Toxic Leadership

Abstract

We argue that politics and power provide the powerful social energy which transforms the perspectives of groups and individuals into the organization of constituents. Moreover, we suggest that different kinds of power in an organization are associated to particular learning processes. Intuition is associated with discipline, integration with force, institutionalization with domination and interpretation with influence and that the examination of such different forms of power offers a basis for comprehension why some perspectives become institutionalized whist others are not. People should earn money in order to survive in the current economic conditions. That is why many people are employees, which are working in different organizations with different owners. Owners often do not take part in the process of operational management, but they make strategic decisions, which influence the direction of the company’s development. Operational management is often done by a manager or, in other words, CEO. In fact, many people work under a manager or CEO. That is why, it is very important the manager’s character, his methods of management, either he is attractive, positive, liberal, or he is evil, intemperate, discriminatory, aggressive and corrupt. That is why we are going to consider such phenomenon as toxic leadership, its consequences, and signs. There are about three critical motives to connect to politics. First, scholars are interested if the organizational learning has called for the establishment of theory and research that are integrative and cumulative (Crossan & Guatto, 1991). However, politics and power have remained widely assumed. Second, we trust that any theory of institutional learning without understanding of the political dynamics behind will always be imperfect; organizations are integrally political and ultimately, are the procedures of the organizational learning. Third, fetching politics and power into research on the organizational learning should offer a more effective basis for understanding the reason why some organizations are able to produce more and why only little of the accessible useful innovations are adopted by organizations.

Statement of the Problem

Toxic leadership is the leadership perspectives that harm people and finally the company. It does this through poisoning of enthusiasm, autonomy, creativity and innovative expressions. Toxic leaders distribute their poison via over-control. They describe leadership as existence in control. In toxic leadership’s environment, individuals are rewarded for assenting with the authority and they are punished for thinking alternatively. In the context of toxic leadership ecology, “yes” people are usually rewarded and are endorsed to leadership responsibilities, whilst people who are fully involved their mental resources, questioning skills and critical thinking are shut out from positions of influence and decision making. Toxic leadership causes a huge turnover rate, a decrease in productivity, interdepartmental conflict and less innovation (Giddens, 2010). Though every situation is different there are triple downstream results of leading by control and power. All the three are illustrated in our continuing essay. To start with is the stifling of inventiveness. By tightly regulation of the projects, Johnson effectively hindered his people from rational outside the boxes he had proposed.

He just wanted robotic foot armies to carry out his instructions, his vision. The second result is the lack of exchange of communication. By isolating individuals and strictly regulating information, Johnson created his people little effective, increased their desperation level, and encouraged suspicion. Third, when suspicion increases, feud relationships are unlikely to establish. Therefore, toxic leadership has challenges it possesses in the productivity. Once the toxic leadership s applied into an organization, the productivity goes down. 

What leads a person to be a toxic leader?

Majority toxic leaders had poor role models. Because they were mentored by the toxic leaders, they function under a defective definition of leaderships. They are spoken advocates of strong leadership. However, they have a slanted meaning of strength. They think to have control over everything, not realizing that, the over-controlling makes toxic impacts. Toxic leaders acquire a certain degree of ego satisfaction from over-controlling. Ultimately, toxic leaders might have unresolved psychological matters like fear of failure, fear of the unknown, mistrust of people, lack of confidence,  extreme overconfidence or feelings of inadequacy, which they evade by exercising toxic administration.

Great discounts

Word count difference -10%

300 words instead of 270 words per page

For all 1st-time orders -15%

Order now

With code: first15

The net outcome of entire factors is that, toxic leaders do not appreciate the exclusivity of being a human, and this slanted view of human landscape drives the route they associate to people who function for them. Human beings remains to be complex have social beings and intrinsic value. That drives far beyond salary they receive and the position they grasp. They are productive and their satisfaction degree is higher, when they are perceived as people that is, when they form relationships, exercise their creativity and communicate (Bourdieu, 1977).

The toxic leader delights people as robots; it is defined by whatever working the leader imagines them to function. Therefore, toxic leader is the dealing with a small part of that people. People pick up from this, and counter by being only partly there, in other arguments, their promise to their function and their association with the company as tentative at the best. Over period, they are likely to oversee their function as the only job. So the irony formed is by attempting to regulation every element of an individual, the toxic leader controls less of the individual, and has less controls.

