Introduction

Leadership is a central axis in the sustainability of any organization, but in the academic field it acquires even greater relevance, since educational institutions manage knowledge and train future generations. The literature recognizes multiple ways of exercising leadership: transformational, transactional, authentic, moral, or toxic (Northouse, 2022; Yukl, 2020). However, in everyday practice, two main strands can be distinguished: natural leadership, which emerges from competition, legitimacy and trust, and unnatural leadership, which is imposed through manipulation, incompetence and lack of ethical values.

This article argues that natural leadership drives positive and sustainable organizational climates, while unnatural leadership is a latent threat in many academic institutions, generating toxic environments and eroding the educational mission. Its characteristics, impacts, and the mechanisms that human resources must implement to ensure that management succession processes lead to truly prepared and legitimate leaders are analyzed.

Approaches to Leadership in the Literature

Leadership theory has gone through various currents. Transformational leadership  focuses on inspiring and motivating followers toward common goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006), while transactional leadership focuses on rewards and sanctions. Authentic leadership, on the other hand,  is based on the congruence between values, words, and actions (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). In contrast, toxic leadership describes leaders who, under a façade of efficiency, harm people and destroy trust (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Padilla et al., 2007).

Natural leadership, understood as that which emerges legitimately through the competence and recognition of the collective, is related to authentic and moral approaches (Ciulla, 2020). Unnatural leadership, on the other hand, shares traits with toxic and narcissistic leadership: excessive search for power, manipulation of teams, and disregard for knowledge (Schyns & Schilling, 2023).

Natural Leadership: Competence and Legitimacy

Natural leadership does not need to be imposed: it is perceived organically by those around the leader. It arises from the ability to make informed decisions, professional ethics, and the ability to inspire others. In educational institutions, this leadership is reflected in the promotion of pedagogical innovation, the strengthening of the sense of community, and the creation of environments of trust (Leithwood et al., 2020).

Natural leaders show high emotional intelligence, which allows them to manage conflicts and generate healthy relationships (Goleman, 2020). In addition, they understand that power comes with responsibility, not personal gain. Therefore, their exercise of authority is perceived as fair and legitimate, and their legacy strengthens the future of the organization.

Natural leadership is associated with the notion of authentic leadership, in which the actions of leaders are consistent with their values and with the needs of the organization (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). It is a leadership that is perceived organically, as it emerges from confidence, professional experience and the ability to inspire others. In educational settings, this type of leadership is reflected in managers who promote pedagogical innovation, strengthen the sense of community, and ensure that decisions are made based on evidence and the collective good (Leithwood et al., 2020).

An essential trait of natural leadership is its technical and moral competence. Natural leaders do not seek power as an end in itself, but as a responsibility to ensure the future of the organization. In this sense, the human resources area plays a central role, by designing selection and succession processes that privilege candidates with solid values and adequate training (Collins, 2019). Where meritocracy is respected, the likelihood of unnatural leaders emerging is significantly reduced.

Unnatural Leadership: Incompetence and Toxicity

Unnatural leadership, on the other hand, feels like a burden. These leaders seek power as compensation for personal insecurities and lack of family or professional values. They surround themselves with circles of convenience, destroy original ideas in order to appropriate them and focus on pointing out other people’s mistakes to project a false efficiency. This pattern coincides with the “toxic triangle” described by Padilla et al. (2007), where destructive leaders thrive thanks to susceptible followers and permissive institutional environments. Unnatural leadership, which does not correspond to the training of a professional leader, arises in contexts where institutional control mechanisms are weak. These behaviors are consistent with what the literature calls toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Padilla et al., 2007).

In academic institutions, unnatural leadership produces an environment of organizational hypocrisy. Teams comply with instructions out of obligation, but internally recognize the leader’s lack of competence. This leads to toxic climates, increased  teacher burnout, demotivation and talent drain. Recent studies show that these environments reduce educational innovation and institutional quality (Schyns & Schilling, 2023).

