178 Dorianne Cotter-Lockard Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Day, G. S. (2009). How to make sense of weak signals. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(3), 81–89. Wilson, S. D., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2010). The relationship between leadership and multiple intelligences with the 21st century’s higher education faculty. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 11(3), 106–120. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774. Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1), 70–85. doi:10.1108/01437729910268669
Chapter 17 Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader Terry Fernsler Abstract A change in leadership can often be stressful for an organization. Miriam, the Founding Executive Director of a supporting foundation for a rural hospital, was primarily a servant leader, providing volunteers and staff with the tools needed for successful fundraising. As the initial Executive Director for this small nonprofit organization, she established an organizational culture that fit the needs of the community; volunteers became accustomed to that culture and the organization flourished. Upon Miriam’s retirement, her replacement brought a very different type of leadership rooted in hierarchical structures and authoritarianism. Accustomed to a more supportive organizational culture, many volunteers flatly refused to work with the new executive director. He exacerbated the problem by refusing to acknowledge any missteps he might have taken and was not receptive to any ideas not his own. He was not supportive of staff or even the organization’s own board members. The new executive director was accustomed to being in control and misunderstood managing the needs of multiple stakeholders. He moved too quickly to consolidate his own power without consideration of the organization’s needs. He tried to instill a “heroic” leadership style in a culture of shared leadership. The credibility of the organization suffered as a result, not only among volunteers and hospital staff, but, as they talked within the community, publically as well. Keywords: Founder; organizational culture; servant leadership; authoritarian leader; executive transition; nonprofit When Leadership Fails: Individual, Group and Organizational Lessons from the Worst Workplace Experiences, 179–189 Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved doi:10.1108/978-1-80043-766-120211017
180 Terry Fernsler Introduction A change in leadership can often be stressful for an organization, particularly when leadership styles are very different. Organizational culture may clash with the new leader’s methods and norms. Developing a clear transition strategy will help ease the stress and confusion. Miriam, as the founder of a supporting foundation for a small rural hospital, established its structure and culture. Miriam was primarily a servant leader and volunteers and staff responded well to her leadership style, so well that it became the norm. When Miriam retired three years after beginning the foundation, her replacement had an entirely different leadership style. The culture of inviting community members to contribute their skills, knowledge, and creativity gave way to a very directive style. By misunderstanding – or trying to ignore – the organizational and community culture, her replacement was unable to motivate key stakeholders and even lost some. Much of the turmoil from the transition could have been prevented with self-assessment and proper planning. Miriam’s Servant Leadership Miriam and her partner arrived in a rural western state after retiring from careers in the Bay Area of California. The Hospital Administrator of the anchor institution in a local public hospital district, Bob, had learned of Miriam’s talents through his community engagement efforts, and asked her if she would be interested in running a foundation for the hospital. The organizing documents for the foundation had already been drafted by community volunteers and they were seeking an executive director to lead it. Miriam and her husband needed the additional income, so she stepped out of retirement to start the foundation. Bob took a laissez-faire approach to supervising Miriam, relying on her expertise in fundraising. Miriam began by mapping community assets and determining what could be used to effectively raise funds to support the hospital. She held estate planning seminars to plant the seed for planned gifts to the foundation. She discovered a market for a thrift store in the community, whose profits could be contributed to support the foundation. She was able to arrange a loan from the hospital to establish the store and found a large, empty storefront on one of the main streets in the hospital’s town that had recently housed a department store. It was in an ideal location and she hired a very capable store manager. The store was such a success that the start-up loan was repaid in full in nine months. Miriam was very much a servant leader (Greenleaf, 1970), providing staff and volunteers with the tools needed to develop their capacities and reach their highest potential to successfully carry out the mission of the foundation. Three hospital guilds, which predated the foundation and were fairly autonomous from the hospital governance, were already supporting the hospital through special fundraising events in the community and operating a gift shop in the hospital. Miriam encouraged the three guilds to continue their long-standing models of hospital support and offered support when needed. However, she did not force them to change anything they had been doing for decades, acknowledging their work and important community connections they had developed over the years.
Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader 181 When one hospital employee suggested a holiday festival, Miriam encouraged and mentored that staff person, Stephanie. Stephanie, was an administrative assistant and receptionist, a job with set hours that did not require taking work home. She found herself with much free time outside of work while her husband, a long-haul trucker, was away. Stephanie had read about other hospitals in the region that were raising money through festivals of trees. Festivals of trees are events in which trees and wreaths are decorated by artistically talented volunteers, displayed for a week during a series of small events and ultimately auctioned off in a culminating event. Such festivals were becoming popular as hospital fundraisers in the region and typically involved the coordination of many volunteers. Stephanie took ownership of the festival of trees planning as Miriam guided her through the proposal. When the foundation board of directors approved it, Stephanie continued by coordinating the events. Stephanie was bright and attractive. She was also difficult to work with because she was so exacting. This was an excellent quality for her hospital administrative position, but Stephanie was very precise in knowing what she wanted to do for the festival. This was not always appreciated by the more creative volunteer decorators. Since Stephanie was new to organizing events, she required much time and attention from Miriam to help her learn to work with others. Even mild-mannered Miriam, who understood the value of detail in planning events and seemed to get along with everyone, often found Stephanie tedious. The first festival of trees for the foundation, held in November prior to the holiday season, was really a festival of tree, since only one volunteer team (from one of the guilds) had been recruited to decorate a tree. Miriam’s style required much time in cultivating and nurturing relationships with volunteers, so after only a year and a half, the foundation had grown enough that she needed full-time assistance with the fundraising initiatives. She hired me as the new Associate Director of Development. My tasks were to help expand existing fundraising events while Miriam continued to work at coordinating the fundraising efforts of the three hospital guilds and merging them into the activities of the foundation. She also continued to market the foundation in the wider community, especially to prospective major donors. Miriam assigned me to work with Stephanie to grow the festival of trees for year two. I spent the time necessary to coach Stephanie, helping her balance her ability to plan in detail with developing relationships that could contribute to success. It took a lot of coaching but Stephanie began to gain respect from the community in spite of her blunt manner – or perhaps because people saw how determined she was. It also helped that as she gained acknowledgment of the success of her efforts, she became less abrupt. Her determination for success made her more willing to learn to build an ever more appealing event. I found modeling Miriam’s servant leadership style toward Stephanie time consuming but rewarding to see her grow and recruit more volunteers. The second festival of trees had six teams decorating trees. Although her position was as staff (Development Director) at the hospital, Miriam also reported to the foundation’s volunteer board of directors and drew on the board members’ knowledge and willingness to volunteer. With additional help from my new position, some board members suggested additional fundraising opportunities. One, Bill, an insurance agent who was also a local Boy Scout
182 Terry Fernsler troop leader who knew many families in the community, wanted to start a golf tournament. Miriam assigned me to work with Bill to plan it, demonstrating confidence in my ability to work with others who some people considered “difficult.” Bill had a bit of an ego problem, something I managed by letting him come up with ideas for the golf tournament and receiving credit for its success while I did the detail work. I saw my role as supporting Bill through his event. I quickly recognized Bill’s needs were different than Stephanie’s and once again, without even realizing I was doing it, I began emulating Miriam’s servant leadership by giving him the tools for success. I started my position in February and the golf tournament was held in July. While not a grand affair, Bill pointed out that the event was well attended and turned a profit its first summer, even though we had less than six months to organize it. He imagined what could happen with more time to plan. He convinced the rest of the board of directors to consider and approve a golf tournament for the next summer. Bill successfully tapped the board members for their community connections to support the next tournament. Both events raised net revenues for the foundation, increased visibility tremendously, and helped boost the reputations of their volunteer coordinators. I was able to work well with both Bill and Stephanie, carefully cultivating relationships with each. Stephanie needed someone to talk to, and both wanted to accomplish successes for the foundation. As I became more comfortable with these tasks, Miriam and I began discussing new projects. An endowment that she had begun was growing, and nearly two years after its establishment it was large enough to talk to investment advisors about how to invest the corpus. An ad hoc endowment committee was created, and someone was needed to staff it. I expressed the belief to Miriam that investments should be screened for health concerns, since the foundation represented a health care facility. Miriam asked me to develop a proposal and present it to the committee. With her guidance, I presented a convincing investment argument, supported strongly by the board’s two financial experts – Bill and the Treasurer, Laurie. Laurie began pushing for a more active planned giving program to increase the endowment even further. Miriam had not been able to find time for proper follow-up with attendees of the estate planning seminar. Laurie thought there might be a quicker way to add supporters. She was a certified public accountant (CPA), one of only two in the county’s largest town. Laurie had clients who frequently asked her advice on investing their assets. She knew who among her clients could use the tax benefits of planned gifts, and which clients were interested in supporting the hospital but needed someone else to talk with interested clients about giving to the foundation. While Miriam’s responsibilities did not allow the time (and in some cases, patience) to take the lead staff role for a more robust planned giving program, she supported Laurie’s proposal. It became my responsibility to discuss planned giving with prospective contributors. Laurie would frequently get severe migraine headaches that would keep her from work for days at a time and impact her ability to strategize the planned giving program. After getting to know Laurie I realized that she preferred to keep
Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader 183 busy during her migraines. Miriam was concerned about Laurie’s health, and helped guide me to find a balance that would not pressure Laurie. As my supervisor, Miriam, of course, wanted to know the progress of these activities. Unless I asked her for specific help, she trusted me to coordinate the projects assigned to me and to be sure I had what was needed to succeed. Still, it was common for us both to be working with many of the same volunteers and prospective supporters, so we had a need to coordinate activities and contributor relationships. Miriam expected me to report to her (so she could report to her supervisors) and always kept me updated on her activities. We communicated frequently and bounced suggestions off each other. Miriam helped me learn to speak up when I had knowledge about something that impacted our work, always telling me whether I was doing a good job. Miriam and her husband were going through a property boundary dispute with the board of their homeowners’ association, which began taking her time away from work to negotiate and attend depositions and court hearings. This was taking an emotional toll on her. I was a single parent at the time and found myself taking time off during regular working hours as well. I would often leave work early on weekdays, but was always willing to work late on days my child was with his mother, including most weekends. This scheduling flexibility was frustrating to Miriam, yet she admitted I got the work done, and usually more than expected. After working for a year and a half together, Miriam retired from the foundation. She held an exit interview with me, her employee, which is quite unusual and impressed me very much. It is not uncommon to conduct exit interviews of staff when they take positions elsewhere, supervisors rarely take the time to have an exit interview with their staff when they leave. The first thing she said in the interview was that she wished she had held me to regular hours. My response was that I would not have been able to focus on the job as well if I was concerned with my child’s care, and compared it to her situation with the property boundary dispute; if she had not been able to take time off needed to attend hearings, she could not have focused on her job as well. She admitted that was a good point, demonstrating her flexibility to help staff do their best work. The Transition from Servant Leadership to Authoritarian Leadership Miriam’s replacement, Graham, was not so supportive of staff or volunteers. This was Graham’s first executive director position and he was very interested in establishing a name for himself. Graham distrusted the abilities of others. He wanted to direct the activities of the guilds himself, for example, ignoring the institutionalized knowledge, community goodwill they had developed, and their deep roots in the community. The guilds, which for many years enjoyed autonomy, only reluctantly worked with him when Bob threatened to evict their gift shop from the hospital. Graham constantly pushed the thrift store manager to increase sales. She, in turn, made it clear to Graham that his knowledge of retail was limited. Graham also set to undermining my work, criticizing it at every opportunity, particularly
184 Terry Fernsler with his supervisor, Bob. Since I had developed a trusted relationship with the Foundation Board of Directors and other volunteers, he saw me as a threat to his authority. Graham presented himself as egoistical and few hospital staff liked him or, for that matter, asked him for fundraising assistance. The oncology department and the hospital chef, for example, approached me for assistance in writing grants, both refusing to work with Graham. As Graham began to sense their distrust, he developed a group-think attitude (Janis, 1971), listening only to his supervisor for advice. Unfortunately, since Graham attacked my work, I was not inclined to serve as a positive spokesperson for him as I had with Miriam. Instead of seeking to resolve this so we would make a strong team, he imposed his authority even more assertively. Graham equated fundraising with events. Certainly, events create goodwill and increase recognition among the public toward the hospital, making them important components in the foundation’s development strategies. Graham wanted me to drop the planned giving program and focus entirely on the two events, the festival of trees and golf tournament. However, events are one of the least costefficient means of fundraising with high labor and up-front costs. Any nonprofit organization should have a diverse set of fundraising activities. I demonstrated this with a table similar to Table 4. A supporting organization whose primary function is the raising of funds for another nonprofit would reasonably include prospecting activities, such as events, but it should also include low-cost fundraising activities (Fischer, Wilsker, & Young, 2011) such as a planned giving program (Table 4). I reminded Graham that the larger of the events, the festival of trees, netted about $100,000 the previous year, requiring over 2,000 person-hours (staff and volunteer). The planned giving program netted $800,000 in gifts, requiring only 40 person-hours from two people. The low number of hours did not impress Table 4. Reasonable Cost Guidelines for Solicitation Activities. Solicitation Activity Reasonable Cost Guidelines Direct mail (acquisition) $1.25 to $1.50 per $1.00 raised Direct mail (renewal) $0.20 to $0.25 per $1.00 raised Membership programs $0.20 to $0.30 per $1.00 raised Benefit eventsa $0.50 per $1.00 raiseda Donor clubs/support groups $0.20 to $0.30 per $1.00 raised Volunteer-led solicitations $0.10 to $0.20 per $1.00 raised Corporate solicitations $0.20 per $1.00 raised Foundation solicitations $0.20 per $1.00 raised Capital campaigns $0.10 to $0.20 per $1.00 raised Planned giving programs $0.20 to $0.30 per $1.00 raised Source: Greenfield (2011). a Gross revenue and direct costs only.
Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader 185 him because the planned gifts would not be realized in the short term. However, pressure from Laurie and the board of directors convinced Graham to continue the planned giving program. Laurie’s insistence made her an adversary in Graham’s eyes, and he set to discrediting her at every opportunity, exploiting her illness by complaining and questioning her commitment when she could not attend meetings and appointments. His tactic ultimately backfired because he did not realize the forgiving nature of the Foundation Board of Directors and the community toward Laurie, who they saw as one of their own. Even people who were sometimes at odds with each other allied to question Graham’s style. Stephanie flatly refused to work with Graham, insisting instead to work with me on the festival of trees. She cited Graham’s inability to work with volunteers (on whom the festival relied tremendously), an apparent lack of knowledge of festivals of trees and certainly the history of her successful festival, and, most importantly, his ego – he was the fundraising authority in his mind and he made that clear to others. The guilds and the hospital staff seeking grants supported Stephanie; even Laurie and the hospital chef, who had previously taken pains to avoid Stephanie because she could be blunt, backed her up. Graham was not supportive of foundation board members’ ideas either, which led to one of the board members to run for election to one of the three public hospital district commissioner positions in order to have more voice with the hospital administrator. The hospital was the anchor institution for a public hospital district, governed by three elected commissioners. The foundation board member who ran for Hospital Commissioner used his community connections and the foundation’s growing reputation to handily win election, much to Graham’s chagrin. Of course, in public, Graham praised the victory, and was quite the sycophant to the newly elected commissioner (but still not the rest of the Foundation board). The Hospital Commissioners subsequently became much more comfortable confronting Graham and Bob’s decision to hire him. The only reason Graham kept his job was because of the unquestioning support Bob gave to top staff, a position Graham had insisted on upon being hired. When Stephanie reported to Bob that she saw Graham take a full case of wine intended for the Festival of Trees for himself, Bob strongly supported Graham and urged Stephanie to learn to work with him better or be replaced as the festival of trees event chair. It was not clear, of course, who could replace her. Graham continued his criticism of me to Bob (but not to me). No longerfeeling supported, I looked for work elsewhere and found it quickly. I gave two weeks’ notice, but the very next day, Graham arranged to immediately compensate me for pay accrued and a two-week advance. He told me to go home and not return for my remaining two weeks. Graham did not replace me for over a year, preferring to manage my responsibilities himself, along with his own. Leadership Lessons Individuals. Effective leaders make time to reflect on how their behavior affects the organization’s vision, strategy, operations, and performance (Schon, 1984). Then they can be a catalyst for change through symbolism and modeling behavior.
186 Terry Fernsler Miriam, as the founder of the organization, had the advantage of establishing an organizational culture that fit well with her personality of serving as a catalyst for community participation. While new to the community when she started the foundation, Miriam had already established herself as a part of it and understood the local culture. As suggested by McKnight and Block (2010), she made time to reflect on what would work best in the community and how she could best use her own assets, sometimes going beyond her comfort zone. She encouraged others, such as Stephanie and me, to develop our assets as well. Authoritarian leaders such as Graham feel a need to control team members rather than coach them to achieve (White & Lippitt, 1968). They perceive others as followers needing direction rather than as team members, emphasizing that they are in charge. They determine the tasks of followers and remain distant from group discussion about the most effective ways to perform the tasks. Authority figures have low tolerance for ambiguity, confuse their authority with ability, and often do not feel they need others. Ironically, by regarding trust as a sign of weakness, they lose authority. Leaders who rely on an authoritarian style may eventually use influence, power, and control for their own gain to hide their incompetence in participatory situations (Northouse, 2018). They are unwilling to change their mind, even when it becomes very clear that this path escalates commitment to a failing course of action. They denounce and punish anyone who dares propose an alternative course of action (Gabriel, 2011). They do not have the confidence that others will follow them unless they exercise coercive power indiscriminately (Wong & Page, 2003). Like authoritarian leadership, servant leadership can be leader-centric – the leader is regarded as the authority in decision-making. However, Miriam’s servant leadership emphasized attentiveness to team members’ personal assets and the nurturing of members’ abilities to achieve organizational goals (Greenleaf, 1970). Miriam empowered volunteers and staff because she acknowledged that people want voice. Her influence allowed her to develop an organizational culture that reflected her servant leadership style, her way of carefully thinking through decisions, and working together. In such a participatory culture, where communication skills, advice from specialists, and motivation of team members are valued (power with); the power over approach used by authoritarian leaders exacerbates incompetence. Graham, as someone not inclined toward reflection, was unable to adapt to the culture or change it over time. He was accustomed to being in control and misunderstood how to lead multiple stakeholders. He moved too quickly to try to consolidate his power at the cost of motivated, competent volunteers and staff. Groups. Miriam led the development of an organizational culture of servant leadership, characterized by listening, empathy, holism, awareness, nonjudgmental persuasion, vision, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and community building (Spears, 2002). It was clear to all stakeholders that Miriam supported stakeholder-driven initiatives such as the festival of trees and golf tournament. The culture involved coaching volunteers when necessary, and Miriam expected staff to do the same. This is the culture to which the stakeholders became accustomed.
Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader 187 When groups become accustomed to shared responsibilities, coercive power (power over), will meet with resistance (Northouse, 2018). Authoritarian leadership does have its place; it can be efficient and productive in circumstances in which clarity of the work and goals are needed. However, it also fosters dependence, submissiveness, and loss of individuality. Much of a group’s identity becomes entwined with the authority of the leader. When that happens, any shortcomings are blamed on the leader. When insecure about their ability, authoritarian leaders typically revert to increasing coercive power, especially if power derives from legitimate power or the position. Hurley and Ryman (2003) found that team members under authoritarian leaders feel untrusted and devalued. This disempowers employees and stifles creativity, often resulting in discontent, hostility, or even aggression. Graham did indeed seem to distrust the ideas of others. He was unwilling to cope with the health issues of Laurie. He wanted to turn the guilds into something they were not. He alienated Stephanie who became less willing to cooperate. Graham did not even replace me when I left, preferring to try to carry on my work himself. In return he was not able to motivate staff and volunteers to strive for improvement. Bob, while supportive of both Miriam and Graham, as he believed he should be of his management team, regarded only upper management as part of his team, not the lower-level staff and volunteers. Bob selected Graham because his résumé looked good without considering the needs and desires of key stakeholders. However, Graham tried to instill autocratic control in a shared leadership environment. He was incompetent in the role and overcompensated by exerting more authority over the team, apparently trying to please, and perhaps emulate, only Bob, rather than considering multiple stakeholders as part of the team. Organizations. The credibility of the foundation suffered as a result, not only among volunteers and hospital staff, but, as they talked within the community, publically as well. Schein (2017) indicates that organizational culture change requires a period of unlearning that is psychologically painful. When the authoritarian leader is interested in self-promotion clarity may become a casualty as the organization attempts this unlearning process. Organizational change can be accomplished by eliminating those who carry all the old cultural elements, but in a small community replacing them with people who are better able to adapt to the new style can be difficult. Graham’s attempts to reduce Laurie’s responsibilities, for example, backfired when hospital staff, community members, and even one of the foundation board members resisted. Nonprofit organizations are created to bring people together to accomplish what they cannot alone. Authoritarian leadership can be counterproductive if nonprofit stakeholders are not motivated, or are even demotivated to participate. Many times people new to nonprofit organizations are more familiar with a culture of efficiency and think a nonprofit organizational culture can be molded into an efficient leadership (Beck, Lengnick-Hall, & Lengnick-Hall, 2008). Effective nonprofit leaders, like Miriam, know to be much more cooperative-minded and relationship-based, empowering team members. They are asking for and accept help. Certainly, as this case demonstrates, organizational culture is an important consideration for an effective leadership transition and organizational
188 Terry Fernsler sustainability. Effective leaders learn and adapt to their environments so they can exercise influence. If a different leadership style or an organizational change is desired, planning can facilitate bringing team members along (Tebbe, 2008). Organizational culture will not change simply by appointing a leader with a different style. Conclusion The Founding Executive Director of a nonprofit is in an enviable position of establishing organizational culture. Miriam’s professional style instilled a servant leadership model that stakeholders readily accepted. The model included them as valued participants in raising support for a treasured community organization. Miriam’s replacement upon her retirement had a different leadership style. New leaders can sometimes successfully change the organizational culture to fit their style, but they must begin from within the existing culture, plan, and reflect (Schein, 2017). Graham was not comfortable with a shared or participatory leadership style and was not interested in reflection, only in giving direction. Nonprofit organizations have multiple stakeholders who have varying degrees of influence. Relationships in such mission-driven organizations are more important than authority. This is why an aphorism, inaccurately attributed to the late management expert Peter Drucker, is widely used in nonprofit organizations: culture eats structure for breakfast, not even waiting for lunch. In multistakeholder organizations, if culture changes it does so gradually. Leaders must recognize this and be very flexible. When a dramatic change is desired, communication must be transparent and honest. Replacing or retraining team