Have you ever worked with an arrogant boss who doesn't listen to people, doesn't accept criticism, makes unrealistic demands, puts constant pressure on people, controls all activities, is always ready to point out other people's mistakes but doesn't take on his own, who is more interested in his career than in supporting his employees, who is never available or who destabilizes people with unpredictable moods? If you've experienced this, then you've worked with a toxic leader.
Leadership research has focused on the positive side of leadership, which contributes to the achievement of goals and the development of teams, but only more recently has it addressed the dysfunctional behaviors of leaders that destroy people's psychological balance and can lead companies to ruin.
These leaders have always existed, but the situation today is different. The competitive dynamics of business and professional careers, the pressure to achieve results and reduce costs, and the success they often achieve, have made toxic leadership an endemic phenomenon and accepted in many organizations as part of their culture.
Toxic leadership has enormous human and financial costs, and is a long-term threat to organizations. They are a silent poison. Yet many successful leaders behave toxicly and their successes are celebrated on the covers of the best magazines. Do the ends justify the means?
Dysfunctional leadership manifests itself in various ways
In recent years, serious problems related to professional stress, mental health at work and corruption in positions of power have drawn attention to the dark side of leadership: the impact of dysfunctional or destructive leadership on employees, productivity and business sustainability.
Dysfunctional leaders engage in a diverse range of destructive behaviors, which allows them to be classified into three categories.
Incompetent leaders. These are leaders who do not contribute to the objectives of the team or the organization. The causes may be a lack of knowledge or professional experience, or the absence of leadership skills. They are unable to define a strategy, set objectives, control results, inspire employees, make decisions, manage conflicts, mobilize resources and remove obstacles. They have communication difficulties and lack the emotional intelligence to deal with others and themselves. The central problem with incompetent leaders is their lack of management and leadership skills, which results in ineffectiveness in their role.
Unethical leaders. They reveal values and attitudes outside socially accepted standards, and make decisions that break ethical or legal norms. They negatively influence the behaviour of employees and other partners, contributing to the normalization of illegal or ethically reprehensible behaviour. Ethical breaches call into question the organization's mission, relationships of trust, the reputation of the business and, in some cases, its viability.
Toxic leaders. This refers to leaders who contribute, consciously or not, with their attitudes and continued behavior, to the deterioration of interpersonal relationships, generating an environment of psychological malaise in employees and other partners. Their behaviors are like toxins that poison the work environment, manifesting themselves in attitudes of rudeness, disrespect, humiliation, authoritarianism, arbitrariness, bullying, obsessive control, egocentrism, discrimination and favoritism, which become permanent sources of stress and psychological suffering for others.
What are toxic leaders?
The term was coined by Marta Whicker in 1996 in her book Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad. The author used the metaphor of traffic lights to distinguish between reliable leaders (green light), leaders in transition (yellow light) and toxic leaders (red light). She characterized these as “maladjusted, disgruntled and often malevolent and malicious people... who confront and control their employees rather than inspire them... and succeed by tearing others down”.
An official US Army document defines toxic leaders very realistically: they are those who “consistently use dysfunctional behaviors to deceive, intimidate, coerce or unfairly punish others in order to get what they want from them”. But the definition most generally accepted by the scientific community was proposed by Lipman-Blumen: toxic leaders are “people who, because of their destructive behaviours and dysfunctional personal characteristics, cause serious and lasting damage to the individuals, groups, organizations and communities, and even nations they lead”.
In summary, a comprehensive definition of toxic leadership includes the following elements.
The leader's behaviors cause others to feel psychologically unwell over time, deteriorating personal relationships, productivity and attachment to the organization.
Toxic behaviors last over time and therefore deteriorate the working environment.
Toxic leadership can affect not only direct employees, but all business partners, including the company's external relations, and in the most serious cases can lead to its extinction.
Toxic behaviors can take many different forms, but what distinguishes them best are their destructive effects on personal relationships and performance, and the toxic dynamics they produce.
