Toxic leadership and the Lucifer Effect: a challenge for follower-ship

While doing research into organisational culture, I came across a post in Glass door, made by an exited employee of a well-known FMCG company, who justifies his low rating of the ex-organization, in this manner:

‘Cons

If you are trying to solve things and do not get results, your resignation will be procured by hacking your E mail id.

Advice to Management

Check with all level. Management listens to stories, but does not know the actual happening at ground level. If anybody is RSM (Regional Sales Manager), then give space to them to do, as they please. Like hacking your e mail id for resignation, pick and drop service for ZSM (Zonal Sales Manager), purchasing veg for ZSM and to engage employee to do their house hold things’.

The above post reminded me of my own experience with a Sales Head of an organization, where I worked briefly. He came from a reputed family, held a diploma in Management, and was a well groomed, lively person. One day, as we were discussing performance targets, he made a comment ‘Look there is a limit to which your motivational tactics work. To get sales, you also have to know how to twist arms to make things happen. So I do it this way.’ He said it with a twinkle in his eyes and opened his drawer to bring up a folder with many handwritten papers. ‘Guess, what these are?’ He quizzed. I had no clue. ‘Resignation letters of all my sales staff. I secured them from every new employee, and when they falter I call the individual and tell him that I can invoke this. It always works.’ He told me that he learned it from his first boss, a kind of mentor for him.

If the above technique of the leader in interfacing with their subordinates produces results ( My colleague got results , the sales graph always travelled north during his time) most organization would not look into the cupboards to see the skeletons, thus leaving the leaders to perpetrate this style as a silver bullet for all performance issues in a sales market . Not only that , the method would also get passed on to the legions of successors as a kind of baton passing in a ghost relay race over time. The only issue in this practice is the tear such practices leave on the cultural fabric of the organization and the damage done to the psyche of the people. People driven in fear in an atmosphere of low trust never own such organisations, leading to erosion in commitment, motivation and the joy at work.

Toxic Leadership

The leadership style can be identified as ‘toxic leadership’, a term coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 as a dysfunctional leadership styles. Blake Ashforth presented the  potentially harmful aspects  of leadership and detected  what he labelled  as petty tyrants, i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace (Petty tyranny in organizations , Ashforth, Blake, Human Relations, Vol. 47, No. 7, 755-778 (1994). Later, Jean Lipman-Blumen (The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—and How We Can Survive Them), explained this on the basis of the inclination of contemporary society to seek authoritative characteristics among our corporate leaders because of the perceived psycho social needs and emotional weaknesses of the people. According to him “toxic leadership" referred to leaders, who, by virtue of their "dysfunctional personal characteristics" and "destructive behaviours" "inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm" on their own followers and organisations, and also on the immediate circle of victims and subordinates.

Impact on Followers: Lucifer Effect

Why do perfectly decent men or women become perpetrators of unethical practices? Renowned social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, in his book ‘The Lucifer Effect’ explains the lure of “the dark side.” Zimbardo shares the story of the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which a group of college-student volunteers was randomly divided into “guards” and “inmates” and then placed in a mock prison environment. Within a week the study was abandoned, as ordinary college students were transformed into either brutal, sadistic guards or emotionally broken prisoners. Drawing on examples from history as well as his own trailblazing research on, Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women. 

The Antidote

What could a conscientious follower do to break the chain of toxic leadership in an organization? Dr. Robert Kelly (In praise of followers) talks about four essential qualities of a follower:

1.   Self-Management.

2.   Committed to the organization and to a purpose, principle, or person outside themselves.

3.   Competency.

4.   Courage, honesty, and credibility.

Dr. Kelly narrates the story of Jerome LiCari, the former R&D director at Beech-Nut, who on suspicion that the apple concentrate being bought from a new supplier at a low cost was adulterated, collected evidence of adulteration and issued a memo recommending a change of supplier. When he went to see his boss, the head of operations, he was threatened with dismissal for lack of team spirit. LiCari eventually gave up his three-year good-soldier effort, followed his conscience, and resigned. In 1986, Beech-Nut and LiCari’s two bosses were indicted on several hundred counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by distributing adulterated apple juice. The episode cost Beech-Nut an estimated $25 million and a 20% loss of market share. Asked during the trial if he had been naive, LiCari said, “I guess I was. I thought apple juice should be made from apples.”

So to save an organization from becoming a prey to a toxic orientation, the follower has a difficult choice. To quote  Dr. Vineet John there are only three mantras: virtuousness, authenticity and resilience ((TED X talk. https://www.youtube.com)