The dark side of leadership

Stephanie · #1 29th December 2007, 18:44

So far much of the research concentrates on the positive impact of ‘good’ leadership, Conger (1997) suggests ways in which Transformational leaders may have negative effects, using examples of executive follies. Luthans et al. (1998) also discuss the ‘dark side’ of leadership, and it is clear that this particular form of leadership has ethical implications. One could suggest misuse of charismatic force may motivate employees initially, but later demotivate. Whilst this seems plausible, as so much research is correlational, changes in motivation over time has been insufficiently studied for any conclusion to be made.

However, looking at some organizations (and more general history, e.g. of Nations) it is not hard to find examples of not just poor but downright unethical and purposefully negative leadership.

What can leaders do to ensure they do not turn to the 'dark side' (excuse the SF pun)?

Are there some people who should just not be allowed too much power, or are some good people 'turned' in the right/wrong circumstances?

**Simon Donnelly** · #2 31st December 2007, 12:59

Yet another fascinating subject to think about! I've had the dubious pleasure of experiencing at least one "leader" (actually manager, but that's another subject entirely) who has gone over to the dark side.

I don't know that a leader can ensure they don't turn - surely it depends on if they want to or not. For those who are anxious not to be enticed by that kind of negative power, I recommend constantly seeking feedback from colleagues - superiors, peers and especially subordinates. Assuming that all feedback is given in an open and safe environment (or even a closed and confidential way) then patterns of behaviour should be discernible. From that point, if any are negative or inapropriate, actions can be taken to counteract them.

Some people should definitely not be given the opportunity to exercise power, though quite how they are identified I'm not sure. When you think about experiments where people "electrocute" others having been told it's all OK or even wartime prison guards and what they appear to be capable of, it's apparent that humans are capable of all sorts of nastiness, whether conscious or not.

I remember one particular bully who controlled his victims with all sorts of unpleasantries. Even when confronted, he showed no signs of remorse or regret. The only possibilities seemed to be to fire him or place him in a job where he had no people working for him. Sad to say that neither happened and I daresay people are still suffering as a direct result.

There is obviously a need for determining who (potential) "dark" leaders are and defining some means of dealing with them.

Thankfully, I believe that the vast majority of leaders are made of the right stuff and that those who aren't are in the minority. The trouble is that the latter cause too much harm.

Stephanie · #3 2nd January 2008, 13:10

Hi Simon,

Yes I agree it is a tricky one. There are some psychometric tests that supposedly assess 'the dark side', although I have not checked them out in detail, nor do I know how well they stand up to faking.

I guess also of interest is why some people continue to work for such people (perhaps they often feel they have no choice?) and of course there are those who thoroughly enjoy being involved, perhaps using the leader as an excuse. There again many of us know the classic Milligram studies where a number of people believed they were really electrocuting other people but did as the person in authority told them - however some did not (thankfully!)

That saying about all being needed for evil to succeed is for good people to stand by and do nothing comes to mind here.

**Simon Donnelly** · #4 2nd January 2008, 16:16

What I've seen in the past is that people continue to work for the negative leaders mostly through fear. The poor employee has been so badly bullied that they have completely lost their self-esteem and therefore their confidence. Nobody who has sunk that low will stand up for themselves against a bully, unfortunately.

It doesn't help that many HR processes take time to implement and on so many occasions the system falls back on one person's word against another's. It's easy to see that the "leader" in that situation will come out on top as it's unlikely there will have been any other complaints.

This is going off-subject and more into bullying, so to bring it back a little, the "leader" is likely to use his or her influence on peers, seniors and HR to convince them of his or her own innocence.

There is a presupposition in NLP which says that all actions have a positive intended outcome. This applies to negative leadership just as much as positive leadership. Think in terms of what the negative leader wants out of any situation - possibly more personal power or advancement - and the statement is true. Perhaps the trick when observing anybody is to determine what the positive intended outcome is. From that it should be clear what kind of a person they really are.

That may not help with how to deal with the leadership style but will at least help with the understanding of the individual.