Toxic leadership still challenging employers

“Unquestionably qualified for this high office… she will be an excellent governor general.” So said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in announcing that Julie Payette, a former astronaut, would take on the esteemed position in 2017.

Three-and-a-half years later, Payette quit the position in January after claims of harassment and bullying under her leadership led to an independent report that unveiled a toxic work environment, with allegations of “yelling, screaming, aggressive conduct, demeaning comments and public humiliations.”

On the other side of the country, the CEO of Royal BC Museum resigned in February after a diversity and inclusion consultant described the institution as a “dysfunctional and toxic workplace — characterized by a culture of fear and distrust.”

And in Winnipeg in June, the president and CEO of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights resigned after allegations of sexual harassment and racism at the workplace and staff being told to censor LGBT content.

So, how does this happen? How do such high-level leaders get hired on only to fall from grace because of toxic behaviour?

Slipping through the cracks

Most of the time, regardless of the level of position, it’s when process isn’t followed, says Henry Goldbeck of Goldbeck Recruiting in Vancouver.

“That’s what happened with the governor general… The prime minister did not follow process that had been established and had worked in the past, and [he] hired on a whim, based on credentials, based on whatever was on his mind. But that person was not vetted through a regular process.”

There should always be a regular process that includes several interviews, along with reference checks and psychometric testing, says Goldbeck.

“You do all of these steps to eliminate risk. And when that process isn’t followed, that’s when things can happen.”

In addition, many executives are still hired through friends and acquaintances, he says.

“There’s not a great track record of those being successful. Really, it comes down to the same thing: If you’re hiring for a certain position, you want to look at a large enough pool of potentially qualified candidates and put them through a process of deciding on the best candidate, the best fit and then vet those candidates.”

In many cases, there’s a small network of people considered, says Dan Brown, managing partner at Boyden in Saskatoon.

“A board of directors or a company owner thinks, ‘Hey, this is a great person to come in and run my organization’ without doing a deep dive into that person’s background. So, it’s that mistake of familiarity: ‘Oh, we know this person, we think they’ve got a good track record on paper, let’s hire them.’ And then they get in there and they realize there’s behavioural issues or communication issues or leadership issues, and it can have that drastic impact.”

The other side of it is failure to do a full background check, he says.

“You do all of these steps to eliminate risk. And when that process isn’t followed, that’s when things can happen.”     
Henry Goldbeck, Goldbeck Recruiting

“There was a reputation [with Payette] of toxic leadership in previous organizations as well. But she was a big name and, obviously, a high-profile individual that the government moved forward with, maybe without doing a full due diligence into that person’s background,” says Brown.

“If you skip any of those steps or if you cut corners in that process or take things for granted, that’s where mistakes can happen and you end up with a leader that does not… add to the culture that you’re looking to create.”

Plus, many employees don’t feel comfortable speaking up because they’re concerned about the backlash, says Patricia Faison Hewlin, associate professor of organizational management at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University in Montreal.

“That’s why a lot of leaders are able to get away with negative behaviours, because employees are afraid to speak… When they do, that means that… probably, this is behaviour that has happened over a long period of time, and employees have had enough.”

When people reach the executive level, it’s often assumed that leadership experience on the resumé translates into emotional intelligence and a people-oriented mindset, she says.

“It could be that the people component is simply ignored, which is completely irresponsible… And the ability to get things done is what’s really often considered the core virtue of leadership: ‘She gets things done; he gets things done,’” says Faison Hewlin.

“No one is really thinking about… the ‘how’ ― how is the leader actually getting things done, through the teams, the people who support the leader? So, that’s how, oftentimes, toxic leaders can slip right through the cracks because no one’s really focusing on the people component and… how they motivate employees.”

Payette always needed to be super competitive and was highly focused on training and studies, and she had worked with other high achievers and pace-setters. But then she became a leader in the public service and suddenly she’s the odd person out, says Alain Ishak, managing partner at Russell Reynolds in Montreal.

“She probably misread the environment… Our governor general was toxic in that environment; she was a star within the space program,” he says. “With the governor general, it’s reputation-based hiring; that’s it.”

Assessing for fit, leadership qualities

That’s why organizations are asking more and more that executive hires be tested for personality and culture fit, he says.

“Most of them have had a lot of success everywhere. So [employers are] not asking us to determine if the person can be successful. They’re asking us: ‘Can this person be successful in our environment?’”

However, it’s also true that some very successful companies have been run by leaders, such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who might be considered toxic, says Goldbeck.

“From a financial or business success point of view, it’s not black and white.”

But, overall, “if you have toxic leadership, you’re going to have more turnover,” he says. “You’re going to have more stress and ill health around your employees. There’s a benefit in the employee satisfaction, usually, in their longevity. There’s a cost to turnover and, long term, I think the company’s goals will be affected.

