Dark Side of Leadership
Leadership is almost always associated with positive outcomes that we tend to forget that at times, leaders fail. The causes of leadership failure have been the focus of many studies in recent years, resulting in many theories concentrating on leaders’ behaviours and characteristics which ultimately produced disastrous results for their organisations. These kinds of behaviour and vulnerabilities fundamentally constitute the dark side of leadership.
Slattery argues that although there has been an increasing focus on the dark side of leadership in recent literature, there is a lack of solid description about it and instead, ‘literature focus on particular characteristics or themes of dark side behaviour and traits’ (1990, p. 4). Hogan uses the term dark side to refer to ‘tendencies that undermine a person’s ability to build a team’ (2006, p. 27). Far from being a mental illness, the dark side, as he further suggests, concerns 11 types of behaviour or themes which form three broad clusters: intimidation, seduction and pleasing authority, all of which contribute to career failure (Hogan 2006). Other scholars use various terms such as ‘destructive leadership’ (Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad 2007 cited in Slattery 2009, p.3), ‘bad leadership’ (Kellerman 2005 cited in Slattery 2009, p. 3) and ‘leadership derailment' (Tepper, 2000 cited in Slattery 2009, p. 3) to explain the dark side of leadership behaviour.
The problem that most of the definitions of dark side of leadership present is that ‘they only take into account a narrow theoretical position and not necessarily consider the multidimensional aspects of leadership’ (Slattery 2009, p.4). The leader is placed at the centre of all things and becomes the main focus of the definition. It fails to consider various factors that contribute to leadership, such as follower and environmental roles. Slattery (2009) also argues that in order to understand the dark side of leadership objectively, the definition should not just focus on the behaviours of the leaders but incorporate four aspects about leadership: situational and personal factors which both influence leadership behaviours, power motives and finally the fact that some characteristics can be classified as both constructive and destructive at the same time and both may produce either negative or positive results for the organisation. He therefore proposed this definition of dark side of leadership:
The dark side of leadership is an ongoing pattern of behaviour exhibited by a leader that results in overall negative organisational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower and the environment. Organisational goals, morale and follower satisfaction are thwarted through the abuse of power and self-interest of the leader. (Slattery 2009, p.4)
For Professor Kakabadse (CranfieldSOM 2010), the dark side of leadership is when things are not working right in an organisation and leaders or managers within it refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem. He claims that the dark side of leadership is caused by two factors: personality and systems. The personality aspect is based on the wrong use of charisma by the leader in an organisation whilst the systems approach deals with the attitude of businesses to external factors. He cited, as an example, the refusal of some businesses in the west, to talk about how they will deal with the bribery and corruption that they are facing in different markets around the globe. The two fundamental sides of the dark side of leadership, according to Professor Kakabadse (CranfieldSOM 2010) are: me, as the leader and us, as the organisation.
Conger claims that ‘the very behaviours that distinguish leaders from managers also have the potential to produce problematic or even disastrous outcomes for their organisations’ (1990, p. 44). Leaders naturally possess most of the dark behaviours or themes that scholars have identified and when used properly, these particular behaviours can lead to great success of the leader and the organisation. ‘It’s when a leader’s behaviours become exaggerated, lose touch with reality, or become vehicles for purely personal gain’ (Conger 1990, p. 44) that they cause catastrophe. This validates Slattery’s claim that ‘some characteristics, such as narcissism and charisma, associated with the dark side of leadership may exist on a continuum from destructive to constructive behaviours’ (2009, p. 4). But how and when do leaders cross the line from being constructive to destructive? How does the dark side develop?
According to Conger (1990) there are three particular skills areas which cause the leader to produce negative results: strategic vision, communications and impression-management skills, and general management practices. The leader’s strategic vision only becomes unsuccessful when it begins to include personal goals that are not relevant to the organisation. When strategic vision becomes personal vision, the needs of the organisation and clients become unimportant, the leader becomes self obsessed, fixated on achieving his vision and eventually loses sight of reality. Leaders who demonstrate these types of characteristics are almost certainly narcissistic, a major personality flaw that wrecks leaders and businesses (Emmons, 1997).
Scholars such as Goldman (2006) argue that leaders with long-standing personality disorders, such as narcissism, are generally the cause of difficulties in organisations. Narcissistic leaders present various traits such as self absorption, intense ambitiousness, superiority and authority and ostentatious fantasies. At the same time, a narcissistic leader has an over-inflated sense of his importance to the organisation and a restless ambition. Take for example the obsession of Thomas Edison with direct electrical current (DC).
He was so passionate about DC that he failed to see the more rapid acceptance of alternating power (AC) systems by America’s then-emerging utility companies. Thus the company started by Edison to produce DC power stations was soon doomed to failure (Conger 1990, pp.44-45).
