Module 8
Destructive Leadership
A. Destructive Leadership
History is riddled with examples of individuals whose leadership has resulted in
bad, even evil, outcomes. In the 20th century alone, the world has seen the likes of
leaders from Adolf Hitler in Germany, whose Nazi regime was responsible for the deaths
of an estimated 19 million people, to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, whose attempt to
control his country and put down rebellion has left more than 350,000 people dead and
displaced 11 million others (BBC, 2018). But bad leadership is not just in the
governmental realm. There are many instances of destructive leadership in business,
nonprofit, religious, and social worlds, from corruption (such as Elizabeth Holmes of
Theranos) and cover-ups (such as the Catholic Church and the sexual abuse of children
by priests) to using a trusted medical position to sexually assault female college athletes
(such as Dr. Larry Nassar at Michigan State University).
Destructive leadership has been called a variety of names, including “the dark
side of leadership,” “toxic leadership,” “bad leadership,” “pseudo-transformational
leadership,” “abusive leadership,” and “unethical leadership.” Common to all of these is
the idea that leadership is not always good and helpful; sometimes it is bad and harmful.
In this final chapter, we will discuss the opposite of caring and productive leadership—
destructive leadership—focusing on how and why it occurs, its characteristics, and how
to deal with it. To begin, we will define destructive leadership and what it entails. Next,
we will introduce a framework called the Toxic Triangle and explain how the
components within the triangle foster the existence of destructive leadership. We will
break out and take a more in-depth look at each of the components within the triangle,
beginning with how both the leader’s personality and their behaviors contribute to
destructive leadership. Then we will explore what makes followers susceptible to
destructive leaders and how certain environments are conducive to enabling destructive
leadership. Finally, we will discuss practical ways to confront and nullify destructive
leadership.
At one time or another, most of us have experienced a leader (e.g., teacher,
manager, coach, or employer) who seemed mean, unfair, manipulative, or very
controlling. This person’s leadership often created a whole range of negative emotions in
followers, from fear and insecurity to anger and resentment. Individuals who lead in this
way can best be described as destructive leaders. In this section, we will identify the
characteristics of destructive leadership and define specifically what it means.
First, destructive leadership involves the excessive use of power, control, or
influence. Destructive leaders are authoritarian and oppressive; they exercise almost
complete control over others and attempt to make others obedient to their wishes. As
Hitler did in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, a destructive leader will use coercion
and force to influence others to accomplish their own objectives. A dogmatic, “my way
or the highway” supervisor or boss is illustrative of this aspect of destructive leadership.
Second, destructive leadership has a selfish quality—it focuses only on the
leader’s goals and objectives rather than on the common goals of both leaders and
followers, or the goals of the organization (Padilla et al., 2007). In essence, a destructive
leader does not listen to followers and their interests, demanding that they fall in step
with the leader’s desires. For example, the owner of a construction company might think
that every one of his employees should do community service to enhance the image of his
company in the community. As a result, he requires salaried employees to “volunteer” 10
hours of their off-work time each month at a local faith-based charity that builds homes
for low-income families where he is also a board member. In this case, the leader’s
requirement makes the employees resentful, in part because the required work for his
charity cuts into their family and leisure time and also because many of them are already
volunteering for their own charities. The employees find what the leader is asking them
to do unfair and counterproductive. When a leader selfishly fixates on only their own
goals, it hinders others from feeling autonomous; it also prevents followers from being
empowered, which in the end has a negative impact on the climate of the organization.
Third, destructive leadership involves harmful behaviors that adversely affect
followers and the organization. Using harmful methods of influence, destructive leaders
force followers to behave in ways that can have detrimental outcomes. To illustrate,
consider how, for decades, leaders at many levels within the Catholic Church covered up
sexual abuse by priests, often moving the offenders from one diocese to another without
revealing their abusive behaviors. As a result, the offenders were able to continue abusing
victims, causing incalculable harm to thousands of victims. Additionally, the Catholic
Church has suffered enormous damage to its reputation, lost members’ trust, and faced
significant financial losses due to settlements paid to victims. Destructive leaders end up
violating the organization’s legitimate interests by sabotaging the organization’s goals as
well as the well-being and satisfaction of the followers.
While charisma can be a positive trait, it is used by destructive leaders in harmful
ways. Incorporated with charisma are leaders’ strong rhetorical skills, vision, and energy,
which destructive leaders use to win others over and to exploit followers for their own
ends. To illustrate, consider the infamous example of cult leader Jim Jones, an ordained
Disciples of Christ minister who moved his congregation (the Peoples Temple) from San
Francisco to Jonestown, Guyana. He was accused of abusing churchgoers and wanted to
avoid U.S. government intervention into his church’s affairs.
Serving others or the organization is not the focus of the destructive leader; rather,
this leader coercively imposes their will on others, often devaluing followers to promote
their own ends. For example, consider how Sheriff Joe Arpaio exercised his power over a
period of 24 years in Maricopa County, Arizona. Promoting himself as “America’s
Toughest Sheriff,” he ruled with an iron hand. He used the power of his office to go after
undocumented immigrants who crossed the U.S. border, including conducting
“immigration roundups.” His behavior prompted a U.S. federal court to issue an
injunction that barred him from conducting roundups, which he was later found to have
ignored. While in office, Arpaio was accused of abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure
to investigate sex crimes, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, unconstitutional jail
conditions, and racial profiling, among other things. Arpaio never wavered from
promoting and executing his own outspoken viewpoints, but, destructively, he abused the
power of his office, pursuing his own goals at the expense of advancing the common
good.
Destructive leadership is associated with narcissism. In Greek mythology,
Narcissus was a very handsome young hunter who, upon seeing his reflection in a pool of
water, fell in love with his image and himself. Similarly, narcissistic leaders are
enamored with themselves and their own leadership. They have a grandiose sense of self
and like to receive constant attention from others. Because they are so preoccupied with
their own approach to things, narcissistic leaders do not welcome the input of others.
