Overview

“This stimulating collection tackles the question that is uppermost in most of humanity's minds and hearts right now. The novel debating approach that is taken generates a rich understanding of the range of ways in which bad leadership is created, manifested and most importantly, remedied.” - Professor Brad Jackson, Waikato Management School, The University of Waikato, New Zealand     “In the midst of a world full of incompetent and incoherent leaders this book is exactly what we need: a veritable cornucopia of critical leadership studies.” - Keith Grint, Professor Emeritus, Warwick Business School, UK   “While we like to have leaders who guide, looking at the present state of the world, there are far too many leaders who misguide. It makes this anthology on bad leadership more than timely. The various contributors, taking many different perspectives, highlight the ways leaders can go astray.In these very difficult times, this book will be a must read for anybody interested in this subject.” - Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries, Clinical Professor of Leadership   “Debating Bad Leadership, edited by Anders Örtenblad, is a book for this time! The rise of populism and the emergence of so-called ‘strong’ leaders in many countries have created a social, political, and economic climate that begs for closer examination of the origins, characteristics, and forms of, especially, bad leadership. Taking as its starting-point the question of why there are so many bad leaders in the corporate world, the impressive collection of chapters compiled in Debating Bad Leadership canvasses a comprehensive array of issues ranging from toxic, psychopathic, leadership and ethical failure to issues of poor selection, ill-considered recruitment, leader (in)competence, conflicted or weak followership, to the very concept of leadership itself.In debating these fundamental issues, this book illuminates and educates, and offers some remedies, both theoretically and practically. Debating Bad Leadership challenges scholars, students and practitioners of leadership to continue this fundamental discussion, for the benefit of us all.” - Gabriele Lakomski Professor Emeritus, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia. In this book, leadership experts explore why there are so many bad leaders, and suggest remedies for how the current situation could be improved. Some of the experts suggest that reasons for why bad leaders are so common are searched for in people: more specifically leaders-to-become, acting leaders or followers. Others suggest that reasons are to be found in the leadership role (or expectations on those having such role), in the lack of support for leaders, or in beliefs about leadership. On the backdrop of their suggested explanations as towhy there are so many bad leaders, the experts suggest remedies that could be taken to decrease the number of bad leaders as well as their negative impact. The very presumption that this book rests upon also gets its fair share of critique, by some of the experts.   Anders Örtenblad is Professor of Working Life Science at the University of Agder, Norway. He is the editing founder of the book series Palgrave Debates in Business and Management. 

Full Product Details

Author:   Anders Örtenblad
Publisher:   Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Imprint:   Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Edition:   1st ed. 2021
Weight:   0.572kg
ISBN:  

9783030650278

ISBN 10:   3030650278
Pages:   406
Publication Date:   03 April 2022
Audience:   Professional and scholarly ,  Professional & Vocational
Format:   Paperback
Publisher's Status:   Active
Availability:   Manufactured on demand  
We will order this item for you from a manufactured on demand supplier.

