dark leaders is a long and varied list ranging from abusive language and bullying to sexual harassment and embezzlement. Those in political leadership roles can be blamed for the deaths of millions and the destruction of countries. Unfortunately, the same personality traits and attributes that propel an individual to the leadership position may morph into something dark and destructive. Leaders over all usually fall into the charismatic, extrovert category and are able and willing to take the necessary steps to promote their visions and to encourage others to join them. Often, dark side leadership qualities have a positive effect on the organization at least for a short-term and the destructive ramifications come later (Hogan & Hogan 2001). Narcissism, psychopathy, and authoritarian behaviors are not always detected initially but occur inconsistently, indirectly, and can be seen as personality traits that indicate commitment and passion (Marques, 2007). The toxic leader is not always identifiable and the range of dark leadership behaviors is only now being researched, assessed, and qualified into a relatable taxonomy of behaviors (Kaiser, Hogan & Craig, 2008) Organizations need to be aware that individuals that have successful careers and come highly recommended are not always successful team leaders and the media has reported on many who have been the cause of organizational destruction when left unchecked. The practical application of the awareness of dark leadership could be implemented into training and management performance standards, indicated for reporting by subordinates, and promoted as protection of the organization from the repercussions of toxic leadership (Thoroughgood, Tate, Sawyer & Jacobs, 2012). Organizational citizenship should highlight the need for the reporting of dark leadership behaviors before they result in legal, personnel, and monetary loss for the organization.
Leaders must have followers. The leader and followers must work together to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals. Destructive leadership occurs when goals are not mutually agreed upon but rather imposed without agreement or regard for long-term welfare by all members (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). The leader may be permitted by some members to continue these authoritarian behaviors. Permission is given by followers who believe that the leader is on the proper path. These colluders believe in the vision of the leader and see the leader as someone who will supply them with the power they seek but cannot obtain on their own. They find value and security in belonging to a group that provides a sense of community. The colluders adopt the values and mindset of the leader and work to promote them. Within organizations, the importance of being on the team of the winner is seen as necessary for personal career advancement. Colluders seek to be members of the in-group in hopes of furthering their own personal goals. Other followers conform to the wishes of the destructive leader out of fear and lack of self-efficacy. Often conformers feel that their positions are unstable and they look to a leader to provide stability. The leader provides what they cannot provide for themselves and they go along to protect the order and security that they need in a world of uncertainty (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). No matter the reasons, followers give the leader the ability to continue leading and until the leader gains absolute power they may resist. Resistance must be given a voice from entities above the leader such as CEOs or Human Resources. Organizations need a set of checks and balances that may be used to prevent the absolute power of those showing signs of dark leadership behaviors (Thoroughgood, Tate, Sawyer, & Jacobs, 2012). External watchmen and educated, empowered followers are the foil of dark leaders.
The final determinant of the toxic triangle process is the conducive situation. This variable can be present before leader-follower dynamics come into play or after dark leadership is imposed. It is important to focus on whether the situation aided the leader or the leader created the situation. Certain situations provide dark leaders the instability and vulnerable followership needed to gain power without restraint. Economic situations which find people in poverty, lacking the basic needs such as food and safety, opens the door to questionable leadership. However, emotional starvation may have the same effect. Followers who feel threatened by a culture of job insecurity or loss and are treated as unimportant subordinates are susceptible to dark leaders who validate their worth and assure their future success (Padilla, Hogan, Kaiser, 2007). Castro was able to sway Cuba’s rural residents and urban poor along with a thriving middle class to vote him into power. All three groups were living in different situations but Castro was able to exploit those conditions to his advantage. The threat of terrorism at home allowed President George Bush to push through anti-terrorism policies with little debate and increased his popularity as a leader ((Padilla, Hogan, Kaiser, 2007). Desperate times call for desperate measures and fearful followers look to a strong leader for decisive action even if the action may take away rights and freedoms.
In conclusion, the failure of organizations cannot always be blamed on toxic leadership alone but should be considered as a process that may also involve susceptible followers and conducive situations. Disastrous outcomes can usually be analyzed to reveal that all three determinants were present. Whom or what is to blame does not change the outcome and the damage to constituents and the organization. Much research can be found on the making of a good leader but very little on identifying and preventing the rise of dark leadership. Further research on the toxic triangle, especially the continuum of the process, may encourage organizations to adopt cultures and climates that prevent the rise of dark leadership by developing responsible followers, and ethical, preventive policies.
References:
Marques, J.F. (2007). On impassioned leadership: A comparison between leaders from divergent walks of life. International Journal of Leadership Studies Vol. 3.
Padilla A., Hogan R., Kaiser R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Kaiser R. B. ,Hogan R. & Craig S. B.(2008) Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 61 96-110.
Spain, S., Harms, P, LeBroton, J.M., (2013). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35.
Thoroughgood, B., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19 (2).
I was very impressed with the quality and the breadth of your description of the toxic triangle. Kudos to you for your effective articulation of the components of that destructive triad. I found your characterization and description of Castro’s Cuba a particularly poignant example of this. Watching through my lifetime how Castro gained unquestioned power over the minds of his followers has been a lesson in human nature. Stalin, Hitler, and others have also succeeded in achieving frightening levels of loyalty among peers and subordinates. Winston Churchill is a great example of the positive side of influence. Great Britain, looking at the numbers, should never have achieved victory in the Battle of Britain. With Churchill at the helm, the people were motivated and were able to withstand the atrocities of war while effectively defending their island nation.
I posit here there is a fourth facet that turns the triangle into a squared representation of leadership failure. There often arise situations in which an individual team member has the ability to poison the entire group and influence prevailing group-think attitudes in a destructive manner. Former NFL coach Tony Dungy is often asked how he dealt with poor attitudes. Tony’s short, but effective approach was two-fold. First, he talked to the player in question to determine motivations and counter issues leading to the attitude issues. The second, and most effective, was soliciting the player’s peers to interact positively with the him to establish expectations and respond to issues the player may have been dealing with that lead to poor attitude. One can well imagine the influence one team member can have on the entire group, especially in context of a team built on highly emotional and competitive people.
In my own experiences as a team member and as a leader, I have seen the truth of the axiom that one bad apple can indeed, spoil a considerable number of other apples if not dealt with effectively. Even the best leaders must counter poor attitudes in order to develop highly functioning teams. To cite an example, I lead a team of I/T professionals in which one member of the team was a source of constant complaint and discontent. Other issues ultimately lead to his dismissal before considerable effort went into turning around the attitude issues to the end of diffusing discord that had been caused in the group as a whole.
Great post! Yours was a look at well known issues using a new perspective and shining a light on the core, fundamental things at play.
Dungy, T. (2017). How To Deal With Bad Attitudes. Dungy’s Diary. Retrieved October 22, 2017 from: http://www.allprodad.com/dungy/how-to-deal-with-bad-attitudes/