The “dark side” of leadership is a big topic in the study of Organizational Behavior

The “dark side” of leadership is a big topic in the study of Organizational Behavior (the study of psychological aspects of behavior at work). Within this discipline the ‘dark side’ is defined by Griffin and O’Leary-Kelly (2004) as motivated behavior by a leader that ultimately has destructive consequences for an individual, team, organization, or even a larger society. With motivated behavior is meant that there is an intention or awareness on the part of the leader of the potential ramifications of his/her behavior. It happens when a leader starts to further their own self-interested agenda (money, careerism, fame, power) rather than the goals and inherent purposes of the organization. Examples of this are abusive supervision (verbal or physical mistreatment of their subordinates), leaders encouraging followers to pursue goals that contravene the legitimate interests of the organization (e.g., sabotage), leader narcissism (self-centeredness, seeking admiration and lacking empathy), manipulative leaders (so-called Machiavellians) who are prepared to use others as a means to their own ends, and – more broadly – a leader who employs a leadership style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers, regardless of justifications for such behavior.

The Dark Triad. In the literature, such behaviors are often linked via a constellation of anti-social leader traits that are called the “Dark Triad”, consisting of narcissism (self-grandiosity), Machiavellianism (manipulating others to one’s own ends), and non-clinical psychopathy (an anti-social characteristic). Some psychologists are even arguing to add ‘sadism’ to this mix as well (which is visible in leadership exercised by terrorist organizations), but this is not universally accepted. Such leadership has destructive consequences for individual followers (e.g., feelings of exploitation, and emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction and commitment). It also has a destructive impact on organizations (e.g.,  eroded trust, lower morale, increased workplace conflict, decreased productivity, team cohesion, and psychological safety, impaired decision-making, and toxic work cultures). This is why the ‘dark side’ of leadership has also been called ‘toxic’ leadership, as it impacts a group like a virus that spreads as a toxic fluid through as system.

It's complex…

An honest mistake, however, or an error or any area of incompetence on the part of a certain leader is not considered “dark”. For example, if a leader micromanages a subordinate, it is not necessarily a ‘dark’ behavior, it’s just a form of incompetence that the leader can learn to grow away from. Similarly, if an organization performs badly, it does not necessarily mean that its leadership was ‘dark’. And sometimes, leaders do things with ‘bad’ intentions (e.g., furthering only their own agendas), but performance does not immediately decline. Actually, even in academic discussions around leadership, this distinction is often blurred namely that actual behaviors, intentions behind behaviors, the competence with which the behaviors are executed, and the results that these behaviors have for followers and society are different things, but are often conflated, even by researchers who study leadership! This makes the topic a bit complex. What adds to the complexity is the problem that “dark” leadership is not immediately noticed when the justifications for certain behaviors are not immediately recognizable as “dark” or when certain results / products are culturally considered to be positive. History shows that horrible crimes are committed by people who misguidedly think they are doing “good” (e.g., crimes against the Jews in nazi Germany justified as a ‘solution’ for society and hate parades against Jews at college campuses). It is also known that followers can be misled into thinking that they are doing something ‘good’ from a narrow (i.e., local cultural) point of view, while from a broader point of view they are being exploited for un unethical agenda. For instance, leaders can promote followers to sell more cigarettes or vapes for a tobacco company, while downplaying the health risks. While this is good for the ‘organization’ is bad from a broader, ethical point of view. Another example is how students in Western college campuses are calling to ‘cancel’ ties with Israel, while they do not realize how such campaigns factually strengthens ‘dark’ leaders in Iran and Hamas to be less lenient in reaching a cease fire deal, bringing the humanitarian crisis in the region further (not closer) to a solution. It is also known from recent research that Narcissistic and Machiavellian leaders often go undetected, even if their behavior makes many of the followers who were in direct contact with them miserable. In outcome-driven and performance cultures, for instance, results count, not the method. In such environments, ‘dark’ leaders can thrive and even outmaneuver others in the quagmire of office politics. It is therefore, important to note that it matters in organizations what sort of behaviors are noticed (can you be a jerk to others?) and what sort of behavior is, in the end, rewarded. Given the complexity described above, it comes down to discernment of followers and those in charge of promotions, whether a certain leader is worth one’s energy, time and investment.

The Lure of the Serpent as prototypical dark leader

The Bible is actually quite vocal about ‘dark’ leadership. The first mention of dark leadership is the story of the serpent (Satan) in Genesis 3, who is described as the most ‘cunning’ of the field. You see how he misleads Eve to eat from the forbidden fruit. He twists the word of God by saying: “No, you will not die if you eat from that fruit, but God knows that as soon as you eat from that fruit your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil.” There is a lot to say about this verse, but in two sentences he sows doubt concerning plain facts, distrust in God’s authority and benevolence, and deception about the true consequences by mixing truth with untrue messages. This is exactly what happens in ‘dark’ leadership. It thrives on crafty frames and lack of discernment among receivers. The story then goes on in verse 6 by saying that Eve (as a potential ‘follower’) saw that the apple was ‘good’ to eat from. We already see that was is ‘good’ is being twisted as a result of the seed of deception that the serpent planted in Eve’s thoughts. The verse goes on to say that the fruit was a lust for the eye and desirable, in order to succeed / prosper / gain intelligence. We now see that the seed of deception about the framed ‘goodness’ of cause or product, combines with an inner followership motive to satisfy desired, to gain success, knowledge, to prosper in life. This intoxicating mix of messaging and inclination results in Eve eating the apple, her inviting Adam to do the same (i.e., spreading of toxic leadership through the network), and the rest is history. Worse still, since Eva and Adam ate the forbidden fruit, now everyone falls prey to the temptation that one can make oneself “like God” in their ‘knowledge’ of good and evil. With 8 billion ‘gods’ who each think their version of what is good and evil is the godly one, the result is one big mess of conflict and destruction. The problem with ‘evil’ is that it presents itself as ‘good’.

Three stages of entwinement in the nets of dark leadership

This pattern follows quite a typical pattern of entwinement into the nets of evil (with Satan as its personification) in the Bible and cultural history. In the first stage, one begins with cancelling God out of the equation challenging His authority and truth in one’s own self-grandiosity. Then one is lured into followership, beguiled into indulging one’s immediate desires. Finally, the destroyer / tyrant enters in to consummate the full consequences of one’s choices as they become increasingly manifest and harder to escape. We see this pattern happening at societal level as well: a society that cancels God creates a cultus around the ‘self’ (self-help, selfies, self-love, etc.) and worships his own intellectual imaginations. Then a society becomes drunk with sensual pleasures and empty pursuits of the rat race, and finally is given over to forces of destruction that are beyond its own control. Regarding leadership leading to destruction at societal level, we see the same pattern happening at Israel’s leaders in Isaiah 28-29, and in Paul’s description of the process in Romans 1.

Step 1. deception and pride that cancels out God,

Leaders as ‘misleaders, teaching lies’ (Is 9: 14-15), full of selfish pride (Is. 28: 1). “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1: 22).

Step 2. Immediate desires / indulgence takes away wisdom and discernment,

A society / organization becomes drunken with indulgence (Is. 28: 4, 7-9). “God gives them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own heart, so that they dishonor their own bodies amongst themselves”. (Romans 1: 24)

Step 3. The Destroyer / Tyrant takes over and makes slaves.

Finally it says that “that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken” (Is. 28: 13 / 8: 15). “Without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also applaud those who commit them.” (Romans 1: 31-32).

In addition to these three successive steps, there is also a parallel in how Satan personifies the  ‘dark triad’ discussed above. If nothing else, we see the manipulator (Machiavellianism) at work in the Genesis 3 story, where the main weapon is the tongue and its seeds of deception (framing), together with malicious intent (psychopathy). And similar to the final trait of ‘narcissism’ in the Dark Triad, a clear trait of this serpent (Satan) is his pride seen in Ezechiel 28: 17, which states that “in your pride concerning your beauty, you corrupted and destroyed your wisdom”. Isaiah 14 further underscores pride as a major motivator of this serpent (Satan): “I want to raise my throne above the heavens, claim my seat at God’s throne in the north of the heavens,… make myself equal to God.” This text further illuminates Satan as a Destroyer / Tyrant. The terminology used is that of the slave-driver  or slave-owner (Nagash). This is a form of dark leadership that refers to someone who forces or compels others to work under harsh conditions, often in a cruel or oppressive manner. The term can be used metaphorically to describe someone who exercises excessive power, control or authority over others, even beyond the context of literal slavery. It is a type of leadership that makes followers obey via the use of power rather than invitation. Note also that the Hebrew word for ‘snake’ (n-ch-sh) and ‘slave owner’ (n-g-sh) are phonetically highly similar. The cruel slave-owner Pharao in Ancient Egypt in the time of the Jewish slavery, was crown with a snake on its head. The tyrant is an aspect of the snake.

The opposite of dark leadership: The Spirit of Messiah

We thus see the tyrant vs slave dichotomy quite clearly in the Biblical narratives. We also see God’s narrative to redeem us from slavery from the slave-owner, via Mozes in the time of Egypt, via the Messiah in the name of Jesus (freeing us from slavery to sin). In Messiah we have seen the opposite spirit than that of the snake. About the Messiah (Jesus) it is written in Philippians 2: 5-7: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” What we learn here, is that truly great leadership and spiritual maturity come from the readiness to sacrifice. To sacrifice one’s own agenda, one’s own selfish desires, even one’s own life in an act of love to God and to the people God has given you. It is through leaders who exert this opposite spirit that God furthers the Kingdom of God (as opposed to the kingdom of darkness). In the end, the Kingdom of Messiah Jesus is an eternal kingdom, which is much more powerful and – despite opposition- will win out in the end.