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

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.

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

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

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

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………219

Introduction……………………………..……………..………………..219

Interpretation of Findings……………….….………….…………….…220

Conclusions………………………….……….………….………….…..224

Characterizing Toxic Leadership…….……………….….…….……….224

Hegemony, Power and Control…….…………….……….…………….230

Intentionality of Toxicity………….………………………….………...234

Physical and Psychological Damage: Organizations as Responsible Parties for Increased Healthcare Costs………...…….236

The Toxic-Turnover Model…………….…………………………………..238

Organizational Context of Toxicity……….………………………247

Phase I: Targeting Phase………………………………………….248

Targeting Triggers…………….…………………………………..250

Phase II: Targeting Phase…………………………………………251

Phase III: Decision-Making Phase………………………………..253

The Turnover Event……………………………………………….256

Phase IV: The Post-Turnover Phase………………………………257

Discussion……….…………….……………………………………………..258

Recommendations for Neutralizing Toxic Leadership in Organizations……260

Contributions and Recommendations for Theory…………………………....265

Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………...275

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………282

REFERENCES……………………………...………………………………………….285

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE……………..………………………………….296

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework of Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover………………………………………………14

Figure 1.2: Graphical Depiction of the Grand Narrative of the Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover…….….....244

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Synthesis and Organization of Toxic Leader Behaviors Into Categories Proposed by Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013)……………………….40

Table 1.2: Core Thematic Foci, Sub-thematic Foci and Sub-categories of Data………..90

Table 1.3: Demographic Information of Study Participants……………………….…….93 .

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Overview

Toxic leadership has emerged in recent years as a facet of organizational life of

increasing concern for companies, managers and employees due to its negative impact on

organizations and their members. The oft-cited adage in human resource offices that employees leave managers, not jobs, is, indeed, telling. The term toxic is a “global label for leaders who engage in numerous destructive behaviors [sic] and who exhibit certain

dysfunctional personal characteristics [sic]” (Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 18). Similarly,

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) utilize the term destructive leadership to denote the manifestation of “leaders’ pursuit of destructive goals (i.e., goals that contradict the legitimate interests of organizations) and destructive leadership style (i.e., style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers)” (p. 1309). The interest in toxic leadership concerns both organizational behavior scholars and members of organizations who endure toxic leadership in the workplace. The increasing attention paid to toxic leadership outside the scholarly community is evidenced by the emergence of reality television shows on toxic workplaces and toxic leaders such as Fox Television

Network’s recent program entitled Toxic Office: Does Someone Have to Go?, which began airing in May, 2013, and also by the recent publication of numerous practitioner- oriented pieces of literature offering approaches for combating toxic leadership in the workplace (see Dellasega & Volpe, 2013; Goldman, 2009; Wakeman, 2010). Yet, despite a recognition that toxic leaders infect a significant portion of organizations and workplaces, many organizations seem content to tolerate toxicity (Hogg, 2005).

Scholarly research on toxic leadership, its antecedents and consequences, has remained largely conceptual and fragmentary, focusing on very specific behaviors

1 theorized to be associated with toxic leadership (Hershcovis, 2010). Limited empirical work has tended to focus on consequences of toxic leadership and has tentatively established a link between the presence of toxic leadership in workplaces and an array of negative impacts, including decreased employee motivation and productivity (Cortina, et. al., 2001; Pelletier, 2010), increased legal litigation against organizations (Hogg, 2005), increased incidents of corruption (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), increased costs of healthcare to treat psychological and psychosomatic ailments of employees (Padilla, et. al., 2007;

Tepper, 2000), low employee job satisfaction (Ghosh, et. al., 2011), increased employee absenteeism (Goldman, 2006), increased drug and alcohol abuse (Lubit, 2004), increased workplace violence (Speedy, 2006) and increased employee turnover (Starratt & Grandy,

2010). Taken collectively, the presence of toxic leadership in workplaces causes employee suffering, which in turn, incurs high organizational costs ranging from increased healthcare costs to lower productivity, litigation and employee turnover, which alone is estimated to cost organizations over $1 million for every ten managerial and professional employees who leave (Fritz-enz, 1997). Ramlall (2004) suggests that turnover costs total between one and two year’s salary and benefits per exempt employee.

Yet the question of why employees remain in positions where they are exposed to toxic leadership, and relatedly, what exactly causes employees to finally leave an organization after having suffered under toxic leadership remains largely unexplored in empirical work. A qualitative study conducted by Starratt and Grandy (2010), for example, found that the presence of abusive leadership in the workplace leads to increased employee turnover, but the study sought to unveil all possible consequences of abusive leadership, of which employee turnover constituted a single consequence;

furthermore, not all study participants left the organization to escape the abusive leader,

meaning that they elected to remain with the toxic leader, despite their complaints of the

misery which characterized the workplace. The question, therefore, is what specific incident or set of incidents causes employees who have suffered under toxic leadership to leave an organization in order to escape the toxic leader.

The importance of understanding what specific incidents caused employees

suffering under toxic leaders to leave an organization is underscored by the high costs

associated with employee turnover; however, as Pelletier (2010) proposes, there may

exist a continuum of toxicity, in which only the most egregious displays of leader toxicity

cause employees to leave an organization. This research seeks to identify and to explain the specific incidents that caused employees suffering under toxic leaders to decide ultimately to leave an organization to escape the toxic leader, and in so doing, aids organizations in neutralizing toxic leadership as a means of reducing employee turnover.

Statement of the Problem

This section adopts a bifurcated approach to presenting the problem of toxic leadership and its correlation to employee turnover. The first section discusses the problem of practice and highlights the negative impacts toxic leadership causes in organizations with respect to employee turnover. The second section identifies and discusses the problem of research and the gap in the scholarly empirical literature this study seeks to fill.

Problem of Practice

Previous research has demonstrated that the presence of toxic leadership in organizations presents practical problems impacting the operation of organizations,

including decreased employee motivation and productivity (Cortina, et. al., 2001;

Pelletier, 2010), increased legal litigation against organizations that promote toxic

leadership (Hogg, 2005), increased incidents of corruption (Lipman-Blumen, 2005),

increased health care costs of treating physical, psychological and psychosomatic

ailments incurred by employees suffering under toxic leaders (Padilla, et. al., 2007;

Tepper, 2000), low employee job satisfaction (Ghosh, et. al., 2011), increased employee

absenteeism (Goldman, 2006), increased employee use of drugs and alcohol (Lubit,

2004), increased workplace violence (Speedy, 2006), and increased employee turnover

(Starttrat & Grandy, 2010). Collectively, these consequences of toxic leadership cause

organizations to incur significant financial losses.

Despite the significant financial losses organizations incur, and the psychological

suffering employees endure as a result of toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005;

Tepper, 2000), organizations often appear unwilling or unable to act to neutralize the impacts of toxic leadership in the workplace (Lipman-Blumen, 2005) and appear willing to incur excessive turnover costs rather than remove a toxic leader from power (Lipman-

Blumen, 2005). Indeed, Carleton (2011) observes a dichotomy between rhetoric and reality in many organizations with respect to managerial and leadership practices, stating,

“ironically, the rhetoric of many organizations has long been that ‘people are our most valued asset,’ yet […] poor managerial practice and unsupportive work environments persist” (p. 459). The unwillingness or inability of organizations to effectively bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality with respect to providing productive, supportive and healthy workplaces, is particularly problematic for educated professionals, especially knowledge workers, who tend to leave toxic leaders and organizations, taking knowledge,

business operations intelligence and institutional memory with them (Alevesson, 2000;

Carleton, 2011). The impact of employee turnover thus extends beyond direct financial

impacts on the losing organization, in that knowledge workers, in particular, are well-

poised to sell their knowledge and skills to competitor organizations (Carleton, 2011).

Therefore, organizations need to neutralize the negative impacts of toxic leaders to retain

employees, remain competitive and mitigate financial loss associated with high employee

turnover.

Yet, to date, organizations appear not to have adequately sought to neutralize the

presence of toxic leadership as a means of mitigating high employee turnover. While

initially perplexing, the failure of organizations to address toxic leadership as a means of

reducing employee turnover may lie in the individual perception of what constitutes

toxicity in a leader. Lipman-Blumen (2005), for example, contends that determining

what constitutes a toxic leader lies in the eyes of the beholder, and Pelletier (2010)

proposes that a continuum of toxicity may exist, wherein employees consider certain

leader behaviors to be more toxic than others. Taken collectively, the role of individual

perception in determining what constitutes a toxic leader may explain why employees

remain in organizations and continue to suffer under what other employees may consider

toxic leaders. Pelletier (2010) determined that the most egregious attributes which

constitute toxic leaders remained relatively constant across employees surveyed,

indicating that certain behaviors clearly appear toxic to employees. Nevertheless, many employees suffer under these most egregious toxic behaviors in the workplace for prolonged periods of time without leaving the organization (Pelletier, 2010). The question of exactly what incident forces an employee to decide to leave an organization

5 after having suffered under toxic leadership, however, remains unanswered. Thus, from a practical, operational perspective, the present research study provides organizations interested in neutralizing the impacts of toxic leaders in the workplace with insight into the exact incidents that caused employees to leave an organization after having suffered under a toxic leader, which, in turn, should enable organizations to promote a supportive workplace while mitigating unnecessary employee turnover due to toxic leadership.

Problem of Research

The limited empirical research regarding toxic leadership has tended to focus upon determining what constitutes toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Padilla, et. al., 2007; Pelletier, 2010), and upon the consequences of toxic leadership for organizations and their members. Toxic leadership has been linked to a number of negative consequences, including decreased employee motivation and productivity

(Cortina, et. al., 2001; Pelletier, 2010), increased legal litigation against organizations

(Hogg, 2005), increased incidents of corruption (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), increased costs of healthcare to treat psychological and psychosomatic ailments of employees (Padilla, et. al., 2007; Tepper, 2000), low employee job satisfaction (Ghosh, et. al., 2011), increased employee absenteeism (Goldman, 2006), increased drug and alcohol abuse

(Lubit, 2004), increased workplace violence (Speedy, 2006) and increased employee turnover (Starratt & Grandy, 2010). Pelletier (2010) established in a qualitative study, based upon interviews with employees who endured a toxic leader, a link between toxic leadership and increased levels of employee turnover, and Starratt and Grandy (2010) echo these findings in a qualitative study conducted with young workers who suffered under toxic leadership. Despite the findings of these studies, however, the researchers

sought to determine an array of consequences of toxic leadership, of which increased

employee turnover constituted a single consequence; they did not seek to illuminate the

specific incident which caused employees to leave an organization due to a toxic leader.

Given Pelletier’s (2010) contention that some employees continue to remain with toxic

leaders despite the misery they endure, a contention echoed by Lipman-Blumen (2005), the question of what specifically causes employees to leave the toxic leader necessarily arises.

Empirical research on employee turnover has largely cast turnover as a negative phenomenon requiring mitigation on the part of organizations. Accordingly, a significant portion of the corpus of literature on employee turnover has focused on issues such as the determination of incentives needed to retain valuable employees (Hausknecht, et. al.,

2009), characteristics of workplace environments which promote high employee retention

(Spencer, 1986; Steel, et. al., 2002), differentiation and assessment of the impact of turnover of high- versus low-performing employees (Jackofsky, 1984; Staw, 1980), the role of psychological contracts between employees and organizations as an antecedent of turnover (Zareen, et. al., 2013), antecedents of turnover mitigation and retention

(Ramlall, 2004), and the role of leaders and managers in turnover mitigation (Afifi,

1991).

Afifi (1991) contends that empirical studies examining the role of leaders and managers in employee turnover has tended to focus on approaches managers and leaders should operationalize in order to retain employees. Similarly, empirical studies investigating the consequences of turnover have emphasized the negative impacts on organizations, primarily from a financial perspective, including costs of hiring (Darmon,

1990), training costs for new employees (Smith & Watkins, 1978), and costs of lost

knowledge and productivity (Strober, 1990), to highlight a few examples. Finally,

empirical studies on employee turnover have sought to examine the decision-making

processes employees undergo when considering departure from organizations (Holthom,

et. al., 2005; Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Holthom et. al. (2005), in

a qualitative study based upon interviews with former employees of an organization,

discovered that employees experience shocks or incidents which initiate the process of

deciding whether to leave an organization, and that the shocks come from a variety of

sources, including from leaders and managers. Yet, despite the extensive corpus of

research on employee turnover, there remain unaddressed aspects of turnover.

Specifically, the Holthom et. al. (2005) study did not examine whether employees who

experienced shocks from leaders and managers considered these leaders toxic, whether

the employees had experienced previous shocks but at the time decided not to leave the

organization, and the length of time employees endured leadership behaviors which

constituted the final shock. Consequently, this study contributes to the corpus of empirical research on employee turnover by examining whether there are specific incidents employees experienced which caused them to leave an organization after having endured leadership behaviors which may be considered toxic.

Purpose Statement and Research Question

The purpose of this critical incident study is to understand the study participants’

perception of the relationship between toxic leadership behaviors in organizations where

they were employed and their decision to leave the organization. The research question

guiding this study is:

• What do participants consider to constitute toxic leadership and how did toxic

leadership impact their decision to leave?

The following analytic questions guide the investigation of the research question for this study:

1. What specific leader behaviors do participants characterize as toxic?

2. How do participants describe their daily workplace experiences under toxic

leaders?

3. How do participants describe the impact of exposure to toxic leadership in the

workplace on their lives inside and outside of the workplace?

4. Was there a specific event that occurred in the workplace which caused

participants to leave the organization, and if so, what was the event and how do

participants describe it?

5. Was the event which caused participants to leave the organization different from

previous encounters with toxic leaders, and if so, how was it different?

Significance of the Study

Given the high costs associated with recruiting quality employees for organizations (Mobley, 1977), and the negative consequences of toxic leadership on employee health and well-being, including numerous psychological consequences, anxiety, depression and burnout (Tepper, 2000), diminished self-efficacy and psychosomatic health problems (Duffy et.al., 2002), all of which may lead to increased health-care costs (Bamberger & Bachrach, 2006), organizations should consider options to mitigate or eliminate toxic leadership behaviors. Given the multitude of negative consequences toxic leadership incurs on organizations, including decreased employee

9 motivation and productivity (Pelletier, 2010), increased legal litigation against organizations that promote toxic leadership (Hogg, 2005), increased incidents of corruption (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), increased health care costs of treating physical, psychological and psychosomatic ailments incurred by employees suffering under toxic leaders (Padilla, et.al., 2007), low employee job satisfaction (Ghosh, 2011), increased employee absenteeism (Goldman, 2006), increased employee use of drugs and alcohol

(Lubit, 2004), and increased workplace violence (Speedy, 2006), organizations appear to have a vested interest in neutralizing or eliminating the impact of toxic leaders on employees.

By identifying whether exposure to toxic leadership behaviors in the workplace

(Erikson, et.al., 2007) causes a critical incident or shock, which, in turn, causes employee turnover, this study fills a critical gap in the burgeoning academic literature on consequences of toxic leadership. Further, this study raises awareness among organizational leaders, managers and human resource practitioners regarding the consequences of toxic leadership and the possible negative impacts toxic leadership may have on organizations, if exposure to toxic leadership behaviors results in employee turnover. From a practical perspective, this study offers insight on how to neutralize toxic leadership in organizations, which, in turn, should decrease the negative impacts of toxic leadership on employees and organizations. Finally, from a theoretical perspective, this study enriches the theoretical understanding of the possible relationship between toxic leaders’ operationalization of destructive leadership behaviors and voluntary employee turnover by answering Krashikova, Green and LeBreton’s (2013) call for empirical research investigating this possible relationship utilizing the critical incident

technique and Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee

Turnover.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is informed, on the one hand, by the

theoretical and conceptual work of Lipman-Blumen (2005) on toxic leadership, which provides a basis for understanding the behaviors, characteristics and consequences of toxic leaders in the workplace and in society at large. On the other hand, this study draws on the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994), which presents employee turnover as decision-making process.

Toxic Leadership

A review of the literature germane to toxic leadership presented in the subsequent section of this work reveals that Lipman-Blumen (2005) arguably offers the most comprehensive definition of toxic leadership, upon which the conceptual framework of this study is grounded. Lipman-Blumen (2005) contends that personal perception plays a seminal role in defining what counts as toxic leadership and therefore, offers a broad definition of toxic leadership:

A global label for leaders who engage in numerous destructive behaviors [sic] and who exhibit certain dysfunctional personal characteristics [sic]. To count as toxic, these behaviors and qualities of character must inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and their organizations. The intent to harm others or to enhance the self at the expense of other distinguishes seriously toxic leaders from the careless or unintentional toxic leaders, who also cause negative effects (p. 18).

Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) distinction between seriously toxic leaders who intend to harm followers and organizations, and leaders who are careless or unintentionally toxic is particularly relevant for this study, since individuals may experience the degree or extent of toxicity a leader displays differently, leading to an array of descriptions regarding the 11

behaviors which constitute toxicity. Accordingly, Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) definition

provides the required breadth to capture toxic leadership behaviors, while accounting for

the inherent role personal perception plays in determining leader toxicity. Lipman-

Blumen (2005) identifies specific characteristics of toxic leadership, including leaving

followers worse off than they were found through the employment of tactics such as

undermining, demeaning, seducing, marginalizing, intimidating, demoralizing,

disenfranchising, incapacitating, imprisoning, torturing or terrorizing followers;

consciously feeding followers’ illusions to enhance the leader’s power; misleading

followers through deliberate untruths and misdiagnoses of issues and problems;

subverting structures and processes of the system intended to generate truth, justice and

excellence, engaging in unethical, illegal and criminal acts; building totalitarian or

narrowly dynastic regimes; failing to nurture other leaders; improperly clinging to power;

treating their own followers well, but persuading them to hate and/or destroy others;

identifying scapegoats and inciting others to castigate them; and ignoring or promoting

incompetence, cronyism and corruption (pp. 19-20). Taken in aggregate, these characteristics of toxic leaders would be expected to be among the reasons participants in this study cite as having led to their decision to leave an organizations after having suffered under a toxic leader.

Employee Turnover: The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover

A thorough review of the literature on employee turnover presented in the subsequent chapter of this work reveals numerous attempts to model the phenomenon.

Among these attempts, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary

Employee Turnover best informs the present study on employee turnover and toxic

leadership. This model of employee turnover is particularly suited to the present study

because it complements Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) contention that followers frequently

react to and perceive toxic leaders in quite different ways. Since the Unfolding Model of

Voluntary Employee Turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994) is grounded in the idea that

employees choose to leave an organization, often as a result of a shock in the workplace,

the model is well-suited for a study which seeks to identify shocks to which employees

may have been exposed while suffering under toxic leadership behaviors, which

subsequently caused them to leave an organization. According to the Unfolding Model

of Voluntary Employee Turnover taken from Lee and Mitchell (1994), an event which

causes the employee dissatisfaction in the workplace initiates a series of decisions which

culminates in either the employee electing to remain on the job despite dissatisfaction, or

in the employee electing to leave the organization, thus resulting in employee turnover.

While the present study does not seek to test the Unfolding Model of Voluntary

Employee Turnover, the model provides a conceptual basis, which was later tested and

shown to be valid (Holthom, et. al., 2005), upon which to expect that shocks employees

suffer as a result of toxic leadership behaviors would lead to employee turnover. Finally,

the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover is particularly suited to capturing

the social and organizational contexts in which employees operate, as well as their personal perceptions of the severity of a shock. As Holthom et. al. (2005) observe of the process of shock interpretation:

one that is more personal is whether the shock can be responded to easily and in an appropriate manner. In the unfolding model, the experienced shock to the system and the general and personal decision frames prompt the onset of a specific decision path (p. 341). Consequently, the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover emphasizes the personal nature of the decision making process and complements Lipman-Blumen’s

(2005) assertion that toxic leadership is frequently in the eye of the beholder. In synthesis, therefore, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee

Turnover and Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) conceptual work on toxic leadership behaviors inform the following pictorial representation of the conceptual framework within which this study is designed.

Organizational Context of Toxicity

Toxic Voluntary Leadership Employee Turnover

Organizational Context of Toxicity

Figure 1.1: Conceptual framework of relationship between toxic leadership and employee turnover.

As is illustrated in the conceptual framework, the relationship between toxic shocks from toxic leaders in the workplace and an employee’s intention to leave an organization is highly personal in nature. The depiction offered in Figure 1.1, for

example, illustrates the way in which the number of toxic shocks an employee

experiences may vary before an employee decides to leave an organization to escape a

toxic leader. Furthermore, the conceptual model informing this study posits the existence

of a toxic environment which enshrouds the workplace. This constant toxicity is conceptualized to constitute the organizational culture in which the employee operates, and which necessarily influences employees’ perceptions of toxicity as a function of time spent in the toxic environment. This study, therefore, seeks to understand the specific

event or shock that caused study participants to leave an organization after having

tolerated a generally toxic environment, and why a specific event caused the participants

to finally leave the organization and the toxic leader.

Summary of Methodology

The methodology employed in this study is the critical incident technique, as described by Chell (1998), which adopts a decidedly phenomenological orientation.

Specifically, Chell (1998) describes the critical incident technique as follows:

The critical incident technique is a qualitative interview procedure which facilitates the investigation of significant occurrences (events, incidents, processes, or issues) identified by the respondent, the way they are managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects. The objective is to gain understanding of the incident from the perspective of the individual, taking into account cognitive, affective and behavioral elements (p. 56).

Chell’s (1998) approach to the critical incident technique is phenomenological in nature,

in which a semi-structured interview technique is employed. Following Chell (1998),

the application of phenomenological methods to a critical incident study requires

sampling until the point of saturation, or the point at which no new critical incidents

emerge (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). The exact sample size for this study, therefore,

emerges at the point of saturation. Chell (1998) suggests that this approach to critical

incident studies is equally effective for an in-depth case study and a multi-site study.

This study utilizes the critical incident technique in a multi-site study. The population for this study will include individuals formerly employed under a toxic leader in any organization in the greater Washington, D.C. Metro Region, including

Washington, D.C., Suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. The sample for this study

was determined utilizing snowball sampling, in which the researcher asked the initial

study participant to refer additional participants to the researcher whom the initial

participant knows to have suffered under toxic leadership. The process of referral

continued until the researcher had reached the point of saturation with respect to the

critical incidents identified through interview data. The initial study participant worked

in a large organizational consulting firm in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area. The

researcher first made contact with the initial study participant at a professional

development seminar, during which time the researcher and initial study participant, in

the course of discussing the researcher’s research interests, discovered that the initial

study participant had decided to quit a job due to an intolerable leader. The initial study

participant also revealed that he was aware of a number of acquaintances who had quit

jobs and left organizations due to poor and intolerable leaders. The initial study

participant volunteered to participate in this study and to refer his acquaintances to the

researcher, after gaining their permission to be contacted by the researcher. Once the

researcher gained access to the referrals of the initial study participant, subsequent

participants were asked whether they were aware of any individuals whom they could

refer to the researcher, and the process continued until the point of saturation. Since not

all of the acquaintances of the initial study participant worked in his former organization,

the sample was comprised of people from a variety of industries who suffered under toxic

leadership and left their organizations as a result of toxic leadership.

Limitations

A significant limitation of this study is the extent to which study participants answered questions in the interview and provided narratives of their experiences with

toxic leadership that were truthful and which accurately represented the events under consideration. Further, the inherent emotionally-laden characteristics of critical incidents may distort the reality of the event study participants are attempting to recall (Gremler,

2004). Scholars have also critiqued the accuracy of the critical incident technique in eliciting responses from study participants which truly represent the “reality” of the event under investigation because human memories of past events are inherently clouded with judgments, interpretations and emotions associated with the lived experiences of the past event (Gremler, 2004). Consequently, the critical incident technique is limited by the constraints of the human memory and, due to the retrospective nature of memory recall, the possibility of bias on the part of the study participant may constitute a limitation of the critical incident technique (Michel, 2001). Furthermore, there exists the possibility that a study participant may reinterpret an incident during the recall process, particularly if the event took place in more distant memory, for example, several years in the past

(Johnston, 2005). Finally, this study is limited by the extent to which participants identify toxic leadership as the single cause of their decision to leave an organization.

Study participants may possibly identify, in the course of the interview process, factors other than toxic leadership that caused them to leave an organization. An additional

limitation of the study concerns the use of snowball sampling and the reliance on the

subjective assessment of the initial participants to refer other participants, which rests on

the assumption that social networks consist of groups with relatively homogenous social

traits (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).

Delimitations

The delimitations of this study include the conceptual restraint placed on the

definition of toxic leadership to that as proposed by Lipman-Blumen (2005), the

geographic restrictions placed on the population and sample for the study, as participants

must be located in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area, and the criterion that only former

employees who have suffered under toxic leaders and who identify the behaviors of the

toxic leader as the direct cause for their departure from the organization within the past

year are eligible for participation in this study. The temporal restraint placed on the participants for this study is intended to account for the possibility that more distant memories may be clouded and less likely to be accurate.

Key Definitions

For the purposes of this study, the following definitions of toxic leadership, destructive leadership and voluntary employee turnover are adopted:

• Toxic leadership - A global label for leaders who engage in numerous destructive

behaviors [sic] and who exhibit certain dysfunctional personal characteristics

[sic]. To count as toxic, these behaviors and qualities of character must inflict

reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and their organizations.

The intent to harm others or to enhance the self at the expense of others

distinguishes seriously toxic leaders from the careless or unintentional toxic

leaders, who also cause negative effects (Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 18).

• Destructive leadership – The manifestation of leaders’ pursuit of destructive goals

(i.e., goals that contradict the legitimate interests of organizations) and destructive

leadership style (i.e., style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence

with followers) (Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013, p. 1309).

• Voluntary Employee Turnover – Turnover that results from the individual’s

perceptions about the desirability and ease of movement from one job or

organization to another job or organization (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 53).

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Overview

This chapter provides a review of scholarly conceptual and empirical literature

relevant to toxic leadership and employee turnover and a conceptual framework for the

illumination of the relationship between the two constructs. In reviewing the extant

literature on the two constructs, critical voids in present work are identified, and the

existing conceptual and empirical work is used to justify the relationships between toxic

leadership and employee turnover proposed in the conceptual framework. This chapter

concludes by providing a summary of the literature review findings.

Purpose of the Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is two-fold:

1. The literature review provides support for the proposed conceptual framework

which describes the relationship between toxic leadership and employee turnover

and which underpins this study.

2. The literature review illuminates critical voids in the extant literature on toxic

leadership and employee turnover, thereby justifying the need for this study.

Literature Review Method

In order to capture relevant literature from an array of constructs related to toxic leadership, this literature review was conducted initially by searching using www.googlescholar.com, and Articles Plus and ProQuest databases using the term “toxic

leadership”, including peer-reviewed articles, books and dissertations in English. Initial

searches returned results for “toxic leadership,” and also for “bad leadership,” and “petty

tyranny.” Bad leadership and petty tyranny emerged as part of the search for toxic

leadership because the terms were used interchangeably as key words by some of the

scholars writing on the constructs, or were used to describe one another in the articles.

Initially, there were no date restrictions imposed on the literature search, and it was

determined throughout the course of the search that no such restrictions were required, as

no literature relevant to any of the constructs pre-dated the late-1980s. Consequently, subsequent searches included date limitations ranging from 1988 – 2013. Reading and analyzing the reference pages of the articles retrieved from the initial search revealed that a comprehensive review of the literature on all constructs related to toxic leadership would include searching the following terms and reviewing all literature related to them:

“the dark side of leadership,” “workplace mobbing,” “workplace bullying,” “workplace incivility,” “abusive supervision,” “social undermining,” and “destructive leadership behavior.” A key component of the methodology employed in conducting this literature review was the constant review of the reference pages of articles identified in a specific search. For example, once the initial search for “toxic leadership” revealed that the terms

“bad leadership,” and “petty tyranny” should also constitute search terms, a review of the reference pages for articles found under those search terms revealed that “the dark side of leadership” should constitute a search term, and so forth. Reviewing the reference pages for all articles located at each stage of the search, provided a framework for a comprehensive review of literature relevant to all constructs related to toxic leadership; additionally, this approach to conducting the literature review ensured not only that all relevant literature was reviewed, but also a significant overlap in literature cited by authors writing about each of the constructs related to toxic leadership. Since different constructs in the field of toxic forms of leadership are frequently used in the literature to

describe one another and can be cross-references for one another, a problem necessarily arises in conducting a literature search for toxic leadership. Indeed, the overlapping nature of many of the constructs related to toxic leadership is noted by Hershcovis (2010) and requires the researcher to exercise vigilance in distilling, categorizing and understanding the various constructs and their interrelated nature.

Yet, because much of the literature on toxic leadership and related constructs

appeared to have come from the European academic community, particularly in the initial

conceptual stages, it seemed appropriate to broaden the scope of the literature search,

employing the same methodology, but searching in foreign languages. Much of the early

work on workplace bullying and mobbing, for example, stems from Swedish research.

Although it was not possible to conduct a search of literature in Swedish, since the

researcher does not know Swedish, one of the leading scholars from of workplace

bullying and mobbing, Leymann (1990) provided a synopsis in English of the relevant

research on workplace bullying and mobbing that was not published in English. The rest

of the Swedish research not reviewed by Leymann (1990) was all published in English.

