International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23, 45–63 (2021) DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12240 Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders: Toxic Illusio and Personal Uncertainty

Aybike Mergen 1 and Mustafa F. Ozbilgin 2 1Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Istanbul 34450, Turkey 2Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Toxic leaders are one of the main threats to the wellbeing of people in the workplace and in society in general, and followers play a critical role in constructing and maintaining toxic leaders. In this narrative review, we draw on Bourdieu’s concept of illusio and in- corporate it with the social and cognitive psychology approaches in an attempt to frame the dynamic system that sustains toxic leadership through continued support of the fol- lowers. More specifically, as we introduce the illusio perspective in a process-relational context to the toxic leadership discussion, we (i) address the allure of toxic leaders as an incentive for followers to join the toxic illusio as a way to cope with their high personal uncertainty and (ii) illustrate the mechanisms and processes that motivate followers of toxic leaders to remain in the toxic illusio once they join. In this context, we also briefly discuss and differentiate between the ethical and moral dimensions of toxic leadership.

Introduction 2005b) and accept the axiom that violating the fun- damental human rights of anyone, eroding the rule Toxic leaders are fundamentally detrimental to the of law, corruption, discrimination and destroying welfare of humanity (Krasikova et al. 2013). In al- the environment are all toxic behaviours that cre- most every aspect of our lives, toxic leaders ‘by dint ate lasting damage in the societies in which they of their destructive behaviors and dysfunctional per- occur. Consequently, we suggest that a leadership sonal qualities generate a serious and enduring poi- phenomenon is toxic to the degree that it normal- sonous effect on the individuals, families, organiza- izes and sustains such toxic behaviour. Unfortunately, tions, communities, and even entire societies they there are a great number of examples of crises, in lead’ (Lipman-Blumen 2005c, p. 29). Moreover, this part due to toxic leadership, such as the recent cri- pernicious impact of toxic leaders remains high in sis of moral entrepreneurship at the Cochrane Foun- both work and social environments thanks to the dation (Greenhalgh et al. 2019), major fraud and ardent support of their followers (Lipman-Blumen toxic envy at Theranos (Hartmans and Leskin 2020), 2005a,b; Padilla et al. 2007). As there could be no abuse of employees at Amazon (Kantor and Streit- leaders nor any leadership phenomena without fol- feld 2015), mishandling and monetization of private lowers (Bastardoz and Van Vugt 2018), we need to user data by Facebook (Graham-Harrison and Cad- better understand the followers of toxic leaders in walladr 2018) and the unapologetic discrimination order to combat the negative consequences of toxic at Uber (Mancini 2017). Examples of toxic leader- leadership (Thoroughgood et al. 2016). ship are ample in the political domain as well, such As there is no universally accepted definition of as in the Lava Jato (Car Wash) corruption scandal toxic leadership in the literature, we draw on the of Rouseff (Watts 2016), the often-stated electoral approach of Lipman-Blumen (e.g. Lipman-Blumen authoritarianism of Putin (Snyder 2018) and Viktor

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 46 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin

Orbán (Lendvai 2018) and the outright dictatorship (i.e. ‘an extensive knowledge structure containing of Kim Jong-Un (Frank 2012). There is also an un- many pieces of information relevant to the self’; Lord fortunate number of toxic leadership phenomena at and Brown 2004, p. 33) attached to their follower- the societal level, ranging from the Women’s Na- ship (e.g. Arendt 1951; Snyder 2017). We argue that tional Anti-Suffrage League movement (Bush 2007) toxic leaders’ proposed worldview and self-concept to more marginal and tragic incidents such as the appeal to individuals with high levels of personal un- mass suicides of Jonestown Massacre (Barker 1986) certainty. Personal uncertainty (or self-uncertainty) is and the Heaven’s Gate suicides (Balch and Tay- uncertainty about the individual’s own self-concept, lor 2002). Nevertheless, the toxic leadership phe- values, identity and overall concept of ‘who one nomenon is not limited to extreme and infamous is and how one should behave’ (Rast et al. 2013, cases, and most people experience the consequences p. 637). Such an aversive state might be induced of varying degrees of toxic leadership in their work, by both unstable external contexts and a lack of re- family and society on a daily basis. sources and capitals to overcome uncertainties, and There is scant but increasing attention regarding adopting a strong worldview and self-concept is an why and how individuals become followers of toxic effective way to curb personal uncertainty (Hogg and leaders (e.g. Pelletier et al. 2018). The literature has Adelman 2013; van den Bos 2009). yet to fully uncover the dynamics of the relationship Toxic illusio’s pull and promise of a stable self- between toxic leaders and their followers. Further- concept is especially strong, since individuals are more, the literature treats followers mostly as mir- particularly motivated to reduce their uncertainty rors that reflect the leader on outcomes (May et al. about their selves. Moreover, while individuals join 2014; Uhl-Bien et al. 2014). As such, there is a risk and remain in the toxic illusio for their personal ben- of framing followers of toxic leaders as innocent vic- efit (i.e. accruing different forms of capital and power tims or ignorant bystanders who drift with the allure in their specific field of relations), their participation of these leaders. In this narrative review, we main- collectively shapes and sustains the toxic illusio. The tain that being a follower is volitional and that fol- illusio, in return, colours the perceptions, expecta- lowers are the individuals who identify themselves as tions and future choices of its players and shapes the followers of a specific leader (DeRue and Ashford logic of their field of relations due to the vested inter- 2010). We draw on the Bourdieusian construct of il- ests and illusory promises involved in the vision set lusio, together with a narrative review of the social forth by a toxic leader. and cognitive psychological approaches. As such, we Drawing on the conceptual universe of Bourdieu, illustrate the utility of treating followers as agents and we construe toxic leadership as an illusio (Bourdieu co-creators of the toxic phenomenon in terms of un- and Wacquant 1992) and followers as players who derstanding why individuals become and remain fol- join the habitus of the toxic game in order to re- lowers of toxic leaders. duce their personal uncertainty induced by their low Illusio is ‘the tendency of participants to engage endowment of varied forms of capital in their spe- in the game and to believe in its significance, that cific field of relations (Bourdieu 1986). Accordingly, is, believe that the benefits promised by the field are the present paper contributes to the scholarly discus- desirable’ (Heidegren and Lundberg 2010, p. 12). sions on two points. First, the conceptualization of Therefore, conceptualizing toxic leadership as an il- the toxic leadership phenomenon as an illusio allows lusio explains not only why individuals are allured us to formalize the followers as self-interested play- by toxic leaders, but also why they do not seek a ers of a toxic game with its own habitus, that is in- way out of the toxic game, even when there are al- tersubjective rules and dynamics. In other words, the ternative games with better yield. We argue that the construct of illusio (i) emphasizes the agency of its toxic illusio draws individuals into the game and players, as they have varied forms of capital – such entices them to stay, because the toxic illusio it- agency is ‘the capacity and intention to control their self performs a critical function and fulfils a strong own behavior and outcomes by assessing the situa- need for the individual to have certainty in their tion and determining how best to reach their goals life. while remaining faithful to their beliefs and disposi- The literature on the habits and practices of toxic tions’ (Swann and Jetten 2017, p. 382) and (ii) fa- leaders suggest that one of the most common and cilitates further investigation of the internal dynam- effective offerings of toxic leaders is the worldview ics of the toxic leadership as a Bourdieusian field by (i.e. the conception of the world) and the self-concept organizing the literature from diverse fields. Second,