members who have institutional knowledge and the ability to nurture relationships will be time consuming and costly. This means learning to understand oneself and the team members, being aware of one’s emotional intelligence, and learning what motivates different team members. Most team members seek fulfillment through work (McGregor, 1960). Graham was not used to operating outside his comfort zone, and saw anyone who questioned his methods as a rival. It resulted in the need for emotional healing in the organization, distracting it from a focus on results. References Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2008). Solutions out of context: Examining the transfer of business concepts to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 153–171. Fischer, R. L., Wilsker, A., & Young, D. R. (2011). Exploring the revenue mix of nonprofit organizations: Does it relate to publicness? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 662–681. Gabriel, Y. (2011). Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership. In A. Bryman (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 393–405). London: Sage. Greenfield, J. M. (2011). Budgeting for fundraising and evaluating performance. In E. R. Tempel, T. L. Seiler, & E. E. Aldrich (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (p. 353). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Incompetent Authoritarian Replaces a Servant Leader 189 Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Hurley, R., & Ryman, J. (2003). Making the transition from micromanager to leader. Fordham University, 113, 2–9. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43–46. McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X and theory Y. Organization theory. 358, 374. McKnight, J., & Block, P. (2010). The abundant community: Awakening the power of families and neighborhoods. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Northouse, P. P. (2018). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 5). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Schon, D. A. (1986). Leadership as reflection-in-action. In T. J. Sergiovani & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and practice (pp. 36–63). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Spears, L. C. (2002) Tracing the past, present, and future of servant leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Tebbe, D. (2008). Chief executive transitions: How to hire and support a nonprofit CEO. Washington, DC: BoardSource. White, R., & Lippitt, R. (1968). Leader behavior and member reaction in three “social climates.” In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory. (pp. 318-323). New York: Harper & Rowe. Wong, P. T., & Page, D. (2003, August). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. In Proceedings of the servant leadership research roundtable (pp. 1–11). Retrieved from: https://www.meaning.ca/archives/ archive/pdfs/WongServantLeadership.pdf
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix: Interview Protocol – Toxic Leadership Study For the questions that follow, you may consider your current manager or a past manager. Question 1: Think of your expectations and feelings when you first started working on that person. How much of yourself were you willing to bring to work? Try to recall your feelings and experiences during that time. Question 2: Over time, how did your manager’s behaviors either sustain or hinder your willingness to “bring your whole self” to work? In general, think of examples of “engaging” and “disengaging” behaviors. Question 3: Next, we will review some components of “toxic leadership” (Schmidt, 2014). We will explore the impact of toxic and non-toxic behaviors on your own experiences at work. For each question, think of the impact of the manager’s behaviors (toxic or non-toxic) on you and your engagement. Question 3a. Did your manager ever engage in self-promotion? If so, please explain what he/she did. Please be specific (use examples). If not, please explain how the manager refrained from promoting self. What impact did the manager’s behaviors have on you and your engagement at work? Question 3b. Did your manager ever engage in abusive behaviors? If so, please explain what he/she did. Once again, please be specific. If not, please explain how the manager dealt with situations in which he or she did not agree with something that was done (e.g., when he/she was frustrated with the results of a project or when someone made a mistake). What impact did the manager’s behaviors have on you and your engagement at work? Question 3c. How well did your manager control his or her emotions? Please provide examples in which the person either controlled his/her emotions well or did not. What impact did the manager’s behaviors have on you and your engagement at work? Question 3d. Did your manager ever exhibit narcissistic behaviors? Examples of narcissistic behaviors at work include showing a sense of entitlement and demonstrating through verbal or non-verbal behaviors that the person thinks he/she is “better” than others. If not, please explain how the manager demonstrated through verbal or non-verbal communication or actions that everyone was worthy and that he/she was no better than anyone else. What impact did the manager’s behaviors have on you and your engagement at work? Question 3e. Did your manager exhibit authoritarian behaviors? Examples of authoritarian behaviors include inflexibility in decision-making, trying to make all decisions (regardless of their importance) and excessive control of the employees’ work. If not, please explain how the manager refrained from exercising unreasonable control. What impact did the manager’s behaviors have on you and your engagement at work?
