campusreview.com.au
commercial confidence), all judged against what are interpreted as
competitive global market standards.
There is a strong argument that the rise of academic capitalism
within the tertiary sector has been matched by an analogous shift
in the dominant management ethos. Managerialism, put simply,
is an ideology about the application of corporate approaches and
philosophies to the management of work, irrespective of the context
of that work (Deem 2001). It is a control system where objectives are
defined at the top and disseminated down through the organisation.
Proponents of managerialism argue that it is simply an
expression of a search for the highest levels of efficiency and
effectiveness in organisations. In this sense, managerialism can be
viewed as a continual improvement process, where the structure
and management of an organisation can achieve its zenith. How
this may be operationalised includes: performance appraisal of staff
against defined targets; a ‘sectional’ approach to organisational
structure where each section is responsible for its income and
expenditure; and close monitoring of staff and their activity.
So, why should this be an issue? It sounds pretty logical after all.
However, implementing a managerial approach in an organisation
that has traditionally been managed in a diametrically opposed
way ultimately must lead to major shifts in organisational authority,
management and decision-making.
And we have seen this in higher education. Collegiate decision-
making, while not completely eradicated, has been drastically
minimised, with decisions and direction being imposed from the
top of the organisation. School or faculty boards are now less
decision-making committees and more FYI sessions. External
criteria of what constitutes valued performance drives internally
validated (insert ‘rewarded’) behaviours. We have seen this in
multiple ways with the increasing growth of ‘quality’ journal lists
based on their impact factors, and with institutional ‘league tables’
of teaching or research performance.
Individual professional discretion is replaced by a growing list of
managerially defined policies and procedures. Sadly, “the don is
becoming increasingly a salaried or even a piecework labourer in
the service of an expanding middle class of administrators” (Halsey
1992). Thus, the university is assessed on its capacity to operate
as a commercial enterprise, rather than as an institution of social
worth. This has the potential for compromises that affect the core
business of an institution: teaching and research.
We believe that the nature of managerialism, somewhat
paradoxically, will ultimately result in leaders that are inherently
more toxic within the university sector, creating a self-perpetuating,
enduring downward spiral. But before we can present case-
study evidence to support this argument, we need to begin with
understanding the factors that allow toxic leaders to emerge.
TOXIC LEADERSHIP
Toxic leadership is a multidimensional process whereby the leaders
inflict recurring, severe and enduring harm to the organisations
and individuals they lead. Still, identifying a leader as toxic may be
contentious, as what some people view as toxic, others may see as
strong leadership.
Some people may be drawn to a leader who displays toxic
characteristics due to that leader’s inherent charisma and
compelling rhetoric. In contrast, the grandiose sense of self that
typifies many toxic leaders may repel others. Padilla, Hogan
and Kaiser’s (2007) model of a ‘toxic triangle’ recognises that it
industry & research
is not solely the leader, but the followers’ buy-in and support of
the leader’s toxicity, as well as the environmental context that
legitimises it, that creates toxic leadership.
The first element of this toxic triangle is the toxic leader. These
leaders display a number of specific characteristics, including: an
ideology of hate, charisma (associated with narcissism), a need for
power, and negative life themes throughout their life.
Susceptible followers are also critical to the maintenance and
establishment of toxic leaders and are the second component of
the toxic triangle. Followers legitimise the position of the leader.
Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified two main types of followers.
The first are the colluders. These may identify with the leader’s
ideology, being true devotees of the leader and their vision.
Alternatively some colluders may be ambitious, seeking to gain
from their association with the leader. Both of these followers
proactively follow the leader’s agenda.
Other followers may not adhere to the leader’s vision but seek
more prosaic benefits: affiliation, belonging, position and validation.
These followers are the conformers. They tend to have less faith in
their ability or self-worth, which results in their conforming to the
leader’s rule and dictates, irrespective of their personal values.
The final element is the existence of a conducive environment
that legitimises the toxic leader. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007)
suggest the toxic environment is made up of four factors:
instability, a perceived level of threat, disregard for cultural and
ethical values, and an absence of checks and balances.
The environment gives contextual meaning to the interaction of
leader and followers. It allows for, and legitimises, the leader’s and
followers’ toxic interactions. Certain environments are therefore
more conducive to the rise and maintenance of a toxic leader.
So, how are we proposing that managerialism and academic
capitalism contribute to the rise and perpetuation of toxic leaders?
By prescriptively directing staff towards short-term, measurable
outcome performance measures, a competitive work environment is
established rather than a collegial one. This occurs both among staff
within a section, as well as between sections of the organisation.
If a departmental manager is required to meet a range of KPIs,
they will direct staff to achieve those measures without as much
emphasis on the means of the achievement. This focus on short-
term performance targets and a rigid policy-driven bureaucracy
means that what is considered performance has a narrow zone of
tolerance. With such pressure being exerted on a manager, it is easy
to see how toxic leader behaviours, such as bullying, harassment
and abuse, can develop. This environment then becomes a context
where toxic behaviours can be normalised.
Managerialism, characterised by centralised systems of authority,
and the competitive values that run alongside them therefore
directly contribute to toxic work environments. Indeed, it has been
suggested that destructive forms of leadership may be the norm
in organisations run along managerialist lines. How does it do
this? We need to examine how the three components of the toxic
triangle facilitate the rise and maintenance of toxic leaders. In our
second instalment, we will explore each of these areas. ■
Dr Sarah Chua is a lecturer, Dr Duncan Murray a senior lecturer
(sport and leisure), and Professor Tricia Vilkinas an adjunct
professor of management at the UniSA Business School.
References at campusreview.com.au
19