Contemporary Global Leadership 1

Good Leadership is an Oxymoron. Leadership is good. ‘Bad’ Leadership is not leadership

Student’s Name

Contemporary Global Leadership

Tutor

University

Department

Date
 Contemporary Global Leadership 2

Introduction

Good leadership is an oxymoron. In accordance to leadership definition, ‘good leadership

is an oxymoron’ is an ostensible self-contradiction that illustrates the two sides of leadership that

a leader can assume. It is a statement used in to depict or reveal a paradoxical situation in

leadership. Good leadership is best described as the use of personal influence to influence others

presumed to be below you and stir the achievement of a specific goal. The definition is only

limited to effective leadership, since good leadership needs to be backed up through influence

and charisma with solid skillsets that the ones following the leadership can rely on it for the

particular task being undertaken. ‘Bad leadership is not leadership’ insinuates the abuse of

authority in businesses, political spectrum, and religion (Evans, 2014). Therefore, the whole idea

of good leadership being an oxymoron is constructed on the basis that most people are actually

somewhere between being good leaders and bad leaders.

Additionally, a majority of the people are not certain or aware of the connection between

their leadership and performance. Consequently, a deeper knowledge of what good (or great)

leadership entails will facilitate a breakthrough and contribute positively in the intended

performance. On the contrary, bad or destructive leadership is an oxymoron. Consequently, by

any definition, leadership is associated to be a positive force. In essence, it is easy to state that

whether or not a non-destructive leadership is a good leadership is not valid all the time. Simply

put, there have existed non-destructive leaders in the world who have not impacted a dime in

their leadership (Hendriks & Karsten, 2011). A perfect example is through the leadership of

Jimmy Carter when he was the president of the United States. He was considered by vast

majority as an ineffective leader during his time neither was e a destructive leader. From the face

value of it, it would be misguiding to define ‘bad’ leadership based on its goodness since it will
 Contemporary Global Leadership 3

be somewhat weak and highly phenomenon. From another angle, ‘bad’ leadership can also be

described as the process through which leadership in itself is defined through critical analysis of

the behaviors both considering the leaders and the followers.

Consequently, a meaningful definition is better derived from the outcomes, as a result of

leader’s behaviors, experienced by organizations, and their members with the inclusion of

followers and external stakeholders (Hamad, 2015). Contrary to ‘bad’ leadership, good

leadership is an oxymoron, best defined as servant leadership. Servant leadership ideology is

derived from a leader being a servant first as opposed to a person who becomes a leader before

becoming a servant. Consequently, good leadership is described by characteristics such as being

firm and not harsh, being understanding and not weakness, being generous and not selfish and

assuming pride not egotism (Zarro, 2015). This paper is structured as a debate that seeks to

discuss the topic of study critically. The paper is constructed using the debate guidance research

aiming to put forth a set of argument in favor of and against the topic of discussion. Finally, the

paper shall carry out a brief reflection on the research. According to the debate guidance

research, the paper is keen to include all the key elements such as the definitions, interpretation

and argument.

Argument in favor of the topic

Good leadership is experienced through how time and attention is focused. A successful

leader is good at distinguishing the activities that deserve that focus. According to the old

leadership world, remote leadership could be seen as an oxymoron since leaders had to see or

monitor people to manage efficiency and standardization. The new world of leadership dictates

that good leadership is about thinking and imagination and it is not necessary for physical

presence to create the right environment for leadership (Kellerman, 2004). In support of the
 Contemporary Global Leadership 4

statement ‘good leadership is an oxymoron’ the debate talks about servant leadership. Servant

leadership is a fundamental aspect in the field of leadership. In lieu of supporting this statement,

with good leadership, corporate culture is not forced but developed.

Corporate culture is developed through factors such as open communication, which

pushes everyone to understand the vision and goals of the organization (Carsten & Uhl-Bien,

2012). Good leadership is accommodative in that every individual feels they are important to the

system and that their positions matter in the end result anticipated in the organization. In essence,

leadership is considered a human activity (Evans, 2014). People have engaged in leadership all

over the world and leaders carry out similar functions as leaders. Some of the functions include

initiating activities, motivating people, and moving people towards various goals. In essence of

oxymoron, some leaders use persuasion and others use force (Hamad, 2015). In some instances,

some are democratic with the aim of promoting the greatest good, while others are autocrats

aiming at maximization of their own good and the good of their friends and cronies.

