1
Bad Leadership
Summer D. Leifer
LEAD510 – Leadership in Context
December 16, 2012
Mr. Jim Morrison
Southwestern College Professional Studies
Bad Leadership1
Bad Leadership
In her book, Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, and Why It Matters, author Barbara Kellerman offers a perspective on the darker side of leadership, its causes and the breadth and depth of bad leadership’s impact (2004). Kellerman first argues for the recognition leadership exists within a spectrum from bad to good rather than viewing it only from a positive and optimistic perspective (2004). She insists refusing to acknowledge and understand bad leadership is confusing, misleading and does a disservice (2004). Kellerman also provides a typology of bad leadership categorizing it according to two axes—unethical and ineffective—to arrive at seven categorizations which may overlap: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil (2004). She illustrates each of these categorizations through providing examples of each of these categories through brief case studies examining the contextual factors, the leader and the follower (2004). Finally, Kellerman provides thoughts on how leaders and followers should apply the lessons learned from bad leadership to avoid or stop bad leadership (2004). She provides tips and corrective measures leaders and followers may use to develop themselves and while working with others to assist them with avoid bad leadership pitfalls (2004).
Thesis Statement
Kellerman’s thesis is based on the following assumption (espoused by Kellerman): in order to fully decipher and understand leadership, it must be examined from the viewpoint of how individuals exercise authority, influence and power in ways that do harm whether deliberate or not and the importance of the interdependent relationship of leaders, followers and the context they exist in. (2004). Although followers and context have begun to receive more attention in contemporary leadership theories and models such as Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model emphasizing the needs of the follower and the situation, the focus has still remained primarily on the leader and his/her roles and responsibilities(Shriberg, Shriberg, & Kumari, 2005) For this reason, Kellerman also argues the importance, power and responsibilities of followers in defining leadership as effective or ineffective, ethical or unethical, and good or bad (Kellerman, 2004)
The Bad Side of Leadership
Whereas contemporary leadership theories and models such as transformational and servant leadership focus on the positive aspects of leadership and leaders, Kellerman argues leadership and leaders are not inherently positive and instead exist on a continuum from good to bad (2004). Furthermore, she asserts it is important to study the entire spectrum of leaders and leadership, from good to bad, to fully grasp the implications and nuances of leadership and followership. As stated above, it is only within more contemporary models of leadership that one finds such a strong focus on positive leadership traits and characteristics and a void in relation to discussions on bad leaders and leadership. Kellerman notes past historians and political theorists included bad leaders and leadership within their studies such as Machiavelli who assumed bad leadership as a pragmatic means to an end and the writers of the United States of America constitution who purposefully included checks and balances to prevent what they saw was the inevitable efforts of tyrants to usurp power (2004). Kellerman argues the current preoccupation with viewing leadership in a positive light stems from three major root causes. First, the modern use of language to define leadership especially beginning with James MacGregor Burns’, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and political scientist, seminal book Leadership where he defines leadership in only positive terms and relegates anything less to the realm of coercion began to reshape the way modern leadership theorists defined leaders and leadership (Kellerman, 2004). Secondly, an even more powerful cause to view leadership as solely as positive endeavor relates to the tremendous energy, resources and effort to train business leaders and managers on good leadership techniques that began to be expended within major corporations and business during the late 1970’s and 80’s (Kellerman, 2004). Finally, contemporary leadership studies have their roots in America and the American dream entails a positive, optimistic outlook and views leaders as heroes who will do the right thing for the right reasons at the right time (Kellerman, 2004). Kellerman argues the predilection to limit leadership to only good leadership is confusing, misleading and does a disservice (2004). Therefore, it is important to understand why leaders behave badly. Rather than focusing on a leader’s traits such as intelligence, Kellerman argues for a more holistic approach encompassing the leader, the follower, the task and the situation (2004). In regards to the interdependency and interconnectedness of leaders, followers and context, Kellerman states, “Webs of leadership are tangled, the strands—the leader, the followers, and the context—hard to separate one from the other. Unlike great tapestries, in which countless threads are precisely woven into magical panoramas, webs of leadership are not so neatly delineated” (2004, p.xiv, para.5). Within Kellerman’s text, she asserts it is just as important to exam followers and the reasons they follow as it is to study the leaders they choose to follow (2004). Followers choose to follow a leader to fulfill either individual or group needs and, therefore, may be defined on a similar continuum of good to bad as leaders may be defined (2004). After taking a holistic approach to examining leadership, Kellerman posits one may plot bad leadership on two different axes: unethical and ineffective (2004). Additionally, she also presents a typology of bad leadership composed of the following seven categories: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil (2004). Kellerman’s bad leadership typology offers her readers an opportunity to examine how leaders may lead badly so they may avoid leadership and followership pitfalls.