Table of Contents

"Foreword (Barbara Kellerman, USA)   Preface by Anders Örtenblad   1. Background and introduction: Why a book on explanations for the occurrence of so many bad leaders? Anders Örtenblad The introductory chapter gives a background to why there is reason to discuss why there are so many bad leaders. It starts off by defining “bad” as well as “leader”, some arguments in support of that there in fact are many “bad” leaders. Thereafter, the remaining chapters of the book and introduced and presented. They are connected to a few basic “leadership assumptions”. Finally, a few explanations to why there are so many bad leaders that are not dealt with elsewhere in the book, are briefly suggested.   SECTION I. INSUFFICIENT LEADERSHIP EDUCATION A basic assumption here is that better/good leadership can be learnt. This section contains chapters that focus on insufficient leadership education as the main explanation as to why there are so many bad leaders, and – thus – offer explicit or implicit suggestions for improving the situation that are in line with more/better leadership education.   2.    For the cause of bad leaders, look to bad schooling Robert Sternberg The causes of bad leadership, like the causes of any complex phenomenon, are themselves complex. But if one wants to understand at least some of the causes of bad leaders, look to bad schooling. Bad schooling is a proximate cause through which are channeled numerous distal causes. First, economic inequality, which has been rising in much of the world, leaves people desperate for solutions: Why are they poor when their neighbors are rich? Why are their economic outcomes worse than their parents""? Why are they poorer than they were ten years ago? There are multiple sources of income inequality, such as increasingly capitalistic societies, increasing automation of lower level jobs, increasing outsourcing of jobs, and increasing sending of jobs abroad where they can be done more cheaply. But to recognize these complex causes requires critical thinking, and schools are doing a poor job of educating students for critical thinking. Instead, schools are placing inordinate emphasis on memorization of often useless facts. Populists, often would-be autocrats, take advantage of the lack of critical thinking on the part of their constituencies and seek easy targets to blame, such as immigrants (legal and illegal), members of certain religious or ethnic groups, or members of another political movement. People fall for populist arguments, and vote the populists in. Second, schools fail to teach students wise thinking, whereby they seek a common good for all, not just better outcomes for themselves. Populists appeal to the selfishness that is inherent in all of us: ""You are being hoodwinked and we are going to decimate those who are hoodwinking you."" So the people vote for someone who will take care of them, even if it means treating members of other groups badly. Third, schools put undue emphasis on cognitive simplicity rather than cognitive complexity. Real-world problems are complex. They usually do not admit of simple answers. Populist arguments appeal to the lowest common denominator and are based on simple sound bites rather than complex rationales. So the populists redefine complex problems to be simple, like the true-false or multiple-choice thinking of so many school tests, and people fall for it. Finally, schools do not encourage creative thinking, the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that might encourage fresh answers to old problems. People see the old solutions do not work, and instead of seeking new and creative solutions, they turn to the old solutions that have failed time and again, such as blaming anyone for their woes except themselves. Thus, the focus of my chapter will be on the failure of schools to teach the kinds of thinking students need to succeed in and make sense of their lives. I will describe what might be done to move beyond such truly lazy thinking so that people would no longer be inclined to choose or accept as leaders populists who offer simple non-viable solutions to complex real-world problems.   3.        The culture of bad organization leadership in Sub-Saharan Africa: Why contexts matter Muhammed Abdulai Leaders strive to make competent decisions all the time and will seek to suppress those factors which they perceive as compromising the potential for generating quality decisions. In this regard, leadership is the process of influencing the thinking, attitudes and behaviours of others by the led towards the attainment of common goals in politics, business, and organisation. In this study, I argued that the ability of leaders to influence the thinking; attitudes and behaviours of the led could be culturally and contextually dependent. In the context of Sub-Saharan Africa, issues of why there are so many bad leaders within the political, business and organizational environments could be explained from the perspectives of socio-cultural contexts where the leaders and the led are raised. In light of this, the study analyses the perspective of departmental heads at both public and private organizations on the influence of socio-cultural contexts on bad leadership decisions in the Northern, Upper-East and West regions of Ghana. The study revealed that there are so many bad leaders in Ghana, and it could be attributed to the fact that it is culturally not normal to criticise the policies and leadership styles of those in authority.Therefore, I assumed that the cultural variables the followers are socialised with have inhibit them from critiquing those in authority thereby resulting into the occurrence of so many bad leaders in Ghana. In view of this, if those in authority could get feedback from the led, there could improve on their leadership style, decisions, and become better leaders. Again, it is recommended that those in leadership positions in Ghana should be trained on the cultural dimension of bad leadership in Africa, and why they should appreciate why their style of leadership, policies and programs should be examined and criticised by the led.   4.    Leadership in education Jacky Lumby If education is the foundation of society then its leaders hold a uniquely crucial and exposed role. However, research has revealed multiple layers of failure. Rather than the inspiring child-centred leader desired by families many leaders use aggressive tactics that put the interests of the organisation before that of children or students. With the entry into the sector of private corporations and increasing competition, leaders exclude inconveniently challenging learners, manipulate examination entry, Institute zero tolerance regimes and gameplay inspection. Their ethics and practice fail children, particularly vulnerable children. Layered above this is a second level of failure as leaders focus on preparing children for a world of the past. Climate change and artificial intelligence render current forms of education and its leadership outmoded. Leaders in education fail to prepare all our children for the kind of future that existed to date, and they also fail to prepare children for the new kind of future that is rapidly approaching. Not all leaders in education are bad, but many are and the consequences for society are potentially calamitous.   5.    