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 47 following the call of van Knippenberg et al. (2004), Method we explore personal uncertainty, induced by follow- ers’ lack of various forms of capital endowments, The starting point for our review was our desire as a motivation to join the toxic illusio and dis- to present a follower-centric approach to Lipman- cuss the relevant mechanisms that entice and engage Blumen’s toxic leadership construct. In order to ex- individuals. plain why individuals may become and remain fol- Although we provide a conceptual model, our pa- lowers of toxic leaders, we used Bourdieu’s notion per is predominantly a narrative review that expli- of illusio, which accounts for individuals’ inability cates the significance of the decision-making and to develop a healthy distance from the social games cognitive processes of the followers of toxic leaders. they join. Adopting a process-relational perspective, Notably, our review focuses on the decision-making we turned to the literature on cognitive and social and cognitive processes of the followers of toxic lead- psychology and ethical decision making in order to ers while excluding the discussions of leader-centric explain the behaviours of followers of toxic leaders. models of toxic leadership. As such, we started this project with the awareness In this narrative review, we bring together diverse of a knowledge gap in the toxic leadership literature literatures that have not been considered together and a well-defined research question. We had prior before, including literature on toxic leaders, Bour- information about the key texts and theories of toxic dieusian illusio, followership, personal uncertainty, leadership, Bourdieusian illusio, cognitive and social and ethical and moral decision making from disci- psychology and ethics that may be applicable to our plines of management, organizational and cognitive research question. Consequently, we adopted a narra- psychology and organizational sociology, with a tive review approach to organize and synthesize the view to presenting an original contribution. We previous literature (Hammersley 2001; Hodgkinson acknowledge that the boundaries of the narrative and Ford 2014). review are set within our systematic reading of these Narrative review is described as a process that ‘be- disparate literatures together, in order to address gins with a small number of articles and books, which our focal problematic of why people follow toxic are then used to identify key authors and other ar- leaders. In particular, our paper delves into the dark ticles that are related to the particular topic’ (Jones side of leadership, adding another dimension to the and Gatrell 2014, p. 257). As our conceptual model debates in the journal on shared leadership (Sweeney draws from a number of different literatures (i.e. et al. 2019) and authentic leadership (Iszatt-White toxic leadership, followership, Bourdieusian illusio, and Kempster 2019), both of which engage with social identity and personal uncertainty, moral de- the high road to leadership. In terms of ontology, cision making, individual decision making and bi- the process-relational approach that we take is in line ases), we have identified starting points in each of with the framing of the relational social construc- those lines of research. We also combed through tionist approach to leadership by Endres and Weibler classical texts and books as well as recent articles (2017). in leading journals (e.g. Academy of Management The remainder of this paper is organized as fol- Review, International Journal of Management Re- lows. First, we briefly describe our narrative review views, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Man- methodology and process. Second, we discuss the agement and Leadership Quarterly) and have ex- concepts of ethics, morality and toxicity in the con- panded our review through the frequently cited texts text of leadership and specifically followers. Third, found therein. Furthermore, we ran searches in the we review the conceptual universe of Bourdieu and Web of Science and Google Scholar for combina- introduce toxic illusio as its application in a toxic tions of relevant terms such as toxic, destructive and leadership context. Fourth, building on the toxic illu- pseudo-transformational leaders and leadership, fol- sio and personal uncertainty constructs and the syn- lowers, illusio, personal uncertainty and ethical deci- thesis of a diverse range of extant theories, we de- sion making. For each search, we read the abstracts scribe why some individuals join the toxic illusio, and reviewed the relevant papers in detail. Notably, why they remain in the game and what it takes for the narrative review process is a ‘hermeneutic cir- them to leave. Finally, we conclude with our sugges- cle’ (cf. Alvesson 2010, p. 196), implicating iterative tions for future research areas in light of the frame- phases of ‘review and (re)constitution’ (cf. Rhodes work we introduced, as well as possible limitations and Pullen 2018, p. 485). In that sense, in addition for such research. to searching for additional literature, our narrative

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 48 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin review implies re-readings of important texts as we Thanks to its close ties with individuals’ self- build our conceptual model. image and social identity, personal uncertainty is not As discussed in greater detail in the next sec- only a coherent mechanism to explain why individu- tion, there are a number of different definitions als join the toxic illusio, but it also provides an effec- of toxic/destructive leadership. Our understanding tive foundation for synthesizing other cognitive and of toxic leadership predominantly overlaps with social psychological mechanisms that keep individ- Lipman-Blumen’s conceptualization, and therefore uals in the game. In that regard, we started our re- we started our review based on her works. We also view on ethical decision-making literature with the reviewed every article we could find on toxic leader- excellent annual review by Treviño et al. (2014), as ship (e.g. Heppel 2011; Pelletier 2010, 2012) as well well as periodic reviews by O’Fallon and Butterfield as similar constructs such as destructive leadership (between 1996 and 2003; 2005) and Craft (between (e.g. Padilla et al. 2007; Thoroughgood et al. 2016) 2004 and 2011; 2013). We also extended our review and pseudo-transformational leadership (e.g. Tourish to sub-fields of ethical decision making and its nomo- 2013). We have also extended our review to the semi- logical network, such as moral disengagement (e.g. nal as well as most recent relevant books and articles Bandura 1999), moral decoupling (e.g. Bhattacharjee from other disciplines such as political science (e.g. et al. 2013), moral identity (e.g. Shao et al. 2008), Arendt 1951; Snyder 2017). moral rationalization (e.g. Tsang 2002), cognitive Although the literature on followership is now a dissonance (e.g. Festinger 1957), biases and heuris- mature field, with more than 25 000 manuscripts tics (e.g. Tversky and Kahneman 1974) and normal- with the word ‘followership’ in the abstract, there ization of corruption (e.g. Ashforth and Anand 2003) are much fewer papers on toxic followers (e.g. ‘toxic in general. follower’ found in 15 manuscripts and ‘destructive Finally, Bourdieusian illusio is the main umbrella leader follower’ in 72). In line with our conceptual- construct in our understanding of the processes and ization of toxic leadership as an illusio and its players mechanisms that allure and retain followers in toxic as its co-creators, we adopted the constructivist ap- leadership phenomena. Our review revealed limited proach to followership and chose the review by Uhl- use of the construct in leadership contexts and no Bien et al. (2014) of the field as our key text. Given prior framing in terms of toxic followers. We resorted the lack of explicit focus on the followers of toxic to the primary texts of Bourdieu and his colleagues leaders (hence the gap in the literature), we mostly (e.g. Bourdieu 1986; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992) used the toxic leadership manuscripts to grasp how as well as applications of illusio in other contexts previous literature frames followers, specifically in (e.g. Lupu and Empson 2015; Tatli et al. 2018) for toxic contexts. our conceptualization process. Furthermore, since we consider followers of toxic To summarize, our narrative review confirmed that leaders to be agents with social cognitive processes, the literature on toxic leadership is often studied from we turned to the related literature to identify the leader-centric approaches, with a few exceptions by mechanisms that constitute the allure and sustain- authors such as Padilla et al. (2007). We develop this ability of toxic leadership phenomena. As expected, literature further by explicating the decision-making there were a limited number of papers on follower and cognitive processes behind the how and why in- cognition and decision making (e.g. ‘follower cogni- dividuals become and remain followers of a toxic tion’ in 85 articles and ‘follower decision making’ in leader. 330). Based on the toolset that toxic leaders use to at- tract and keep followers and the discussion on mate- rial, social, cultural and symbolic resources (and their Ethics, morality and toxicity deficit) within the Bourdieusian conceptual universe, we focused on personal uncertainty as the main mo- The existence and nature of a universal code of ethics tivator for individuals to join a toxic game. There is has been debated by a number of great thinkers. Marx strong research on personal uncertainty, with more (1843), for example, argued against the existence of a than 4000 scholarly texts on the subject (e.g. van den universal ethics code because he believed that ethics Bos 2009), and the relationship between personal un- is dialectical, and therefore historically and econom- certainty and toxic leadership phenomena is already ically conditioned. In his view, ethics was shaped and well established (e.g. Hogg and Adelman 2013; Rast reshaped by a world that is constantly changing and et al. 2013). was dependent on who you are in society. Nietzsche

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 49 also argued against the existence of a universal ethics In line with Lipman-Blumen’s toxic leadership code, but for reasons that are very different from framework (Lipman-Blumen 2005a–c), we define Marx. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche (1883) toxic leaders as leaders who create serious and en- argued that the ideal of a universal ethics is the very during harm by engaging in ‘destructive behaviours’ burden that individuals need to confront before they and exhibiting ‘dysfunctional characteristics’. In can achieve self-realization, or in other words, trans- that sense, toxic leaders mislead their followers form into an ubermensch. Indeed, as Nietzsche ex- through lies and illusions, playing to their ‘basest plains through allegories, an individual can become fears and needs’; promote ‘incompetence, cronyism, an ubermensch if and only if they can slay the dragon corruption’ (Heppell 2011, p. 244); and ‘undermine, of the existing moral values and create their own demean, marginalize, intimidate, demoralize, and ethics from scratch with the unbiasedness of a small disenfranchise’ non-followers, and in extreme cases child. Kant (1785), in contrast, not only defended the ‘incapacitate, imprison, terrorize, torture, or kill’ existence of a universal rule of ethic, but also pro- them (Pelletier 2010, p. 376). Accordingly, we take posed the categorical imperative as a candidate: ‘Act the view that a leadership is toxic even if it provides only according to that maxim whereby you can, at partial benefit to some (especially followers), and yet the same time, will that it should become a universal causes more harm on balance through normalization law’ (p. 30). In other words, according to Kant, an of toxic behaviours such as deinstitutionalization, act is ethical if the individual would prefer a world decreased transparency and responsibility, lack of in which the act is the norm. Alternatively, Rawls accountability, corruption and self-interested alloca- (1971) suggested a veil of ignorance approach to at- tion of resources, as well as violation of fundamental tain the universal ethic. According to Rawls, an act human and animal rights and environmental harm. is ethical if and only if the individual would have ap- We acknowledge that there are degrees within the proved that action from behind the veil of ignorance, toxicity of a leadership phenomenon, as minor cor- or from the original position, at which ‘no one knows ruption cannot be equated with torture or murder, but his place in society, his class position or social sta- within the scope of this paper, we focus our attention tus; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution on the generalizable mechanisms and processes of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and regardless of the degree of toxicity. strength, and the like’ (p. 117). In that sense, Rawls’ Notably, the fact that we as non-players consider a argument suggests that an act is ethical to the extent particular leadership phenomenon as unethical does that the individual would agree to it without knowing not mean that followers of toxic leaders have a neg- whether they will be the subject or the perpetrator of ative perception of their own morality. Indeed, al- the act. though it is common practice to use ethics and moral- Considering that the greatest minds of the human ity interchangeably in the social sciences literature species are yet to agree upon the existence of and/or (Treviño and Nelson 2013), the philosophy litera- what constitutes the universal code of ethics, it is ture makes a distinction between the two. Particu- a formidable task to define what toxicity means in larly, in his Philosophy of Right, Hegel (1820) argues a way that would satisfy every reader (Petocz and that, whereas morality is subjective for each partic- Miner 2003) within the scope of the present paper. ular person, ethics comes from ‘values, institutions, Indeed, despite its growing popularity among schol- and norms’ that are ‘universally or objectively good’ ars, the media and the general public, what toxic (Abramson 2009, p. 306). Therefore, as long as indi- leadership means remains largely contested. In addi- viduals take their conscience as the measure of right tion to several other conceptualizations of the ‘dark conduct, they can have a moral life but not necessar- side of leadership’ – such as destructive leadership, ily an ethical one. Similarly, players of toxic illusio tyrannical leadership and pseudo-transformational may believe that their actions are moral as long as leadership (Thoroughgood et al. 2016) – there are they derive their self-concept and worldview from the a number of definitions of toxic leadership with game. As their personal ethical standards are strongly different disciplinary backgrounds. For instance, aligned with the toxic illusio, complying with the derived from a management perspective, Whicker toxic game is moral by definition. Consequently, not (1996) and Kellerman (2004) defined toxic leaders only might the players not experience any moral dis- through their common traits and behaviours, whereas sonance themselves, but they might also perceive Goldman (2006) used clinically diagnosable mental the toxic leader – the prototype of the illusio’s so- health disorders to describe toxic leaders. cial identity – as the pivot of morality. Indeed, the

