Lund University Publications



0-342900Department of Business Administration FEKH49Spring 2016 The thin line between toxic leadership and transformational leadership: Stories of Steve JobsAuthors: Amanda Bengtsson, 900731-3506 Malin Lindskog, 920126-3929Sofia J?rnlid, 940331-3985 Supervisor: Sverre SpoelstraAbstract Title: The thin line between toxic leadership and transformational leadership: stories of Steve Jobs Seminar date: 1 June 2016 Course: FEKH49, Degree Project Undergraduate level, Business Administration, Undergraduate level, 15 University Credit Points (UPC) or ECTS‐cr) Authors: Amanda Bengtsson, Malin Lindskog and Sofia J?rnlidAdvisor/s: Sverre SpoelstraKey words: Steve Jobs, Toxic Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Charismatic Leadership and Heroic leadership Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to study the thin line between toxic and transformational leadership. To explore this, the case and the narratives of Steve Jobs have been chosen to study. We believe that there are both similarities and contradictions between the theories of transformational leadership and toxic leadership. For this reason we have chosen Steve Jobs, a business leader whom by many is regarded as transformational and charismatic, in certain approaches tends to be perceived as toxic or having toxic qualities as well. In this thesis therefore, we will investigate in what ways are Steve Jobs perceived and portrayed by the media as both a toxic leader and transformational leader. Methodology: The scientific approach in this study is a hermeneutic method, which means that the focus is on the process of interpretation and understanding. The empirical data will be interpreted through the theoretical framework and analysed using storytelling and narrative method. The empirical data will be analysed ontologically, which means that interpretation of the empirical data is based on the different ways in which the world can be viewed. Theoretical perspectives: The theoretical framework consists in particular of two main leadership concepts, first the notion of transformational leadership which focuses on leaders as something great followed by the second notion of toxic leadership which focuses on leaders are by definition bad and evil. We will also support these theories by presenting concept of heroic leadership and the great man and the Hitler problem. Empirical foundation: The empirical data in this thesis is derived from traditional and social media and presents narratives of how Steve Jobs is perceived in media as a leader. The narratives are analysed and interpreted using the theoretical framework. Conclusions: The conclusion of this thesis is that there is indeed a thin line between transformational and toxic leadership. The way that leaders within transformational and toxic leadership theory get their followers to follow them is in theory the same; namely through inspiring them through a common vision. Part of the definition of being transformational is that the leader is good, and part of the definition of being toxic is having bad intentions. What the case of Steve Jobs shows is that someone can be perceived as both transformational and toxic, depending on how the leader’s actions are interpreted. The conclusion is that a leader can be considered transformational and toxic at the same time. Being considered transformational does not exclude the possibility of being considered toxic, and being considered toxic does not mean that you cannot be considered transformational. In Steve Jobs’ case it was all dependant on the beholder. Steve Jobs shows that there is a thin line between transformational and toxic leadership. Sammanfattning Examensarbetets titel: The thin line between toxic leadership and transformational leadership: stories of Steve Jobs Seminariedatum: 1a juni 2016 ?mne/kurs: FEKH49, Examensarbete kandidatniv? i Organisation och Ledarskap, 15 h?gskolepo?ng F?rfattare: Amanda Bengtsson, Malin Lindskog och Sofia J?rnlidHandledare: Sverre Spoelstra Nyckelord: Steve Jobs, toxiskt ledarskap, transformativt ledarskap, karismatiskt ledarskap och heroiskt ledarskap,Syfte: Syftet med den h?r uppsatsen ?r att studera den tunna linjen mellan toxiskt ledarskap och transformativt ledarskap. F?r att unders?ka detta har ber?ttelser om hur Steve Jobs ledarskap framst?llts i media anv?nds. Vi anser att det finns b?de likheter och mots?gelser mellan ledarskapsteorierna transformativt ledarskap och toxiskt ledarskap. Med bakgrund av detta har vi valt Steve Jobs, en f?retagsledare som av m?nga anses vara tranformativ och karismatisk i vissa avseende ?ven framst?lls som toxisk. I den h?r uppsatsen presenteras d?rf?r hur och p? vilka s?tt Steve Jobs ?r presenterad och illustrerad i media som b?de en transformativ ledare samt en toxisk ledare. Metod: Den vetenskapligt f?rh?llningss?tt i denna studie ?r en hermeneutisk metod, vilket inneb?r att fokus ligger p? processen f?r tolkning och f?rst?else. De empiriska data tolkas genom den teoretiska referensramen och analyseras med hj?lp av ber?ttande metod. Empiriska data kommer att analyseras ontologiskt, vilket inneb?r att en tolkning av det empiriska data ?r baserat p? de olika s?tt p? vilka v?rlden kan ses.Teoretiska perspektiv: Den teoretiska ramen utg?rs framf?r allt av tv? huvud koncept inom ledarskapsteori, f?rst begreppet transformativt ledarskap som fokuserar p? ledare som n?got ?verv?ldigat, f?ljt av det andra begreppet toxisk ledarskap som fokuserar p? ledare som per definition ?r d?liga och onda. Vi kommer ocks? att st?dja dessa teorier genom att presentera begreppen heroiskt ledarskap samt Hitler problemet.Empiri: Empirin till den h?r uppsatsen ?r insamlad fr?n traditionell och social media och omfattar citat g?llande hur Steve Jobs ledarskap ?r framst?lld i media. Citaten ?r analyserade och tolkade utifr?n det teoretiska ramverket. Resultat: Resultatet av framst?llningen visar att det finns en tunn linje mellan transformativt ledarskap och toxiskt ledarskap. Transformativa ledare och toxiska ledare f?r f?ljare p? samma s?tt enligt teorin, n?mligen genom att inspirera genom en gemensam vision. Definitionen av transformativt ledarskap ?r delvis vikten av att ledaren ?r god och definitionen av en toxisk ledare ?r ledarens onda avsikter. Illustrationen av Steve Jobs visar att n?gon kan uppfattas som b?de tranformativ och toxisk, beroende p? hur ledarens agerande tolkas av f?ljarna. Slutsatsen ?r att en ledare kan vara b?de transformativ och toxisk samtidigt. En ledare som anses vara tranformativ utesluter inte m?jligheten att den ledaren ?ven ?r toxisk och tv?rtom. Distinktionen ?r beroende av betraktarens ?sikt. Steve Jobs visar att det ?r m?jligt att vara b?de transformativ och toxisk, vilket visar p? en tunn linje mellan transformativt ledarskap och toxiskt ledarskap. Table of content TOC \o "1-4" 1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc326223043 \h 71.1Background PAGEREF _Toc326223044 \h 71.2Purpose PAGEREF _Toc326223045 \h 81.3Research Question PAGEREF _Toc326223046 \h 81.4Delimitations PAGEREF _Toc326223047 \h 81.5Thesis Overview PAGEREF _Toc326223048 \h 82.Methodology PAGEREF _Toc326223049 \h 102.1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc326223050 \h 102.2Hermeneutic method PAGEREF _Toc326223051 \h 102.3Storytelling and narrative method PAGEREF _Toc326223052 \h 112.4Ontological approach PAGEREF _Toc326223053 \h 112.5Media analysis PAGEREF _Toc326223054 \h 122.6Theory gathering PAGEREF _Toc326223055 \h 122.7Empirical data PAGEREF _Toc326223056 \h 132.8Ethical considerations and reflection of credibility PAGEREF _Toc326223057 \h 143.Theoretical Framework PAGEREF _Toc326223058 \h 153.1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc326223059 \h 153.2Definition of leadership PAGEREF _Toc326223060 \h 163.3Leaders are something great PAGEREF _Toc326223061 \h 173.3.1Transformational/charismatic leadership PAGEREF _Toc326223062 \h 173.3.2Critiques to Transformational/charismatic leadership PAGEREF _Toc326223063 \h 203.4Bad and evil leaders PAGEREF _Toc326223064 \h 233.4.1Toxic Leadership PAGEREF _Toc326223065 \h 233.4.2The Hitler problem PAGEREF _Toc326223066 \h 253.5Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc326223067 \h 264.Empirical analysis PAGEREF _Toc326223068 \h 284.1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc326223069 \h 284.2Steve Jobs the hero PAGEREF _Toc326223070 \h 284.2.1As a saviour PAGEREF _Toc326223071 \h 284.2.2As a genius PAGEREF _Toc326223072 \h 304.2.3As a visionary PAGEREF _Toc326223073 \h 324.3Steve Jobs as a villain PAGEREF _Toc326223074 \h 354.3.1As a tyrant PAGEREF _Toc326223075 \h 354.3.2As uncompromising PAGEREF _Toc326223076 \h 374.3.3As lack of empathy PAGEREF _Toc326223077 \h 384.4Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc326223078 \h 405.Discussion PAGEREF _Toc326223079 \h 415.1Steve Jobs as transformational PAGEREF _Toc326223080 \h 415.2Steve Jobs as toxic PAGEREF _Toc326223081 \h 445.3Good can be bad PAGEREF _Toc326223082 \h 475.4Bad can be good PAGEREF _Toc326223083 \h 496.Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc326223084 \h 51References PAGEREF _Toc326223085 \h 53Introduction Background If you were to ask almost anyone, they would likely have an opinion about Steve Jobs. Famous for his style of dress, lack of hygiene and his involvement in making Apple into what it is today undoubtedly has caused as many opinions regarding him as there are people who know of him. Steve Jobs stirs many different thoughts regarding leadership, which makes him a fascinating human being to study. Through years of studying leadership, researchers have developed several definitions of how a leader ought to be in order to be successful. These include theories of transformational leadership and charismatic leadership, which can be referred to as ‘new’ leadership. On the other hand, when a leader is corrupt or immoral, leadership is simply classified as not being leadership at all. Much of leadership theory suggests that leadership only occurs when the leader performs good, and at times, virtually heroic things. The theory of toxic leadership, in contrast, defines a bad leader in terms of power, narcissism, negative life themes and an ideology of hate and charisma (Padilla et. al. 2007). After these theoretical distinctions have been made, there is a grey area between what actually separates the two and what makes them similar. This area of leadership is an interesting subject that could benefit from further exploration. What kind of leadership will be perceived as toxic, and what will be considered heroic? Can a leader be both simultaneously? In this thesis, a study of the two different sides of leadership is accomplished. Additionally, there is an attempt to uncover what separates the two and to see if there are different perspectives and views that can be used in order to further understand leadership. The social construction when followers decide whether a leader is a hero or a villain can be viewed through how the leader is portrayed in media. Media stories about Steve Jobs that present the varied ways in which he is portrayed will be analysed in this thesis in order to examine the debate of toxic leaders and transformational leaders. Famous for being one of the co-founders of Apple, Steve Jobs is considered a well-known business leader. The case of Steve Jobs was chosen in this thesis because of the heroic status that was cast upon him within media, as well as the egocentric approach and salty language he was perceived to have. The different variations of how Jobs leadership is portrayed in media makes him a case that can help shed light on the toxic versus transformational leadership debate.Purpose The purpose of this thesis is to study the thin line between toxic and transformational leadership. To explore this, the case and the narratives of Steve Jobs have been examined. We believe that there are both similarities and contradictions between the theories of transformational leadership and toxic leadership. For this reason, a business leader whom by many is regarded as transformational and charismatic, in certain approaches tends to be perceived as toxic or having toxic qualities, as well. In this thesis, we will present a discussion and a series of narratives concerning subjective opinions and perceptions of Steve Jobs’ leadership. Therefore, our contribution will be an exploration of the thin line between the two types of leadership, completed through an analysis from a theoretical framework of leadership theories, ultimately showing how Jobs simultaneously can be perceived as both toxic and transformational. Research QuestionThe research question that we will strive to answer in this thesis is the following: In what ways is Steve Jobs perceived and portrayed by the media as both a toxic leader and transformational leader? DelimitationsThe delimitations we had to do in this thesis regarding the empirical data involve only presenting narratives from the media, which address Steve Jobs’ professional life and his leadership. This means that the narratives involving his personal life are disregarded and considered irrelevant to this thesis. This is due to the fact that this thesis’ purpose is to solely analyse Steve Jobs as a business leader within the organizational field. Thesis Overview In the next chapter, Chapter 2, the methodology that serves as a foundation for this thesis is presented, including which methods are used to gather theory and empirical data in order to conclude the analysis and discussion. This chapter also includes a section on ethical considerations and the thesis’ credibility. In Chapter 3 the theoretical framework is introduced. The theoretical framework consists in particular of two main leadership concepts: first the notion of transformational leadership, which focuses on leaders as something great, followed by the second notion of toxic leadership, which focuses on leaders that by definition are considered bad and evil. Chapter 4 presents the empirical material and analysis, which includes narratives of Steve Jobs as a good leader and as a bad leader. The quotes will also be analysed using the theoretical framework in combination with the chosen analytical method. Chapter 5 will present the discussion, which aims to discuss the empirical analysis in light of our research questions and theoretical framework. In the analysis of the stories of Steve Jobs we argue that the distinction between bad and good leaders that are suggested in the literature is problematic. Chapter 6, which is the final chapter of this thesis, will serve as a conclusion where we present our final findings. What is often seen in leadership theories is that leadership is either defined as something good or something bad. What can be seen in Steve Job’s case is that it does not necessarily have to be either or. We will here see the similarities and distinctions between transformational and toxic leadership theories and what we call the thin line. Methodology IntroductionIn this thesis, narratives and a discussion regarding opinions and perceptions of Steve Jobs’ leadership are presented. To do this, relevant theories and empirical data were collected to be analyzed with the chosen method. This chapter serves as a transparent presentation of the methods used in order to sufficiently accomplish this. The chapter also gives the reader an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of how empirical data and chosen theories are gathered, as well as a way to better understand the assumptions and approach to our findings. Additionally, this thesis is built on a media discussion of Steve Jobs, which entails that it is constructed of subjective perceptions relevant to the case of Steve Jobs. First is a presentation of the thesis’ scientific approach, which is a hermeneutic method, and a discussion of what this entails for the thesis. Secondly, the narrative and storytelling method of gathering and interpreting empirical data is presented. This is followed by a discussion of the ontological approach to analyzing the empirical data. A presentation on how and where the theory and empirical data was gathered is showcased, as well as a presentation of how this affects the conclusions and the credibility of the thesis.Hermeneutic method The scientific approach in this study is a hermeneutic method, which is founded on interpretation, understanding and sense-making. A hermeneutic approach means that the focus is on the process of interpretation and understanding when writing this thesis (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This method also includes taking into account that the empirical data that is collected is based on the individuals, which in this thesis will consist of