DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: a Critical Incident Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: a Critical Incident Study Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: A Critical Incident Study By Richard P. March III B.A. in German, May 2002, Franklin & Marshall College M.A. in German and Second Language Acquisition, May, 2005, Georgetown 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 May 17, 2015 Dissertation Directed by Neal Chalofsky Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University certifies that Richard P. March III has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Education as of February 24, 2015. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: A Critical Incident Study Richard P. March III Dissertation Research Committee Neal Chalofsky, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning, Dissertation Director Maria Cseh, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning, Committee Member Thomas Reio, Professor of Adult Education and Human Resource Development, Florida International University, Committee Member ii © Copyright 2015 by Richard P. March III. All rights reserved. iii Abstract of Dissertation Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover: A Critical Incident Study Contributing to the burgeoning corpus of literature examining the deleterious impacts of toxic leadership upon employees and organizations, the present study utilizes 15 study participants’ reported critical incidents of toxic leader targeting to conceptualize and to narrate the relationship between toxic targeting and voluntary employee turnover. The study found evidence to support a direct link between toxic targeting and voluntary employee turnover and reports the categories of leader characteristics study participants’ identified as toxic. Utilizing data gleaned from study participants’ experiential narratives, the study presents an original metanarrative conceptual model to illustrate the stages of an overarching process all study participants reported having traversed as they reached their decision to resign in order to escape their respective toxic leaders. The process study participants traversed is examined within a broader organizational context which reveals complex organizational support systems among human resource practitioners and senior organizational leaders, who are found to collude in protecting toxic leaders to the detriment of employees. The study found that while much scholarly and practitioner-oriented literature has traditionally presented organizational leaders from a positive perspective, the negative characteristics of some leaders, and the consequences of these leaders’ actions, require overt analysis and discussion because of the harm they inflict upon employees and organizations. The study concludes with recommendations for future empirical research and with practical recommendations for organizations seeking to neutralize toxic leaders and their deleterious impacts upon employees and organizations. iv Table of Contents Abstract of Dissertation…………..………………………………………..……..………iv List of Figures………………………………………………………….…………………xi List of Tables…………………………………………………….………………………xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1 Overview…………………………………………………………………………..1 Statement of Problem……………………………………………………………...1 Problem of Practice………………………………………………………..3 Problem of Research………………………………………………………6 Purpose Statement and Research Question………………………………………..8 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………….9 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………..……11 Toxic Leadership………………………………………………………...11 The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover……………….12 Summary of Methodology…………………………….…………………………15 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….17 Delimitations……………………………………………………………………..18 Key Definitions…………………………………………………………………..18 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………20 Overview…………………………………………………………………………20 Purpose of the Literature Review………..………………………………20 Literature Review Method…………….…….…………………………...20 Organization of the Literature Review.………………………………….24 Conceptualizations of Toxic Leadership……….…………………...…...25 v Contextual and Environmental Factors in Organizations………….…….………30 Leader Characteristics, Psychopathologies and Predispositions…….….……….35 Destructive Leadership Behaviors…………….………………………….……...39 Empirical Research on Toxic Leadership………………………………..44 Consequences of Toxic Leadership……………………………………...46 Remaining and Suffering with a Toxic Leader……………….