Content uploaded by Kevin Gentzler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kevin Gentzler on Nov 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
What is Toxic Followership?
Ted A. Thomas, Kevin Gentzler, and Robert Salvatorelli
There has been some discussion on the subject of toxic followership, but it is as yet ill-defined. This
paper combines Kelley’s (1988) ground-breaking followership typology with Reed’s (2004)
definition of toxic leadership to provide a basis for categorizing different aspects of toxic
followership and to explore potential methods for mitigation.
Reed (2004) defined toxic leadership as containing three elements:
1. The leader has a lack of concern for subordinates or peers.
2. The leader has a negative effect on the climate through his actions or style.
3. The leader is self-serving and concerned about his own welfare over that of the organization.
Robert Kelley (1988), an authoritative and often quoted author in followership literature (see also
Crossman & Crossman, 2011), organizes followers into five categories: effective, survivors, sheep,
alienated, and yes-people. As described by Kelley (1992), all of these followers can be useful to the
organization. However, differing circumstances can cause some of these follower types to become
toxic.
Effective
According to Kelley (1992), effective followers are thinkers who are active and provide positive
energy for their leaders and organization. Effective followers are self-managing, committed to the
organization and its purpose, competent, courageous, honest, and credible. They are the go-getters,
risk takers, and problem solvers. Effective followers are well-balanced, responsible adults who can
succeed without strong leadership, and as such, are not prone to toxic followership.
Survivors
Kelley (1992) describes survivors as followers who are able to survive change. They are constantly
checking the environment to determine how best to adapt. They could be compared to a chameleon
that changes its colors to survive. A survivor can become toxic by influencing the leader to do evil.
Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, was influenced by toxic followers to condone acts of
brutality to stay in power. After Mugabe lost the presidential election, his military chief, Gen.
Constantine Chiwenga, pressured Mugabe to hold a runoff presidential election. During the three-
month preparation for the runoff the military killed, injured, and displaced thousands of opposition
supporters under the code name CIBD (coercion, intimidation, beating, and displacement). Not
surprisingly, Mugabe won the runoff election, enabling his supporters to retain their positions of
power and wealth (Timberg, 2008).
In the case above, Mugabe’s followers were concerned about themselves, their wealth and power,
were willing to ensure Mugabe’s continued leadership by using brutality and murder, showed a lack
of concern for the general populace, and created a negative environment for most of the country,
thereby fulfilling all three of Reed’s (2004) criteria. In President Mugabe’s case, his followers could
be classified as toxic survivors who changed their political environment to maintain their status
(Timberg, 2008).
Alienated
Kelley (1992) defines alienated followers as those who are good critical thinkers and can act
independently without being told what to do, but are disgruntled and have lost faith in their leaders
or the system. They have negative energy in their organization. They quietly go along with the
leader’s guidance, usually not in open opposition.
Boswell (2015) defines toxic, alienated followers as those who actively seek an audience with
others to undermine and disrupt the leader’s efforts. Common terms for this type of activity might
be called gossiping, faultfinding, or backbiting. He distinguishes between an effective follower, who
may disagree with the leader and yet still works to move the mission forward, and an alienated
follower who works to undermine the leader and the mission.
Bradley Manning is an example of a toxic alienated follower who was dissatisfied with the Army.
He decided to expose government actions he felt were not in keeping with his vision of the US
(Goodman, 2013). He actively sought to expose his organization.
Using Reed’s (2004) definition of toxic leadership, the alienated toxic follower shows signs of all
three characteristics; self-serving, having a negative effect on the climate, and lacking concern for
the welfare of the organization. The main difference between Kelley’s (1988) and Boswell’s (2015)
model of alienated followers is that Boswell defines this follower as active in their resistance to
undermine the leader, whereas Kelley defines the follower as passive.
Sheep
The third type of toxic follower can arise from what Kelley describes as sheep-a follower who is
uncritical in their thinking, lacks initiative, and will not take responsibility. Sheep do what they are
told, but no more, and are dependent on the leader (Kelley, 1988).
This type of follower becomes toxic when they know they are doing evil, but refuse to take
responsibility for their actions. The Holocaust is a clear example of this type of toxic followership.
