In today’s ever-evolving business landscape, leadership is a decisive factor in determining whether organisations achieve success or fall into failure. Effective leadership acts as a catalyst for innovation, collaboration, and positive work culture, while toxic leadership undermines morale, reduces productivity, and increases turnover. This article contrasts toxic behaviours with effective approaches, drawing from textbooks, peer-reviewed journals, and credible sources to highlight the traits that differentiate damaging leadership from practices that sustain growth and long-term organisational performance.
1.0 Belittling vs. Inspiring
Toxic leaders often belittle or humiliate team members, which erodes confidence and stifles innovation. This can take the form of sarcasm, ridicule, or public criticism, creating a culture of fear. Tepper (2000) found that abusive supervision directly reduces employee engagement and job satisfaction.
By contrast, effective leaders inspire by offering constructive feedback and recognising contributions. Kouzes and Posner (2017) emphasise that inspirational leadership fosters trust, respect, and collaboration, enabling creativity to flourish. For example, leaders at Google adopt a coaching style, providing continuous feedback while encouraging autonomy, which enhances innovation.
2.0 Micromanagement vs. Empowering Autonomy
Micromanagement is a hallmark of toxic leadership, where leaders attempt to control every detail. This communicates a lack of trust and reduces creativity (Bass, 1985). Employees often disengage when autonomy is stifled.
Conversely, empowering leaders delegate responsibilities, enabling employees to own their work. Hackman and Oldham (1976) demonstrated that autonomy is central to motivation and performance. Empirical evidence by Spreitzer (1995) also links empowerment to higher job satisfaction and productivity. Companies like Spotify exemplify this by granting teams “squad autonomy,” which fosters both innovation and accountability.
3.0 Culture of Fear vs. Positive Culture
Toxic leaders often enforce a culture of fear, where compliance replaces open communication. Ashkanasy and Nicholson (2003) show that fear-driven environments diminish creativity and promote defensiveness.
Effective leaders, however, cultivate a positive culture. Schein (2010) argues that organisational culture directly influences performance. Leaders who promote trust, inclusivity, and mutual respect create resilient teams. For instance, Southwest Airlines has consistently linked its success to its people-focused culture, shaped by leaders who emphasise positivity and employee well-being.
4.0 Resistance to Change vs. Encouraging Innovation
A resistance to change is common in toxic leadership. Leaders cling to the status quo, fearing that innovation may expose weaknesses. This rigidity undermines competitiveness (Kotter, 1996).
In contrast, effective leaders embrace innovation as a driver of long-term growth. Tidd and Bessant (2018) stress that leaders must build an environment that encourages experimentation and learning. Companies like Apple, under Steve Jobs, exemplify leadership that championed radical innovation, keeping the organisation at the forefront of technology.
5.0 Taking Credit vs. Sharing Credit
Toxic leaders frequently claim credit for their team’s achievements. This undermines trust and creates resentment (Northouse, 2018).
In comparison, effective leaders share credit and highlight contributions. Locke and Latham (2002) argue that recognition reinforces positive behaviour and builds motivation. Cameron and Spreitzer (2012) found that leaders who celebrate team successes foster loyalty and engagement. For instance, Satya Nadella at Microsoft consistently recognises team contributions, reinforcing a culture of shared success.
6.0 Avoiding Accountability vs. Admitting Mistakes
A toxic trait is avoiding accountability and shifting blame. This damages trust and fosters a culture of dishonesty (Kellerman, 2004).
Effective leaders instead admit mistakes, modelling accountability. Edmondson (1999) showed that acknowledging errors increases psychological safety, encouraging employees to learn rather than fear failure. Avolio and Gardner (2005) define this as authentic leadership, characterised by transparency and integrity. For example, when Starbucks faced a racial bias incident in 2018, its CEO took public responsibility, committing to cultural sensitivity training—a move that reflected accountability.
7.0 Neglecting Transparency vs. Maintaining Open Communication
Secrecy is another toxic behaviour, where leaders withhold information to retain power. This erodes team cohesion (Argyris, 1993).
Effective leaders, however, prioritise open communication. Robbins and Judge (2018) highlight that effective communication is a cornerstone of leadership success. Daft (2015) also underscores that transparent communication fosters trust and shared goals. An example is Unilever’s Paul Polman, who used transparent communication to drive sustainability initiatives, engaging employees and stakeholders.
8.0 Personal Gain vs. Team Success
Toxic leaders often prioritise personal advancement, ignoring team welfare (Kets de Vries, 2006). Such self-serving behaviour leads to disengagement and high turnover.
Conversely, effective leaders focus on team success. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) argue that true leadership lies in mobilising people towards shared goals, even when challenges arise. For example, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern demonstrated this during the COVID-19 crisis by prioritising collective well-being over political gains, thereby building trust globally.
9.0 Disregarding Well-being vs. Promoting Work-Life Balance
Toxic leaders neglect employee well-being, pushing for productivity at the expense of mental health. This results in burnout and high attrition (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).
Effective leaders instead encourage work-life balance. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) show that balance between personal and professional lives enhances job satisfaction. Progressive organisations like Salesforce offer wellness programmes and flexible work arrangements, which reduce burnout and promote sustainability.
10.0 Unclear Expectations vs. Visionary Leadership
Toxic leaders provide unclear expectations, leading to confusion and shifting blame when goals are unmet (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Effective leaders communicate a clear vision aligned with organisational values. Kotter (2012) highlights that visionary leadership inspires commitment and motivates employees to strive toward common goals. A strong example is Elon Musk at Tesla, whose visionary approach towards sustainable energy has galvanised both employees and global stakeholders.
Leadership has the power to either empower or damage. Toxic traits such as belittling, micromanagement, and avoidance of accountability create environments of fear and inefficiency. In contrast, effective leadership built on inspiration, empowerment, vision, and transparency drives innovation, collaboration, and sustainable success. As organisations face increasing complexity and uncertainty, the demand for visionary, accountable, and people-centred leaders has never been more critical. By avoiding toxic behaviours and adopting effective traits, leaders can foster environments that enable both employees and organisations to thrive.
References
Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ashkanasy, N.M. & Nicholson, G.J. (2003) ‘Climate of fear in organisational settings: Construct definition, measurement and a test of theory’, Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), pp. 24-29.
Avolio, B.J. & Gardner, W.L. (2005) ‘Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), pp. 315–338.
Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006) Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cameron, K.S. & Spreitzer, G.M. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daft, R.L. (2015) The Leadership Experience. 6th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976) ‘Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), pp. 250–279.
Heifetz, R.A. & Linsky, M. (2002) Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kellerman, B. (2004) Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2006) The Leader on the Couch: A Clinical Approach to Changing People and Organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P. (2012) The Heart of Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2017) The Leadership Challenge. 6th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (2016) Burnout at Work: Causes and Cures. London: Taylor & Francis.
Northouse, P.G. (2018) Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2018) Organizational Behavior. 18th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Schein, E.H. (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) ‘Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), pp. 1442–1465.
Tepper, B.J. (2000) ‘Consequences of abusive supervision’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), pp. 178–190.
Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2018) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley.