There is no such thing as a bad leader – just wrong capabilities for our times Fabian Dattner In the entirety of human history, the planet has been abundant. Our brain developed in this context. We discovered we could bend the environment to suit our needs. Mostly control and power (over environment, people and assets) were exercised by men. There was no break on our greed. There was always more – more to eat, to own, to create. This carved our approach to leadership. Our own successful history. In this environment, strong dominated weak: rich over poor, educated over uneducated, men over women. We valued, in our leaders, individual strength – aggression, I over we, short term wins. Today, confusingly, we are better educated, better fed, less disease and less warfare than ever before. So clearly leadership at some level is working. But something far bigger than human activity is now at play. The evidence is mounting that the planet cannot sustain our voracious, selfish approach to resources. In large part, leadership today is an exercise in unrestrained greed because there was never a consequence to our behaviour. Today there is. So why are there so many bad leaders? There aren’t. We are a consequence of our own evolutionary success. Unfortunately, very few (who weren’t themselves scientists) realised the cost of how we were leading. No one ever said that eventually, the planet would spit our species out. Bad is a relative word; an aggressive leader serves you well when you are under attack from a single threat – likely another aggressive leader. But not now. The current suite of rewarded leadership capabilities will see our species extinct or radically reduced within 100 years (if we are lucky). Yes we need more women. But mostly we need all leaders to shift to inclusive, collaborative and legacy minded leadership. How will this be solved? The answer is surprisingly simple and, if truth be told, manifestly unlikely to happen. For every $100 spent on innovation, infrastructure, transport, building, technology, entertainment, spend $10 on building the leadership capability that will guide our use of the output. Educate leaders. Build genuine and evidence based self awareness, teach the skills of collaboration and inclusion, test the skill of leaders by measuring the response to their leadership. Reward what happens to an organisation 5 years after a leader leaves. Why is this unlikely to happen? Because you don’t commit to solve a problem you simply do not understand and incumbent leadership doesn’t understand that they are part of the problem. How do we shift this? As has always been the case, listen carefully to the people. The stories of the future are writ large in the big patterns of the present.   SECTION II. INSUFFICIENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT A basic assumption here is that better/good leadership can come true through appropriate leadership development. This section contains chapters that focus on insufficient leadership development as the main explanation as to why there are so many bad leaders, and – thus – offer explicit or implicit suggestions for improving the situation that are in line with more/better leadership development.   6.    Heads above the rest: The cognitive demands of leading the modern organization Tom Giberson This chapter takes the position that 1) there are many “bad leaders,” and 2) the reason for this is that the leadership demands/needs of (post-)modern organizations is beyond the developed capacity of the majority of the population, and thus beyond the developed capacity of most leaders. The case for “bad leaders” will be made by publicly available data of leadership effectiveness, including such measures as organizational performance, employee engagement, etc. Robert Kegan’s (1982, 1994) theory of adult development provides the theoretical framework for the chapter’s primary argument and suggestions for “what to do about it.” The title of Kegan’s second book on the subject—In Over Our Heads (1994)—summarizes nicely the developmental challenge of everyday life in (post-)modern society. In this chapter, the author will specifically apply Kegan’s theory to the challenges before today’s leaders that result from the mismatch between the demands of the environment and leaders’ developed capacity to successfully navigate these demands. In short, the demands on the (post-)modern leader are simply more complex than most leaders’ developed capacity to be fully effective as leaders. Kegan’s approach to adult cognitive and emotional development integrates both the individual and the context in which the individual exists—whether in a work or non-working context—over the course of a lifetime. Key to Kegan’s theory are the concepts of orders of consciousness and subject-object. Kegan suggests that there are 5 primary levels of consciousness that humans have the potential to develop to or through over the course of their lifetime. While “in”—or held—in one of these levels, certain features of the self and outside world are held as object, and thus within our awareness and capacity to account for emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally—we can make informed choices based upon this awareness. One is subject to other internal and external features that vary in complexity across the stages; what one can hold as object and what one is subject to changes as one develops over time, experience, and maturity. As we develop in complexity and capacity, we can hold additional—and more complex—features of the self and environment as object; and what was once subject becomes object. Features of the self and external world that one is subject to are those features outside of our awareness and/or capacity to account for, and thus unconsciously limit our choices. In a very real way, one’s currently achieved order of consciousness identifies the aspects of the self and environment that we are emotionally and cognitively able to “hold” as object—and thus reflect on, consider as part of the system in which we operate, and therefore make choices about how we operate within our environment. Those aspects of the self and environment that we are subject to identify those aspects of the self that function similar to a computer—it runs the program without any recognition that a program is running—it simply does. For example, while held in the second order of consciousness (most typically experienced by children aged 9-13), one is able to hold as object one’s impulses (which one was subject to within the first order) and thus begins to socially self-regulate and not simply do whatever comes to mind without regard to the context. Individuals are simultaneously subject to their own needs, preferences, and self-concept, as they are incapable of holding these things as object. In contrast, an individual who has developed to the fifth and highest order of consciousness (a not-common achievement) is able to hold as object their own self-regulation, self-authorship, and self-formation. This enables such leaders to understand and separate their own perspective and related biases, shortcomings, etc., as well as the multitude of alternative views, opinions, cultures, personalities, etc. within the organizational system. As leaders, these individuals have the potential to find solutions despite the seemingly incompatible and competing demands, perspectives, interests, and systems at play (e.g., working within a global, matrixed organization) because they are not subject to them; rather, these leaders can hold such features as object. Such leaders are thus uniquely able to work more effectively within the complex (post-)modern organization. Leaders at lower orders simply have not developed the emotional and cognitive complexity to effectively lead given the sheer complexity and demands of the environment. The chapter will include specific examples of Kegan’s theory in action based upon the author’s 23 years of experience as an executive coach and consultant. The chapter will also include examples of how leaders and organizations might support leaders at various developmental stages to improve leader effectiveness, and thus, reduce the number of “bad leaders.” REFERENCES Kegan, Robert (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Kegan, Robert (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.    