Are Some Leaders Toxic from Their Birth or Is it Situational - Case Study Example

Are Some Leaders Toxic from Their Birth or Is it Situational? Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Behaviour of Toxic Leaders 3Rise and Fall of the Three Leaders in the Context of Walton’s ACE Framework 4 Dimension A: Observing the Behaviour of the Executive as Actor 5 Dimension C: Internal Context 8 Dimension E: External Circumstances 9 Analysis of Growth and Decline of Three Prominent Leaders 10 Conclusion 11 References 12 Appendix 15 Introduction In the recent times, the issue of toxic leadership has acquired immense attention and has become a largely debatable topic in media as well as for researchers. Consequently, toxic leadership can be defined as a process where leaders by expression of their caustic behaviour wreak serious and long-term harm on their followers, non-followers and on the reputation of an organisation that they are serving (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Toxic leaders are of different shapes and sizes. Contextually, intentionally toxic leaders consciously harm others or enrich themselves at the cost of others, while unintentionally toxic leaders cause serious harm to others by their irresponsible behaviour and their incompetence. It is worth mentioning that most of the toxic leaders are relatively not toxic at every time. They may exhibit toxic behaviour in certain circumstances but not in others. Moreover, the degree of toxicity generated by these leaders may not be the same and their toxicity may be varying. At the same time, their actions and the variable degree of toxicity represented by them may result in different form and intensity of harm (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Behaviour of Toxic Leaders Initially, the behaviours of toxic leaders are appealing but eventually they manipulate, maltreat and demoralize their followers. Ultimately, the toxic leaders are engaged in an array of destructive behaviours. Hence, an individual can be regarded as a toxic leader, if he/she has the following behaviours: Intentionally absconding their followers and others worse-off by torturing, demoralizing, undermining and intimidating Abusing the basic human rights of their followers and others Deliberately engaging in illegal activities such as corruption and other unethical practices Misleading their supporters by practicing deliberate untruth Pretending to be incompetent and misdiagnosing problems and issues Maliciously setting goals and objectives to be achieved by their followers Demonstrating failure to develop and enhance skills and knowledge of their followers Dominating their followers and others by the misuse of their power and position Behaving arrogantly to negatively influence the behaviour of their followers and others Source: (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) Rise and Fall of the Three Leaders in the Context of Walton’s ACE Framework Walton (2007) views leadership behaviour through three lenses that make up ACE framework. Contextually, ACE framework stands for actor, context and external environment. Furthermore, ACE framework from the point of view of Walton, what he considers as ‘Lenses’ has been precisely depicted below: Lens1: observing the behaviour of the executive as actor Lens2: viewing the internal context of the organisation Lens3: re-viewing the external circumstances in which the organisation operates Source: (Walton, 2007) In order to evaluate the leadership behaviour of three leaders on the basis of Walton’s ACE framework, the selected leaders’ names include Yulia Tymoshemko, Bob Diamond and George W. Bush. Dimension A: Observing the Behaviour of the Executive as Actor Yulia Tymoshenko as an Actor Yulia V. Tymoshenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine happened to be the Prime Minister after emerging as a hero of the country’s Orange Revolution that calmly removed pro-Russian regime during the year 2004. However, constant hostility with her allies dragged her government down and as a result of this she was defeated in the presidential election during February 2010 (The New York Times, 2012). Furthermore, in the year 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko was charged with abuse of power. Contextually, she was accused for working against the interest of the country and was held responsible for misleading the countrymen by signing a deal with Russia to buy natural gas while she was in office in 2009 at a price which the prosecutors stated as inflated. In addition to this, her supporters as well as several western officials insisted that such actions performed by Ms. Tymoshenko could barely be regarded as crime. However, many people interested in this case also identified that her actual offense was her persistent insulting of Mr. Yanukovich, a President who defeated her in the election held on February 2010. In October 2011, Ms. Tymoshenko was punished for seven years in jail (The New York Times, 2012). Bob Diamond as an Actor A scandal over interest-rate manipulation reached a peak of the British banking and government when the chief executive of Barclays PLC, Mr. Bob Diamond resigned from his post and further the bank had threatened to drag Bank of England and the UK government officials into the affair. It is worth mentioning that Mr. Diamond has been considered as a genius individual in the banking circle. He had established his reputation as ruthless profit generator at Morgan Stanley a US firm and then CS First Boston. In 1997, Mr Diamond was made CEO of newly establish Investment arm of Barclays. Under the leadership of Mr. Diamond, Barclays Capital emerged as one of the successful banking stories. Furthermore, he recruited top talents and subsequently rewarded them handsomely through bonuses which many consider to be a rampant culture (BBC, 2013). However, in June 2012, Barclays was charged with fine of US$ 450 million by British and US agencies for providing false and misleading data that went for calculation of London Interbank Offered Rate also known as LIBOR. LIBOR