AJM 17(4) Web_Master.pdf American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 105 Leadership Flaws and Organizational Stages David A Robinson RMIT Asia Graduate Centre, RMIT University Vietnam Duc Nhat-Hoang RMIT Asia Graduate Centre, RMIT University, Vietnam Geoffrey VanderPal RMIT Asia Graduate Centre, RMIT University Vietnam The paper builds on academic work as well as keynote statements about leadership by prolific figures in research and academics, while examining common leadership flaws and exploring ways to negate them. It describes three stages of a Values Journey, namely pre-orderly, orderly and post-orderly, and within those differentiates six steps, representing followers� values, each having a typical leadership approach. A summary of academic literature surrounding common leadership flaws and organizational pathologies and an overview of a model depicting followers� coping mechanisms are provided in support of the paper�s main arguments. Popular leadership principles are examined and related to five basic pillars of intent, developed by the authors, to support effective leadership. INTRODUCTION Some leaders are considered great, some good, some just good enough. Some may unwittingly destroy morale and inhibit organizational development. It is unlikely that any leader sets out with the intention to be non-effective. This poses a challenge in exploring the rationale behind the fact that there are leaders who turn out to be downright destructive. If the measure of a good leader is the propensity to attract willing followers (Ewest, 2015), could it be that bad leaders simply fail at being able to adapt their leadership approach to suit prospective followers� needs? Ongoing improvement is an essential part of every organization�s opportunity to grow, yet it is a challenging puzzle to manage transitions without turmoil and considerable emotional stress. Although organizational change can be top-down, lateral, or bottom-up, the leader remains the principal driver of organizational renewal, by virtue of their initiation and commitment to purposeful adaptations that influence the organizational culture. The study distils and simplifies down to five pillars of leadership that influence and identify value hierarchy and maturity of both leadership and followers and discovers why well-intended leaders might fail. 106 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 Based on Graves�s (1970) theory of bio-psycho-social behavior, it is now possible to plot an organization�s development stage and to predict its trajectory. Three developmental stages make up the Corporate Values Journey (Robinson, 2012). Certain leadership approaches have been found to be more suited to certain stages of development. The three stages may be termed pre-orderly (or accidental chaos), orderly (purposeful control), post-orderly (purposeful chaos). Each stage consists of two steps which essentially move the organization from submission to expression. Leadership is the key to advancement within and through the stages and the various dimensions of leadership should therefore be applied consistently within each stage. Notwithstanding the need for consistency, effective organizational development also requires edging those dimensions ever forward toward the next step, organically tilting the bias gently in favor of a forward and upward projection. An organization�s progress must be congruent with its strategic intent. Herein lies the paradox that few leaders can manage, as each order requires distinct sets of managerial processes, which, for as much as they must be mastered and consistently practiced, cannot be �cast in concrete� as, by definition, their purpose is to be superseded and thereby rendered obsolete as the organization progresses. It is the complex inter-relationship between strategic intent, degree of orderliness, stepwise advancement, and consistency of managerial processes, that demands leadership orchestration and coordination. So much has been written about destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; Hamel, 2015; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Shaw, Erickson, & Harvey, 2011) that it is by now clear that the role of the leader has the single most-impactful effect on the sustainability of any organization. Getting the leadership mix wrong can cause the organization to significantly suffer. The Values Journey Graves (1970) studied people�s behaviors and concluded that behaviors are essentially coping mechanisms employed by individuals. As such they were held to be active manifestations of underlying values. Unlike Maslow, Graves held back from publishing his results until he had sufficient evidence to justify his typology. Eventually he concluded that in life�s journey there are up to six value stations through which to progress. These value stations were later extrapolated to countries and cultures by Beck and Linscott (1991) and to organizations by Robinson (2008). Schwartz (1992 and 2012) concluded basic human values expanded into 10 categories with four being of higher order values. The six value stations by Graves (1970) were divided into three stages, each containing two steps. Table 1 provides a tabulated summary and brief explanation of each. The six steps can be illustrated in a two dimensional model, as governed by two axis (see Figure 1). The axis indicate two concurrent forces, one being the need to develop capacity for rational and considerate conduct in society, the other being the need to develop capacity for