Leading Badly
To assist readers’ understanding of the bad leadership typology, Kellerman presents biographical and historical accounts of leaders who may be categorized within her typology and examines the context, the leader, the follower, the web they create and the benefits of hindsight. The first of Kellerman’s bad leadership typology, incompetence, relates to a leader’s inability and/or unwillingness to perform as needed (2004). She then examines rigid leaders and their inability and/or unwillingness to adapt to changes, new ideas or new information (2004). Whereas rigid leaders cling to a certain paradigm, the next category of bad leaders, intemperate leaders, lack self-control and are aided and/or abetted by followers who do not intervene (2004). Another category of self-centered leaders, callous leaders, are oblivious or unconcerned with others’ needs, wants or wishes and instead focus solely on their own needs (2004). This focus on self-interest may also manifest within Kellerman’s fifth category, corrupt leaders, where leaders put their self-interests ahead of others to the extent they engage in corrupt practices such as lying, cheating and stealing to achieve their objectives (2004). Once a leader expands their focus on self-interests to include a few select others or in-group without regard to how their actions may impact all stakeholders or constituents, he/she is engaging in what Kellerman defines as insular leadership (2004). The willingness to knowingly commit atrocities, crimes against others and inflict pain on others brings us to Kellerman’s final and most disturbing category of bad leaders: evil leaders (2004). Kellerman acknowledges within her text that to place humans into categories of any sort invites argument (2004). In regards to the bad leadership typology she presents, Kellerman welcomes discussion and debate for she feels the typology is a tool to begin cutting through some of the accepted paradigms allowing individuals to more deeply examine leadership along its entire continuum. Through better understanding, individuals are better equipped to move leadership from the bad end of the leadership spectrum towards the better leadership end.
From Bad to Better Leadership
While the first two sections of Kellerman’s book focus on acknowledging and defining bad leadership and categorizing it into seven major categories, the third and final section of her book provide insights into how this information may be applied to improve leaders and followers (2004). Kellerman speaks to the individual and group costs of bad leadership and how those costs will have long-term effects (2004). While she acknowledges leadership and followership are hard to examine and define in precise terms, Kellerman asserts we will benefit from the study of bad leadership as leadership does maintain a degree of coherence within a dynamic system and bad leadership has a finite number of patterns and these patterns do repeat (2004). Kellerman also reiterates leadership must be studied holistically taking into account both leaders and followers (2004). She takes a firm stance on the fact leaders and followers are both responsible for leadership’s outcome and no longer should followers point fingers solely at the leaders when the outcome is undesirable or poor (2004). Kellerman concludes her book with a discussion on how leaders and followers may apply lessons learned and what actions they may take to avoid bad leadership. She admits we may not avoid bad leadership through changing human nature as human nature is constant to include the darker side of our natures (Kellerman, 2004). Additionally, to avoid or stop bad leadership, we must avoid or stop bad followership as leaders and followers are interdependent (Kellerman, 2004). Furthermore, Kellerman states we cannot stop or avoid bad leadership through refusing to acknowledge its existence for avoiding discussion and examination of bad leadership inures us to the dangers of bad leadership (2004). Finally, she provides lists of corrections for leaders and followers to consider in an effort to stop bad leadership from taking root within their organizations (Kellerman, 2004). Kellerman ends with acknowledging that correcting or stopping bad leadership is not a quick-fix process; however, she maintains we cannot implement or assure good leadership without studying, deciphering, and understanding bad leadership (2004).
Critical Assessment
In his book Leadership Jazz, Max DePree,former Chief Executive Officer of Herman Miller, Inc. and author, writes, “I will never completely understand the relationship between leaders and followers. It can be magical and health-giving or dispiriting and fatal” (1992, p.206, para. 2). Kellerman seeks to demystify the leader and follower relationship through examining it holistically emphasizing the web leaders and followers co-create and co-constitute within their situational context (2004). As one examines historical and contemporary leadership theories and models, one notes an evolution of prevailing thoughts and assumptions. Kellerman addresses the shifts in leadership theories from those accepting and/or advocating pragmatic approaches based on the recognition of man’s inherent nature to include both the dark and the light sides such as presented by Machiavelli to contemporary theories focused more on postive aspects of leaders and dismissing individuals engaged in or demonstrating less desirable traits, characterisitics or attitudes as coercive individuals or, as James MacGregor Burns called them in his seminal book, Leadership: power-wielders (Kellerman, 2004; Burns, 1979). Kellerman argues an approach to leadership balanced between these two opposing viewpoints through accepting the reality of bad leadership, understanding the individual roles of and relationship between leaders and followers and the impact of contextual factors on the relationship and the outcomes (2004).