7.    Bad Bosses: Realities, Reasons and Remedies Charlie Kerns Alarmingly, the base rate for ineffective, incompetent and/or abusive leaders remains high and is a disappointing reality in too many organizations. Evidence of the negative impacts and costs that bad bosses have on workforces across the globe is growing. Some reasons for this circumstance can be linked to unintegrated leadership development efforts, misguided implementations of high performance work practices, and under utilization of well-being enhancement programs. Remedies may be gleaned from applied practice-oriented research with a bent toward providing practitioners with relevant frameworks and tools for enhancing workplace high performance with high well-being. Selective solutions may be targeted to impact strategic as well as operational organizational levels. This chapter takes on the topic of bad bosses by providing some evidence-based realities regarding this epidemic, exploring some reasons for this current state of affairs, and considering some ways to help remedy this dark and destructive side of leadership.   8.    Explaining vs. Responding to Ethical Failures in Leadership Terry L. Price One might think that the nature of the response to unethical leadership depends on the nature of its explanation. For example, if ethical failures in leadership are the result of self-interested behavior on the part of leaders, then we should arrange incentives so that ethical, not unethical behavior, ultimately pays off. Similarly, if unethical leadership is the result of a lack of understanding on the part of leaders about what ethics requires, then it would seem that an appropriate response would be to improve how leaders think about the ethics of their own behavior. I have elsewhere referred to these approaches as the “volitional account” and “the cognitive” account, respectively (Price, Understanding Ethical Failures in Leadership, CUP, 2006). In this chapter, I argue that both volitional and cognitive explanations of ethical failures in leadership call for a cognitive response. The basic argument is this: even if the source of unethical behavior is self-interest, leaders are unlikely to think of their behavior in this way and much more likely to rationalize their exception making in terms of the common good or some other purported justification. The best response to ethical failures in leadership is therefore a cognitive one, though not in the sense of teaching leaders what ethics requires. Rather, we must get leaders to understand their own propensity to justify what they do—indeed, sometimes using ethics itself as a tool in their justifications.   9.        The pending revolution of motives in business leaders. Nuria Chinchilla and Esther Jimenez We are facing a crisis of leadership in all areas: personal, family, social, and also business. This crisis is a crisis of values, a crisis of criteria / motives that leaders use in their daily decision-making processes. In this chapter we will deepen in the motivational learning of the leader and its impact on his/her vision of reality and on his/her leadership style.   SECTION III. INSUFFICIENT SELECTION PROCESSES A basic assumption here is that some have it, some have it not, and that it, thus, is a question of selecting the right people (that is, those who have it). This section contains chapters that focus on insufficient selection processes as the main explanation as to why there are so many bad leaders, and – thus – offer explicit or implicit suggestions for improving the situation that are in line with more sufficient recruitment and/or selection processes when it comes to leadership succession. Hence, it is a question of finding better measures through which those who have what it takes are selected, while deselecting those who have not what it takes.   10.                   Ethical Failure and Leadership—Treatment or Selection? Jessica Flanigan Many discussions of ethical failure in leadership explain ethical failure as a result of the challenges associated with leading. For example, in Ludwig and Longnecker’s seminal analysis of the Bathsheba Syndrome, they argue that modern-day leaders, like King David, are subject to ethical failure because they lose professional focus and develop an inflated sense of their own agency once they are successful. In contrast, Terry Price argues that leaders are disposed to ethical failure not because of their own weakness of will but because they develop false beliefs about the scope of moral requirement. Namely, leaders begin to believe that the rules do not apply to them. In this essay, I offer an alternative, though complimentary diagnosis of ethical failure in leadership. I argue that leadership always involves some form of relational inequality. People who are comfortable with assuming unequal relationships with people may display this disposition more robustly. I then review the theoretical reasons and empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis, which could explain the seeming correlation between leadership and ethical failure in terms of selection effects for leadership positions rather than exposure effects related to the demands of leadership. Though my approach is primarily philosophical, I also propose that this argument yields a useful hypothesis for further social scientific research.   11.                   The Importance of Reflective Practice to Improve Bad Leadership Richard Ladyshewsky Leaders (Managers) often move in to their positions because of their technical knowledge and expertise. There is an assumption that this excellence will translate in to being an effective leader/manager. All too often, however, this is not the case and leaders/managers then blame their team and others for poor departmental or organizational productivity. Leaders/Managers need to view their”‘leadership and management” role like any other professional needs to view their role. There are distinct competencies needed for effective leadership and management and individuals in these roles must have well developed reflective capabilities to understand their strengths and weaknesses. This self-awareness and ownership of deficits can then be harnessed to build development strategies to improve leadership/management practice. These practitioners need to be life-long learners in order to be effective. They must also look inwards for the solutions to many of the leadership and management challenges they face. Many of which might be caused by their lack of self-awareness!   12.    Why Good leaders make Bad decisions Jo Whitehead While there may be bad leaders, many bad decisions are made by good leaders who find themselves in the wrong situation. This creates a mis-match which leads to a corporate stumble or failure. There are two types of mis-match. The first is that their capabilities, which are typically honed for a particular business, are inappropriate for a new corporate challenge that they take on, or which is thrust upon them. The second type of mis-match relates to decision making biases. Decisions are made based on the experiences, prior judgments, self interests and attachments that the decision maker brings to a decision. These can be appropriate and helpful – for example, when dealing with a typical decision in the core business. But, they can be misleading if, for example, the decision maker is faced with a new situation. In this way, good leaders can end up acting as bad leaders.   