Search results

Encountering a toxic workplace is almost inevitable. Here, the author shares an experience by describing some of the behaviors of toxic leaders and followers as an example of leadership failure. The story takes place in an organization with a self-serving leader who is contributing to retention issues, exerting power dominance, and operating in a divisive manner. Influencing followers through the use of deceptive practices and manipulation that leads to problems with trust are revealed. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned and a reference list.

Moral disengagement answers the question of why “good” followers (those with high personal standards) go “bad” (engage in unethical and illegal activities). In moral disengagement, actors set aside the self-condemnation they would normally experience in order to engage in immoral activities with a clear conscience. Moral disengagement mechanisms encourage individuals to justify harmful behavior, to minimize personal responsibility for harm, and to devalue victims. The follower role makes individuals more vulnerable to moral disengagement. While all followers are susceptible to moral disengagement, some are more vulnerable than others due to such personal antecedents as lack of empathy, rigid and authoritarian beliefs, low self-esteem, and fear and anxiety. Retaining a sense of moral agency is the key to resisting moral disengagement. Exercise of moral agency can be encouraged by recognizing personal vulnerability; by never losing sight of the fact that “I” am at the center of any action, and by the on-going practice of self-questioning, such as modeled by the Quakers (Society of Friends).

The purpose of this study is to explain why people respond to toxic leadership in different ways. The toxic triangle was applied as a lens and extended followership by investigating unsusceptible followers and susceptible followers.

This study employed Q methodology to illustrate the subjective viewpoints of 31 employees. Participants sorted 41 statements ranging from “most uncharacteristic” to “most characteristic” according to their beliefs using a forced distribution. We used qualitative data from the survey and follow-up interviews to document participant motivations.

Findings from this Q study demonstrated three distinct perceptions of responses to toxic leadership: Suffer in Silence (Perspective 1), Confront and Advocate (Perspective 2) and Quiet yet Concerned (Perspective 3). This study found that Perspectives 1 and 3 helped to explain differences in susceptible followership, whereas Perspective 2 helped to explain unsusceptible followership. Our research supports the need for organizations to provide safe whistleblowing channels for reporting unethical behavior by adopting clear policies for handling unethical behaviors and sharing those policies with all constituents within the organization.

Our research supports the need for organizations to provide safe whistleblowing channels for reporting unethical behavior by adopting clear policies for handling unethical behaviors and sharing those policies with all constituents within the organization.

Our study adds to the developing literature on followership by building a conceptual framework for response types that better explains the motivation and subsequent actions of susceptible and unsusceptible followers. This framework helps us identify new ways to combat toxic leadership by providing a more nuanced view of how employees perceive and respond to toxic leadership.

In an unpredictable and volatile world, more than ever before we need transformational leadership based on a paradigm of social justice, peace, and reconciliation. Instead, what we are increasingly witnessing is toxicity in the actions and behaviors of leaders and followers. Political leaders in Britain are stirring up division instead of unity and causing serious damage to the fabric of society. Immigrants are a convenient cover for politicians rather than facing up to the real causes of anger in society many of which are due to the corrosive impact of austerity imposed after the global economic crisis of 2008. The toxic political environment is inciting a war on civility.

This chapter uses Brexit, the British referendum on remaining or leaving the EU as a focal point from which to observe the failures of Britain’s political leaders in the lead up to and the execution of “the will of the people” to leave the EU. At this critical moment in the history of Britain, essential leadership characteristics including honesty, integrity, authenticity, and courage are not in evidence.

The final section of the chapter is a call to arms to everyone involved in leadership studies, conflict resolution, leadership education, scholarship, and research to address the question: How do we make an active contribution to improving the enactment of leadership and followership in fractured societies? What are our responsibilities as a multilayered community of practice? Are we really practicing what we preach in supporting diverse, inclusive leadership and followership?