………….50 Implications of the Present Study: The Toxic-Turnover Shock……........52 The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover…….….……….……...54 Shocks and Voluntary Employee Turnover…………...….…….………….…….59 Conclusion………………………………………………..……………..….……62 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………64 Ontological Orientation………………………………………………………….64 Epistemological Orientation……………………………………………………..64 Research Design Framework………………………………………………….…66 The Qualitative Interview……..………..…………….………………….67 Qualitative Approach……………………….……………………………70 The Critical Incident Technique…………………………………………70 Population and Sample…………………………………………………………..76 Sample Selection Method……….…….……………………...………………….77 Sample Size………………………………………….…………………………...80 Data Collection Method…………………………….…………………………....80 Data Collection Procedures………………………….…………………………...81 Data Analysis……………….…..…………………….………………………….82 Trustworthiness…………………….……..…………….………………………..83 Subjectivity Statement……………...……………………………………………86 vi Ethical Statement………………………..………………………………86 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS……………………………………………………………….88 Characteristics of a Toxic Workplace Environment……………………………………..94 Hegemony……………..…………………………………….…………...94 Abdication of Responsibility and Promotion of Apathy……..…….…….96 Greed…………………………………………………………...………...97 Misrepresentation of Material Facts……..……………………………....99 Senior Leader and HR Department Tolerance of Toxicity……..………100 Triggers and Toxic Targeting……………………………………..……102 Questioning of Leader or Leader’s Decisions……………………..…...104 Requesting the Leader’s Assistance…………………….……..………..107 Correcting the Leader’s Mistakes…………………………..…………..109 Victim of Lies of Cronies…………………………………..…………..111 Having Physical Qualities Unappealing to the Leader……..….……….114 Refusing to Cover up Wrong-Doing…………………….…..………….118 Pursuing Graduate School…….………………………….….………….119 Going to a Competitor to Ensure Employment…….….…….………….120 Continued Targeting………………………………….…….…………..122 Belittling, Threatening and Devoicing…………………...……………..123 Exhibiting Jealousy………………………………………...………...…128 Exhibiting Croynism/Favoritism or Discrimination ..……...…………..129 Overtasking ……………..………………………………...……………133 Displaying Toxic Tantrums……….……..………………..……………135 Micromanaging………………………………………….…………...…137 Stealing……..….………………………………………..……………...139 vii Reasons for Targeting Specific Employees……………………………..140 Jealousy……………….……….……………………….……….140 Exhibiting Cronyism………….……………………….………..143 Raising Concern to or About the Leader…….………….……...145 Gender and Generational Issues………………………….……..147 Turnover Decisions……………………………………………………..149 Unsuccessful Handling of Toxic Targeting……...…..…………150 Confronted the Leader, Then Did Nothing…..…..…….……….151 Confronted the Leader’s Supervisor, Then Did Nothing….……153 Consulted the HR Department, Then Did Nothing……….…….154 Confronted the Leader, Then Confronted HR Department…….156 Confronted Leader, Then Confronted Leader’s Supervisor…....157 Did Nothing…………………………………………………….159 Length of Departure Time………………………...……………161 Reasons for Length of Departure Times…………..…….…...…162 Confronted with Poor Job Market……………..…….………….162 Fear that Another Workplace Would be Worse….…..………....168 Hopeful Things Would Improve………………….…..………...170 Lacked Self-Confidence to Get a New Job………..…....………172 Could No Longer Tolerate the Toxicity………...…..…………..174 Needed to Fulfill Employment Contract…………….………….176 Valued Longevity in a Job……..………..……………………...178 Liked Co-Workers…………….……….….…………………....178 Needed Time to Start New Business…….….….………………179 Reactions to Toxic Leadership and Toxic Targeting……..…….181 viii Physical Consequences…………………………………………181 Developed Sleeplessness……………………………………….181 Experienced Exhaustion……………………………….……..…183 Experienced Tension Aches…………………………….……....184 Began Alcohol Use……………………………………………..186 Developed High Blood Pressure………………………………..187 Developed a Serious Illness…………………………………….187 Psychological Consequences…………………………………...188 Feeling of Depression and Low Self-Confidence………….…...188 Feeling of Anxiety……………………………………………...191 Feeling of Fear……………………………………………….....192 Feeling of Decreased Enjoyment Outside of Work/Dread….….193 Feeling of Paranoia……………………………………..………196 Feeling of Entrapment……………………………….…….……197 Feeling of Hopelessness, Irritability and Frustration………...…198 Feeling of Being Controlled, Pressured and Silenced.................201 Feeling of Isolation……………………………………………..205 The Turnover Event…………………………………………….206 Life After Leaving a Toxic Leader……………………………………..209 Feeling of Relief………………………………………………..209 Freedom………………………………………………………...211 Experiencing of Positive Emotions……………………………..212 Feeling of Empowerment……………………………………….215 Lingering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms…………217 Summary………….……………………………………………………218 ix CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………219 Introduction……………………………..……………..………………..219 Interpretation of Findings……………….….………….…………….…220