SECTION IV. LEADERSHIP POSITIONS TURN THOSE OCCUPYING THEM BAD A basic assumption here is that anybody who takes on a leadership position may turn into a “bad” leader. This section contains chapters that focus on that it is the “design” of leadership positions in itself that transforms people and (good) leaders into bad leaders. It can be that the conditions for those occupying the positions are harmful to them in any way, or it may be that the positions are so very attractive, since they come together with power and benefits to an extent that makes it difficult for any holder of leadership positions to avoid abusing this power or/and these benefits. Thus, the chapters in this section suggest – explicitly or implicitly – that the situation might be improved by a “re-design” of leadership positions, to make them less harmful to the people who occupy them, inclusive of regulations limiting the opportunity to misuse ones power as leader or the benefits that one is offered.   13.    Nordic female leaders and their experiences of ‘bad leadership’: Cases from Iceland Einar Svansson and Sigrun Lilja Einarsdottir In this chapter, we put forward two related arguments: Firstly, that bad leaders are frequently the result of too much stress that they don´t cope with. This possible burnout can negatively affect their decision-making and the corporate culture. Bad leadership is a result of negative power dynamics and authoritarian tendencies that are counteractive to democratic leadership style and open dialogue. Bad leaders tend to shy away from delegating and trusting middle managers and co-workers resulting in too much workload and top-down decision making. This behaviour can lead to weaker, non-professional decision-making, tunnel vision and worse results for the organisations. At the same time, the top director will endure more stress and is in more danger of burn-out and in risk of deteriorating health and well-being. We emphasize that these leaders are not “bad” by nature but become “bad” due to harmful working conditions. Secondly, exemplary women leaders are interesting cases because they seem to cope with even more stress and difficult personal circumstances than men. Having said that, we’re not saying that women are necessarily better “by nature” to lead than men – however, company culture and cultural gender discrimination makes the corporate ladder more slippery for women than men and women are thus more likely to experience “bad leadership” on their way. Women are also more likely to be in overall more stressful conditions by shouldering more responsibilities in their personal life than men so women in management may have developed valuable methods to cope with stressful working conditions. The lessons we learn from the experiences of women leaders in terms of “bad leadership”; particularly women who have accomplished unusual success as top directors in their organisations, are important guidelines to improve management by controlling stress load and use coping techniques against burnout. The Nordic countries are in the forefront in terms of gender equality (OECD, 2018) and Nordic leadership style is considered open and informal. Bifröst University has in recent years focused on the Nordic Leadership Model (NLM) and conducted preliminary studies in Iceland testing the characteristics of Nordic leadership styles. This chapter reports primary findings from an Icelandic study on the characteristics of exemplary Icelandic female leaders and top managers and their leadership styles (based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with specially chosen group of women that have got nominations and/or prizes for excellent leadership record in recent year in Icelandic organizations). Findings indicate that participants provided various narratives on their experiences of bad leadership on behalf of some of their former superiors. Furthermore, they addressed their views on plausible causes that lead to ‘bad leadership’, such as burn-out as a result of too much workload, overwhelming responsibility and a lack of coping mechanisms and self-care (with women in a specific danger of burning out, due to more domestic responsibilities). In addition, results demonstrated that leaders who do not practice open and informal leadership style are less likely to gain trust from their employees, which might affect their leadership style and behaviour for the worse, and bad leaders tend to be more individualistic and self-oriented. Nordic female leaders have strong support from family and friends and are very active physically and mindful. How successful leaders cope with stress and burnout (such as with sports, leisure and mindfulness) can help to improve leadership tenure and minimise and/or lower the burnout effect in management.       14.    A Critical Leadership Theory Perspective Jennifer L. S. Chandler A critical examination of why there are so many bad leaders is accomplished through applying a critical leadership theory lens. One answer is simple according to critical leadership theory. People who want to exploit organizational systems, processes, and people to achieve their own aims strive to occupy what are commonly referred to as leadership positions. In fact, such people are often referred to as exemplary leaders, strong leaders, or natural leaders. Whether the desire for such positions stems from a craving for autonomy and agency or for accumulating personal resources, critical leadership theory asserts that there is an abundance of leaders deemed bad because they aim for goals that do not support human flourishing. These bad leaders’ goals may be unethical and harmful, or they may be simply misinformed and misaligned with the benefits the organization purports to generate. This chapter applies several critical leadership tenets to the question and explore those perspectives.   15.    Shining a light on toxic leadership George Boak The term “toxic leadership” was first coined by Jean Lipman-Blumen in 2005 in. A number of research papers since then have explored the “dark” characteristics and unethical behaviours of some leaders and managers, such as narcissism, Machiavellianism and hubris. The topic has been given extra relevance by corporate scandals, such as Enron, which caused some academic researchers to consider, or re-consider, their position on ethical leadership behaviour, then the banking crisis, and more recently by the Steinhoff scandal, the current France Telecom court case, the #MeToo movement, the Diesel Gate affair at Volkswagen, the Nissan-Renault investigations, and numerous allegations of bullying in different sectors. The chapter argues that bad (toxic) leaders are probably no more common than they were thirty years ago, and that they are not as numerous as the publicity would indicate. The chapter argues that these bad leaders arise through a combination of individual characteristics (such as narcissism) together with the opportunities for abuse of power that exist in many management positions, with the additional dynamic in more modern times of increasing business complexity and, in the West, growing inequality that has given rise to a sense of entitlement. The chapter also explores whether shining a light on toxic leadership appears likely to inhibit its practices, or whether this exposure may simply reinforce and habituate some of these toxic behaviours.   16.    