Same Traits Different Outcomes in Leadership
Leadership is a long researched, studied theme in Organisational Psychology. However, looking at the recent incidents that took various organisations to a huge failure, it is seen that leadership does not only have a bright side. These failures mostly show that destructive leadership is an important reason for them to happen (Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter & Tate, 2012). As Goldman (2009) indicates, organisations have started to assess potential leaders in terms of their tendency to get destructive because of the actions of some leaders who caused firms like Enron to come to an end. He says that it is particularly important to predict and prevent these people because their subordinates tend to mirror …show more content…
(2012) suggest looking at whether the organisational outcomes caused by that leader are positive or negative in the short or long term shows whether the leader is a destructive one. This paper indicates that the same traits of leaders can cause both positive and negative outcomes in different situations (Judge, Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009). As Furnham, Trickey and Hyde (2012) say, there are also “bright-sides of dark-side traits”, which are the traits that are considered as harmful for the organisation. The paper explains through this approach, how it is not easy to analyse leaders’ dark-side and prevent them from gaining power in the organisation. However leaders are never able to cause these destructive results by themselves (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) “outline the toxic triangle: the characteristics of leaders, followers and environmental contexts connected with destructive leadership” (p.176). Through these two arguments this paper explains how leaders who are destructive for the …show more content…
Firstly, it is hard to predict the outcomes of personality traits. Hogan and Hogan (2001) indicate because these traits also produce skills with positive outcomes it is difficult to diagnose them during an interview or a work sample test. However the “Hogan Development Survey” can be helpful for the assessors to predict how some traits have a tendency to make the person destructive when coming to extremes under stress (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). Additionally people on the top of the organisation should be measuring and observing leaders’ behaviours that can be harmful (Shaw, Erickson & Harvey, 2011). As McCartney and Campbell (2006) indicate “Once an individual has met the initial expectations… organizational development activities will still be necessary to avoid derailment”(p. 199). Another solution suggested is that through a selection process with a role-playing method followers who have the potential to be vulnerable to leaders can be found (Thoroughgood et al., 2012) or if they are already employed, they should be empowered to overcome these vulnerabilities and be able to dispute the destructive leaders (Padilla et al., 2007). Finally, it is certain that leaders with narcissism are needed in many areas of business because they are good reformers but management should be aware to restrict their power (Maccoby,
Leadership is a long researched, studied theme in Organisational Psychology. However, looking at the recent incidents that took various organisations to a huge failure, it is seen that leadership does not only have a bright side. These failures mostly show that destructive leadership is an important reason for them to happen (Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter & Tate, 2012). As Goldman (2009) indicates, organisations have started to assess potential leaders in terms of their tendency to get destructive because of the actions of some leaders who caused firms like Enron to come to an end. He says that it is particularly important to predict and prevent these people because their subordinates tend to mirror …show more content…
(2012) suggest looking at whether the organisational outcomes caused by that leader are positive or negative in the short or long term shows whether the leader is a destructive one. This paper indicates that the same traits of leaders can cause both positive and negative outcomes in different situations (Judge, Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009). As Furnham, Trickey and Hyde (2012) say, there are also “bright-sides of dark-side traits”, which are the traits that are considered as harmful for the organisation. The paper explains through this approach, how it is not easy to analyse leaders’ dark-side and prevent them from gaining power in the organisation. However leaders are never able to cause these destructive results by themselves (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) “outline the toxic triangle: the characteristics of leaders, followers and environmental contexts connected with destructive leadership” (p.176). Through these two arguments this paper explains how leaders who are destructive for the …show more content…
Firstly, it is hard to predict the outcomes of personality traits. Hogan and Hogan (2001) indicate because these traits also produce skills with positive outcomes it is difficult to diagnose them during an interview or a work sample test. However the “Hogan Development Survey” can be helpful for the assessors to predict how some traits have a tendency to make the person destructive when coming to extremes under stress (Furnham & Trickey, 2011). Additionally people on the top of the organisation should be measuring and observing leaders’ behaviours that can be harmful (Shaw, Erickson & Harvey, 2011). As McCartney and Campbell (2006) indicate “Once an individual has met the initial expectations… organizational development activities will still be necessary to avoid derailment”(p. 199). Another solution suggested is that through a selection process with a role-playing method followers who have the potential to be vulnerable to leaders can be found (Thoroughgood et al., 2012) or if they are already employed, they should be empowered to overcome these vulnerabilities and be able to dispute the destructive leaders (Padilla et al., 2007). Finally, it is certain that leaders with narcissism are needed in many areas of business because they are good reformers but management should be aware to restrict their power (Maccoby,