Organizational Dynamics (2015) 44, 266—272 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgdyn Destructive leadership: Causes, consequences and countermeasures Anthony Erickson, Ben Shaw, Jane Murray, Sara Branch In 2010, David Matsuda, an anthropology professor, was asked attention has also been paid to the mindset of followers (i.e., to study why almost 30 U.S. soldiers in Iraq had committed or military subordinates) and the prevailing climate/environ- attempted suicide in the past year. His investigation showed ment in the military. The military is viewed as an organization that while those soldiers often had major problems in their where pride, respect and loyalty are of paramount impor- personal lives, the victims also had in common at least one tance. In such an environment, junior officers may be loath to leader (sometimes a couple of leaders) who made their lives publically identify poor behavior by their superiors. In addi- hell. While the evidence did not show that the soldiers’ leaders tion, several recent military conflicts and loss of senior per- directly caused them to commit or attempt suicide, it did sonnel to private security companies had resulted in relatively support the notion that the leaders who had made their lives inexperienced personnel being promoted more rapidly than hell had helped to push them over the brink. It was this finding would otherwise have been the case. The case of toxic leader- that forced the U.S. military to confront the problem of ship in the army seems a classic triangle of destructive leaders, ‘‘toxic’’ leadership in the army. susceptible followers and a conducive environment. As a first stage in attempting to fix the problem, the In response to this situation, the military identified a small military in 2012 published their definition of toxic leadership: number of officers it considered were toxic and removed them from their jobs. In addition, the army implemented a Toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered atti- small pilot program of 360-degree evaluations so that sub- tudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse ordinates could anonymously and truthfully evaluate their effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission superiors without fear of retribution. Such measures are performance. This leader lacks concern for others and believed to be showing promise, but many believe there is the climate of the organization, which leads to short- still some way to go. and long-term negative effects. The toxic leader operates with an inflated sense of self-worth and from acute self- WHAT IS DESTRUCTIVE LEADERSHIP? interest. Toxic leaders consistently use dysfunctional beha- viors to deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly punish The case of the toxic leaders in the U.S. military is a classic others to get what they want for themselves. The negative example of what is more commonly known as ‘‘destructive leader completes short-term requirements by operating at leadership.’’ Unfortunately the military is not the only organi- the bottom of the continuum of commitment, where fol- zation where destructive leadership occurs. In the last year, lowers respond to the positional power of their leader to several high-profile organizations (including government agen- fulfill requests. This may achieve results in the short term, cies and churches) have received media attention for having but ignores the other leader competency categories of destructive leaders in their ranks. While the study and identi- leads and develops. Prolonged use of negative leadership ficationofdestructiveleadershipisarelativelyrecentphenom- to influence followers undermines the followers’ will, enon, the same cannot be said for the ubiquity of its practice. initiative, and potential and destroys unit morale. While the example of toxic leadership in the U.S. military is Various studies estimate that the number of toxic leaders in a recent one, history is filled with examples of destructive the army ranges from 10% to 30%. While the focus is initially leaders from all walks of life and spheres of influence. Perhaps (and deservedly) on the individual leaders labeled as toxic, two of the most well known destructive organizational leaders http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.003 0090-2616/# 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Destructive leadership 267 are Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay. During their time at U.S. Army survey that was used to identify destructive leaders the helm they are said to have created an environment of also revealed that many subordinates perceived that they ‘‘benign followers’’ and used management practices that worked under an exemplary leader. Might some of these instilled fear in their workers. However there has been no exemplary leaders have been tyrannical, callous, rigid or shortage of such leaders in a variety of arenas. Seven-time Tour intemperate at times — perhaps they were? It seems then, De France and Olympic bronze medal winner Lance Armstrong that the old saying ‘‘everything in moderation’’ applies well to has been identified as a leader who created an environment the notion of destructive leadership. There are many effective where susceptible followers allowed his dishonest practices to leader behaviors which, done in excess, may become indica- proceed without question. Al (‘‘Chainsaw’’) Dunlap was rated tive of destructive leadership. For example, a leader who by Time Magazine as one of the all-time ‘‘Ten Worst Bosses.’’ As carefully monitors the performance of subordinates and men- his nickname might suggest, Al was seen to make a habit out of tors them in the best way to perform the task may be seen as business brutality and concentrated on cost cutting at the engaging in effective leader behavior. However, when that absolute expense of everything else. Described variously as monitoring and mentoring becomes excessive, the leader is mean, ill-tempered and arrogant, Dunlap was sacked after two more likely to be accused of micromanaging, a commonly cited years at Sunbeam. The company never recovered and went destructive leader behavior. The problem, of course, is how to into bankruptcy soon afterwards. Recently, the book (and determine when enough becomes too much. There are some movie) The Wolf of Wall Street also detailed the corporate leader behaviors that, even when done in small amounts, are crimes and personal excesses of Jordan Belfort. Bill Cosby, the inherently destructive. Taking credit for the work of others, well-known comedian, is currently under criminal investiga- sexual harassment or lying about important issues, even when tion by the Los Angeles Police Department, and a number of rarely done, fall within the realm of destructive behavior. FIFA (soccer’s top governing body) officials have been indicted A further complication we face in identifying destructive on corruption charges covering the last 20 years. leaders is that these leaders may behave badly in a number of So,ifhistoryisscatteredwithdestructiveleaders,whyisthe areas while being extremely competent at a number of study of them a recent phenomenon? Perhaps this is because others. For example, a leader may communicate clearly, academics, organizations and managers have traditionally have an excellent long-term view of how to achieve success soughttoimproveorganizationalperformancethroughthestudy in the organization and reward high performance effectively of good leadership, effective leadership, visionary and charis- BUT be an abusive bully in other situations. Is this individual a maticleadership.Itseemsthatuntilrecentlythe‘‘darkerside’’of truly ‘‘destructive’’ leader? If the behaviors are detrimental leadershiphadescapedcloserscrutiny.Bydarkersidewereferto to subordinates, the team or the organization itself, then the those types of leaders who are known as abusive, tyrannical, answer is most likely yes. bullying, toxic, bad or narcissistic. Such leaders are also often describedasevil,callous, incompetent,intemperate,and rigid HOW CAN A DESTRUCTIVE LEADER BE or insular. Collectively such leaders fall under the umbrella of destructiveleadership.Fortunately,thesetypesofbehaviorsare IDENTIFIED? no longer accepted as appropriate or as ‘‘normal behavior’’ So what help is there for organizations that wish to diagnose within organizations. Several studies support the notion that whether destructive leadership exists? The Destructive Lea- destructive leadership is common in the workplace and have dership Questionnaire (DLQ) is one of a number of surveys that estimated the level of destructive leaders in organizations at approximately25%.ThisisinlinewiththeU.S.militaryfindings. identify dysfunctional or toxic leadership by asking subordi- nates and peers to identify specific destructive behaviors a However, the term destructive leader should not be leader exhibits. The short version of the DLQ lists 22 discrete applied to individuals who occasionally ‘‘act badly.’’ While behaviors that are frequently cited as characteristic of one or infrequent random acts of incompetence, bullying destructive leaders. These behaviors are listed in Table 1. behavior, brutality, malice or callousness may be inappropri- As well as including the 22 behaviors, within Table 1 we ate, they do not qualify under the banner of destructive have also provided a rating guide that a subordinate, peer or leadership. For a leader to be labeled as destructive, his or leader could utilize to identify the frequency that they or her behavior must be seen as volitional, systematic,