The Other Side of Adversity: Surviving a Destructive Leader Experience

by Sharon Roberts

B.S. in Aerospace, December 1986, Middle Tennessee State University M.Ed. in Aerospace Education, December 1987, Middle Tennessee State University

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

January 10, 2019

Dissertation directed by

Michael J. Marquardt Professor Emeritus of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of the George Washington

University certifies that Sharon Roberts has passed the final examination for the degree of Doctor of Education as of November 30, 2018. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

The Other Side of Adversity: Surviving a Destructive Leader Experience

Sharon Roberts

Dissertation Research Committee:

Michael J. Marquardt, Professor Emeritus of Human and Organizational Learning and International Affairs, Dissertation Director

Clyde V. Croswell, Adjunct Professor of Human and Organizational Learning, Committee Member

Vareen O’Keefe-Domaleski, Vice President of Patient Care and Chief Nursing Officer, Bradley Hospital, Committee Member

ii Dedication

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my mother, who instilled in me a

strong desire to learn, a belief in the power of education, and a kindness for others that

exceeded all expectations. Growing up in the rural South, the sixth born in a family of eleven, my mother was the first woman in her family to graduate from high school.

Wanting to go to college but accepting her inability to pay tuition, she became self-taught and never stopped identifying ways to learn.

When my mother passed away suddenly in 2004, I reflected much on her life and the importance she placed on education. She was a pillar of our community and used her knowledge where possible to help others. My mother’s acts inspired me to become a lifelong learner and to strive to use my knowledge in a positive way. Hopefully, the knowledge I gained during this research will positively affect someone in my future.

Each of my accomplishments, both great and small, gave her immense joy. After reaching a milestone, we would celebrate, but soon after she would ask me, “What's next?” I believe she would have been very happy to know that I finally finished my dissertation.

Her spirit of adventure, her desire to learn, and her never-ending generosity to improve the lives of those close to her is my mother's legacy.

I shouldn’t end this section without thanking others in my family: my dad, my brother, and my sister for providing encouragement throughout my life in all my endeavors. I also thank more recent additions to the family: my brother-in-law, who treats me as though I am his sister, and my nephew and niece, who with fresh perspectives and abundant energy constantly remind me of the joy that can be found in learning.

iii Acknowledgments

It is difficult to know where to begin in thanking everyone for their contributions

to my learning path and this study. There are so many more than I could list in this

section; all equally share in my gratitude. Some were active volunteers and participants in

a tangible way, while others, through chance encounters throughout my life, shaped my

passion and curiosity, which led me to where I am today.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation research committee members—Dr. Michael J. Marquardt, Dr. Clyde Croswell, and Dr. Vareen O’Keefe-

Domaleski—for their guidance, due diligence, support, encouragement, and, most of all, their patience throughout this journey.

During my time at the George Washington University, I was part of a cohort and am very grateful to my cohort members for their support and guidance. I learned so much from them and have forged great friendships. I am impressed by the faculty and their strong devotion to lifelong learning and can’t find words to express the appreciation they deserve. During my last weekend and prior to starting my research, one faculty member handed me a personalized handwritten note with ideas of constructs and words of encouragement that I have kept on my desk for several years.

From my heart, I would like to thank the 13 brave volunteers who agreed to dive deeper than the surface of their destructive leadership memories, so we could experience and learn from their emotional states and styles through their vulnerability.

Finally, I would like to thank my true friends, from whom I found strength,

encouragement, and inspiration to continue with this enriching endeavor.

iv Abstract of the Dissertation

The Other Side of Adversity: Surviving a Destructive Leader Experience

This study contributes to the understanding of how and why many different

individuals, from different walks of life, educational backgrounds, career fields, and

generations, are able to survive a destructive leadership experience. This study focused

on those who lived through the experience of a perceived destructive leader, rather than

focusing on the destructive leaders themselves. This purpose was to gain insight and a

better understanding of what those who survived these experiences went through, the strategies they unconsciously implemented to help them survive and how they responded,

what they endured in the short and longer term of their experience, and what changes

they experienced because of the destructive leadership experience. A qualitative

phenomenological research strategy was employed, involving interviews with 13

purposefully selected individuals. The participant data were analyzed to provide insight into the essence of the experience, and participants’ responses were interpreted through affectivity as an emotional style of resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and/or attention as the conceptual framework (Davidson, 2002).

Within the context of the researched literature and the presented contextual framework, this study explored the remarkable links between affective science, cognitive science, and emotional states and styles that are a result of a natural emotional and biological human response to a perceived situation. Ultimately, the results led to nine conclusions: (1) optimism is a survival tool; (2) happiness stems from a strong commitment to purpose; (3) adapting is beneficial but difficult; (4) trusted social

v interaction provides individual strength; (5) fear can be a primary decision driver;

(6) physical and emotional effects face with resiliency; (7) perception can differ from

reality during retrospection; (8) experience provides knowledge; and (9) transformation can result from intense situations.

vi Table of Contents

Page

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Abstract of the Dissertation ...... v

List of Figures ...... xii

List of Tables ...... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Overview ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 4

Purpose and Research Questions ...... 5

Statement of Potential Significance ...... 5

Conceptual Framework ...... 7

Leadership ...... 9

Destructive Leadership...... 9

Affectivity ...... 10

Emotional Style ...... 10

Summary of the Methodology ...... 11

Definition of Key Terms ...... 12

Chapter Summary ...... 14

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 15

Leadership ...... 16

Destructive Leadership ...... 20

vii Einarsen et al.’s Model of Destructive Leadership ...... 21

Pedilla et al.’s Model of Destructive Leadership ...... 23

Destructive Leadership and Ethics ...... 26

Timeline of Studies on Destructive Leadership ...... 27

Effects of Destructive Leadership ...... 31

Affectivity and Affective Science ...... 32

Emotional Systems ...... 34

Emotional Style ...... 37

Interpersonal Neurobiology and ESSENCE ...... 62

Affect and Cognition ...... 66

Connections Between Biology and Psychology ...... 69

Summary of the Literature Review ...... 76

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY...... 78

Research Design ...... 78

A Qualitative Approach ...... 78

A Phenomenological Approach ...... 79

Role of the Researcher ...... 82

Participant Selection and Recruitment ...... 83

Recruitment of Participants ...... 85

Data Collection ...... 85

Data Analysis ...... 88

Trustworthiness, Limitations, and Delimitations ...... 89

Credibility ...... 89

viii Transferability ...... 90

Dependability ...... 91

Confirmability ...... 91

Ethically Responsible Research ...... 92

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 94

Participant Demographic Characteristics ...... 95

Profiles ...... 97

Andrea ...... 97

Derrick ...... 101

Diana ...... 106

Fred ...... 111

Ginny ...... 116

Helen ...... 120

Jackie ...... 125

Melissa ...... 131

Bo ...... 136

Samuel ...... 140

Anthony ...... 145

Pam ...... 151

Maddie ...... 155

Summary of Combined Textural and Structural Description ...... 159

Themes ...... 162

ix Theme 1: Participants’ General Optimistic Outlook Affected Their Reaction

to the Destructive Leader ...... 164

Theme 2: Participants Had to Regulate Between Attention and Emotion ...... 165

Theme 3: Participants Did Not Report Their Destructive Leaders ...... 166

Theme 4: Participants Experienced Harmful Nonverbal Communication from

the Destructive Leaders ...... 167

Theme 5: Participants Experienced a Physical and Emotional Toll from the

Destructive Leader ...... 168

Theme 6: Participants Wished They Would Have Handled the Situation

Differently ...... 170

Summary of Themes ...... 171

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 175

Conclusions ...... 177

Conclusion 1: Optimism Is a Survival Tool ...... 178

Conclusion 2: Happiness Stems from a Strong Commitment to Purpose ...... 180

Conclusion 3: Adapting Is Beneficial but Difficult ...... 181

Conclusion 4: Trusted Social Interaction Provides Individual Strength ...... 187

Conclusion 5: Fear Can Be a Primary Decision Driver ...... 188

Conclusion 6: Physical and Emotional Effects Fade with Resiliency ...... 190

Conclusion 7: Perception Can Differ from Reality During Retrospection ...... 193

Conclusion 8: Experience Provides Knowledge ...... 195

Conclusion 9: Transformation Can Result from Intense Situations ...... 196

Implications for Theory ...... 201

x Implications for Practice ...... 203

Suggestions for Future Research ...... 206

Summary ...... 210

REFERENCES ...... 213

APPENDIX A: Informed Consent Form ...... 235

APPENDIX B: Demographic Information ...... 237

APPENDIX C: Interview Protocol ...... 238

APPENDIX D: E-mail to Potential Participants...... 240

xi List of Figures

Page

1.1. Conceptual Framework ...... 8

2.1. A Model of Destructive Leadership Behavior ...... 23

2.2. The Toxic Triangle: Elements in Three Domains Related to Destructive

Leadership ...... 24

2.3. The Structure of the Brain ...... 34

2.4. Emotional Style Scale ...... 61

5.1. Revised Conceptual Framework: Essential Self-Transformation ...... 201

xii List of Tables

Page

2.1. Destructive Leadership Concepts ...... 21

2.2. Destructive Leadership Research Timeline ...... 28

2.3. The Features of ESSENCE ...... 62

4.1. Participant Demographic Characteristics ...... 96

4.2. Participants’ Time in the Workforce and with the Destructive Leader ...... 96

4.3. Participants’ Emotional Styles, Emotional Systems, and Vital Qualities ...... 160

4.4. Themes by Participant ...... 163

4.5. Participants’ Experience of Theme 1: Optimism ...... 164

4.6. Participants’ Experience of Theme 2: Regulation Between Attention

and Emotion ...... 166

4.7. Participants’ Experience of Theme 3: Not Reporting Destructive Leaders ...... 167

4.8. Participants’ Experience of Theme 4: Harmful Nonverbal Communication ...... 168

4.9. Participants’ Experience of Theme 5: Physical and Emotional Effects ...... 169

4.10. Participants’ Experience of Theme 6: Desire to Have Done Things

Differently ...... 170

5.1. Research Subquestions, Themes, Findings, and Associated Conclusions ...... 178

xiii CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Three out of four organizational members think interacting with their leader is the most stressful part of their job, with 44% saying they have been verbally, emotionally, or physically abused by a supervisor or leader at some point in their career. The health of the employee, both physically and mentally, can be compromised during a destructive experience, and it takes people 22 months to restore their stress levels to a healthy range after a destructive leader experience (OnlineMBA, n.d.). While encountering a destructive leader, followers are susceptible to chronic stress, depression, and anxiety— which all increase the risk of a lowered immune system, colds, strokes, and even heart attacks (OnlineMBA, n.d.).

Sixty-five percent of employees say they would take a new boss over a pay raise, and 30% of employees experiencing poor relationships with their leader are more likely to suffer coronary heart disease (TellYourBoss.com, 2012). With all the astonishing statistics reported on the destructive leader phenomenon, one might expect that awareness would reduce the occurrence; however, there seems to be no difficulty in finding new instances, as if destructive leadership experiences are on the rise. Incidents are everywhere—in our schools, in corporate America, in nonprofit organizations, and in public service, including the military.

In 2013, eBossWatch released its annual list of America’s Worst Bosses for 2012, comprising 50 individuals that included a college dean, four restaurant owners, a fire department chief, five doctors, a judge, three county prosecuting attorneys, and a state

1

attorney general. The 2012 America’s Worst Bosses cost their employers more than $41 million in monetary damages and lawsuit settlement payments. Of this amount, the worst bosses in the public sector cost their respective taxpayers more than $21 million. These managers were accused of workplace harassment and/or sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and/or creating a hostile work environment (eBossWatch,

2013).

The 2011 America’s Worst Bosses cost their employers over $145 million in monetary damages and lawsuit settlement payments. Topping the offenders list were a famous actor, a movie producer, a Fortune 500 CEO, two U.S. Navy officers, two doctors, two judges, two district attorneys, three police chiefs, a U.S. congressman, a U.S. senator, and a U.S. ambassador (eBossWatch, 2012).

In April 2013, Rutgers University fired its head coach of 3 years for verbally and physically abusing his own players. Language used by this leader toward subordinates included extreme vile profanity. His physical abuse included violently throwing basketballs at the head and crotch of players (Gillespie, 2013). Although recently publicly identified at Rutgers, his destructive leadership style may have been used in all of the years he coached basketball, which may have affected many he led (“Mike Rice Jr,” n.d.). An author at The American Conservative recalled being humiliated by a physical education teacher while he was a student in seventh grade. As a child, he was overweight, badly coordinated, and considered a geek, so his coach thought the best way to motivate him, and others in his class, was to kick him and yell insults in front of his classmates

(Dreher, 2013). In April 2013, at a Texas middle school, a substitute teacher punished a student by slamming his head with a ball while he was on his knees and warned other

2

students that the same would happen to them if they chose not to obey the substitute

teacher’s instructions. This event alone is horrific but becomes even more disturbing when finding out that the young boy was in remission from leukemia (Byrne, 2013).

The Army recently released a study reporting that 80% of the military leadership

(both commissioned and noncommissioned officers) had observed toxic or destructive

leaders, and at least 20% of them had worked for a toxic leader (Doty & Fenlason, 2013).

The statistics underlie recent actions by the Army, in which it relieved two brigade commanders and a general for alleged abusive behavior and asked a division commander serving during Operation Iraqi Freedom to retire following his investigated toxic command. In 2011, four brigade commanders or senior officers, often responsible for

4,000 soldiers, were relieved from their position, with at least two actions due directly to destructive behavior (Box, 2012).

Destructive leadership is not new to the Army; the Secretary of the Army in 2003 asked the U.S. Army War College to address how the Army could effectively assess leaders to detect those who might have destructive leadership styles (Reed, 2004). In

2013, the Army Times announced the Army’s pledge to soldiers that toxic leaders would be fired (ArmyTimes, 2013). The Army’s pledge of zero tolerance for toxic leadership is hopeful but may be difficult to execute, especially in the military environment where speaking up is not always encouraged due to the nature of the mission. Following orders regardless of the delivery method is often preferred. In 2014, Dave Matsuda was hired by the Army to investigate why almost 30 soldiers in the past year had attempted or committed suicide. Matsuda connected suicide to toxic leadership. He conducted research on eight of the soldiers who committed suicide and identified that not only did they have

3

major problems in their personal lives but they also had destructive leaders, which according to the interviewees helped push the soldiers over the brink (Zwerdling, 2014).

More than 20 years later, a similar theme still exists related to leaders and followers. Similar to today’s statistics, a previous study identified that 60% to 75% of all employees typically reported that the worst aspect of their job was their immediate supervisor (Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990). In light of these constant statistics, there is a high probability that during their career, organizational members will at one time or another face a toxic leader or be involved in a destructive leader experience. Because the likelihood of having a destructive leader experience in a career is high, understanding what followers do to survive the experience while maintaining professionalism, being productive, and completing tasks to the best of their ability should be examined through research.

Statement of the Problem

Many members survive destructive leader experiences, but we do not know how or why. A significant number of organizational members report dissatisfaction with the relationship they have with their leader; however, organizations continue to succeed in spite of this imbalance. The literature surrounding destructive leadership primarily examines various aspects of the leader, with minimal focus on the follower. There is a need for an improved understanding of a follower’s experience when encountering a destructive leader.

4

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of the lived experiences of employees who have survived a destructive leader experience. How do

they respond to what life throws at them? What strategies do they implement to survive?

What individual changes do they experience?

Survival has been studied for decades specifically relating to extreme traumatic

events but not to a follower’s day-to-day adversity when interacting with a destructive

leader. Further, research that has been conducted in this area has been primarily

quantitative, and minimal qualitative research exists. This research highlighted the

individual follower’s strategy for survival and contrasted that approach with the six

components of affective or emotional style, which biologically describe how someone

responds to obstacles.

The study had one main research question and three subquestions as follows:

RQ1: What is the lived experience of employees who have experienced a destructive

leader in the workplace?

a. How do employees describe their strategies for surviving a destructive leader

experience?

b. How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience?

c. How do employees perceive their changes, if any, after having survived a

destructive leader experience?

Statement of Potential Significance

A deeper understanding of how followers endure destructive leader experiences

will first and foremost help participants understand themselves better as they verbalize

5

their experiences. Employees, through understanding strategies taken by others, may be

better prepared for a destructive leader as they learn through shared narratives from

participants. Leaders may benefit from enhanced awareness and education on what impact they may be wielding on employees. Through this research, leaders may become attuned to signs of distress, potentially enabling them to assist employees during difficult times.

No single solution for development of the ideal leader has been found; moreover, studies have identified toxic or destructive leaders and noted that employees survive them and make organizations successful despite this type of leadership. Focus on these followers—their response and survival strategies—is vital. Organizational costs may be reduced and productivity increased if employees have less exposure to destructive leaders or are better prepared to survive destructive leadership.

In addition to these practical contributions, the study also contributes to theory in its approach to studying the interrelation of cognition and affect in the study participants.

When considering the interrelation, the literature primarily focuses on extreme situations dealing with mental illness. The current study examines the participants’ response

strategies (emotional style) when the occurrence is often unnoticed.

A common concept is that the mind of an adult is fixed and that the human brain

is shaped and developed in childhood and adolescence. However, Slagter, Davidson, and

Lutz (2011) pointed out that more and more research is showing that the brain exhibits

plasticity, or propensity for change, even into adulthood. In their study, Slagter et al.

(2011) investigated how mental training and specifically meditation could be used to

study cognitive plasticity. Their research explained how the brain changes as a response

6

to experiences and actions. With a better understanding of what followers do to survive

destructive leadership, coupled with a biological explanation of the response and the

opportunity for deliberate change, followers may be better prepared when faced with a

destructive leader experience.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study includes constructs that allow the

researcher to effectively examine and describe the phenomenon of employees’ survival

and responses to a destructive leadership experience. The overarching constructs are

leadership and affectivity, also known as affective science. Affective science, typically a

biological research area, is being used for this study due to the research connecting biology and psychology. The specific constructs include destructive leadership, just one

phenomenon of many in the leadership field, paired with an affective science area referred to as emotional style.

To attempt to understand human response to various situations, including stressful

situations such as destructive leadership, the complex human brain cannot be overlooked.

Research today considers affect and cognition as neural networks of the brain that

interact dynamically and not in opposition. Over the past two decades, there have been

breakthroughs in understanding the ways that modes of thinking and modes of feeling

rely upon each other and how both modes are part of a healthy human life (Forgas, 2008).

Varela and Depraz (2004) suggested that consciousness is wrapped up in the complex relationship between affect, cognition, and the body. For them, experience is not simply a split between passive and active. To be thorough, the constructs for the research must consider both affect as well as cognition.

7

Emotion is not just some ‘primitive’ remnant of an earlier reptilian evolutionary past. Emotion directs the flow of activation (energy) and establishes the meaning of representations (information processing) for the individual. It is not a single, isolated group of processes; it has a direct impact on the entire mind. (Siegel, 2001, p. 263).

Emotional style, which is a biological explanation of how people respond to

situations they face, can be traced to a specific, characteristic brain signature, as

identified through research in affective neuroscience (Davidson & Begley, 2012). As

described by Davidson, emotional style has six dimensions: resilience, outlook, social

intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention. These particular constructs

and their interrelationships provide a sound conceptual framework for exploring member response to a destructive leader action (Figure 1.1).

LEADERSHIP AFFECTIVITY Destructive Leadership Affective Style (Emotional Style) . Resilience . Outlook . Social Intuition . Self-Awareness . Sensitivity to Context . Attention

Destructive Leader Action Follower Response

Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework.

8

Leadership

For centuries, scholars have studied how humans may be successfully led, properly persuaded, motivated, and inspired by certain leadership styles, in an effort to determine what characteristics comprise a great leader. In more modern times, organizations, realizing the benefits of strong effective leaders, have devoted resources towards identifying and developing individuals whom they hope will have a positive impact on the organization and its members. As Kellerman (2012) noted, “In the last few decades leader learning has become an industry in which more than $50 billion is spent annually, just on corporate training and development” (pp. 153-154).

Destructive Leadership

In the past, leadership research mostly concentrated on leader behaviors that produced organizational success through positive employee attitudes and behavior (Yukl,

2010). Within the past 20 years, researchers have begun to identify the dark and negative sides of the leader. This research has many descriptions and labels, with a large amount of research focusing on abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision is an aspect of destructive leadership; however, destructive leadership encompasses more than that aspect. Scholars have not agreed on a definition of destructive leadership. Einarsen,

Aasland, and Skogstad (2007) developed a broad definition focusing on two dimensions, behaviors towards subordinates and behaviors towards the organization:

The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates. (p. 208)

9

Affectivity

Affectivity or affective science includes emotion, feelings, mood, attitudes, affective style (emotional style), and temperament. “Affective processes are responsible for mobilizing the individual’s resources to cope with the unexpected, to avoid punishment, and to secure nourishment and pleasure” (Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith,

2003). Affective science (including affective neuroscience) is similar to the cognitive science of the 1960s with at least one distinct exception. Cognition, as popularized in the

1960s and 1970s, historically excluded emotion and primarily included the study of mental processes such as memory or perception. Affect and cognition have long been treated as independent; however, research supports the view that they are highly interdependent (Storbeck & Clore, 2007). Affect plays a role in perception and cognition, even when people are unaware of the influence (Duncan & Barrett, 2007).

Emotional Style

Affective style (also called emotional style) is one affective phenomenon in affective science. Within that domain, emotional style is one of six affective phenomena

(Davidson et al., 2003). Emotional style is a consistent way of responding to life experiences (Davidson & Begley, 2012). It encapsulates how people respond to their life challenges. All individuals interact with the world around them using their own distinct emotional states, emotional traits, personality, and temperament. Emotional style has six dimensions: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

10

The current study documented the shared narrative of lived experiences of followers who have experienced destructive leader actions. It also documented the response with a backdrop of individual emotional style.

Summary of the Methodology

A phenomenological qualitative research design was utilized for this inquiry exploring the lived experience of employees who had survived a destructive leadership experience. A phenomenological approach was selected because understanding the actual lived experience of the follower was the basis for this research.

Phenomenological inquiry has three phases: data collection, data analysis, and documenting the experience in text. Van Manen’s (1990) approach starts with identifying the phenomenon, defining the research question, developing a methodology to collect data among the sources needed to be able to examine the phenomenon, and communicating the findings of the lived experience in text.

The population was purposefully sampled using criterion-based selection of 8 to

13 employees who had survived a destructive leader experience. To be included, individuals had to have at least 7 years of experience in the workforce; their destructive leader experience must have lasted for at least 6 months; their destructive leader experience must have ended; and the experience must have occurred within the last 5 years.

The data were collected through face-to-face semistructured in-depth interviews that lasted about 90 minutes. Each person was interviewed individually in a location agreed to by both the interviewer and the interviewee. Principles for conducting

11

interviews as offered by Seidman (2006) and Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) were used to guide the process.

This qualitative phenomenological research was conducted at the individual level of analysis, as described by Moustakas (1994). The study documented the participants’ perception of their lived experience. Within the phenomenological tradition, this study followed the empirical psychological method, which

determines what an experience means for the persons who have had the experience and are able to provide a comprehensive description of it. From the individual descriptions, general or universal meanings are derived, in other words, the essence of structures of the experience. (Moustakas, 1994, p. 13)

The research goal in the empirical psychological method is to understand the common structure among participants experiencing this phenomenon through the interpretation of their socially constructed reality. Moustakas (1994) considered epoché, phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis as the four processes fundamental to “facilitate the derivation of knowledge” (p. 33).

Definition of Key Terms

Several key terms are critical to this phenomenological research. They are defined below.

Affective science and affective neuroscience: The science domain that studies the

connection of specific brain system components and how they underlie specific

behaviors or psychological states. This scientific domain has shown that some

affective processes are traceable to specific brain components, providing potential

expanded understanding of psychological scenarios that were previously studied

only through a theoretical lens (Davidson et al., 2003).

12

Affective style/emotional style: Individual differences in parameters of emotional

reactivity. This style is a consistent way of responding to lived experiences

(Davidson et al., 2003).

Attention: The ability one has to focus (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Destructive leadership: “The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor,

or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining

and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness

and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates” (Einarsen et

al., 2007, p. 208).

Mind: A process “that regulates energy and information flow within and among us”; it is

not confined to the body and also arises from individuals’ interactions with others

(Siegel, 2016).

Outlook: The attitude used to approach life (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Plasticity: The ability of the brain (entire brain or systems of the brain) to change from

experience.

Resilience: The speed of recovery from emotional events (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Self-awareness: An assessment to determine how attuned one is to one’s body and mind

(Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Self-transformation: A substantial individual change that occurs when the mechanisms or

the “dynamics of affect” lead to basic predispositions and emotions as well as the

understanding of how those dynamics can lead to cognitive content upon which

individuals can enact their own agency or way of being. This agency or new way

of being represents their new form or identity. “The accent is put on our own self-

13

understanding by means of the diverse forms of the past, that is, on seeking a

reference point for stabilizing one’s identity with the renewed reflection of every

moment giving a base to our temporal being” (Varela & Depraz, 2004, p. 156).

Sensitivity to context: How an individual interacts with others or the environment

(Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Social intuition: Bringing together culture and individual interactions (Davidson &

Begley, 2012).

Chapter Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the problem and described the purpose of the study and its significance. The conceptual framework of the study includes two overarching constructs of leadership and affectivity, further refined to destructive leadership, just one phenomenon of many in the leadership field, paired with an affective science area called emotional style. A phenomenological research methodology was employed with these constructs, attempting to understand followers’ response of survival as related to their destructive leader experience.

Chapter 2 provides a literature review for the constructs in the conceptual framework, extending to a connection of biology and psychology as well as cognition and affectivity. Chapter 3 details the research methodology to be employed in this study to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis and themes, and

Chapter 5 discusses the findings and offers conclusions and implications.

14

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review includes a macro-level look at leadership and affectivity

with a more in-depth examination of destructive leadership and emotional style. The overarching constructs for this study are leadership and affectivity. Affective science or

affectivity, typically a biological area of interest, is being used for this study due to the

growing research connecting biology and psychology. A discussion of that connection as

well as the interdependencies of affect and cognition is provided in this chapter.

A wide range of resources were utilized to provide context to the research areas

needed for this study. Google and particularly Google Scholar were used extensively to

obtain peer-reviewed research articles pertaining to the constructs in the conceptual frame. Searches were also conducted through Google to find examples of destructive

leader events in our society. The electronic resources available through the Gelman

Library at George Washington University and through the Washington Research Library

Consortium were used extensively.

Searches were primarily initiated within Google Scholar, which provided a link to a database at the Gelman Library. This approach was taken to search a wider range of sources at one time rather than separately searching individual databases available to the

researcher through the Gelman Library. For articles that were found through Google

Scholar and were not readily available at Gelman Library, the researcher obtained copies

through interlibrary loan. The researcher searched within the Gelman Library General

Interest and References data source for Dissertations and Theses. During the doctoral

15

program, the coursework assigned was an important resource to understand the foundations needed for successful research.

An attempt was made to limit the literature searches conducted directly within a university database to the past 10 to 15 years; however, on Google Scholar, no date range was provided. If articles resulting from a search were published more than 10 to 15 years ago, they were considered. Most of the destructive leadership literature appeared within the last 15 years, but some earlier works were considered relevant. The emotional style literature, and specifically literature on the connection of cognition and affect, was more relevant within the last 15 years.

Terms and keywords used for the literature search included destructive leadership, toxic leadership, abusive leadership, employee response, affective science, affectivity, neuroscience, and emotional style (including all dimensions of emotional style: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention).

Articles and books provided additional resource sources within their reference sections.

Leadership

Leadership is one of those human endeavors that can be recognized when it occurs but is difficult to define—and nearly impossible to obtain consensus on its definition. The leader is bound by context, skills, and followers, which all come together in a particular instance to result in decisions and actions.

Leadership concepts have been documented as far back as Plato and his student

Aristotle. Plato, the classical Greek philosopher living in the early 400s to mid 300s BC, had many insights that still influence Western civilization and philosophy today. Takala

(2010) provided an excursion into Plato’s world of ideas related to leadership and

16

described how some of his concepts or ideas could apply to current discussions. Some of

the leadership thoughts he highlighted related to leadership and organizational survival.

Takala indicated that Plato believed that organizations were harmony-seeking entities and

that leadership should be thought of as the management of meaning.

One of the oldest theories of leadership starting from the post-World War II era is

the “trait approach.” This theory examines the traits behind leadership and tries to define

the types of traits that successful leaders need. One reason that this theory continues to be

popular is that it provides a sort of tool that leaders can use, namely traits that can be

improved upon (Northouse, 2004). Similarly, the “skills approach” to leadership defines

abilities or attitudes that the aspiring leader can work to improve. The most common of

these are technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. Over the years, many different skills have been defined and redefined, but the richness of this discourse

provides an avenue of consideration for any new leader.

The move away from traits and skills to “leadership styles” significantly changed

leadership theory. The most important piece of this theory is that there are different

ways—styles—to be a leader. Leadership is not one-size-fits-all. As this view of

leadership has evolved, a great variety of styles have emerged from the literature,

including team management, impoverished management, country club management, and

many others. The various theories focus on the task that needs to be addressed and the

relationship between the leader and the follower (Northouse, 2004).

The “situational approach” is similar to the styles approach in moving away from

the strict focus on the leader and considering the transactional nature of leadership. The

situation or context of the leader-follower interaction helps to determine the success of

17

the group. The goal of the leader should be to take actions to support followers so that

they all can be effective (Northouse, 2004).

The situational approach evolved into “contingency theory,” which started to

consider the strengths of leaders and which situations they would succeed in. This approach sees the leader-member relationship as important, as well as the context around that relationship (Northouse, 2004). “Path-goal theory” moves this line of thinking ahead by looking at the characteristics of the followers as well as the characteristics of the leader and the context. This theory, which emphasizes the contextualization of the relationship between member and leader, works to equip leaders with the ability to take needed actions to reach goals (Northouse, 2004).

While early leadership theories focused on the leader’s actions, newer theories have taken a more dynamic view, seeing a two-way exchange. Theories such as “leader- member exchange theory” try to account for changes that happen with followers and with leaders. They also try to account for how relationships evolve over time and how subgroups may form (Northouse, 2004).

The theories around leadership have grown increasingly complex and broad as organizations have grown and connected globally. Our society has a continual need for a deep, rich understanding of leadership and ways that organizations can make leadership successful. Realizing the benefits of strong, effective leaders, organizations have devoted resources towards identifying and developing individuals whom they hope will have a positive impact on the organization and its members. Yet Kellerman (2012) noted that the organizational investment of more than $50 billion annually on corporate training and development has not had the desired effects:

18

Being a leader has become a mantra. It is a presumed path to money and power; a medium for achievement, both individual and institutional; and a mechanism for creating change sometimes—though hardly always—for the common good. But there are other, parallel truths: that leaders of every sort are in disrepute; that the tireless teaching of leadership has brought us no closer to leadership nirvana than we were previously; that we don’t have much better an idea of how to grow good leaders, or of how to stop or at least slow bad leaders, than we did a hundred or even a thousand years ago; that the context is changing in ways leaders seem unwilling or unable fully to grasp; that followers are becoming on the one hand disappointed and disillusioned, and on the other entitled, emboldened and empowered; and lastly, that notwithstanding the enormous sums of money and time that have been poured into trying to teach people how to lead, over its roughly forty-year history the leadership industry has not in any major, meaningful, measurable way improved the human condition. (pp. xii-xiv)

With the generally positive view of the concept of leader—with many conjuring romanticized images of a military officer leading his troops into battle or a football quarterback rallying his team to a victory—speaking of leadership in terms of something destructive seems to go against our nature. Perhaps this is one reason that destructive leadership has not been studied as much as its positive counterpart. Alternatively, perhaps leaders are not aware of, or prefer not to acknowledge, their destructive actions. For whatever reason, research is needed in the field of destructive leadership, as there is little

“clarity or consensus” (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007, p. 176).

In addition, resources aimed at developing strong, efficient, and effective leaders may be going to waste if they are attempting to enhance a toxic leader’s abilities. A leader can complete training and know the right thing to do, but if he is still making choices that are detrimental to the organization, the results may be devastating. Toxic leaders can cause immediate negative impacts to organizations and unknown long-term effects on employees. As Einarsen and colleagues (2007) noted, negative effects make more of an impression:

19

There is overwhelming support to the notion that negative events in social interactions have a stronger effect than do positive events. Hence, understanding and being prepared for destructive leadership may be as important, or even more important, than understanding and enhancing positive aspects of leadership. (p. 208)

Destructive Leadership

Various descriptions exist for destructive leadership, as well as the behaviors

associated with the term. Scholars have not agreed on a single definition of destructive leadership. Einarsen et al. (2007) believed the absence of an agreed-upon definition was

one of the major roadblocks to comparing and contrasting the research that was being

done on the topic, and they proposed the following definition:

The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates. (p. 208)

In reviewing this definition, Slattery (2009) believed that several aspects,

including the environment, personality traits, and power relationship, were not

considered. He proposed an alternate definition of the dark side of leadership as “an

ongoing pattern of behaviour exhibited by a leader that results in overall negative

organisational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower and the

environment” (p. 4). This definition includes elements incorporated into the model of

Padilla et al. (2007).

This section begins by discussing the models of destructive leadership presented

by Einarsen et al. (2007) and Padilla et al. (2007). That is followed by a discussion of

destructive leadership and ethics, a timeline of studies on destructive leadership, and

effects of destructive leadership.

20

Einarsen et al.’s Model of Destructive Leadership

In providing their definition of destructive leadership provided at the beginning of this section, Einarsen et al. (2007) drew on definitions of related destructive leadership terms. The concepts they identified are summarized in Table 2.1. Other terms such as

“bullies” (Namie & Namie, 2000), “bad leadership” (Kellerman, 2004), “leadership derailment” (Tepper, 2000), and “aversive leadership” (Bligh, Jeffrey, Pearce, Justin, &

Stovall, 2007) have also been used to simultaneously describe and define this type of leadership.

Table 2.1 Destructive Leadership Concepts Term Definition Source Abusive “Subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which Tepper, 2000, supervision supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile p. 178 verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact” Abusive “One whose primary objective is the control of others, and Hornstein, 1996 leader such control is achieved through methods that create fear and intimidation” Petty tyrant “Someone who uses their power and authority Ashforth, 1994, p. oppressively, capriciously, and perhaps vindictively” 126 Health- One “who behaves in such a manner towards subordinates Kile, 1990, p. 26 endangering that the subordinates develop poor health, and attribute leader these health problems to the leader’s behaviours” Toxic One “who act[s] without integrity by dissembling and Lipman-Blumen, leader engaging in various other dishonourable behaviours,” 2005, p. 18 (see including “corruption, hypocrisy, sabotage and also Benson & manipulation, as well as other assorted unethical, illegal, Hogan, 2008; and criminal acts” Whicker, 1996) Note: Adapted from Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007.

Einarsen et al. (2007) included several conditions to help determine if behavior should be considered destructive:

• Repeated behavior, excluding a one-time bad decision or outburst by a leader

21

• No intent on the part of the leader (“It is our position that the definition should not

include intent, because what makes leadership destructive has less to do with the

leaders’ intentions than with the outcomes of the leaders’ behaviour” [p. 208].)

• Violations to the legitimate interest of the organization, harming the organization

or the subordinates within the organization

To further describe their concept on destructive leadership, Einarsen et al. (2007) developed a model and introduced additional terms. Their model has two dimensions, actions toward subordinates and actions towards the organization, creating four quadrants. The upper-left quadrant, labeled supportive–disloyal, occurs when leaders are supportive of followers but are destructive towards the organization. Perhaps they encourage employees to use company resources for personal reasons or to take extra breaks as rewards. The lower-left quadrant, labeled derailed leadership, occurs when leaders are destructive towards both followers and the organization. The lower right is labeled tyrannical leadership behavior. In this situation, leaders are abusive towards followers, but the abuse may not be recognized as such by senior management, which may view the leaders as tough or doing what it takes to get the job done. The final quadrant contains constructive leadership behavior, in which leaders treat people fairly and make decisions based on what is best for the organization.

The 2007 model did not include laissez-faire leadership, in which the leader basically avoids responsibilities and duties. The scholars felt laissez-faire belonged in the destructive leadership category, since doing nothing “violates the legitimate interests of the organization,” but they felt more research was needed. In 2010, Aasland, Skogstad,

22

Notelaers, Nielsen, and Einarsen placed laissez-faire leadership in the center of their

model and further expanded on their concepts from 2007 (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. A model of destructive leadership behavior. Reprinted with permission from Aasland et al., 2010, p. 440.

Pedilla et al.’s Model of Destructive Leadership

Also in 2007, a slightly different definition of destructive leadership was proposed that more closely linked to organizational outcomes and effects on organizational members. Padilla et al. (2007) suggested that destructive leadership has five features:

1. Destructive leadership is seldom absolutely or entirely destructive: there are both good and bad results in most leadership situations. 2. The process of destructive leadership involves dominance, coercion, and manipulation rather than influence, persuasion, and commitment. 3. The process of destructive leadership has a selfish orientation; it is focused more on the leader’s needs than the needs of the larger social group.

23

4. The effects of destructive leadership are outcomes that compromise the quality of life for constituents and detract from the organization’s main purposes. 5. Destructive organizational outcomes are not exclusively the result of destructive leaders but are also products of susceptible followers and conducive environments. (p. 178)

Based on the fifth point, Padilla et al. (2007) proposed a new model and coined it

the toxic triangle, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. They expanded on each of the elements:

destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.

Figure 2.2. The toxic triangle: Elements in three domains related to destructive leadership. Reprinted with permission from Padilla et al., 2007.

Destructive leaders. In an analysis of the literature regarding destructive leaders,

Padilla et al. (2007) found five critical leader factors: charisma, personalized power, narcissism, negative life themes, and ideology of hate. Not all of these characteristics must be present, but many usually are.

24

A single element is probably insufficient: hateful individuals driven by a selfish need for power but lacking rhetorical skills and stamina might not achieve significant power. Similarly, skilled public speakers with a benevolent worldview and socialized motives are less likely to be destructive. Although these characteristics might be necessary for destructive leadership, they are not sufficient. In many contexts, and in conjunction with particular followers, potentially destructive leaders might not achieve power. This raises the topics of followers and the environmental contexts. (p. 182)

Susceptible followers. The second segment of the triangle breaks the susceptible

followers into two categories: conformers and colluders. Conformers have unmet needs,

low core self-evaluations, and low maturity. These types of people are easier to control

and may follow a destructive leader in order to get a sense of belonging or may even feel

they deserve such poor treatment. Colluders, on the other hand, feel they have something

to gain by implementing the destructive leader’s vision. They may be simply ambitious,

looking to advance, or they may share worldviews and values similar to those of the

destructive leader.

Conducive environments. The final domain of the toxic triangle is the

environment in which these followers and leaders interact. The authors argued that four

environmental factors are conducive to destructive leadership: instability, perceived threat, cultural values, and an absence of checks and balances and institutionalization. If an organization is unstable or is facing a threat (real or proposed), then leaders are given

more latitude in making radical changes or implementing directives in order to preserve

the organization. Certain cultures promote destructive leadership, such as those with large

disparities in wealth division or those that encourage group loyalty. Finally, in most

organizations, checks and balances are in place that should serve as a deterrent to

destructive leadership, but this is not always the case. Padilla et al. (2007) explained:

25

Conducive environments contribute to the emergence of destructive leadership but destructive leaders and colluding followers are sometimes able to take over. Once destructive administrations achieve power, they will consolidate their control by undermining existing institutions and laws. . . . They do this by replacing constructive institutions with those designed to enhance central control; by eliminating rivals and dissidents; by manipulating the media and exploiting education systems, using propaganda to legitimize the process. (p. 186)

Prevalence. Aasland et al. (2010) highlighted the prevalence of destructive leadership:

Destructive forms of leadership are highly prevalent, at least in their less severe forms, including the passive form of laissez-faire leadership. Considering the negative effects of destructive leadership for both subordinates and the organization documented in several studies, destructive leadership constitutes a serious problem in contemporary working life. (p. 450)

Destructive Leadership and Ethics

One of the most disconcerting types of destructive leadership occurs when the organization takes unethical actions in effective ways. This may happen when the leader or leaders fit well into the organization and the followers coordinate their actions effectively under this leadership. The organization may reach goals, but if it lacks moral direction, the group may move very effectively in immoral directions that will eventually jeopardize the health of the organization. Individuals with strong morality may be in conflict with the larger efforts of the organization. However, there is also the possibility that almost any organizational member can be moved to criminal actions given the right circumstances. The classic examples of this type of destructive leadership involve charismatic leaders who take over governments and start wars and charismatic CEOs who lead large corporations to criminal actions (Burchard, 2011).

