Discussion

Good leaders are able to lead by exemplary behaviors and the strength of their moral fabric. However, such qualities are not always seen in every leader, and in several occasions the leaders end up abusing their authority and power (Yu et al., 2018). Such kind of leadership is often termed as ‘Toxic Leadership’ in which individuals at leadership position would exhibit a self-centered attitude, behavior and motivation which can adversely impact the people or the organization (Belmi & Pfeffer, 2016). Since such kind of leadership is not an uncommon scenario, it is important to know how to understand such kind of behavior and how to work under toxic leadership in a way that can mitigate the adverse impact of such a leadership style on the subordinates, the organization or its performance (Stewart et al., 2017).

Toxic leadership style can stem from various behaviors such as an abusive supervision, narcissism, unpredictability, politicking and authoritarian or ‘control freak’ (Webster et al., 2016). Each of these leadership style can be toxic and destructive to the employer-employee relation and can erode trust and respect on the leadership and organization and also reduce job satisfaction and employee performance (Krause, 2017; Armitage, 2015)). According to Belmi and Pfeffer (2016), authoritarian or ‘control freak’ style of leadership is one of the most commonly seen type of ‘toxic leadership’. The main objective of this paper is to develop an understanding on the authoritarian or ‘control freak’ style of leadership.

The study uses the method of secondary literature review in which key academic journals and leadership theories are studied to identify the factors that are associated with authoritarian leadership, the behavioral traits associated with such conditions. The paper uses a qualitative approach to develop an understanding of the topic.

In this study, major problems associated with ‘control freak’ style of leadership is outlined followed by the important theories and models that can be used to analyze the problems. Based on the theories and models identified the problem would then be analyzed.

Toxic leadership can be caused due to several types of behavioral traits and psychological factors. Studies by Mehta and Maheshwari (2014) shows that most forms of toxic leadership shares common traits such as an unwillingness to listen to feedbacks from the employees or subordinates, self-centered behavior, too much self-promotion, inconsistency in their directives, dishonesty, lack of moral strength, unaccountability, unsupportive, rewarding incompetency, bullying, harassment and discriminatory behavior (Hitchcock, 2015). Authoritarian leadership is a form of leadership style in which the leaders have complete authority over every decisions and the leader sets out the policies, procedures, has complete control on all activities and functions of the team and organization. Such a leadership style has almost no participation from the subordinates, and thus the style lacks autonomy of the people (Zaabi et al., 2018). A control freak leadership can be understood when the leader tries to control people instead of empowering them and can lead to stress among the subordinates and also can result in the subordinates being bullied (Schmidt, 2014). Discussed below are the major problems related to such a toxic leadership style:

Major Problems that needs to be addressed

A lack of self-control or restrained can be associated with various types of deviant behaviors and actions that can cause harm to self or others (Collins & Jackson, 2015). The willingness to abuse one’s authority have been suggested to be due to a lack of self-control by Furtner et al., (2017). Moreover, it has also been suggested that due to a lack of self-restraint, individuals are less likely to be restricted by norms and thus allows the maintenance of the deviant behavior (Furnham, 2016).

According to Valle et al., (2018), moral disengagement is the key factor that drives an ‘evil behavior’. Moral disengagement occurs when an individual convinces himself/herself that standards or morality or ethics do not apply to them. This allows a separation of the moral reactions to poor conduct and negating the possibility of self-condemnation. Moral disengagement therefore allows individuals to justify their poor decisions, behavior and actions even if it causes harm to others. Moreover, this can allow obscuration of personal liability/responsibility towards the action and instead pass the blame to the victims (Johnson & Buckley, 2015).

Authoritative leaders can also dehumanize their subordinates, disrespecting their opinions and contribution and denying them the dignity they deserve. Dehumanizing them allows them to morally justify their discrimination and subordination, placing the leader at a superior position and thus also justify the power gap between them. Such power gap further helps to maintain the authoritative role of the leader (Caesens,et al., 2018).