Good leadership is blended by good following. For an effective leader to become a

leader, it is fundamental to be seen as a leader and not a follower. To become a leader who does

not display characteristics of a follower, a leader should seek out opportunities to lead, adopt

behaviors that people associate with leaders rather than followers (Hendriks & Karsten, 2011).

Above all, followers will respect a leader who has displayed exceptionalism relative to peers.

Leaders are able to compromise their ability to lead by seeking to demonstrate their specialness

and exceptionalism (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). In any case, good leaders are only ever as

effective as their ability to engage followers. In any situation, a leader is not a good leader if

he/she does not have followership. Therefore, leadership is inculcated from processes that

emerge from relationships between leaders and followers.

 Contemporary Global Leadership 5

Good leaders are bound together by their understanding that they are members of the

same social groups as of those of their followers. Consequently, effective leadership will be

demonstrated through their behaviors which are inclined to depicting that they are among the

followers (Kellerman, 2004). Being identified as of one origin means that leaders are capable of

demonstrating they share sentimental values, concerns and experiences as of those of their

followers. They are also anticipated to demonstrate that they are advocating the interests of their

followers rather than own personal interest or interests of minority selfish groups.

A good leader has the ability to build and maintain effective teams that are capable of

performing their functions with competence. In essence, the ideal method of evaluating leaders is

vested in the manner in which the teams they lead reflect performance. Consequently, instead of

seeking to stand out from their peers, they enjoy better services by ensuring that they are seen to

be good followers (Kellerman, 2004). For good leaders to assume such an oxymoron statement,

they should be seen as people who are willing to work within the group and on its behalf. In

essence, people who see themselves and are seen by others as followers that are able to become

leaders. Therefore, those who want to lead are served by first endeavoring to follow (Evans,

2014). The oxymoron of it all is that those who see themselves as natural and good leaders are

overly seen by others as potential as compared to those who see themselves as followers.

Good leaders are defined in terms of their ability to bring about positive change. On the

other hand, a great leader is an oxymoron (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). To become a great leader,

a person has to bring change for better or worse. The historical point of leadership defines

leaders such as Gandhi and Hitler and great leaders. Even so, great good leadership is evaluated

through the lenses of ethical considerations (Hendriks & Karsten, 2011). Therefore, a good

leader is the one which is defined by the social constructs f ethical and effectiveness. Situations
 Contemporary Global Leadership 6

arise where some leaders are highly ethical and not very effective while others are highly

effective but not very ethical considering other ways (Evans, 2014). In most cases, especially in

realm of good leadership being an oxymoron being ethical is being effective and at times being

effective is being ethical. Consequently, it is okay to state that effectiveness is ethics in some

instances (Kwadade-Cudjoe, 2020). Sometimes when a leader is regarded as being ethical and

trustworthy makes them effective. In other times being regarded as highly effective makes the

leader highly ethical (Kellerman, 2004).

For instance, the position of the Secretary of the United Nations demands for a person

with great command of efficiency and behaves ethically. In another example, Dunlap was greatly

publicized as a great business leader. The admiration to earn him the title was based on his

abilities to downsize a company and raise the price of its stocks. Nonetheless, when he failed to

deliver profits at Sunbeam, he opted to look for ways to cover the losses which lead to him being

fired. In essence, the criteria assumed for good leadership was limited to whether he makes

profits for the organization (Hamad, 2015). It is noted that some leaders act with moral intentions

but the incompetency surrounding then leads to creation of unethical outcomes.

Unemotional leader is an oxymoron. Components of charisma and emotions are integral

to quality leadership. Being a good leader needs a person who can express emotion and passion.

Such leaders are great and capable of projecting their vision in an emotional and convincing

manner. They become masters of motivation once they are able to express their emotions.

