Toxic Leadership

Toxic Leadership

Ever since I was a kid, I needed to be the smartest guy in the room. It didn’t matter what topic was being discussed – I had to have full mastery of it so I could speak intelligently about it. As a result, I read and studied ravenously; the more esoteric the subject matter, the more it fascinated me. I competed with everyone in every class there was. Consequently, I was much more well read than any of my peers from a very young age.

Looking back at that voracious consumption of information saddens me a bit. It saddens me that I cannot consume information in the manner that I could in my teens and twenties; it saddens me that general knowledge no longer has the relevance to modern society that it once did (thanks to Google); it saddens me that I thought regurgitating information rather than creating new knowledge and new insights was a definition of smart. However, what saddens me the most is the underlying cause of that need to be the smartest guy in the room – a fragile ego. General knowledge was my insulation against a world that wanted to threaten and ridicule me. It was my proof to myself that at least in something I was better than everyone else.

It took me the better part of three decades to realize how flawed my youthful perspective was. I was never the smartest guy in the room; I was the most insecure and the most arrogant. That lesson was a hard one to learn, and it was a function of looking at and understanding leadership in many different ways.

If you look at the dynamics of any group, team, or management function, there are always those collaborators that are the leaders – the smart, outspoken ones who already know what good looks like. Those, by invested or referential authority, command obedience because they have some esoteric knowledge that flows from their connection to corporate strategy, relationships, or even technical acumen. Individuals whose sheer eloquence or ability to construct new ideas from pieces of old ones dazzle the senses. We inherently reach to these people for guidance because that’s what leaders do – they guide us to a better definition of good and the outcomes we seek.

Or do they?

The problem with modern leadership is two-fold; one, it implies that a single person knows better than a group of people due to experience, wealth, knowledge, authority, or otherwise, and two, it is often expressed as a prescriptive mandate that does not allow for discussion or disagreement. I find modern leadership to be toxic; these roles invest a level of authority that cannot be questioned reasonably. If speaking to an executive, questions or comments about decisions may have career consequences for the querent. Evening asking the right question in the wrong way could result in cratering aspirations for growth in the company. Alternatively, a leader may have a deep level of understanding of the subject matter to the point that there’s no way to really determine if his argument is right or not; at some level the conversation turns into technical or jingoistic noise.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the type of toxic leadership we have all heard of; the manager that turns your life into a nightmare through emotional duress and threats. I'm talking more generally; I find the entire model of leadership to be foundationally flawed. There are levels of discourse that can stem from this discussion; the right team structure, avoiding groupthink, the leader as a servant-enaber, and much more. I'm not trying to solve the larger problem. I'm just pointing out an underlying cultural dissonance that needs to be addressed.

This problem is commonly expressed in most of the leadership I see today; this is particularly true of the political leadership class in the United States but is also expressed at all levels of the corporate world. There is an entitlement that exists to their role and authority; their mandate stems from a conceived infallibility that is a function of always being successful in what they do. Invariably these leaders rely on sycophants as sounding boards to validate their greatness, and challenges to their ideas are met with harshly as a toxic retaliation that belittles or humiliates others. These leaders express opinions as facts, and establish a narrative that will not permit an examination of the a priori information underpinning the ideas expressed. They allow their egos to speak for their heart instead of using their intellect to express reality.

This is not to say these leaders are not smart or successful or both; those that rise to the top do so because our corporate and political culture rewards individual performance. Those that have the ability to synthesize information and ideate innovation are rewarded with promotions, raises, and increases of authority. The ability of a powerful personality to bend people to accomplish a task is one of the most valuable characteristics of modern leadership. We seek those that inspire or compel others to achieve objectives and desired outcomes. In any literature that you find, the definition of leadership will be some permutation of this message.

I recognize toxic leaders because I was one for a long time. I still am, when bad habits find their way back into my routine due to time constraints, pressure, or deadlines. The problem with the aforementioned definition seems self-evident to me, but it is only after having been this type of leader for many decades. There are two facts I needed to understand before I could change. One, I was never going to be the smartest guy in the room. There’s always someone smarter because no problem is one-dimensional. Secondly, two people are 1.25x more effective than one; three are 2x as effective; this formula grows logarithmically until you get to an inflection point where you cannot separate noise from ideas. Irrespective of the level of “smart,” ideation and problem solving occurs best when multiple people are working together to a common goal, and everyone is comfortable expressing opinions. Wrong is not an expression of your worth as an employee or a technical architect or even a manager; it is part of the natural process of a common understand of what the best “good” looks like.

There is a better way. Leaders need a new and better definition in our fast changing world; one that adopts that values we espouse as individuals and communities, and one that promotes collective growth and outcome-based thinking. We need a model that describes our belief in the value of each individual and the experiences they bring to the table. These experiences will inform their perspectives, which will enrich a team’s ability to ideate, create, and deliver value to their stakeholders. Leadership should not be about being the smartest or the best; it should be about cultivating people and their ideas. In my mind and in the teams that I work with, the idea of a leader telling a team what to do and what good looks like is a legacy mindset. It is an anachronism that stems from our feudal culture. It has no place in in my world.

A leader is an individual who promotes both individual growth and a culture of accountability within a team in order to achieve a collective goal.

If you are wondering if you might be or have a toxic leader, consider this; most toxic leaders don’t consider themselves toxic. They think of themselves as value-enablers, driving their teams to defined outcomes. Here are some of the thoughts that occurred to me as I pondered this question. I hope they resonate with some of you.

• People have a hard time catching up to my ideas
• I’m smarter than everyone else.
•  I didn’t get here by luck; it was hard work.
• If I need something done right, I do it myself.
• Being wrong in front of leadership bothers me.
• I describe what I want and expect my people to deliver it.
• I understand this subject matter better than anyone else.
• I have a forceful, dynamic personality. People are drawn to me and what I want.

Jamal Khawaja

Follow me on Twitter or Facebook.