DARKER SIDE OF LEADERSHIP

Darker Side of Leadership

Table of Contents

1INTRODUCTION3

2PROBLEM STATEMENT5

3LITERATURE REVIEW6

3.1Leadership's negative face6

3.2A malfunction to look inside6

3.3Mirroring7

3.4Narcissism8

3.5Emotional illiteracy8

4ANALYSIS9

5THE NEED FOR STUDY AND SOME SUGGESTIONS11

6REFLECTIONS13

7IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION14

8IMPLICATION FOR LEADERSHIP EDUCATION15

Darker Side of Leadership

Introduction

A widespread feature of up to date insights of leadership is that authority is a good and affirmative thing. In the up to date era, Burns (1978) cast authority as action joining managers and followers in the pursuit of important and ethically attractive change. Bennis and Nanus (1985) suggested that managers are people who “do the right thing”, and Bass (1990) utilised the term transformational authority to describe inspirational authority wherein followers are elevated and empowered. Two themes appear from this body of theory. The over-riding topic is that authority necessarily involves lesson purpose - the affirmative face of leadership. Verification of the power of this imagery was provided by Palmer (1994, p. 25) who commented:

Numerous books on authority seem to be about the power of affirmative thinking. I fear they feed a widespread delusion among managers that their efforts are habitually well intended, their power habitually benign.

The second significance of popular authority forms is that followers play a rather passive role. Transformational forms characterise leadership in periods of the effect on followers. That is, followers experience a sense of significance, motivation and commitment to foremost ideals. But if there is a dark edge to leadership, followers should certainly convey some blame in recognizing and speaking to these darker issues. And if there is a dark side to authority, isn't it furthermore likely that there is a dark edge to followership, as Fiasco to accept and analyze the “dark edge” of leadership and leverage can falsify efforts to learn about the leadership method and may boost a unseeing eye approach to examining the outcomes of leverage attempts. Authentic comprehending of leadership needs a balanced discussion.

It is clear that productive authority can be instrumental in promoting communal good, but what should be identically clear is that productive leadership can furthermore be instrumental in promoting social catastrophe. The positive face overrides authority idea, discussion, and learning, but as Palmer has documented (1994), this feeds a exorbitant delusion. We need to recognize and deal with the shaded aspects of authority, particularly in authority learning and training.

Problem Statement

A number of years before, David McClelland, in his studies of managerial motivation, recognised two kinds of power: egoistic (using other ones for individual gain) and communal (facilitating assembly collaboration and effort for the accomplishment of the general good). Apparently, the power motive is intimately associated to the concept of leadership. Although, over the last some decades, a school of thought has arisen which equates authority with “doing the right thing”? Characterising leadership in such an ethical light weight is both misleading and dangerous. At the identical time, little has been finished to address the function of followers in the leverage process, and transformational forms of authority have exacerbated this problem. Malfunction to accept the function of followers and to examine the “dark side” of leader-follower ...