Additionally, they become capable of riveting the attention of their followers through revelation

of their emotional commitment to their vision. Good leadership is an oxymoron (Carsten & Uhl-

Bien, 2012). Simply put, it is difficult to define charisma in relation to good leadership. While it

is identifiable when it is seen, like love, it is difficult to come to a concluded definition since
 Contemporary Global Leadership 7

both, charisma and love are experienced on an emotional rather than rational level (Evans, 2014).

Even so, there are various factors considered to be important elements common to charismatic

leaders such as self-confidence, speaking with conviction, approachable, capacity to make self-

importance, and good listeners.

Charismatic leaders understand who they are, which makes them authentic as they

pretend to be no one but themselves. Consequently, they are always armed with self-confidence

making them always speak with conviction (Kellerman, 2004). In the midst of it all, they have

the capacity to make others feel important. Most importantly, good leaders are supposed to

display high quality listening skills and ability to store information in one’s mind. Being a good

leader means to have the capacity to withdraw from the emotional reservoir. However, it does

not translate to abandonment of control for emotions, but it necessitates the abilities to feel

comfortable in expression of these emotions. A leader is supposed to generate an interested

following so that his leadership skills are felt. Therefore, charisma plays a big role in successful

leadership necessitating that unemotional leader is an oxymoron.

Argument against

Bad leadership is not leadership. Bad leadership is also considered an oxymoron of dark

leadership. Bad or dark leadership is a construction of negative connotation and consequences

that result to poor choices. Not only do the consequences result from the destructive nature of the

leaders, but also their susceptible followers and toxic environments. The modern world has been

shaped by easy availability of information due to the advancement in globalization (Evans,

2014). Consequently, it has become very easy to spot a bad leader especially through abuse of

authority in business, politics, and religion. Bad leadership is best described as an oxymoron and

by definition; leadership only assumes the positive force (Kellerman, 2004). In another view, the
 Contemporary Global Leadership 8

definition of bad leadership based on its goodness depicts a weak and highly phenomenon.

Consequently, defining bad leadership would be best through assuming and assimilating the

characteristics and behaviors of the leaders and their followers. Therefore, the definition is

inclined to what leaders do or how they lead.

‘Bad’ leadership involves imposing goals on constituents without their agreement or

regard for their long-term welfare. In support of the above statement, the definition of bad

leadership assumes that a leader’s bad intentions are essential factors that are determinant of

destructiveness. Consequentially, certain behaviors exhibited by the leader will automatically be

classified as inherently destructive (Kellerman, 2004). Nonetheless, such utterances are not

conclusive since negative behavior can be placed on continuum ranging from ineffective or

incompetent to unethical or evil. Bad leadership is an oxymoron of incompetency and cannot

always stand in instances of relevancy to being ethical or unethical by large. In some instances,

the dark side of leadership is at times associated with positive effects (Evans, 2014). This is

basically observed in the short-term necessarily when a leader begins his or her time of

leadership.

Consequently, the definition of bad leadership is socially challenged by such factors. In

any case, leadership could be defined by its bright side and its bad side (Raffo, 2013).

Nevertheless, bad leadership is becoming predominant despite beginning with the bright side on

its initial stages (Kellerman, 2004). A good case study is through the leadership if Soeharto, the

second president of Indonesia. At the initial stages of his leadership, his followers and other

people saw him as a good leader with effective leadership. Nevertheless, as time went by hid bad

and dark side in leadership emerged.

 Contemporary Global Leadership 9

Bad leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive. The oxymoron of bad

leadership places an absolute end result of bad leadership. Most leadership results must exhibit

good or bad results (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Therefore, outcomes associated with bad

leadership are primarily constructed at the end of the spectrum. Further, constructive leadership

can also yield bad results while their outcomes are largely located at the opposite end of the

spectrum of bad leadership (Kellerman, 2004). Therefore, bad leadership is not leadership and

bad leadership is an oxymoron dictating that leadership is good. It is easier to define bad

leadership in terms of the harmful outcomes that are resultant.

