Customer Reviews

The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians--and How We Can Survive Them

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Those who have read Lipman-Blumen's previously published Connective Leadership and/or Hot Groups can correctly assume that she again offers brilliant insights, eloquently expressed, in her newest book. She responds to two especially interesting questions: "Why do so many people follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians?" and "How can we survive them?" In fairness both to her and to those who have not as yet read this book, I will resist the temptation to reveal what her responses are. However, I hope the remarks which follow create sufficient interest in this book because it eminently deserves and richly rewards a careful reading.

She organizes her material within Four Parts: The Big Picture (Chapter 1) in which she explains why toxic leaders are so plentiful; Leaders, Leaders, Why Do We All Want Leaders? (Chapters 2-6) in which she examines psychological needs, angst and illusions (e.g. about life, death, and immortality), global instabilities, creation of potentially dangerous deities, and the urge for heroic men and women; How [and Why] We Create Willing Followers and Toxic Leaders (Chapters 7-9) in which she discusses various myths which help to explain the appeal of toxic leaders and the rejection of non-toxic leaders; and finally, Liberating Ourselves from the Allure of Toxic Leaders (Chapters 10-13) in which Lipman-Blumen proposes a number of mindsets, values, strategies, tactics, and initiatives which can -- at least in some instances -- protect mankind from toxic leaders or expedite their loss of power and even influence.

In this volume, Lipman-Blumen demonstrates all of the highly-developed skills of a world-class cultural anthropologist whose cutting-edge thinking about effective leadership and productive teamwork has earned for her the eminence she now enjoys. In my opinion, she has far greater and much more challenging ambitions in this book than she did in either of the two which preceded it. Consider this brief excerpt from the first chapter: Toxic leaders "first charm but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than when they found them. Yet many of these followers hang on. I do not speak merely of the leader's immediate entourage -- the leader's close-in staff and advisors. I am speaking also of the larger mass of supporters (employees, constituents, volunteers) who only glimpse their toxic leader through a glass darkly -- perchance through a window of the executive suite or on the television screen. More surprisingly perhaps, even those groups charged with keeping leaders under the microscope and on the straight and narrow -- the media and boards of directors -- fall under they sway."

How to explain the "allure" of toxic leaders? How do they sustain, if not increase their domination of others? Even when exposed as toxic leaders, why do they continue to retain so many loyal followers? Realistically, to what extent (if any) can one individual or even a group remove such leaders from their positions of dominance? These and other questions have intrigued me for decades. Although I do not agree with all of Lipman-Blumen's opinions, I appreciate the rigor with which she has formulated those opinions.

To me, the book's most thought-provoking and thus most valuable material is provided in Part III, with the relatively weakest material following in Part IV. Lipman-Blumen is at her best when examining, indeed explaining how and why mankind creates toxic leaders as well as their willing followers. She is much less effective, in my opinion, when offering advice as to how to avoid or respond to the allure of such leaders. For example, is a coup or assassination the only effective solution to a tyrant? In a business context, what if a toxic leader is the owner/CEO of a small company? Realistically, is there any viable choice other than leaving? Lipman-Blumen's difficulties with the material in Part IV were probably inevitable...and have nothing to do with her intelligence, sensitivity, street smarts, and frame-of-reference. With all due respect to the "lessons" she reviews (please see pages 206-215) and the five strategies she then recommends (please see pages 238-249), I think those difficulties are explained, rather, by flaws in human nature which some have traced back to the Garden of Eden. Historically, those whom toxic leaders manipulate, mistreat, undermine, betray, and ultimately leave worse off than before are victims. Those who support toxic leaders are willing accomplices. Those who oppose toxic leaders are heroic. Those among them who are destroyed by toxic leaders are martyrs. For me, the most important question Lipman-Blumen poses in this book is hardly original: "Who are you?" For each reader, the answer will not be found in this book. However, a careful reading of it can assist with completing that immensely difficult journey of self-discovery.

I also highly recommend Crucial Confrontations: Tools for Resolving Broken Promises, Violated Expectations, and Bad Behavior co-authored by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler.

Toxic leaders leave their followers worse off than they found them. A few of the many other ways toxic leaders act are they: violate basic standards of human rights; feed followers illusions; stifle criticism; maliciously set constituents against one another. The book shows how these leaders win people over by playing on their fears and self-esteem, only to ultimately use their power against their own followers. The book explores, in depth, how people are drawn into accepting, even embracing toxic leaders, and how these leaders retain power. This is an enlightening probe into the psyche of people and how their culture, situation, deepest fears, and dysfunctional personalities, make them vulnerable to toxic leaders. The book also explores ways of dealing with these leaders: counsel them to change; undermine them; join with others to confront or overthrow them. The book closes with a chapter on how to be freed of toxic leaders, by facing up to our anxiety and the accompanying pain, as well as by bringing nontoxic leaders to the fore. The author's insights apply to leaders of all kinds, political and business. This brief review does no justice to the breadth and depth of this work.To read this book is to help become aware of, and armed against, toxic leaders of all types. Required reading for all who yearn and strive to live free of domineering, destructive leaders. Our highest recommendation.

