Toxic leadership traits and behaviors damage morale, erode trust, and cause long-term harm across business, military, and community settings. This article compares toxic and healthy leadership, showing how destructive styles affect individuals, teams, and organizations.
By Brad Nakase, Attorney
Email | Call (888) 600-8654
Have a quick question? I answered nearly 1500 FAQs.
A leadership style known as toxic leadership is harmful to team members, the company in question, and society as a whole. It has been around for millennia. However, a very small portion of the leadership studies in the broader collection of literature is focused on toxic leadership. Numerous well-documented and well-known instances of the disastrous effects of toxic leadership exist. What is the reason behind the lack of scholarly interest in the conceptualization and operationalization of toxic leadership? Toxic leaders appear to be present everywhere at first glance. In fact, it seems to happen at all governmental levels and in all industries.
In a military setting, Wright (2015) notes that there are nearly innumerable historical instances where commanders prioritize service & sacrifice over everything else, which devastates followers’ morale. What’s more troubling is that poisonous leadership may affect anyone.
The goal of this research is to investigate toxic leadership. In the larger academic conversation on leadership, this work is fascinating because it begins by examining the many facets of toxic leadership. The next section of the study examines the traits, actions, and outcomes of toxic leadership, which is crucial for creating a thorough, practical, and philosophical knowledge of toxic leadership. This is the first step toward more groups and people refusing toxic leadership, which this article will show.
This topic is important for leadership students since almost everyone has experienced toxic leadership at some stage in their lives, whether it be in business, in the household, or even in charity work and the community. Because toxic leadership affects everyone, we must comprehend it immediately. Examining the characteristics of both toxic and healthy leadership is the main goal of this research. For present and future leaders to consider, it is crucial to compare and contrast the two.
Itzkovich, Heilbrunn, & Aleksic (2020) correctly state that there are numerous other complex factors that can influence leader behavior, but numerous researchers continue to point to personality traits as the main factor influencing leader behavior, making this comparison crucial. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to create an approximate description of toxic leadership by analyzing the literature on toxic and healthy leadership.
The paper will begin by outlining what healthy leadership appears to be in theory and in reality from a structural perspective. The study will next go into some of the traits, actions, and outcomes of toxic leadership. Third, an appropriate description of toxic leadership will be laid out in the paper as a foundation for further study. Ultimately, the article will offer closing reflections and a request for additional scientific research.
The discussion of toxic leadership must include a definition of leadership. According to Stogdill’s research, “There are literally as many leadership definitions as there are people who have tried to describe the topic”. However, over time, a few meanings have continuously appeared in both popular and scholarly press sources.
This definition relies heavily on the term intentional. Intentionality is necessary for both practicing and developing leadership skills, according to Gandolfi & Stone. Two significant points are worth mentioning: Despite the fact that this study is not specifically on leadership styles, intentionality is necessary for all leadership styles.
Secondly, it cannot be presumed that every deliberate attempt to develop and enhance leadership abilities is carried out with the aim of benefiting both the leader as well as the follower. Itzkovich, Heilbrunn, & Aleksic presented the idea of organizational factors, which might affect a leader’s intentionality and, eventually, their output.
In the stated definition of leadership, influence represents among the most crucial components. Motivating, inspiring, and prioritizing others can provide a sense of security and tranquility, which is what good or healthy leadership is all about. In any type of organization, whether it is flat, matrix, or top-down, leaders need to be capable of influencing people. Five elements combined, according to Gandolfi (2016), provide a powerful working description of leadership.
(i) At least one leader is required,
(ii) Followers are necessary for leadership,
(iii) It needs to be focused on taking action
(iv) It must have an acceptable plan of practice, and
(v) There needs to be objectives and goals.
First, a leader/follower dynamic is inherently present. Second, as followers and leaders must cooperate to accomplish the goals the leader(s) has set, goals and action items become crucial. Then the issue is, to what end? Do followers volunteer their time voluntarily or under duress? Organizational champions, for example, increase the organization’s worth when they enthusiastically devote their time and skills to the mission of the business.
After being forced to do the opposite, followers lose their happiness and grow angry with the group and its leaders. This notion of happiness and contentment at work explains Winston & Patterson’s description of leadership. They talk of a unique relationship between the leader and the follower.
One that highlights the qualities, aptitudes, and skills of the follower that can be used in a constructive manner for the good of the organization, where the followers believe they are genuinely valued in the larger scheme of things to accomplish the mission, and not merely a gear in the company’s wheel.