autonomous thought and deed. It is exactly the creative tensions resulting from these dichotomous teleological values that result in the forward projection. The journey begins in the realm of submission, then is spurred on by the intent towards individual expression within that stage of development, and then on to the next developmental stage, continuing on as willing followers, some to become leaders within that stage, some again to advance beyond it and into the next stage. But what of the great divides between stages? The first to be spanned is the divide between accidental chaos and purposeful order. To gain control over the lived world, there is a need to engage with moral issues; hence it is termed the ethics divide. Organizations making this paradigm shift typically institute Quality Controls and other disciplines that serve as a bridge across this essential divide. The second divide, between purposeful control and purposeful chaos, the so-called �holism divide�, is spanned by the realization that influence is limited to the extent of its alignment with greater purpose. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 107 TABLE 1 A SUMMARY OF BECK AND LINSCOTT (1991), GRAVES (1970), AND ROBINSON (2008) VALUES STAGES Stage Stage 1 Pre- Orderly �Accidental Chaos� Stage 2 Orderly �Purposeful Control� Stage 3 Post-Orderly �Purposeful Chaos� Step 1 Safe Bonding 2 Power- Seeking 3 Duty- Compliant 4 Success- Striving 5 Harmonious- Living 6 Synergy- Seeking Color Purple Red Blue Orange Green Gold Underly ing Need Avoid rejection Be revered Gain control Achieve success Contribute positively Contribute unique competencies Conditi oning �I am not as good as others� �I have more power than others� �I must sacrifice now for a better future� �I deserve to reap the fruits� �We are all equal� �I should make a difference� Coping Mantra Submit- endure Appease to manipulate and overthrow Conform to be a respected member of society Enjoy the good life Live in harmony Time is more important than money Positive aspect Obey Pride Work ethic Achieveme nt orientation Peace and equality Integrative and empowering Negativ e aspect Fear of powerful others Disregard for others Closed mindedness Mercenary- materialism Indecisivene ss Non- directive Matchin g Leadership Approach Benevol ent Despot Powerful Dictator Authoritari an Manager Hard- driving Negotiator Consensus- building Diplomat Empowerin g Motivator Sources: Beck and Linscott (1991); Graves (1970); Robinson (2008). When people look for leadership, it is to help them make progress along the values journey. Given that each step builds on and supersedes the previous, it is clear that individuals will naturally be drawn to accept leadership from one who is seen to have made the step that they are currently contemplating (Burns, 2003). A values-based leadership algorithm (Robinson, Goleby, & Hosgood, 2007) concluded that, within each stage of development, natural leaders will be those who are already on the expressive step. The same leaders may also provide leadership to those still in the previous expressive value stage for they comprehend what would be deemed good and therefore act for the good of their followers (Heir, 2005). Leaders on the submissive step may still provide leadership to people on the submissive step of an earlier stage. To have any chance of leading effectively it is imperative that the leader understands the 108 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 stage of development of each follower, thus it is logically improbable that anyone could effectively lead those who are already at a higher stage or step than the leader him/herself. It must be noted that the seminal leadership and management theories, for the most part, have traditionally been most relevant to Stage 2, steps 3 and 4 (Allen, 1964; Burch & Guarana, 2014; Drucker, 1954; Kepner & Tregoe, 1965; Mintzberg, 1979, Rossi, 2010; Salahuddin, 2010). Indeed, many formal management theories in MBA degree courses were predicated on a �one right way to lead� principle. In support of the one-right-way myth, management texts allude to stereotypical business successes, quoting examples drawn from corporate giants (Drucker, 1954; Giuliani, 2002; Walton & Huey, 1993; Welch, 2005). More recently, there has been a surge of interest in non-conforming leadership approaches, including chaos theory (Galbraith, 2004), balanced scorecard (Kaplan, 2008), worker empowerment (Drew, 2010; Men & Stacks, 2013), etc., with the upsurge of the new corporate successes such as Microsoft, Google, Semco, Facebook, Alibaba, and business leaders such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Ricardo Semler, Larry Page, and Richard Branson, who exemplify the post-orderly paradigm-shift associated with modern-day corporate-entrepreneurs (Kanter, 2010; Krishnamurthy, 2008). Although stage one leadership still exists today, mostly in third-world localities, it would be regarded as inappropriate in most civilized societies. There remains a considerable emphasis on the mastery of stage two leadership principles. While stage three leadership is not a panacea, it requires the relinquishment of control in favor of empowerment, flexibility and holistic thinking. Stage three leadership is therefore the domain of the visionary leader and is supported by emotionally competent and self-motivated individuals with the same set of concern, direction, and values cultivated by trust (Beirhoff, 2002); hence we have the emergence of new leadership principles (Covey, 2013; Greenleaf & Spears, 2002; Maxwell, 2007). FIGURE 1 THE JOURNEY THROUGH THREE STAGES IN SIX STEPS Source: Robinson (2008). American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 109 Common Leadership Flaws With ineffective and destructive leadership being the main theme of interest, Hamel (2015) reported on the keynote address by Pope Francis in which the leader of the Catholic Church described 15 leadership diseases. Additionally, a series of publications (Einarsen et al., 2007; Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013; Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Robinson, Harvey, & Yupitun, 2008; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Shaw et al., 2011) also described various facets and attributes of destructive leadership. Table 2 provides a summary of common leadership flaws described in those articles. TABLE 2 COMMON LEADERSHIP FLAWS Commo n Leadership Flaws Lack of mentoring (isolated from followers, self- absorbed) Lack of flexibility Poor coordination Unethical example Hamel (2015) Excessive busy-ness, petrification Downcast face Bias away from people toward administration Terrorism of gossip �Sower of weeds� Existential- Schizophrenia Losing touch with reality Lack of self-critique; Believing oneself to be indispensable Idolizing superiors Closed circles Excessive planning Leaves no room for spontaneity and serendipity Parochialism � the inability to consider a situation or a subject in a wider context, narrow-mindedness Rivalry � vainglory Indifference to people Extravagance - exhibitionism Shaw et al. (2011) Insular manner; not listening to from others Inability to make clear and appropriate decisions, no long-term view Inability to deal with interpersonal conflict Micro- managing Over- controlling Inability to prioritize and delegate Ineffectual at motivating, negotiating or persuading Narcissism Rosenthal & Pittinsky (2006) Lack of empathy Insensitivity toward others Need to be recognized Irrationality Inferiority Inflexible Paranoia Amorality Arrogance 110 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 Padilla et al. (2007) Control and coercion Compromise quality of life Acute need for power Manipulation Uncertainty avoidance Low intelligence in cultural values Instability Ideology of �fear� & �hate� Negative life themes Personal gain Self-promotion Krasikova et al. (2013) Pseudo-transformational leadership Inflexibility Abusive supervision Encourage follower�s malfunction Harmful actions towards followers Managerial tyranny Schyns & Schilling (2013) Coercive power Repetition over long period of time Abusive supervision Unsupportive managerial behaviors Petty tyranny Social undermining Bullying Einarsen et al. (2007) Emphasis on task completion Insensitivity to others Reluctance to attain goal Subordinate manipulation Failure to adapt Thoughtlessnes s Inequality in treatment towards organization and subordinate Subordinate humiliation Resource stealing Engagement in sabotage Robinson et al. (2008) Poor mentorship by family business leader Dogmatic approach of family business leader A management style that is authoritarian Next generation family member not feeling comfortable with the company culture Sources: From Einarsen et al. (2007); Hamel (2015); Krasikova et al. (2013); Padilla et al. (2007); Robinson et al. (2008); Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006); Schyns and Schilling (2013); Shaw et al. (2011). Given that leaders are followed by people for an intended purpose, the evidence for ineffective and destructive leadership practices appears inordinately large. It can be seen in Table 2 that there are essentially four categories of common leadership flaws, namely: lack of mentoring, lack of flexibility, poor coordination, and unethical example. Interestingly, they all begin with �lack of�. If �lack of� is the problem, then surely the solution is to provide more of these insufficient elements. The way to prevent ineffective leadership would then be through Mentoring, Flexibility, Coordination and Ethical example. Unfortunately, life is not as simple as saying that �to avoid being a bad person, just become a good one�. Wu, Foo, and Turban (2008) found that three personality dimensions are related to the degree of interpersonal comfort and emotional closeness, namely extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. These dimensions are the qualities believed to boost leader-member relationship, which stimulates the four problem-solving functions that diminish leadership ineffectiveness. Schyns, Maslyn, and van Veldhoven (2012), however, in an empirical study of leader-follower behavior in these same three dimensions, informed that leaders with high agreeableness actually engaged less in leader-member exchange, exhibiting a lower outcome of leadership interaction, while those with high conscientiousness and extraversion performed better in the same setting. It is striking that extraversion and conscientiousness are both contra-indicated in many of the common leadership flaws listed in Table 2. Nevertheless, the authors do not consider them a panacea. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 111 The fact is that even with the best of intentions, leaders have to develop the skills of recognizing and taking stock of their followers� current stage of development (matching), ensuring that processes are congruent therewith (aligning), that communication is consistent in sending the appropriate messages about moving the group forward (navigating). There are nuances between value stations that make it essential for modern-day leaders to be highly astute. In addressing unethical practices, Ludwig and Longenecker (1993) located the source of ethical failure of leaders in success itself, as, inter alia, success can give the leader an inflated, often unrealistic, sense of power. Price (2000) offered this fact as the reason some leaders are willing to sacrifice morality in favors of self-interest, but also allowed some exceptions in which immorality can be excused, which is when better development can be effected or the situation is beyond one�s control. Needless to say, the decisions of whether or not these cases apply depend greatly on leaders� skills that were mentioned as important for them to achieve shrewdness. Table 2 has provided ample ways in which leadership might malfunction. But to fully appreciate the hazards of destructive leadership, Robinson, Morgan, and Nhat-Hoang (2015) detailed three common pathologies arising in firms that fail to correctly align leadership practices with followers� needs. The first (mad firm) is a firm characterized by only the negative manifestations of its stage of development. The second (bad firm) is a firm characterized by dissonance, as its culture is confused and inconsistent, not centered around any particular set of values. And the third one (sad firm) has arrested development as a result of not having developed the capacity to move beyond a certain value station, which becomes its terminal stage. Evidence of so-called �mad�, �bad� and �sad� firms is all too common. What then are the key skill requirements for leading appropriately and effectively? LEADER-FOLLOWER EFFECTIVENESS To address the question of requirements for effective leadership, the literature is again explored. Research studies have discussed leadership attributes in terms of their effects on followers. For instance, Burch and Guarana (2014) related the power of social interaction and influence to the effect of controlling followers� energy, stimulating their effort investment, and establishing positive unique connection (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Harris & Kacmar, 2006). May, Wesche, Heinitz, and Kerschreiter (2014) presented a compelling case for integrated interaction between leaders and followers. Their model supports the view that leaders have to adapt according to the needs of the followers. Unfortunately, destructive leaders are, almost by definition, incapable of doing so; therefore May et al. (2014) concluded by recommending two followers� coping strategies, namely problem-focused and emotion-focused. With each of these, followers choose to either approach or avoid the leader. A relational view of leadership would have �organization as human social constructions that emanate from the rich connections and interdependencies� of members (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 655). That being the case, it is suggested that processes outweigh personalities when it comes to relational orientation, In this regard, May, et al.�s (2014) model is used to illustrate a common coping process associated with destructive leadership in organizations. 112 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 FIGURE 2 THE VICIOUS CYCLE OF DESTRUCTIVE LEADER-FOLLOWER COPING PROCESSES Source: May, et al. (2014). The May, et al. (2014) model illustrated the formation of a vicious cycle of leader-follower coping processes, set in motion by the initial destructive leader behavior. Accordingly, if followers have perceived the leader�s behavior as destructive, one option would be to approach the leader; this may be problem-focused (aiming at mitigating or eliminating the problem) or emotion-focused (aiming at resolving the emotional consequences). Either way, this action of the followers is likely to be perceived as aggressive or retaliatory by the destructive leader. Alternatively, followers may choose to avoid the leader, in which case the problems would never be addressed. If their coping choice was to go unappreciated, the leader�s destructive behavior would likely persist or even intensify. May, et al.�s (2014) proposed solution to break the destructive cycle was by �constructive leadership� (p. 204), which, though amiable, is tantamount to them suggesting that an about-turn can be made (from being bad to being good). The essence of effective leadership is the ability to address critical problems through rational and constructive thinking (Bass & Riggio, 2006); and destructive leaders lack this ability (Epstein, 2014). Given the improbability for leaders locked in destructive habits to realize it and transform themselves, attention should be directed to strategies to prevent destructive leadership practices. For this, Maxwell�s (2007) 21 laws of leadership (Maxwell, 2007), which reflect the virtuous and desirable qualities that effective leaders should possess if they are to avoid the detrimental trap of destructive leadership, would seem to be pertinent. Table 3 summarizes Maxwell�s laws, which are essentially the following: American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 113 TABLE 3 MAXWELL�S 21 LAWS OF LEADERSHIP 1 Law of the Lid Leadership determines an organization�s maximum effectiveness 2 Law of Influence Influence is the true measure of leadership 3 Law of Process Leadership development is an ongoing process 4 Law of Navigation Leaders chart the course to be taken 5 Law of Addition Leaders add value by serving others 6 Law of Solid Ground Trust is the foundation of leadership 7 Law of Respect People naturally follow leaders who are stronger than them 8 Law of Intuition Leaders evaluate everything with a leadership bias 9 Law of Magnetism Who the leaders are determines who they attract 1 0 Law of Connection Touch a person�s heart before asking for a hand 1 1 Law of The Inner Circle Leaders� potential is limited by those they hold closest to them 1 2 Law of Empowerment Secure leaders give power to others to help them reach their potential 1 3 Law of The Picture Leaders must exemplify the qualities they want their followers to develop 1 4 Law of Buy-In People buy into the leader first, then the leader�s vision 1 5 Law of Victory Leaders find a way for the team to win 1 6 Law of the �Big Mo� Timing and momentum work in the leaders� favor. 1 7 Law of Priority Effective leaders assign priority to strategically important activities 1 8 Law of Sacrifice A leader must sometimes give up something in order to go up 1 9 Law of Timing Knowing when to lead is as important as what to do and where to go 2 0 Law of Explosive Growth To add growth, lead followers; to multiply growth, lead leaders 2 1 Law of Legacy A leader�s lasting value rests in succession Source: Maxwell (2007). For ease of assimilation into this article, Maxwell�s laws can be categorized under five themes, each incorporating between two and seven laws. The categorization has been carried out by considering the 114 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 intent of each law in so far as it pertains to the followers, thus the title �Five Intents�, as proposed by the authors of this study, is depicted in Table 4. A common attribute of laws 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20, and 21 is the ability to influence others, which is the first Intent. To inspire others is the second Intent and it includes laws 4, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Drew (2010) informed how leaders can invest in the development of their subordinates by effective process (law 3), adding value (law 5), empowering (law 12), and sacrificing (law 18), hence the third Intent is investment. The fourth Intent, integrity, includes laws 6 and 7; while the fifth Intent, intuition, incorporates laws 8, 17, and 19. TABLE 4 THE �FIVE INTENTS� OF EFFECTIVE LEADERS, COMPARED WITH MAXWELL�S (2007) 21 LAWS OF LEADERSHIP �Five Intents� Theme Maxwell Law (law no.) Keywords Intent Influenc e Laws of the Lid (1), Influence (2), Magnetism (9), Connection (10), Inner Circle (11), Growth (20), Legacy (21) Character, Attraction, Succession, Legacy To influence others, be the future they want Inspirati on Laws of Navigation (4), Picture (13), Buy-In (14), Victory (15), Momentum (16) Navigate, Set example, Vision, Victory To inspire others, make it possible for them to be victors Investme nt Laws of Process (3), Addition (5), Empowerment (12), Sacrifice (18) Sacrifice, Processes, Empowerment, Serving To lead others, invest your energy in their development Integrity Laws of Solid Ground (6), Respect (7) Trust, Respect To gain their trust and respect, show integrity Intuition Laws of Intuition (8), Priorities (17), Timing (19) Instinct, Priorities, Timing To be one step ahead, develop your intuition [Source: Maxwell (2007); Five Intents Model by Robinson, Hoang & VanderPal (2017)] The five intents of table 4 can be seen to clearly correspond to the higher steps in Robinson�s (2008) Values Journey, namely step 4 (success striving would include influence and inspiration), 5 (harmonious living would include investment), and 6 (synergy-seeking would include integrity and intuition). Notwithstanding this, the prospect of finding leaders who have developed these attributes is certainly aspirational. Schwartz et. al. (2012) elaborates on ten basic values and highlights four higher-order values that correspond with Robinson�s (2008) top three steps in the values journey, namely self-direction (steps 4 and 6), achievement (step 4), benevolence (step 5), and universalism (steps 5 and 6). The remaining six values listed by Schwartz et. al. (2012) correspond to lower-order steps in the values journey, for example, hedonism and power, belong squarely at step 2 in the values journey. Even if all the positive values could be found in a single individual, the question would remain whether or not they actually relate well to prospective followers. From the authors� values perspective it is necessary for leaders to be cognizant of their followers� values. In this regard followers� stages of maturity are pertinent to the question of leadership effectiveness. According to Davidov, Schmidt, & Schwartz, (2008, p. 424), �The circular arrangement of values represents a continuum of related motivations, like the circular continuum of colors, rather than a set of discrete motivations�. This American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 115 indicates the unlikelihood that all leaders at all times can portray only the virtuous elements of their personal value system, as shown in Maxwell�s (2007) Twenty-One Laws, Robinson, Nhat-Hoang and VanderPal�s (2017) Five Intents, Schartz et. al�s (2012) four higher-order values, or the top three steps of Robinson�s (2008) values journey, without straying into other values or motivations that are authentic to them but could impact negatively on followers. To conclude this section, and in summary of the prior discussion, the authors believe that one of the keys to effective leadership practice is the ability of the leader to match his/her authentic values to the