On the contrary, this necessitates that good leadership can also produce bad outcomes

while bad leaders result in producing desirable outcomes (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). A good

example is given on Adolf Hitler. At one time, Hitler was perceived to influence positive values

to his constituents. On the other hand, Hitler, being a well-regarded leader, made a chain of

unfortunate mistakes (Shapira, 2017). Another example is seen by John F. Kennedy, the US

president when he was associated with the Pig Bay Cuban missiles crisis. Therefore, bad

leadership being an oxymoron, it is difficult to grasp one point of view and stick to it as the

definition of bad leadership.

The process of bad leadership often involves dominance, coercion, and manipulation

rather than influence, persuasion and commitment. The principle direction of bad leadership is

fundamental in defining its integral meaning (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). It assists in showing the

direction of destructiveness such as towards oneself (personal destructiveness) or towards the

organization and its internal and external stakeholders. Personal destructiveness originating from

bad leadership are the undesirable things leaders bring upon themselves such as reprimands,

criminal record, or tarnished reputation (Shapira, 2019). In contrast, organizational

 Contemporary Global Leadership 10

destructiveness resulting from bad leadership does not always imply that the leader will self-

destruct.

Organizational destructiveness occurs in situations where misfortune originating from the

leader is brought to his or her followers, with an inclusion of internal and external stakeholders

(Evans, 2014). Such destruction might take the shape of demoralized work force, environmental

disasters, and countries driven to poverty (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). An oxymoron of

leadership is best defined as a functional resource for group performance. The basicity of it all

lacks in bad leadership. The involvement of influencing individuals to forego, for a limited time,

their selfish, short-term interests only happens in the initial stages of leadership. It does not

translate to long-term group goals within an environment or situational context. Also lacking in

bad leadership, is the manner in which leadership effectiveness addresses how well a group

accomplishes its purpose leading to the depictions of leadership as a neutral-value term (Evans,

2014). Therefore, to determine with preciseness, the test of bad leadership is spread over the

long-run by gauging the constructive or destructive nature of the leadership. The perfect example

from an ancient world is given by Hitler. During his time as a leader, he led the German people

into external domination and poverty. In that case, Hitler was in deed a leader; the only

difference is that he was a bad leader.

The processes involved in dark leadership are outcomes that compromise the quality of

life for followers of a leader. They detract from organizational main purpose and agendas as

anticipated by both the leader and the followers. In essence to bad leadership, negative

organizational outcomes are directly resultants of dysfunctional leader behaviors. They are also

susceptible to followers interacting in the context of a contributing environment (Hamad, 2015).

Nonetheless, it would be misguiding to state that destructive organizational outcomes are

 Contemporary Global Leadership 11

exclusively the result of dark leadership. Consequently, destructive organizational outcomes are

also resulting from susceptible followers and better environments. Bad leadership causes leaders

to be entrapped in the practice of uncouth behavior (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). There are

various factors that affect leadership causing its detrimental effects. For instance, mirroring is a

common practice among bad leaders.

Mirroring is the habit or tendency of leaders to see themselves in the manner and nature

perceived by their followers (Shapira, 2019). It is also the push that leaders get when they

perceive what the followers feel making them act to satisfy the projections or fantasies of their

followers (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). In essence, mirroring is part of human existence and how the

human brain understands the world to the extent of reflecting different perceptions. Even so,

there are various conditions necessitating the situation and its impact bad leadership. Notably, in

times of crisis, bad leaders are likely to engage in distorted mirroring. It becomes even more

serious when these leaders use their authority and power to initiate certain actions, which may

result in detrimental and negative consequences for the organization.

Narcissism in leaders is best stated to describe a bad leader who reflects a distorted view

of the self. In most cases, a bad leader will exhibit characteristics of narcissism such as the need

for power prestige and drama. Bad leaders who assimilate narcissism in their leadership will also

form a habit of manipulating their subjects without any remorse (Evans, 2014). Such leaders do

not know how to take criticism in cases where it is directed to them or people within their closed

circles. In most cases, they get surrounded by sycophants such as the people who fight to win

favor by flattering influential people. Additionally, bad leaders possesses alexithymia. This

means that bad leadership being an oxymoron, bad leaders suffer from the inability to

differentiate and verbalize emotions. Such leaders end up exhibiting poor control and become
 Contemporary Global Leadership 12

structured and dispassionate (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). Nonetheless, they suffer from poor

emotional ability to foster creativity and respond in appropriate manners to any kind of conflict.