This is significant because it gives equal weight to the relationship and goal between the leader and the followers. When this kind of connection is balanced, it produces commitment, trust, and longevity. The followers’ desire to be heard is the cause. Putting the desires of the followers first is perhaps the most selfless approach a leader can employ with their followers, according to Gandolfi and Stone. This is important for fostering organizational humility, as it helps determine whether the interactions between leaders and followers are coercive or positively influential.
Collins (2001) outlines the five stages of leadership in his groundbreaking work, and the Level Five leader “integrates profound individual humility with strong professional will”. Results and humility are clearly balanced in this situation. Although the two can coexist peacefully, no leader can easily walk this tightrope. In the wrong situation or without a clear knowledge of what humility is, it might be interpreted as weakness. “Driven” leaders are prone to forgetting about their followers.
A highly involved process, effective leadership is neither linear nor a one-way conversation or event (Northouse). Interaction is essential and can take numerous forms, but it needs to be spearheaded from the top down. Interaction will not occur if there isn’t any motive to do so. The way a leader guides an organization toward a commonly recognized ideal future scenario is another essential component of the authors’ concept of leadership.
For the organization, the leader, and the followers, this turns into a pivotal point. When toxic leadership and healthy leadership begin to diverge significantly from one another, it is the figurative fork in the road that determines the crucial method by which the desired organizational state is attained.
In order to achieve the ideal future scenario, challenging issues that are outside the purview of this work yet merit careful consideration for further study start to arise. Do some leadership philosophies, for example, begin with the greatest of intentions but end up being toxic? What are the most vulnerable styles, if any? Is the notion of outcomes at any cost the root cause of toxic leadership?
Understanding healthy leadership, together with a specific definition and real-world example, serves as the foundation for a structure that serves as an inspiration for investigating toxic leadership and recognizing the significant distinctions between the two. This discussion is crucial because it shows how followers, the mission, and the vision are handled differently under toxic versus healthy leadership.
What exactly is toxic leadership, then? It unquestionably exhibits highly particular traits, behaviors, and outcomes. There is no one particular trait that highlights toxic leadership, as noted by Reed (2004). Instead, it is “the result of the numerous components of a style of leadership added together.”
Although there is still disagreement among academics over what toxic leadership is, private as well as public stakeholders agree that toxic leadership carries serious repercussions. The rest of this essay will therefore concentrate on the traits, actions, and outcomes of toxic leadership. The goal is to show how toxic leadership differs greatly from healthy leadership. Hence, coming up with a practical definition of toxic leadership would help analyze it in different situations, such as educational, social, and business contexts.
The first key step to tell toxic leadership apart is to learn about the traits of toxic leaders. In a straightforward statement, Boddy & Croft claim that “toxic leaders deploy and show dysfunctional qualities”. Even if this is a truthful statement, further investigation is necessary for comprehension and explanation.
The definition of dysfunctional traits varies from person to person, can be applied to various settings, and is undoubtedly seen through a variety of lenses that must take into consideration the industry, location, and regional norms and cultures. This is not to suggest that not all cultures or businesses should tolerate toxic leadership.
Instead, the corporate and academic sectors can agree upon what toxic leadership is, the way to recognize it, and how to distinguish between toxic & healthy leadership by taking a more focused look at harmful behaviors and toxic leader traits.
From a practical standpoint, it is critical to detect these discrepancies because, in challenging circumstances, followers’ focus may be distracted from their task to the source of the stress, which can impair their personal performance and the effectiveness of the organization as a whole (Srikanth, 2020). Consequently, it is equally important to assess the ways in which toxic behaviors and qualities affect the followers and the mission of the business.
Key behaviors linked to toxic leadership involve “intimidating, harassment, manipulation, micromanaging, arrogant behavior (narcissism), and participating in abusive or unethical behavior”. These are very deliberate actions intended to provide the exact outcomes that a single person or collection of people wants for an organization, whether those outcomes are short-term or long-term. These are highly deliberate actions that are intended to yield the exact outcomes, either long-term or short-term, that an individual or group of people wants for an organization.
If these practices are allowed to continue unchecked, they may become ingrained in the organization’s fundamental fabric, making it exceedingly challenging to restore an environment that is positive. Williams (2019) claims that toxic leadership also includes shaming, subtle antagonism, team sabotage, and a sincere lack of empathy among other actions. Every decision, action, and leadership style has intentionality, as was previously mentioned, and such actions are not exempt from that assertion.