Order VIP Services

$2.00 Extended revision period $3.00 SMS notification of the order status $3.66 Get order proofread by editor $4.40 Get order prepared by top 30 writers $5.99 Get a full PDF plagiarism report $9.99 Get VIP support

20%OFF

Save up on Vip Service Package
$23.23

Order with VIP

Effects of toxic leadership on a company

In addition to lowering the commitment on the section of the employees, toxic leadership can make systemic damage though an organization. In toxic leadership, employees have two options: leave or conform. Those who endure will experience reduced expectations. Some becomes aware that the condition is less than notion; these people might keep hoping that the condition will alter, or become on the viewpoint for the right period to leave. However, may prove to see toxic leaderships as normality, and willingly conform. These will be dressed to be the upcoming generation of toxic leadership.

Individual like this owns the same impacts on an organization which termites and have a wooden house. On the outer phase, things seem normal; but there is a serious trouble under the real surface. When the company faces uncommon stresses and a depressed economy, for example more demands are be put on workforces.

By Karen, Wilson-Starks, and the CEO Trans-leadership

When Paul came into his current office, everything seemed pretty normal. He had to meet the staff, and they appeared competent and bright. However, the CEO had been clear concerning the task that went on with the elevation. “Paul, I would like you to assume the current VP of Marketing.  Johnson is taking initial retirement, at my proposal. I have been disappointed with the quantity and quality of work manufactured by that department. Confidence is also poor; people appear to be discouraged, and the impacts are beginning to show up. We have been losing market shares for the past two years.”

Check this out

Try benefits from
our Top 30 Writers

Benefit from the incredible opportunity at a very
reasonable price

Order only for $4.40

Paul heard about majority of problems through the grapevine. High-profile talents were acquired from leading organizations, only to access them abandoned in a few months. The gossip mill proposed an atmosphere that stifled innovation and creativity. Good people were engrossed to the company due to its prior track evidence of innovation. However, they had trounced boxed in by the Johnson’s over-regulating leadership styles. Other predicaments included cost overruns and low response to market shifts (Bourdieu, 1977).

There was no session room big sufficient for the entire group, so the standing-room was crowded in obverse of the Paul’s office. The large chart had been relocated outside the offices and was visible to anyone in the room. A current column categorized “Team Members” had been included and names were added beside the projects. Meeting schedules were also dispatched half an hour for entire project.

Problem analysis

I have several friends, which have worked at the similar department of crediting of individuals in commercial bank. Each of these friends told me different histories of their work. However, one history was quite unusual for me. This friend had a very evil and aggressive leader. This leader had all previously mentioned characteristics. She was self-assumed, irritable, and aggressive and permanently does everything for degrading my friend. There were several groups of employees, but no one trusts the others. There was a high turnover in the department and almost all employees were dismissed very soon. That is why toxic leadership is very significant problem, which does not allow the organization to work effectively.

Check this out

Try benefits from
our Vip support

Benefit from the incredible opportunity at a very
reasonable price

Order only for $9.99

However, the main problem is that some persons are toxic. Probably, toxic leadership is the consequence of human’s character, which depends on a lot of other factors such as parents’ character, conditions of life, nurture, education, circle of communication, etc. That is why, it is practically impossible to list the entire range of factors, which can lead to toxic leadership. Therefore, managers should carefully study the potential employee’s characteristics and signs and conclude the possibility of toxic leadership. However, the main problem that many potential candidates behave differently than usual. There are about three critical motives to connect to politics. First, scholars are interested if the organizational learning has called for the establishment of theory and research that are integrative and cumulative (Crossan & Guatto, 1991). However, politics and power have remained widely assumed. Second, we trust that any theory of institutional learning without understanding of the political dynamics behind will always be imperfect; organizations are integrally political and ultimately, are the procedures of the organizational learning. Third, fetching politics and power into research on the organizational learning should offer a more effective basis for understanding the reason why some organizations are able to produce more and why only little of the accessible useful innovations are adopted by organizations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, toxic leadership is not only destructive but also a costly phenomenon. It destroys countries, organizations, groups and individuals. In case toxic leadership is allowed to develop and is not eliminated early enough, it leads to destructive consequences in the organization. Individual and organizational options should be applied to help defend the organization against the impacts of toxic leadership. Additionally, individual leaders should be responsible of their leadership and avoid becoming toxic. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure.

Fortunately, it is possible to deal with toxic leaders and make them good leaders. However, this is only possible with courage and caution. Personal options and policy options are applied to reduce the impact of toxic leaders and eventually eliminate them in the company (Giddens, 2010).

