How Can “Workplace Conferencing” Heal Teams Damaged by Toxic Bosses?

Why Do Companies Often Ignore Destructive Leaders Until It’s Too Late?

Stop toxic bosses in their tracks with Destructive Leadership in the Workplace by Vicki Webster and Paula Brough. Learn how to identify dark-side personality traits, protect your mental health, and use “workplace conferencing” to heal your team.

Dealing with a nightmare boss? Read the full summary now to discover the 3 proven strategies to protect yourself and restore sanity to your workplace.

Recommendation

Psychologist Vicki Webster and professor Paula Brough offer a comprehensive survey of research on the causes and impact of leadership that causes harm. They describe personality traits that predispose a leader to bad behavior, dissect the corporate cultures that enable this conduct, and describe the efficacy of various mitigation strategies. While few studies examine corporate responses to leadership problems, Webster and Brough offer approaches that hold promise.

Take-Aways

• Researchers who study destructive leadership describe leaders’ styles on a continuum from constructive to destructive.
• Destructive leadership harms a range of stakeholders.
• Destructive leadership results from extremes of negative or positive traits.
• An organization’s culture can enable destructive behavior.
• In stressful environments, employees devise coping strategies.
• Organizations should curb destructive leadership and protect targeted employees.
• “Workplace conferencing” is an effective response to destructive leadership.

Summary

Researchers who study destructive leadership describe leaders’ styles on a continuum from constructive to destructive.

Contemporary scholars have investigated the causes and consequences of abusive and counterproductive leadership behavior, both from the perspectives of subordinates and leaders, delving into organizational environments that enable these behaviors. Recent studies find that egregiously bad behavior is at the far end of a continuum of leadership styles, ranging from constructive to destructive.

“Many targets of destructive leadership report being as distressed by the lack of support…from their organization as they are by the destructive behavior.”

The constructive end of the leadership-behavior continuum features personality traits from the “bright side,” such as extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Leaders with these traits excel at team building. Researchers call this type of leadership authentic, charismatic, and ethical.

In contrast, leaders on the “dark side” exhibit destructive traits, with low levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, or openness. Destructive leaders’ behaviors often arise from their singular, selfish focus on their own goals and interests, regardless of the cost to their subordinates or their organizations. Researchers also describe varieties of dark-side leadership as abusive, Machiavellian, and toxic.

Scholars propose a model of destructive leadership with three domains. The first includes leaders with personality traits that incline them to embrace dark-side behaviors. These leaders focus on their personal goals rather than on their teams’ shared objectives, and they use intimidation and manipulation to get their followers’ cooperation.​​​

“Destructive leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: There are both good and bad results in most leadership situations.”

The second domain includes two types of followers: “Conformers,” who go along with the leader’s demands to avoid conflict, and “colluders,” who implement the leader’s agenda because they hope to benefit.

The third domain is the environment or culture that enables destructive leadership behaviors. Elements can include a sizable bureaucracy with a wide power gap between managers and employees, a culture that values collectivism over individualism, and the lack of a relevant system of checks and balances to monitor and moderate leaders’ power. While some organizations try to rein in bad leaders’ destructive behavior and protect employees who become their targets, fewer studies have examined those protective efforts.

Destructive leadership harms a range of stakeholders.

Working for a destructive leader can threaten an employee’s psychological and physical health. Being the target of bad leadership becomes a burden that can evoke fear, anger, and shame. Employees may try practical responses, such as attempting to influence the leader’s behavior or working harder in hopes of deflecting abuse. If these strategies fail, a worker may become disengaged from the job, turn in an inferior performance, and rack up more frequent absences.

“Destructive leadership leads to both short-term and long-term psychological, emotional, physical, and career harm to employees.”

Organizations suffer when destructive leaders prioritize their goals over those of the company. The fallout can include employee disengagement and increased turnover. Employees become less creative and less willing to try being innovative when they have to struggle to lower the risk of retaliation for any mistakes or failures. As more employees dodge a destructive leader, a toxic culture can develop with an environment of political maneuvering that sets the stage for the emergence of more destructive leaders.

Families suffer when an employee comes home bearing the negative emotional side effects of destructive leadership and takes out workplace frustrations on his or her spouse and kids. And, the financial cost of dealing with employee stress and disengagement related to destructive leadership can be considerable. For example, estimates say that occupational stress costs the Australian economy as much as AU$15 billion per year.

A corporation with poor corporate ethics, an exploitative culture, or a pervasive problem with bad leaders has a negative overall impact on its staff, customers, suppliers, stakeholders, and the larger community. When a leader wrecks any employee’s mental or physical health, that person’s subsequent necessary time away from work creates a domino effect at home and in the office. When many people are affected, local medical costs increase along with the demands for social services and welfare support.

“Destructive leadership creates an environment of fear, decreased work cohesion, and a decline in employee performance and well-being.”

Destructive leaders’ behavior can also impede the work of good leaders. For instance, employees who are disgruntled after interacting with a bad leader may refuse to cooperate with a good leader’s requests. This situation can lead to “leader derailment,” in which even competent leaders find themselves “plateaued, demoted, or fired” before they reach their expected level of achievement.

An organization’s culture can enable destructive behavior.

An organization may have an official “central” culture, with explicit and precise standards of behavior. Most workers also experience a “local” culture – such as that within a specific hospital ward, police station, or corporate department. Local cultures can vary substantially from central cultures.

“It is highly preferable for organizations to receive reports of any wrongdoing internally…rather than obstruct internal reporting so that reports are forced to be made externally…to government agencies and/or the media.”