Robert Campeau is another leader whose failure is caused by narcissistic personality. Campeau is a very successful real estate developer who proceeded to expand his empire into retailing, even though he knew little about the industry (Conger 1990). Campeau believed that his knowledge in real estate is enough to make him the most powerful retailer in the world. He also believed that all his purchases during the time, which totalled $13.4 billion, will produce profit. It did the opposite. Campeau’s bold strategic moves did not stand up against the slowdown in the retail industry and within a few years, Campeau had to sell off company stock and default on company loans. By early 1990, Campeau’s personal fortune of $500 million was said to have all gone (Conger 1990). Campeau’s intense ambitiousness was the cause of his downfall. He had a vision which he needed to pursue and amidst his inexperience in the industry and poor strategic decisions, he continued to chase his ambition.
A close relative of narcissism, charisma, is a personality issue that is commonly associated with leadership, although it has always carried the tone of danger when discussed in this context. Charisma in leadership has been explored in different frames over the years. Initial studies on the topic focused mainly on how political leaders use their charismatic traits to attract followers and gain more power. Recent developments, however, give more emphasis to charismatic leadership in organisational context (Takala 2005), focusing on the leader-follower relationship and its effects on the organisation.
According to Barbuto, ‘charisma is believed to be the fundamental factor in the transformational [leadership] process and is described as the leader’s ability to generate great symbolic power’ (2005, p. 28). Central to transformational leadership is the ability of the leaders to inspire their followers to rise beyond their self interests for the good of the organisation, a trait which is shared by charismatic leaders.
Charismatic leaders use power over their followers by using expertise and vision. Takala (2005) argues that charismatic leadership is open to manipulation and therefore leaders should possess strong ethical background to avoid abuse of power. Charismatic leaders who become blinded by their own vision and power almost certainly cause the destruction of their organisation.
harismatic leaders use impression management to lead their followers, the corrupt use of which can cause dysfunctional behaviour amongst followers. Followers who begin to intrinsically trust their leaders are predisposed to obey without questioning their leader. ‘Automatic compliance can, in turn strengthen the charismatic leader’s power over followers, thus becoming a vicious cycle’ (DeCelles & Pfarrer 2004 cited in Slattery 2009, p. 8). Followers become reliant on their leader, the leader eventually is surrounded with ‘yes people’ (Conger 1990 p.50) and group think (Eaton, 2001) occurs. Conger states that group think transpires when ‘the opinions of the leader and advisors with closely allied views come to dominate decision making’ (1990, p.50). Any other contrasting views are concealed for fear of condemnation.
John DeLorean, a former executive of General Motors (GM) and founder of the DeLorean Motor Company exploited his charismatic personality and used manipulation through impression management and communication skills. Whilst working at GM, DeLorean used his ability to talk convincingly to promote himself, by claiming credit for most work that his colleagues have produced. He also went to great lengths to fulfil the stereotype of a ‘young, highly successful executive with an entrepreneurial spirit’ (Conger 1990, p. 51). At the peak of his career in GM, he was considered a maverick and a risk taker who had bold dreams. Not surprisingly, DeLorean’s career with GM did not last long. He left the company in 1973. There were many speculations about his departure from GM. Some suggested that GM did not approve of his lifestyle; some implied it was DeLorean’s erratic behaviours and bad management practices that caused his career. Whatever the reason was, it did not stop this visionary leader to fulfil his ambition. He then set out to build a company of his own with the intention of breaking the hold that GM and other established companies at the time, had on the American auto industry.
Conger (1990) described DeLorean as a leader who produced group think circumstances and is incapable of understanding and accepting the views of others that are not congruent with his. He purportedly fired one executive from the board of the DeLorean company because of a disagreement with him. He surrounded himself with people who admire and agree with him. His charisma swayed investors. DeLorean’s high expectations and desires for the company eventually did not match the realities of the manufacturing and car industry at the time and ultimately ruined the company.
Many leaders hold on to certain ideas and vision tenaciously that they sometimes refuse to admit when they make a mistake resulting to the demise of the organisation. This is also applicable to leaders’ management practices. Leaders, at times, hang on to their ineffective management practices because they can’t bear being seen to be wrong. Management practices then, turn into liabilities. When leaders become ineffective and show signs of incompetence, they are exhibiting the dark side of leadership. According to Kellerman (2004), compared to leaders with personality issues, incompetent leaders have lesser negative impact and do the least damage. It is considered the lesser of two evils. However Slattery (2009) argues that incompetence and ineffectiveness harm the business over the long term. Businesses ran by incompetent leaders eventually reach a point where it can no longer respond effectively to external forces.