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 50 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin previous literature suggests that an individual’s atti- uals. Bourdieu defines four types of capital (Tatli tude towards the leader significantly affects that per- et al. 2018). Economic capital refers to financial and son’s evaluations of the leader (Hansbrough et al. nonfinancial assets that have economic value. Social 2015) and that the subjective evaluations of a particu- capital is the endowment of social connections that lar leader’s toxicity are inherently shaped by whether an individual has. Cultural capital refers to capacity the individual identifies as a follower or not (Pelletier acquired through education and experience in life. 2012). That is why, as Lipman-Blumen (2005a–c) so Finally, symbolic capital refers to the status, recog- accurately identified, even the toxic leaders that have nition and respect one acquires in a given context. been condemned globally as evil are rallied round Individuals strive to accumulate different forms of and cherished as righteous heroes by their followers. capital, and they convert different capitals to one an- In that sense, it is important to emphasize that, even other in their pursuit of their life goals. For example, if the rest of the world (along with the scientific com- they may use their social capital in order to enhance munity) has reached a consensus on the toxicity of their economic prospects and acquire educational a leader, the toxic illusio may still shield the leader qualifications to improve their symbolic capital. from his/her followers’ scrutiny. Lack of one or more forms of capital may induce in Furthermore, followers of toxic leaders decide to individuals some level of personal uncertainty. Indi- join and remain in such toxic illusio with agency. viduals may try to address their personal uncertainty Because these players are agents, they are also re- by acquiring and strategically deploying varied forms sponsible for the outcomes of the social phenomenon of capital to enhance their positionality in the field they co-create. In that regard, we strongly believe through their life course. Through the concepts of the that this responsibility of members of the toxic illu- field, the habitus and capitals, it is possible to under- sio demands further investigation into their roles in stand why individuals follow leaders whose visions co-creating and perpetuating the phenomenon, and help them enhance their stakes in life. However, in the reasons why they join and remain in these toxic this paper, we turn to one of the least used concepts of games. Consequently, the present paper’s aim is to Bourdieu, the illusio, to explore why individuals join take a first step in organizing the previous knowledge and remain followers of toxic leaders. Illusio helps about toxic leaders’ and their followers’ motivations us understand why people join social, economic and and behaviours and to present it in a framework that cultural games, and by doing so, how they are ab- might enable future research for a better understand- sorbed by the game. Bourdieu defines illusio as the ing of the toxic leadership phenomenon. belief that the game that an individual plays is worth playing (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Once taken in by the illusio, players of the game do not search Bourdieu’s conceptual universe and for a way out of the game, even when there are alter- the allure of toxic leaders native games with better yield that they could play. An example of an illusio can be the belief in the sig- Bourdieu’sconceptual universe has been increasingly nificance of overtime work for high performance in employed in order to explore leadership phenomena a workplace, in which the rules of the game require (Eacott 2016; Thomson 2017). The concept of the overtime work when there is no causal relationship field refers to the dynamic web of power relations between overtime work and high performance (Lupu in a particular context (Bourdieu 1986). Leadership and Empson 2015). Overtime work remains an illusio is such a field in which the leader and the followers norm that people do not challenge, even when it no have a web of relations in which they deploy varied longer leads to productivity or effectiveness at work, forms of capital and power in order to secure and ad- and on the contrary, could prove detrimental for some vance their interests. Habitus is the taken-for-granted individuals. meanings which have become customary to an in- For Bourdieu, the illusio evades criticism by the dividual or a collective as a result of being repeated players who are absorbed in the game and its peculiar and legitimated in a given field of relations (Ozbilgin rules in a given field of relations. In that regard, what and Tatli 2011). Individuals within the same field and Lipman-Blumen calls the allure of toxic leadership who share a collective habitus may still display varia- is akin to the appeal of illusio for the players of any tions in terms of their behavioural choices. Bourdieu particular game. Followers are drawn to toxic leader- accounts for this diversity with variety in the capital ship, which provides them with an alluring and strong endowments, dispositions and strategies of individ- alternative worldview and a stable self-concept that

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 51 incites them to play. Moreover, as players of the toxic formers of the toxic triangle (Padilla et al. 2007), game, followers expect to receive the benefits associ- lost souls, bystanders, opportunists, acolytes and au- ated with the game as long as they remain as one. Ad- thoritarians of the susceptible circle (Thoroughgood ditionally, the benefits of the game do not have to be et al. 2012), anxious benign followers, pragmatic limited to the psychological domain. Individuals may benign followers, leader’s entourage and malevolent reduce their personal uncertainty by acquiring both a followers (Lipman-Blumen 2005b). Nevertheless, as worldview and access to social, cultural, economic Lipman-Blumen herself discusses in her book The and symbolic resources afforded by the field of rela- Allure of Toxic Leaders (Lipman-Blumen 2005b), the tions in the toxic illusio, which may serve them well. primary allure of the toxic illusio is ‘the meaning of Even if an individual is drawn into the toxic illusio life’ (p. 52) as well as the feelings of ‘belonging, solely to avoid the aversive feelings related to per- safety, and direction’ (p. 35) associated with it. In that sonal uncertainty, they can still become constrained regard, the present paper focuses on personal uncer- by the social and material ties they form as the game tainty as the motivating factor behind an individual’s goes on. In fact, as we discuss later in greater de- decision to join the toxic game by increasing their tail, these ties, threats and promises may both serve need for these offerings of the toxic illusio. the interests of and restrain an individual from quit- Previous studies demonstrate higher support for ting the game, even when they become disillusioned autocratic and populist leaders who provide a strong about the worldview and self-concept offered by the identity among individuals who experience high lev- toxic leader. els of personal uncertainty (Schoel et al. 2011). We As the illusio is co-constructed by all parties that argue that individuals with high levels of personal join the game and the context in which the game takes uncertainty are pulled in by the promise of avoid- place, the leader and the followers mutually sustain ing this aversive state through internalizing the strong the toxic illusio and give it internal legitimacy. Con- worldview and self-concept presented by the toxic il- sequently, our approach emphasizes how followers lusio (Figure 1). Admittedly, providing a worldview are not passive, innocent bystanders but wilful, self- and self-concept to their followers is not exclusive interested agents who sustain and support the toxic to toxic leaders. Transformational leaders (Bass and illusio together with the leader and other followers. Avolio 1994), for example, are distinguished by their Indeed, we support the approach that followers are idealized influence and inspirational motivation. In responsible for the consequences of the toxic illu- that sense, it is important to note that the present pa- sio. Nevertheless, there is the threat of neglecting the per constrains its focus to toxic leadership phenom- agency of the individual follower through narratives ena. that corrode the will and responsibility of the follow- Personal uncertainty is defined as a ‘subjective ers of toxic leaders. In a vicious cycle, the denudation sense of doubt or instability in self-views, world- of the followers’ agency under toxic leaders in the- views, or the interrelation between the two’ (van ory provides more legitimization for leaders to erode den Bos 2009, p. 198). A similar construct, self- followers’ agency and individualism in practice uncertainty, is defined as ‘feelings of uncertainty, par- (Tourish 2013). That’s why we believe that it is cru- ticularly about or relating to who one is and how one cial to understand the choices, chances, motives and should behave’ (Hogg 2015, p. 308). Concordantly, reasoning of the followers of toxic leaders in order to self-uncertainty is an aversive temporal state, and in- avoid future reproductions of the toxic illusio. dividuals are motivated to reduce it (Guillén Ramo et al. 2018). Causes of personal uncertainty can be framed using Bourdieu’s notions of capital and iden- Joining the toxic game tify this lack of social, cultural, economic and sym- bolic capital (Bourdieu 1986). As such, a lack of Each illusio has its own unique allure that attracts resources renders individuals susceptible to experi- prospective players and keeps the current players in. ence higher levels of personal uncertainty that exist The composition of this unique allure may vary from in their unique field of relations. In that sense, per- mostly psychological benefits to more material gains, sonal uncertainty (or self-uncertainty) is closely re- that is different forms of capital, depending on the lated to the previous conceptualizations of followers field, the leader and their followers. In fact, previous of toxic leaders. For instance, the previous literature literature suggested a variety of categorizations based argues that followers of toxic leaders have low ma- on followers’ motivations, such as colluders and con- turity (Padilla et al. 2007). Since maturity is defined

