This document discusses the destructive impact that toxic leaders can have on organizational culture. It presents a toxic triangle leadership model involving the destructive leader, susceptible followers, and a context that enables toxic behaviors. Five consequences of destructive leadership are then reviewed: lack of open communication, decreased job satisfaction, conflict between work and family roles, decreased follower motivation, and bullying. The document concludes by proposing a mutual engagement leadership model to prevent toxic leadership through high follower engagement, leaders who embrace independent thinking, and high collaboration where leaders and followers are co-producers.
This document discusses the destructive impact that toxic leaders can have on organizational culture. It presents a toxic triangle leadership model involving the destructive leader, susceptible followers, and a context that enables toxic behaviors. Five consequences of destructive leadership are then reviewed: lack of open communication, decreased job satisfaction, conflict between work and family roles, decreased follower motivation, and bullying. The document concludes by proposing a mutual engagement leadership model to prevent toxic leadership through high follower engagement, leaders who embrace independent thinking, and high collaboration where leaders and followers are co-producers.
This document discusses the destructive impact that toxic leaders can have on organizational culture. It presents a toxic triangle leadership model involving the destructive leader, susceptible followers, and a context that enables toxic behaviors. Five consequences of destructive leadership are then reviewed: lack of open communication, decreased job satisfaction, conflict between work and family roles, decreased follower motivation, and bullying. The document concludes by proposing a mutual engagement leadership model to prevent toxic leadership through high follower engagement, leaders who embrace independent thinking, and high collaboration where leaders and followers are co-producers.
Organiza)onal
Culture
Kateryna
Ligon,
MBA
Ph.D.
Student
University
of
Central
Arkansas,
Interdisciplinary
Leadership
Program
Assistant
Professor
of
Business,
Central
BapDst
College,
Conway
Arkansas
University
of
Central
Arkansas
Introduc)on
Five
Consequences
of
Toxic
Preven)ng
Toxic
Leadership
References
Leadership
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny Organizational Initiatives This poster presentation is Lack of open in organizations: A preliminary to: examination of antecedents and focused on understanding communication and consequences. Canadian Journal of destructive leadership Invest resources to Administrative Sciences, 14(2), information exchange develop effective 126-140. through the prism of the (Kelley, 1992; Tost, followers Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate toxic triangle leadership psychopaths, bullying and unfair Gino, & Larrick, (Rost, 1995) model that includes supervision in the workplace. Journal 2013) of Business Ethics, 100(3), 367-379. analysis of the destructive Encourage courageous doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0810-4 leader, susceptible Decreased job satisfaction followers Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., followers, and the context (Ashford, 1997; (Chaleff, 2009) & Whitten, D. (2012). Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: that helps form toxic Carlson, Ferguson, The path through emotional labor and Develop exemplary leadership. Five outcomes Hunter, & Whitten, burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, followers by increasing 23(5), 849-859. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua. of destructive leadership 2012); Maier, 1967; engagement and 2012.05.003 in the organizational Tepper, 2000) Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous independent thinking context are reviewed. Followers experience follower (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Finally, a mutual (Kelley, 1992) Berrett-Koehler. conflict between worker Davis, G., & Scott, R. (2006). engagement model of and family roles Organizations and organizing: leadership is proposed. (Carlson, Ferguson, Rational, natural and open systems Mutual
Engagement
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hunter, & Whitten, Leadership
Model
Kelley, R. (1992). The power of Cost
of
Toxic
Leadership
2012; Davis & Scott, (Ligon,
2015)
followership. New York: Doubleday. Lorinkova, N., Pearsall, M., & Sims,
Schyns
and
Schilling
(2013)
2006; Tepper, 2000) H. (2013). Examining the differential High Follower Engagement longitudinal performance of directive Decreased follower in Organization versus empowering leadership in $23 billion estimated cost motivation and teams. Academy of Management Leaders Embrace 13.6% US workforce organization outcomes Independent Thinking in Journal, 56(2), 573-596. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132 employees turnover (Lorinkova, Pearsall and Followers Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. missed work Sims, 2013) High Collaboration (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and decreased effectiveness Bullying becomes an Co-producers of conducive environments. The organization phenomenon Organizational Goal Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. Attainment doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001 (Boddy, 2005) Rost, J. (1995). Leadership: A Context Promotes Diversity discussion about ethics. Business and Equity Ethics Quarterly 5(1), 129142. doi: 10.2307/3857276 Yields High Outcomes Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad The
Toxic
Triangle
leaders? A meta-analysis of Mutual
Engagement
Leadership
Model
Padilla,
Hogan,
and
Kaiser
destructive leadership and its (Ligon,
2015)
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, (2007)
24(1), 138-158. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua. 2012.09.001 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. Followers
Leader
doi: 10.2307/1556375 Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi: 10.5465/amj. 2011.0180