The German administrators of this destruction were efficient and responsible for carrying out their
orders and directives. They ranged from lawyers, doctors, train engineers, accountants, to other
professionals who contributed to killing six million Jews and many others, even if they did not
directly put them into the gas chambers or pull the trigger. They were ordinary people, filling
ordinary roles, performing extraordinary acts of destruction and evil, packaged in socially
acceptable and appropriate jobs (Adams, 2009).
Adams and Balfour (2009), who describe it as administrative evil, claim this type of toxic
followership is ubiquitous in large, complex organizations. Because this form of toxicity convinces
the follower they are supporting the organization, we are all potentially guilty or susceptible to
becoming toxic sheep. This definition identifies the toxic follower as self-serving and demonstrating
a lack of concern for others and, in the long run, this type of follower has an adverse effect on the
organization and on society.
Yes-Men
Yes-men are similar to sheep in that they blindly follow and execute whatever the boss wants
(Kelley, 1992), but they also enthusiastically support the boss’ orders. They become toxic when
emulating a toxic leader. If the organization rewards the toxic leader with promotions and
responsibility, some followers may see this behavior as a way to get ahead. Toxic leaders may
reward those who are most like themselves since leaders tend to give higher performance ratings to
those who exhibit the behaviors they espouse (Kelley, 2008).
Toxic leaders may also have been toxic followers, just waiting for a chance to lead as those whom
they admired have led. One example of a toxic yes-man was Sergeant Evan Vela, sentenced to 10
years in jail for shooting an unarmed Iraqi man. A taxi driver named al-Janabi and his son stumbled
into Vela’s sniper hide-out. Vela’s squad leader ordered Vela to shoot al-Janabi. Vela shot him in the
head with his pistol and later lied about it. He easily and quickly followed orders to murder an
innocent civilian (Moore, 2008).
Looking at a bigger picture, this yes-man type of toxic follower shows a lack of recognition or
concern for society. By trying to please their boss to get ahead, they have effectively put aside any
personal moral or ethical restraints.
Reducing Toxic Followership
These examples identified different types of toxic followers. There are several methods of reducing
the influence of toxic followers in the workplace.
One method is to reduce toxic leadership. This eliminates the role model and shows that the poor
behavior of the toxic leader is unacceptable. Reducing toxic leadership may be the best method to
reduce levels of toxic survivors, sheep, and yes-men in an organization. If the role model or
protector no longer exists, the toxic follower is forced to change. Limiting interaction with a toxic
leader supplants the negative behavioral examples by positive ones for the sheep and yes-men to
emulate, and a different protector for the survivor to align.
Another method of reducing toxic followership is by directly confronting the troublesome
behaviors. According to Kelley (1992), identification of problem behaviors makes followers aware
of the situation. By holding the follower accountable for their behavior, improvement, and increased
self-awareness, two possible results emerge. Either the toxic follower will change their behavior or
they will voluntarily leave. Developing awareness in toxic followers is possibly the best solution to
the toxic follower identified as the yes-man. Yes-men may not be aware of their actions and may
consider themselves as good followers (Kelley, 2008). By encouraging the development of self-
awareness, the follower becomes more cognizant of their surroundings and the way their actions are
perceived by fellow members of the organization.
Peer reviews and 360 degree surveys are methods to reveal and support the development of toxic
followers. Peers have a special responsibility because they are often the closest to the person and
can identify and deal with the problems at the earliest stages. Peers who take personal responsibility
for identifying and holding toxic followers accountable for their behavior help establish a culture
where toxic behavior is not tolerated. Peer policing requires moral courage since confrontation is
necessary in these actions.
Organizations influence their culture through whom they hire, promote, and fire. They indoctrinate
new members of their organization through their onboarding process and through the culture
established within the organization. A culture that promotes and supports calling out bad behavior in
peers provides a clear example of norms for people to follow.It quickly becomes obvious if people
are not aligned with a strong organizational culture that discourages such behavior.