is a market index which influences costs of financial instruments such as home mortgages. It can be noted at that time the head of Barclays was Mr. Diamond. Moreover, Mr. Diamond was also held accountable for other unethical practices including money laundering and tax avoidance among others (BBC, 2013). George W. Bush as an Actor George W. Bush, the former President of the US who many American viewed to be a regular guy in contrast to his father Mr. George W. Bush Senior. Mr. George W. Bush was known for intelligence and for taking tough decisions. At the same time, several questions were raised against his decisions during his tenure as president (Pfiffner, 2003). Moreover, many regard him as conservative and authoritarian in his leadership approach who had embraced different political philosophies during his reign. Furthermore, during the wartime he had also ignored advices from military officers to achieve regime change in Middle East (Frey, 2004). A survey report released by Siena Research Institute in July 2010 ranks the 43rd President Mr. George W. Bush to be among the worst of all time Presidents that the US has produced. The spread of freedom and autonomy has been the centrepiece of Mr. Bush. However, many consider this to be unrealistic. Moreover, many people consider him to be arrogant (Amira, 2009). Dimension C: Internal Context The personal psychological characteristic is important for determining the individual suitability for their success and failure. However, it is also important in identifying either the individual is fit to their place of work or not. In relation to the aforesaid three leaders, it can be stated that internal stability with respect to Ms. Tymoshenko was quite unbalanced. She had been involved in the practice of poor system wherein she did not value others. She was frequently involved in insulting Mr. Yanukovich. Moreover, she was also constantly involved in constant clashes with her allies. During the time of her trial, she was also found guilty of insulting judge in the court room. Her arrogant behaviour and constant violations of norms related with procedural law was one of the major factors that led towards the downfall of Ms. Tymoshenko. In spite of depicting patience and tolerance, she permanently and demonstratively indulged in humiliating the court through insults and threats primarily during TV broadcasts. Such behaviour was internally promoted that could have been prudently controlled. While in the case of Mr. Diamond, it can be argued that internal stability was quite high. He paid his staff handsomely and further intended to initiate a culture of integrity and trust. Due to his efforts, Barclays Capital at its initial years was able to record considerable profit. Mr. Bob Diamond’s characteristics were more inclined to acquire power and influence others but seldom was he ready to take responsibility as an Executive. It can be argued that his leadership style was more conservative towards enriching self and demonstrated less concern towards others in the organisation as well as the organisation itself (Orr, 2012). At the same time, George W. Bush was conservative in his decision making process. He further with his conservative and authoritarian approach as well as rigid decision making had engaged in changing the political philosophy in his own away (Walton, 2011). During the time of Mr. Bush in office, he was blamed for incorporating dozens of laws that were responsible for diminishing worker safety and other factors which affected the environment and curtailed many basic rights of public at large (Harris, 2008). Dimension E: External Circumstances In the case of Ms. Tymoshenko, the external circumstances were stable. There was no change in the external circumstances. The decision making was rigidly controlled by Ms. Tymoshenko. The external circumstances were largely in control and had less or no influence on her decision making criteria. Moreover, her decision was less focused on the welfare of her followers. She attempted to establish her own influence on her followers but her approach towards this was not positive. Her intention was to dominate others in the shortest possible time by excising her power and decisions (Neef, 2012). Similar to Ms. Tymoshenko, Mr. Bob Diamond and his group had also full control over his decision making procedure. The members of the board had little control over the decision making of the organisation. The decision of Mr. Diamond had strong influence on the organisation. It was his corporate greediness and his desire to make more and more profit which compelled him to indulge in unethical business practice. There was no doubt that he was an efficient leader and an executive but his crave to acquire greater status in business made him to misuse the power held by him. Conversely, the external circumstances in the case of Mr. George W. Bush were unstable and dynamic. The decisions made by Mr. George W. Bush were highly influenced by the external circumstances. War in Iraq and Afghanistan had immense influence on his decision and leadership style (Walton, 2011). The external circumstances with respect to Mr. Bush were more challenging that pressurized him to take decisions that were hardly appreciated by his followers. Analysis of Growth and Decline of Three Prominent Leaders The decline of the three renowned leaders can be attributed to the factors that had made them successful. At the same time, their decline could have been averted and their careers from being ruined could have been prevented if their constant drive to achieve greater status as well as power was eliminated. It should be note that in the case of Ms. Tymoshemko, the deal of natural gas with Russia was hardly considered to be crime. However, the conflicting relationship due to her behaviour between Mr. Yanukovich and herself had resulted in the decline of her career. On the other hand, the ethical practice of business and proper administration could have also saved Mr. Diamond’s career. Simultaneously, Mr. Bush’s arrogant and rigid decision making had constituted