Leadership Toxic (Term Paper Sample)

Effects of Toxic Leadership; a Psychological Perspective
Toxic leadership defines an administrational process in which the boss inflicts adverse, durable, and excruciating harm on his or her subjects, non-subjects, organizations, and families as a result of dysfunctional personal attributes or destructive behavior. In spite of their malignant effects, toxic leaders are surrounded by a curious paradox especially for attracting mammoth crowds of followers (Dixon, 2007). Quintessentially, they parade almost everywhere; from executive suites to religious podiums and pulpits masquerading, sanctifying and embellishing their followers with delusional visions. A majority of the followers acknowledges and complains about the leader’s ills, but will, nevertheless, remain under the realm of their spell. This paper sets out to build up a psychological enumeration of the “dark side” of toxic leadership.
Definition of Toxic Leadership
Toxic leadership is attributed to dysfunctional personal traits and destructive behavior. As a result, toxic leaders unleash terror, excruciating pain, harm and hazardous poisonous effect on communities, individuals, families and the extended society (Goldman, 2006). Their leadership effect may be felt intimately or within a mega sphere such as over continents. Definition of toxic leadership may prove daunting precisely because what may be a toxic leader may equally be a heroic messiah to another person (Aubrey, 2012). Nevertheless, history, context and perspective, definitely distinguish between the two. For instance, previously named saints such as Mother Theresa, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln made some awful decisions or acted immorally. Nonetheless, consistent toxic traits occasioned by routine dysfunctional display definitely define toxic leadership.
Past Political Toxic Leaders
Toxic leadership existed since time in memorial. Enumerated toxic leaders in the history of politics include Henry VIII, Jeff Skilling, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao of China and Al Dunlap of Sunbeam. More often than not, these power hungry political leaders made destructive and poor decisions that aggrandized them while demeaning their subjects. They controlled excessively members of their circles who reciprocated with crediting themselves and their bosses but resolutely denying blame (Wilson, 2003). A staggering similarity among these leaders is that they swam in a short-lived whir of glory, which later dwindled and failed. Consequently, their organizations shattered into tatters to solidify their ignominy in history (Wielenga, 2003). For instance, Adolf of Germany committed suicide leaving Germany a tattered and ashamed state. Besides, it is believed that he killed his partner prior to killing himself.
As at present, a plethora of toxic, ruthless, brutal, but skilled bosses has emerged. These include withheld do-gooders, wallflowers, and saints who do not inhibit corporate or political ambitions. However, selflessness and humility personal characteristics do not significantly nurture ambition to climb the corporate ladder (Wielenga, 2003). Nonetheless, toxic leaders are highly talented in charisma, self-confidence, competition, cunningness, smartness, and self-drive traits. Most likely, these characteristics push these leaders’ ambitions beyond the realms into toxicity.
Recent Corporate Toxic Leaders
Aside from the cluster of political toxic leaders, business and corporate enterprises also witnessed these leaders in recent times. Often, they have murky floors of awful corporate scandals beneath them. This list includes Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, Sam Waksal from ImClone and Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth (McAnulla, 2011). These heads of corporations enjoyed a short-lived glory at the helm but fell from their heroic statutes to accused criminal statue. In addition to business and politics, toxic leaders also inflicted their menaces in religions (Rossabi, 2002). For instance, the Catholic Church witnessed harsh and excessive administrative control that ignored cries over pedophilic activities by rogue priests. For instance, young boys housed in foster homes run by some rogue priests cried foul for child molestation and other indecencies (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).
Intentionally Toxic vs. Unintentionally Toxic Leaders
Although toxic leaders are essentially deemed reckless, it is notable that not always will they be careless. Subject to this, toxic leaders may be classified into intentionally toxic and unintentionally toxic leaders (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). Intentionally toxic leaders deliberately injure and harm others to elevate themselves or accomplish their ambitions. On the contrary, unintentionally toxic leaders harm others following reckless or careless traits such as incompetence causing massive negative consequences among their subjects and others (McAnulla, 2011).
