Leadership has on occasion been presented as a sort of mystical status or title, which allows those who hold it to resolve all their problems as if by waving a magic wand. In fact, leaders are often considered to be heroes within their organizations. As in the general perception of the public and among employees, there is a vague perception in the relevant literature that leaders bring success both to employees and organizations under most circumstances. This places great expectations on leadership and, on occasion, huge disappointments. It is true that successful leadership brings success and increases performance, but not all charismatic individuals can be successful, or even successful leaders. Leaders are sometimes perceived as charismatic and flawless individuals who are capable of leading organizations from success to success without any hiccups along the way.
This exaggerated approach clouds the real role that an effective leader can play. The relevant literature again and again proves that effective leaders are one of the most important assets that organizations can have. However, not all leaders are effective and not all effective or successful leaders are honest and extraordinary individuals. There are so many recent examples of unethical and immoral scandals, from Enron to the 2007 banking collapse, that indicate some leaders may have a hidden agenda or, even worse, a âdark side.â Perhaps an inclination towards the dark side could be a natural state of affairs for some leaders. For such individuals, engaging in immoral or unethical behavior may not be as important as most of us would think. They may lack a moral framework, and established norms might be nothing more than words.
Despite this, it is a general assumption in the literature and even in society at large that leaders are always ethical and moral, contributing to the positive behaviors of their organizations and thus to the well-being of society as a whole. This false belief provides what we may call dark leaders with rather a large playing field on which to strive for their goals, at the expense of followers and organizations. In fact, throughout the 1990s society liked to see aggressive leaders at the head of large organizations. It was then almost the norm to see bold and determined leaders in business organizations, with few limits placed on their actions (Kramer 2003). Perhaps as a result of this, for the following two decades scholars have been increasingly interested in understanding the dark side of leadership. A considerable amount of data has been accumulated to this end, and there is also ever-increasing pressure from society to tackle leadersâ immoral and unethical behavior. This is because immoral and/or unethical actions hurt a societyâs values and cohesion.
An exploration of the dark side of leadership focuses on leadersâ immoral and unethical behavior as well as on the dark side of personality, which is referred to as the dark tetrad. This consists of narcissism, sub-clinical psychopathy, Machiavellianism and everyday sadism. The dark side of leadership is considered to be a part of bad leadership practices, the others being toxic leadership, leadership derailment, and evil, destructive and abusive actions (Higgs 2009). These terms describe bad leadership practices that are harmful and provide negative outcomes for organizations, their staff and even the public. It is argued that leaders do not always behave as they should be expected to. The image ofâ the âperfectâ leader who is responsible, ethical and moral might be very far from the truth.
It may be noted that ethical scandals and immoral behavior involving various types of organizations across the globe shock society at large. There is an ever-increasing pressure being placed on organizational and political leadership by stakeholders to tackle such undesirable situations. There is an important dilemma to answer here. When they receive power, do leaders ensure the well-being of organizations and their employees? Or are they corrupted by the power they receive? Perhaps leaders prefer to follow their own interests and agendas, ignoring group or team benefits; perhaps power may simply corrupt some individuals. It might be that power corrupts those with a weak moral identity but not those with a greater moral identity (De Celles et al. 2012); therefore, when they receive power how can dark leaders not be corrupted? However, we should note that it is not possible to understand the entire topic from a single viewpoint. Indeed, it is an absolute necessity to examine and try to understand leadersâ behavior during any immoral or unethical decision-making process in the round. It may be noted that employees and the organizational context are also important factors that contribute to the dark leadership problem.
All leaders (whether on the dark side, transformational or ethical), organizations and employees operate in a certain institutional framework. This creates strict guidelines for all parties, limiting the behavior and actions of leaders, employees and organizations, or possibly giving leaders freedom of action. When individuals find themselves with an ethical dilemma, they need to check guidelines, thereby learning how to act. However, this framework does not necessarily need to be formal, or even written down, and it could be embedded within an organizationâs culture: the lack of a formal code of conduct in many organizations in Europe and the USA by no means indicates a lack of norms or values.
Logic therefore dictates that if a moral framework is established and embedded in an organization it should prevent leaders from taking any immoral or unethical decisions. The reality is not this simple. First, an institutional framework does not need to provide norms and values that are ethical. It may be that core values do not prioritize right or wrong behavior, or there may be no values and norms formally laid out; it could be taken for granted that individuals will know how to behave. There may be other considerations as well, such as shareholdersâ expectations. In some countries the most important stakeholders are the shareholders, and the corporate governance practices are adjusted accordingly. In the USA, for example, a board of directors is strongly involved in top management decisions, in case actions are proposed that are not to the benefit of shareholders.
Therefore, dark leaders may not really have the freedom to behave in any way they wish. Nonetheless, if they are truly Machiavellian they may manipulate others for the benefit of themselves. The dark tetrad of personality traits are socially undesirable, not complying with existing social moral values and ethical norms (Hoth 1979). However, in some circumstances employees may prefer toxic leadership. It has been proposed that employees play a role in the dark side of leadership (Lipman-Blumen 2005).
There is also the point to be made that while an institutional framework shapes and limits individuals or leaders within an organization, in most cases organizations are also prone to external pressures that shape their structure and even the organizational culture. For example, universities should have structural and cultural similarities as they all serve students in basically the same way. In one way or another, most universitiesâ structures are similar: the division of labor, bureaucracy and the overall framework are alike. This is more clearly apparent if an external agency or government institution sets certain standards and rules for the sector. Another example is lawyers, who all have similar ethical and moral standards that are accepted by the sector as a whole. If one does not comply with the basic overall framework, there are both formal and informal implications, of which arguably the latter are more of a deterrent.
Then there is the issue of an organizationâs members, primarily its employees. An institutional framework is created and shared by them. If the...