Recommendations

Personal Options

These are individual strategies that are directed towards reducing toxic leaders in the organization. The first step is for the management to do their work this includes several things such as investigating the history of the history and performance of then toxic leaders. The toxic leader is investigated to understand whether he left a toxic history in the previous organization or position. The results of the history should be documented and shared with other colleagues in the organization who still hope that the leader is capable of changing his toxic leadership.  A log document concerning the toxic leader should be kept in the organization for future reference. This is important for citing the behavior of the leader in the organization and other originations if need be.  Secondly, it is important to consult a person who understands the leader and interacts with him more. Seeking advice from other wise organizational owls will help the management understand that they are not the only ones with toxic leaders. Additionally, a toxic leader can be eliminated through creation of creations. The coalitions should be well organized in such a way that a group of selected leaders will confront the leader and tell him of his unbecoming behavior in the organization. In this action, the toxic leader’s behavior should be directed towards the negative impacts they have on the organization. It is essential to avoid solo confrontations. This is because confronting the toxic leader alone makes the leader defensive. He also quotes the manager claiming that he is against him. In this case, a group of several acceptable members should be used as with an aim of collecting the behavior together. Timelines and benchmarks should be insisted for improvement of the behavior (Bourdieu, 1977).

Organizational Policy Options

It is possible to use organizational policy to eliminate or reduce the impacts of toxic leadership.

1. Term limits: the organization should set a particular time through which a leader should be in power. This helps the leaders to remain responsible for a particular period of time and then leave office for others to rule. A leader is effective in the first few years with his strategies working out as expected. However, the strategies do not work forever. In this case, it is important to change leadership and put another leader in position for him to apply his strategies.

2. Periodic reviews of leaders: it is essential to undertake confidential interviews to all leaders in the organization after a period of time, say one year or six months. This gives the leaders a chance to check on their strengths and weaknesses, eventually a change to change.

3. Respectable behavior: leaders are comfortable when in their positions. However, disrespectable departure options make it hard for them to desire moving out of office. In this case, it is advisable to honor leaders in office with honor titles, adequate support and office equipment writing about the leader’s experience while in office make them feel comfortable leaving office as they know people will recognize their good work.

4. Democratic and open leadership selection procedures: it is important to involve every person in the organization. A transparent process helps the organization select non-toxic leaders and those who have a performing history. This does not mean that the selection of leaders should be public. However, the workers should be asked of anonymous feedback concerning the shortlisted leaders. This ensures their safety is not endangered in the workplace in case they reveal information. The committee conducting selection should use knowledge of employees from different internal levels of the company and also external board members. The internal members understand the bolts and nuts, the culture and history of the organization as well as its shortcomings. They have experience and internal intelligence which can contribute to setting the standards of an effective and acceptable leader, as well as vetting candidates. However, care should be taken not to give excessive power to the selection committee or else it can belittle an individual’s effectiveness. Constituencies educated to deal with their anxieties: It is not a small task for the educated constituencies to handle their anxieties. This establishes a long-term strategy which successive leaders have to insist to maintain. Education help leaders comprehend and cope with anxieties and fears which make them vulnerable to toxic leadership. It also liberates them from stereotyping and narrow thinking (Brown, & Duguid, 2010).

5. Systematic accountability forums: The organization should hold regular accountability forums or meetings. Every member of the organization should attend the forum and table his/her accountability in office. In this case, the leaders will be careful when making decisions and taking actions in their departments. The leaders should be questioned on every initiative and the reason behind every potential failure. This will make them reason effectively and avoid any action that can lead to questioning.  Accountability forums should discuss positive and negative outcomes of initiatives, and the process in which the decisions were made and actions taken in every step. Counsel, pressures and source of information in the initiative should be examined in public. The forum helps leaders to be responsible of their actions. Leaders who are unable to account on their actions or are reluctant to do so are on their way to toxic leadership.

6. Defensive mechanisms for whistleblowers: it is important for the government to protect the whistleblowers in the country. This is done using cumbersome policies and programs. However, sometimes the government is far from such programs. In this case, the private sector is expected to do it for the sake of the company. Whistleblowers mostly encounter dangerous risks in their actions. However, these actions are benefit to the organization and everyone connected to it. Therefore, it is important for the company to allow people with evidence of leadership to take over. This class includes malfeasance both criminal and unethical to step forward and lead the organization without devastating consequences.