According to Burke (2017), power can make people act selfishly. This can be sue to the feeling more independence for individuals having power and fosters an increased focus on self-interests and justify to themselves that decisions made on such self-interests are appropriate. Moreover, power also frees an individual from normative pressures which allows them to focus on their own interests, goals and dispositions. Normore and Brooks (2016) suggested that power wielders can also tend to set aside relational dynamics as peripheral considerations compared to their own agendas and goals and they are more likely to individuate others. This can be seen as a form of moral corruption that allows an individual to show immoral behavior (Belasen & Toma, 2015).

Zaabi et al. (2018) suggested that certain power wielders has an unending urge to show their power and hierarchical superiority over others. They show their powers though subjugation of the subordinates, an attempt to control every aspect of work and activities of the employees and wield total control in the workplace. According to Furtner et al. (2017), such behavior often stems from a need to highlight their power and status as a way to increase their sense of self-esteem and worth (Valle et al., 2018).

Lack of Self Control

‘Control Freak’ leaders rarely pay any consideration towards the feedback from the subordinates. Such leaders would continue their controlling behavior regardless of complaints from the subordinate and fail to take into consideration how they feel regarding the leadership approach. Such leaders also fail to notice the challenges faced by their subordinates and overlook how the autocratic leadership style might be causing stress, job dissatisfaction or poor performance. The moral disengagement further allows them to avoid accountability of such a situation (Johnson & Buckley, 2015).

Doe & Puplampu (2018) pointed out that control freak leaders often show coercive control in which they often pressurize their subordinates through coercive tactics to follow their instructions, against their own free will. Such leaders can do anything to pressurize the subordinates, including blackmailing and threating. Such leaders use their power to cause problems for the subordinates if they fail to or do not give in to the coercion and thus harm the wellbeing of the employees (Lunsford & Padilla, 2015).

Malik et al. (2018) suggested that a control freak style of leadership can be unjust to the subordinates and they are subjugated to discriminatory, coercive and bullying behavior as well as reduce their sense of independence and autocracy in the organization. Moreover, such leadership style also infringes upon the individual rights of the individual, forcing them to follow the totalitarian control (Smyth¸2018).

It has been suggested by Belmi and Pfeffer (2016), that a sense of control and total authority over people or organization can be an emotional misdirection of the leaders from the fear of death or losing control. Mehta and Maheshwari (2014) pointed out that people in power position are highly afraid of losing their power and due to this fear, they exercise their control more vigorously to prevent losing them. Such an anxiety results in the development of the power freak mentality among some leaders (Belmi & Pfeffer, 2016).

Autocratic or a ‘control freak’ style of leadership can be analyzed by different theories and models that can explain how an individual exercise their control and behave in the manner that they do.

This theory supports that all the decision making powers should be centralized to the leaders, giving them dictatorial authority over all affairs. This leadership style does not require any inputs or feedbacks from the subordinates (De Hoogh et al., 2015). According to Case & Maner (2014), this leadership style can help in faster decision making process and can be motivating for managers (Krause, 2017). Moreover, this style also does not require the leaders to share information regarding the decisions with the subordinates, unless found necessary. However, Stewart et al. (2017) pointed out that such leadership style reduces participation from the employees and can also increase the risk of wrong decisions due to a lack of consultation from stakeholders (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2014).

Moral Disengagement

According to this theory, individuals showing exploitative authoritative behavior show little or no concerns about the welfare of the subordinates which allows them to exploit their interests and vulnerabilities to achieve self-centered and selfish motivations. Such leaders would achieve conformance through coercion, bullying, intimidation and even violence (Arian et al., 2018). The flow of information is completely downward with no upward movement of information. Jain & Chaudhary (2015) pointed out that such leaders seldom shows any care for inputs from the subordinates and never involves them in the decision making process (De Hoogh et al., 2015).

This leadership theory suggests that the dominant authority or the leader should act as the patriarch or matriarch of the organization. Such leadership style requires obedience from the employees and requires the leaders to make the important decisions on behalf of the employees. However, such a theory can also be interpreted as a form of autocratic leadership as it provides complete decision making power to the leaders (Zhang et al., 2015).