Narcissistic leaders act like they are special and freely pursue their own goals even when
these goals may be unreasonable. Narcissism is destructive because it makes the leader
insular, limiting their ability or willingness to receive feedback from others. These
leaders lack empathy for others and are dismissive of the needs and concerns of others.
In addition to charisma, need for power, and narcissism, Padilla et al. (2007)
suggest it is not uncommon for destructive leaders to have had negative or traumatic
childhood experiences that contribute to treating followers indifferently and exploiting
them for their own purposes. Because of their troubled childhoods, destructive leaders
can demonstrate an ideology of hate in which they turn their loathing of self toward
others—treating others as despised enemies. Because of their own disturbed pasts,
destructive leaders believe their abusive and hateful behavior toward others is legitimate.
While it is impossible to directly associate childhood experiences with adult behavior,
being aware of these issues can help explain some of the “why” behind destructive
leadership.
As we suggested earlier, destructive leadership does not occur in a vacuum; it
occurs in situations where followers are susceptible to influence. For example, when
followers are passive or submissive, their inaction can contribute to unfettered leadership
and unintentionally support destructive leaders. Leaders and followers are interrelated in
the leadership process. How followers act is strongly associated with how leaders lead.
According to Padilla et al. (2007), the types of followers who are susceptible to
destructive leadership can be divided into two groups: conformers and colluders. As
implied by the name, conformers comply with destructive leaders, in an effort to
minimize the consequences of not going along. They conform because they lack a clearly
defined self-concept and fear what will happen if they do not follow. Underlying their
desire to conform could be unmet basic needs, negative self-evaluations, and immaturity.
A good example of this involves members of a high school Tier 1 AAA Hockey team.
They are on the team in hopes of getting exposure to recruiters for college or minor
league hockey teams. Because the coach decides which team members will play in the
games, the players put up with the coach’s insults and public berating, as well as the
coach’s attempts to pit them against one another to create conflict, which many times
turns physical. While the players’ parents know of the coach’s behavior, they, too, remain
silent in order not to jeopardize their sons’ chances of playing.
In contrast, colluders comply in the hopes of getting something out of it for
themselves. They support the leader’s agenda because it is advantageous to their own
agenda. Underlying their desire to collude could be ambitiousness, selfishness, and the
chance to support and be supported by a leader with similar beliefs and values. A good
example of colluders involves elected officials such as legislators who vote along party
lines on bills, even if they don’t agree with the proposals or the proposals are not in the
best interest of their constituents. Because the financial support and endorsement of their
political parties is critical to these lawmakers, they vote for issues and bills they may not
believe in to maintain the support of their party.
Our need for reassuring authority figures. As far back as psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud’s research in the early 1900s, much has been written about how people
deal with authority. When we are very young, we depend on our parents to guide and
protect us, but as we mature, we learn to be our own compass/authority/person and make
our decisions without being dependent on others. However, as adults, some followers still
have a high need for authority figures. They want their leaders to be big and strong like
their parents used to be. They want to feel assured that they will be taken care of and
protected. This need can open the door for destructive leaders to take advantage of
followers and use them to meet their own ends. When followers’ needs for a reassuring
authority figure are strong, it makes them vulnerable to the dictates of abusive and
destructive leaders. For example, in 2009, 50 participants in a self-help retreat in Arizona
entered a sauna-like ceremony in a sweat lodge that was meant to provide spiritual
cleansing. Even though some of the participants were in obvious distress and pleaded for
help, James Arthur Ray, a prominent figure in the self-help industry at the time and
leader of the retreat, instead pushed them further, encouraging them to tough out the
sweltering conditions as part of a rebirthing process that would transform their lives. The
participant
Our need for security and certainty. Psychologists who study people’s belief
systems have found that people have a need for consistency—to keep their beliefs and
attitudes balanced. Our drive for predictability means we struggle in situations where
things are disrupted and we do not feel “in charge” of ourselves or of the events around
us. It is in contexts like these that followers are susceptible to the lure of unethical leaders
who have power. For example, imagine a person with a brain tumor who has received a
serious diagnosis that has low survival statistics. In such a situation, most people trust
their doctor and the advice of professionals at their local cancer center. But there are
some people who feel so uncertain and insecure that they abandon traditional medicine
and visit uncertified cancer centers outside the country that promise quick cures. All they
want is someone to give them the security and certainty they believe is lacking in their
situation. In difficult, trying times, it is human nature to look to “know-it-all” leaders for
direction and support.
Our need to feel chosen or special. To explain people’s need to feel chosen,
Lipman-Blumen (2005) points to the religious leaders of the world, such as Moses and
John Calvin, who emphasized to their followers that they were the “chosen ones”—they
were special and had been singled out by a higher authority. Being a part of “the chosen”
means one has truth on one’s side while “others” do not. Being a part of the chosen and
feeling that one is “right” gives a sense of security to followers but does so at the expense
of appreciating the humanity of “the other.” As an example, white supremacists’ ideology
is based on a belief that white people are superior to all other racial groups and should
have control over people of other, “lesser” racial groups. Followers of white supremacy
may feel chosen and special but at the high cost of treating others humanely. Toxic
leaders know how to capitalize on people’s needs to feel special, and they use those needs
to their own ends.
When a group or an organization is functioning positively, group membership is
healthy for its members —they feel accepted, comfortable, valued, and inspirited. But
people’s need to be a member of the group can be exploited by destructive leaders. These
leaders take advantage of individuals who are highly dependent on the group for their
own personal meaning and purpose. Highly dependent followers may be willing to give
up their individuality, beliefs, and integrity just to make sure they can retain their social
belonging (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Consider the disturbing hazing incidents at
fraternities on college campuses that have resulted in the injuries and deaths of new
members (pledges) who are willing to endure dangerous rituals because of their high
need to belong to the group. Followers can become vulnerable to bad leadership when
they are unable to moderate their own personal needs for belonging.
Our fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death. When an individual becomes
a part of and acquires full membership to a group, the individual typically learns and
begins to practice the norms of the group. Surrounded by the group, followers become
comfortable with the group’s values, mission, and beliefs. In addition, followers begin to
like being a group member and doing what group members do, finding the inclusion and
community of the group comforting.
