Social movements are constantly growing across the world, taking countless forms and promoting numerous causes. Social movements are defined as “communities of people who attempt to create or resist social change.” (1) Although there are many types of social movements, their success depends on the extent to which individuals and groups mobilize to support them. There can be no movement without large-scale participation, and among those participants, an individual or group of individuals must rise up to lead the rest. Not all leaders defend the best interests of the group; some are sinister and have evil intentions of genocide and domination. We have seen this type of destructive leadership many times in human history. It is difficult to imagine how anyone followed them, looking at the past from our point of view. Why, then, do these types of leaders continue to emerge in society? I explore the similarities these leaders and their social movements share using concrete evidence from historical examples. The study of ineffective and harmful leadership will ideally provide insight into improving constructive and effective leadership styles. Most research tends to focus on one side of the subject, emphasizing the constructive aspects of leadership while avoiding the "darker side." Baumeister, Bratlavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) conclude that “there is overwhelming support for the idea that negative events in social interactions have a stronger effect than positive events.” Therefore, understanding and learning how to prevent destructive leadership is even more important than understanding and improving the positive aspects of leadership. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayWhat Makes a Leader Destructive? A misconception is that destructive leadership is simply the absence of effective leadership; however, there are stark contrasts between the absence of constructive leadership and destructive leadership. Previous studies indicate that leaders actively engage in various types of harmful behaviors and that these behaviors reflect more than just a failure to engage in constructive activities (6). It is not an easy task to define destructive leadership; Some researchers say that leadership can only be positive. They reject the concept of destructive leadership, considering it an oxymoron, and advocate the use of different terms to capture the negative side of the leader's behavior. For example, Burns states that "Hitler led the German people, but he did not lead them", implying that the term leader can only be used in a positive sense. Einarsen states that "tyrannical leaders may behave in accordance with the goals, tasks, missions, and strategies of the organization, but they usually achieve results not through their subordinates, but at their expense." They humiliate, belittle, and manipulate their subordinates in order to “get the job done”” (2). Historical examples of tyrants include Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Kim Jong Un. Tyrannical methods include creating groups of insiders and outsiders, fomenting distrust within the group, using propaganda and creating scapegoats whom they punish harshly to serve as a warning to others. Adolf Hitler is one of the most infamous leaders in history. After theWorld War I, the worst war in human history at the time, and the Treaty of Versailles left Germany devastated economically and politically. The Germans needed someone to guide them out of this mess and, at the same time, Hitler became the leader of the Nazi Socialist Party. He was aided in part by his willingness to use violence to advance his political goals and recruit party members willing to do the same. This party advocated extreme nationalism and pan-Germanism as well as virulent anti-Semitism. Mass unemployment and rampant inflation due to the global depression contributed to the need for unity and large numbers of German voters turned to extremist groups like Hitler's. Hitler used the Jewish people as a scapegoat to blame the country's problems, which is a tyrannical method described by Einarsen. He shifted the focus from rebuilding the country to eliminating Jews and all other non-Germans; those who opposed the Nazis were also eliminated, giving supporters a false sense of consensus. Hitler also misled his subordinates by appealing to their sense of national pride; “Nazi Party rallies featured enormous military spectacles that deeply impressed the German people” (3). Joseph Stalin is remembered as one of the bloodiest tyrants in world history. After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Stalin finally outmaneuvered his rivals and won the power struggle for control of the Communist Party. Stalin was not Lenin's natural successor, but he was able to use his position within the Soviet Communist Party to become the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union from 1929 to 1953. Stalin was born into poverty and his father was a alcoholic who beat him repeatedly. Growing up in an emotionally and financially unstable family likely caused Stalin to have serious mental health issues, which is reflected in his tyrannical attitude. As a child, Stalin contracted smallpox, which left him with lifelong facial scars; this may have led to him being bullied by his peers and left him feeling insecure. At school, he began secretly reading the work of German social philosopher and author of the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx. When he was old enough, he joined the most militant wing of the Marxist social democratic movement, the Bolsheviks, where he got his start. first contact with Lenin. Stalin's destructive leadership was described in his development plan; it focused on “government control of the economy and included the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, in which the government took control of farms. Millions of farmers refused to cooperate with Stalin's orders and were shot or exiled as punishment. Forced collectivization also led to widespread famine throughout the Soviet Union that killed millions of people” (6). Stalin ruled by exploiting the fear of his subjects and eliminating anyone who challenged his power. For example, “he expanded the powers of the secret police, encouraged citizens to spy on each other, and had millions killed or sent to Gulag forced labor camps.” He also instituted the Great Purge, a series of campaigns intended to rid the Communist Party, the army, and other parts of Soviet society of those he considered a threat” (6). These tactics, along with many others, made his leadership style effective, albeit very deadly. Although there is no concrete model for how a destructive leader gains power, there are similarities betweendestructive leaders. After studying what classifies a leader as destructive and looking at historical examples, we can determine what the characteristics of a destructive leader are and be able to use these characteristics to predict a situation in which a leader might become destructive. One study (Padilla, Hogan, Kaiser) groups these characteristics into a “toxic triangle” composed of leaders, followers, and environmental contexts linked to destructive leadership. The first part of the triangle focuses on the leaders themselves. Some of the most prevalent characteristics of destructive leaders include narcissism, charisma, negative life themes, hate ideology, and personalized power. The presence of the personality disorder narcissism contributes to destructive tendencies. Personality disorders are “dysfunctional dispositions that may or may not be associated with anxiety and depression—the traditional indicators of neuroticism—but are associated with poor social and occupational performance” (13). Penney and Spector (2002) found that narcissism was a predictor of destructiveleadership behavior. Individuals with this trait are driven to obtain the power and status that comes with being a leader. Conger also examined narcissism and found that this disorder is what causes the destructive leader to abuse their status or symbolic power. Although all individuals have some degree of narcissism, it can become pathological in some leaders as their sense of self-importance exceeds reasonable limits. Narcissism can lead destructive leaders to overestimate their capabilities and underestimate the role of critical skills, resources, and changing markets. For example, they may fail to accept responsibility for bad decisions, ignore reality, ignore the opinions of others, blame external sources, and ultimately blame their supporters. In extreme cases (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein), “malignant narcissism” is associated with hyper-aggression and sadistic and exploitative personal relationships. They often claim to have special knowledge or privileges and demand unconditional obedience. Their sense of entitlement often leads to selfish abuses of power. Charisma is another indicator of a destructive leader. Not all charismatic leaders are destructive (Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy), but most destructive leaders are charismatic (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Jim Jones, Charles Manson). Charismatic leaders are able to sell a vision of a desirable future and convince their followers that they are capable of achieving that future. On the other hand, destructive leaders express a vision of a world characterized by threat and insecurity, where personal security depends on the domination and defeat of rivals. Having a negative outlook on life is another characteristic of a destructive leader. A negative life story reflects “the extent to which the leader had a destructive image of the world and his or her role in the world.” (O'Connor et al., 1995). A bad childhood and traumatic experiences early in life are linked to negative life themes. Parental discord, low socioeconomic status, paternal criminality, maternal psychiatric disorders, and child abuse are common themes among exploitative adults. For example, Joseph Stalin's childhood was characterized by an abusive, alcoholic father who beat his wife and young son. This demonstrates how Stalin's childhood made him.