Bad Leadership: The Role of Bad Followers George R. Goethals Some leaders are bad because of their personalities. For example, they may have the “dark triad” traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. But more are made bad by elements of the leader-follower dynamic. Followers’ needs for direction, protection and order, and for self-esteem, lead them to be all too ready to identify strongly with leaders in ways which disable them from challenging leaders’ authority. Freud identified the phenomenon of uncritical love for strong leaders which disables followers’ ability to think clearly or to oppose leader initiatives. These dynamics enable leaders to direct behavior toward ineffective or unethical ends. Max Weber’s discussion of charismatic leadership and more recent discussions of charisma raise questions about whether such leaders genuinely empower followers or essentially infantilize them, reducing their ability and motivation to think and to challenge. Once individual and group needs greatly empower leaders, at the expense of followers’ power, the transformative effects of feeling powerful generally follow. These effects include leaders’ inability to take followers’ perspective, risk taking, selfish disinhibition, and viewing others only as means to leaders’ ends. The combination of disempowered followers and disinhibited, self-focused leaders creates all too much bad leadership.   17.    Shrinkage, Separation and Knowledge Suffocation: Towards a Psychological Politics of Toxic Leadership’ Ricardo Blaug The problem of “toxic” leadership, and the control of tyrants large and small, is prevalent throughout human history and as pressing today as it ever was. The negative effects of what the ancients called hubris are well-known: poor decisions, corruption, cruelty—yet we know little about why this occurs and what drives its compulsive repetition. A leader is both an individual and a participant in an organisational hierarchy. As such, ineffective leadership is a “disorder of position”, one that afflicts certain people upon promotion. By drawing on advances in cognitive neuroscience and the study of information flows in organisations, this paper argues that the prevalence of bad leadership is due to a coming-together, an easy meeting, or “fit”, between hard-wired individual psychological tendencies and the structural knowledge demands of an effective organisation. Hubris is thereby revealed as a product of this unfortunate meeting between personality and hierarchy. The paper first identifies the individual psychological causal mechanisms that entice the leader to become toxic. It then explores the influence of hierarchic “position” on the knowledge processing of susceptible individuals. In this way, all leadership, and indeed any special privilege, is seen to threaten a shrinkage of perception, a growing organisational separation and isolation, and finally, nemesis, or death by knowledge suffocation. The paper concludes that toxic leadership occurs where psychology meets politics. It is chronic—in the face of the climate emergency, possibly fatal—and tyrants of all sizes will forever need control by those who suffer their abuse.   SECTION V. MULTIPLE EXPLANATIONS This section contains a couple of chapters that offer multiple explanations as to why there are so many bad leaders. First, there is a chapter that explains the occurrence of so many bad leaders by (1) leadership positions make those occupying them bad; (2) insufficient selection processes; and (3) a lack of surveillance and control mechanisms (note that this, the third, explanation has not been dealt with anywhere else in the book, and for this reason I may present it in some more depth when introducing this chapter and/or book section). Second, there is a chapter that explains the occurrence of so many bad leaders by (1) insufficient leadership development; and (2) insufficient selection processes.   18.    How Toxic Employees Ascend to Leadership Clive Boddy This chapter outlines some of the main personal, organizational, environmental and cultural reasons why toxic leaders – including corporate psychopaths, Narcissists and Machiavellians—can ascend to senior leadership positions. The perception that leadership is “rotten” or in crisis has accompanied this rise in toxic leadership. Further, the idea that the subject of toxic leadership has been insufficiently studied has been voiced. Personal explanations for toxic leadership ascension are associated with individual motivations, including a personal drive to gain money, power and prestige, together with a ruthless willingness to acquire these by any means available. These agencies include a willingness to engage in lying about career accomplishments and academic qualifications, including falsely claiming to have originated the good work of others. These ruthless individuals are also adept at upward impression management, giving those above them a misleading perception of their true character, experience and abilities. These personal characteristics enable the toxic leader to ascend, regardless of their toxic identification by peers and reports. Organizational causes of toxic leadership ascension incorporate insufficiently thorough and relatively shallow selections processes and a reliance on the job interview as a main tool for selection. This allows the unemotional psychopathic personality to apparently outperform other contenders via their unflappable presentation styles. Furthermore, it allows the CV fraud and fallacious competency claims to go undetected. Their entry into organizations and rise within them is thus expedited. Environmental influences on toxic leadership ascension include a rapidly changing workforce where personnel are not adequately acquainted enough with co-workers to recognise and alert others to the more hidden and unsavoury characteristics of some of their number. Additionally, as large numbers of colleagues flee the affected work environment, there are decreasing numbers of employees who are sufficiently aware of the personality of the toxic leader to give accurate assessments of their workplace efficiency. This aids their longevity in position. Cultural factors influencing toxic leadership ascension comprise of the value some organizations and societies put on apparent individual achievement and on the pursuit of profit. Further, a relative unawareness of the presence of individual employee malevolence allows toxic employees to remain unrecognised and unchallenged until large damage becomes evident. Cultural influences also include the development of a culture of fear within organizations managed by toxic leaders. Fear induces cognitive paralysis and reduces the effectiveness of intellectual and emotional responses to the presence of the toxic leader. This facilitates their maintenance of power.   19.    The Good, The Bad, and The Evil: A social system psychodynamic look at leading Jack Denfeld Wood and Alyson Meister This paper explores the shadow side of leading from a social system psychodynamic perspective. We argue that the reason for so many “bad leaders” is connected to a leader’s unawareness of, and ineffectiveness in addressing, the deeper psychic needs of themselves and their followers. We argue that typical academic leadership initiatives fail to develop the necessary capacity for ‘psychological thinking’, i.e., working rationally and emotionally. We articulate a robust definition of leadership that distinguishes between “a leader” (a formal or informal role), and “leadership” (a complex social psychological process). We suggest that virtually all leadership is exercised within a small group, and offer a model of leadership that includes both functional and ethical dimensions. Essentially, leading is a process that mobilizes some human collectivity (pair, group, organization, country) to move from A to B. Our model includes four factors that must be accomplished to successfully mobilize followers to accomplish a task: (1) Vision (ultimate goal, primary task); (2) Communication of that vision; (3) Drive (the power, motivation, and inspiration necessary to achieve that task) and; (4) Control (guidance—keeping the group, organization or country on track). However, task accomplishment is only one element of leading. Maintaining group relations are the other, and requires acute awareness of the external and internal context of leadership—Situational Awareness (of the social/political/economic/cultural context, essentially external reality) and; Self-awareness (of one’s deeper internal motivations, strengths, weaknesses, and shadow). In our paper we offer suggestions on how to select and develop responsible (effective and ethical) leaders by developing their capacity to lead wisely, i.e., developing those who are not only effective leaders, but who are moral ones too, by developing their capacity for situational awareness and self-awareness.   