Toxic Leadership Process - Coursework Example

Toxic leadership Introduction Toxic leadership presages a process through, which leaders by dint of their dysfunctional, personal characteristics or destructive behavior inflicts enduring and serious harm on their organizations, followers and non followers. Defining toxic leader is vexing since one person’s toxic leader may be heroic savior to a different person given that, context and perspective, history weighs heavily in such considerations (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). In order to capture the intricacy of toxic leadership, a multidimensional framework is the most appropriate approach. A multidimensional framework addresses toxic leaders’ intentionality, their destructive behavior, the types of dysfunctional attribute that drive their actions and decisions, the impact of their actions, and the intensity height of their toxicity. Intentionally, toxic leaders deliberately injure others and enhance themselves at the expense of other. Unintentionally toxic leaders cause significant negative effects out of their reckless or careless actions including incompetence. A comparison of different toxic leaders exhibits varying forms of dysfunctional perusal qualities, destructive behavior and degree of toxicity (Ralston & Pearson, 2010). A toxic leader who charm, but eventually manipulate, undermine, and mistreat his followers indulges in numerous acts of destructive behaviors (Ralston, & Pearson, 2010). An example of toxic leadership involves a leader leaving employees worse off by deliberately demeaning, undermining, marginalizing, demoralizing, intimidating, incapacitating, torturing, killing, disenfranchising and incapacitating them. This paper explores the contributing factors in recent toxic situations and the effects of such features on the greater population and community. Using examples of Enron organization, the paper evaluate the impact of toxic contributing factors on the city, country and the missing organizational balances and checks. Factors Contributing to Toxicity in Organizations In US, recent headlines highlight the factual toxicity spewing from corporations such as BP (oil spill), W.R. Grace (vermiculite/asbestos poisoning), and Hillandale Farms (salmonella poisoning) (Vega & Comer, 2005). These incidents are a recap of an earlier rash of high and visible executives from such organizations as WorldCom, Tyco and Enron who dominated headline because of their covetous, self centered and irresponsible behavior towards employees and shareholders. Vega & Comer (2005) suggests that these toxic behaviors on the part of organizational managers and leaders exert a negative performance on firm and employee productivity. A working environment may be toxic if mediocre result is rewarded over merit based output, employees avoid disagreements with executives for fear of reprisal, personal interests take precedence over the objectives of the organization, leaders constantly on lose and edge their tempers often, new leaders barely stay long and staff turnover is high and bosses often throw temper tantrums and make unreasonable demands. Factors leading to toxic work places are attributed to leaders who hardly feel to self censor their conduct, overly demanding leaders, and an over concern on self advancement to toxicity at the working environment. Leaders who relentlessly pursue unreasonable profits can be a vital source of toxicity at work place (Stansbury, & Victor, 2009). In such setting, workers are strapped with tight deadlines and overburdened with work making it hard to sustain work life balance. Such leaders are preoccupied with their individual power and status and consequently subject their subordinate, in the dark regarding crucial tactical and strategic issues. Subordinates usually feel sidelined of the critical decision making practices and betrayed by such leaders who take credit for initiatives established by their direct reports. Social science researchers including Zimaro and Bandura suggests that it is not necessarily that the individual is corrupt, rather, such a leader develop a penchant for dishonesty when placed in institutional makeup that tolerate it practice. The illusions of power, grandeur and the satisfaction of humiliating or trouncing a colleague derive from an egoist fixation, which is the cause of toxic conduct. These toxic behaviors are self centered and leads to a psychological disconnect from humanity and a successive severing of empathic attachments to other people. Two Toxic Organizational Situations and the Contributing Factors in Enron Political Gaming and Politically-Motivated Performance Appraisal Although there exist anecdotal prove that toxic work settings are prevalent, one specific that stands above others is Enron. Enron developed a toxic working situation by incorporating a reward system through which financial allocations (bonuses) were measured by political motives. Enron managers and executives established a Personnel Review Committee (PRC) to rank about 400 Enron managers and executives. The size of bonuses varied dramatically based on the suggestion of the review committee. Twice per day, the committee required its members to get performance evaluation of the 400 managers and executives. Since the review committee only made judgments by unanimous consent, this prompted the review committee to apply and coerce fellow members for favorable rankings. For instance, the CFO Fastow Andy had acquired a reputation for deterring the evaluation process in order to lobby the review committee into agreeing to recommend higher rankings to his direct reports. Therefore, the review committee system supported negative and toxic managerial conducts such as ingratiation, coercion, and manipulation. Narcissists are known for concentrating on their interests at the exclusion of others. Corporate mandated performance systems are perceived as bothersome chores, which are grudgingly conducted at year end. Such evaluations are formed in a supportive developmental fashion (in the case of the narcissist) and used to flaunt and punish the leader’s ego. When applied in negative ways, performance appraisals become the tool through which managerially sanctioned harassment occurs (Stansbury, & Victor, 2009). Although schemes like forced ranking where employees are numerically arranged and individually sorted appear to be a smooth way of evaluating employees, such scheme creates atmosphere filled with politicking. Such systems are rife with gamesmanship and favoritism. Forced ranking systems as the second example of toxic organizational situations are experienced in almost a third of U.S corporations. This system has been condemned for pitting co-workers, decreasing collaboration and unfairly treating top performers. The Impact of the Toxic Contributing factors on the Community, City, Country (U.S) A recent survey reported that forced ranking scheme has a negative impact on workers’ willingness to exploit their overall performance in that systems encourages workers perform below average. Moreover, forced ranking systems are destructive in that workers are more concerned on retaining their jobs rather than for the welfare of the organization. Repentantly, both Lexamrk and Ford Motor companies have given up forced systems in reaction to reducing employee morale among various pertinent challenges (Stansbury & Victor, 2009). Even General Electric, which advocated for forced rankings, has opted for systems, which are flexible to their users. For leaders who feels slighted, ambiguous systems offers a convenient avenue for individual vindication applied against disliked subordinates. Organizations in America rarely weigh the impact of monitoring employees i.e. if employees are negatively affected by the rise in monitoring activities (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). Monitoring practices in U.S based companies decreases job satisfaction, increases employee stress and are associated with feeling of social isolation. The impact of toxic leadership has had adverse effects on the population (employees) who become timid, fearful, defensive and resentful (Stansbury & Victor, 2009). A negative association between aggression and self esteem, with negative verbal insults disrupts employee commitments in the organization. The fraudulent activities in Enron are a reflection of destructive leadership process among the executives often associated with betrayal and alienation. In this context, the negative outcomes of toxic activities in American organizations are experienced by external stakeholders and followers. Organizational Checks and Balances that were Missing Abuses of authority in US businesses have plagued communities for years. Appropriate channels (checks and balances) are inevitable if cordial relationships in organizations are to be enhanced. Proactive measures including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related rules are deemed as the vital remedies to fight against occurrences of scandal (Rxewnicki & Wood, 2008). It is worth noting that toxic leadership does not happen in a vacuum. There exists a toxic triangle, which influences how destructive leadership takes place in the organization. For instance, the Enron debacle happened in part since others supported Lay Ken the former CEO to establish an unquestioning culture of fandom and intimidation that discouraged employees to brow the whistle. Lack of transparent environment and strong follower has facilitated the use of unchecked powers and fraudulent activities in most organizations (Rxewnicki & Wood, 2008). The former governor of New Yolk, Spitzer Eliot resigned after being drawn in a prostitution ring. New Yolk state has a strong scandal hungry media and state legislature, which vets the conducts of office bearers; thus, prevents suspicious code of conduct among the leaders. Failure to adopt a data driven and thoughtful executive recruitment process pave way for toxic leaders to ascend into influential position and manipulate such positions for their selfish interests. Too often, organizations just accept resume instead of seeking out the skills they require or cultivating talent internally. Onsite workshops and Executive training programs go along the way in discussing behavior and traits associated with effective leadership. In order to ensure there are checks and balances, organizations need to protect and empower lower level employees so as to voice their potential problem. In Enron, forced ranking systems deprived employees their rights to participate in decision making and subjected them to uncontrolled evaluation exercises that were against the company’s policy. Toxic leaders must give up their power and support checks and balances if toxic activities are to me avoided (Stansbury & Victor, 2009). The most helpful environmental factors for combating toxic leadership are the precedence of checks and balances (Zimbardo, 2007). Accountability, hierarchy and a chain of command provide needed controls at the lower ranks of the organization. However, at the top ranking, strong oversight by directors is necessary. For directors to govern efficiently, certain conditions are critical and include policy level oversight, team in charge of company affairs, board independence, and a powerful executive committee. Regrettably in Enron and other organizations pointed above, these conditions were rarely integrated because of failed structure of governance, to oversee the companies’ affairs. Moreover, inability to foster moral and ethical behaviors through visible and policy enforcement led to destructive and unethical practices. Enron endorsed cultural values including uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and collectivism, which acted as a platform for destructive leadership in the company (Zimbardo, 2007). It is imperative for organizations to increase vigilance that addresses organizational turmoil and crises via a selection of leaders in a transparent manner. Conclusion Factors that facilitate to toxic behavior at the work places are linked to leaders who hardly feel to self censor their behavior, excessively demanding leaders, and an over concern on self improvement to toxicity at the working atmosphere. Leaders who unremittingly pursue irrational profits can be a chief source of toxicity at work place. In such situations, workers are provided with tight schedules and overloaded with work making it hard to uphold work life balance. Such leaders are thoughtful with their individual power and status and consequently subject their juniors, in the dark regarding decisive tactical and strategic issues. Toxic situations have predominated American business arena with organizations such as Enron attracted criticism from economist and social media. Organizations hardiest hit with scandal often lack a system of checks and balance; hence permitting toxic leaders to manipulate their position at the expense of shareholders and the organization. References: Padilla, A. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194. Rxewnicki, A., & Wood, S. (2008). Management Faculty offer Remedies for Protecting against Toxic Leadership. Retrieved from>http://poole.ncsu.edu/index- exp.php/news/article/management-faculty-offer-remedies-for-protecting-against-toxic- leadership/ Ralston, D., & Pearson, A. (2010). The cross-cultural evolution of the subordinate influence ethics measure. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 149-168. Stansbury, J., & Victor, B. (2009). Whistle-blowing among young employees: A life-course perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 281-299. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect. San Francisco: Random House. Read More