A clear route to punitive, disciplinary, and fear-based relationships between followers and leaders can be found when looking at each of the toxic leadership traits and behaviors. Discipline as an intimidating technique rarely results in positive consequences in the workplace, claims Viscuso (2018). The idea that effective leadership places followers’ needs on an equal footing with the organization’s vision and mission is in direct opposition to this.
They also exert tremendous pressure on followers who are attempting to carry out and accomplish the intended organizational results on a mental, emotional, and occasionally physical level. Lipman-Blumen correctly points out that in order to get what they want, toxic leaders take advantage of their followers’ behavioral requirements, anxiety, and fear of sudden change. Consequences are inevitable when followers are subjected to this type of constant pressure, which strains the relationship between the leader & followers. When toxic leadership occurs, these repercussions may be severe and irreversible.
Beyond the crucial idea of workers’ mental and emotional tiredness, toxic leaders deploy a number of other dishonest strategies to control and influence followers, especially when they’re in a susceptible emotional or mental condition. The relationship between negative leadership and family origin is explained by Winn & Dykes. The experiences people have outside of work will be reflected in their jobs. They span many feelings, such as joy, sadness, trauma, and success. These are the same feelings that toxic leaders frequently exploit or abuse.
Toxic leaders reassure us that everything will be fine in the family or in the factory, which are often great illusions. Joining their great illusions will allow us to concentrate on our projects related to immortality. Only two catches are present. First, in order to reach this ideal state, we must all agree to follow the leader’s instructions exactly, without exception. So, just as we were reliant on our parents while we were kids, following their rules in return for love, Oreos, and safety, we now swap our loyalty and independence for the toxic leader’s promise of safety, assurance, and other treats.
According to Wynn & Dykes, this kind of dysfunctional conduct that is maternalistic and paternalistic is alarming on a number of levels. First and foremost, it is important to think carefully about whether this kind of connection is suitable for any type of employment. It is easy to infer that leadership that is not excellent, healthy, or suitable when one knows what truly good leadership looks like.
The idea that toxic leaders’ traits and actions can result in such types of interpersonal connections is also concerning. The difficult part for followers, though, is that toxic leaders frequently appear to be kind and gifted people who have a tendency to disrespect others in aggressive or passive ways in order to further their own interests. Since this kind of knowledge can increase the likelihood of spotting toxic leaders, circumstances, and places, it is vital to comprehend the actions and traits of toxic leadership.
Following a toxic leader can be done actively or passively, but in toxic workplaces in which the toxic behavior is being driven by the leader, followers will frequently look for ways to deal with the toxic exposure, which boils down to environmental adjusting. Coping strategies can result in more severe mental and physical health symptoms of toxic leadership, and they frequently have long-term effects.
Additionally, three typical follower reactions—avoidance, adaptability, or assertion—can be triggered by toxic leadership. To be more precise, in a toxic workplace, assertiveness might result in broken connections. A follower’s avoidance can quickly cause them to become disengaged with their work and the company, which can lead to a loss of productivity. Finally, in an unhealthy setting, adaptation is nearly never going to provide a healthy result since the adapter will always become an element of toxicity.
The effects of toxic leadership on the organization must be taken into account in addition to the personal repercussions for followers. Given the established traits and actions of toxic management, it could be wise to propose that toxic leaders closely resemble autocratic or authoritarian leaders.
Not to imply that this is the sole group in which toxic leaders fall, Viscuso (2018) notes that “we understand that a style of management that is autocratic and a history of revengeful behavior may create a demoralizing culture”, a direct consequence of toxic leadership, since culture is crucial to accomplishing organizational objectives and goal.
People, not processes or products, are the focus of culture, which can exacerbate issues and have an impact on daily performance at work. According to Srikanth (2020), abusive leadership can hinder followers’ ability to accomplish their jobs and serve as “the foundation for poor interpersonal interactions”.
The kind of dynamic outlined here decreases organizational effectiveness right away and prevents followers from growing and developing, which will result in fewer of the intended organizational outcomes. Toor & Ogunlana also explain that after some time, leaders may let the influence of their position motivate them to treat people with coercion, manipulate them, show narcissistic behaviors, misuse their power, and serve only themselves.
It is easy to see that toxic leaders in a business environment damage teams and relationships by showcasing destructive behavior that repeats over time. Since nobody is achieving their goals, either personally or professionally, there are, regrettably, no winners in the end.