26

Timeline of Studies on Destructive Leadership

There exists a small but growing body of studies and articles on destructive leadership. Recent research has attempted to elucidate the causes of destructive leadership, to expand the definition of the phenomenon, and to define new ways to examine leaders and how they evolve.

As shown in the timeline presented in Table 2.2, until the early part of the 2000s, undesirable personality traits of leaders were at the heart of most research related to this field. Some of these traits were reviewed and discussed by Einarsen et al. (2007) in their

definition and model. For example, Ashforth (1994) defined a petty tyrant as a leader

who lords power over others, with characteristics that include arbitrariness, self-

aggrandizement, condescending attitude, a forceful style of conflict resolution, distrust,

severe and public criticism, condescension, coercion, an emphasis on authority and status, rigidity and inflexibility, taking others’ credit, failing to consult with others, and

obstructing others’ development.

Abusive supervision, another term associated with destructive leadership, includes

verbal and nonverbal hostile behaviors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000), and is

a primary cause of organizational deviance (Tepper et al., 2009). Studies examining

abusive leadership have shown individual subordinate outcomes of higher levels of

anxiety (Bordia & Tang, 2009), helplessness (Ashforth, 1994), as well as increased levels

of work-family conflict, turnover, and emotional exhaustion and decreased job

satisfaction (Tepper, 2000).

27

Table 2.2 Destructive Leadership Research Timeline Year Lead author Main points 1976 Brodsky Harassing leaders, sexual harassment 1983 McCall Psychological traits of leadership failure 1984 Lombardo Intolerable bosses 1990 Conger Dark side of leaders 1990 Hogan Dark side of charismatic leaders 1994 Ashforth Petty tyrants 1995 Shackleton Derailed leaders 1996 Whicker Leader inadequacy, selfishness, paranoia 1999 Flynn Threatening, bullying leaders 2000 Namie Mobbing (group bullying) 2000 Tepper Abusive supervisors 2001 Hogan Psychopathological traits of toxic leaders 2003 Wilson-Starks Toxic leadership as over-control and harming people and eventually the company 2004 Furnham Psychopaths 2004 Reed Toxic leader syndrome 2004 Kellerman Seven different archetypes: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular, and evil 2005 Lipman- Toxic leaders as exploiting their followers’ desires and fears Blumen 2005 Price Leaders making exceptions or justifying their actions depending upon the situation 2006 Goldman Narcissistic and/or antisocial personality disorders 2006 Rosenthal Leader narcissism 2007 Einarsen Definition of destructive leadership and a two-dimensional model; the idea that leaders can be simultaneously destructive and constructive 2007 Padilla Destructive leader personality 2007 Schaubroeck Hostile dispositions 2009 Wu Relationship between subordinate core self-evaluations and supervisors’ abusive supervision, with emotional exhaustion resulting in burnout 2010 Aasland Further definition and refinement of model of destructive leadership put forth in 2007 with Einarsen 2010 Pelletier Eight dimensions of leader toxicity, all relating to the mistreatment of employees 2010 Thoroughgood A holistic perspective—complex process resulting from influence of leaders, followers, and environment 2010 Namie Workplace bullying—usually done with accomplices—active or passive 2010 Glaso How to “keep safe” from self-serving behavior of leaders looking to promote themselves by harmony or stealing from other leaders 2011 Burchard New model attempting to illustrate the person-organizational exchange cycles 2012 Thoroughgood Counterproductive work behavior / toxic leaders: Inventory of destructive behaviors created through inductive and deductive methods, with the emergence of three dimensions (behavioral) 2012 Aubery Culture that promotes toxicity

28

In 2003, Wilson-Starks defined toxic leadership as “an approach that harms people—and eventually the company as well—through the poisoning of enthusiasm, creativity, autonomy and innovative expression” (p. 2). This was followed by Reed’s

(2004) description of toxic leader syndrome, which proposed three key elements that characterized the condition: a lack of concern for the well-being of followers, a personal way of handling things that negatively affects the climate, and a belief by followers that the leader is motivated by self-interest. These and other earlier works laid the foundation for the attempt at more general definitions and concepts focusing on the leader or leader actions or behaviors.

Beginning in 2007, scholars began taking a more holistic approach, looking at not only the leader but also the organization, climate, and environment. Thoroughgood

(2010) stated that “questions still remain regarding the important role of contextual factors in shaping destructive leadership processes, and how such factors interact with characteristics of destructive leaders and their subordinates to produce harmful outcomes” (p. 8). With this in mind, his study considered the organization’s climate and financial performance as well as the leader’s gender.

Destructive leadership, which can be described as negative behavior of leaders in organizations, seems to be on the rise and the focus of study over the past several years.

Much of the current research supports the fact that destructive leadership occurs on a spectrum of varied frequency and intensity. Leaders are usually neither totally or consistently destructive but exhibit both constructive and destructive behaviors over time

(Aasland et al., 2010). Toxic behaviors can occur in any environment, but some recent studies have shown that certain organizational environments, especially those that are

29

intensely self-serving or narcissistic, can have higher incidences of destructive leaders

(Duchon & Drake, 2008). In addition, environments that have incongruous personal and ethical values between leaders and followers may exhibit increased friction and therefore more destructive behaviors as leaders attempt to apply their agendas (Chang & Johnson,

2010).

In “Responding Destructively in Leadership Situations: The Role of Personal

Values and Problem Construction,” Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2007) noted that self- centered managers have a higher chance of becoming destructive leaders. Another recent study, “Not All Leader–Member Exchanges are Created Equal: Importance of Leader

Relational Identity” (Chang & Johnson, 2010), postulated that employees and leaders with a relational identity, those that are open to influence by their work and peer environments, are beneficial to an organization, and their mere presence may offset detrimental aspects of the organization, for example, toxic leadership. Chang and Johnson

(2010) stated, “One obvious way that organizations can leverage the study’s findings is to target employees’ relational identities during selection, with the goal being to attract and retain applicants who have strong relational identities” (p. 806).

In “Organizational Narcissism and Virtuous Behavior,” Duchon and Drake (2008) noted that narcissism strangles an organization’s ability to justify itself, and individuals destructively seeking to justify their own virtue operate in anxiety.

Such an organization might devise rules in an attempt to approximate an ethical presentation, but this gesture is at best symbolic. The rules may address symptoms, but they will not confront the fundamental issue: the narcissistic identity. At worst, the rules feed and exaggerate the culture’s preoccupation with itself by enabling excuses and wishful thinking. Consider that, over time, the formal ethics program residing within a narcissistic identity does not expose and remedy ethical lapses. Rather, it will “find” evidence that the organization in fact behaves ethically. In both the best and worst cases, the organization with a

30

narcissistic identity confuses the image of virtue with the authentic practice of virtue. (p. 306)

Effects of Destructive Leadership

Destructive leadership can have negative effects on productivity (Keelan, 2000), the financial health of organizations (Field, 2003), and employee morale (Olafsson &

Johannsdottir, 2004). Specifically, negative relationships between leaders and followers cost the economy about $360 billion a year from lost productivity, and the annual cost of employees’ depression to U.S. organizations has been estimated at $50 billion for medical treatment (Durso, 2004) and $44 billion for absence and reduced performance (Stewart,

Ricci, Chee, Hahn, & Morgenstein, 2003). For U.S. workers, job pressure was cited in

75% of workers’ compensation claims in which mental stressors were the main cause of absenteeism, and 94% of those claims were allegedly caused by abusive behavior by managers (Wilson, 1991). Cost to U.S. corporations related to abusive supervision has been estimated at $23.8 billion annually (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Schurer-Lamber,

2006).

Toxic leaders and destructive leadership are causing immediate negative impacts to the organizations and unknown long-term effects on the employees. Fifty to seventy- five percent of leaders do not perform well or experience leadership failure (Hogan &

Kaiser, 2005). An unbelievable 60% to 75% of all employees reported that the worst aspect of their job was their immediate supervisor (Hogan et al., 1990). Liden, in the book, When Leadership Goes Wrong (2010), had an interesting perspective. He believed that self-interest is at the root of all destructive leadership. Irrespective of the reason the destructive leader exists, knowing how to survive a destructive leader experience and

31

understanding ways to enhance resiliency could be beneficial to followers. How do followers survive toxic leadership? This leads to a discussion of affectivity.

Affectivity and Affective Science

Affective science includes emotion, feelings, mood, attitudes, affective style

(emotional style), and temperament. “Affective processes are responsible for mobilizing the individual’s resources to cope with the unexpected, to avoid punishment, and to secure nourishment and pleasure” (Davidson et al., 2003). Affective science (including affective neuroscience) is similar to the cognitive science of the 1960s with at least one distinct exception. Cognition, popularized in the 1960s and 1970s, historically excluded emotion and primarily included the study of mental processes such as memory or perception. Affect and cognition have long been treated as independent; however, research supports that they are highly interdependent (Storbeck & Clore, 2007). Affect plays a role in perception and cognition, even when people are unaware of the influence

(Duncan & Barrett, 2007).

The affective sciences revolve around a body of literature examining and defining a variety of human activity focused around emotional states and moods. The affective sciences can be set in contrast to the cognitive sciences, which typically focus on information processing functions such as logic, decision-making, and memory. The affective sciences, on the other hand, work to define emotional differences and understand how humans interact on an emotional level, how humans build personal connections, and how emotional states influence actions.

The affective sciences utilize a wide array of research methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. A significant portion of the field relies upon observational

32

approaches, where participants are asked to recognize faces or interpret specific

situations. Researchers have developed scales that measure moods, emotional states, or

emotional responses.

In the field of psychology, students are often advised to choose theoretical

orientations versus evaluating phenomena on the basis of scientific analysis (Melchert,

2013). Technology advances allow for much more scientific analysis than in the past,

which can be coupled with theoretical considerations to strengthen research outcomes. As

Melchert (2013) stated, a “comprehensive scientific approach to understanding human

development, functioning and behavior change is needed” in psychological research (p.

28).

To understand human response to various situations, the complex human brain

cannot be overlooked. “In just a three-pound organ, roughly 100 billion neurons each

with an average of 1,000 synaptic connections carry our own personal history, our

family’s history, and even the evolutionary history of our species, while also constantly

interacting with, being shaped by, and even creating one’s environment, at co-occurring

subconscious and conscious levels” (Melchert, 2013).

Brain imaging has enabled neuroscientists to offer major contributions to the

understanding of emotion. This technology allows researchers to watch the various

neurocircuits in action. Researchers are able to witness upper brain regions such as the

prefrontal cortex (see illustration in Figure 2.3) take actions during emotionally charged

situations. In the process, researchers are building an understanding of situations where

upper regions can calm the brain and situations where emotions override higher-order

thinking. As brain imaging matures, the actual mechanisms behind emotions, the

33

emotional connections to cognition, and the interplay between regions of the brain are becoming visible.

Figure 2.3. The structure of the brain.

This section discusses several topics related to the affective sciences. It begins by

discussing emotional systems present in all mammals, as well as emotional styles,

individuals’ consistent way of responding to life experiences. That is followed by a

discussion of ESSENCE, a theory originally developed to explain the development of the

adolescent brain that relates to adults and links to both affectivity and social interaction.

The next subsection addresses the dynamic relationship between cognition and affect.

The section closes with a review of the connections between biology and psychology.

Emotional Systems

There are at least seven basic (primary-process) emotional systems in the brains

of all mammals: Seeking, Rage, Fear, Lust, Care, Grief, and Play (Panksepp, 2010).

• The Seeking system. According to Dr. Panksepp, Seeking is the first emotional

system and is essential for survival. It is responsible for the generation of feelings

34

of enthusiasm (Panksepp, 2010). This emotional system helps animals seek out

resources such as food.

• The Rage system. The Rage system is responsible for producing feelings of anger

(Panksepp, 2010). It is activated when one feels strongly annoyed by someone or

something. The evolution of this system may be attributed to its role in helping

the animal protect resources and offspring. The Rage or anger system interacts

with Fear systems and is the source of the classic “fight or flight” terminology.

Thus, animals become aggressive and defend themselves by making their

opponents fear. Anger in humans gets its psychic energy when the brain system is

aroused.

• The Fear system. In this third emotional system, activation of the brain areas

responsible for fear generate feelings of anxiety (Panksepp, 2010). These feelings

offer protection as animals learn to be cautious with things that produce such

emotions. The Fear or anxiety system protects animals from both pain and

destruction. This anxiety leads animals to flee (Panksepp, 2011). Humans who are

stimulated in these brain regions experience the intense free-floating anxiety that

has no environmental cause.

• The Lust system. The Lust system relates to reproductive urges and behavior and

courtship patterns (Panksepp, 2010). Its chemistry varies slightly in males and

females, being promoted by the steroid hormones at an early stage in life.

• The Care system. This system relates to maternal care and care of the young. It is

weak in the males of most species. The Care or maternal nurturance system

35

assures that parents take care of their children. The hormonal tides when the

pregnancy ends invigorate maternal urges just before offspring are born.

• The Grief system. The system is responsible for feelings of loneliness or sadness.

Panksepp (2010) noted that extreme activation of this system suppresses the

Seeking system, which is a cause for concern. The Grief or separation distress

system was also called the Panic system. In this respect, young animals that are

socially dependent have a powerful emotional system to solicit nurturance

(Panksepp, 2011). The young animals cry when they are lost, alerting their

parents.

• The Play system. This system is essential in the development of animals.

According to Panksepp (2010), the system evolved because it allows positive

socialization. Its activation elicits feelings of happiness and joy.

According to Panksepp (2010), one question in psychiatric research is why those who are depressed lose their joy of living. Positive affective systems aroused together with distinct negative affective networks might be the source of the depressive affect. The

Seeking or desire system is an extensive network that is traditionally named the “brain reward system.” This motivational system is vital for animals to acquire everything they need to survive and helps other emotional systems work effectively. It is the main source of energy that is called “libido.” In humans, this system generates curiosity, and it is the system that becomes underactive during stress or depression. If this system is overactive, it can bring impulsive behavior together with delusion and manic thoughts. Psychiatric disorders are often a reflection of affective imbalances within the brain. It is possible that

36

chronic affective changes may emanate from functional changes in the brain’s basic emotional systems.

Emotional Style

Algoe and Fredrickson (2011) described how “instances of emotional experience accumulate and compound to impact overall mental and physical health, and basic research in affective science has identified the active ingredients that would be required for a system of skills and abilities to have maximum impact on overall emotional fitness”

(p. 35). Emotional style, also referred to as affective style, is one of six affective phenomena in the affective science domain (Davidson et al., 2003). Emotional style is a consistent way of responding to life experiences (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

All individuals interact with the world around them using their own distinct emotional states, emotional traits, personality, and temperament. Davidson and Begley

(2012) described an emotional state as a very short occurrence of an emotion most often triggered by an experience; because each state is short, one is quickly replaced with the next. Feelings that last for a period of time are considered moods. A human’s personality and temperament are neither fundamental nor grounded in identifiable mechanisms. They consist of a set of high-level qualities and interact with emotional states and traits to create an emotional style (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Emotional style can be used to understand how an individual varies at the onset of emotion, how the emotion grows and eventually peaks, and then how the individual recovers from the emotional response. Given specific situations, individuals with different affective styles will have different emotional responses. Research indicates that individuals with phobias may react much faster at the onset and hit a peak response much

37

faster than nonphobic controls. Emotional style becomes a tool to use in observing

interactions.

As a subdiscipline within the affective sciences, emotional style is a construct that is derived from psychology and neuroscience. Emotional style seeks to define emotional response and emotion regulation within specific parameters. Individuals have their own emotional style derived from situational factors, personal history, biochemistry, and other factors. Over a lifetime, emotional styles can shift and continue to develop based on life experiences. One way to think about emotional style is as a measurement of an individual’s tendencies to act in specific emotional ways given a set of circumstances.

These tendencies are not absolute, nor are they predetermined. The study of emotional style helps to create meaning around situations, types of emotions, and the responses of individuals.

Emotional style consists of six dimensions that were identified as a result of neuroscientific research conducted primarily by Dr. Richard J. Davidson of the

University of Wisconsin at Madison. These six dimensions combine with many personality factors, and the result is as unique to each human being as fingerprints. Every person exhibits each of these dimensions to various degrees. Because there are so many

ways to combine the dimensions, there are endless combinations (Davidson & Begley,

2012). No optimal position within each dimension exists.

In their 2012 book The Emotional Life of Your Brain, Davidson and Begley

discussed the six aspects of emotional style. The first is resilience, which refers to the

speed of recovery from emotional events. The next is outlook, which is the attitude used

to approach life. The next, social intuition, brings together culture and individual

38

interactions. The next aspect is self-awareness, which seeks to see how attuned one is to

one’s body and mind. Sensitivity to context considers how the individual interacts with others or the environment. The final aspect is attention, which generally seeks to measure the ability to focus. Each aspect is discussed in more detail below.

Resilience. Davidson and Begley (2012) defined resilience as how slowly or quickly an individual recovers from adversity. Psychological resilience is an individual’s tendency to cope with stress and adversity. This coping may result in the individual

“bouncing back” to a previous state of normal functioning or simply not showing negative effects. Research has shown that people who are particularly adept at self- generating positive emotions are more likely to be resilient (Tugade & Fredrickson,

2004). Evidence suggests that resilient outcomes after traumatic events are far more common than previously suspected (Bonanno, 2010), reflecting the “ordinary magic” of basic human adaptive systems such as those involving emotions (Masten, 2001). Masten suggested that as long as a person’s given basic system (e.g., emotions-based system) is in good working order, the person can handle adversity. However, impairment to the system causes risks to resilient outcomes, “particularly if the environmental hazards are prolonged” (Masten, 2001, p. 227).

When considering resilience, researchers examine individuals’ ability to respond

to adversity with energy and determination or their decision to give up. The physiological

relationship to resilience is between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala. The more

axons individuals have connecting the brain’s prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, the

more resilient they are. The number of neural pathways sending calming signals to the

amygdala determines how easily a person will bounce back from adversity. People at one

39

extreme of this scale are fast to recover from adversity, and those at the other end are

slow to recover and may be crippled by adversity (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

For all people, emotions pull together cognitive and biological responses that help them navigate their daily lives. Emotions, whether negative or positive, can build on each other. The human emotional system is built to some degree to respond positively or bounce back to negative or traumatic experiences (Algoe & Fredrickson, 2011).

Resilience is generally seen by psychologists as a cognitive and emotional trait that allows the individual to recover, resist, deal with, and accomplish tasks in the face of negative experiences (Montpetit, Bergeman, Deboeck, Tiberio, & Boker, 2010). Brain research shows that emotionally resilient people are able to appropriately deal with

negative emotion and, thus, do not worry about the uncertainties involved in many daily

affairs (Algoe & Fredrickson, 2011).

Davidson (2000) drew a clear connection between resilience and positive affect.

He viewed resilience primarily as the ability to maintain high levels of positive affect,

which creates a solid foundation for individual well-being. In this, he saw a capacity to

recover as a key ingredient to resilience. He noted:

It is not that resilient individuals never experience negative affect, but rather that the negative affect does not persist. Such individuals are able to profit from the information provided by the negative affect, and their capacity for meaning making in response to such events may be part and parcel of their ability to show rapid decrements in various biological systems after exposure to a negative or stressful event. (Davidson, 2000, pp. 1197-1198)

Mak, Ng, and Wong (2011) explored the connection between resilience and well-

being. They noted that a positive view about one’s self, the world, and the future plays a

significant role in increasing resilience. Similarly, Montpetit et al. (2010) indicated that individuals’ ability to regulate negative affect impacts their resilience. One approach used

40

to combat negative affect, thereby improving positive affect, is mindfulness training. This

can emphasize positive experiences that moderate the negative (Geschwind, Peeters,

Drukker, van Os, & Wichers, 2011; Sahdra et al., 2011).

Researchers have identified two broad mechanisms that support resilience: factors

relating to traits found in the individual and factors resulting from communities and societal support systems. Individual factors may include dispositional attributes, stress management capabilities, and cognitive abilities. Ong, Fuller-Rowell, and Bonanno

(2010) found that individual traits relating to resilience predicted how well an individual

dealt with the loss of a spouse: “In our study, lower trait resilience scores measured prior to the loss of a spouse were associated with reduced levels of positive emotion following loss, over and above levels of postloss depression” (p. 657).

Another individual factor is greater emotional flexibility. Waugh, Thompson, and

Gotlib (2011) found that resilient individuals do not simply reflect positive affect but are able to be flexible in dealing with negative affect.

Community and societal factors may include family situations, employment support, and feelings of belonging in groups (Montpetit et al., 2010). For example, Algoe and Stanton (2012) studied gratitude in women with breast cancer. They found that even brief experiences with positive emotion could have a significant impact on the emotional resources of the individual. Gratitude plays a social function that improves positive affect.

Researchers have looked at various applications of resilience and situations where individuals need to be resilient. For instance, Ong, Zautra, and Reid (2010) found that resilient individuals were more able to deal with pain than people who were less resilient.

41

Algoe and Fredrickson (2011) found that preventative resilience training could prevent or mitigate posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and other disorders. Behavioral training and mindfulness training are two examples of preventative training. As noted above, Algoe and Stanton (2012) indicated that improved resilience through gratitude has positive health outcomes for women with breast cancer. Galatzer-Levy and colleagues

(2013) noted the importance of resilience in the high-stress environment of police officers, finding that resilient officers reported less negative emotion and more positive emotion.

Outlook. Davidson and Begley (2012) defined outlook at how long an individual is able to sustain positive emotion. Outlook refers to how one characteristically views life, typically along an optimism/pessimism dimension. Does an individual tend to have a positive or optimistic view of the world, or is he or she cynical? For example, some people may experience positive feelings like joy to be very fleeting, while others tend to sustain these feelings much longer. The physiological relation is between the prefrontal cortex and the striatum. This dimension activates the prefrontal cortex and the nucleus accumbens in the ventral striatum. People at one end of the spectrum are considered to have a positive outlook and those at the other end, a negative outlook.

Broadly speaking, individuals’ outlook will provide them with an optimistic or pessimistic view of events and experiences. Traditionally, psychologists and mental health professionals have focused on trauma and adverse conditions that impact the individual at various stages of life. They have tended to focus on the negative outcomes of such events. In the last few decades, there has been recognition that adverse events can also have positive outcomes as the individual uses negative events as a developmental

42

opportunity. A body of work around this “new positive psychology” views events as informational, causing individuals to reconsider and restructure their understanding of themselves and the world, with a potential for positive growth (Joseph et al., 2005).

Individuals’ approach to negative situations may involve various coping strategies that are developed. Researchers are noting that strategies such as humor can be used in dynamic ways to reappraise the situation or to distance oneself from the situation

(Samson & Gross, 2012). The way that individuals approach events is largely impacted by their outlook.

Researchers have noted other variables such as motivation or mood that may assist in the development of outlook. Lazarus (1991) defined motivation as a disposition through which we can view adverse encounters. This is a variable that is carried into a situation, connects people to goals, and thus explains how individuals interact with the environment. Beedie, Terry, and Lane (2005) have worked to contrast mood with emotion. They noted that most people see mood as a broader, less specific state that connects to the disposition of the person. Emotions are more specific and more reactive to specific situations. Moods tend to define interactions and dictate the course of interactions, but they are not as reactive.

Some researchers have worried that overly optimistic individuals set themselves up for failure when reality does not match expectations. Additionally, reality can be hard to understand and interpret, so there can be difficulty in gauging outcomes in each situation. The most effective trait is realistic optimism. Schneider (2001) explained:

Realistic optimism involves hoping, aspiring, and searching for positive experiences while acknowledging what we do not know and accepting what we cannot know. In dealing with unresolved uncertainties, realistic optimism involves hoping for and working toward desired outcomes without having the

43

expectation that particular outcomes will occur, especially with little or no effort to bring them about. Instead, the hopes and aspirations associated with realistic optimism are coupled with a focus on possible opportunities to increase the likelihood of desirable and personally meaningful outcomes contingent on situational constraints. (p. 253)

A related variable that impacts outlook is self-esteem, which is viewed as the degree that individuals accept themselves and the positive way that they view the self.

The optimistic person views the future in a beneficial way. Self-esteem is related to several different constructs, including positive thinking, positive orientation, and positivity. All of these factors impact how people view their subjective experiences

(Caprara et al., 2012). McFarland and Miller (1994) noted that the general disposition individuals carry impacts how they evaluate themselves when compared with others.

Optimists tend to look at successes, but pessimists emphasize the individuals who outperform them.

The literature provides evidence that the dispositions individuals carry—their outlook—has a direct impact on their health and lifestyle choices. For instance, patients with brain tumors strongly believed that hope could help them live longer (Rosenblum et al., 2009). This belief may be validated with the research of Segerstrom, Taylor, Kemeny, and Fahey (1998), who found that optimism may have a direct impact on the immune system. They found that optimists had more helper T cells that bolstered disease resistance. Other researchers have found that emotional outlook in some populations has indirect benefits on health. They found that a positive emotional outlook increases the likelihood of seeking help and listening to the advice of health care professionals (Baruth et al., 2011). The ability to connect and listen to others appears to carry through in other aspects of life. Research suggests that optimists have a greater satisfaction with their

44

relationships and that the partners of optimists report greater satisfaction as well

(Srivastava, McGonigal, Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2006).

Happiness appears to be connected to a feeling of control in life. Optimists seem to have a “can-do” attitude that helps them act and have impact in many situations. They more often have a feeling of control over life and therefore are predisposed to successfully handle stress (Schwarzer, Bässler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997). Of course, there is situational variation in this control. Some people can be confident in general but lack confidence in specific situations (Carifio & Rhodes, 2002). Overall, happiness appears to result from a commitment to a meaningful and purposeful life

(Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002). The outlook individuals hold connects to how they approach situations, deal with adversity, and successfully cope with outcomes.

Social intuition. Davidson defined social intuition as how adept individuals are at picking up social signals from those around them. Are individuals able to read another’s body language and nonverbal cues, or are they blind to others’ emotional states? Social intuition is a measure of the ability to detect and adapt to the hidden messages laced within human communication. People with autism would normally be at the far end of this dimension. Others are deficient in their social interactions, being mildly puzzled by the behaviors of others. People high in social intuition can read others like a book. The brain structures most relevant to social intuition are the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala.

High levels of activity in the fusiform gyrus and low to moderate levels in the amygdala are typical of people who are moderate to highly socially intuitive. Low levels of activity in the fusiform gyrus and high levels of activity in the amygdala characterize people who

45

are puzzled by social interactions. Those at one end of the dimension’s spectrum are

socially intuitive, while those at the other end could be characterized as puzzled.

Human beings are wired to understand a great deal of social information from

simply glancing at another person. The ability to connect cues such as gender, emotional

expression, and personality traits to meaning is a basic part of communication. Simple

facial expressions or body gestures can communicate a range of meaning without any

additional context or description (Aviezer, Trope, & Todorov, 2012).

Carbon and Hesslinger (2011) attempted to replicate a famous study where an image of eyes was placed over a donation box at a community drink station. The addition of the eyes was thought to result in more honesty in contributions. The researchers were not able to fully replicate the study, but noted that many studies have found that small environmental changes that hint at social cues—such as putting images of eyes on the wall—have an effect on individuals’ actions. There is a debate in the literature about the ability to measure such social cues and even the degree to which they are social.

There is more agreement in the literature that humans use a range of social and nonsocial information sources in decision-making. The wider the variety of information sources, the more significant impact in terms of credibility. The degree to which external sources align with existing prior knowledge also has a significant impact (Collins, Percy,

Smith, & Kruschke, 2011). In terms of development, the range of cues beyond simple words has a major role to play in transmitting culture and understanding. Gestures, symbols, and other interactions define how people interact and the roles that people play.

Fusaro and Harris (2013) showed that infants between the ages of 18 months and 24 months are predictably processing nonverbal cues such as head movements as they are

46

interpreting their world. They found systematic evidence that these young children were actively connecting bodily cues of strangers to information about the environment around them.

Interestingly, the use of social cues in deceiving others is also an important part of human interaction. Every day, people face a range of deception, from innocent lies such as “I feel fine” to more serious efforts to deceive. Most people will admit to deceiving others regularly, and most people also believe that they have the ability to judge whether another person is lying. Research shows that humans are better at lying than they are at detecting lies. There is some evidence that shows that the human face may reveal that an individual is lying through unconceivable facial reactions, but these reactions are inconsistent and difficult to detect. Liars tend to get caught up in the ways that they reveal their emotions or reactions around a lie. High-stakes lies put pressure on liars to manage their emotions in order to appear credible. The liar must have consistent stories and be a good actor (Ten Brinke, MacDonald, Porter, & O’Connor, 2012; Ten Brinke &

Porter, 2012).

Researchers agree that facial expressions are very important in communicating and receiving social cues. Jones, Main, Little, and DeBruine (2011) measured reactions to gaze cues. There is some agreement in the literature that people react more quickly when the direction of an item matches the cues given by a third party. Their study suggested that the appearance of dominance of that third-party face has an impact on the gaze cue.

People use faces to judge a range of emotions in others. Many studies have been done where faces are altered or different expressions are used to create new faces. Research has shown that individuals use the whole face to make decisions. Aviezer, Trope, and

47

Todorov (2012) suggested that humans process the full body and face together as a holistic unit. The posture of the body gives context to the face and vice versa. They explained:

The combined face and body create a synergistic effect that may boost or impede face recognition depending on the congruency between the two sources, and depending on the strength of the contextual effect in the specific face–body combination. (p. 34)

Van den Stock, Righart, and de Gelder (2007) noted that there is an evolutionary advantage to communication through body language that all social animals share. There is a need to communicate using body language over distances where facial features are not distinguishable. At the same time, the face adds depth and clarity to the posture of the body. Willis, Palermo, and Burke (2011) agreed with this notion. They found that it is the face that adds “valence” to the meaning of the body’s posture. Some stances may be interpreted in various ways, and facial cues can change meaning. Nonverbal cues, such as facial cues, can enable causal interpretations in bystanders. Some actions may be ambiguous on their own, but the emotions revealed by the face help to add meaning

(Zhou et al., 2012).

Social intuition intersects with a wide area of research around ways that humans construct meaning from each other. The cues given by others impact the types of meaning individuals may take from an interaction. The cues comprise a complex web of body language, facial expressions, and cultural meanings. Young children start to develop skills in social interaction early, and they continue to fine tune these skills throughout life.

Self-awareness. Davidson described how well individuals can perceive their bodily feelings that reflect emotion. Self-awareness occurs along a range from people who have a hard time “feeling” or knowing their feelings (self-opaque) to those who are

48

keenly aware of their every thought and feeling—to the point of crippling intensity (panic disorder, hypochondria). Somewhere along this dimension is the “just right” experience of knowing oneself and being able to use internal thoughts and feelings in order to successfully navigate life. How well are individuals aware of their own thoughts and feelings? Do they listen to the messages sent from their own body and conscious mind?

Many people respond to their emotions without ever stopping to reflect on them. Self- awareness resides in the insula and is located between the brain’s temporal and frontal lobes. The insula also receives signals from the visceral organs of the body, including the heart, liver, colon, etc. (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

Research on self-awareness has grown out of the neuroscience and psychology literature and is important in relation to emotion and affect. Recently, brain imaging technologies have helped researchers start to uncover the mechanisms within the brain that allow additional insight into this area. Some researchers have noted how the individual can use self-awareness to modulate and control emotions. The evidence suggests that self-awareness has great impact on the neurological physiology of the brain as well as the emotional responses of the individual.

The connection between self-awareness and emotion arises out of broader research around affective science, which seeks to understand broad emotional states or moods. DeSteno, Gross, and Kubzansky (2013) noted that researchers generally view affective response as a broad characterization by an individual as to whether something is

“good” or “bad.” Emotion, on the other hand, is a more specific set of responses that trigger physiological and cognitive responses as adaptations and coping mechanisms.

They outlined two broad areas that impact health: direct effects and indirect effects.

49

Direct effects tie directly to physiological reactions and outcomes. Indirect effects on health are more related to the decision-making processes of life such as when to seek medical care, when to reach out to support structures, and how to structure diet and lifestyle choices. They noted that much research on emotion focuses on stress, the environmental demands that can disrupt healthy functioning. DeSteno et al. (2013) commented:

Where once we had assumed unitary effects of emotion would be sufficient to predict the health-relevant sequelae of affective states, we now recognize that interactions among distinct affective responses are consequential for processes ranging from health-relevant decision-making to the seeking and building of social support. Similarly, where once we had assumed that coping and emotion regulation occurred after an affective response had taken place (as mop-up operations), it is now clear that emotion-regulation processes operate at multiple points through the emotion-generative process, highlighting the need to take temporal context into account. (p. 474)

Heatherton and Wagner (2011) and Koole (2009) noted that humans show a strong ability for self-regulation in order to control actions, make plans, control emotions, and perform a range of tasks. It has long been recognized that the better an individual can self-regulate, the more successful he or she will be at a number of tasks. There are many instances when self-regulation fails, but a great deal of research shows that negative mood/affect is an important trigger that leads to a number of different kinds of failures.

Self-regulation, like many other cognitive faculties, is subject to fatigue. One of the more influential theories to emerge from this research is that self-regulation draws on a common domain-general resource, so that, for example, regulating one’s emotions over an extended period of time impairs subsequent attempts at resisting the temptation to eat appetizing foods and results in disinhibited eating. (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011, p. 134)

Even though researchers and lay people have recognized the importance of self- regulation—and by extension self-awareness—for many years, its understanding has not always been grasped (Gross, 1998). For instance, in 2001, Silvia and Duval discussed

50

objective self-awareness theory, which has focused on individuals’ ability to direct their awareness inward and be aware of their own mind. They noted the debate over the impact of emotions and motivational properties in this context. Do emotions give priorities to some actions over others? Do emotions give a push in a particular direction? Or, is emotion—affect—just the result of other processes within the brain?

In the last decade, some consensus has arisen. There has been a move from a simpler stimulus-response model to a more complex stimulus-organism-response model that doesn’t view emotion as a unidimensional variable. There has been a move from focusing on “coping,” which is narrow and reactive, to focusing on “emotion regulation,” which is broader and recognizes that internal states and predispositions impact reactions.

The focus on emotion regulation has led to five groupings or regulatory processes: situation selection, putting oneself into situations that will lead to specific emotional states; situation modification, changing the environment to control emotional states; attentional deployment, directing attention in useful directions to reach emotional states; cognitive change, altering views of situations to impact emotions; and response modulation, responding physically and cognitively to emotions that have already been generated (DeSteno et al., 2013).

Brain imaging technology has spurred a great deal of new insight into the mechanics of neuronetworks and self-awareness. This insight has allowed researchers to begin to identify a “self-referential brain network” (Johnson et al., 2005, p. 1902).

Neuroimaging studies of self-regulation suggest that there is a balance in the brain between the more basic reward responses and the prefrontal areas of the brain that direct self-control. When overly strong reactions cause the balance to tip in the favor of bottom-

51

up reactions, the prefrontal areas lose influence and self-regulation fails. There is

evidence that cues in the environment help to bypass the influence of the frontal areas,

tipping the balance to the desire. When the frontal lobes are damaged or impaired due to injury or drugs, self-regulation ability is diminished. The connection between self-

regulation and emotion is very similar to that of appetite. The models emphasize top-

down regulation of the frontal areas of the brain over more impulse-driven areas of the

brain (Herwig, Kaffenberger, Jäncke, & Brühl, 2010; Heatherton & Wagner, 2011).

What these different models have in common is the notion that during successful self-regulation, there is a balance between prefrontal regions involved in self- control and subcortical regions involved in representing reward incentives, emotions or attitudes. We propose that the precise subcortical target of top-down control is dependent on the regulatory context that individuals find themselves in: when a person regulates their food intake, this involves a prefrontal–striatal circuit, and when this same person later regulates their emotions, they instead invoke a prefrontal–amygdala circuit. From this perspective, the nature of self- regulation is constant across different types of regulation, despite variability in the neural regions that are being regulated. (Heatherton & Wagner, 2011, p. 137)

Generally, emotions connect and activate with different psychophysiological response

systems within the brain. These systems work together to adapt and respond to the

environment (Herbert, Herbert, & Pollatos, 2011).

Controversy continues as to whether emotions directly contribute to disease and

health. Most models outline a direct effect through neurobiological changes caused by

emotion, but the degree and overall impact of emotions on direct health is widely debated

(DeSteno et al., 2013). Despite this debate, there is wider agreement about the

individual’s ability or attitude to regulate emotion by mindfulness, which is the

awareness of the internal processes of the body. Research suggests that mindfulness has

physiological aspects relating to emotion. Mindfulness has a significant impact on

emotion regulation and by extension health (Koole, 2009). For example, Kristeller and

52

Wolever (2011) noted that mindfulness can be used to control urges that lead to binge

eating.

The impact of mindfulness on self-regulation seems to have direct connections to

Davidson’s conceptualization of self-awareness. Herwig et al. (2010) noted that several studies capture the direct impact of mindfulness on the active parts of the prefrontal cortex. Mindfulness not only makes one aware of an emotional state, but seems to enact the neurophysiological ability to limit emotional arousal. Along these lines, researchers have suggested that individuals with higher degrees of conscientiousness have fewer mental health problems because they are more able to regulate their emotions. Factors such as conscientiousness allow an individual to avoid or lesson reactions to stimuli that cause negative emotions (Javaras et al., 2012).

As a contrast, self-awareness seems to have some negative aspects. These arise from self-conscious emotions such as pride, guilt, embarrassment, and shame. There may be a link between these emotions and self-awareness, since one needs to have some degree of self-awareness in order to experience the emotions. There is a complex relationship between socialization and identity around these emotions (Tracy & Robins,

2004).

Sensitivity to context. Davidson defined sensitivity to context as an ability to regulate emotional responses, taking into account the context or situation the person is in.

Social context refers to how individuals respond to what is present and happening in the environment in general. Sensitivity to context is a complex emotional awareness that requires individuals to understand how they connect to the world around them. This sensitivity impacts culture, self-perception, and social interactions. In some ways,

53

Davidson’s sensitivity to context is at the heart of the human experience. It allows individuals to function at complex social levels beyond the surface levels that seem apparent. Human interactions function on deeper emotional levels that require individuals to recognize and react appropriately to their own emotions and those of others.

Are individuals’ actions sometimes deemed inappropriate because they lack the ability to pick up on the conventional rules of social interaction? For example, people probably won’t talk to their boss about the same things they would talk to their spouse or child about. In the same way, individuals often modulate their emotional responses differently depending on the person they are talking to and the setting they are in. The brain structure, the hippocampus is central to social context. Extremely high levels of activity in the hippocampus can lead to too much focus on context, which can make one overly self-conscious and socially inhibited. It can also lead to an obsessive need to please other people. At the other end of the continuum, too little activation of the hippocampus can lead to a lack of focus on context, which might cause one to overlook something that is important or even dangerous. The hippocampus needs to communicate with the executive functions in the prefrontal cortex as well as memories held in long- term storage. Stronger connections increase sensitivity to context. Weaker connections decrease sensitivity to social context. At one end of the dimension’s spectrum, one is tuned in, and at the other, tuned out.

Generally, sensitivity to context connects to the larger construct of social cognition, which reflects the broad range of processes involved with belonging to and interacting with groups (Baez et al., 2013). Two primary processes in social cognition are the constructs of emotion regulation and emotional sensitivity. Koole (2009) outlined these constructs:

54

Emotion regulation consists of people’s active attempts to manage their emotional states. In its broadest sense, emotion regulation subsumes the regulation of all states that are emotionally charged, including moods, stress, and positive or negative affect. Emotion regulation determines the offset of an emotional response, and can thus be distinguished from emotional sensitivity, which determines the onset of an emotional response. Emotional sensitivity and emotion regulation follow different developmental paths and are functionally distinct throughout the lifespan. (p. 10)

Emotion sensitivity and regulation have been shown throughout life. In general, emotion regulation is less influenced by the environment as the individual grows.

Research has shown that the ability to regulate emotion is strongly impacted by the relationship with caregivers from the time of infancy. The study of emotion regulation is broad and covers a great range of approaches and subdisciplines (Halberstadt, Denham,

& Dunsmore, 2001; Koole, 2009).

