The Dark Side of Leadership is stronger, if we let it.

Luke Skywalker:?Is the dark side stronger?

Master Yoda:?No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

I threw down Jeffrey Pfeffer’s book “The 7 Rules of Power” disgusted by the glorification of what I call dark side principles of leadership. But my disgust was measured by an appreciation for the strength Pfeffer’s arguments and his evidence. Of course, it’s solid. Getting ahead at work has always been about being noticed rather than doing great work. About looking powerful rather than making others feel confident. About breaking rules (to show how powerful you are) rather than working to improve them. About being mean rather than magnanimous. More heroic than humble. More white than black. More male than female. “Performance doesn’t speak for itself, nor does it predict promotion. But making your boss look good will.” Not charming qualities, but effective if you want power and success.

There is, though, an important flip side to Pfeffer’s modern take on Machiavellian “The Prince”. Leaders who follow Pfeffer’s advice on “how to get things done and advance their careers” create toxic teams and organization’s that are far from effective. They are the arseholes written so vividly about by Bob Sutton in his seminal book “The No Arsehole Rule”. Coercive, power-hungry, and utterly ego-centric, they may make it to the top, but “Snakes in Suits”—as Paul Babiak and Robert Hare call them—leave a trail of wrecked relationships behind them. But as Pfeffer argues, when you have reached the top and have power, “what you did to get it will be forgiven or forgotten or both.”

When reading Pfeffer’s book you will not find the usual positive leadership principles like vision, empathy, humility, recognition, purpose, and service. What I call the Bright side of leadership. However, these are the qualities people look for in their best bosses. They are also the qualities they say will create the best organizations. I know, I have surveyed thousands of people across the world in my Safe2Great study. Leaders that demonstrate the Bright side are rated by their direct reports and peers as the most effective, have the most committed team members, create the highest levels of psychological safety, and help their people grow. They are “Multipliers,” to use the term coined in Liz Wiseman’s book of the same name. Toxic leaders who dominate, compete and demand too much from others have a negative correlation on the commitment, engagement, and effectiveness of their teams. They are diminishers.

What I have also discovered is that powerful people are often the very reason team members become complacent and resistant to change. When we are led by a self-interested, critical and / or dominating leader, we cope with the lack of support and recognition by becoming what I call snails or clams. Snails learn to play strictly by the rules and keep their boss happy. Clams learn to stay out of trouble and resist their bossy boss indirectly. We become harmless, hope-less, quietly quit or head, screaming, for the exit.

“Deenergizing interactions—those that are negative or draining—have a 4-7 times stronger negative impact on performance than the positive effects of relationships that are energizing,” according to Christine Porath who has studied the impact of incivility and toxic behavior on performance. She also cites research that shows how doctors exposed to rudeness become anchored on an initial diagnosis and stop thinking critically. In hospitals, this leads to poor outcomes and even death. She has also discovered that teams stop sharing information with each other and asking for help when they experience disrespectful behavior. Naturally enough, rudeness, bossiness or other uncivil behavior reduces psychological safety, writes Amy Edmondsen in “The Fearless Organization”.

My Safe2Great study reveals similar outcomes but shows that there are some key behaviors that particularly reduce effectiveness and psychological safety. For controlling leaders, it’s being hostile and aggressive, keeping secrets and autocratic behaviors that reduce effectiveness, but more importantly make people feel unsafe. Reactive leaders who are unable to provide clear direction on important issues, are indecisive and avoid risks are the most demotivating to work for. Being nice is not a recipe for psychological safety or effectiveness. And thirdly, disconnected leaders who are distracted, blame others and who don’t ask for help undermine team performance the most by eroding confidence and trust.?

In summary, we have found that leaders who display some of Pfeffer’s 7 rules are not the best leaders. Leaders who display the Bright side of leadership outperform Dark side leaders on all parameters in our study except self-confidence. In that respect, Dark side leaders score substantially higher than their more effective Bright-sided colleagues. Our conclusion is that humility is effective for leadership, but less important for promotion.

How, then, do we reconcile these two views on the leadership world??

My point is that we will have to reinvent how we lead and organize from the ground up if Bright side leadership principles will become the norm rather than a fantasy story. Yoda is right, the dark side is not more powerful, only quicker, easier, and more seductive. Dark side leadership requires a lack of transparency to reproduce. It thrives when we stop being critical and challenging about how leaders behave. It grows when we put profit ahead of people and the planet. It succeeds when we are silenced and separated from our team members by divisive and repressive leaders. It becomes the norm when we keep saying that we don’t have time or the money to do the right thing.

The truth is that the dark side of leadership is stronger than the Bright side because we allow it to be so. When our behaviors are based on what we can get away with rather than the best we can be, the dark side wins. When we stop working to include quieter or different voices, it wins. When we stop holding powerful people accountable to higher standards, it wins. When we allow whistleblowers to be outed and intimidated, it wins. When we stop giving honest feedback to our bosses, it wins. And when we continue to hire and promote the people who look and talk like us, it wins.

So, in response to Master Luke, I would say that the dark side is stronger because we have failed to shead enough light on our teams and organizations.??When we work in the shadows of big egos, it’s hard to shine. The bright side can be more powerful only if we are willing to shine a light on and remove dehumanizing behaviors.

• More grit than growl
• More purpose than power
• More admiration than fear
• More recognition than rejection
• More transparency than propaganda?
• More voice than silence?
• More autonomy than conformity
• More critical than condoning
• More community than isolation
• More dialogue than decrees
• More care than cynicism

The problem with my argument is that it sours the cool-aid you’ve all been drinking. Organizations are full of what can only be called propaganda or well-intended BS. The hypocrisy of some organizations should be criminal.

These principles may sound good, but they will not get you power. They are only used to describe successful leaders once they get to the top. Funny how benevolent and kind leaders become once they have fought their way to the top of the greasy pole.?