What are ethics? Are ethics determined by a group of people or by an individual? Support your view. Expecting a substantive post with references t

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

1 THE LEADER’S LIGHT OR SHADOW

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

> Illustrate how leaders have the power to cast light or shadow.

> Defend the importance of examining the dark side of leadership.

> Categorize the types of negative leadership.

> Describe the six ethical challenges faced by leaders.

> Explain how leaders cast shadows when they fail to meet the six ethical challenges of leadership.

Yet I have something in me dangerous, which let thy wiseness fear.

—WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (HAMLET)

We know where light is coming from by looking at the shadows.

—HUMANITIES SCHOLAR PAUL WOODRUFF

WHAT’S AHEAD This chapter introduces the dark (bad, toxic) side of leadership as the first step in promoting good or ethical leadership. The metaphor of light and shadow dramatizes the differences between moral and immoral leaders. Leaders have the power to illuminate the lives of followers or to cover them in darkness. They cast light when they master ethical challenges of leadership. They cast shadows when they (1) abuse power, (2) hoard privileges, (3) mismanage information, (4) act inconsistently, (5) misplace or betray loyalties, and (6) fail to assume responsibilities.

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE/THE DARK SIDE OF LEADERSHIP In an influential essay titled “Leading From Within,” educational writer and consultant Parker Palmer introduces a powerful metaphor to dramatize the distinction between ethical and unethical leadership. According to Palmer, the difference between moral and immoral leaders is as sharp as the contrast between light and darkness, between heaven and hell:

A leader is a person who has an unusual degree of power to create the conditions under which other people must live and move and have their being, conditions that can be either as illuminating as heaven or as shadowy as hell. A leader must take special responsibility for what’s going on inside his or her own self, inside his or her

consciousness, lest the act of leadership create more harm than good.1

For most of us, leadership has a positive connotation. We have been fortunate enough to benefit from the guidance of teachers or coaches, for example, or we admire noteworthy historical leaders. However, Palmer urges us to pay more attention to the shadow side of leadership. Political figures, parents, clergy, and business executives have the potential to cast as much shadow as they do light. The higher the position, the greater the leader’s discretion or

latitude to do harm.2 Refusing to face the dark side of leadership makes abuse more likely. All too often, leaders “do not even know they are making a choice, let alone reflect on the process

of choosing.”3

Other scholars have joined Palmer in focusing on the dark or negative dimension of leadership. Claremont Graduate University professor Jean Lipman-Blumen uses the term toxic leaders to describe those who engage in destructive behaviors and who exhibit dysfunctional personal

characteristics.4 These behaviors and qualities (summarized in Table 1.1) cause significant harm to followers and organizations.

Harvard professor Barbara Kellerman believes that limiting our understanding of leadership solely to good leadership ignores the reality that a great many leaders engage in destructive

behaviors.5 Overlooking that fact, Kellerman says, undermines our attempts to promote good leadership:

I take it as a given that we promote good leadership not by ignoring bad leadership, nor by presuming that it is immutable, but rather by attacking it as we would a

disease that is always pernicious and sometimes deadly.6

According to Kellerman, bad leaders can be ineffective, unethical, or ineffective and unethical. She identifies seven types of bad leaders:

Incompetent.

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

These leaders don’t have the motivation or the ability to sustain effective action. They may lack emotional or academic intelligence, for example, or be careless, distracted, or sloppy. Some cannot function under stress, and their communication and decisions suffer as a result. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina failed as a leader because she isolated herself from employees, lacked operational skills, and battled board members.

Rigid.

Rigid leaders may be competent, but they are unyielding, unable to accept new ideas, new information, or changing conditions. General George Armstrong Custer was one such leader. The headstrong general refused to listen to his scouts or to wait for the rest of his army. Instead, he attacked thousands of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors with a few hundred troops. Custer and those who charged with him were slaughtered.

Intemperate.

Intemperate leaders lack self-control and are enabled by followers who don’t want to intervene or can’t. Former Maine governor Paul LePage demonstrates intemperate leadership in action. LePage gained national attention by comparing the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo, saying he wanted to tell President Obama “to go to hell,” blaming people of color for the opioid crisis, and challenging a lawmaker to a duel in a vile voice mail message. LePage served two terms as governor despite his outrageous statements.

Callous.

The callous leader is uncaring or unkind, ignoring or downplaying the needs, wants, and wishes of followers. Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro personifies the callous leader. He refuses to accept food shipments from humanitarian organizations even as many of his citizens slowly starve.