This left the searches in German, French and Dutch to be conducted. The reason for

electing to conduct searches in these languages, in addition to the researcher’s academic

knowledge and understanding of these languages, is due to the fact that one of the

world’s premiere scholars on various forms of bad and toxic leadership, Manfred Kets de

Vries, who has published hundreds of articles and books on leadership, in general, and,

more recently, on toxic forms of leadership, is a Dutch scholar. Due to the researcher’s

near-native proficiency in German, the researcher is able to understand and read Dutch, which is similar in grammatical structure to German, and which has lexical features

22 similar to German, English and French. Having also studied French, the researcher is able to read French, and thus, is able to use knowledge of French and German vocabulary to aid in understanding Dutch. Consequently, the researcher conducted searches in Dutch and German using www.google.nl and www.googlescholar.nl for the Dutch, and www.google.de and www.googlescholar.de for German. The search terms for Dutch and German were similar to the English terms, specifically, most of the research centered on mobbing and bullying, both of which are terms the Dutch and Germans have directly adopted out of English. Again, while a significant portion of this research was published by scholars from these countries in English, there are some empirical studies that are published only in the original languages. Thus, searches conducted in these languages using the terms “mobbing” and “bullying” revealed many articles on the topics, some in

English, but others written in Dutch and German.

Utilizing this methodology for the literature search revealed a total of 65 articles in English, Dutch and German relevant to the topics of toxic and destructive leadership.

The criteria used to identify and select these 65 relevant articles included criteria suggested in the conceptual definitions of toxic and destructive leadership, as suggested by Lipman-Blumen (2005) and Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013). Specifically, these theorists contend that the terms toxic and destructive leadership constitute global terms which encompass many forms of dysfunctional personality and behavioral qualities in leaders. Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) capture the global implications of the terms toxic and destructive leadership in delineating the terms from other constructs which constitute forms of toxic or destructive leadership: “we draw nomological distinctions between the constructs of abusive supervision, petty tyranny, pseudo-

transformational leadership, personalized charismatic leadership, strategic bullying, and

managerial tyranny, and demonstrate that research on these constructs suggests that

destructive leadership can manifest itself in leaders’ pursuit of destructive goals (i.e.,

goals that contradict the legitimate interests of organizations) and destructive leadership

style (i.e., style that involves the use of harmful of influence with followers)” (p. 1309).

Following this distinction among constructs related to forms of toxic and destructive

leadership, the 65 sources identified for this literature review constituted those which

specifically used the terms toxic or destructive to describe leaders and leadership, but which were limited in scope to these global terms, as opposed to other sources, which focused on a specific construct relevant to a form of toxic or destructive leadership.

Organization of the Literature Review

The content of this literature review is organized into two overarching categories: toxic leadership and employee turnover. Within these broad categories, the literature is organized into categories which capture the essence of the genre of text. Following is an outline of the categories relevant for toxic leadership:

1. Conceptualizations of toxic leadership

2. Contextual and environmental factors in organizations

3. Leader characteristics, psychopathologies and predispositions

4. Destructive leadership behaviors

5. Empirical research on toxic leadership

6. Consequences of toxic leadership

7. Remaining and suffering with a toxic leader

8. Implications for the present study: The toxic-turnover shock

The literature for employee turnover is organized into the following categories:

1. The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover

2. Shocks and voluntary employee turnover

The literature review ends with a synthesizing conclusion.

Conceptualizations of Toxic Leadership

A review of the scant conceptualizations of toxic leadership offered in the

literature germane to the topic reveals a broad emphasis on destructive behaviors

associated with construct. Lipman-Blumen (2005) arguably offers the broadest

conceptualization of toxic leadership and contends that the term “toxic leader” constitutes

a “global label for leaders who engage in numerous destructive behaviors [sic] and who

exhibit certain dysfunctional personal characteristics [sic]” (p. 18). Beyond emphasizing

the display of destructive behaviors as characteristic of toxic leadership, Lipman-Blumen

(2005) explicates that the deleterious consequences of the destructive behaviors determine the characterization of the behaviors as toxic. Notes Lipman-Blumen (2005),

“to count as toxic, these behaviors and qualities of character must inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and their organizations” (p. 18). The intent to harm followers and institutions of civil society delineate toxic leaders from what

Lipman-Blumen (2005) terms “careless or unintentional toxic leaders” (p. 18).

Consequently, the display of destructive behaviors and dysfunctional personal characteristics alone does not constitute a toxic leader; rather, the intention to inflict harm through the operationalization of these behaviors and characteristics delineates toxic leaders from careless or unintentional toxic leaders.

Subsequent researchers have proposed definitions similar to Lipman-Blumen’s

(2005) seminal definition of toxic leadership which echo Lipman-Blumen’s (2005)

conceptualization of the construct. Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), for example,

offer a definition of toxic leadership in which the toxic leader “can be described as

someone that [sic] is motivated by self-interest, has an apparent lack of concern, and negatively affects organizational climate. They glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers” (p. 18). More closely echoing Lipman-

Blumen (2005) in terms of the consequences of certain toxic behaviors, Appelbaum and

Roy-Girard (2007) contend that “it is not a specific behavior that deems a leader to be toxic. The only way to determine whether a leader is toxic is to examine the cumulative effect of demotivational behavior on morale and climate over time” (p. 18). Other researchers, for example Bostock (2010), provide a definition of toxic leadership which focuses exclusively upon the consequences of toxicity, defining the construct in terms of its production of “extreme levels of dysfunctional leadership characterized by organizational contamination” (p. 11). In contrast to Lipman-Blumen (2005) and

Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), Bostock (2010) contends that the construct of toxic

leadership should be “used retrospectively after a thorough and objective historical

evaluation of all of the relevant evidence” (p. 12), a view which precludes the

characterization of a leader as toxic in real time, and which introduces a temporal

disjunction between operationalization and consequences of leader behaviors and the

assessment of their nature.

In contrast to Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) and other scholars’ global

conceptualizations of toxic leadership (i.e. Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007; Wang,

Sinclair & Deese, 2010), which provide conceptualizations of toxic leadership applicable to an array of social contexts outside of organizations, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton

(2013) focus exclusively on the destructive nature of toxic leadership in organizational contexts. Indeed, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton’s (2013) conceptual framework for understanding the destructive behaviors associated with toxic leadership and their impacts within organizational contexts is arguably the most comprehensive to date and provides the framework upon which this study draws to conceptualize toxic leaders’ operationalization of destructive behaviors. Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) propose that, based upon the use of the term destructive as a descriptor in the definitions of toxic leadership, the construct of toxic leadership may best be understood in terms of destructive leadership. Indeed, this conceptualization of toxic leadership closely aligns with Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) emphasis on the destructive nature and consequences of toxic leadership and her contention that toxic leadership has destructive consequences for organizations and followers of toxic leaders. Echoing this view, Krasikova, Green and

LeBreton (2013) contend that destructive leadership “can manifest itself in leaders’ pursuit of destructive goals (i.e., goals that contradict the legitimate interests of organizations) and destructive leadership style (i.e., style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers)” (p. 1309). They emphasize that destructive leadership “should be viewed as harmful behavior imbedded in the process of leading

[sic]” (Krasikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013, p. 1310). Accordingly, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) define destructive leadership in organizational contexts as:

Volitional behavior by a leader that can harm or intends to harm a leader’s organization and/or followers by (a) encouraging followers to pursue goals that contravene the legitimate interests of the organization and/or (b) employing a

leadership style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers, regardless of justifications for such behavior (p. 1310).

Inherent in this definition is a focus on the process by which toxic leaders operationalize destructive behaviors, as well as on the two main targets impacted by destructive behaviors – the organization and its employees. The two distinct operationalizations of destructive leader behaviors may be deployed by a toxic leader separately or in tandem

(Krasikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013). Consequently, the goal of the toxic leaders could be destructive in nature to the organization, to followers, or to both, or the methods of influence operationalized by the toxic leader on followers could be destructive to the organization, to followers, or to both. The toxic leader could also combine the destructive goal with destructive methods of influence such that the destructive methods of influence are utilized to achieve the destructive goal.

Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) distinguish between volitional and unintentional deployment of destructive behaviors by toxic leaders, a distinction which echoes Lipman-Blumen (2005), and which characterizes the destructive leader as one who operationalizes destructive behaviors of his or her own volition, in other words, with intent to do harm to followers, to an organization, or to both. Leaders who unintentionally operationalize destructive behaviors are those whom Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) term ineffective leaders as a means of distinguishing and emphasizing the destructive toxic leaders who intend to harm.

The conceptual framework of Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) suggests that three key factors may result in the operationalization of destructive leadership behaviors: leader characteristics, goal blockage and organizational context. Furthermore, these factors may operate in isolation or in tandem with one another to cause the

emergence of destructive behaviors. Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) contend

that toxic leaders exhibit certain characteristics which predispose them to

operationalizing destructive behaviors, including: (1) a negative bias toward the

interpretation of events, (2) tendencies to justify doing harm, (3) impaired self-regulation, and (4) dispositional tendencies to emphasize self-interest over interests of others (p.

1316). The presence of these personal characteristics in leaders may cause them to engage in destructive leadership behaviors. Leaders may also operationalize destructive behaviors when they perceive what Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) term “goal blockage” (p. 1316). Goal blockage may result from the leader’s goals being incompatible with those of the organization, or it may result from the leader perceiving that followers are preventing the achievement of either personal or organizational goals

(Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013). Finally, organizational context may provide an environment which is conducive to the operationalization of destructive leadership behaviors. Specifically, an organizational context characterized by scarcity of resources,

“factors communicating that harm-doing is acceptable,” and “factors suggesting that destructive leadership is the most effective way of achieving goals” tend to provide a fruitful environment for the operationalization of destructive behaviors (Krashikova,

Green & LeBreton, 2013). The conceptual framework for understanding toxic leadership in terms of the destructive behaviors toxic leaders display and operationalize echoes the assertions of Lipman-Blumen (2005), who contends that context, personal characteristics of leaders and complaint followers allow toxic leaders to thrive. The key area in which

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) differ from Lipman-Blumen (2005) lies in the

formers’ introduction of the notion of goal blockage and the context-specific application of the conceptual model to organizations.

Whereas Lipman-Blumen (2005) offers a thorough discussion of the factors which allow for the emergence of destructive behaviors in toxic leaders, she falls short of offering a conceptual framework conducive for operationalization in an empirical study within an organizational context. Indeed, the systems-perspective Krashikova, Green and

LeBreton (2013) adopt in their model of toxic leadership and destructive behaviors echoes the work of Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007), who propose a “toxic triangle” model and contend that the emergence of toxic leadership in an organizational context is dependent upon the operationalization of dysfunctional personality traits of leaders, and subordinates’ desire for direction and authority; in other words, the extent to which subordinates tolerate toxic leadership, and an organizational context and environment accepting of toxic leadership. The strength of the conceptual frameworks presented by

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) and Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007), therefore, lies in its specific application to organizational contexts and the scope of factors it considers, including organizational context, leader characteristics or dispositions and goal blockage. The subsequent section of this literature review turns to examine contextual and environment factors, dysfunctional personality traits in toxic leaders, and specific behaviors exhibited by toxic leaders.

Contextual and Environment Factors in Organizations

The extent to which toxic leadership and its associated destructive behaviors thrive in an organization is dependent upon the organizational context, which is heavily influenced by an organization’s culture and the extent to which toxic leadership is viewed

30 by organizational leadership as acceptable (Appelbaum & Roy-Girard, 2007; Einarsen,

Aasland & Stogstad, 2007; Gallos, 2008; Hogg, 2005; Krashikova, Green & LeBreton,

2013; Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Two approaches to understanding the role of organizational, contextual and environmental factors in promoting toxic leadership and destructive behaviors generally characterize the extant literature in which organizational environment and toxic leadership are discussed. The first approach focuses upon organizational culture which promotes toxic leadership; the second approach focuses upon social identity theory and the emergence of toxicity in organizations with a non- toxic organizational culture.

Theorizations of what constitutes a toxic workplace differ slightly among scholars, but there is general agreement that toxic leadership and the destructive behaviors associated with toxicity are operationalized exclusively in environments in which they are permitted to flourish. Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), for example, contend that a toxic organizational environment is one in which the organization is largely ineffective and in which the general culture of the organization is characterized by control. A toxic organizational environment is one in which leaders “thrive on control and exist in a constant state of crisis – they depend on disasters to make needed changes”

(Appelbaum & Roy-Girard, 2007, p. 18). Within such an environmental context, toxins emerge in the workplace, which take the form of destructive behaviors, and these destructive behaviors, operationalized by employees and leaders include absenteeism, theft, unproductiveness and unethical practices (Appelbaum & Roy-Girard, 2007). The presence of toxins in the workplace is theorized to produce an environment in which

destructive behaviors emerge and are tolerated, and that this state of affairs, in turn,

creates a toxic environment (Appelbaum & Roy-Girard, 2007).

Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2007) focus on organizational culture in

theorizing the emergence and operationalization of destructive behaviors. In contrast to

Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2007) contend that

an organization’s culture is itself highly contextual in nature and may vary significantly

among organizations. Consequently, what constitutes a toxic workplace environment and

toxic leadership necessarily differs among organizations, such that leaders in an

organization in which toxic leadership is prevalent may not perceive that the leadership is

toxic. An organizational culture which accepts and promotes the emergence of toxic

behaviors significantly impedes the extent to which organizational leaders can recognize

and neutralize toxic leaders among the ranks (Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad, 2007).

Viewed from this perspective, an organizational culture in which toxic and destructive

practices are promoted, rewarded and normalized provides an organizational context ripe

for the emergence of destructive behaviors.

Hogg (2005) adopts a social identity perspective in explaining how organizational

environment and context play an important role in determining the extent to which toxic

leadership and its associated destructive behaviors are tolerated in an organization.

Arguing that organizations play an important role in the construction of our social

identity, Hogg (2005) builds upon the dichotomy of in-group and out-group members in

organizations to contend that prototypical group members are well-liked by members of

the in-group. The in-group is seen as having power and influence over the leader, and many members of the out-group wish to become members of the in-group. These out-

32 group members come to accept that whatever prototypical members do must be in the best interest of the group. The prototypical members come to be granted a significant amount of latitude and trust in decision- making, which allows them to deviate from organizational norms (Hogg, 2005). This state of affairs may cause prototypical members and leaders to wield their power to create toxic environments, even in organizations where the organizational culture is generally not tolerant of toxic and destructive behaviors. Consequently, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few, the construction of identity around the organization and leader, and great latitude in decision making may create a toxic workplace environment, even in an organization with a non-toxic organizational culture (Hogg, 2005; Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) synthesize the two perspectives related to organizational environment and context outlined in this literature review and integrate them into their theoretical model of toxic leadership and destructive behaviors in the workplace. Specifically, Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) propose that leaders will be more likely to engage in destructive behaviors if they have seen their role models do the same, particularly in instances where the leader suffers goal blockage. This argument mirrors Hogg (2005) in terms of its reliance on social identity theory and on social learning theory, both of which support the notion that people learn and enact what they have observed from role models (Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013).

Consequently, Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) conclude that it should be expected that a leader will display destructive behaviors if he or she has witnessed superiors or peers exhibiting the same behaviors.

Following the second line of argumentation that certain toxic organizational

cultures promote and reward the operationalization of destructive behaviors, Krashikova,

Green and LeBreton (2013) present a theorization similar to Appelbaum and Roy-Girard

(2007) and Einarsen, Aasland & Skogstad (2007), yet Krashikova, Green and LeBreton

(2013) link this line of argumentation to the social identity argument. Specifically,

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) contend that “harmful behaviors are more likely to be learned when perpetrators or other individuals enacting these behaviors face no repercussions and/or achieve desired outcomes via these behaviors” (p. 1322). The theorists echo Lipman-Blumen (2005) when they further note that an organizational culture which allows the enactment of destructive behaviors, models such enactment and which promotes a system of rewards that tends to focus on outcomes, regardless of the means through which they are achieved, constitutes a culture where toxicity and destructive behaviors thrive. Therefore, Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) theorize that “factors communicating that harmful behaviors are acceptable in the organization

(e.g. leaders’ or other employees’ previous success at using destructive leadership, and lack of punishment mechanisms) […] leaders are more likely to […] engage in destructive leadership” (p. 1322). Consequently, both the presence of an organizational culture which promotes and rewards toxic leadership and destructive behaviors, and social identities of organizational members constructed around the operationalization of destructive behaviors which are learned by observing either other leaders or colleagues, operate in tandem to create a workplace environment in which toxic leadership thrives, possibly leading to a snowball effect by allowing toxicity to spiral out of control (Gallos,

2008). Yet, environment constitutes only one factor in grasping a complete

understanding of toxic leadership (Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013; Lipman-

Blumen, 2005; Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007). The subsequent section of this literature

review examines specific personality characteristics which predispose some leaders to

acting in a toxic and destructive manner.

Leader Characteristics, Psychopathologies and Predispositions

The presence of certain characteristics and certain psychopathologies in leaders

has been theorized to predispose them to practice toxic leadership and to enact

destructive behaviors against subordinates and organizations (Bostock, 2010; Goldman,

2006; Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013; Lubit, 2004;

Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007; Tavanti, 2011). Common to all of these theorizations of

characteristics which predispose leaders to toxicity are a variety of psychopathologies

from which toxic leaders suffer. Bostock (2010) draws attention to “persistent

personality disorders characterized by antisocial behaviors” as characteristics of toxic

leaders (p. 12). Goldman (2006), a licensed psychologist, presents clinical evidence of

personality disorders in toxic leaders whom he has counseled. Goldman (2006) finds that

toxic leaders may be characterized by personality disorders which manifest themselves in

behaviors such as emotionally abusive behavior inflicted upon followers, “negative

mood, anger and resentment, anxiety, decreased psychological well-being and lowered self-esteem” (p. 740). Goldman (2006) further notes that the personalities of toxic leaders are underpinned by disorders which are manifested in a “highly dramatic and emotional workplace, a propensity to conflict and crisis in social and organizational life, repeated violations of cultural norms, and inflexible mental, emotional and interpersonal disturbances” (p. 740). Based upon Goldman’s (2006) psychological assessment of toxic

35 leaders, it becomes evident that toxic leadership, while perhaps originating from psychological and personality disorders within the toxic leader, has implications for organizational culture and followers, since, as Goldman (2006) notes, toxic leaders tend to violate cultural norms in organizations. This finding supports the theorizations of

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013), who contend that toxic leaders and destructive behaviors may thrive even in organizations where the culture is non-toxic.

A number of scholars have attempted to categorize various types of toxic leaders according to the dysfunctional personality traits they exhibit. Lubit (2004), for example, proposes a typology for framing four types of toxic leaders: narcissistic, aggressive, rigid and impaired. Underpinning each of these four types of toxic leaders, Lubit (2004) contends, “are either difficult personality traits, mood disorders or impulsivity. By personality traits, we mean enduring patterns of perceiving, interpreting and relating to the world and oneself” (p. 2). Narcissistic leaders are those who are grandiose, control freaks, arrogant, antisocial, and who exploit people without remorse (Lubit, 2004).

According to Lubit (2004), narcissistic leaders suffer from fragile self-esteem and are less likely than leaders suffering from other psychopathologies to make changes in their behavior. Aggressive leaders are characterized by their propensity to bully, be frantic, be irritable, or be narcissistic, and are ruthless leaders who “perceive the world as a dog-eat- dog competition in which people are out to get you” (Lubit, 2004, p. 4). Rigid leaders insist on doing things their own way and maybe compulsive, authoritarian, oppositional, passive aggressive and narcissistic (Lubit, 2004). Finally, impaired leaders “suffer from depression, an anxiety disorder, burnout, or alcohol abuse” (Lubit, 2004, p. 5). Common to all types of toxic leaders in Lubit’s (2004) typology are underlying personality

36 characteristics and psychopathologies which predispose the leader to acting in a toxic fashion and to displaying destructive behaviors in the workplace.

Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007), like Lubit (2004) point to narcissism as a key characteristic of toxic leaders and contend that toxic leaders are “characterized by five personality factors: charisma, personalized use of power, narcissism, negative life themes and an ideology of hate” (p. 180). The authors note that associated with these pathological personality traits are “dominance, grandiosity, arrogance, entitlement and selfish pursuit of pleasure” (Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007, p. 181). Similarly, Hogan and Hogan (2001), provide eleven dysfunctional personality characteristics associated with toxic leaders and contend that toxic leaders are: excitable, argumentative, cautious, detached, leisurely, arrogant, mischievous, colorful, imaginative, diligent and dutiful.

Hogan and Hogan (2001) categorize these eleven dysfunctional personality traits into three overarching themes, including “tendencies to blow up, show off, or conform when under pressure” (p. 50). Attempting to synthesize the various dysfunctional personality traits associated with toxic leaders, Tavanti (2011) conducted a comprehensive review of the typologies of toxic leaders and found that the multitude of dysfunctional characteristics identified in the various typologies may be synthesized around one common finding, namely that “toxic leaders are identified by selfish outcomes in their decision-making and how they leave subordinates worse off than when they began” (p.

127). Therefore, Tavanti (2011) finds that the specific dysfunctional personality traits of toxic leaders are less important than the negative outcomes produced by their operationalization in organizations.

In the most comprehensive synthesis of the dysfunctional personality

characteristics with which toxic leaders are plagued, Krashikova, Green and LeBreton

(2013) argue that personality characteristics are predictors of the extent to which leaders

will elect to engage in toxic leadership practices, characterized by destructive behaviors.

“Leaders with the dispositional tendency to emphasize their self-interest over [sic]

interests of others and at the expense [sic] of others are more likely to engage in

destructive leadership” (Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013). Based upon their review

of typologies of toxic personality traits, the authors contend that “Machiavellianism,

narcissism, and psychopathy […] appear to be the most prominent dispositions reflecting

preoccupation with self-interest and instrumental approach to people and organizations”

(Krashikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013). Machiavellianists tend “to view others as tools

for personal use and manipulate individuals and information to attain self-serving goals;”

narcissists “demonstrate a grandiose sense of entitlement, self-focus, inflated self-esteem, and intense competiveness;” and psychopaths “are characterized as lacking empathy for others and lacking the ability to feel guilt or remorse” (Krashikova, Green & LeBreton,

2013, p. 1323). Taken collectively, the typology of psychopathological personality traits

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) propose broadly synthesizes and captures the traits previous researchers have theorized to be associated with toxic leaders. This synthesis provides the framework within which Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) propose that “leaders’ dispositional tendencies to emphasize self-interest over interests of others and at the expense of others (e.g. Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) are positively related to leaders’ choice to engage in destructive leadership” (p. 1324).

One important aspect contained within theorizations of what motivates leaders to act in

38 toxic and destructive ways is, therefore, the presence of certain personality predispositions and psychopathologies unique to toxic leaders. The subsequent section of this literature review examines literature concerned with the specific behaviors toxic leaders display and theorized links between dysfunctional personality traits and operationalization of destructive behaviors.

Destructive Leadership Behaviors

The operationalization of toxic and destructive leadership behaviors has been theorized to result from a number of contextual, environmental, cultural, as well as from certain psychopathological personality traits in toxic leaders which predispose them to enacting toxic and destructive behaviors. The purpose of this section is to review and synthesize the list of toxic behaviors researchers and theorists have proposed to be associated with toxic leadership. Numerous scholars have proposed lists of destructive behaviors associated with toxic leaders, which, as Krashikova, Green and LeBreton

(2013) have suggested, may be generally categorized under one of three overarching themes of dysfunctional personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. The purpose of this section of the literature review is to organize and synthesize the multitude of behaviors toxic leaders display within the framework of the three categories suggested by Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013). The following table provides a synthesis of toxic leaders’ behaviors based upon the work of Krashikova,

Green and LeBreton (2013).

Author Proposed List of Toxic Category Represented by Behaviors or Characteristics the Proposed Behaviors or Characteristics Appelbaum and Roy- • Self-interest • Machiavellianism Girard (2007) • Controlling • Narcissism • Arrogant • Psychopathy • Blaming others • Interfering with information sharing and cooperation • Unpredictable • Explosive • Disrespectful of others • Retaliation Bostock (2010) • Corruption • Machiavellianism • Hypocrisy • Narcissism • Sabotage Psychopathy • Manipulation • Criminal behavior • Unethical behavior Einarsen and Skogstad • Verbal and physical • Machiavellianism (2007) abuse • Narcissism • Tyranny • Psychopathy • Bullying • Harassment Gangel (2007) • Autocracy • Machiavellianism • Egotism • Narcissism • Incompetence • Psychopathy • Cruelty • Arrogance Higgs (2009) • Abuse of power • Machiavellianism • Damage infliction • Narcissism • Controlling • Psychopathy • Self-aggrandizement • Arrogance • Self-absorption • Sense of entitlement • Fragile self-esteem • Inflated self-view • Attention-seeking • Exploitativeness • Power-hungry • Dominance • Inflexibility

• Poor listening skills Kelloway, Francis and • Yelling • Machiavellianism Barling (2005) • Ridiculing • Psychopathy • Terrorization • Withholding information • Threatening pay cuts and firing Kets de Vries (1989) • Controlling disposition • Machiavellianism • Dependence • Narcissism • Passive-aggressiveness • Psychopathy • Masochism Lipman-Blumen (2005) • Undermining • Machiavellianism • Demeaning • Narcissism • Marginalization • Psychopathy • Torture • Terrorization • Demoralization • Disenfranchisement • Power-hunger • Stifling criticism • Threating • Deliberate misleading • Subversion of control mechanisms • Subversion of legal processes • Scapegoating • Incompetence • Cronyism • Corruption • Cynicism • Greed • Paranoia • Narcissism • Megalomania • Grandiosity • Hypocrisy • Exploitation Lubit (2004) • Grandiosity • Machiavellianism • Controlling • Narcissism • Arrogance • Exploitation • Irritability

• Bullying • Compulsiveness • Authoritarianism • Passive aggressiveness Reed (2004) • Petty behavior • Machiavellianism • Self-aggrandizement • Narcissism • Abusiveness • Psychopathy • Indifference Shaw, Erikson and • Lying and unethical • Machiavellianism Harvey (2011) behavior • Narcissism • Inability to deal with • Psychopathy change • Inability to prioritize and delegate • Inability to make decisions • Inability to Negotiate • Inability to adopt long- term view • Inability to develop and motivate subordinates • Brutality and Bullying • Micro-management • Controlling • Inability to deal with conflict • Playing favorites • Inconsistent, erratic behavior • Failure to seek information from others • Ineffective coordination • Unwillingness to listen • Incompetence Padilla, Hogan and • Charisma • Machiavellianism Kaiser (2007) • Personalized use of • Narcissism power • Psychopathy • Narcissism • Ideology of hate • Self-absorption • Dominance

• Grandiosity • Attention-seeking • Ignoring of others Pelletier (2010) • Attacks on self-esteem • Machiavellianism of others • Narcissism • Lack of integrity • Psychopathy • Abusiveness • Social exclusion • Divisiveness • Promoting inequality • Threating followers security • Laissez-faire attitude Tavanti (2011) • Leaving followers • Machiavellianism worse off • Narcissism • Violating rights and • Psychopathy dignity • Spinning news and events • Promoting or ignoring incompetence • Micromanagement • Bullying • Egotistical Walton (2007) • Exploitative • Machiavellianism • Abusiveness • Narcissism • Psychological • Psychopathy destruction • Corruption Whicker (1986) • Maladjustment • Machiavellianism • Malevolence • Narcissism • Maliciousness • Psychopathy • Turf-protecting • Fighting • Controlling Table 1.1: Synthesis and Organization of Toxic Leader Behaviors Into Categories Proposed by Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013).

Collectively examining the characteristics and personality traits presented in

Table 1.1, in light of the typology Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) present, appears to confirm the effectiveness of Krashikova, Green and LeBreton’s (2013)

43 typology in capturing the essence of toxic leader behaviors, traits and characteristics as oriented toward Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. Following this synthesis of the behaviors toxic leaders display, empirical research on toxic leadership is presented.

Empirical Research on Toxic Leadership

Although much of the scholarly work on toxic leadership to date has been theoretical and conceptual in nature, some empirical studies on toxic leadership have emerged in the literature. To date, two empirical studies of toxic leadership have been conducted, both of which focus on behavioral aspects of toxic leaders, the identification of toxic behaviors and the consequences of toxic leadership for employees and organizations.

Pelletier (2010) conducted a qualitative study to “explore workplace leader behavior and rhetoric in terms of abusive, bullying, destructive, toxic and tyrannical leadership theories” (p. 373). Examining toxic leadership from the perspective of followers, Pelletier (2010) asks what behaviors and rhetoric of leaders are perceived by followers as harmful to their psychological and organizational well-being, and whether followers agree as to what constitutes harmful leader behavior and rhetoric. Utilizing a snowball sampling technique, Pelletier (2010) obtained a sample of 215 employees from a variety of organizations, all of whom were asked to describe what was done or said to them by toxic leaders and to describe an instance in which they saw destructive leader behavior enacted toward a co-worker. Pelletier (2010) compared the behaviors and instances presented by study participants with the behaviors identified in the conceptual and theoretical literature on toxic leadership and determined that eight dimensions emerged in the qualitative study which are echoed by the conceptual and theoretical

literature on toxic leadership. These included: attacks on followers’ self-esteem, lack of integrity, abusiveness, social exclusion, divisiveness, promoting inequality, threatening followers’ well-bring, and laissez-faire attitude. The most common behavior Pelletier

(2010) identified was attacking followers’ self-esteem.

Pelletier (2010) utilized the results of the qualitative study to conduct a subsequent quantitative study based upon the Likert-type leader behavior assessment scale to “determine the level of agreement of the harmfulness of each behavioral dimension identified (i.e., toxic intensity) in the qualitative analysis and the percentage of respondents endorsing a particular behavior as destructive or harmful” (p. 382). Pelletier

(2010) concluded that the characteristics and behaviors rated as most harmful include attacks to self-esteem, lack of integrity and abusiveness and that “there was general agreement in this sample as to what constitutes toxicity” (p. 384). The exclusive focus in this study, both in the qualitative and quantitative components of the study, on leader behaviors considered to constitute toxicity aids in identifying the most “toxic” leader behaviors from the perspective of followers, but does not analyze the consequences of toxic leadership on employees and organizations.