journalists and Steve Jobs’ media followers, personal and subjective points of view. Additionally, this method includes that the narratives should be interpreted based on their subjective perspective and how they were intended (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The subjective perspective of the authors of the empirical data is based on their social and historical experiences in specific contexts, which affects their perceptions and opinions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The hermeneutic method is chosen since it is well suited for the subject of study, which focuses on the subjective opinions and perspectives on a specific leader and how his leadership is perceived. Because of the fact that empirical data is gathered from media the interpretation focus is especially important since many varying opinions are expressed within the media world.Storytelling and narrative methodAn interpretation of relevant theories, further explained in the theory section, was used in order to analyse the empirical data. The empirical data will be interpreted through the theoretical framework and analysed using storytelling and narrative method. The storytelling approach means that we will attempt to make sense of the narratives we find and analyse in the empirical data (Boje, 1995). Therefore, the assumption is that all individuals have a unique story to tell, which is affected by their previous experiences and insights. In these stories we will look for certain narratives, which will be used for analysis and discussion in this thesis. Using the varying narratives, we will shed light on the portrayal of Steve Jobs in the media. A narrative analysis means that we will read the stories written by other individuals concerning a specific subject, which in our case is a person, in a specific time and place (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Within these stories we search for relevant narratives for us to analyse. The narrative analysis also entails that we will take into consideration that people’s perceptions evolve and change over time as a continuous process, which affects their stories and perceptions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Furthermore, our narrative approach means that we will compare and analyse narratives and the meaning behind them, we will do this in order to reach the authors of the empirical data’s depictions and correlations between events and circumstances (Bryman & Bell, 2011). A narrative analysis has been chosen because it is the most beneficial to capturing the various perceptions that exist concerning one and the same person. Ontological approach The empirical data will be analysed ontologically. An ontological analysis means that an interpretation of the empirical data is based on the different ways in which the world can be viewed (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The ontological approach chosen is the social construction ontology. This includes the assumption that an author’s worldview and previous experiences will affect the empirical data gathered from them. Furthermore, this entails that the assumption is made that the world is socially constructed and that it consists of individuals’ subjective perceptions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Socially constructed ontology entails that perceptions of reality are constructed by social interactions, meaning that every individual’s reality is ever changing as the individual experiences new social interactions (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This means that the stories found in the empirical data merely reflect the individuals’ thoughts and perceptions which they had in the specific writing moment, and may have changed since then. The socially constructed ontological approach additionally means that no story or narrative can be considered to be false or wrong since it is simply one perception from an individual, therefore no empirical data will be treated as being incorrect or misleading (Bryman & Bell, 2011). We will rather treat the varying empirical data as representative of the various socially constructed simultaneous realities. This method is chosen because it is these socially subjective perspectives and experiences, which are aimed to be captured and analysed in this thesis. We believe that this is central for our thesis on the basis that we are not searching for any one given truth, but rather that many varying truths can exist simultaneously in a socially constructed world, which is a key element in the discussion of the thin lines between leadership theories when applied to a specific person. Therefore, the socially constructed ontological approach is best suited for our thesis since it is the perceptions and beliefs of leaders and followers, which we aim to study.Media analysis We have chosen to write our thesis based on third party narratives gathered from media accounts. Third person media accounts are well suited to aid us in finding rich amounts of empirical data from various viewpoints, which is central to this thesis. We do not believe that there is a superior way to attain narratives of a public and fairly famous person available to us. The media sources we have chosen to analyse are both from traditional media and social media, including articles, forums, blogs and documentaries already conducted or written by others. This was done to attain the empirical data needed without feeling confined by limited resources and time available, as well to get statements and comments regarding both the positive and negative leadership of Steve Jobs and his followers’ perceptions and perspectives. Theory gathering Theory is gathered from literature concerning leadership with a focus on transformational leadership and toxic leadership. To gather our theoretical data, both articles and books by various authors have been used. In order to present a nuanced variety of perspectives on leadership, concepts such as heroic leadership are also presented to aid in the discussion of the thin line between toxic and transformational leadership. Theoretical material was gathered until we believed we reached saturation, meaning that we had found all the important and relevant theories and authors concerning our topic. We felt we had reached the point of saturation when we realized that we had read all the literature that was available and the articles and books nearly explicitly referred to each other, implying that all the relevant authors, articles and books who have studied the subject relevant to us had been found. We believe that we have built a strong theoretical foundation for this thesis that will adequately support our discussion and analysis and ultimately our story of Steve Jobs.Empirical data In choosing empirical data we have chosen to focus on one individual. We have chosen an individual who represents the differences of how a leader can be perceived as transformational or toxic depending on which narrative viewpoint the person perceives. The leader chosen is the late Steve Jobs who was the co-founder of Apple. Steve Jobs and his leadership style will be investigated by gathering empirical data from the media. This includes both traditional and social media as well as accounts from former and present Apple employees who have spoken up about him and his leadership after his passing. We have also gathered empirical data from Steve Jobs followers’ and people close to him, such as friends and the author of his autobiography. In our treatment of followers’, we include media followers of Steve Jobs who did not necessarily have any personal or professional connection to him. They may not be definable as followers in the sense of proximity to Steve Jobs or being his employees, however, that does not necessarily mean that they did not follow him or have strong perceptions or knowledge about him. Additionally, since the media has a large influence on how a leader is perceived, media followers have been categorized as followers. We have chosen to search for reliable websites, which have articles on his leadership strategies, and organizational contributions with critically approved sources which we believe have trustworthy content. In these websites we have searched for narratives within the articles as well as comments to the articles.In selecting the empirical data we have chosen to focus on narratives and theories that are relevant to our subject of study of toxic leadership and transformational leadership. When gathering empirical data, we initially searched the traditional media for accounts and articles related to Steve Jobs and his leadership. However, in order to gain a more comprehensive pool of data our search was expanded to social media as well in order to find rich and nuanced material for analysis and discussion. Additionally, this aided us in getting a broader range of perspectives that better reflects the wide range of subjective perspectives that the followers have surrounding Steve Jobs and his leadership. In searching for sources, effort firstly lied in using credible sources. Therefore, we chose to focus on newspapers that are regarded to have high credibility and are influential. This includes The Economist, New York Times and The Guardian, which we believed were preferable due to their credibility and wide influence. We chose to search through their internet webpages since we believed it would be the best way to get access to articles printed on previous dates. Within the sites searches were made for articles written about Steve Jobs. When finding articles, we reviewed if they treated his professional life and then narrowed down further to see if they were about his leadership style. Most often the articles we found were relevant and few exclusions needed to be made. Ethical considerations and reflection of credibility This thesis aims to be an objective study of the subjective stories and narratives of Steve Jobs. Taking this into account, the purpose is not to slander or smear the late Steve Jobs but rather to highlight the various subjective views on his leadership as a way to discuss the thin line between transformational and toxic leadership. Therefore, the reader should keep in mind that we are not arguing for a single given truth, but rather presenting the idea that there are many simultaneous and contradicting truths in a socially constructed world. Furthermore, the narratives used in this thesis are the subjective and personal opinions of the authors of the empirical data, which we will without bias present and discuss and without changing any of the narratives content. Therefore, any strong opinions and perceptions presented in the empirical data should be treated as such, meaning that though subjective opinions may be true to one person and not another, based on their own reality, it does not make all other opinions and perceptions false. As previously mentioned, it should also be taken into account that the socially constructed reality changes, meaning that perceptions and opinions are not carved in stone but rather ever-changing. This entails the storytellers in the empirical data may have changed their perceptions since writing them. This does not however affect the credibility of this thesis since the aim is to show that there are nuances and various viewpoints on one persons’ leadership style. We have carefully searched for relevant sources of articles in the media and believe that we are giving a fair presentation of our research subject.Theoretical Framework IntroductionThis chapter serves as a presentation of the theoretical framework, aiming to help the reader understand certain aspects of leadership theory and the presented discussion. It also serves as a way of tying the many theories together and presenting a possible framework of how theories can be connected, both in their similarities and contradictions, which is a crucial part of our coming investigation of the thin line between transformational and toxic leadership. A definition of leadership is required in order for the reader to understand this thesis’ perspective of leadership. There are many definitions of leadership, they all take different perspectives, but in general the overall meaning of leadership is the same. Therefore, a definition of leadership and how the term is used and interpreted in this thesis is necessary. Sequentially, different relevant leadership theories are accounted for, and described in order to give the reader relevant knowledge and a foundation for the empirical analysis and discussion. The theoretical framework consists in particular of two main leadership concepts, first is the notion of transformational leadership which focuses on leaders as something great followed by the second notion of toxic leadership which focuses on leaders whom are by definition bad and evil. This chapter will also serve to present that leadership can be subjective in the eyes of followers; the followers’ power in creating a toxic or a transformational leader depending on the followers socially constructed worldview.Leadership is often seen as a grand notion. Leaders are tasked with inspiring and motivating whole organisations and leading them to success. If the outcomes are bad, leadership is blamed, if outcomes are good, leadership is credited with the successes. In this chapter transformational or charismatic leadership, heroic leadership and the great man theory are accounted for in order to explain what makes leadership be seen and classified as positive and important. In contrast to the positive theories presented, a presentation of bad and evil leaders and leadership theories is also provided. The presentation of the idea that leadership in itself is inherently good by definition, and the contrasting opinion that leadership can never be a fully positive thing is also demonstrated. First, a presentation of the general debate within leadership theory whether bad leadership can even be classified as leadership, namely called ‘the Hitler problem’. Further on, toxic leadership theory is presented as well as the dark side of transformational leadership and the dangers of charisma, in order to give the reader a broad understanding of the theoretical framework of toxic leaders that serves as the foundation of this thesis. Definition of leadershipLeadership is difficult to describe and has many differing as well as contradicting definitions. It has been said that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are researchers trying to define it. Leadership is vested in the traits and characteristics of the individual according to Iszatt-White & Saunders (2014). According to Ciulla (2004), the definition of leadership has changed every decade or so since the 1920’s. Ciulla argues that the main changes have been regarding the follower-leader relationship and how they affect each other. In the 1920’s for example Rost (in Ciulla, 2004) argues that the definition of leadership is “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those being led and to induce obedience, respect, loyalty and cooperation”. Traditional research on leadership focused in the 1940’s on the individual attributes, characteristics and traits (Alvesson et. al. 2015). Until the 1960’s, research focused on behaviours and leadership styles, after the 1960’s the situational theories developed. The behavioural leadership theories, that focused on vision, charisma and change were developed in the 1980-90’s and consists of transformational and charismatic leadership (Iszatt-White & Saunders 2014). In the 1990’s, an alternative definition of leadership was established; “Leadership is an influence relationship between leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost in Ciulla, 2004). Not everyone agrees with this alternative definition but it provides perspective on the relationship between leaders and their followers which can be useful when analysing the effects that leadership has. In the 1920’s definition of leadership, the leader was meant to be able to make the followers support and do his or her bidding. In the 1990’s however, the relationship between follower and leader was not meant to be one of obedience, rather one of both striving towards a mutual purpose. The prominent difference is found when analysing the motives behind leadership and the follower leader relationship. On the other hand, the definitions do have in common that leadership is a process, which involves how to get people to do things (Ciulla, 2004). Leadership is characterized by the following five elements; leaders challenge the process, they inspire people to a shared vision, they enable others to act, they provide guidance in how to take action and they encourage people to act through their