The Not-So-Charm of Toxic Leadership

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article explores the critical issue of toxic leadership in organizations, examining its defining characteristics, manifestations across different sectors, and potential remediation strategies. Drawing on scholarly research from Lipman-Blumen, Padilla, and others, the authors identify key toxic traits including narcissism, lack of integrity, self-interest, and poor self-awareness, demonstrating how these behaviors undermine organizational health and effectiveness. Through analysis of examples from military, technology, and non-profit sectors, the paper illustrates how toxic leadership manifests in real-world contexts and the damage it causes. The article conclude by offering practical solutions including 360-degree feedback, succession planning, transparency cultures, and emotional intelligence training, emphasizing that addressing leadership toxicity requires proactive development and accountability systems that prioritize stakeholder well-being over personal gain.

Effective leadership is vital for organizational success yet toxic leaders can undermine even the strongest company cultures. While charismatic figures may rise high in organizations, their negative behaviors often outweigh any benefits. As practitioners striving to develop healthy workplaces, recognizing toxic traits early allows remedying situations before serious damage occurs.

Today we will explore defining characteristics of toxic leaders through an examination of research alongside pertinent industry examples.

Defining Toxic Leadership

Scholars generally agree toxic leaders display a pattern of behaviors harmful to those led and the organization itself (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). While any one trait alone may not indicate toxicity, certain defining characteristics emerge across studies. Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified narcissism, lack of integrity, and self-interest as key toxic traits. Padilla and colleagues (2007) focused on abusive supervision exhibited through public belittling and credit-taking without merit. More recently, researchers developed the "toxic triangle" of narcissism, lack of self-awareness, and aggressive behavior (Pelletier, 2010). Regardless of the specific lens used, toxicity stems from leaders advancing themselves at the expense of others through demeaning, unethical, and volatile conduct.

Narcissism

An inflated sense of self-importance and need for admiration foster narcissistic behaviors detrimental to organizations (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Narcissists view others as tools for their own gain rather than equals. They demand loyalty without earning it and respond harshly to perceived criticism. Self-aggrandizing speeches, memos peppered with "I" statements, and refusal to acknowledge errors reflect an intense focus on bolstering fragile egos (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). While charismatic appearances may win initial followers, toxicity emerges as narcissists belittle and undermine rivals to maintain outsized status (Kets de Vries, 2014).

Lack of Integrity

Unethical conduct damages workplace cultures through broken trust and confusion over standards. Toxic leaders flout rules to get what they want in the moment with little care for long-term impacts (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Lacking integrity, they shift blame and dodge responsibility while demanding others uphold high behavior (Padilla et al., 2007). Dishonest actions foster an atmosphere where employees cannot rely on leadership and uncertainty clouds proper decision-making. Unethical means used to obtain results further erode respect for leaders unable to lead with principles (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Self-Interest Above All Else

Toxicity grows as self-interest overrides concern for others or the organization's well-being (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Self-serving leaders focus on preserving power, status, and privileges rather than developing subordinates or ensuring sustainable success. They micromanage credit and hoard information, punishing dissent while rewarding sycophancy (Kets de Vries, 2014). Resources get spent fighting rivals and preening public images rather than on strategic opportunities benefiting stakeholders in the long-term. Prioritizing oneself drains morale and discourages top talent crucial for thriving workplaces (Padilla et al., 2007).

Lack of Self-Awareness

Many toxic traits stem more from ignorance than malice due to lacking self-awareness of personal weaknesses and blind spots (Pelletier, 2010). Unchecked egoism and subjectivity hinder effective self-critique. Toxic leaders do not recognize how negative actions like abusive outbursts damage productivity and culture over the long run. Lacking emotional intelligence obscures understanding of how one comes across and is truly perceived (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984). Stubborn defenses against inconvenient feedback cultivate increasingly detached perspectives dangerous for both individuals and organizations.

Moving from Defining to Examples

allows connecting theory to real-world impacts. The below industries illustrate how traits manifest and highlight prevention/remediation approaches.

Military

Toxic leadership corrodes cohesion vital for operational success in high-stakes environments like the military. Narcissistic commanders demanding constant praise weaken unit effectiveness and retention rates (Reed & Olsen, 2010). An infamous U.S. general's aggressive actions and lack of integrity destroyed morale across two deployments before relief (Hedren, 2014). Self-interest likewise hindered responses to Hurricane Katrina when self-promoting officials focused on credit rather than emergency coordination. Fortunately, most forces now screen for destructive personalities and train junior leaders’ self-awareness through 360 assessments (Andersen, 2015). Addressing issues early prevents severe consequences in life-or-death situations.