“So, it’s finding that balance ― if you’re a hyper-ambitious, driven company, how do you balance that?”

References, interviews crucial to process

In Payette’s case, previous colleagues and employees actually made complaints about her, so the vetting process just wasn’t there, says Faison Hewlin.

“The first thing is to speak to previous colleagues and employees about the leader’s style as a people manager,” she says.

“As well, the leader should be asked [about] their own definition of leadership, and this should be done through an impartial committee whose mandate is to conduct the proper due diligence in the hiring process. And, so, a good question could be: What are they most proud of as a leader? What do they enjoy most… about leading people? And if there are no references to people development, empathy, sharing concerns, especially now, I would say that these would be signals to carefully evaluate.”

In recruiting for the leader of an organization, it’s important to do a full 360-degree reference check, says Brown.

“We do a deep, deep dive into references and not always just references that that candidate provides us because, typically… they’re going to give you people that they’ve probably got a pretty good relationship with. So, you’ve got to read between the lines on that kind of stuff,” he says.

“We’ll talk to two people that the person’s reported to, maybe a board chair; we’ll talk to peers or stakeholders or clients; and then we’ll also talk ― which is where some of the best information comes from ― with two subordinates, people that have worked for this individual in the past.”

“[By not addressing the situation], the signal that you’re sending to the rest of the company is that money is more important than culture.”  
Dan Brown, Boyden

You want to speak to enough people that you get a pattern, says Goldbeck.

“If everybody’s telling you the same thing, it’s usually fairly reliable. And then, if management style is important, then you can speak to people they’ve reported to in the past… And some companies have potential reports interview the person ― that’s fairly rare but, certainly, if you want to be thorough, that’s not a bad thing.”

The lengthier the hiring process, the more likely you’ll get past the initial “dating stage” when everyone is on their best behaviour, he says.

“By the second or third interviews and interviews with other people, it’s harder to maintain that ideal presentation of yourself.”

Assessments provide key insights

Psychometric assessments can also be used to determine behavioural tendencies; for example, how someone deals with stress and pressure. And they can definitely add objectivity to the decision-making process, says Brown.

“Most of these tests are designed to, essentially, catch you out. If you’re maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses, that’ll show up on the test; if you’re trying to manipulate the results to show, ‘Oh, I don’t have any weaknesses and I’ve got all these great competencies that I can bring to the table,’ that will show up.”

The results can lead an employer to question a person’s self-awareness and integrity if they see exaggerated results, he says.

“[The tests] may come back saying this person has all these great strengths, but here’s three areas that they need to work on... You may still hire that individual and then the board or the ownership group would be able to put a put a plan in place or at least keep their eye on those areas or provide some support in those areas.”

People may have been problematic in the past, but with the testing, employers are going in with their eyes open, says Goldbeck.

“And maybe that person is really willing to [change] and doesn’t want to repeat that kind of situation. And if they insist that ‘No, I’m not going to change,’ well then, that’s more information you can use. Now, do you still want to hire them?”

Keeping tabs on performance

To combat the potential for toxic leadership, the assessments shouldn’t end after hiring. Continuous performance reviews are critical, which means regular 360-degree reviews, says Brown.

“You need to go out there and talk to the team… and to work with your leader and to be hearing things as a manager, as a director of a board about a toxic workplace or mistreating people or being dishonest or inconsistent or gossiping or whatever is leading to that toxicity.”

“A lot of leaders are able to get away with negative behaviours because employees are afraid to speak.”  
Patricia Faison Hewlin, McGill University

Then leadership should sit down with that individual and let them know what they’re hearing ― while hearing their version of events, he says.

“There’s always two sides to the story and maybe somebody’s sabotaging that individual, who knows, but communication is absolutely crucial to either cap this before it gets out of hand or to put a stop to it or to move that person out of the organization.”

It’s also important to have mechanisms in place where employees can anonymously share their concerns. And if the problem is about general disrespectful behaviour, coaching can be useful, says Faison Hewlin.

“But if we’re delving into the point where employees are feeling harassed, they’re feeling bullied, they’re feeling a low sense of dignity, then measures need to be taken to remove that leader.”

The worst thing is when the toxic issues are not addressed, says Brown.

“What I’ve seen many times is the conundrum of you’ve got a top performer in your company that smashes their targets, is a huge revenue generator, does a great job when it comes to maybe sales or business development, but they treat people very poorly, they don’t respect people internally and they’re seen as a tyrant,” he says.

“[By not addressing the situation], the signal that you’re then sending to the rest of the company is that money is more important than culture. And ‘We are not going to act on this person, even though they treat everybody like garbage, because they bring in money….’ and that is not how are you going to get a winning company.”