The two faces of leadership: considering the dark side of leader‐follower dynamics

Abstract

A number of years ago, David McClelland, in his studies of managerial motivation, identified two types of power: egoistic (using others for personal gain) and social (facilitating group cooperation and effort for the achievement of the general good). Clearly, the power motive is intimately related to the concept of leadership. However, over the last several decades, a school of thought has arisen which equates leadership with “doing the right thing”. Defining leadership in such an ethical light is both misleading and dangerous. At the same time, little has been done to address the role of followers in the influence process, and transformational models of leadership have exacerbated this problem. Failure to acknowledge the role of followers and to examine the “dark side” of leader‐follower dynamics can distort efforts to understand influence processes in an authentic way. This paper provides balance to this discussion and identifies a number of critical implications for leadership education.