For better workplaces everywhere

Successful management capitalises on a healthy workplace, where talents are appreciated away from nepotism and bullying. A successful leadership applies win-win managerial approach, where high-profile individuals take the lead for a business success story.

In this place a couple of years ago, I wrote about toxic business environment, which is characterised by a management-by-crisis approach, where bad bosses simply create obstacles for their subordinates, especially the talented, so that he or she feels superior.

In the beginning, there’s one big difference between crisis management and management by crisis.

Crisis management is defined as the “management and co-ordination of firm’s responses to an incident that threatens to harm, or has harmed, its people, structures, ability to operate, valuables and/or reputation”.

Management by crisis is wholly different as managers (intentionally or not) trigger crises in their daily operations.

The management by crisis approach has been reported as the main cause for organisational failure.

In their book Organisational Failure, economists Kamel Mellahi and Adrian Wilkinson defined failure as “deterioration in an organisation’s adaptation to its micro niche, and the associated reduction of resources within the organisation”. The result of this could be total exit from the market or turnaround.

Policy change or change of heart

Changing people is fundamental. A reshuffle is essential to bring in an effective organisational change. The elimination of toxic characters in workplace is a must for to turn a business into a success story.

It all begins with people and ends with people. It is the human capital that makes a difference. The expulsion of unskilled executives is the first step towards business success.

Mellahi and Wilkinson consider managers responsible as the principal decision-makers of the firm, and “their perceptions of the external environment have a strong effect on how they (mis)manage the firm”.

“Managers can frequently be narcissistic in their behaviour and increase the risk of failure when business conditions change. When faced with a threat, these narcissist leaders isolate themselves from the advice of others, ignore words of caution, interpret criticisms as threat, and frequently become myopic in their views. This behaviour and attitudes fosters hubris because of “exaggerated pride, self-confidence, or arrogance,” Mellahi and Wilkinson wrote.

Organisational failure is defined as deterioration in an organisation’s adaptation to its microniche and the associated reduction of resources within the organisation. The result of this could be total exit from the market or turnaround.

Kick out toxic people!

The elimination of toxic executives anywhere is a must for successful management. The advice is to kick out narcissistic managers immediately to ensure a co-operative workplace.

A study by the International Journal of Leadership Studies (IJLS) warns that egocentric, or narcissistic managers can easily perpetuate a self-reinforcing pattern of behaviour, one in which the conquered subordinate is transformed into an enabler, or an obsequious follower who willingly serves the boss.

“We suggest that narcissism provides a basis for toxicity within organisations because excessive self-focus precludes an extension of self on behalf of others, and encourages winning at any expense,” the IJLS study said.

The study even warns that narcissistic managers who are able to rise with the least resistance may in fact possess “psychopathic tendencies”.

“In other words, narcissistic managers are readily able to gauge other people’s vulnerabilities and subsequently exploit them, without feeling any remorse or regret in the process. In a sample of two hundred high-potential executives, researchers found that the prevalence of psychopaths was three and one half times higher than in the general population,” it said.

The study has made it clear that the emotional wreckage that these psychopaths leave behind as a result of harassment and bullying towards those whom they perceive as “weaker” is subsequently reflected in dysfunctional organisational cultures and structures.