hearts (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). This theory includes the assumption that all the aforementioned elements are inherently good (Spoelstra & Ten Bos 2011). A broader definition of leadership, made by Yukl (in Alvesson et. al. 2015), is the leaders influence in the organizational goals, tasks, strategies, task behaviour, commitment to achieve said goals, influence of group cohesion and impact on organizational culture. The question then is whether or not all requirements need to be fulfilled in order to define a person as a leader. If that is the case, then leadership is rare, but if only a few or one of them needs to be fulfilled then leadership can be considered common. Leaders are something great The different types of leadership all have in common that they consider leadership as something inherently good, according to Spoelstra & Ten Bos (2011). Because of heroic label given to leaders, leaders are considered to be the answer to all sorts of organizational problems (Alvesson et al. 2015). The leader’s dismissal is demanded if the organization delivers poor results, both from within companies as well as by shareholders (Alvesson et al. 2015). Ciulla (2004) is more critical; she argues that leaders are not morally perfect. People are confused about what leaders do and perform, but they are interested in the best way to do it (Ciulla, 2004). Ciulla (2004) comes to the conclusion that good leadership has two crucial aspects: ethics and effectiveness. A great leader is good both in an ethical perspective and an effectiveness perspective. On the other hand, there are many leaders who are considered effective, however, that does not necessary make them good leaders, an example of this case can be seen with Hitler and Stalin. They were effective in the sense of performing effective work as well as influencing other people to perform effectively, which resulted in an efficiency in the ability to make things happen and ethical in a sense of doing morally right things according to Ciulla (2004). Transformational/charismatic leadership Charismatic and transformational leadership are both behavioural leadership theories, which emphasise the emotions and values of the leader (Yukl, 1999). In comparison to “traditional” leadership theories, which emphasise the rational processes, transformational and charismatic leadership theories are together called the “new” leadership (Bryman in Bass 2008). Transformational leadership is related to charismatic leadership through the behavioural aspects. In addition, visionary, inspirational, values-oriented and change-oriented leadership is related to transformational and charismatic leadership. Together they cover the behavioural aspects of leadership research and some researchers use the theories interchangeable, there for this section is called charismatic/transformational leadership. Transformational leadership demands a leader to rise to higher purposes and to set higher standards on performance as well as challenge expectations in order to motivate their followers to do more than the followers originally intended (Bass, 2008). Transformational leadership is built on transactional leadership, which emphasizes on the exchange between the leaders and followers (Bass, 2008). Transformational leadership serves to improve the follower’s levels of maturity and ideals for the well-being, as well as the organization and society and is therefore seen as something great and admirable (Bass, 2008). Without using their power and authority, transformational leaders engage followers to perform and enable followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team (Bass, 2008). Transformational leadership is viewed by various scholars as the key to organizational and follower success (Bass, 2008). Transformational leadership rests on a moral foundation of legitimate values, which consists of a framework built on idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). The combinations of these four factors are intended to be the central ideas that constitute transformational leadership practices. The definition of a transformational leader includes aspects such as inspiring a shared vision, deploying a positive self-regard and enabling others to act through their hearts (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). The rise of transformational leadership is a product of workers’ increasing aspiration for self-actualization, according to Bass and Riggio (in Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). In the past decades, working has become more than just a means to earn money; jobs are now more closely linked to peoples’ identity, personal satisfaction and fulfilment (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). Transformational leadership increases production and efficiency by creating a foundation where employees gain self-actualization and grow perhaps beyond what even they themselves believed was possible (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). Max Weber introduced the religious concept of charisma to leadership studies within organizations (Bass, 2008). Weber’s religious concept of charisma was a development of the theological concept where a leader was given the gift of divine grace (Bass, 2008). The charismatic leader, according to Weber, was originally viewed as a mystical, narcissistic and as a personally magnetic saviour with extraordinary capabilities who arose in times of crisis (Bass, 2008). The religious, almost magical, concept of charisma that Weber started has later been converted and ‘tamed’ in order to be accessible for leadership studies in everyday life (Bass, 2008). Charismatic leaders are nowadays defined as leaders who influence their follower’s trust in the leader’s beliefs, unquestioning obedience and acceptance of the leader, as for example emotional involvement with the mission, elevated goals, self-efficacy and collective efficacy (Bass, 2008). Charisma is a component of transformational leadership (Bass, 2008). Charismatic leaders have been viewed as the solution to the social crisis and distress in organizations and society (Bass, 2008). The charismatic leader engages followers to respond with passionate loyalty and can be the answer to organisational problems when the crisis is chronic, for example when the ultimate values of a culture are being devalued and radical social change is occurring (Hummel in Bass, 2008). The charismatic leader is viewed as a solution due to their capability to engage and create a vision. Charismatic leadership is centred on a leaders’ ability to articulate goals, communicate high expectations, competence and role modelling according to Iszatt-White & Saunders (2014). Much like transformational leadership, charismatic leadership is also built on a foundation of articulating and communicating great visions (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). The results of these actions are that followers become trusting and obey their leader whilst increasing emotional connections the leader. To attain these results a leader must have the ability to present the visions by using the right rhetorical skills. In order to be charismatic the leader needs to adapt the visions’ and communications’ content to suit the audience in order for them to be able to fully understand and come to be engaged by it (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). The leader should also underline the visions’ intrinsic value by highlighting its ideals and why they are worth pursuing. Additionally, words and symbols are important to make the vision inspiring and motivating, as well as an inclusive language in order to make all the followers feel like they are a part of the bigger process (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). A leader is attributed with being charismatic by their followers if they appear confident, articulate and advocate visions, engage followers by being persuasive, take personal risks and act in unconventional ways to achieve their goals (Conger and Kunago in Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). Charismatic leaders have the ability to change their followers’ motivations by harnessing their self-concepts to correlate with the organizations’ (Shamir, House and Arthur in Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). Charismatic leaders achieve this change by changing the followers’ perception of their work tasks, presenting appealing visions of the future, creating a strong collective identity and increasing both collective and individual self-efficiency (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014).Charismatic and transformational leaders can attain heroic status from followers, this happens when they are perceived as being greater than what others believed to be possible (Manz and Sims, 1991). The heroic leader characterizes a heroic figure that is able to create a larger than life vision for followers to engage in and follow, much like Weber’s religious charismatic leader. Heroic leaders have the ability to create absorbing and highly motivating visions (Manz and Sims, 1991). The belief is that if an organization can attain a heroic leader, the leader will be able to lead the organization to success by capturing what is important and turning it into a purposeful and clear vision which the followers will easily be able to follow (Manz and Sims 1991). Heroic leadership is sometimes substituted with charismatic leadership according to Bass (2008). The leader represents a source of wisdom and direction, which the followers are expected to follow. However, the leaders’ power lies in the followers own desires to follow the leader and their expectation that the heroic leader will lead them to extreme success (Manz and Sims, 1991).A leader is not born an idol, but turned into one by their followers (Spoelstra & Ten Bos 2011). Heroic leaders are given the heroic status because of the human need follow a saviour in order to deal with their existential anxiety (Lipman-Blumen 2005). People look to heroes in times of war and crisis because they need someone to put their faith into and to look towards for guidance (Hook, 1992). Although this does not only happen during periods ridden by war or crisis (Hook, 1992). Even during stable periods, social life is compelled by the indispensability of leadership, which also affects organizational life. The leader is tasked with taking responsibility, decisions and actions, relieving the followers from this burden (Hook, 1992). The great man theory is similar to heroic leadership and Weber’s religious charismatic leader. The great man theory is also an idolization of one specific leader who is believed and perceived to be more extraordinary than others (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014) The great man theory was made popular in the 1840’s by Thomas Carlyle describing that many successes in history could be ascribed to “the great men”, heroes of history who were highly influential and charismatic individuals (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). The great man theory influenced later developed trait theories, which attributed the leader’s inherited positive traits as the reason for a leaders’ success (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014). Critiques to Transformational/charismatic leadership Transformational leadership, initially positive, can also be associated with a cult-like following, having totalizing tendencies and may be excusing bad behaviour as long as they succeed with being transformational leaders (Western, 2007). The negative effects of transformational leadership are labelled the dark side of transformational leadership. The strong vision that the transformational leader presents can create unexpected problems where followers lose their own voice and instead only express the unitary interests, according to Tourish (2013). No one makes all the right decisions all the time; yet critical feedback is most often met by negative reactions and attempts to squash dissident opinions (Tourish, 2013). This entails that followers realize that they risk less and gain more by exaggerating their agreement with their leader rather than voicing their own opinions. As a result, the leaders perceive solely flattery and unified agreement with their ideas no matter how flawed or disastrous for the organization (Tourish, 2013).Leadership researchers commonly present idealistic images of leadership and theories give power to a leader without considering the possible problems of doing so (Tourish, 2013). Leaders wield massive quantities of power, but they necessarily use it wisely. Power is defined as the ability to influence others and the ability to control rewards, punishments and resources (Tourish, 2013). Power might also affect the leaders themselves, either in a malignant or a benign way. The malignant side-effects of power include damaging the leaders’ ethic perceptions, empathy, and inclination towards risk (Tourish, 2013). People that weild a lot of power become increasingly focused on their selfish needs, in despite of their personality type (Sutton in Tourish, 2013). In turn, they also become less attentive to others’ actions and desires and may begin to act as if they are exempt from the standard rules and regulations. “The Halo Error” means to over attribute either success or failure to those in the top positions in organizations. This exaggerated view of the leader in an organization undermines the followers as merely complacent and powerless disciples, whilst the success or failure of the company lies sorely in the leaders’ hands (Tourish, 2013). The problem with power is that there is no counter weight or balancing mechanisms which uphold power, but rather that power is removed from one area and transferred to another (Tourish, 2013). The case is often that power is taken from followers and relocated to the leader, leaving the followers vulnerable and powerless, showing another dark side of transformational leadership. Charismatic leaders’ charm often outweighs their competence; they blind followers to their apparent faults by hiding them by having exceptional charisma, a theory called the dangers of charisma (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Charisma is often seen as a key characteristic in most leaders. However, the effect of charismatic leadership can also have a dark side according to Howell and Avolio (in Padilla et. al. 2007:180), as they put it “the risks involved in charismatic leadership are at least as large as the promises”. There is a danger in charisma because charismatic leaders have the ability to disguise abuse of power and selfish objectives by covering up negative themes and overstating desirable accomplishments. Additionally taking undeserved credit whilst blaming others for failures, limiting the critique aimed at themselves (Padilla et. al. 2007). Charismatic leaders take advantage of previously failed organizational directions or crisis’s and present charismatic and well-spoken strategies and solutions, which the followers are especially susceptible to follow after experiencing difficult times (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). In contrast to transformational leadership Burns (2003:27) argues that envisioning, energizing and enabling is achieved by enslaving them in charismatic leadership. “Not all charismatic leaders are destructive, but most destructive leaders are charismatic” (Padilla et al. 2007:180). This quote illustrates the problem with dangers of charisma in relation to toxic and destructive leadership and emphasises that most toxic leaders are charismatic. Heroic leaders are thrown into a grandiose cycle of godlike power (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). The danger of this leadership style erupts when leaders start to mistake the illusion for reality (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). People search for heroes to follow because of the fact that throughout youth education individuals are taught that great individuals, both mythic and real, are glorified saviours who contributed to the nations success (Hook, 1992). This early influence creates a social institution that gives individuals, starting from a young age, the impression that they need to search for a heroic leader (Hook, 1992). Lipman-Blumen (2005) adds that once a leader has attained heroic status, they can act and express themselves as if they had expert knowledge in areas where they in reality do not. They can do this without being questioned since the followers see them as an all-knowing saviour. In doing so, they may even gain followers who believe that the heroic leaders’ expert knowledge has revealed new and truthful customs, insights