The management of emotions during social interactions involves a complex process, including sending, receiving, and experiencing in order to manage emotions.

These factors combine during interactions so that they are not individually transparent to those involved. It may seem obvious that emotions and communicating emotions are a basic tenet of human interaction throughout life, but the fact that it feels so obvious indicates how hardwired it is within the individual. Interestingly, several internal factors such as world view, self-concept, and demeanor can influence how well one manages emotions in social situations (Halberstadt et al., 2001).

Not only do internal emotional factors impact how individuals interact in social settings, but the ways that individuals understand and remember social settings also impact how they view their internal emotional states. The affective experience directly connects to the schemes constructed by the individuals. Thus, when individuals are alone, culture and past social interactions have influence. McIlwain (2006) noted:

55

Self-presentational concerns, mediated by norms of socially desirable experience and behavior, intrude into the privacy of our own psyche. We are thus permeated by cultural concerns. The more socialized, self-reflective, or self-conscious emotions of embarrassment, shame, pride, and guilt shape our recollective style, acting as internal rewards and punishments. These more cognitively and culturally mediated emotions are crucial for controlled social interactions, for social inhibition and skill. (p. 389)

In one sense, storytelling and remembering are methods of emotion regulation.

This is a way of generally feeling better by reviewing past activities. This is a way to control emotion after an event, and it is also a way that past contexts carry forward

(Pasupathi, 2003).

Being emotionally sensitive to different contexts causes a wide spectrum of behaviors. For instance, some social contexts result in suppression and containment of emotions, while others may bring forth full abandon of any effort at suppressing emotions. The somber, serious event is quite different from a festive, celebratory atmosphere (McRae, Heller, John, & Gross, 2011). More importantly, emotion regulation and management enable the individual to handle stressful situations such as the death of loved ones or other traumatic events. Emotion regulation is only a piece in coping with these processes, but the ability to control emotions in social situations is essential in moving forward (Coifman & Bonanno, 2010).

Individuals who have difficulty regulating emotions have ongoing challenges dealing with changing or dynamic social interactions, ranging from minor challenges such as discomfort in social settings to more significant social dysfunctions (Suveg,

Jacob, & Payne, 2010). Studies have shown that stress from rejection, from an inability to connect with others, or even from being an introvert can have negative health consequences (Marin & Miller, 2013). On a more serious level, patients with bipolar

56

disorder and schizophrenia have demonstrated deficits in several aspects of social cognition, including empathy and social norms. They have difficulty differentiating accidental situations where harm was not intended from situations where individuals meant them harm. These patients performed better as the social situation was more explicit, but their difficulties increased when the social context was more subtle (Baez et al., 2013).

The ability to adjust emotions based on social context starts to form early in life.

Evidence suggests that social emotions such as guilt and embarrassment can be noticed as early as 17 months of age. These emotions are present during appropriate social contexts

(Barrett, 2005). Moreover, children at this age have been found to react differently based on the people around them. They are less likely to show emotion around strangers than they are around family members (Garner, 1995). The family is an important first context where emotion regulation forms. The familial emotional context sets up complex situations between children and parents, as well as between children and their siblings.

This dynamic is one of the first contexts where positive and negative affect come into play during social situations (Volling, McElwain, & Miller, 2002). By the age of 4, children are functioning on a complex emotional level. Zeman and Penza (1997) noted:

Children report expressing emotions when they expect to receive interpersonal support (i.e., understanding) and instrumental assistance (i.e., concrete help to resolve the situation). This suggests that, as early as four years of age, children demonstrate an understanding of the consequences of displaying negative emotions. Further, preschoolers’ responses indicate an awareness that their emotional expressivity is met with varying responses depending on the nature of the relationship with the person witnessing their emotional reaction. Interpreted within a functionalist perspective, preschoolers are cognizant of the contingencies associated with emotional expression and, in turn, have begun to modify their displays of affect in response to the messages received in their interpersonal interactions. (p. 49)

57

Attention. Davidson defined attention as the sharpness or clarity of one’s focus.

Attention can be thought of as existing on a continuum from focused to unfocused. Can an individual screen out emotional or other distractions and remain focused? The ability to focus attention is usually thought of as a cognitive ability. Emotional cues are everywhere, and they can interfere with individuals’ ability to get things done and maintain equanimity. The portion of the brain responsible for maintaining attention is the parietal cortex.

The role of attention allows individuals to interact with the environment. Selective attention is defined as the ability to identify and focus on one aspect of the environment while ignoring irrelevant aspects (Finucane, 2011; O’Toole, DeCicco, Hong, & Dennis,

2011). The process of preferencing some inputs over others is emotion-laden, using emotional resources to recognize stimuli that need action. Humans have a need to regulate the connection between emotion and attention. Initial emotional reactions may be intense and cause the individual to ignore other aspects of the environment that may be harmful. Emotions can be an important call to action in some situations and a problematic call for attention in other situations. In terms of attention, the brain requires the ability to calm emotion in some situations and to call up emotions for action in others

(Cohen, Henik, & Mor, 2011). O’Toole et al. (2011) indicated that attention is “biased” toward threat stimuli such as anger from others. The recognition of these threats happens early in visual processing and can often be present as a preconscious awareness. Along these lines, Finucane (2011) highlighted how the negative emotions of fear and anger

“enhance selective attention”:

During a fear compared to a control state participants were relatively faster responding to incongruent compared to congruent flanker trials, indicating better

58

inhibition of nontarget stimuli and enhanced selective attention. Similarly, participants who reported higher levels of anger during an anger-eliciting film clip demonstrated better inhibition of nontarget stimuli and thus more focused attention compared with the control condition. These results support the general prediction that high arousal negative emotional states inhibit processing of nontarget information and enhance selective attention. (p. 973)

Three separate but interrelated mechanisms for attention have been identified through brain imaging technology. The first is alerting, which acts as an interruption or warning where attention moves from one activity to a stimulus in the environment. The second is orienting, which is the process of shifting attention from one aspect to another.

The final is executive attention, which involves higher-order interactions in the environment (Cohen et al., 2011).

Cohen and colleagues (2011) noted that many studies indicate that emotions interfere with the orientation process and the executive attention process, but that results are less conclusive about the relationship between emotions and the altering process.

There is also some agreement that top-down brain processes can mitigate the disruptive effect on attentional processes. For instance, when the prefrontal or parietal cortex is activated, these attentional areas appear to mitigate emotion. This is a top-down modulation on attention. As noted above, there is also a bottom-up process in reacting to threats (O’Toole et al., 2011). Thus, attention and emotion are connected in a dynamic relationship between top-down and bottom-up processing.

Clearly, the ability of the individual to process emotions is moderated by the demands of the environment that activate different areas of the brain and command attention. Baskin-Sommers, Curtin, and Newman (2013) showed this when they noted that the “perceptual load” of the brain can impact emotional results. Thompson et al.

(2011) noted that the ability to pay attention to or attend to one’s affect state allows the

59

individual to regulate emotion. On the other hand, Baskin-Sommers et al. (2013) asked whether a lack of attention may hamper emotional processing, which could result in or contribute to mental illness. Another aspect of the connection between emotion and attention is the role of culture. There appears to be support for the idea that differences in emotional expression between cultures are at least partly connected to the mechanics of attention (Grossmann, Ellsworth, & Hong, 2012).

A great deal of research looks at the connection between emotion, attention, and memory, all of which impact how individuals interact with situations based on past experiences. Brose, Schmiedek, Lövdén, and Lindenberger (2012) looked at working memory, which is intended to temporarily store and manipulate information to accomplish tasks. They viewed attention as a “trait-like” ability that varies between individuals. Their findings suggest that negative affect reduced control of attention processing. They explained:

This study demonstrated that WM [working memory] performance is not merely a stable attribute in individuals, but that it varies more or less systematically across days. Some of this variability was related to daily fluctuations in affect, attention, and motivation. Future studies should more closely examine the temporal order in which the different variables affect each other and thus provide clear evidence for the theoretical notion supported by our findings—that negative affect reduces cognitive performance by causing a reduction in attention and motivation. (p. 615)

Pottage and Schaefer (2012) looked at emotionally enhanced memory. They found that emotion and memory are mediated by attention. Riggs, McQuiggan, Farb,

Anderson, and Ryan (2011) found that emotion can enhance memory in some situations but can also hamper memory in other situations. In terms of attention they found:

Specifically, although attention mediated some of emotion’s effects on memory, it did not mediate the entire relationship. This suggests that cognitive mechanisms other than attention are involved in modulating the relationship between emotion and the central/peripheral tradeoff effect in memory. (pp. 780-781)

60

Understanding emotion requires an examination of attention. Generally, attention mitigates and modulates emotions. Davidson’s inclusion of attention in his six emotional styles (Figure 2.4) makes sense because of the central role it plays in emotional processing.

Figure 2.4. Emotional style scale.

61

Interpersonal Neurobiology and ESSENCE

Neuropsychiatrist Daniel Siegel (2014a, 2014b) presented a theory of the

ESSENCE of adolescence, which also relates to the theme of affectivity and interpersonal relationships. Siegel suggested that adults go through similar processes as they transform themselves throughout life and can apply the features to help them boost their creativity and lead a productive life. Table 2.3 outlines the four features of ESSENCE, their pros and cons, and their applicability to adults.

Table 2.3 The Features of ESSENCE Feature and description Pros Cons Applicability to adults ES, Emotional spark: Passion, a vital Mood swings, More likely to remain in An increased emotional component of a full irritability control of their emotions in intensity life the face of storms and enhance the outcomes of the emotional spark. SE, Social engagement: Stronger social skills Vulnerability to More likely to turn to Connection with peers to stay connected and peer pressure helpful relationships when promote well-being seeking social support. N, Novelty seeking: Courage to try Negative More likely to take Exploration of new something new consequences advantage of the upsides. things of risk-taking CE, Creative A strong imagination Disillusionment Are emotionally stronger exploration: Pushing and a drive to envision and and can better manage the back against the status a world of possibilities disorientation potential downsides and quo and considering capitalize on the positives. how things could be different

A related concept that supports Siegel’s theory was presented by Francisco J.

Varela, father of autopoiesis and noted researcher in the biology of cognition, and Natalie

Depraz (2004). They described the mechanisms (the “dynamics of affect”) that can lead to basic predispositions and emotions and explained how understanding those dynamics can lead to cognitive content upon which individuals can act. Valera and Depraz 62

described the temporal nature of human physical reactions to events, noting the “realm of

affect” as consisting of the following components (not necessarily successive):

• A precipitating event

• A feeling of evidence of the event’s meaning

• A lived manifestation of the valence dimension of affect

• A motor embodiment, especially facial and motor changes

• Complex autonomic physiological changes (Varela & Depraz, 2004, pp. 160-161)

Because these stages may proceed rapidly, Varela and Depraz (2004) referred to their progression in terms of micro-temporality, and they expressed the central importance of valence as the “primordial constitution of self-affection” (p. 163). Drawing from use of the term in physics, valence, as used in psychology (especially in discussing emotions), means the intrinsic goodness or attractiveness (positive valence) or badness or averseness (negative valence) of an event or situation. As Varela and Depraz observed, the motor embodiment and physiological changes characterize and reflect specific emotions, such that happiness could be said to have positive valence, and resentment could be said to have negative valence. Although the concept seems to denote an either/or, plus/minus state, Varela and Depraz viewed valence as a continuum bounded by positive and negative extremes, the midpoint of which is neutrality, either through ignorance or indifference (hence the term “ambivalence”).

It is important for individuals to understand these physical reactions to events because of their transformative effect. “The accent is put on our own self-understanding by means of the diverse forms of the past, that is, on seeking a reference point for stabilizing one’s identity with the renewed reflection of every moment giving a base to

63

our temporal being” (Varela & Depraz, 2004, p. 156). Consideration of Varela and

Depraz’s dynamics of affect should help individuals sort through their emotions as they occur to achieve the results noted by Siegel in Table 2.3’s “Applicability to adults.” With their higher level of maturity, adults are better placed to take advantage of the concept since they are mature and more willing to take good counsel. There is a need for adults to consider the application of ESSENCE in their life to shape their culture and that of society and harness the upsides of the four factors.

Siegel discussed the implications of his framework and related it to the physiology of the brain. Everyone has the potential to condition their mind for increased creativity. Individuals should strive to adopt behaviors that will help in the creation and maintenance of healthy minds and in effect facilitate health and well-being. Research in developmental psychology has shown that the mind and the neural systems require relationships that involve attention and contingent interactions for proper development and that people are born to relate. Social neuroscience studies have shown that the neural circuitry responses for social and physical pain overlap. They have also shown that a relational presence that is comforting can reduce the physical sensations of pain in the brain and on self-report (Siegel & McCall, 2009). Mindful awareness practices have been shown to enhance the functioning of the immune system and impact neural patterns, and integrative body-mind training for just 5 days has been shown to improve autonomic nervous system regulation through an increase in the brain-body information flow (Siegel

& McCall, 2009). There is a well-being triangle that consists of the connections and interdependence among one’s neurobiology, the qualities of one’s mind, and one’s

64

interpersonal world. As a result, the integration of various elements of the brain system contributes to the well-being of the intellect and creativity.

Understanding the mind. The question “What is the mind?” can help frame a better understanding of these concepts. Siegel (2007) provided a useful definition of the mind as a process regulating both the flow of energy and information. The human mind is characterized as embodied and relational. Embodied refers to the mind as a flow of energy and information occurring within the body, whereas relational refers to the fact that the mind involves the flow of energy and information between people. There is a stark difference between the mind and the brain. Thus, the brain is seen as an integrated part of our body, the social organ, while the mind refers to that flow of energy and information.

Given the understanding of energy flows, it is possible to tap into the potential creativity in the minds to optimize outcomes. It is crucial that adults adopt specific practices that lead towards an integration of the brain. Increased integration increases harmony in the brain which is key to increased creativity (Siegel, 2017).

The brain influences minds and relationships. It is the brain that can help individuals with both inner experiences and social connections to others (Siegel, 2008).

The more that is discovered about the brain, the more individuals can use that information for learning, change, and social influence.

Neuroleadership involves responding to the ethical responsibilities required in leading minds and brains. Using MindSight, leaders take into consideration short-term and long-term outcomes, collaborating instead of dominating, while embracing the business practices that bring profit for people and the planet (Siegel & Pearce-McCall,

65

2009). Bennis (2007) stated that leadership is one of four major threats to our world of human institutions, and only exemplary leadership can put an end to the other three threats: nuclear catastrophe, tribalism, and pandemic. According to Bennis, the field of leadership studies imply how we can develop leaders so that they can understand both relationships and communication.

Affect and Cognition

Over the centuries, thinking and feeling—or in modern terms, affect and cognition—have been explored. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, Descartes, Pascal, and Kant examined rationality and emotion. This inquiry is longstanding and is a foundational part of the total understanding of human nature. Today, researchers view affect and cognition less as dual, competing natures and more as dynamic systems that are neural networks of the brain. The last two decades have witnessed significant breakthroughs in understanding the ways that modes of thinking and modes of feeling rely upon each other and are part of healthy human life (Forgas, 2008).

When the brain functions that make up cognition are discussed, the computer metaphor is often employed. Processes that echo computer functions such as information manipulation, short-term and long-term memory, decision-making, and logic are associated with cognition. These functions tend to be viewed as the rational processes that are almost mechanistic in nature. Philosophers, psychologists, physicians, and others have debated the degree to which cognitive functions can know the outside world. They all recognize that the most important function cognition performs is making judgments about the world. This is an adaptive process of taking in new information, assimilating it with existing understanding, and making changes based on conflict or agreement (Cahan,

66

1984). Over the centuries, the cognitive mind has been seen as an information-processing

mechanism that takes in information, weighs options, and takes action.

Conversely, the affective mind has often been connected to the more animalistic

nature of humans. This is the emotional mind that connects to mood and feelings. The

study of affect involves a wide range of topics that include defining specific emotions,

examining social interactions, understanding nonverbal cues, considering culture and

shared meaning, and looking at personal preferences. The current body of research on the affective sciences recognizes that affect plays an important role in decision-making and day-to-day functioning. Preferences and individual mood set a direction for action that

cannot be understood through traditional rationality. Without affect, even simple daily

decisions would be difficult to make (Sander & Scherer, 2009).

Historically, the connections between cognition and affect were not recognized. In fact, the Western tradition took pains to separate them. One Western bias that may account for the neglect of affect is the view that affect—emotions—are disruptive or damaging to rationality. This view stretches back to the Stoic philosophers of Athens impacting Plato and has had repercussions throughout Western thought. By the 20th century, some researchers suggested that affect was a flaw in the evolutionary process. It is difficult to dispute the fact that cognition took center stage in the 20th century and that affect was neglected (Forgas, 2008). As Forgas (2008) noted, “The emerging cognitive information processing paradigm in the 1960s initially also focused on cold, affect-less thinking, and it saw affect mostly as a source of disruption and noise” (p. 95). In the late

1970s and early 1980s, researchers started to recognize the role of affect in dealing with

67

social situations. Affect was especially noted for setting the tone of social encounters

(Forgas, 2008).

Recent neuroscience research has shown more complex links. Researchers have

demonstrated that affect and cognition share the same or overlapping neural structures for

dealing with social stimuli. Social cognitive functions and affective adaptations may have

arisen from the same need to process social situations and make connections with others

and within groups. Affect influences how people approach situations. Their internal states connect them to the world. For instance, negative affect has been shown to limit higher- order thinking, which limits judgment. Affect is also connected to memories. Affect colors the ways that memories are interpreted. Through memory, affect can influence the cognitive processes that are activated. Thus, it could be said that affect influences how people think. It is influential in both the process of thinking and in the content of thought

(Forgas, 2008).

Dolcos, Dolcos, and Iordan (2011) discussed two competing views within the

literature on the connection between emotion and attention. A standard view has held that

emotions are automatic reactions to the environment. This view holds that emotions can’t be controlled, and the reactions are automatic in order to protect the individual. A competing and somewhat newer view is that emotional responses are connected with other brain functions in a dynamic relationship. This holds that the level of emotional

reaction may depend upon the available resources and cognitive processes undertaken at

the time the stimuli were received.

Researchers have shown that humans can control all aspects of emotion

regulation. The ability to regulate emotion is linked to mental health and other positive

68

health outcomes. Emotion regulation is the process in which the mind stems the flow of

immediate responses generated by interacting with the environment. This allows the

individual to avoid overstimulation from the flow of environmental stimuli. In addition to controlling immediate emotional reactions, emotion regulation may occur by attention.

Redirecting attention can reduce the initial impact of stimuli or the distraction of the individual. Finally, emotions can be regulated through cognitive reappraisal, that is, the process of regulating emotions through knowledge itself. This takes the form of

interpreting situations or reimaging situations in different ways (Koole, 2009). Recently,

researchers have begun exploring mindfulness’s effect on both affect and cognition.

Findings suggest that people with negative affect can use mindfulness to prevent or limit

negative cognitive reactions (Gilbert & Christopher, 2010).

Affect can also directly impact cognition. For instance, there is a strong connection

between affect and memory. Emotion has also been shown to supercharge memory.

Emotion can cement specific memories in place, where more mundane experiences may

be more difficult to recall. Working memory is the ability to hold current tasks in mind in

order to function in the short term. Some research suggests that emotion helps to move

memory from short-term to longer-term storage. Some also believe that emotion may

distract working memory in the short term (Dolcos et al., 2011).

Connections Between Biology and Psychology

Laymen and researchers alike no longer flinch at the suggestion that the mind

influences the body. For instance, Baruth et al. (2011) connected positive outlook with

positive health outcomes. DeSteno and colleagues (2013) noted that positive affect has

direct and indirect effects on physiological reactions and outcomes. Indirect effects on

69

health are more related to the decision-making processes of life, such as when to seek medical care, when to reach out to support structures, and how to structure diet and lifestyle choices. Heatherton and Wagner (2011) examined the mind’s ability or attitude to self-regulate and the need for a healthy balance in the mind in order to maintain good mental health that permeates other areas of health. These studies and others like them are not surprising and are increasingly typical. However, the recognition of the importance of affect only brushes the surface of the more profound and foundational role played by affect. Researchers are demonstrating that it is not just a matter of mood influencing the body; affect is central to defining the way in which we understand our existence.

The recent focus on affect is making up for lost time. The latter half of the 20th century saw psychology almost entirely focus on cognition. Emotions were all but ignored as the computer became the primary metaphor for understanding the brain. Emotions were essentially seen as interrupters of the brain’s primary focus, which was assumed to be logic and analytical reasoning. The only role given to affect was that of an alert mechanism utilized to avoid problems in the environment—as when an individual would become afraid of an object in order to avoid it. Research on mice showed that emotional activity came at the brainstem in the limbic system. Thus, a form of snobbery came into fashion that said that any brain activity that did not come from the cortex was limited and therefore not as worthy as cognition, which came from the cortex (Davidson & Begley, 2012).

From the beginning of psychology, a tension in methods and goals existed. The structuralists followed the path of Wilhelm Wundt, who attempted to break phenomena down into constituent parts. This was along the lines advocated by Descartes in taking an atomistic approach. By mapping out the parts, researchers attempted to understand the

70

larger whole. The functionalists, on the other hand, followed the lead of William James, who was more influenced by Darwin. James attempted to grasp the big picture by seeing how something like emotion helped the human fit into the larger environment. Over the last two decades, there has been a move to fuse these two lines running through psychology. There is an interest in looking at the embodied mind, examining the two-way connection between brain and physicality (Chemero, 2013).

Davidson and Begley (2012) noted that it is impossible to have a complete theory of the mind without understanding emotion and how the mind connects to the physical body. Davidson’s emotional styles are important, in that they are a theory of emotion that connects to data and a more complete understanding of the biological connection between the brain and body. His early work, for example, demonstrated that the left and right hemispheres of the prefrontal cortex play a role in happiness and depression. These areas of the brain were thought to deal only with “higher” brain functions such as analytical thinking and creativity. This is a finding that ran counter to the prevailing thinking of the time. This started to build an understanding that affect was not a second-class process, but was more interwoven throughout the brain. Complex constructs like personality, beliefs, and feelings cannot be understood without understanding emotion. The affective domain is part of everything people do. In all actions, a feeling permeates individuals’ decisions, activities, and thinking. Sometimes these feelings are strong and directly connected to action, and sometimes these feelings are almost nonexistent and unnoticeable. But even the unnoticeable feelings color and give complexion to activities.

Niedenthal, Winkielman, Mondillon, and Vermeulen (2009) discussed the mental representations used by individuals when they accessed knowledge about emotions.

71

Embedded theories of cognition hold that activating knowledge about a specific event,

person, or action involves activating areas of the brain used in capturing the initial

knowledge. For instance, thinking about a person and holding a representation of that

person in the mind involves activating the visual areas of the brain used to see the person.

Similarly, thinking about some action activates motor functions. Thus, knowledge about

emotion activates brain networks connected to the specific emotional state. This activation may not constitute a full emotional response. The response may even be subconscious, but the specific areas of the brain are activated.

The connection between affect, cognition, and the body is more complex than the casual observer may realize. Reimann et al. (2012) suggested that emotions act as a sort of two-way street where the body may perceive something in the environment and trigger an emotional response. Additionally, the mind may conceive of a problem, generating an emotion and then a bodily response. Reimann et al. (2012) drew on somatic marker theory, stating:

One of its central features is that emotion-related signals (i.e., somatic markers, also sometimes called bodily markers), which are indexed changes in the visceral state such as changes in heart rate, blood pressure, gut motility, and glandular secretion, assist cognitive processes in implementing decisions. Changes in the visceral state may be considered as a form of anticipation of the impact of objects and events in the world on the body. Visceral responses to biologically relevant stimuli (e.g., threats or rewards) allow an organism to maximize the survival value of situations that may impact the state of the internal milieu. (p. 115)

This theory highlights a body-mind information loop and the necessary

connections between the body, cognition, and affect. Davidson and Begley (2012) noted

that functional magnetic resonance imaging scans of the brain indicate that multiple areas

of the brain—including areas thought to be most active during “higher”-order thinking—

are activated during emotional responses. They emphasized that the cognitive versus

72

affective duality is not reflected in the brain. Reimann et al. (2012) took this further in noting that the mind versus body duality is equally as complicated.

Varela and Depraz (2004) explored this complexity, suggesting that our very consciousness is wrapped up in the complex relationship between affect, cognition, and the body. For them, experience was not simply a split between passive and active. They defined a prereflective state where the experience between the outside world and the individual is one of “receptivity.” To the individual, the outside world does not exist separate and unto itself. The individual still connects to the outside world and has a

degree of preparedness for transition into a reflective state. There is a gradation of

awareness that is driven by affect.

Affect-emotions arise from an extremely extended network that can be seen in affect’s composite nature. Affect links virtually every type of quality that the organism manifests. This spans the most elementary homeostatic detection of biological needs by the hypothalamic systems, to the most subtle analysis of the intentions of others in a complex social milieu using cortical modules of both verbal and nonverbal categorization. Being a global state recruiting many regions, affect-emotion cannot have simple neural correlates, or some specific set of structures. The neural correlates must be seen as a dynamic pattern of arising, with its intrinsic temporality and liability; it must be understood as relating to an interpenetrating hierarchy of biological, social, and personal values. (Varela & Depraz, 2004, p. 173)

Ataria and Neria (2013) added depth to this discussion. They found that in altered

states of consciousness, our connections/perceptions of the world change and our sense of

our body and our sense of time become distorted. One outcome of torture such as solitary

confinement is a “disintegration of the sense of self” and a degradation of thought itself.

The sense of time appears to help structure thought and therefore plays an important role

in making thought functional. The prisoners of war who established their own way to

measure time, their own makeshift clocks, such as a beam of light that moved across their

73

isolation cell, created a structure for their day and regained a sense of time. This structure

allowed them to connect with the self.

A line of research called “neurophenomenology” has emerged based on the work

of Varela and drawing on the Western philosophical tradition of phenomenology

originating in the 20th century with Edmund Husserl. This area uses first-person data as well as data about brain systems to combine philosophy and neuroanatomy.

Neurophenomenology attempts to account for a prereflective state of consciousness

where one may see an object, create a mental image, and be tacitly aware of this

visualization. This is a type of bodily awareness that is reflexive when seeing an object

and is subjective in nature. It is prereflective and must be accounted for in theories of

consciousness (Lutz & Thompson, 2003). It almost seems that a basic building block of

consciousness is at a sensory input level where brain systems react to stimuli and the

brain initiates this prereflective state.

According to Phenomenology, ‘lived experience’ comprises pre-verbal, pre- reflective and affectively valenced mental states (events, processes), which, while not immediately available or accessible to thought, introspection and verbal report, are intransitively ‘lived through’ subjectively, and thus have an experiential or phenomenal character. Such states, however, are (i) necessarily primitively self-aware, otherwise they do not qualify as conscious (in any sense); and (ii) because of their being thus self-aware, are access conscious in principle, in that they are the kind of states that can become available to thought, reflective awareness, introspection and verbal report, especially through first-person methods. (Lutz & Thompson, 2003, p. 36)

This line of research relies upon the neurodynamics approach of consciousness.

Each cognitive activity—and affective activity if that distinction even exists—requires

the coordination of several specialized areas of the brain that must interact with each

other. Thus, in order to understand these actions, the interaction between components—

74

“neuronal groups”— must be understood. This is a type of self-organization that must

exist in order for the brain to operate (Vargas, Canales-Johnson, & Claudio, 2013).

Pessoa (2008) indicated that many models of the brain and emotion are oversimplified. These models try to separate the cognitive areas of brain activity and the

affective areas of brain activity. He argued for a more integrated view of the brain, where

no individual brain area really acts on its own. Tracy and Robins (2004) noted that self-

conscious emotions such as pride, guilt, embarrassment, and shame are linked to self-

awareness. Individuals need to be self-aware in order to experience these emotions.

Additionally, such emotions are connected to socialization and identity.

Cognition is made up of several key domains, chiefly attention, memory, and

reasoning. These domains are alternatively known as cognitive processes and serve

important roles in enabling the brain to acquire, process, and interpret information

(Poldrack, 2006). The domain of attention allows individuals to adequately study objects

in their environment so as to facilitate their processing in the brain. The attention process

is central to the completion of cognitive tasks and is engaged in numerous daily activities.

Equally, the domain of memory allows individuals to record information from their

environment for later processing. Memory not only allows individuals to learn in

numerous situations, but also occupies a significant position in how people create their

identities. The cognitive process of reasoning allows individuals to organize their

thoughts and feelings and express them in a communicable form (Poldrack, 2006).

Emotions allow human beings to assign value or desirability to various events in

their environment through complicated physiological and psychological states. Emotions

not only play a huge part in the way people relate to each other, but they also affect

75

reasoning (Dolan, 2002). The excess or lack of certain emotions can either lead to

unhappiness or inspire abnormal behavior. For example, many of those who

developmental conditions suffer from a lack of mental stability. Essentially, one’s

emotional experience and balance can lead to the exhibition of either some of the best

behaviors or some of the worst.

Emotions in the human brain directly influence the various cognitive processes. A

study by Ohman, Flykt, and Esteves (2001) on the amygdala found attention to be

significantly higher for emotional stimuli than for random stimuli. Equally, emotion has

been found to influence the cognitive process of memory through the pairing of

emotional events and certain stimuli. For this reason, individuals suffering from

posttraumatic stress disorder may experience arresting fear when they encounter a

stimulus that reminds them of the emotionally traumatizing event. Lastly, while emotion

and reasoning have long been depicted to be incongruent, the two can affect each other.

More specifically, emotions can lead to biased reasoning (Adolphs, Tranel, & Damasio,

1998).

Summary of the Literature Review

The purpose of this phenomenological inquiry is to achieve an understanding of the lived experience of followers who have survived a destructive leader experience. This chapter has provided a foundation for understanding the study’s two main constructs of destructive leadership and emotional style. Emotional style (Davidson & Begley, 2012), which has been defined through research, is an accepted construct that describes how

individuals respond to what life throws at them. In the past, employee decision-making

was considered a cognitive process and not an emotional one. The literature has since tied

76

cognition and affect together as dual interdependent considerations for decisions and actions. Further research, as reviewed in this chapter, has shown that it is possible for individuals to make changes in their emotional style. In contrast to past common belief that the mind of an adult is fixed and that the time for shaping and developing the human brain is in adolescence and childhood, Slagter, Davidson, and Lutz (2011) have pointed out that more and more research is showing that the brain exhibits plasticity, or propensity for change, even into adulthood.

While numerous studies address the relationship between emotions and cognition, very few systematically assess the relationship between emotions and the mind— particularly based on Dr. Siegel’s view of the mind. Siegel (2016) asserted that the mind is a product of relations. However, since emotions are significant in human relations, it would also be fair to say that emotions influence the mind. Equally, since cognition influences the decision-making process, it also affects how people relate. As such, both cognition and memory undeniably influence the mind, while in the long term the mind also influences memory and cognition, as it is the primary human faculty for thought and consciousness.

Obtaining a better understanding of the experience of destructive leaders may help followers faced with a similar situation successfully survive. Leaders may benefit from enhanced awareness and education on what impact they may be wielding on employees. Organizational costs may be reduced, and productivity increased, if employees have less exposure to destructive leaders or are at least better prepared to survive destructive leadership.

77

CHAPTER 3:

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the phenomenological research approach used to address the study’s research questions:

RQ1: What is the lived experience of employees who have experienced a destructive

leader in the workplace?

a. How do employees describe their strategies for surviving a destructive leader

experience?

b. How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience?

c. How do employees perceive their changes, if any, after having survived a

destructive leader experience?

The chapter begins by presenting the research design. Procedures for participant selection, data collection, and data analysis are then discussed. The chapter closes by discussing aspects related to the study’s trustworthiness and ethics.

Research Design

A Qualitative Approach

The methodology selection was driven by the research question and the intent to understand a lived experience. For this study, the nature of the research meets the criteria described by Creswell (1998) for a qualitative study. First, the research sought to describe an experience, rather than establish relationships or cause and effect. Second, the study was structured to present a detailed picture, or thick description, of that experience.

Third, the researcher’s role was that of an “active learner, who can tell the story from the

78

participants’ view rather than as an expert who passes judgment” (Creswell, 1994, p.

147). Creswell (1998) defined qualitative research as follows:

Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The research builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting. (p. 15)

The choice between qualitative and quantitative paradigms is important because these paradigms determine what the researcher sees when she or he is observing the world. As Patton (2002) noted,

A paradigm is a worldview—a way of thinking about and making sense of the complexities of the real world. As such, paradigms are deeply embedded in the socialization of adherents and practitioners. Paradigms tell us what is important, legitimate, and reasonable. Paradigms are also normative, telling the practitioner what to do without the necessity of long existential or epistemological consideration. But it is this aspect of paradigms that constitutes both strength and weakness—a strength in that it makes action relatively easy, a weakness in that the very reason for action is hidden in the unquestioned assumptions of the paradigm. (p. 69)

Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasized that qualitative research is an emerging, ongoing exploration, not a rigid set of procedures. This allows the researcher to adapt and change as information is discovered about the participants. Qualitative research is an interpretative process with the goal of discovering new ideas and relationships between concepts.

A Phenomenological Approach

Phenomenology research methods were chosen for this study because phenomenology attempts to describe the experience as it is lived by the participants, and the goal of this study was to gain an enhanced understanding of the experience of individuals while serving a destructive leader.

79

In addition, a phenomenological approach is in line with the researcher's interpretive paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), as the approach “seeks explanation within the realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity, within the frame of reference of the participant as opposed to the observer of action” (p. 28). Patton (2002) noted that phenomenological research strives to uncover a deeper understanding of the participants’ experience and how they make sense of it. Awareness or consciousness matters, and things that fall outside of consciousness do not really matter unless they fall into consciousness. Second, people can only reflect on the lived experience after it is lived and can’t reflect on it while the experience is occurring. The phenomenological foundation emanates from the idea that our experience is the only thing we can know.

Our awareness arises from perceptions and created meanings. We describe, interpret, and seek understanding.

This study did not attempt to predict or explain the phenomenon but accepted

Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) assertion that “for an anti-positivist the social world is essentially relativistic and can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals who are directly involved in the activities which are to be studied” (p. 5).

In summary, Van Manen (1990) cited several characteristics of phenomenological research that also apply to this study:

1. Phenomenological research is the study of lived experience. It is aimed at

gathering a better understanding of our everyday experiences. This study aimed at

understanding the experience of the follower when faced with a destructive

leader.

80

2. Phenomenological research is the explication of phenomena as they present

themselves to consciousness. This study did not evaluate whether the experience

was real or imagined, measurable or not, because all we can ever know is what

presents itself to our consciousness. The closest one can get to another’s

“conscious self” is the expression, through language, of how he or she perceived

that experience.

3. Phenomenological research is the study of essences. Although this study was

conducted at an individual level of analysis, it also attempted to discover the

essential meaning structure of this lived experience.

In addition, Van Manen (1990) noted that phenomenological research is a search

for what it means to be human and explained that the language of phenomenology seeks to be the phenomenon rather than speak of it. In this language, memories that have not been thought of before may be found. The phenomenological interviews in this study

served the purpose of not only putting these memories into language, but also

reconstructing experiences that may have been forgotten over time.

Within the phenomenological tradition, this study followed the empirical

psychological method, as described by Moustakas (1994), which “determines what an

experience means for the persons who have had the experience and are able to provide a

comprehensive description of it. From the individual descriptions, general or universal

meanings are derived, in other words, the essence of structures of the experience” (p. 13).

The research goal in the empirical psychological method is to understand the common

structure among participants experiencing a phenomenon through the interpretation of

their socially constructed reality.

81

Role of the Researcher

The relationship of the researcher and the participants is an important aspect of qualitative, interpretive research. The relationship is interactive, and both the researcher and the participants are involved in searching for understanding. The researcher is an

“active learner, who can tell the story from the participants’ view rather than as an expert who passes judgment” (Creswell, 1994, p. 147). As described in the constructivist paradigm, a dialectical and hermeneutical approach was used, in which individual constructions were elicited from the participants and meaning was interpreted interactively through emic (participant) and etic (researcher) points of view.

Phenomenology argues that social sciences should focus on the way that the members experience the world. This is done through epoché, bracketing, and setting aside the researcher’s assumptions or subconscious familiarization to it (Holstein &

Gubrium, 2005). In this study, the personal experience of the researcher as someone who has experienced destructive leaders, both directly and indirectly, while adding understanding to the researcher, also needed to be bracketed in order to openly view the participants’ particular experiences.

Intersubjectivity (Schultz, 1969) is what occurs between two people in an encounter that includes both verbal and nonverbal messaging. Each person is an independent entity with varying perceptions of reality. One person cannot know the other person’s reality unless an attempt is made to share it. Even when it is shared, it cannot become an actual experience for the other person. In this study, the researcher attempted to understand the person’s reality and observed body language, facial expressions, and words.

82

Munhall (1994) wrote that as phenomenological interviews begin, the interviewer

is in the position of the “unknower” and should think of the participant as “knower” (p.

65). Munhall (1994) saw “unknowing as a de-centering process from one’s own

organizing principles” (p. 63). This concept, combined with epoché, “the setting aside of

prejudgments, biases, and preconceived ideas about things” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 85),

and bracketing (Creswell, 1998) is relevant for this research method. Moustakas (1994)

stated that the “energy and attention involved in reflection and self-dialogue, the intention

that underlies the process, and the attitude and frame of reference significantly reduce the

influence of preconceived thoughts, judgments, and biases” (p. 90).

Participant Selection and Recruitment

This study involved purposefully selecting participants and their referrals

(snowballing), following criteria described in the literature. Moustakas (1994) outlined

the essential criteria: The participant “has experienced the phenomenon, is intensely

interested in understanding its nature, is willing to participate in a lengthy interview, and

grants the researcher permission to record the interview and publish the data” (p. 107).

The researcher planned to select between 8 and 15 participants, based on the number needed to reach data saturation—that is, the point at which the codes and themes are constantly repeated, with no new codes emerging (Guba & Lincoln, 1998).

Participants were chosen based on their belief that they survived a destructive

leader experience. The experience had to fall within the established parameters, and

criterion reference sampling was utilized as each participant needed to meet the

predetermined criteria of importance (Patton, 2002, p. 238). The definition of the

experience includes being subjected to systematic and repeated destructive behavior that

83

had a direct effect on them. In addition, the individuals must have found a way to survive and progress forward. This progress could be marked by an ability to continue performing their duties or even find a new organization or position. Survival for each individual was expected to be different.

Seidman (2006) suggested maximum variation sampling as the most effective strategy for selecting participants for interview studies. Therefore, demographic information was collected (see Appendix B), and participants were chosen from different genders and ethnicities. There were eight women and five men, of different ethnicities. It was critical that participants acknowledged that they were no longer having the experience, since those actively involved in a destructive leader experience may be angry, as one example of their emotion during the occurrence. Individuals cannot adequately reflect on their anger while being angry; therefore, reflection can only occur after the emotion has passed or the anger has changed. Phenomenological reflection is not introspective but retrospective. Reflection on lived experience is always recollective; it is reflection on experience that has already passed or been lived through (van Manen, 1990, pp. 9-10).

Other selection criteria include the following:

• The participant must have worked for at least 7 years.

• The destructive leader experience must have lasted for at least 6 months.

• The experience must have occurred within the last 5 years.

• The participant must have interest in the phenomenon of destructive leadership.

• The participant must be willing to participate in an in-depth interview of about 60

to 90 minutes.

84

• The participant must agree to sign the informed consent form.

Recruitment of Participants

The researcher sent an initial e-mail invitation to approximately 75 individuals,

including classmates and colleagues, describing the research and asking them to

distribute the invitation to anyone they thought might meet the study criteria. The text of

the e-mail appears in Appendix D. More than 20 potential participants responded with an

offer to participate. Five of the potential participants responded from the initial e-mail

and the remaining participants were found through the snowball approach, where

someone on the initial distribution list forwarded the message to someone, they thought

might fit the criteria. One individual receiving the initial e-mail forwarded it to families

in her community, resulting in at least three participants. Of the initial 20 individuals who

responded, three were found not to meet all aspects of the criteria, reducing the pool of

applicants to 17. During the data collection phase, two applicants had e-mail address

changes and the researcher was not able to contact them for their interview and two were

not interviewed due to scheduling conflicts. Thirteen applicants participated in the

interview process.