There are several types of toxic leaders
Toxic leadership is a multidimensional concept. It encompasses a wide range of behaviors that make up various types. Many typologies of toxic leadership have been proposed, some using animal metaphors. This is a typology that includes the seven most cited categories.
Abusive Leadership
This leader ridicules subordinates and tells them they are incompetent. He reminds them of their mistakes and failures. Criticizes and belittles subordinates to others. Uses rude and hostile verbal and non-verbal language. Likes to exploit people's weaknesses. Humiliates employees in the eyes of others. You contradict people without listening to them. Is incapable of praising or valuing good performance. Has discriminatory, favoritist or bullying attitudes. Creates an environment of fear and intimidation. Discourages informal relationships, initiatives and open discussions.
Authoritarian leadership
Closely controls the performance of tasks and invades the privacy of others. Ignores ideas that contradict their own and does not allow employees to innovate. Is inflexible in complying with the organization's rules and policies, and makes all decisions regardless of their importance. He prefers disciplined and obedient employees and rejects people who show initiative and critical thinking. Assumes positions of authority, prefers downward communication and negative feedback. Uses a cold, distant, intimidating and punitive style.
Narcissistic leadership
This leader focuses on him or herself. They are the center of gravity of everything that revolves around them. They think they are more capable than others and have the right to make all the decisions. They see themselves as extraordinary. They don't listen to others and react badly when they are contradicted. They are arrogant and inflexible and won't admit their mistakes. Rejects negative feedback on their actions. Lacks empathy and ignores other people's feelings. They use charm and manipulation and attract with their rhetoric. Likes to be in the spotlight and receive praise. He thinks he is destined for the top because others follow him and recognize him.
Self-promotional leadership
Puts their personal interests first. Seeks to stand out in order to highlight successes and get noticed. Changes their behavior when their superiors are present. Does not take responsibility for the mistakes that occur in the team and tends to blame them on others. Acts according to his own interests and supports people who can help him get ahead. Takes credit for successes that don't belong to them. Gives preferential treatment to those who can give him an advantage. Strives to be well-liked by superiors and to establish relationships with the highest decision-making levels. Competes with colleagues to obtain the positions and challenges that can benefit them.
Controlling Leadership
Exercises power by closely and systematically controlling employees. Sets impossible goals and makes unreasonable demands. He tries to find fault and identify mistakes that are made. He manages closely and is detail-oriented, and always wants to be informed about what people are doing. Comments on mistakes in a punitive way. He doesn't trust his employees to make decisions or take initiatives and therefore doesn't delegate. He prefers to carry out the tasks himself so that he feels sure of the results. Doesn't like decisions to be made without being consulted.
Unpredictable leadership
He has explosive reactions and his mood determines the climate in the workplace. You show signs of being angry without your employees realizing why. Your mood affects the tone and volume of your voice. People try to guess your mood and approach problems by taking advantage of the most favorable opportunities. You use inconsistent criteria when making decisions. The unpredictability of their reactions generates feelings of insecurity and mistrust, and raises anxiety levels in the team.
Absent leadership
This leader does not maintain personal contact with employees or provide them with the necessary support. They are often unavailable. They avoid personal closeness and informal relationships. Has cold and distant relationships with the team. Gives little or no feedback even when asked. Only tends to react when they receive bad news. You don't share your knowledge and experience, nor do you invest in people's development. Employees feel insecure due to a lack of clear guidelines and feedback on performance.
Toxic leadership has serious consequences at all levels
In his book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't , awarded best management book of 2007, the application of the “Zero Asshole Rule” to combat toxic leaders. Based on an extensive field study, the author distinguishes between “temporary jerks”, who may have unhappy moments, and “certified jerks”, who with their persistent attitudes deteriorate relationships and the business, and gives some examples: Al Dunlap, Scot Rudin and Michael Eisner. The author proposes that companies, before taking concrete measures, calculate the TCA (Total Cost of Jerks), evaluating variables such as redundancy payments, the number of hours human resources spend managing the problems caused and the cost of replacing departing employees.
But toxic leadership doesn't just have financial costs. Above all, they have negative consequences for people, teams and the organization. They affect the direct victims and also, indirectly, their colleagues, those who witness the destructive behavior, the family and friends of those involved.