Rise of Toxic Leaders
Toxic leaders use their personal attributes to their advantage. For instance, they charm their bosses to catch their attention. They do not mind stepping on the toes of others to achieve their goals. Usually, they cunningly outplay their rivals even if it means resulting to disdainful antics (Lipman, 2005). Moreover, they manipulate their workmates, teams, and those under them to their advantage.
Effects of Toxic Leadership
Toxic leaders provoke a wide array of effects upon their followers, subjects, families, organizations, and community. Firstly, they exploit their followers and non-followers leaving them at a worse off state than they found them (Romm, 2007). They intentionally undermine, demean, seduce, marginalize, demoralize, and intimidate their subjects. Besides, they may incapacitate, torture, imprison, terrorize, disenfranchise, or kill them. For instance, a corporate figurehead may involve their security officers to terrorize their antagonists at work place. The affected security officers may then be fired and later killed upon the head’s direction to consolidate his or her secrets.
The history of toxic leaders presents them as popular violators of the fundamental human rights. They deny their own supporters and critics of basic rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, life among others. They instill fear to control their followers, non-followers and the society using their security forces as agents of terror (Genio, 2002). Besides, corruption is rife in toxic leadership as these leaders appoint their persons to pioneer their personal interests. For instance, nepotism, racism, and inefficiencies mark their appointments and promotions to various posts in their organization. Abuse of office by the executive leaders is another anomaly in toxic lead organizations.
Still, toxic leaders exude vivid visions to their followers even if they are delusions. When they perish, their followers feel cheated, betrayed and hopeless primarily because the leader steals away their capacity and power to act individually (Rossabi, 2002). In addition, they cultivate avoid solid and unquestionable loyalty especially in their inner circles. Often, this group of followers stands to defend their leader when she/he falls from the clandestine glory. For instance, several former employees stood solid to defend Michael Milken, a former junk bond maestro in the 1980s on a TV show. This is often a precarious line whereby the toxic leader goes under with his subjects. Consequently, the employees’ defense accosted them their jobs. Michael Milken was undoubtedly guilty of criminal offenses. Even after the prosecutor’s arguments and the jury’s verdict Michael Milken’s minions remained un-swayed maintaining that he was a victim of a faulty justice system (Conroy & Emerson, 2006).
Toxic leadership is always characterized by arrogance and egotism to offer a lucrative opportunity for embezzlement of resources and fueling of incompetence. Furthermore, this leadership features an outsized ambition that champions the leader’s quest for adoration, glory, and admiration above the wellness of others. For instance, Adolf Hitler advanced extermination of Jews as his personal ambition (Romm, 2007). This furthered his ambitions to conquer and rule the world. He exposed his followers to international scrutiny, risks of the raging war, maimed and terrorized the Jews and inflicted mass human misery and suffering that culminated after World War II (Kinzer, 1995).
Toxic Leaders and their Followers
An examination of toxic leadership and its effects on the immediate intimate structure to the mega and exterior structure would not be complete without examining the role of followers. Truly, Adolf Hitler would not have advanced his personal ambitions so widely had there been no followers (Blumen, 2005). After all, leadership literally means the prevailing relationship between the followers and their leader (Kinzer, 1995). Millions of German voters, soldiers, and workers under Adolf Hitler aided in killing of Jews. Toxic leaders understand the power in their followers to survive in their indulgencies. They exploit the psychological quests and motivations of followers to their advantage (Blumen, 2005). These basic psychological motivations include quest for authority, security, belonging, acceptance, and fear of ostracism.
Children depend on their parents for basic needs and to be taught societal norms and values through a system of punishments and rewards (Conroy & Emerson, 2006). They learn obedience and in their teens rebel resulting to tighter and strict rules. For instance, spiked hair and baggy teens are fashion trends dictated by peer a group which depicts a new authority. Therefore, obedience pattern to an authority is the non-detachable attribute. Upon attaining freedom from parents, the young adults are detached from family security and comfort. The need to replace parental...