SECTION VI. BEYOND BAD LEADERS This section contains three chapters that, in different ways, go beyond the question of why there are so many bad leaders. First, there is a chapter that suggests that it in fact is unreasonable expectations on leaders that turn them into bad leaders and, thus, this chapter indicates that “bad leaders” is somewhat of a pseudo problem. Second, there is a chapter that critically examines and questions the very question that the present book is based upon. Third, there is a chapter in which the author argues that rather than bad leaders, there are too many bad followers.   20.    Fake Leadership Makes Bad Leadership Liisa Välikangas This chapter takes a contrarian position that leaders—when being authentic or true to themselves—are always or automatically (more) attractive to their followers. What if nobody likes the “real you” much? You are too driven? Micromanaging? Behaving in a way that comes naturally may simply not be appropriate in many a situation. I argue that a lot of bad leadership is explained by leaders seeking to conceal their “real selves” in a made-up veneer of “authenticity”­—there are received roles to play, prescribed masks to wear, deeper identities to conceal. Being a leader requires certain decor so some skilful acting is always necessary. In sum, a lot of bad leadership stems from the too often uncontested idea that leaders need to show their authentic selves, and failing that due to complex demands set on leadership, they turn into fakes – look-alike-authentics – that ring false to followers.   21.    Bad Leaders? Or a Bad Idea? Richard Little and Jem Bendell It is 50 years since Jeffrey Pfeffer proposed that leadership might not, after all, be a significant factor in organisational outcomes. Meindl, Dukerich and Ehrlich (1985) went further. They examined the effects of performance outcomes, good and bad, on the strength of leadership attributions and concluded that faith in leaders was largely a romantic delusion (it is, of course, possible that romantic delusions have real force, though, by and large, magical thinking seems to have got the world into a mess). Gemmill and Oakley (1992) gave us leadership as an alienating myth and for Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) leadership was a Cheshire cat whose body disappeared, leaving only a smile. On another view, the explanatory power of the idea of leadership depends on a “fantasmatic logic” (Glynos and Howarth, 2007). What more must we do to show that the idea that hyper-competent individuals should be primary social and organisational actors is a fantasy, a dangerous delusion? We argue that the question whether or not there are bad leaders is trivial: the important question is whether we can get past an infantilising social pathology that occludes and derails social deliberation and participative democracy at a time when our survival on a just and liveable planet needs those things more than it ever has before.   22.    Why We Have So Many Bad Leaders Today Warren Blank 1. Recall the points from my previous notes: a. Leaders are those who gain willing followers and my topology of “Good, Bad, or Ugly” leaders b. All three earn the “leader” label because others follow them (one who cannot attract other’s support is better described as a “non-leader”) c. Followers “make the leader.” 2. Being “in-charge,” having formal authority (i.e., a manager, military officers, electedpolitician, etc.), does not make one a leader unless others willingly follow versus simply comply with their position power a. People in charge may display “bad” qualities (e.g., tell lies, contradict themselves, take inappropriate action, etc.) or make “bad” decisions (e.g., actions that result in loss of market share/value or social/political prestige) b. Multiple resources document reasons for “bad” managers/management (e.g., failure to analyze/understand the environment, inability to create a strategy that matches organizational strengths with environmental opportunities, poor communication of a vision/strategy/goals, lack of compelling core organizational values, failure to engage and empower others, not recognizing or rewarding “success” behaviors, poorly designed systems and processes, etc.). 3. Leaders gain and maintain willing followers based on the follower’s subjective interpretation of: a. Personal credibility (i.e., the follower’s perceived believability in another’s personal qualities and how the other presents him/herself) b. Path credibility (i.e., the follower’s perceived belief in the value, benefit, relevance, and practicality of a course of action). 4. To have “impact” one must either gain: a. “Enough” followers (e.g., numerical critical mass: majority or plurality rule—the most votes in politics, or the most supporters within a group) or b. The “right” followers (e.g., enough electoral votes in the US Presidential election, or key people in a group who have formal authority or have high personal credibility, etc.). 5. Influence techniques that create personal or path credibility are not new. They have impact when they “trigger” follower support with regard to: a. “Outcome issues” (i.e., one path offers more benefits—e.g., financial—than another, the WII-FM factor) b. “Either-or values issues” (e.g., What is “right, correct, good” versus “wrong, inaccurate, bad:” Nationalism or federalism? Climate change is real or a hoax? Pro life or pro choice?Support for or against immigration, gun control, etc.) c. “Emotion-based issues” (i.e., fear, powerlessness, uncertainty, etc. or trust, respect, rapport, etc.). 6. People follow because they want what leaders offer—Good, Bad or Ugly. Leaders are a reflection of those who support them. 7. What may be relevant/new at this time are: a. Increased “communication intensity” through: * Social media which allows direct, unfiltered access to needed followers * Multiple 24 hour easily accessible media sources (e.g., cable news networks, on-line, and print media) b. Cognitive bias that favors one point of view versus observable, measurable, valid, reliable, generalizable, fact-based information c. The introduction of the idea of “fake news” which allows some to discredit any information that does not support a point of view by simply saying, “It’s fake news.” The, “It’s fake news refrain,” limits a willingness to challenge (and ideally overcome) cognitive bias d. The findings of neuroscience that reveal neurons that fire together, wire together, and how continuous repetition of information—priming—changes the brain to create a “reality,” “identity,” or “truth” and can form a cognitive bias that supports one person/path versus another.  "

