The Penn State Scandal: Destructive Leadership Perspective

The Penn State Scandal: Destructive Leadership Perspective
Abstract
The Penn State scandal stressed the involvement of key players in a web of deception, cover-up and sexual accusations of children. Those key players stressed in the case were Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. Jerry Sandusky was accused of sexually abusing 10 boys over a 15 year period. Sandusky was ultimately found guilty of these charges. Other well-known names, such as Joe Paterno, were arrested and charged with conspiracy because of their failure to report the child abuse. This scandal rocked the Penn State community. Mainly because their culture was driven by a strong college sports influence. Many people wondered how such a strong community of leaders could allow something so awful to happen for so long. Observers of the scandal tended to frame the events in terms of individuals behaving badly or irresponsibly (Alderfer, 2013). So many focus on the leaders involved and neglect to identify an organization as a whole when discussing issues. Many people will participate in the destruction of an organization whether knowingly or not. Why do so many fail to identify all the elements in leadership? What other factors besides leadership contribute to destruction of an organization? Many areas were researched in regards to the organizational leadership of this paper. This paper will evaluate the destructive leadership of Penn State as a whole organization and the perspective that the situation was much greater than just the individuals listed above.

Introduction
When reviewing the key elements of leadership many people think of the main people involved in management. Less often do we think of the leaders, supporters and settings as being the key elements of leadership (Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter & Tate, 2012). The Penn State scandal is a perfect example of how a favorable environment, characterized by power and absent of proper management can lead to devastating consequences. Leadership achievement or letdown can be completely dependent on an entire organization. Leadership outcomes involve more than just management traits and actions. Many people look at the key stakeholders and wonder, “How could they let this happen?”. Realistically, an entire organization of leaders, supporters and environment needs to be analyzed when determining the reasons why things happen (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007). The Penn State scandal stressed the involvement of key players in a web of deception, cover-up and sexual accusations of children. Those key players stressed in the case were Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. This paper will evaluate the destructive leadership as a whole and the perspective that the situation was much greater than these individuals.
Environmental Factors and Key Stake Holders There is a number of environmental factors associated with the Penn State Scandal (Alderfer, 2013). Alderfer (2013) states that the NCAA and its regulations, the characteristics of a tightly-knit and loyal coaching fraternity, and the centralization of power and unchecked managerial discretion are key elements when analyzing the organizational leadership of Penn State. When reviewing the elements of the Penn State leadership it is also important to recognize the relationship between intercollegiate sports and the academics of the university. All of these factors play a large role in the organizational leadership of this university. Everyone wants to see their organization succeed even if it means overlooking situations. This was especially the case in a big-time sports centered environment like Penn State. The events that took place at Penn State were shocking to say the least. Penn State was originally a state-owned University but overtime state funding diminished and it became more of a private institution (“This is Penn State: Our History” at http://www.psu.edu). This meant that it could hold itself independent without having to follow of the state regulations.
Joe Paterno was so well liked that often times his power overtook a situation. Many individuals trusted his judgments and therefore, overlooked certain situations. After all, Penn State was winning football championships and the sports culture was like no other. “Often, toxic leaders will attempt to alter the environment and minimize oversight to suit their purposes” (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007). Even when the football seasons were not so great, leaders could not get Paterno to retire. This shows that Paterno had a good hold on his position and that no one really had any control over his actions or even checked his decisions. This situation contributed to the overall destruction at Penn State. Some people who questioned Paterno’s judgments were often asked to resign (Whiteside, 2011). Vicky Triponey was the vice president of student affairs. She once challenged Paterno’s power and lost her position. She said Paterno interfered with the disciplinary process especially when his football players were involved (Whiteside, 2011). This was not the only case of Paterno’s coverups. Many other instances involving his football players were brushed under the rug.