followers� stages of maturity in a positive, motivating way. Without this values and maturity matching a flawed leadership will unveil itself. MATCHING LEADERSHIP TO FOLLOWERS� STAGE OF MATURITY As organizations constantly evolve, the leader�s coping mechanisms would also need to be adaptable. With reference to the three stages and six steps of Figure 1, it is clear that nuances of difference would exist between leader-follower interactions at each step. In Table 5, the underlying values of step 3 and step 4 of the values journey are considered in five areas of interaction between leaders and followers. TABLE 5 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APPROPRIATE STYLES OF INTERACTION AT TWO VALUE STATIONS IN THE �PURPOSEFUL CONTROL� STAGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELIOPMENT Area of Interaction between leader and followers Step 3 Processes (Duty-Compliant) Step 4 Processes (Success- Thriving) Main Difference 1. Type of people employed Good corporate citizens who follow the rules Go getters with a will to excel Different energy set 2. Way people are encouraged to develop Learn to respect and comply with all specified criteria Reach goals and increase influence Different intentions 3. Way people can earn a promotion By not making mistakes and upholding the status quo By achieving targets Different approach to risk 4. Way people are recognized and rewarded Non-functional status symbols Incentive bonuses Different expectations 5. Style of communication Formal, hierarchical Participative negotiation Different form of engagement Overall orientation Fit In Stand Out Different overall orientation Source: Robinson (2008). Implications It is clear from Table 5 that, even though steps 3 and 4 both reside within the orderly values paradigm of �Purposeful Control� (per Table 1), the style of leadership processes demanded by followers at step 4 is very different from that demanded by those at step 3. Though each step may be a leadership �paradigm�, it has been shown that steps 4, 5 and 6 represent those that are most-likely to be highly-valued by followers. 116 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 Even if the leader has mastered all the desirable characteristics his/her effectiveness as a leader is still limited by the extent of match with the followers� values or stage of maturity. As most leaders are required to lead in more than one paradigm, they need to develop adaptability, which enables them to move seamlessly up and down the steps and stages, as appropriate, in their effort to optimize their interactions with followers. CONCLUSION Leaders do not set out to be destructive, yet somehow it seems to go wrong. There is ample evidence of the occurrence of common leadership flaws, all of which appear to accrue from four sources, namely lack of mentoring, lack of flexibility, poor coordination, and unethical example. Moreover, acquiring the skill to lead effectively is a moving target, as individuals and organizations constantly evolve, progressing in a step-wise process referred to as the values journey. Leadership practices have to be relevant to the followers� stages of development. This is achieved by aligning processes and facilitating personal and organizational development along the values journey. Getting the alignment, direction or processes wrong can result in organizational pathologies. These may take the form of negative bias (mad), inconsistent practices (bad) or arrested development (sad). The cycle of destructive leadership appears to be unbreakable. Followers� best method of attack is defense, since passive attempts to cope seem unable to appease destructive leaders. The only sure way to avoid destructive leadership may be to prevent it. This entails mastering the virtuous traits of leaders, as encapsulated in Maxwell�s (2007) laws and the Five Intents outlined in this article. Alignment of leader and follower values is essential if the virtuous leader is to adapt his/her style effectively to match followers� stages of development. The nuances of difference and necessity to adjust have been illustrated in the article with reference to two of the steps within the Orderly stage, namely Duty-Compliant (step 3) and Success-Thriving (step 4). In like manner, adjustments in approach and style are necessary to maximize leadership effectiveness at each respective stage of the organizational development journey. Ultimately, leadership effectiveness may be dependent upon the leader�s ability to forge synergies among followers. REFERENCES Allen, L. A. (1964). The management profession. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Beck, D. E., & Linscott, G. (1991). The Crucible: Forging South Africa's future. (n.p.): New Paradigm Press. Beirhoff, H. W. (2002). Social psychology: A modular course (prosocial behavior). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Burch, T. C., & Guarana, C. L. (2014). The Comparative Influences of Transformational Leadership and Leader�Member Exchange on Follower Engagement. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 6-25. Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Grove Press. Covey, S.R. (2013). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). A hierarchical structure of basic human values in a third-order confirmatory factor analysis. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 73(3), 177- 182. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1024/1421-0185/a000134 Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries.. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420- 445. . doi:10.1093/poq/nfn035 Drew, G. M. (2010). Enabling or �real� power and influence in leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 47-58. American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 117 Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper Business. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207-216. Epstein, S. (2014). Cognitive-Experiential Theory: An integrative theory of personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ewest, T. (2015). The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership Practices and Global Social Responsibility. Journal of Leadership Studies, 9(1), 19-29. Galbraith, P. (2004). Organisational leadership and chaos theory. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 9-28. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. Giuliani, R. W. (2002). Leadership. New York, NY: Miramax. Graves, C. W. (1970). Levels of Existence: an Open System Theory of Values. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 10(2), 131-155. Greenleaf, R.K., & Spears. L.C. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hamel, G. (2015, April 14). The 15 Diseases of Leadership, according to Pope Francis. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader- member exchange on stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 65-84. Heir, A. (2005). Structural imperatives and the globalization of human rights. Peace Conflict and Development: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-26. Kanter, R.M. (2010, December 13). Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, and Strategic Generosity Lessons. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ Kaplan, R. S. (2008). Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced Scorecard. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 3, 1253-1269. Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (1965). The Rational Manager: a systematic approach to problem solving and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership a theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308-1338. Krishnamurthy, B.V. (2008). Bill Gates: Entrepreneur, Manager, and Leader. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: the ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(4), 265-273. Maxwell, J. (2007). The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow them and people will follow you (Rev. and updated). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. May, D., Wesche, J. S., Heinitz, K., & Kerschreiter, R. (2014). Coping with destructive leadership: Putting forward an integrated theoretical framework for the interaction process between leaders and followers. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(4), 203-213. Men, L.R., & Stacks, D.W. (2013). The impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management, 17(2), 171-192. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. Price, T. L. (2000). Explaining ethical failures of leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(4), 177-184. Robinson, D. A. (2008). Keeping pace with change in SMEs � Creating and maintaining congruence and consistency in trans-national entrepreneurial firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(3), 272-285. 118 American Journal of Management Vol. 17(4) 2017 Robinson, D. A. (2010). The mad, the bad and the sad � personality disorders in firms. In R. Hicks (1st edn). Personality and Individual Differences: Current Directions. Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Robinson, D. A., Goleby, M., & Hosgood, N. (2007, February). Entrepreneurship as a values and leadership paradigm. Paper presented at the Fourth AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Queensland. Brisbane, Australia. Robinson, D. A., Harvey, M., & Yupitun, M. (2008). Destructive Leadership in Family Business: Modeling social exchange between generations. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(2), 226-240. Robinson, D., Morgan, A., & Nhat-Hoang, D. (2015). Persistence, Resilience, Renewal � a tale of three firms. The Journal of American Business Review, Cambridge, 4(1), 8-14. Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617- 633. Rossi, C.L. (2010). Compliance: an over-looked business strategy. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(10), 816-831. Salahuddin, M.M. (2010). Generational Differences Impact On Leadership Style And Organizational Success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1-6. Schyns, B., Maslyn, J. M., & van Veldhoven, M. P. M. (2012). Can some leaders have a good relationship with many followers?. Leadership & Organization, 33(6), 594-606. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158. Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 575- 590. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. . Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).. doi:http://dx.doi.org. /10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., . . . Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 103(4), 663-688. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/10.1037/a0029393 Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676. Walton, S., & Huey, J. (1993). Sam Walton: Made In America. New York, NY: Bantam. Welch, J. (2005). Winning. New York, NY: Harper Business. Wu, P. -C., Foo, M. -D., & Turban, D. B. (2008). The role of personality in relationship closeness, developer assistance, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 440-448.