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jean Lipman-Blumen: Bush: Perhaps the Most Toxic Leader of Our Time
    Jean Lipman-Blumen: Bush: Perhaps the Most Toxic Leader of Our Time http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jean-lipmanblumen/bush-perhaps-the-mo... March 11, 2013 As President George W. Bush exits the White House, the trail of destruction he leaves behind bears many earmarks of a toxic leader. Toxic leaders, by virtue of their dysfunctional personal qualities and destructive behavior, inflict serious and enduring harm on their followers, as well as many others who happen to cross their path. In fact, the "quick and dirty" measure of toxic leaders is that they leave us worse off than they found us. Few could deny that the label "toxic leader" seems custom-made for our forty-third president, who turns over the keys to the Oval Office in just a few days. Bush has left the US in disarray domestically and has diminished our position internationally. Mostly, he has done this through a combination of incompetence, arrogance, and stubbornness, characteristics which President Bush shares with many other toxic leaders. Incompetence draws toxic leaders into poor decisions. Arrogance keeps toxic leaders from recognizing the inadequacy or downright destructiveness of their choices. And stubbornness makes toxic leaders persist on their poisonous course even when others shine a spotlight on its toxicity. But these traits aren't even the worst of toxic leadership. Incompetence, arrogance, and stubbornness actually fall on the mild end of the "toxic" spectrum, compared to those of other deliberately evil leaders. If incompetence, arrogance, and stubbornness were the only claims against Bush, it would be tragic enough. Unfortunately, Bush has earned the title of a full-fledged toxic leader by violating the basic standards of human rights of both ordinary American citizens, as well as our alleged opponents.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Toxic Leadership on Counterproductive Work Behavior with the Mediating Role of Psychological Contract Breach and Moderating Role of Proactive Personality
    Monografico DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i4.4879 Volumen:39-4 // ISSN: 1133-3197 Impact of Toxic Leadership on Counterproductive Work Behavior with the Mediating role of Psychological Contract Breach and Moderating role of Proactive Personality MUHAMMAD BILAL KAYANI1, IMRAN IBRAHIM ALASAN2 1 LIMKOKWING UNIVERSITY OF CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, CYBERJAYA, MALAYSIA E-mail: [email protected] 2LIMKOKWING UNIVERSITY OF CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, CYBERJAYA, MALAYSIA E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper focused the conceptualizations of toxic leadership and analyzes the relationship between toxic leadership and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). The mediating role of psychological contract breach was measured between the toxic leadership and counterproductive work behavior, also by analyzing the moderating effect of proactive personality. The selected sample for research comprised of 355 nurses serving in public sector of Pakistan and questionnaire was used as a research tool. Findings of the data revealed that toxic leadership is having a positive significant relationship with CWB and a negative with PCB in partial mediation model. PCB was found to be positively associated with CWB whereas Proactive personality was identified for weakening the relationship of PCB and CWB. The results of the study elaborated that firms ought to illuminate unmistakably to managers about the antagonistic outcomes brought about by toxic oversight, and may join rules or approaches to rebuff toxic practices. Given the counterproductive impact of toxic leadership, more information is exclusively required regarding causes of toxic leadership and the paper concluded with recommendations for future research and action. Keywords: Toxic Leadership, Psychological Contract Breach, Counterproductive Work Behavior, Proactive Personality JEL classification: J53, M10, M59.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ALLURE of TOXIC LEADERS: WHY FOLLOWERS RARELY ESCAPE THEIR CLUTCHES By: Jean Lipman-Blumenissues: January / February 2005
