Toxic: A Review of Literature

Toxic: A Review of Literature

By: Jody R. South

One does not have to look far to find specimens of dysfunctional leadership in the contemporary business domain.  Televised news broadcasts, newspaper articles, blogs and social media are inundated with examples of ineffective and oppressive political, military and business leadership.  This paper will discuss noteworthy thoughts from some of today’s leading experts on toxic leadership in modern corporations. 

The expression, “Toxic leader”, was originally devised in the mid-1990s by Whicker (1996) as a means of describing managers, supervisors, and other individuals in leadership roles that exploit their relationship with subordinates for personal gain.  Whicker places leaders into three categories: Trustworthy, Transitional, and Toxic (p.9).  Of these classifications, this paper will concentrate on identifying the latter.  Whicker describes toxic leaders as:  Maladjusted, malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious.  They succeed by tearing others down. They glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers.  They are "red light" leaders who destroy productivity and apply brakes to organizational progress.  They have a deep-seated but well-disguised sense of personal inadequacy, selfish values, and cleverness at concealing deceit (Whicker, 1996, p.11). From this definition, one can infer that the traits of a toxic leader include narcissism, a lack of empathy, and charismatically insincere in manner.  Toxic leaders may hold discriminatory views of age, sex, religion, and the like.  They are known for power plays and psychological abuse of employees as well as inflexibility and an inability to claim responsibility for his or her actions (Whicker, 1996).   

In the years following Whicker’s studies, another scholarly author similarly placed leaders into three patterns of leadership behavior that include an array of management traits in which she categorized leaders as remarkable, perilous, and toxic (Wasylyshyn 2011).  Once again, this paper shall encompass the latter.

Wasylyshyn noted that, “Further, recognizing these behavioral shifts and helping leaders deal with them effectively has implications for maintaining traction in coaching and for achieving positive outcomes” (Wasylyshyn, 2011).  She believed that, depending on internal and external variables, business leaders traverse the spectrum from remarkable to toxic and do not necessarily remain static in their practices.    

Most notable among the traits of a toxic leader, is a genuine indifference in their professional and personal improvement (Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin, 2012).  According to Wasylyshyn (2008), these leaders were often conceited, contemptuous, and distrustful.  Toxic leaders are likely to have trouble with dyadic relationships.  They are incapable of coping with employee frustration and frequently show signs of egotism.  “Further, the combination of hostile competitiveness and defensiveness contribute[s] to a strong fear dynamic in their teams” (Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin, 2012, p.76).  

Toxic leaders, identified by the aforementioned traits, are often difficult to rehabilitate as they are seldom concerned with personal growth or any form of coaching.  As opposed to retraining these leaders, Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin (2012, p.77) suggest that their bosses attempt to relocate them in other roles.  As previously mentioned, not all leaders are static in their current locus on the remarkable to toxic scale.  External factors such as domestic issues and health related events can transport a leader from remarkable to perilous, or worse, from perilous to toxic (Wasylyshyn, 2011). 

How then, does one recognize toxic behavior before it is entrenched in a leader?  Developmental psychologist, Erik Erikson (1950), developed a model which associates eight phases of human development to particular psychosocial occurrences (Table 1).  According to Shorey, Wasylyshyn, & Chaffin (2012, p.77), Erikson’s eight stages for human development directly correlate to the development of a toxic leader[1].  Leaders that demonstrate toxic attributes often have problems in accomplishing tasks that relate to processes or factors that are both social and psychological in nature.  These leaders are generally, “not encouraged to explore or discover their areas of competence and their early school and social lives were more troubled than rewarding” (p.77).  This factor, when combined with growing up in an unfeeling family often inhibits their aptitude for trusting others; thereby affecting relationships both in the workplace and personally (p.78).       

    

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to highlight the traits and resemblances of toxic leaders and their negative impacts on the workplace.  Toxic leadership appears to develop over time as factor of social and psychological environment and is difficult to change.  Early recognition of toxic behaviors may be the business world’s best aid in the rehabilitation of toxic leaders

References

Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Shorey, H. S., Wasylyshyn, K.M., & Chaffin, J. S. (2012). Patterns of leadership behaviour: Implications for successful executive coaching outcomes. The Coaching Psychologist, 8(2), 74-85.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2008). Behind the door: Keeping business leaders focused on how they lead.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 314–330.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2011). Behind the executive door: Unexpected lessons for managing your boss and career. New York: Springer.

Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad. (p. 11-28). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Table 1

Erikson’s Stages of Psychological Development[i]

Stage	Ages	Basic Conflict	Development	Toxic Leader
1. Establishing trust	Birth to 1	Trust vs. Mistrust	The infant must form a first loving, trusting relationship (bond) with the caregiver, or develop a sense of mistrust.	Significant trust issues
2. Individualization	1 to 3	Autonomy vs. Shame/Doubt	The child's energies are directed toward the development of physical skills, including walking, grasping, and rectal sphincter control. The child learns control but may develop shame and doubt if not handled well.	Can flounder aimlessly
3.Taking Initiative	3 to 5	Initiative vs. Guilt	The child continues to become more assertive and to take more initiative, but may be too forceful, leading to guilt feelings.	Lacks sufficient drive to achieve and/or chaotic pursuit of objectives
4. Cognitive competence	5 to 11	Industry vs. Inferiority	The child must deal with demands to learn new skills or risk a sense of inferiority, failure, and incompetence.	Strong feelings of inadequacy that can be masked by hyperaggression
5. Sense of identity	11 to 18	Identity vs. Role confusion	The teenager must achieve a sense of identity in occupation, sex roles, politics, and religion.	Can experience significant identity crisis
6. Capacity for intimacy	18 to 35	Intimacy vs. Isolation	The young adult must develop intimate relationships or suffer feelings of isolation.	Serious work and personal relationship issues
7. Guiding the next generation	35 to 55	Generativity vs. Stagnation	Each adult must find some way to satisfy and support the next generation.	Narcissistic preoccupations – getting own needs met trumps mentoring of others
8. Integrated sense of self	55 to death	Ego Integrity vs. Despair	The culmination is a sense of oneself as one is, and of feeling fulfilled.	Lacks life integration -- serious existential depression may occur

[1] Erikson did not use the term, “Toxic Leader”, this term was developed by Dr. Whicker (1996)

---

[i] This table (Toxic column) has been modified by the author to include the work of Shorey, Wasylyshyn, and Chaffin (2012) in reference to toxic leaders.  Extraneous data that does not apply to the subject of this paper has likewise been removed.