Involvement Theories There is no question that Penn State is known for its avid football fans and supporters. The University’s board of trustees lacked the control to confront Paterno on his oversight and decision making. Several ex-football players served as board members for the University’s board of trustees. Many of them had previously benefitted from the successes of having Paterno as their coach (Alderfer, 2013). All of the board members turned a blind eye to situations and decisions which eventually allowed Sandusky to abuse children on their University grounds. It is unfortunate but true that people passively obey and may even participate in destructive behavior because they believe in a leader (Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter & Tate, 2012). When looking at the fans and their contribution to the fall at Penn State it is difficult to understand their contribution. Many, if not all, had no idea that this was happening and were shocked by the news of the scandal. What they did not realize was that they were supporting these acts, unknowingly, by supporting the successes of the football team. Their loyalty to Paterno and the Penn State football team contributed significantly to the destructive behaviors of Paterno and Sandusky. The football players also contributed to the fall at Penn State. They knew that Paterno would protect them no matter what they were involved in. This made them run afoul while no consequences to be experienced.
Preventative Solution Strategies What is done is done but it is important for Penn State to recognize its issues and made changes to insure that events such as these never happen again. It would be impossible to say that child abuse only happens at places like Penn State. Actually, it can happen anywhere. When reviewing preventative measures it is important that every organization have a set protocol in place when handling situations like this one. It is also important that protocols be enforced by all parties and that individuals be confronted, reprimanded or fired when they do not follow protocols. The entire organization should be looked at as a whole. Everyone should be held accountable for these actions. All employees should be able to speak freely of their concerns and managers should listen and investigate these concerns. In the case of Penn State, the board of trustees should’ve investigated any concerns brought to their attention and dealt with Paterno. I believe the success of the Penn State football team came from its players and that their success would not have ended with Paterno’s retirement. People come and go, and life goes on. Eventually they will regain respect from their community but they have to adhere to strict guidelines and prove that they can be the Penn State culture they once were.
Solution Implementation Currently, Penn State is implementing 119 policy reform to ensure that an event like this never happens again. This policy will bolster abuse reporting, child safety and other campus procedures (Schackner, 2013). The organization is also working diligently to repair strained relationships with alumni and other constituents (Schackner, 2013). They are experiencing a smaller graduating class but attribute this to the shortage of high school graduates and not the Sandusky scandal. They continue to work through residual law suits. The use of arbitrators could have been useful when dealing with situations within the organization.
Conclusion
Many parties were hurt by the Penn State scandal. Not only did the young men involved in Sandusky’s abuse have to relive the unthinkable acts brought onto them but an entire university suffered at the hands of one man’s decision. Not only did some of the main stakeholders lose their jobs but the University also lost the trust of its current student body, faculty, staff and alumni. To understand leadership it is important to look at an organization as a whole and not as a single persons actions. Following and enforcing rules and guidelines is important to the success of an organization. All of these factors play an important role in the rise and fall of an organization as was proven in the Penn State scandal. The future of Penn State is dependent on whether or not they set guidelines and follow them. Changes need to come, leaders need to be strong. Penn State has a long road ahead but with positive leadership, an openness to discuss issues and continued protocol implementation and evaluation they may regain the trust of their followers.

References
Alderfer, C. (2013). Not just football: An intergroup perspective on the Sandusky scandal at Penn State. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6.
Schackner, B. (2013). Penn State tries to move forward after Sandusky scandal: Many issues ahead for the university to tackle. Pittsburg Post Gazette. Retrieved on March 24, 2015 from http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/01/13/Penn-State-tries-to-move-forward-after-Sandusky-scandal/stories/201301130204
Padilla, A. Hogan, R., and Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle, Destructive leaders, susceptible followers and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Penn State (2015). This is Penn State: Our History. Retrieved on March 10, 2015 from http://www.psu.edu/this-is-penn-state/our-history
Thoroughgood, C., Padilla, A., Hunter, S.T., and Tate, B. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897-917.
Whiteside, K. (2011). Ex-Penn State official saw Paterno’s “dark side”. USA Today. Retrieved on March 10, 2015 from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigteen/story/2011-11-22/11-22-11-Paterno-Discipline/51346682/1