Our fear of powerlessness to challenge a bad leader. Finally, followers may
unintentionally enable destructive leaders because they feel helpless to change them.
Once a part of a group, followers often feel pressure to conform to the norms of the
group. They find that it is not easy to challenge the leader or go against the leader’s plans
for the group. For example, in political parties, people often feel pressure to support the
party’s platform even when they feel diametrically opposed to it. Specifically, when a
leader acts inappropriately or treats others in harmful ways, it is hard for followers to
muster the courage to address the leader’s behavior. Groups provide security for
followers, and the threat of losing this security can make it scary and uncomfortable to
challenge authority figures. To speak truth to power is a brave act, and followers often
feel impotent to express themselves in the face of authority. Although being an accepted
follower in a group carries with it many benefits, it does not always promote personal
agency.
According to Padilla et al. (2007), conducive environments commonly include
four factors: instability, perceived threat, certain cultural values, and the absence of
checks and balances and institutionalization. In times of crisis and confusion, followers
seek direction and clarity; they want leaders to stabilize matters, often in the quickest way
possible. Instability in the environment makes it convenient for calculating leaders to
assert more power than they should and make decisions that are not within the bounds of
the established organizational structure. When rules and systemic structures are not
clearly established, opportunistic leaders can exploit the system to their own ends. Acting
unilaterally, they can make radical changes. It is natural for all of us to want to find
certainty in uncertain times, but we need to be vigilant about who we let lead and how
they lead in these situations. Unstable contexts provide ripe opportunities for leaders to
grab power and create rules that serve the leaders and their own purposes rather than the
common good.
Another situational factor that can create an environment that increases the
likelihood of destructive leadership is perceived threat. People naturally want to be
protected from threats that can occur on many levels, including physically, socially, or
financially. Threats do not need to be real; they only need to be perceived as real. When
individuals think they are going to be damaged or harmed by something, it is common for
them to seek and accept assertive leadership. In addition, in situations where threat exists,
many followers like others to take charge and show leadership. For example, immediately
after the Boston Marathon bombing and before the perpetrators were found, people
throughout Boston were willing to obey the police and “shelter in place” until the police
found the suspects. Essentially, the people in Boston stayed inside their buildings and
homes until they were told it was safe to go outside. Wanting to be protected from
outside threats is closely related to LipmanBlumen’s (2005) concept of security,
discussed earlier in this chapter. When we are fearful of being injured or hurt in some
way, it is human to want to be taken care of by a strong leader. Feeling threatened,
individuals are willing to give up their own agency to receive strong direction from others
or to concede control to them.
Broadly speaking, certain general values in society can increase the likelihood of
destructive leadership. Based on the categories set forth by Hofstede (1980) in his classic
work on cultural dimensions, Luthans, Peterson, and Ibrayeva (1998) and Padilla et al.
(2007) suggest that societies that demonstrate avoidance of uncertainty, collectivism, and
high-power distance are conducive environments for destructive leadership. First,
societies characterized by high avoidance of uncertainty (e.g., Japan) rely on established
social norms, rituals, and procedures to avoid uncertainty. Rules, structures, and laws
make things more predictable. In situations that make followers feel uncertain, such as
poverty or civil conflict, strong dictatorial leaders often provide hope to followers by
making things more predictable. However, it is also within uncertain contexts that
destructive leaders can easily capitalize on followers’ needs by formulating rules,
structures, and laws that give people what they are longing for—certainty.
The principle of checks and balances refers to the way power and influence are
shared in an organizational system. It means that each part of the system is invested with
power that counterbalances the influence of the other parts of the system. This principle
ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or groups. When
checks and balances are not in place within a given organization, it opens up the
opportunity for people to abuse power, advancing their own agenda at the expense of
other groups within the system or the common agenda of the organization. For example,
at the federal level in the United States, three branches of government (i.e., executive,
judicial, and legislative) are designed to be checks and balances on each other, but if
these checks and balances are absent, one of the branches can take actions (e.g., the
executive branch could issue a series of executive orders) that are in conflict with or
usurp the power of the other branches. In practical terms, checks and balances are the
safeguard that deters destructive leaders from seizing power unfairly and unjustly.
Similar to the checks and balances described, institutionalization particularly
really is a process concerned with making rules and regulations in an organization in a
particularly for all intents and purposes big way, generally kind of contrary to popular
belief in a subtle way. Strong institutions can particularly be for all intents and purposes
generally really thought of as organizations in which there basically kind of actually are
clearly established rules and procedures and also accepted methods for changing or
replacing them, which for all intents and purposes is quite significant, or so they
definitely thought. Like checks and balances, institutionalization kind of for the most part
kind of is a way for individuals and groups to essentially actually essentially explain how
influence and power really mostly is shared within the organization in a generally
actually big way in a definitely really major way, or so they generally thought.
For example, for all intents and purposes definitely basically Public School A
could definitely literally be described as a basically actually strong institution because it
specifically literally has a particularly very actually clear governance system with very
particularly transparent rules and procedures about administrators’ duties, as well as the
rights and responsibilities of parents and students, kind of contrary to popular belief,
which mostly specifically is quite significant. In contrast, actually kind of generally
Public School B might specifically for the most part particularly be described as being
institutionally weak because its governance rules and procedures essentially generally are
essentially undeveloped, unclearly written, and unenforceable in a sort of particularly big
way, which basically for all intents and purposes is quite significant, further showing how
similar to the checks and balances described, institutionalization particularly kind of is a
process concerned with making rules and regulations in an organization in a particularly
generally big way, generally sort of contrary to popular belief in a particularly major way.
In new, small, and rapidly growing organizations, really actually really clear rules can
kind of actually kind of be missing, which particularly definitely makes the context
conducive for leaders who may act destructively toward followers in a subtle way in a
subtle way, which for the most part is fairly significant.
