Scholarly Book Critique

Kirk Baringer

Southwestern College

Mr. James Morrison

LEAD 510 Leadership in Context

December 15, 2012

Scholarly Book Critique 1

Introduction

There are always two sides to the story. Just like in a court of law both sides of the case

are considered by the judge before making final judgment. The same can be said of leadership.

There are two sides of leadership, good and bad. One cannot pass judgment on what constitutes

leadership without considering both the definition of good and bad leadership. This is the basic

premise behind Barbara Kellerman’s book Bad Leadership. Any person studying leadership

should see and hear both sides of the leadership story, good and bad. Only after studying and

examining both sides of the leadership continuum can a person studying the subject of leadership

truly appreciate the potential effect of not only good but bad leadership on a country,

government, or organization.

Thesis

Barbara Kellerman clearly states the fact that bad leadership should be part of any

curriculum on the subject of leadership and not just good leadership. She states that “to deny bad

leadership equivalence in the conversation and curriculum is misguided, tantamount to a medical

school that would claim to teach health while ignoring the disease” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership,

2004). Any discussions on leadership need to include the entire continuum of leadership from

good to bad, but the problem with such discussions stem from the very definition of the word

leadership. Previous definitions of the term, such as those of James MacGregor Burns and

Warren Bennis, refer only to good leadership. She argues that leadership studies should

demonstrate examples of both good and bad, because we cannot view bad leadership as being

unrelated to good leadership (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). Kellerman further questions

why leadership curriculum is positively bias. She points to the obvious, the language used in

defining leadership. Definitions of leadership and leaders always speak of leadership in terms of

Scholarly Book Critique 2

the good, and those who would use their power and authority (leadership) for bad were not called

leaders but “power wielders” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). According to Burns those

who would treat their followers as “things” are “power wielders” and that leaders would not do

such an act (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). As Bernard Bass would argue “there are almost

as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the

concept” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004).

The simple definition of leadership can be seen as the act of getting a person or persons

to accomplish a certain objective. James MacGregor Burns defined the leader as “persons with

certain motives and purposes” while leadership is the ability to “arouse, engage, and satisfy the

motives of followers” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). Kellerman demonstrates several

examples where a leader who would be labeled bad or evil was able to get their people to

accomplish something. She would argue that both Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt were

both leaders, because they were able to motivate their nations towards war. When it comes to

the concepts of good and bad leadership Kellerman stated that “to compare them is not to

compare apples and oranges, but apples and apples” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004).

Bottom line, leadership should be viewed “as two contradictory things: good and bad”

(Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004).

Main Points

The primary purpose behind her book is to demonstrate that studying bad leadership is

just as important as studying good leadership. As she says in her book, “Because leadership

makes a difference, sometimes even a big difference, those of us who desire to make the world a

better place must do what Tutu did” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). We must consider the

Scholarly Book Critique 3

resounding fact that leadership is both good and bad. Kellerman makes three key points why we

should not limit the study of leadership to just good leadership.

“It is confusing” is the first problem when excluding the study of bad leadership

(Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). This goes back to how the terms leader and leadership are

defined. Most would define a leader as “any individual who uses power, authority, and influence

to get other to go along” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). Leadership has become a very

popular subject in all aspects of society and has grown a significant audience in the corporate

world. Corporations spend plenty of money on seminars and training sessions all of which are

designed to train their personal to become leaders. Since the goal of most corporations is to

make a profit it can be assumed that a good leader is one who can accomplish this task.

Kellerman mentions examples in today’s corporate world where these seminars and training

sessions “equate the learning of leadership with the learning of good leadership” (Kellerman,

Bad Leadership, 2004). This only makes sense, because we as humans tend to desire a world

that is good and very positive. Bad leadership does not sell, because it tends to see the world in a

bad or negative way. People cannot comprehend that a leader can be anything but good, because

those who would use their power and authority have never been seen as leaders. This is why

Americans are so shocked when the wrongdoings of their leaders are discovered. Leaders do

good deeds and are generally good people. However, history is full of leaders who have done

bad deeds and were generally bad people, but we tend to label these people tyrants, dictators,

murders, or simply “power wielders.” We tend not to label these people as leaders, and this is

why the concept of bad leadership confuses people. Kellerman provides several historical

accounts that demonstrate that a person clearly met the definition of leader and performed an act

that would be seen as leadership but in a way that history would refer to as bad.

