Ethical implications of toxic leadership in organizations

Ethical Implications of Power Abuse

History has it that executives play a huge role in the companies they lead. Researcher Aubrey (2012) argues that top leaders play the biggest role in the establishment and growth of organizational culture. In the same way that transformational or positive leaders will bring success to their organizations, toxic leaders (those who abuse their power) cause the downfall of their companies. Toxic executives are full of self-interest, destructive mindsets and they go against the interest of the company. The harm that is caused by such leaders might go beyond the company's boundaries and influence the clients' and stakeholders views' of the company. The financial and human prices of toxic management are "below the waterline" and that these effects are likely to cause the most negative effects according to Aubrey. If toxic leadership is not contained quickly, it will compromise the company's ethics and facilitate the emergence of non-ethical conduct. Toxic leadership not only harms the company's workforce, but also its bottom-line (Aubrey, 2012). Toxic leadership has also been described as compromising an organization's reputation, ignoring non-ethical conduct of employees and noncompliance with the normative standards of the organization (Aubrey, 2012).

Counter-cultural leadership (CLL) theory is a leadership theory that explains unethical leadership about its transactional utilization of reward, coercive and positional power bases, to breed a host of uncritical subordinates in contrast to ethical leadership with calls for principled ethics and virtue. The CLL theory is based on power-influence theories and social-science leadership theories. Two of the most commonly used power influence theories i.e. the social exchange approach and social power approach, are important in the understanding of the principles of leadership practices in the use of authority and power on followers. Based largely on social power base approaches, counter-cultural leadership basically uses positional authority to bring about paternalistic following. The use of social power bases also brings about compliant followership. According to Choong's (2011) concept on followership styles, CCL results in followers who are alienated, uncritical in thinking, conformists and passive in their engagements with the organization. Choong's (2011) study helps in the understating of followership influence processes especially with regards to counter-cultural leadership. The author reiterates that the use of reward, legal and coercive power bases are some of the unique characteristics of toxic leadership (Choong, 2011).

Leading an organization with high-diversity is often a challenging job. However, if a high-diversity workforce is properly led, this can result in increased returns. However, quite often it is observed that highly diverse workforces result in conflicts among employees. And leaders ought to act to stop these conflicts. Managing such conflicts requires a sense of influence and properly learned and applied power strategies. Once skilful power strategies are developed, the leader can produce responsible and effective power dynamics. These power dynamics are the result of the manipulation of multiple bases. The conflicts resulting in job-related interdependence and complex organizational diversity requires a leader to choose the right influence mechanism to bring about the most positive power dynamics. However, leaders should be careful not to rely heavily on the use of certain influence strategies. Such an overuse could result in abuses of influence which may prompt resistance resulting in reduced influence over the long run. It is crucial to have a balanced view between the power of the leader and of the followers. Placing the followers in a position where they feel that they are being exploited, manipulated or abused could be detrimental to the organizations performance. Instead leaders ought to create a power influence where they secure necessary commitments to achieve the organization's strategic commitments. Unchecked use of influence and power could lead to negative power dynamics that will prove detrimentral to all those associated with the organization (Michelson, 2010).

The right selection and utilization of an influence mechanism will transform the leader's influence into positive behavioural dynamics that result in creative problem thinking. Positive behavioural dynamics increases competitiveness, responsiveness, adaptability and the followers' synergy in companies with high job-related interdependence and levels of diversity (Michelson, 2010). However, abuse of power and influence also occurs in companies of high job-related interdependence and diversity. Many times, leaders' influence is utilized for self-interest. When this is the case, it can lead protracted power struggles and internal conflicts. Prolonged power struggles and parochial politics can lead to increases in conflicts among employees, decreased innovative capabilities, increased costs and reduced efficiency. These kinds of results can permanently damage an organization's social fabric.