The dark side of leadership: when strengths become a limitation (and a risk)

Because it is precisely in those moments that people stop consciously managing themselves. In situations of stress, tiredness, crisis, boredom or sudden success, leaders fall back on behavioural patterns that are familiar to them. This behaviour is rarely intentional; more often than not, it is automatic. A leader who is usually decisive may become impulsive; one who is normally analytical may become risk-averse; and someone recognised as an inspiration may become self-centred. The HDS has been designed to measure these tendencies and helps leaders understand which strengths can become disruptive factors when the environment becomes more demanding. A distinction must be made between ‘light side’ behaviour – which is visible when people are ‘on stage’ – and ‘dark side’ behaviour – which emerges when people are ‘off stage’.

If many qualities considered crucial for reaching the top can turn into toxic factors, where, then, is the line beyond which a strength becomes a risk to the organisation?

The line is crossed when behaviour ceases to create collective value and begins to serve the leader’s ego, need for control or image. A useful criterion is the impact on others. Let me give a concrete example: self-confidence is valuable when it generates clarity and courage, but it becomes a risk when the leader is unable to admit mistakes or learn from feedback. Ambition, similarly, is valuable when it mobilises efforts but becomes toxic when it leads to a quest for prestige or internal competition. The same applies to control: it is useful when it ensures quality but harmful when it eliminates autonomy and slows down execution. And finally, speed in decision-making: decisive in conditions of uncertainty, but dangerous when it disregards expertise and consequences. Generally speaking, the warning line is crossed when the team becomes less candid, less willing to question, more dependent on the leader, or more focused on managing the leader’s mood than on serving customers. It is at this point that a strength ceases to be a driver of performance and begins to become an organisational risk.

Based on your data, what are the most overlooked warning signs that a leader is about to ‘derail’?

They are usually interpersonal in nature rather than technical. Many failures are preceded by a decline in the ability to listen, in curiosity, in a sense of responsibility and in emotional consistency. Colleagues begin to say that the leader is ‘brilliant but difficult’, ‘visionary but chaotic’, ‘demanding but impossible to please’ or even ‘affable with superiors but strict with subordinates’. These descriptions often signal a gap between potential and effectiveness, whilst specific warning signs include a defensive attitude when challenged, increasing isolation from dissenting voices, the tendency to assign blame, suspicion or the hasty taking of risks. Another very important warning sign is the growing discrepancy between how the leader is perceived by superiors and by direct reports: the former may see confidence, ambition and determination; the latter may perceive instability, arrogance, manipulation or control. Employees are often the earliest and most accurate source of information on derailment because they witness the leader’s behaviour unfiltered.

Are (large) Italian companies today truly equipped to identify risks before they cause damage?

I think I can say that they are becoming increasingly familiar with leadership assessment, coaching, succession planning and even staff engagement surveys. So the skills are there. The question is whether these tools are being used early enough and with the necessary courage. In many organisations, in fact, the factors leading to failure are only identified once business results, staff turnover or reputational issues make them impossible to ignore.

Is this, then, the real challenge for leaders? To identify the factors that could lead to failure in good time?

The challenge is not merely diagnostic; it is cultural and linked to governance. Companies often promote managers on the basis of their technical performance, political skills, commercial drive or charisma, and then assume that these qualities will translate into leadership. But the higher up a leader goes, the less direct feedback they receive and the more damage their blind spots can cause. Italian companies, like those in other countries, are better equipped when they combine validated assessments, 360-degree feedback, data on employee engagement and structured discussions on succession. They are less so when talent decisions depend primarily on track record, internal sponsorship or interviews, because negative tendencies are notoriously difficult to spot and may even appear attractive during the selection process.

Final question: to what extent do leaders’ dysfunctional behaviours affect business outcomes in terms of engagement, talent retention, productivity, etc.?

The impact is significant because leadership behaviour acts as a multiplier. Dysfunctional leadership reduces engagement, loyalty, productivity, innovation and psychological safety, and entails, not least, hidden costs: conflicts, defensive decision-making, absenteeism and slow execution. This can even lead to the loss of high-performing employees who are unwilling to work for a destructive manager.

A final piece of advice for managers on recognising and managing their ‘dark side’

The starting point is strategic self-awareness: understanding not only one’s own intentions, but also one’s own reputation. The underlying aim is not simply to ‘change one’s personality’, but rather to modify one’s behaviour in high-risk situations.