Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Abstract: This article discusses the detrimental impacts of toxic leadership on both individual and organizational outcomes. Toxic behaviors from those in positions of authority undermine trust, engagement, well-being, productivity, motivation and overall performance within teams. Three particularly damaging leadership styles are defined - abrasive, narcissistic, and authoritarian. Toxic leadership is shown to erode important team dynamics like trust, psychological safety, cohesion and motivation. Strategies for healing toxic organizational cultures are presented, focusing on open communication, accountability, training, cultural shifts through mission/values and leadership storytelling, and succession planning when necessary. The insidious costs of toxicity are described as permeating daily interactions and objective accomplishment. Although remedying deeply entrenched toxicity takes diligence, prioritizing a culture of psychological safety, trust and cooperation is asserted as superior for high quality work, satisfaction and long-term success.
As an organizational consultant and professor, I have seen firsthand how detrimental toxic leadership can be for both individuals and organizational success. While effective leadership is essential for high performance, toxic behaviors from those in authority positions undermine trust, engagement, and well-being. Such conduct not only strains relationships within teams but also diminishes productivity, motivation, and results. Despite toxic leaders' possible intentions, their actions sabotage the very goals they aim to achieve. Through research on toxic leadership styles and the application of prevention techniques, today we will explore how to build healthier work cultures grounded in respect, care, and cooperation instead.
Defining Destructive Leadership
Before delving into specific toxic behaviors, it is important to define destructive leadership and differentiate it from ineffective yet well-meaning management. According to research on abusive supervision, toxic leaders display "hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors" including "the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact" towards subordinates (Tepper, 2000). Their conduct stems more from inherent character flaws and dysfunctional psychological tendencies rather than situational factors or lack of job competence alone. Toxic leaders indulge harmful tendencies through abuses of power that undermine the well-being and performance of followers and the group overall (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
The Destructive Leadership Styles
Three of the most damaging leadership styles are abrasive leadership, narcissistic leadership, and authoritarian leadership if taken to an extreme. Each of these involve the domination and degradation of subordinates rather than empowerment and development.
Abrasive Leadership. Abrasive leaders belittle, intimidate and micromanage employees in aggressive, controlling ways. They humiliate directly through insults and public criticism or passive-aggressively through eye-rolling, scoffing and dismissive gestures (Friedman, 2005). Such conduct breeds an atmosphere of fear where no one feels safe to propose new ideas or take initiative for risk of retaliation.
Narcissistic Leadership. Narcissistic leaders elevate their fragile egos above all else and see people merely as objects to bend to their will and feed their constant need for admiration (Campbell et al., 2011). They take credit for others' work, dismiss input from "inferiors," and react vengefully to any perceived slight against their authority or image. Narcissists drain energy and goodwill from those around them through self-absorption and entitlement.
Authoritarian Leadership. Authoritarian leaders demand rigid compliance and control using intimidation tactics like unpredictable outbursts rather than reasoning (Tepper, 2000). They shut down dissent, punish deviance harshly and isolate anyone who questions their restrictive rules. This micro-managing approach breeds resentment as autonomy and creativity are stifled under oppressive oversight leaving workers feeling disrespected and oppressed.
The Destructive Impact on Teams
Toxic behaviors undermine performance on multiple levels by sabotaging important team dynamics like trust, psychological safety, and cohesion. When healthy relationships deteriorate into ones fueled by fear, favoritism and instability, the collective functioning and results suffer immensely as well (Hopkins & Yonker, 2015).
Eroding Trust. Toxic leadership corrodes trust between colleagues and in the leader as predictability, fairness and care disappear under abusive treatment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Workers fear speaking honestly and helping one another in an unsafe environment poisoned by intimidation and backstabbing.
Diminishing Psychological Safety. Psychologically unsafe teams lack the security to take risks, make mistakes and learn openly from failures as dangerous showdowns seem inevitable (Edmondson, 1999). Perfectionism and public criticism instill self-censoring rather than collaboration and free exchange of perspectives.
Undermining Cohesion. Toxic behaviors splinter colleagues through favoritism, sabotage and conflict as the leader "plays teams against each other" (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Instead of uniting around shared goals and valuing each person's contributions, the team deteriorates into defensive politics, protectionism, and point-scoring at others' expense.
Draining Motivation. When work feels more like psychological punishment than purposeful challenge, intrinsic motivation withers under abuse while fear and exhaustion take over (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Continued mistreatment damages self-esteem and the will to fully apply oneself for an unsupportive boss and deteriorating peer relations.
Distracting Focus. Toxic work drama consumes too much mental and emotional bandwidth that should support the core tasks and mission (Crampton & Hodge, 2007). Gossip, favoritism scandals, and angling for the leader's approval divert focus from achieving shared objectives.
Healing Toxic Cultures
The invisible costs of toxicity extend far beyond isolated incidents as entire organizational cultures slowly become demoralized and dysfunctional without intervention. While transforming destructive dynamics requires diligent effort from all levels, the accountability ultimately lies with top leadership to model healthier behaviors and remedy issues rather than enable or ignore them (Friedman, 2005). Some research-backed strategies include:
Open Communication. Leaders must authentically listen to understand problems rather than react defensively. Anonymous surveys supplemented by one-on-one check-ins help surface widespread issues and restore transparency (Tepper, 2000).
Accountability. Toxic behaviors cannot continue without consequences through fair disciplinary measures and performance management upholding respectful conduct as a core value (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).
Training & Development. Workshops educate all on recognizing, preventing and correcting dysfunction, while coaches help toxic leaders change and troubled workers heal from past mistreatment (Crampton & Hodge, 2007).
Culture Change. Mission and values statements plus leader storytelling institute positivity where respect, care, and cooperation supersede fears of retaliation (Hopkins & Yonker, 2015). Regular fun teambuilding and recognition of ethical behavior reinforce cultural shifts.
Succession Planning. When chronic toxicity proves resistant to change, transitioning to new competent leadership who model integrity repairs long-term damage (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
These approaches require commitment but ultimately strengthen organizational resiliency, productivity and retention of top talent better than dysfunction ever could. While certainly challenging, transforming toxic dynamics into healthy ones benefits all.
Conclusion
The insidious costs of toxic leadership extend far beyond those directly targeted by abusive behaviors. Entire organizational cultures and performance capacities suffer immeasurably when disrespect, fear and instability permeate the way people interact and accomplish shared objectives on a daily basis. Though deeply entrenched toxicity takes diligence to remedy, prioritizing a culture grounded in psychological safety, trust and cooperative spirit proves far more conducive to high-quality work, job satisfaction and long-term success. With open-mindedness to diagnosing issues holistically and implementing multi-faceted solutions, leaders at all levels can help restore healthier dynamics where people feel respected and motivated to achieve their full potential.
References
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007
Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2007). Generations in the workplace: Understanding age diversity. The Business Review, 9(1), 16–22.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Friedman, H. H. (2005). Does a positive outlook create a rosy future? Psychology Today, 38(2), 68–72.
Hopkins, M. M., & Yonker, R. D. (2015). Managing conflict with emotional intelligence: Abilities that make a difference. Journal of Management Development, 34(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-04-2013-0051
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). The Insidious Effects of Toxic Leadership. Human Capital Leadership Review, 11(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.11.3.5