This intriguing, intellectual study of disastrous leadership offers a courageous interpretation of corporate scandal and political folly. Amoral leaders are not entirely to blame, Jean Lipman-Blumen argues. Rather, followers enable misguided leaders to rise to power and stay there. Her analysis applies psychological principles to Adolf Hitler's Germany and Jeff Skilling's Enron (not exactly parallel, but you get the idea) and concludes that toxic leaders' followers are willing victims who allowed misguided bosses to appeal to their basest instincts. While Lipman-Blumen's assertions are startling, she makes a compelling case written in dense but readable prose with intriguing detail. We suggest this book to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the relationship between leaders and their followers, particularly given the swath cut by today's toxic leaders.

I have been studying leadership for over a dozen years and this is by far and away the best book on the subject. It goes deeply beneath the hype and glorification and shows how we followers can be suckered by sociopaths and even be complicit in pushing benign con artists into a more toxic behavior level. Our culture is built with great tolerance of greed and manipulation at the top and we have to laboriously train ourselves to be on the lookout for toxic tendencies in our leaders by keeping an ironic and skeptical corner of our eye ever open. Lipman-Blumen's book explains this in sparkling language and good grace.

Democracies die behind closed doors. The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people's right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately." Judge Damon Keith, U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

The premise i don't agree with is, that workers in a corporation "choose" their leaders. Corporations are hierarchies, and are divided into the 10% rulers, and 90% non-rulers. The information the 10% rulers have is not shared with the 90%. Corporations are not democracies, and workers to 'choose' to follow leaders. They are working to make a living.
I disagree when the author states that Enron workers "chose" to stay at Enron "even though they knew about the corrupt leadership". And she makes the same statement about the high-profile bankruptcies like Tyco and Arthur Andersen. The author confuses the fact that workers live in a political democracy, but work inside a dictatorship.
Workers aren't enamored of their executives. They are resolved to put up with their ego-mania in the hope of providing an income to support their first love of family.
Most workers are unaware of the day to day decisions that executive leaders are making. At Enron and Arthur Andersen, the auditors were duped. Why would a line manager know about the corruption if auditors couldn't figure it out?

The 2nd premise is that humans "choose" to work for a company. Most of us are forced through economic circumstances to work. So, i'm not 'following' a leader when i take a job. I'm taking a job based on the pay and benefits and reputation of the company. The author implies that taking a job is the same choice as following a religious leader or cult leader. The choice to work for a company isn't an acceptance of the CEO's charisma. Rarely does the CEO come around. The choice to work is the need to eat.
Now, the author does cover in depth Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And the need to buy food and shelter is #1 on Maslow's hierarchy. The author spent significant time interviewing workers, and placing them in one of the seven levels of Maslow's hierarchy. However, as a mid-level manager dependent on income to raise a family, i'm not choosing the leader to meet my need. I'm finding a job to meet my need. And the two are different. I was at a company for 15 years, and there were 4 different CEOs. I didn't do a moral and emotional assessment of each new CEO to find out if i would "follow" him. In fact, the information i would need wasn't even made available to me.

So, the problem i have with the book is that it assumes all choices are made to meet psychological needs, even if the psychological needs are subconscious. I don't accept that theory for the need to work.
I do accept that theory in making a choice of a skill/major in college, in making the choice of a spouse, in making a choice to have children or not, in making a choice to perform ethically-dubious actions to gain a promotion. But i don't hold the opinion that working is done primary through psychological motivations.

The author can be a bit myopic in viewing all human behavior through the psychological lens. It's like Adam Smith and Karl Marx viewing all human history through the economic lense, and Vince Lombardi viewing all human choice through a desire to 'win'. The author is promoting her pet theory to explain all human action. She needs to include a broader brush in painting the picture. And, more important, she needs to realize that workers don't have much power in these leadership actions.

The premise that people 'choose toxic leaders' would be much better applied to toxic religious and cult leaders. (The author does touch on the Jim Jones massacre). The reason religion & cult groups are better for her theory is that the choice of joining a specific church or cult based on the charismatic pastor, removes the economic motivation for the choice. But the author is a business school professor, so she has to write in her field.