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 52 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin

Figure 1. Interplay between the toxic illusio and personal uncertainty Source: Adapted from van den Bos (2009, p. 23). as obtaining an integrated and socially valued iden- sion, clear boundaries, rituals, social structure and a tity (Erikson 1959), followers’ immaturity implies value system that promises order and a better future the absence of a stable self-concept. Similarly, pre- for those who participate. vious literature suggests that followers of toxic lead- There is an abundance of evidence in the literature ers ‘question their place in the world’ (Thoroughgood regarding leaders’ communication of values, mission et al. 2012, p. 904) and do not have strong value and vision, ideologies and goals and how they are systems that shape their identity. Indeed, values and incorporated into the followers’ self-concepts (e.g. value systems are a critical component of a person’s Gebert et al. 2016). Although some leaders may pro- worldview and self-concept. According to Rokeach: vide these tools to their followers unconsciously, oth- ers deliberately manage these processes. As Hitler values are simultaneously components of psycho- logical processes, of social interaction, and of cul- allegedly put it, ‘A mass rally is designed to switch tural patterning and storage. […] A value system is off the thinking process. Only then would the people an organized set of preferential standards that are be ready to accept the magical simplifications before used in making selections of objects and actions, which all resistance crumbles’ (Fest and Herrendo- resolving conflicts, invoking social sanctions, […]. erfer 1977). Since one of the key resources in un- Values are components in the guidance of anticipa- certainty reduction is cognitive capacity (Hogg and tory and goal-directed behavior, but they are also Adelman 2013), toxic leaders design their communi- backward-looking in their frequent service to jus- cations to address the complex problems of (prospec- tify or “explain” past conduct. (1979/2008, p. 20) tive) followers with simple solutions with catchy As individuals’ personal uncertainty increases, their phrases. In that sense, toxic leaders and the illusio value systems become increasingly ambiguous, and promise security and stability through structure, ritu- they find it harder to interpret the world and their als and rules that make life easier for followers in a position in it. Consequently, when personal uncer- complex world. The habitus of the toxic illusio offers tainty reaches a point at which the ‘previous values followers symbolic value that enhances their stakes no longer provide a valid interpretive framework, the in life. By reducing the uncertainty that followers individual will yearn for new values that create order feel, the toxic illusio enables them to abdicate their and provide direction as they attempt to make sense moral responsibility to tackle difficult questions. The of their world’ (Gebert et al. 2016, p. 99). High levels simplicity of the solution shields and legitimates the of personal uncertainty, therefore, suggest low lev- toxic element in leadership behaviour. els of symbolic capital and individual worth in a par- Although the degree to which the individual fol- ticular field of values and relationships. Toxic illusio lower transforms these values into action differs for answers these individuals’ need for ‘safety, security, each follower, ‘the Manson Family, the Hitler Youth, group membership, and predictability in an uncertain Castro’s Pioneros, and Mao’s Red Guards all il- world’ (Padilla et al. 2007, p. 183) by providing a vi- lustrate the destructive potential of impressionable

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 53 followers who internalize a destructive leader’s mes- domain but can concurrently have a strong value sys- sage’ (Thoroughgood et al. 2012, p. 904). In any tem and identity in work or family domains, and vice case, the allure of the toxic illusio touches upon a per- versa. sonal spot when the individual adopts its worldview To summarize, we suggest that an individual and self-concept in order to reduce their personal un- becomes susceptible to toxic illusio due to their certainty. As an aversive state that reflects directly increased personal uncertainty in a given domain, on an individual’s self and identity, personal uncer- subject to the availability of a toxic leader and a tainty creates the immediate need to clarify who one conducive environment. Moreover, we argue that the is. That’s why, in the hasty search for answers, the individual’s adoption of the toxic leader’s proposed feeling of belonging and the identity that the toxic il- value system is an agentic choice to reduce their per- lusio provides becomes fundamental to the very core sonal uncertainty. In other words, individuals with of the individual. The glorified and simplified alter- high levels of personal uncertainty may find joining natives offered by the toxic leader and illusio might the toxic game and adopting the self-concept and the prove to be a lifesaver for an individual who is in worldview associated with it more rewarding than search of meaning and symbolic worth in such a re- the alternatives, including the status quo. Once they vised worldview. join the game, however, reciprocal social identity Although high personal uncertainty renders indi- processes initiate, and material and social ties of viduals more vulnerable to the allure of toxic leaders, interest become entrenched in their toxic field. As not every individual with high personal uncertainty players alter the game, they play with their decisions becomes a follower of a particular toxic leader, es- and actions, and players are also shaped by the toxic pecially in the absence of a compatible toxic illusio. leader and the illusio. Albeit strained, an individual’s existing perception of self may render joining a toxic illusio infeasible if their current self-construct clashes with the toxic Playing the toxic game leader’s proposed worldview and self-concept. For example, a person who supports human rights may Toxic illusio consists of a group of players in which not be lured towards a toxic illusio which they be- the leader and their followers identify with the group lieve to endanger some employees’ health and safety through self-categorization. Accordingly, once the significantly at the workplace, even when they are illusio takes shape, the socio-cognitive group pro- having personal uncertainty crises about their profes- cesses influence the social identity formulations of sional self. its members (van Knippenberg and Hogg 2018). Ac- A conducive field of relations (the environment) cording to Tajfel, social identity is the self-awareness also influences the individual’s motivation to join the as a member of a social group, and it implies group toxic illusio. The field, in that regard, includes not membership as having ‘some emotional and value only the institutional context, such as cultural val- significance’ for the member (Tajfel 1972, p. 292). ues and checks and balances mechanisms, but also Social identities enable individuals to identify them- the situational factors, such as instability and per- selves as part of a certain group, to assimilate the ceived threat. In particular, crises in fast-changing cognitive and behavioural norms of the group and to fields such as financial, social, cultural or security discriminate against others who lack membership of that render the environment uncertain for individu- this group. Even though all players are co-creators als may exacerbate feelings of personal uncertainty of leadership (Uhl-Bien et al. 2014), leaders are in (Rast et al. 2013). As such, crisis situations that fur- a more enabling position to orient social identities ther limit an individual’s access to capital and power (van Knippenberg et al. 2004). Indeed, Hogg ar- could provide fertile ground in which to cultivate gues that these social identities and the associated toxic illusio by motivating individuals to reduce their socio-cognitive processes enable leaders to ‘emerge, increased personal uncertainty, which in turn trans- maintain their position, be effective’ (Hogg 2001, lates into support for a toxic leader. It is also im- p. 186) due to their prototypical, or influential, sta- portant to emphasize that the construct of personal tus. Within these cognitive processes, leaders are the uncertainty, self-concept and worldview as employed entrepreneurs of identity whose vision and values here is domain specific. In other words, an individ- spread to the members of the group (Reicher et al. ual may be a player of a toxic illusio in the political 2005), thus making the toxic illusio viable.