and behaviours that should be followed and made the natural order of things (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). The leader is associated with his or her achievements, whether these are good or bad, and whether they were the intended results or not (Hook, 1992). A leader must attain followers’ trust and confidence in order to increase their effectiveness (Hook, 1992). Additionally, the leader needs mass support and belief, after this is achieved, it results in power emerging out of the followers’ need and despair (Hook, 1992). The leader then nurtures this by offering unlimited promises and has the ability to manufacture popular belief (Hook, 1992). As Hook (1992:13) puts it, “we put up with a great many evils in order to avoid the trouble of abolishing them”. This means that most people would much rather avoid dealing with problems than being the person tasked with solving them. The great man theory is also criticized for implying that only some have what it takes to become great leaders, entailing that others simply do not due to their inherited traits or gender (Iszatt-White & Saunders, 2014).Bad and evil leaders Many political leaders are portrayed and exemplified as evil leaders, some examples being Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lenin. Political leadership is not the same as business leadership but much of the leadership theories can be applied on both, and are of direct interest when analysing evil business leaders (Zizek in Spoelstra & Ten Bos, 2011). Bad leadership can be divided into two basic categories, ineffective and unethical leadership (Kellerman, 2005). In some cases, there are aspects of both. Ineffective leaders are leaders who have failed to produce the desired changes and outcomes for any given reason. Unethical leaders on the other hand, can be effective, but lack decency and good conduct, resulting in a tainted leadership process (Kellerman, 2005). Discussing the dangers and negative sides of leadership is an important subject that is often overlooked, especially in leadership education and literature (Mehta and Meheshwan, 2013). Leadership studies are severely diminished by the fixation of good leadership, which is at the expense of bad leadership (Kellerman, 2005). Toxic Leadership Toxic leadership was first introduced to leadership studies in 1996 by Marcia Whicker in her book “Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad”. Whicker (1997) defines toxic leaders as the opposite of trustworthy and good leaders. Toxic leaders have three characteristics: deep-seated sense of inadequacy, selfish values and dishonesty (Whicker, 1997). Toxic leaders have a sense of inadequacy because they know that they are impostors and are worried that someone will see through their fa?ade (Whicker, 1997). Toxic and destructive leadership can be described through several different elements; one is that toxic leadership may result in undesirable outcomes, if the outcomes are primarily negative then the leadership falls in line with toxic leadership (Padilla et. al. 2007). Although it is possible for toxic leaders to produce desirable outcomes as well, and still be considered toxic. Toxic leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive; it may result in both desirable and undesirable outcomes (Padilla et. al. 2007). Toxic leadership involves control and coercion along with aspects of tyranny, which means that toxic leaders use their power and authority in order to gain dominance (Padilla et. al. 2007). Toxic leaders are also ruled by selfish orientation with a focus on the leader’s goals and needs, often at the expense of others. The organizational effects of toxic leaders are the negative effects on quality of constituent’s organizational life and undermine the organizational objectives (Padilla et. al. 2007). These outcomes are an effect of toxic leaders’ behaviours and their followers who are unable to resist or defy the leader, resulting in negative consequences (Padilla et. al. 2007).Toxic leaders are the result of five factors, according to Padilla et. al. (2007). These are personalized use of power, narcissism, negative life themes and an ideology of hate and charisma. One of these aspects is probably insufficient to turn a leader wholly destructive, but many of these aspects seem to go hand in hand (Padilla et. al. 2007). Charisma is often empirically linked to destructive leadership throughout within research, however a charismatic leader might not be destructive, but may still be dangerous (Padilla et. al. 2007). Charismatic behaviour among destructive leaders are for example vision, self-presentational skills and personal energy (Padilla et. al. 2007). Toxic leaders’ personal energy is illustrated through their ambition in working long hours and often having an agenda that requires superior stamina and persistence (Padilla et. al. 2007). The distinction between destructive charismatic leaders and positive charismatic leaders is often considered to be their ethical and moral position, ethical leaders use their power and charisma to serve others while unethical leaders use their power to gain personal power (Padilla et. al. 2007). Personalized need for power is a common theme among destructive leaders; they tend to use their power for personal needs and wants and are often impulsive, irresponsible, aggressive and punitive (Padilla et. al. 2007). If opposing views erupt they use their control and coercion to censor these. These leaders tend to use authority as a means to gain power, they appeal to followers’ needs for authority and security and play on the their fears of isolation, rejection to gain the support of susceptible followers willing to empower the leader (Padilla et. al. 2007).Toxic leadership can also be defined from a follower’s perspective according to Lipman-Blumen (2005). When followers suffer due to a leader placing his or her own well-being and power above their supporters needs, the leader is toxic. Likewise, when the leader forces followers to endure maltreatment, and divulging in dishonourable behaviours, the leader is toxic. When leaders engage in these destructive behaviours it is the intent to harm others or to enrich themselves that sets them apart from incompetent leaders as toxic leaders. However, leaders can demonstrate higher or lower levels of intensity of these factors, which makes it hard to distinctly specify what qualifies a leader to be toxic (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Toxic leaders with high charisma often present themselves in a good light and express an articulate vision along with presenting a shared mission consisting of threats which the leader in turn will help the organization overcome with the support of his or her followers (Padilla et. al. 2007). In cases of destructive leadership this is often an elaborate strategy to gain personal power according to Padilla et. al. (2007). Narcissism is another common characteristic among destructive leaders according to Padilla et. al. (2007), this also includes dominance, lavishness, arrogance, as well as selfish pleasure and privileged pursuits. These leaders are often self-absorbed, exploitative, aggressive and prone to ignore others welfare or opinions. They abuse their power for self-serving reasons and do this by demanding unquestionable obedience, using authoritarian leadership and claiming expert knowledge (Padilla et. al. 2007). Toxic leaders who disregard or discourage their followers lower the worker’s self-esteem and efficiency, making the employees lose their confidence, morale and lowering their work performance (Mehta and Maheshwan, 2013). Destructive leaders, in addition, also decrease employee satisfaction and commitment, which results in followers staying in the organization out of fear rather than a will to work (Mehta and Maheshwan, 2013). Most followers fear, and feel too powerless to challenge bad leaders (Lipman-Blumen 2005). According to Lipman-Blumen (2005), followers have a relentless need to follow a noble vision. However, in their desperation they do not critically evaluate the vision or search for weaknesses.Negative life themes are experiences shared by many destructive leaders, these experiences often consist of pasts ridden by abuse, parental criminality, psychiatric disorders, low socioeconomic status, and traumatic or powerless experiences (Padilla et. al. 2007). Powerless experiences often lead to the leaders using coercive influence to gain and keep power. Experiences of abuse make the leaders distance themselves from the emotions of others, leaving them free to act in unethical and immoral ways whilst ignoring the negative impact their decisions may have on other people and their organizations (Padilla et. al. 2007). An ideology of hate is also a common theme amongst destructive leaders which can be the consequence of a burdened childhood according to Padilla et. al. (2007). The destructive leaders often form an “us vs. them” mentality focused on defeating opponents and extinguishing enemies. With this mentality they create a destructive worldview and vision, which they then prompt others to follow, disguising it with rhetorical skill and articulate charisma (Padilla et. al. 2007). Padilla et. al. (2007) bring up the concept of “similars attracting” to best describe unethical leaders and unethical followers finding and supporting each other. By abusing the knowledge that followers identify with them, toxic leaders can use congruent beliefs and values to their advantage (Mehta and Maheshwan 2013).The Hitler problemMany political leaders are portrayed and exemplified as evil and bad leaders, or even tyrants. Examples of these are Hitler and Stalin, however they are not classified as real leaders due to their villainy, according to classic leadership theory (Burns, 2003). This problem is known as the Hitler problem. The Hitler problem is not questioning whether Hitler was a bad man or not, rather whether he was a leader or not. In it’s essence the nature of leadership is seen as consisting of goodness, which begs the question of whether Hitler was a leader or not. Thus, the Hitler problem is a problem resulting from the fact that leadership often is exclusively seen as something good, and that Hitler therefore, was not a leader at all according to most theories. Hitler is considered a tyrant and a terrible mis-leader because of the fact that he “cannot” be a leader since he was evil (Spoelstra & Ten Bos 2011). On the contrary, Hitler is a great example of an effective leader, not only in the field of political theory but also in the field of organizational theory according to some (Spoelstra & Ten Bos 2011). Kellerman (2005) refers to this problem as good leadership being a learned skill of leadership language, which prompts that bad leaders are not even considered leaders at all. Although, they would be considered excellent leaders if you take into consideration their ability to inspire and influence followers (Alvesson et. al. 2015). They attract enthusiastic followers in contrast to most business leaders. The followers are seduced by the leaders’ rhetorical skills, which are considered to be one of the dangers of charisma. Burns (2003) adds to the discussion of the Hitler problem by deliberating if leadership should be seen as a neutral mechanical process or a power potential which can be utilized by both the positive leader’s or the Hitler’s of the world. In line with previously presented leadership theories, Hitler transformed Germany, he had a rhetorical vision aiming to restore order in Germany and created an improved nation, he motivated mass amounts of German people to be loyal and do his bidding (Burns 2003). However, Burns (2003) argues that he failed at displaying ethic regards and he was ultimately defeated, resulting in him leaving the country. Furthermore, he failed to create lasting and meaningful opportunities of happiness for his followers. This makes Burns (2003) claim that Hitler ruled the German people, but that he did not lead them. ConclusionResearch on leadership is often normative, meaning it is what leadership ought to look like rather than a description of the way leaders’ actually behaves. Leadership is often seen as a grand notion and most leadership definitions have in common that leadership is something great and positive. New leadership theories, transformational and charismatic, are behavioural leadership theories, which value influence and inspiration as well as shared visions. Charismatic and transformational leadership include great leaders who are inspiring and have rhetorically greatly advocated visions. Leadership researcher commonly present idealistic images of leadership and that theories which strive to create greater power to a leader without considering the possible problems of doing so needs to be challenged. Transformational leadership, initially positive, can also be associated with a cult-like following, having totalizing tendencies and may be excusing bad behaviour as long as they succeed with being transformational leaders. These negative effects of transformational leadership are labelled the dark side of transformational leadership. Charismatic leaders’ charm often outweighs their competence; they blind followers to their apparent faults by hiding behind a charismatic facade, also known as the dangers of charisma. Charisma is often seen as a key characteristic in most leaders. However, the effect of charismatic leadership can also have a dark side. There is a danger in charisma because charismatic leaders have the ability to disguise an abuse of power and selfish motives. Heroic leaders are cast into a dream of godlike power and the danger with this leadership style erupts when the leaders start to mistake the magical illusion for reality. Toxic leaders are defined as the opposite of trustworthy and good leaders. Toxic leadership involves control and coercion along with aspects of tyranny, which means that toxic leaders use their power and authority in order to gain dominance. Toxic leaders are also ruled by selfish orientation with a focus on the leader’s goals and needs, often at the expense of others. When leaders engage in these destructive behaviours it is the intent to harm others or to enrich themselves that sets them apart from incompetent leaders as toxic leaders. The Hitler problem discusses whether or not leadership is exclusive to positive and good leaders. In its essence the nature of leadership is seen as consisting of goodness and Hitler therefore, was not considered a leader according to most researchers. Hitler is considered a tyrant and a terrible mis-leader because of the fact that he “cannot” be a leader since he was evil. Empirical analysis IntroductionIn this chapter stories and quotes about Steve Jobs are presented in order to illustrate the distinctions and similarities between toxic leadership theories and transformational leadership theories. First, the quotes presenting Steve Jobs as a hero are presented. In this chapter we will present the way Steve Jobs is portrayed as a hero in media. The narratives chosen in order to analyse Steve Jobs as a hero are he as a saviour, a genius and a visionary. An analysis of how the media portrays him as a hero is followed and linked to the concept of heroic leaders and additionally charismatic and transformational leadership theories. Then the quotes portraying Steve Jobs as a villain are presented. This section we will present the way Steve Jobs is negatively portrayed in media. The narratives chosen in order to analyse Steve Jobs as a villain are tyrant, uncompromising and lack of empathy. An analysis of how media portrays him as a toxic leader is followed and linked to the theories of toxic leadership and additionally to the dangers of charismatic leadership and the dark side of transformational leadership. Each quote will be introduced, presented and then analysed through the theoretical framework. Steve Jobs the heroThe positive image of Steve Jobs that is presented makes him out to be a hero. Through the narratives of him as a saviour, as a genius and as a visionary it is evident that people perceived Jobs as a great leadership figure that they trusted to lead Apple. What the three narratives show is that he was regarded as someone beyond just the regular business leader, and rather regarded as someone more than human and as someone who would change the course of history. As a saviourOne of the narratives presented in media is Steve Jobs as a saviour. This narrative is indicative of Jobs being regarded as something beyond a regular business leader. For example, Goldhill (2015) draws parallels between Jobs and a messiah.