The dark side of leadership and management

The contemporary field of educational leadership and management is replete with accounts of transformational leadership, instructional leadership, distributed leadership, and turnaround leadership practices (e.g. Leithwood and Sun (2012); Fullan 2018; Harris and Deflaminis 2016). Focusing on the positive and normative aspects of leadership tends to be a preoccupation within the field, as a large corpus of empirical evidence reinforces a strong relationship between certain models of leadership and positive organisational change (Leithwood et al. 2008). There is also a wealth of popularist literature highlighting the positive features and potential of certain types of leadership and management practices.

These optimistic accounts of leadership and management, however, tend to overshadow and surpass any reflections upon the negative aspects of leadership and management. The destructive or counter-productive forms of leadership and management have received considerably less attention, in the empirical literature, than those associated with more positive outcomes. Yet there is a growing body of literature that highlights why and how leadership and management may not always be a force for good (Cohen 2018). This evidence base points towards the negative features or the ‘dark side’ of leadership and management practices (Woestman and Wasonga 2015).

Among scholars in the fields of organisational behaviour and industrial psychology, there is increasing interest in the less palatable side of leadership. A growing number of studies have focused on abusive behaviours, toxic relationships, and the bullying tactics of those in positions of power (Neves and Schyns 2018; Simonet et al. 2018). For example, Neves (2014) found that submissive employees, characterised by a lack of social support from peers, received more abuse from their leaders than those more well-connected to others within the organisation. The findings from this study imply that those who were more socially or personally vulnerable, within the organisation, were more likely to be subjected to harassment and bullying.

Other evidence suggests that negative leadership or management behaviours manifest themselves in certain actions that are directed towards specific individuals or groups (Cohen 2018). These actions include: the deliberate marginalisation of certain groups, often minority groups within the organisation, blatant favouritism of some colleagues over others, using existing personal relationships within the organisation to influence the progression of some colleagues and not others and punitive emails to bully and repress the views of those deemed to be a potential threat to the status quo (Schyns and Schilling 2013).

Most recently, Samier and Milley (2018) have explored the concept of ‘maladministration’ in education focusing upon examples of weak or toxic leadership and management practices. They describe ‘maladministration’ as the phenomena of harmful administrative and organisational behaviours in educational systems. They outline a range of destructive practices that occur in educational organisations, such as negligence, the mistreatment of people, professional dishonesty, fraud and embezzlement, abuse of power, and corrupt organisational cultures. In their work, Blase and Blase (2018) highlight how leaders and managers, in some schools, mistreat teachers and how this mistreatment and abuse, over time, can be personally devastating.

Other empirical work has focused on the actions or behaviours of a destructive or weak leader. Evidence suggests that such individuals: are highly conscious of positional authority, particularly their own; will tend to shift blame and assume the success of others; won't ever apologise for being wrong or unjust; will find authority from a small group of like-minded individuals while perversely championing the ‘collegiate’ nature of the organisation (Danişman 2010; Cohen 2016; Furnham 2017)

Toxic leaders or managers, empirical findings suggest, tend to focus predominantly on issues of compliance, are conflict adverse in person, and normally have a powerful advocate, at some level in the organisation, supporting them in the shadows (Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser 2007). Such leaders or managers often take any perceived breaches of their authority very personally and respond in a range of ways, e.g. aggressive emails, intimidating one to one conversations, an increase in workload for those who challenge them, and ignoring the bullying of certain individuals. They tend to hide their true leadership identity from others within the organisation, at all costs, thus maintaining a favourable persona with their closest allies and their superiors (Krasikova, Green, and LeBreton 2013; Neves 2014).

For such leaders or managers, control is often the over-riding factor, sometimes accompanied by a severe lack of personal self-confidence or professional ineptitude which serves to inhibit any real dialogue and to restrict meaningful innovation. This concentration upon maintaining the mask of competence can affect others within the organisation in various negative ways, sometimes to the detriment of their mental health (Shin, Taylor, and Seo 2012).

Reflections

Much of the literature on organisational change focuses on the transformational practices of the formal leader and the resulting positive effects upon those within the organisation (Leithwood and Sun 2012). Less is said about the way in which such influence could be detrimental and damaging, when in the wrong hands. The ‘black box’ of destructive or punitive leadership needs to be explored in greater depth in order to capture the experiences of those who find themselves at the sharp end of certain leadership behaviours and practices.

More research studies are required that provide insights into the organisational contexts, cultures, and conditions that enable and, indeed, reinforce negative leadership and management behaviours. The available research evidence would suggest that ‘dark-side’ leadership traits are closely related to greater employee stress (Furnham 2017), reduced job satisfaction (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia 2017), and significantly lower levels of personal well-being (Mathieu et al. 2014).

More empirical evidence is certainly needed to illuminate the relationship between destructive leadership and organisational change, to document the nuances of such processes and their consequences on individual and organisational health (Lennard and Van Dyne 2018). Why is it the case, for example, that certain leaders and managers feel able and indeed personally empowered to misuse their influence and power in ways that are ultimately harmful to those they are charged with nurturing, supporting, and leading?

Thankfully, there are many talented, empathetic, energetic, and skilful leaders working at all levels in education. Without question, they far outnumber those leaders who are careless, emotionally absent, controlling, and punitive. But such leaders, or rather micro managers, exist. It is time to acknowledge the darker side of leadership and actively break this mould by developing more leaders, within schools, colleges, and universities, who care deeply about those they are privileged to lead.