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 54 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin

Beyond the social identity ties, toxic illusio of- strates that individuals’ propensity to morally dis- fers other material, social, cultural and symbolic engage predicts unethical behaviour (Moore et al. resources as well. Toxic leaders use coercive persua- 2012). In that sense, absorbed by the toxic illu- sion techniques to further consolidate and homoge- sio, followers of toxic leaders can continue to have nize their follower group and to ensure that the play- positive moral perceptions about themselves and ers stay committed to the game. Coercive persuasion other players, whilst contributing to the toxic out- methods are the ‘discursive systems of constraint comes of the phenomenon individually and collec- that are difficult for followers to challenge and re- tively by ignoring the moral consequences of their sist’ (Tourish 2013, p. 40). Such methods include – actions. but are not limited to – reference group affiliation, Furthermore, as toxic processes normalize within role modelling, peer pressures, alignment of identity, the game through their institutionalization, rational- performance assessment and reward systems (for a ization and socialization, players may find it even detailed discussion of various techniques, see Cial- easier to continue business as usual without any dini and Goldstein 2004). An example of such prac- experience of moral conflict (Ashforth and Anand tices is the significant use of ‘friend or foe’ rhetoric 2003). Normalization of toxic habitus numbs the (Pelletier 2010). When used effectively, this rhetoric moral aspect of actions, especially when the individ- not only introduces an existential threat by an ‘other’ ual believes such practices are the norm among, and to immediate the necessity of group social identity, perceived favourably by, the rest of the players. In- but also consolidates the appropriate attitude and be- stitutionalized organizational behaviours (collective haviour expectations of the toxic illusio by drawing a habitus at work) are defined as ‘stable, repetitive and clear distinction between the in-group and out-group. enduring activities that are enacted by multiple orga- The perceived existential threat also legitimizes the nization members without significant thought about toxic leader and the group’s emphasis on loyalty to the propriety, utility, or nature of the behavior’ (Ash- the group identity, which in turn normalizes the as- forth and Anand 2003, p. 4). These behaviours enable sociated reward and punishment systems. As such, players to switch off the trigger for the recognition of coercive persuasion practices demonstrated by toxic the moral aspect of a decision. The rationalization of leaders achieve their objective on two fronts. First, toxic practices and the game’s idiosyncratic rules and these discursive systems accelerate the immersion of norms allows players to justify the toxic practices as the player into the toxic game by presenting them normal, which therefore does not require additional with an immediate decision of whether to fully com- thought. As the toxic practices are institutionalized mit to the totality of the rules of the game or to be and rationalized, they are also taught to newcomers banished from the game as one of the others. Second, as the way things work in the group. This socializa- once the player conforms to the game in its entirety, tion of toxicity might, in fact, turn into a new ob- these same discourses provide the clear boundaries servable verge between the players of the toxic illu- and rules that construct the strong self-concept and sio and ‘others’ by becoming a part of the group’s worldview that they need to avoid previous high lev- social identity. In that regard, since players depend els of personal uncertainty. strongly on the group social identity, normalization Nevertheless, although toxic leaders are often con- of toxic practices can serve as a catalyst for individ- sidered the focal point of the phenomenon, they do uals’ moral disengagement from the ethical conse- not sustain the game alone. Individuals who choose quences of the individual and collective actions the to join the toxic game as a way of reducing their toxic game requires. personal uncertainty are also motivated to remain in To summarize, once the individual joins the toxic the game to avoid going back to that initial aver- game to reduce their high levels of personal uncer- sive state. To that end, as Arendt observed in Eich- tainty, there are a number of dynamics that enable mann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil the players to continue playing the game (and even (1963), individuals can disengage themselves from increase their commitment) and hence prolong the the moral aspects of their actions and hence commit life of the toxic illusio. First of all, once an individual evil acts without necessarily being evil. Moral dis- joins the toxic game, group social identity processes engagement, accordingly, can allow the individual to further reinforce the essentiality of the illusio to the disable the self-regulatory mechanisms that prevent construction of their selves. As the individual adopts immoral acts through the anticipated self-sanctioning the self-concept and the worldview proposed by the (Bandura 2002). Indeed, previous research demon- toxic illusio, they start perceiving themselves as

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 55 one with the game and the other players as a group. To remain or not to remain a player, that’s the Therefore, since these players depend strongly on the question social identity and related norms of toxic illusio to Toxic leaderships ‘achieve surprising longevity’ avoid high personal uncertainty, it is less likely that (Lipman-Blumen 2005b, p. 11), and one of the main they question the ethical aspect of the game. Second, reasons behind their perennity is the sustained sup- toxic leaders employ coercive persuasion techniques port of their followers. It is often puzzling – if not to create discursive systems that make it harder for frustrating – for researchers and the general public the players to challenge the rules and norms of the alike to observe followers of toxic leaders in sup- game. In addition to establishing clear boundaries port of such evil people. But as we have discussed between the in-group members and others, these at length within this paper, individuals who join the techniques also structure a range of psychological, toxic illusio in order to reduce their high levels of social, cultural, symbolic and material motivations personal uncertainty internalize the self-concept and (rewards and punishments) within the rules and worldview of the toxic illusio and hence draw their dynamics of the toxic game. Third, since the players social identity directly from the toxic game and the themselves are motivated to continue playing the toxic leader. Moreover, players of the toxic game fur- game, they ‘deceive themselves about the ethical ther commit to the social identity of the toxic illu- nature of the issues they face through psychological sio by their accumulated choices and behaviours. In processes that hide the ethical issues from view’ other words, in line with the literature on escalation (Treviño et al. 2006, p. 958). Consequently, by of commitment (Staw 1981) and Becker’s side-bet ignoring the ethical aspect of their decisions and theory (Becker 1960), the choices and behaviours of actions, members of the toxic illusio can maintain a the players of the toxic game create a track record for positive perception about their individual and collec- each individual, which makes it increasingly costly tive actions while contributing to the toxic outcomes for them to dissent and defect from the group prac- of the phenomenon. Finally, normalization of toxic tices (Meyer and Allen 1984). Therefore, as players practices within the toxic game further reduces the of the toxic game, these followers are increasingly possibility of players recognizing the moral aspect motivated to maintain their positive moral percep- of any decision or act involved. Indeed, as the initial tion of themselves, the game and consequently the examples of toxic practices are observed to produce leader. positive results in terms of players’ motivations, Keeping in mind that followers’ support is a signif- more players adopt these practices, and hence the icant factor in the durability of toxic leadership phe- toxicity becomes embedded in the game and its rules nomena, understanding the dynamics behind their and processes (Ashforth and Anand 2003). Once tenacity to remain in the toxic illusio is a crucial first routinized, the actions that are supposed to trigger step to reduce the toxic effects of the phenomenon. reflective thoughts on ethics are considered less as We suggest that when players of the toxic illusio en- discrete decision points and more as part of the nor- counter what an outsider would label as a manifes- mal proceedings that do not require any additional tation of the toxicity of the game, they first employ thought. cognitive defence mechanisms to avoid awareness of In that regard, as the game continues, these four the moral aspect of the issue (Figure 2 outlines the main dynamics collectively prolong the life of the process of moral decision making for remaining in or toxic illusio by making players increasingly resistant leaving the toxic illusio). Motivated to remain within to questioning the ethics of the game and its out- the game and to avoid moral dissonance, players of- comes. In fact, this refusal to question the morality ten take refuge in the normalization of the toxicity of of the rules and the dynamics of the toxic illusio can the illusio. Considered to be part of routinized pro- be mistaken as a lack of agency by observers. The cesses instead of particular decision points that re- present paper argues against it. We suggest that, once quire additional ethical pondering, most of the day- they join the toxic game, players become absorbed in to-day instances of toxicity evade any ethical scrutiny the illusio because they are increasingly motivated to by the members of the toxic illusio. In fact, as more do so. Indeed, once they are settled into their group toxic practices normalize within the game over time, social identity and rituals, followers are often com- players may find it easier to ignore even the existence fortable in their conformity to the toxic illusio until of an ethical question in increasingly toxic routines. something disillusions them. As such, providing a post-hoc justification for their

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 56 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin the toxic game the toxic game Individual leaves Individual remains in No Yes Moral enough? dissonance significant significant over multiple incidents Repeated moralRepeated dissonancebecome can more illusio dissonance becomes* and disillusioned aboutdisillusioned the toxic Individual experiences moral No al not s or e Yes doe e m l nc onanc Moral ss rie di disengagement? xpe e ndividua I individual, but itover build up can multiple instances Yes No encountered incidentencountered or may not may be the disillusion to enough * The moral dissonance theacknowledging by caused of toxicity the Moral awareness? Further normalizes the encounter reduces and ofpossibility the acknowledgement ofthein toxicity future manifest of toxicity Individual encounters a Figure 2. Morality-based process model of followers’ continued participation in the toxic game

