Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Leadership derailment (Personality factors (Abrams and Higg (1988)…
Leadership derailment
Personality factors
- Abrams and Higg (1988) destructive leaders more likely to abuse their power, over exert their control, purposefully harm others and break rules to fulfil their own needs
- Judge et al. (2009) positive characteristics can contribute to managerial success, but attributes such as arrogance, volatility and distrust lead to failure
Many studies that have identified certain ‘dark traits’ of personality that are predictive of leadership derailment → if leaders are extreme on either side of the trait spectrum, they are more likely to fail
- high conscientiousness lead to rigidity and perfectionism (OCD behaviours interfere with task completion because overly strict towards task), whilst low scores lead to irresponsible and reckless behaviour
- high extraversion are correlated with histrionic behaviours (excessive emotionality and attention seeking), whilst low scores lead to social withdrawal, detachment and avoidance
Hogan and Hogan (1997) invented the Hogan Developmental Survey (HDS) using DSM-IV Axis of personality disorders as a guide to look at how dysfunctional dispositions (which coexist with talent and good social skills) can predict likelihood of leadership derailment → has been shown to be a valid and reliable inventory
- Hogan and Hogan (2001) found that individuals who score high on the ‘bold’ dimension (correlates with narcissism from DSM-IV) have higher tendency to be unusually confident and to overestimate their work performance and underestimate workplace deviance. These individuals do not learn from the mistakes = once they have made the wrong decision their action impact negatively on the organisation
- Personality disorders associated with derailment/worse organisation outcomes: Moscoso & Salgado (2004) individuals with personality disorders are more likely to fail- negatively correlated with positive organisational outcomes; antisocial personality disorder r=-.27, paranoid personality disorder r=-.33, and schizotypal personality disorder r=-.45
Not always that dark traits are disadvantageous, may be beneficial in certain occupations
- High conscientiousness associated with OCD, which may be beneficial for some jobs such as health and safety where it is desirable to be concerned with perfectionism; Mischievous individuals are cunning but charming = likely to succeed in sales as its associated with ability to impress/win-over consumers (Furnham et al. 2012)
- Judge and LePine (2007) narcissistic individuals perform better in situations involving negotiations and game-theoretic situations
= not just personality, may depend on situation
-
Selection factors
- That individual should never have been given that role, amount of power/responsibility
- Hiring/selecting-in = organisations have tendency when hiring to look for certain criteria that they think fits with the role
- BUT, its suggested that individuals should also search for criteria that would not be suitable for the role, and make sure candidates do not hold these qualities = Hiring/selecting-out
- Not done that often, and could be a reason for why leaders derail i.e. their negative qualities have been ignored and they are not effective in long run for that role – e.g. Innovative quality may be attractive but has potential to be unrealistic, impractical and waste time and money
- Common for individuals to be fast-tracked within organisations, gaining managerial positions early as it saves the company money by reducing hiring and training fees (McCall…) → BUT means some limitations of the individual may be overlooked initially as it is not a prominent factor for that role, yet can cause serious issues within the company when fast-tracked to role of higher responsibility – Kovach (1986)
- Sessa et al. (1998) reported that the best way to determine leadership potential of a candidate is to consult their previous manager- but hardly done in reality because of amount of time it takes
- Most individuals selected on basis of interviews, which are biased by many factors e.g. benefit people who can make a good first impression (e.g. charismatic, bold, charming, attractive)
- Gimso (2014) narcissists are attracted to leader positions and are good at impression management (e.g. extraverted and confident) and found that narcissism sig. influenced selection interviews where leader potential was evaluated
= only show true trait in long run, including unreasonable expectations from sense of entitlement, taking advantage of other to achieve their own needs and lack of empathy
Introduction
- Derailment is a problem, associated with less profitable companies: Hogan (2010) estimated cost of hiring a leader who will fail ranges from $500,000 to $2.7 million --> includes lost intellectual/social capital, disengaged employees and missed opportunities which contribute to financial cost
- but definition of fail changes with researcher i.e. some claim it is those who've led to bankruptcy, others those who've been fired
= understanding cause of derailment is necessary, has potential to initiate improved coaching techniques for managers at risk of derailing
- Leadership derailment refers to leaders that have been set in a particular direction (through success, achievement) but have deviated from this path and are unable to move forward (Furnham, 2010)
- Not extensively studied e.g. up to 2010, over 50,000 books published with leadership in the title but practically none regarding leadership failure (Furnham, 2010) --> why its been referred to as "the elephant in the boardroom", people don't want to answer it
How to stop derailment
May not be anything to do to change a leaders personality, yet organisations can take steps to avoid derailment
- Hiring/selection methods: should look for negative as well as positive attributes → could be done using biodata methods to look at individuals past in more detail (avoid interview effects)
- Giving leaders coaching can reduce changes of destructive leadership – Peterson et al. (1983) executive coaching provides tools, knowledge and opportunities for leaders to become more efficient.
Thomas (2010) leaders can be given plans to follow which can minimize chances of derailment by reducing negative personality behaviours
Give leaders feedback on their performance gives explicit knowledge of their failings leading to changing leadership style – Furnham (2010) good leaders actively seek feedback from honest colleagues