Kellerman makes a strong case for accepting the dark side of leadership as an unfortunate reality even in today’s environment stating, “In the real world, in everyday life, we come into constant contact not only with good leaders and good followers doing good things but also with bad leaders and bad followers doing bad things” (2004, p.5, para.1). Beginning with Burns and continuing with the work of other great philosophers and authors such as Warren Bennis, Robert K. Greenleaf, Peter Drucker, James Kouzes and Barry Posner leadership paradigms have been shaped and reshaped so contemporary models and theories focus on the leader and how he/she may serve their constituents and organizations. While many contemporary models do place some importance on the context and the follower, this emphasis is done from the perspective of what influence the leader has over the follower and the context placing sole authority and responsibility on the leader. Kellerman asserts the follower bears as much responsibility as the leader for the outcome of their leadership, a follower also has influence on the context, and, finally, the context has a direct impact on a leader and a follower and there may be some contextual factors outside the control and/or influence of a leader and/or follower (2004). This may seem like a subtle difference yet the shift in perspective has tremendous implications for the study of leadership. The shift moves the locus of control from the leader over the follower and the context to the interdependent relationship of the leader and the follower and the outcome of how they cope with and influence their context. Given this change in perspective, one must also consider leadership in its full context. The current accepted definition of leadership is a result of contemporary thoughts influenced by language, corporate leadership and management techniques and the American tendency to view the world through rose-colored glasses (Kellerman, 2004). Contemporary leadership theories seek to divorce power from leaderships and focus more on a leader’s influence. According to Kellerman, as a result of these modern influences, power has developed a negative connotation and individuals who exercise power over others are not considered leaders (2004). Kellerman argues the point power is not only connected to leadership, it is essential to leadership and how one exercises their power is a determining factor of how their leadership may be defined (2004). Likewise, Kellerman also recognizes the fact followers also have power for without followers there would be no leaders and with this power comes responsibility (2004). So, leaders and followers share power and responsibility. Once we accept leaders and followers share responsibility and power and may shape or be shaped by their context, we must then prepare to delve into the recently ignored, overlooked or downplayed darker side of leadership through examining the many ways it may manifest and its potential impacts.
Kellerman provides her readers with a bad leadership typology to serve as a tool to assist with examining and dissecting the various ways bad leadership is demonstrated. While contemporary leadership theorists provide various models or typology of good leadership, Kellerman is among the first to provide an in-depth exploration of the darker aspects of leadership (2004). Through her bad leadership typology, Kellerman has laid a framework for discussion allowing students of leadership philosophy to examine and decipher the full range of leadership, good, bad or indifferent, so they may better understand the interedependence of leaders, followers and the context and may be better equipped to shape or reshape their roles as either a leader or follower and more effectively influence or cope with the environment. Furthermore, these typologies should not be considered all inclusive or definitive; rather, they should serve as a potential starting point for further research and debate.
Whereas the bad leadership typologies presented by Kellerman may intiate debate, the examples she used to illustrate each of the categories are also worthy of debate. For each of the categories, Kellerman provided a couple of brief examples and an additional longer example of a bad leader supposedly falling into the category, their followers, the context and reflections based on the benefits of hindsight. At times, her examples seemed either mismatched and/or biased. In regards to a mismatch between a bad leadership category and an example she provided, her lengthy description of Juan Antonio Samaranch, former president of the International Olympic Committee, as an incompetent leader seemed to better describe a corrupt and insular leader who served his own self-interests and the interests of his close associates to the detriment of the organization (2004). Likewise, Kellerman’s selection of individuals as bad leaders seemed biased and unbalanced. While former United States president Bill Clinton certainly made some serious mistakes and demonstrated ethical lapses, he is also considered by many to have been an extremely effective president during his tenure. Kellerman may have better illustrated a balanced review through presenting, as she herself advocates, a holistic approach to evaluating leadership through taking into account the leader, the follower and the context rather than apparently falling victim to one of the barriers to critical thinking: confirmation bias or selective thinking. This failure to apply critical thinking while providing examples of bad leadership and its categories according to her typology is also evident during the final chapters of Kellerman’s book as she provides lists of corrections leaders and followers may use to avoid or stop bad leadership.