Scholarly Book Critique 4

“It is misleading” is the second point Kellerman makes. If a person, good or bad, meets

the intent of the definition of leader are they not a leader? Kellerman states that “it makes no

sense therefore to distinguish between leaders and power wielders” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership,

2004). Hitler was able to motivate his people to stand behind him as his Third Reich was able to

commit crimes against humanity and fight a world war. He was able to get legions of scientists

to create weapons of war that were way ahead of their time and would lead to some of the

greatest military inventions in history. Those stealth fighters and smart bombs that made

headlines in the first Gulf War were the direct descendants of weapons and creations from Nazi

Germany. Is this not leadership in action or the act of a great leader? Not too many people

would put Hitler in the same league as a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but they both were great

motivators who were able to stir their followers towards a common goal. If a leader simply

needs to have motives or an agenda then Hitler clearly would meet this definition. Hitler had his

vision of the perfect race and a world dominated by his Third Reich. He would just leader

followers, and he had thousands if not millions. If leadership is simply the process of getting

followers to accomplish a task then Hitler too would meet this definition. You only have to read

the history books to see how his leadership affected the world and continues to be part of any

discussion on military leaders. So, it is very misleading to paint leadership only in a positive

manner or that leaders are only those who would use their power and authority for good. To

provide examples that are not misleading Kellerman approaches leadership from a contextual

standpoint. For leadership must be viewed in terms of its context. All the stories she provides in

her book “are set in the particular contexts within which they unfold” (Kellerman, Bad

Leadership, 2004). Even bad leaders can be effective, and this effectiveness can be best

understood in terms of its context in relation to leadership (Leavy, 2003).

Scholarly Book Critique 5

“It does a disservice” is the third point Kellerman makes in her book Bad leadership. Of

course we all want to practice good leadership, and this is why we study it, teachers teach it, and

we practice it (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). Kellerman argues that another way to ensure

we all practice good leadership is by studying bad leadership. Kellerman asks the question “how

will we ever stop what we refuse to see and study” (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004)? We

must all view and study leadership from both sides, good and bad. If we only study good

leadership for its demonstrated effectiveness why would we not just as well study bad

leadership? The stories in Kellerman’s book demonstrate on several occasions that bad

leadership is just as effective. It is a matter of what exactly makes good leadership good and bad

leadership bad. This is why both need to be studied. We all know why good leadership is good,

because the majority of leadership literature focuses only on good leadership. One would be a

fool to think you can only learn from a good leader.

Leadership literature focuses on good leadership and good leaders, because “it is easier

for us to understand a story built around a single main character than it was for us to follow a

plot peopled by a cast of thousands” (Kellerman, How bad leadership happens, 2005).

Kellerman argues, through the use of stories, that “bad leadership is not solely the fault of a few

bad leaders” but of several bad followers (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). Kellerman again

will argue that “leadership does not take place in a vacuum” but is a web that is tangled by

strands consisting of the leader, the followers, and the context in which leadership occurs

(Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004). This is why the stories included in the book examine the

leadership context from all angles. The stories demonstrated that bad leadership is not just the

fault of the leader but also the fault of the followers and the situation. Only after examining the

entire situation can we distinguish between good and bad leadership.

Scholarly Book Critique 6

Critical Assessment

It has long been studied that the entire situation determines the effectiveness of leadership

and in this case if the leadership is good or bad. It has also been studied how certain personality

traits determine if somebody will become a leader. It often boils down to a situational approach

versus personality trait approach to leadership. The biggest flaw with personality trait

approaches is how they focus on only positive traits which will determine if a person will

become a leader or not. The leader cannot be examined without examining that leader within the

context of the situation, and therefore personality trait theories and studies assume that leadership

exists in a vacuum and the situation has little effect on the leader.

A leadership in context approach could fall under the category of a situational approach

to leadership. Leadership in context involves all aspects of leadership to include not only the

leader but follower and situation. Such an approach examines how additional factors beyond an

individual’s psychological and behavioral characteristics will determine how the leader will

behave, good or bad (Walton, 2011). Bad leadership or good leadership are just as likely to

occur based on situational factors than those factors associated with personality traits. Walton

argues that a leader’s failure and counter-productive behavior may just as well be due to

situational factors than simply their personality traits (Walton, 2011).

