Summary of: The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments
1. Destructive leadership entails negative consequences resulting from a combination of
destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.
2. Destructive leadership has not been clearly defined in the literature, but it emphasizes negative
outcomes for organizations and individuals affected by them.
3. The toxic triangle framework presents the characteristics of leaders, followers, and
environmental contexts connected with destructive leadership.
4. Destructive leadership is not explicitly defined but is often treated as a "know it when you see it"
phenomenon.
5. Destructive leadership can be seen as a process or an outcome, with behaviors such as
manipulation, coercion, and dominance associated with it.
6. Destructive leadership can result in personal and organizational destructiveness, with harmful
consequences experienced by individuals or organizations.
7. Destructive leaders are characterized by charisma, personalized use of power, narcissism,
negative life themes, and an ideology of hate.
8. Susceptible followers can be either conformers who comply with destructive leaders out of fear
or colluders who actively participate in a destructive leader's agenda.
9. Conducive environments can contribute to the emergence of destructive leadership, with factors
such as instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and absence of checks and balances and
institutionalization being crucial.
1. Ethical standards in management training and education could minimize destructive
consequences of leadership.
2. Developing stronger followers by promoting a culture of empowerment is important in managing
potential destructiveness.
3. Destructive leaders exert influence through unilateral power, while cultures that reinforce
collaboration and employee initiative maintain balance and control.
4. Rewarding leaders who develop the leadership potential of their subordinates and making
follower development an explicit criterion for promotion could reduce the likelihood of destructive
leadership.
5. The presence of checks and balances, including strong oversight by a board of directors, is
crucial for preventing destructive leadership.
6. Promoting ethical and moral behavior through policies and visible enforcement can deter
unethical and destructive activities.
susceptible followers, and conducive environments
1. Destructive leadership entails negative consequences resulting from a combination of
destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.
2. Destructive leadership has not been clearly defined in the literature, but it emphasizes negative
outcomes for organizations and individuals affected by them.
3. The toxic triangle framework presents the characteristics of leaders, followers, and
environmental contexts connected with destructive leadership.
4. Destructive leadership is not explicitly defined but is often treated as a "know it when you see it"
phenomenon.
5. Destructive leadership can be seen as a process or an outcome, with behaviors such as
manipulation, coercion, and dominance associated with it.
6. Destructive leadership can result in personal and organizational destructiveness, with harmful
consequences experienced by individuals or organizations.
7. Destructive leaders are characterized by charisma, personalized use of power, narcissism,
negative life themes, and an ideology of hate.
8. Susceptible followers can be either conformers who comply with destructive leaders out of fear
or colluders who actively participate in a destructive leader's agenda.
9. Conducive environments can contribute to the emergence of destructive leadership, with factors
such as instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and absence of checks and balances and
institutionalization being crucial.
1. Ethical standards in management training and education could minimize destructive
consequences of leadership.
2. Developing stronger followers by promoting a culture of empowerment is important in managing
potential destructiveness.
3. Destructive leaders exert influence through unilateral power, while cultures that reinforce
collaboration and employee initiative maintain balance and control.
4. Rewarding leaders who develop the leadership potential of their subordinates and making
follower development an explicit criterion for promotion could reduce the likelihood of destructive
leadership.
5. The presence of checks and balances, including strong oversight by a board of directors, is
crucial for preventing destructive leadership.
6. Promoting ethical and moral behavior through policies and visible enforcement can deter
unethical and destructive activities.
