Leadership is key to any successful organization. Leadership is not only responsible for the most critical organizational decisions, but also shaping the culture of the organization. As Peter Drucker famously noted, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Drucker’s observation is difficult to dispute. Culture is the principal driver of employee engagement and employee engagement is the principal driver of worker productivity. Therefore, leaders and the cultures they create are ultimately responsible for organizational success and failure. 

However, not all leadership styles foster a culture of engagement. Some styles spiral into toxic patterns that can erode employee trust, satisfaction, and productivity. The three most common styles of toxic leadership are avoidant leadership, arrogant leadership, and affable leadership. Here’s how you can identify and overcome these toxic leadership styles.

Style #1: The labyrinth of avoidance

Avoidant leadership is characterized by a retreat in the face of adversity, a profound distrust of others, and a paralyzing fear of making mistakes. Leaders who embody this style often distance themselves from their staff, creating an atmosphere of neglect and uncertainty. While they may be initially enthusiastic about new projects or ideas, they become disappointed quickly and withdraw their support in the face of obstacles. Drawing upon psychological theories of attachment, we can understand this style as a defense mechanism. Often, an avoidant attachment style is an attempt to shield oneself from the perceived threats of criticism, failure, and interpersonal conflict.

The impact of avoidant leadership on an organization is multifaceted. First, avoidant leadership stifles innovation as the fear of failure inhibits risk-taking and creative problem-solving. Second, the avoidant leader’s mistrust of others creates a culture of paranoia and fear surrounding possible termination. Third, avoidant leadership erodes trust, as employees feel abandoned and undervalued when their projects are pulled without explanation. Ultimately, avoidant leadership creates a vacuum of leadership, where decisions are delayed or avoided altogether, leading to inefficiency and missed opportunity.

Overcoming the challenges posed by avoidant leadership requires a shift towards fostering a culture of psychological safety where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities, and vulnerability is seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

Style #2: The mirage of arrogance

Arrogant leadership, marked by overconfidence, entitlement, and a penchant for rule-breaking, presents a stark contrast to avoidance. Arrogant leaders charm and manipulate their way out of trouble, demand constant attention, and often indulge in dramatic and impractical ideas. This style typically reflects a deep-seated need for admiration and a lack of empathy towards others. The arrogant leader believes that nothing is impossible while they are at the helm and any failure is the result of a lack of faith in their vision by the staff.

The consequences of arrogant leadership are profound. It breeds a culture of inequality, where rules are seen as flexible for those at the top, and undermines trust and accountability. Arrogant leadership creates instability and unpredictability as whimsical and impractical decisions disrupt organizational planning and execution. Employees often then feel worn out by the constant shifts in organizational direction. Moreover, this style alienates employees, who feel devalued and marginalized by the fact that the credit for their contributions will be taken by someone else. 

Addressing arrogant leadership involves reinforcing ethical boundaries, promoting humility and empathy, and developing mechanisms for accountability and feedback.

Style #3: The paradox of affability

At first glance, affable leadership may seem benign, characterized by a desire to please everyone, a tendency to overwork, and setting incredibly high standards. However, this style is equally toxic, rooted in a fear of being less than perfect, disappointing others, and a reluctance to take independent action. The affable leader’s excessive people-pleasing and lack of assertiveness leads to a culture of unrealistic expectations where no accomplishment is ever good enough, placing undue stress on employees and undermining the leader’s authority. The affable leader’s concern with imperfection leads to micromanagement of every person and process, creating logjams for productivity.

Affable leaders create cultures where bureaucracy and process are more important than productivity and innovation. From a psychological perspective, affable leadership typically reflects an underlying need for approval, often at the cost of personal and organizational health. 

The challenge lies in balancing the desire to please everyone and to eliminate mistakes with the necessity of making tough decisions and setting realistic goals. Transforming affable leadership into a more balanced approach requires developing self-awareness, the willingness to delegate, and the ability to prioritize the long-term well-being of the organization over short-term approval.

How to address toxic leadership

While there is no definitive right way to be a leader, there are a myriad of ways to misstep. These three styles of toxic leadership represent the most common ways that leaders go wrong in their organizations. Most leaders who have a toxic leadership style have learned this style over many years, typically stemming from their own past experiences. For instance, a leader who once had a boss who was avoidant, constantly operating in fear and proceeding too cautiously, may adopt an arrogant style of leadership characterized by overconfidence and fearlessness. This leader saw the toxicity caused by avoidant leadership and has sworn to never be like that. But, in doing so, this leader develops their own distinct toxic patterns.

Moving forward requires recognizing the signs of toxic leadership, fostering an open dialogue about its impact, and cultivating an organization culture that values self-awareness, empathy, and ethical integrity. Organizations must invest in leadership development programs that not only focus on skills and competencies but also address the psychological and emotional aspects of leadership. Creating spaces for reflection, feedback, and growth can help leaders navigate their weaknesses and build on their strengths.

Leaders are the most impactful part of any organization. Their behavior creates organizational culture, culture drives engagement, and engagement drives productivity. The three most common forms of toxic leadership—avoidant, arrogant, and affable —highlight distinct ways that leaders create self-defeating cultures that stifle innovation, undermine trust, and destroy engagement. 

The antidote to toxic leadership begins with early identification of potentially toxic behaviors. Scientifically validated personality assessments or 360-degree surveys can be instrumental to identifying potentially toxic behavior. But identification is not enough. Organizations should also invest in leadership development programs to help leaders avoid the pitfalls of toxic leadership. In the final analysis, the cure for toxic leadership is to have the courage to change dysfunctional patterns for a more productive and engaged organizational future.

Ryne A. Sherman, Ph.D., is the chief science officer at Hogan Assessment Systems. Dr. Sherman’s research on the psychological properties of situations and their interaction with personality has been awarded federal support from the National Science Foundation. In 2016, Dr. Sherman was named a “Rising Star” by the Association for Psychological Science and received Florida Atlantic University’s Researcher of the Year Award. In 2018, Dr. Sherman was a recipient of the SAGE Young Scholars Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and the Monmouth College Young Alumnus Award.