Bad leadership is also characterized by fear of reprisal.

Leaders become so entangled to leadership such that they develop a fear of letting go. In

most cases, the leaders are aware that they no longer fit in the leadership capacities bat they fail

to accept the realities and refuse to let go (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). They always visualize the

loss of power being suggestive of nothingness leading to fears of ruined legacies. Consequently,

the end up using any other means that will ensure that they stay in power. Bad leadership is also

encumbered with trust and distrust issues (Zarro, 2015). Trust in terms of bad leadership is

categorized in terms of cognitive and the affective. For leaders and followers, trust is a factor that

is reciprocated by both. Cognitive trust appears to maintain a factual basis that seem to improve

the relationship between the leaders and their followers (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007). In most cases,

when followers show trust in a leader, they depict the trust level they have on the system that the

leader represents. Followers will then employ a systemic criteria such as collective identities and

values that assist in evaluation of the trustworthiness in the systems of leadership (Hamad, 2015).

In essence, the social constructions of trust are based on the perceived trust. In cases where there

is a slight perceived difference in trust or perceived misused of such trust, the distrust culture

emerges leading to the simulation and formation of bad leadership.

Reflection

In this reflection of the topic researched in this paper, I begin by looking at the

fundamental importance of the topic and relevance to the study. Indeed, good leadership is an

oxymoron. In my recent research, the topic of leadership has been of fundamental importance. In

my understanding, an oxymoron is a combination of contradictory or incongruous words. In the

 Contemporary Global Leadership 13

case of the current debate, the opposite of good is bad. The surprise of leadership comes in

knowing that leadership generates power, which generates performance. On the other hand,

power is consumed by performance making good leadership and oxymoron.

In most cases, it is stated that a leader is a bad leader in cases where he or she mistreats

those who are below them. Nonetheless, the statement presents an oxymoron situation since it is

contradicting in nature. In such assumptions, there lies a disservice to the noble ideal that a

leader is supposed to uphold. In most instances, people confuse tittle or status with being a

leader. Fundamentally, this could not be more incorrect or more damaging to the definitions and

status quo that being a leader is meant to bestow. Occupying statuses that are above others does

not automatically qualify a person to become a leader.

Definitely, being a leader one has to show clear-cut distinctions through character

display. There are many behaviors that create a leadership environment. Nonetheless, there are

those that are foundational so that a person can become a true leader. The leadership behavior is

characterized by congruency, appreciation, humility, decisiveness, clarity of expectation and

collaboration among many others. Such characteristics are clear depiction that a person is

modeling leadership regardless of their actual title. The characteristics are not an escape formula

to determine that a leader does not make mistakes. Nonetheless, a leader is able to take full

accountability of their mistakes. A leader is passionate of being corrected and being committed

not to repeat the same mistakes again.

Leadership is also determined by the susceptibility of followers. Followership roles in the

leadership world is a fundamental importance. In the essence of this discussion, it is determined

that leadership being an oxymoron, it dictates that there is no leadership without followership.

Nonetheless, there is fundamentalism in the kind of following that happens to particular set of
 Contemporary Global Leadership 14

leadership environments. Certain forms of followership are unable or unwilling to resist

domineering and abusive leaders. There are various needs that dictate the above feelings. Mostly,

they need safety, security, group membership, and predictability in what seem to be the ideal

uncertain world. Some followers have thrived through participating in destructive activities

which leads to creating a ‘bad’ leadership situation.

It is my belief that the certain groups of followers are determining factors to the

leadership that will result. The followers groups are conformers and colluders. Conformers

mostly comply with destructive leadership. They are mostly driven by fear whereas colluders are

active participants in the destructions resulting from bad leadership. Mostly, I discovered through

research that conformers are focused greatly on the unmet needs, and negative core self-

evaluations. I also discovered that core self-evaluations are related to life satisfaction, job

satisfaction, occupational performance and motivation. It is also determined that self-esteem is a

crucial factor that guides appraisal that are basic on the overall value of human beings.

Low self-esteem pushes people to be more desirable leading to their need in identifying

themselves with charismatic leaders who are manipulative while their followers feel that they are

deserving of the same situation. The pivotal point of control is that a leader determines their own

fate. Even so, in a contradicting view that majorly centers on beliefs that the outcomes are

structured and evoked by external factors. Conformers are also characterized by low

psychological maturity. Mostly, psychological maturity results to ego development, moral

reasoning and self-concept. It leads to a leader forming an integrated and socially valued identity.

Poor leaders are characterized of being of low psychological maturity. Therefore, they are

inclined to followers who tend to identify their leadership characteristics with cultural heroes and

to internalize their values.

 Contemporary Global Leadership 15

Good leadership is an oxymoron. A great leader is the best definition of the ideal

leadership rather than using good or bad in leadership. A great leader is cultivated through

several ideologies. One of the ideology is through being a consistent in responding to leadership

issues. Charismatic leaders often attract good people. On the other hand, leaders who act with

consistency keep followers who believe in them. Additionally, authentic leaders are

characterized by being people-focused. They should be able to understand that the people around

them are what focuses on making them leaders.

Consequently, the entire idea of leadership being stratified on lines of oxymoron is

constructed on the grounds of people actually being good or bad. Evidently, people are not aware

of their sidelining when it comes to good or bad. A deeper knowledge of what good (or great)

leadership entails will facilitate a breakthrough and contribute positively in the intended

performance. On the contrary, bad or destructive leadership is an oxymoron. Consequently, by

any definition, leadership is associated to be a positive force. In essence, it is easy to state that

whether or not a non-destructive leadership is a good leadership is not valid all the time.
 Contemporary Global Leadership 16

References

Carsten, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Ethical Followership. Journal Of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 20(1), 49-61. doi: 10.1177/1548051812465890

Evans, C. (2014). Book review: Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead. Management Learning, 45(2), 235-236. doi: 10.1177/1350507614524412

Hamad, H. (2015). Transformational Leadership Theory: Why Military Leaders are More

Charismatic and Transformational?. International Journal On Leadership, 3(1). doi:

10.21863/ijl/2015.3.1.001

Hendriks, F., & Karsten, N. (2011). Democratic Theory and the ‘Anomaly’ of Leadership. SSRN

Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1972874

Kwadade-Cudjoe, F. (2020). Leadership of Change: Examination of transactional,

transformational and charismatic leadership, and evaluation of the concept of charismatic

leadership in the current information-driven business environment. Archives Of Business

Research, 8(8), 294-305. doi: 10.14738/abr.88.8909

Kaiser, R., & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality

and organizational decline. In J. H. R. Hooijberg, Being there even when you are not:

Leading through strategy, systems and structures, Mlnographs in leadership and

management, Vol. 4 (pp. pp. 177-197). London: Elsevier Science.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it

matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

 Contemporary Global Leadership 17

Rosenthal, S.A., & Pittinskya, T.L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 17 , pp. 617-633.

Raffo, D. (2013). Teaching Followership in Leadership Education. Journal Of Leadership

Education, 12(1). doi: 10.12806/v12/i1/a4

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of

destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138-158. doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001

Shapira, R. (2017). Faking Charismatic Leadership: Immoral Self-Perpetuation by Past High-

Moral Transformational Leaders. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2999061

Shapira, R. (2019). High-Moral Trusting Transformational Leaders, Charismatic-

Transformational Leadership, and Charismatic Leadership. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:

10.2139/ssrn.3418773

Zarro, A. (2015). Rural Modernity: An oxymoron or a new vision?: Interview with Andrea

Ferrante. Development, 58(2-3), 159-162. doi: 10.1057/s41301-016-0038-9