Data Collection

Unstructured, in-depth, and open-ended interviewing was used to gain an understanding of complex social behaviors without imposing predetermined categories that may have limited the scope of the interview (Fontana & Frey, 2005). Each person was interviewed individually for approximately 90 minutes, one at a time and in a location agreed to by both the interviewer and the interviewee. The interviews were

85

recorded, with the participant’s permission, and then transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were sent by e-mail as an attachment for the participants to review for accuracy, and the researcher made updates to the transcripts based on the participants’ feedback; however, minimal feedback was received.

The data for the study consisted entirely of these interviews and the researcher’s observations and notes throughout the interview process. Each participant was given an informed consent form (see Appendix A) and an audio release form, according to stipulations of the institutional review board (IRB), and those documents were signed by the participants. IRB approval was obtained before any data collection. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix C.

In addition to the concepts provided by Seidman (2006), the researcher applied the principles of Kvale and Brinkmann’s (2009) face-to-face interview structure to assist in shaping the interviews. This structure offers flexibility for the researcher to meet the study requirements. According to Kvale and Brinkmann, an interview is a “conversation that has structure and a purpose” (p. 3). The authors stressed the interdependence of the interviewer and the interviewee:

The research interview is based on the conversation of daily life and is a professional conversation; it is an inter-view, where knowledge is constructed in the inter-action between the interviewer and the interviewee. An interview is literally, an inter view, an inter-change of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest. (p. 2)

Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) were open to less rigorous methodology and recognized that the “very production of data in the qualitative interview goes beyond a mechanical following of rules and rests on the interviewer’s skills and situated personal judgment in posing of questions” (p. 82).

86

The researcher asked a colleague in the George Washington University program

to interview the researcher using the interview protocol to review, rehearse, and scrutinize the questions, the order of the questions, and the approach. Seidman (2006) suggested that as an interviewer you listen, ask questions but don’t lead, and limit your interaction so as not to shape the respondent’s response. Although challenging at times to limit interaction in a one-on-one scenario, the researcher utilized the approach Seidman suggested to ensure the experience was described by the interviewee without any influence.

Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) suggested the “research interview to be an interpersonal situation, a conversation between two partners about a theme of mutual interest” (p. 123). They suggested that researchers first set the “interview stage” (p. 128), as the first few moments are decisive. Interviewees will quickly gauge the authenticity of the interviewer and measure the value of the project “before they allow themselves to talk freely and expose their experiences and feelings to a stranger” (p. 128). A second important suggestion was to prepare an interview protocol that allows for sufficient agility around the phenomenon under exploration.

The first two participants were considered a pilot for the interview protocol, but only participated after approval for data collection was obtained from the IRB. The pilot followed the same approach as the rest of the interviews. No major adjustments were needed; therefore, the data collected during the interview with the first two candidates were compiled with all other findings. The pilot interviews were conducted, transcribed, and sent to the participants for review in the same manner as all other interviews. The interview data were coded and reviewed by a peer. After the pilot, the researcher

87

continued with the purposeful sample population identified. Continuation with interviews

followed until sufficiency and saturation of the inquiry was achieved.

Data Analysis

Analysis of the data was based on Moustakas’ (1994) modification of the van

Kaam method of analysis, consisting of eight steps:

1. Listing and preliminary grouping (horizonalization) of meaning units

2. Reduction and elimination of redundant meaning units

3. Clustering of meaning units into nodes and themes

4. Final identification and validation of the themes

5. Individual textural description

6. Individual structural description

7. Individual textural-structural description

8. Composite textural-structural description

The analysis of the data initially began after the pilot interviews were conducted

and was completed without a software tool; however, the process was completed using a

software program designed for the purpose of data analysis. The qualitative analysis

software of Atlas.ti was acquired to assist in the data analysis.

For horizonalizing the data, according to Moustakas (1994), every statement

relevant to the topic and question must be viewed as having equal value, and after

overlapping and repetitious expressions are identified and eliminated, the remaining

items make up the meaning. Meaning units must be clustered into themes and clusters of meaning, first within and then between the interviews, to synthesize the essential nature

88

of the experience for the group. The data, after being analyzed, were compared against

the literature that was anticipated as relevant.

Trustworthiness, Limitations, and Delimitations

Some critics have argued against the merits of qualitative studies because of their

inability to achieve internal validity (where researchers’ measurements are true

descriptions of a particular reality) and external validity (the degree to which such

descriptions can be accurately compared with other groups). Lincoln and Guba (1985)

explained that the four criteria used to evaluate the merit of traditional quantitative

research—internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity—are

inappropriate measures for evaluating the less numerically based orientation of

qualitative work. They proposed instead the concept of trustworthiness, with alternative

criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Specific efforts

were taken to ensure this study’s trustworthiness.

Credibility

Lincoln and Guba identified several major techniques to operationalize qualitative

credibility, some of which were employed in this study. For example, the credibility of

findings was enhanced in this study by prolonged engagement with a relatively large number of interviewees; the researcher was engaged with the interviewees long enough to gain knowledge of the specific context in which they were operating. Persistent observation was achieved by closely noting the participants’ actions and cues in several recorded and transcribed interviews.

89

Triangulation is also frequently used to address trustworthiness in qualitative studies. Denzin and Lincoln (1998) described four types of triangulation:

1. Data triangulation, the use of a variety of data sources

2. Investigator triangulation, the use of different researchers or evaluators

3. Theory triangulation, the use of multiple perspectives to interpret a set of data

4. Methodological triangulation, the use of different methodologies to investigate a

problem

In this study, a form of investigator triangulation was used, specifically member checking, whereby all participants received their transcribed interviews to check for accuracy, and modifications were made if needed. The participants are considered co- researchers in this research and therefore fill the role of different researchers for the investigator triangulation. Lincoln and Guba indicated that the most crucial technique for establishing credibility is confirmation from the participants in the research. The member checking not only served as a form of investigator triangulation, but also served the purpose of confirmation.

Transferability

Transferability refers to the extent to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or applied in other contexts or settings. The fact that this study by its nature addressed individual circumstances of persons in unique organizational settings limits the transferability of its findings. However, the researcher provided a thorough and detailed description of the lived experiences of each participant. To the extent that comparable situations may arise in similar organizations, the thorough and thick description of the phenomena is well documented, and these case study results may prove

90

useful to future researchers. The composite descriptions in this research did not aim to

represent a collective but to describe a phenomenon.

Dependability

The idea of dependability involves the need for the researcher to account for

changes in the context of the research. In this study, the phenomena occurred in multiple

different contexts, but to further address the criterion of dependability, the researcher

continually reviewed assembled documents (both organizational and individual), raw

transcribed interviews, and summaries of observations. All data were collected and

analyzed over the extended period of time required to conduct the research. This

approach captured any contextual changes in the research environment and ensured the

existence of a precise audit trail.

Confirmability

This criterion refers to the ability of others to confirm or corroborate the results.

Lincoln and Guba considered the major techniques for establishing confirmability to be an audit trail and an audit process. The researcher had primary responsibility for the audit trail, and she documented the procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study. During the analysis, the researcher was alert to comments or interpretations that could contradict prior observations, and as part of the analysis, she reexamined the data collection and analysis procedures to ensure that bias or distortion had not crept in.

With respect to the audit process, Lincoln and Guba suggested setting up an oversight board to critique the overall study. This board would become familiar with the

91

purpose and content of the study and confirm study basics such as the research questions, choice of methodology, theoretical framework, and other key aspects. For this study, the dissertation committee took on these roles as the final determinant of the study’s contribution to the body of knowledge.

Also relating to the point of avoiding bias in research, the phenomenological approach of epoché, the quality of suspending judgment, was applied in this study. The goal is to avoid the perils of false opinion (or, more accurately, false opining, the process of forming false opinions), thereby achieving trustworthiness. The purpose of epoché is to “set aside our prejudgments, biases, and preconceived ideas about things. Whatever or whoever appears in our consciousness is approached with an openness, seeing just what is there and allowing what is there to linger” (Moustakas, 1994, pp. 85-86). In this study, the researcher made a conscious effort to set aside not only personal judgments and biases, but also personal experiences.

Ethically Responsible Research

Kozaitis (1998) spoke of “anthropological praxis—intellectually mediated, ethically sound, and socially responsible” (p. 11). These three conditions determine that ethical social research should be well thought out (intellectually mediated); should not harm, endanger, or take advantage of the participants (ethically sound); and should attempt to possibly bring benefits, or give back, to the participants of the research

(socially responsible).

Minimal risk was involved in terms of the health and well-being of the participants. IRB approval was obtained before data collection, and all ethical and human subject considerations of The George Washington University were observed. The process

92

and the questions for the interview were planned and reflected upon before actual data

collection, and multiple opportunities were given for questions and clarifications during

the process. Confidentiality was offered to each participant, and participants are not

identified in the publication of results. Written consent was obtained from each

participant.

The interview process for the research had the potential of causing emotional

distress to the participants, as they told stories of situations that had been upsetting to

them. It was also possible that discussing these experiences could relieve participants’

past distress. The researcher ensured time was available for any participants who exhibited affective distress to take a break. Although some participants expressed emotions, no interviews resulted in distress. Several interviewees stated that it felt good

to be able to describe what they went through and that they felt a burden lift off their

shoulders. Since no affective distress occurred, nothing was reported to the committee

chair or to the George Washington University Office of Human Research.

93

CHAPTER 4:

RESULTS

This study employed the qualitative methodology of phenomenology because it

supported the goal of the study, which was to understand the lived experiences of

followers who survived a destructive leader experience. With a phenomenological study,

the researcher seeks to obtain comprehensive descriptions that provide the basis for a

reflective structural analysis that portrays the essence of the experience (Moustakas,

1994, p. 13). A methodology consisting of coding and analysis in a phenomenological

approach was used to address the study’s research questions:

RQ1: What is the lived experience of employees who have experienced a destructive

leader in the workplace?

a. How do employees describe their strategies for surviving a destructive leader

experience?

b. How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience?

c. How do employees perceive their changes, if any, after having survived a

destructive leader experience?

The phenomenological approach assumes that there is an essence to the shared experience. However, everyone would experience and describe the occurrence in a unique manner. Therefore, it is important to include a textural description or objective

description detailing the participant’s experience and what it means to him or her. The

structural description attempts to highlight the context of the experience, “that which

makes some-thing what it is, and without which it could not be what it is” (van Manen,

1990, p. 10). In addition, individual descriptions may be more easily understood if

94

identified through themes or commonalities. Thus, following a brief demographic

description of the participants, the first part of this chapter provides the individual

descriptions of each participant, with a participant overview, a textural description

presenting what the individual experienced, a structural description of the context or the

researcher’s interpretation of how the phenomenon was experienced, and a combined

textural-structural description to capture the meanings and essences of the phenomenon

or experience. The second part of the chapter provides the essence of the experience by

highlighting themes or commonalities among the participants that emerged through their

description of their lived experience.

Participant Demographic Characteristics

Thirteen participants were interviewed and were given a pseudonym to protect

their identity. The participants were independent from each other, meaning that they were

not limited to one company or to one shared destructive leader. Table 4.1 provides some

demographic information. The group comprised five men and eight women. One

participant was under 35 years; six were between 35 and 50 years; and six were over 50

years. All participants had attended college, and half had a master’s degree or higher.

Most participants worked in professions with a typical office environment, and three worked in manufacturing. The participants were from six states plus the District of

Columbia.

95

Table 4.1 Participant Demographic Characteristics Pseudonym Gender Age Education Occupation State Ethnic group* Andrea Female 35-50 Master’s Project management, VA Caucasian business operations Derrick Male 35-50 Master’s Business analyst VA Caucasian Diana Female 35-50 Bachelor’sBudget analyst GA Black Fred Male >50 Bachelor’sProduction manager, TN Caucasian manufacturing Ginny Female >50 Bachelor’s Retired teacher NC Caucasian and 1/8 Native American Helen Female >50 Master’s Project manager, MS Caucasian manufacturing Jackie Female 35-50 Master’s Government manager VA Caucasian Melissa Female 35-50 Bachelor’s Counselor VA Caucasian Bo Male <35 Bachelor’s Medical sales TN Caucasian Samuel Male >50 College Government executive DC Caucasian Anthony Male >50 Master’s Government executive AL Caucasian and retired military Pam Female 35-50 Master’s School counselor TN Caucasian Maddie Female >50 Master’s Counselor VA Caucasian *Provided by participant.

As shown in Table 4.2, all participants had been in the workforce for more than

10 years. Their experience of working with a destructive leader ranged from 8 months to

8 years.

Table 4.2 Participants’ Time in the Workforce and with the Destructive Leader Years in the Years of destructive Pseudonym workforce leadership experience Andrea 20 3 Derrick 15 1 Diana 15 8 Fred 34 5 Ginny 30 7 Helen 27 7 Jackie 13 1 Melissa 10 2.5 Bo 14 0.7 Samuel 29 2 Anthony 42 4 Pam 28 6 Maddie 28 2

96

Profiles

Andrea

Participant overview. Andrea had more than 20 years of experience in the

workplace and had survived a 3-year destructive leadership experience that involved her

direct supervisor. Andrea provided several examples of unrealistically high expectations

for both work volume and perfection that were met with a continual threat of replacement

and zero tolerance for error.

Everything needed to be 100% perfect all the time. Perfection on tasks that had no impact or visibility by anyone expect for this leader. If I attempted to explain the time needed, I was met with behaviors and comments that let me know that if I didn’t complete them by the timeline given, they would find somebody who could and replace me, so there was this constant management by fear.

Andrea’s perspective on life and work was positive, with a focus on relationships and doing her best in all contexts:

I am optimistic in my views on both my life and my general view of the workplace. My philosophy is that family and friends are everything. I work really hard and try to be the best person I can and be a good example for my family. I try to do the same at work.

Textural description. Andrea said that she survived the destructive leadership

experience because she believed in the work she was doing and its impact and found her

work fulfilling, both personally and professionally. She enjoyed her work, which was

intended to help other people learn and grow. She commented: “I felt like what I was

doing was a positive impact in people’s lives. I was contributing to the greater good, and

I was adding value. That was fulfilling.”

Looking back, she came to realize she survived by leaning on family for

emotional support: “I think in the moment I was just so busy, and the only thing that

helped is I would cry sometimes, or vent to my sister, or to my husband.”

97

Andrea responded to her destructive leadership experience by feeling stuck, sad, and resentful. She felt taken advantage of because the destructive leader knew she could not leave her job. All in all, she felt powerless then.

I felt like time was taken from me. I lost a lot of time with my kids. There were days in a row that I wouldn’t see them. It affected how I wanted to be a mom and how I wanted to raise them and care for them, and it’s time I can’t get back.

Furthermore, she felt that she had to control her emotions when interacting with the destructive leader. Andrea suppressed her emotional feelings and responses, becoming more introverted, to avoid risk.

Andrea perceived this experience to have changed her emotionally and physically as a direct result of her inability to focus on her health due to her negative environment.

She gained a lot of weight, over 70 pounds, during the destructive leadership experience.

She ended up taking blood pressure medication at age 34.

During that time period I didn’t move; I sat at my desk and my computer all day, every day, sometimes all night long so I could get my work done and not lose my job. From a physical perspective, yes, it did impact my health.

In the 2 years that followed, Andrea was able to reverse the physical effects by losing the weight she had gained and no longer needing the high blood pressure medication. Andrea also no longer felt the deep sadness that she felt while in the situation.

Structural description. Andrea said that she was able to overcome her destructive leader experience because of the purpose she found in her work and the difference she believed she was making in others’ lives. She described herself as optimistic, and her optimistic outlook helped her get through the experience: “I really enjoyed the work that I was doing and what I believed I was doing to help other people.”

98

Andrea often felt overwhelmed with sadness. As an outlet, she would talk with her sister or her husband or would cry to cope with the feelings of stress. Andrea relied on her family’s emotional support, and through that foundation she was able to gain the psychological stability, strength, and resilience she needed to get through the sad moments.

Andrea felt that she had to modulate and control her sadness and resentful emotions when interacting with the destructive leader and dealing with experiences of losing time with her family, being taken advantage of, and feeling powerless. This human emotional response system allowed Andrea to ultimately bounce back from the negativity. “I specifically remember one time reaching a limit, and I had to go to my office and close the door and just cry and pray.” Andrea implemented self-regulation beyond normal limits of endurance in order to avoid failure. She explained that “to get

the things done that I needed to, I would have to work incredibly long hours, sometimes

all night long, never going home.”

Andrea’s physical and emotional health was impacted because of her destructive leadership experience. With the negative distractions gone, she had more clarity and focus on her physical and emotional health. Andrea had lost the weight she had gained from the stress and was no longer taking medication for high blood pressure. Her positive outlook and desire to do her best had not changed; what did change was that she was kinder and more understanding to herself. She focused on activities that brought her happiness and made time for herself and her family.

I don’t think I’ve changed in terms of still wanting to work hard and do the best job I possibly can, but I am a little kinder to myself, allowing myself to sleep and go home at the end of the day when it’s time to go home, and I no longer sacrifice time with my kids.

99

Combined textural and structural description. Andrea’s destructive leadership experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: outlook, resilience, sensitivity to context, self-awareness, and attention. Additionally, Andrea’s destructive leadership experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of basic emotional systems: Seek, Care, Fear, and Rage. The overall essence of Andrea’s destructive leadership experience was social engagement.

Andrea’s outlook throughout her experience was optimistic. She experienced a deep sense of Care and Seek emotional systems, which stemmed from her maternal longing to nurture the lives of those around her and her desire to find meaningful purpose in her work. Andrea’s resiliency related to her ability to overcome her adversity by channeling her own self-awareness of the negativity and how she perceived she was feeling and relying on her family to cope with her emotions. It was through the Fear basic emotional system that Andrea felt emotional pain and the threat of losing her employment. Andrea’s sensitivity to context allowed her to use self-regulation as a tool to control her emotions. The Rage basic emotional system of frustration surfaced. During the destructive leadership experience, Andrea was unable to focus on her physical and emotional health, but she was able to improve her attention and fully recover.

Social engagement held Andrea together through her connections with her family.

Andrea’s close and trusting relationships with her husband and sister helped her stay focused and find meaning.

I would have to say probably my sister is someone that I’ve been able to lean on that has helped prepare me for, she’s older and has gone through, has had similar experiences and has been able to help prepare me for different environments and personalities and helps me to put things into perspective and grounds me. There were times that I would cry sometimes, vent to my sister, to my husband.

100

As noted by Siegel (2014a), relationships are integral components of mental and

medical health, happiness, and longevity.

Derrick

Participant overview. Derrick had more than 15 years of experience in

management and government contracting. He survived a 1-year destructive leadership

experience, which he described as an intentional lack of communication. The leader

would withhold critical information Derrick needed, which resulted in performance

counseling and fears of losing his job. “He didn’t share information. I asked him for it

every other week. He orchestrated a campaign to get me out of there.”

Derrick’s perspective on life and his general view on the workplace were related to his genuine curiosity and assimilation of information.

I’m curious. I like new technology. I like absorbing and getting new information and figuring that stuff out. I might be too philosophical, but optimist and pessimist seems too dichotomous, it seems too either/or, whereas like I’d say curiosity drives me more than optimism or pessimism.

He liked learning about new things such as behavioral science, anthropology, and

psychology. Overall, he liked working because it was interesting to him, but he did not

consider work a vital thing in life.

Textural description. Derrick had had a variety of leadership experiences, both

with direct leaders and as a leader himself, over the course of his career. When discussing

what had prepared him to survive a destructive leader experience, he said that he thought

differently than others. He was used to being a “fish out of water,” always defining his

beliefs, goals, and values for real success.

101

I fancy myself as not quite in the mainstream; I don’t necessarily think the same way most people do. I’m used to being a fish out of water and having to define my own beliefs or goals or values for success.

Derrick believed that his diverse background helped him be unconventional and

have a different way of thinking than others. His parents had different cultures and

religions: “My dad’s Jewish, my mom’s Methodist, with a heavy concentration of various forms of Asian, and I grew up in central Pennsylvania.”

He felt he was able to survive the experience by relying on opinions from the

individuals who mattered the most to him. He spoke with friends and business people he

trusted. “I would run my interpretation of what was going on by them and I would

basically get validation.” He added:

I’ve got people who would not sugarcoat it, and they said, “You have a blindness for this because you can’t imagine people doing this.” And I can’t see people doing this—not because I believe people are good, but because I don’t see the value. I don’t see what tearing me down does.

Derrick detailed examples of social cues from his destructive leader that led him

to believe he and his colleagues were being deceived. His leader was quiet and

unresponsive. Derrick attempted a variety of ways to communicate with his leadership,

but the leader did not provide the details and information Derrick needed to perform his program management duties.

He didn’t share information. I tried multiple different strategies of communication. I was asking nicely, saying please, trying to see if I could set a timeframe. I never got to see the statement of work for our contract. I asked what everyone’s roles and responsibilities are, what is everyone doing, etc., but he would not give it to me.

After Derrick was placed on a performance improvement plan, Derrick’s social

context resulted in self-suppression. Derrick consciously chose to control his emotions

102

and behaviors by doing only what was expected of him and silencing himself in all other work interactions. “They never gave me a copy of that signed piece of paper. I kept my mouth shut, colored in the lines.”

During his experience of the destructive leadership experience, Derrick had a physical and emotional reaction and response to the stress of not being given the tools he needed and his constant fear of losing his job. He was unable to eat or sleep.

He was ultimately able to bounce back from his destructive leadership experience by finding a fresh start. Derrick left and joined a company where he would have more opportunities to grow and be mobile on different contracts. “I survived it because I went to a company where there were 20,000 people there.”

Derrick believed that his destructive leadership experience did not impact his personal outlook, which has largely remained the same, but did change his professional perspectives. Derrick stressed doing your homework and focusing on learning the work environment as much as possible up front before you begin working to determine if it is a good fit for you. “My first rule is to figure out the environment as best you can and as quick you can. Try to avoid unpredictable and chaotic situations.” This, Derrick believed, was the key to avoiding another destructive leadership experience by aligning with the wrong leader.

Structural description. Derrick survived his destructive leadership experience because he was keenly aware of who he was and grew up in a culturally diverse environment. He was able to draw on his diverse background to facilitate the thoughts, feelings, and emotions that allowed him to successfully navigate his life. He described that growing up, he had a Christmas tree and ate matza. As an adult, he “worked in New

103

York, Washington, DC; there’s no limit of diversity, and I learned quickly about

hierarchy, questioning power, and how you can get into trouble quickly if you are not

sensitive to those challenges.”

In describing the destructive leadership experience, Derrick noted that he found it

difficult to read his destructive leader’s facial cues and body language because the leader would show no emotion.

He was nonverbal, meaning being in the room but not saying anything. He was Vulcan-like, not displaying emotions about this or that. So it was really hard to tell when he was going from serious to not serious. There was just a severe lack of feedback.

When Derrick was pulled into a meeting with his leadership team to be presented with the performance improvement plan, he was completely unaware that there had ever

been an issue prior to that meeting. His leadership had not advised him that there had

been any complaints or attempted to discuss issues and possible resolutions with him.

This type of meeting would generally evoke intense outward emotions; however, Derrick

in that moment was focused only on the fact that this was something he was completely

unaware of. From that point on, he bottled up his emotions and kept to himself.

The leadership, they never told me what was wrong; they just pulled me into a meeting and said people have been saying this about you. After that, I didn’t do anything extra, and I worked only 8 hours.

This experience affected him not only emotionally but also physically, as he had

problems eating and sleeping.

Derrick was able to bounce back from the experience in part due to his support

system. He confided in colleagues and friends as a sounding board to confirm what he had been feeling and experiencing. “I checked in with people whose opinion mattered to

104

me. I checked in with friends and business people that I trusted.” He was able to quickly

recover from his situation by changing jobs. He adapted rapidly to his new role and

decision to change companies and join a much larger organization for greater opportunities for growth. He stated, “They have tons of contracts and there’s other places

to go.”

After he changed companies, Derrick’s outlook on life did not change, but he

adjusted his outlook on work:

You need to know the grounds for success in advance. I always kind of did that in the background, but now it’s much more in the foreground. Now I spend a lot of time figuring out who am I dealing with before I start working with them on substantial issues that require trust.

For others approaching a similar situation, Derrick recommended focusing on the

whole environment to avoid unpredictable and chaotic situations. He said that everyone

should have a strong feeling of who they are working with before establishing a

relationship that requires trust. He now had a multidimensional view when considering

entering into a work engagement.

Combined textural and structural description. Derrick’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: self-awareness,

resilience, social intuition, sensitivity to context, and attention. Additionally, Derrick’s

destructive leadership experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the

basic emotional systems of Seek, Fear, and Grief. The overall essence of Derrick’s

destructive leadership experience was emotional spark.

Derrick was self-aware that curiosity is what fueled his drive in life. This ability

of self-awareness enabled him to navigate his own personal perceptions throughout his

destructive leadership experience. Derrick’s curiosity was also the foundation for his

105

Seek basic emotional system to find stability and opportunities wherever he could.

Derrick’s social intuition emotional style enabled him to pick up on the undesirable social cues of his destructive leader, which resulted in fear of losing his job and therefore the

ability to support his family. Derrick became self-suppressive to control his behaviors when he experienced a threat of loss, or Grief emotional system, but learned the ability to focus his attention on the bigger picture of the environment as a whole when faced with chaotic situations.

The overall essence of Derrick’s experience was his emotional spark. Derrick never lost sight of his unique ability and attitude to see things differently.

It was really validation that I wasn’t crazy and it goes back to knowing that I think a little differently and I don’t always necessarily fit in with the mainstream. I may approach things or see things a little differently.

Derrick never lost self confidence in his own internal thoughts and feelings.

Emotional spark involves honoring these important internal sensations that are more intense during adolescence but serve to create meaning and vitality throughout our lives

(Siegel, 2014a). Through these internally identified differences, Derrick found meaning and honored his vitality.

Diana

Participant overview. Diana had worked for more than 15 years, doing consultant work for various government agencies most of her career. Diana had had two destructive leadership experiences. One was brief, and the other lasted 8 years. The destructive leader had a habit of demeaning people:

Well, some examples from the destructive leadership that weren’t even at its peak were, I guess, demeaning people in public situations. We would have all-hands

106

meetings where about a hundred people would be there, and this particular leader would make little off-hand comments about someone; I don’t know if she thought she was making a joke, but it was embarrassing for the person that was the subject of this comment, but she didn’t seem to care. This happened on several occasions.

There was also a lack of communication that Diana perceived as harmful.

This leader had an ‘open-door policy’ which was just in name only. Her door would be open, but she had a physical screen in front of her desk so that people would walk by her office and not be able to look at her directly. Morale-wise, that sent a clear message that I have an open-door policy but I’m not enforcing it and don’t ever try to approach me. That was demoralizing.

As for her perspective on life, Diane described herself becoming more optimistic as she got older. She was more pessimistic when she was younger and had to face her

first negative leadership experience. The more she came to know the different sides of

people, the more mature and understanding she became. She enjoyed working and

preferred a positive atmosphere at the workplace. After surviving the negative leadership

experience, her work has made her happy.

Textural description. Diana had her first destructive leader experience while

working for the government. This was a defining moment in helping her to survive

because she learned how to process the stress of the experience with a destructive leader.

Going through a negative leadership experience then helped her become more detached

when the next experience came along.

Well, working where I had my first destructive leader experience, and I don’t know that it helped me survive the next one, but it definitely helped me to process the stress that’s involved with dealing with a destructive leader.

When the next experience came along, I was affected by it, but I wasn’t affected by it as negatively as I would have been had I not gone through a negative leadership experience prior to that.

107

Diana observed the destructive leader commenting on everyone at the workplace as she would walk around the office.

I remember this leader would also do walk-arounds in the office. And I guess it was her attempt to connect with the people, and she would make small talk, and the small talk was sort of a repeat of the all-hands situations, but instead of embarrassing you in front of the entire organization, it was just embarrassing you in front of maybe the person who sat next to you, who was within ear-shot.

During all that time, she felt she had to control her behavior and emotions. Diana responded to the demeaning comments from the leader about her angry facial expressions by feeling too self-conscious to say anything. “Well, I’m an introvert and I’m quiet anyways, so that was easy for me to not say anything.” The environment affected her physically because she tended to stress eat and she put on weight.

Diana felt that going through that kind of negative experience made her stronger.

This negative experience changed her perspective and made her realize what was important in life.

In positions where I had negative leadership experiences, I dreaded going to work and I got burnt out really, really fast. So it was just exhausting mentally and physically. But now I like going to work, I like meeting new people, I like new challenges. So I’m satisfied with my work now, and it makes me happy.

Diana felt that her destructive leadership experience changed her by teaching her how to be patient.

I feel like it’s made me more patient because it was so drawn out for years. It would have been easier, I guess, to be impatient and just quit and to escape from it, but I stayed and got through it.

Structural description. Diana survived her destructive leadership situation because of her past experiences and lessons learned with destructive leadership encounters. She could recover the second time around as a direct result of her ability to

108

process what she was experiencing, which helped make her stronger in dealing with the

new destructive leadership experience. “I think going through that kind of negative

experience with all the stress, just getting to do it makes you stronger.”

Diana was able to survive by reflecting on her past experiences and relying on her

internal thoughts to navigate her way to handling her emotions successfully. “Then in the

future it makes stress easier to handle.”

The destructive leader had the bad habit of demeaning people both in public and

in one-on-one interactions. Diana wasn’t always able to pick up on the negativity in the

beginning, but over time it was clear.

In the beginning, the negativity didn’t always filter down to me, so I wasn’t aware of how bad it was. And then I guess towards the 2010 timeframe, some major changes started going into effect that made that negativity filter down to everyone in the organization. So, it was really evident to me how negative that leader was.

Diana began to dread going to work. Her solution was to avoid her leader in their work environment as much as she could. Diana and her colleagues would intentionally hide, remain silent, and alert each other when the destructive leader was heading in their direction. She would move to another area in the office and try not to attract the leader’s attention.

My main way to deal with it was just to try to avoid her. I didn’t have meetings with her in general so I could easily avoid her if I wanted to, and there were a lot of other people that wanted to avoid her, too. So people would say: Hey, she’s in the area, then we would give each other a heads-up, and we would just either move to another area or be quiet so as not to draw or attract her attention to our area.

Diana’s physical health suffered as a result of the stress she endured. Diana

recognized that because of the increased workload, she became more stressed and tired;

without proper rest and nutrition, she gained weight that impacted her overall health.

109

When a lot of the changes were going on, it caused a lot of extra work on other people. Working later, you’re tired and stressed out. Work-life balance gets thrown off, so you don’t have time to rest as much as you need to or get exercise the way you need to, so there was that negative impact physically to me as well.

The experience with the destructive leader changed her outlook to a great extent.

It taught her patience, which helped her get through it. She felt more courageous once she

got through this negative experience and was able to sustain positivity and happiness at

work.

I think the experience resulted in a change in my outlook because it made me realize that you’ve got to look out for yourself and that life’s too short to be that miserable. Right now, I enjoy working. I have not always enjoyed working.

Diana acquired the ability to stay calm when faced with challenging situations.

She learned how to harness her emotions and to focus only on the patience needed to get

over her challenges. “I feel like I learned that there are some bumps in the road, and that I

don’t have to try to run from them. I can be patient and get through it.”

Combined textural and structural description. Diana’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: resilience, self-

awareness, social intuition, sensitivity to context, outlook, and attention. Additionally,

Diana’s destructive leadership experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience

state of the basic emotional systems of Fear and Play. The overall essence of Diana’s

destructive leadership experience was creative exploration.

Diana’s self-awareness to identify what she was experiencing, and to process the feelings endured during her destructive leadership experience, became the anchor for her resilience in overcoming the destructive leadership experience. Diana’s basic foundational emotional system was Fear due to the threat of facing further destruction

110

and humiliation in front of her peers. Diana relied on her social intuition to observe the

behaviors of her leader. This triggered her sensitivity to context to provide the stability

she needed to control her own emotional reactions. Diana was grounded in her positive outlook and was able to focus her attention on settling into the basic emotional Play system to find joy in her job and social happiness.

The overall essence of Diana’s experience was creative exploration. Diana went through a tumultuous destructive leadership experience and was able to learn from that experience to gain clarity. Diana was able to expand her consciousness and develop a

new perception of good versus bad organization and good versus bad leadership.

I’m happy with my current organization. I feel like there are a lot of areas where things can be improved, but that is in no way a bad organization. I am not in a bad spot because I feel like I’ve experienced as bad as an organization can be and the organization I’m in, I feel like is pretty good. Head and shoulders above what that experience was, so I feel like I’m much more appreciative of the good aspects of where I am now, just having gone through such bad experiences previously.

Fred

Participant overview. Fred had been a consultant for more than 28 years and survived a destructive leadership experience that lasted for 5 years. His direct supervisor exhibited demeaning behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal.

Fred’s view of life and the workplace were similar, in that he believed that “you have to be dedicated, whether it’s family or work or whatever.” He described himself as workaholic but was also dedicated to his family:

There was a point that I did spend too much time at work, but there were goals involved and there was a reason for that. Were they good enough? Probably not, but at the same time I continued to be that person that if something needs to be done at work, I will do it, which is kind of the way I am.

111

He got along well with others at work and had developed his own philosophy for how to treat people at work.

There are definitively people that do not probably like me and the way I manage, but as a general rule I have, for many, many years, had people want to work under me because I try to treat people with respect regardless, whether they’ve done outstandingly or poorly, try to respect them and give them reason to not dread coming into work.

All in all, he always enjoyed working.

Textural description. Fred was prepared to survive a destructive leader experience because of what he had learned through years of experience through a variety of people around him. A multitude of circumstances had influenced Fred and his career path. He affirmed that he had learned how to navigate good and bad experiences with individuals.

Throughout Fred’s employment under the destructive leader, he was very aware of the volatile environment he was in, having witnessed many examples of both verbal and nonverbal abuse towards coworkers. He felt that his destructive leader was controlling and overbearing in many situations. He described the whole experience as abusive, but was unable to react outwardly and instead had to control his emotions.

I’ve literally seen the man kick holes in walls at his plant. He has cussed and tore people down. I’ve seen him throw stuff. It was progressive and it was as if the more you began to know, or the more you began to do, the more he was controlling and abusive. Not just directly towards me. It was directed at the entire facility and very, very hard to deal with.

Fred endured this destructive leadership atmosphere for quite a long time, but slowly grew the courage to respond by confronting his leader about the treatment of his employees. Fred’s leader justified his treatment of people as seeing them more as objects than as human beings.

112

He says: “I don’t see the employees here as people; I see these people as a means to an end, and when they mess up, the end of it gets messed up. So, I treat them as equipment, you know, hit it with a hammer”—and that’s just how he processed things. So, it’s weird.

Fred gathered the courage to face his fear of losing his job in order to have an in- depth discussion with the leader to explain the destructive behaviors he had observed and how it was impacting the business, the staff, and the clients in an effort to bring awareness and change the environment. Fred took a risk and became vulnerable to the possibility of being let go that day, but he wanted to be clear with his leader as to why he

would be leaving. Fred was stunned that his leader listened, that he was aware of his behaviors and that he did not know how to stop it.

We sat down and talked for about 2½ hours. It ended nothing like I thought it would. I thought that was my last day. He knew what his problems were; he just didn’t know how to fix it. He really, truly knew that his management style was wrong, but he had nowhere else to go. I mean, he literally told me: I know I’m a bad manager.

This experience changed Fred’s outlook. Fred no longer saw his leader through a hopeless lens and instead changed his view of people who appear to be angry and mean on the surface.

I’ve learned that even the people that have rage issues, anger issues, that there’s more to them than just they’re mean. Since that point, it’s become a productive business relationship, not just for myself but for the majority of people there.

Structural description. Fred credited all the people he has worked with for giving him tools and strategies. He had learned from his numerous social interactions and work ethic how to understand human connections, how to distinguish between different social signals and cues to evolve his social intuition, and how to manage different situations.

113

Realistically, to a certain extent, [I’ve learned from] everybody. I’ve had people that I get along with great; I’ve had people that I don’t particularly care for, that do a good job. I’ve had fill-in people that they just want to work their 8 hours and go home. I mean, all of those people affect how I’ve learned how to manage people, what exactly you have to do to deal with somebody that is so controlling and overbearing.

Fred witnessed a number of verbal and nonverbal destructive leadership behaviors over the years. He described how he learned to control his emotions over time by taking into account who the individual was and that the behaviors were general rather than directed at any one individual. Through his sensitivity to context, Fred was able to discern the boundaries of the situation and respond by not speaking up about it until much later in his career, in order to adapt to the circumstances.

Because it’s not directed directly at you, and he very seldomly did that, where it was just a belligerent cussing of you. It was more general with him. It just pisses you off, and you bite your tongue and you go on.

Fred’s emotions built up over time until one day he decided to have a conversation with the destructive leader.

I explained to him that the way you treat people is just simply wrong. You cannot berate people, you cannot cuss and tear people down and expect them to respect you and then they do a good job.

If faced with the same experience, Fred would have approached the leader much sooner:

I would have done it earlier because his management style was consistent at, within a year to me being there, I saw it trending, and I’d heard about it in the past and hadn’t really experienced it until after that first year, but I saw it. I saw it grow and I saw it consistently go on.

114

For someone in the same situation, he would recommend trying to separate emotion from his decision-making process. He would recommend basing decisions on fact, rather than emotion.

The reaction from the destructive leader to this confrontation changed Fred because he realized the complexity of individuals—that their behavior is not just related to egotism or another single quality.

That particular event definitely changed me because in my mind, anybody that self-absorbed, and thought they were that intelligent, that they could run everything and everything had to go through them, could ever concede that, “No, I have flaws and we need to do something else” surprised me. I did not expect that. I thought I had him figured out and saw him as only a narcissist who was going to react in a specific way. But, no, I was wrong.

He did not expect people to be perfect anymore. He accepted that people could have a bad day and there was a reason for them acting like that. Therefore, his perspective on life changed to a great extent because of this experience with a destructive leader.

Combined textural and structural description. Fred’s destructive leadership experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: social intuition, sensitivity to context, resilience, self-awareness, and outlook. Additionally, Fred’s destructive leadership experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the basic emotional systems of Seek, Rage, Fear, and Care. The overall essence of Fred’s destructive leadership experience was social engagement.

Fred’s basic emotional system throughout his destructive leadership experience was overloaded with Fear. Fred relied on his social intuition to observe the behaviors of destruction and mistreatment around him. Fred’s sensitivity to context emotional style channeled the volatile environment he and his colleagues were in. Over time, through his

115

Rage emotional system, he was able to tap into the frustration and anger to gain the courage and resilience to confront his leader. Fred had a deep Care emotional system for his colleagues and was self-aware of the vulnerabilities associated with such a monumental feat, but through his Seek basic emotional system, he was able to effect change for him and his colleagues.

The overall essence of Fred’s experience was social engagement. Fred felt a connection to and understanding of his peers. The colleagues that he worked with had endured the same destructive leadership behaviors. It reached a point that Fred decided to stand up to his destructive leader and speak to him about the behaviors because he believed it was in the best interest of his colleagues and the company as a whole.

I didn’t go in there to talk to him based on emotion. I had thought it through and there was a list of things that I knew I had to tell him even if my job was over, for the betterment of the company and maybe for the personnel that did have to stay there, because they had to have their jobs.

Ginny

Participant overview. Ginny had been working for more than 30 years; her background was in education, and she had been a teacher, a lecturer, and a speech therapist over the course of her career. She was retired at the time of the interview. Her experience with a destructive leader, her direct supervisor, lasted 7 years. This individual made use of her authority to diminish Ginny’s self-esteem. Ginny believed the leader had both a control issue and an inferiority problem:

I think that this person had a control issue. I think that this person had an inferiority issue because, in a lot of ways, she knew that I could do it, and she was afraid of that because when she had done it, it might not have been as good as when I would do it.

116

Ginny characterized herself as having “an optimistic outlook on life. I feel

hopeful and generally upbeat.” This specific occurrence did not change her outlook on life. That positivity extended to work: “Most of the jobs that I’ve had, I’ve enjoyed.”

Textural description. Ginny was prepared to survive a destructive leader experience because of the environment she grew up in: “I think growing up in the environment that I grew up in helped me to be a little bit insulated maybe to those kinds

of people that this leader was.”

Ginny was also able to get through this period in her life thanks to the other

people in the organization who had the same experiences. She received validation and

encouragement from her colleagues, commenting, “I would get encouragement from

someone that they appreciated what I was doing.”

Ginny commented on the leader’s negative nonverbal communication: “Her body

language and all that sort of thing, when we would have meetings, there was always that

undercurrent that didn’t have to have words.” She felt that the situation created a lot of

tension in the workplace and that all she could do was to back away and not say or do

anything at all.