192 Appendix: Interview Protocol – Toxic Leadership Study Question 4: Is there any question I should have asked that I did not ask? Anything else you would like to share? Question 5: Would you like to see a transcript of our interview? If so, where should I send the transcript? Question 6: Would you like to see the results of our study? If so, where should I send the results? Reference Schmidt, A. (2014). An examination of toxic leadership, job outcomes, and the impact of military deployment [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland]. DRUM. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/15250
Accountability, 122, 129, 135, 163 individual, 163 manager, 77 Actions, 162 Adaptive selling behavior, 82, 84, 86 “Alpha-male wins all” culture, 169 Ambition, 94–95, 170 Appreciative inquiry, 25–26 Arrogance, 2, 19, 133, 172, 174–175 level of, 170 organizational, 174 Authentic and unique expression, 34 Authentic leadership, 65, 81, 176 Authoritarian leadership, 94, 186–187 servant leadership to, 183–185 Authoritative leadership, 50, 55 Authoritative micro-management, 50, 52 Autocratic leadership (see also Crisis leadership) adaptive selling behavior, 86 group level, 88 individual level, 87 leadership failure factor, 82–85 leadership lesson, 88 organization level, 88 SOCO, 85–86 unethical selling, 86–87 Availability, 5–6 “Before and After” theme, 7–9 Board of Directors, 56, 114–115, 118, 128–130, 132–135, 181–182, 185 C.A.R.E paradigm, 30 Causal attribution, 72, 74, 77 Certified public accountant (CPA), 182 Change management, 148–149 Charismatic leadership, 132–133 Chiefs of party, 101 Collapse, 169, 171–172 Combative corporate culture, 169–170 Communication breakdowns, 32–33 Conducive environment, 121–122 Conflict escalation, 162–163 Conflict styles of executive team, 163 Confrontation, 161 Contracting officer representative, 92–101 Corporate lifecycle, 175 Courage, 22, 24, 101, 163, 176 Crises, 59 aftermath, 62–63 contextual background, 60 incidents, 60–62 leadership lessons, 63–67 Crisis leadership assessment, 65 evaluation, 66 failures in, 59 and management, 60 Cultivation, 35 Customer orientation, 83, 85–89 Customer-oriented behavior, 82, 84–85 Debates and Polemics, 162 Decisions, 13, 54–56, 59, 63–65, 148–149, 151, 170–171 evidence-based, 93 strategic, 140 Define, discover, dream, design, and deliver (five D’s), 26 Destructive leader(ship), 114, 119–120 Development Director, 129–131 Index
194 Index Disillusionment, 170–171 Diversity taskforce, 36 Dysfunctional leadership, 50 Effective leadership, 21, 24, 55, 91–92, 148, 164, 187 Emotional intelligence (EI), 18–20, 92, 97, 173 Emotional task, 99 Empathy, 19, 97, 114, 173, 186 Employee engagement, 1, 4–6, 14, 141 Employees, 5–6, 9, 11–13, 75–76, 113–115, 118, 120, 122, 124 Engagement, 4–6 community, 180 employee, 1, 4–6, 14, 141 personal engagement opportunities, 34 Entrepreneurial founders, 172, 175 Erosion of psychological safety, 105–106 Ethical leadership, 47, 64, 72 employees, 75–76 groups and teams, 77 managers, 76–77 organizations, 77–78 performance appraisal, 75–78 Ethical responsibility, 53 Executive Director, 50–53, 55–56, 62, 128–129, 132, 179–180, 183 Faith component, 118–122 Faith-based nonprofit, 114, 120, 124 First impression, 72, 75, 77, 133, 154 Followers, 4–5, 9, 13–14, 20, 24, 46–47, 54–55, 65–66, 110, 116, 119, 164, 186 Followership, 1, 47 Founder, 20, 134, 136, 175, 180, 186 authority, 136 succession, 170–171 Founder’s syndrome, 128 lessons, 132–135 organization, 128–129 organizational growth, 129–132 Fragmentation of The Enemy, 163 Freshness, 74 Funding for professional leadership growth opportunities, 36 Fundraising model, 131 Future-proofing, 140, 143 Governance Committee, 115 Group lessons, 123–124, 163 Groups, 77, 109, 186 Growth, 170 Habitat for Humanity International, 128–129 Habits of unsuccessful leaders, 172–176 Hardening, 162 Head of Products, 161–163 Humane management, 144 Images and Coalitions, 162 Individual lessons, 124, 161–163 Initiation, 35 Intellectual growth, provide opportunities for, 33–34 Intergroup dynamics, 5 Interpersonal relationships, 5 Intrinsic motivation, 142, 144 Knowledge of self, 20–21 Laissez-faire approach, 180 Leader Member Exchange theory (LMX), 24, 65–66 Leader(s), 13, 20, 123, 186, 188 deconstructing with theory, 19–26 efforts, 5 invest in building organizational coalitions, 25–26 invest in others and understand systems, 21–25 invest in self knowledge, 18 manipulation, 45–46 Leadership, 4, 148 authoritative leadership, 55