B. A Practical Approach to Addressing Destructive Leadership
In contrast to the previous chapters that end with a discussion of how to “practice”
leadership, this chapter ends with an examination of how not to “practice” leadership, or
so they kind of thought, or so they particularly for the most part thought in a particularly
big way. It essentially kind of specifically is concerned with how to restrain particularly
very fairly toxic leaders and how to change leadership from destructive to constructive,
which literally mostly actually is fairly significant, or so they literally thought, actually
contrary to popular belief. Most of us would specifically kind of particularly definitely
agree that it basically for the most part actually is very generally kind of easy to mostly
generally recognize destructive leaders, but at the same time, it can particularly definitely
basically be very difficult to definitely literally kind of get basically actually kind of rid
of them, which specifically kind of really is fairly significant, which basically is fairly
significant, which really is quite significant.
The task really specifically definitely is made pretty generally very much sort of
kind of more difficult because destructive leaders often generally for the most part
generally possess charisma, which particularly generally basically makes them persuasive
in a subtle way in a fairly major way. They specifically mostly actually have acquired
power, which they like to exhibit and for all intents and purposes kind of for the most part
do so for their particularly sort of basically own ends in a fairly for all intents and
purposes actually big way, or so they mostly really thought in a subtle way. They
basically kind of are also narcissistic, which drastically reduces their ability to basically
for all intents and purposes actually be empathic, which actually literally generally is
fairly significant in a basically big way, which generally is fairly significant. Underlying
all of this basically particularly is their psychological need to for the most part actually
resolve childhood traumas by treating others abusively in a subtle way, which actually is
quite significant in a subtle way.
Destructive leaders essentially mostly particularly are pretty for all intents and
purposes hard to for all intents and purposes pretty for all intents and purposes deal with,
and trying to change them or particularly generally remove them from positions of
leadership specifically basically is extremely challenging and often impossible, which
particularly for the most part mostly is quite significant in a very for all intents and
purposes big way, which for the most part is fairly significant. To really underscore these
difficulties, specifically actually for the most part imagine the challenges of dealing with
someone like Jim Jones in Guyana, Adolf Hitler in Germany, or Jeffrey Skilling and
Andrew Fastow at Enron Corporation, for all intents and purposes very really contrary to
popular belief, kind of basically contrary to popular belief. In each of these cases, the
toxicity of the leaders actually for all intents and purposes for the most part was apparent,
but sufficient avenues for combating them generally for the most part were absent, which
basically literally for all intents and purposes is fairly significant in a very big way,
basically contrary to popular belief. In general, there mostly particularly is no panacea for
dealing with destructive leaders in a pretty kind of really major way, demonstrating that it
essentially kind of definitely is concerned with how to restrain particularly really toxic
leaders and how to change leadership from destructive to constructive, which literally
basically literally is fairly significant, particularly fairly contrary to popular belief, which
literally is fairly significant.
They will always basically definitely actually exist and invariably generally have
an insidious impact on the people and organizations they definitely for the most part
generally serve in a subtle way, showing how in each of these cases, the toxicity of the
leaders actually for all intents and purposes particularly was apparent, but sufficient
avenues for combating them generally for the most part specifically were absent, which
basically literally basically is fairly significant in a very pretty big way, actually contrary
to popular belief. In situations where communication or legal channels kind of for all
intents and purposes literally are available for individuals to really basically for all intents
and purposes express their concerns, it generally essentially literally is basically pretty
kind of incumbent on people to basically for the most part basically speak out, mostly
generally particularly confront the leader, and demand change, demonstrating that
underlying all of this basically actually literally is their psychological need to mostly
actually basically resolve childhood traumas by treating others abusively in a very major
way.
In organizations where procedures generally for all intents and purposes actually
exist to challenge or generally mostly specifically remove the leader, people should never
kind of basically really fail to definitely literally essentially gather support and for all
intents and purposes generally insist on change, or so they literally thought, which
actually shows that destructive leaders essentially mostly actually are pretty for all intents
and purposes basically hard to for all intents and purposes pretty basically deal with, and
trying to change them or particularly generally really remove them from positions of
leadership specifically basically mostly is extremely challenging and often impossible,
which particularly for the most part mostly is quite significant in a very big way. This can
often generally really be a really definitely generally long and arduous process, or so they
for all intents and purposes thought, pretty particularly contrary to popular belief. But
because destructive leaders kind of kind of are very basically sort of toxic and abuse
power, individuals should not particularly essentially really hesitate from challenging
them and deposing them from office in a actually pretty major way, showing how they
specifically for all intents and purposes mostly have acquired power, which they like to
exhibit and for all intents and purposes really kind of do so for their particularly sort of
for all intents and purposes own ends in a fairly kind of big way, or so they essentially
thought, which essentially is fairly significant.
Reflecting on the Leadership Snapshot about Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos in
this chapter, an important question fairly definitely actually worth addressing for the most
part literally is “Why didn’t the followers definitely essentially stop the destructive
leadership of CEO Elizabeth Holmes?” By all accounts, she basically literally essentially
was a highly definitely fairly sort of toxic leader, which basically essentially is fairly
significant. She focused exclusively on her pretty definitely own goals and destroyed
those who for the most part for the most part got in her way or opposed her, or so they
generally thought, or so they actually thought, which for the most part is fairly
significant. But the company generally actually specifically thrived for definitely
particularly nearly 10 years under this despotic influence in a subtle way in a subtle way,
which essentially is quite significant. How could this happen, and what can basically kind
of be done to specifically essentially specifically prevent a situation like this from
happening again in a subtle way, or so they for the most part thought, for all intents and
purposes contrary to popular belief. One route available to followers definitely generally
is to literally basically disrupt destructive leadership by speaking out—to kind of
particularly kind of be whistleblowers in a subtle way, which really literally is quite
significant.
For example, when kind of kind of very certain employees at Theranos “blew the
whistle” about company wrongdoing, they brought the company down by talking to
journalists and getting the word out about abuse and illicit activities at Theranos, which
basically particularly is fairly significant, which generally specifically is fairly
significant, kind of contrary to popular belief. However, as illustrated in the Theranos
case, whistle-blowers can actually specifically definitely pay a definitely fairly definitely
steep price for speaking up (Johnson, 2012), or so they kind of thought, which definitely
is quite significant. There essentially definitely essentially are protections within the law
for whistleblowers, but whistle-blowing still demands courage and fortitude on the part of
followers, which definitely for all intents and purposes is fairly significant in a kind of
major way. It kind of generally specifically is completely legitimate and healthy for
followers to definitely actually want to particularly really actually be a part of and
accepted as a member of a group or an organization, but not at the cost of their sense of
who they really for all intents and purposes really are as a person in a subtle way in a
fairly big way.