The impact of unnatural leadership on academic institutions is profound: it generates organizational climates based on distrust, discourages innovation, and erodes team cohesion. Although it may apparently maintain a façade of efficiency, what it really produces is an environment of lack of organizational credibility, in which members comply with instructions out of obligation and not out of conviction. In the medium term, these practices lead to the loss of talent, the reduction of institutional commitment and the paralysis of the academic mission.

Impacts on academic institutions

Natural leadership favors continuous improvement, compliance with accreditation standards and the achievement of the educational mission. In contrast, unnatural leadership puts institutional reputation at risk. Research has shown that universities run by incompetent leaders suffer higher rates of staff turnover, internal conflicts, and stagnation in academic rankings (Hogan et al., 2018).

Moreover, when institutions allow unnatural leadership to thrive, the costs are high: loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the community, weakening of the culture of research and teaching, and difficulty in attracting quality students and faculty.

The role of Human Resources and management succession

A solid institution must have human resources systems capable of detecting and stopping the rise of unnatural leadership. Management succession planning cannot be a merely formal act, but a strategic process that ensures that the selected leaders possess not only technical competencies, but also ethical values and a vision of the future (Gentry et al., 2021).

When this “protection mesh” is weak and, in addition, supervisors lack the critical capacity to evaluate applicants, a scenario conducive to institutional disaster is configured. As Hogan et al. (2018) warn, the cost of placing an incompetent person in a leadership position is high, not only because of their management errors, but also because of the negative culture they leave behind.

Human resources departments are the safety net against the rise of unnatural leaders. A robust succession planning  process ensures that strategic positions are filled by candidates with technical preparation, ethical values, and proven leadership ability (Gentry et al., 2021).

However, when this network is weak, incompetent leaders manage to move forward and, if they are overseen by even more incapable authorities, the “formula for disaster” is ready. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen selection, evaluation, and promotion policies, incorporating ethics, performance, and emotional management indicators.

Proposals to guarantee competent leadership

To reduce the incidence of unnatural leadership, institutions must:

1.Implement 360° evaluations that collect perceptions of peers, subordinates, and superiors.

2.Develop mentoring and coaching programs in ethical and academic leadership.

3.Foster an organizational culture based on transparency, where accountability is a guiding principle.

4.Link leadership to accreditation standards and educational quality, so that management style is evaluated along with academic outcomes.

In this way, it is guaranteed that succession processes generate natural and authentic leaders, capable of sustaining the institutional mission.

Conclusions

Natural leadership and unnatural leadership represent two opposite faces within academic institutions. While the former strengthens the educational mission, fosters innovation, and builds trust, the latter destroys organizational cohesion and generates toxic environments. The difference between natural and unnatural leadership is clear: the former is perceived as legitimate, competent, and constructive; the second feels artificial, harmful and corrosive. In academic institutions, where human capital and knowledge are the main resource, allowing unnatural leadership to consolidate is equivalent to compromising the very mission of education.

Detecting unnatural leaders does not require a special talent: just look at their lust for power, their organizational hypocrisy, and their lack of sustainable results. However, to prevent them from thriving, institutions must establish effective filters through their human resources departments, promote meritocracy, and cultivate a culture based on authenticity and ethics.

The good news is that this type of leadership is rarely successfully transferred to other organizations: their incompetence and lack of expertise end up being evident in the real market. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen human resources policies, develop selection and succession systems based on meritocracy, and cultivate an institutional culture that rewards authenticity and punishes toxicity. Only in this way can it be guaranteed that the future of academic organizations is in the hands of truly prepared and legitimate leaders.

References

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

Ciulla, J. B. (2020). The importance of leadership in the modern world. Springer.

Collins, J. (2019). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. HarperBusiness.

Gentry, W. A., Eckert, R. H., Munusamy, V. P., Stawiski, S. A., & Martin, J. L. (2021). The needs of participants in leadership development programs: A cross-country investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051821997406

Goleman, D. (2020). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (25th anniversary ed.). Bantam.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Kaiser, R. B. (2018). Management derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations (pp. 425–445). Oxford University Press.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader, 36, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.117

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2023). When leadership derails: A review of destructive leadership and the role of followers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053537

Yukl, G. A. (2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson.