Reconsidering Bad Leadership and Bad Theory to Improve Research

Given the continued existence, personal success, and organizational damage of ‘bad’ leadership (e.g., with Bankman-Fried, Lay, Welch, Stonecipher), how do we—in academia—do more good than harm in studying and informing others about it? We address that question to improve leadership research more generally. We do so through a dialectic inquiry approach where we join current conversations about teaching and research related to the private benefits and the public costs produced by ‘bad’ leadership. As part of the dialectic, we offer a new model of the phenomenon—where ‘bad’ behaviors can be used to win a contest for leadership where the leader can then act badly or not. Furthermore, we inquire as to the efficacy of how the literature diagnoses ‘bad’ leadership (at either stage), suggests treatments, and attempts to impact practice. We ground our inquiry in two foundational definitions of ‘bad’-ness—one based on psychology’s dark triad, and one based on economics’ self-interest-seeking with guile agent. We critique a relevant, representative set of recent examples to make our points about the significant issues involved in the three elements, across two stages and two definitions. This antithesis-like critique provides the grounds for a set of synthesizing recommendations to improve leadership studies, in light of practical (and often unnecessarily self-imposed) constraints.