The Socio-economic Impact of Destructive Leadership
By Dr. Philip Harrell
There is a popular book series called Jack Reacher that has been turned into a couple of films and a miniseries. Its popularity is understandable because the basic premise is that good people win, bad people lose, and bullies get what they deserve. If only it was as simple as that in the world of work. In reality – good people leave, bad people get generous handouts, and workplace bullying is swept under the carpet. The human and economic cost is staggering. Good, capable people leave because of stress and burnout, or simply stay on through financial necessity and do the minimum possible.
Of the many leadership training mantras, there is no more true or sadder than ‘people don’t leave organisations they leave their bosses’. Yet forget the social implications of destroying the opportunity for good people, the cost through loss of productivity to the economy is immeasurable. As a consultant, I continue to be dismayed that in this age where professional leadership courses are commonplace and professional development programs are considered a key component to organisational success, poor leadership, indeed, actively harmful leadership, persists in many organisations.
Let’s categorise these types of harmful, destructive leadership.
Type one – Patronising, arrogant, ‘know it all’
They believe leadership is about telling people what to do. They are convinced that they have the answer to everything. This is a non-collaborative, combative leadership approach that de-motivates staff and leads to high staff turnover and/or disloyal staff behaviour.
There are a number of subsets that go with this style including the male misogynist (err, usually male) and the condescending bully, both male and female.
Type two – Something to prove
Often new in a position and not bothering to get the ‘lay of the land’ before launching into change for change’s sake, causing disruption and stress amongst employees. Potentially new to the organisation or industry; possibly promoted above their level of capability, they lack the situational awareness to understand the devastating impact they are having on staff. Change and innovation are good – except when it is just for show.
I have witnessed this style and the stress and uncertainty it causes, with the end result that experienced staff leave to seek other opportunities.
Type three – See no evil, hear no evil do no evil
This person is in the position of leader but really is not that interested as long as they look good. The goal was to get the job. They pretend to be interested while working on getting the next job/promotion.
This can result in a staggering inattention to the day-to-day operations of the business, and the workplace culture. This style of leadership allows laziness, and disengagement to thrive.
Type four – The blind eye
There are those who simply don’t want to know. They are happy with their salary and perks and don’t want to jeopardise their position by calling out poor behaviour or attempting to innovate and create opportunity. Safety is a beautiful thing. Again, this style has a detrimental effect on workplace dynamics with productivity low and people turning up to work just to be seen to be doing so.
Type five – Grossly incompetent
While this style can easily be blended with any of the other styles, they can also stand alone in their ineptness and the devastating effect they have on staff while those supporting (or those who appointed) them turn a blind eye. They can of course be highly competent technically (which is probably why they got to be a leader in the first place). This is a classic type that showcases that the best mechanic on the floor who gets promoted for being the best mechanic doesn’t necessarily make the best leader.
Other types – You may be able to easily think of other types. However, many destructive behaviours are usually the result of one of these types. For example, you might think ‘a user’ is another style. A user is someone who takes credit for other people’s hard work. They can be a minor contributor to a project and yet tell everyone that they had a much bigger role in the project’s success than they did! However, this is really a behaviour that is allowed to flourish in individuals when leaders are type three (see no evil, hear no evil do no evil).
I have experienced a user who was a type one (the patronising, arrogant, ‘know it all’); they just couldn’t stand someone else getting credit.
The result of all these types of behaviour is detrimental to organisations and individuals.
At an organisational level, it leads to a lack of loyalty, high staff turnover, and poor productivity. At an individual level, it leads to unacceptable levels of stress, individual self-doubt and the development of contempt for the organisation.
I have witnessed these terrible socio-economic consequences first-hand. Those who are fortunate enough to have permanent positions at benevolent institutions with some level of experience take stress/long service leave and seek employment elsewhere. Those who have mortgages and are so junior to have little power simply put up with it. Those who are in small communities with few options for other employment put up with it and contribute to their organisations at as minimal a level as possible. Contractors/self-employed/consultants either put up with it or, if they are established, move on.
A New Hope – At first glance, this might seem like a bad news article on destructive leadership. OK well, it is – I am writing this in a very melancholy mood because I am frustrated with having to experience this behaviour often. But I see this as an opportunity for hope.
So far all I have done is called out behaviour that is all too commonplace in organisations. These behaviours must stop if we as individuals and organisations are to flourish in the uncertain times ahead. We need to look at the importance and power of values-based leadership and its effect in organisations I have been involved with. All leaders need to aspire to and build a supportive, positive, and productive workplace.