Table 1.1 The Behaviors and Personal Characteristics of Toxic Leaders

Destructive Behaviors Toxic Qualities

Leaving followers worse off Lack of integrity Violating human rights Insatiable ambition Feeding followers’ illusions; creating dependence Enormous egos Playing to the basest fears and needs of followers

Arrogance

Stifling criticism; enforcing compliance Amorality (inability to discern right from wrong)

Misleading followers Avarice (greed) Subverting ethical organizational structures and processes

Reckless disregard for the costs of their actions

Engaging in unethical, illegal, and criminal acts Cowardice (refusal to make tough choices)

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Building totalitarian regimes Failure to understand problems Failing to nurture followers, including successors Incompetence in key leadership

situations Setting constituents against one another   Encouraging followers to hate or destroy others   Identifying scapegoats   Making themselves indispensable   Ignoring or promoting incompetence, cronyism, and corruption

Source: Adapted from Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt

politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–23.

Corrupt.

These leaders and (at least some of their followers) lie, cheat, and steal. They put self-interest ahead of the public interest. Brazil’s ex-president Lula da Silva is an example of this type of leader. At one time one of the most powerful people in Latin America, he is now serving prison time. He and his wife received over a million dollars in free home improvements from a construction company in exchange for contracts with Petrobras, Brazil’s state-run oil company.

Insular.

The insular leader draws a clear boundary between the welfare of his or her immediate group or organization and outsiders. Australian senator Fraser Anning expressed insular sentiments when he called for a ban on all immigrants of non-European descent. He singled out Muslims in particular, declaring that a vote to ban Muslims would be “the final solution to the immigration problem.” His words echoed that of the Nazis, whose plan to eliminate Jews was called “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.”

Evil.

Evil leaders commit atrocities, using their power to inflict severe physical or psychological harm. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is one example of an evil leader. He heads ISIS, the Middle Eastern terrorist group known for beheading male captives and turning female captives into sex slaves for ISIS soldiers. Al-Baghdadi told his followers that Muslim believers have the right to enslave all nonbelievers.

Lipman-Blumen and Kellerman developed their typologies based on case studies of prominent leaders. Other investigators focus on ordinary leaders, particularly in organizational settings. In one project, two researchers at Bond University in Australia (along with a colleague from the United States) asked employees to explain why they would label someone as a bad leader, describe how a bad leader made them feel, and describe the impact bad leaders had on them

and the organization as a whole.7 Respondents reported that bad leaders are incompetent (they are unable to use technology, for example, and can’t work with subordinates or plan strategy) and unethical (they demonstrate poor ethics as well as poor personal and interpersonal

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

behavior). Such leaders made respondents angry and frustrated while lowering their self- esteem. Individual and collective performance suffered as a result. Those working under bad leaders reported feeling more stress at home. They had trouble sleeping, for instance, and felt fatigued. Negative emotions toward their leaders consumed their thoughts and hurt their family relationships. According to the survey, bad leaders often go unpunished; instead, many are promoted or rewarded.

Using information generated by this study, the researchers developed a tool to measure destructive organizational leadership. They discovered that demonstrating just a couple of bad behaviors was enough to label a leader as destructive, even though he or she might also have lots of positive qualities. The Bond scholars identified seven clusters of destructive leader

behaviors:8

Cluster 1: This type of leader makes poor decisions (often based on inadequate information), lies and engages in other unethical behavior, cannot deal with new technology, and typically fails to prioritize and delegate.

Cluster 2: This type of leader lacks critical skills. She or he is unable to negotiate or persuade and cannot develop or motivate subordinates.

Cluster 3: This type of leader makes good decisions and has the necessary leadership skills but is overly controlling and micromanages followers.

Cluster 4: This type of leader can’t deal with conflict but plays favorites and behaves inconsistently.

Cluster 5: This type of leader isn’t all that bad but isn’t all that good either. Leaders in this category don’t seek information from others, don’t change their minds, and don’t do a good job of coordinating followers.

Cluster 6: This type of leader isolates the group from the rest of the organization.

Cluster 7: This type of leader creates a situation of significant misery and despair. Leaders in this group are brutal and bullying, frequently lying and engaging in other unethical behavior.