During the destructive leadership experience, Ginny began feeling like she was

experiencing a burnout. She refused to take on further responsibilities. She was on the

verge of losing her self-confidence and focus.

The leader made it very plain and very pointed that she never felt I was capable of doing my responsibilities, and she would reinforce that by taking them away from me and doing it herself, and then beyond that, telling everyone that she had to do it.

117

Ginny was not sure if the experience impacted her physically; however, she was sure it changed her emotionally. Ginny longed for the day when she could put her destructive leader behind her.

Structural description. Ginny credited her upbringing with giving her the structure she needed to be resilient, remain positive, and have no long-term effects from the experience. The environment in which she was raised shielded her and allowed her to recover back to a state of normality after a while. In the end, Ginny decided that it was the leader who was the odd one and not her. Ginny’s optimism helped her survive this negative experience.

My optimistic view helped me survive the negative experience. I tried to put it in perspective—difficult, but I did try to do that. Over time, I realized that it was her problem that she was treating everyone like that. I began to see it that way, and that it wasn’t anything that had to do with me.

Ginny also took into account how her work was perceived by her peers. Ginny’s colleagues gave her appreciation and praise for a job well done, while her leader did the opposite. This social interaction with her coworkers helped Ginny connect to the world around her and validate her own perception of her work through the eyes of those around her.

There were other people in the organization who had experienced the same and they were in the same situation; she wasn’t necessarily directly over them but she had influence over them. So it meant a lot to me when I would get encouragement from someone else that I was doing the job correctly.

Ginny’s perception of the destructive leader’s negative undertone of nonverbal cues played a role in her day-to-day functioning. Ginny detected the hidden messages and translated them to be undercutting and harmful to her.

118

Ginny felt a great deal of emotional sensitivity when she was in the destructive leader environment. She had to control her own behaviors and regulate her emotions whenever she interacted with the destructive leader. She did so by keeping herself together around her destructive leader and then going someplace private to break down when her emotional state became more than she could control. “There was more than one time when I just broke down because it was just too hard. I broke down a couple of times.”

Ginny experienced emotional changes that made her doubt herself and greatly impacted her self-esteem and motivation. These feelings interfered with her ability to get things accomplished.

It stayed with me; I felt like what I was experiencing was something that people call burnout. I felt no longer willing to take on responsibilities. I felt like that anything that I took on was way bigger than it was. Just a simple thing, if someone wanted me to write a paper or somebody wanted me to do whatever, it was too big. I felt that I couldn’t do it. I was afraid to do it.

During the time of her destructive leadership experience, Ginny changed emotionally. She fantasized about the day that she would be out of the situation, and this is what allowed her to function and react appropriately on the surface. “I knew that the amount of time that I was going to be in that situation had an end, and I often fantasized about when this is all over, I’ll be so glad.”

Combined textural and structural description. Ginny’s destructive leadership experience was characterized by the core emotional styles of resilience, sensitivity to context, social intuition, and attention. Additionally, her experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the basic emotional systems of Grief and Fear. The overall essence of Ginny’s destructive leadership experience was creative exploration.

119

Ginny’s strategy for surviving her destructive leadership experience was her

resilient emotional style. Ginny was seasoned in her sensitivity to context and therefore

able to persevere, having already lived through destructive environments. Ginny’s basic

emotional system of Fear stemmed from social loss of trusted relationships with

colleagues at the hands of her destructive leader. The anxiety that surfaced from the Fear

system, combined with her social intuition emotional style and the exposure to

destructive nonverbal communications from her leader, eventually signaled tension

between her and her peers. Ginny’s attention emotional style reflected on the Grief and

loss of self-confidence, as well as focus. Her sensitivity to context identified signs that

she had changed emotionally because of her destructive leadership experience.

The overall essence of Ginny’s experience was creative exploration. Ginny evolved through her destructive leadership experience to learn to apply conceptual thinking and abstract reasoning to new situations. Ginny had grown, in that now she would challenge a perceived destructive leadership experience rather than allow it to continue.

I don’t say yes quite as quickly. I back off and take a look at it first before I said yes. I wouldn’t take it, I would just go ahead and say this is not worth it. I would walk out of the position or at least let them know that I don’t appreciate that kind of treatment.

Helen

Participant overview. Helen, who had had more than 27 years of experience as a project manager, survived a 7-year destructive leadership experience. She commented that her leader “was a challenging person to work for because he seemed to be self- destructive and yet destructive at the same time. We all suffered from one or the other or both.”

120

Helen was aware of the negative things happening in life, but had made conscious efforts over the years to be more optimistic.

I am optimistic now. I’m what you’d call a reformed pessimist. I probably spent the first 35 years of my life pretty positive that every time you looked around a corner, there was a disaster waiting to happen. I made a conscious effort to change that attitude about 20 years ago. Now, I am aware of the negative things that can happen in life but I try to be optimistic for the most part. If I think that way, generally my optimism pays off. I am not looking at the bad situations that I was once afraid of; I’m now looking at an okay situation I can deal with.

Overall, Helen enjoyed working and had always done her job, even if there were moments when she did not enjoy it that much.

Textural description. Helen described how the destructive leader affected her work, noting that he did not have much understanding of the customer relationship activities that she was responsible for. As a consequence, the leader alienated a lot of customers.

He had a tendency to make the customer that we would be dealing with angry because he was very arrogant. When my colleagues and I went to talk to the customer, they already had a bad opinion of us when we walked in the door because of his behaviors, so we had to spend a lot of time doing repair work because he had alienated our customers.

Her coworkers also had a bad opinion of him. She noted:

My coworkers and I would say, “I’ll have to wear my armor if I want to go to the next meeting because he’s made the customer so angry that they will crucify me while I’m at the table.”

Helen noted that one experience that had helped occurred in the first shipyard she had worked in, where a great manager “was able to insulate me from some of the shenanigans that were going on.” The company had “a lot of destructive leaders,” so she

121

was able to observe from a distance the impact of destructive leaders on those they manage.

Helen also survived because of the close bond and friendship she developed with a colleague at work. Her colleague reported to the same person and also suffered from destructive leadership.

I was fortunate when I went to work there that a woman that I worked quite closely with, we hit it off. We became best friends and she helped me a lot. She suffered under our manager’s behavior too. She helped me when there were things that I needed help with, and I would help her when there were things that she needed help with.

Having a friend she could talk to and confide in at the workplace gave her the strength and foundation she needed to adapt and recover during difficult times.

The experience with the destructive leader did not affect Helen from a physical perspective, but it did affect her from an emotional perspective, because “I always had to control my emotions.” Helen perceived the environment as very tense and activity as very tiring.

At times, Helen would force herself to sit and listen to her destructive leader give his unsolicited opinion. She would hide how his thoughts and actions made her feel.

I had to be very unemotional. I felt like I had to listen to some of his rants and raves when I really didn’t have much interest in it. When he would talk about some of these things, it just seemed to me that he had a knack for making a bad situation worse, because he didn’t seem to have the social skills needed, or the political skills, to keep from doing or saying the wrong thing.

As a result of this experience, Helen said she could no longer tolerate bad behavior from a leader. She had also matured and grown confident in her own professional skills and abilities.

122

I’ll tell you what it did, it made me shorter-tempered. I will not tolerate ever again having a boss like that for any length of time, any longer than it takes me to get out of it. I was able to learn from seeing how the destructive leadership was affecting other people. I’m not as tolerant of bad behavior from management as I was before, and I’m much more confident now in my own leadership skills.

Structural description. Helen had an advantage of being shielded by a good manager earlier in her career when she was in an otherwise destructive environment. She was able to learn early on through the emotional cues and the eyes of others just how difficult a destructive leader can be in an organization. Witnessing the destructive leadership treatment that others endured allowed Helen to gain clarity on what was happening in an indirect way. Helen was able to learn to harness her emotions and remain focused so that she could be fully immersed in her work, even in a toxic environment. “I could see how it was affecting other people. That shipyard was full of toxicity.”

Helen’s survival also hinged on her ability to lean on her coworker so the two could cope with the stress of the destructive leader together. They built a friendship that provided a foundation for well-being. This level of support gave Helen the energy to be resilient, adapt, and recover. It also gave her feelings of belonging in the group.

There was nothing he did differently in how he treated my friend. He didn’t treat me any better or worse than he treated anybody else, so I didn’t feel singled out. That helped; I mean, if you’re persecuted and everybody else around you are treated well, that would have made me feel like there was something bad or wrong with me. So I never thought that way.

Helen felt that she had to control her emotions around her destructive leader. She

also felt that she had to control her behavior when interacting with him. She became very

unemotional when dealing with this leader. Her sensitivity to context and ability to

regulate her emotions were a necessity as a result of her self-perceptions of inadequacy

and despair during that time period.

123

It made for a very tense environment. I always felt like I had a target painted on my back. I could get the customer to work with me, but then what I was doing was never good enough, never technical enough. Work was tense and I needed this job. It was always a sense of denigration of my work experience, which was considerably more work experience than my destructive leader had, so there was a lot of tension.

This specific destructive leadership occurrence changed Helen’s outlook on life.

She would not tolerate having a boss who was destructive anymore. Now she was less patient and less tolerant of destructive leadership behaviors: “I’m not as patient as I was in that respect now. I tolerated behavior from him that I would not ever tolerate from anybody else again. So, that was the result of all of it.”

Helen evolved through this experience. It motivated her to change careers.

Certainly, it was hard, but in a strange way it encouraged me to look for another career, go back to school again, and it encouraged me to get out of that line of work and helped me to realize that I don’t need another destructive leader like that one.

Helen recognized that what she went through was difficult, but she saw it as a

positive experience overall because of what it propelled her to do with her future. Helen

decided to seek further education and a career change.

Combined textural and structural description. Helen’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: attention, resilience,

sensitivity to context, and outlook. Additionally, her destructive leadership experience led

to an overarching affective neuroscience state of three basic emotional systems: Seek,

Grief, and Fear. The overall essence of Helen’s destructive leadership experience was

creative exploration.

Helen’s past experiences allowed her to observe and exercise attention to

destructive leadership behaviors. Her resilience was formed through a Seek emotional

124

system to create trusting bonds with colleagues that allowed her to vent her frustrations

and grow to become more confident and less tolerant of a destructive leader. “It made me shorter-tempered in this respect—I will not tolerate ever again having a boss like that for any length of time, any longer than it takes me to get out of it.” Helen’s destructive

leadership experiences affected her emotionally; however, due to her sensitivity to

context, she was able to control her emotions and sort through the sadness in her Grief emotional system, as well as the panic system. It was through her Fear emotional system that she harnessed the perceived threats and resulting anxieties. Helen was able to ultimately evolve her outlook towards a brighter future.

The overall essence of Helen’s experience was creative exploration. Helen

transformed the negative impacts of her destructive leadership experience through the

power of energy flow regulation. Helen discovered in her unhappiness the strength to

explore the spectrum of opportunities in her life. She said, “I tolerated behavior from him

that I would not ever tolerate from anybody else again.” She sought to find a new path in

her formal education, a new career, and a new tolerance level.

Jackie

Participant overview. Jackie had over 13 years of experience in government

procurement and had survived a 1-year destructive leadership experience. The experience

involved a leader who was verbally abusive to Jackie and her colleagues.

For example, he came over with a heavy binder in his hands and actually slammed the binder down on my coworker’s desk and started screaming at her. He said, “How dare you give me this piece of shit?” in front of everyone.

Jackie focused on work; she was dedicated and did not have a private life:

125

My general view on life and my general view on the workplace are probably more similar than they are different. I have always been a live-to-work, not a work-to- live person. I think what I have done in my career in many ways defines who I am or who I see myself as, so sometimes there’s a bleed over between both as far as how I view them.

Textural description. Jackie described how the destructive leader would assign insurmountable tasks with unrealistic timeframes. She believed she had no choice but to do the task within the completed timeframe as requested. Only when she tried but couldn’t do it would he acknowledge that he knew it was impossible all along.

He said, “I just wanted to see how far I could push you ’til you broke. I knew you weren’t going to get that accomplished. It’s not physically possible, but I had a really nice time watching you kill yourself trying to get it done.”

Jackie experienced very painful moments. The leader would humiliate Jackie in front of her peers. For an upcoming holiday, Jackie mentioned she would stay to work through the holiday since she was not traveling.

Because he knew I was single without a spouse or children, he made a point of saying to me, in front of everybody, “Oh, that’s right. You’re not going anywhere for Thanksgiving. Do you even have anywhere to go?”

Jackie survived her destructive leader experience with the support of her mother, a friend, and a mentor who helped her sort through her emotions.

The support mechanism that helped me survive, I would say, was primarily my mother. I’m an only child, and so she is somebody that I depend on. I would come home from work and talk about different things with her. She was someone that I could offload or vent to. Others who helped me survive is one of my friends and another was a past boss and mentor.

Jackie was able to share her experiences, gauge her own reality, gather their input, and explore options for managing the situation.

These are all women that I was able to reach back to and say, “Am I crazy? Is this appropriate behavior? What should I do? How should I handle it? Do I go to EEO 126

[Equal Employment Opportunity]? What are my avenues? What are my mechanisms?”

Jackie believed that her experience playing competitive sports growing up had made her competitive by nature and that her competitiveness contributed to her being strong enough to survive her destructive leader and overcome this experience.

I did a lot of competitions when I was younger. I was in gymnastics and horseback riding. They can be very blood-thirsty sports in terms of the competition, the judges, and the coaches, who . . . can be very, very harsh.

The whole experience affected Jackie emotionally as well as physically. Jackie became ill with migraines and swine flu, illnesses she might have been able to avoid had her immune system not been compromised from the stress.

Physically I got sick on more than one occasion; migraines, of course the swine flu. Obviously, I picked up a germ or virus somewhere, but I think my immune system was so beat down at that point.

Jackie also suffered emotionally. She was subject to major mood swings in addition to emotional outbursts and developed anxiety. She could not control her emotions in relation to the destructive leader: “I was so pushed over the edge I couldn’t control the emotions.”

Jackie realized very quickly that she needed to get herself out of the destructive leadership environment. Her initial response was to find a new job:

I was there for exactly 365 days and I actually tried to find a new job within 3 months of working there. So, it gives you some idea of how quickly I realized this was not a good position or a good experience.

This destructive leader event changed Jackie’s outlook to a great extent. She now considered herself stronger, wiser, and more resolute.

127

I would probably just say, at least I know I can get through it and I don’t think you really know what you’re capable of, made of, what you can tolerate or survive unless you go through it. So, I would say from that perspective, I’m probably a lot stronger, I’m a lot wiser, and I know to actively cut it off earlier.

Moreover, this negative experience helped her manage this type of relationship without losing her temper. She had become more confident and felt good about herself in

the workplace.

Structural description. Jackie looked to trusted individuals to help her make sense of what was happening in her environment, to vent her frustrations, and to ultimately regulate the rollercoaster of emotions she endured:

Relying on my mom and friends is how I survived because I really solicited their advice about what I should do and what kind of complaints I should make. So, I would say primarily those two women, and my mother, were key to survival.

Due to Jackie’s upbringing, she was conditioned early in life to remain focused.

Jackie had an innate ability to remain attentive and sharp. She described herself on multiple occasions as a fighter, and she faced the situation with a courageous attitude.

I’m a fighter by nature, so I was not one to sort of roll over when these things are being said or these actions were happening. When I was growing up, the judges and coaches were hard on me in competitive sports, so I was used to somebody really kind of pounding on me, which I think helped me survive it to an extent.

Nevertheless, Jackie’s destructive leadership experience was very traumatizing for her. Jackie spoke of both short-term and long-term physical and emotional reactions in response to what she went through for the year. Her interactions with her destructive leader led her to recognize and connect on deep emotional levels with how her experience made her feel. Her own reaction to how she felt involved uncontrolled emotions, outbursts, and anxiety. On a physical level, it manifested in stress-related illnesses.

128

I was so traumatized by this experience. It definitely affected me emotionally and physically. Emotionally I was subject to major mood swings and emotional outbursts. I certainly had lots of anxiety. I felt like I needed to control my emotions. The only time I was finally able to get myself under control was when I just put up a wall and then his stuff didn’t affect me as badly. Otherwise, I would get in the car and just be crying hysterically for the commute home.

Jackie strove to get out of the position she was in and to find a new job as quickly

as possible. She discovered very early into her new role that this was a destructive leadership environment and that it would be unhealthy for her to stay. Jackie’s strong human emotional system allowed her to respond positivity to her traumatic experience by resolving to leave and start fresh just as quickly as she could. The destructive leader experience drove her to leave the important position she held; by leaving, she regained

her self-confidence and was able to bounce back to a previous normal state of calm emotions and behaviors. Jackie’s ability to recover quickly was likely attributed to not subjecting herself to the destructive leadership for a very long period.

It was probably one of the most painful experiences I’ve ever been involved in. As soon as I found a new job and gave my notice, everyone noticed a radical turnaround in my behavior and they made several comments on it because I was much calmer, I was much more controlled.

Jackie was now able to sustain a positive outlook and emotions. Her experience

with destructive leadership reshaped her self-confidence, how she was viewed by her

leadership and her peers, as well as how she viewed herself and accepted herself.

Yes, the destructive leadership changed my outlook. Yeah, absolutely, no question about it. I mean, I think I’m much better at handling those type of people without losing my cool now—not to say that I would never lose my cool, because, as I said, I’m still a fighter by nature—but I know some different techniques now of how to say: You know, we’re not going there; we’re not playing this game. I’ve learned how to document things to make sure that I have a paper trail.

129

Jackie had learned different methods to approach and process a destructive leadership situation.

Combined textural and structural description. Jackie’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: sensitivity to context,

attention, resilience, and outlook. Additionally, her destructive leadership experience led

to an overarching affective neuroscience state of three basic emotional systems: Seek,

Rage, and Fear. The overall essence of Jackie’s destructive leadership experience

included novelty and creative exploration.

Jackie was able to survive her destructive leadership experience thanks to the support of many women in her life. Jackie had a strong desire from the onset of her experience to find a way out of her negative experience. Confiding her true feelings to

her close friends and family afforded her the opportunity to tap into her sensitivity to

context emotional style to control and regulate those emotions when in the company of

the destructive leader. Jackie turned the basic Fear emotional system inside out by using

her competitive nature to home in and focus her attention on the end goal of finding a

new path. At times, she experienced intense levels of emotional and physical fatigue from her destructive leadership experiences and was unable to harness the sensitivity to context to control how she felt and instead internalized the negative feelings to the point that they disrupted her immune system and led to viruses and illnesses. In retrospect, Jackie viewed the entire situation as a learning experience that changed her professional outlook for the better.

130

The overall essence of Jackie’s experience was novelty and creative exploration.

Jackie’s novelty-seeking essence took the risk of leaving the position at the 1-year anniversary and the courage to find what she perceived as a safer situation.

I would say I’m probably a lot stronger, I’m a lot wiser, and I know to actively cut off a destructive leadership experience earlier. I know there’s no sense living like that for day after day after day, both personally and professionally. I’m not playing with people who are going to make me feel bad about myself, who are going to constantly be on my back or constantly demand something that’s unrealistic or puts me in a situation where I am killing myself to accomplish it. I don’t need that. I’m better than that, I have more options than that, and you know enough is enough. I’m a lot more focused on doing what’s healthy for me.

Jackie transformed herself, her way of thinking, and her way of being through creativity and discovery of a new meaning for her life.

Melissa

Participant overview. Melissa has more than 10 years of experience working as a volunteer, a consultant, and a director of training. She had survived a 2.5-year destructive leadership experience that involved interactions Melissa perceived as harmful.

At that time, she felt unsupported, scared, alarmed, insulted, and discouraged. She tried hard not to get upset, to not react emotionally, and to stick to the facts and numbers.

Everything was very frustrating and discouraging.

Melissa considered herself an optimistic person and a collaborator in both the workplace and in life.

I’m an optimistic person. I don’t really see a difference between life and the workplace. I’m going to engage with people in the workplace the same way I’m going to in my personal life. I think I’m a very authentic person. I believe in transparency and I believe life is about bringing people together for interpersonal connection.

131

Textural description. While volunteering in a laboratory during graduate school,

Melissa befriended a professor who gave her sage advice that Melissa believed would later help her survive a destructive leadership experience. According to Melissa, the professor saw intelligence and strong work products as a potential threat to her in future professional social interactions.

She had assigned me a bunch of responsibilities and projects that were going very well. After she warned me that people would come to resent me and my success, there was apparently at least one graduate student who is upset that I was being given these responsibilities and she felt slighted. So receiving that feedback helped me somewhat to monitor her. I made sure that, as much as I can try to recognize those kinds of frustrations will come up for other people, I try not to get in direct competition with other people and recognize that that’s going to happen.

Recognizing that she might face a situation where a colleague resented her gave Melissa the insight that she needed to polish her social intuition so she would know what to look for.

Melissa’s destructive leadership experience was very complex. Melissa felt she had the education, years of experience, compassion, and deep connection with her role as a trainer for a crisis center. Her destructive leadership experience involved getting a leader who lacked the qualities Melissa felt she had that were needed for a leadership role at the crisis center. Melissa felt that the leader would not listen to her recommendations and she was not taken seriously. Melissa was very self-aware of how her destructive leader experience made her feel: “I felt unsupported.”

Melissa’s leader would also often assign her work that was not aligned with mission goals or her role. When Melissa would ask her for help in understanding how the extra work related to the mission or for help in prioritizing the scheduled workload, the

132

leader did not like this and would not explain or help prioritize. Melissa made a conscious effort to regulate her emotions in those moments.

My weekly goal going to the weekly meeting was to not get upset, to not emotionally react, to stick to the facts and numbers. This made me feel scared at times, alarmed, insulted, discouraged.

A year after the situation had ended, Melissa still had not recovered from her destructive leader experience. Melissa had worked to bounce back and had made progress, but she felt she was not back to where she was before her destructive leader experience. Her ability to bounce back from adversity had changed, in that she was now taking much longer to cope with adversity than she had before.

It has taken much longer than I would have liked. I had been able to build some of it back, in that I’m enrolled in a graduate student program, I completed a semester, I’ve done very well, it’s clear that this is what I’m good at doing, I’m in the right place.

Although this negative experience did not change her outlook on life, her life was very difficult and her health and marriage had been affected. She would not relive this experience again, but fundamentally, she remained the same person.

Structural description. The person who prepared her to survive the destructive leader experience was her undergraduate professor, who assigned her responsibilities and projects that were going very well at that time. The professor said that she may be faced with jealousy from colleagues competing with her for the same roles and/or responsibilities, without Melissa knowing they were competing.

My professor said I’m a very intelligent, professional person and that I will find I will grow quickly in positions, and that as a result other people around me will resent that.

133

Melissa used this feedback to become socially intuitive to the cues and signals from her work peers and leaders.

When Melissa would make recommendations for improvements, based on her experience and education, her leader would not listen to her suggestions or take them to heart. She recognized that her stress and dissatisfaction with her destructive leader were impacting her physically and emotionally. She was in a very stressful role that she could not deal with very well and became tired of everything. She noted, “I would say that my experience going through this has completely undermined my self-confidence.”

When Melissa would encounter destructive leadership in her weekly meetings, she would utilize her social context to control her behavior and emotions while interacting with the leader. Melissa’s sensitivity impacted her social interactions with her leader and kept her from seeking clarity on assignments so that she would not become overwhelmed with emotion.

Staying very professional, trying to professionally oppose things that really didn’t make sense and only using factual data. My goal was to not get assigned more work that was distracting from my main work, and not tell her too much detail about what I was doing because she had a tendency to micromanage. I almost felt like she, I don’t know if it was intentional or unintentional, but she would sabotage my productivity.

Melissa’s resilience and ability to recover quickly from adversity changed after the experience. Melissa was still in the process of healing and had not completely bounced back to where she was before the destructive leader experience occurred, although she was working on it.

I have pursued mental health treatment and care since that time. I see [sigh] there are several things I am aware of; one thing I’ve learned this past year is that I fall into a category of people who are called highly sensitive people.

134

Combined textural and structural description. Melissa’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: social intuition, self-

awareness, sensitivity to context, and resilience. Additionally, her destructive leadership

experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the basic emotional

systems of Fear, Grief, and Seek. The overall essence of Melissa’s destructive leadership

experience was emotional spark.

Melissa’s social intuition and ability to pick up on the social cues and intentions

of her destructive leader provided some level of survivability, although Melissa still struggled and had not completely healed from her destructive leadership experience.

Melissa still endured a basic emotional system of Fear from the never-ending threats she suffered. She continues to live with the emotional system of Grief, commenting, “I would say that my experience going through this has completely undermined my self- confidence. I was completely demoralized.”

Melissa was self-aware of this past and continuing emotional distress. Melissa recognized that to control her sensitivity to context and regulate her emotions, she continued to need medical and professional help. This desire for help to get her life back to a state of normality was deeply rooted in her Seek basic emotional system.

The overall essence of Melissa’s experience was emotional spark. Melissa’s transformation was ongoing. She still experienced the downsides of moodiness and emotional storms; however, she was working to cope with the intensity of her feelings.

“This experience has not ended for me. I have to live with it and move on.” Melissa uses her flow of energy to continue to find meaning and vitality through her nonprofit work.

135

Bo

Participant overview. Bo had more than 14 years of experience working in a golf

course community, as a college ambassador, and in medical supply sales. Bo survived an

8-month destructive leadership experience that involved daily verbal abuse. “Literally

every day it got to the point where like he would just take me out back and just chew me

out for no reason.” From Bo’s perspective, he was being constantly berated. He had never had a supervisor he couldn’t get along with, except for this one.

Bo’s perspective on life and his general view on the workplace were rather similar. He described himself as “pretty optimistic even though my professional life is

very difficult, juggling two jobs and having to hustle.”

Textural description. What prepared Bo to survive a destructive leadership

experience were the examples he had with bosses from previous positions; one was a

positive role model who was working for free in his retirement to help the college cause,

and one micromanaged Bo’s every move. Bo’s wide spectrum of experiences gave him

the context to regulate his emotions.

I’ve had a boss that taught me to pretty much sink or swim, and I’ve had a boss that was literally over my back on every little thing that I was doing. Even if you’re doing it right, he’s highly stressed over everything. I’ve just learned to deal with both kinds. I try to figure out what the boss really wants of me and I try to excel at it and make him happy. I’m a pleaser.

Despite being a people pleaser, Bo could not find a way to please his destructive

leader or to get along with him.

That’s all I could think about, the whole time, was how can I please this guy. I spent most of my days trying to figure out how I’m going to please this guy, and I still couldn’t please this guy.

136

It was the boss who did not want to listen to his employees and who was belittling people, including Bo.

I want to be treated fairly, and I just didn’t feel like he was treating me fairly. I can’t handle someone belittling me. I don’t need you to cuss me. I don’t need you to scream at me.

Bo’s boss was always in a bad mood and showed a lot of anger and frustration.

He didn’t really care. He never asked, “How are you doing?” He didn’t care, really, how your day was. He would just come in and be in a really, really, really bad mood and would take out his frustration and anger over something that didn’t even have anything to do with me.

Bo felt that he needed to control his behavior and emotions when interacting with his boss:

I had to control my behavior and my emotions every day when interacting with him. He gave me anxiety, which I never had before. Every day when I pulled through those gates to come to work, I was just full of anxiety.

Because of the destructive leadership experience, Bo changed by becoming more discriminating than he had ever been. If he had a boss that he could not please, he would leave that position immediately. Bo felt much more protective of himself.

Now I’m a lot more guarded, I plan a little bit more, maybe ask certain questions to see how my boss responds or who I’m working for because I have been hurt. I mean, I got hurt and what happened really hurt me.

Bo concluded that people can learn from any situation that they’re in, whether good, bad, or destructive, but they have to accept others for who they are and not try to change them.

Structural description. Bo’s broad range of experiences with past leaders enabled him to learn how to regulate his emotions in any given situation. Bo was able to take the context into account and assess the situation he was in, whether it was a 137

meaningful leadership experience or a destructive leadership experience. This learned ability to control his emotions in any environment and react based on his perception of what was happening around him was a tool that he eventually utilized to get through his destructive leadership experience.

The positive leader in Bo’s past experience likely observed Bo as a young, impressionable, and self-conscious employee with a need to please other people. The leader influenced Bo by giving him the room to make mistakes, learn from the mistakes, and then apply the lessons when faced with later situations. This leader also provided materials and tools, such as literature, to help him expand his knowledge and build self- confidence and gave him a broader knowledge base. “It all goes back to the boss that let me sink or swim. He had me read two or three books about empowerment.”

Bo did not respond well to his boss constantly being in a bad mood and belittling or micromanaging him daily. Bo became an expert at picking up on his boss’s signals and the hidden messages his boss was sending him through his actions. “Having a boss that is overbearing, nit-picking, and micromanaging me is not what I want.”

Bo was keenly aware of his own feelings and emotions when faced with his destructive leadership experience. He grew to have anxiety heading into work every day because he never knew what kind of mood the destructive leader was going to be in or what the leader was going to do or say. Although Bo felt anxiety, he did not make his feelings and anxiety transparent to his boss and instead hid how he felt.

I had anxiety going to work. I would drive to work thinking: What’s this guy going to do today? What’s he going to say? What kind of mood’s he going to be in? And it was just so awful, it was awful.

138

Bo felt guarded now in the workplace. His attention and heightened awareness of

his environment allowed him to focus more on the type of leader he wanted to support

and work with in the future as opposed to the type of leader he did not want to interact with in the future. Bo had an intense emotional reaction to his experience and was not as

fully giving of himself or trusting of his superiors because of what he endured with the

destructive leader. Bo had changed because he was triggered by his past emotions to be

more alert and oriented to those in leadership positions around him.

My outlook has changed. Now I think that there are a lot less really good bosses out there than I realized that really has your back when they say they’ll have your back. I can’t get emotionally involved in a job because you’re going to get let down. I’m a lot more guarded now.

Combined textural and structural description. Bo’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: sensitivity to context,

social intuition, and attention. Additionally, the experience led to the overarching

affective neuroscience state of the Rage and Fear basic emotional systems. The overall

essence of Bo’s destructive leadership experience was novelty.

Bo learned the value of his sensitivity to context emotional style early in his

career. He was in tune with his social intuition and his ability to interpret his destructive

leader’s moods based on verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Bo worked to regulate his

emotional reactions towards his destructive leader through his sensitivity to context

emotional style. Bo emerged from his destructive leadership experience with a newfound

aptitude and alertness for homing in on the signs of a destructive leader to mitigate living

through a future destructive leadership experience.

The overall essence of Bo’s experience was novelty. Bo was able to create

experiences that were different from his past experiences because he was open to being

139

fully engaged, was applying what he had learned, and was building a different foundation for the future.

I think that any situation that you’re in, good or bad, you can learn from it. You’ll always learn from it; you learn from everything that you’re involved in. . . . But you learn a lot more from the bad . . . because I think the worst usually gets you thinking a lot.

Samuel

Participant overview. Samuel had more than 29 years’ experience in the missile defense community and federal government and survived a 2-year destructive leadership experience with a leader who was verbally abusive. When the leader was introduced to

Samuel, he was taken aback by how he was treated from the very beginning.

I was immediately taken aback by his tone, his language, and his negative attitude, and my first impression was this guy is trying to make it clear that he’s in charge and he’s the boss, but that’s unnecessary in the military.

Overall, Samuel was optimistic about life and work:

I’m very optimistic about life. I believe that I’ve taken a lot of opportunities that have been presented to me, and I believe that just about anybody can do that, regardless of where you come from or how much money you make.

Textural description. Samuel’s first impression of this leader was that he acted to show people how powerful he was and how much authority he had. “He would try to establish his dominance over me.” The entire organization was affected by this leader’s attitude and behavior. He stated that the leader “was so abusive and he treated people so poorly. He destroyed employee morale.”

Samuel indicated a defining moment that prepared him for surviving his destructive leader experience. In his first job, a very difficult job, he was 23 years old and

140

was responsible for 50 to 60 people, most of whom were older than he was. During that period, he had a commander who was his first leader. He observed how calm and focused this leader was and how that served him in difficult and stressful situations.

I had a commander who when things went wrong, he never got excited. He didn’t lose his patience, he was very measured, he thought through things in a very logical manner: step 1, step 2, step 3.

Samuel believed he was heavily influenced to emulate those behaviors as a leader.

Samuel felt that his destructive leader would routinely create an environment of chaos and blame. The staff were put into a situation where they were afraid of getting in trouble, so everyone was on the defensive. They would look at one another and instead of talking through solutions, they would be more focused on pointing fingers. This happened so frequently that eventually Samuel became emotionless over it and decided to take the blame just so everyone could move on.

He had a very bizarre habit of occasionally he would, he would pit people against each other. The employees went into a state of fear. People were afraid to get chewed out; they started blaming each other, so I would take the blame. I figured out that if this guy’s going to yell at me no matter what anyways, I should simply take the blame for everything whether I was responsible or not.

Samuel endured many situations where he felt his leader was doing everything in his power to embarrass Samuel. Samuel felt that this occurred in one-on-one interactions and in nearly every group setting.

He would attempt to embarrass me, I believe, and establish his authority. This general never rattled me, at least I never showed it. I never flinched. I never showed it in public. In private, it hurt.

141

This destructive leader event changed Samuel; he said it made him more self-

aware and compassionate towards his subordinates. Samuel used the entire experience as

an example of how a leader should not be.

I did everything differently than this individual did. I don’t want to be compared to this guy, don’t want to have any or use any of the traits or methods that he used.

Samuel’s outlook also changed as a result of his destructive leadership experience. He felt as though he had developed very personal and negative feelings towards his destructive leader that left him feeling betrayed by someone whom he should have been able to garner support from and lean on. “My negative views are only towards him. I developed a hatred for this individual.”

Structural description. Samuel’s first job came with big responsibilities and he was very inexperienced. The expectations were very high. He observed a leader in his command who, when faced with high stress and life-or-death situations, always handled himself calmly. He didn’t raise his voice, look for blame, or create chaos. He simply stayed very focused on problem resolution and set a perfect example for how a leader should lead.

He was very focused on solving the problem, not fixing blame, and I was very impressed by that. Leadership is really called for when things go wrong, and everyone will be looking at you, and they’ll react based on how you react.

For Samuel, learning at a young age the valuable skill and cognitive ability to focus attention on what needed to get done instilled the importance of not getting distracted by the negativity occurring around him. When in his own leadership role,

Samuel wanted to be the leader that he was inspired by.

142

When Samuel was faced with a destructive leadership experience and was

reporting to a leader who focused only on blame rather than problem resolution, Samuel

would immediately take the blame for all issues any time the leader questioned anything, so that he and his team could spend their energy on fixing the issue rather than on the distraction of searching for blame.

I would just throw in a: Hey, sir, it’s my fault; I’m the commander, I take responsibility. And that usually ended the conversation. He would yell at me a little bit, chew on me, but we never passed his insults or his rage down to subordinate staff members. So, that was one of the mechanisms that I used to cope.

Samuel was able to pick up on body language and his employees’ emotional states of

being uncomfortable and in constant fear of getting in trouble.

Samuel’s destructive leader would often make it a point to attempt to embarrass

him. Samuel never let his leader see how it made him feel. Samuel was very upset and

hurt by the destructive leader’s actions at first; however, over time he grew numb to the

mistreatment and behaviors. Samuel’s self-aware response was to adjust his behavior by

hiding his emotions. The act of sheltering his feelings helped Samuel navigate the

situation in order to survive the experience. “I never showed him how it made me feel.

Eventually you weren’t shocked by it anymore; you became numb to it.”

Samuel took what was an otherwise negative experience and used it as a lesson for how he could personally improve his own skills as a leader. Samuel was intensely aware of his own conscious mind, thoughts, and feelings about the experience he lived through.

Although I had been exposed to destructive leadership earlier in my career, it was not to this level. What it makes you do is you say: Wow, I am going to use that person as an example of how not to be.

143

Samuel became self-aware through his own experiences and by witnessing reactions from others of how to modulate emotions to change the outcome. If faced with a situation where an employee needed counseling or to be reprimanded, his technique through self-awareness would be to do it in private.

I will only praise in public, chastise in private, and never, ever chastise a subordinate in front of other people. I saw this as the quickest way to lose someone’s confidence.

Samuel’s outlook was greatly impacted due to his destructive leader’s behaviors.

Samuel was typically an optimistic person who saw good in other people. This experience left Samuel with a pessimistic view because of the events that transpired over the 2 years that Samuel interacted with his leader. While Samuel may not have understood why his leader treated him and his employees the way he did, he did understand that this encounter changed him and the morale he once had. This experience left him feeling pessimistic towards his leader and with an overall sense of betrayal. “The leader’s behaviors affected my morale, and I felt betrayed.”

Combined textural and structural description. Samuel’s destructive leadership experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: attention, social intuition, self-awareness, and outlook. Additionally, Samuel’s destructive leadership experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the basic emotional systems of Grief, Rage, and Seek. The overall essence of Samuel’s destructive leadership experience was social engagement.

Samuel experienced a destructive leader very early in his career. Through his attention emotional style, Samuel was keenly aware of what not to do in any future

144

leadership position. Samuel experienced frustration and anger towards his destructive

leader through the basic foundation of Rage: “I developed a hatred for this individual.”

Samuel was self-aware of the importance of compassion in leading subordinates.

His desire to never emulate the destructive leadership experiences was identified through

his Seek emotional system to do better than those before him. Ultimately, Samuel’s

outlook had changed because he felt betrayed by his leader. This was felt through the

undertone of his Grief emotional system and sense of loss.

The overall essence of Samuel’s experience was social engagement. Samuel was

determined to leverage what he had learned and apply how he wanted to be treated, and

not treated, in his leadership roles as he moved on in his career.

I’m very careful not to exhibit the same qualities as this individual did. I’m very careful to make sure that I’m a good listener when someone’s briefing me. Even if I don’t want to hear what they’re saying or it’s boring or I want to get to the point, I always try to listen. I try never to raise my voice or yell at people. It made me more compassionate toward subordinates.

Samuel’s essence in maturity was recognizing the importance of his connections

with his staff and creating mutually rewarding relationships.

Anthony

Participant overview. Anthony had over 42 years of experience in the workforce

as a government executive and was also retired from the military. His career path was

mainly in commercial travel. Anthony survived a 4-year destructive leadership

experience with a leader whom he found very challenging to work with. This leader had a

negative leadership style; “she was putting her own self-interest ahead of . . . doing what

is right for the organization.” He added that if faced with a conflict, she would dismiss it

145

or direct it to someone else, blaming someone else for the problems that occurred. The entire situation affected his ability to work in a team.

In terms of his perspective on life and the workplace, Anthony thought positively, trying to find the good in any situation. “I do have a positive outlook on life. I do tend to immediately go to the corner of good versus bad. That is true of people, projects, jobs, and just day-to-day life.” He described himself as a responsible and serious employee; he loved working.

Textural description. In surviving the destructive leader experience, Anthony felt that his parents had the strongest positive influence. “My parents are where I learned values. We were from that era of strong family values. I had a great relationship with both my parents.” He also attributed his survival to his strength and focus based on the values his parents had instilled in him from such an early age. That taught him that future outcomes are directly related to choices you make in the present.

You are also responsible in the future for what you do today. I think that did help me many times, and it also taught me that sometimes in life there are challenging moments or difficult moments and it is your job to rise above it.

Anthony leveraged his sound professional relationships with peers as a sort of compass to help him determine if he was headed in the right direction. He believed that the strong, trustworthy friendships he built with coworkers played a role in his ability to survive his destructive leadership experience.

Specifically, for me personally, when something would affect me, whether it be a separate meeting where I wasn’t involved or where I was tasked to do something that I just completely did not understand, one way that I would try and get through things like that was by getting input, opinions, or assistance from the other division chiefs.

146

Anthony felt he was affected by his destructive leadership experiences

emotionally. He shared that he thought about these experiences all the time, replaying the scenarios over in his mind:

The destructive leadership experience definitely did affect me emotionally. Where it affects me emotionally is that I would think about these things all the time, not just in the workplace, but when you go home at night you think about everything. It weighs on your mind; you constantly search for how you can improve, and that takes its toll.

Anthony made a conscious effort to be as evenly keeled as possible, regardless of what emotion he was experiencing. Anthony tried to remain calm even when he felt the urge to express his passion for a particular topic. He felt that he had more of a flight, rather than a fight, mentality, and that would cause him to shut down at times.

