The Paradox of Dark Leadership

Some of our best opportunities to innovate and succeed are hiding behind constraints and challenges¹

Introduction

The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest organisations in the UK, comparable to the country’s biggest companies in terms of workforce size. With such a vast team and multiple leadership layers, leadership quality naturally varies across different times and places. There are, inevitably, both exceptional and bad leaders. It may take only a moment to recall examples of the latter. While subpar leadership isn’t widespread, it does exist across the organisation and there are valuable lessons to be learned from both types of leaders. This article will explore why bad leadership persists and how we can, and should, seek to gain insights from even our worst leaders.

A scenario

A new joiner, Staff Sergeant Smythe-Chotek quickly earned a reputation for his hostile approach. As Department Head, he ruled with an iron fist, often resorting to intimidation and defaulting to discipline to maintain control His interactions were laced with sarcasm, patronisation, and condescension, creating an atmosphere of fear. Junior soldiers hesitated to approach him with questions or concerns, fearing his aggressive persona. He pitted people against one another, encouraging a culture of rivalry that undermined cohesion. When mistakes happened, he publicly humiliated individuals, dismissing their efforts as failures rather than well-intended mistakes, shattering their confidence.

This hostile environment left the team demoralised, with trust eroded and morale at an all-time low. But. He got stuff done. Everybody knew where they stood, and everybody frenzied to achieve the tasks set to them. And because of that, despite the fact that subordinates despised him, he was selected by the Chain of Command to act as Squadron Sergeant Major due to a gap in the position; setting him up for his true goal of promoting to Warrant Officer Class 2.

‘Bad’ Leadership

It is an awful and wholly unnecessary culture to endure. Yet, I confidently contend that this scenario, transferable to each of the Services, is directly or indirectly familiar to many. And far worse examples could have been illustrated. It just takes one unchecked person: an adjutant, regimental sergeant major, squadron sergeant major, department head, and so on, to create a path of destruction that is felt mostly at the individual level.

‘Bad’ leadership is neither condoned nor, ever, justifiable. However, our people will inevitably experience a variety of leadership qualities throughout their careers. Unpacking ways to make sense of deeply challenging leadership experiences can allow us to gainfully learn from them instead of being trapped by them. So, we would do well to examine ‘bad’ leadership from a more optimistic perspective because lessons can, and for our own sakes, should, be uncovered.

‘Bad’ leadership is an element of the human condition that is toxic, authoritarian, and manipulative, and ‘bad’ leaders often operate for selfish or ill-gotten gains. While there may be efforts to reduce and reject ‘bad’ leadership, we remain in a strictly hierarchical and competitively structured organisation that goes to war, a dynamic that can only too easily perpetuate unpleasant leadership practices at the individual level. And while nobody wants to experience it, bad leadership is a persistent sociological issue² that’s unlikely to disappear any time soon.

Dark Leadership

‘Bad’ leadership is too broad a label since it could refer to corruption, incompetence, and criminality, among other things. Since this article focuses on leaders’ conscious behaviours towards other people, let’s go with Dark Leadership instead.

Back to Smythe-Chotek. It’s clear that he lacks the ability to connect with his team on a human level, dismissing their concerns instead of offering patience and support. This, put simply, fosters a toxic environment where individuals are reluctant to speak up, ask questions, or highlight concerns and problems. His absence of empathy destroyed trust, and the lack of emotional intelligence risks further deepening division within the team. His Dark Leadership highlights, to curious observers, the importance of adaptability and human connection since an absence of these results in widespread disengagement and demoralisation.

These observations are useful for shaping effective leadership styles. Witnessing such a flawed approach cements the need to prioritise empathy and active listening – or to learn how to do so if we’re not quite there yet. Dark Leadership teaches us that genuine leadership isn’t about asserting dominance but instead creating a supportive environment where people who want long successful careers and who voluntarily commit to the armed forces can thrive. Through Smythe-Chotek’s behaviour, it becomes clear that a leader’s role is to lift others, including in times of mistakes and failure, by encouraging growth and learning instead of blaming them. He also demonstrates, so painfully, how having an open dialogue, mutual respect, and adaptability can nurture a culture where everyone feels empowered and like they belong. And in so doing, when lessons like these are learned, we are, conversely, influenced to be and do better.

Dark Leadership: A Paradoxical Conundrum

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate Dark Leadership from the organisation, would that be the right choice given its roots as a sociological issue? While this might protect our youngest generation of personnel from certain hardships, it would also mean they miss acute lessons and formative trials that can shape future visionary leaders. By navigating these challenges, individuals can develop empathy, understanding, and integrity, reducing the chances of repeating their predecessors’ shortcomings. Learning what doesn’t work in leadership is important for building strong ethics and visionary direction, after all.

We’ll always experience constraints in some form.

Regardless, it is up to us to pick up the pieces and move forward in a meaningful way.

Furthermore, environments that are too safe can also be detrimental, especially so in a warfighting organisation. Shielding individuals from adversity might seem ideal but it is ultimately futile and could, if that magic wand was a thing, lead to complacency. Growth often stems from adversity, and challenges, even when unhealthy, can still spur personal development. Without opposition, some people may lack the drive to forge their own path. And, though unpalatable, these lessons are valuable, providing the foundation for building resilient, respectful, and effective leadership that later fosters collaboration, honesty, and unity.

Conclusion

To be crystal clear, Dark Leadership is not condoned or wanted; there are more constructive ways to nurture these outcomes. However, it is here. Among us. It has been for a long time and it will endure into our future. A key tenet of this is that it is impossible to rid the organisation of Dark Leadership. It’s simply not going to happen. Although these leaders are unquestionably undesirable, they still contribute to personal and professional growth by illustrating what not to do. So, when times are hard, it may be helpful to explore our struggles through optimistic lenses to see where value lies within them.

No one wants to suffer under Dark Leadership, yet there’s something powerful in the chaos it creates if you look for it. Terrible leaders might not possess true leadership prowess, but their dysfunction influences us to navigate the wreckage. Though stifling and often toxic, these leaders can deliver hard-learned lessons about what we must never become. They push us to the edge, forcing us to dig deeper, to adapt, and show a path to veer above their failures as well-rounded human beings. Because of them, our own leadership approaches are painstakingly forged. We learn previously unknown reasons to reject their methods while simultaneously strengthening our own leadership behaviours.

Leadership is a perpetual learning journey and, sometimes, our darkest struggles shape us the most.

Feature image: Photo by María Ten on Unsplash

Philip

Philip has an interest in the lived experience of service personnel, much of his focus is on ground level leadership, followership, retention, and personnel development. He holds a Masters in Education with a leadership and management specialisation, and an Honours Degree in History.