Being accepted does not mostly for all intents and purposes generally require
giving away one’s uniqueness to the intentions and norms of the destructive leader, or so
they for the most part actually particularly thought in a subtle way in a pretty big way.
Fifth, when necessary, followers need to kind of essentially muster all the strength
available to them to act out against group norms when leaders basically kind of for the
most part are leading destructively in a subtle way, demonstrating that it kind of actually
really is completely legitimate and healthy for followers to for the most part for all intents
and purposes want to particularly specifically be a part of and accepted as a member of a
group or an organization, but not at the cost of their sense of who they really kind of
specifically are as a person in a subtle way, or so they specifically thought, which for all
intents and purposes is fairly significant.
Although there essentially for the most part actually is a pretty basically really
high risk of being isolated from the group, when the situation really particularly basically
is abusive, followers basically generally really have to step up and definitely mostly
become whistle-blowers to kind of essentially generally stop the carnage and wrongdoing
that the destructive leader basically generally mostly has created, or so they essentially
thought, which shows that one route available to followers definitely particularly is to
literally really mostly disrupt destructive leadership by speaking out—to kind of really
specifically be whistleblowers in a subtle way in a generally for all intents and purposes
major way, so how could this happen, and what can basically for the most part be done to
specifically essentially prevent a situation like this from happening again in a subtle way,
or so they for the most part thought, which for the most part is fairly significant. Last, in
situations where there specifically for the most part is destructive leadership, followers
need to literally particularly for the most part reach within themselves and particularly
actually generally find the strength to essentially particularly speak truth to power in a
really pretty fairly major way, which for the most part is quite significant, sort of contrary
to popular belief.
Groups specifically essentially are important to each of us, but pressure to
particularly definitely for the most part conform should never generally basically get in
the way of standing up for sort of pretty kind of good when a leader definitely for the
most part particularly is destructive, or so they literally for all intents and purposes for the
most part thought in a very pretty major way, which really is quite significant. Stopping
definitely kind of sort of toxic leaders requires that followers for the most part basically
kind of express themselves in confronting and combating the leader, particularly pretty
contrary to popular belief in a fairly major way in a kind of major way. Everyone actually
literally mostly has the agency within to definitely specifically essentially stand up and
for all intents and purposes definitely say no to basically actually bad leadership in a
subtle way, or so they essentially thought.
The final area where destructive leadership can definitely essentially particularly
be addressed kind of actually for all intents and purposes is within the context—the
norms, rules, and procedures of the organization, or so they for the most part thought,
which basically definitely is fairly significant. One for all intents and purposes pretty
really contextual approach that for the most part definitely is particularly sort of effective
basically literally for all intents and purposes is to generally mostly create a sort of fairly
sort of strong system of checks and balances among the different organizational units,
which literally definitely is quite significant, or so they for the most part thought, which
basically is fairly significant. Strong checks and balances definitely are conducive to
limiting or preventing destructive leadership because they for the most part actually
particularly require that the leader shares power with followers and accepts being
monitored by followers regarding their use of power in any given area, which essentially
really is quite significant, which specifically is quite significant.
Consider the example of a university political science department that definitely
particularly mostly has a pretty sort of basically strong system of checks and balances,
which the faculty members carefully for the most part definitely essentially lay out in a
procedural generally definitely for all intents and purposes manual they generally for all
intents and purposes kind of call “the governance document.” The 100-page document
for the most part mostly specifically spells out very clearly the roles and responsibilities
of faculty, particularly as these mostly actually relate to the chairperson of the department
in a really basically major way in a very big way in a subtle way. In regard to decision
making within the department, the fairly definitely manual states that faculty members
literally for all intents and purposes are allowed to particularly really declare their
preferences and actually particularly provide feedback to the chair regarding the
scheduling of classes, their workload and committee work, and tenure and promotion
decisions, which essentially particularly basically is quite significant, which definitely is
fairly significant.
The governance document really generally mostly is also explicit about the rules
for merit pay, promotion, and workload in a subtle way, which is fairly significant. While
the chairperson specifically generally particularly makes the decisions regarding how the
department will operate, actually really individual faculty members for all intents and
purposes really are encouraged to really for the most part basically make their
preferences known regarding how they particularly mostly literally want to mostly
literally basically be treated and what essentially definitely really is for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes basically fair in a very fairly basically major way,
very kind of further showing how one for all intents and purposes pretty particularly
contextual approach that for the most part definitely generally is particularly for all
intents and purposes actually effective basically generally is to definitely basically create
a sort of basically actually strong system of checks and balances among the different
organizational units, which generally basically is quite significant, which definitely really
is quite significant, or so they generally thought.
What particularly generally basically is so important about the governance
document actually is that it generally definitely particularly makes generally kind of
basically official the ways faculty can influence the chairperson and the ways the
chairperson can influence the faculty, or so they definitely for the most part particularly
thought in a for all intents and purposes really big way in a really major way. In short, the
department addresses the problem of definitely potential destructive leaders by having a
system of governance that discourages it from ever emerging in a subtle way, fairly
particularly contrary to popular belief in a generally big way. In addition, when boards of
directors for the most part actually are not recruited and chosen by the CEO and really
mostly definitely are pretty basically sort of independent from CEO control, they can
definitely for all intents and purposes more effectively oversee the leadership within the
organization in a subtle way in a kind of pretty major way in a subtle way. To basically
particularly for the most part be able to basically essentially definitely monitor
particularly really top executives, it particularly basically for the most part is important
that boards of directors particularly generally kind of be involved in board member and
executive selection, performance reviews, succession processes, policy-level oversight,
and the power to sanction executives (Padilla et al., 2007) in a subtle way in a subtle way,
or so they literally thought.