Administrative leaders in an organization’s local or centralized hierarchy shape the environments in which their employees work. Three corporate culture characteristics can enable destructive leadership:

1. Style of senior leadership – Top leaders influence management styles throughout their organization. Destructive styles include “supportive-disloyal leadership,” in which leaders support their subordinates at the expense of the organization. A “derailed leader” bullies subordinates while acting unethically toward the company. A “tyrannical leader” bolsters the organization, but abuses subordinates with bullying and manipulative behavior.
2. A hierarchical structure – Researchers have labeled hierarchies as cultures that promote environments of “win or die.” One employee’s gains come at the expense of other employees. Therefore, all employees are drawn to compete in “masculinity contests” – to work the most hours, take on the biggest workloads, and vie for the best offices or largest internal budget. Often, hierarchical cultures tacitly endorse abusive behaviors.
3. Lack of organizational ethics – Employees who work for organizations with a strong ethical culture show greater commitment to the organization’s success. They are also more likely to report improper conduct because they feel that their organization will support them.

Destructive leadership results from extremes of negative or positive traits.

Leaders who want to do well can find inspiration in tackling difficult projects that call for increased energy, stamina, and creativity, but the push for achievement can become counterproductive when people take it to extremes. A leader who overemphasizes achievement can succumb to an obsession with goals and take advantage of others to achieve them.

The desire for “affiliation,” which is crucial to building and maintaining cohesive, engaged teams, is a positive trait. However, extreme forms of affiliation can cause a leader to avoid conflict and adopt a passive style of leadership.

In stressful environments, employees devise coping strategies.

The most effective methods employees can use to reduce or resolve a problem with a destructive leader include informing the leader about the fallout from his or her behavior, seeking assistance from senior managers, or requesting a transfer. Less effective strategies emerge when employees are alone in facing their emotional response to stress. When people find they cannot moderate or resolve stressful situations with their leaders, they may turn to actions that provide short-term avoidance, such as disengagement, absenteeism, or the use of drugs and alcohol.

“Affected employees are often too intimidated, ashamed, or concerned about the consequences to raise the issue of destructive leadership.”

A corporate human resources department has limited power to drive effective responses to poor leadership. Its investigations are confidential and can become drawn-out affairs that provide little feedback to the parties involved. HR officers generally have only meager resources to deploy for reducing employees’ anxiety about destructive leaders and must consider how speaking out or taking action against such executives, particularly when the abusive leader is high up in the ranks, might affect their own careers.

In most cases, the external legal system also offers little recourse for employees and companies responding to destructive leadership, though it can be helpful in addressing bullying. The law can also help when a leader’s negative behavior targets someone who – based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors – falls under diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) protections.

Organizations should curb destructive leadership and protect targeted employees.

Promoting positive leadership styles can prevent destructive behavior. Steps your organization can take include instituting a code of conduct and articulating its corporate values and policies. Senior leaders should reinforce the firm’s values. They should stress the way workers achieve their targets – ideally in a cooperative, supportive environment where they report to effective managers. Institutions should spell out the consequences for transgressing their standards of behavior and ethics. Such governance should include strong whistleblower protection policies.

“The drive for corporations to maximize short-term profits, based on investor or shareholder influence and stock market pressure, provides an environment where the ends may be seen to justify the means.”

An organization can also adopt diagnostic techniques that help detect conditions that can lead to destructive leadership. For example, companies could test management candidates for extreme personality traits that might predispose them to destructive behavior. A company also can use the results of such tests as background information for its leadership development programs.

In addition to preventing and rooting out destructive leadership, companies should help employees cope with its consequences. Firms can provide resiliency training, which aims to restore employees’ sense of well-being in the wake of injurious events. Improving resiliency reinforces people’s ability to regulate their thoughts and emotions and enhances their sense of personal agency and equanimity.

“Destructive leadership can be viewed as a ‘wicked problem’ because there is no single solution.”

Leadership development programs are important in increasing individual leaders’ awareness of their behavior and its repercussions. They also can bolster leaders’ self-management abilities. Such programs should include two types of training. First, they should cultivate constructive and responsive leadership behaviors that “consider the needs and wants of leaders and followers.” Second, training must shed light on the patterns and consequences of destructive leadership. These programs help leaders identify which situations can spark impulsive or injurious behaviors. To help prevent derailment, leaders must learn to develop resilience in the face of frustration.

Leadership coaching enhances leaders’ effectiveness. Coaching helps leaders understand their implicit mental models and identify the preconceptions that could lead them to carry out self-defeating behaviors. Coaching is an effective upper-level tool for executives to use if they decide they must intervene in a leader’s destructive behavior or when they worry that a leader may resist or become defensive if challenged.

“Workplace conferencing” is an effective response to destructive leadership.

When traditional responses prove ineffective in repairing the damage done by destructive leaders, a new approach, called workplace conferencing, may prove effective. Often, institutional interventions that are intended to strengthen employees’ coping abilities and resilience achieve only limited success. One problem is that the targets of abuse are often wary of participating in company-sponsored interventions because the company is where the abuse occurred.

“A restorative justice approach suggests that if an action or behaviour caused hurt, then an effective response must be healing.”

Traditional interventions view a destructive leadership situation as a conflict between a leader and one or more staff members. This approach ignores possible organizational dynamics that may play a part in creating or maintaining such conflict.

Workplace conferencing addresses this problem within a “restorative justice” framework. It considers the issues at hand in the context of the entire organization, and pinpoints the dynamics that allowed the issue to occur. It recognizes victims’ pain and gives them a voice in shaping the healing process. Every person whom the conflict affects can attend. In the conference, a facilitator leads participants in examining the network of relationships that underlie the problem. Workplace conferencing can replace an investigation, occur alongside an investigation, or help heal relationships following an investigation.

About the Authors

Vicki Webster, PhD, is the founder and director of Incisive Leaders. Paula Brough is a professor of organizational psychology at Australia’s Griffith University.