Amy Gade

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Module 12: Analytic Memo on Bad, Toxic Leadership

For this weeks Analytic Memo assignment for Module 12, I selected
the article The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and
conducive environments by Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007). I selected this
article initially because I liked the three prong approach it suggests to toxic
leadership situations. As I started to think about my own opinions of toxic
leadership, I realized a bad leader alone doesnt equate a toxic leadership
situation, but that it is a combination of that poor leader, a vulnerable
followership, and an environment susceptible to being influenced negatively.
This article encompassed the role that each side of the toxic triangle plays in
making bad leadership possible.
One of the first things that struck me from this article was a quote
regarding the current approach to leadership studies which stated, modern
social science has tended to take a one-sided view of the topic, emphasizing
its positive and constructive aspects while avoiding its darker side (Padilla
et al., 2007, p. 176). Naturally, as I considered this a little deeper, it is
extremely accurate. Think about every module weve studied up to this
point, while we know some approaches to leadership tend to work better
than others in certain situations, the research tends to again focus on the
positive aspects of each approach and really avoids revealing any negative
aspects.

The article noted that some authors feel bad leadership is in essence
an oxymoron because the principle of leadership by definition suggests
positive intentions. Because bad leadership does not equate to the
opportunity for a positive, meaningful experience for followers, does that
experience even count as one of leadership? Other authors consider
destructive leadership more of a process, suggesting that destructive
leadership is something leaders do. Regardless of their stance, authors on
destructive leadership agree on one thing, the results of a negative
leadership experience are undesirable (Padilla et al., 2007).
Padilla et al. (2007) take a five feature approach when presenting their
own definition to destructive leadership stating first, that destructive
leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: most leadership
results in both desirable and undesirable outcomes (p. 179). Second, a
destructive leader isnt interested in persuading followers or gaining their
commitment, but instead focus on controlling and coercing followers into
various situations. Next, destructive leaders are selfish in nature. The quality
of life for the constituents involved is compromised by the outcomes of
destructive leadership. Lastly, these destructive leadership outcomes
depend on the susceptibility of followers and the conduciveness of the
environment (Padilla et al., 2007). It is these three things that then comprise
the toxic triangle as suggested by the articles title: a destructive leader,
susceptible followers, and a conducive environment.

The authors suggest that a destructive leader is often depended upon

the five following critical factors: charisma, personalized use of power,
narcissism, negative life themes, and an ideology of hate (Padilla et al.,
2007, p. 180). Naturally, while not all charismatic leaders are destructive
(thing MLK or Malcom X), destructive leaders are typically charismatic.
Because these leaders can sell their vision to enhance their own level of
power, they are often extremely successful in creating a strong followership.
Leaders with a personal need for power use their authority in an aggressive
way for their own purposes, which are often of harm to their followers.
Narcissism in leaders can lead to self-absorbed, attention-getting behaviors
that again ignore the well-being of their own constituents. Destructive
leaders often have childhood stories involving adversity, suffering, and
powerlessness. These leaders often have a worldview of hate that kind of put
them in a place of no holding back in terms of serving their own selfish
needs, wants or desires.
Through previous modules, we have learned the importance of
followers in leadership studies. Even bad leadership is dependent on
followers, in this case the followers must accept the leaders authority in
order for the situation to pan out. Padilla et al. (2007) suggest that some
followers are more susceptible to bad leaders and destructive situations due
to unmet needs, negative vision of oneself, lower maturity, ambition to
advance their own personal agenda, compatible beliefs, and/or unsocialized
beliefs.

The authors of this article have suggested that a destructive leader

and susceptible followers are not enough to equate to a toxic leadership
situation, but that the situation must give way to this negative experience as
well. Environmental factors that may foster poor leadership situations
include unstable settings where quick courses of action are needed, a
perceived, imminent threat, cultures that value uncertainty avoidance,
collectivism, and a high degree of power distance, and those with an
absence of check and balances which may yield leaders who abuse their
power (Padilla et al., 2007).
What I believe this article provides a good leader or own perceived to
be good is the understanding that they alone arent responsible for a bad
leadership experience. Ill admit because I am not only utilizing these
courses to learn about leadership experiences Ive had or am having, but
also as ways to reflect on my own leadership skills, abilities, and influences, I
immediately began to dwell on my perceived failed leadership and was
quick to be critical of myself. (One thing that helped me snap out of it was
the first feature of destructive leaders being that of charismatic. Ive been
called a lot of things in my life, but charismatic is not one of them, so quickly
I felt relief. Surely I cant be a destructive leader then!) I think its easy to
blame oneself, but this article reminded me that there are many other
factors in any bad leadership situation.
Another practical implication this article helped provide is what
elements are common in bad leadership experiences, like the common

components of a susceptible environment. As a potential leader in any

situation, should I gain a sense of one or more of those possible elements, I
may be able to avoid the bad leadership experience all together by refraining
from that role, if and when possible. Lastly, this article reminded me that I
should continue taking advantage of my followership experience to learn and
develop myself and others working with and beside me. Followership is
important to any leadership experience and in bad leadership its no
exception, but Padilla et al. (2007) note, by encouraging managers to
develop subordinates, organizations might make their employees less likely
to conform to destructive influences (p. 190). I couldnt agree more! Its
funny, as I learn more about leadership and reflect on my own experiences
and thoughts about leadership, I am developing some of my own
philosophies. I am particularly focused on the role of the follower, in that I
feel a leader is only as strong as their followers. In this case, a particularly
strong follower may stand up to a destructive leader and save themselves
and others from experiencing the effects of the toxic triangle.
Works Cited
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive
leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments.
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.