Although I believe that it is important to consider the evidence base of what great leadership looks like, I think that it is equally important to learn from the negative impact of poor leadership. A powerful quote that made me reflect on workplace culture recently came from Robson (2017). She cited US author Tim Ferriss, who stated that, as a teenager, he was advised: ‘You are the average of the five people you most associate with.’
This rule suggests that the five people you spend the most time with shape who you are. It borrows from the law of averages, which is the theory that the result of any given situation will be the average of all outcomes. We interact with many people, but the few closest to us have the greatest impact on our way of thinking and our decisions. I reflected on past cultures and considered the present. Considering the amount of time we spend at work, our collective behaviour, and its impact on colleagues, was interesting to reflect upon.
On more than one occasion, colleagues have referred to their workplace culture or leaders using the word ‘toxic’, so when I recently saw a tweet defining the ‘toxic leadership triangle’ I was intrigued.
Much has been written about toxic leadership. Lipman-Blumen (2005) cited its key characteristics as ‘a process in which leaders, by dint of their destructive behaviour and/or dysfunctional personal characteristics inflict serious and enduring harm on their followers, their organizations, and non-followers, alike.’
Yapp (2016) has reflected that toxic leaders cannot exist in isolation – they need an environment in which they can flourish, with followers who do not challenge them. This is described as the toxic triangle, which is made up of destructive leaders, susceptible followers and conducive environments.
Padilla et al (2007) defined destructive leadership in terms of five features, which can be summarised as follows:
- It is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: there are both good and bad results in most leadership situations
- The process of destructive leadership involves dominance, coercion and manipulation, rather than influence, persuasion and commitment
- The process of destructive leadership has a selfish orientation. It focuses more on the leader's needs than those of the larger social group
- The effects of destructive leadership are outcomes that compromise the quality of life for constituents and detract from the organisation's main purposes
- Destructive organisational outcomes are not exclusively the result of destructive leaders, but are also the products of susceptible followers and conducive environments.
Conducive environments
With regard to the conducive environment,Yapp (2016) reflected that in order for toxic leaders to be successful they need an environment within which they can thrive. Yapp identified four elements that contribute to such an environment, stating that toxic leaders will take advantage of, and seek to create, such situations.
First, the creation of instability breeds a sense that decisive action needs to be taken to restore order and stability. Followers of such leaders are willing to enable rapid unilateral decisions to be made rather than changing things via democratic processes.
Second, when a toxic leader imagines a perceived threat they build on the perceived instability, creating a sense of ‘being under attack’. When people feel threatened, they become fearful, which is said to be the most powerful human emotion, and this leads to a willingness to accept toxic leadership. It is the perception of a threat that creates the environment within which the toxic leader can thrive. The threat does not have to be real.
Third, toxic leaders, according to Yapp (2016) have questionable values and standards. They thrive on the fourth element: an absence of governance.
So, finally, susceptible followers are necessary for toxic leaders, who require that people be willing to follow them. Yapp (2016) identified two types of followers: conformers and colluders. The former are individuals who are passive in the face of toxic leadership and who usually lack confidence; they need an authority figure to provide them with security and certainty. These followers are focused on self-preservation and are unlikely to challenge toxic leaders, seeking the path of least resistance. This contrasts with colluders, who are more proactive than conformers, and will comply with and accept toxic leadership. These individuals are usually ambitious and will imitate a toxic leader's behaviour, putting them on the fast track to becoming toxic leaders themselves.
Key concept
For me, understanding theories such as the toxic triangle is extremely useful when considering the fundamental question posed by the Care Quality Commission, that is, ‘how are we assured’ when seeking assurance around leadership and culture of a service. I strongly advise wide reading on this area for all leaders.