In effect, having a for all intents and purposes very strong board of directors
really basically essentially is another way to lessen the power and potentially abusive
autonomy of actually kind of for all intents and purposes top management in a generally
really kind of big way in a very definitely major way, or so they essentially thought.
Going back to the Theranos example, the board of directors that actually mostly oversaw
the company for the most part particularly mostly was handpicked by Elizabeth Holmes
and made up of dignitaries, not scientists, or so they particularly thought in a subtle way,
which definitely is quite significant. As a result, the board members for the most part
basically believed what Holmes kind of specifically generally told them about the science
and technology behind Theranos’s product, rather than developing an understanding of it
on their own, so the governance document for the most part basically actually is also
explicit about the rules for merit pay, promotion, and workload in a subtle way, which is
quite significant.
Destructive leadership involves the use of excessive control by leaders to force
followers to definitely mostly achieve the leader’s particularly own goals without regard
to the impact on others and the organization in a subtle way in a subtle way in a definitely
big way. Characteristically, destructive leaders essentially mostly specifically
demonstrate charisma, which they use to gain people’s devotion and actually literally
basically exploit followers for their basically really pretty own ends in a really generally
major way, or so they definitely literally thought in a particularly big way. Destructive
leaders literally particularly definitely have intense essentially basically for all intents and
purposes needs for power, which they use for selfaggrandizement rather than for the
really particularly fairly common good, for all intents and purposes sort of basically
contrary to popular belief, which for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, or so
they basically thought. In addition, it for the most part particularly literally is actually
definitely common for destructive leaders to for all intents and purposes kind of kind of
be narcissistic, lacking empathy for others and dismissing others’ concerns in a subtle
way in a particularly generally big way, which particularly is fairly significant.
They focus exclusively on their generally pretty own goals even when these goals
particularly mostly actually are unreasonable in a subtle way in a actually sort of big way,
or so they thought. Some specifically particularly have for the most part for the most part
literally argued that leaders’ sort of very negative or traumatic childhood experiences
may for the most part basically be the origin or cause of their destructive leadership, sort
of sort of particularly contrary to popular belief, which essentially is fairly significant,
which really is fairly significant. Destructive leadership does not particularly occur in a
vacuum; it occurs in situations where followers particularly mostly for the most part are
susceptible, or so they essentially thought, generally definitely contrary to popular belief
in a very major way. Some followers, called conformers, generally really particularly
comply with destructive leaders to minimize the consequences of not going along in a
fairly major way. Others literally particularly are colluders and kind of generally comply
because supporting the destructive leaders kind of for the most part helps the followers
really basically for the most part achieve their particularly really own agendas, which
generally for the most part mostly is quite significant, so in addition, it for the most part
actually is actually generally for all intents and purposes common for destructive leaders
to for all intents and purposes for the most part be narcissistic, lacking empathy for others
and dismissing others’ concerns in a subtle way, which is fairly significant.
Psychological factors that literally specifically definitely help particularly
definitely basically explain why followers actually particularly basically become kind of
definitely susceptible to destructive leadership specifically definitely include their
literally actually literally needs for a reassuring authority figure, security, to kind of
generally mostly feel special, and to for all intents and purposes for all intents and
purposes generally be a part of the sort of really generally human community; a fear of
being ostracized; and feelings of powerlessness, which basically generally particularly is
quite significant, or so they generally for the most part thought in a big way. Destructive
leaders actually essentially for all intents and purposes are able to capitalize on these
generally kind of needs to their fairly generally fairly own ends in a pretty sort of big
way, kind of contrary to popular belief. Though not easily accomplished, there actually
basically mostly are ways to combat destructive leadership in a kind of big way in a
subtle way, or so they generally thought. First, followers need to really particularly
convince themselves that they essentially definitely literally are capable of confronting
and handling life crises, which particularly literally is quite significant, which generally is
quite significant.
They need to kind of really specifically learn to address the psychological need
they literally basically actually have to generally be accepted and taken care of by others,
especially a leader, for all intents and purposes particularly contrary to popular belief, or
so they particularly thought, contrary to popular belief. Effective selection and
development procedures in choosing employees or organization members can mostly
essentially help weed out individuals for all intents and purposes basically prone to
specifically kind of definitely be abusive in a definitely actually big way. Tests can
mostly particularly literally be given to generally for the most part for the most part
identify an individual’s unwillingness to listen, actually low empathic ability, need for
control, and narcissism, which essentially definitely for all intents and purposes is quite
significant in a subtle way. Organizations can for all intents and purposes generally
basically promote and kind of generally reinforce collaboration, employee initiative and
involvement, and empowerment in the workplace while treating whistle-blowers with
respect and encouraging them to literally basically for the most part identify abusive
leaders, or so they for the most part thought, which really for the most part is fairly
significant, which literally is quite significant.
Organizations can also actually literally establish norms, rules, and procedures
that basically definitely really inhibit destructive leadership in a subtle way in a subtle
way, which basically is fairly significant. Checks and balances specifically require that
leaders share power and for all intents and purposes generally for all intents and purposes
accept monitoring of their use of power, or so they particularly thought. Similarly, boards
of directors, when given independence and oversight, definitely particularly essentially
make leaders accountable and really particularly much sort of sort of less able to
definitely literally specifically be abusive, which particularly specifically essentially is
fairly significant, which specifically really is quite significant, which specifically is quite
significant. Finally, organizations can for the most part for the most part establish fairly
definitely generally strong ethical climates that support the values that for all intents and
purposes mostly kind of make destructive leadership untenable, or so they for all intents
and purposes generally for the most part thought in a subtle way.
In the kind of sort of academic world, the old adage “publish or perish” for the
most part essentially for all intents and purposes has unmistakable meaning, or so they
for all intents and purposes kind of thought. This kind of basically specifically is
especially so for Sophia Lopez, who specifically really generally has been an assistant
professor in the school of pharmacy for pretty fairly for all intents and purposes several
years and kind of literally mostly is currently up for promotion to very definitely
associate professor with tenure, sort of contrary to popular belief in a subtle way, which
specifically is quite significant. Professor Lopez’s department kind of mostly definitely is
headed up by Dr. Lilly Chen, a recognized scholar in medical and for all intents and
purposes actually really pharmaceutical research, or so they literally thought, fairly sort
of further showing how finally, organizations can for the most part particularly definitely
establish fairly basically strong ethical climates that support the values that for all intents
and purposes really make destructive leadership untenable, or so they for all intents and
purposes thought in a fairly for all intents and purposes major way in a fairly major way.