The second empirical study on toxic leadership, conducted by Shaw, Erikson and

Harvey (2011), like Pelletier’s (2010) study, examined toxic leadership from a behavioral perspective and in terms of followers’ perceptions of toxicity. The purpose of the quantitative study was to “measure the nature of destructive leadership in organizations”

(Shaw, Erikson & Harvey, 2011). The researchers utilized a cluster analysis method to

“empirically derive a behavior-based taxonomy of destructive leaders” (p. 575).

Utilizing a survey approach, the researchers distributed questionnaires to 707 respondents

45 from a variety of organizations and asked them to rate items associated with destructive leadership on a scale of 1 to 100 as reflective of the extent to which their supervisors display such behaviors. Based upon these data, the researchers distilled seven clusters of behaviors displayed by toxic leaders, ranging from milder forms of toxicity, such as failing to negotiate, to more severe forms, such as bullying employees. Shaw, Erikson and Harvey (2011) echo Pelletier (2010), noting that there are very specific behaviors that followers identify as toxic in leaders.

Examined collectively, the two empirical studies examining toxic leadership to date focus upon destructive behaviors of toxic leaders and conclude that there is agreement among followers as to what constitutes toxic leadership, as displayed through destructive leader behaviors. Yet, the consequences of toxic leadership for organizations and employees has remained largely unexplored in empirical work. While a number of toxic leadership theorists contend that toxic leadership has a host of negative consequences for organizations and their employees, many of these consequences remain theoretical and hypothetical. The subsequent section of this literature review examines theorized consequences of toxic leadership for organizations and employees.

Consequences of Toxic Leadership

Much of the conceptual work on consequences of toxic leadership has focused upon, on the one hand, the impact of destructive leader behaviors on employees in terms of the negative impact such behaviors have on health and well-being, job satisfaction, job performance and the emergence of deviant workplace behaviors, and, on the other hand, the negative impact of decreased job satisfaction, performance and deviant behavior on organizations. Despite the general focus on the negative consequences of toxic

leadership, some theorists contend that certain toxic forms of leadership may be

strategically employed in the workplace to increase employee productiveness. Whether

negative or positive, however, the consequences of toxic leadership remain theoretical in

nature and have remained empirically untested. Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007) contend that toxic leadership leads to the emergence of deviant workplace behavior, which is the result of employee retaliation against toxic leadership in the workplace.

According to Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), deviant workplace behaviors include high absenteeism, theft, unproductiveness, unethical practices and high employee turnover.

While there exists general consensus in streams of literature on toxic leadership that the consequences of toxic leadership are negative for employees and organizations,

Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley and Harvey (2007) contend that workplace bullying, a form of toxic leadership, may be used strategically by leaders in organizations to motivate employees to achieve higher levels of productivity. The notion that workplace bullying can result in positive outcomes differs significantly from the theorized and empirically demonstrated negative outcomes which generally characterize toxic leadership literature. Specifically, Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley and Harvey (2007) propose a conceptualization of workplace bullying as a mechanism of influence available to organizational leaders which may be used “to achieve their personal and organizational objectives” (p. 196). Proposing that workplace bullying “represents strategically selected tactics of influence by leaders designed to convey a particular image and place targets in a submissive, powerless position whereby they are more easily influenced and controlled, in order to achieve personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer,

Buckley & Harvey, 2007, p. 197), the theorists contend that “bullying behavior becomes

one of many potential ‘masks’ that astute, calculative leaders can don in order to

effectively orchestrate specific outcomes” (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley & Harvey,

2007, p. 197).

Delineating strategic bullying from other negative forms of bullying characterized

by outbursts, Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley and Harvey (2007) argue that strategic

bullying is characterized by “implicit threats which appear less overtly hostile and/or

emotional in nature” (p. 198). Yet, strategic bullying must be employed with caution

since, as Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley and Harvey (2007) note, job performance may

initially increase because the target being bullied will likely initially comply with the

demands of the bullying leader, but decreases in job satisfaction and increases in job

stress, coupled with the bullied employee’s perception of lack of control over his or her

workplace environment, will likely “result in the employee eventually leaving the

organization” (p. 200). Voluntary employee turnover may result especially in situations

where the target of the bullying is a high-performing employee whom the leader is targeting because the high-performing employee does not agree with the leader’s personal agenda (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley & Harvey, 2007). Consequently, Ferris,

Zinko, Brouer, Buckley and Harvey (2007) conclude that strategic bullying in the workplace may result in short-term positive results in terms of increased job performance, but may, when not used sparingly, result in negative consequences, such as increased employee turnover, particularly in instances where strategic bullying is used against high-performing employees who disagree with the leader’s personal agenda.

Glaso and Vie (2009) adopt an approach to understanding the consequences of

toxic leadership in terms of perceptions of injustice brought about by the presence of

toxic leadership in the workplace and contend that negative emotions result from the

presence of toxic leadership, and include “anger, distrust, disgust, sadness, fear, guilt,

shame, social isolation, helplessness, anxiety and shock” (p. 50). The prevalence of these

negative emotions results in emotional burnout and exhaustion of employees, which, in

turn leads to decreased job satisfaction. Goldman (2006, 2007) goes a step further than

do Glaso and Vie (2009) and explicitly links decreased job satisfaction to employee

turnover, which is aggravated by the presence of toxic leadership in the workplace.

Goldman (2006) suggests that toxic leadership increases the number of lawsuits and

employee grievances brought against organizations and leads to high employee turnover

as a result of decreased job satisfaction and emotional torture under the toxic leader.

Among the additional negative consequences of toxic leadership for followers, Goldman

(2006) includes: “negative mood, anger and resentment, anxiety, decreased psychological

well-being, and lowered self-esteem” and in terms of negative consequences for the

organization, “reduced organizational functioning and decreased jobs satisfaction, job

tension and greater turnover, work withdrawal behaviors and greater intention to leave,

increased absenteeism, decreased work productivity, and decreased organizational

commitment” (p. 740). Importantly, Goldman (2006) echoes Appelbaum and Roy-Girard

(2007) and Glaso and Vie (2009) in calling attention to the increased likelihood of employee turnover as a result of toxic leadership in the workplace. Yet, the theorized association between toxic leadership and increased employee turnover remains empirically unexplored in the literature germane to the consequences of toxic leadership.

Remaining and Suffering with a Toxic Leader

Scholars of toxic leadership have focused not only upon the negative

consequences of toxic leadership in organizations, among which employee turnover is

prevalently listed, but also upon the reasons why employees remain in an organizational

setting where they are exposed to toxic leadership. As is true of scholarly work on toxic

leadership in which greater employee turnover is theorized to constitute a consequence of

toxic leadership, scholarly work which seeks to explain why employees remain with a toxic leader remains conceptual and theoretical in nature. Arguments concerning why employees remain with toxic leaders have generally emphasized structural and environmental aspects of organizations, which conceal and protect the toxic leader and the consequences of destructive behaviors and the psychological needs of followers, especially in terms of financial incentive to remain with the toxic leader.

Gallos (2009), for instance, adopts a structural and environmental perspective and contends that employees remain with a toxic leader because “institutional structures, reward systems, and norms of rationality encourage people and organizations to push on despite [toxic leadership]” (p. 356). Gangel (2007) emphasizes the psychological perspective, noting that four reasons why people remain with a toxic leader include

“belief in the unbelievable, desire for dependence, fear and no other option” (p. 7).

Gangel’s (2007) argument echoes the psychological argument of Lipman-Blumen (2005)

in two important aspects: the myth of independence and fear of the unknown. Gangel

(2007), like Lipman-Blumen (2005), observes that many people in contemporary Western

society have acknowledged, even if unconsciously, that the great “myth of

independence,” is simply that – a myth. Employees have realized that it is easier to be

50 dependent upon an organization for regular income than it is to gain independence by leaving an organization with a toxic leader.

Lipman-Blumen (2005) expounds upon the psychological needs of followers in her conceptual work on toxic leadership and synthesizes environment and psychological factors in her analysis of why employees remain with toxic leaders, stating that this phenomenon occurs as a result of “the internal needs and human condition of the followers; the interactions between followers and their own environments; and followers’ relationships with toxic leaders” (p. 1). Lipman-Blumen (2005) contends that psychological needs, existential needs, rapid change, the historical moment in which we live, characterized by challenges and terrors, awareness of the infinite possibilities before us, and the desire for certainty in an uncertain and disorderly world draw us to and keep us with toxic leaders. These six reasons provide the framework for understanding why people remain with toxic leaders and Lipmen-Blumen (2005) views these psychological, environment and social issues as barriers to escape, noting “barriers to escape may be too high, be they psychological, existential, financial, political or social” (p. 30).

Furthermore, because people, in general, live life through the lens of illusions, they remain with toxic leaders because, despite the destructive behaviors and toxicity, toxic leaders play on the people’s basest psychological and social fears. In the words of

Lipman-Blumen (2005), “we must somehow maintain the illusion that life is both meaningful and manageable – if not under our own command, then under someone else’s, preferably someone who is stronger and smarter than we are” (p. 31).

Consequently, employees tend to derive psychological and social security from being members of organizations, which collectively constitute a force that causes them to avoid

venturing into the unknowns of life, and to remain with a toxic leader. Examined

collectively, organizational structures, and psychological, existential, financial, political

and social needs are theorized to constitute forces which trap employees with toxic

leaders.

Implications for the Present Study: The Toxic-Turnover Shock

The implications of the theoretical literature on toxic leadership reviewed here

indicate that employee turnover is theorized to constitute one consequence of toxic

leadership in organizations. Some scholars, however, most notably Lipman-Blumen

(2005), present compelling reasons why employees remain with toxic leaders based upon

psychological, existential, financial, political and social needs. The extent to which

employee turnover results from toxic leadership appears, given the discussion of why

employees remain with toxic leaders, to be rather personal in nature and based upon an

individual’s personal situation. The review of the literature also appears to indicate that it

is possible that employees will remain with a toxic leader in the workplace for an

extended period of time, if for no other reason, because, as Lipman-Blumen (2005) notes, remaining in or “returning to prison ensures regular meals” (p. 79). To date, however, no empirical research has been conducted to determine whether employees leave organizations due to toxic leadership, and if they do leave, at what point they decide that continuing to tolerate the toxic leader no longer outweighs the benefits of remaining employed by the organization in which the toxic leader thrives.

Several scholars of toxic leadership have theoretically linked the presence of destructive behaviors in the workplace resulting from the presence of a toxic leader to

“shocks” experienced by employees. Glaso and Vie (2009), for example, note that

52 employee shock may be a consequence of toxic leadership, although they do not expound upon whether other consequences, such as employee turnover, may result from the experience of shocks in the workplace. Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) are the most recent toxic leadership theorists to propose that there may exist an explicit link between the experience of shocks in the workplace resulting from exposure to toxic leadership and employee turnover. Specifically, Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) theorize that the destructive behaviors displayed by a toxic leader could “create ‘shocks’ in followers and result in immediate turnover” (p. 1325). Krashikova, Green and

LeBreton (2013) ground this theoretical proposition in Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) conceptual model, The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover, which proposes that employees who experience shocks in the workplace embark on a decision- making process to determine whether to remain in the organization in which they experienced the shock, or whether to leave the organization. During this process of weighing the pros and cons of leaving the organization, employees weigh options grounded in the psychological, social, financial, existential and political issues discussed by Lipman-Blumen (2005). As a consequence, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding

Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover may provide insight into the decision-making process on which employees embark when they experience the shocks of a toxic leader in the workplace and may assist in providing empirical insight into the perplexing issue of why people remain with toxic leaders in the workplace (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

Following Krashikova, Green and LeBreton’s (2013) call for empirical research to investigate the question of whether employee turnover may result from the experience of toxic shocks in the workplace brought about by the operationalization of destructive

53 behaviors by a toxic leader, this study utilizes Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding

Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover to conceptually inform an empirical investigation of the possible link between toxic shocks and employee turnover.

The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover

“The most influential theory of employee turnover [is] the unfolding model”

(Morrell, et.al., 2007). Lee and Mitchell (1994) propose in the unfolding model of employee turnover that turnover in organizations is best viewed as a decision process. In contrast to previous theoretical models and explanations of employee turnover in organizations, which dichotomized turnover into internal and external forces, or “push and pull theories,” Lee and Mitchell (1994) assert that the phenomenon of employee turnover constitutes a construct far too broad in scope and complex in nature to be aptly explained in dichotomized terms (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). Lee and Mitchell (1994) explicate the dichotomous theoretical lenses through which researchers have viewed employee turnover as follows: “On the one hand, concepts external to the employee, a pull theory, have been studied primarily by market-oriented researchers, in which work has focused on job alternatives and how such alternatives surface. On the other hand, constructs internal to the employee, a push theory, have been studied primarily by psychologically oriented researchers, who focused on job-related perceptions and attitudes” (p. 51). While, in the words of Lee and Mitchell (1994), these “pull-and-push theories [have] certainly facilitated the understanding of voluntary employee turnover,” they have significantly limited the capacity of researchers conducting empirical studies of employee turnover in organizations to conceptualize turnover as anything other than a bifurcated construct. As a consequence, empirical studies reflect the bifurcation

evidenced in theories of employee turnover. Note Lee and Mitchell (1994), “the labor-

market studies have produced reasonably good predictive results for aggregated

employee turnover rates, often explaining more than 50 percent of the variance. In contrast, the psychological studies of individuals typically have explained less than 15

percent of the variance involuntary employee turnover” (p. 52). As these findings

indicate, researchers and theoreticians have excluded the possibility in the

aforementioned overarching theoretical orientations and empirical studies of employee

turnover the possibility of a more complex dynamic that both bridges the internal-

external, micro-macro, and aggregate-individual rifts, and which exists in either a state of

flux between the levels or in a meso-level stasis between micro- and macro-levels. Lee

and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover attempts to

theoretically bridge this rift and illuminate the complex, non-reductionist ethos of the

employee turnover phenomenon in organizations.

Drawing on Beach’s (1990) image theory, Lee and Mitchell (1994) emphasize

rational choice in the decision-making process that leads to employee turnover. The

Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover posits that employees follow up to

three types of images, which are conceptualized as knowledge structures or, from the

perspective of cognitive psychology, gestalts, throughout the course of the decision-

making process. The three images include values, trajectories and strategies. As an

employee weighs different options within the unfolding model, “an option is adopted or

rejected depending on its compatibility or fit with subsets of images” (Morrell et.al.,

2007, p. 130).

Key to understanding the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover is the notion of screening, which, in contrast to choosing among options, constitutes a mechanism for understanding decisions (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). “Screening is a mechanism that determines whether incoming information or potential changes in people’s behavior actually become options in a decision process” (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 57). The screening process requires the incoming information be integrated into three domain-specific images – value, trajectory, and strategic. Lee and Mitchell (1994) define each of these domains as follows:

The value image is described as the set of general values, standards, and individual principles that defines a person. The trajectory image is defined as the set of goals that energizes and directs and individual’s behavior. The strategic image is defined as the set of behavioral tactics and strategies that an individual believes to be effective in attaining his or her goals (p. 58).

In screening, “most of the information that suggests change is screened and rejected; it rarely forces people into a decision mode” (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 58). Beach (1993) describes screening as “based exclusively on evaluation of a particular kind of dissimilarity (incompatibility) between the characteristics of an option and private…criteria” (p. 276). Accordingly, the three domains serve as filters which sort incoming information and compare the information with criteria held by the individual for each of the three domains. When the incoming information is incompatible with the criteria settings for the three domains, it is rejected.

Lee and Mitchell (1994) observe of the screening process:

Image theory suggests that (a) if an option survives the screening process, the most frequent decision mechanism is to compare the alternative to the status quo, and (b) in most cases, the status quo wins. In other words, people’s images may be adjusted slightly over time, but their behavior typically stays the same. Only occasionally do individuals choose to venture from their well-worn paths, reject the status quo, and behave differently (p. 58).

Applying image theory to create the Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover,

Lee and Mitchell (1994) argue that image theory suggests a general set of processes of

employee turnover as follow:

First, some sort of event, which we call a shock to the system, causes the person to pause and think about the meaning or implication of the event in relation to his or her job. Second, this process may (or may not) lead to the idea that leaving the job is an alternative to consider. If leaving becomes an alternative, there may (or may not) be other job alternatives to consider (p. 60).

“A shock to the system is theorized to be a very distinguishable event that jars employees

toward deliberate judgments about their jobs and perhaps, to voluntarily quit their job. A

shock is an event that generates information or has meaning about a person’s job” (Lee &

Mitchell, 1994, p. 60). Despite the implication of surprise inherent in the word “shock,”

Lee and Mitchell (1994) note that “a shock to the system need not surprise an employee;

a shock can be any expected or unexpected change to an ongoing social system that

shakes an employee out of a steady state or challenges the status quo with respect to his or her thinking about the job” (p. 61). Thus, a shock is simply an event that in some way causes a stable situation to become unstable.

The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover presents four possible

paths employees could take after experiencing a shock. These four paths include: “(1)

shock to the system and a memory probe resulting in a match: a script-driven decision;

(2) shock to the system, no match, and no specific job alternative: a push decision; (3) shock to the system, no match and presence of specific job alternatives: a pull decision;

(4) no shock to the system; affect initiated” (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 68). Succinctly summarizing the four different paths which constitute the Unfolding Model of Voluntary

Employee Turnover, Lee and Mitchell (1994) state:

Four decision paths describe quite different psychological processes of employee turnover, with each path unfolding over time. In particular, Decision Path #1 describes a fairly automatic, simple and script-driven process; it involves minimal mental deliberations. Decision Paths #2 and #4a describe a more employee- controlled process that focuses on compatibility of images. In comparison to Decision Path #1, these decision paths entail a greater amount [sic] of mental deliberations. Further, Decision Paths #3 and #4b describe an even more extensive and employee-controlled process that involves image compatibility and assessment of alternatives. In comparison to the other paths, these decision paths require considerably more mental deliberations. Note that Decision Path #4a does not include consideration of alternatives, whereas Decision Path #4b does (p. 69).

Holtom et.al. (2005) succinctly summarize and interpret the Unfolding Model of

Voluntary Employee Turnover as follows:

The major components of the unfolding model include shocks, scripts, image violations, job satisfaction, and job search. First, a shock is a particular, jarring event that initiates the psychological analyses involved in quitting. A shock can be positive, neutral, or negative; expected or unexpected; and internal or external to the person. Examples of shocks include unsolicited job offers, changes in marital status, transfers, or mergers. Shocks and their surrounding circumstances are compared to an individual’s images (i.e., values, goals, and plans for attainment), and if incompatible, thoughts of leaving occur. Second, a script is a pre-existing plan of action – a plan for leaving. Third, image violations occur when an individual’s values, goals, and strategies for goal attainment do not fit with those of the organization or those reflected in the shock. Fourth, lower levels of job satisfaction occur when a person, over time, comes to feel that his/her jobs no longer provides intellectual, emotional, or financial benefits desired. Fifth, search includes those activities involved with looking for alternatives and the evaluation of those alternatives (p. 339-340).

Morrell et.al. (2007) find several strengths with the Unfolding Model of

Voluntary Employee Turnover, including (1) the use of image theory as a theoretical basis for the model, which “incorporates rational choice theory, but stresses the primacy of intuitive or nonrational elements in decision-making;” (2) “the model features two constructs new to turnover research: ‘shock’ and ‘script’. A shock is a specific event that prompts people to consider leaving [an organization], which in earlier work is compared to a ‘disturbance in time-series analysis’, which the act of interpretation is ‘part of an

58 ongoing context’ (Lee &Mitchell, 1994, pp. 60-61). A script is variously defined as a

‘preexisiting plan of action’ (Lee, et.al., 1999, p. 451) and as ‘routinized…programmed behavior’ (Lee & Mitchell, 1994, p. 71);” and (3) “the model shows how people leave in different and distinct ways, represented by five mutually exclusive decision paths. In paths 1, 2, and 3, the quit begins with a shock; a single, jarring event prompting thoughts of quitting. In paths 4a and 4b, leavers do not have a shock, but experience image violation more gradually” (Morrell, et.al., 2007, pp. 130-131).

Perhaps the most important and compelling component of the Unfolding Model of

Voluntary Employee Turnover lies in its capacity to capture a multitude of decision- making and cognitive processes individuals may undergo over the course of time from the experience of a shock to the time of leaving an organization. The model also accounts for the individuality of the decision-making process, noting that not all people behave the same way, which previous models of employee turnover have implicitly assumed.

Shocks and Voluntary Employee Turnover

Holtom et.al. (2005) conducted an empirical study to determine whether shocks constitute causes of employee turnover. The researchers argue that “contrary to conventional wisdom, accumulated job dissatisfaction is not the immediate cause of most voluntary turnover. Job dissatisfaction is a factor, but to focus on it as the dominant cause of most turnover is incomplete and limited. Instead, we argue that turnover is often triggered by a precipitating event (e.g., a fight with the boss or an unexpected job offer) that we call a ‘shock’ to the system” (p. 337). Holtom et.al. (2005) draw on the

Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994) to test

whether shocks to the system cause employee turnover, and if so, what types of shocks

precipitate the turnover.

Emphasizing the social context of a shock as key to understanding and interpreting its meaning, Holtom et.al. (2005) point out a dual process of shock interpretation:

An employee’s interpretation of the shock depends on the social and cognitive context that surrounds the shock experience. This context provides a frame of reference, or decision frame, within which an employee interprets the shock. The first interpretation is shaped by the general context of the employee’s knowledge of the organizational culture. The employee considers the shock along key dimensions (e.g. novelty, favorability, threat, or anticipation). A second process, one that is more personal is whether the shock can be responded to easily and in an appropriate manner. In the unfolding model, the experienced shock to the system and the general and personal decision frames prompt the onset of a specific decision path (p. 341).

Holtom et.al. (2005) collected data about shocks by interviewing people who are exiting

organizations and by administering surveys to large numbers of people who have left

organizations previously. Applying this qualitative approach to data analysis, the

researchers distilled 12 categories of shocks from employees in organizations in fields as

varied as nursing, accounting, banking, education and corrections. The shock categories

include positive and negative and avoidable and unavoidable dimensions and consisted of

the following: “job offer, job offer-learning, job offer-money, fight (disagreement with boss or co-worker), performance (encouraged to leave, passed over for promotion), merger (or reorganization, layoff of coworkers), spouse employment, family issue, significant illness, school, start own business and other” (Holtom et.al., 2005, p. 342).

The researchers concluded that “dysfunctional turnover is more likely to result from shocks than from job dissatisfaction” and that organizations should “conduct exit interviews and administer broad-based surveys” to assess organizational climate and

60 employee perceptions, in order to mitigate unnecessary turnover (Holtom, et.al., 2005, p.

348). Holtom et.al. (2005) contend that “by monitoring satisfaction and shocks, and by intervening when necessary, employee retention can be enhanced” (p. 348).

Of particular interest for the purposes of employee turnover as it relates to relationships with superiors in the workplace is the finding that certain critical incidents

(i.e. fights with the boss) account for only 11% of the turnover in organizations across a wide range of professions and organizations (Holtom, et.al., 2005). The study conducted by Holtom et.al. (2005), however, falls short of stating the exact context and nature of the fight between the subordinate and the superior, the events of social milieu in the organization which may have precipitated the fight that led to the employee leaving, and the reasons why a particular fight constituted the “breaking point” for the employee, causing him or her to leave. Accordingly, the findings from the Holtom et.al. (2005) study indicate that a particular fight or critical incident event with a superior causes at least 11% of the turnover found in an array of organizations. This finding provides fertile ground for future exploration of the reasons for and nature of these critical incidents.

Theorizations of toxic leadership have implicated the operationalization of the construct in organizational contexts with a variety of organizational ills as previously described (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Padilla, 2010). Yet, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton

(2013) find in a literature review that empirical research on the possible relationship between toxic leadership and employee turnover is lacking. They suggest that empirical research is needed which examines toxic leadership and employee turnover in light of

Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Employee Turnover, which posits that certain shocks experienced by employees in the workplace cause employees to begin

61 pondering whether or not to leave the organization in which they experienced the shocks

(Krasikova, Green & LeBreton, 2013). These shocks may also be considered critical incidents (Lee & Mitchell, 1994), which provides a basis for justification of the use of the critical incident technique to investigate whether shocks to which employees were exposed under toxic leadership led to their decision to leave the toxic leader and organization in which they experienced the toxic leadership.

Conclusion

This literature review has examined theoretical and empirical streams of literature relevant to toxic leadership. The theoretical literature on toxic leadership revealed conceptualizations of toxic leadership grounded in personality and behavioral dysfunctionalities which thrive in organizational contexts where such dysfunctionalities are tolerated. While there exists no single behavior or personality quality that constitutes toxic leadership, the multitude of psychopathologies and behaviors comprising toxic leadership may be broadly categorized in terms of three orientations: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. On the other hand, some scholars theorize that certain toxic behaviors may be employed strategically to motivate some employees, thereby casting doubt on the extent to which all leader behaviors characterized in the literature as toxic are necessarily always employed by leaders seeking to harm subordinates. Empirical studies have linked the presence of toxic leadership to a variety of organizational ills; yet, high voluntary employee turnover, as a theorized consequence of toxic leadership, remains unexplored in the empirical literature.

A review of the conceptual and empirical streams of literature on voluntary employee turnover, Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee

Turnover emerges as a conceptual model of voluntary employee turnover positing that employees undergo a series of decisions when contemplating exit from a job or organizations. The model holds that certain shocks employees experience in the workplace may initiate contemplation to leave the job or organization, and that this contemplation is carried out in the form of weighing options. Citing Krashikova, Green and LeBreton’s (2013) call for empirical work which examines the possible relationship between voluntary employee turnover and toxic leadership utilizing Lee and Mitchell’s

(1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover and the critical incident technique, the literature review justifies the necessity of the present study for furthering academic and practitioner understandings of toxic leadership and its consequences, one of which may be voluntary employee turnover.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The research problem this study seeks to understand is study participants’ perception of the relationship between toxic leadership behaviors in organizations where they were employed and their decision to leave the organization. The study explores the possible relationship between the decision to leave an organization and the critical incident which caused study participants to decide to leave the organization after having suffered under toxic leadership. This chapter commences with a review of the research question, analytic questions and conceptual framework guiding this study. It proceeds to discuss the ontological and epistemological orientations underpinning the methodology for the study, followed by a discussion of the methodology employed in the study.

Population, sample, sample selection methods, sample size, data collection methods, the data collection process and data analysis methods are subsequently detailed. The chapter concludes with disclosure of a subjectivity statement, discussion of trustworthiness and an ethical statement.

Ontological Orientation

The ontological orientation underpinning this study is one of constructivist subjectivism, which posits that reality resides within the consciousness of the individual

(Burrell & Morgan, 1979), and that an individual’s perceptions of reality constitute his or her sensemaking of the world. Underpinning an ontology of constructivist subjectivism is the notion that reality is created with an inherently subjective orientation as an individual cogitates and interacts with others in a social context. The individual’s views of the world are shaped through the lenses of his or her cognition and through

interactions with others in a social context, where a plurality of realities and spheres of

influence meld and influence the individual’s construction of reality.

An ontology of constructivist subjectivism posits that an individual’s

sensemaking and meaning of the world is derived from social interaction with others,

cultural norms, and individual cognition (Creswell, 2007). Following this ontological

orientation, it is assumed that study participants will necessarily have nuanced differences

in their descriptions, sensemaking and experiences with toxic leaders, as each participant

will bring to bear his or her individual worldviews, through which perceptions and reality

are filtered and ultimately constructed.

Epistemological Orientation

The epistemological orientation underpinning this study is grounded in

constructivism and the notion of social and individual relativism (Liu & Matthews, 2005;

Seale, 1999). An epistemology of social and individual relativism recognizes the nature of knowledge as inherently derived from individual perception, experience and interaction with others in a social context. Constructivism is characterized by its anti- positivism, rejection of Cartesian philosophy and interpretivist paradigmatic orientation

(Burrell & Morgan, 1979). A constructivist epistemology of relativism recognizes a plurality of knowledges and rejects the notion of a single, objective truth and reality.

Rather, constructivist relativism acknowledges that reality is inherently bound to individual perception and social context, while simultaneously being influenced and shaped by the knowledges and realities of others (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Creswell,

2007).

Specific to the present study, a constructivist anti-positivist epistemological

orientation provides a framework for the emergence and acknowledgement of individual

perceptions, experiences and knowledges concerning toxic leadership and affords the

space necessary for exploring and explicating the underpinnings of Lipman-Blumen’s

(2005) seemingly contradictory conviction that one person’s toxic leader may be another person’s hero. Adopting a constructivist anti-positivist epistemology enables the researcher to obtain a nuanced understanding of the topic under investigation and to draw on participants’ personal experiences and insight to construct, with the participants, a full portrayal of the phenomenon under consideration, including intricate details gleaned from individuals’ knowledge of the phenomenon derived from their personal sensemaking and knowledge creation resulting from having experienced toxic leadership.

Research Design Framework

This qualitative study utilizes a qualitative version of the critical incident technique (Chell, 2006). The qualitative orientation to the critical incident technique departs from the original quantitatively oriented critical incident technique developed by

Flanagan (1954), yet contemporary qualitative conceptualizations of the critical incident technique in organizational research have been “developed further as an investigative tool in organizational analysis from within an interpretative or phenomenological paradigm”

(Chell, 2006; see also Chell, 1998; Chell & Pittaway, 1998; Pittaway & Chell, 1999).

Chell (2006) identifies the use of the qualitatively-oriented critical incident technique in managerial and employee performance research (see McClelland, 1976, 1987) as a means of identifying “less tangible factors” inherent in certain constructs of social science in organizational research, for which social constructionism is better suited than

quantitatively-oriented paradigms (see Chell, et.al., 1991; Chell & Adam, 1994;

Wheelock & Chell, 1996) emerged in the early 1990s” (p. 45). The qualitative

application of the critical incident technique allows the researcher to (1) collect

participants’ complete and rich descriptions of the situation or event to be explored, (2) to

understand the actions of the person/s involved in the event and why certain decisions

were made, and (3) to comprehend the outcome of the event (Schulter, Seaton &

Chaboyer, 2007).