I always try to be professional in the workplace, so I felt I acted the same every day, through any situation. There were moments when I could be a little more expressive or passionate about a topic. Or sometimes I would just shut down. It’s almost like you give up because you try everything you can and it’s not successful so what’s your alternative? I’m not an aggressive person so I’m not going to scream and yell and carry on. I tend to flee, as opposed to fight.

Anthony felt that his destructive leadership experience did not change his overall outlook on life. He still felt he was the same person. What he felt had changed was his feelings and awareness towards the destructive leader that he once held in high regard,

connected with, and believed he saw himself in. “It does not change my general outlook.

It’s certainly changed my outlook on that leader.”

Structural description. Anthony had sustained a positive outlook throughout his entire destructive leadership experience and beyond. The positive view in Anthony’s life was to the credit of his parents, who instilled in him the importance of a core belief and

147

value system that was tied to being responsible for your own actions and how those responsibilities impact your future.

We had somewhat of a close family and good family value. That carried me through on many occasions. What I was taught as a child was you are responsible for all your actions.

Anthony’s parents stressed that addressing challenges in life one step at a time would give him the strength to get through anything.

They taught me that you just dig in and step by step you go on, and that’s how you succeed, and I think that did help in my career, the seriousness of life, but yet everything is temporary. And so even though you do all these things, understand that life is temporary.

There were times when Anthony was unsure of his environment and the situations he found himself in at work with the destructive leader. He stated that in those moments he would draw strength from his coworkers by seeking clarity. Anthony relied on them to navigate his own self-perception.

When I was stuck, it was through the camaraderie of other coworkers that I survived. There were times whenever I was faced with questioning myself or the validity of the situation, and I would get strength from talking to others that were in similar situations and trying to find out: Is it me, am I just not getting it, or are you all having the same problem?

In retrospect, Anthony was self-aware of how his destructive leadership experience had had an emotional toll on his life, and possibly a physical toll as a result of the ongoing emotional turmoil. Anthony took time in the moment, as well as years later, to stop and reflect on what his emotions were and how they affected him.

It takes its toll emotionally from thinking about it all the time, in that I don’t know that I enjoy what I’m doing. This destructive leader is making me feel like decisions I make are not the right way to approach something. So that does take its toll, you know, it does emotionally, and any emotion will certainly lead to a physical toll after a while.

148

Anthony used his emotional self-awareness to control his emotions and modulate

his response in the professional setting. Anthony felt he had to control his emotions as

much as he possibly could. There were moments when he became more expressive and

passionate. Anthony’s mechanism for response to social cognition was to interpret what

was happening in his environment and then use self-control to determine his reaction. If

Anthony perceived that his social group was not open to him pushing for something he

felt strongly about, he would respond by becoming withdrawn and shutting down.

I may feel very passionate about a topic, and if so I’m going to drill harder and harder on that topic. Not bullying or trying to get the upper hand, but just forceful in that this is truly how I feel. So, yes, that’s one way I would react to things when they were going on. The other way, which is sometimes worse, is I would unplug from the situation. When I felt I’ve done everything I can to move something along or get better clarification or whatever the situation was, and I don’t get any feedback whatsoever, or negative feedback is what I get, then I will sometimes kind of power down and take an attitude of: You know what, I’m here for a few minutes and then I’ll walk away.

Nevertheless, he tried to be professional in the workplace while acting the same in any situation that occurred.

Anthony affirmed that his overall outlook on life had not been impacted or changed because of the destructive leadership events. He remained positive and optimistic. “My

positive outlook on life helped, even though, as I mentioned, it didn’t change.”

What Anthony did acknowledge is how his feelings towards the leader changed. At

one point earlier in the relationship, Anthony identified with the leader and acted under the

impression that they had similar views in doing the right thing for the organization. As a

result of the destructive leadership experience, Anthony became very aware that they were

in fact not on the same page when it came to making decisions for the greater good of the

149

organization. Anthony’s conscious mind triggered in him that this leader was now considered bad rather than good, and he changed his perception of the leader.

Since my outlook for the leader changed, what is to me somewhat tragic, is again, for the first year or so, I had a great relationship with that person and I wanted to follow them because I felt we were all pulling the same way or doing the right thing all the time, and when that occurred, it did leave a lasting impression of, that was not true, and that’s unfortunate.

Combined textural and structural description. Anthony’s destructive leadership experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: outlook, attention, self-awareness, and sensitivity to context. Additionally, the experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the Fear and Seek basic emotional systems.

The overall essence of Anthony’s destructive leadership experience was social engagement.

Anthony’s overall outlook emotional style had remained positive despite his negative destructive leadership experience. Anthony used his attention and self-awareness emotional styles to interact with his environment and to be aware of his thoughts, feelings, and emotions. His underlying emotional system of Seek was his desire to control his emotions and not let the destructive leader get the best of him. He used his sensitivity to context to modulate his responses in professional settings, which was attributed to his Fear emotional system due to the daily threats from his negative experience.

The overall essence of Anthony’s experience was social engagement. Anthony described searching for meaning and purpose and stressed the importance of making a contribution in support of your work and of others.

I think people do have a basic responsibility to do the right thing, in whatever situation you’re in, whether it’s for yourself or for others, and I think you do take that to the workplace.

150

Pam

Participant overview. Pam had more than 28 years of experience in customer service, account management, and school counseling. She survived a 6-year destructive leadership experience that involved verbal abuse, humiliation among peers, and constant threats of being fired.

My supervisor, he would come in and yell and scream at you in front of people and try to humiliate you and make you look foolish. He would go around and tell other people in the building how he was going to fire me and get rid of me. He did that to everybody.

Pam considered herself optimistic in terms of overall perspective on life and the workplace. She said, “I enjoy my job and I enjoy my life.” She enjoyed spending time with her family in the free moments she had.

Textural description. Pam survived her destructive leader experience thanks to her dad, who instilled in her the value of staying positive and doing her best:

My dad always told me: Just go in and give it 100% and do the best that you can, and to always remember that you’re there to just do your job and perform it to the best of your ability and not let anyone get you down. He said as long as you’re always doing what you’re supposed to do, it will work out in the end.

Pam also credited her religious faith for giving her a solid foundation of strength and focus so that no matter what, she could channel that energy and remain calm. “I think just having faith, I mean you know that God’s going to pull you through and he doesn’t give you too much to handle.”

Pam suffered with depression during her destructive leadership experience because of the verbal abuse she endured at the hands of her supervisor.

151

He would throw his hands in the air and stomp off, slam my door, throw a piece of paper down at your feet. You just couldn’t respect him because the way that he would talk to you and treat you.

Pam and her colleagues would sometimes try to ignore him and hide from him.

“We tried to stay out of his way and stay away from him; we felt like out of sight, out of

mind.” Emotionally, she would try to block out her feelings or talk through how she was

feeling with her friends as a support system. She also engaged in a number of activities to help her heal.

I think emotionally there were times when you’d leave and you’d be upset. I tried to deal with it by going and exercising or meeting friends after work and trying to talk it out. Then emotionally just try to block it.

Pam believed that she grew stronger from this experience and that if faced with it again in the future, she would be better poised to assert herself. “I think I would probably stand up for myself a little bit more.”

Pam felt that her destructive leadership experience changed her because it made her realize the value and importance of a healthy employee-leader relationship. “I mean it sometimes makes you want to really look and make sure you find the right supervisor, make sure you’re going to be a good fit.”

Structural description. Throughout Pam’s destructive leadership experience, while difficult at times, she managed to maintain an optimistic outlook. Pam was self- motivated and continued her goal of staying hopeful of a positive future. “I’m optimistic;

I’m always looking and I always know to never give up hope or faith on anything.” Pam channeled her innate ability to shift attention from her destructive leadership experiences to a broader picture of continuing her efforts to do her job to the best of her ability, rather than focusing on the negativity in her environment.

152

As a professional, Pam was hurt and depressed because the destructive leader cast doubt on her professional abilities among her peers by yelling at her and making her feel as though she was not competent.

It was depressing. It was humiliating to have a boss come in and yell at you in front of students or parents and you didn’t know what to think. Would they have a less opinion of you because they would think maybe there is a reason.

Pam made every effort to control her emotions and suppress her depression by attempting to ignore what the supervisor was saying or finding a way to escape from what was happening, even if for a brief period to regain control.

I think I control my emotions. I’m not really an angry person and I’m not one to lash out. Emotionally you just try to block it because you knew what kind of person he was.

Pam had to make a conscious effort to pay close attention to her supervisor’s social signals. She had to be mindful of his emotional status, verbal cues, and nonverbal cues to avoid triggering his behaviors.

I just tried to block him out. You felt like you had to walk on eggshells around him because you didn’t know that day if he was going to lash out and scream and yell at you in front of everybody and threaten to fire you.

If faced with the same situation again, she would probably be a little more vocal.

She would talk to him more and try to work everything out together. The destructive leader experience changed Pam, as she always wanted to work with the right supervisor who could be supportive, so she left her job for a new one and was able to build a healthy employee-supervisor relationship.

I think moving to a new school really helped to get out of that school and get to a new location and a new supervisor. Luckily now I have more support in someone that is encouraging me rather than discouraging me.

153

Combined textural and structural description. Pam’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: outlook, attention,

sensitivity to context, and social intuition. Additionally, her destructive leadership

experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of three basic emotional

systems: Seek, Fear, and Grief. The overall essence of Pam’s destructive leadership experience was creative exploration.

Pam’s overall outlook in life was optimistic. Her positivity was deeply rooted in a

Seek emotional system that expected everything to work out well in the end,

overshadowing any negative experience. Pam’s emotional style of social intuition and

attention gave her insight into her leader’s signals and triggered her to shift her focus to the broader picture. Pam used her sensitivity to context to control her emotions and engaged in physical exercise as a way to cope with her feelings of panic from her Grief emotional system in order to regain control. In looking back on her destructive leadership experience, Pam was self-aware of how she would respond if faced with a similar situation in the future. Her Fear emotional system recognized the need to be cautious of experiencing the same anxieties and pain felt through her destructive leader experience.

The overall essence of Pam’s experience was creative exploration. Pam saw in

hindsight that she was worth more than the experience she went through. “I didn’t pay all

this money to go to college to put up with someone like him.” Pam was able to take what

she learned and expand her mind to see a perspective that involved a choice rather than

an obligation.

154

Maddie

Participant overview. Maddie had over 28 years of experience in aging services.

She survived a 2-year destructive leadership experience from which she endured physical and emotional effects.

My leader did things to me that were destructive. She would berate me in front of God and everybody, which was awful. The berating in front of everybody, I thought, was very destructive.

Maddie classified her overall outlook on life as neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realist.

Well, I have been diagnosed with depressive disorder, so I’m not the most optimistic person on earth. I also have been diagnosed with OCD [obsessive- compulsive disorder] and anxiety. My husband will say I’m a pessimist, but I’d say no, I’m a realist.

Maddie’s destructive leadership experience somewhat changed her perspective on life, making her more pessimistic, as she became very depressed due to all she endured.

However, on the optimistic side, she believed her destructive leadership experience made her stronger. “If there is an upside to it, I think in some ways it made me a stronger person.”

Textural description. Maddie survived her destructive leadership experience because of the clinical help of her psychiatrist, who provided therapy and medication.

Her psychiatrist offered helpful advice about responding to her destructive leader.

The person who helped me prepare the most was my psychiatrist. I would talk to her and I would tell her things that the destructive leader said to me, and she would have a response.

155

Maddie believed she suffered emotional distress because of the things her destructive leader would say to her in a demeaning way to discredit her in front of her colleagues.

She just belittled you. I wanted to meet with her about something that was already contentious. I was in the meeting room sitting down; she came in and she sat down. I spoke maybe a sentence, she stood up, she walked out and she slammed the door and never said a word to me. That’s how little she thought of me, as I guess a person, as an employee, and what I had to say.

The destructive leader’s behaviors were prevalent during one-on-one interactions, as well as in group settings among her peers, where she would say hurtful things: “I don’t know what’s wrong with you, your eyes are glazing over, you look like you’re falling out of your chair.”

This type of mistreatment left Maddie feeling sad, depressed, and anxious the whole time she was in that position. Maddie had to control her emotions while interacting with the destructive leader. She was “close to tears” in many situations. She felt like she was on the defensive all the time.

She had to take medication to sleep. She stopped reading, which was her passion.

She stopped exercising, which she felt was the worst thing she could do for her health since she had just undergone gastric bypass surgery for weight loss.

I’m a voracious reader, but I stopped reading. I stopped exercising, which is probably the worst thing I could do. Once I had the surgery I had to watch what I ate, but I certainly ate comfort food. . . . I had to take medication to sleep. This was really no way to live, but I think when you’re struggling just to survive, you do just what you have to do to keep going.

Maddie was not sure whether this experience changed her overall outlook on life, but felt that it could have been worse.

156

I don’t know that it’s changed my outlook, because I’m not a very trusting person by nature, so the fact that I ultimately couldn’t trust her doesn’t surprise me. So I don’t think so much that it’s changed my outlook but, to put a positive spin on it, when I look back on it, it was horrible but anything can be worse. So you have to put things in perspective. It has taught me to really stand up for myself much more than I ever did before.

Structural description. Maddie confided in her psychiatrist and received tools to

help her get through and survive the destructive leadership experience. She was self- aware that she needed professional help to get through this experience and could not manage it on her own. Maddie recognized that she had a difficult time processing what she was feeling and determining how to navigate those feelings.

It got to the point that I would write down what the psychiatrist said and I’d keep it in my pocketbook so if I knew I was going to have to meet with my destructive leader, I could look at that real quick as like a cheat-sheet.

Maddie felt she suffered emotionally because of her destructive leader experience.

Regardless of how emotionally distressed Maddie felt, she was able to shape the ability within herself to regulate her emotional responses in an effort to keep herself from crying and enduring further ridicule from her destructive leader. Maddie had to stay connected and present to control such complex emotions from surfacing.

Somebody had cried at work at some time, and she had made a derogatory statement about that person crying at work. I made up my mind that no matter what she said to me, I was not going to cry.

Eventually the destruction took its toll on Maddie. She lost all ability to focus on what was important to her. Maddie was taking steps to better her health by losing weight and exercising. She regularly indulged in her love of reading; however, because of

Maddie’s destructive environment, she became distracted by her destructive leadership

experience. Maddie ultimately became unfocused.

157

It physically affected me. I had gastric bypass while part of this is going on, and I lost a ton of weight, but had stopped exercising, sleeping, and I just stopped reading.

In retrospect, Maddie had learned the value of social intuition. She made it a point

to pay close attention to her surroundings and her environment to focus on picking up the social signals and cues around her to assess the situation before making herself vulnerable. Maddie now took a mental pause before she explained her viewpoint. She made an effort to detect, measure, and adapt in communication settings.

Oh, it changed me. It made me pause before I open my mouth to speak when I’m in a somewhat tense situation. If I ever go back to work again, I don’t think that I will be easily intimidated by a supervisor. I feel like that I had the supervisor from hell, and I survived her, and if I can survive her, I can survive anybody.

Combined textural and structural description. Maddie’s destructive leadership

experience was characterized by multiple core emotional styles: sensitivity to context,

self-awareness, and social intuition. Additionally, Maddie’s destructive leadership

experience led to an overarching affective neuroscience state of the basic emotional

systems of Fear, Rage, and Grief. The overall essence of Maddie’s destructive leadership

experience was social engagement.

Maddie battled a Rage emotional system during her destructive leadership

experience and beyond. Her complex sensitivity to context emotional style identified the

perceived threats and sought help from a therapist to function emotionally in her work

environment. Maddie had difficulty with reflecting her emotions and her own self- awareness in response to the threats she felt through her Fear emotional system. She continued to deal with the Grief emotional system in relation to the loneliness and social

158

loss felt as a result of the social signals, body language, and verbal and nonverbal cues she felt from her destructive leadership experience.

The overall essence of Maddie’s experience was social engagement. Maddie was able to find a safe harbor and build a trusting relationship with her therapist, who became her support system throughout her destructive leadership journey. “Had I not had professional therapy, I don’t know that I would have gotten through that.”

Summary of Combined Textural and Structural Description

The findings from all of the participants’ experiences were inductively analyzed to identify strings of emotional states that triggered emotional styles. Each experience was coded into Davidson’s six dimensions of emotional style: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention. Emotional styles were then further explored and mapped according to Panksepp’s (2010) seven affective neuroscience states or primary emotional systems: lust, fear, rage, care, grief, seek, and play. Lastly, the overall essence of the participants’ experiences of destructive leadership evolved into Siegel’s (2013) four vital qualities of the highest level of critical thinking or creativity: emotional spark, social engagement, novelty, and creative exploration.

Looking through this lens, a related proposal around the transformation of energy, seen as moving from negative to positive potential as described by Varela and Depraz (2004), was considered. As a form of summary of the textual and structural descriptions, Table

4.3 highlights each participant’s emotional styles, emotional systems, and vital qualities.

159

Table 4.3 Participants’ Emotional Styles, Emotional Systems, and Vital Qualities

Variable Andrea Derrick Diana Fred Ginny Helen Jackie Melissa Bo Samuel Anthony Pam Maddie Emotional style Resilience X X X X X X X X Outlook X X X X X X X X Social intuition X X X X X X X X X Self-awareness X X X X X X X X Sensitivity to context X X X X X X X X X X X X Attention X X X X X X X X X X Basic emotional system Seeking X X X X X X X X X Rage X X X X X X Fear X X X X X X X X X X X X Lust Care X X Grief X X X X X X X Play X Vital qualities Emotional spark X X Social engagement X X X X X Novelty X X Creative exploration X X X X X

As this study revealed, affectivity is both embedded between and embodied within the complex, overall essence of living experience; participants’ positive and negative flow of energy potential or emotional spark transcended from the inherited dynamics of affect to self-transforming, lifelong vitality. This self-creating experience was initially found in the very core of each participant’s emotional style and affectivity, which constitutes the very fiber of their being. Over time and through living experiences, the mechanisms noted by Varela and Depraz (2004) began to bend and neuroplasticity took pliable cognitive shape in the brain or mind, lending to their overall transformative effect.

160

As Siegel posited, these innate affective qualities form first from early childhood

experiences and new behaviors learned throughout the adolescent years, bridging to and

even beyond adulthood. Throughout participants’ journeys, they continued to open up,

extend outward and forward into the future, and build layer upon layer, often

unknowingly and unconsciously, to uncover the vital inner qualities deep within each of

them and then in some instances knowing and recreating their own self.

Participants expressed that their power was forged through social engagement, valuable connections, and relationships with colleagues, friends, and family that served as a sounding board and a witness, while drawing energy from these relationships to fuel the strength to survive. Some participants thrived through their inner voice of reasoning and

trusted in themselves to take control in order to weather emotional storms.

Several participants self-transformed through optimistic (positive) attitudes and

embracing the novelty of self-creation. Many participants took their positive and negative

experiences and chose to learn from them, apply what they learned, and discover new

behaviors and positive outcomes for themselves. The explanation of the transforming

process drawn from the participants is supported by and confirms Varela and Depraz’s

concepts of the conversion of negative energy into positive energy and vice versa,

including the ambivalence of apathy, each form referred to as energy potential or valence.

In some cases, participants recreated themselves through formal education, career

changes, or personal physical and/or emotional changes required by their self-

transforming efforts.

Most notable is the self-transformation emerging from the essence of participants’

creative explorations. As noted by Siegel, the creative exploration gateway is found

161

through the power of energy flow regulation, where participants absorbed the positive

and negative experiences in order to develop abstract reasoning, conceptual thinking,

expanded perception and consciousness, and emerging, novel self-awareness.

Participants’ self-transformations were a direct result of their ability to discover that they

were already equipped as adults to decide or to choose a new path to follow, to start

again, or to create a new path to change.

Participants commonly lived through their destructive leadership experiences and their own anchor of adolescent emotions and affectivity, continuously regulating the continuum of valence and flow of affect (energy) and information, to eventually progress into self-transformation as a means of survival.

Finally, regardless of the negativity found within the destructive leadership experiences, participants did not use that negativity or apply it to continue a flow of energy that generates negativity. In fact, participants decided to process what they learned, accept what they experienced, transform their behavior, and express their intent to not participate in or cocreate negative self- and other-destructive relationships and experiences. Rather, they chose to convert the negative flow of energy into a positive flow of energy by transforming their behavioral response to others and their environment or changing their course of actions to prevent future occurrences of destructive leadership.

Themes

The goal of this study was to understand the essence of the experience of employees who have experienced a destructive leader in the workplace. While the previous section reviewed the experience of each individual participant, this section

162

highlights commonalities or themes that address the essence of the lived experience. Six

themes were identified:

1. Participants’ general optimistic outlook affected their reaction to the

destructive leader.

2. Participants had to regulate between attention and emotion.

3. Participants did not report their destructive leaders.

4. Participants experienced harmful nonverbal communication from the

destructive leaders.

5. Participants experienced a physical and emotional toll from the destructive

leader.

6. Participants wished they would have handled the situation differently.

Table 4.4 reviews how these themes were reflected in each participant’s experiences.

Table 4.4 Themes by Participant

Theme Andrea Derrick Diana Fred Ginny Helen Jackie Melissa Bo Samuel Anthony Pam Maddie 1. Effect of optimistic X X X X X X X X X X outlook 2. Regulating between X X X X X attention and emotion 3. Not reporting X X X X X X X X X destructive leaders 4. Harmful nonverbal X X X X X X X communication 5. Physical and X X X X X X X X emotional effects 6. Desire to have X X X X X X X X X X approached the situation differently

163

Theme 1: Participants’ General Optimistic Outlook Affected Their Reaction to the

Destructive Leader

Most participants described their outlook on life and work as optimistic, which provides a backdrop of positive emotion that makes the identification of negative behavior more prevalent. Schneider (2001) noted that optimistic individuals may have more impactful outcomes related to negative experiences because their expectations of a positive environment are so high. However, researchers have found that individuals with strong outlooks may be able to take a negative event as a developmental opportunity.

Those who held a generally positive and optimistic outlook on life were predisposed to a reaction, described by Davidson and Begley (2012), that enabled them to sustain a positive emotion. Some participants indicated that strong support systems such as social connections with spouses, parents, and siblings were key to remaining positive and grounded. Table 4.5 shows evidence of optimism among 10 participants.

Table 4.5 Participants’ Experience of Theme 1: Optimism Participant Experience of theme Andrea Andrea’s attributed her generally positive worldviews to her strong support system. “Probably my sister is someone that I’ve been able to lean on that has helped me put things into perspective and ground me.” This strong optimism allowed her to experience and sustain positive feelings toward her destructive leader throughout the exposure: “It was also difficult because . . . I liked her as a person and I thought we were friends. . . . I wanted to believe that she had her own pressures or she had her own things going on in her life or, you know, that it wasn’t all her fault that she behaved that way.” Diana The more Diana knew the different sides of people, the more mature and understanding she became. “I think as I’m getting older I’m becoming more optimistic; when I was younger I was very pessimistic.” Ginny “I think I have an optimistic outlook on life. I feel hopeful and generally upbeat.” Helen “I try to be optimistic and for the most part and if I think that way, generally my optimism pays off.”

164

Participant Experience of theme Jackie “I would say I’m an optimistic person. I’m very much a collaborator in life and in the workplace. I don’t really see a difference between life and the workplace. I’m going to engage with people in the workplace the same way I’m going to in my personal life. I think I’m a very authentic person.” Melissa “I’m an optimistic person. I don’t really see a difference between life and the workplace. I’m going to engage with people in the workplace the same way I’m going to in my personal life. I think I’m a very authentic person. I believe in transparency and I believe life is about bringing people together for interpersonal connection.” Bo “I’m pretty optimistic even though my professional life is very difficult, juggling two jobs and having to hustle.” Samuel “I’m very optimistic about life. I believe that I’ve taken a lot of opportunities that have been presented to me and I believe that just about anybody can do that, regardless of where you come from or how much money you make.” Anthony “I do have a positive outlook on life. I do tend to immediately go to the corner of good versus bad. That is true of people, projects, jobs, and just day-to-day life.” Pam “I feel like I’m optimistic. I enjoy my job and I enjoy my life.” “I try to plan and do things with my husband in the free moments he has and enjoy my family. We always look for the shining star.”

Theme 2: Participants Had to Regulate Between Attention and Emotion

Participants stayed in the situation longer than desired because of their basic physiological needs. To accomplish this, they had to give maximum attention. A strong ability in attention allows individuals to interact with their environment, however destructive it may be. Participants had to self-regulate by focusing to control and calm their emotions in order to continue interacting with the world around them. As discussed by Heatherton and Wagner (2011), self-regulation is a cognitive faculty that is subject to fatigue. It is important to note that individuals must regulate between emotion and attention, ensuring that they recognize if situations become too dangerous. Table 4.6 shows evidence of this theme among five participants.

165

Table 4.6 Participants’ Experience of Theme 2: Regulation Between Attention and Emotion Participant Experience of theme Andrea “I felt very stuck in that time period. My babies were little, my husband was laid off the day my daughter was born, and we were not planning on him being a stay-at- home dad, but that was what ended up happening. And then he was diagnosed with cancer and then had a massive heart attack and then got Lyme disease and I was going to college at the same time and she knew I was stuck. I had tuition reimbursement, I had a family, I needed the health benefits.” Derrick Derrick needed to support his wife and children; “I need to pay the mortgage so my kids can stay in the same house.” Fred Fred needed to work to support his family to have a productive life. “You have to provide for, whether it be just you and your dog or you and all your kids, which flow of income, and to let an abusive manager run you off is not productive for your family. So, yeah, maybe you can find your way out by looking for other jobs, but I think the majority of people—and to a certain extent myself included, I need the income—and I think that’s what these people, and I’m pretty sure the one that I worked for, is the basis of his ability to take this management approach is that they’ve got to have a job.” Helen “I needed the job.” Maddie “More often than not, I felt like I was close to tears with her. Somebody had cried at work at some time, and she had made a derogatory statement about that person crying at work. So I made up my mind that no matter what she said to me, I was not going to cry.”

Theme 3: Participants Did Not Report Their Destructive Leaders

Participants did not report their destructive leadership experience to anyone within their chain of command or outside of the organization, for a variety of individual reasons. Some participants were not aware of how to do so, some were not aware that it was an option to report the leader, and some did not report because they were afraid of how it would impact their position or were afraid of the stigma that comes along with reporting a destructive leader. Participants feared that reports would not be taken seriously; would impact their future career path; would become known to their destructive leader, which would make matters worse; or would result in loss of

166

employment as retaliation. Table 4.7 shows evidence of this theme among nine participants.

Table 4.7 Participants’ Experience of Theme 3: Not Reporting Destructive Leaders Participant Experience of theme Diana “I did not [report the leader]. I did research on how to report and who to report to, but I never followed through on reporting outside my organization.” Ginny “I did not officially do that, and I don’t know that there was any way to do that.” Helen Because of the role Helen was in, she was afraid to report the leader. Melissa “I don’t know what my options would have been other than to communicate with the board.” Samuel “I elected not to report him. I was a senior officer so, I would have confronted him first before I reported him but I thought so little of him; it wasn’t even worth it to me to confront him. . . . I lost so much respect for him that I wasn’t going to give him the satisfaction of telling him: “Hey, you’ve got a real problem, sir,” you know? I just, I just soon let him bury himself. Anthony “I did not specifically report it or make any allegations or took it somewhere else outside the organization.” Fred “That would be a no, I did not report it to anyone.” Andrea “No, I did not report this to anyone.” Maddie “No, I didn’t feel like they had any recourse.”

Theme 4: Participants Experienced Harmful Nonverbal Communication from the

Destructive Leaders

Participants often described examples of nonverbal communication from their destructive leaders through a variety of body language cues. They observed the nonverbal body language in one-on-one situations, as well as in group settings and in social interactions with a colleague. Participants picked up on the social signals and cues by reading body language and interpreting it as an emotional status. As discussed through

Fusaro and Harris’s research, these nonverbal cues define how people process the messaging and then interact with the world around them. Often the nonverbal messaging

167

was perceived as harmful to the participants or their colleagues in a physical and emotional sense. Table 4.8 shows evidence of this theme among seven participants.

Table 4.8 Participants’ Experience of Theme 4: Harmful Nonverbal Communication Participant Experience of theme Derrick Derrick found it difficult to read his destructive leader’s facial cues and body language. “He was nonverbal, meaning being in the room but not saying anything. He was Vulcan- like, not displaying emotions about this or that. So it was really hard to tell when he was going from serious to not serious. There was just a severe lack of feedback.” Fred Fred witnessed his destructive leader throw things and damage property. “There’s multiple stories of narcissistic rage and/or temper tantrums. The leader would be throwing stuff. I’ve seen the man kick holes in walls at his plant. He was just pushed over the edge by little things.” Ginny Ginny’s destructive leader showed signs of nonverbal communication that was perceived to be harmful. “I mean body language and all that sort of thing when we would have meetings, and . . . there was always that undercurrent that didn’t have to have words.” Jackie Jackie witnessed her destructive leader slam items to get everyone’s attention. “He came over with the binder in his hands and actually slammed it down on her desk, which got everybody in the office’s attention.” Melissa Melissa’s observed nonverbal communication from her leader that she perceived as harmful. “She’d often sit with her arms folded during our meetings. She had this hand gesture she would make that was a dismissive kind of body language thing.” Pam Pam observed her destructive leader “throwing his hands in the air and stomping off, slamming your door, throwing a piece of paper down at your feet.” Maddie “I was in the meeting room sitting down. She came in and she sat down. I spoke maybe a sentence, she stood up, she walked out and she slammed the door and never said a word to me.”

Theme 5: Participants Experienced a Physical and Emotional Toll from the

Destructive Leader

Participants expressed their concerns over physical and emotional effects of their destructive leadership experience. Physical effects from stress such as weight gain or loss, lack of sleep, migraines, and a compromised immune system were experienced by several participants. The physical effects in some cases were extreme and lingered for several years after the destructive leadership experience was over. There were several

168

examples of emotional effects such as emotional stress, inability to focus, and feelings of inadequacy, anger, and anxiety. Many of the effects of the emotional toll led to problems with self-esteem and impacted relationships and marriages. Self-awareness is described as individuals’ perception of their bodily feelings. Those who know themselves and use that knowledge to successfully navigate life are fortunate. Most of the participants were not able to balance navigation of life with the feelings they were experiencing. Table 4.9 shows evidence of this theme among eight participants.

Table 4.9 Participants’ Experience of Theme 5: Physical and Emotional Effects Participant Experience of theme Andrea Andrea experienced both emotional and physical effects. “I don’t completely blame them for me having gained a lot of weight, but I had never been overweight in my entire life until that role where I gained over 50 pounds. During that time period I didn’t move. I sat at my desk and my computer all day, every day, sometimes all night long and didn’t move to get my work done so I wouldn’t lose my job. I was under a tremendous amount of stress and pressure and ended up on blood pressure medication at age 34.” Derrick Derrick had both emotional and physical effects from his destructive leadership experience. “I had problems eating and . . . problems sleeping.” Ginny Fantasies of the day she would no longer endure the situation were what allowed Ginny to function and react appropriately on the surface. “I knew that the term of time that I was going to be in that situation had an end, and I often fantasized about when this is over, I’ll be so glad when this is over.” Helen “It affected me emotionally. It made for a very tense environment. I always felt like what I was doing was never good enough, never technical enough.” Jackie “It definitely affected me emotionally and physically. Physically I got sick on more than one occasion—migraines, of course the swine flu. Obviously I picked up a germ or virus somewhere, but I think my immune system was so beat down at that point that emotionally I was subject to major mood swings, you know emotional outbursts, and suffered from anxiety.” Melissa “My life has been very difficult. Emotionally, my mental health wise, stress, and my marriage has been affected.” Anthony “The destructive leadership experience definitely did affect me emotionally. . . . I would think about these things all the time, not just in the workplace, but when you go home at night you think about everything. It weighs on your mind, you constantly search for how you can improve, and that takes its toll.” Maddie “I was depressed and anxious the whole time and I stopped reading.”

169

Theme 6: Participants Wished They Would Have Handled the Situation Differently

Social context describes how individuals respond to what is present and happening in the environment. This impacts self-perception and social interactions. In retrospect, many of the participants said they should have done something sooner or left earlier, with the statement sounding as if they second-guessed their past actions. Most stated if faced with a similar situation in the future, they would definitely act earlier.

Individuals adjust their emotional responses to situations based on who is receiving their response and working outside their comfort zone is what may have caused them not to take action earlier. After they had gone through the destructive leader experience and through the experience of getting away from the destructive leader, their context association skills had been enhanced. In retrospect, participants would have done things differently. Table 4.10 shows evidence of this theme among 10 participants.

Table 4.10 Participants’ Experience of Theme 6: Desire to Have Done Things Differently Participant Experience of theme Andrea “I would leave right away; I wouldn’t be a part of it at all, not like I was.” Diana “If something happened again that was just egregious, I don’t think I’d be as hesitant to go outside my organization to try to alert somebody to the fact that something really bad is going on here.” Fred If faced with the same experience, Fred would have acted differently; he would have stopped its evolution from the very beginning. Ginny “I would like to think that I wouldn’t take it, that I would just go ahead and say this is not worth it. That I would walk out of the position or at least let them know that I don’t appreciate that kind of treatment.” Helen “I would go down and say: This is what I feel your behavior is doing to me. And I’m just going to tell him: I said if you’re not going to change, then I need to find another job, and that’s what I’m going to do. I wouldn’t walk out without telling him. I’d tell him what he was doing that was destructive in my case and if he was willing to change, okay. If he wasn’t, I’m gone.” Jackie “I would take much more rapid steps to (1) address the problem head on, you know with the first step of saying I’m not going to tolerate this; and then (2) elevate it up the chain of command quickly and have documentation to back it up; and (3) immediately go through the proper channels.”

170

Participant Experience of theme Melissa “I would find a new job.” Samuel “If faced with a similar destructive leader experience in the future, I would handle it better and wiser.” Anthony “I would immediately challenge it and push back and be very clear and direct in what I think upfront, and in a way, if you will, turn the tables. And you need to prove to me why we need to do this. Whether I’d be successful or not, time would tell, but I would feel better doing that in the future than I would allowing it to occur.” Pam “I probably stand up for myself a little bit more. I think I would probably be a little more vocal. I would probably talk to him more and tell him that I don’t appreciate or, you know, somehow like try to work it out.”

Summary of Themes

This chapter has presented each participant’s textural and structural descriptions

and six common summary-level themes: (1) participants’ general optimistic outlook

affected their reaction to the destructive leader; (2) participants had to regulate between

attention and emotion; (3) participants did not report their destructive leaders;

(4) participants experienced harmful nonverbal communication from the destructive leaders; (5) participants experienced a physical and emotional toll from the destructive leader; and (6) participants wished they would have handled the situation differently.

Overall, participants discussed defining moments from their past and talked of important figureheads in their lives that they looked up to or learned from, which in turn they found to have helped them prepare, survive, or in some cases cope with their destructive leadership experiences. In many cases participants related their preparation

for survival to a past positive leader or past positive leadership experience that served as

a role model or as a good baseline for what they expected of a nondestructive leadership

experience.

171

Interviewees spoke of their past relationships with coworkers and supervisors as

mostly positive and mutually respectable, with the exception of the destructive leader.

The examples individuals provided of their professional relationships with colleagues

were consistent, regardless of the projects individuals were working on, the frequency

with which they interacted with their peers, the environments they were working in, or

the years of experience they had in their field. They all saw the value in relationships

with their peers.

Participants generally perceived their colleagues and past leaders as optimistic,

just as they tended to perceive themselves as optimistic. There was a sincere undertone

and sense of caring both for and from their coworkers. Interviewees took pride in cultivating genuinely constructive relationships up and across their chains of command.

Participants often described their professional relationships as learning experiences and enjoyed working with their peers and/or past leaders. They believed in the importance of building reciprocal trusting relationships in order to have balance, success, teamwork,

and camaraderie—all common ingredients for a healthy work relationship.

Participants typically gave thoughtful consideration to appropriate leadership styles and traits. They discussed how important a leader’s actions are in any organization and how leadership style impacts the workplace, team, and morale positively or negatively. Most participants felt that leadership style and actions were the most

important influencer and drove the overall outcome of any work project or team. Some

basic desired traits were for the leader to be a good listener, inclusive in decision making,

inspirational, and admirable. Participants sought macro-managers as opposed to micro-

172

managers. One of the most significant desired qualities was for a leader to lead by

example.

With their level of detail, participants painted a colorful picture of their emotional

state or mood and how it shifted as a natural reaction to what they were experiencing in

the world around them. The participants provided ample examples of finite units or

blocks in time where there were destructive leadership behaviors; however, there was

also a repetitive theme where the participants would give a glimpse into the whole-person

perspective. They would interject comments or examples of times when things went well

or when they genuinely liked the destructive leader and at times even looked up to him or her as a trusted advisor. This finding supports the views of Aasland et al. (2010) that the level of destructiveness in a leader can vary in both intensity and regularity. Perhaps the destructive behaviors tended to overshadow the constructive behaviors, and cognitive memories were more vibrant and acutely aware of the emotional moods and/or states revolving around the destructive rather than constructive memories.

In participants’ countless examples of destructive leaders’ verbal and nonverbal communications and body language that they perceived as harmful, it was evident that these harmful communications caused emotional and physical detriment, in some cases causing the participant to be unable to eat, sleep, or focus.

One commonality among the stories in that participants often depended on others to help see them through. They would gravitate to peers, family, and/or friends who would listen. The listeners were often those who themselves were facing or had faced

similar emotional states due to their own destructive leadership experiences. Participants

found solace through the simple act of divulging their situation and being heard by

173

someone who had not necessarily gone through the exact same experience, but who had

felt the same emotions and who had reacted with a similar emotional style. In many cases it was as though the people that they confided in served as a mirror for their own

emotions. They were consoled in knowing that they were not alone. It appeared that participants were able to take the first steps towards healing by simply acknowledging the problem with someone who could bear witness.

The next chapter interprets the findings in the context of the study’s conceptual framework and presents conclusions and implications from the study.

174

CHAPTER 5:

DISCUSSION

Destructive leadership experiences and incidences can be found across America.

No particular demographic is immune; individuals of any gender, age, ethnicity, location,

education and experience level, and industry can experience these situations. The

statistics are staggering. Doty and Fenlason (2013) indicated that 20% of those in the

army claimed to have had a toxic leader, and 80% reported having observed a toxic or

destructive leadership experience. Based on such information, there is a high probability

that individuals will either have a toxic leadership encounter or observe a destructive leadership experience at one time or another in their career.

This work provides clear insights into how people from all types of settings deal with and successfully survive adversity, adverse relationships, and destructive leadership.

The intent of this study was not to resolve or prevent destructive leadership experiences, but to examine the accumulated emotional responses to perceived destructive leadership experiences and their emotional and physical impacts based on affective science.

This effort involved reviewing theories and findings from researchers and experts in this field, developing a safe environment and pattern of questions to impartially interview individuals who had a perceived destructive leadership experience, and then carefully analyzing and evaluating their emotional responses to their experiences based on the collected research and comprehension of emotional moods, traits, and styles. My findings and conclusions highlight the participants’ stories of their destructive leadership experiences, their strategy for survival, and the different emotional style components

175

evident in their response to their experiences, in response to the study’s main research

question and three subquestions:

RQ1: What is the lived experience of employees who have experienced a destructive

leader in the workplace?

a. How do employees describe their strategies for surviving a destructive leader

experience?

b. How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience?

c. How do employees perceive their changes, if any, after having survived a

destructive leader experience?

Although participants’ experiences varied in terms of environmental factors,

career fields, support systems, years of experience, education levels, duration of the

destructive leadership experience, and the nature of the experiences, some similarities in

their emotional states can be defined by an emotional style or an emotional system.

Emotional styles, as described by Davidson, are as unique for each individual as their

fingerprints; therefore, the research was not expected to result in one-for-one connections

between all participants’ varied experiences and their unique emotional styles. However,

the lens of examining participants’ responses against emotional styles tells a story that provides insight into how participants felt at the onset of the emotion, how that emotion

ebbed, flowed, and peaked, and how they recovered from the emotional response in both

the short-term and long-term in hindsight.