“Steve Jobs spent his life leading a technology revolution, and disciples have no intention of forgetting their messiah now that he’s dead” (Goldhill, 2015) In the quotation above from The Telegraph, Goldhill directly compares Jobs to a religious saviour just after he passed away (Goldhill, 2015). By comparing Jobs to a messiah, or Jesus, Goldhill is inferring that Jobs was not only a business leader but also someone who would save the people that surrounded him and provide them with guidance. The implication behind this statement is that Jobs was more than a business leader, that he as a person carried a heroic message beyond just Apple products. By elevating Jobs to such a high status, Goldhill is spreading a message that Jobs was a hero. By labelling Jobs followers as disciples, like the disciples of Jesus, there is an immediate parallel that’s drawn. The implication being that Jobs’ followers worshipped him and had, and possibly still have, an immense loyalty towards him. Similarly, Collins discusses the transformational value that Jobs had on his followers. “Steve Jobs was a hero, not only to the people who worked for him, but also for all the people whose lives were transformed by the products he and his company created. Even though his customers never met him, much like the passing of a popular political leader or a celebrated entertainer, they felt connected to him and knew they would miss him.” (Collins, 2015) In the Business section of a Huffingtonpost article Rod Collins writes how Jobs was perceived as something beyond just a business leader (Collins, 2015). By directly stating that Jobs was a “hero”, Collins is making Jobs out to be perhaps something more than human. When people think of the word hero it is often associated with superhuman actions, and characters saving their followers from something bad. Making Jobs out to be a hero inevitably makes him into someone who apparently saved those who followed him. Collins does not necessarily know what Jobs saved him from, but either way the adoration and heroic recognition is evident. As mentioned in the quotation, it is believed that followers would miss him after his passing in despite of knowing him as a person, which further proves Collins point of Jobs being regarded as a heroic leader rather than the typical business CEO. Streitfeld adds to this narrative, by comparing Steve Jobs to an all mighty ruler; ”A lord of Silicon Valley” (Streitfeld, 2011). In the New York Times Streitfeld wrote an article about Steve Jobs where he discussed Jobs life and work (Streitfeld, 2011). By naming Jobs the “lord of Silicon Valley”, Streitfeld is labelling Jobs as the number one player in all of Silicon Valley. This means that he, according to Streitfeld at least, exceeds people like Bill Gates, and making him seem like the best CEO that there is. By implying that Jobs was a “lord”, the implication is also that he had the power to actually rule and lead the people surrounding him and that he had the respect of a very powerful leader. “Lord” also shows that Streitfeld perceives Jobs as someone who is almighty, since it associates back to monarchical times where an upper class ruled the lower classes. In this case Jobs is compared to a royal, as someone who is almighty and is above the others surrounding him. Streitfeld makes Jobs out to be a saving heroic force by comparing him to royalty, which used to be saving graces in stories. Additionally, Susan writes how Jobs was perceived as changing the actual lives of his followers. ”He has turned our lives upside down, for the better and is classified as a modern day hero” (Susan 2014). As W, Susan writes at Hubpages, Jobs is classified as a heroic figure that has transformed his followers’ lives (Susan, 2014). By saying that he has turned people’s lives upside down, the implication is that without Jobs as a leader, people would not be living as they do today. Without his saving grace life would not be what it is today. The implication here also being that that change is a positive thing rather than negative. Labelling Jobs as a modern hero places him on a pedestal with other modern day heroes, places him above what a classic business leader would normally be. Changing lives is a saviour-like quality, and in combination with him being a hero, makes the perception of Jobs here of a heroic leader. As a geniusThe second narrative observed is the one naming Steve Jobs as a genius. Due to the term “genius” being so broad, the way the narrative is presented comes in different styles, highlighting different aspects that the authors consider to be genius. For example, Henson focuses on his genius within design. “ I believe that Mr. Jobs’ leadership style (not to mention his genius in design) was a key ingredient in Apple’s success; had he used a different style, he might not have achieved the same spectacular results at Apple.” (Henson, 2011)Henson writes in an article from Rutgers Business School about Steve Jobs leadership style (Henson, 2011). What Henson means in his article, is that Apple’s success was due to the actions of Steve Jobs. Because of Jobs knowledge of leadership and design, Apple was able to make the breakthroughs that would keep the company afloat. The attribution that Henson makes to Jobs labels him as a genius, because he is giving Steve Jobs the responsibility for why Apple did so well. In general, the word genius has a vague definition, what exactly being a genius in any field means is not something commonly agreed upon. Henson here means genius as in brilliance, as in if his design had not been so amazing, and his leadership style had been so spectacular, the company would have been different. The genius label both in design and leadership shows that Henson at least believed Jobs to be above the average business CEO. Hall labels Jobs as a genius as well, but views the term genius differently.“My experience showed a man who was not only exceptionally decisive and focused, but also a genius who had the humility to ask for clarity if he didn’t "get it." (Hall, 2015) Hall was a previous employee for Apple, and in his article for business insider he writes about how much he admired Jobs (Hall, 2015). Here, Hall makes out a difference between being decisive and focused and being a humble genius. A common definition of genius is being extremely smart and all-knowing, but in this case Hall is making part of the genius aspect of Jobs his ability to know when he did not know enough and ask for help. Hall is making Jobs out to be exceptionally smart as well, by saying that he is a genius in the general sense. Because of him working for Apple, Hall partially represents the view of employees, showing that there was an admiration for Jobs as a genius and that this is why they trusted him. The article is called “What Steve Jobs taught me about leadership, genius and success in my 13 years at Apple”, and Hall hence attributes Steve Jobs as both a genius and a great leader, associating both of those terms together with success, and saying that Jobs knew about all three. Similarly, Isaacsson continues the argument that Steve Jobs genius was due to his way of innovating and leading. “America’s advantage, if it continues to have one, will be that it can produce people who are also more creative and imaginative, those who know how to stand at the intersection of the humanities and the sciences. That is the formula for true innovation, as Steve Jobs’s career showed.” (Isaacsson, 2011) Walter Isaacsson, who is the author of Steve Jobs’ biography, writes in New York Times about what he calls “The Genius of Jobs” (Isaacsson, 2011). In the quotation above he interprets Jobs as a genius because he merged together two separate institutions. Namely, humanities and sciences, which places Jobs influence above just that of changing technology. According to Isaacsson, Steve Jobs creativity and his imagination is what made him great, and if the title of the article is to be considered, what also made him a genius. By starting out by saying that America has an advantage, and then labelling Jobs as the definition of what that advantage is in practice, Isaacsson inevitably makes Steve Jobs out to be exceptional. Isaacsson attributes genius-like qualities to Jobs by saying that he was a true innovator that represents what it means to be a genius in modern America, and hence the modern western world. What Susan adds to this narrative, is drawing direct comparisons to other inventors whom are considered to be geniuses. ”Jobs was characterized as the Thomas Edison and Henry Ford of his time and a man who had profoundly changed the face of the modern world. His inventions have undoubtedly changed our lives. He was described as a visionary, pioneer and genius by the media and that is most certainly true.” (Susan, 2014) In the article on Hubpages, the subtitle of a biographical article of Steve Jobs, it labels Jobs as the “Modern Day Genius” and goes on to describe why this is true (Susan, 2014). Firstly, the quotation pulled from the article compares him to Edison and Ford, placing him in the category of inventors who changed the way the world worked. Here, Jobs is definitely labelled as a genius, in the sense that he was extremely smart. The invention of the products of Apple are here all attributed to him and his intelligence making him someone who changed the modern world. The quotation also says that media portrays Jobs as a genius, which points towards the fact that that even though it cannot be determined as a truth, there is at least a common perception that he is portrayed as a genius within media. That perception includes him being a visionary, which in this case goes hand in hand with genius. Due to his visionary ideas and his genius he was able to change the world. As a visionaryThe third narrative observed within the positive media image of Steve Jobs, is that of him as a visionary. Saying that Jobs is a visionary, implies that he was the source of Apples perceived groundbreaking products. Tony writes that this is what made people follow Jobs. “Those that stayed and engaged in the vision [Steve Jobs vision] were the great followers that the great leader, Steve Jobs, needed to deliver his strategy. Those that left of their own volition were the great followers that another great leader was surely looking for in order to deliver their strategy.” (Tony, 2011)In a blog post called Steve Jobs – great leaders need great followers, Tony writes about the necessity of a great leader to have great followers, and in the quotation it is shown that Steve Jobs was portrayed as having a loyal followership (Tony, 2011). What is described above is Steve Jobs leading his company through a common vision, and the followers enabling him to make that vision come true. This can be interpreted as Steve Jobs being a visionary. Jobs being perceived as a visionary, shows that his leadership for his followers was beyond just commanding and following, but inspired followers to follow because they agreed in what Jobs envisioned. Saying that followers engaged in his vision shows that the author at least perceives that the vision that Jobs created was the driving force behind them following him, and inferring that if he had not then they would abandon him for something greater and another visionary leader. Similarly McInerney states that it was the visionary aspect of Jobs that made people follow him in despite of the demanding worklife. ”Turnover [of employees] was low despite the demanding corporate culture - Jobs was a passionate advocate for his vision and incredibly effective at communicating this to shareholders, customers and staff.” (McInerney, 2011) In Executive Style, Sarah McInerney writes that Steve Jobs visionary qualities kept employees at Apple in despite of the apparent high demands (McInerney, 2011). What McInerney perceives here is that because of Jobs having a powerful vision and the ability to show this to his employees, employees coped with whatever demands that Jobs may have had. What she also infers is that Jobs that made sure everyone knew exactly what he wanted from Apple employees, both through her describing the culture as demanding, and Steve Jobs as being a “passionate advocate” for the vision of Apple. The connotation here is not necessarily that he did this by being friendly or nice, rather that people knew it through him being strict and loud about it towards employees. By saying that Jobs still had power over his employees to make them do things, shows that Jobs had transformational leadership qualities. McInerney not being an Apple employee also shows that the narrative of his transformational abilities had spread to media beyond the closed doors of the company. Schwartz adds to the narrative, and appears to agree with the reasoning behind Steve Jobs large following was the fact that people considered him to be a visionary. “Employees, in turn, are willing to sacrifice a lot to work for a visionary. Much as Mr. Jobs was, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos are passionate, inspiring and charismatic leaders.” (Schwartz, 2015) Schwartz in his article in The New York Times about the bad behaviour of visionary leaders, goes into comparing Steve Jobs to other modern visionary leaders (Schwartz, 2015). Here the quotation defines Jobs as a visionary, meaning that Schwartz indeed also perceived jobs as being a visionary leader. What is also said in the quotation is that employees made sacrifices for the sake of Jobs vision, implying that perhaps the vision was not reached through only positive aspects. Being passionate and charismatic are two attributes often connected to greatness, and in this case it can be interpreted as Schwartz having admiration for the people that he mentions, among them Jobs. Charisma appears here to be, according to Schwartz, a partial reason for followers to be willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the portrayed vision that Jobs appeared to have. Schwartz also potentially makes Jobs out to be more than just the average business CEO, since employees were supposedly giving things up to satisfy their boss and to satisfy him. In the article The Magician, Jobs vision is compared to magic.“Mr Jobs emitted a “reality distortion field”, such were his powers of persuasion. But in the end he conjured up a reality of his own, channelling the magic of computing into products that reshaped entire industries. The man who said in his youth that he wanted to “put a ding in the universe” did just that” (The Economist, The Magician, 2011)The quotation is from an engineer previously employed at Apple in an article in the Economist (The Magician, the Economist 2011). By saying that Steve Jobs distorted reality, and succeeded, the engineer is also saying that Jobs was a visionary, because a distorted reality can be interpreted as an alternate vision. What is also mentioned is that Jobs was a transformational leader, since according to theory transformational leaders lead through transforming the visions that followers have into the one that they want. Instead of controlling directly, they indirectly guide what they want their followers to do. Here the engineer also uses words such as “magic”, showing how Jobs was attributed with having visions that would transform technology into something that was beyond this world. With giving Jobs the credit for making a change in the universe, it shows that it was perceived by his followers that his ideas transformed the world, and that his vision had come true and hence that he had succeeded. Steve Jobs as a villain The other side of Steve Jobs was a negative one. Writers portrayed him as a bad human being and a toxic leader who was excused of this because of the above-mentioned saviour, visionary and genius narratives. The narratives that were prominent within the negative media portrayal were Jobs as a tyrant, and uncompromising, and as immoral. As a tyrantOne of the narratives that was observed within the negative image portrayed of Steve Jobs was him being labelled as a tyrant. Streitfeld mentions this in a very straightforward way; “Mr. Jobs was the last great tyrant” (Streitfeld, 2011). In the New York Times, Streitfeld calls Jobs as a tyrant (Streitfeld, 2011). By comparing Steve Jobs to a tyrant, Streitfeld is comparing him to other tyrannical leaders, who are not necessarily considered to be great or good. The word tyrant has a negative connotation, and is commonly something people associate to evil historical figures. Here the parallel between Jobs and previous leaders firstly compares Jobs’ leadership to that of emperors, conquerors and dictators, when in actuality Jobs was a business manager. By saying that he is the last of the great tyrants, the author is saying that it is the end of an era that cannot continue when Jobs is gone, implying that basically Jobs’ tyrannical ways created an empire. The word tyrant has a negative connotation, and brings his supposed tyrant-like qualities on par with that of for example Hitler and Stalin whom are widely considered tyrants by the common people. Referring him to as a tyrant inevitably refers to Jobs as a toxic and destructive leader, since the qualities attributed to a tyrant are the same ones as are mentioned when you discuss a tyrannical leader. What Kahney adds to this conversation is that the behaviour Jobs had was the tyrannical aspect of him. “At most companies, the red-faced, tyrannical boss is an outdated archetype, a caricature from the life of Dagwood. Not at Apple. Whereas the rest of the tech industry may motivate employees with carrots, Jobs is known as an inveterate stick man. Even the most favoured employee could find themselves on the receiving end of a tirade.” (Kahney, 2008) Similarly, Kahney here states in Wired Magazine that Jobs was tyrannical towards his employees (Kahney, 2008). When comparing Jobs to the rest of the tech industry, it is stated that he was perceived as different from other leaders, he was more ruthless than perhaps was expected from the people surrounding him. By saying that he was a stick man, an interpretation can be made that he was very firm on what he wanted, and did not easily change his opinions, at least those regarding his work. Kahney stating that anyone could be yelled at by Jobs implies that he appeared to have a wild temperament, but also that it did not matter who you were in his eyes when it regarded work. The perception implied here is that he did not discriminate between employees when it came to creating the vision he had of what Apple should be. According to the author, the tyrannical leader is outdated within the technology industry, which makes it seem that there was a disapproval of Jobs’ methods. By comparing him to other technology leaders, who appear in the quotation to treat their employees better, the narrative here is that the tyrannical style of leadership that Jobs appeared to have was perhaps too harsh. Conrad, similarly, goes on to comment about Jobs’ behaviour and makes it out to be tyrannical by comparison to Rasputin.