The Qualitative Interview

The qualitative interview serves as the instrument for data collection in the qualitatively-oriented critical incident technique. Qu and Dumay (2011) contend that use of the three types of qualitative interviews – structured, unstructured and semi-structured

– may be understood in terms of the type of information the researcher is seeking to elicit from study participants. When the focus is on studying facts, the structured interview is the most appropriate form of interview; when the focus is on meaning, the unstructured interview is the most appropriate interview form; when the focus is on the social construction of situated accounts of a phenomenon or occurrence, the semi-structured interview is the appropriate interview format (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Within this paradigm of understanding qualitative interviews, the semi-structured interview provides a format for exploration of “the meaning of the research topic for the participant and a site to be examined for the construction of the situated account” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p.

241). Since the semi-structured interview provides a framework for the elicitation of participant narratives, which are “situated accounts of social phenomena” and constitutes an approach which is well-suited to “examining complex social or organizational

67 phenomena,” the semi-structured interview is an appropriate framework for eliciting critical incidents from study participants and capturing the narratives of these incidents.

According to Qu and Dumay (2011):

The semi-structured interview involves prepared questioning guided by identified themes in a consistent and systematic manner interposed with probes designed to elicit more elaborate responses. Thus, the focus is on the interview guide incorporating a series of broad themes to be covered during the interview to help direct the conversation toward the topics and issues about which the interviewers want to learn (p. 246).

In particular, the semi-structured interview is appropriate for research on social and organizational issues because it is “capable of disclosing important and often hidden facets of human and organizational behavior” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 246). Specifically relevant for the study of toxic leadership, Qu and Dumay (2011) note that “many management and organizational issues, such as employee motivation or dysfunctional behavior, can be studied using such an approach” (p. 246). A key aspect of the semi- structured interview which allows for the deeper probing of social and organizational issues is the “use of scheduled and unscheduled probes, providing the researcher with the means to draw out more complete narratives from the interviewees, drilling down a particular topic” (Qu & Dumay, 2011, p. 247). Accordingly, the interview guide for a semi-structured interview contains some probing questions following a broader question, but also provides the flexibility for the interviewer to incorporate additional questions or follow-up questions ad hoc as appropriate during the course of the interview (Brenner,

2006). Brenner (2006) goes on to note that spontaneous probes that emerge in the course of a semi-structured interview may be added to the semi-structured interview protocol for future interviews, at the discretion of the researcher, but suggests that researcher include some probes in the initial interview guide.

Patton (2002) suggests that interviewers utilizing a semi-structured interview guide pose broader questions at the outset of the interview designed to elicit narrations based upon the interviewee’s experiences. In so doing, the interviewer signals to the interviewee that longer, detailed responses and narrations are sought, which, in turn, provide rich data and a context for follow-up questions, particularly ad hoc follow-up questions (Brenner, 2006). Drawing on Patton’s (2002) work, Brenner (2006) maintains that the semi-structured interview may be designed with an initial “grand tour” question, which is “typically an opening question that asks the informant to give a broad description about a particular topic” (p. 358). Following the grand tour question are

“minitour” questions, which “probe each of the topics that have been identified” in the grand tour question (Brenner, 2006, p. 358). McCracken (1988) echoes Brenner (2006) in maintaining that the general framework for the semi-structured interview consists of an initial grand tour question, followed by minitour questions, but warns that “planned prompt” questions should be reserved for the end of the interview, after the interviewee has had sufficient space to provide a full narration of the topic under investigation.

McCracken (1988) argues that planned prompt questions which may interrupt the flow of the study participant’s narrative should be reserved for the conclusion of the interview, thereby allowing space for the interviewer to insert ad hoc questions throughout the interview as appropriate to the context of the participant’s narrative. The semi-structured interview guide in Appendix A has been structured in accordance with the literature reviewed in the section, and in particular, follows McCracken’s (1988) advice to place planned prompt questions at the conclusion of the semi-structure interview. The semi- structured interview guide presented in Appendix A begins with a broad opening question

to set the context and thematic focus and to elicit a critical incident (Chell, 1998) and

proceeds with possible follow-up questions, which may be altered in the course of a specific interview. The series of questions presented in the interview guide are repeated for each critical incident (3-5) the participant wishes to share in the course of the interview.

Qualitative Approach

Creswell (2007) maintains that qualitative research is appropriate when exploring

“a social or human problem” requiring the researcher to construct “a complex, holistic picture by analyzing words, and reporting detailed views of informants” (p. 16). The qualitatively-oriented critical incident technique is well-suited to the study of toxic

leadership and employee turnover seeking to investigate employee perceptions of the

extent to which toxic leadership may have led to their ultimate decision to leave an

organization in that it allows the researcher to access the decision making processes of

employees who elected to leave organizations after having suffered under toxic

leadership and to understand their perceptions and experiences of toxic leadership.

The Critical Incident Technique

Since its genesis in the 1950s, the critical incident technique has been applied to a

number of research contexts and has undergone a number of changes from its initial

conceptualization (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005). Flanagan (1954)

identifies nine areas of research in which the critical incident technique was used in the

1950s in military and workplace contexts, including: “measures of typical performance

criteria; measures of proficiency; training; selection and classification; job design and

purification; operating procedures; equipment design; motivation and leadership

attitudes; and counseling and psychotherapy” (p. 30). Since that time, Butterfield,

Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, (2005) find that versions of the critical incident technique

have been used to conduct studies in nursing, job analysis, counseling, education,

medicine, organizational learning, psychology, and organizational and business analysis,

to cite a few examples. Chell (2006) observes that “researchers used the [critical incident

technique] in occupational settings, and it was here that the validity and reliability of the

method was established” (p. 45).

The number of fields of study and contexts in which the critical incident

technique has been employed provides evidence of the truth of Flanagan’s (1954) contention that the critical incident technique consists of a “flexible set of principles that must be modified and adapted to meet the specific situation at hand” (p. 335). Indeed, as

Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio (2005) argue, researchers have readily embraced the flexibility of the critical incident technique and employed it in research studies in an array of contexts. Yet, the critical incident technique has its roots in industrial and organizational psychology, having been developed during World War II as an outgrowth of the Aviation Psychology Program of the United States Army Air Forces for selecting and classifying aircrews” (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005).

Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique consisted of five steps. Importantly, these five steps are grounded in the notion of researcher observation, which characterized the original application of the critical incident technique. Key to this application of the critical incident technique is a focus on understanding human behaviors through observation and identification of critical incidents that emerge in the performance of the task.

The first step involves determining the objective of the activity. The researcher- observer needs to understand in this initial stage what the person performing the activity is attempting to accomplish. In addition to observation of behavior, Flanagan (1954) advocated for interviewing the people involved in performing the task, as well as stakeholders impacted by the performance of the task. Thus, Flanagan’s (1954) conceptualization of the critical incident technique includes both an observation and interview component, which is critical to understanding the evolution of the critical incident technique throughout the 20th century, since interviewing, as opposed to observing study participants, became increasingly emphasized (Butterfield, Borgen,

Amundson & Maglio, 2005).

The second step of the critical incident technique involves setting plans and specifications, including, “(1) defining the types of situations to be observed; (2) determining the situations’ relevance to the general aim; (3) understanding the extent of the effect the incident has on the general aim; and (4) deciding who will be making the observations” (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005, p. 478). The third step is collection of data, which entails researcher observation of participants and documenting reports from participants of past experiences or events. Flanagan (1954) contends that data collection may be accomplished through individual interviews, group interviews, questionnaires and documentation of oral narratives. Flanagan (1954) argues that the trustworthiness of the critical incidents which study participants recall and narrate may be judged based upon the level of detail the participant provides in the narration. Narratives containing rich descriptions may be judged trustworthy, whereas narratives lacking detail or in which the participant experiences recall difficulties are judged untrustworthy.

The fourth step is data analysis, which entails categorizing the critical incidents

distilled from observations and interviews. Although, as Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson

& Maglio (2005) note, “there is generally no one right way to describe the activity, experience, or construct” (p. 479) under investigation, there are three stages Flanagan

(1954) held as a general heuristic. These stages include determining the frame of reference, formulating categories, and determining the level of specificity for reporting data. The fifth step is interpreting and reporting data, which entails, as Flanagan (1954) emphasized, pointing out limitations of the study, the explication of interruptions of data, and the value of the findings of the study.

The critical incident technique has evolved from Flanagan’s (1954) original conceptualization as it has been modified over the course of the 20th century to meet the

needs of researchers in a variety of fields of study. Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson &

Maglio (2005) trace this evolution and argue that the critical incident technique has

undergone four significant changes throughout the 20th century. “First, the critical

incident technique was initially very behaviorally grounded and did not emphasize its

applicability for studying psychological states or experiences” (p. 479). Second, the

critical incident technique emphasized researcher observation of participants over

interviewing participants (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005). Third, in

terms of data analysis, Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio (2005) note that

Flanagan (1954) emphasized that the categorization process was largely a subjective

process by which categories were formed; yet, categories are inherently reductionist and

may not capture the context of the research situation, which, in turn, has necessitated

modifications of Flanagan’s (1954) original conceptualization of the critical incident

technique to allow for the use of extended participant narrations as sources of the data.

Finally, Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio (2005) argue that the ways in which

the trustworthiness of findings are established in the critical incident technique studies

has changed since Flanagan’s (1954) work, which have extended beyond the researcher

making a determination of trustworthiness based upon the vividness and detail of events

in the narration. Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio (2005) note that the notion of

trustworthiness in the critical incident technique has been expanded to include qualitative

approaches to ensuring trustworthiness, including “triangulation, face validity, and inter

rater reliability, independent raters […], member checks and asking peers, colleagues and

experts to examine the categories; and more extensive checks such as intra-judge

reliability, participant checks, inter-judge reliability, category formulation and content analysis” (p. 484). These approaches for establishing trustworthiness with a qualitatively-oriented critical incident technique further illustrate the shift away from

Flanagan’s (1954) version of the critical incident technique with its emphasis on participant observation, to an emphasis on data collection through participant interviews.

Particularly in situations where the researcher is interested in studying contentious issues or traumatic events study participants have experienced, participant interviews have been shown to be highly effective in eliciting critical events. Miles and Huberman

(1994) find that researchers who collect data directly from study participants through interviewing, as opposed to utilizing impersonal questionnaires, may be better equipped to expose underlying issues necessary for understanding the broader context of critical incidents. Similarly, Guba and Lincoln (1991) maintain that conducting interviews enables the researcher to uncover a “more complete and in-depth picture than other forms

of identity” (p. 187). The increasing prevalence of interviewing as an approach to

gathering data in the critical incident technique has resulted in a fundamental shift in the

conceptualization of the critical incident technique over the course of the 20th century since the time Flanagan (1954) first introduced the technique.

Contemporary conceptualizations of the critical incident technique may be understood as generally moving away from a behaviorist orientation to a constructivist orientation (Ellinger & Watkins, 1998). Chell (2006) echoes Ellinger and Watkins

(1998) and notes that the critical incident technique in organizational research has been

“developed further as an investigative tool in organizational analysis from within an interpretative or phenomenological paradigm” (see also Chell, 1998; Chell & Pittaway,

1998; Pittaway & Chell, 1999). Tracing the historical applications of the critical incident technique in organizational research, Chell (2006) identifies its use in managerial and employee performance research (see McClelland, 1976, 1987) as a means of identifying

“less tangible factors” inherent in both construct, and subsequently “the use of the

[critical incident technique] within social constructionism (see Chell, et.al., 1991; Chell

& Adam, 1994; Wheelock & Chell, 1996) emerged in the early 1990s” (p. 45).

“Additionally, it [the critical incident technique] has been used to identify the context of emotionally laden critical events (Chell & Baines, 1998), from which experiential learning takes place” (Chell, 2006, p. 45).

Important for the context of organizational research, Chell (2006) notes that “in the 1990s, the [critical incident technique] was developed within a qualitative, social constructionist (Chell et al., 1991) or grounded theory (Curran et.al., 1993) framework.

Consequently, given the broadened scope and application of the technique, the method

75 proposed by Chell (2006) for use in organizational studies “assumes an alternative definition to that of Flanagan” (p. 46). Chell (2006) succinctly summarizes the critical incident technique as is applicable to organizational settings as follows:

It is intended through the process of a largely unstructured interview to capture the thought processes, the frame of reference and the feelings about an incident or set of incidents, which have meaning for the respondent. In the interview, the respondent is required to give an account of what those incidents meant for them, their life situation and their present circumstances, attitudes and orientations (p. 46).

The present study utilizes Chell’s (2006) approach to the critical incident technique, the specific steps of which are outlined in a subsequent section.

Population and Sample

This study will utilize the critical incident technique in a multi-site study. The population for this study will include individuals formerly employed under a toxic leader in any organization in the greater Washington, D.C. Metro Region, including

Washington, D.C., Suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia. The sample for this study will be determined utilizing snowball sampling, in which the researcher will ask the initial study participant to refer additional participants to the researcher whom the initial participant knows to have suffered under toxic leadership. The process of referral continues until the researcher has reached the point of saturation with respect to the critical incidents identified through interview data. The initial study participant works in a large organizational consulting firm in the Washington, D.C. Metro Area. The researcher first made contact with the initial study participant at a professional development seminar, during which time the researcher and initial study participant, in the course of discussing the researcher’s research interests, discovered that the initial study participant had decided to quit a job due to an intolerable leader.

The initial study participant also revealed that he was aware of a number of

acquaintances who had quit jobs and left organizations due to poor and intolerable

leaders. The initial study participant volunteered to participate in this study and to refer

his acquaintances to the researcher, after gaining their permission to be contacted by the

researcher. Once the researcher gained access to the referrals of the initial study participant, subsequent participants were asked whether they were aware of individuals

whom they could refer to the researcher, and the process continued until the point of

saturation. Since not all of the acquaintances for the initial study participant worked in

his former organization, the sample was comprised of people from a variety of industries

who suffered under toxic leadership and left their organizations as a result.

The sample size for the critical incident technique is widely acknowledged to be

contingent upon reaching the point of saturation, or the point at which no new critical

incidents emerge when interviewing additional study participants. Marshall (1996)

contends that an appropriate sample size for qualitative studies lies between 12 and 15

participants. Based upon Marshall’s (1996) recommendation, and recognizing that the

sample size may increase slightly if the point of saturation is not reached with 12 to 15

participants, the researcher theorized the initial sample size to lie between 12 and 15

participants.

Sample Selection Method

The sample for this study was determined utilizing snowball sampling. Potential

study participants referred to the researcher completed an initial verbal screening which

asked respondents to describe the characteristics exhibited by the toxic leader in a few

sentences and to explain in a few sentences in what way the toxic leader’s presence

77 precipitated their departure from the organization. Three criteria were utilized to screen potential study participants: (1) the study participants must have worked under a toxic leader; (2) the study participants must equate the reason for their voluntary departure from the organization in which they worked under the toxic leader to their suffering under the toxic leader; (3) the study participants must have voluntarily left the organization in which they suffered under the toxic leader within one year of participating in this study. This third criterion was employed to limit the length of time between the study participants having experienced toxic leadership and recalling from memory and narrating their experiences, which enhanced the overall credibility of the critical incidents elicited from the interview data (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson &

Maglio, 2005; Flanagan, 1954).

To facilitate this screening process, the researcher shared these criteria for selection with the initial study participant so that this participant could initially screen the referral. If the initial participant believed that the referral met the criteria for selection, the researcher made initial contact with the referral and verified that the referral met the selection criteria. If the referral met the selection criteria, the researcher described for participants what is denoted by the term toxic leadership. For the purposes of the screening process, and in order to avoid disclosing terminology from the conceptual literature on toxic leadership which could have influenced participant descriptions of forms of toxic leadership they have experienced, the researcher will informed participants that toxic leadership is any form of leadership that they have found to be intolerable for any reason. This broad and rather vague description of toxic leadership allowed participants to describe their experiences with toxic leadership in their own words

78 without undue influence from the conceptual literature germane to the topic. As the referral process continued as part of the snowball sampling technique, the researcher shared at the end of each interview with a participant the three criteria the participant should use to verbally screen a potential referral before referring the potential participant to the researcher for further screening.

Atkinson and Flint (2001) contend that the snowball sampling technique is

“useful in sampling populations such as the deprived, the socially stigmatized and elites” and that the technique provides a means of “accessing vulnerable and impenetrable social groupings” (p. 2). Since the sample of participants for this study consisted of people who have likely been victimized by toxic leaders and are possibly vulnerable as a result of their status as victims, and since a toxic leader likely impacted more than one person in an organization, the snowball sampling technique provided a useful technique for identifying likely participants for this study.

The process of snowball sampling is “based on the assumption that a bond or link exists between the initial sample and others in the same target population, allowing a series of referrals to be made within a circle of acquaintance” (Atkinson & Flint, 2001).

Furthermore, the snowball sampling technique has been shown to be useful for explorative qualitative studies using personal interviews (Snijders, 1992). Accordingly, the snowball sampling technique aligns well with the methodology of this study, in that the critical incident technique requires personal interviews with study participants and prizes their personal narratives as providing insight into an event or phenomenon.

Sample Size

Marshall (1996) contends that qualitative studies should be based upon small

samples of between 12 and 15 participants but recognizes that the exact size of the

sample “becomes obvious as the study progresses as new themes, categories or

explanations stop emerging from the data (data saturation)” (p. 523). The exact sample

size, therefore, was determined as the study progressed based upon saturation of critical incidents, or the point at which no additional critical incidents emerged from interview

data (Chell, 2006).

Data Collection Method

Data collection proceeded through an open-ended interview format, in which

participants were asked first to describe and characterize in detail the toxic leader under

which they suffered. In the next phase of the interview, participants were asked to

describe how their exit from the organization was precipitated by the presence and

behaviors of the toxic leader and what specific incident caused them to leave the

organization. The researcher posed follow-up questions following each of the two broad

interview questions to elicit additional information from participants as required for the

purposes of clarity in the narrative. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and

were tape recorded, transcribed following the interview session and reviewed with the study participants to ensure accuracy. The researcher also produced a memo or critical reflection paper at the conclusion of each interview in order to address researcher biases and subjectivities, and to reflect on observations made during the interview or to document follow-up questions for the participant that emerged through the process of interview transcription (Creswell, 2007). Lincoln (1995) contends that the use of memos

80 in qualitative research following interviews constitutes an essential part of ensuring trustworthiness, in that it allows the researcher to address subjectivities and other observations from the interview.

Data Collection Procedures

Chell (2006) outlines six steps for the data collection process of the critical incident technique in organizational contexts, including:

(1) introducing the CIT method and getting the interview underway; (2) focusing the theme and giving an account of oneself as researcher to the respondent; (3) controlling the interview by probing the incidents and clarifying one’s understanding; (4) concluding the interview; (5) taking care of ethical issues; and (6) analyzing the data (p. 48).

Expounding upon each of these steps, Chell (2006) describes the first step, “introducing the CIT” in the following manner: “Once the researcher has gained access s/he should explain succinctly what the nature of the critical incident interview is and outline the purposes of the research and any possible benefits, particularly where there may be practical and/or policy implications. It is wise to raise issues of confidentiality at this juncture and to give assurances as necessary” (p. 48). The second step, “focusing the theme,” implies for Chell (2006) that “the interviewer must focus the respondent’s attention and be able to explain succinctly the CIT in the context of the topic to be discussed. The interviewer will then ask the respondent to select three events. S/he may indicate that all incidents have been either negative or positive. The interviewee will commence his/her story by recounting one of the events” (p. 48). Chell (2006) notes the importance of probing themes raised by the interviewee, particularly in instances in which the themes overlap with one another. Specifically, Chell (2006) states, “some events may be interwoven both in time and in the mind of the respondent; therefore, the

81 interviewer must listen carefully and probe appropriately to ensure that he/she has fully grasped the essential details” (p. 49). The third step, “controlling the interview,” implies for Chell (2006) that “the interviewer may seek further information until they [sic] are satisfied that they [sic] do understand” (p. 49).

During step four, “concluding the interview and (5) taking care of ethical issues,”

Chell (2006) notes that “the interview tends to come to an end naturally as the respondent concludes their [sic] account. Usually the interviewer will simply thank the respondent for their [sic] time and energy in giving such a complete and vivid account of the incidents in question. Certainly the researcher must leave the impression that the interview was valuable and that any revelations will be treated with strict confidentiality”

(p. 49). Following Chell’s (2006) technique, once the interview has been concluded the researcher initiates step six of the process.

Data Analysis

Chell (2006) describes step six of the process, “analyzing the data” as:

Likely to be based on a grounded approach; alternatively, the researcher may have developed or adopted a conceptual framework, which he/she wishes to test. Grounded theory assumes that the researcher abandons preconceptions and through the process of analysis, builds up an explanatory framework through the conceptualization of the data. Thus there emerge categories of behavior, context and the strategies adopted for dealing with it. The evidence of patterns and categorical behaviors builds up within a transcript and also in the body of transcripts to enable a theory to be developed (p. 50).

Chell (2006) continues, “An extant conceptual framework, on the other hand, suggests a set of preconceived categories – a coding frame – for which evidence may be sought in the data” (p. 50). As is evidenced by the approach advocated by Chell (2006) for conducting organizational research within a critical incident framework, the technique provides, in keeping with Flanagan’s (1954) original intent, a flexible yet probing

methodology for obtaining rich data from participants whose experiences are relevant to

the study or topic of interest.

Trustworthiness

Merriam (2009) contends that trustworthiness in qualitative research must be

established in terms of internal validity, which is the extent to which the researcher has

demonstrated to the readership that he or she has accurately portrayed the array of

perspectives and realities which inherently emerge in qualitative research. Similarly,

Johnson (1997) maintains that trustworthiness in qualitative research equates to research

that is “plausible, credible and defensible” (p. 282). In short, trustworthiness in

qualitative research is the extent to which the researcher’s interpretations of collected

data accurately represent the experiences, views and realities of study participants

(Johnson, 1997; Merriam, 2009). The present study employed three techniques for

ensuring trustworthiness. Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson and Maglio (2005) suggest that

trustworthiness may be effectively established when employing a qualitatively-oriented

version of the critical incident technique through the use of member checks and thick,

rich descriptions of the narratives provided by study participants in the interviews, as well

as intercoder reliability and the establishment of an audit trail.

Member checking is employed as a means of giving “participants an opportunity

to check the initial categories against their contents, confirm the soundness of the

category titles, and determine the extent to which they reflect their individual

experiences” (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005, p. 488). Member

checking in the context of the present study was carried out following the transcription and analysis of tape recorded interviews with participants. Once the critical incidents had

been extracted from the contents of the interviews and placed into categories of incidents,

the researcher asked study participants to review the categories and critical incidents in

the categories which were extracted from their interviews in order to verify that study

participants agreed with the analysis and categorization of the critical incidents.

Related to the use of member checking, Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson and

Maglio (2005) echo Merriam (2009) in contending that the use of thick, rich description

in qualitative applications of the critical incident technique, also known as descriptive

validity in qualitative research (Maxwell, 1992), is essential to ensuring the accuracy of

the account. Accuracte accounts of study participants’ narratives was achieved through tape recording the interview, transcribing the interview and then ensuring that the details and descriptions contained within the narratives of the participants were accurately portrayed when discussing the findings of the study (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundon, &

Maglio, 2005). The use of member checking also aids in ensuring that the details of study participants’ narratives have been accurately represented. Ensuring the presence and accuracy of thick, rich description in the narratives also serves to validate the accuracy of the account provided by study participants, since “[Flanagan (1954)] suggested the accuracy of an incident should be deduced from the level of full, precise details given about the incident itself” (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson & Maglio, 2005, p. 488).

Intercoder reliability refers to the extent to which two coders of data agree on the categorization of events, incidents or information extracted from study participants’ interviews (Miles & Humerman, 1994). Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that an independent coder of data be employed in qualitative research to ensure the accuracy of

the coding conducted by the researcher, and that the level of agreement between the

coding produced by independent coder and the coding produced by the researcher be

70% or greater to ensure intercoder reliability (p. 64). Miles and Huberman (1994)

suggest the use of the following formula to calculate the level of agreement: number of

agreements/total number of agreements and disagreements. Butterfield, Borgen,

Amundson and Maglio (2005) also contend that the use of intercoder reliability

constitutes an essential measure in ensuring the trustworthiness of a critical incident

study. In the context of a critical incident study, the formula suggested by Miles and

Huberman (1994) may be employed to calculate the level of agreement between the

researcher and an independent coder in the categorization of critical incidents.

Finally, the establishment of an audit trail has been widely recognized as an

approach to ensuring the overall trustworthiness of a qualitative study (Merriam, 2009;

Miles & Huberman (1994). An audit trail allows the audience of a study, which may be

the researcher or external parties reviewing the final research study findings, to

understand the bookkeeping the researcher performed throughout the study to ensure that

data collection and analysis proceed in an orderly fashion (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

An audit trail also allows third parties to easily access the original data from the

researcher to verify that analyses of data accurately represent the collected data (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). Within the context of the present study, the audit trail was established

by tape recording all interviews with study participants, by transcribing the contents of

the recorded interviews, by the researcher’s retention of written memos and reflections on each interview, which were written immediately following the interview, and by retaining records of each stage of the process of coding critical incidents.

Subjectivity Statement

A disclosure of the researcher’s personal subjectivity and bias is necessary to

inform readers of the perspective from which the researcher approaches the topic of

investigation. Any qualitative study requires the researcher to “bracket” his or her

personal biases and subjectivities in an attempt to gain objectivity via abstraction from

the topic of investigation (Creswell, 2007; Lincoln & Guba, 1994). By virtue of the fact

that researchers explore topics for which they have a personal interest, disclosing

personal subjectivities provides a frame of reference for readers of the study.

Having been a witness of, and, in some instances, victim of toxic leadership in

several workplaces throughout my career, having witnessed general organizational

ignorance of toxic leadership as a workplace problem, having observed a lack of

willingness on the part of human resource practitioners and organizational leadership to

address the problem in any meaningful way, having witnessed the massive employee

turnover in departments where a toxic leader is present, and having observed, on

countless occasions, the systematic bureaucratic devoicing and oppression of victims and

further empowerment of the toxic leader by human resource practitioners and

organizational leadership, I have taken an interest in studying toxic leadership with the aspirations of understanding the phenomenon, its antecedents and its consequences.

Ethical Statement

Due to the sensitive nature of toxic leadership experiences and the need to protect victims of toxic leadership from unwanted disclosure of their identities and situations, even after having left the organization in which they experienced toxic leadership, the researcher must take necessary precautions to ensure the anonymity of study participants.

Although no physical or psychological harm is intended toward participants in this study,

the researcher must remain vigilant in considering that the recollection of toxic leadership

experiences and their consequences may evoke psychological pain, fear or anger in study

participants. Confidentiality and anonymity were achieved by omission of names of

people and organizations. Study participants were also required to sign a consent form prior to participation in the interview process. This form discloses the purpose of the study, the fact that the interview was tape recorded, a disclosure that only the researcher has access to the interview and all information contained therein, and a statement that the participant may elect to terminate participation in the interview at any time.

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS

The findings of this study are conceptualized and presented in terms of four key

themes which emerged from data analysis, and which are discussed and narrated utilizing

narrative data from study participant interviews throughout this chapter. This study

investigated the research question:

• What do participants consider to constitute toxic leadership and how did toxic

leadership impact their decision to leave an organization?

The following analytic questions guided the investigation of the aforementioned research

question for this study:

6. What specific leader behaviors do participants characterize as toxic?

7. How do participants describe their daily workplace experiences under toxic

leaders?

8. How do participants describe the impact of exposure to toxic leadership in the

workplace on their lives inside and outside of the workplace?

9. Was there a specific event that occurred in the workplace which caused

participants to leave the organization, and if so, what was the event and how do

participants describe it?

10. Was the event which caused participants to leave the organization different from

previous encounters with toxic leaders, and if so, how was it different?

The analytic questions served to guide the content analysis of 187 pages of interview data.

The conceptual framework which informed this study, based upon the theoretical and conceptual work of Lipman-Blumen (2005) on behaviors, characteristics and

88 consequences of toxic leadership and Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of

Voluntary Employee Turnover, which conceptualizes voluntary employee turnover as a decision-making process, following a shock in the workplace, served to inform the data analysis process. The process of data reduction yielded 661 data strips, which were initially sorted in accordance with the conceptual framework and the tendency of the content of study participants’ interview narratives to cluster around four core thematic foci: (1) Characteristics of a Toxic Workplace Environment, (2) Triggers and Toxic

Targeting, (3) Turnover Decisions, including as they relate to physical and psychological reactions to toxic leadership, and (4) Life After Leaving a Toxic Leader. The hallmark of the four thematic foci around which the data obtained in this study cluster is a certain linear progression between what study participants seem to have characterized as a series of phases through which they progressed before eventually resigning from their positions.

Specifically, all study participants discussed their experiences of toxic leadership and eventual decision to resign from their positions as a consequence of the toxic leadership under which they suffered in terms of a linear sequence of events which occurred over varying expanses of time and which are captured by the four aforementioned overarching thematic foci. The subcategories of data presented and discussed within the context of each of the four core thematic foci capture topical foci around which specific instances, examples or events clustered. Table 1.2 captures the four core thematic foci, the sub- thematic foci which emerged within each of the four core thematic foci, and the subcategories of data which comprised each of the sub-thematic foci, all of which are discussed in detail throughout the course of this chapter.

