**7. Let us ascertain a ray of hope: The positivity in gray areas**

One of the most fascinating findings of a recent study by Life Meets Work revealed that 68% of employees working for an over-demanding, self-promoting and self-centered boss are highly engaged, compared to just 35% of workers reporting to nontoxic leaders. In addition, employees working for a toxic leader stay working for those bosses for an average of 7 years, compared to just 5years for employees who work for someone less demanding.

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 their followers.

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

**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.

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


**Source:** Judge et al. [41].

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 unethi-

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most fascinating findings of a recent study by Life Meets Work revealed that 68% of employees working for an over-demanding, self-promoting and self-centered boss are highly engaged, compared to just 35% of workers reporting to nontoxic leaders. In addition, employees working for a toxic leader stay working for those bosses for an average of 7 years,

any source before the trickling effect of toxicity starts endangering the organization.

claimed over the long-term ethical professionalism and leadership gained otherwise.

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

cal means are overshadowed by the successful end of the task.

performances and team spirit.

156 Dark Sides of Organizational Behavior and Leadership

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

effective to curb toxic leaders from contaminating the organization.

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

**7. Let us ascertain a ray of hope: The positivity in gray areas**

compared to just 5years for employees who work for someone less demanding.

corporate career.

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

**Hubris**: Hubris are people with excessive pride and self-confidence who socially play on impression management. In a leadership position, they are likely to project power, strength and authority in difficult situations, stimulating confidence amongst their group and peers. Indeed, hubristic leaders are more confident and committed in their tasks, support innovation [39] and test the limits of their organization's productive capacity.

not get any brownie points to guesstimate the severity of the toxic behavior on the employee and organization. In order to combat such a lethal form of leadership, organizations need to first come to standings with and accept that it exists and that there could be a problem from within. "Once the light is shined on it, people can begin to talk about it. No one wants the

Toxic Leadership: The Most Menacing Form of Leadership

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

159

It is premature recognition in leader's career also shrink the probability of building severe toxic behaviors later. As said "prevention is better than cure," if diagnosed at right time the

The subordinates working closely with the leader may prove to be the best judge and identifier of the toxic behavior in the leader. Thus, a 360° performance and personality evaluation of such leaders is asked for by the executive mentors. They should minutely monitor and ensure that a toxic leaders' interaction with subordinates garner a healthy work environment. Also, welcoming and hassle free complaint windows and whistle blowing should be encouraged for any wrong doing in the organization. Once toxic leadership behaviors have been exposed, recognized and appropriate action taken within the organization, such lessons learned can

Prof. Lipman suggested for creation of enriched organizational and personal policies to regulate the risk and brunt of toxic leadership. On a personal front, someone experiencing toxicity should endeavor to not lose calm, distillate oneself from such filthy environment, concentrating more on their own assigned tasks, creating a coalition and evading solo confrontations.

A pinch of advice for the guardians of the organization is to cautiously formulate checks and controls for prompt identification of toxic leadership behavior persisting in the organization. It will render them some extra time to intervene and assist in reorienting those deviant leaders. This could be as early as at time of recruitment. Few of the personality and attitude tests along with technical assessment could help better understand personality shade of the interviewee. This could save organization from future catastrophes. Even restructuring of some

Sometimes such circumstances arise in organizations when a good performer is gradually exposed to a high-risk zone of emergence of toxic traits. It is a high-alert situation for the human resource manager and signal to recheck organizational policies and its implementation. History is bursting with examples of organizations perishing to their aggressive and recursive policies that concentrate only on the upsurge of financial numbers. It prompted leaders to become toxic and yield profit, as in corporate scams like those of Enron, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and WorldCom. A developing economy like India too has no exceptions to corporate and government project catastrophes like that of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

Other steps to generate an antidote of toxicity are interpersonal and technical skill development training programs. HR strategies should be aimed to counter the components of "Toxic triangle" at primary level. Only fixing toxic behavior could be too meager a step to resolve the grave crisis organizations go through. Perhaps it solicits a strong dedicated group of key opinion-shapers from within the firm to confront and counsel them. Proper verbal and strict written warnings to the nuisance creators should be raised from the appropriate authorities on time.

become an integral part of the selection or promotion process for future leaders.

aspect at performance appraisal procedure could aid up to certain extents.

and Common Wealth Games, Coalgate scams to name just a few.

badge of toxic leader" [15].

treatment becomes easier.

**Social dominance:** The literature reveals that the people who get high scores on ratings of dominance are the most preferred and suited for the authority and leadership positions. They display a strong desire for achievement and control [40], making them attractive to enthusiastic followers.

While discussing the dark side of leadership, a prominent fact that could not be ignored was that the so-called "bright side" can also have damaging outcomes for organizations and subordinates when taken to the extreme.

To discuss a few, highly **conscientious** leaders tend to be disciplined, cautious, inflexible, highly critical of subordinate performances and analytical, and therefore often resist any change or innovation and avoid taking risks [10]. This sometimes results in poor organizational performance, missing the apt opportunities and failure to make the best use of organizational resources.

The bright trait of **core self-evaluation (CSE)** capture one's fundamental judgments about his potential and functioning in the world; extremely positive self-views can have the same adverse effects associated with narcissism and hubris [42].

Extraverted leaders are bold and quick decision-makers, so may be less expected to implore input from subordinates and peers. This aggressiveness often alienates the group members who deserve the credit and attention [10].

The leaders with high degree of **emotional stability and agreeableness** are often lenient in their team handling and performance evaluation. In order to minimize the conflicts in the interest of their peers their decisions are often skewed [43].

The **charismatic** leaders, through their excellent skill of public speaking, inspire unconditional devotion from followers even in radical situations. It is evident in the literature and the society around that in some bizarre cases, especially persuasive charismatic leaders misuse their interpersonal power for personal gain and exploit followers who are vulnerable to their manipulative appeal.

Instances of such deviant behavior are termed as personalized "dark side" of charismatic leadership [44, 45].

These findings from the literature strike a chord that both "bright side" and "dark side" traits can have positive or negative effects on individuals and the organization depending on the situation and the individual's levels of the various traits.
