**6. Common myths about toxic behavior**

A rational way to check the severity of toxicity in an organization is to estimate the dent on the culture of the organization. Statistical figure held toxic leadership responsible for 48% decrease in work effort and 38% in work quality. Another survey in 2017 by Life Meets Work consulting revealed some scary number as large as 73% turnover due to a toxic leader. It is reaffirmed time and again through various researches that the harmful after effects of toxicity may or may not seem prominent in short time but widens the dangerous ditch gradually over a period of time, claiming the very foundation of the organization. Such leaders mostly top the charisma list, therefore making it difficult to confirm their toxicity, which gradually surfaces with time. Perceived toxicity is individual specific; thus, a toxic leader for one may be a hero to another. The reality of physical and psychological damage to the vicinity of destructive leadership has been proved empirically and theoretically through many research studies in the past. The penalties at both subordinate and organizational levels are estimated by souring figures of counterproductive work behavior and employee deviance working under the aegis of toxic supervisor. Webster [25] included reduced employee satisfaction and commitment reason for augmented employee turnover. Organizational cynicism is fueled by toxic leaders. Aloof and distant autocratic managers, who prefer self-promotion and impress upper-level management, contribute immensely to ruin the organizational culture and its human assets. The sycophant approach to leadership and management is a clever con game causing extensive damage that

As Ross et al. [26] indicated, toxic leadership takes a toll on both the mental and physical health of employees, in addition to an increase in counterproductive work behavior, coming

An array of detrimental effect of toxic leadership has been discussed by few studies [5, 27, 28]. At an individual level, the effects are more prominent and deep. On top of the stack is decreased self-esteem and self-insight which raises their doubt on self-capabilities leaving them with feelings of low self-worth. Consequently, some psychological reactions are but obvious including sense of threat, distress or sense of betrayal, a sense of mistreatment and lower motivation, helplessness and burnout compelling them to voluntary quitting. A number of survey reports that about 90% of all hospital visits are majorly stress and related problems like that of heart diseases and if persistently exposed to stress, lethal diseases as cancer. An empirical study by Yen [29] affirms that an organization stuck with toxicity may appear normal and progressive

If such toxic behavior trickles down the organization through the culture, the so-called leader with no true leadership qualities would be the main contributor to the crisis. A person who is incompetent in his leadership role seizes support from culture of fear and chaos to control and bully his subordinates. This type of sadistic philosophy, aids such pretending pirates to endorse lack of knowledge of professional directions creating the dependency of subordinates for all the professional answers and directions. This control tactic creates great crisis in the organization. Feeling of helplessness, no opportunity for participation in innovation, no professional sovereignty, abridged efficiency, lower job satisfaction, job insecurity leading to an array of psychological and emotional problems such as anxiety, depression and frustration are few amongst

stagnates performance and morale within the organization.

externally but the inside story is alarming and full of chaos.

to work late, resignation, or transfers.

154 Dark Sides of Organizational Behavior and Leadership

When the captain of a ship feels contented and inspired, he/she encourages his/her employees to take risk and innovate creating a blissful and engaging work environment. After going through pages-long discussion about such menacing form of leadership, few matters of concern surface from the corporate world. Working professionals breed certain myths about the toxic leaders. Few could be listed as below:

**Myth 1**: We would easily identify if there is someone toxic in our team.

Really!! Can we? On a second thought "No," it is quite a challenging task. Such people are quite charismatic, witty and proficient in masking the toxicity for their advantage. Thus, it is sometimes not easy to make out from their overt behavior until you have spent quite long time in industry.

**Myth 2**: If their behavior continues immoral and ruthless, subordinates would not accommodate them.

Ahh! Is it possible always? Such critical pressure in corporate world leave subordinates with no choices. Owing to their pragmatic needs, insecurity and lack of courage, subordinates sometimes willingly or unwillingly put up with bad leaders. Their allure does not allow subordinates to doubt his means to ends. Toxic leaders generally display enormous energy levels and are able to overcome exigent circumstances and obstacles with effortless ease. His unethical means are overshadowed by the successful end of the task.

