There is a growing incidence of toxic leadership in organisations in South Africa, as deduced from anecdotal and research evidence.
If this cancer of toxicity carries on growing unabated, it would endanger in no uncertain terms people’s and organisations’ wellbeing, performance and success in South Africa in the present and the future.
These are the views of Professor Theo Veldsman, a researcher at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), who says there is a pressing need for leaders and their organisations to understand the nature, dynamics and evolution of toxic leadership and organisations.
Prof Veldsman explains toxic leadership as ongoing, deliberate, intentional actions by a leadership to undermine the sense of dignity, self-worth and efficacy of an individual or individuals. This results in destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences. Such destructive actions may be physical, psychosocial and/or spiritual (i.e., meaning/purpose). Toxic leadership therefore represents the “dark” side of leadership.
Work place bullying – a popular research area in recent times – is a similar concept to toxic leadership, but more centred on individual, one-on-one, physical and/or emotional abuse by any one individual (including a leader) on another person(s). Work place bullying is only one form of toxic leadership when the bullying is done by leadership.
Says Prof Veldsman: “But then, what is the relationship between leadership toxicity and leadership competence/incompetence? Leadership toxicity and competence/incompetence are not directly related. Competent – obtaining desired results – and incompetent leadership alike, may manifest toxic leadership.”
He highlights that if a narrower demarcation of leadership competence is used, that is only focusing on technical/professional competencies, then a toxic leader in this narrower sense may still be seen as competent because they are still “delivering the goods”, especially if a short term view is taken. Over the longer term, however, their short term success is unsustainable.
The research shows that five typical toxic leaders exist: the cold fish: the ends justifies the means; the snake: the world serves me; the glory seeker: personal glory at any cost; the puppet Master: absolute control under all circumstances; and the monarch: ruling the organisation as my kingdom.
Six typical toxic organisations can be distinguished: paranoid: the defensive, afraid, suspicious organisation; compulsive: the over-planned, over-programmed organisation; hyperactive: the impulsive, unfocused organisation; deflated: the energy-less, impotent organisation; delusional: the reality estranged, make-believe organisation; and conscienceless: the unethical, amoral organisation.
Toxic leadership and toxic organisations co-exit most often where the one feeds on the other. And in turn they attract and/ or create toxic dependent employees.