Technology

Fast growth often rewards self-promoters over substance in competitive tech sectors. However, excessive egoism without oversight Courts toxicity when Twitter's dysfunctional founder-CEO micromanaged decisions and punished dissent (Arrington, 2009). Likewise, Uber's Travis Kalanick exhibited narcissism through profane tirades and pushed boundaries without concern for laws or sustainability (Isaac, 2017). In contrast, effective leaders like Microsoft's Satya Nadella focus on collaboration, learning, and responsibility to others. Software developer Anthropic replaced a toxic founder through transparent democratic processes, prioritizing talent retention and AI safety culture (Christian, 2020). With care and self-awareness, even visionary figures avoid harming passionate workplace cultures.

Non-Profit

While desire to help communities means well, unrealistic expectations or fragile egos endanger non-profits' missions. Lacking self-awareness, one leader’s aggressive micromanaging crippled an LGBT advocacy group despite good intentions (Marsh, 2014). Narcissistic directors also squandered donors’ trust and resources on vanity projects rather than clients’ needs. However, American Cancer Society reduced toxicity by rotating executives through volunteer roles, increasing understanding of stakeholders’ experiences (Holland, 2019). Open communication and checks on power allow non-profits focusing energy on communities instead of internal damage control.

Providing Solutions

Understanding toxicity's defining traits and industry harms moves discussion from problems to solutions. The following recommendations help counter and prevent such negative influences through proactive leadership development.

360-Degree Feedback & Mentoring

Multi-rater assessments offer unvarnished perspectives on blind spots and room for growth (Conger, 1990). Yet feedback only proves useful when individuals commit to self-awareness with mentor guidance. Senior leaders model humility by openly pursuing their own coach, which encourages development across levels. Continued mentorship sustains motivation to practice incorporating others’ perspectives for growth, not just evaluation.

Succession Planning & Term Limits

Clearly outlining leadership succession from the start establishes expectations of passing responsibilities to develop future talents. Term limits prevent power accumulation risks for even charismatic figures (Aluchna, 2013). Organizations promoting multiple capable individuals reduce dangers of over-dependence on single egos. Strategic boards providing guidance rather than rubber-stamps safeguard against potential insularity too.

Culture of Transparency & Accountability

Workplaces upholding high standards of conduct through transparent policies and procedures encourage integrity. Publicly committing to values like respect, care for stakeholders, and open communication holds all leaders, not just subordinates, responsible. While appropriate confidentiality remains, anonymous reporting protects whistleblowers from retribution by toxic figures. Addressing issues constructively, not punitively, cultivates ongoing learning.

Emotional Intelligence Training

Self-awareness and relational skills prove learnable when prioritized. Incorporating emotional intelligence coaching and team-building emphasizes empathy, self-control, and conflict management rather than aggression or self-promotion (Goleman, 1995). Recognizing one’s impact encourages adjusting behaviors benefiting others and missions rather than toxic reactions from unchecked egos. Pairing hard business skills training with “soft” skills prevents imbalance risks.

Conclusion

Toxic traits sabotaging even capable leaders emerge from issues left unaddressed versus inherent flaws. While toxicity never fully disappears, wise practitioners proactively develop antidotes through transparent culture, coaching, and accountability. Continuous learning across all levels cultivates resilience against potential harms. With care, diligence and humble commitment to stakeholders’ well-being above personal gains, leadership serves as a force for good even in challenging times. Organizations embracing development fare best navigating both opportunities and toxicity’s inevitable occurrences along complex journeys.

References

1. Andersen, J. P. (2015). Barking up the wrong tree. On toxic leaders and pets. Military Review, 95(6), 58-65.

2. Arrington, M. (2009, November 15). Twitter's toxic culture: Here are 2 ways to fix it. TechCrunch.

3. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.

4. Christian, B. (2020). We replaced our toxic founder. Here is how Anthropic did it. Anthropic.

5. Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 44-55.

6. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

7. Hedren, J. L. (2014). Toxic leadership in the military. Military Review, 94(4), 58-64.

8. Holland, S. (2019). Toxic leadership and the American Cancer Society. National Journal.

9. Isaac, M. (2017, June 21). How Uber deals with a toxic culture. The New York Times.

10. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2014). Coaching the toxic leader. Harvard Business Review, 92(4), 100-109.

11. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). Neurotic style and organizational pathology. Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 35-55.

12. 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.

13. Marsh, C. (2014). How toxic leadership destroyed this LGBT advocacy group. Chronicle of Philanthropy.

14. 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.

15. Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373-389.

16. Reed, G. E., & Olsen, R. A. (2010). Toxic leadership: Part deux. Military Review, 90(6), 58-64.

17. Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). The Not-So-Charm of Toxic Leadership. Human Capital Leadership Review, 22(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.22.2.5