According to this theory, leaders are often born with leadership traits which sets them apart from everyone else, making them ‘worthy’ of a leadership position. However, such a theory also has a slippery slope which can lead to a sense of false superiority and complacency towards the use of power and enable corrupt leaders to justify their actions on the pretense of being great men.

According to Krause (2017), children and parents often undergoes a phase of power contest when both sides wants to assert their power over the other. This power contest can also be seen between a leader and subordinates, and lead to the leaders asserting their dominance over the subordinates. Such a power play can foster the development of an autocratic and ‘power freak’ leadership style.

According to Case and Maner (2014), an experience of power loss during childhood can result in a coercive and dominating behavior later in life. The ‘control freak’ nature of autocratic leaders can be caused due to an adverse emotional impact during childhood that caused a feeling of loss of power. Such feelings can manifest themselves as a need to assert their power later on, causing a vicious cycle of power abuse and victimization (Doe & Puplampu, 2018).

The “paradoxical misuse of power by those who perceive themselves as powerless” is a model that explains abuse of power by individuals at leadership positions as a paradoxical sense of being powerless. This sense leads to an emotional necessity to assert their powers and even abuse them to assert their importance and authority over others (D’Cruz, 2015). According to Zhang et al. (2015), when individuals with low perception of power are given positions of power or authority to take important decisions regarding others can show signs of power misuse, especially if the powers gives them a sense of independence from the normative rules and codes of conduct (Jain & Chaudhary 2015).

Dehumanization

This model suggests that power creates paradoxical behavior among power holders and can create a strong sense of difference between self and others (or group). This suggests that behaviors such as power abuse and discriminatory behavior can be a direct consequence of the possession of power (Yu et al., 2018).

Lewin’s Autocratic Leadership theory shows how such a leadership style can reduce participation of the subordinates in the decision making process and centralize all power to the leadership position. This centralization of power can lead power abuse and corruption as the power holders gain a sense of superiority over their subordinates, causing a paradoxical misuse of power.  Mehta and Maheshwari (2014) also suggested that the abuse of power can lead to self-centered behavior that aims to maximize the benefit for oneself at the cost of others. This can lead to the subordinates being exploited and their best interests undermined. A control freak leadership style can exhibit such behavior as they would want to maximize their control and authority over every affairs of the organization and dictate all matters and policies (Belmi & Pfeffer, 2016). Such leaders also would generally make decisions on their own self-interest and can exploit the best interest of the employees for their own agendas. A ‘control freak’ leader would also lack a strong moral compass, or show moral disengagement though which they can justify their actions and avoid a sense of self condemnation. This psychology can protect the individuals from self-criticism and assert a sense of superiority over others. The sense of superiority can also lead to dehumanization of the subordinates further helping to justify the actions and behaviors of being a ‘control freak’ (Zaabi et al., 2018). Such assertions can also led to the sense of ‘greatness’ and a need to show dominance over other. However, this sense can also develop from a sense of powerlessness or the fear of losing power. In both these scenarios, individuals show a vulnerability towards losing power as a result of which they want to exert more control over other and thus develop the ‘control freak’ behavior (Furtner et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Leadership is an important characteristic that allows an individual to guide and lead people. A toxic leadership however is one in which a leader buses his/her power to for their own selfish reasons at the cost of the subordinate’s wellbeing. Toxic leadership can be in various forms such as abusive supervision, narcissism, unpredictability, politicking and ‘control freak’. The aim of this study was to understand control freak leadership style using review of literature in a quantitative study approach. Through the study, factors that were associated with a control freak leadership style were identified, which included a lack of self-control, a sense of moral disengagement and poor moral compass, corruption due to power, dehumanization of subordinates, corruption due to power, a need to show a position of status or power, neglecting feedback from subordinates and exerting coercive control. Such behavior can also be caused by a fear of losing power and a sense of vulnerability towards it. On the other hand, a sense of superiority and high esteem or ‘greatness’ can also lead to the need of asserting their position and exerting control. This behavior can be explained by various theories and models. The Autocratic leadership theory and exploitative authoritative theory showed how such behavior can be created due to the concentration of power at leadership position and a resultant moral disengagement and corruption. This leads to a paradoxical misuse of power and justification of power misuse.