This study showed the remarkable role that affect plays in perception, even when the participant is unaware of the influence, in line with the study of Duncan and Barrett

(2007). As explained by Davidson and Begley (2012), emotional style is simply the

176

biological explanation of human responses to situations. The participants’ stories made it

abundantly clear that Davidson and Begley’s (2012) definition of an emotional state was

realized throughout each interview. Participants would describe the experience followed

by the emotional state in that moment, which was triggered by the experience. Each

emotional state had a short lifespan and was quickly replaced with another. The strings of

emotional states created emotional styles, which were then used to help understand more

deeply participants’ situations, the types of emotions they were experiencing, and how

they responded as individuals.

This chapter begins by discussing nine conclusions drawn from the study’s key

findings. It then presents implications for theory and suggestions for future research.

Conclusions

Participants described a number of different strategies for surviving their

destructive leadership experiences. Often the strategies weaved together layers of

perception and emotion with regards to their work attitude, outlook on work and life,

desire for purpose, behavior modification for survival, and leveraging of strength and resilience through social networks. Participants often shared how they ultimately responded to their destructive leadership experiences in the moment. They also shared personal accounts of impacts experienced emotionally and physically in the moment because of what they were experiencing. Participants varied in their personal perception of how the destructive leadership experience changed them or their lives. In several interviews, participants shared that, if ever faced with a similar destructive leadership situation, they would act differently based on what they had learned. Participants also shared their lessons learned and a desire to improve.

177

Based on the findings, nine conclusions are presented that align with the subquestions of the primary research question (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Research Subquestions, Themes, Findings, and Associated Conclusions Research question and themes Findings Conclusions a. How do employees 1. Participants expressed their 1. Optimism is a survival describe their attitude about work and life as tool. strategies for surviving optimistic and indicated that their 2. Happiness stems from a a destructive leader work was purposeful. commitment to purpose. experience? 2. Participants modified their 3. Adapting is beneficial but Related themes: behavior around the leader to difficult. —Effect of optimistic enhance survival. outlook 3. Participants found strength in 4. Trusted social interaction —Regulating between confiding in those they trusted, provides individual strength. attention and emotion such as a family member, friend, or colleague. b. How do employees 4. Participants did not report the 5. Fear can be a primary respond when faced destructive leader event while it decision driver. with a destructive was occurring. leader experience? 5. Participants experienced 6. Physical and emotional nonpersistent physical and mental effects fade with resiliency. Related themes: impacts as part of their destructive —Not reporting leader experience. destructive leaders —Harmful nonverbal communication —Physical and emotional effects c. How do employees 6. Participants stated they would 7. Perception can differ from perceive their changes, do something differently if they reality during retrospection. if any, after having were ever faced with a similar survived a destructive situation. leader experience? 7. Participants viewed the 8. Experience provides experience as an opportunity to knowledge. Related theme: learn and change. —Desire to have 9. Transformation can result approached the from intense situations. situation differently

Conclusion 1: Optimism Is a Survival Tool

The optimistic person views the future in a beneficial way. Optimism is a positive emotional state of mind. Eternally optimistic individuals tend to view life in a hopeful, 178

cheerful, and bright light. Maintaining positivity in the face of adversity can be difficult.

Participants often tapped into a multitude of emotional styles to maintain a level of optimism during and/or after facing adversity. Participants self-regulated their emotions even in the thick of their destructive leadership experiences by structuring themselves to stay positive, shifting their attention from the negative to the positive, and utilizing self- awareness to check their perception and evaluate their emotion to reset it if needed to a more positive focus. Jackie described her continual energy for remaining positive and her ability to self-regulate her emotions:

At least I know I can get through it. I don’t think you really know what you’re capable of or what you can tolerate or survive unless you go through it. I’m a lot stronger, I’m a lot wiser, and I know to actively cut it off earlier. There’s no sense living like that for day after day after day. Destructive leaders are not going to make me feel bad about myself, who are going to constantly be on my back or constantly demand something that’s unrealistic or puts me in a situation where I am killing myself to accomplish it. I don’t need that. I’m better than that. I have more options than that, and enough is enough. So I would say I’m a lot more focused on doing what’s healthy for me.

Schneider (2001) imparted the wisdom that optimism is used, knowingly or not, as a coping strategy and a tool for survival. The most effective trait is realistic optimism.

He explained that realistic optimism involves hoping, aspiring, and searching for positive experiences while acknowledging what we do not know and accepting what we cannot know. In dealing with unresolved uncertainties, realistic optimism involves hoping for and working toward desired outcomes without having the expectation that particular outcomes will occur, especially with little or no effort to bring them about. Instead, the hopes and aspirations associated with realistic optimism are coupled with a focus on possible opportunities to increase the likelihood of desirable and personally meaningful outcomes contingent on situational constraints (Schneider, 2001, p. 253).

179

When considering realistic optimism in the face of destructive leadership, I think of the continued optimistic outlook Anne Frank maintained while she and her family were in hiding due to the persecution of Jewish people. Although she was not able to leave the few rooms they were hiding in, she thought about possibilities for her future, and those thoughts gave her strength to survive 2 years. Because she took the time to document her experience and thoughts, we have another validation of the power of positive outlook. When talking about Anne Frank, the English actress Emma Thompson said that her “what-ifs” are now our opportunities. Ms. Thompson, I believe, was not encouraging listeners to become a writer like Anne Frank aspired to be but was encouraging them to be hopeful even when they were in an uncertain situation.

The outlook emotional style was categorized by Davidson and Begley (2012) as the duration one can sustain positivity. Outlook is defined by individuals’ view of life and how they characteristically see themselves, their situations, and others. Individuals’ overall outlook is how they perceive life as a whole in the past, present, or future. Most individuals fall into one of two categories: either they are optimistic, full of hope, and largely happy, or they are pessimistic, often negative, cynical, or in despair. Participants overwhelmingly categorized themselves as optimistic. As Ginny stated, “I think I have an optimistic outlook on life. I feel hopeful and generally upbeat.”

Conclusion 2: Happiness Stems from a Strong Commitment to Purpose

Overall, as noted by Keyes, Shmotkin, and Ryff (2002), I concluded that happiness appears to result from a commitment to a meaningful and purposeful life.

Happiness can be maintained by individuals or, as Siegel pointed out, can be regained through the ESSENCE aspect of creative exploration. This view rang true with most

180

participants; when asked how they generally viewed work and their personal life, they

responded that the two views were similar. All participants identified as optimistic in

both work and personal life. They attributed the positivity in their professional lives to

believing that the work that they were doing was bigger than them, meaningful to them,

and purposeful. Andrea described her sense of purpose:

I loved the company and what I did, and I believed in what I was doing. I felt like what I was doing was a positive impact in people’s lives and I was contributing to the greater good and I was adding value, and that was fulfilling. I really enjoyed the work that I was doing and what I believed I was doing to help other people.

A sense of purpose helps individuals approach situations, deal with adversity, and successfully cope with outcomes. Purpose tends to promote resilience. Those with purpose can find meaning in the events that happen around them and are better placed to reappraise situations and regulate emotions cognitively and end up making the most of bad situations. Purpose offers a considerable psychological buffer against obstacles encountered in life (Kashdan & McKnight, 2013). With a focus on purpose, individuals are likely to be satisfied with life outcomes despite the difficulties they experience.

Conclusion 3: Adapting Is Beneficial but Difficult

To adapt, individuals must assess their environment, make decisions, be self- aware, regulate their emotions, and maintain disciplined attention. In this study, individuals had to accomplish all of those things while in a destructive situation, which is difficult. Participants in this study felt it was beneficial to blend in or adapt to their environment for an improved chance of survival. For example, Melissa described her adaptation:

181

After my first very uncomfortable meeting with my destructive leader, having experienced both verbal and nonverbal cues, I took away from it that I was not allowed to say anything to a board member other than refer them back to reporting that the call center provided to the board. So if they asked how are things going, I couldn’t say, “Well, things are really stressful right now, but we accomplished this.” I’d have to say, “Well, you know, as you saw in the report, we did this and this.” So I decided at that point that me interacting with the board somehow made her uncomfortable, so I stopped going to board meetings.

At the same time, the participants demonstrated varying success in adaptation depending on their emotional styles. Examples are given for the social intuition, sensitivity to context, and attention styles.

Social intuition style. The social intuition style involves having the ability to observe the social cues and signals of others and then process those cues and make informed judgments or decisions without engaging in conversation (Davidson, 2000).

Social observations can be perceived as positive, negative, or neutral; often, facial expressions, hand movements, body language, and other signs tell their own story.

Sometimes social intuition comes naturally, and individuals are able to see subtle movements or cues and instantly translate their meanings; at other times, it does not come naturally, and individuals face confusion in attempting to decode social signals.

The participant interviews were peppered with examples of social intuition as an emotional style. Melissa described how “the destructive leader would often sit with her arms folded during our meetings. She had this hand gesture she would make, this kind of dismissive, kind of body language thing.” Most frequently, participants observed their destructive leaders pursing lips, squinting eyes, crossing arms, being abnormally quiet and unresponsive in meetings, or otherwise exhibiting anger or a bad mood, as Anthony related:

182

There were nonverbal destructive leadership behaviors where they were making different kinds of facial or body signs to show they’re not interested, that whatever you have to say, I’m sitting here but I’m really not with you, or really not paying attention and, in fact, some of the things you’re saying I’m exasperated with, where I roll an eye or I fold my arms or it’s those type of things that send clear messages of what you’re talking about or not talking.

Some participants observed violent actions, with their destructive leader throwing things out of rage, kicking walls, or slamming heavy binders down on desks. Jackie described one such instance:

I was at my desk and the woman who sat next to me, she’d been working on a major solicitation, and the destructive leader came over with the binder in his hands and actually slammed it down on her desk, which got everybody in the office’s attention, and started screaming at her and said, “How dare you give me this piece of . . .,” to which point she promptly burst into tears, and it was really ugly to watch and uncomfortable.

In other cases, participants were left feeling confused, as they were unable to read or construe the destructive leader’s body language, facial cues, or nonemotionally ambivalent state. Sometimes they were unable to pick up on the behavior at first but learned over time how to decipher each signal as they came to learn their leader’s style.

This discovery was also found in Fusaro and Harris’s (2013) research, where they determined that simple gestures can define how people interact with each other and explained that humans use a model of predicting and processing nonverbal cues to interpret the world around them. This same processing model was found in multiple examples from the participants, where they used social intuition to construct a deeper meaning and interaction between themselves and their destructive leaders.

Sensitivity to context style. The sensitivity to context emotional style is related to the impacts of the human experience through culture, social interactions, and self- perception. Sensitivity to context goes deep below the superficial human layer of

183

interaction and allows those who have the ability to do so, to connect on a more complex

and deeper social level. Davidson’s (2000) research discovered that individuals can regulate their emotional responses with this emotional style if they are in tune with the social interactions around them and can respond to the context of their situation by controlling their emotions.

Multiple examples of sensitivity to context from this study supported Davidson’s research on this emotional style. It was not uncommon for participants to share how they would experience an event with their destructive leader and, in the moment, regardless of their emotional mood or state, they had to control and regulate how they were feeling.

Pam gave this example:

My destructive leader would be throwing his hands in the air and stomping off, slamming your door, throwing a piece of paper down at your feet. I would control my emotions. I’m not really an angry person and I’m not one to lash out, but if he could get you upset, that’s what he really wanted. So I’d just try to control my emotions and deal with it at school and if it got too much to leave office, maybe go hide out in someone’s room until I calmed down.

There were several references from participants of times when they had to tap into their sensitivity to context style to control their emotions when their leader was being verbally or nonverbally destructive. As Samuel stated, “The destructive leader constantly berated people, he constantly gave his opinion, so that it became watered down, and when he said things it didn’t matter anymore. We were simply trying to survive this individual, stay out of his way, not be publicly embarrassed.”

Attention style. As noted through Davidson’s (2000) research, the attention emotional style is individuals’ ability to carve out pure focus through the chaos, distractions, and destructive environment around them. The participants often displayed characteristics of Cohen et al.’s (2011) description of three interrelated mechanisms:

184

some form of alert or warning of what is happening, followed by orienting and changing

their attention to something else within the situation and then executive attention.

In several interviews, participants gave their perspectives of the experiences they

were in and were able to depict how they processed emotions, which allowed them to be

able to react or back away from the destruction, seek encouragement from other sources,

and remain focused on the work they were hired to do in spite of the destructive

leadership experiences happening around them. Derrick described his approach to

enduring: By staying focused and knowing that his situation was not permanent, he

learned to adapt to his circumstance:

One way that I would try and get through destructive leadership situations was through the camaraderie or assistance of other coworkers. I would get strength from talking to others that were in similar situations and trying to find out: Is it me, am I just not getting it, or are you all having the same problem? There I would get validation of many of my thoughts. And if it was just me, if that happened to be the case, then that’s something I’d work on. But when I got validation that it was not me, it was the style of leader, my recourse was first I always try and figure it out and solve this situation. Whether it’s a private conversation or whether it’s exposing the situation and asking for clearer guidance. So I did try that. It did not succeed because again there’s no admission of fault, there’s no further explanation other than I just want it done. Personally, I would get my strength from “this too will pass.” That all I have to do is be strong and stay focused and somehow time will help solve this.

The attention emotional style played a central role in individuals’ ability to process emotions in real time. As Davidson (2000) described, self-awareness is one’s reality. This emotional style surfaced among individuals who were able to be conscious of how they felt and reflect on that emotion. I found a range of this emotional style, from those who had difficulty connecting to their feelings to those who knew their feelings clearly. Keen self-awareness gives individuals an edge to recognize their thoughts and

185

emotions and how others perceive their behaviors or feelings, and then the ability to

proactively regulate those emotions.

Several participants revealed examples of self-awareness throughout their

destructive leadership experiences and well after their experience had ended. These

examples were supported by research by Heatherton and Wagner (2011) and Koole

(2009) related to self-regulation. As they noted, the participants displayed a strong ability

to be able to control their emotions and their actions, all while performing a vast range of

tasks. Maddie explained her effort to avoid crying:

I felt like I had to control my behaviors all the time because I felt like, more often than not, I was close to tears with my destructive leader. She made somebody cry at work, and she then had made a derogatory statement about that person crying at work. So I made up my mind that no matter what she said to me, I was not going to cry. I’ll give you another example of how she just belittled me. I wanted to meet with her about something that was already contentious. I was in the meeting room sitting down; she came in and she sat down. I spoke maybe a sentence, she stood up, she walked out and she slammed the door and never said a word to me. I mean, that’s how little she thought of me as a person, as an employee, and what I had to say. Some days I was stronger than others, but I made up my mind I was not going to cry. It was hard not to get anxious with her. I felt like I was on the defensive all the time, but I made up my mind even though I was extremely anxious I was not going to cry.

Participants demonstrated examples of this emotional style through sharing how

they believed they were mindful enough to be able to judge their own behaviors or the

behaviors of those around them, how those behaviors were being perceived by others or

themselves, and then how they were able to respond to those perceived behaviors to

control their emotions and adapt to their environment.

Adapting is much easier to discuss than actually to accomplish. Individuals must have the ability to understand their environment and then make the right decisions that on the surface will make the destructive leader believe there is no resistance from the

186

follower. Once followers make that decision, it can be even more difficult for them to regulate their emotions when the situation is still intense. They must have great self-

awareness and stay focused, maintaining strict attention to those aspects that support the decision made and the path forward. It is a significant accomplishment to be able to accomplish all those aspects for a sustained period of time.

Conclusion 4: Trusted Social Interaction Provides Individual Strength

Participants often indicated that sharing their emotions with trusted friends, peers,

and/or family seemed to serve as their outlet to unplug from regulating their emotions.

Helen described sharing with coworkers:

I tolerated behavior from him that I would not ever tolerate from anybody else again. I survived because I had friends at work I could talk to. My destructive leadership’s behavior was anything but subtle. I would say that he talked to all of us system engineers who worked for him the same. He was a challenging person to work for because he seemed to be self-destructive and destructive at the same time, and we all suffered from one kind or another. He didn’t treat me any worse than he treated anybody else, so I didn’t feel singled out. That helped—I mean, if you’re persecuted and everybody else around you is treated well, that’s makes you feel, or at least might have made me feel like there was something wrong with me. So I never thought that way.

Social interaction was discussed in ESSENCE as the experience of social

engagement, when teenagers turn more towards their peers instead of their parents. The

downside is that they are likely to succumb to peer pressure in the hope of gaining

membership into a given group. The upside is the critical role that supportive

relationships play in one’s life. Relationships are an integral component of mental and

medical health, happiness, and longevity (Siegel, 2014a). Adults are more likely to turn

to helpful relationships when seeking social support and, as such, are likely to make more of this feature than teenagers do.

187

In this study, many of the participants reflected the ESSENCE aspect of social engagement by expressing the importance of mutually rewarding relationships built across a vast array of people they encountered. Some expressed supportive social connections built with family members such as spouses, parents, and siblings. Derrick indicated that he learned valuable lessons from his parents:

What influenced me early in life were my parents—from that era, where I had a great relationship with both my parents, and was the, a pretty good son I think. We had somewhat of a close family, not extremely close, but it was a family value. That carried me through on many occasions. What I was taught as a child was you are responsible for all your actions; you are also responsible in the future for what you do today. I think that did help me many times, and it also taught me, particularly my mother, taught me that sometimes in life there are challenging moments or difficult moments and it is your job to rise above it.

Others shared stories of friends they would lean on during times of strife. Some participants constructed helpful connections through trusted medical professionals.

Others were able to commiserate with colleagues about their destructive leadership experiences and built mutually rewarding relationships with coworkers, as Helen described:

Well, I was fortunate when I went to work there that a woman that worked quite closely with my manager; she was also a system engineer and we hit it off. She became my best friend at work and she helped me a lot. You know, she suffered under our manager’s behavior too.

Conclusion 5: Fear Can Be a Primary Decision Driver

In response to the second subquestion—How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience?—two conclusions emerged: Fear can be a primary decision driver, and physical and emotional effects fade with resiliency. In terms of fear, employees often remained silent in fear of retaliation from supervisors that could be

188

damaging to their reputation, harm work relationships, or result in not being supported in their position (Lebel, 2016). Fear is an adaptive, motivating, and coordinating action that enables employees to deal with existing or potential threats. The presence of fear functions to help individuals protect against potential threats through such actions as avoiding the situation, freezing in place, or withdrawal (Foster, Barnetson, & Matsunaga-

Turnbull, 2018). In the FEAR emotional system, as described by Panksepp, activation of the brain areas responsible for fear generates feelings of anxiety (Panksepp, 2010).

Anxiety can overshadow rational thought and drive decisions.

When considering employee-supervisor interaction, fear does not always result in flight but the adaption of protective behaviors whose primary purpose is to maintain the relationship, with the view of avoiding the negative consequences or retaliation (Lebel,

2016). Succinctly, fear makes the employees mediate between options to eventually settle for those that offer protection against the perceived threat. Participants described how they as well as others feared their supervisor. Helen commented:

We had a director that really, she wasn’t terribly interested in working in the shipyard. She was prone to panic attacks and then could be very nasty at times. So I got to see that and didn’t like it very much, and it tended to make the managers that reported to her rather fearful. They were afraid to bring her bad news; they were afraid to bring her even good news because she was so erratic in her behavior.

Employees benefit from quality relationships with their supervisors; those

relationships enhance their personal and professional growth (Sollitto, Martin, Dusic,

Gibbons, & Wagenhouser, 2014). As such, they are afraid to let anything damage these

relationships. Notably, ruining the relationship creates the fear of losing one’s job, among other adverse outcomes that could be damaging to the individual (Lebel, 2016).

Therefore, decisions employees make are subject to perceived retaliation, not only to

189

themselves but their families and coworkers. In other instances, employees make

decisions that work against their well-being, as Andrea related:

She would give an entire list of things that needed to be done by Friday, and there were, it was more the way in which she, she acted, her behaviors and sometimes things that she said that let you know that if you didn’t do it, she would find somebody who did and replace you. There was this constant management by fear of you will and can be replaced.

With the fear of being replaced, this participant worked however many hours necessary to

meet unrealistic deadlines, sometimes sleeping only a few hours each night.

As described by participants in this study, fear influences decisions because of the

perceived risks. Risks lead people into points of indecision, where they have to weigh the

desired outcome against the treacherous path they will have to move through to reach the

goal. In most cases, fear drives people into desperation, and for that reason, they settle for

the unpleasant choice that is associated with certainty.

Sammy Davis, Jr., a great American entertainer, once said, “You always have two choices, your commitment versus your fear.” It seems he was stating that fear is as strong as commitment and may be the only reason someone waivers on commitment.

Conclusion 6: Physical and Emotional Effects Fade with Resiliency

Negative physical and emotional effects outside of the norm were commonly reported by the participants as a direct result of their destructive leadership experiences.

Several individuals reported undesirable bodily and emotional side effects that were beyond their control. Some experienced outbursts, anxiety, uncontrolled emotions such as sadness and anger, and loss of self-confidence and self-esteem. Some participants had issues with being able to sleep through the night, not eating enough, eating more than

190

they would normally, or being withdrawn from normal activities. Derrick described some of his effects:

I had problems eating. I had problems sleeping, I had problems with the destructive leadership. I couldn’t understand it. He was boxing me out, he was being a jerk. I didn’t really take it personally, I was disappointed in him, but I didn’t feel like I had failed as a person. I tried everything I could. He really wasn’t trying to let anyone in. He had lied to people and he was shielding his relationship with the client so that we couldn’t get to him, and he wouldn’t tell us what he wanted us to do with the client. He wasn’t the greatest of people. I don’t know if it was shame or guilt, but I physiologically felt bad because I didn’t understand.

The unwanted physical and emotional impacts were often observed as a way to cope with the stress from their destructive leadership experiences. Maddie described how she did “what you have to do to keep going”:

I’m a voracious reader. I stopped reading, I stopped exercising, which is probably the worst thing I could do. Once I had the gastric bypass surgery, I had to watch what I ate, but I could certainly eat comfort food. I stopped reading, I stopped exercising, I had to take medication to sleep. It pretty much was that I would go to work and I’d come home and I’d basically plop down and watch TV and go to sleep, which was really no way to live. But, I think when you’re struggling just to survive, you do just what you have to do to keep going, and that’s what I did.

The traumatizing effects that impacted the emotional and physical well-being were short-term in some cases and longer-term in other cases. Commenting “almost exactly a year” after leaving the organization, Melissa described how she had “pursued mental health treatment and care since that time for my destructive leadership experience.”

The study showed that participants eventually reverted to their previous state of emotional and physical health. Participants reported returning to normal sleep and eating habits, as well as overcoming negative emotional effects. Their ability to bounce back from the adversity determined how long the recovery took. Some negative effects faded

191

faster than others. As Derrick said, “It’s not like I trust people less or I’m not going to trust people. I didn’t for a period of time, at least those 6 months, and then it was like a tapering off of me getting better. I’m much better now than I used to be during that period.”

The resiliency emotional style is determined by how slowly or quickly individuals recover from their adversity to return to their previous normal state of being. Regardless of the emotional states they felt in the moments of or shortly after the destructive leadership experience, most participants were able to bounce back. The nature of this study did not permit evaluation of the intricacies of resiliency as it relates to the brain’s prefrontal cortex and amygdala connecting to the axons or to the inner workings and complex details of the neural pathways sending and receiving calming signals to the brain. However, it was evident from the participants’ descriptions of emotional states that many did in fact recover from their adversity based on their current emotional states, moods, and emotional styles. This recovery occurred in part because the negative emotions felt as a direct result of the destructive leadership experiences did not persist.

They lasted for a brief moment and passed. As Davidson (2000) noted, resilience is clearly tied to positive affect. It is not that resilient individuals never experience negative affect, but rather that the negative affect does not persist.

Optimism is a powerful mechanism for resiliency. Research by Tugade and

Fredrickson (2004) showed that those who have the ability to self-generate positive emotions are more likely to be resilient and bounce back from traumatic events simply through the influence of positivity.

192

Examples of resiliency were found in participants’ stories when they described

their emotional states during and after their destructive leadership experiences. They told

of how they perceived their emotions during their moments of adversity and how they were able to recover from those emotional states over time. Participants gave many examples of being able to reverse the signs of physical or emotional impacts almost completely or being able to return to their original state of normality. The effects on relationships and strained marriages had also lifted, with a return to normal. One participant, Maddie, was continuing treatment with a professional for her emotional well- being but reported that she had made great strides in recovery: “At the level that it got to be, it took professional help to get me through this.” All of this evidence collected throughout the interviews supports the conclusion that although they experienced emotional and physical harm, in time those effects faded and became just a memory.

Conclusion 7: Perception Can Differ from Reality During Retrospection

This conclusion and the two that follow answer the third subquestion: How do employees perceive their changes, if any, after having survived a destructive leader experience? With retrospection, participants evaluated past events in their lives and contemplated an ESSENCE aspect of novelty and a different ending. Many participants expressed that if they were faced with the challenge of destructive leadership in the future, they would react by addressing the situation directly or indirectly and leaving the position or job if the situation did not improve immediately. Fred discussed some considerations for addressing the situation:

From the standpoint of how to survive a bad boss, angry boss, mean boss, whatever you want to call it, I’m not sure that I can say there’s a good way to do that. I think you have to either deal with it—and that means by disconnecting

193

yourself from it and not caring because you have to—or facing it directly and be willing to take the consequences that come with it. I’ve been on the other side of it, where you have a, I’ll call a supportive, empowering boss and/or owner; that is a much more productive scenario to be in, in every aspect. We got more achieved, we got more done, decisions were made quicker because everything didn’t have to go through one person; it went through the people that knew what was going on, the people that had the accurate information. So if there is a bad boss, you can’t get around that and if you’re in that situation, it might not be a bad situation and you should get out of it.

All participants indicated that if given the choice, they would not have continued to work for their destructive leader. Factors beyond their control such as physiological drivers and basic instinctive needs were responsible for participants staying in their role and tolerating their destructive leaders for days, months, or years on end.

As noted by Hornstein (1996), some destructive leaders are considered abusive, controlling others through methods that create fear and intimidation. Kile’s (1990) research resulted in the destructive leadership concept of a health-endangering leader, which is someone who behaves in such a way that their subordinates develop poor health attributed to their leader’s behaviors. Lipman-Blumen (2005) presented the concept of a toxic leader, one who acts without integrity by engaging in various dishonorable behaviors including corruption, hypocrisy, sabotage, and manipulation, as well as other unethical, illegal, and criminal acts. Because of having an abusive leader, health- endangering leader, or toxic leader, participants in the moment were not generally in a position to leave because of their physiological drivers. When looking back, the participants could have taken action to remove themselves from the situation; however, their perception during the event was that they had few if any options. In retrospect, they would do something different in the future and wished they would have done something

194

sooner when they were going through the event. Their perceptions at the time differed from their evaluation upon retrospection.

Conclusion 8: Experience Provides Knowledge

In many cases, participants utilized the worst parts of the destructive leadership experience as an opportunity to learn from others’ mistakes. Diana explained:

I think the experience resulted in a change in my outlook because it made me realize that you’ve got to look out for yourself, and that life’s too short to be that miserable, and if you find people that are supportive, stick with those people because good relationships are what’s important in life.

Similar to Joseph et al. (2005), I found examples of the new positive psychology, wherein the victims of destructive leadership took the experience, self-analyzed the information, and used the negativity as a self-teaching opportunity to restructure points of view of themselves and/or the world, as well as coping strategies. One participant in particular observed the negative experience as affecting her perspective on work and her desire to work as hard as she could. I detected through her discussions that once she identified that emotional state, she was able to reverse her train of thought and focus on what was important to her in life; she was able to use her optimistic outlook to change her negative emotions towards work. The participant shared that this brief negative emotional state taught her so much that it made her positive emotional state stronger and made her even more optimistic than she was originally.

Experience allows people to look at their past, reflect on the events that took place, and learn from them (Castellaneta, Valentini, & Zollo, 2017). Those who share details from their past to try and inspire others can do so not necessarily because their life experiences are extraordinary but rather because they have learned from them and can

195

provide insight to others. Individuals can inspire others by showing that certain situations

can be managed through similar approaches even where other people’s incidents differ

from their own.

Experience enables an individual to identify solutions in a way that an audience

may be able to understand (Castellaneta et al., 2017). He or she can provide warnings on

what to avoid and the skills to acquire to manage specific situations. Others can learn

from him or her how to react to different situations, which can help them be better

prepared if faced with a situation.

Bo described how he was able to learn from the experience:

While it was happening, the destructive leader gave me anxiety. It was just every day when I pulled through those gates at work, I was just like I’ve got to deal with his guy. The whole time I was just sitting there thinking: God, what is he going to do whenever he gets down here? What’s he going to say? In the end, I think that any situation that you’re in, good or bad, you can learn from it. You’ll always learn from it. You learn from everything that you’re involved in, and I’ve been involved in a lot of bad things and I’ve been involved in a lot of good things, but you learn a lot more from the bad . . . because I think the worst usually gets you thinking a lot.

Experience, whether positive or negative, has great value, as it provides

knowledge that is useful in maneuvering similar situations in the future. Benefit can be

gained by those who engage in reflection for the importance of applying knowledge to

their future or to share with others.

Conclusion 9: Transformation Can Result from Intense Situations

Through many participants’ intense destructive leadership situations, they were

able to transform in the face of adversity. The power of the mind and its flexible ability to

propel individuals into a transformed state through difficult and challenging times is

196

remarkable. Siegel addressed at great length the phenomenon that is the brain, which acts as a control center and enables individuals to make positive choices and creative changes.

The brain is a powerful source for accessing, decoding, and formulating what is learned and integrating that learned knowledge into growth and development for oneself and others. The brain ultimately drives individuals to overcome obstacles and become stronger with time, to cultivate a more productive and fruitful life through healthy growth, which leads to natural vitality from adolescence through adulthood. Fred believed every experience can change you, and he described how this destructive leader experience changed him:

I think every experience changes you as a manager and as a person—whether it’s, you know, working with the boss or whether it’s working with the guy on the production line that you help figure something out. I think there’s nothing that doesn’t change you. That particular event definitely changed me because in my mind, anybody that self-concerned and that self-absorbed and that thought that they were that intelligent, that they could run everything and everything had to go through them, could ever concede that, no, I have flaws and we need to do something else. I did not expect that. So yeah, I thought I had him figured out: He was a narcissist, he is going to react, when I approach him with this he’s going to react in a specific way. No, I was wrong. So, yeah, I was definitely surprised, and I’ve learned that even the people that have rage issues, anger issues maybe, there’s more to it than just they’re mean. Since that point, it’s actually a productive business relationship, not just for myself but for the majority of people there. And so it definitely, yeah, surprised me and changed me.

A common thread woven throughout this study was the experience of transformation for those who embraced their destructive leadership experiences. Through the ESSENCE of emotional spark, social engagement, novelty, and creative exploration, participants survived intense situations and destructive leadership experiences and emerged having transformed themselves and experienced self-recreation.

Sometimes the new perspective was gained through their imagination, as they pushed against the status quo of how things were versus how they could be and then

197

strove for change through creative exploration. Samuel explained the perspective gained

from being proud of his staff and others in the way they responded to the destructive

leader:

My negative views are only towards my destructive leader. I see this retired general now from time to time and I don’t speak to him, but one of the things that this did, the impact it had on me is I was very proud of my staff. They were working in an austere environment overseas. They didn’t get reimbursed or paid what they should have been; they didn’t have the luxuries and benefits as people stateside; they were underappreciated. And when he came out and abused them, he abused them and he abused me. I was very proud of how they handled themselves. They were very dignified. They didn’t bite, they didn’t play his games. And so at least my own staff out there in the South Pacific, I was just very impressed with them. I said: Wow, you know, they have handled themselves very professionally. I was also impressed with the ambassador and the mid-level career civilian that pushed back on the general and the way the ambassador handled herself. So, I guess when there’s bullies like this around—abusive, hostile leaders—you could always seek comfort in the fact that there are people around that absolutely know how to handle people like this that are polished and . . . don’t let them rattle them.

In the ESSENCE aspect of novelty, the change occurred as participants went through their different experiences; some changes were more tangible, such as a decision to begin formal education or change profession. The social engagement aspect of

ESSENCE enabled participants to transform by accepting themselves and their situation through meaningful connections with people from different walks of life.

Novelty seeking emanates from shifts in the dopamine system of the brain, with the downside being injury and risk-taking behavior (Siegel, 2014a). The upside is gaining enough courage to leave a certain, familiar, and safe situation for the uncertain, unfamiliar, and potentially unsafe world beyond. Adults are emotionally stronger than the adolescents described in the original ESSENCE theory and can manage the potential downside better and capitalize on the positive side. Samuel described how his experience taught him what not to do:

198

It changed me because it made me more compassionate toward subordinates. Although I had been exposed to destructive leadership earlier in my career, but not to this level, and what it makes you do is you say: Wow, I use that person as an example. This destructive leader was an example of how not to be, so I did everything, I want to do everything differently than this individual did, absolutely. I don’t want to be compared to this guy, don’t want to have any, use any of the traits or methods that he used.

Novelty was revealed in this study through moments of discovery, self- motivation, and transformation. It was found in participants who were able to accept their

destructive leaders and leadership experiences for what they were, pragmatically choose

to not allow those experiences to trap them for longer than professionally necessary, and seek out opportunities to escape, evolve, and emerge with new and different experiences and professions. Jackie described how she made a change:

It was probably one of the most painful experiences I’ve ever been involved in. I would get in the car and just be crying hysterically for the commute home. I relied on my mom, because I really solicited her advice about what kind of complaints should I make and what my options were. I think because I had the support system of my mom, and the wherewithal to say I’m not going to put up with this, I’m going to go make a change and see that luckily I have options and I can get out of here. I think if I didn’t have options and couldn’t go anywhere else, it would be a completely different story.

Regardless of participants’ emotional state or style, the novelty aspect of

ESSENCE overshadowed any fear, sadness, or concerns that they were leaving an

already bad situation for one that was worse; instead, they embraced the unknown in

search of new and challenging experiences. Maddie described how she felt she changed:

It changed me. When I look back on it, I see that things can be worse. I mean, it was horrible, but anything can be worse. So I have put things in perspective. It has taught me to really stand up for myself much more than I ever did before.

Creative exploration bears close resemblance to novelty seeking, as it emerges

when challenging the status quo and exploring new possibilities as opposed to simply

199

accepting things the way they are (Siegel, 2014a). The obvious downside is that failing to conform to normal life can be stressful and disorienting. However, the passion and thrill associated with discovery, and the reality of great innovations, constitute an upside.

In this study, it was refreshing to observe creative exploration given the challenging and sometimes uncomfortable topic. Creative exploration was evident in the unique way participants were able to articulate what they endured, relive their emotions, and, through retrospective reflection, see their experiences through a different lens.

Through abstract reasoning and conceptional thinking, some participants were able to use the flow of energy to alter their perceptions. Derrick explained how he came to understand destructive leaders:

Sometimes I believe leaders do well in the beginning, or maybe they’re in the right job in the beginning, but they somehow evolve, whether it’s glory, whether it’s promotions, new titles, whatever you want to call it, they fall into this category. They don’t mean to; they’re not evil people necessarily—maybe a few, but normally they’re not. They acquire these traits, and I think it would be interesting to find out why. Why do people change like that? And it’s not just this particular one; I’ve seen it happen with other people. It’s almost the more they go or the higher they go, I’ll say, they go through this period of turning the attention on themselves as opposed to what they’re trying to do. What I find the most interesting—and throughout my career I’ve always found this interesting—the workers at the entry level, the mid-level, are always striving to do the right thing, and the ones at the very top are striving to do the right things. It’s when you get to a certain point, they go off course.

Several participants expressed transforming because of their experience, stating that, if ever faced with a similar situation, they would do something differently. As Pam said, “If I experienced it again, I would stand up for myself more.”

Figure 5.1 shows the framework of this transformation, updating the original conceptual framework with both the elements of ESSENCE and the outcome of a transformative experience.

200

Figure 5.1. Revised conceptual framework: Essential self-transformation (Siegel, 2012).

Implications for Theory

The significant research conducted in this study supports many theories in the field of cognitive and affective sciences. Three theoretical implications of the observations of the participants’ experiences are related to (a) the infiltration of the physical and emotional effects from the destructive leadership experience into other aspects of the participants’ lives, (b) the creation of a culture of optimism to prolong positive outlooks and emotions, and (c) the connection of emotion, cognition, and mind.

Participants gave numerous examples of the physical effects and emotional affect of a destructive leader experience. Theory can be enhanced by exploring how these effects ripple far beyond the particular situation to affect other aspects and relationships.

Loss or gain of appetite, loss of sleep, and loss of concentration are examples of unhealthy effects that lead to weight gain or loss, physical fatigue and exhaustion, and inability to focus or have sharp attention. The emotional effects and affect of feeling

201

unsafe, incompetent, fearful, or afraid are examples of unhealthy effects that lead to insecurities, sadness, and unworthiness. Over time, the physical and emotional effects become overwhelming and begin to influence and affect how individuals interact with their colleagues, their family and friends, as well as their community and society as a whole. As this negativity and unhealthiness breed, they slowly begin to consume others and affect things such as employee morale and family and marital relationships.

The second theoretical implication centers on the significant power of the outlook emotional style. Theories regarding an optimistic view on life and how it connects to a sustained positive emotion were corroborated through work of Davidson and Begley

(2012) and through a myriad of participant examples in this study, and this research confirms Davidson and Begley’s work. It is vital not only to harness power and energy, but also to cultivate and deeply root optimism as a core principle in every person. This implication moves from what was found in the emotional response to destructive leadership to exploring how creating a culture of optimism prolongs positive outlook and emotion. This research confirms Croswell and Gajjar’s (2007) assertion that emotion and affect are the essential energy to transform behavior during the practice of mindfulness.

The third implication centers on the connection of the mind with emotion and cognition. Dr. Dan Siegel recently proposed variation to the way the mind is conceived.

While the mind has predominantly been defined as that element of the human brain that guides individuals’ thought, consciousness, and awareness of their environments, Siegel’s

(2016) hypothesis proposes that the mind also arises from individuals’ interactions with others. That said, Siegel’s definition of the mind does not alter its interrelation with both emotion and cognition. According to the American Psychological Association, emotion is

202

defined as a combination of changes that may be physical, behavioral, cognitive, or feeling in nature that are made in reaction to an important situation (Mauss & Robinson,

2009). Cognition, on the other hand, is defined as the process by which individuals process information (Dolan, 2002). Not only are cognition, emotions, and the mind linked, they combine to influence human behavior daily.

Siegel’s primary proposal is that the mind is not confined to the body. Essentially, it is a process “that regulates energy and information flow within and among us” and thus cannot be tangibly described as an object within the brain (Siegel, 2016). What this means is that the mind is not necessarily the tool that allows us to perceive our experiences but rather is also made up of those experiences. The understanding and appreciation of the connection between emotion, cognition, and mind is important to studies relating to surviving adverse situations. Oftentimes, studies connect emotion and cognition but don’t consider the mind as defined by Siegel.

Implications for Practice

The study findings have three practical implications: (a) identifying a destructive leader early and changing course to mitigate destructive leadership experience outcomes;

(b) implementing strategies to develop emerging leaders to prevent destructive leadership behavior; and (c) providing skills, attitudes, practices, and techniques to better position individuals for survival if faced with a destructive leader.

First, this study demonstrates a need for companies to take responsibility for identifying destructive leaders early before any budding destructive leadership experiences occur. A number of methods can be used to recognize traits of a poor leader and allow time for an intervention. For example, employee surveys can be conducted

203

internally or through third-party vendors to help identify any potential issues. Ensuring

that followers know their options for reporting or identifying destructive leaders is

important, and the reporting could be accomplished through a third-party entity to

provide followers a less-intimidating environment to discuss their concerns. Anonymous

feedback avenues tend to generate the most response as a way to overcome concerns

about retaliation to the follower. Another option may be for a company to have

designated employee advocates within the workplace. If a potential destructive leader has

been identified, companies can implement strategies to intervene with the team,

individual, and/or leader to help course correct.

Second, this study discovered a need for companies to implement strategies and

practices to develop leaders with the intent of preventing a future destructive leader

experience. Several methods can be used to help instill knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Companies should explore strategies to educate and encourage individuals, both leaders

and followers, on what they can do to enact a positive organizational culture, which in

turn should reduce destructive leader events as well as help prepare followers to take

action if destructive behavior arises. Companies can implement a variety of programs to

help develop leaders, such as an emerging leader’s curriculum, formal or informal

coaching, or mentoring. These types of programs provide a safe and nurturing space for

future leaders to learn expectations for properly leading, inspiring, communicating, and

managing. More often than not, the training that is provided focuses on the positive and

what individuals should do to be an excellent leader. Such training should be expanded to

discuss the challenges of leadership as well as signs of destructive actions. Knowledge in those areas should assist leaders in recognizing potential destructive behavior to self-

204

correct or recognizing it in other leaders to make organizational improvements. The

programs can also demonstrate people management soft skills through role playing,

interactive conversations, or case studies. Programs should be mandatory and could result in a certification or recognition for ownership and pride.

