Facing Toxicity: Navigating Harmful Leadership

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article explores principles and strategies for constructively confronting toxic leadership in organizational settings. Toxic leaders plague every industry through detrimental behaviors such as self-absorption, volatility, aggression, and prioritizing personal interests over the organization. While removing toxic individuals seems logical, direct confrontation often backfires due to power dynamics and resistance to change. The article defines toxic leadership and its negative impacts like demotivation, turnover, dysfunction, poor climate, and harm to employee well-being. It then proposes following three principles drawn from research when constructively confronting toxicity: appealing to the toxic leader's self-interest through presenting objective data on problems, recommending specific improvement actions, and enlisting insider allies within the organization. A case study example illustrates applying these principles successfully. The article stresses the importance of managing expectations regarding lengthy change processes and incremental cultural improvements over rapid transformations or ‘silver bullet’ solutions.

As consultants and researchers, we've seen it all - the narcissistic micromanager, the abrasive bully, the self-absorbed diva. Toxic leaders plague every industry and organization, poisoning culture, demotivating employees, and stifling innovation. While removing toxic individuals seems like the obvious solution, reality is far more complex. As outsiders, we lack the intricate dynamics of influencing insiders. Yet staying silent risks normalizing harm. So how can we help lights shine just a little brighter?

Today we will explore principles for constructively confronting toxicity based on research and real-world examples.

Defining Toxicity

Before addressing symptoms, we must understand the disease. Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser define leader toxicity as "behaviors that have harmful effects on individuals and/or the organization, including domineering, destructive, or disruptive conduct" (Padilla et al., 2007). Key qualities include self-absorption unwillingness to support or develop others, and volatility that creates anxiety and unpredictability (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Toxicity stems from leaders elevating their interests above all else through abuses of power like aggression, coercion, supervision detached from concerns for people, and spreading of misinformation (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). While competent leaders may display some toxic traits under stress, toxic leaders default to these behaviors as core styles.

Symptoms of Toxic Leadership

• Demotivation - Employees feel unappreciated, micromanaged, or threatened. Performance and creativity suffer (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

• Turnover - Good performers flee, leaving less capable "yes people." Replacements cost time, money, and productivity to onboard (Reed, 2004).

• Dysfunction - Infighting, political games, and destructive conflict displace focus on customers and goals (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

• Poor climate - Fear, cynicism, and distrust undermine collaboration and engagement organization-wide (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

• Harm to well-being - Toxicity increases stress, anxiety, burnout; it is literally bad for our health (Padilla et al., 2007).

While not all toxic leaders mean direct harm, their presence corrodes organizational capabilities and sustainability over the long run. For consultants seeking positive impact, toxicity cannot be ignored. But directly confronting leaders risks backlash, so discreet influence proves smarter.

Constructive Confrontation

The most constructive confrontations of toxicity occur through appealing to a leader's best interests rather than attacking character. Three guiding principles emerge from research and experience:

1. Appeal to self-interest through data - Toxic leaders often deny or minimize harming impact. Presenting strong, objective data on turnover, morale surveys linking issues to leadership style helps make impact undeniable without accusations (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

2. Recommend specific improvements - Propose clear, measurable actions to remedy problems, demonstrating desire to help versus attack. Suggest training, transparency, clarifying decision rights rather than ambiguous "be nicer" demands (Reed, 2004).

3. Enlist insider allies - Toxic leaders feel threatened by outsiders and resist change. Work with sympathetic insiders to develop support coalition and frame issues leadership cares about like employee retention or avoiding legal risks through alternative perspectives (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

Through discreet cultivation of perspectives emphasizing "win-win" solutions over direct confrontation, consultants can facilitate progress where an organization cannot directly act. Understanding toxicity forms the starting point for constructive influence behind the scenes.

Case Study: Transforming a Software Firm

To illustrate constructive confrontation in action, consider "Acme Software," dealing with an autocratic founder-CEO. During an organizational assessment, consulting colleagues Jane and Sam discovered:

• 70% one-year turnover due to CEO's mercurial behaviors like public criticism and last-minute changes

• Billing targets mostly missed as demoralized employees focused on avoiding mistakes versus innovation

• Investors receiving worried calls due to declining KPIs threatening Acme's valuation and independence

Jane and Sam handled this toxicity expertly through the three principles:

1. Appeal to self-interest through data - They presented anonymized turnover and engagement survey findings to the CEO emphasizing links to his style and quantitative impacts versus personal attacks.

2. Recommend specific improvements - Suggesting hiring a COO to handle operations allowed the CEO to focus on his strengths of vision and strategy, taking pressure off employees.

3. Enlist insider allies - The VP of Finance appreciated data and was concerned for Acme's future, crafting culturally-sensitive talking points to discuss with the CEO from their shared perspective of the bottom line.

Given options emphasizing "win-win" solutions, the CEO gradually delegated more responsibilities, communicated targets with flexibility, and employees reported far less stress six months later as KPIs rebounded to investors' relief. While toxicity cannot transform overnight, through discreet influence and appealing to self-interest, consultants helped initiate healthier outcomes.

Managing Expectations

Of course, positive change remains challenging. Toxicity festers deeply with many underlying causes rarely addressed through surface improvements alone. Consultants must manage expectations realistically:

• Toxic leaders rarely transform fully - even with altered outward behaviors, ingrained beliefs creating further relapses remain (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

• Pushback occurs - threatened toxic figureheads resent and resist, requiring persistence through influencing insider allies (Padilla et al., 2007).

• Baby steps matter more than quantum leaps - incremental cultural shifts create opportunity for further discussions improving conditions gradually versus overnight flips (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

• Focus outward, not inward - concentrating on organization-level impacts outweighs internal psychoanalyzing of toxic individuals themselves (Reed, 2004).

While toxicity cannot be cured magically, shining light discreetly through objective standards helps organizations move in healthier directions over the long term. Managing expectations emphasizes progress versus perfection in working constructively behind the scenes.

Conclusion

Toxic leadership poisons every domain, yet directly confronting or removing toxic individuals alone rarely proves realistic. By understanding toxicity's impacts and causes, consultants gain perspective for discreet yet constructive influence through appealing to self-interest and cultivating insider allies - all while keeping organizational impacts, not personal attacks, as the focus. Positive change stems from upholding objective performance standards and championing small steps over time versus overnight transformation. Managing expectations around gradual cultural shifts further helps maximize consultants' impact on toxicity without overpromising quick cures. Through these principles, we can work subtly to energize organizations and move them closer to their potential.

References

1. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford University Press.

2. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leaders: From classroom to newsroom. Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 1(1), 1-18.

3. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194.

4. Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67-71.

5. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Facing Toxicity: Navigating Harmful Leadership. Human Capital Leadership Review, 30(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.30.3.5