I'd challenge the author to turn her gaze towards the business schools. An interesting question is, Why do the elite Ivy League graduate business schools graduate so many corrupt executives and members who sit on Boards of Directors that enable Toxic Leadership? Why were the PhD power couple of Wendy & Phil Gramm so enmeshed in the Enron scandal, with Wendy sitting on the Enron board, and Phil leading the US Energy Task force that led the deregulation of the energy markets that Enron exploited? These people value nothing but power, status and money. What is wrong with elite business school faculty to allow such defective products of their institutions?
Why are business school's failing to educate Platonic "Philosopher Kings" who rule over the people with compassion? I use "Philosopher King" because corporations are not democracies. Corporations are dictatorships. There is no 'choice' made by the workers to follow a 'toxic leader'. It's just a necessity to work. And the information to know that the leadership is making toxic decisions isn't known until after the corporation collapses.

The reason i give it 2 stars instead of 1 is because of the high level of scholarship. There are 20 pages of footnotes, and 15 pages of bibliography. The author's a hard worker, but explains all parts of the world only through the field of psychology.

The central question for Lipman-Blumen, professor of Public Policy and of Organizational Behavior at California Claremont Graduate U., and one of the founders of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Leadership, is "What are the forces that propel followers, again and again, to accept, often favor, and sometime create toxic leaders?" The question has many sides involving sociological, psychological, historical, political and also in varying measures pathological and irrational matters. The author delves into these varied areas with familiarity, depth, analytic abilities, and nimbleness. There is no simple answer to the question. Followers' self-esteem, the delusions of crowds, deceptiveness of a leader, historical circumstances, and the nature of and need for society play into the acceptance, toleration, and support of toxic leaders. There is also often an ambiguity to a leader making it difficult to see if he or she is toxic; and some leaders may become toxic over a period of time. Not all toxic leaders are as evident in their time or even historical hindsight as Hitler or Stalin and the other ogres of history. Lipman-Blumen's purview of toxic leaders extends to Jeffrey Skilling of Enron notoriety and other top corporate executives of recent years whose harmful wrongdoings have been uncovered. While she regularly refers to certifiably toxic or questionable leaders in varied fields as examples, Lipman-Blumen engages only minimally in psychoanalysis of them. Her concentration is on the broader circumstances and patterns of how toxic leaders come to power in the first place and how they are able to stay in power even when their harmful behavior and policies become known. The author also pays much attention to the role of much of respective populations and key supporters in this. But the author also provides answers on how to counter toxic leaders in this timely, needed work.

Not content with having revolutionized how we think about leadership with "Hot Groups" and "Connective Leadership," Lipman-Blumen has now set her sights on why "toxic leaders" can be so successful and why they can be so hard to remove. Almost all of us can relate to these leaders, ones whose toxicity is unquestioned even as their hold on their followers is intense. Often, their followers can even seem nostalgic when these leaders are finally chased out. Certainly this book is as timely as it is insightful. Read this one and her two other books.

If you are tired of reading the same old stories on leadership and great leaders, this book will revive your failing spirits. The Allure of Toxic Leaders is a deep treatise into the psychology of leaders, and more importantly, their followers. Jean Lipman-Blumen will take your assumptions on leadership and turn them around. Critically, she'll help us (the followers) understand `toxic' leaders and some of the symptoms of toxicity, and indeed, how we are responsible for often pushing non-toxic leaders over the edge.

Weaving threads from psychology, philosophy and management, Lipman-Blumen skillfully takes us from the most basic needs of followers, and how leaders emerge, through to diagnostics for the toxicity of leaders. Toxic leaders are those such as Ken Lay of Enron, Al Dunlap at Sunbeam, or Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, who are charming at first, but eventually manipulate, mistreat, weaken, and ultimately devastate their followers.

This book works on so many levels - it calls us to examine ourselves, our needs, hopes and fears that are expressed in the leaders we choose. It serves as a guide for leaders who want to deeper understand their connection to their followers and perhaps understand why they may be driven to toxic actions. Lipman-Blumen has, in a succinct and erudite manner, brought the conceptual and practical together in this excellent treatment on leadership and (most often forgotten by others) - followership.

I have read perhaps over a hundred business books over the last 7 years. Most are good for one or two insights at best. This is different from the narcissistic business bios and the "I hate my boss" tirades. Instead, it is a well-researched review of basic psychological principles, how they apply to leaders and their followers, and how they set us up to create or permit bad leadership.

I was enthralled with the book for the first 100 pages or so, when I encountered the author's examples of "Authoritarianism". Instead of drawing from the deep well of history, or from business lore, he centers on the current Bush administration. I was stunned, thinking "Lipman-Blumen just wrote off half of the potential audience here". Not a very wise business decision, in my view. The events discussed are too current to warrant such sweeping conclusions.

My advice? Skip every paragraph with the word "Bush" esconced within (yes, even the laudatory one at the start; it's just a teaser). It's a book that would be destined for the "keep forever" shelf had the author displayed a little self-control. Any reader of average intelligence would be expected to look at the events going on in their life and "compare and contrast" . It's a weaker argument to hit your reader over the head with the "obvious" conclusion you'd like us to draw. (See? I liked the book alot, but spent more time here bashing it because of the pretense.)