Ståle Einarsen and his Norwegian colleagues offer an alternative classification of bad leadership based on its negative effects either on the organization or on followers. Destructive

leaders can be antiorganization, antisubordinates, or both.9 Tyrannical leaders reach organizational goals while abusing followers. Supportive-disloyal leaders care for the welfare of subordinates at the expense of organizational goals. They may tolerate loafing or stealing, for example. Derailed leaders act against the interests of both subordinates and the organization. As they bully, manipulate, deceive, and harass followers, they may also be stealing from the organization, engaging in fraudulent activities, and doing less than expected. Laissez-faire leaders engage in passive and indirect negative behavior. They occupy leadership positions but

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

don’t exercise leadership, therefore hurting followers and their organizations. Constructive leaders, on the other hand, care about subordinates and help the organization achieve its goals while using resources wisely. Einarsen and his fellow researchers found a high rate of bad leadership in Norwegian organizations, with 61% of respondents reporting that their immediate supervisors engaged in ongoing destructive behavior over the past six months. Laissez-faire behavior was by far the most common form of bad leadership, followed by supportive-disloyal

leadership, derailed leadership, and tyrannical leadership.10 (Turn to Self-Assessment 1.1 at the end of this chapter to determine whether your leader engages in destructive leadership behavior.) The negative effects of destructive leadership lasted longer than the positive effects

of constructive leadership.11

Evidence that bad leaders can cause significant damage continues to grow. In an analysis of the results of 57 studies, investigators found that destructive leader behavior is linked to a

wide range of negative outcomes.12 Those serving under destructive leaders have negative attitudes toward their superiors, resist their leaders’ influence attempts, and engage more frequently in counterproductive work behaviors. In addition, these followers have negative attitudes toward their jobs and their organizations. Their personal well-being also suffers as they experience negative emotions and stress.

In sum, Palmer was right to emphasize the importance of the shadow side of leadership. Followers from around the world have lots of firsthand experience with bad leaders and report that such leaders cause significant, long-lasting damage. When it comes to leadership, “the bad

overcomes the good.”13 It apparently takes only a few destructive behaviors to overcome a leader’s positive qualities. In addition, the shadows cast by destructive leaders extend beyond the workplace; the home lives of followers are damaged as well.

THE LEADER’S SHADOWS When we function as leaders, we take on a unique set of ethical burdens in addition to a set of expectations and tasks. These involve issues of power, privilege, information, consistency, loyalty, and responsibility. How we handle the challenges of leadership determines whether we cause more harm than good or, to return to Palmer’s metaphor, whether we cast light or shadow. Unless we’re careful, we’re likely to cast one or more of the shadows described in this section. (See the Focus on Followers box for more information on the ethical challenges facing followers.)

The Shadow of Power

Power is the foundation for influence attempts. The more power we have, the more likely others are to comply with our wishes. Power comes from a variety of sources. One typology,

for example, divides power into two categories: hard and soft.14 Hard power uses inducements (bonuses, raises) and threats (arrests, firings) to get people to go along. Soft power is based on attracting others rather than forcing them or inducing them to comply. Leaders use soft power when they set a worthy example, create an inspiring vision, and build positive relationships with

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

subordinates. Typically, those without formal authority rely more heavily on soft power, but even those in formal leadership positions, such as military officers, try to attract followers by acting as role models and emphasizing the group’s mission. Effective leaders combine hard and soft power into smart power to achieve their goals. For instance, a manager may try to persuade an employee to follow a new policy while at the same time outlining the penalties the subordinate will face if he or she does not comply.

The most popular power classification system identifies five power bases.15 Coercive power is based on penalties or punishments such as physical force, salary reductions, student suspensions, or embargoes against national enemies. Reward power depends on being able to deliver something of value to others, whether tangible (bonuses, health insurance, grades) or intangible (praise, trust, cooperation). Legitimate power resides in the position, not the person. Supervisors, judges, police officers, drill sergeants, instructors, and parents have the right to control our behavior within certain limits. A boss can require us to carry out certain tasks at work, for example, but in most cases, he or she has no say in what we do in our free time. In contrast to legitimate power, expert power is based on the characteristics of the individual regardless of that person’s official position. Knowledge, skills, education, and certification all build expert power. Referent (role model) power rests on the admiration one person has for another. We’re more likely to do favors for a supervisor we admire or to buy a product promoted by our favorite sports hero.

Leaders typically draw on more than one power source. The manager who is appointed to lead a task force is granted legitimate power that enables her to reward or punish. Yet in order to be successful, she’ll have to demonstrate her knowledge of the topic, skillfully direct the group process, and earn the respect of task force members through hard work and commitment to the group.