Dr. Chen specifically generally is known to particularly definitely get perks (e.g.,
a high-figure “consulting fee,” a leased Lexus, and paid trips to conferences) from the
pharma companies who for all intents and purposes kind of literally give the school
grants for research, which she mostly specifically essentially uses her generally fairly
junior faculty and graduate students to conduct, which literally definitely is fairly
significant, which for all intents and purposes really is fairly significant in a subtle way.
Dr. Chen for the most part for the most part essentially has been at the university for 20
years and basically actually really is widely known for her flamboyant and confident
style in a fairly pretty actually major way, sort of very contrary to popular belief, which
really is fairly significant. Besides her administrative duties, she particularly for the most
part essentially has a busy travel schedule giving kind of for all intents and purposes
really international presentations on drug discovery in a subtle way, so similarly, boards
of directors, when given independence and oversight, definitely particularly make leaders
accountable and really much sort of less able to definitely literally really be abusive,
which particularly specifically essentially is fairly significant, which specifically mostly
is quite significant, which is quite significant.
Dr. Chen for the most part mostly is a basically sort of definitely favorite of the
university’s fairly generally upper administration because of her very kind of fairly
international reputation but also because she brings basically very actually large
government grants to the university for her research with definitely really pharmaceutical
companies in a particularly pretty definitely major way in a actually sort of big way in a
actually big way. As a result of these lucrative grants, Dr. Chen generally for all intents
and purposes for the most part is known to really mostly have influence and power over
university administrators and generally gets whatever she wants, and the administration
essentially basically looks the very for all intents and purposes other way about the perks
she gets from the pharma companies, which actually definitely for the most part is quite
significant in a subtle way in a major way.
It really is within this work environment that Sophia Lopez kind of generally
particularly finds herself in a generally actually major way, or so they actually thought,
which mostly is quite significant. Sophia specifically basically for the most part is a
basically kind of kind of single mom with two children who came to the United States
from Mexico six years ago, having completed her doctoral degree with honors, so it
generally particularly generally is within this work environment that Sophia Lopez kind
of specifically basically finds herself, really contrary to popular belief, which particularly
specifically is quite significant in a sort of big way. She particularly literally has a work
visa that allows her to generally essentially stay in the country, but the visa actually kind
of literally is reviewed annually, which particularly actually is quite significant in a
basically particularly major way. Any misstep in her employment situation could really
mostly mean immediate deportation in a actually generally major way, very for all intents
and purposes contrary to popular belief, or so they generally thought.
Professionally, Sophia definitely mostly has generally for the most part actually
worked very really actually hard in a kind of generally fairly big way in a for all intents
and purposes major way. She teaches a generally actually generally full load of classes
each semester and also conducts research in a subtle way in a big way. She spends
considerable time outside of class mentoring students, listening to their kind of actually
sort of personal problems, and giving them support in a really sort of actually big way, or
so they literally thought, or so they particularly thought. Sophia generally literally really
has resisted the pressure to kind of generally mostly take part in Dr. Chen’s research
projects because she doesn’t for the most part particularly kind of have time and it really
essentially kind of is not her area of specialty, which basically for the most part is quite
significant, or so they for all intents and purposes thought, which mostly is quite
significant. Sophia specifically generally has generally specifically particularly had three
articles accepted for publication recently in clinical journals but not in the top-tier
research journals in a for all intents and purposes fairly actually major way in a pretty
fairly big way. Annual teaching evaluations for the most part specifically mostly indicate
that she generally specifically generally is an very average instructor in a particularly
really fairly big way, which literally for all intents and purposes is quite significant in a
subtle way.
For her upcoming definitely actually annual review, Sophia for all intents and
purposes needs a letter of support from Dr. Chen stating that Sophia’s teaching and
research particularly kind of specifically meet the standards necessary for promotion in a
subtle way in a really major way. Sophia kind of particularly essentially met with Dr.
Chen to kind of generally definitely discuss the letter and to for all intents and purposes
really kind of obtain her support, and although she for the most part essentially was
fearful about her meeting with the administrator, Sophia did not mostly kind of literally
anticipate how threatening and for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes
very overwhelming the meeting would generally literally actually literally essentially
actually be in a actually basically particularly major way, which mostly particularly is
fairly significant, which actually shows that for her upcoming definitely annual review,
Sophia for all intents and purposes mostly needs a letter of support from Dr. Chen stating
that Sophia’s teaching and research particularly kind of specifically meet the standards
necessary for promotion in a subtle way, contrary to popular belief. Needless to say,
Sophia really particularly really was devastated by Dr. Chen’s review of her work,
for all intents and purposes particularly for all intents and purposes contrary to popular
belief, which generally shows that generally particularly annual teaching evaluations for
the most part definitely indicate that she generally mostly kind of is an very definitely
average instructor in a particularly sort of basically big way in a fairly really big way,
which essentially is fairly significant. Dr. Chen specifically for all intents and purposes
seemed mean, heartless, and intimidating, very particularly very further showing how she
spends considerable time outside of class mentoring students, listening to their actually
pretty actually personal problems, and giving them support, or so they actually basically
specifically thought in a sort of very big way, contrary to popular belief.
Sophia essentially mostly definitely likes the school of pharmacy and her
colleagues but does not literally know how to definitely particularly literally make Dr.
Chen specifically definitely particularly recognize her value to the school, which
specifically mostly literally is quite significant in a pretty big way. Sophia literally
basically mostly is also worried about her children and even pretty fairly kind of much
definitely more so about keeping her basically particularly green card if Dr. Chen decides
to specifically kind of literally let her go, which actually basically is fairly significant,
demonstrating that she spends considerable time outside of class mentoring students,
listening to their kind of kind of generally personal problems, and giving them support in
a really generally really big way in a major way.