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 57 judgement only when specifically prompted, players strated that ‘people can and do engage in processes of the toxic game can go through most toxic be- of moral rationalization and moral decoupling if they haviours without any hint of moral dissonance. are motivated to continue transacting with or sup- Nevertheless, not all toxic practices are equally porting entities that have engaged in harmful or im- normalized within the toxic illusio, and instances moral behavior’ (Pfeffer 2016, p. 664). As such, of eliciting situations with high moral intensity can players of the toxic illusio are strongly motivated to still trigger moral awareness. According to the issue- morally disengage from the toxicity they observe to contingent model of Jones (1991), moral intensity maintain the status quo they enjoy. has six components: (i) magnitude of consequences While the players employ the above-mentioned (the overall utility of the moral act); (ii) social con- cognitive mechanisms to remain in the game with- sensus (the degree of agreement in the society on out experiencing any moral dissonance, they receive that subject); (iii) probability of effect (the proba- help from both the toxic leader and other members of bility of the possible harm/benefit of the act realiz- the toxic illusio. Toxic leaders, as the prototype of the ing); (iv) temporal immediacy (the time between the social identity of toxic illusio, provide arguments and decision/act and present); (v) proximity (closeness discourses to catalyse members’ moral disengage- to those involved); and (vi) concentration of effect ment in the case of a moral conflict. Amplified by the (strength of consequences for those affected). There- collective of the members of the toxic illusio, these fore, while it’s ‘easier to harm others when their suf- arguments and discourses are legitimized by fellow fering is not visible and when destructive actions are players and provide convenient tools for moral jus- physically and temporally remote from their injurious tification. For example, toxic leaders may resort to effects’ (Bandura 2002, p. 108), a certain, immediate self-preservation tactics such as cognitive change and and significant harm to people in close relationship alternative truths (Schütz 1998) to sustain the support with the individual is more likely to trigger a moral of the members of the toxic illusio. consideration. Cognitive change ‘involves selecting which of Once players become aware that they are facing the many possible meanings will be attached to the a moral issue, they can still decide to act on their situation, reappraising or reinterpreting the situation intuition by employing mechanisms of moral disen- as having less potential harm to goals, concerns, and gagement, even when their ethical cognitive frame- well-being’ (Little et al. 2016, p. 87). In that sense, work conflicts with the intuition (Moore et al. 2012). toxic leaders might use cognitive change tactics to To avoid moral dissonance caused by such con- reframe the causes of toxic incidents as well as to flict, moral disengagement mechanisms offer a wide alter how players of the toxic illusio feel about it. An range of tools to avoid self-sanctions by ‘reconstru- example of such cognitive change can be creating an ing conduct as serving moral purposes, obscuring advantageous comparison. Since ‘whenever events personal agency in detrimental activities, disregard- occur or are presented contiguously, the first one ing or misrepresenting the injurious consequences colors how the second one is perceived and judged’ of one’s actions, and blaming and dehumanizing (Bandura 1990, p. 166), toxic leaders can manipulate the victims’ (Bandura 1990, p. 28). More specifi- the cognitive frame of the incident in question by cally, moral disengagement mechanisms have three structuring what it is compared against. Instead of main categories: (i) performing cognitive reconstruc- changing the cognitive framework of their followers tion of the behaviour, that is moral justification, eu- regarding the observed incident of toxicity, toxic phemistic labelling and advantageous comparison; leaders can also deliberately lie or distort facts (ii) minimizing one’s role in the harmful behaviour, (Pelletier 2010) to eliminate their followers’ moral that is displacement of responsibility, diffusion of dissonance to facilitate their sustained support. Since responsibility and disregarding or distorting of the ‘individuals’ understandings of the world are held consequences; and (iii) focusing on the target’s un- as true to the extent that they can be affirmed by favourable acts, that is dehumanization and attribu- some social group’ (Kruglanski and Orehek 2012, tion of blame (Treviño et al. 2006). Indeed, the wide p. 4), lies spread by the toxic leader circulate between range of such cognitive mechanisms that enable in- the players of the toxic game and become alternative dividuals to avoid self-sanctioning has been studied truths. extensively in the literature, for example moral exclu- Furthermore, previous research provides evidence sion and inclusion (Opotow 1990) and moral decou- for individuals’ preference for information that pling (Bhattacharjee et al. 2013). Research demon- supports their social stereotypes (Johnston 1996),

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 58 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin attitudes (Lundgren and Prislin 1998) and self- creases, players increasingly feel estranged from the serving conclusions (Holton and Pyszczynski 1989). social identity of the toxic illusio. Such detachment This cognitive tendency, referred to as confirmation from the values and rules of the game may eventually bias, allows the individual to maintain their origi- lead to the individual’s disillusionment with the toxic nal position, ‘even if this position is not justified on illusio. Since moral dissonance accumulates across the basis of all available information’ (Jonas et al. multiple instances of perceived toxicity, an individ- 2001, p. 557). Individuals who joined the toxic illu- ual’s disillusionment with the allure of toxic lead- sio are strongly motivated to justify the toxicity of ership can result from a single, as well as repeated, the eliciting situation that they observed. Such play- demonstrations of the toxicity of the game. ers are likely to prefer the arguments and discourses Unfortunately, the disillusionment of a player does put forth by the toxic leader, exacerbated by the mem- not necessarily mean that they will leave the toxic bers of the toxic illusio, to information suggesting game. Although the individuals we describe in this the toxicity of the game. In fact, recent research sug- paper joined the toxic illusio overwhelmingly out gests that widespread use of Internet and social me- of cognitive and psychological needs, as we have dia further aggravates such confirmation bias by fos- discussed in the ‘Playing the toxic game’ section, tering ‘the aggregation of like-minded people where they become increasingly embedded in the rules and debates tend to enforce group polarization’ (Del Vi- dynamics of the toxic game while they remain in cario et al. 2017, p. 1). the illusio. In other words, throughout the period To summarize, individuals who join the toxic illu- players participate in the toxic game, they strive to- sio as a way of reducing their high levels of personal wards and/or obtain a status within the toxic illu- uncertainty have a predisposition to morally disen- sio. Status, defined as ‘the position in a social hi- gage from any manifestation of the toxicity of the erarchy that results from accumulated acts of def- game, as they are also often provided with enabling erence’ (Sauder et al. 2012), in return, determines arguments and discourses by the toxic leader and the material and social benefits the individual de- other players collectively. Consequently, more often rives from participation. Moreover, since the toxic il- than not, such players can justify a manifestation of lusio perpetuates its existence through sustained sup- toxicity, even when it initially conflicts with their eth- port of its players, dynamic systems of rewards and ical code, and therefore they may not experience any punishment are set in place to encourage compli- moral dissonance. ance and inhibit dissent from its members. In that Nevertheless, even for the players who are most sense, as long as the individual is committed to the engaged with the toxic game, some instances may be toxic game, they invest time, effort and resources so morally intense that the individual’s moral disen- to achieve a higher status among other players as gagement mechanisms can fail to fence off the moral well as to obtain the rewards set forth by the game. dissonance that is caused by the clash of the observed In addition to material- or power-related benefits of incident and personal code of ethics. Moral disso- such status and rewards, individuals can also enjoy nance, in this sense, ‘occurs when a person’s behav- the social bonds that are formed based on their so- ior or general cognitions are in conflict with his/her cial status within the toxic illusio. Consequently, even moral values’ (Lowell 2012, p. 19). More specifically, when individuals join the toxic game only to reduce moral dissonance is a dimension of cognitive disso- their personal uncertainty, their decision of whether nance which is defined as ‘a state of tension whenever to leave the game or not includes factors beyond their an individual holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, disillusionment. beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsis- More specifically, while a player who experiences tent’ (Aronson 1972, p. 178). Therefore, as with the moral dissonance due to the perceived toxicity of the case of cognitive dissonance, moral dissonance is felt game would benefit from leaving the game, it would more acutely when the individual: (i) perceives the also cost them their social status within the group instance as an irrevocable commitment on their be- and social and material perks from the game. Fur- half; (ii) can foresee or observe the consequences thermore, due to the polarizing nature of toxic leader- clearly; (iii) perceives themselves as responsible for ships, leaving the game may also result in additional the consequences; and (iv) must devote more effort to sanctions and hostility from toxic illusio members. create the instance in question (Lowell 2012). In that In that regard, although the extent depends on the regard, as the intensity of moral dissonance experi- time, effort and resources the individual spends in enced due to the perceived toxicity of the game in- the game, players may be motivated to remain in the