The use of each power type has advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the dispensing of rewards is widely accepted in Western culture but can be counterproductive if the rewards promote the wrong behaviors (see Chapter 10) or go to the wrong people. U.S. workers are more satisfied and productive when their leaders rely on forms of power that are tied to the person (expert and referent) rather than forms of power that are linked to the position

(coercive, reward, and legitimate).16 In addition, positional power is more susceptible to abuse. Coercive tactics have the potential to do the most damage, threatening the dignity as well as the physical and mental health of followers. Leaders, then, have important decisions to make about the types of power they use and when. (Complete Self-Assessment 1.2 to determine the types of power you prefer to use.)

Focus on Follower Ethics The Ethical Challenges of Followership

Followers, like leaders, face their own set of ethical challenges. Followers walk on the dark side when they fail to meet the moral responsibilities of their roles. Important

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

ethical challenges confronted by followers include those described below.

The Challenge of Obligation. Followers contribute to a shadowy atmosphere when they fail to fulfill their minimal responsibilities by coming to work late, taking extended breaks, not carrying out assignments, undermining the authority of their leaders, stealing supplies, and so on. However, they can also contribute to an unethical climate by taking on too many obligations. Employees forced to work mandatory overtime and salaried staff at many technology and consulting firms work 70 to 80 hours a week, leaving little time for family and personal interests. They experience stress and burnout, and their family relationships suffer.

Followers also have ethical duties to outsiders. Carpenters and other tradespeople involved in home construction have an obligation to buyers to build high-quality houses and to meet deadlines, for example. Government employees owe it to taxpayers to spend their money wisely by working hard while keeping expenses down.

These questions can help us sort out the obligations we owe as followers:

Am I doing all I reasonably can to carry out my tasks and further the mission of my organization? What more could I do?

Am I fulfilling my obligations to outsiders (clients, neighbors, community, customers)? Are there any additional steps I should take?

Am I giving back to the group or organization as much as I am taking from it?

Am I carrying my fair share of the workload?

Am I serving the needs of my leaders?

Am I earning the salary and benefits I receive?

Can I fulfill my organizational obligations and, at the same time, maintain a healthy personal life and productive relationships? If not, what can I do to bring my work and personal life into balance?

The Challenge of Obedience. Groups and organizations couldn’t function if members refused to obey orders or adhere to policies, even the ones they don’t like. As a result, followers have an ethical duty to obey. However, blindly following authority can drive followers to engage in illegal and immoral activities that they would never participate in on their own. Obeying orders is no excuse for unethical behavior. Therefore, deciding when to disobey is critical. To make this determination, consider the following factors: Does this order appear to call for unethical behavior? Would I engage in this course of action if I weren’t ordered to? What are the potential consequences for others, and for myself, if these directions are followed? Does obedience threaten the mission and health of the organization as a whole? What steps should I take if I decide to disobey?

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

The Challenge of Cynicism. There is a difference between healthy skepticism, which prevents followers from being exploited, and unhealthy cynicism, which undermines individual and group performance. Followers darken the atmosphere when they become organizational cynics. That’s because cynicism destroys commitment and undermines trust. Collective performance suffers as a result. Few give their best effort when they are disillusioned with the group. Cynical employees feel less identification with and commitment to their employers while being more resistant to change; they are less likely to go beyond their job duties to help their colleagues and their organizations. The greater the degree of cynicism, the more effort is directed toward attacking the organization at the expense of completing the task at hand.

The Challenge of Dissent. Expressing disagreement is an important ethical duty of followership. Followers should take issue with policies and procedures that are inefficient, harmful, or costly and with leaders who harm others or put the organization at risk. Doing so serves the mission of the organization while protecting the rights of its members and the larger community. Although followers contribute to a shadowy environment when they fail to speak up, they can go too far by generating a constant stream of complaints. Ethical followers know when to speak up (not every issue is worth contesting) and when to wait until a more important issue comes along. They must also determine whether the problem is significant enough to justify going outside the organization (becoming a whistle-blower) if leaders don’t respond.

The Challenge of Bad News. Delivering bad news is risky business. Followers who tell their bosses that the project is over budget, that sales are down, or that the software doesn’t work as promised may be verbally abused, demoted, or fired. Organizations and leaders pay a high price when followers hide or cover up bad news, deny responsibility, or shift blame. Leaders can’t correct problems they don’t know exist. Failure to address serious deficiencies such as accounting fraud, cost overruns, and product contamination can destroy an organization. Leaders who don’t get feedback about their ineffective habits—micromanaging, poor listening skills, indecisiveness—can’t address those behaviors. When leaders deny accountability and shift blame, this undermines trust and diverts people’s focus from solving problems to defending themselves.