Core Thematic Focus Sub-thematic Foci Sub-categories

Characteristics of a Toxic leader behaviors Hegemony Toxic Workplace passively experienced Abdication of Responsibility and Environment or experienced by Promotion of Apathy colleagues Greed Misrepresentation of Material Facts Features of an Senior Leader and Human Resource organization’s Department Tolerance and Support environment and of Toxicity culture which enable toxic leaders to thrive Triggers and Toxic Trigger/Trigger Events Questioning of Leader’s Decisions Targeting Requesting Leader’s Assistance Correcting Leader’s Mistakes Being Victim of Lies of Leader’s Cronies Possessing Physical Qualities (Sexually) Unappealing to the Leader Refusing to Cover Up Leader’s Wrong-doing Pursuing Higher Education Going to a Competitor to Ensure Employment Continued Targeting Belittling, Threatening and (Methods) Devoicing Exhibiting Jealousy Exhibiting Cronyism/Favoritism/Discrimination Overtasking

Displaying Toxic Tantrums

Micromanaging

Stealing

Reasons for Targeting Jealousy

Exhibiting Cronyism

Raising Concern to or about the

Leader

Gender and Generational Issues

Turnover Decisions Unsuccessful handling Confronted the leader once of toxic targeting from following the initial trigger event, time of initial trigger then did nothing after subsequent onward targeting instances Confronted the leader twice following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances Confronted the leader’s supervisor once following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances Confronted the leader’s supervisor twice following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances Consulted the Human Resources Department once following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances Consulted the Human Resources Department twice following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances Confronted the leader once following the initial trigger event, then consulted the Human Resources Department after subsequent targeting instances Confronted the leader once following the initial trigger event, then confronted the leader’s supervisor once concerning the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent instances of targeting Did nothing following the initial trigger event, and did nothing after subsequent instances of targeting. Length of time it took study participants to make a final decision to resign

Reasons for length of Confronted with Poor Job Market time it took study Feared Another Workplace Could be participants to resign Worse Remained Hopeful Things Would Improve Lacked Self-Confidence to Get a New Job Unable to Tolerate Further Toxicity Needed to Fulfill Employment Contract Valued Longevity in a Job Liked Co-workers Needed Time to Start Business Turnover Decisions: Physical Consequences Developed Sleeplessness/Exhaustion Reactions to Toxic Experienced Tension Aches Leadership and Toxic Began Alcohol Use Targeting Developed High Blood Pressure Developed Serious Illness Psychological Feeling of Depression and Low Self- Consequences Confidence Feeling of Anxiety Feeling of Fear Feeling of Decreased Enjoyment and Dread Feeling of Frustration Feeling of Paranoia Feeling of Entrapment Feeling of Hopelessness, Irritability and Frustration Feeling of Being Controlled, Pressured and Silenced Feeling of Isolation Life After Leaving a Positive Reactions to Feeling of Relief Toxic Leader Resignation Feeling of Freedom Experiencing of Positive Emotions Feeling of Empowerment Lingering Concerns Lingering Post-Traumatic Stress About Actions of Toxic Disorder (PTSD) Symptoms Leader Following Resignation Table 1.2: Core Thematic Foci, Sub-thematic Foci and Sub-categories of Data

The demographic data of the 15 study participants is summarized below in Table

1.3. In order to ensure the privacy and protect the identity of study participants, only

general information relevant to discussions of the findings of this study is provided.

Industry data is limited to three general categories, based upon study participants’

employer affiliations: (1) private sector, (2) federal government, and (3) military.

Generational data is categorized in accordance with Meriac, Woher and Banister’s (2010)

typography, as follows: Baby Boomer (1946-1964), Gen X (1965-1980) and Millennials

(1981-1999).

Participant Gender Generation Industry 1 Male Gen X Private Sector 2 Male Gen X Private Sector 3 Female Gen X Private Sector 4 Female Gen X Military 5 Female Gen X Private Sector 6 Male Gen X Private Sector 7 Female Gen X Federal Government 8 Female Gen X Private Sector 9 Female Baby Boomer Private Sector 10 Female Gen X Private Sector 11 Female Gen X Private Sector 12 Female Baby Boomer Private Sector 13 Male Millennial Private Sector 14 Female Gen X Private Sector 15 Female Gen X Private Sector Table 1.3: Demographic Information of Study Participants

The balance of this chapter is devoted to a narrative description of the findings of

this study, which are discussed in terms of the propensity of study participants’ interview

data to cluster around the four core thematic foci previously mentioned. In keeping with

the qualitative research tradition, thick, rich descriptions and personal experiences of

study participants are used throughout this chapter to illustrate the four core thematic foci

and subcategories within those overarching themes.

Characteristics of a Toxic Workplace Environment

Study participants began their interviews by describing their experiences in a workplace dominated by a toxic leader, and focused upon characterizing the toxic environment to which they were exposed under a toxic leader. The accounts of toxic workplace environments study participants provided clustered around two themes: (1) toxic leader behaviors study participants passively experienced or witnessed colleagues experiencing, and (2) features of an organization’s environment and culture which enabled toxic leaders to thrive.

All study participants characterized these toxic leader behaviors and environmental and cultural features as the reasons why their workplaces were toxic. The specific characteristics study participants identified and described as contributing to a toxic workplace environment may be subcategorized according to five thematic foci around which interview data cluster: (1) hegemony, (2) abdication of responsibility and promotion of apathy, (3) greed, (4) misrepresentation of material facts, and (5) senior leader and human resource department personnel tolerance and support of toxicity. The first four of these subcategories represent themes relevant to types of toxic leader behavior, and the fifth subcategory is representative of study participants’ discussion of components of organizational cultures which encourage and support toxic leaders. Each of these themes is examined in turn.

Hegemony

Subsumed within the category of hegemony are features of toxicity in the workplace environment which refer to a toxic leader’s exercise of domination, control, power, authority and dominion over subordinates in order to dictate all aspects of life in-,

and in some cases, outside the workplace for no other reason than to derive pleasure from

the toxic suffocation of employees and the exercise of total control over them. Study

participants’ descriptions of hegemonic leader behaviors cluster around the themes of

domination, control, power, authority and dominion and included accounts of a toxic

leader threatening employees who report problems or concerns with termination,

promoting favoritism and cronyism in order to build a cadre of insiders to aid in the

control of the rest of the workforce, hypocrisy, as evidenced by the toxic leader and his

cronies demanding that employees follow stringent rules from which they were exempt,

leader disloyalty to employees while demanding their loyalty as a means of controlling

their actions, the imposition of new rules and regulations for no other reason than to

consolidate control over the workforce, and abuses of power and authority to incite fear.

Participant 5’s account of hegemonic experiences in the workplace succinctly summarizes the aforementioned core characteristics of toxicity around which study participants’ interview data clustered:

I was suffocated every day at work; we all were. The leader abused her authority and constantly reminded us that we were her property. She loved making up new rules and regulations for no reason at all; there were never any problems in that office and everyone just wanted to work and be left alone, but the leader would not have that. She controlled us and everything that went on at work every day. She was a micro-manager and held meetings at the drop of a hat to tell everyone about the new rules she had created. The place was a prison, and she treated us like her slaves. We had to ask permission to take a lunch or restroom break, and she would monitor how long we were gone. Nobody was allowed to arrive in the office before she came in. She had a huge clock on the wall in her office and a log book; she would watch us all day long and give us dirty looks as she wrote down when we came and went. If people tried to go home one minute before they were supposed to, she told them about it and wrote them up for attempting to steal ‘her time.’ Sometimes she would even laugh at us while she did these things and nobody trusted her (p. 4).

As Participant 5’s narrative exemplar indicates, the hegemonic leader revels in controlling employees and in ensuring that they are well aware of who holds the power in the workplace.

Abdication of Responsibility and Promotion of Apathy

Participants discussed situations in which toxic leaders abdicated responsibility and promoted apathy within the workforce and generally described situations in which the leaders failed to perform the due diligence a reasonable employee would expect from a leader; rather, they promoted, both by personal example and overt statements to employees, an atmosphere of apathy in the workplace. The examples of abdication of responsibility and promotion of apathy study participants cited clustered around the following five thematic foci: (1) the leader’s late arrival to work and early departure, (2) refusal or inability of the leader to conduct quality control on employee work, (3) willful distraction of employees trying to work, (4) willful wasting of company time, and (5) advising employees not to bother working and to adopt an attitude of apathy. Participant

13 experienced a situation illustrative of abdication of responsibility and promotion of apathy in the workplace when he expressed concerns to his leader that his work, and the work of his co-workers, was not being reviewed and critiqued before being sent to the client. Additionally, Participant 13 attempted to discuss several questions the client had asked of the organization regarding work that had previously been submitted, and to which Participant 13 was attempting to respond because the toxic leader refused to reply to the client. The following particularly rich narrative excerpt from Participant 13’s interview crosses subcategories of behaviors subsumed under the broader category of

toxic workplace environment and captures the characteristics study participants identified

within these subcategories:

When I told the leader that I was concerned that our work was not undergoing quality control before being sent to the client, the leader screamed and yelled obscenities and told me that he did not care, and neither should I. He told me and other employees in the office that he had turned over a new leaf – not caring anymore – and he advised us to do the same. The leader constantly showed up to work several hours late, if he even showed up at all. There is no way that he had enough vacation days to cover all the days he took off and all the hours showed up late and left early. He never even told anybody he was not going to be at work; he just failed to show up. When he was at work, he did nothing and often distracted other people trying to work by imposing his personal political views on others and engaging them in inflammatory debates. Everyone in the office wondered how he got away with charging a full week’s worth of hours when he actually worked about 5 hours per week. Even though he told me not to care, I did care, so I asked him to help me reply to some questions our client had sent us regarding our previously submitted work, and he flew into a rage. He started screaming at me that I should ignore the client and then he started kicking his desk while he was screaming. He screamed that he did not care, and neither should I (p. 3).

In Participant 13’s situation, the toxic leader created a toxic atmosphere in the office by promoting apathy, wasting the time of employees trying to work in the office, not coming to work, and arriving late and leaving early. The toxic leader abdicated his core responsibilities as a leader by failing to perform his due diligence in reviewing and performing quality control on employee work and by ignoring client questions.

Participant 13, in trying to perform his own duties and in asking the leader to review his work and assist him in replying to client questions failed to comply with the leader’s instructions not to care and not to bother working.

Greed

Study participants’ reports of toxic leader greed clustered around two types of greed: the addition of job responsibilities beyond the scope of the position the participant held without just compensation and theft of employee property. Participant 1 recalled

97 how his leader had forced him to perform managerial work on his own time outside of work for no additional compensation, which typified the company’s general exploitative ethos and views that employees should be compelled to perform duties beyond those for which they are compensated a meager salary in the name of high profit margins:

I found myself in a situation where I was being exploited by a greedy boss and a greedy company. The leader had told me that because I was the senior person on staff for my office, I had to take on additional managerial responsibilities beyond the duties in my job description, like recruiting and hiring new employees, doing budget analyses, signing timecards, and so on. I was to perform these tasks on my own time and by the deadlines he demanded. When I asked him how I would be compensated for this additional work and responsibility, he told me that I would be doing it for free and that he did not have the money to give me a raise. The problem with that argument is that I was the one doing the budget analysis for the office, so I knew the profit margins, and I knew that the company had plenty of money (p. 3).

In this example, Participant 1 provides a scenario in which the leader was unwilling to compensate him justly for his additional work and responsibilities. In addition to the exploitation Participant 1 suffered in this incident, he was arguably also the victim of an arrogant and ignorant leader who either did not realize or did not care that his argument that the company did not have enough money to provide Participant 1 with just compensation quickly surfaced as a lie in the course of Participant 1’s performance of the additional duties demanded of him.

Participant 6’s experience of greed, unlike Participant 1’s experience, involves the toxic leader’s theft of employee bonus gift cards. As Participant 6 recalled, the organization became aware that money was missing, but senior organizational leaders, because the scandal implicated one of their own, did nothing to investigate the matter, and, therefore, endorsed theft:

The company gave a number of employees bonus gift cards around the holiday season as a thank you for outstanding performance, but the gift cards were taxed

as income. When I reviewed my pay statement for that pay period, I noticed that the figures seemed to be wrong on my statement because I had received only half of the amount for which I had been taxed. When I called the payroll office to tell them about what I thought was a mistake, the office confirmed that all employees who had received bonuses had received the same amount, and that it was the amount indicated on my statement. I followed up with my co-workers who had received bonuses, and they had not checked their statements, but when they did, they discovered the same problem I had found. I called the payroll office a second time and asked how the gift cards had been distributed, and the payroll office indicated that they had been given to managers to distribute to employees. I confronted my manager about the problem, and so did some of my co-workers, but he denied everything. I reported the incident, but the payroll office manager insisted that it was not his mistake and that my manager would never have stolen from employees. The case was closed, and I paid taxes on money my manager pocketed (p. 4).

Participant 6 provides an account of greed perpetrated against employees in the form of theft of money for which they were forced to pay taxes.

Misrepresentation of Material Facts

In each of the instances of misrepresentation of material facts mentioned in interviews, participants were either told to falsify material facts, or they believed that the leader had misrepresented material facts, even though they were not personally involved in the misrepresentation. Participant 15, for example, described how a toxic leader falsified operational statistics and material facts and presented the falsified information to a client. The intent was to deceive the client and to exaggerate the extent to which a particular product would have benefited the client. As Participant 15 explained:

Many of us were generally aware that there was faulty information being produced that did not represent the truth of what was actually going on in the organization in terms of productivity. Eventually, I was asked to collude in this misrepresentation of information, which confirmed our suspicions that we could not trust the leader. I was pressured by the leader to alter and falsify the statistics I had produced at the leader’s request. This leader was gifted at lying and making people believe the lies. I refused to skew my statistics and told the leader that I did not feel comfortable presenting false information to the client. Since I would not falsify the numbers, the leader would not allow me to have anything more to do with the product I had developed (p. 3).

This brief excerpt from Participant 15’s interview demonstrates the first two temporal phases inherent in the narrative of toxic leadership and toxic targeting. Participant 15 was immediately targeted by the toxic leader for failing to falsify material facts as directed.

Senior Leader and HR Department Tolerance and Support of Toxicity

Whereas the first four subcategories previously discussed in this section focused upon leader behaviors which contributed to a toxic workplace environment, this category represents study participants’ reports of tolerance of toxic leadership within a broader organizational context by parties within organizations who are charged with oversight responsibilities. Study participants indicted senior organizational leadership and the

Human Resource Department for tolerating and supporting toxicity after participants had sought the counsel and support of either or both of these groups to assist in dealing with the toxic leader, and pointed in their interviews to organizational cultures which tolerated, enabled, and even defended toxic leaders. Study participants discussed the complacency of human resource personnel and senior leaders in allowing toxic leadership to continue unabated, despite being confronted with compelling evidence of its existence and deleterious effects on employees. Participant 8, for example, recalled an instance in which she felt threatened by her toxic leader, which she subsequently reported to the

Human Resources Department, only to discover that the Human Resources Department supported the toxic leader:

I contacted the HR Department and requested a meeting with the leader and the HR representative. The meeting turned into a session in which both my leader and the HR representative berated me and attempted to tell me that I must have problems in my personal life and that those problems were causing me to act out

100

in the workplace. HR completely supported the toxic leader, and there was nothing going on in my personal life that impacted my job (p. 2).

Similarly, Participant 7 described an organizational culture that promoted toxicity, and in which senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel ignored employee complaints of toxic leadership and unwaveringly supported the toxic leader.

Participant 7 captures the general sentiment study participants expressed in interviews regarding organizational cultures which promote toxic leadership because senior leaders and human resource personnel elect to ignore the toxicity: “Complaining about a manager did nothing, and everyone knew it. HR and senior managers always support their own, which makes the entire culture throughout the organization toxic. Some people who complained were even put on the black list of complainers, and nobody wants to be on that list” (p. 3).

Participant 12 experienced collusion between a toxic leader and the supervisory senior leaders of the toxic leader that was similar to the collusion Participant 8 experienced between a human resource department representative and the toxic leader.

Participant 12 described an instance in which she had been verbally abused and berated by a toxic leader for expressing concern that the toxic leader had earlier berated members of her team for supposed poor work quality. The issue centered around the toxic leader’s unwillingness to follow organizational protocols for work products, which resulted in

Participant 12’s work products not aligning with the leader’s demands, even though

Participant 12 and members of her team had produced work products in compliance with organizational protocols. The toxic leader berated Participant 12’s team members for not producing work which met his demands. Following this instance, Participant 12 addressed her concerns with the toxic leader, who claimed she was incompetent and

101 dismissed her concerns. When Participant 12 later took her concerns to the toxic leader’s supervisors, she discovered that the supervisors supported the toxic leader:

I was shocked that senior leadership not only did nothing to help me in this situation, but that they actually supported the toxic leader and his actions. In my mind, doing nothing about a toxic situation implies support of the situation and the person creating the situation, and that is exactly what happened here. Senior leadership even told the toxic leader that I had made a complaint against him, and I suffered continual verbal abuse, targeting in public forums, claims of incompetence, and he later even threatened to fire me (pp. 1-2).

Participant 12’s description illustrates collusion among leaders and support of toxicity on the part of leaders in her organization. Participant 12 experienced a toxic workplace environment in that she witnessed the berating of members of the team, but she was not specifically the target of the toxicity at that time. It was not until after she questioned the judgment of the toxic leader and expressed her concern about the incident with her team that she became the target of the leader’s toxicity. These examples provided by

Participant 8 and Participant 12 illustrate what Participant 8 termed the “yes-man syndrome” in which leaders demand unquestioning allegiance from employees; any deviation from this demand, particularly in the form of questioning the leader’s judgments, provides grounds for an employee to be targeted by a toxic leader (p. 2). It is to the theme of toxic targeting that attention is now turned.

Triggers and Toxic Targeting

The second broad thematic focus that emerged from study participant interview data, toxic targeting, constitutes a category describing study participants’ personal experiences of direct confrontation with the toxic leader or targeting by the toxic leader.

All study participants explicated in their interviews a certain shift in the toxic leader’s behavior toward following a particular event or situation participants experienced with

102

the toxic leader. These events may be termed triggers because, according to study

participants, they caused the toxic leader to begin directly targeting each study participant

with toxic behaviors. All study participants reported a significant change in their

experiences of toxic leadership following the trigger event characterized by a shift from

their experiences of a generally toxic workplace environment to an environment in which

the toxic leader directed specific toxic behaviors toward each study participant.

Study participants reported experiencing varying degrees of toxic leader rage and

temper tantrums at the time of the triggering event, and identified the triggering event as

the tipping point, after which time they experienced toxic leader behaviors directed

personally toward them. Importantly, it was not until study participants experienced the

toxic leader’s direct targeting that they considered leaving the organization in order to

escape the toxic leader. Based upon the accounts study participants offered for this study,

they appeared willing to tolerate a toxic workplace environment as long as they were not

directly targeted by a toxic leader. The onset of direct targeting, brought about by a

specific event, however, caused study participants to immediately begin considering

resignation.

The triggering events study participants reported clustered around eight thematic

foci: (1) questioning of the leader or of the leader’s decisions, (2) requesting the leader’s

assistance, (3) correcting the leader’s mistakes, (4) being the victim of lies of the leader’s

cronies, (5) possessing physical qualities (sexually) unappealing to the leader, (6)

refusing to cover up the leader’s wrong-doing, (7) pursuing higher education, and (8) going to a competitor to ensure employment. Each of these subcategorical clusters of

103

triggering events is examined in subsequent sections utilizing narrative data gleaned from

study participants’ interviews.

Questioning of Leader or Leader’s Decisions

Study participants demonstrated a propensity to discuss the issue of questioning a

leader or his or her decisions within the context of the leader’s perception that

questioning constituted a form of threat to his or her control, status and dominion over

subordinates. The general trend in interviews data to recognize a toxic leader’s need for

control and status is captured well by Participant 2, who used the terms omniscience and

omnipotence when describing a toxic leader’s self-image and need to neutralize any threats or opposition to his reign. The perceived threat, according to study participants, required immediate elimination, and thus resulted in the leader targeting the perceived threat with toxic behaviors. Additionally, study participants tended to discuss the idea that their toxic leaders did not wish to be concerned with having to address concerns or questions employees raised; rather, they evidenced a preference to rule abstractly, from a

distance, and by decree. Any questioning of these decrees created additional work for the

toxic leader, and undermined his or her omniscience and omnipotence, neither of which

was tolerable.

Participant 1 experienced a toxic workplace atmosphere in which he was forced

by his leader to perform managerial duties on his own time without additional

compensation and recalled that the trigger which initiated the leader’s toxic targeting

centered on his questioning of the leader and challenging the leader’s demands and logic:

I remember telling the leader that I had been performing additional work for the company on my own time and that I had not received any additional compensation for my efforts. The leader was infuriated and started yelling at me that I had no right to complain or challenge him. He yelled that he was not going

104

to sit there and argue pennies on the dollar with me and that a raise was out of the question. I replied that if pennies on the dollar were the problem, then giving a raise would be no problem because, after all, we were only talking pennies. Because my argument was logical and countered the leader’s argument using his own words, he became even more enraged, and from then on, he had it in for me (p. 2).

In contrast to Participant 1’s toxic trigger, which involved creation of a logical counter-

argument using the original leader’s argument as its basis to argue for compensation

requisite to the work performed, Participants 3, 6 and 8 all recalled trigger events in

which they directly challenged the leader’s judgment in decisions which negatively

impacted employees. Participant 3, for example, recalled a situation in which she

questioned the leader’s refusal to hire additional support staff in a time when senior

personnel should have been focusing on the pursuit of company growth, rather than

wasting time on menial data entry tasks:

[The leader] had always ignored my thoughts and opinions. The only opinions he was interested in were those that were the same as his. I decided it was time to really challenge his thinking because things had reached a point where senior staff could no longer keep up with the demands placed on us to grow the company while being forced to do data entry and processing tasks. I told the leader I had serious concerns about his decision not to hire support staff because we were not growing the company the way we should have been due to the menial tasks we had to do every day. The leader dismissed my concerns and told me that he had made his decision and that everyone needed to follow his orders. The very next day he started demanding to see all of my data entry work every day before I was allowed to leave, and he wanted to have a daily report on what I had done to grow the business. He kept a spreadsheet to track my work while the other senior people were not tracked (p. 4).

The leader targeted Participant 3 as a result of her challenges to his purported omniscience and cited her personal experience in the workplace, as well as the experience of her senior colleagues, as evidence for the need to hire additional support staff; however, only Participant 3 expressed dissent at the leader’s decision, and, as a result, only Participant 3 was subsequently targeted with micro-management and close

105

monitoring of work production. Participant 6 reported that questioning of the leader and

building a logical counter-argument using the leader’s argument as a basis led to verbal

abuse, micro-management and a toxic tantrum brought about by the leader’s perception

of being threatened as a result of Participant 6’s use of the toxic leader’s own logic

against him. As Participant 6 explained:

The toxic leader criticized me for working too many hours, even though he was the one who assigned me more tasks than anyone else in the office and fully anticipated that I would need to work extra hours to complete the work. He called me into the office and berated me for working too many hours, and I replied that he had assigned me more work than anyone else in the office, so I had to work extra hours to complete the task. Essentially, he had caused me to work extra hours. The moment I made this argument, he lunged out of his chair, pointed his finger at me and screamed that I better never question his authority ever again. After that he monitored me every day, wanted to know where I was at all times, and he would call me in to the office at least once a day to yell at me for anything and everything (p. 3).

It is noteworthy that Participant 6 did not actually question the leader’s authority as the

leader purported during the toxic tantrum; rather, Participant 6 built a logical counter- argument using evidence provided by the leader against him, which, in turn, caused the toxic tantrum.

As discussed in a previous section of this chapter, Participant 8 experienced a toxic tantrum similar to Participant 6. Participant 8 had questioned the toxic leader’s decision to select a particular computer program for the office which was inappropriate and caused inefficiencies in employee work production. The toxic leader slammed down the keyboard on the conference room table and began berating Participant 8 after she pointed out the flaws in the computer program. Examined in aggregate, participants in this study explicated that questioning the leader’s omniscience and omnipotence brought about an immediate reaction from the toxic leader, followed by a prolonged phase of

106 toxic targeting, which will be examined in detail in a later section of this chapter. The subsequent section examines the toxic trigger, Requesting the Leader’s Assistance, which appears antithetical to Questioning the Leader or Leader’s Decisions, but which is linked to the first category of toxic triggers, Questioning the Leader or Leader’s Decisions, in that both of these categories of toxic triggers contain events which would require the leader to interact with, listen to, and respond to subordinates and their questions or concerns.

Requesting the Leader’s Assistance

Participants 13 and 14 reported experiencing toxic triggers which may be subsumed under the category Requesting the Leader’s Assistance. As their accounts illustrate, Participants 13 and 14 found themselves in situations in which they needed to ask their leaders for advice, but rather than responding to their requests for assistance in a professional manner, their leaders became irritated and irate at the requests and displayed an unprofessional unwillingness to be bothered to provide assistance. Participant 13 recalled:

As I mentioned before, my leader rarely even showed up to work, and when he did, he would arrive late and leave early. This meant that the rest of us [the employees] were basically left to do our own work and the leader’s work so that the project would not fail. In the particular instance I am thinking of, our client had written and requested some additional information on work we had submitted. There were several questions that needed to be answered, and this should have been the job of the leader, but after a pattern of unresponsiveness from the leader, the client started e-mailing me the questions. I wanted to discuss the questions with the leader before I replied to the client to ensure that my responses were accurate, but when I addressed the questions with the leader, he became irate and started yelling and cursing at me. He kicked his desk and demanded that I ignore the client and the questions completely. Of course, I knew I had to respond to the questions, which I did, but I never asked the leader another question ever again (p. 5).

107

Participant 13’s experience is noteworthy for two reasons: (1) the leader displayed extreme arrogance and could not be bothered to do any work, even when he was in the office, and certainly was not going to be made to do work by an employee, and (2) the leader threw a toxic temper tantrum when confronted with the possibility of having to do work. The toxic temper tantrum phenomenon is one previously discussed in this chapter, but which re-surfaces independent of the details of a specific situation. In the same way that children throw a temper tantrum when they do not get adults to give them what they want, leaders who throw a toxic temper tantrum are reacting to situations in which they perceive that they have not maintained total dominion over employees or situations, as evidenced in the situations in which Participants 6, 8 and 13 experienced toxic tantrums.

In all three of these instances, the toxic tantrum occurred in conjunction with the trigger event, after which time these participants were continuously targeted with toxicity.

Participant 14’s experience was similar to that of Participant 13 in that the leader did nothing to offer the requested assistance, and initiated toxic targeting as a direct result of issues or concerns having been raised and assistance requested. Participant 14 characterized the toxic targeting trigger in her situation as the point in time when she raised the concerns of several of her subordinates to her leader and requested that he assist her in resolving the situation. Participant 14 recalled that the leader not only refused to help her, but he also began targeting her immediately after the event by dismissing her future concerns, and by openly dismissing her thoughts and ideas before her subordinates in meetings. In the words of Participant 14:

After I raised the employee’s concern to my leader, he began dismissing everything I offered, in terms of suggestions and ideas, and he did this in front of my employees in meetings. He increased my workload while decreasing others’ workloads, but this all happened after I asked him for help in resolving a

108

particular concern of the employees. He was no help at all. He didn’t berate me; he simply refused to help me and then began targeting me very directly in a variety of ways (p. 3).

In contrast to the experiences of study participants who experienced toxic tantrums at the time of the toxic trigger, Participant 14 experienced a more subdued, but no less toxic, reaction from her leader. Like Participant 13, Participant 14 was denied the assistance requested, and the leader’s subsequent treatment of her was in line with that which

Participant 13 experienced – targeting with toxic behaviors. If requesting the leader’s assistance constituted a toxic targeting trigger, hardly surprising is the finding that correcting the leader’s mistakes would, as well, constitute a toxic targeting trigger.

Correcting the Leader’s Mistakes

Study participants evidenced a tendency to cite laziness, ineptitude and lack of education as reasons why there existed a need to correct a toxic leader’s mistakes. The corrections, noted study participants, were viewed by toxic leaders as threats to their omniscience, superiority and dominion over subordinates and resulted in toxic leaders’ attempts to neutralize the perceived threat. The interviews of Participants 5 and 12 provide exemplar narrative excerpts which capture the essence of the consequences study participants faced when correcting the leader’s mistakes. Faced with an inept, undereducated and lazy leader who was producing work for the client with more mistakes than any other employee, Participant 5 attempted to coach the leader to improve the quality of his work. The leader did not receive this attempt well, and began targeting

Participant 5 with toxic behaviors following the incident. According to Participant 5:

The leader never really wanted to do any work; he would have preferred to sleep at his desk all day like he normally did, and because he was inept and had no idea how to do the work, the quality of his work was terrible. It made our entire team look bad in the eyes of the client, and it brought down morale because the work

109

would come back for corrections, even though the work that needed to be corrected was the leader’s. I had had enough, and since nobody else on the team would talk to the leader about it, I decided to address the concern with him. I tried to professionally let him know that the work being returned was his and to show him what was wrong with it. The leader became irritated and refused to admit that it was his work that was in question, even though the computer program we used documented who performed what work. He threatened me with my job for questioning his work and later passed me over three times for promotion (p. 3).

Participant 5’s attempts to correct the leader’s work were met with opposition and constituted the toxic targeting trigger which resulted in threats of termination and denial of promotion.

Participant 12’s experience is similar to that of Participant 5’s in that Participant

12 attempted to discuss privately with the leader the inappropriateness of his actions and the reasons why his work, and not the work of the employees, constituted the grounds for the overall low work quality. In the instance of Participant 12, the leader was charged with performing final quality assurance on all employee work, but changed correct employee work products to make them incorrect because the leader refused to follow organizational policies regarding work products. Participant 12 recalled the situation in which the toxic targeting trigger occurred:

The leader had just finished lambasting the employees in the conference room about their supposed poor work, but it was actually the leader who caused their work products to be poor because he would change their work to reflect his own wishes, and he would not follow official organizational policies. After that meeting, I spoke to the leader in private and told him that I was concerned about the way he treated the employees because they were following the official organizational policies. The leader was enraged that I would point out his errors and threatened me with termination. He verbally attacked me and continued to attack me almost on a daily basis after that meeting. He particularly enjoyed attacking me in meetings in front of my subordinates (p. 4).

