Leadership, in and of itself, is not necessarily good. There is such a thing as bad leadership. In order to truly develop a philosophy of leadership, this must be recognized: “To deny bad leadership equivalence in the conversation and curriculum [of the leadership industry] is misguided, tantamount to a medical school that would claim to teach health while ignoring disease,” says Barbara Kellerman.
Having determined that bad leaders and bad followers exist, Kellerman begins her analysis of bad leadership. “Bad leadership falls into two categories: bad as in ineffective and bad as in unethical.” The first category of bad leadership – ineffective leadership – “fails to produce the desired change. For reasons that include missing traits, weak skills, strategies badly conceived, and tactics badly employed, ineffective leadership falls short of its intention”. The second category – unethical leadership – “fails to distinguish between right and wrong”.
Bad leaders are bad because they are either ineffective or unethical – or both. Therefore, “Ideal leaders and followers are, at the same time, effective and ethical”. However, because leaders can fail in only one area, “it’s possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously effective and unethical. And it’s also possible for leaders, and followers, to be simultaneously ethical and ineffective”.
How is Saddam Hussein like Tony Blair? George Bush like Idi Amin? Or Nelson Mandela like Robert Mugabe? Answer: They are, or were, leaders. Many would argue that tyrants, corrupt CEOs, and other abusers of power and authority are not leaders at all–at least not as the word is currently used. But, according to Barbara Kellerman, this assumption is dangerously naive. A provocative departure from conventional thinking, Bad Leadership compels us to see leadership in its entirety. Kellerman argues that the dark side of leadership–from rigidity and callousness to corruption and cruelty–is not an aberration. Good leaders may also exhibit bad leadership traits every now and then. But if a leader consistently exhibit bad traits, then you better do something about it because the ‘organisation’ may suffer because of such a leader. That is precisely what we are seeing in Egypt, the people are doing something about their ‘organisation’ (their country).
When a health care provider or an attorney is negligent to an extent that deviates from accepted standards of professional practice, and when this negligence causes injury, there can be consequences. He or she can be sued for malpractice. Accountants and investment advisors can also be sued for malpractice, as can other professionals now held to a standard expected on the basis of their training and expertise. In light of this recent history, there is no reason to exempt leaders, people in positions of authority, from analogous accountability.
Leaders today are no better and no worse than before. It's the nature of the human condition to have some superiors who are incompetent, callous, corrupt, or even evil. However, what has changed is the level of information. In the past leaders were remote from their followers - what exactly the former did for, or to, the latter was largely unknown. But in the 21st century information is copious and widely dispersed. As a result we can assess how leaders perform, especially those who are the most visible, at the top, either in business or government.
Some bad leaders remain elusive and outside the realm of malpractice. Moreover a distinction must be made between leaders who are elected and can be voted out of office, censured, or impeached, and those who are appointed. It is leaders who are appointed, especially in business, who tend to escape accountability, no matter the level of their performance. Leadership malpractice, then, should be applicable to people in positions of authority who are (or were) in some obvious way woefully bad, but who are not subject to meaningful checks and balances. Some executives are of course held accountable for poor performance: they are sued for breach of fiduciary duty. But most are not. Nor does this kind of arcane legal exercise constitute a simple signal that leaders who fall far short are subject to being punished.
Bad leaders, especially the really bad ones, do not wake up one fine morning, see the light, and on their own volition reform. Not on your life. In fact, history teaches just the opposite. The worse leaders are, and the more deeply embedded they are, the more willing and able they are to defy their enemies and squelch the opposition. What, then, is to be done? Are we destined, doomed to be bystanders? Are we destined, doomed, even when faced with the worst of the worst, to being ineffectual altogether? Or are there some things that can and should be done, some things that we, as followers, can and should do to stop or, at least, to slow, bad leadership? The pesky problem of leadership persists and we ought to stem it out.
1 comments: