Several points crossed my mind while reading “Allure of Toxic Leaders”. While I generally agree with Lipman-Blumen’s reasoning that followers can push “nontoxic” leaders to become “toxic”, I have a few problems with his argument.
First, the issue of definitions got in my way while reading this chapter. How do we define “toxic” and “nontoxic”? Even more importantly, what is this “ledge” or “cliff” of toxicity (p158) that a leader crosses? How do we define it, and how do we know when a leader has crossed it? Is “toxicity” visible during the leader’s reign, or is it only apparent in hindsight? Perhaps some of this is discussed in earlier chapters, but I had trouble discerning the true definitions—or at least the author’s definitions—of some of these phrases.
I also felt that in some areas, the author disproves her own point. For instance, when discussing the “leader’s entourage”, she says that they are “the ones who take the blame for what goes wrong” (150-151). However, on page 159, she states that some “followers…escape any blame—from others or themselves—for failing to live up to the organization’s (or society’s) achievement norms”. While she may be discussing different “types” of followers, the author does not differentiate which group she means in the latter statement, and in this way seems to contradict herself.
Though I believe this piece was a refreshing look at bad leadership from the party not often considered (the followers), I do think the author’s argument had several flaws.
No comments:
Post a Comment