The effects at an individual level can be seen on several levels, and may vary depending on the type of toxic behavior, the sensitivity of those affected and the work context. In general, on a psychological level, there is a reduction in self-esteem, increased levels of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, depression and burnout, emotional disinvestment in work, difficulties concentrating, irritability, frustration and anger. People become risk-averse, afraid of making mistakes and decisions. They avoid taking initiatives and making suggestions, retreat into routines and inhibit creative processes. In other cases, they opt for indifference and do the bare essentials to keep their jobs. On a physical level, chronic fatigue, insomnia and gastric disorders are common.
The effects of toxic leadership on performance are equally serious. They reduce motivation, work engagement, productivity and organizational citizenship behaviours. They increase absenteeism and conflicts at work, intentions to leave the company and counter-productive behaviors: retaliation, sabotage, non-cooperation, inaccurate information and overzealousness. Toxic leadership destroys trust, degrades the effectiveness of organizations and has collateral consequences: it increases conflict between work colleagues and in the family context through the emotional transference mechanisms that are very common in these cases.
Several studies show that the negative effects of toxic leadership are mediated by stress and emotional exhaustion. Toxic leaders impose high workloads, limit the use of resources, exert constant pressure, increase uncertainty and provoke conflictual relationships. This induces high levels of stress and emotional exhaustion, thus affecting psychological well-being, motivation and productivity.
Toxic leaders can be successful and recognized
Toxic leadership is difficult to detect and combat because these leaders are often competent professionals who have the support of their superiors and their own employees, shaping the work environment and the culture of organizations.
Leadership is often defined as a process of influence aimed at achieving objectives. This definition is dangerously incomplete because it focuses on the end and ignores the means. Many toxic leaders are people who, with their high professional competence, dedication and energetic style, achieve exceptional results. Their success explains why they remain in their organizations, why they receive recognition from their superiors and, in many cases, why they are promoted to top positions.
If we adopt a narrow concept of leadership skills, toxic leaders can be considered competent and effective insofar as they achieve their objectives and contribute to the organization's goals.
It is, however, a transitory success which, in the long term, sacrifices the physical and emotional health of employees, destroys work teams and, not infrequently, wipes out the companies themselves.
This is what Ma, Karri and Chittipeddi call “the paradox of managerial tyranny”. Toxic leaders don't succeed with people, but at their expense. The success of these leaders is unsustainable in the medium to long term because they are destroying human capital. The problem is further exacerbated when career development criteria only consider results, and not how they are achieved, placing these leaders in positions of ever greater responsibility. Toxic leadership is thus encouraged and rewarded, and its negative influence affects more and more people, creating the illusion that it is the key to success. In the long run, however, objectives will only continue to be achieved with people's commitment, effective and cohesive teams, and climates of trust. This is precisely what toxic leadership destroys.
The toxic triangle
The support that toxic leaders often get from business partners, including employees, and the way they are encouraged by organizational cultures, show that a rigorous analysis of toxic leadership cannot be reduced to the leader's behaviour. As Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser argue, the explanation of the toxic phenomenon cannot be “leader-centric” because the same leader can have a toxic relationship with only a few employees and depending on the context. Even the most toxic leaders are not always toxic. We therefore need to explain the toxic phenomenon by considering other factors, specifically the dynamic relationship of three elements: the personal traits of the leader, the susceptibility of the employees and other partners, and the favorability of the context.
It is the dynamics of this toxic triangle that explain how the leader's toxic behaviors can have the passive acceptance of some partners, who are vulnerable to their influence because they satisfy their needs, can have the active support of those who share their vision and want to help make it a reality, and the opposition of those who are victimized by their attitudes, reacting with counter-productive behaviors. The context includes the objective conditions in which relationships develop, and the values and policies that define the organization's culture.
