The Pitfalls for Followers Who Challenge Toxic Leadership on Social Media

As an avid reader currently in grad school, I have developed a weird quirk: I have a favorite academic publisher. This week, I was browsing this publisher’s website and came across a title that caught my eye: Toxic Leadership: Research and Cases by Steven M. Walker and Daryl Watkins. Luckily, FSU’s library had an online copy of this book, which I read in one sitting. The authors made some bold statements about oppressed employees’ responsibilities to confront toxic leadership in the age of social media. This post is a reflection on and response to these statements.

Social media has changed the dynamics between leaders and followers, bestowing unprecedented influence on the latter. As Kellerman (2019) observes, social media platforms grant followers a powerful voice, encouraging them to pressure leaders in ways previously unimaginable. This newfound influence places a moral obligation on individuals to participate actively in shaping outcomes, according to Kellerman and reiterated by Walker & Watkins (2023). However, while this increase in follower influence can foster accountability and positive change, it also carries significant risks for followers who challenge toxic leadership publicly, in my opinion.

 The Threat of Retaliation

One of the biggest dangers for followers who call out toxic leadership on social media is the potential for retaliation. Leaders and organizations will likely perceive these actions as a threat, leading to professional repercussions for the follower. Followers who are employees might face disciplinary action, demotion, or even termination. Beyond professional consequences, there can also be personal attacks and harassment, creating a hostile online and offline environment. 

Emotional and Psychological Toll

The emotional and psychological toll on followers who engage in social media activism against toxic leadership can be substantial. Social media's public nature means that any post or comment can attract widespread attention, including negative feedback and trolling. Followers might experience heightened stress, anxiety, and even depression as a result of hostile interactions and the pressure to defend their positions. This emotional burden can affect their overall well-being and mental health, leading to long-term consequences. Since the follower is already in a toxic leadership situation, they are likely to be experiencing tremendous emotional and psychological stress already. Adding social media into the mix could risk further harming the follower’s mental health.

Damage to Personal and Professional Relationships

Publicly challenging leaders on social media can also strain personal and professional relationships. Colleagues and friends who support the targeted leader or organization might distance themselves, leading to social isolation. Professional networks can also be affected, with potential employers or collaborators viewing the follower as a troublemaker or liability. This relationship damage can limit future career opportunities and professional growth.

The Risk of Ineffectiveness

While social media provides a platform for voicing concerns, it does not always guarantee effective change. Followers who call out toxic leadership might find that their efforts are met with resistance or ignored entirely. Organizations and leaders often have mechanisms to control narratives and manage reputations, diluting the impact of social media activism. This ineffectiveness can lead to frustration and disillusionment among followers, who might feel their efforts are in vain.

Who has the obligation to resist? 

In conclusion, it is clear that although social media gives followers more power than they previously had, the dial is still very much in favor of toxic leaders. After all, poisonous leaders operate within organizational cultures that encourage this kind of leadership. Placing the obligation to resist the followers of toxic leaders is too much to ask. Instead, in my opinion, those outside of the toxic leader’s direct influence have the moral obligation to act. 

References

Kellerman, B. (2019). The future of followership. Strategy & Leadership, 47(5), 42-46.

Walker, S. M., & Watkins, D. (2023). Toxic leadership: Research and cases. Routledge.