Participant 12’s experience is similar to that of Participant 14, even though the toxic triggers are different. Both participants were attacked or demeaned in front of their

110 subordinates following the incident in which the toxic trigger occurred. In the instance of

Participant 12, pointing out the leader’s mistakes and attempting to bring about a change in the leader’s behavior constituted the toxic targeting trigger which caused the leader to threaten Participant 12 and subsequently to demean her at every possible opportunity.

Perhaps in some ways related to Participant 12’s experience is that of Participant 2, as discussed in the subsequent section. Whereas Participant 12 was targeted for pointing out the leader’s mistakes, which by some accounts could be considered wrong-doing, since, in this particular example, the leader refused to follow official organizational policies,

Participant 2 was explicitly told to cover up wrong-doing.

Victim of Lies of Cronies

Study participants’ discussions of cronyism and victimization resulting from its presence in the workplace tended to focus upon two aspects of the phenomenon. First, study participants demonstrated a tendency to discuss types of cronyism and the general proclivity to exclude, discriminate against, and marginalize some people or groups of people, while simultaneously providing a benefit to a particular privileged person or group. Second, study participants discussed the impacts of cronyism upon victims or targets of the toxic leader and his or her cronies, and the inclination of toxic leaders to assume the absolute accuracy of any and all information provided by cronies, including information purposefully falsified with the intent of harming a victim, and to act upon that information.

Study participants generally defined cronyism as the extent to which a leader privileges and favors certain employees who are part of his or her inner circle. There was general consensus among study participants that cronyism may result from, or be linked

111

to, sexual favoritism or to sexual discrimination, depending upon who is favored and for

what reason. Study participants identified four forms of cronyism. First, study

participants tended to discuss cronyism in terms of an old boys’ club that excludes,

marginalizes and discriminates against women and anyone who is not a white,

heterosexual man. Second, participants recognized that cronyism may exist when a

leader favors certain members of the opposite sex, because the leader finds them sexually

appealing. Third, study participants contended that cronyism may exist when a leader

privileges his or her personal friends in the workplace. Finally, study participants

recognized that cronyism may be established when certain employees defend the

organization and its leaders at all costs, even if in direct violation of the organization’s

code of ethics because the defending employees believe in some way that they owe

allegiance to the leader. This final form of cronyism was previously documented and

reviewed in Participant 2’s case. In the instances of Participants 9 and 15, cronyism took

the form of sexism, favoritism based on sexual attractiveness, or favoritism based upon

the length of time the leader has known the employee and/or the depth of the friendship the leader has shared with the employee. In the instances of Participants 9 and 15, the common theme is undue privileging of certain people and the dismissal of objective criteria in decision-making that directly impacts employees. The accounts Participants 9 and 15 offer provide narrative illustrations of study participants’ general proclivity to cite a void of objective criteria in decision-making based upon cronyism and toxic leaders’

inclinations to unquestioningly believe and act upon the information a crony provides as

truth, even in instances where the information is false and intended to harm victims.

112

Participant 9 experienced victimization due to cronyism when she was accused by

one of the leader’s cronies of holding secret meetings to discuss innovative approaches to

data analysis, while excluding a particular crony of the leader from the meetings. As

Participant 9 explained, a pattern of sexual favoritism had been long established in the

workplace and appeared as part of the instance of cronyism which constituted a toxic

targeting trigger:

The leader had long favored women in the office whom he found sexually attractive. There was one woman in particular who was favored and who had the ear of the leader. Whatever she told the leader, he believed. She was an expert liar and manipulator, and she hated me. She was my equal, but because she was a crony of the leader, he believed her over anyone else. She told the leader that I had been holding secret meetings with colleagues to discuss innovative techniques for analyzing data, and that I had been excluding her from the decision-making that was going on in these meetings. This was simply not true, but she told the leader all of this without my knowledge, and the leader confronted me with these accusations. I attempted to set the record straight, but the leader would not believe me. He threatened me with my job on the basis of the unsubstantiated lies, and he and the woman continued to threaten and discredit me thereafter (p. 4).

The instance Participant 9 described contains shades of sexism and sexual favoritism embedded within the narrative of cronyism, but the key feature of this account lies in the willingness of the leader to unquestioningly believe a member of his inner circle, a crony, and to act upon false information as a basis from which to threaten termination and target an employee.

Participant 15 recounted an instance of cronyism similar to that of Participant 9.

Much like Participant 9’s, Participant 15’s case involved a crony of the leader who presented the leader with false information in order to accuse Participant 15 of wrong- doing. As Participant 15 explained, the office environment had long been characterized by an active rumor mill of lies, as well as favoritism and cronyism:

113

The leader had a few people in his inner circle; he only listened to them, and because they could get the leader to do what they wanted, they basically ran the office. It was a toxic place, and certain privileged people constantly back-stabbed others, rumored about others, and were generally immature, uneducated fools. In this particular situation, I had been asked to fill in for someone for something I normally had nothing to do with. My supervisor had approved the request and everything seemed to be in order. But one of the leader’s confidants told the leader that I had not received proper approval for this task, even though I had. True to form, the leader believed his confidant and confronted me. I tried to explain that I had received proper approval for the task, and I was chastised for something I did not do. I really had to watch my back after that incident because the leader’s confidants had added me to their list of people to monitor closely (p. 3).

Participant 15’s situation mirrors Participant 9’s in that both participants experienced an incident which contained the toxic targeting trigger, which was based on the lies of the leader’s cronies. Unlike Participant 9, Participant 15 was not threatened with termination; nevertheless, Participant 15 began being targeted with constant surveillance by the leader’s cronies following the incident. In both Participant 9’s and Participant

15’s cases, the leader acted inappropriately based on incorrect information provided by the members of the inner circle. The subsequent section examines physically unappealing qualities employees possess and their impacts on their status in the workplace, of which sexual unattractiveness constitutes one quality.

Having Physical Qualities Unappealing to the Leader

This category encompasses more than simply appearing sexually (un)attractive to a leader. The broader scope of this category implied in the title includes physical features beyond outward sexual attractiveness. Study participants discussed physical features for which they were criticized and dehumanized and cited features associated with sexual

(un)attractiveness, as well as other physical qualities apparently annoying to the toxic leader, such as pitch of voice and certain personality traits, including friendliness and an

114 out-going personality. Finally, study participants tended to discuss the extent to which the features for which they were criticized and targeted were those over which they had no control. As Participant 7 relayed, she was targeted not as a result of sexual unattractiveness, but as a result of having an unappealing voice:

I felt like the leader looked for anything and everything she could find to drag people down. Almost nobody was exempt from some form of mistreatment, and she constantly belittled me for being young and inexperienced. I countered when she told me this that I did not understand how someone was supposed to gain experience if never given the chance to gain experience, but she just ignored my comment. The whole office was toxic because of her, but what really hit me hard was the time she told me that she found my voice young, unprofessional and unappealing. I remember being hurt, and I cried that night at home. There were many nights I went home and cried because of her. I tried to figure out what was wrong with me that she would treat me this way, and when I later asked her why she targeted me, she laughed at me and told me I was young (p. 3).

Participant 7’s account reveals that the dimension of physical qualities extends beyond sexual attractiveness and, importantly, it underscores the way in which a leader’s cruelty impacts employees outside of the workplace, a topic which will be examined in a subsequent section of this chapter. Participant 7 experienced increased targeting and belittling following her confrontation with the leader regarding the sound of her voice.

Unlike other study participants, Participant 7 did not experience threats from the leader at the time of the toxic targeting trigger; rather, the attack was more subdued and personal in nature. Yet, as evidenced by the reaction the attack caused, Participant 7 became critical of herself and of her personal physical qualities. Participant 7 continued:

I think at the time I was too young and afraid to really fight back, and that let her know that she had the upper hand over me. I think that’s how she knew she could continue targeting me. She could tell it was tearing me down, and she liked that. Other older people in the office would fight back when she targeted them, but I just hardly knew what to do (p. 3).

115

Participant 7’s extended comments indicate that the leader may have reacted to the toxic targeting trigger in a manner unique from the ways other leaders reacted to triggers, but it is important to note that that toxic trigger in this instance was not something over which

Participant 7 had direct control – one can hardly control the qualities of one’s voice. The reaction came after the fact and was not known to the leader because Participant 7 cried at home after work. The lack of a forceful reaction, as Participant 7 indicated, may have caused the leader to continue targeting her because she knew she could easily target

Participant 7.

Perhaps most importantly, this account highlights a key underlying theme inherent in all of the toxic targeting triggers identified in this study – no matter what reaction participants had during the event containing the toxic targeting trigger, they were all still targeted following the event that contained the trigger. Participants who fought back during the trigger event were targeted to scare them into compliance or to ensure that they were aware of the leader’s dominion over them. Participant 7, by contrast, appears to have been targeted because the leader viewed her as a weak and easy target. It would appear, then, that employees who experience an event containing a Toxic

Targeting Trigger are doomed to be targeted, regardless of their reaction during the event.

Participant 11’s experience illustrates this point when contrasted to Participant 7’s case. Participant 11 was passed over twice for promotion, despite having greater credentials than those who were promoted, because the leader found her sexually unappealing. According to Participant 11:

There were certain women the leader always flirted with and favored. They were always in his office, and they were privileged. They may have been attractive to him, but they had no education or qualifications, much like the leader, and they were given high-level positions because of their physical features. I had been

116

passed over once for promotion because the leader was not promoting people based on objective job descriptions and requirements. He did not find me sexually attractive because I was pregnant, and I confronted him about passing me over for promotion because I was pregnant and unappealing to him. He denied promoting women based on attractiveness but told me that I shouldn’t be promoted because I would be going on maternity leave soon, and that would be a waste of a promotion. When I returned from maternity leave, I was passed over a second time for promotion because the leader and his inner circle did not like the fact that I had a legal right to go to a private room and use a breast pump during the workday. I always took my work with me while I was pumping, but the leader and his inner circle accused me of being lazy and wasting time with the breast pump. I know the leader targeted me because he found me sexually unattractive since I was a nursing mother, even though he denied it (p. 5).

Participant 11’s case illustrates an instance of toxic discrimination based upon sexual unattractiveness and status as a parent. Noteworthy is the fact that the leader denied passing over Participant 11 for promotion based upon sexual attractiveness, but admitted to passing her over based upon her status in a protected class of employees. Participant

11 continued:

After I confronted the leader, he and his inner circle monitored me closely all day, every day. There was no escape and no peace of mind. They tried to find any reason they could to have me written up, but they couldn’t find one (p. 5).

The accounts of Participants 7 and 11 demonstrate that the toxicity inflicted upon employees who have physical features or qualities which are unappealing to a toxic leader may take the form of sexual or non-sexual qualities, but in the instances recounted in this study, the discriminatory toxicity the targeted employees are forced to endure is not based upon anything the employees had done or could control. Embedded in

Participant 11’s account is an allusion to the leader and his inner circle failing to possess the education and qualifications required for the positions they held. The issue of education, or lack thereof, is explored as a toxic trigger in the subsequent section of this

117

chapter, using Participant 4’s experiences of toxic targeting as a consequence of

educational pursuits.

Refusing to Cover up Wrong-Doing

When discussing toxic leaders’ wrong-doing, study participants tended to focus the discourse upon the issue of covering up and hiding wrong-doing. Participants were generally unwilling to disclose the exact nature of toxic leaders’ wrong-doing due to privacy concerns; yet, consistent in the accounts of wrong-doing study participants provided is the finding that toxic leaders and their organizations employed denial, lying, scheming and cover-up tactics upon discovery or exposure of the leaders’ wrong-doing by a third party. Furthermore, study participants reported being compelled to assist in the cover-up, or face the repercussions for telling the truth, both of which posed ethical dilemmas.

Participant 2 recounted the trigger event as an instance in which the leader explicitly told him to cover up organizational wrong-doing, which is illustrative of study participants’ sentiments. According to Participant 2:

There had been a number of instances of organizational and leader wrong-doing over a period of time which eventually came to the attention of the client organization. When the client’s representatives began questioning employees about the alleged wrong-doing, most of us told the truth, but that was apparently a mistake, at least for me. I was threatened with termination, demeaned and threatened that I would never amount to anything in the company, if I even had a job after telling the truth. The leader informed me never to tell the truth if it made the organization look bad and that he had ways of finding out who was telling the truth when questioned, who was undermining the organization’s standing by disclosing information about wrong-doing, and he said that those people would be dealt with. The leader continued to threaten and target me after that incident, told me that I could not be trusted and made life at work unbearable (p. 3).

Participant 2 was the only participant in this study who was explicitly told that he should cover up organizational wrong-doing and that he should lie when questioned about it.

118

Participant 2 expressed that this incident constitutes a question of ethics. The leader’s intent was clearly to instill fear in Participant 2 for having truthfully revealed wrong- doing when questioned, and Participant 2 found himself being threatened for following the organization’s code of ethics.

Pursuing Graduate School

Study participants cited level of education, and, in particular, the pursuit of graduate-level education as a contentious and threatening issue for toxic leaders. The interview data study participants provided pursuant to graduate school clusters around the issues of threat and jealousy. Study participants generally agreed that toxic leaders perceived employees with higher levels of completed education than those of the toxic leader, and employees in pursuit of levels of education higher than those of the toxic leader to constitute threats to the toxic leader’s status which must be eliminated.

Participant 4’s attribution of the pursuit of graduate education as the cause of her toxic targeting provides an illuminating example. Participant 4 recalled her plight in attempting to pursue graduate studies while suffering at the hands of a toxic leader who did not want her to achieve a higher level of education than he had earned:

I approached my leader about taking some time off to pursue graduate school, and he discouraged me in every way possible. He did not approve my time off, but I took the time off anyway because I had already registered for classes, and I was not going to miss classes I had paid for. He then accused me of not reporting for work, even though he knew where I was and knew that I had classes to attend. When I was back at work, he threatened me and told me that I should resign to avoid disciplinary actions, but I refused to resign. He told me that his supervisor wanted to speak to me and that I was going to have to explain myself for causing trouble. When I met with his supervisor, he was completely unaware of the situation, and once I explained that I was attending graduate school, his supervisor was happy for me and told me that he understood the situation. I did not get reprimanded, as the toxic leader had wished, and this made him even more angry and jealous. He would make snide comments to me about going to graduate

119

school and he continued to try to undermine me in every possible way, but I just kept going to school, and I knew I had the support of his supervisor (pp. 1-2).

Underpinning Participant 4’s account of the event containing the trigger which led to her leader targeting her with toxicity is her leader’s jealously, anger and attempts to undermine her to his supervisor. Rather than confront the leader directly, Participant 4 opted to take the time she needed to attend the classes for which she had registered, which triggered the toxic leader to attempt to have his supervisor discipline her. When this attempt failed and his supervisor supported her decision to continue her education, the toxic leader continued his toxic assaults on her.

Going to a Competitor to Ensure Employment

Study participants evidenced a tendency to describe the territorialism toxic leaders seek to establish through hegemonic control as having been undermined by employees who attempted to escape from the toxic leader by approaching a competitor organization to ensure employment in uncertain times. Study participants tended to discuss the notion of loyalty, and they generally noted that organizations and their leaders demand the loyalty of employees; yet, these same organizations and leaders hypocritically provide no loyalty to employees in times of uncertainty. Participants exemplified this phenomenon by citing actual or impending layoffs. Participant 2 provides a succinct summary of study participants’ collective views on the issues of loyalty, and on organizations’ control over employees in noting, “Most people can’t just quit a job if they don’t have another source of income. I think companies know this, so they know they can treat you however they please, and there is not much most people can do about it […]” (p. 7). Poor treatment of employees and the need for control over employees are themes captured in

Participant 10’s account of the fear her toxic leader induced during a period of

120

uncertainty, in order to demand employee loyalty while attempting to exert control over

employees and their decisions.

Participant 10 recalled a trigger incident occurring during a time when her firm

was competing for new business. The leader had drafted a memo to personnel which

indicated which employees were considered key personnel for this new business, and

Participant 10 noted that only members of the leader’s inner circle were on the list of key personnel, and that not all of the people on the list, members of the inner circle, were the best employees. According to Participant 10:

When it came time for the company to pursue new business, certain people in the leader’s inner circle were privileged and placed on a list of key personnel, but not everyone who was privileged was the most competent employee. The people who were not placed on the list of key personnel were essentially left to fend for themselves and were not guaranteed a job if the company won the new business. During the period of time the company was waiting to hear about the new business, the leader constantly stressed loyalty to the company and demanded that all employees show loyalty to the company, even those who were not on the list of key personnel. I think there was fear in the company that the employees would help the competitor win the new business because people had been treated very badly for a very long time by this leader and they were disgruntled. The leader used fear and intimidation to force employees to be loyal and threatened them with termination if he found out that they were not loyal. I knew that since I was not on the list of key personnel, I would need to find a new job, whether or not the company won the new business. When the competitor tried to recruit me to work for them in the event that they won the new business, I accepted the offer. Once the leader found out that I had accepted a contingent offer from the competitor because I had to feed my family and I was concerned that I would be unemployed, I was targeted. The leader spied on me every day and tried to intimidate me and threaten me with my job. He never ended up firing me, but he tried to make me fearful each and every day for months while we waited to hear who won the business. As it turned out, the competitor won the business, and I had a job. The people who had been loyal to the company and who were on the leader’s privileged list ended up not having a job because the company had demanded their loyalty, but it was not loyal to them. I went through some terrible months, but I ended up being the winner in the end (pp. 4-5).

Participant 10 was forced to choose between loyalty to a toxic leader with no guarantee of a job and the threat of termination, and a contingent offer from a competitor which

121

would equate to employment only if the competitor won the business. Participant 10

made the choice she believed was best for her and for her family, and she suffered toxic

targeting as a result after the leader discovered her “disloyalty.”

Continued Targeting

All study participants discussed their experiences of continued toxic targeting

following the initial triggering event. The events which constituted continued targeting

following the initial targeting trigger event clustered around seven thematic foci, and

study participants evidenced a propensity to characterize the seven thematic foci as

methods the toxic leader employed in order to target them. Participant 2’s comments

summarize this general trend among study participants: “There were clearly methods the

leader used against people he was targeting” (p. 2). The nine methods of targeting which

followed the initial triggering event include: (1) belittling, threatening, and devoicing, (2)

exhibiting jealousy, (3) exhibiting cronyism/favoritism or discrimination, (4) overtasking,

(5) displaying toxic tantrums, (6) micromanaging, and (7) stealing. The seven thematic

foci constituting methods of continued toxic targeting largely overlap with the thematic

foci study participants identified when discussing the features of a toxic workplace

environment, and those study participants associated with the initial triggering event.

Interview excerpts discussed in this section demonstrate study participants’ general

agreement that toxic leaders employed more than one targeting tactic simultaneously.

Study participants were repeatedly targeted for the same reason they cited in their descriptions of the initial toxic targeting trigger. All study participants reported the use of multiple methods in subsequent targeting, indicating that the toxic leader expanded his or her repertoire of targeting methods beyond the single method of initial targeting

122

employed during the event which constituted the trigger. The length of time between the

trigger and the prolonged period of targeting commenced for most study participants

immediately following the trigger event, but in all cases began within three days of the

initial trigger event. Each of the ten subcategories study participants identified in

discussing their prolonged periods of toxic targeting are addressed in turn.

Belittling, Threatening and Devoicing Study participants described toxic leaders utilizing belittling and demeaning comments as a method of continued toxic targeting which was frequently employed in conjunction with attempts to threaten and devoice them. Participants generally noted that the intent of this toxic technique was to instill a sense of worthlessness in the target.

Study participants demonstrated a propensity to discuss belittling as a technique occurring in the context of the toxic leader’s jealousy of the target for achievements, innovation and education, in an attempt to devalue those accomplishments. The following examples from study participants’ interviews illustrate the aforementioned general trends in that Participant 2 reported being repeatedly targeted with belittling and demeaning comments because of his education. In much the same way that Participant

4’s toxic leader attempted to prevent her from pursuing graduate school during the toxic targeting event reported in conjunction with that case, Participant 2, who already held a graduate degree, experienced toxic targeting aimed at devaluing his education and accomplishments. The following excerpts from study participants’ interviews illustrate the aforementioned general trends in the interview data. In the words of Participant 2:

One of the many toxic attacks the leader used against me involved constantly undercutting my education and accomplishments. The leader would make comments about how education is meaningless and how I would never amount to anything. Of course, he was looking for a reaction to these demeaning comments

123

and insults, but I didn’t give him one. He still kept attacking me and my education for years, but I tried to ignore him, even if it was hard to do (p. 3).

Participant 14 reported toxic targeting similar to Participant 2 in that the toxic leader targeted her education in an attempt to belittle her. However, in the case of Participant

14, the toxic leader added an additional element to his verbal belittling – he also assigned

Participant 14 menial tasks which were normally completed by employees with ranks well below that of Participant 14. As Participant 14 recalled:

I was assigned menial tasks like data entry and data scavenger hunts, which would consume hours of my day. I think he [the leader] intended to take time away from my work so that he could have an excuse to give me a poor performance review once my regular work began to suffer. He knew the extra tasks were below my level of education and my position in the company, and he demanded that I complete the tasks under strict, short deadlines. He continuously checked up on my progress every hour (p. 4).

In contrast to Participants 2 and 14, Participant 3 provided an example of belittling not associated with level of education; rather, this belittling occurred as a result of attempts to improve the organization. According to Participant 3:

There were so many things the leader did that just made no sense; there were so many inefficiencies and frustrations, but every time I tried to suggest something new in a meeting, he never wanted to hear it. I tried to implement some new ways of doing business and kept emphasizing how we needed to change how we worked, but he was very stubborn and closed-minded. He dismissed all of my ideas and called me and my ideas ‘stupid’ at staff meetings and in our interactions with each other in the office. He told me my ideas would never work and that I had no idea what I was talking about. Eventually, it came to a point where I was not allowed to speak at all in the meetings – he would simply not allow me to talk (pp. 2-3).

Participant 3’s case illustrates belittling in the forms of direct name-calling and demeaning of ideas. Yet, there exists a secondary element of targeting evidenced by this narrative excerpt – that of devoicing. This passage from Participant 3’s interview, is illustrative of the use of belittling and devoicing simultaneously and demonstrates the

124

interplay of multiple and simultaneously-employed methods of targeting toxic leaders employ.

Study participants generally agreed that a toxic leader’s use of threats constituted a defense mechanism for some threat the leader perceived, and they tended to discuss the deployment of threats as a form of abuse of power and as an attempt to gain control of the target, either on the part of the leader, the leader’s cronies, or both. Participant 2’s case illustrates the use of belittling commentary and threats as a targeting method and serves as an exemplar of the use of the use of threats as one of multiple targeting techniques simultaneously employed. In Participant 2’s case, the threats and belittling comments constituted a defense mechanism the leader employed because he perceived Participant

2’s intelligence and honesty to constitute threats to his reign. In addition to being belittled, Participant 2 was threatened for years, often in conjunction with belittling comments:

I had been threatened with termination many times for being ‘too smart’ or ‘to honest,’ both things the leader hated. I think he wanted to make me fearful to keep me quiet because I was never actually fired, but it was exhausting to have to face the demeaning and threatening comments every day. He also threatened to ruin my reputation, something he probably ended up accomplishing in those closed-door, back room meetings he always had with the big wigs in the firm. He wanted to make sure I knew that he disapproved of my education and my way of doing business because I refused to lie when something was wrong and I was asked about it – that is just who I am. I took years of abuse for being me (p. 4).

Participant 2’s account of the threats he received offer insight into a number of dimensions of targeting associated with the overarching threats of termination and discreditation. The leader targeted Participant 2 because he despised his education and ethical behavior, which implies that there may have been ethical lapses in the leader’s behavior. Threats to ruin Participant 2’s reputation were coupled with demeaning

125 comments and illustrate the multiple layers of targeting methods which may be employed in a single targeting event.

Unlike Participant 2, who was threatened for something based on his actions, ethical behavior, and accomplishments, Participant 11 was threatened with termination for something over which she had no control – the lies of one of the leader’s cronies. In the words of Participant 11:

The leader confronted me with an accusation that I had not completed my assignments on time because I had to go to a private room during the workday to pump breast milk. Of course, it was true that I was pumping [breast milk] at work, but this had been authorized, and there was a workstation in the room so that I could continue working while I pumped. All of my assignments were completed on time, and my customer was very pleased with my work, so I knew that the accusations had come from one of the leader’s cronies, a woman who hated me and who was able to control and manipulate the leader. I was targeted for months with these accusations, and the leader’s crony started spying on me and reporting to the leader the length of time I was spending pumping breast milk. I had countless encounters with the leader and the woman, and they both told me that I needed to stop pumping breast milk at work or be fired (p. 4).

Participant 11 was repeatedly targeted based upon false information provided to the leader by a member of his inner circle. It is noteworthy that the toxic triggering event in

Participant 11’s case is associated with the same incident for which she is later repeatedly targeted. A similar situation occurred in Participant 6’s case, in that he recalled being targeted repeatedly for the same reason that brought about the initial toxic targeting trigger. Specifically, Participant 6 recalled that the issue of working additional hours to complete the massive task the toxic leader had assigned to him remained a point of contention for a long time after the emergence of the toxic targeting trigger:

I wasn’t just targeted once for working additional hours, I was screamed at on a daily basis for working too many hours the day before to complete the work. This went on for months, and the screaming and fighting with the toxic leader would last sometimes upwards of two hours. To this day, I think those were the only two hours that guy worked in a given day; between his leaving early and sleeping

126

at his desk, I think he was awake and in the office just long enough to target me (pp. 4-5).

Noteworthy in the accounts reviewed in this section is the array of reasons for toxic targeting, and also, in the cases of Participants 6 and 11, the thematic overlap of the event associated with the initial toxic triggering event and subsequent episodes of targeting. In both of these instances, the participants were targeted repeatedly for the same reasons as the ones they associated with the initial trigger event.

Study participants identified devoicing as a dismissal of their thoughts and ideas, as well as rude interruptions from the leader while they spoke and associated this behavior with belittling, and, in some instances, threatening. Participants attributed these leader behaviors to attempts on the part of the leader to devalue them and their ideas and/or concerns, while demonstrating the leader’s omniscience and exercise of hegemonic control over them. Participant 3 recalled multiple occasions on which she was devoiced from the public discourses in staff meetings:

Compromise did not exist in staff meetings, and at every single meeting we had, I was interrupted, yelled at, or just not allowed to speak at all (p. 4).

Participant 14, herself a supervisor, recalled experiencing treatment similar to that reported by Participant 3. According to Participant 14:

He [the leader] dismissed my ideas in staff meetings in front of my employees. If I would try to speak, he would speak over me until I stopped talking. Anything I had to offer didn’t seem to matter, but if other people later presented an idea I had originally tried to talk about, the leader praised it (p. 5).

Participant 14’s experiences extend beyond interruptions when speaking and dismissal of ideas, to include blatant attempts to discredit her in front of her staff by praising her ideas only when they are presented by one of her subordinates.

127

In contrast to Participants 3 and 14, whose constructive ideas were dismissed,

Participant 15 reported having her concerns ignored and dismissed:

I had become aware of a potentially bad situation that was in the offing and decided to let him [the leader] know about it. He laughed at me, rolled his eyes, interrupted me when I was telling him about it and told me he didn’t care. The situation ended up happening, and it created problems for a lot of people; it all could have been avoided, but he [the leader] always thought he knew it all and would never listen to anyone outside his inner circle (p. 2).

Participant 15’s account highlights the difficulties in trying to interact with a toxic leader

as someone outside the privileged inner circle. By raising a concern and attempting to

prevent a problem, Participant 15 acted in good faith, but because she was devoiced as an

“outsider,” the leader would not entertain her concerns. This example of devoicing

differs from prior examples in that the devoicing occurred in a private meeting and was

geared toward making it clear to Participant 15 that her concerns were irrelevant.

Examined collectively, the examples of belittling, threatening and devoicing

reviewed here indicate a general unwillingness of toxic leaders to entertain opinions, ideas, suggestions or concerns from employees whom the leader does not value, and to use threats as a means to silence, belittle and control employees whom they perceive to threaten their status.

Exhibiting Jealousy

The astute reader might assume that jealousy would constitute a reason for

targeting an employee with toxicity, rather than a method of targeting; yet, study

participants displayed a propensity to characterize jealousy both as a reason and a method

for toxic targeting. As a reason for targeting, study participants agreed, jealousy takes the

form of a leader’s envy of a subordinate; the individual is targeted to demean or to belittle

him or her. As previously discussed, belittling often occurs as a result of jealousy. As a

128

method of targeting, study participants characterized jealousy as a means of instilling a

feeling of envy in targeted employees. The single most illustrative example of a leader

using jealousy as a targeting method was provided by Participant 13:

Even though he [the leader] never did any work and wouldn’t even check the work of the employees, he always took credit and praise for completed work. While he was coming in late, leaving early and taking extra unannounced days off, I was in the office working away. He was arrogant in accepting credit for my work, and it almost seemed like he was trying to make me jealous of him – jealous that he could do whatever he wanted and still take all of the credit for my work (p. 5).

The toxic leader attempted to incite jealousy in Participant 13 by arrogantly taking undue

credit for his work and for flaunting the fact that he could do anything he wanted, while

others had to complete all of the work, in which he should have been deeply engaged.