The idea that employees and organizations (and society in general) can't tolerate toxic leaders is therefore untrue. On the contrary, what we see is that in many cases they want them, produce them and promote them, which means that toxic leaders can result from toxic systems and not just dysfunctional personalities. The “lidocentric” perspective is reductive but still widely accepted, due to the prominence and visibility of leaders and the difficulty in analyzing the complexity of contexts.
Let's see how each of the three elements can contribute to the outbreak of the toxic phenomenon.
The characteristics of the leader
We know that exercising power encourages displays of aggression and arrogance, reduces listening and makes feedback more selective. It reduces sensitivity to other people's problems and encourages a feeling of impunity. Power leads to frequent rationalizations to justify bad decisions and adverse reactions from others. This phenomenon, which David Owen called “hubris syndrome” or “presumption syndrome”, had already been identified by the Greeks as the excesses in the use of power that lead leaders to a dishonorable end.
However, Lord Acton's assertion that power corrupts cannot be accepted. Power creates the conditions for the manifestation of personality traits that can favor constructive leadership or dysfunctional behavior. But power also tests individual psychological and moral control mechanisms over leadership behaviors and, above all, over the purposes for which power is used. People with a narcissistic profile and a high need for power can either use it to serve their own personal interests or to dominate others, or to achieve the noblest goals in the service of society. Power does not corrupt. It reveals both our deepest impulses and our ability to control them.
As destructive as they are for the majority of the team, toxic leaders can have many supporters. The reason is simple: the emergence of toxic leaders is stimulated by the fact that, in many cases, they respond to the fundamental needs of business partners, especially the need for security, predictability and the achievement of operational results.
In general, people aspire to avoid crises, threats and situations of uncertainty that jeopardize their lives or their control over events, and seek the protection of guardianship figures led by the authority of toxic leaders.In crisis contexts, these leaders can give us a reading of reality, a framework of security for action and hope for the future.
Many people project their attitudes, expectations and desires onto these leaders and expect them to be able to fulfill them. In these cases, the leader is perceived and supported as a savior. As Freud said, most people need authority because they long for the father figure that has lived in us since childhood.
Another reason for tolerating or supporting toxic leaders lies in our social nature. People need to feel integrated into groups and accepted by others, while avoiding exclusion and ostracism. Belonging to groups reinforces a sense of security and self-esteem, and is a central element in the construction of identity and our view of the world. Toxic leaders sometimes exploit the fear of rejection and isolation, convincing people that only by accepting their influence can they remain socially integrated.
Toxic leaders are most often supported by people with low self-esteem, immature, dependent, insecure or with little critical sense.
This is why support for toxic leadership can also be explained by
explained by the satisfaction of needs for status, reputation, social visibility or recognition. There are also cases in which adherence to toxic leadership can be a means of social and professional promotion, open up access to reference groups and boost self-confidence. For some authors, boosting confidence and self-esteem is the mechanism that toxic leaders use most often to gain support.
Supporters of toxic leaders can be classified into three groups.The “conformists” are people with low self-esteem, insecure and unable to stand up to the leader. They may disagree and even be victimized by the leader's behaviour, but they submit and side with power.The second type are the “connivers”.They support the leader because they share his ideas and attitudes, and find a rationale for his toxic behavior.
The third type are the “beneficiaries”. They may disagree with the leader but they support him because they benefit from his toxic leadership. This support can be justified on pragmatic grounds. The leader can open doors to a new job or social visibility, facilitate career progression or guarantee the results they want to achieve for themselves or the organization. They are ambitious and calculating supporters who would only lose out if they didn't support the leader. This is the case with the support that many toxic leaders receive from subordinates with career ambitions, and from management and shareholders for the results they are able to deliver.
The fact that toxic leadership can respond to the important needs of the followers doesn't mean that they always have to play a passive role. There are cases in which it is the followers themselves who create toxic leadership. A functional leader can be so sensitive to the needs and expectations of those around him that he can start to adopt toxic behaviors. Pressure from above to achieve results or make changes, flattery from employees, high expectations of the leader or group unity against the leader's positions can all lead to dysfunctional use of power and the adoption of toxic behavior.