    THE ALLURE OF TOXIC LEADERS: WHY FOLLOWERS RARELY ESCAPE THEIR CLUTCHES by: Jean Lipman-BlumenIssues: January / February 2005. Categories: Leadership. • Share on LinkedIn • Share on googlePlus • Share on facebook • Share on twitter • Share by email Toxic leadership is a growing — and costly — phenomenon. Yet individual and organizations can stop the insidious spread of toxicity, by understanding why we are seduced by the false promises of toxic leaders, and by setting up organizational defence mechanisms to counter the spread of toxicity. This author has some excellent suggestions. This article is based on her book, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them, Jean Lipman-Blumen (New York: Oxford University Press), 2005. A curious paradox surrounds toxic leaders wherever they take the stage, from the executive suite to the religious pulpit. It is this: While most of us followers complain about toxic leaders, nonetheless, we almost always stay the course. How do we explain that paradoxical scenario, evident in virtually every society from earliest recorded history? Why do we followers not only tolerate, but so often prefer, and sometimes even create toxic leaders – in for-profit corporations, non-profits, government, even educational and religious institutions? Why do we permit so many toxic leaders to hold sway in virtually all arenas of human endeavour? As you might suspect, there are no easy answers here. Yet, a major part of the answer can be pieced together from three enduring sources: the internal needs and human condition of the followers; the interactions between followers and their own environments; and followers’ relationships with toxic leaders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Workplace Bullying Institute Guide to American Union Action on Abusive Conduct Gary Namie, Phd Member UAW Local 1981, AFL-CIO
    1 The Workplace Bullying Institute Guide to American Union Action on Abusive Conduct Gary Namie, PhD Member UAW Local 1981, AFL-CIO December 2015 WBI defines workplace bullying as: Repeated, health-harming mistreatment by one or more people of an employee: abusive conduct which takes the form of verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, humiliation, sabotage of work, or some combination of one or more forms. According to the scientific 2014 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, 27% of all adult Americans have directly experienced bullying (7% currently), 21% witness it. Thus 48% are affected by it – 65 million workers! It’s an epidemic. Abusive conduct is also known as workplace bullying, mobbing, psychological violence, psychological harassment, lateral violence, emotional abuse, social misery and psychological terrorization. Employers prefer the euphemisms incivility and disrespect. Only one in five cases of bullying are eligible for complaints based on anti-discrimination laws or employer policies. At this time, no U.S. state has enacted legislation to make abusive conduct actionable. Bullying is the dominant stressor in a toxic workplace. Bullying, a personalized form of assault, causes: twice the rate of suicidal ideation compared to rate in non-bullied members, debilitating anxiety, clinical depression, PTSD or trauma-like symptoms, life-threatening cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases, compromise to the immune system, musculoskeletal problems, chemical brain changes that impair memory and regulation of emotions, and accelerated aging from chromosomal damage. Bullying/abusive conduct is an occupational health hazard. Because of bullying’s adverse impact on worker health and safety, personal dignity, well being, and right to perform without oppression by others, it is a Union concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Disability Discrimination Law and the Toxic Workplace
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 51 | Number 2 Article 3 1-1-2011 Federal Disability Discrimination Law and the Toxic Workplace: A Critique of ADA and Section 504 Case Law Addressing Impairments Caused or Exacerbated by the Work Environment John E. Rumel Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John E. Rumel, Federal Disability Discrimination Law and the Toxic Workplace: A Critique of ADA and Section 504 Case Law Addressing Impairments Caused or Exacerbated by the Work Environment, 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 515 (2011). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol51/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERAL DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAW AND THE TOXIC WORKPLACE: A CRITIQUE OF ADA AND SECTION 504 CASE LAW ADDRESSING IMPAIRMENTS CAUSED OR EXACERBATED BY THE WORK ENVIRONMENT John E. Rumel* INTRODUCTION Work and the workplace itself have long been recognized as conferring important benefits on workers and society at large.' For workers, work provides a source of income and may provide a sense of self-worth and fulfillment, and the workplace itself may be a source of community.2 For society, full or maximized employment provides a source of social stability and control, and also fuels the economy.3 Congress * Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Idaho College of Law, and General Counsel, Idaho Education Association; formerly Visiting Assistant and Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; J.D., 1981, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; B.A., 1977, University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Show full text]
  • Workplace Bullying and Harassment
    Law and Policy Remedies for Workplace Bullying in Higher Education: An Update and Further Developments in the Law and Policy John Dayton, J.D., Ed. D.* A dark and not so well kept secret lurks the halls of higher education institutions. Even among people who should certainly know better than to tolerate such abuse, personnel misconduct in the form of workplace bullying remains a serious but largely neglected problem.1 A problem so serious it can devastate academic programs and the people in them. If allowed to maraud unchecked, workplace bullies can poison the office culture; shut down progress and productivity; drive off the most promising and productive people; and make the workplace increasingly toxic for everyone who remains in the bully dominated environment.2 A toxic workplace can even turn deadly when stress begins to take its all too predictable toll on victims’ mental and physical health, or interpersonal stress leads to acts of violence.3 Higher education institutions are especially vulnerable to some of the most toxic forms of workplace bullying. When workplace bullies are tenured professors they can become like bullying zombies seemingly invulnerable to efforts to stop them while faculty, staff, students, and even university administrators run for cover apparently unable or unwilling to do anything about the loose-cannons that threaten to sink them all. This article examines the problem of workplace bullying in higher education; reviews possible remedies; and makes suggestions for law and policy reforms to more effectively address this very serious but too often tolerated problem in higher education. * This article is dedicated to the memory of Anne Proffitt Dupre, Co-Director of the Education Law Consortium, Professor of Law, Law Clerk for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Critlib 2019-12-10: Toxic Work Environments 233 Items
    Created by violetfox_1erOSv Powered by #critlib 2019-12-10: toxic work environments 233 Items Archive of the December 10 2019 #critlib chat on "toxic work environments," moderated by @GingerReads. For more info about critlib, including past and future chats, visit http://critlib.org. Violet Fox @violetbfox Tonight! Please join moderator @GingerReads for a #critlib chat about toxic work environments: critlib.org/toxic-work-env…. Let's investigate the concept & explore ways to improve our work in libraries. 6 pm Pacific/9 pm Eastern. 1:55 PM · Dec 10, 2019 32 24 people are Tweeting about this Kristen wants you to VOTE @GingerReads Hello and welcome to our #critlib chat on toxic work environments. I am looking forward to our discussion tonight. You can find tonight's questions here > critlib.org/toxic-work-env… Please remember to use #critlib for every tweet so folks can follow the conversation. 2:00 AM · Dec 11, 2019 19 See Kristen wants you to VOTE’s other Tweets Kristen wants you to VOTE @GingerReads · Dec 11, 2019 Hello and welcome to our #critlib chat on toxic work environments. I am looking forward to our discussion tonight. You can find tonight's questions here > critlib.org/toxic-work-env… Please remember to use #critlib for every tweet so folks can follow the conversation. Kristen wants you to VOTE @GingerReads If you'd like to tweet anonymously, you can do so by using the form at critlib.org/anon/. Tweets will appear on the @critlib_anon account. #critlib 2:00 AM · Dec 11, 2019 1 See Kristen wants you to VOTE’s other Tweets Kristen wants you to VOTE @GingerReads · Dec 11, 2019 Replying to @GingerReads If you'd like to tweet anonymously, you can do so by using the form at critlib.org/anon/.
