destructive leadership and the millennial workforce

1

Destructive Leadership and the

Millennial Workforce Rhonda M. Martin, Ph.D.

© Dr. R. Martin Designs. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible Web site, in whole or in part.

Leadership Research

2

Constructive Leaders inspire, have integrity, ethical, and empower followers. $50 billion annually to develop leaders (Fulmer & Conger, 2004 )

Destructive Leaders violate and sabotage organizations goals, tasks, resources, effectiveness, and well being of employees. $25 billion annually for healthcare costs and legal fees related to destructive leadership (Tepper, 2007)


Shockingly, today destructive

leaders will victimize 40-50% of employees

(Samnami & Singh 2013)

3 © Dr. R. Martin Designs. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible Web site, in whole or in part.

Destructive Leadership “A systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organizations goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates” (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007).


Why Research

5

Millennials prefer to follow the rules, strive to please others, deliver work of high quality, have little trust in leadership, and demonstrate low self-efficacy (Trickey & Hyde, 2009).

According to Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) destructive leadership is a practical and theoretical problem where the destructive leader negatively affects the followers in the workforce creating financial losses.


•  Abusive Supervision - Belittling, Humiliation •  Workplace Bullying - Teasing, Ridicule

•  Followers Susceptible Follower: •  Conformer •  Subtype - Bystander - Lost Souls - Authoritarian

•  Enables the destructive behaviors - Instability - Cultural values - No checks & balance - Service organization - detrimental

Current Research

•  Dark Triad - Narcissistic - Machiavellianism - Psychopathic •  Personal Power/ Pessimistic View •  Personalized Charisma

Destructive Leadership

Descriptors

Elements Destructive Leader Susceptible Follower Conducive Environment

Characteristics Environment Behaviors Followers Followers

Krasikova et al, 2013 Padilla et al, 2007 Paulhus et al, 2002

Ashforth, 1994 Einarsen, 2000 Tepper, 2007

Chaleff, 2009 Kellerman, 2004 Kelley, 1992

Krasikova et al, 2013 Padilla et al, 2007

References

•  Colluder - Supports destructive leader for personal gain •  Subtype - Opportunists - Acolytes

Constructs

© Dr. R. Martin Designs. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible Web site, in whole or in part. 6

Toxic Triangle v  The toxic triangle theoretical model points out that

destructive leadership does not exist in isolation.

v  There are three elements: v  Destructive Leader

v  Susceptible Follower

v  Conducive Environment


Toxic Triangle

8

Figure 1. The toxic triangle: three elements related to destructive leadership. Graphic image obtained from Padilla et al. (2007, p. 180). Copied and Reprinted with Permission.

Destructive Leadership Narcissism

Ideology of Hate Negative Themes

Themes

Susceptible Followers Conformers Unmet needs

Colluders Bad Values

Toxic Triangle

Conducive Environment

Instability Cultural Values Lack of Checks/

Balance


Susceptible Circle

9

Figure 2. The susceptible circle: element followers associated with destructive leadership. Thoroughgood, et al. (2012, p. 902). Copied and reprinted with permission.

Conformer Lost

Souls

Conformer Bystanders

Colluder Opportunists

Colluder Acolytes

Conformer Authoritarians


Qualitative Study v  Conducted qualitative Research – Personal interviews with participants

v  Interviews over two months

v  The participant criterion v  Born between 1976 and 1985

v  Completed a four year degree

v  Employed fulltime four years or more

v  Worked for two or more supervisors

v  Worked in a service organization

10 © Dr. R. Martin Designs. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible Web

site, in whole or in part.

Participants Demographic Characteristics


Key Topics

12

Themes

Unethical

Coercion

Micro-Managem

ent

Manipulation

Stressed

Anxiety

Humiliation

Lack of Support

Lost Credibility

Quit job

Depressed

Drinking

Compassionate

Fear

Devalued

Unpredictable

Poisoned Morale

No work/life balance

Lowered Engagement

Undermine

Verbal Abuse

Angry

Distrust

Servant Leadership

Trust is Key


Themes

13

T4. Followers Personal Leadership Style Influenced by Experiences

T3. Followers Personal Impact and Reactions to the Destructive Behaviors

T2. Follower Experience in a Toxic Work Environment

T1. Insidious Behaviors that were Described by Followers


Theme 1: Insidious Behaviors that were Experienced by Followers

14

Micro-management Coercion Condescendence

Discounted Feedback

Underminded Followers

Unethical


Theme 2: The Followers Experience in a Toxic Work Environment

15

Devalued Distrust the Leader

Impacted Quality of

Work

Public Humiliation

Poisoned Morale

Dysfunction/Chaos


Theme 3: Followers Personal Impact and Reactions to the Destructive Behavior.

16

Emotional/Mental

Exhaustion No work life/

balance Impact to

Credibility

Lowered Engagement Avoidance Resigned


Theme 4: Followers Personal Leadership Style Influenced by Experiences.

17

Compassionate Golden Rule No Verbal Abuse

Situational Leader Servant Leader Trust is Key


Significance of Study Understand the consequences of destructive leadership and how it affects the Millennial generation.

Educate current leaders and followers on how to actively recognize destructive behaviors before they contaminate the employees and the organizational environment.

Provide teachers in academia with the information to educate students about how destructive leaders affect followers and teach them the skills to be constructive leaders.

Educate followers about their role within the organization. Specifically, how to be a courageous follower (Chaleff, 2009).


Courageous Follower v  The courage to serve

v  The courage to challenge

v  The courage to participate in transformation

v  The courage to take moral action

v  The courage to speak up to leadership

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.


Conclusion

v  The Millennial generation of followers are greatly impacted by destructive leaders because as a society we are inundated with news about leaders who are unethical. Who lie, steal, and cheat with little to no consequences.

v  Destructive leaders are not successful on their own. In fact they are successful when the followers and the organizations enable the destructive behaviors.

v  Challenges

v  Educated employees on the types of destructive behaviors and determine how to address the issue.

v  Followers need to take responsibility in their role as a follower, and choose to be great followers who will minimize the number of destructive leaders in organizations today and in the future

v  Those in leadership roles today, do not be a bystander and enable peers who are destructive. Also, take followership seriously and educate people on how to be successful in this role. Followers are not here to serve the leader, but both are to serve the common purpose.


References v  Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a

trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-200.

v  Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

v  Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.

v  Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67–87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

v  Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

v  Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. doi:10.2307/3069350


References - continued v  Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002

v  Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-60.

v  Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

v  Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

v  Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follower and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday.

v  Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5–16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


References - continued v  Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin

& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

v  Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.

v  Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leadership: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – and how we can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001

v  Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556−563.

v  Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812


References - continued v  Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring

destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230-250. doi:10.1177/15480521811436327

v  Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (1992). A decade of the darkside: Fighting our demons at work. Psychological Consultancy Limited.

v  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Employment outlook: 2008-18. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art3full.pdf

v  Weierter, S. J. (1997). Who wants to play “follow the leader”? A theory of charismatic relationships based on routinized charisma and follower characteristics. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 171–194.

v  Xie, L., & Schaubroeck, J. (2001). Bridging approaches and findings across diverse disciplines to improve job stress research. In P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being (pp. 1−53). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.


destructive leadership and the millennial workforce

Leadership & Management

destructive leadership

accessible web site

leadership research

padilla et

paulhus et

constructive leaders

toxic triangle theoretical

leaders fulmer conger