Third, this study discovered a need for companies to focus on skills, practices, and techniques to better position individuals with the knowledge of how best to respond and act in the face of adversity. It also confirmed Croswell and Gajjar’s (2007) assertion that

emotion and affect are the essential energy or potential fused to transform behavior

during learning and the practice of mindfulness. Implementation of these skills could help

an individual handle a destructive leadership experience. In addition to providing skills to

help individuals withstand a destructive leader event, it may be beneficial to educate

individuals on identifying opportunities to take positive action versus adapting to the

situation. Individuals expend much energy to survive a destructive leader experience; if

that same energy were redirected and used to enact a change, our destructive leader

events may look very different in the future. The one participant who decided to confront

his destructive leader in a nonthreatening manner experienced a surprising outcome that

was a major positive shift for the organization. That participant, after taking action,

experienced a sense of relief or a sense of being freed from carrying the burden of the

negative working relationship he had with his leader. Formal training in topics such as

mindfulness, conflict resolution, or coping mechanisms could help an individual identify

options for addressing the issue, staying calm, and employing tangible and intangible

coping methods. Employee engagement advocates or human resource business partners

could work hand in hand as advisors to uncover any simmering situations and mediate to

205

create solutions. It is vital that any solutions consider the connection of the mind, cognition, and emotions, as they are all central to everyday human living. As Siegel proposed, the mind is not confined by the body; it is more complex and can inform a broader set of factors. Despite being primarily functions of the brain, cognition and emotion significantly influence the mind. They inform individuals’ subjective views of the world as they engage in their interactions.

Suggestions for Future Research

Several observations emerged during the course of this study that could be expanded upon through further research. These areas were beyond the scope of this study, but the knowledge gained through them could offer deeper insight beyond that of surviving adversity.

1. Relationship of mindfulness, optimism, and positive culture. Optimism, when

seen as a “positive attitude” among the participants, was a prevalent foundation

that helped many survive. The research did not consider how the participants

achieved an optimistic outlook or positive attitude or how they maintained it. It

may be beneficial to understand the connection between followers using the skills

and attitudes of mindfulness and optimism that can lead to or in turn enact a

positive culture. Mindfulness has a significant impact on emotion regulation

(Koole, 2009; Siegel, 2016), and Herwig et al. (2010) noted that mindfulness not

only makes one aware of an emotional state, but seems to enact the

neurophysiological ability to regulate emotional arousal. Following the enactive

approach to cognition (Maturana & Varela, 1981), Croswell and Gajjar (2007)

asserted that emotion and affect are the essential energy of behavioral

206

transformation (learning) that arises during the practice of mindfulness. If there is

a direct relationship between mindfulness and positive culture, then emphasis

could be placed on developing mindfulness in the workplace and educational

settings to achieve a culture that embraces transformation and that creates a

positive outlook or attitude.

2. Gender differences in remaining in a destructive leadership situation. Female

participants in this study remained in their situation an average of almost 5 years,

whereas male participants remained an average of 2.5 years. In terms of total

amount of years a follower spent under a destructive leader, the women had over

28 years combined, and the men had a little over 12 years. This research did not

include a comparison of results between women and men; however, it was

interesting that the results highlighted a significant difference in the length of time

that men and women endured a destructive leader. Research to understand why

this difference exists could be beneficial. Could it be attributed to the possibility

that men may have more options to find other work, or could a woman’s innate

desire to protect others give her strength to sustain a negative situation longer?

3. Position and geographical influence. All study participants were in the same

geographical location as their leader and worked either directly below or one or

two layers below the destructive leader. The research did not examine the

organizational position of the leader to identify if dominant authority or implied

power was a factor that influenced the participant’s experience. If a leader has

more influence or power over a follower as a result of the position in the

organization, would that have changed the survival approach of the follower?

207

Additionally, new forms of corporate organization include more and more

virtualization, characterized by a more skeletal management structure at corporate

headquarters and individual employees dispersed at remote company annexes,

customer locations, shared telework facilities, or at home (Brunelle, 2009;

Davenport & Pearlson, 1998). Research could examine geographically separated

leaders and followers, specifically followers supporting destructive leaders, to see

if the survival approach is the same. It would be interesting to examine whether

with distance, the working relationship is more difficult to survive or potentially

easier to survive since interactions may be more limited.

4. Generational differences. Even though the participants had many differences

ensuring variety, all participants except one were outside the millennial

generation, and no comparison of generational data was considered. To address

generational differences, research could be done with the same research questions

selecting only participants in the millennial generation to compare with the

findings in this research.

5. Traumatic survival approaches. The participants experienced physical and

emotional effects during their destructive leader event, and research has shown it

may take an average of 22 months to recover. Much research exists for

individuals who have experienced traumatic events outside of the workplace, and

it may be beneficial to examine some of those findings and conclusions compared

with the findings in this destructive leader study. As one example, if a recovery or

survival strategy is available for someone with posttraumatic stress disorder, is it

possible to apply a component of that strategy to followers in an organization who

208

are exposed to a destructive leader? Most may not consider working with

destructive organizational leaders to be a traumatic event compared with being a

victim of a violent crime; however, recovery and survival aspects of both

situations may be beneficial to understand.

6. Outcomes of destructive leaders. While this study examined how destructive

leaders affect individual followers, a future study could address how a destructive

leader, supervisor, or manager impacts organizational outcomes. As noted by

Keelan (2000), destructive leadership can have negative effects on productivity.

Work by Fields (2003) cited destructive leaders’ negative effect on the financial

health of organizations. In addition, Stewart et al. (2003) noted the absence rates

and reduced performance of individuals who experienced a destructive leadership

experience. Adding broad outcome information to the effects on individuals

would strengthen the case for preventing and reducing destructive behavior.

7. Reasons for not reporting destructive leaders. Participants in this study did not

generally report their destructive leadership experience for a variety of reasons.

Some indicated they were not aware of how to do so; some were not aware that it

was an option; and some feared how reporting would impact others’ perception of

them or put their job in jeopardy. It would be helpful to know more about

individuals’ reasons for not reporting destructive leaders. Could the results be tied

to cultural expectations or leader sabotage? Is it the responsibility of the

organization to seek out the destructive leadership behaviors? Several different

types of studies could provide a deeper understanding of the lack of reporting—

when reporting would seem to be an obvious choice from an outsider’s

209

perspective—and provide recommendations that could improve reporting rates

and organizational action.

8. Perceptions of a larger group of people affected by the destructive leader.

This study focused on 13 individuals who were directly affected by a destructive

leadership experience. Future research may want to extend the focus to gain an

understanding of the affected person’s colleagues, family members, and/or friends

and obtain a full 360-degree view of the destructive leadership experiences.

Summary

This phenomenological study contributes to the understanding of how and why

many different individuals, from different walks of life, educational backgrounds, career

fields, and generations, are able to survive a destructive leadership experience. The study

involved 13 purposely recruited participants. On a personal note, I was honored and

struck with a deep admiration for the bravery of the volunteers who came forward and

blindly trusted me with some of their most painful professional memories and innermost

thoughts.

The first subquestion asked: How do employees describe their strategies for

surviving a destructive leader experience? The study found that when faced with

adversity, participants survived because, at their very core, they had an innate

predisposition or an attitude of optimism to sustain a positive outlook. This finding has

been supported across time. Aristotle used the term eudaimonia to describe obtaining the

best conditions possible for a human being, which is often translated as happiness.

In response to the second subquestion—How do employees respond when faced with a destructive leader experience? —participants indicated that they responded with an

210

internalized emotional reaction or feeling of anxiety, fear, anger, sadness, and/or despair.

Many participants indicated that they did not know how to respond to, confront, report, or stop a destructive leadership experience.

The third subquestion focused on changes the participants perceived after having survived a destructive leader experience. The study showed that most participants regretted not having left the situation they were in. Most felt that if they were faced with the same level of adversity in the future, their immediate reaction would be to leave the position. This essential self-transformation or self-recreation is vital for individuals to successfully survive a destructive leader experience.

In relation to the conceptual framework, the study found substantial evidence of cognitive and affective science constructs that paired with emotional states, moods, and styles such as resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention, as a natural human response to destructive leadership experiences.

The study provides insight into the lived experience of employees who have experienced a destructive leader in the workplace. Other aspects of the lived experience were general optimistic outlooks, which affected their reaction to their destructive leader.

Participants had to regulate between attention and emotion. Participants experienced a physical and emotional toll from their destructive leadership experience and experienced harmful nonverbal communication from their destructive leader.

Based on these findings, it is recommended that solutions be put in place to create a culture of optimism to prolong the positive outlook and emotion in individuals as a survival tool. It is recommended that organizations identify destructive leaders early so they can change course and potential destructive leadership experience outcomes can be

211

mitigated. Companies should also implement strategies to develop emerging leaders to

prevent destructive leadership behaviors, and individuals should be assisted with skills,

practices, and techniques to better position them for survival if faced with a destructive

leader. Any strategies for individuals should consider the connection of emotion, cognition, and the mind—understanding that the mind also arises from individuals’ interactions with others.

212

REFERENCES

Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The

prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management,

21, 438-452.

Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1998). The human amygdala in social

judgment. Nature, 393(6684), 470-474.

Algoe, S. B., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Emotional fitness and the movement of

affective science from lab to field. American Psychologist, 66(1), 35-42.

Algoe, S. B., & Stanton, A. L. (2012). Gratitude when it is needed most: Social functions

of gratitude in women with metastatic breast cancer. Emotion, 12, 163-168.

ArmyTimes. (2013, May 2). Targeting toxic leaders [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130502/NEWS01/305010027/Targeting-

toxic-leaders.

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778.

Ataria, Y., & Neria, Y. (2013). Consciousness-body-time: How do people think lacking

their body? Human Studies, 36, 159-178.

Aubery, D. W. (2012). The effect of toxic leadership. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army

War College.

Aviezer, H., Trope, Y., & Todorov, A. (2012). Holistic person processing: Faces with

bodies tell the whole story. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1),

20-37.

213

Baez, S., Herrera, E., Villarin, L., Theil, D., Gonzalez-Gadea, M., Gomez, P., & Ibanez,

A. M. (2013). Contextual social cognition impairments in schizophrenia and

bipolar disorder. PLoS One, 8(3), 1-13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057664

Barrett, K. (2005). The origins of social emotions and self-regulation in toddlerhood:

New evidence. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 953-979.

Baruth, M., Lee, D. C., Sui, X., Church, T. S., Marcus, B. H., Wilcox, S., & Blair, S. N.

(2011). Emotional outlook on life predicts increases in physical activity among

initially inactive men. Health Education & Behavior, 38, 150-158.

Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. (2013). Emotion-modulated

startle in psychopathy: Clarifying familiar effects. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 122, 458-468. doi:10.1037/a0030958

Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2005). Distinctions between emotion and

mood. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 847-878. doi:10.1080/02699930541000057

Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American

Psychologist, 62(1), 2-5.

Benson, M., & Hogan, R. (2008). How dark side leadership personality destroys trust and

degrades organisational effectiveness. Organisations & People, 15(3), 10-18.

Bligh, M., Jeffrey, K., Pearce, C., Justin, J., & Stovall, J. (2007). When the romance is

over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 56, 528-557.

Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, Canada: Lexington Books.

214

Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., Lövdén, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2012). Daily variability in

working memory is coupled with negative affect: The role of attention and

motivation. Emotion, 12, 605-617. doi:10.1037/a0024436

Brunelle, E. (2009). Do virtual enterprises exist? International Journal of e-Business

Management, 3(2), 43-55. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270201

Burchard, M. (2011). Ethical dissonance and response to destructive leadership: A

proposed model. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 4(1), 154-176.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis.

Aldershot, UK: Heinemann.

Byrne, L. (2013, April 22). Substitute teacher slams basketball at seventh grader

recovering from cancer. Red Alert Politics. Retrieved from

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/22/watch-substitute-teacher-slams-basketball-

at-seventh-grader-recovering-from-cancer/

Cahan, E. D. (1984). The genetic psychologies of James Mark Baldwin and Jean Piaget.

Developmental Psychology, 20(1), 128-135.

Caprara, G., Alessandri, G., Eisenberg, N., Kupfer, A. A., Steca, P., Caprara, M., &

Abela, J. (2012). The positivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 24, 701-712.

doi:10.1037/a0026681

Carbon, C., & Hesslinger, V. M. (2011). Bateson et al.’s (2006) cues-of-being-watched

paradigm revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70(4), 203-210.

Carifio, J., & Rhodes, L. (2002). Construct validities and the empirical relationships

between optimism, hope, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Work, 19(2), 125-

136.

215

Castellaneta, F., Valentini, G., & Zollo, M. (2017). Learning or inertia? The impact of

experience and knowledge codification on post-acquisition integration. Industrial

and Corporate Change, 27(3), 577-593.

Chang, C. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2010). Not all leader-member exchanges are created

equal: Surviving destructive leadership. Importance of leader relational identity.

The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 796-808.

Chemero, A. (2013). Radical embodied cognitive science. Review of General

Psychology, 17(2), 145-150.

Cohen, N., Henik, A., & Mor, N. (2011). Can emotion modulate attention? Evidence for

reciprocal links in the Attentional Network Test. Experimental Psychology, 58(3),

171-179. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000083

Coifman, K. G., & Bonanno, G. A. (2010). When distress does not become depression:

Emotion context sensitivity and adjustment to bereavement. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 119(3), 479-490.

Collins, E. C., Percy, E. J., Smith, E. R., & Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Integrating advice and

experience: Learning and decision making with social and nonsocial cues.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 967-982.

Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44-45.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2004). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

216

Croswell, C., & Gajjar, K. (2007, October 20). Mindfulness, laying minds open, and

leadership development: An enactive approach to leadership complexity and

practical wisdom. Presented at The Interdisciplinary Conference on Cognition:

Embodied, Embedded, Enactive, Orlando, Florida.

Davenport, T. H., & Pearlson, K. (1998). Two cheers for the virtual office. Sloan

Management Review, 39(4), 51-65.

Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: Brain

mechanisms and plasticity. American Psychologist, 55, 1196-1214.

Davidson, R. J., & Begley, S. (2012). The emotional life of your brain: How its unique

patterns affect the way you think, feel, and live—and how you can change them.

New York, NY: Hudson Street.

Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2003). Handbook of affective

sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research:

Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeSteno, D., Gross, J. J., & Kubzansky, L. (2013). Affective science and health: The

importance of emotion and emotion regulation. Health Psychology, 32(5), 474-

486. doi:10.1037/a0030259

Dolan, R. J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298(5596): 1191-1194.

Dolcos, F., Dolcos, S., & Iordan, A. D. (2011). Neural correlates of emotion-cognition

interactions: A review of evidence from brain imaging investigations. European

Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 669-694.

217

Doty, J., & Fenlason, J. (2013). Narcissism and toxic leaders. Military Review, January-

February, 55-60. Retrieved from http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/

MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20130228_art012.pdf

Dreher, R. (2013, April 3). Leadership through sadism: The Mike Rice method. The

American Conservative. Retrieved from http://www.theamericanconservative.

com/dreher/mike-rice-rutgers-leadership-sadism/

Duchon, D., & Drake, B. (2008). Organizational narcissism and virtuous behavior.

Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 301-308.

Duncan, S., & Barrett, L. F. (2007). Affect is a form of cognition: A neurobiological

analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1184-1211.

Durso, K. A. (2004). Depression in the workplace: Prevalence, cost and productivity

impact. Managed Care Magazine, 1(1). Retrieved from

https://www.managedcaremag.com/sites/default/files/supplements/

0603_depression_in_workplace/DepressionInWorkplace_Spr2006.pdf eBossWatch. (2012). America’s worst bosses 2011 [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.ebosswatch.com/Americas-Worst-Bosses-2011 eBossWatch. (2013). America’s worst bosses 2012 [Blog post]. Retrieved from

http://blog.ebosswatch.com/2012/12/americas-worst-bosses/

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A

definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.

Field, T. (2003). Workplace bullying. British Medical Journal, 326, 776-777.

Finucane, A. M. (2011). The effect of fear and anger on selective attention. Emotion, 11,

970-974. doi:10.1037/a0022574

218

Flynn, G. (1999). Stop toxic managers before they stop you. Work-force, August, 44-46.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political

involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forgas, J. P. (2008). Affect and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2),

94-101.

Foster, J., Barnetson, B., & Matsunaga-Turnbull, J. (2018). Fear factory: Retaliation and

rights claiming in Alberta, Canada. SAGE Open, 8(2), 215824401878075.

Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of behaviour at work: Understanding

and avoiding employees leaving, thieving and deceiving. New York, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Fusaro, M., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Dax gets the nod: Toddlers detect and use social cues

to evaluate testimony. Developmental Psychology, 49, 514-522.

Galatzer-Levy, I. R., Brown, A. D., Henn-Haase, C., Metzler, T. J., Neylan, T. C., &

Marmar, C. R. (2013). Positive and negative emotion prospectively predict

trajectories of resilience and distress among high-exposure police officers.

Emotion, 13, 545-553.

Garner, P. W. (1995). Toddlers’ emotion regulation behaviors: The roles of social context

and family expressiveness. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156, 417-430.

Geschwind, N., Peeters, F., Drukker, M., van Os, J., & Wichers, M. (2011). Mindfulness

training increases momentary positive emotions and reward experience in adults

vulnerable to depression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 79, 618-628.

219

Gilbert, B. D., & Christopher, M. S. (2010). Mindfulness-based attention as a moderator

of the relationship between depressive affect and negative cognitions. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 34, 514-521.

Gillespie, R. (2013, April 3). Forget Rutgers Coach Mike Rice: College sports abuses

virtually all students. Reason.com. Retrieved from http://reason.com/archives/

2013/04/03/forget-rutgers-coach-mike-rice-college-s

Glaso, L., Einarsen, S., Mathiessen, S. B., & Skogstad, A. (2010). The dark side of

leaders: A representative study of interpersonal problems among leaders.

Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, 2(2), 3-14.

Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

21, 392-414.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review.

Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Grossmann, I., Ellsworth, P. C., & Hong, Y. (2012). Culture, attention, and emotion.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 31-36.

doi:10.1037/a0023817

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research:

Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social

competence. Social Development, 10(1), 79-119.

Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation

failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 132-139.

220

Herbert, B. M., Herbert, C., & Pollatos, O. (2011). On the relationship between

interoceptive awareness and alexithymia: Is interoceptive awareness related to

emotional awareness? Journal of Personality, 79, 1149-1175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.2011.00717.x

Herwig, U., Kaffenberger, T., Jäncke, L., & Brühl, A. B. (2010, January 1). Self-related

awareness and emotion regulation. Neuroimage, 50, 734-741.

Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive

supervision in advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support.

Applied Psychology, 58(2), 233-256.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General

Psychology, 9(2), 169-180.

Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark &

M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ:

Leadership Library of America.

Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2005). Interpretive practice and social action. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed., pp. 483-505). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2007). Responding destructively in leadership

situations: The role of personal values and problem construction. Journal of

Business Ethics, 82, 251-272.

221

Javaras, K. N., Schaefer, S. M., van Reekum, C. M., Lapate, R. C., Lawrence, L.,

Greischar, L. L., Bachhuber, D. R., Dienberg Love, G., Ryff, C., & Davidson, R.

J. (2012). Conscientiousness predicts greater recovery from negative emotion.

Emotion, 12, 875-881. doi:10.1037/a0028105

Johnson, S. C., Schmitz, T. W., Kawahara-Baccus, T. N., Rowley, H. A., Alexander, A.

L., Lee, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2005). The cerebral response during subjective

choice with and without self-reference. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17,

1897-1906.

Jones, B. C., Main, J. C., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Further evidence that

facial cues of dominance modulate gaze cuing in human observers. Swiss Journal

of Psychology, 70(4), 193-197.

Joseph, S., Linley, P., Andrews, L., Harris, G., Howle, B., Woodward, C., & Shevlin, M.

(2005). Assessing positive and negative changes in the aftermath of adversity:

Psychometric evaluation of the Changes in Outlook Questionnaire. Psychological

Assessment, 17(1), 70-80. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.70

Kashdan, T. B., & McKnight, P. E. (2013). Commitment to a purpose in life: An antidote

to the suffering by individuals with social anxiety disorder. Emotion, 13(6), 1150-

1159.

Keelan, E. (2000). Bully for you. Accountancy, 125(1281), 56.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

222

Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical

encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,

1007-1022.

Kile, S. M. (1990). Helsefarleg leierskap [Health-endangering leadership]. Bergen,

Norway: Universitetet i Bergen.

Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review.

Cognition & Emotion, 23(1), 4-41. doi:10.1080/02699930802619031

Kozaitis, K. A. (1998). The rise of anthropological theory. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the National Association for the Practice of Anthropology.

Kristeller, J. L., & Wolever, R. Q. (2011). Mindfulness-based eating awareness training

for treating binge eating disorder: The conceptual foundation. Eating Disorders,

19(1), 49-61. doi:10.1080/10640266.2011.533605

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46, 819-834. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

Lebel, R. D. (2016). Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness

lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 10-21.

Liden, R. C. (2010). Preface. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When leadership

goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures. Charlotte, NC:

Information Age.

223

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. Why we follow destructive bosses

and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W. J. (1984). Coping with an intolerable boss.

Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Lutz, A., & Thompson, E. (2003). Neurophenomenology integrating subjective

experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of

Consciousness Studies, 10(9-10), 31-52.

Mak, W. S., Ng, I. W., & Wong, C. Y. (2011). Resilience: Enhancing well-being through

the positive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 610-617.

Marin, T. J., & Miller, G. E. (2013). The interpersonally sensitive disposition and health:

An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 941-984.

doi:10.1037/a0030800.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American

Psychologist, 56, 227-238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1981). Autopoiesis and cognition: The recognition of

the living. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.

Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition and

Emotion, 23(2), 209-237.

McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful

executives get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.

224

McFarland, C., & Miller, D. T. (1994). The framing of relative performance feedback:

Seeing the glass as half empty or half full. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 1061-1073. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1061

McIlwain, D. (2006). Already filtered: Affective immersion and personality differences

in accessing present and past. Philosophical Psychology, 19, 381-399.

doi:10.1080/09515080600690581

McRae, K., Heller, S., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Context-dependent emotion

regulation: Suppression and reappraisal at the Burning Man festival. Basic &

Applied Social Psychology, 33, 346-350. doi:10.1080/01

Melchert, T. P. (2013). Beyond theoretical orientations: The emergence of a unified

scientific framework for professional psychology. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 44, 11-19.

Mike Rice Jr. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Mike_Rice_Jr

Montpetit, M. A., Bergeman, C. S., Deboeck, P. R., Tiberio, S. S., & Boker, S. M.

(2010). Resilience-as-process: Negative affect, stress, and coupled dynamical

systems. Psychology and Aging, 25, 631-640.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London, UK: Sage.

Munhall, P. (1994). Revisioning phenomenology: Nursing and health science research.

New York, NY: NLN Publications.

Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sanvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The

communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of

Communication, 4, 343-373.

225

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work. What you can do to stop the hurt and

reclaim the dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Niedenthal, P. M., Winkielman, P., Mondillon, L., & Vermeulen, N. (2009). Embodiment

of emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1120-

1136.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Toole, L. J., DeCicco, J. M., Hong, M., & Dennis, T. A. (2011). The impact of task-

irrelevant emotional stimuli on attention in three domains. Emotion, 11, 1322-

1330. doi:10.1037/a0024369

Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the

snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3): 466-

478.

Olaffsson, R., & Johannsdottir, H. (2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The

effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance and

Counselling, 32(3), 19-33.

Ong, A. D., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., & Bonanno, G. A. (2010). Prospective predictors of

positive emotions following spousal loss. Psychology and Aging, 25, 653-660.

Ong, A. D., Zautra, A. J., & Reid, M. (2010). Psychological resilience predicts decreases

in pain catastrophizing through positive emotions. Psychology and Aging, 25,

516-523.

Online MBA. (n.d.). Minute MBA videos: The true cost of a bad boss [Video blog].

Retrieved from http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/true-cost-bad-boss

226

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,

susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly,

18, 176-194.

Panksepp, J. (2010). Affective neuroscience of the emotional BrainMind: evolutionary

perspectives and implications for understanding depression. Dialogues in Clinical

Neuroscience, 12(4), 533-545.

Panksepp, J. (2011). The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have

affective lives? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1791-1804.

Pasupathi, M. (2003). Emotion regulation during social remembering: Differences

between emotions elicited during an event and emotions elicited when talking

about it. Memory, 11, 151-163.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and

rhetoric. Leadership, 6, 373-379.

Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Neuroscience,

9(2), 148-158.

Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59-63.

Pottage, C. L., & Schaefer, A. (2012). Visual attention and emotional memory: Recall of

aversive pictures is partially mediated by concurrent task performance. Emotion,

12(1), 33-38. doi:10.1037/a0024574

227

Price, T. (2005). Understanding ethical failures in leaders. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67-71. Retrieved from

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/dclm/Toxic_Leadership.pdf

Reimann, M., Feye, W., Malter, A. J., Ackerman, J. M., Castano, R., Perez, M., Garg, N.,

& Yoon, C. (2012). Embodiment in judgment and choice. Journal of

Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 5(2), 104-123. doi: 10.1037/a0026855

Riggs, L., McQuiggan, D. A., Farb, N., Anderson, A. K., & Ryan, J. D. (2011). The role

of overt attention in emotion-modulated memory. Emotion, 11, 776-785.

doi:10.1037/a0022591

Rosenblum, M. L., Kalkanis, S., Goldberg, W., Rock, J., Mikkelsen, T., Remer, S.,

Whitehouse, S., . . . Nerenz, D. (2009). Odyssey of hope: A physician’s guide to

communicating with brain tumor patients across the continuum of care. Journal of

Neuro-Oncology, 92, 241-251.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. Leadership Quarterly,

17, 617-633.

Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., Ferrer, E., Shaver, P. R., Rosenberg, E. L., Jacobs, T. L.,

& Saron, C. D. (2011). Enhanced response inhibition during intensive meditation

training predicts improvements in self-reported adaptive socioemotional

functioning. Emotion, 11, 299-312.

Samson, A. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Humour as emotion regulation: The differential

consequences of negative versus positive humour. Cognition & Emotion, 26, 375-

384.

228

Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). The Oxford companion to emotion and the affective

sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C., & Kepes, S. (2007). Destructive

leader traits and the neutralizing influence of an “enriched” job. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18, 236-251.

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm

fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56, 250-263. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.250

Schultz, D. P. (1969). A history of modern psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Schwarzer, R., Bassler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schroder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The

assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and

Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology, 46(1),

69-88.

Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998). Optimism is

associated with mood, coping, and immune change in response to stress. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1646-1655.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shackleton, V. (1995). Leaders who derail. In V. Shackleton (Ed.), Business leadership

(pp. 89-100). London, UK: Thomson.

Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of

well-being. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Siegel, D. J. (2008). The neurobiology of we: How relationships, the mind, and the brain

interact to shape who we are. Louisville, CO: Sounds True.

229

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to

shape who we are. New York, NY: Mind Your Brain.

Siegel, D. J. (2014a). Brainstorm: The power and the purpose of the teenage brain. New

York, NY: Penguin.

Siegel, D. (2014b, January 23). The ESSENCE of adolescence. Psychology Today.

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inspire-

rewire/201401/the-essence-adolescence

Siegel, D. (2014c, September 16). Brain insights and well-being [Blog post]. Retrieved

from http://www.drdansiegel.com/blog/2014/09/16/brain-insights-and-well-being/

Siegel, D. J. (2016). Mind: A journey to the heart of being human. New York, NY: W.

W. Norton.

Siegel, D. (2017, September 8). Dan Siegel on embracing the energy and creativity of the

adolescent mind [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.psychotherapynetworker.

org/blog/details/785/video-dan-siegel-on-embracing-the-energy-and-creativity

Siegel, D. J., & McCall, D. P. (2009). Mindsight at work: An interpersonal neurobiology

lens on leadership. NeuroLeadership Journal, 2, 23-34.

Silvia, P. J., & Duval, T. (2001). Objective self-awareness theory: Recent progress and

enduring problems. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5, 230-241.

Slattery, C. (2009). The dark side of leadership—troubling times at the top. Sydney,

Australia: Semann & Slattery. Retrieved from

http://www.conference.co.nz/files/docs/darksideofleadership2.pdf

230

Sollitto, M., Martin, M. M., Dusic, S., Gibbons, K. E., & Wagenhouser, A. (2014).

Assessing the supervisor-subordinate relationship involving part-time

employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 74-96.

Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K. M., Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2006).

Optimism in close relationships: How seeing things in a positive light makes them

so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 143-153.

Stewart, W. F., Ricci, J. A., Chee, E., Hahn, S. R., & Morgenstein, D. (2003). Lost

productive work time among US workers with depression. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 289(23), 3135‐3144.

Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Emotional controls on cognitive processes. Cognition

and Emotion, 21, 1212-1237.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suveg, C., Jacob, M., & Payne, M. (2010). Parental interpersonal sensitivity and youth

social problems: A mediational role for child emotion dysregulation. Journal of

Child & Family Studies, 19, 677-686.

Takala, T. (2010). Dark leadership, charisma, and trust. Psychology, 1(1), 59-63.

TellYourBoss.com. (2012, October 16). Two-thirds America unhappy at job: 65% choose

new boss over raise says study by TellYourBoss.com [Press release]. Retrieved

from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/two-thirds-america-unhappy-at-job-65-

choose-new-boss-over-raise-says-study-by-tellyourbosscom-2012-10-16

231

Ten Brinke, L., MacDonald, S., Porter, S., & O’Connor, B. (2012). Crocodile tears:

Facial, verbal and body language behaviours associated with genuine and

fabricated remorse. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 51-59.

Ten Brinke, L., & Porter, S. (2012). Cry me a river: Identifying the behavioral

consequences of extremely high-stakes interpersonal deception. Law and Human

Behavior, 36, 469-477.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 178-190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and

research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive

supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A

power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 109, 156-167.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Schurer-Lambert, L., (2006). Procedural

injustice, victim precipitation and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59,

101-123.

Thompson, R. J., Mata, J., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Gotlib, I. H.

(2011). Concurrent and prospective relations between attention to emotion and

affect intensity: An experience sampling study. Emotion, 11, 1489-1494.

doi:10.1037/a0022822

Thoroughgood, C. N. (2010). Bad apples, bad barrels, and broken followers.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

232

Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone:

Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230-255.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A

theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125.

Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions

to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 86, 320-333.

Van den Stock, J., Righart, R., & de Gelder, B. (2007). Body expressions influence

recognition of emotions in the face and voice. Emotion, 7, 487-494.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action

sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: Althouse.

Varela, F., & Depraz, N. (2004). At the source of time: Valence and the constitutional

dynamics of affect. In Ipseity and alterity: Interdisciplinary approaches to

intersubjectivity (pp. 153-174). Mont-Saint-Aignan, France: Publications de

l’Université de Rouen.

Vargas, E., Canales-Johnson, A., & Claudio, F. B. (2013). Francisco Varela’s

neurophenomenology of time: Temporality of consciousness explained? Actas

Españolas de Psiquiatría, 41, 253-262.

Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., & Miller, A. L. (2002). Emotion regulation in context:

The jealousy complex between young siblings and its relations with child and

family characteristics. Child Development, 73, 581-600.

233

Waugh, C. E., Thompson, R. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2011). Flexible emotional

responsiveness in trait resilience. Emotion, 11, 1059-1067.

Whicker, M. (1996). Toxic leaders. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Willis, M. L., Palermo, R., & Burke, D. (2011). Judging approachability on the face of it:

The influence of face and body expressions on the perception of approachability.

Emotion, 11, 514-523.

Wilson, B. C. (1991, July). U.S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personnel

Journal, 47-50.

Wilson-Starks, K. (2003). Toxic leadership. Retrieved from http://www.transleadership.

com/ToxicLeadership.pdf

Wu, T., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion:

Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management,

34(2), 143-169.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Zeman, J., & Penza, S. (1997). Preschoolers as functionalists: The impact of social

context on emotion regulation. Child Study Journal, 27(1), 41-67.

Zhou, J., Huang, X., Jin, X., Liang, J., Shui, R., & Shen, M. (2012). Perceived causalities

of physical events are influenced by social cues. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1465-1475.

Zwerdling, D. (2014, January 6). Army takes on its own toxic leaders. NPR. Retrieved

from http://www.npr.org/2014/01/06/259422776/army-takes-on-its-own-toxic-

leaders

234

APPENDIX A:

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

The Other Side of Adversity: Surviving a Destructive Leader Experience

INTRODUCTION You are invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide to be a part of this study, you need to understand the risks and benefits. This consent sheet provides information about this research study. A staff member of the research study will be available to answer your questions and provide further explanations. If you agree to take part in the research study, you will be asked to sign this consent form. This process is known as informed consent. Your decision to take part in the study is voluntary. You are free to choose whether or not you will take part in the study.

PURPOSE As a student in the School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University, I am conducting a research study to explore the lived experience of individuals who have experienced a destructive leader. Einarsen, Aasland, and Skogstad (2007) defined destructive leadership: The systematic and repeated behaviour by a leader, supervisor or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organisation by undermining and/or sabotaging the organisation’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates. (p. 208)

PROCEDURES The research will be conducted at a time and location agreed to by both the participant and the researcher. You will be interviewed once for the study for about 60 to 90 minutes, and the interview will be in depth and unstructured. You will also have the opportunity to review the transcript of your interview and a researcher description of your experience. The total amount of time you will be asked to volunteer for this study is about 60 to 120 minutes.

POSSIBLE RISKS To the best of our knowledge, participating in this research will have no more risk of harm than you would experience in everyday life.

235

POSSIBLE BENEFITS You will not get any personal benefit from taking part in this study. There are no costs associated with taking part in this study. You will not receive compensation for participating in this study. Although not a formal purpose of this study, it is hoped that participants, through the process, will experience benefits from verbalizing their experience and reflecting on the meaning it has for them.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STUDY Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may decide not to begin or to stop this study at any time. You will be told of any new information about the research study that may cause you to change your mind about participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF RESEARCH RECORDS Your records will be confidential. You will not be identified (e.g., by name, by organization, by title, or by Social Security number) in any reports or publications of this study. Your response information and research records may be provided to the government and/or authorized representatives of The George Washington University Office of Human Research and/or Committee on Human Research. Except for these entities, research records will be kept confidential unless you authorize their release, or unless the records are required for release by law (i.e., court subpoena).

QUESTIONS If you have questions about the procedures of this research study, please contact Dr. Michael Marquardt, the principal investigator of this study, at (703-726-3764, or Sharon Roberts, the student investigator of this study at (703-623-6875 during the workday. If you have questions about the informed consent process or any other rights as a research subject, please contact the Office of Human Research of George Washington University at 202-994-2715.

______Participant (Print Name)

______Signature

______Date

236

APPENDIX B:

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Demographic information will be gathered from those who indicate an initial interest in participating in the study. This information will be reviewed to select participants who can provide maximum variation.

• How many years have you been in the workforce? (a minimum of 7 is required participation in the study) • In the workforce, have you experienced a destructive leader and, if so, how long did that experience last? • When did it occur (start and end)? • What is your gender? • What is your age? • What is your current profession? • What is your current position title? • During your professional career, have you worked in the same geographical area, like in the same state or in a regional area (like Washington DC)? If not in the same state, how many different states have you worked in? Please list them. • In what geographical location did the destructive leader experience occur in? • What is your highest level of education? • Which racial or ethnic group do you most identify with?

237

APPENDIX C:

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The interview protocol is based on interview considerations of Seidman (2006), Moustakas (1994), and Kvale and Brinkman (2009) and includes one 90-minute interview that establishes context through a high-level life history in addition to a detailed conversation about the lived experience of the follower.

Interview Questions:

1. What is your professional background? (career path to current role) 2. Going back as far as you can recall, describe the different jobs or positions you have held through today. In providing the histories, also describe why you left each position, if you remember. 3. Describe any defining moments that occurred or important acquaintances that may have prepared you to survive a destructive leader. 4. Tell me about your current role, what you do currently. 5. How long have you been with your current organization? 6. What brought you to your current organization? 7. How would you describe your general view on life and your general view on the workplace? Are those views similar? For example, would you describe yourself as optimistic or pessimistic? 8. How would you describe your usual interaction with your coworkers or your supervisor? 9. Would you say you enjoy working and, if so, have you always enjoyed working? 10. How do you feel about leadership styles and the importance of leadership actions? 11. Describe your experience (or experiences) involving a destructive leader. a. When did the experience occur and how long did it last? b. What position did you hold and what was the position of the destructive leader? c. Describe, in general terms, the interaction and what actions or occurrences made you feel you were supporting a destructive leader. d. Describe your experience by sharing how you felt and how you made it through. i. How did you feel and what mechanisms did you rely on to survive? ii. Did the destructive leader occurrence affect you emotionally or physically? If so, how did you respond? iii. Describe any nonverbal communication that you perceived as harmful from the destructive leader and how it made you feel. (social intuition) iv. Did you feel that you needed to control your behavior or emotions while interacting with the destructive leader? If so, how did you do that? (sensitivity to context) v. Do you feel you were able to bounce back quickly after your interaction with the destructive leader ended or did it take longer than you would have liked? (resilience) 238

vi. Do you feel your view on life in general (as described above) helped with surviving this negative experience? Do you think the occurrence resulted in a change in your outlook on life? (outlook) e. Did you report the occurrence to anyone in your reporting chain or outside your organization? If so, how did you feel about reporting the occurrence and how did you feel about the results? f. How long did it last and how did the experience end? 12. Given your background as initially described and what you shared about your destructive leader occurrence, how do you feel about yourself in the workplace or any organization you participate in? 13. How do you feel the destructive leader event changed you, if at all? 14. Would you do anything differently if faced with a similar destructive leader in the future? 15. Do you have any additional information you want to provide related to your experience?

239

APPENDIX D:

E-MAIL TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS

Have you experienced a destructive leader or are you aware of someone else who has? I am sending this e-mail to describe an opportunity to participate in a research study that will attempt to examine the lived experience of individuals who have worked for a destructive leader. I am looking for volunteers to participate in the study, and more details can be found below. Please respond directly if you are interested in participating, and please forward the e-mail to anyone you think might want to participate.

Description of the study: This study will be focused on the lived experience of individuals who have been exposed to a destructive leader and survived. In order to understand their experience, they will be asked to provide details on their background as well as describe their destructive leader experience. All information shared will be anonymous and confidential. The definition of a destructive leader (for purposes of this research) covers leaders who can negatively affect both the organization as well as their subordinates. A leader, supervisor, or manager can negatively affect the organization by demonstrating systematic and repeated behavior that directly violates the interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging organizational goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness. A leader can negatively affect an individual through systematic and repeated behavior that disrupts the subordinate’s effectiveness, motivation, well-being, or job satisfaction.

Who can participate? The criteria for participation include being in the workforce for at least 7 years, having worked for or been exposed to a destructive leader for a period lasting at least 6 months, and having the destructive leader experience within the last 5 years. It is important to note that the experience must have ended and not ongoing. The participant must be willing to participate in one interview of approximately 90 minutes. It is preferred that the initial interview take place face-to-face; however, depending on availability, the interviews may take place by phone or Internet. All information provided in the interviews will be treated as anonymous and confidential.

Who is the researcher? The researcher for this study is a doctoral candidate at George Washington University in Washington, DC. This research is conducted in order to fulfill the requirements of her degree. She hopes the results of the study will be useful in showing how one might survive a destructive leader.

How do I participate? Participation in the study is limited. If you think you might like to be part of the study, please send an e-mail to [email protected]. In that e-mail, please include some basic information: how long you have been in the workforce, when your destructive leader experience occurred, and how long it lasted. The researcher will use this information to reach out to those individuals with a variety of these characteristics. She will begin to contact people who have expressed an interest in the study via return e-mail to set up a telephone conversation in which she will explain the study more completely, answer your questions, and see if you want to participate. The researcher will 240

notify everyone who has expressed an interest in participation once she has completed identifying the final participants. Once you have agreed to participate, the researcher will arrange the interviews.

241