Kellerman referred to such a situational approach as the web of leadership. She mentions

how this web gets tangled and is very hard to separate. The web and its threads represent the

individual variables within a leadership situation. These situational variables are the leader, the

follower, and the situation. A situational approach theory suggests that a leader will adapt their

leadership technique or method to the situation. This type of approach suggests a leader could be

effective in one situation and not effective in another. They also could be seen as a leader in one

Scholarly Book Critique 7

situation and not a leader in another. More importantly, the leader could be deemed a good

leader in one situation and a bad leader in yet another. The examples within the book Bad

Leadership demonstrate the sound logic behind a situational approach and lend credit to the

several studies that have produced such a sound theory on leadership. A situational approach

theory and the study of leadership in context is what make this course so vital in any student’s

curriculum. Through historical examples of leadership we can see how the personality trait

theories have dominated as the preeminent leadership theories, because the great leaders all seem

to possess the same personality traits. However, it is these same examples and stories that show

how more creditable a situational approach theory is in the application of leadership. The stories

demonstrated that a leader possessed the same personality traits throughout their lives, but it was

the situation or context that changed. These leaders were effective at one point in their life and

not effective in another. The situation determined if they would have been labeled a good leader

or a bad leader. Studying leadership in context is the key to unwinding the web of leadership.

Walton had another name for this web. He called it the “toxic triangle” which describes

how three key components when combined result in bad leadership. The “toxic triangle”

concept suggests that when you combine a destructive leader, compliant followers, and the right

situation “dysfunctional and destructive behavior” or bad leadership will exist (Walton, 2011). It

is important to note that when discussing the variable or component of the leader that the said

leader does not necessary have to hold a formal leadership position or any such position of

authority. Whether the individual is acting in an informal or formal leadership role any

leadership cannot take place without followership (Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004).

Kellerman put it simply that “leaders cannot lead unless followers follow, passively or actively”

(Kellerman, Bad Leadership, 2004).

Scholarly Book Critique 8

Kellerman knew the importance of considering the follower, and this is why every single

story in her book focused on the role of the follower in each of her examples of bad leadership.

She poses the question throughout the stories of why followers would follow a leader that they

know is bad. So, it only is fair to say that there exists within the situation or context both bad

leaders and bad followers. So why would somebody follow such bad leaders? Followers do so

“not out of the kindness of their collective hearts but because it is in their self-interest”

(Kellerman, How bad leadership happens, 2005). Leaders, even bad leaders, meet the needs of

the individual or they would not be leaders. The many definitions on leadership refer to the fact

that a leader leads by meeting the needs of their followers. The needs most often satisfied by a

leader, good or bad, are the follower’s needs for safety, stability, and simplicity (Kellerman,

How bad leadership happens, 2005). Kellerman goes on in the same article to mention that the

needs of safety and self-preservation are the strongest of the follower’s needs (Kellerman, How

bad leadership happens, 2005). In most of the examples in her book the followers followed the

bad leader out of the need for self-preservation.

The third situational variable or aspect of the “toxic triangle” is the situation itself.

Walton mentions four contextual factors that are important in examining the situation in which

we see bad leadership. The first involves the degree of internal stability or lack thereof within

the organizational structure in which leadership takes place (Walton, 2011). The second factor

involves the follower’s perception of an external threat (Walton, 2011). The third involves the

cultural values on thinking and behavior that exist within the organizational structure (Walton,

2011). Finally, the fourth contextual factor is the absence of checks and balances which serve to

guard against the misuse or abuse of power (Walton, 2011). Kellerman presents several stories

that provide an example of each of these four contextual factors. When the right situational

Scholarly Book Critique 9

variables exist bad leadership can not only occur but flourish. The situation is much like a petri

dish with all the right ingredients to mix a formula. The four contextual factors mentioned

above, when present, can help give rise to bad leadership and keep it alive and well. Walton

makes much the same argument as Kellerman by stating “that the behavior of the leader(s) needs

to be viewed “in context” and that failing to do so seriously limits the validity of any assessment

of a leader’s capability and performance” in which one would add good or bad capability and

performance (Walton, 2011).