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 59 toxic game, even when they are disillusioned about Furthermore, we also discuss the dynamics and the social identity it provides. mechanisms that take place once the individual joins Based on our discussion above, we conclude that, the toxic game and explore how such mechanisms once the individual joins the toxic illusio, they be- can prolong the lives of toxic illusio by motivating come increasingly motivated to remain in the game. players to remain in the toxic game. Consequently, Indeed, when confronted with a manifestation of the this paper brings to our attention the extent of the toxicity of the game, players are likely to (i) ignore followers’ choices and chances in joining, support- the ethical aspect of the issue to avoid moral disso- ing, complying with or defecting from toxic leader- nance and (ii) employ moral disengagement mecha- ship. Our unique framing of the relationship between nisms in case they become aware of the ethical as- followers and the toxic illusio extends the theory of pect of less normalized and more intense instances toxic leadership, shedding light on the particular dy- of toxicity. Even when their efforts to morally disen- namic of joining and staying in the toxic illusio in gage from the issue at hand fail, players can still be a way that lends moral agency to the followers as dissuaded to remain in the game by their vested in- toxic agents who are held partly responsible for the terests. Consequently, we suggest that a player of a co-construction and sustenance of toxic illusio. toxic game would choose to leave the game only if Admittedly, we did not spend time on the reci- (or when) their moral dissonance exceeds the utility procity of the identity and the value creation they derive from being a member of the toxic illusio. processes between the leader and the followers as a In that sense, this persistence on behalf of the players group. This does not mean that reciprocity of identity allows toxic illusio to survive for longer periods of creation is not important. In fact, the role of follower time, despite their toxicity. Therefore, we believe that constraints in the formulation of the group prototype, a theoretically founded study of the mechanisms that as well as the evolution of the social identity as a dy- lure in and further engage individuals to toxic illusio namic process, are very much critical to the leader- is of critical importance to future endeavours to curb ship process. Although it was beyond the scope of the impact of toxic leadership phenomena through the current paper, we strongly suggest future research follower-focused interventions. to explore the reciprocal aspect of the co-creation mechanisms between the leader and their followers. It is also important to note that our narrative re- Conclusions view, particularly the variants of toxic leaders and followers explored in this paper, would benefit from Toxic leadership is one of the most consequential so- gender analyses. Although we do not delve into gen- cial phenomena that many people encounter daily in der aspects of toxic leadership, we would like to different domains of their lives, such as at work or note three concerns that future research should con- in the political sphere. Followers are the co-creators sider. First, women leaders are at a disadvantage in of this phenomenon as there is no leadership, toxic terms of gender role congruence due to gender biases or not, without followers. Yet, we still know very lit- and gendered social expectations in general (John- tle about the followers of toxic leaders. In the present son et al. 2008). Therefore, it would be more difficult paper, we build on the literature of toxic leadership, for women to become toxic leaders as social expec- Bourdieu’s concepts of illusio and the construct of tations around how women should behave could pre- personal uncertainty in order to take a step forward vent followers from holding on to the toxic illusio towards explicating why and how individuals join a if the leader is female. Future research may explore toxic illusio and decide on whether to remain as fol- male and female forms of toxic leadership in terms lowers of a toxic leader. Moreover, we argue that of gendered inhibitors and catalysts such as role con- individuals join the toxic illusio out of self-interest gruence. Second, as in the example of Theranos that and that one of their main motivations is to avoid we mentioned earlier, the kind of toxic leadership that or reduce the personal uncertainty they feel in that women practice, such as toxic envy that led Elizabeth particular domain of their lives. In that sense, the Holmes to imitate Steve Jobs in her attire and self- present paper explores how the worldview and self- presentation in this particular case (Carreyrou 2018), concept proposed by the toxic illusio match indi- could be different from the toxic leadership prac- viduals’ needs to cope with their personal uncer- tices of men. Future research could explicate gender tainty and thereby lure individuals to join the toxic differences in women’s and men’s practices of toxic game. leadership, exploring issues of power and privilege.

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 60 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin

Third, the MeToo movement has highlighted that the mechanisms and dynamics that lead individuals women are more likely to suffer from sexual harass- to join and remain in toxic illusio. Indeed, we hope ment and sexual violence (Veissière 2018). The ram- that the present paper can serve as a first step to- pant and entrenched nature of sexual harassment not wards such research by framing the followers of toxic only hinders women’s path to leadership positions, leaders as moral agents that co-create the toxic lead- but also shapes how they experience toxicity as the ership phenomena and thus enable better-informed victims. More specifically, even when they are disil- follower-focused interventions to curb the impact of lusioned with the toxic illusio, let alone challenging future toxic leaderships. the toxic illusio publicly, women might find it harder to exit the game due to systemic coercion, feelings of powerlessness and oppression mechanisms such References as non-disclosure agreements. In that sense, gender might have a profound effect on an individual’s ex- Abramson, J. (2009). Minerva’s Owl: The Tradition of West- ern Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- perience, both when joining and playing in the toxic sity Press. field as well as in their decision to quit. Future re- Alvesson, M. (2010). Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, search could explore how gender and power play surfers and others: Images of self-identities in organiza- out in understanding toxic leaders and their follow- tion studies. Human Relations, 63, pp. 193–217. ers. Although we have not explored gender issues in Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism.New great depth in this narrative review, we would like to York: Schocken Books. call for future research to focus on how women and Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of men practice toxic leadership and followership and to Evil. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. what extent their followers may respond in gendered Aronson, E. (1972). The Social Animal, 10th edn. New York: ways to the toxic illusio. Worth Publishers. There are a number of practical implications Ashforth, B.E. and Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational within our research. We explained that what makes Behavior, 25, pp. 1–52. individuals particularly susceptible to join and re- Balch, R.W. and Taylor, D. (2002). Making sense of the main in the toxic illusio is their search for a strong Heaven’s Gate suicides. In Bromley, D.G. and Gordon, worldview and self-concept. In that sense, it is par- M.J. (eds), Cults, Religion, and Violence. Cambridge: ticularly important to design follower-focused inter- Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–228. ventions that make individuals less vulnerable to the Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. allure of toxic leadership, so that they do not join the In Reich, W. (ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, toxic illusio in the first place. We suggest an initial Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind.NewYork:Cam- focus on addressing systemic mechanisms that cause bridge University Press, pp. 161–191. alienation, exclusion, alterity and isolation, which in Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetra- turn may lead to high levels of personal uncertainty. tion of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, pp. 193–209. Any such interventions can attempt to address ‘per- Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the ceived injustice’ and ‘social bonds’ of individuals, exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, especially for marginalized groups, to avoid high pp. 101–119. levels of personal uncertainty. In the same vein, inter- Barker, E. (1986). Religious movements: Cult and antic- ventions such as equality, diversity, inclusion, indus- ult since Jonestown. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, trial democracy and solidarity could strengthen an in- pp. 329–346. dividual’s identity formation and reduce the chances Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organiza- of individuals’ susceptibility to join a toxic illusio tional Effectiveness Through Transformational Leader- due to personal uncertainty. Based on our conceptual ship (7th print). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. elaboration in this paper, we also suggest future Bastardoz, N. and Van Vugt, M. (2018). The nature of fol- research on mechanisms and dynamics that sustain lowership: Evolutionary analysis and review. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 30, pp. 81–95. toxic leadership once individuals join the game, such Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. as coercive tactics of the toxic leader, normalization The American Journal of Sociology, 66, pp. 32–40. of toxicity and moral disengagement of the followers. Bhattacharjee, A., Berman, J.Z. and Reed, A.I. (2013). Tip of In conclusion, we would like to emphasize the the hat, wag of the finger: How moral decoupling enables need for a theoretically founded and organized re- consumers to admire and admonish. Journal of Consumer search programme that would systematically explore Research, 39, pp. 1167–1184.

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 61

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, Guillén Ramo, L., Jacquart, P.and Hogg, M. (2018). Leader- J.G. (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the ship and the dark triad: How self-uncertainty helps malev- Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, olent leaders rise to the top. Academy of Management pp. 241–258. Proceedings, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An Invitation to 295 Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Hammersley, M. (2001). On “systematic” reviews of re- Press. search literatures: A “narrative” response to Evans & Bush, J. (2007). Women Against the Vote: Female Anti- Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27, Suffragism in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 543–554. Carreyrou, J. (2018). Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Sili- Hansbrough, T.K., Lord, R.G. and Schyns, B. (2015). Re- con Valley Startup. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. considering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. Cialdini, R.B. and Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: Leadership Quarterly, 26, pp. 220–237. Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychol- Hartmans, A. and Leskin, P. (2020, February 11). The rise ogy, 55, pp. 591–621. and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, who started Theranos when Craft, J.L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision- she was 19 and is now facing federal charges of “massive making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, fraud”. Business Insider. 117, pp. 221–259. Hegel, G.W.F. (1820). Philosophy of Right, 2001 edn. Kitch- Del Vicario, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H.E. and ener, Ont.: Batoche Books. Quattrociocchi, W. (2017). Modeling confirmation bias Heidegren, C.G. and Lundberg, H. (2010). Towards a soci- and polarization. Scientific Reports, 7, art. 40391. ology of philosophy. Acta Sociologica, 53, pp. 3–18. DeRue, D.S. and Ashford, S.J. (2010). Who will lead and Heppell, T. (2011). Toxic leadership: Applying the Lipman- who will follow? A social process of leadership identity Blumen model to political leadership. Representation, 47, construction in organizations. Academy of Management pp. 241–249. Review, 35, pp. 627–647. Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (2014). Narrative, meta- Eacott, S. (2016). Using Bourdieu to think anew about ed- analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences ucational leadership research. In Murphy, M. and Costa, and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Be- C. (eds), Theory as Method: Using Bourdieu in Education havior, 35, pp. S1–S5. Research. London: Routledge, pp. 117–131. Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Endres, S. and Weibler, J. (2017). Towards a three- Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, pp. 184– component model of relational social constructionist lead- 200. ership: A systematic review and critical interpretive syn- Hogg, M.A. (2015). Social instability and identity- thesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, uncertainty: Fertile ground for political extremism. In For- pp. 214–236. gas, J.P., Fiedler, K. and Crano, W.D. (eds), Social Psy- Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected pa- chology and Politics. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 307– pers. Psychological Issues, 1, pp. 1–171. 320. Fest, J. and Herrendoerfer, C. (1977). Hitler: A Career.Doc- Hogg, M.A. and Adelman, J. (2013). Uncertainty-identity umentary. theory: Extreme groups, radical behavior, and authoritar- Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. ian leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 69, pp. 436–454. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Holton, B. and Pyszczynski, T. (1989). Biased information Frank, R. (2012). North Korea after Kim Jong Il: The Kim search in the interpersonal domain. Personality and Social Jong Un era and its challenges. The Asia-Pacific Journal, Psychology Bulletin, 15, pp. 42–51. 10, art. 3674. Iszatt-White, M. and Kempster, S. (2019). Authentic leader- Gebert, D., Heinitz, K. and Buengeler, C. (2016). Leaders’ ship: Getting back to the roots of the ‘root construct’? In- charismatic leadership and followers’ commitment – the ternational Journal of Management Reviews, 21, pp. 356– moderating dynamics of value erosion at the societal level. 369. Leadership Quarterly, 27, pp. 98–108. Johnson, S.K., Murphy, S.E., Zewdie, S. and Reichard, Goldman, A. (2006). High toxicity leadership: Borderline R.J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender personality disorder and the dysfunctional organization. stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, pp. 733–746. of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Graham-Harrison, E. and Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 17). Human Decision Processes, 106, pp. 39–60. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Johnston, L. (1996). Resisting change: Information-seeking Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. and stereotype change. European Journal of Social Psy- Greenhalgh, T., Ozbilgin, M.F., Prainsack, B. and Shaw, chology, 26, pp. 799–825. S. (2019). Moral entrepreneurship, the power--knowledge Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D. and Thelen, N. (2001). nexus, and the Cochrane “crisis”. Journal of Evaluation Confirmation bias in sequential information search af- in Clinical Practice, 25, pp. 717–725. ter preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 62 A. Mergen and M.F.Ozbilgin