Leaders’ bad management practices are exhibited in various aspects: (1) failure to manage different groups of people which results to unproductive relationship with subordinates - this eventually leads to division in the organisation, (2) poor administrative skills, and (3) failure to develop future leaders (Conger 1990).
When leaders fail to lead their people, they become ineffective. The type of leadership that a leader displays is a big factor in determining his success in managing his subordinates. Some leaders are naturally aggressive and this may alienate potential supporters. When this happens, the leader has two options, either to change his leadership style and try to unify his people for the benefit of the organisation, or stick to his management practice, causing division. Conger (1990) cited the case of Ros Perrot during his short stint in GM as a board member, as a good example. Ros Perrot successfully ran a company called Electronic Data System (EDS). When EDS merged with GM, he was made a board member of GM. However, his leadership style did not fit in with the GM mould and eventually he was offered a lot of money to step down from the post. In the end, Perrot accepted $700 million in stock and left GM.
Some leaders who are so caught up in their vision fail to understand the importance of being involved in sorting out minute but necessary details. These leaders tend to become excited in developing an idea but fail to follow that idea through. When the idea turns into a reality, they feel the urge to move to another great initiative, leaving their people to pick up the pieces after them. Conger refers to them as ‘poor implementors’ (1990, p.54). The demise of Chrysler is partly attributed to Iaccoca’s failure to get involved in product development (Levin 1983). Iaccoca acknowledged his shortcomings and said ‘If I made one mistake, it was delegating all the product development and not going to a single meeting’ (Levin 1983, p. 267).
Leaders have naturally strong personalities and Conger (1990) claims that this is one of the major reasons why sometimes, they have difficulty in creating leaders out of their followers. This is not to say that leaders are not capable of coaching or even mentoring their subordinates, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Great leaders always often actively support and even train their subordinates, however Conger maintains that ‘it is extremely difficult for them to develop others to be leaders of equal power’ (1990, p. 55). Why this becomes a bad management practice becomes more apparent when a leader departs. When a leader fails to train and indentify a successor, he will create a leadership vacuum when he leaves.
Initial studies about dark side of leadership did not produce concrete definition about the concept, and presented a rather limited explanation of what it is about. Early definitions focused too much on describing the behaviour of the leaders and failed to incorporate two important factors: follower and environment. We have established in this paper that leadership goes hand in hand with followership and therefore, when leaders exhibit the dark side of leadership, followers are also partly involved in that process.
Strong leaders possess qualities that have negative and positive aspects which may present risks to organisations. Recent literature provides us with examples of organisational failures caused by leaders whose negative qualities outweighed the positive. Leaders who cause the destruction of their organisations have one thing in common: they put their needs before their organisation and their people. Leadership, then, is used to serve one’s self and nothing else matters, this results to devastating consequences for the organisation.
There may not be a concrete solution to stop leaders from causing and producing negative and destructive outcomes, but it is possible that their behaviours are minimized by becoming aware of their potential and taking sensible and fitting action. The amount of literature and the continuous study being done on the subject of leadership will enable organisations and educational institutions to train future leaders in managing their qualities to grow and sustain their organisations in the presence of threats and catastrophic risks.
References
Barbuto, J.E. 2005, ‘Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of Antecedents’, Paper 39, Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, viewed 17 May 2012, <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/39>
Conger, J.A. 1990, The Dark Side of Leadership, viewed 16 May 2012, <http://carmine.se.edu/cvonbergen/The%20Dark%20Side%20of%20Leadership.pdf>
CranfieldSOM, 2010, The Dark Side of Leadership, video online, viewed 16 May 2010, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp3KczF4kDA>
Eaton, J. 2001, ‘Management Communication: The Threat of GroupThink’, Corporate Communications, vol.6, no.4, p.183.
Emmons, R. 1997, ‘Narcissism: Theory and Measurement’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, no.1, pp.11-17.
Goldman, A. 2006, ‘Personality disorders in leaders: Implications of the DSM IV-TR in Assessing Dysfuncational Organizations’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp.392-414.
Hogan, R. 2006, The Dark Side of Leadership, at Australian Psychological Society, 14-15 July, viewed 16 May 2012, <http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/assets/files/symp06_robert_hogan.pdf>
Kellerman, B. 2004, Bad Leadership: What it is, How it happens, Why it matters, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Levin, H. 1983, Grand Delusion: The Cosmic Career of John De Lorean, Viking Press, New York.
Slattery, C. 2009, The Dark Side of Leadership: Troubling Times at the Top, Seamann & Slattery, viewed 17 May 2012,
< www.semannslattery.com/file_download/156/>
Takala, T. 2005, Charismatic Leadership and Power, viewed 17 May 2012, <http://www.businessperspectives.org/journals_free/ppm/2005/PPM_EN_2005_03_Takala.pdf>