Even if a leader seems positive, there could be issues causing chaos within the organizational structure to include personality differences based on many philosophies of leadership or not as no one individual is a demigod. No leader is infallible, but it would be great to empower

While a number of studies have highlighted the negative effects that various dark side traits can have, some researchers have pointed out that there are times that these dark side traits can have "bright side" consequences. [33, 34]. It was established that certain dysfunctional personality styles correlated with leadership and effective leadership behaviors. Some researchers also discussed four possible implications for leader emergence and leadership effectiveness

**Narcissistic** individuals are typified by self-absorption, self-serving behaviors and aggression. They maintain exaggerated views of their own self-worth, but these behavioral traits sometimes have some positive associations in the leadership process. In an empirical study of 300 military cadets, the best rated leaders were those who were high in egotism and selfesteem, two positive aspects of a narcissistic personality [35]. Study has shown that to condense ego threatening conflicts, narcissistic leaders may adapt their interpersonal interactions for positive impressions on the people they want to control [36]. Moreover, narcissistic leaders favor aggressive, gallant and magnanimous actions which will uplift their image as a leader.

This in turn acts as an advantage for subordinates and organizational performance.

social capital for the sake of accomplishment of their group goals.

**Actual effects in specific context or situation**

Example: Conscientious leader displays high ethical standards in pursuing agenda in long-

implications for leaders and stakeholders. Example: Dominant leader takes control of ambiguous situation and assumes responsibility

**Bright** Socially desirable trait has positive implications for leaders and stakeholders.

term interest of organization.

**Dark** Socially undesirable trait has positive

for the outcome.

**Note:** CSE = core self-evaluations. **Source:** Judge et al. [41].

**Bright Dark**

**Table 1.** Framework for discussion of implications of personality traits for leader effectiveness.

**Machiavellianism**: The term is coined after Machiavelli's famous book "the Prince" describing dark traits of individual [37]. Machiavellianism is used to describe individuals who are manipulative or cunning, with a strong need for power [38]. They tend to have high motivation to lead and are often distinguished as charismatic with willingness to empower their own

Socially desirable trait has negative implications

Example: Self-confident (high CSE) leader pursues risky course of action built on overly

Toxic Leadership: The Most Menacing Form of Leadership

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75462

157

Socially undesirable trait has negative implications for leaders and stakeholders. Example: Narcissistic leader manipulates stock price to coincide with exercise of personal stock

for leaders and stakeholders.

optimistic assumptions.

options.

their followers.

**Social desirability**

of traits as shown in **Table 1**.

**Myth 3**: We cannot eliminate such people from our system, they are profit makers.

Surely we can, with little timely and vigilant actions. While toxic leaders' need for recognition and power propel them to adopt any unethical means to attain professional targets successfully and gather accolades from top management, later it affects the bottom line through the brain drain of high-performing human assets of the organization. This is because; toxic leaders are self-destructive as well. Their stumpy interpersonal trait fails to reap rewarding performances and team spirit.

**Myth 4**: Toxicity in leader is a short cut to ascend success ladder and achieve a rewarding corporate career.

Ironically, sometimes it syncs in the highly competitive corporate corridors. But, as it is said, there are no shortcuts to success. Toxicity is not long lasting and has enduring harm to the individual as well as to the organization. Like a slow poison, it not only ruins the veins where it runs but also the whole body of the organization. The thin line between a transformational and toxic leadership should be dealt cautiously. The tempting short-term gains could not be claimed over the long-term ethical professionalism and leadership gained otherwise.

**Myth 5**: Bad leaders cannot be dealt individually.

Forlornly, it is not completely untrue. Shared efforts from both management and subordinates would expedient the counter process. But, yes, a whistle-blower is enough to get him identified in the system. First individual approach and then systems approach will be highly effective to curb toxic leaders from contaminating the organization.

**Myth 6:** A toxic person is a prerequisite to deal with another toxic manager.

Not necessary. Reed said. "We seem to have a band of tolerance for certain leadership styles that are not positively impacting our organization, and that could be the crux of the problem." A senior manager could point out and discuss the toxic behavior with them and make them realize as it is challenging for them to self-realize their mistakes. An antidote could come from any source before the trickling effect of toxicity starts endangering the organization.