The influence of context
An analysis of toxic leadership must also consider the context in which leaders and partners relate. The organizational environment can be a determining factor in the development of leadership dysfunctions. Crisis environments characterized by risk and unpredictability favour toxic leadership. Not only are leaders pressured into dysfunctional behavior, but those they lead are also more likely to accept it. In the face of a threat, toxic leadership can be seen as the best way to control the situation.
Geert Hofstede's cultural model provides a clear framework for interpreting the broad cultural determinants of toxic leadership. These leaders tend to have more support in cultures characterized by high power distance, collectivism and uncertainty avoidance, dimensions that characterize Latin cultures and traditional Portuguese society. High power distance cultures see society as hierarchical and power as unequally distributed. They therefore accept the existence of toxic leadership more normally. Collectivist societies believe that groups should protect their members and that everyone should defend the unity of the groups to which they belong. They therefore prefer strong leaders who maintain unity and reward loyalty. In cultures characterized by an aversion to uncertainty, people reject disorder, risk and ambiguity. They prefer the rule of law and authority. These expectations make them more vulnerable to strong leaders who aim to guarantee security and predictability.
Toxic leadership is more likely in highly competitive and goal-oriented organizational environments, in contexts of crisis or serious threat, in highly hierarchical structures and whenever systems for monitoring and controlling the use of power are lacking. This is also the case in organizations with fragile values, where the psychological well-being of employees is ignored and there is no regular feedback on leadership behaviour. In this type of environment, the way is open for dysfunctional leadership.
There is also evidence that organizations themselves can contribute to reinforcing a toxic culture by aggravating its traits. The phenomenon can be explained by the ASA theory (Attraction, Selection and Attrition) proposed by Schneider, Goldstein and Smith. People are attracted to organizations whose culture has similar values and practices to their attitudes. On the other hand, organizations choose candidates with personal attributes in line with their culture and practices. Finally, those who accept the dominant values and practices tend to stay in the organization and those who feel uncomfortable because they are different tend to leave. In this way, the traits of a toxic leadership culture tend to become more homogeneous and more pronounced over time.
The dynamic relationship between the elements of the toxic triangle suggests the hypothesis that toxic leadership manifests itself when the toxic potential of one of the elements is not offset by the other two. Solid organizational structures and cultures neutralize the action of destructive personalities or can prevent them from manifesting. Self-confident and critical employees can also react positively and be an obstacle to destructive leadership behavior. Similarly, a situation of crisis and uncertainty can be overcome by effective leadership and cultures founded on solid values.
The toxic effect of leadership develops in a spiral
There is a very common dynamic in toxic leadership which can be described as a toxic spiral, and which helps to understand how toxic leaders exercise their power of contagion, undermining the functioning of the organization. As we have seen, many toxic leaders are successful in the short term and this tends to be perceived as proof of their effectiveness. As toxic behavior becomes routine, employees develop survival strategies that can include confrontation, indifference, absenteeism, sabotage tactics or leaving the organization. Faced with a scenario of demotivation and a drop in performance, the leader has no choice but to aggravate the toxic behaviors he or she was already using. Employees react by intensifying their reactions. This creates a spiral dynamic that gradually destroys the team and is only stopped when the leader is replaced.
The toxic spiral is also fed by the “promotion of toxicity” which is another way in which toxic behaviors increase their contagious power: the transient successes of toxic leaders serve as an example to other leaders and are recognized by superiors who tend to promote them to positions of greater responsibility. As they move up the hierarchy, their toxic effect is magnified and they are more powerful agents in shaping the culture. This escalation contributes to the creation of “successful toxic cultures”.
How can we prevent and combat toxic leadership?
Preventing and combating toxic leadership is related to the alignment of three factors: the motivations of leaders, the receptiveness of employees/partners and the favorability of the situation. The most serious toxic climates occur when leaders behave destructively, others encourage them, and the organizational context favours dysfunctional practices. On the other hand, the strength of one of the elements can prevent toxic contagion even if the others favor it. These are some measures to prevent and combat toxic leadership.
How to prevent and combat toxic leaders?