Kellerman has demonstrated throughout her book Bad Leadership that patterns emerge

that reinforce the contextual factors mentioned above. The majority, if not all, of the stories had

these factors presented in their particular leadership situation. Kellerman insists that we do not

give up studying good leadership but that we cannot ignore the concept or existence of bad

leadership. She mentions several time in the text that a leader can be effective and at the same

time a bad leader. Some would judge a leader good if they are effective in meeting goals or

objectives, but she shows in her stories that even bad leaders can be just as effective in meeting

their goals and objectives. She makes an equally sound argument for studying good leadership

as she does bad leadership. She clearly demonstrates the value in studying both, and the stories

she uses to prove her case are ones in which are clearly and accurately documented and relevant

to the traits that she states make up a bad leader. This is not to say she is trying to prove that

personality trait theory should be the dominant theory on leadership, but that the traits make the

leader bad. The bad leader is followed by bad followers in a situation that ultimately leads to

bad leadership. The biggest argument that is presented in the text is that “the idea that some

leaders and some followers are bad, and that they might have something in common with good

Scholarly Book Critique 10

leaders and followers, has not fully penetrated the conversation or the curriculum” (Kellerman,

Bad Leadership, 2004).

Personal Reaction

As I mentioned in the opening paragraph you always need to hear and see both sides of

the story. To think that a world exists with only good leadership is foolish and a bad way to

approach teachings on leadership. You also cannot make an accurate judgment of an

individual’s leadership without seeing the possibility that it might be considered either bad or

good. Finally, I would say there is just as much to learn from bad leadership as there is to learn

from good leadership.

The military has for years looked into the existence of what it calls “toxic leadership”

which in the framework of this class and text would be bad leadership. The studies that looked

into the existence of this “toxic leadership” also took a contextual approach to determine how

such leadership can exist within the military. The studies have shown that the leaders often seen

as “toxic” are those that have the reputation for getting the job done. Senior leaders expect their

subordinate leaders to accomplish the mission and often care less how they accomplish the task.

These same studies looked into the possible reasons how such leadership can remain present in

military organizations. They discovered that followers will overlook their “toxic leaders,”

because military leaders rarely stay with their organizations for long periods of time. Followers

just wait it out until a new leader is appointed. The example that was just provided takes into

account the entire web of bad leadership from the leader to the context or situation.

In the military the mission will always be accomplished. Throughout my career I have

been told that you cannot learn anything from a bad supervisor. This would assume, again, that

nothing can be learned from bad leadership. Do not bad supervisors and leaders get the mission

Scholarly Book Critique 11

accomplished? They do, but it is always the manner in which they accomplish the mission. This

manner must without doubt involve the leader, follower, and situation. The leader is labeled bad

often due to their personality traits. The follower, in a military context, often has no choice but

to follow the leader. Finally, there are situations in which the leader has a task to accomplish,

and the follower is ordered to accomplish this task. Still, leadership is not without followership,

and they both are impacted by the situation.

I am a firm believer in situational approaches to leadership. After studying the book Bad

Leadership my belief that leadership, good and bad, is determined by the situation is only

stronger. There is no doubt leadership must be studied in context, because the stories throughout

the book have shown leaders who were effective and good in one situation and were ineffective

and unethical in others. It also reaffirms my stance that power and leadership left unchecked can

lead to abuses that can result in immeasurable consequences. I can also see why the military

rotates its senior leaders more often than lower level leaders. The concepts behind the book Bad

Leadership can be applied in any situation. Leadership exists in all aspects of society, and as

such so does bad leadership. You can see it as a Yin and Yang or good versus evil, but the point

is there needs to be a balance in studying both good and bad leadership. One cannot exist

without the other. I have seen in personal experiences that the existence of my good leadership

is only a reality because of the bad leadership I have experienced during my military career. In

the same manner a warrior studies their enemy so must a student of leadership with all the

intentions on becoming a good leader must study the way of the bad leader.

Scholarly Book Critique 12

References

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellerman, B. (2005, January 1). How bad leadership happens. Leader to Leader, 2005(25), 41-

46.

Leavy, B. (2003). Understanding and triad of great leadership-context, conviction and credibility.

Strategy & Leadership, 31(1), 56-60.

Walton, M. (2011). Leadership behavior-in-context: An antidote to leadership hype. Industrial

and Commercial Training, 43(7), 415-421.