Reviews

This book is a pleasure to read because the authors come from many different countries and cultures; they represent or refer to many disciplines; and they use a great many thought provoking examples, from history, mythology, and literature. (Barbara Czarniawska, Leadership, June 10, 2021)

Debating Bad Leadership is a useful book, challenging established norms about bad leadership, moving the focus from individuals and possible therapeutic actions to broader questions about good and bad, about leadership itself and about the variety of roles and activities that expect there to be a leader. For those interested in leadership ethics, it will encourage debate, and it is not overburdened with ethical or philosophical theory. (Howard.Harris, Australian Ethics, Vol. 22 (1), 2022) This book is a pleasure to read because the authors come from many different countries and cultures; they represent or refer to many disciplines; and they use a great many thought provoking examples, from history, mythology, and literature. (Barbara Czarniawska, Leadership, June 10, 2021)

“Debating Bad Leadership is a useful book, challenging established norms about bad leadership, moving the focus from individuals and possible therapeutic actions to broader questions about good and bad, about leadership itself and about the variety of roles and activities that expect there to be a leader. For those interested in leadership ethics, it will encourage debate, and it is not overburdened with ethical or philosophical theory.” (Howard.Harris, Australian Ethics, Vol. 22 (1), 2022) “This book is a pleasure to read because the authors come from many different countries and cultures; they represent or refer to many disciplines; and they use a great many thought provoking examples, from history, mythology, and literature.” (Barbara Czarniawska, Leadership, June 10, 2021)

Author Information

Anders Örtenblad is Professor of Working Life Science at the School of Business and Law, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal The Learning Organization, and the editing founder of the book series Palgrave Debates in Business and Management.

Tab Content 6

Author Website:  

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

No review item found!

Add your own review!

Countries Available

All regions