Exhibiting Cronyism/Favoritism or Discrimination

Cronyism, favoritism, and discrimination emerged in the data analysis as themes

which operate in tandem with one another. As previously discussed at length, cronyism

generally refers to the privileging of certain people who are, for many possible reasons, closely aligned with the leader as a member of his or her inner circle. As a result, cronies of a leader are favored over and above anyone who is not a member of the leader’s inner circle. Study participants identified cronyism as a method of toxic targeting in as much as employees who are not cronies of the leader are subjected to the leader’s toxic environment and the direct targeting of the leader and of his or her cronies. The leader’s unquestioning belief of information and assessments provided by cronies sets the stage for favored members of the inner circle to manipulate the leader with false information to target certain employees. Alternatively, the leader may use cronyism to target certain employees by excluding them from the inner circle and isolating them to make them

129

targets of other types of toxic attacks. Cronyism, then, is a method of both direct and

indirect targeting toxic leaders and their cronies employ. Study participants tended to

focus in their interviews upon the idea that once an employee is favored as a member of

the inner circle, he or she (the crony) may become an agent of the leader and assist the

leader in his or her targeting of a particular employee, or the crony may target employees

with the support of the leader. Study participants also demonstrated a tendency to

associate cronyism and favoritism with unfair promotions or denial of promotion and the

notion of groupthink. Participant 5 recalled the role of cronyism in preventing her from

receiving a promotion:

I knew what the required qualifications for the position I should have been promoted to were, and I knew I exceeded those requirements. I had an excellent track record of high-quality work, and my customer had nothing but compliments for me. I had also already been doing the job to which I wanted to be officially promoted, because I wanted the salary I should have been getting all along. Rather than promote me, the leader hired several of his buddies to fill the senior positions that were available. These people had no experience doing this particular job, and they refused to listen to anyone who tried to train them once they arrived. They were paid very high salaries and were allowed to push all their work off on other people and to take positions away from people who earned them and had better qualifications than they did. The leader also favored women he found sexually attractive, and he gave them bonuses and high salaries because they flirted with him. Basically, if you were not an old friend of the leader or a woman he found attractive, you were not going to get promoted, even if you had to do all the work they refused to do (pp. 4-5).

Participant 15’s account of the leader’s denial of promotion to anyone other than his friends and women he found sexually attractive echoes Participant 9’s experience when she was initially denied promotion for being over-qualified and sexually undesirable to the leader:

I had been passed over for promotion more than once because only certain people were allowed to fill the senior positions. The leader valued men and women who had no qualification because he did not feel threatened by them, and he definitely favored attractive women. He promoted incompetent, lazy people based on these

130

criteria, and he denied hard-working people the chance to move up. He also valued women he found attractive and who would purposefully try to sexually entice him. Our client organization had become aware of this wrong-doing and asked that certain people be promoted on the basis of their qualifications and work, and this made the leader very angry. He felt like he had to promote me, and he hated me for it (p. 3).

Finally, Participant 7 offers an account of cronyism in which, unlike the accounts of

Participants 5 and 9, in which certain competent people were denied promotion, competent people are removed from positions and replaced by incompetent cronies. As

Participant 7 explained:

She [the leader] would take people who were very competent and doing very well in their jobs and just one day replace them with incompetent, toxic favorites she had. She couldn’t stand anyone who was competent and did not think like she did. She needed to have only people she believed were like her in certain positions. If you didn’t fit her mold, you were out (p. 4).

Participant 7’s identification of the requirement to “fit a certain mold” as a key component of cronyism and favoritism is important because it demonstrates that the extent to which individuals conform to the leader’s image of what is worthy of praise and promotion determined the positions they are permitted to hold. Participant 7 also points out that toxic leaders who promote cronyism do so because they need to be surrounded by people they consider to be, act and think as they do. Cronyism enables the toxic leader to promote a form of groupthink in which members of the inner circle are so chosen because of their capacity to conform to the image or desires of the leader, and because they offer nothing critical or counter to the leader’s views. Cronyism and favoritism, as described in the accounts reviewed here, may be considered a form of discrimination. Within the context of this study, however, the category of discrimination, to which attention is now turned, is distinguished from cronyism and favoritism by the leader’s intent to discriminate based upon objective criteria such as race, creed, gender,

131

and so on. Favoritism and cronyism, on the other hand, emerged in this study as terms

which describe the leader’s act of favoring one or more people on the basis of subjective

criteria, such as appearance, dress and sexual attractiveness.

Within the context of this study, participants tended to characterize discrimination

as a method of toxic targeting characterized by negative or hostile treatment of certain

employees based upon objective criteria such as race, religion, creed and gender.

Participant 14 recounted her experiences of discriminatory treatment based upon race and

gender:

If I had been a white man, I would have been listened to and respected. He [the leader] refused to believe that I had a graduate degree and requested a background investigation to verify the credentials I claimed to have. It was an old boys’ club of white men who couldn’t stand anyone unlike them. He constantly dismissed my ideas and discredited me (p. 5).

Participant 13 recalled discriminatory experiences similar to those of Participant 14, but

unlike in Participant 14’s case, Participant 13 was not discriminated against on the basis

of his education; rather, Participant 13 was required to agree with discriminatory rhetoric

spewed from the toxic leader:

Whenever he [the leader] was at work, he would stand around and complain about anyone who was not a white, heterosexual man. He said terrible things and forced everyone to listen and agree with his radical, right-wing, discriminatory views. Anyone who did not agree with his discrimination was a hated target. He already hated me because I had more education and qualifications than he had, but having to sit in silence and listen to him was torture – it was probably a good thing that he rarely came to work (p. 4).

Participant 13’s case is unique in that he was not directly the target of the toxic leader’s discrimination, but he and other employees were forced to endure the discriminatory rhetoric, and any employees whose views or lives did not correspond exactly to those he deemed acceptable were specifically indicted with the leader’s rhetoric.

132

A final example illustrating discrimination may be found by re-visiting Participant

11’s status as a nursing mother, which was previously described in detail. Participant 11 was discriminatorily passed over for promotion when the toxic leader cited her status as a mother as grounds for denial of promotion. Examined in aggregate, the cases of discrimination and cronyism/favoritism reviewed in this section evidence a disproportionate emphasis on discrimination against women by male toxic leaders, an issue which raises the question of gender and its role in leader toxicity and toxic targeting, and which constitutes a topic that will be discussed in detail in a subsequent section.

Overtasking

Overtasking, a situation in which the leader purposefully assigns a particular employee an inordinate quantity of work, while allowing other employees to flounder with little to do, emerged in the data as a method of toxic targeting. The scenarios of overtasking study participants discussed tended to thematize the need to work long hours to complete the work associated with the overtasking and the assigning of a large number of time-consuming menial tasks. Participant 6 recollected his experiences of a paradox of overtasking, consisting of an unreasonably large workload and constant criticisms for working the long hours required to complete the work:

133

and he would call me in to the office at least once a day to yell at me for anything and everything (p. 5).

Participant 6’s experiences highlight two important elements of toxic targeting generally

found in study participants’ interviews: (1) the use of multiple targeting methods in a

single targeting event, and (2) the extent to which study participants were unable to

positively resolve the situation in which they found themselves. The paradoxical nature

of Participant 6’s interactions with the toxic leader during the aforementioned scenario

illustrate this point. Participant 6 had been overtasked and told to “do whatever it takes”

to get the work finished. In carrying out this order, Participant 6 worked additional

hours, but in a paradoxical twist, the toxic leader attacked Participant 6 for working the

additional hours required to complete the work with which he was overtasked.

Participant 14 provides a scenario which is illustrative of overtasking by means of

excessive menial tasks. As Participant 14 recollected:

The toxic leader overtasked Participant 14 with menial tasks as a way to punish her for requesting assistance in dealing with some employee concerns so that her regular duties would suffer as a result of the short deadlines placed on the menial tasks. Whereas

Participant 6 was not initially targeted with overtasking as a form of punishment, he became caught in a paradox of toxicity caused by the polarity created when he worked additional hours in an attempt to complete the work assigned in the overtasking;

134

Participant 14, on the other hand, was targeted with overtasking as a direct form of

punishment for bothering the toxic leader with employee concerns.

Displaying Toxic Tantrums

Study participants characterized toxic tantrums as toxic leaders’ reactions to

frustrations brought about by employees. Participants demonstrated general agreement in

their interviews that toxic tantrums constituted immature fits of rage induced by failure of

a toxic leader to effectively and professionally handle adverse situations or employee

concerns or criticisms. Study participants demonstrated an inclination to highlight the ineptitudes and laziness toxic leaders displayed, as well as the leaders’ fears of exposure of these two characteristics, as core causes of toxic tantrums. The toxic tantrums were used as a means of threatening employees and instilling in them a sense of fear.

Participant 6’s scenario is illustrative of a toxic leader’s use of a toxic tantrum when confronted with an employee pointing out the leader’s own contradictions in policy. The paradoxical overtasking situation with which Participant 6 was forced to contend escalated to its zenith of toxicity when Participant 6 pointed out to the toxic leader the paradox into which the toxic leader had placed him. Participant 6 recalled attempting to create a logical argument during one of his many encounters with the toxic leader by calling the leader’s attention to the contradictions underpinning the demand for completion of the excessive workload and the demand for completing the work within normal business hours. When Participant 6 drew the leader’s attention to the leader’s own contradictions and paradox, the leader reacted with a toxic tantrum. In Participant

6’s words:

The toxic leader criticized me for working too many hours, even though he was the one who assigned me more tasks than anyone else in the office and fully

135

anticipated that I would need to work extra hours to complete the work. He called me into the office and berated me for working too many hours, and I replied that he had assigned me more work than anyone else in the office, so I had to work extra hours to complete the task. Essentially, he had caused me to work extra hours. The moment I made this argument, he lunged out of his chair, pointed his finger at me and screamed that I better never question his authority ever again. After that he monitored me every day, wanted to know where I was at all times, and he would call me in to the office at least once a day to yell at me for anything and everything (p. 5).

Characterized by a toxic mix of juvenile behavior reminiscent of a child who could not have his own way, and a parent scolding a child for bad behavior, the toxic tantrum

Participant 6 recalled draws attention to fact that the toxic leader, on some level, must have known that he had been caught in his own paradox and that the logical argument

Participant 6 presented served to deconstruct the leader’s paradox and contradictions.

Unable to handle such a deconstruction, the leader resorted to throwing a temper tantrum and threatening Participant 6, while demanding that he not question authority.

Participant 13 experienced a toxic tantrum similar to the one Participant 6 recounted. In the instance of Participant 13, the toxic tantrum was brought about when

Participant 13 requested the toxic leader’s assistance in replying to questions from the client. Although the leader was technically responsible for handling client questions, because the leader was lazy, incompetent, arrogant, and rarely at work, Participant 13 was forced to complete the work of the leader. As Participant 13 described, his request for assistance ignited the toxic tantrum:

Even though he told me not to care, I did care, so I asked him to help me reply to some questions our client had sent us regarding our previously submitted work, and he flew into a rage. He started screaming at me that I should ignore the client and then he started kicking his desk while he was screaming. He screamed that he did not care, and neither should I (p. 4).

136

Participant 13’s description of the toxic tantrum, like the one Participant 6 described,

evidences childish behavior, such as kicking the desk and screaming. Such behavior

reveals a high degree of frustration on the part of the leader, likely caused by the apparent

threat of having to do work which may expose the leader’s ineptitude. Yet Participant

13’s leader, much like Participant 6’s leader, was unable to act rationally and intelligently

when confronted with adversity.

Inept at dealing with complex situations, too lazy to handle large workloads and situations which require careful thought and hard work, these toxic leaders became frustrated and threw temper tantrums directed towards their employees, sometimes for

following the very orders the toxic leader issued. While some toxic leaders throw raging

temper tantrums, other toxic leaders take a less explosive approach to dealing with

employees. One example of a more subdued approach to targeting employees is the use

of micromanagement, which is examined in the next section.

Micromanaging

Micromanagement, defined by study participants as the close monitoring of an employee’s activities or whereabouts, or the close inspection of an employee’s work, constitutes a means of exerting control over employees. Study participants broadly evidenced a tendency to characterize micromanagement as a technique of toxic targeting used in conjunction with other targeting techniques and to associate it with a toxic leader’s need for control, undue exertion of power, and a means by which to exert pressure upon a targeted employee. Participant 14 reported experiencing micromanagement as a targeting method within the context of overtasking of menial assignments. As previously discussed, Participant 14 was overtasked as punishment for

137 requesting assistance in dealing with employee concerns, and the toxic leader constantly followed up on her progress with those menial tasks throughout her workday:

The use of micromanagement in this instance serves as a targeting method by increasing the pressure on the targeted individual. By increasing Participant 14’s workload and constantly following up on her progress throughout her workday, the toxic leader used micromanagement as a targeting technique in conjunction with overtasking to apply additional pressure to Participant 14 and make her overtly aware of the fact that he was watching her every day.

Participant 6 reported micromanagement in the form of the leader’s demands to know his whereabouts at all times. In the case of Participant 6, the leader utilized micromanagement in conjunction with, and following a toxic tantrum. As Participant 6 recalled:

After that [the toxic tantrum] he monitored me every day, wanted to know where I was at all times, and he would call me in to the office at least once a day to yell at me for anything and everything (p. 4).

Participant 6 was targeted with micromanagement following his experience of the toxic tantrum, in much the same way as Participant 14 reported the use of micromanagement as a targeting method following overtasking with menial assignments. Examined in aggregate, these two examples of the use of micromanagement as a toxic targeting method seem to indicate the use of micromanagement as a follow-up method of toxic

138 targeting which comes after the use of some other form of toxic targeting. Indeed, no study participants reported having experienced micromanagement without first having experienced some other form of toxic targeting.

Stealing

The final category of toxic targeting methods distilled from the interview data obtained in this study is that of theft from employees, in which study participants reported the toxic leader’s theft of their money, food or personal effects. Participant 6 provides an example that captures the essence of illicit toxic leader theft. Participant 6 recounted an incident in which the toxic leader “skimmed money off the top” of employee bonus gift cards. Participant 6 recalled in detail the difficulties he had in attempting to determine what had happened to his, and other employees’ bonus gift cards, as well as the unwillingness of the organization to believe him, assist him with his investigation, or to believe that the toxic leader had stolen money from employees.

According to Participant 6:

The company gave a number of employees bonus gift cards around the holiday season as a thank your for outstanding performance, but the gift cards were taxed as income. When I reviewed my pay statement for that pay period, I noticed that the figures seemed to be wrong on my statement because I had received only half of the amount for which I had been taxed. When I called the payroll office to tell about what I thought was a mistake, the office confirmed that all employees who had received bonuses had received the same amount, and that it was the amount indicated on my statement. I followed up with my co-workers who had received bonuses, and they had not checked their statements, but when they did, they discovered the same problem I had found. I called the payroll office a second time and asked how the gift cards had been distributed, and the payroll office indicated that they had been given to managers to distribute to employees. I confronted my manager about the problem, and so did some of my co-workers, but he denied everything. I reported the incident, but the payroll office manager insisted that it was not his mistake and that my manager would never have stolen from employees. The case was closed and I paid taxes on money my manager pocketed (pp. 5-6).

139

Participant 6’s experience of theft of his bonus gift cards demonstrates the rapidity with

which toxic leadership can enter the realm of illicit activity. Participant 6 additionally

mentioned in the interview that he believed that he and the other targeted employees were

being targeted with the theft because the toxic leader was jealous that they had earned the

respect of the client organizations for which they worked.

Reasons for Targeting Specific Employees

While discussing their experiences of toxic targeting, study participants

mentioned specific reasons they believed constituted the reasons the toxic leader had

targeted them. All study participants identified the theme of threat as the reason they

believed they had been targeted. The issue of toxic leaders’ need to eliminate perceived

threats has been previously discussed in this chapter, and it is to this central theme that

study participants turned their attention when discussing the reasons they believed they

had been targeted with toxicity. Study participants discussed at length the threat they

believed the toxic leader perceived in them, and which he or she sought to eliminate

through targeting. All study participants elaborated upon the theme of elimination of

threats when discussing their experiences of toxic targeting. The threats study

participants identified clustered around four thematic foci: jealousy, cronyism, raising

concerns to or about the leader, and gender and generational issues, each of which is now

examined in detail.

Jealousy

Study participants tended to point to the specific context of the situation with which they were faced as the key to determining if jealousy constituted a method of toxic targeting or a reason for toxic targeting. In instances where the toxic leader displayed

140 jealousy of employees, study participants identified jealousy as a reason for toxic targeting, which was carried out using a variety of techniques. In other instances, study participants viewed jealousy as a method of toxic targeting in that the toxic leader sought to make employees jealous of him or her as a means of demonstrating superiority.

Participant 6’s account of the theft he and other employees experienced and the associated jealousy of the toxic leader provides an instructive example of the ways in which methods and reasons for toxic targeting overlap and operate in tandem within an organizational context of toxicity. The toxic leader’s jealousy of employees who had received praise and earned the respect of the client organization, and who, consequently, received bonus gift cards from their organization, were targeted with theft of some of their bonus money because the toxic leader was unable to accept the fact that employees were being recognized when he was not.

Similarly, Participant 8 identified jealousy as a reason for the toxic targeting because she had received a prestigious award. According to Participant 8:

I had received a very prestigious award from a client organization my firm worked with, and I’m sure that that recognition had something to do with the incident of childish rage I experienced when I approached the leader with my ideas about how to make the software program better (p. 4).

In much the same way as jealousy set the stage for the theft of Participant 6’s bonus gift cards, jealousy provided the reason for Participant 8’s experience of a toxic tantrum.

Participants 13 and 14 attributed one reason for their experiences of toxic targeting to the leader’s jealousy of their level of education. Participant 13 believed that the leader was jealous of the fact that he was younger than the leader and had more education and qualifications than did the leader. Recalled Participant 13:

141

The leader used to make snide comments to me about my level of education in attempts to belittle it and me. He wanted to make sure that I knew that he was in charge, even though I was more qualified and he never did a thing at work, if he even showed up at all. He was probably jealous of me for some reason (p. 5).

Yet, in an ironic twist, Participant 13 stated during the interview that while he believed the leader was jealous of him, the leader also tried to make Participant 13 jealous of him as a means of targeting him. Thus, in this instance, jealousy constituted both the reason for the targeting and also a method of targeting. As Participant 13 recalled:

Participant 14, like Participant 13, believed that one reason she had been targeted by the toxic leader was because of her level of education, although, as mentioned previously, the jealousy is mixed with racism and sexism:

The case of Participant 14 is unique in that jealousy was the primary characteristic identified as a reason for toxic targeting, although racism and sexism may also have constituted reasons for targeting. Yet, in Participant 14’s interview, she identified racism and sexism as methods of toxic targeting because they constituted ways of isolating her, separating her from others and making her an outsider. As forms of discrimination, sexism and racism may be employed as methods of targeting, or they may constitute

142

reasons for targeting, but because Participant 14 characterized racism and sexism as

methods, rather than as reasons for targeting, they are categorized accordingly in this

study. As previously discussed in the context of toxic targeting methods, jealousy may

constitute both a method of and a reason for toxic targeting, but as the data from this

study illustrate, the particular context in which the jealousy surfaces with a toxic leader

determines whether it is a method, a reason, or, as with Participant 13, both. Issues

related to age, gender and sexism are discussed in detail in a subsequent section.

Exhibiting Cronyism

As was the case with jealousy, study participants demonstrated agreement that

cronyism may constitute a method of toxic targeting, a reason for toxic targeting, or both,

depending upon the specific context of the incident a particular study participant

described. A review of two examples from study participants succinctly illustrates this point. Recall, for example, Participant 5’s account of being passed over for promotion:

This scenario may be explained in terms of cronyism as a method of toxic targeting, but also as a reason for toxic targeting. On the one hand, Participant 5 was not promoted

143 because she was not a member of the leader’s inner circle of cronies; on the other hand, the toxic leader utilized cronyism as a method of isolating Participant 5 by automatically removing her from consideration for promotion. The dual characteristics of cronyism as a method of and reason for targeting evidenced in this example illustrate the general trend among study participants to highlight the importance of situational context when determining whether a particular element of toxic leadership constitutes a method of or reason for targeting.

Similarly, Participant 9’s incident, in which she was targeted directly by one of the leader’s cronies, and as a result of lies passed to the leader by one of his cronies illustrates the way in which cronyism is both a method of and reason for toxic targeting.

Recall Participant 9’s incident:

Participant 9 was targeted as result of cronyism in that the leader believed the lies of a member of his inner circle; on the other hand, Participant 9 was targeted through cronyism in that cronyism prevented the leader from believing her side of the story.

144

Raising Concern to or about the Leader

Study participants tended to cite the term trouble maker in their interviews to

describe toxic leaders’ perceptions of employees who raised concerns to or about the

leader. Within the context of situations participants in this study experienced, raising

concerns to or about the leader constitutes “making trouble” because concerns are being

raised which either (1) expose the toxic leader’s wrong-doing, or (2) make work for the toxic leader, who would need to address the concerns raised.

In the case of Participant 8, raising concern about a computer software program which the leader had unilaterally selected for implementation in the company resulted in the eruption of a toxic tantrum because the leader refused to admit that he could have been wrong in his selection and that he had not taken into account the needs of employees when making the decision. Participant 8 recalled:

I approached my leader and offered feedback on the new software program, and I told him that employees were experiencing additional work, re-work and other problems as a result of the program. I felt comfortable offering suggestions because I had done so in the past and never suffered adverse consequences, although I was aware that other employees had. I suggested a number of ways in which these issues could be resolved by using a different computer program, other than the one the organization had just bought. The leader was furious with me; he slammed the keyboard of his computer down and started verbally berating me for raising these concerns and offering solutions. I felt very threatened, so I contacted the HR Department and requested a meeting with the leader and the HR representative. The meeting turned into a session in which both my leader and the HR representative berated me and attempted to tell me that I must have problems in my personal life and that those problems were causing me to act out in the workplace. HR completely supported the toxic leader, and there was nothing going on in my personal life that impacted my job (pp. 3-4).

Participant 8 raised concerns which would have forced the leader to consider the needs of employees, to admit an error in judgment and to perform extra work in the form of

145

research to re-consider his selection. Clearly, the leader was unwilling to perform any of these.

Participant 15 reported a scenario similar to that of Participant 8 in that she raised a concern to the toxic leader, only to discover that the leader had no desire to listen to or handle her concern. Participant 15 recalled:

Participant 15 was ignored when she raised a concern so that the leader could address the

issue before it became a problem, but rather than creating work for himself and acting

with the information Participant 15 provided, the leader did nothing, ignored the concern

and left the employees to deal with the problem once it occurred.

Finally, Participant 12, in the context of raising concerns to senior leadership

about a particular toxic leader who refused to follow organizational protocols, discovered

that senior leaders supported toxicity:

In this instance, Participant 12 discovered that senior leaders had aligned themselves with

the toxic leader such that they identified for him the person who had filed a complaint

against him so that he could handle the trouble maker. Participant 12’s experience

transcends those of Participants 8 and 15 in that, by raising concerns first to the leader,

146 and then to the leader’s superiors, Participant 12 was explicitly identified as a trouble maker who needed to be brought under control. Unlike Participant 8 and 15, who raised concerns only to the toxic leader, Participant 12 raised concerns to superiors about the toxic leader and suffered toxic targeting as a result.

Gender and Generational Issues

Study participants were all specifically asked during their personal interviews whether they believed gender or generation/age played a role in their experiences of toxic leader targeting in the workplace. All of the male study participants cited age and/or generation as a factor in their having been the victims of toxic targeting, and all of the male study participants had older men at least one generation older than they, as their leader in the workplace. The responses of female study participants were more varied than those of male participants, but female participant responses generally clustered around two thematic foci: gender discrimination and age discrimination. The tendency among female participants who had male leaders was to cite both age and gender discrimination; for those female participants who had female leaders, age discrimination was cited. Asked why they believed generation and/or age played a role in their experiences of toxic leadership and toxic targeting, the men responded that they believed their leaders viewed them as inexperienced and easy to manipulate. Participant 2 succinctly captures the essence of the men’s impressions of the role generation played in their experiences of toxic leadership and toxic targeting:

He [the toxic leader] thought I was stupid and inexperienced just because I was young. I would say there was at least a generation between us, and he would try to intimidate me and other people because he thought he could get away with it. Basically, if you weren’t at least 50 years old, he didn’t like you, didn’t respect you and targeted you (p. 5).

147

Unlike the male participants, who did not cite gender as a reason for their toxic targeting, the commentary from female study participants was much more mixed. One female participant believed she was targeted because she was a generation younger than her male leader, but did not believe her targeting was the result of gender discrimination. Another female participant cited gender discrimination as a reason for her toxic targeting, but did not believe generation played a role, despite being a generation younger than her male leader. 7 female study participants believed that they were at least partially targeted because of gender and generation by older male leaders. Participant 3 comments on the age and gender discrimination she experienced:

I felt very uncomfortable as a woman, because I know he [the toxic leader] only ever listened to men – white men his own age, actually. So the fact that I was a younger woman really set him over the edge, and he hated me for it (p. 4).

Participant 3’s comments echo those of Participant 14, who also identified generation and gender as some of the reasons for the toxic targeting she experienced:

Participant 14 points to the existence of an old boys’ club in her former organization, the members of which discriminated against anyone who is not an old, white man. The old boys’ club to which Participant 14 makes reference could be characterized as a form of cronyism and is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Finally, one female study participant believed she was targeted by an older female leader for being a younger woman. Participant 7 expressed being targeted because of her age:

148

Participant 7 believes that her youth may have exposed her to continued toxic targeting because she was a young and easy target for the toxic female leader.

The cases of gender and generational discrimination reviewed in this section illustrate the use of these factors to justify toxic targeting. Noteworthy is the finding that all 4 male study participants believed they were targeted by older male leaders because of their generation, but not because of gender. Female study participants, on the other hand, presented varied responses regarding the extent to which they believed they were targeted as a result of gender and/or age.

Turnover Decisions

Study participants all linked their initial thoughts of resigning from their respective organizations to escape the toxic leader to the initial trigger event they experienced. In most instances, however, participants were unable to immediately resign from their positions, which resulted in an extended period of time during which the toxic leader continually targeted them with toxic behaviors. For most study participants, who were unable to immediately resign from their positions, the extended period of toxic leader targeting constituted a time during which they were searching for jobs that would enable them to resign. Study participants discussed their decisions to resign in terms of a process which began with the trigger event and ended with their eventual turnover, many of them lamenting the extended period of time they suffered under the toxic leader while conceptualizing a plan for departure. The interview data relevant to this process clustered

149 around three components of the process: (1) the unsuccessful handling of toxic targeting from the time of the initial trigger onward, (2) the length of time it took study participants to make a final decision to resign, and (3) the reasons for the length of time it took study participants to resign. These three components of the turnover decision process are discussed in turn.

Unsuccessful Handling of Toxic Targeting

Study participants all reported having been positioned in a no-win situation with the toxic leader from the time of the initial trigger event, and it was this unsuccessful handling of the initial trigger event which caused them to immediately begin formulating a strategy to resign from their positions. Interview data obtained from study participants indicate that all study participants determined at the time they experienced the first critical incident which contained the toxic targeting trigger, that they were in an impossible situation with the toxic leader, and recognizing this situation, all study participants reported beginning to conceptualize a plan to leave the toxic leader immediately following the first critical incident. All study participants reported that the first critical incident, which contained the toxic targeting trigger, constituted the first instance in which study participants were faced with an attack from the leader. Most participants faced toxic targeting at work and a grueling job search at night, and some participants faced this alternation for a period of several years.

Study participants employed a variety of approaches in attempting to handle the toxic leader and the toxic targeting they experienced, beginning with the initial critical incident. The approaches study participants employed cluster around nine different combinations of methods for attempting to handle the initial trigger event and subsequent

150

toxic targeting. The nine approaches study participants mentioned employing are

described by the following subcategories: (1) confronted the leader once following the

initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances, (2) confronted

the leader twice following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent

targeting instances, (3) confronted the leader’s supervisor once following the initial

trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances, (4) confronted the

leader’s supervisor twice following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after

subsequent targeting instances, (5) consulted the Human Resources Department once

following the initial trigger event, then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances,

(6) consulted the Human Resources Department twice following the initial trigger event,

then did nothing after subsequent targeting instances, (7) confronted the leader once

following the initial trigger event, then consulted the Human Resources Department after

subsequent targeting instances, (8) confronted the leader once following the initial trigger

event, then confronted the leader’s supervisor once concerning the initial trigger event,

then did nothing after subsequent instances of targeting, and (9) did nothing following the

initial trigger event, and did nothing after subsequent instances of targeting. Each of

these approaches is subsequently discussed utilizing data from study participants’

interviews.

Confronted the Leader, Then Did Nothing

Study participants who reported confronting the toxic leader at the time of the first critical incident and then doing nothing following subsequent toxic targeting incidents indicated that they realized from the outset the futility of attempting to change the toxic leader’s behaviors. Participant 9 recalled that her attempts to provide accurate

151 information to the toxic leader at the time he confronted her with accusations against her based upon lies from a member of his inner circle yielded no change in behavior:

He [the leader] told me that he did not believe me and said that the accusations that I had attempted to undermine the woman who had lied about me to him were a serious offense. After nearly a half hour of trying to convince him that I was telling the truth, I gave up. He would not listen to me or believe me, and threatened me with my job. I realized I just had to accept the abuse and try to get out (p. 5).

Participant 11 reported a situation which, in some ways, echoes that of Participant 9.