“But at his worst, as a colleague said, he resembled Rasputin. He screamed that underlings were "fucking dickless assholes" before abruptly firing them, and his vindictive temper worked like a guided missile. During a dispute with Google, he declared that he intended "to go to thermonuclear war on this". (Conrad, 2011) Conrad, in his article in the Guardian, compares Steve Jobs to Rasputin, a well-known man that can easily be described as a tyrant and toxic human being (Conrad, 2011). Here, the parallel between Jobs and evil leaders is immediate, and draws attention away from his business leadership and more towards him being a tyrant leading a cult. By saying that Jobs wanted to go thermonuclear within a dispute, it can be interpreted as both him being very determined on his point of view, and also that he did not have any regard for the surrounding parties. Google arguably being one of the other main players in Silicon Valley, saying that he wants to take no regard for their side, shows the type of leadership style that Jobs appeared to have. In the Economist, a comment on one of the articles labels Steve Jobs as a tyrant and adds to the narrative of him being an evil person. “Apple uses the gut instincts of one man, Steve Jobs. And he has the role of a Philosopher King and Tyrant. But he is also brilliant, not in just technology but the critical human interface.” (The economist, The Magician, 2011)In a comment on an article in the Economist, the above quotation appears to perceive Steve Jobs as an almighty ruler that both had tyrannical and brilliant qualities. Brilliance in this quotation refers to the technological aspect of Jobs and his understanding of human interaction with technology. By stating that Jobs is both a philosopher king and tyrant, the writer is making Jobs out to be at the least someone with powers comparable to those of dictatorial figures. Saying that Jobs is brilliant in despite of him being a tyrant, points towards that Jobs was perceived as being tyrannical but that those behaviours were excused due to him being an apparent genius. The implication is that his gut instinct was the reason why Apple was successful. If Jobs is regarded as tyrannical but brilliant, it shows that he was able to lead Apple the exact way that he did due his image of being a genius. As uncompromisingThe second narrative found within the negative portrayal of Steve Jobs was him as an uncompromising person. The narrative shows that there was an idea that Jobs was so straightforward and unable to take critique in a normal manner, that it made people afraid of him. Streitfeld adds to this image by calling Jobs a bully. “The first time?Steve Jobs?ever bullied anyone was in the third grade. He and some pals “basically destroyed” the teacher, he once said. For the next half-century, Mr. Jobs never let up. He chewed out subordinates and partners who failed to deliver, trashed competitors who did not measure up and told know-it-all pundits to take a hike. He had a vision of greatness that he wielded to reshape the computer, telephone and entertainment industries, and he would brook no compromise.” (Streitfeld, 2011)In the previously mentioned Streitfeld New York Times article Streitfeld discusses Steve Jobs’ destructive qualities (Streitfeld, 2011). A destructive leader is dominant and tyrannical, and as shown in the quotation he exerted his dominance by removing those who did not live up to his expectations from his organization. His inability, or just disregard, of compromise shows that it was either to do exactly as he wanted or not at all. Destructive leaders strive to shut down opposition through their authority, just like Jobs is written to have done in this case. Jobs apparent vision of how the computer and future technology should look permeated his work, and appears here to have claimed an expert knowledge on the subject. The writer in this case uses words to describe Steve Jobs which indicate that he was cruel, words such as “trashed” and “destroyed” indicate that he did not exert his power in a friendly way. The described maltreatment of people indicates a hateful ideology, which is in line with a quality attributed to toxic and destructive leadership. Similarly, Boyle adds to this narrative when discussing his studies of Steve Jobs.“I have worked with a couple of people like Jobs. They just will not compromise, and if they do, beware, because there is something bad hidden behind the compromise that you can’t quite perceive yet.”– (Danny Boyle, cited in Adams, 2015) In an article about the biopic about Steve Jobs, the director Danny Boyle is cited as saying the above about Steve Jobs (Adams, 2015). Here again we see Jobs being described as uncompromising, adding in the element of being deceiving as well. By inferring that Jobs would not always tell the truth, and intend bad things to those who did not agree with him, Boyle seems to find Jobs toxic. Toxic leaders are partially defined by getting their way through deception and force, and Boyle appears to believe that Jobs used both to lead his company. By using a word such as “beware”, Boyle is also saying that Jobs was someone that people should have and did fear. Fear is also a motive used by destructive leaders and from what it seems Jobs used it as a leadership tool.As lack of empathyThe third narrative that was observed was Steve Jobs as lacking in empathy. The portrayal of him stated that he was someone who did not have any regard for the feelings of others. There was even a revelation that Jobs knew that he possessed this quality.“Jobs summoned their managing editor to Cupertino to demand he spike the piece: "He leaned into Serwer's face and asked, 'So, you've uncovered the fact that I'm an asshole. Why is that news?'"” (Leith, 2011) In the Guardian, Leith cites Steve Jobs acknowledging himself being mean to others (Leith, 2011). Additionally, the fact that Jobs acknowledged that he treated people around him poorly indicates that he abused his power. It also appears that he knows that in despite of him being “an asshole”, people will still follow him. Toxic leaders are prone to treat their followers and the people surrounding them badly, and all the while maintain their position as leader. In this case there was supposed to be a printed article about Steve Jobs that would reveal some of the darker sides of him, which he did not want. This shows that he did want to control what information was revealed about him. By distorting the outward image, and still admitting that he behaves horribly, shows that he manipulates the people around him. Not caring about how he behaves is an indication that Jobs knew he was cruel, but did not genuinely care about how the people around him felt. Not only did Steve Jobs know about this quality of his, but it was apparently well known amongst others as well.“Yet the saviour stank, physically and sometimes morally… He was a man of the media age, inept at unmediated human relations.” (Conrad, 2011)Conrad writes in a review of Isaacson’s about Steve Jobs morality (Conrad, 2011). Referring to Steve Jobs as a saviour shows the power that Jobs had over his company and those who surrounded him. Admittedly this quotation says that Jobs stank morally, which can be interpreted as Jobs not knowing how, or just not caring, about what is right and what is wrong. Part of the definition of a toxic leader is not having a moral compass, which it here appears that Jobs did not have. Or at the very least gave the impression that he did not. Being “inept” at human relations indicates a lack of empathy, which only adds fuel to the fire of Steve Jobs being cruel. The fact that he in this case appears to be both adored and followed like a messiah, but at the same time lacking qualities that make him a good person (instead has those that make him toxic), shows that he is a toxic leader. In despite of Jobs being so lacking in empathy, Collins mentions how this behaviour was excused. ”He had an artist’s temperament that could morph back and forth between charming engagement and mercurial rants. His intense passionate perfectionism made him a difficult person to work for; yet he was nevertheless admired and even loved by people who deeply believed that to be a part of Apple was to be a part of something special.” (Collins, 2015)In the Huffpost business section Collins writes about Steve Jobs temperament (Collins, 2015). Saying that Jobs had an artist’s temperament, Collins is also saying that Jobs was someone who did not care if his temperament affected anyone around him. By calling the reasoning behind these mood switches ‘passionate perfectionism’, the author is conveying that these were excused because of it being for a greater and better cause. Saying that people loved working for the difficult Jobs and his switching temperament, is saying that it appears as if that people would put up with anything that Jobs did. If this is the case, Collins is making Jobs out to be a toxic leader, since part of that definition includes controlling followers combined with maltreatment of them. By referring to being part of Apple as something that was worth striving for, shows at least that there was an image that Jobs managed to convey of his leadership style being decent due to the incredible vision that he had managed to conjure. Similarly, this idea is also mentioned by Coursey (2011); “Jobs was busy changing the world and minor annoyances like people’s feelings didn’t fit into his plan”. Coursey (2011) writes in his article about Steve Jobs which is published on the Forbes website, about the exception that Jobs was in that he could treat people the way he wanted and still be excused for that behaviour (Coursey, 2011). Attributing Jobs with changing the world makes Jobs out to be much more than a business leader, and saying that people’s feelings are not important in consideration of his master plan makes him out to be a destructive and toxic leader. Coursey writing about Jobs disregarding feelings of others shows a perceived lack in morality, which was in turn accepted in pursuit of Apple’s success. By saying that people’s feelings were “minor annoyances”, Coursey is portraying that in next to Jobs grand vision, his morality towards others is not perceived as significant. The image of Jobs leadership style here is seen as destructive but too important to alter. Conclusion In conclusion, within media two main portrayals were found of Steve Jobs, the negative and the positive side. Within these two sides three narratives each were found. In the positive regard, Steve Jobs as a saviour, as a genius and as a visionary show that Jobs was seen as someone who would through his intelligence guide Apple and the technological world into a new better era. On the negative side the narratives of Jobs as a tyrant, as uncompromising, and as lacking in empathy show how Jobs harsh behaviours were well known, but were mainly excused due to his visionary qualities. DiscussionOur analytic discussion is presented through various narratives of Steve Jobs. When discussed in media, Jobs was presented as both a villain and a hero, through narratives that highlighted certain aspects of his leadership. By using these narratives as a basis, we bring to light the problems with applying leadership theory and the consequential thin line that is created between contrasting theories. The two sides that we have identified are the positive and the negative sides. Leadership has a tendency to be portrayed in a positive manner more often than the negative aspects which leadership inevitably has. We have chosen three characteristics from each side, and found these characteristics represented in narratives within media. Leadership theories can of course be applied in different ways depending on the situation and on the leader. Every case is different, and when doing a leadership study it is important to take into consideration the individual circumstances surrounding the analysed leader. In this specific case, we have applied Steve Jobs from the theoretical standpoints of toxic leadership and transformational leadership. The assumptions made here might not necessarily be applicable to another leader, but are made with the intention of highlighting the thin line between the supposed good and bad leadership. Steve Jobs as transformational As explained in the theoretical section, transformational leadership is a perspective of behavioural leadership based on inspiring and influencing followers through a common vision. Calling Steve Jobs a messiah of sorts, and saying that he was a genius, shows that they are giving Jobs qualities that are beyond normal human qualities, but rather closer to those of heroes. Bass mentions in his theory regarding transformational leadership that being a transformational leader is regarded as something admirable and great. Followers look up to the leader and pursue the leader’s greater vision for the greater good. As Weber describes initially in his charismatic leadership theory, the description of a charismatic leader has a theological undertone. By saying that Jobs was a saviour, it means that he was also seen as a charismatic leader. The type of worship that is shown in the three narratives are all saying that Steve Jobs was seen as a transformational leader, since he was labelled as being more than a normal human being, instead being someone who would change the world and save everyone through his genius. One of the narratives that media presented in the positive light was Steve Jobs being a saviour. Several times he was presented as more than human, as a messiah even, making him out to be the leader of something approaching a religion. As mentioned in the charismatic leadership theory, being considered as more than human makes the leader a charismatic leader. Steve Jobs was made out to be near faultless, having a large group of followers, even comparing these to the disciples of Jesus. Transformational leadership says that the leader needs to inspire, and in that way enable change. If Jobs is compared to Jesus, who was the definition of a saviour and enabled leadership through inspiring his disciples, then Jobs is also through association labelled as a transformational figure. A saviour can be defined as someone who is beyond human, and who through their sheer greatness and inspiring aura will save the people surrounding them. Although a transformational leader is not defined to be above human capacity, however this is part of the definition of a charismatic leader, the similarity is that both