theoretical research on selective exposure to informa- Mancini, J. (2017, June 24). Uber CEO resigns: Travis tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Kalanick and the ultimate toxicity of workplace sexism. pp. 557–571. Quartz. Jones, O. and Gatrell, C. (2014). Editorial: The future of Marx, K. (1843). Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal of 1970 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Management Reviews, 16, pp. 249–264. May, D., Wesche, J.S., Heinitz, K. and Kerschreiter, R. Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by indi- (2014). Coping with destructive leadership: Putting for- viduals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. ward an integrated theoretical framework for the interac- The Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 366– tion process between leaders and followers. Zeitschrift für 396. Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 222, pp. 203–213. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet the- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ory” of organizational commitment: Some methodolog- Kantor, J. and Streitfeld, D. (2015, August 16). Inside Ama- ical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, zon: Wrestling big ideas in a bruising workplace. The New pp. 372–378. York Times. Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., Baker, V.L. and Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Mayer, D.M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Happens, Why It Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behav- Press. ior. Personnel Psychology, 65, pp. 1–48. Krasikova, D.V., Green, S.G. and LeBreton, J.M. (2013). Nietzsche, F.W. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, Everyone and No One. Oxford: Oxford University Press. and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, O’Fallon, M.J. and Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the pp. 1308–1338. empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Kruglanski, A.W. and Orehek, E. (2012). The need for cer- Journal of Business Ethics, 59, pp. 375–413. tainty as a psychological nexus for individuals and soci- Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An intro- ety. In Hogg, M.A. and Blaylock, D.L. (eds), Extremism duction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, pp. 1–20. and the Psychology of Uncertainty. Oxford: Blackwell, Ozbilgin, M. and Tatli, A. (2011). Mapping out the field of pp. 1–18. equality and diversity: Rise of individualism and volun- Lendvai, P. (2018). Orbán: Hungary’s Strongman. Oxford: tarism. Human Relations, 64, pp. 1229–1253. Oxford University Press. Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic tri- Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a). The allure of toxic leaders: Why angle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and con- followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Jour- ducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 176– nal, 69, pp. 1–8. 194. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Pelletier, K.L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical inves- Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politi- tigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6, cians – and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford: Oxford pp. 373–389. University Press. Pelletier, K.L. (2012). Perceptions of and reactions to leader Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005c). Toxic leadership: When grand toxicity: Do leader–follower relationships and identifi- illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader, cation with victim matter? Leadership Quarterly, 23, 2005, pp. 29–36. pp. 412–424. Little, L.M., Gooty, J. and Williams, M. (2016). The role of Pelletier, K.L., Kottke, J.L. and Sirotnik, B.W. (2018). The leader emotion management in leader–member exchange toxic triangle in academia: A case analysis of the emer- and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 27, pp. 85– gence and manifestation of toxicity in a public university. 97. Leadership, 15, pp. 405–432. Lord, R.G. and Brown, D.J. (2004). Leadership Processes Petocz, A. and Miner, M. (2003). Moral theory in ethical and Follower Self-Identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- decision making: Problems, clarifications and recommen- baum. dations from a psychological perspective. Journal of Busi- Lowell, J. (2012). Managers and moral dissonance: Self jus- ness Ethics, 42, pp. 11–25. tification as a big threat to ethical management? Journal Pfeffer, J. (2016). Why the assholes are winning: Money of Business Ethics, 105, pp. 17–25. trumps all. Journal of Management Studies, 53, pp. 663– Lundgren, S.R. and Prislin, R. (1998). Motivated cognitive 669. processing and attitude change. Personality and Social Rast, D.E., Hogg, M.A. and Giessner, S.R. (2013). Self- Psychology Bulletin, 24, pp. 715–726. uncertainty and support for autocratic leadership. Self and Lupu, I. and Empson, L. (2015). Illusio and overwork: Play- Identity, 12, pp. 635–649. ing the game in the accounting field. Accounting, Auditing Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belk- and Accountability Journal, 28, pp. 1310–1340. nap Press of Harvard University Press.

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Understanding the Followers of Toxic Leaders 63

Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A. and Hopkins, N. (2005). Social Thoroughgood, C.N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S.T. and Tate, B.W. identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and fol- (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers lowers as collaborative agents in the transformation of so- associated with destructive leadership. Leadership Quar- cial reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, pp. 547–568. terly, 23, pp. 897–917. Rhodes, C. and Pullen, A. (2018). Critical business ethics: Thoroughgood, C.N., Sawyer, K.B., Padilla, A. and From corporate self-interest to the glorification of the Lunsford, L. (2016). Destructive leadership: A critique of sovereign pater. International Journal of Management Re- leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic def- views, 20, pp. 483–499. inition. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, pp. 627–649. Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values, 2008 Tourish, D. (2013). The Dark Side of Transformational Lead- edn. New York: The Free Press. ership: A Critical Perspective. New York: Routledge. Sauder, M., Lynn, F. and Podolny, J.M. (2012). Status: In- Treviño, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (2013). Managing Business sights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right, 6th edn, Sociology, 38, pp. 267–283. Vol. 6. New York: Wiley. Schoel, C., Bluemke, M., Mueller, P. and Stahlberg, D. Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R. and Reynolds, S.J. (2006). Be- (2011). When autocratic leaders become an option: Un- havioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of certainty and self-esteem predict implicit leadership pref- Management, 32, pp. 951–990. erences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Treviño, L.K., den Nieuwenboer, N.A. and Kish-Gephart, 101, pp. 521–540. J.J. (2014). (Un)Ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Schütz, A. (1998). Assertive, offensive, protective, and de- Review of Psychology, 65, pp. 635–660. fensive styles of self-presentation: A taxonomy. The Jour- Tsang, J.A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration nal of Psychology, 132, pp. 611–628. of situational factors and psychological processes in im- Shao, R., Aquino, K. and Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6, pp. 25– moral reasoning: A review off moral identity research 50. and its implications for business ethics. Journal of Busi- Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under un- ness Ethics, 18, pp. 513–540. https://doi.org/10.5840/ certainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, pp. 1124– beq200818436 1131. Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.E., Lowe, K.B. and Carsten, M.K. Twentieth Century. New York: Tim Duggan Books. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research Snyder, T. (2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, pp. 83–104. America. New York: Tim Duggan Books. van den Bos, K. (2009). Making sense of life: The existential Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychologi- course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, cal Inquiry, 20, pp. 197–217. pp. 577–587. van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2018). Social identi- Swann, W.B. and Jetten, J. (2017). Restoring agency to the fications in organizational behavior. In Ferris, D.L., John- human actor. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, son, R.E. and Sedikides, C. (eds), SIOP Organizational pp. 382–399. Frontiers Series. The Self at Work: Fundamental The- Sweeney, A., Clarke, N. and Higgs, M. (2019). Shared lead- ory and Research. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis ership in commercial organizations: A systematic review Group, pp. 72–90. of definitions, theoretical frameworks and organizational van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. outcomes. International Journal of Management Reviews, and Hogg, M.A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: 21, pp. 115–136. A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization (La catégorisation pp. 825–856. sociale). In Moscovici, S. (ed.), Introduction à la psy- Veissière, S.P.L. (2018). “Toxic masculinity” in the age of chologie sociale. Paris: Larousse. English edn, pp. 272– #MeToo: Ritual, morality and gender archetypes across 302. cultures. Society and Business Review, 13, pp. 274– Tatli, A., Ozbilgin, M. and Karatas-Ozkan, M. (2018). Pierre 286. Bourdieu, Organization, and Management.NewYork: Watts, J. (2016, August 31). Dilma Rousseff impeachment: Routledge. What you need to know. The Guardian. Thomson, P. (2017). Educational Leadership and Pierre Whicker, M.L. (1996). Toxic Leaders When Organizations Bourdieu. New York: Routledge. Go Bad. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

© 2020 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.