Additionally, a notable organizational effect of toxic management is the perception of psychological insecurity. Psychological security has been identified as the top objective for creating and fostering successful teams, hence, this is crucial. However, there is currently no evidence of psychological security for followers in the research on toxic leadership traits, actions, results, or repercussions.
Effective leadership is also directly at odds with toxic leadership. Some of the most convincing and reputable research on leadership effectiveness has been done by leadership experts Kouzes & Posner. In particular, after more than 30 years of worldwide research, they identified five essential characteristics of successful leadership.
According to Kouzes & Posner, these are (i) to set an example, (ii) to encourage a common vision, (iii) to question the method, (iv) to empower others to take action, and (v) to uplift the spirit. These characteristics don’t fit our understanding of toxic leadership. Matos, O’Neill, & Lei, interestingly, describe toxic leadership as an approach that “protects the self-image of the leader & does not endanger their immediate accomplishment.”
Given the characteristics identified by numerous researchers, this kind of leadership “intention” is incompatible with healthy leadership since personal fulfillment and organizational success cannot coexist in an unhealthy and toxic environment. Toxic leadership may even show up as leadership styles that an employee or potential employee finds appealing or desired.
Elizabeth Holmes is an intriguing case study of inspirational leadership gone awry, said Linda Neider (University of Miami), since “she exhibited many of the conventional qualities that we normally identify with captivating leaders”. The next stage after gaining a comprehensive grasp of toxic leadership is to develop an operational description that can serve as a springboard for additional study.
To define toxic leadership, it is crucial to compare toxic and healthy leadership. On the opposite end spectrum, the two represent extremes. Most people who have an interest in leadership or who are studying it are aware of what “excellent” or “healthy” leadership seems like. Few people, however, examine the negative aspects of leadership in greater depth. Since a number of labels have emerged, such as destructive, abusive, narcissistic, dominating, and toxic leadership, it is essential to clarify toxic leadership first.
As mentioned, abusive leadership & toxic leadership have been linked in a number of ways. Srikanth (2020), for example, claims that “abusive leadership has been regarded as toxic and a possible cause of stress connected with undesirable emotional & behavioral reactions”. Given the well-established fact of toxic leadership, it is crucial to look at an existing concept of harmful leadership that may emphasize both its special qualities and the characteristics of toxic leadership.
Our understanding of toxic leadership seems to be based on the behaviors, features, and outcomes of those actions and conduct, all of which have been discovered and recorded in this work. There isn’t, however, a single, commonly recognized definition for toxic leadership as yet. Since this issue has afflicted individuals, groups, and governments of all kinds for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the writers of this paper contend that it is imperative to create a foundation for it (Wright, 2015).
This term is crucial because it distinguishes toxic leadership from the ideas of abusive and destructive leadership. Fundamentally, toxic leadership prioritizes the organization as a whole over the individuals carrying out the agency’s goal. Abusive leadership highlights the harm that toxicity can do to individual relationships. By giving equal weight to the company and the workers/followers, this practical description of toxic leadership seems comprehensive.
The biggest difference between possibly toxic and healthy leadership is the equal importance given to mission, vision, & followers. This comprehension stems from an examination of the extant literature and bolsters the idea that values are crucial to the leadership conversation (Brookes, 2014). In our attempt to comprehend toxic leadership, its manifestations, and whether it can be linked to any of the currently recognized and commonly accepted styles of leadership, this is a novel discovery in and of itself.
The main goal of this research was to analyze toxic versus healthy leadership. This comparison was crucial since research continued to support the idea that personality is the main factor influencing leader conduct. This paper aimed to provide an approximate description of toxic leadership by analyzing the literature on toxic & healthy leadership. The study evaluated the traits, practices, and outcomes of toxic leadership, provided a description of toxic leadership, & illustrated what good leadership seems like.
To enable researchers in academia to expand on it for additional research and study, such an interim description is essential. Future studies must continue to explore the idea of toxic leadership, though, and more methodical investigation is needed. For example, toxic leadership needs to be explored in terms of recognized leadership styles, such as transformational, charismatic, and visionary leadership.
Lastly, and without a doubt, the comparison of toxic and healthy leadership is essential to comprehending toxicity in companies. A connection to the concept of toxic leadership that will enhance the leadership conversation is created by knowing what good leadership in its purest form looks like. This paves the way for an awareness of toxic leadership, according to the research presented in this paper.
Have a quick question? We answered nearly 2000 FAQs.
See all blogs: Business | Corporate | Employment Law
Most recent blogs:
Contact our attorney.