of them lead through showing their followers what their vision is through them being themselves. Steve Jobs’ followers are described and perceived as being immensely loyal to their saving leader, which is one the requirements for being a transformational leader. Due to the connection between Jobs and Jesus, his followership is being labelled as a form of cult. Transformational leaders are defined (according to Bass) as having followers who obey what their leader says, no matter what. This is because of the fact that they truly believe that he or she will save or protect them from negative factors in their lives. Further, Steve Jobs was presented in the media as a genius. By labelling someone as a genius, the intention is that the person in question is smarter beyond what is normal, and sometimes even beyond human intelligence. The term is very broad, and is usually intended to give the person a higher status than everyone else. What is interesting about this narrative in relation to what type of leader Jobs was (according to theory) is that Jobs genius was closely associated to his vision of Apple. Apparently due to his perceived genius people trusted that he would lead them the right way, and believed what he said. The perception of Steve Jobs as a genius shows that there is a thin line between him being perceived as both a saviour and also a visionary. Due to him being seen as a genius, people appear to have attributed him to be a saviour that would save them through his incredible vision of what the future of technology would be. A transformational leader does not necessarily have to be seen as a genius in order to qualify as a transformational leader, but it is the implications of him being perceived as a genius that is crucial in Steve Jobs’ case. The implications are that a genius has beyond normal human intelligence, leading people to believe that the person in question is trustworthy due to said intelligence. Being so trustworthy can make a leader qualify as a transformational leader because of the higher purpose that they assume and the vision that followers assume that the leader has because of their supposed brilliant mind. Steve Jobs’ apparent genius led to attributing him as a visionary, which in turn is a key aspect of being a transformational leader. Being able to communicate a vision, which in turn enables followers to act through their hearts in order to make that vision come true, is the main aspect that makes a leader transformational. Jobs being described as a genius and a visionary also shows idealized influence, which also is critical to a transformational leader. The word genius is definitely a word that idealizes a person, and in this case it is Steve Jobs idealization, which leads to followers seeing Jobs as a man with a trustworthy vision. Attributing Jobs with being a visionary means that he is also being attributed with being able to inspire people with that vision, hence being a transformational leader. Both charismatic and transformational leadership theories characterises the leader as leading through communicating a vision, which makes followers act of their own accord, in line with the vision that the leader portrays. A specific aspect of charismatic leadership is that the leader acts in unconventional ways in order to change the perception of their workers’ tasks and presenting a strong collective identity in order to improve efficiency. What is evident from media’s image of Steve Jobs is that followers appear to have an image of Jobs as someone who acted exactly in the ways he wanted because of their agreeing to follow him. As Weber says in his definition of a charismatic leader, the leader is above everyone else, almost elevated to a God-like status. As seen in the three narratives, Jobs was perceived by some as a charismatic leader attributing him with qualities that are better and beyond those of others. This led to behaviour that was considered bad was excused because he had such a great vision that people around him wanted to pursue. In one of the narratives where Steve Jobs is presented as a visionary, there is a perceived ability to exude passion and a different version of reality that was his own. In order to be able to do this, or at the very least give out the image of being able to do so, shows that Jobs had a charismatic aura that convinced those around him. As discussed in the text above, Steve Jobs’ portrayed image as a genius, saviour and visionary can quite easily be labelled as a transformational and charismatic leadership style. Heroic leadership is built on the fact that followers search for a saving figure or role model to guide them, and due to this leaders are attributed with heroic qualities that satisfy the followers leadership needs. Steve Jobs’ image as a transformational and charismatic leader was due to his followers seeing him as a saviour whose genius enabled him to have a world changing vision, showing that Jobs can also be seen as a heroic leader. What theory says is that followers have an impression that they need a heroic figure in their lives, due to early influences. It cannot be determined that this is completely true, but when looking at the image of Steve Jobs that exists within media there is evidence of Jobs being attributed with qualities that align with those which followers seek out according to heroic leadership. In theory, heroic leaders were considered to be great men in history. What can be determined from the narratives’ presented image of Jobs is that he is seen by some as one of the “great men” in history. Most of the quotations about Jobs indicate that they believed he had some greater purpose beyond just leading a business, he was meant to make a mark in the technological world changing people’s lives for the better. In the majority of theory transformational leadership is seen as a positive force, but the dark side of this is that the shared vision which leader enforces is not always a good one. As explained in the Hitler problem however, negative leadership is according to some theorists not even classified as leadership at all. For example, Hitler managed to inspire a common vision in Germany, and in that case that vision led to genocide. This raises an important question. If being a transformational leader is defined as being good, then where is the line drawn between who is actually a transformational leader and not. If Steve Jobs is transformational, is he inherently good?Steve Jobs as toxic A toxic leader is one that leads through coercion with selfish values acting as their guide. One of the ways that toxic leadership is measured is looking at the negative outcomes that occur as a result, this is also the most common conception about toxic leadership. But the primary reason for a toxic leader to be considered toxic is leading by controlling their followers in despite of the consequences that their actions may have. Looking at the narratives presented of Jobs they show that Jobs could be considered a toxic leader. His disregard for anything or anyone that did not agree with him shows selfish motives and dominance. For example the narrative that paints Jobs as a tyrant draws direct parallels between toxic leadership theory and Jobs since a toxic leader is partially defined, according to Padilla, as having tyrannical aspects. Tyrants are known to control through coercion with negative outcomes, which is a characteristic of toxic leadership according to Padilla. As Whicker also mentions, a toxic leader is the opposite of good and trustworthy. Tyrant is a word associated with pure evil and horrid leadership, and by calling Jobs a tyrant inevitably labels him as a toxic leader. As most theories, the theoretical framework for transformational and charismatic leadership also have a direct opposing negative view. In this case it is the dark side of charismatic and transformational leadership. As mentioned earlier, transformational and charismatic leadership complement each other in practice. The same goes when discussing their darker aspects. In the following section where the negative aspects are analysed with the critical side to transformational leadership, dark side of transformational leadership, and dangers of charismatic leadership will be discussed almost interchangeably. All in line with the dangers of charisma and dark side of transformational leadership, when leaders misuse their influence on other people in order to achieve personal gain. Dangers of charisma are illustrated through envisioning, energizing and enabling by enslaving followers in charismatic leadership. Steve Jobs is portrayed in media as both a ‘philosopher king’ and ‘tyrant’; the media portrays Jobs as being tyrannical but also that those behaviours were excused due to him being an apparent genius and a king, tyrannical but brilliant. A toxic leader is dominant and removing the employees that did not live up to his expectations shows Steve Jobs perceived dominance. Steve Jobs was a dominant leader and an extreme perfectionist; media portrays him as someone with intense passionate perfectionism. A critique to transformational leadership theory is that the leader manipulates followers in order to gain power. What is also prominent in that theory is that the following, which they gain, is blinded by the trust they have in their supposed all mighty leader. As mentioned earlier, labelling Jobs as a tyrant shows that people seemed to have elevated him to a status of a true evil figure. By being compared to these figures, Jobs is being named a dark transformational and charismatic leader. When the dangers of charismatic leadership are discussed, the word tyrannical is in fact used to describe the effects of that type of leadership cause. Steve Jobs also showed an inability of compromising; the work was done according to his exact way or not done at all. The media gives the illustration of Steve Jobs being arrogant, dictatorial and mean-spirited, all of them are characteristics that allude to the dark side of transformational leadership. By being uncompromising, Jobs shows that he abused his power in order to gain what he wanted. The fact that Jobs acknowledged that he treated people around him poorly also indicates that he abused his power. Being uncompromising means that there is no room to give any critical feedback. Rejecting negative feedback in a crude manner is a characteristic of a dark transformational leader. Jobs being portrayed as not being able to receive any form of critique, indicates that he did not care about the opinions that surrounded him. This is also another aspect of dark side of transformational leadership.According to the empirical material Steve Jobs was busy changing the world and minor annoyances like people’s feelings didn’t fit into his plan. His disregard of other peoples’ feelings portrays him as lacking in empathy and part of the critique to transformational and charismatic leadership is the fact they do not have this ability. A partial definition of not having a moral compass is not caring about other people, and that is indicated in the empirical data. Steve Jobs, due to his extreme perfectionism and strong-mindedness in what he wanted, managed to serve the company with great results but apparently on the behalf of the emotions and well being of his employees. In dark side of transformational leadership and dangers of charisma critiques, it is mentioned that leaders blame others for failures and cover up negative themes. His perceived lack of morality is evidence of these characteristics where he did not apparently care of what they felt, and would take out his frustrations of inevitable failures on them.The dark sides of transformational leadership and dangers of charisma both have characteristics in common with those of toxic leadership. Theoretically there are many common definitions that are included in both toxic leadership and dark side of transformational leadership and dangers of charismatic leadership. Abusing their gained power for self-gain, as shown through the narratives of Steve Jobs as uncompromising and as tyrannical, is an aspect of all three theories. The narrative of Jobs being uncompromising is indicative of that followers lose their voice when facing their leader; also indicate that he had toxic qualities. Either way, the fact that the three theories overlap in so many aspects show that if Steve Jobs perceived characteristics aligned with the critical dark sides of transformational leadership and dangers of charisma, he can definitely be considered a toxic leader. Toxic leaders are power hungry and do not have any regard for others, and that is exactly what was perceived through the tyrannical, uncompromising and immoral narratives.Good can be bad By saying that a leader is transformational, what is meant is that a leader has the power to lead through a common inspiring vision that makes followers act of their own accord, but in the way that the leader intended. What this also means, as some recent theory has begun to present, is that this means that the leader can inspire totalizing actions, forming a cult that can use the transformational leader as a hero image as a shield and excuse for bad behaviour. Returning to the Hitler problem, transformational leadership’s partial definition includes that the leader is inherently good. But what if they inspire a vision meant to hurt their followers rather than save them? Inspiring people to act through their hearts sounds nice, but the consequences if the actions they take are hurtful are really bad. Having a mass of people that genuinely are inspired to enact a vision that their leader inspired is a great thing, but that is only if the leader is a good one. The first narrative discussed Steve Jobs as a saviour, and makes him out to be a guiding person who will change the world through his sheer existence. By labelling Jobs as a saviour, the danger is that he is attributed with having no faults. By making someone out to be infallible, then that is also giving him or her the ability to do whatever he or she pleases. Fact of the matter is, that Jobs was a business CEO, but someone who managed to attain an image of someone who was a saviour in a world that needed changing. If the followers of Jobs supposedly worshipped him, then that means they place a blind trust in everything that he does, which is not a very safe way of leading. Leading by having a cult-like following, that is very closely associated with manipulating a mass of people into getting what you want. Having people believe that you are all mighty can lead to negative effects, not only if the leader has bad intentions from the start, but can potentially lead to the leader in question losing their sense of self. It may elevate their confidence beyond that can be considered healthy. Without the criticism they may feel no reason to improve, which can be damaged for the company or group of people in question. The narrative of genius works similarly to portray Steve Jobs as more than a regular business CEO. Saying that Jobs is a genius elevates him to a very high status, meaning that he is labelled as smarter than the “regular” people surrounding him. Theory points out that one of the negative sides of transformational leadership is that there is a risk of complacency from the leader. In the case of Jobs, the genius narrative attributes the success of Apple to precisely that, his genius. By labelling him as a genius, the danger is that no one will see past him being a genius, and assume that every move he made was brilliant and faultless. By Jobs being considered a genius, he is being made to be so intellectual that he can do wrong, and that spills over to his other behaviour as well. As discussed earlier in the discussion, Jobs attributed genius led to a perception that Jobs was a visionary. Due to this visionary image, there appears to have been a blind trust in everything that Jobs did. Being a visionary means that people trust that the leader has a vision of what a situation, and in this case a company, should look like and believe in that vision as well. The blind trust that occurs is easy for the leader in question to abuse, and in the case of Steve Jobs there are certain narratives that point towards this occurring. Disregarding this, looking solely at the visionary aspect, trusting that Jobs had a vision that would make the company great also justifies the means of getting there. By being portrayed as a saving genius that will through his intellect manage to change the face of Apple and technology, then there is no real critique of what the company should look like. Charismatic leadership goes hand in hand with transformational leadership, since the ability to communicate a vision and inspire others is absolutely