Why Leaders Fail

Zenger and Folkman (2009) in the June edition of Harvard Business Review found from their study of top Fortune 500 leaders who were fired and hundreds of ineffective leaders that the two have similar flaws that cause them to fall from their throne. I guess these ten characteristics are nothing new, but they confirm previous findings which show these seemingly trivial and oft-overlooked characteristics do count:

1. Lack energy and enthusiasm
2. Accept their own mediocre performance
3. Lack clear vision and direction
4. Have poor judgment
5. Don’t collaborate
6. Don’t walk the talk
7. Resist new ideas
8. Don’t learn from mistakes
9. Lack interpersonal skills
10. Fail to develop others

Helping Our Leaders Not to Become Destructive

In my line of research, I have been fascinated with the topic of destructive or toxic leadership for quite some time now. What is interesting in the myriad of findings in extant literature is the fact that destructive leadership happens not only because of the leader, but also because of the followers (and the environment). In other words, the role of followers in turning good leaders into bad is pivotal, particularly those with unmet basic needs, negative self-evaluations, and psychological immaturity (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).

I am intrigue by that last characteristic: Followers' psychological immaturity.

Padilla et al. (2007) in their Leadership Quarterly article highlighted that psychologically immature individuals are susceptible to collude in destructive acts their leaders initiate. They drew on famous works of Freud, Milgram, and Kohlberg in suggesting that between 60 and 75% of Western adults conform to their leaders and respect rules; this tendency to conform can be easily manipulated in such a way by the leaders that the followers then engage in immoral behaviors just because their bosses say so. Further, Padilla et al (1997:184) wrote:

"Persons lacking a firm sense of self tend to identify with cultural heroes and to internalize their values. Weierter's (1997) model of charismatic relationships also proposes that followers who lack a clear sense of self will adopt the values of charismatic leaders, which then enhances their self-esteem. Although these vulnerabilities might apply to any immature adult, they apply well to the young (Popper, 2001)—for instance, the Hitler Youth, the Manson family, or Mao's Red Guard. When impressionable followers internalize a destructive leader's vision, they can become committed to a destructive enterprise-conformers can become colluders (Hoffer, 1951; Kets de Vries, 1989; Weierter, 1997)."

The implication is loud and clear for churches and other organizations. We need to ensure that the body of Christ is developed into maturity not only spiritually but psychologically, which really means they need to have a healthy self-concept rooted in what Christ has done on the cross, a Christ-centered set of core values, and a Christ-exalting life vision which will give their lives anchor, meaning, and direction.

When leaders become cultic

I am currently researching on destructive leadership, and fascinated by the processes (pathological or otherwise) that lead to the demise of all kinds of organizations as a result. One of the readings by Tourish and Pinnington (2002) suggests that destructive leadership involves 'cultic dynamics', that is destructive leadership have leaders who operate like cult leaders. Here are the four characteristics that they identified in their research:

1. Charismatic, narcissistic leaders with a strong need for power who, because of their over-sensitivity to criticism, always eliminate dissent. No wonder what's left is merely a bunch of yes people with insular group mentality.

2. A totalistic (all-embracing) vision of a way of being or a new paradigm that is very compelling which necessitates an absolute conviction on the part of followers. This sacred vision is sold in such a way that those who disagree are eliminated, which involves a process called "consensual validation", that is "the spectacle of many agreeing to a position irrationally convinces each person that it must be accurate" (Tourish & Vatcha, 2005:463).

3. Recruitment, conversion, and indoctrination of members which involves intense emotional considerations that the leader shows toward the potential recruits to buy into the belief system (akin to a process called 'love bombing'), fundamental changes of knowledge and beliefs, values and standards, needs and everyday behaviors, and continual one-way transmission of intense messages from leaders to followers to instill a total devotion to the group ideal.

4. A strong, monolithic culture that becomes a social control for its members so much so that those who do not fit will be 'ejected like a virus'

Tourish's works provide an in-depth case study of Enron and its dramatic fall from grace, which happens to be the greatest scandal in the business history. But the above four pointers can be applied in all types of organizations, including church and denomination.