A final method of reducing toxic followership is to develop organizational commitment (Bjugstad,
Thach, Thompson & Morris, 2006). This approach is most applicable for those who are alienated
followers and best used when an alienated follower has not yet crossed over to active subversion.
Alienated followers commitment is based on what motivates them the most (Bjugstad, et al. 2006).
A method of improving organizational commitment is through changing motivations by improving
the relationship between the leader and the follower and attempting to align personal characteristics
when possible (Bjugstad, et al. 2006). Gaining organizational commitment from alienated followers
will encourage others to develop better relationships and improve commitment across the
organization.
In some cases encouraging organizational commitment may not work. If a follower is alienated to
the point of active subversion, however, the leader may have no choice but to fire them. This is
appropriate when the core mission of the organization is in peril due to the alienated follower’s
conduct. Once the person is fired, the rest of the organization must be made aware of the reason
behind the action to eliminate any false information and rumors. The key is to establish a culture
that does not tolerate toxic followership, supports the mission, and encourages followers to reach
their potential (Blackshear, 2004).
Along with reducing and eliminating toxic followership, an organization should develop effective
followers. Kelley (2008) recommends four different means. The first is to redefine followership and
leadership. Traits that make great leaders are the same ones that make great followers (Hurwitz &
Hurwitz, 2009). People need to be trained in these skills and shown by example the role of a good
follower, as our leaders execute that role from time to time. The second is to hone followership
skills by improving critical thinking, emphasizing self-management, aligning with organizational
goals, and acting responsibly with others in the organization. Third is to conduct good performance
evaluations and give appropriate feedback. Leaders should rate followers on their followership
skills, not just their leadership skills. These evaluations can come from peers, subordinates,
superiors, and self. Last is to build organizational structures to encourage followership. Kelley
recommends having leaderless groups, rotating leaders, delegating to the lowest level possible, and
rewarding good followership.
Conclusion
Toxic followership is an issue that has not been adequately addressed in leadership or followership
literature. Toxic followers can and do harm organizations. They drive away good people, put the
organization’s survival at risk, and endanger society. It is a topic that demands attention.
Unmasking Administrative Evil
!""#
$%&'() *%)+),
-,).%)$%)/)%0The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation
Journal, #123!""42526
)7*%'8)() 99%++%:7Mildenhall Air
Force News/;6!"2<
%% ==))==% :)>2!?44#?<4
@,%A%').;%*' AB)&(
%() %),() ) %0
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, C1?3?"45?22?2??2#
*D+7'-E+*(--97THE FOLLOWERSHIP EXCHANGE=
/;<!"2<%% ==) ! ;== ,=2!4F!2<6='-E+*
(--9
*B*7* %)),() 5/)%
)%%7LeadershipC41!"2234F25#C)2"22CC=2C4!C2<"22426F#2
)%)5,%)9)7G %/),%
;7Popular Mechanics!"2?B!?!"26
%% == )=))%=#"F2=55/5;5
),5;5%5;52<<C44#"=
..B&), )
*%),9)%;'H)%()%')0!!
!"2?2#!"26
%% ==,=!"2?=?=2!=;I),I I)II%
H)%.%H)%.7'%($%!7
Industrial and Commercial Training Ind and Commercial Training4241!""#3
2##5!"6
A;%7+$)(7Harvard Business Review2#FF
BC!"26%% ==;,=2#FF=22=)5 )551'));%
AJ,;),%)/,),%)),)% %)) %)%
, ,H)%)%)2##!;'J2##! )%
),,)J!""F;)%),%)D3
A;%7+$)(7+Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence
9%/)$2##!
A;%7%)),() 7+The Art of Followership: How Great
Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations()B5
!""F
A;%The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want
to Follow, and Followers Who Lead Themselves;=*
2##!
7+%2"5%)A)),G+K)7The New
York Times!""F(;!!!"26
%% ==%)=!""F="!=22==)%=22) %:I>"
,7'8)) 7Military ReviewB2!""4
,')Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military$%
!"2<
');,*),&+),;JL)%*0'9),%$%B<
!""F2#!"26%% ==),% %= 5
=%%=%)=!""F="C="4=!""F"C"4"!CC2%