Corruption due to Power

References:

Arian, M., Ghavam, A., & Hessam, S. (2018). Investigating the Impact of Managers Leadership Styles on General Health of Personnel of Cheram City Health Network. International Archives of BioMedical and Clinical Research, 4(2) :94-98.

Armitage, A. (2015). The dark side: The poetics of toxic leadership. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(3): 376-390.

Belasen, A. T., & Toma, R. (Eds.). (2015). Confronting Corruption in Business: Trusted Leadership, Civic Engagement. Routledge.

Belmi, P., & Pfeffer, J. (2016). Power and death: Mortality salience increases power seeking while feeling powerful reduces death anxiety. Journal of applied psychology, 101(5): 702.

Burke, R. J. (2017). Toxic leaders: Exploring the dark side. Effective Executive, 20(1): 10.

Caesens, G., Nguyen, N., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). Abusive Supervision and Organizational Dehumanization. Journal of Business and Psychology: 1-20.

Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(6): 1033.

Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3): 386-401.

D’Cruz, P. (2015). India: A paradoxical context for workplace bullying. In Workplace Abuse, Incivility and Bullying (pp. 55-70). Routledge.

De Hoogh, A. H., Greer, L. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2015). Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? An investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5): 687-701.

Doe, F., & Puplampu, B. B. (2018). Coercive management behaviour causes scale: validation and reliability. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

Furnham, A. (2016). The elephant in the boardroom: The causes of leadership derailment. Springer.

Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In Leader Development Deconstructed (pp. 75-99). Springer, Cham.

Hitchcock, M. J. (2015). The Relationship between toxic leadership, organizational citizenship, and turnover behaviors among San Diego nonprofit paid staff.

Jain, A., & Chaudhary, S. (2015). Leadership styles of bank managers in nationalized commercial banks of India. Purushartha: A Journal of Management Ethics and Spirituality, 7(1).

Johnson, J. F., & Buckley, M. R. (2015). Multi-level organizational moral disengagement: Directions for future investigation. Journal of business ethics, 130(2): 291-300.

Krause, R. (2017). Being the CEO’s boss: An examination of board chair orientations. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3): 697-713.

Lunsford, L. G., & Padilla, A. (2015). Destructive and toxic leadership. Leadership in Sport, 63.

Malik, M. S., Sattar, S., Younas, S., NUML, M. C., & Nawaz, M. K. (2018). The Workplace Deviance Perspective of Employee Responses to Workplace Bullying: The Moderating Effect of Toxic Leadership and Mediating Effect of Emotional Exhaustion.

Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. (2014). Toxic leadership: tracing the destructive trail. International Journal of Management, 5(10): 18-24.

Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. (2014). Toxic leadership: tracing the destructive trail. International Journal of Management, 5(10): 18-24.

Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. S. (Eds.). (2016). The dark side of leadership: identifying and overcoming unethical practice in organizations. Emerald Group Publishing.

Schmidt, A. A. (2014). An examination of toxic leadership, job outcomes, and the impact of military deployment (Doctoral dissertation).

Smyth, J. (2018). Production of Toxic and Zombie Leadership in the Context of Neoliberalism. International Perspectives on Maladministration in Education: Theories, Research, and Critiques.

Stewart, G. L., Astrove, S. L., Reeves, C. J., Crawford, E. R., & Solimeo, S. L. (2017). Those with the most find it hardest to share: Exploring leader resistance to the implementation of team-based empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6): 2266-2293.

Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Harting, T. (2018). Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange, and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organizational deviance. The Journal of social psychology: 1-14.

Webster, V., Brough, P., & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or freeze: common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress and Health, 32(4): 346-354.

Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., & Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: a model of self-esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6): 2296-2318.

Zaabi, H. H. A., Elanain, H. M. A., & Ajmal, M. M. (2018). Impact of toxic leadership on work outcomes: an empirical study of public banks in the UAE. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 4(3): 373-392.

Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1): 25-36.