Index 195 challenge and failure, 94–96 combining transformational and situational leadership styles, 54–55 ethical responsibility, 53 failure factor, 82–85 failures in, 160–161 lessons, 13, 108–110, 172–176, 185–188 micro-management, 55–56 organizational culture, 54 personal lesson in, 52 shadows, 92, 97 Leading by example, 164 Leading oneself, 92 deconstruction of experience and leadership lessons, 96–101 group level, 98–99 individual level, 96–98 key individuals, 94 leadership challenge and failure, 94–96 organization level, 99–101 Learning organization, 144 Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), 104–110 Limited Destructive Blows, 162 Loss of Face, 162 Management, 5–6 micro-management, 55 performance appraisal, 75 professional, 175 relationship, 19 self-management, 19 Managers, 4–5, 13, 42, 72, 76–78, 85, 87, 172 department, 52 micro-managers, 55 mid-level, 50–51 Manipulative mentors, 33 Marketing, 161–163 corporate, 44 manager, 32 quarterly marketing campaigns, 42 strategy, 82 McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, 143–144 Meaningful tasks, 5 Medium College USA, 73 Mentoring, 30, 33, 35 Amanda Ticker story, 31–32 communication breakdowns, 32–33 Imonee Brinkley story, 30–31 recommendations for groups, 35–36 recommendations for organizations, 33–35 Micro-management, 51, 55–56 Millennials, 30, 33–36 Mistakes, performance appraisal, 72–75 Motivation, 5, 10, 47, 54, 56, 82, 97 intrinsic over extrinsic, 141 lack of, 155 of team members, 186 Multi-dimensional wellness, 20 Multi-tier feedback from company leaders, 36 Narcissism, 2, 4, 114, 119, 124 Narcissist leader (NL), 114 analysis of toxic triangle and faith component, 118–122 lessons learning, 122–124 recruitment issues, 114–115 trajectory of Devon’s governance, 115–118 Narcissists, 114, 119, 122–124 Next generation leaders, 36 Nightmare theme, 9–11 Non-profit organizations, 53–54 Nonprofit Boards of directors, 135 Nonprofit stakeholders, 135, 187 Objectivism, lack of, 73 Organizational arrogance, 174 Organizational culture, 54, 66–67, 87, 147–148, 152, 180 Organizational failure, unhealthy values and behaviors lead to, 173–174
196 Index Organizational growth, 75, 129–132 Organizational leaders, 59, 64, 66–67, 111 Organizational lessons, 122–123, 163–164 Organizational norms, 5–6 Organizational politics, 21, 23–24, 152 Organizational psychology, 144 Organizational silence, 114, 116, 122, 124 Organizations, 1, 13, 77–78, 128–129 engaged, 4 learning, 144 needle, 34 nonprofit, 53–54, 134 recommendations for, 33–35 Peer mentors, 35 Pennsylvania State University (Penn State University), 60 Performance appraisal, 71–72 ethical leadership, 75–78 Medium College USA, 73 mistakes, 72–75 Small College USA, 72 Personal engagement opportunities, 34 Personal growth, 33 Personal leadership lesson, 26 Pharmaceutical industry, 81–82, 84–85 Political action committee (PAC), 176 Pretender theme, 11–12 Product managers (PMs), 41–42 Professional Development (PD), 35, 117, 153 Program manager, 93–96, 98–100 Protégé, 31–35 Psychological maturity, 121 Psychological safety aftermath, 108 devastation, 107–108 early months, 104–106 erosion of, 105–106 leadership lessons, 108–110 Psychosocial process, 151 Redefinition, 35 Region-Wide Team (RWT), 116–117, 120–121 Relational aggression, 21, 23–24 Relational leadership, 21, 24–25 Religious organizations, 114 Research & development group (R&D group), 140–141 inflection point, 142–143 interpretation and implications, 143–144 story, 140–144 Resignation, 52, 62, 118, 171–172 Risk-taking, 171–175 Road-Trip, 171–172 Runaround theme, 12 Safety, 5 experiencing, 5 psychological, 104–109 Salespersons, 83, 85–88 Search Committee, 115, 123, 150, 154 Self-awareness, 13, 65, 97 lack of, 19 leadership learning lessons, 18 Self-betrayal, 1, 92, 98 Self-esteem needs, 121 Self-regulation, 92, 97–98 Selling Orientation–Customer Orientation (SOCO), 85–86 Selling-oriented behavior, 82, 83–84 Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO), 148–154 Separation, 35 Servant leadership, 180 (see also Ethical leadership) to authoritarian leadership, 183–185 failures in leadership, 160–161 group lessons, 163 individual lessons, 161–163 leadership lessons, 185–188 Miriam, 180–183 organizational lessons, 163–164 story, 157–160
Index 197 Shared leadership, 148, 187 Situational leadership styles, 54–55 Small College USA, 72 Social skills, 97 Stakeholders, 26, 36, 129, 135 external and internal, 25–26 nonprofit, 135, 187 Strategies of Threats, 162 Succession, 134, 170, 173, 175 Supervision, 114, 148, 151 Supervisors, 1, 75–76, 151–152 Susceptible followers, 120–121 Systems, 13, 23, 175 Team leadership, 147, 149 experiences, 152–153 individuals, 151–152 organization, 153–154 timeline, 149–151 Teams, 12, 21, 34, 75, 77, 181 “Theory X” of management, 143–144 “Theory Y” of management, 143–144 Together Into The Abyss, 163 Toxic followership, 47 big reveal, 44 challenge, 42–43 followers, 46 leader manipulation, 45–46 presentation day, 43–44 truth, 44–45 Toxic leaders, 4–6, 13 Toxic leadership, 4–5, 47, 105–107, 110 data analysis, 7 leadership lessons, 13 participant selection, 6 results, 7–12 subjectivities, 6–7 themes, 8 Toxic moments, 13 Toxic triangle, 114 analysis of, 118–122 Transformational leadership styles, 54–55 Transparency, 86, 135 Trust, 20, 23–24, 37, 45–46, 84, 87, 117, 148 Unethical selling behavior, 82, 84, 86–87 United States (US), 92 agency, 93, 100 projects, 92 Voluntarism, 131–132 Wellness, 18–21 When Leadership Fails, 1–2 Work-life balance, 34–35 Workplace, 46, 168–169 bullying, 174–175 experiences, 1