in several fatal outcomes that were hardly accepted by public. Contextually, the fall of Mr. Bush could have been averted if he would have followed flexible decision making and valued others’ ideas (Walton, 2011). Conclusion Toxic leadership has been in limelight in recent years. It involves the practice of leadership by an individual for self-enriching at others’ expenses. There are several behaviours that can be related with toxic leadership. The intensity of this behaviour also varies and these behaviours often generate varying outcomes. Contextually, the essay presents success factors of three leaders namely Yulia Tymoshemko, Bob Diamond and George W. Bush and further communicates how these factors may lead towards arrogance and destructive practices. After considering the Walton’s ACE framework, it can be identified that personal characteristics of an individual is only not responsible for the emergence of toxic leaders. However, certain factors such as internal context and the external circumstances in which the leaders operate are also firmly engaged in shaping toxic leaders. Thus, it can be stated that the prime reason that led these leaders to be termed as toxic leaders were the assembly of the factors including personal characteristics together with internal context and external circumstances. However, the degree of factors contributing towards toxicity of these prominent leaders can be viewed to be varying. In the case of Ms. Tymoshemko, it was her personnel characteristics and internal context that made her toxic. Similarly, the reason behind Mr. Diamond as toxic leaders can also be related with his greed towards achieving more and more at the cost of others. On the other hand, Mr. Bush turned to be toxic due the external circumstances that were not favourable at the time of his reign. References Amira, D., 2009. Ten Things We Learned About George W. Bush From His Ex-Speechwriter. New York Media LLC. [Online] Available at: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/09/10_things_we_learned_about_geo.html [Accessed January 06, 2013]. BBC, 2013. Barclays Boss Bob Diamond Resigns amid Libor Scandal. Business. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18685040 [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Frey, W., 2004. Is George W. Bush a Conservative. Republicans for Humility. [Online] Available at: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/09/10_things_we_learned_about_geo.html [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Harris, P., 2008. Bush Sneaks through Host of Laws to Undermine Obama. Guardian News and Media Limited. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Lipman-Blumen, J., 2005. Toxic Leadership: A Conceptual Framework. Encyclopedia of Executive Governance. [Online] Available at: http://www.achievingstyles.com/articles/toxic_leadership_a_conceptual_framework.pdf [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Lipman-Blumen, J., 2005. Toxic Leadership: When Grand Illusions Masquerade as Noble Visions. A Brief Definition of Toxic Leaders. [Online] Available at: http://www.connectiveleadership.com/articles/when_grand_illusions_masquerade_as_noble_visions.pdf [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Neef, C., 2012. Ukrainian President Cant Win Struggle with Tymoshenko. Spiegel Online. [Online] Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/tymoshenko-case-puts-yanukovych-on-defensive-a-831732.html [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Orr, D., 2012. Bob Diamond Is Typical Of The Private Sector. He Wants Power But No Responsibility. Guardian News and Media Limited. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/06/bob-diamond-private-sector-responsibility [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Pfiffner, J. P., 2003. George W. Bush: Policy, Politics, and Personality. George Mason University, pp. 161-181. The New York Times, 2012. Yulia Tymoshenko. Times Topics. [Online] Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/yulia_v_tymoshenko/index.html [Accessed January 06, 2013]. Walton, M., 2007. Leadership Toxicity—an Inevitable Affliction of Organisations. Organisations & People, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 19-27. Walton, M., 2007. The Self-Awareness Myth: How Self-Awareness Doesn’t Always Lead To Change. Journal of the Association for Management Education and Development, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 42-51. Appendix MCQ – Group 3 1. According to Lawrence and Nohria (2002), ‘four innate drives’ refer to the drive to acquire, __________, _________, the drive to defend. A. the drive to accept, the drive to work B. the drive to bond, the drive to learn C. the drive to bond, the drive to study D. the drive to accept, the drive to learn 2. What are toxic leaders said to possess? A. Omniscience B. Omnibenevolence C. Omnipotence D. Omnipresence 3. Walton (2007) argues that all working environments are toxic to a certain extant therefore he suggests that we should__________. A. Try to choose another leader who exhibit merits B. Try to change the working environment C. Try to prepare and engaged with such a reality D. Try to change ourselves 4. What does Walton describe as the main problem with literature surrounding toxic leadership? A. There is not enough research on the personality traits of a toxic leader B. There are not enough examples of toxic leaders in important executive role C. The internal and external context of leadership has been neglected D. The role of followers in toxic leadership has not yet been explored 4. Evolution is a competitive game in which victory comes not from achieving some fixed number of points but by simply outscoring the competition. A. True B. False 5. Walton argues that the dysfunctional and unorganised behaviour occurs due to toxic leaders’ low levels of energy and engagement. A. True B. False 6. What did De Botton define ‘leadership toxicity is prompted by a perceived threat to their status and standing’ as? A. Toxic Anxiety B. Status Anxiety C. Executive Anxiety D. Toxic Esteem Read More