To avoid contributing to a shadowy environment, followers must deliver bad news and accept responsibility for their actions. They also need to pay close attention to how they deliver bad tidings, selecting the right time, place, and message channel. Significant problems should be brought to the leader’s attention immediately, when he or she is most receptive, and delivered face-to-face whenever possible, not through e-mail, faxes, and other, less personal channels.

Source: Adapted from Johnson, C. E. (2015). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Ch. 9.

Additional Sources

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Bedian, A. G. (2007). Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white”: Understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 9–32.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.

Hajdin, M. (2005). Employee loyalty: An examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 259–280.

Peyton Roberts, T. P., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The impact of dispositional cynicism on job- specific affect and work intentions. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 381–389.

Roloff, M. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2001). Confronting organizational transgressions. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 53–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schrag, B. (2001). The moral significance of employee loyalty. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 , 41–66.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459.

The fact that leadership cannot exist without power makes some Americans uncomfortable. We admire powerful leaders who act decisively but can be reluctant to admit that we have and use power. Sadly, our refusal to face up to the reality of power can make us more vulnerable to the shadow side of leadership. Cult leader Jim Jones presided over the suicide–murder of 909 followers in the jungles of Guyana. Perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided if cult

members and outside observers had challenged Jones’s abuse of power.17 Conversely, ignoring the topic of power prevents the attainment of worthy objectives, leaving followers in darkness. Consider the case of the community activist who wants to build a new shelter for homeless families. He can’t help these families unless he skillfully wields power to enlist the support of local groups, overcome resistance of opponents, raise funds, and secure building permits.

I suspect that we are suspicious of power because we recognize that power has a corrosive effect on those who possess it. We’ve seen how U.S. president Richard Nixon used the power of his office to order illegal acts against his enemies and how Russian president Vladimir Putin used military force to take over part of the neighboring country of Ukraine while, at the same time, he allegedly ordered the killing of opposition figures and journalists. Many corporate leaders have been intoxicated by their power, using their positions to abuse their subordinates. One such boss wouldn’t grant time off so an employee could be with her dying grandmother, saying, “Well she’s not dead yet so I don’t have to grant your leave.” Another called the paramedics when an employee had a heart attack and then ordered everyone else to go back to work even as the victim was still lying on the floor. Another wouldn’t let an injured employee get treatment for a broken ankle until she had first finished processing invoices. Yet another

1748390 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

berated and humiliated a subordinate who suffered an emotional breakdown and had to be

hospitalized. His response? “I can’t help it if she is overly sensitive.”18 (Case Study 1.1 describes a corporate leader who used his power to cover up sexual abuse.)

Unfortunately, abuse of power is an all-too-common fact of life in modern organizations. A survey commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute found that 1 out of every 5 Americans have been targets of bullying. In another survey, nearly 75% of respondents had either been a target or a witness of such behavior. According to one estimate, workplace bullying costs the

U.S. economy $360 billion in lost productivity every year.19 “Brutal” bosses regularly engage in

the following behaviors, some of which will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter:20

Deceit: lying and giving false or misleading information

Constraint: restricting followers’ activities outside work, such as telling them whom they can befriend, where they can live, with whom they can live, and the civic activities they can participate in

Coercion: making inappropriate or excessive threats for not complying with the leader’s directives

Selfishness: blaming subordinates and making them scapegoats

Inequity: supplying unequal benefits or punishments based on favoritism or criteria unrelated to the job

Cruelty: harming subordinates in such illegitimate ways as name-calling or public humiliation

Disregard: ignoring normal standards of politeness, obvious disregard for what is happening in the lives of followers

Deification: creating a master–servant relationship in which bosses can do whatever they want because they feel superior

The cost of the petty tyranny of bad bosses is high. Victims suffer low self-esteem, psychological distress and poorer health; are less satisfied with their jobs and lives; are less productive; and are more likely to quit. The work unit as a whole is less trusting and cohesive,

reducing collective performance.21 Researchers have yet to report any positive outcomes of abusive supervision. Instead, studies conducted in a several different countries link oppressive supervision to depression, emotional exhaustion, counterproductive work behavior, job tension,

and feelings of injustice.22 Wor

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.