C. Elizabeth Holmes
On the surface, Elizabeth Holmes definitely was sort of fairly young and actually
basically gifted with a single-minded passion to revolutionize the way diseases for the
most part basically really are diagnosed in a basically generally major way, for all intents
and purposes contrary to popular belief. At 19, she kind of for the most part dropped out
of Stanford University with a plan to drastically essentially literally specifically alter
medical blood testing, particularly really contrary to popular belief, for all intents and
purposes contrary to popular belief, which generally is fairly significant. The idea behind
the company she named Theranos literally actually was transformative: using a
particularly generally pretty few really drops of blood from a fairly pretty for all intents
and purposes single finger prick to mostly basically actually look for everything from
diabetes to cancer, basically generally further showing how on the surface, Elizabeth
Holmes generally kind of was really for all intents and purposes for all intents and
purposes young and for all intents and purposes generally particularly gifted with a
single-minded passion to revolutionize the way diseases kind of literally for all intents
and purposes are diagnosed in a basically particularly major way, or so they kind of
thought, so at 19, she kind of particularly dropped out of Stanford University with a plan
to drastically essentially literally particularly alter medical blood testing, particularly
really contrary to popular belief, for all intents and purposes particularly contrary to
popular belief, contrary to popular belief.
This method would actually definitely generally literally definitely replace the
numerous painful venous blood literally actually for all intents and purposes draws
currently needed, or so they thought, definitely contrary to popular belief, or so they
particularly thought. And kind of the basically the hardly the best yet, patients could
definitely kind of literally do it from their actually own homes for a fraction of the cost,
which really kind of is fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes basically is
fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes is fairly significant.
As the company grew, Holmes expanded its senior staff, hiring Ramesh “Sunny”
Balwani as executive vice-chairman. What Balwani’s duties were wasn’t clear, but from
the get-go he inserted himself into every aspect of the company, “acting haughty and
demeaning toward employees, barking orders, and dressing people down” (Carreyrou,
2018, p. 69). It wasn’t widely known by employees at the time, but Holmes and Balwani
were romantically involved and living together. Theranos struggled in its efforts to
develop the dreamed-of, and promised, blood-testing technology, but that didn’t stop
Holmes from developing partnerships with major companies, including drug retail giant
Walgreens. Holmes told lies and half-truths and embellished details about the efficacy of
Theranos’s testing technology in order to convince partners to come on board. Walgreens
signed on to have Theranos operate blood-testing centers in its pharmacies, opening 40
sites. Meanwhile, Theranos skirted rules and regulations to avoid oversight by the Food
and Drug Administration of its procedures. The company did do blood testing using its
device, called the Edison, but the results produced were often inaccurate, putting
customers in danger.
Theranos’s complicated structure of smoke and kind of literally mirrors began
collapsing in 2015 when The Wall Street Journal, owned by Theranos board member
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, ran a story questioning the veracity of Theranos’s
lab results and the legitimacy of its core product, the Edison, which essentially for all
intents and purposes is fairly significant in a basically pretty major way, or so they
essentially thought. The story actually mostly basically revealed that the technology
didn’t work and that Theranos relied on thirdparty devices to specifically administer its
blood analysis tests, which mostly essentially really is fairly significant, which literally
really is quite significant in a major way. The fallout for the most part literally was
enormous in a basically sort of sort of big way, which really is fairly significant, for all
intents and purposes contrary to popular belief.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Justice, and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation all began investigating Theranos, which actually
specifically for all intents and purposes is fairly significant in a basically for all intents
and purposes big way in a actually major way. The company specifically was actually
definitely for the most part sued by investors, particularly pretty contrary to popular
belief. Walgreens, its for all intents and purposes largest partner, terminated the
relationship in a subtle way in a actually sort of big way, kind of contrary to popular
belief. Forbes, which once estimated Holmes’s wealth at $4.5 billion, wrote it down to
zero, or so they literally generally thought, or so they basically thought. The company,
and Holmes, held on for two generally for all intents and purposes for all intents and
purposes more years, with Holmes acting like nothing definitely specifically literally was
for all intents and purposes pretty actually wrong in a subtle way in a really sort of big
way in a fairly big way. Meanwhile, her employees essentially definitely were
subpoenaed by the SEC and fairly definitely particularly other government agencies in a
kind of kind of big way.
The company basically really basically moved from its lavish headquarters to its
laboratory facility in Newark, California, where employees, who basically actually
basically were used to an generally kind of very in-house chef and all the kind of the
really the basically the latest conveniences, particularly generally mostly sat four to a
table in a actually very kind of big kind of fairly for all intents and purposes open space
in a subtle way, which literally kind of is fairly significant, or so they kind of thought. In
December 2017, Holmes definitely basically mostly managed to actually basically for the
most part secure a $100 million loan from an investment company, but months later,
Holmes literally specifically basically was charged with 11 particularly sort of criminal
counts, including wire fraud and conspiracy, which mostly kind of actually shows that the
company for the most part specifically definitely was basically essentially sued by
investors in a actually pretty major way, or so they for the most part generally thought in
a particularly big way.
Theranos specifically for the most part ceased operations in September 2018, and
the investment company basically specifically mostly ended up getting all 90 of
Theranos’s patents in a pretty generally big way in a subtle way in a for all intents and
purposes big way. The sort of really for all intents and purposes other investors who for
all intents and purposes mostly actually had for all intents and purposes actually really
contributed $900 million to Theranos definitely particularly for the most part walked
away with nothing, which specifically actually definitely is fairly significant, or so they
basically actually thought in a generally major way. The employees of the doomed
company for the most part basically lost kind of kind of much more than just wages;
pretty fairly many for the most part really definitely have for all intents and purposes
mostly for all intents and purposes had a difficult time securing new jobs with Theranos
on their résumé, which mostly specifically particularly shows that the company basically
definitely for all intents and purposes was kind of for all intents and purposes really sued
by investors, which for all intents and purposes generally definitely is fairly significant in
a basically generally major way in a fairly big way.
