Abuses of authority in business, politics and religion have plagued societies for centuries. But recent examples of bad leadership has become so problematic that businesses, organizations and the government have taken proactive steps, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to help deter future scandals.

Selecting the right leaders in the first place is equally important, says Art Padilla, professor and head of the Department of Management, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in North Carolina State University’s College of Management. Padilla’s most recent research focuses on what he calls “toxic” leadership and how it can imperil nations, bankrupt companies, and render retirees penniless.

Padilla and his collaborators use the biological or chemical notion of toxicity as a metaphor to explain the effects of toxic leadership. They also argue that toxic leaders don’t exist in a vacuum. Rather, there is a “toxic triangle” that influences how destructive such leadership can become. For example, the Enron debacle occurred in part because others enabled Ken Lay, Enron’s former chairman and chief executive officer, to create an unquestioning culture of intimidation and fandom that discouraged all but the bravest of employees: the whistleblower who ultimately exposed the scandal.

“The problem with most people’s definition of leadership is that it’s limited to a person and his or her actions,” Padilla said. “We see leadership as a process involving not only the leader, but followers and the context or environment in which they interact.”

Padilla and his colleagues describe this process approach—leader, followers and context—and the effects of toxicity on each in two research papers.

“The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers and Conducive Environments,” was published in 2007 by The Leadership Quarterly and was authored by Padilla along with Robert Hogan, an international authority on personality assessment, leadership, and organizational effectiveness, and Robert Kaiser, a consultant with Kaplan DeVries, Inc., of Greensboro, N.C. The second paper, “Leadership Toxicity:Sources & Remedies,” written with NC State College of Management Associate Professor Paul Mulvey, is scheduled to be published by the journal Organizations & People.

Padilla offers a definition of toxic, or destructive, leadership that contains at least five elements:

• It exists along a continuum based on results, from mostly destructive to mostly constructive results, thereby underscoring that even bad leaders do some good and good leaders make some errors.
• It’s associated with the interests of the leader rather than the objectives of the group.
• It eventually involves coercion and force since it’s so focused on leader self-interest.
• It’s principally manifested in the negative outcomes of the group when compared to the performance of rivals or competitors.
• It requires the involvement of susceptible followers and conducive environments.

A toxic leader surrounded by strong followers and a transparent environment will cause fewer problems than one who has colluders and unchecked power, Padilla says. Take the case of the former governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who resigned this spring when implicated in a prostitution ring. Padilla said that the state of New York kept right on ticking because it had a suitable leader to assume the governorship and, more importantly, it had checks in place, including the state legislature and the scandal-hungry media. As a result, Spitzer’s error in judgment harmed primarily his political future and his family.

Padilla and his colleagues offer remedies for companies and organizations that want to protect against toxic leadership. For one thing, the executive recruiting process needs to become more thoughtful and data-driven.

“Too often companies just receive resumes instead of actively seeking out the talent they need or cultivating talent internally. People don’t ask enough questions about how a candidate gets along with others. The best predictor of what someone will do is what they’ve already done.”

Business schools, executive training programs and onsite workshops can also go a long way toward explaining how the leadership process works and discussing traits and behaviors associated with effective leadership. To ensure checks and balances against bad leadership, companies and organizations also need to empower and protect lower-level employees so they can voice concerns about potential problems.

“A cacophony of voices instead of one invariably leads to better and more sustainable outcomes,” Padilla said. The paradox, he added, is that in order to get better team results, the leader has to give up some power and control and create and support appropriate checks and balances. “Strong leaders, comfortable in their own skins and aware of their strengths and weaknesses, can do this.”

Despite all the attention bad boss literature gets, Padilla said he’s been surprised at the interest in his research. “When we presented our work at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s annual meeting in San Francisco last April, it was standing room only,” he said.

Padilla has built his academic career on the study of leadership. His 2005 book, Portraits in Leadership: Six Extraordinary University Presidents, received stellar reviews and has been used by presidential search committees at several major universities. One of the six leaders profiled is former University of North Carolina System President William Friday, for whom Padilla worked as a senior administrator before returning to his alma mater, NC State University.

Next up for Padilla? A graduate-level textbook on the process of leadership. “Good companies,” he said, “have processes that deal with abusive or domineering bosses, and bad companies don’t. We place too much blame on leaders when things go poorly and we also give them way too much credit for positive organizational outcomes. When you look at leadership from a systematic approach, it demystifies the role of the leader.” Padilla will be discussing that approach in this next book.