    [Show full text]
  • Going Postal.Pdf
    This book is written from an insider’s perspective. It is based significantly on my thirty-four years experience with the United States Postal Service. I felt compelled to write the book for two important reasons: First, the postal culture, beginning in 1997, progressively worsened. Second, the last postal district I worked at became a toxic workplace for many of its employees during the last year of my employment as an internal consultant. In good conscience, I could not turn a blind eye to postal management’s blatant display of arrogance at the highest level of the organization. I couldn’t ignore the lack of accountability for unethical organizational practices and behaviors and not bring it to the attention of the American public, the press, and, most importantly, to Congress. In chapter ten, I argue that it is a moral obligation for public and private organizations to create healthy organizations. It is no less a moral obligation for pub- lic policy makers to create the tone and the legislative requirements to ensure that healthy organizations become the norm in this country. In writing this book, it became my mission to comprehensively investigate these con- cerns and lack of accountability in the context of workplace violence in the Postal Service and its postal culture. As a result of this examination, I provide an answer to the question: Why has there been so much violence in the Postal Service and what can be done to prevent it? Accordingly, as a chief part of my motivation for writing this book, it became neces- sary to demonstrate how, as a result of this comprehensive investigation, the Postal Service could shift from an unsafe and unhealthy organization to a safe and healthy one.
    [Show full text]
  • JUST CAUSE’ JOB PROTECTIONS: Building Racial Equity and Shifting the Power Balance Between Workers and Employers
    ‘JUST CAUSE’ JOB PROTECTIONS: Building Racial Equity and Shifting the Power Balance Between Workers and Employers APRIL 2021 BY IRENE TUNG, PAUL SONN AND JARED ODESSKY EEXECUTIVEEEXECUTIVEXXEECCUTUTIIVVEE SUSUMMARYSUSUMMARYMMMMAARRYY In the United States, most employers can legally In this report, we present new findings from fire workers without warning or explanation. three data sources that shed light on the harmful This system, known as “at will” employment, effects of at-will employment on workers and can cause great harm to U.S. workers and their show broad public support for adopting just- families when the paycheck they depend on is cause protections around the country: there one day and gone the next. By granting employers excessive control over workers’ ■ Census Job-to-Job Flows data - Our analysis livelihoods, at-will employment undermines of the latest U.S. Census Bureau Job-to-Job workers’ ability to speak up about mistreatment Flows data illustrates the destabilizing effects and perpetuates longstanding racial inequities on workers and their families of losing a in the workplace and labor market. The at-will job, especially for Black and Latinx workers relationship creates an enormous power (Figure 1).2 imbalance between workers and their employers, with far-reaching consequences in the workplace ■ National workforce survey - Previously and beyond. unreleased findings from an October 2020 national survey of more than 3,000 people in What happens in U.S. workplaces can have the U.S. workforce show the extent to which implications for the well-being of everyone fear of employer retaliation prevents workers in this country—as the recent pandemic has from reporting serious workplace concerns shown us—when many workers speaking up such as health and safety violations and about the spread of COVID-19 on the job have sexual harassment (Figures 3, 4).3 faced retaliatory firings.