necessary in order to make them act of their own accord in line with the leaders vision. Bryman calls this “new” leadership. This means that if by definition Jobs is a charismatic leader, he can also be considered a transformational leader. Being a charismatic and transformational leader presents a danger in that it can be very undemocratic, and presents a fa?ade in order to hide behind it to excuse bad behaviour. What is evident in the picture painted of Steve Jobs through the saviour, genius and visionary narratives is that the same aspects of him that would make him a transformational leader also make him a toxic leader. The aspect of being well spoken is key in charismatic in leadership, which is what makes a leader both charismatic in the good and the bad way. The positive aspect is that if the leader has good intentions then there will be positive outcomes, but the same goes for if the leader has bad intentions. Being well spoken can, as mentioned in theory, hide actual lack of competence. Jobs being shown as a visionary genius, shows that he managed to emit a positive image regarding his business attributes. Being a visionary, means also that there is a goal in mind of what the end product should look like. In Jobs case of how technology should develop and how Apple would be a leading figure. This aspect overlaps with that of toxic leadership. Toxic, transformational and charismatic leadership all agree that the core aspect that makes them leader is the ability to control followers through inspiration. The difference is defined by theory in what they choose to do with the power that they gain, but the way that they actually lead followers is very similar. Transformational and charismatic are similar in how they lead with that of toxic leadership. Of course, the difference lies in what leaders intend, and what visions they aspire to spread and how that affects the well-being of followers. What is shown here are that the positive narratives of Jobs being seen as a saviour and a visionary both indicate that he was a transformational and a toxic leader. Toxic leadership says that the focus is on the leaders goals, and in order for transformational leadership to exist the focus needs to lie with the leaders goals as well. Bad can be goodThe other side of the image presented of Jobs is the image of him as a bad leader and as a bad person. Through the narratives of him as a tyrant, as uncompromising and lacking in morality he is presented as being a horrid leader who was destructive and dictator-like. When discussing transformational leadership earlier, it was used to analyse the positive image of Jobs. The majority of transformational leadership theory is written with a positive undertone, but when looking at the negative narratives then many of the qualities highlighted are transformational as well.The uncompromising narrative in the case of Steve Jobs shows that he had an extremely focused and clear idea of what he needed from his employees that would lead Apple to being what he imagined. Being able to communicate and transform followers to believe in what they are doing is a part of the transformational leadership framework. Portraying Steve Jobs as uncompromising means that it is implied he at least showed what he wanted. The term uncompromising sounds harsh, but it means that people always knew what it was Jobs wanted. Not letting up on the vision that you have, could be necessary in order for followers to truly understand what the vision is, and then be able to internalise it and act on it. Appearing confident in a vision is part of the definition of being a charismatic leader, and being uncompromising may not be associated with being a good leader, but it shows faith in your vision. Being uncompromising can be considered by some to be immoral. Steve Jobs as a man without empathy is a third narrative observed within the media. Steve Jobs as immoral proves the same point as him being compromising. The narratives both imply that he did not let anything get in the way of his vision of Apple and of the future of technology. In this case, the narrative of Steve Jobs as immoral is not implying immoral as in pure evil. The lack of morality is shown by him not prioritizing the feelings of others over his work, but this also appears to be a partial reason for his followers’ understanding of his burning passion for his vision and the realisation of the importance of understanding and internalising it. The narratives as lacking in morality and empathy as observed in the negative image of Steve Jobs within media are both qualities that make him bad and good. Initially these made Jobs out to be someone evil; they made him out to be a toxic leader. A thin line exists between the darker side of transformational and charismatic leadership, in comparison to toxic leadership. What is shown through the three negative narratives is that Steve Jobs was portrayed as controlling his followers through formulating and effectively communicating a vision that followers then act upon. The aspects that initially made Jobs out to be a toxic leader, due to his way of controlling followers, also make him out to be a transformational leader. The difference, as previously discussed, between toxic and transformational leadership is the intention with the enacted leadership and if there is any intent to hurt the people following them. In Steve Jobs case it is difficult to see his true intentions, since the studied empirical material is not anything directly from Jobs himself. But what is possible to garner from the material is that the portrayed image of Jobs as a theoretical toxic leader, also makes him out to be a theoretical transformational leader. The difference between a transformational leader and a toxic leader is in theory easy to define, but in practice there is a thin line in what it means in actuality. ConclusionIn media there are two types of portraits painted of Steve Jobs; one where he is considered as hero, and one where he is considered a villain. The heroic image of Steve Jobs shows him as a transformational and charismatic leader. The way this is shown is through the three narratives, namely as a saviour, a visionary and as a genius. The saviour narrative shows that Jobs followers saw him as something more than a regular human, they saw him as someone who could and would guide them and Apple into a supposed better future. Saying that he was a genius, adds to this narrative because it indicates that his intelligence was seen as beyond the average persons intellectuality. Through Steve Jobs being perceived as a visionary, media seems to perceive that Jobs would inspire his followers to act through their hearts. This due to the fact that he was considered a genius who would act as their saviour, showing a belief in his every action. According to theory being considered more than human, almost divine, is a part of the definition of being a charismatic leader. Similarly, the fact that Jobs followers were perceived as extremely loyal alludes to the fact that he was a transformational leader as well. In the three narratives a common factor appeared to be that Steve Jobs’ influence was heavily idealized. Steve Jobs was attributed with being world-changing, labelling him as a heroic as well. The fact that his followership seemed to perceive him as more than that, shows that he was considered a charismatic and transformational leader.The opposing side of media labelled Steve Jobs as a villain. Through the narratives of Jobs as a tyrant, as uncompromising and as lacking in empathy, it is shown that there was a perception of Jobs as a toxic leader. The tyrannical comparison of Jobs draws parallels between and historical tyrants, showing that there was a perception of him as an evil leader. Toxic leadership is partially defined by being the opposite of a good leader, and if he was seen as a tyrant, Jobs could be considered a toxic leader. The narrative of him being uncompromising shows that he was seen as unrelenting and dictatorial. The dark side of transformational leadership sees these characteristics as being hurtful and criticises the impact of transformational leadership. Making Jobs out to have no empathy indicates that people saw him as immoral and without regard for the people around him. In order to achieve their goals, toxic leaders enslave followers through inspiring a common vision. The dangers of charisma imply that this blind trust created through a common vision causes manipulation. As seen in the narratives of Jobs the image of him was toxic due to the fact that he managed to control followers and showed dominance in a hurtful way towards them. The dangers of charisma and the dark side of transformational leadership both allude to the fact that having a loyal followership is the similar to being manipulative, which both fit into the theoretical framework of toxic leadership. As seen in the villainous image portrayed of Steve Jobs these aforementioned characteristics makes him out to be a toxic leader. As we have seen, Steve Jobs was portrayed in two ways; as a good, transformational leader and as an evil, toxic leader. What is significant in this case, is that the characteristics of both theories that consider him transformational and toxic are the same. The way he led his followers make him into a transformational and a toxic leader. Jobs portrayed as a saviour shows that there was an adoration for him, but with this adoration comes a lack of criticism. A blind trust enables a leader to abuse their power in any way they want, and perhaps lose sense of what they are doing since there is no one holding them back or giving feedback. Jobs being seen as a visionary added to the saviour attribution since people believed he had what it took to enable positive change. This can be seen as a cult-like following, which is associated to that of toxic leadership. Similarly the toxic image contains aspects that are easily interpreted as being transformational. Being uncompromising shows direction and purpose, which in turn can show confidence in the vision that the leader wants to inspire into action. The same can be applied with lack of empathy. Showing extreme determination exudes confidence, and shows passion for a cause. If followers see that their leader believes so strongly in something, this can lead to them wanting to help achieve this cause. What is seen here is a grey area, or a thin line, between what is considered good and bad leadership. Transformational leadership is made out to be inherently good, and toxic leadership is made out to be inherently bad. In the case of Steve Jobs you can see that the division between the two theories is not necessarily applicable in practice. If a transformational leader has to be good to be considered transformational, and a toxic leader bad to be bad in order to be toxic, then what is Steve Jobs? What is seen here is that there is a very thin line between the two theories. The reasoning behind why Jobs was considered transformational and toxic, is rooted in the same principle; he was able to lead a large following of people by inspiring them through a common vision. In transformational leadership it is called being charismatic, in toxic leadership it is called manipulation. The conclusion drawn here is that a leader can be considered transformational and toxic at the same time. Being considered transformational does not exclude the possibility of being considered toxic, and being considered toxic does not mean that you cannot be considered transformational. In Steve Jobs’ case it was all dependant on the beholder. Steve Jobs shows that there is a thin line between transformational and toxic leadership. References Adams, Tim, (2015). Steve Jobs: the legacy of Apple’s mysterious co-founder, The Guardian, 2015-11-01, Available Online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]Alvesson, Mats, Jonsson, Anna, Sveningsson, Stefan, Wenglén, Robert. (2015) N?r ledarskapet krackelerar, Studentlitteratur Bass, Bernard, Steidlmeier, Paul, (1999) Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior, 1999, leadership quarterly vol. 10 No. 2.Bass, Bernard (2008) The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research and managerial applications, Fourth edition, Free Press Burns, James MacGregor, Transforming Leadership, 2003, Grove Press, New YorkBoje, M. David, (1995) Stories of the storytelling organization: a postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38. No. 4. 997-1035.Ciulla, B. Johanna, (2004) Ethics, the heart of leadership, second edition, Praeger Publishers, Westport.Conrad, Peter, (2011) Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson – review, The Guardian, 2011-10-30, Available Online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]Collins, Rod. (2015) The Last Heroic Leader: Remembering Steve Jobs, Huffpost Business, 2015-10-01, Available Online: [Accessed 2016-04-26]Coursey, David, (2011), Steve Jobs was a jerk, you shouldn’t be, Forbes, 2011-10-12, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-06]Goldhill, Olivia, (2015) Happy birthday Steve Jobs: how Apple disciples still worship the modern messiah, The telegraph, 2015-02-24, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-27]Hall, William, (2015) What Steve Jobs taught me about leadership, genius, and success in my 13 years at Apple, Business Insider, 2015-12-14, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-07]Henson, Ramon, (2011) The Leadership of Steve Jobs, Rutgers Business School, 2011-11-01, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-26]Hook, Sidney, The Hero in History – A Study in Limitation & Possibility, 1992, Transaction publishers, New JerseyIszatt-White, Marian & Saunders, Christopher, (2014) Leadership, Oxford University Press, Isaacsson, Walter, (2011) The Genius of Jobs, New York Times, 2011-10-29, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]Kahney, Leander. (2008). How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong, Wired Magazine, 2008-03-18, Available Online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]. Kellerman, Barbara, (2005) How Bad Leadership Happens, Executive forumKouzes, Jim & Posner, Barry, (1987) The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leith, Sam (2011) Steve Jobs: The Exclusive Biography by Walter Isaacson – review, The Guardian, 2011-10-25, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]Lipman-Blumen, Jean, The Allure of Toxic Leaders, Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians - and how we can survive them, 2005, Oxford University Press, New YorkManz, Charles, Sims, Henry Jr, (1991) SuperLeadership: Beyond the Myth of Heroic Leadership, Organizational Dynamics Vol. 19. Issue 4 Mehta, Prof. Sunita & Maheshwan, Prof. G C, (2013) Consequence of Toxic leadership on Employee Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, The Journal, Contemporary Management Research Vol.8, Issue No. 2, 1 - 23.McInerney, Sarah, (2011) Steve Jobs: an unconventional leader, Executive Style, 2011-10-07, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-26]Padilla, Art, Hogan, Robert, Kaiser, Robert B, (2007) The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conductive environments, The Leadership Quarterly 18?176-179Schwartz, Howard A., (2010) Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook, Sage Publications INC.Schwartz, Tony (2015) The Bad Behavior of Visionary Leaders, The New York Times, 2015-06-26, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-09] Streitfeld, David, (2011) Defending life’s work with words of a tyrant, The New York Times, 2011-10-06, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-27]Spoelstra, Sverre & Ten Bos René, (2011) chapter Leadership in Business Ethics and Continental Philosphy, edited by Mollie Painter-Morland and René Ten Bos, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Tony, (2011) Steve Jobs – great leaders need great followers, , (2011-10-20),?, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-27]Tourish, Dennis, (2013) The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership – A Critical Perspective, Routledge, Sussex.The Magician, (2011) The economist, posted 2011-10-08, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-04]W, Susan, Biography Of Steve Jobs and Apple: A Modern Day Hero, Hubpages, Updated 2014-04-21, Available online: [Accessed 2016-04-26]Whicker, Marcia Lynn, (1997) Minimizing the damage of a "toxic leader", PA Times, 10416323, Jan97, Vol. 20, Issue 1, Available online: [Accessed 2016-05-26]Western, Simon, (2007) Leadership: A Critical Text, Sage Publications INC.Yukl, Gary, (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 285-305. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download