1- Many leaders are so fixated on immediate success that they are unaware of the damage they are doing with the way they relate to others. They need to receive honest feedback from their employees and other partners, accompanied by coaching support, in order to interpret and integrate the information, and try out new approaches to leadership relationships.
2- It is important to promote reflection on the relationship between short-term results, long-term costs and business sustainability. A more integrated and strategic vision prioritizes the success of the company and the establishment of positive relationships with all partners.
3- Resist the temptation to select and evaluate leaders solely on the basis of results. Also value the interpersonal relationship patterns they use to achieve them. Leaders should be assessed by the concept of “sustainable high performance”, i.e. the ability to create teams of excellence that serve long-term objectives. To this end, an in-depth psychological assessment of personality and performance in previous roles is essential before decisions are made on hiring and promotion to leadership roles.
4- Career progression and the allocation of rewards should also not depend solely on results, but should be linked to assessments of the climate and psychological well-being of teams.
5- The performance of leadership roles should always be preceded by training in team management and leadership, with a particular focus on communication, feedback and emotional intelligence skills.
6- Firing toxic leaders may seem like the simplest and most effective solution. However, in addition to the legal and compensation issues, it can elude the influence of other factors such as the inadequate reaction of employees and the favorable context for toxic behavior. In this case, new leadership can replicate the problem.
What can employees do?
Preventing and eradicating toxic leadership is not the job of employees, but the responsibility of organizations. However, when they don't have prevention, warning and control mechanisms in place, employees can adopt some good practices to deal with the situation and minimize the damage to their health and productivity.
1- Facilitate the response to the pressures and challenges to which the leader is subjected by the upper levels of management. Focus on achieving the results that most contribute to the leader's success in their role.
2- Understand the leader's management style and work habits. What motivates them? What things do you hate? How does he manage his time? What are his idiosyncrasies?
3- Understand how and when to communicate with the leader, to keep him informed, and present him with data to facilitate decision-making.
4- Have regular meetings with the leadership, keep communication channels open and always bring problems with solutions.
5- Be the first to report mistakes and failures so that the leader doesn't find out about them from third parties.
6- Do not react to provocations or destructive attitudes. Focus on the facts and avoid personal confrontations. Focus on objectives and maintain productivity. In some cases it is preferable to distance yourself emotionally and avoid exposing yourself to the leader.
7- Treat the leader with respect and don't engage in criticism or venting in their absence. Avoid being friendly and cordial in their presence and making unpleasant references when talking about them to third parties. Do not collude with colleagues.
8- It is important to be aware that toxic leadership is dangerous for your psychological health and professional future. Take notes to document toxic behavior so that you can share it with the Human Resources Department or a control body. Periodically take stock of the relationship with the leadership. If you can't cope with the relationship and feel it's jeopardizing your psychological health, it's time to leave.
How to change the context?
Measures to change the contexts that favor toxic leadership can only be taken by top management. These are changes that require concerted action at the level of strategy, policies and leadership practices.
1- Include physical and psychological well-being, fair treatment and inclusion in the company's strategy.
2- Define policies for recruitment, selection, training, performance evaluation, rewards and career development that are less focused on results and more demanding in terms of promoting constructive relationships and discouraging toxic behavior.
3- Have leadership skills development programs that accompany the various career stages.
4- Regular use of 360º feedback, supported by coaching sessions.
5- Conduct periodic climate analyses and audits to monitor leadership behaviors and their impact on partners.
6- Create specific bodies and channels to collect and deal with reports of dysfunctional behavior in the exercise of leadership.
7- Strengthen the internal organization and governance system with monitoring and control bodies and a system of checks and balances to prevent toxic leadership at the highest levels of responsibility.
Toxic leadership is a pathology that affects many organizations. They have been ignored in some cases and glorified in others. Their occasional successes hide the damage they do to people's health, team performance and the sustainability of organizations. The pressure for short-term results, competition for success and unbridled personal ambitions continue to fuel this phenomenon. Isn't it time to stop and think about whether the ends justify the means?
Luís Caeiro | Lecturer at CATÓLICA-LISBON Executive Education