    [Show full text]
  • Workplace Mobbing:Experiences in the Public Sector
    Workplace Mobbing:Experiences in the Public Sector Author Shallcross, Linda, Sheehan, Michael, Ramsay, Sheryl Published 2008 Journal Title International Journal of Organisational Behaviour Copyright Statement © The Author(s) 2008. The attached file is posted here with permission of the copyright owners for your personal use only. No further distribution permitted. For information about this journal please refer to the publisher’s website or contact the authors. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/23095 Link to published version http://www.usq.edu.au/business-law/research/ijob/articles Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au WORKPLACE MOBBING: EXPERIENCES IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Linda Shallcross Michael Sheehan Sheryl Ramsay ABSTRACT This paper discusses the counterproductive behaviour of ‘workplace mobbing’ where gossip, rumour, innuendo, and malicious accusations are reported to unfairly target and discredit targeted workers. The discussion is based on an Australian study of reports from public sector employees who self identified as targets of workplace mobbing. The behaviours are typically covert and are sometimes instigated and perpetuated by management. In focusing on three themes that emerged from the interview study, the paper discusses the sometimes toxic nature of public sector culture, mobbing behaviours and workplace expulsion. It also discusses some recommended regulatory and organizational responses that could potentially reduce the occurrence of such behaviours. Keywords: mobbing, bullying, harassment, employment, discrimination and management. INTRODUCTION Workplace mobbing is a complex phenomenon with negative outcomes for individual, group and organizational effectiveness. Greater theoretical and practical understanding is required to help establish better processes that could ultimately deter workplace mobbing and reduce the impact on those targeted.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    TOXIC LEADERSHIP IN CONTEXT Gary S. Metcalf, Ph.D. and Teresa A. Daniel, Ph.D. 1408 ½ Central Ave. Ashland, KY 41101, U.S.A. ABSTRACT A sizeable body of research and other literature has been developing about toxic leadership and workplace bullying. Our earlier work found distinctions between tough bosses and true bullies in the workplace. A later study showed that military officers were able to clearly identify differences between tough but effective leaders, and toxic leaders. That work was extended into the organizational climates which seem to promote toxic leaders and bullies. Other colleagues have explored potentials for changes in bullying behavior through executive coaching interventions, noting that some executives simply lack awareness of their behaviors, or the effects on those around them. The focus of this paper is the synthesis of earlier findings, to begin a more systemic understanding about the relationships between individual, organizational, and societal behaviors with respect to bullying and toxic leadership. Keywords: toxic leadership; toxic behavior; workplace bullying; systems research; holistic model INTRODUCTION This paper extends previous research and theory-building about workplace bullying and toxic leadership. It will do so through the use of an eight-part framework, developed in an upcoming book titled “A guide to systems research: Philosophy, processes and practice” (Edson, Henning, & Sankaran, Eds., in press). The framework suggests an approach for conducting holistic, systems-oriented research studies, and parallels the steps of participatory action research (PAR). This is in keeping with the themes for the ISSS 2016 conference in Boulder, CO, of wholeness and sustainability. While workplace bullying and toxic leadership might seem far removed from issues such as sustainability of the biosphere, or of global socioeconomic systems, they may also be examples or indicators at a different level of organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Versus Cooperative Behaviors at Work: the Role of Organizational Culture and Leadership in Creating Community- Centered Organizations
    TOXIC VERSUS COOPERATIVE BEHAVIORS AT WORK: THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP IN CREATING COMMUNITY- CENTERED ORGANIZATIONS Jacqueline A. Gilbert Middle Tennessee State University, USA Norma Carr-Ruffino San Francisco State University, USA John M. Ivancevich University of Houston, USA Robert Konopaske Texas State University, USA Recent headlines highlight the literal toxicity spewing from companies such as BP (oil spill), Hillandale Farms (salmonella poisoning), and W.R. Grace (vermiculite/asbestos poisoning). These incidents bring to mind an earlier rash of visible and high profile executives from such companies as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, who made headlines because of their self-centered, covetous, and irresponsible behavior towards shareholders and employees (Ivancevich, Duening, Gilbert, & Konopaske, 2003). Scholars suggest that such toxic behavior on the part of organizational leaders and managers exerts a negative impact on employee and firm productivity (Goldman, 2008; Vega & Comer, 2005). In this paper, we define the concept of a toxic workplace and discuss what factors contribute to its development. When leaders in organizations routinely display toxicity toward their employees (exhibited through excessive employee monitoring, micro-management, and politically-motivated performance appraisals), the outcomes will be radically different than from organizations in which community or collaboration is practiced. We argue that managers and leaders should attempt to reduce the amount of toxic influence within their organizations while consciously attempting to cultivate a community-centered organizational culture. We develop several testable propositions that explore how these two contrasting organizational models may influence important human resource and organizational outcomes. We conclude the paper with a discussion of community-centered organizations and provide suggestions on how to test a sample of our propositions with future research.
    [Show full text]