Like Participant 9, Participant 11 recounted an instance illustrative of the toxic leader’s refusal to change his behavior. According to Participant 9:

After I came back from maternity leave, I was given a poor performance appraisal, and I confronted the leader. He told me that because I had not been working because I had been on maternity leave, he could not give me a good performance review. I protested and argued that this was unfair, but he told me that I would accept whatever he said was fair, or else. We argued back and forth, but he knew he had all the power and that I couldn’t do anything about it. The entire organization was corrupt and full of bad leaders, so going for help elsewhere was also useless (pp. 5-6).

Participant 11’s recognition that she had no recourse available to her to report the toxic leader indicates her awareness of the abuses her organization’s senior leaders tolerated.

This awareness, coupled with the impossibility of convincing the leader that maternity leave did not constitute a valid reason for a poor performance appraisal, caused her to give up trying to further push the issue. Participant 11 continued:

I knew a lot of employees in the company who had seen and been victims of a lot of wrong-doing on the part of leaders, but complaining just got people fired because the corruption and cover-up culture was everywhere. There was no point in fighting the issue further, and I already had a target on my back, so I just wanted to get out (p. 6).

Noteworthy is Participant 11’s recognition that a company culture of corruption and cover-ups does not encourage employees to report discrimination. This scenario provides

152

an excellent example of the role of the broader company culture in enabling, promoting

and encouraging toxicity and wrong-doing. Participants 9 and 11 present different

scenarios which illustrate a broader trend – employees who are in any way aware of their organization’s culture and the impossibility of negotiating a positive outcome to a toxic situation may simply cease attempts at resolution and accept their plight while searching for a permanent exit.

Confronted the Leader’s Supervisor, Then Did Nothing

Study participants who confronted their leader’s supervisor with their concerns about the toxic leader consistently reported the futility of the attempt, which caused them to subsequently do nothing to attempt to neutralize the toxic leader’s impact. Participants mentioned the supervisor’s unwavering support, defense and protection of the toxic leader, as well as an unwillingness to hear or to address the concerns as occurrences during their attempts to speak to the toxic leader’s supervisor. The term dismissive constitutes a theme around which participants’ descriptions of their interactions with a toxic leader’s supervisor clustered. Participant 2 attempted to handle a toxic leader’s targeting by confronting the leader’s supervisor with her concerns. Participant 2 recalled an incident in which organizational wrong-doing had been recognized by a third party, and Participant 2 was one of several employees who were asked what they knew about the incidents of wrong-doing. Participant 2 told the truth about what he knew, and, in so doing, became a target of the toxic leader. Participant 2 recognized that it was impossible to reason with the toxic leader, so he took his concerns to the leader’s supervisor:

The [leader’s supervisor] was unsupportive and supported the toxic leader’s wrong-doing. He said he expected employees to protect the company and its leaders at all costs, even if it involved lying. He later told the toxic leader that I

153

had come to him with my concerns so that the toxic leader could deal with me. At that point, there was no use trying to do anything except find a new job (p. 5).

Participant 2’s account highlights an unwillingness of organizational leaders to address

concerns and wrong-doing and emphasizes their willingness to protect the company and

those in power at all costs. This rhetoric signaled to Participant 2 that she would not

obtain the support she desired from the leader’s supervisor, which, in turn, caused

Participant 2 to initiate a job search.

Participant 3 recalled her attempts to speak to her leader’s supervisor about the

toxic treatment she received in staff meetings and the constant dismissal of her work and

ideas. According to Participant 3:

I was tired of being treated badly, dismissed, abused, yelled at and undermined for my hard work. The leader never even let me speak, so trying to talk to him was pointless. I decided to speak to his boss and was surprised to find out that his boss knew what was going on; he told me that [the toxic leader] was in charge and if I didn’t like that, I could find a new job. The toxic leader’s supervisor found nothing wrong with what had been happening. I knew then I really needed a new job (p. 6).

Participants 2 and 3 both found that confronting a toxic leader’s supervisor served no

purpose in bringing about closure to toxic behaviors and toxic targeting. Rather than assisting employees who came to them for assistance, the toxic leaders’ supervisors in these instances supported the toxic leader and condoned toxic behavior, effectively placing the wrong-doing on the employees for raising concerns and seeking resolution.

Consulted the Human Resources Department, Then Did Nothing

Study participants who consulted human resource personnel regarding their toxic leaders expressed an initial sense of optimism before meeting with human resource personnel; however, participants all indicated that the sense of optimism quickly faded

154 into disbelief and disappointment as they discovered that their respective Human

Resource Departments clearly intended to support and defend the toxic leader, rather than acting as a neutral third party to assist in achieving a resolution to the concerns.

Furthermore, study participants demonstrated a proclivity to express that human resource personnel blamed them, the victims, for causing the toxic leader to act out against them.

Study participants all cited the total failure of human resource practitioners to assist in any meaningful way or to maintain objectivity during the meetings. Participant 8’s account of her attempts to work with human resources personnel to orchestrate an intervention with her leader following his threatening toxic tantrum constitutes the sine qua non of human resources personnel’s failure to serve as an objective third party in an interventionist session. As Participant 8 explained, she contacted the Human Resources

Department following what she described as a threatening and violent toxic temper tantrum with the expectation that a third party would be able to assist in resolving the problem and would reprimand the leader for his inappropriate and threatening behavior.

The intervention, however, quickly transformed into a unilateral attack against her when the toxic leader and human resources representative joined forces against her. In

Participant 8’s words:

The entire session turned into an attack against me. Rather than supporting me and trying to help resolve the situation, HR supported the leader with his violent outbursts. This was really a case that bordered on workplace violence, and HR was fine with it. HR accused me of having personal problems that caused me to be overly sensitive, which was simply not true. They placed the blame on me, supported the leader and solved nothing. I had nowhere to turn, except to a new job, so I found one as fast as I could (pp. 6-7).

Participant 8’s scenario illuminates a core problem associated with human resources personnel which was mentioned by numerous study participants – their willingness or

155

need to support leaders at all costs, and their failure to serve as employee advocates and

problem solvers. As Participant 8 points out, a failed human resources conflict resolution

intervention in which the leader’s wrong-doing and violence is condoned, is a recipe for continued toxicity.

Participant 14 experienced a failed human resources intervention similar to that of

Participant 8. As Participant 14 recalled, rather than solving anything, human resources personnel exacerbated the problem:

I spoke to the HR Department about the ways he [the leader] was targeting me and how he was treating me badly. Instead of helping me, they called the leader and told him I had complained about him, and this made things even worse. He increased his targeting by increasing my workload and constantly demeaning me in staff meetings. What was I supposed to do other than quit? I had nobody watching out for me (p. 6).

Participants 8 and 14 experienced serious failures of their Human Resources

Departments, and these failures point to larger organizational problems surrounding the cozy relationships between leaders and many human resources personnel. The propensity of human resources personnel in the examples in this study to perpetuate the status quo and to support leaders at all costs, undermines their objectivity and neutrality in conflict resolution interventions, leaving employees to fend for themselves without an advocate.

Confronted the Leader, Then Confronted the Human Resources Department

Study participants who confronted the leader and subsequently the Human

Resource Department all reported dissatisfaction with the outcome due to the utter failure

of human resource personnel to remain objective and their inability to evoke change in

the toxic leader’s behaviors. Participants tended to discuss a certain unwillingness of

human resource personnel to act as a neutral third party to which employees can turn for

assistance in mediating conflicts between leaders and employees, as well as the

156

propensity of human resource practitioners to side with the toxic leader and to blame the

victim. Participant 5 attempted to address being passed over for promotion by first

confronting the leader directly and then consulting the Human Resources Department

after the confrontation with the leader failed to produce a satisfactory resolution. Despite

holding more qualifications than members of the leader’s inner circle who had been

promoted without the required qualifications, Participant 5 had been passed over for

promotion and confronted the leader about the injustice:

I asked him [the leader] why I had been passed over for promotion, and he told me that I did not have the qualifications, which was untrue. I pointed out that, according to the job announcement, I had more than the qualifications required and that people who had been promoted did not have the required qualifications for those jobs. As I described earlier, the situation got bad and nothing was resolved. I called HR and discussed the problem with them, but they were no help. They told me the leader must have his reasons for not promoting me, and then they called the leader and told him that I was a complainer and a trouble maker, even though HR has a duty to maintain confidentiality in complaint situations. He was furious with me, and I had no recourse (p. 6).

Participant 5’s attempts to address the injustices she experienced highlight two major problems. The first is the leader’s failure to adhere to objective criteria in the promotion process; the second is the failure of the Human Resources Department. In this instance, human resources personnel not only blindly supported the leader without hesitation, question, or further investigation, but also breached confidentiality standards, thus making the situation worse for Participant 5. These failures directly resulted in

Participant 5’s decision to voluntarily resign.

Confronted the Leader, Then Confronted the Leader’s Supervisor

Study participants who confronted the leader and then confronted the leader’s supervisor in an attempt to seek assistance in resolving concerns and perceived injustices faired no better than those participants in previous subsections who worked with human

157 resources personnel. Study participants who confronted the leader and then the leader’s supervisor spoke of the rage leaders and supervisor displayed when confronted with the concerns and wrong-doing, as well as the propensity of leaders’ supervisors to dismiss employees’ concerns, to label the complaining employees trouble makers, to deny that the leader had done the deed or deeds of which he or she stood accused, and to fail to address any employee concerns with the toxic leader. In sum, study participants tended to speak of the futility and dangers, due to further repercussions, of complaining about toxic leadership in the workplace, of senior leader ineptitude and dismissiveness, and of the great extent to which leaders unwaveringly supported one another at all costs.

Participant 13 confronted his toxic leader after having witnessed a toxic tantrum during an instance when Participant 13 had requested the leader’s assistance in responding to questions from a client. Upon confronting the toxic leader, he became irate and screamed obscenities. As Participant 13 recalled:

I attempted to approach the issue with the toxic leader in a professional way. I remained firm and professional and told him that I did not expect to come to work to be screamed at, demeaned and told not to care about my work when I was the one doing most of the work in the office anyway. I told him that I expected to be granted assistance when I asked for it and that my work would be quality checked to ensure that it is accurate before being submitted to the client. The leader became angry and screamed obscenities and told me not to care about the client or anything else. A short time later, I had the opportunity to take my concerns to my leader’s supervisor, but he [the leader’s supervisor] was not helpful at all. He told me he would talk to the leader about this behavior, but when he did that, he told the leader I had complained about him, so things got even worse. Basically, I was on my own, having to do almost all of the work for the client on my own, having to face the toxic leader when he actually came to work, and having to answer client questions. I was so disgusted with all of the leaders in that organization, if you can even call them that, that I took the first job I found (p.7).

Participant 13’s description of his confrontations with the leader and the leader’s supervisor underscore common themes which run throughout this section regarding how

158

employees handle toxic leaders. Specifically, Participant 13 received no organizational

support from senior leaders to mitigate the impacts of the toxic leader, and he found that

senior leaders appeared to be completely inept at dealing with conflict resolution. In

much the same way that other study participants provided accounts of failed human

resource conflict resolution interventions and breaches of confidentiality, Participant 13

experienced the attempts of an inept senior leader to address problems with the toxic

leader. Due to his ineptitude, the senior leader made matters worse, breached

confidentiality and accelerated Participant 13’s resignation.

Did Nothing

Study participants who reported doing nothing when targeted by a toxic leader

expressed sentiments clustering around the theme of futility. These study participants appeared to have known from lived or witnessed experience, that attempts to elicit change through complaints never works in organizations, and that it often backfires on the employee, making him or her a greater target as a result of having threatened the

leader’s status and control. Study participants who reported doing nothing also

evidenced a propensity to discuss feelings of defeat, which compelled them to dismiss

any thoughts of taking action to combat the toxic leader’s attacks. Participant 7, for

example, felt so defeated when she was targeted with toxicity that she did nothing to

confront the toxic leader in any way. After having been criticized by the toxic leader

because her voice sounded young and unprofessional, Participant 7 was in such shock,

disbelief, and emotional distress that she felt helpless and was unable to respond. In

Participant 7’s words:

159

I was shocked and very hurt by her [the leader’s] comments about my voice. I felt helpless and alone; I cried alone that night at home. I had no idea what to do (p. 5).

Since Participant 7 failed to respond to the toxic leader’s attack because of the shock and emotional distress she was experiencing as a result of the attack, she believes she may have opened the door to future attacks. Reflecting upon this event, Participant 7 stated:

Knowing what I know now, I should have fought back, but at the time, I just couldn’t, and she [the leader] knew (p. 5).

Participant 10 reported, similarly to Participant 7, that she was unable to respond to the toxic leader’s attack on her when he demanded her loyalty to the company during an uncertain time when the company was trying to get new business, while he simultaneously threatened her with termination if he found out she signed on with a competitor to ensure an income. According to Participant 10:

When he threatened me, I feared for my job. He knew I had a family to provide for, and he used that against me to demand my loyalty and to threaten me. I knew HR would be no help, so I could do nothing but take the abuse, stay quiet and sign on with the competitor (p. 4).

The accounts of non-responsiveness Participants 7 and 10 recounted resulted from shock and fear in the face of toxic targeting and highlight the great differences in the ways in which study participants handled toxic leaders. While participants fought back, confronted the leader, consulted human resources personnel, spoke to the leader’s supervisor about their concerns, or took no action, the common theme throughout the interview data on all approaches utilized remains the unsuccessfulness of all attempts to negotiate with the leader and to reach a resolution.

160

Length of Departure Time

For most study participants, the length of time from the initial event containing the toxic targeting trigger to the time of departure was considerable, but the range of departure times study participants reported encompassed one month to six years. Study participants reported continuous targeting incidents throughout the length of time they remained under the toxic leader while attempting to make decisions, and/or formulate and implement a plan of escape. All study participants reported experiencing vexation during this period because of the difficulty associated with daily targeting that occurred in the workplace while still trying to complete work. This state of affairs, coupled with long hours of job searching outside of work on evenings and weekends added to the exhaustion and frustration many participants reported experiencing. The significant differences in the lengths of time study participants reported remaining with the toxic leader during their decision-making period is indicative of a number of factors. While some employees decided rapidly to leave the toxic leader following the initial trigger event, without first securing a new job before their resignation, other employees remained with the toxic leader in a perpetual state of decision-making and toxic targeting, characterized by years of torment and suffering by day, grueling job searching by night and the constant worry associated with finding suitable jobs with comparable income.

Participant 2 summarized the sentiments of all study participants during this often extended period of time spent searching for other jobs, “The search was exhausting and never-ending. There just seemed to be nothing out there, and every day I was faced with having to return to that place and face him [the toxic leader]” (p. 4).

161

Reasons for Length of Departure Times

The other reasons study participants provided clustered around nine thematic

foci: (1) confronted with poor job market, (2) feared that another workplace could be

worse, (3) remained hopeful things would improve, (4) lacked self-confidence to get a

new job, (5) unable to tolerate further toxicity, (6) needed to fulfill an employment

contract, (7) valued longevity in a job, (8) liked co-workers, and (9) needed time to start a

new business. All study participants cited multiple reasons for their decisions about

when and how to leave their respective toxic leaders, and in each instance, the decisions

were highly personal, contextually specific and unique to the specific study participant.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned nine overarching themes can be distilled from the

common themes and elements each of the participants discussed within the context of

their personal situations. The length of departure times varied among study participants

greatly, ranging from one month to six years. Each of the nine thematic clusters related to reasons for the reported lengths of departure times is subsequently addressed utilizing exemplar quotes from study participants’ interviews.

Confronted with Poor Job Market

Study participants emphasized the personal and contextual nature of the reasons they remained employed under a toxic leader, but the key theme that emerged from interview data is financial security. Study participants who remained employed under a toxic leader suffered on a daily basis while they struggled to find comparable jobs in a poor economy. Desperate for the money, they saw no other option than to suffer to survive. Those who were financially well-off and could quit without having another job and those who were fortunate to find another comparable job quickly had the shortest

162

departure times; all other study participants “slaved and suffered”, to use Participant 2’s

words, for considerable lengths of time before finding other employment.

Participant 2 succinctly summarizes his plight, which mirrors that of other study participants who required an extended period of time to find suitable employment:

I hated getting out of bed every morning for over 5 years, and Sunday nights were terrible for me. Just the thought of having to go to work made me feel sick. I had given up trying to find a job because I could only find lower-paying positions, and very few employers had anything available. I decided to start my own business, but it took time, and I needed the money while I worked in the evenings to start my business. I hated being a slave to that leader and organization, but I had to be the company’s slave and suffer to survive (p. 7).

Participant 2’s remarks underscore the severity of the economic crisis which continues to

grip the United States at the time the study was conducted and highlight the creativity

some study participants utilized to secure employment to escape a toxic leader.

Participant 2 remained with a toxic leader and tolerated his suffering to secure income

while quietly working toward building his own business. Yet, Participant 2’s comments

characterize his relationship to the toxic leader and his firm as one of “slavery and

suffering,” terms which serve to emphasize the misery of workplaces under toxic leaders.

These and other characterizations of toxic leaders and workplaces are addressed in a

subsequent section.

Participant 6 provided sentiments similar to those of Participant 2 and lamented

his 6 years of torture under a toxic leader who berated, abused, discriminated against and

micromanaged him. Participant 6 reflects upon his entrapment:

The economy had gotten very bad, and I had to have a job to support my family. I couldn’t afford to just quit or take a lower-paying job, so I was completely trapped, and it was depressing. I would sit at my desk wondering when the next attack would come and when my phone would ring and he would scream for me to go to his office. It was torture every day for at least 6 years (p. 8).

163

Participant 6, like Participant 2, cited financial responsibilities as the key reason for the

extended period of time he remained with the toxic leader. Participant 6 was financially

trapped due to his familial obligations and was forced to endure years of torture and

depression before finding a suitable position elsewhere. Participant 12, unlike Participant

2, who started his own business, and Participant 6, who suffered for over 6 years before

finding a comparable position elsewhere, accepted a lower-paying position to escape the

toxic leader. Participant 12 recalls how, after a year-and-a-half of toxic targeting, she could no longer bear to continue working under the toxic leader:

I dreaded going to work, and I was abused every day when I was there. I looked and looked for another job, but it was hard to find anything, especially something that was going to offer an equivalent salary because of the bad economy. Eventually I got to the point that I was so frustrated, depressed and exhausted that I accepted a lower salary just to leave (p. 6).

Participant 12’s solution to escaping toxic leadership is unique from those of Participants

2 and 6. Whereas Participants 2 and 6 remained with the toxic leader for 5 and 6 years, respectively, they continued to search for other jobs or pursue endeavors to eventually escape; Participant 12 escaped from her toxic leader much more quickly, but had to accept a lower salary to do so. As these three unique narratives illustrate, the poor economy forced people suffering from toxic leadership to make difficult decisions concerning their employment. Participants 2 and 6 reasoned that remaining with the toxic leader was worth the suffering until comparable jobs became available, or until, in

Participant 2’s case, the business was profitable. Participant 12 reasoned that a lower salary was acceptable in exchange for escaping a toxic leader. Ultimately, as these three accounts reveal, the length of departure time is impacted by many factors, economic and personal, and no two stories or solutions are likely to be identical.

164

The inability to find a comparable job is linked to the poor economy discussed in the previous section. Participants 2, 6 and 12 explicitly linked their inability to find a comparable job to the poor economy and to the extended lengths of their departure times.

Other study participants cited their inability to find a comparable job as a reason for the length of their departure time, but they did not explicitly link the apparent lack of work to the overall economy in their interviews. The cases of Participants 13 and 14 are reviewed here as exemplars of this category.

Participant 13 recalled that it took him 3 years from the time of the first critical incident to find a comparable job, and that those 3 years were some of the longest of his life:

It took me what seemed like forever to find another job; there just didn’t seem to be anything out there. Meanwhile, I had to do work every day, put up with my wretched boss, do all of the work in the office, and then search for jobs in the evenings and on weekends. I needed the money, so I couldn’t just quit without having another job, but I really wanted to (p. 7).

Participant 13 adopted an approach similar to Participants 2 and 6 by remaining employed with the toxic leader for financial reasons, while continuing a long-term job search. Despite the misery of his workplace, Participant 13 could not resign without first finding other employment.

Participant 14, in contrast to Participant 13, was unable to find a comparable job and resigned without having another job offer. Unable to tolerate the toxicity she faced each day at work, and unable to find comparable employment, she resigned 9 months after the initial critical incident. Participant 14 recalled the unbearable conditions that caused her to resign without having another job:

165

After about 9 months of being micromanaged, belittled, attacked and assigned menial tasks, I couldn’t stand it anymore. The constant threats, dismissal of my ideas, and attacks were too much. I could not find another job fast enough, so I just resigned (p. 7).

Participant 14’s account speaks to the personal nature of the impacts of toxic leadership.

Whereas Participants 2, 6 and 12 endured many long years of toxic leadership while pursuing comparable jobs and other endeavors, Participant 14 reacted differently to toxic leadership and resigned after 9 months. Although Participant 14 did not explicate in her interview whether or not money played a role in her decision to resign without having another job, it is likely that money played less of a role in her decision than it did for other study participants.

Study participants who cited needing the money as a reason for remaining with their respective toxic leaders tended to discuss the need for money in conjunction with their inability to find a comparable job that provided a level of income equivalent to what they were earning under the toxic leader and also the need to maintain a steady income while pursuing other endeavors outside of work that would eventually enable them to resign. Participant 12, for example, linked the 3 years she endured toxic targeting to her inability to quickly find another comparable job and to her need for income. In

Participant 12’s words:

I really had no choice in the matter. I needed a job, due to my financial obligations, and I couldn’t find other jobs, so I needed to stay. I would spend many hours each night and every weekend searching for any jobs that paid a livable salary, but there wasn’t much to be found. I kept searching for 3 years before I finally found something, and I feel like those 3 years of my life were taken from me. I still suffer to this day because of those 3 years (p.6).

Participant 12’s need for income, inability to find another job for 3 years and financial obligations thematically overlap with the categories relevant to the poor economy in the

166

United States. Indeed, these three themes forced Participant 12 to remain with the toxic

leader to ensure her financial survival. To be sure, Participant 12 paid a price for

remaining with the toxic leader, a price which is examined in detail in a subsequent

section.

Participants 2 and 13 presented sentiments echoing those of Participant 12. In the

case of Participant 2, starting a business while paying monthly bills required a steady

source of income, as business ventures are costly. As Participant 2 expressed:

One thing I learned was that starting your own business takes lots of time and money. I had hoped to be able to start my business and be able to quit within a year or two, but it’s hard to have to keep up with your bills and still have money to get a business going without having a job. I stayed at my job, even though I was miserable and things never got better with that terrible boss, because I needed to make sure that I would have enough money to get the business going and pay my bills until I could support myself with my business (p. 8).

Participant 2 adjusted his timeline for resignation because of the great investment of time

and money required to start a business. Despite misery in the workplace, he saw no other

option than to remain with the toxic leader until his business was profitable because he

needed the money to cover business expenses and to survive financially.

Participant 13 also expressed that he needed to remain with the toxic leader to ensure his financial survival. Although Participant 13 did not have expenses associated with starting a business, he described his relationship to the toxic leader and organization as one of financial enslavement. In Participant 13’s words:

I felt completely enslaved to him [the toxic leader] and to the company. I needed the money to live, and I think this is true of a lot of people. Most people can’t just quit a job if they don’t have another source of income. I think companies know this, so they know that they can treat you however they please, and there is not much most people can do about it, except leave, but that means you have to find another job to replace your income, which isn’t easy. Companies know this, and I think they like the fact that people are financially enslaved to them; certainly,

167

toxic leaders like it because they can get away with treating people badly. For me, it took 3 years to find another job, and those were three awful years (p. 7).

Participant 13 raises a broader social issue in his commentary, in that most people probably cannot just quit a job without having a position to replace the lost income; consequently, organizations and toxic leaders are able to exploit people. If, as Participant

13 surmises, organizations and toxic leaders are aware that most people are financially enslaved to them, and that they believe this fact gives them license to treat people poorly, then the problems associated with toxic leadership may be quite widespread. While beyond the scope of the present study, this issue constitutes an interesting and important topic for future research which will be addressed in a subsequent section.

Fear that Another Workplace Would be Worse

For some study participants, the fear that another workplace could be worse than the workplace in which they suffered under a toxic leader was paralyzing. An overarching theme among these study participants was the notion that they had lost all confidence in organizations to be ethical, treat employees well and provide decent workplaces. The adage, “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t” certainly holds true for these study participants. As Participant 3 explained:

After what I went through in that workplace, I became pessimistic toward all organizations and workplaces. I feared that I could get myself into a situation that was even worse than the one I was in. I could not get past the idea that it could be worse somewhere else. That fear gripped me, so even when I finally did find another job, I was paranoid about leaving (pp. 6-7).

Participant 3’s account illustrates the degree of fear and paranoia employees develop as a result of suffering under toxic leadership. Participant 3 had become paranoid about leaving because of the possibility that another workplace could be even worse. This fear

168

paralyzed her to such an extent that, even upon finding another job, she was uncertain

whether she should accept the position.

Participant 6 echoed the sentiments of Participant 3, stating that he feared things could be worse than they were under the toxic leader:

I was very worried that things at another organization could be even worse. When you go through what I went through, you start to think that it must be this way everywhere, and you worry that it could even be worse. It’s funny how damaging toxic leadership is to you psychologically. I didn’t even realize how damaging it was until I started to think about it for your study (p. 6).

Participant 6 gained insight into the psychological damage toxic leadership had caused him to suffer by reflecting upon his experiences in preparation for this interview for this study. This reflection enabled Participant 6 to recognize that the toxic leadership he had suffered impacted his ability to remain objective in his evaluation of other workplaces and leaders; it instilled in him a fear that all organizations and leaders mirrored the organization and leader inflicting toxic leadership upon him. Participant 6’s reflections illustrate the way in which the impacts of toxic leadership extend beyond the immediate context of the workplace in which the toxic leadership is experienced and will be examined in detail in a subsequent section.

Participant 10 echoed Participant 6 in her steadfast belief that other workplaces and leaders might be worse than the toxic leadership under which she suffered.

Participant 10 reflects:

I had a nagging feeling that things could be worse somewhere else. Even though I had never experienced the level of toxicity in other organizations that I experienced in this one, I thought it could be worse somewhere else. When I finally got away from that situation, I slowly started to realize that things could be better and were better elsewhere (p. 5).

169

For Participant 10, it took leaving the toxic leader to realize that her fears about other

leaders and workplaces were unfounded. The accounts reviewed in this section illustrate

the magnitude of paranoia, fear and debilitating psychological effects employees develop

when forced to endure toxic leadership in the workplace. Indeed, as Participants 6 and 10

mention, toxic leadership can have long-lasting impacts upon those who experience it.

These long-lasting impacts are examined in a subsequent section.

Hopeful Things Would Improve

In contrast to study participants who feared that matters could be worse at another

organization and with another leader, other study participants reported being hopeful that

things would improve and that the toxic leader would be responsive to attempts at

resolution of problems and calls for a change in behavior; in every instance, study

participants reported experiencing disappointment once they discovered that toxic leaders

and their respective organizations seem not to change for the better. Participants 6, 7 and

13 illustrate this trend in the data in the following narrative excerpts. Participant 6

presents a unique case in that, while he remained hopeful that things would improve with

the toxic leader, he also, as previously discussed, feared that another workplace could be

worse than the one in which he endured toxic leadership. As Participant 6 explained:

I was naïve and remained hopeful that things would improve. I hoped that the leader would see my good work and start to respect all that I had done for the organization, but that never happened. Things just continued to get worse, but every day I would go to work, part of me wondered when the next attack would come, and part of me wondered if today would be the day that things started to get better (p. 7).

Participant 6 experienced dichotomous thinking characterized by, on the one hand, a hope that things would improve, and on the other hand, fear that the next attack would come at any moment. Participant 6 explained that attempting to remain hopeful that things would

170 improve, while also worrying about when the next toxic attack would come, was mentally exhausting:

I left work exhausted every day. I barely had any energy left to do anything outside of work I wanted to. My family suffered because I was exhausted and depressed, and the only think I wanted to do was sleep to escape (p. 7).

Participant 6’s account points to the debilitating effects of toxic leadership outside of the workplace, a topic which will be addressed in a subsequent section. Additionally,

Participant 6 recognized the exhaustion brought about by the dichotomy of hope and fear every day.

Participant 7 remained hopeful that her situation with the toxic leader would improve but found that the toxic leader was unwilling to change her behavior. As

Participant 7 explained:

It was hard for me to believe that anyone could be so hurtful and evil as she [the toxic leader] was. I just kept hoping that there was a part of her that was good, and that that part would eventually come out if I just kept doing my job well, but it never did. I guess I learned that some people really are evil through and through. I was looking for another job, but I would have probably stayed at my job if I had had a decent person as my boss, and she was anything but decent (p. 6).

Participant 7 raises an important issue in her discussion of the toxic leader’s unwillingness or inability to change her behavior and treatment of other people, but beyond this issue, Participant 7 notes that she likely would have remained in her job, had she had a decent leader in the workplace.

Participant 13 remained hopeful that workplace change would come after he spoke to his leader’s supervisor about the toxic leadership he and other employees were experiencing. Like Participants 6 and 7, however, Participant 13 discovered that, not only did the situation not improve, speaking to the leader’s supervisor actually made the

171 situation worse because the supervisor told the leader that Participant 13 had complained about him. In Participant 13’s words:

It was stupid of me to think that speaking to his [the toxic leader’s] boss would help the situation. Things just kept getting worse, and the supervisor didn’t care. I held out hope that things would improve for a few weeks after I spoke to the supervisor because I thought he would see what was going on and put a stop to it, but he either lacked the backbone to do anything about it, or he thought it was fine. Either way, I eventually lost hope that anything would ever get better or change, and I sped up my job search (p. 4).

Participant 13 links the increased intensity of his job search directly to his former organization’s senior leaders’ inability or unwillingness to address the toxic leadership he was experiencing. As Participant 13 points out, either the toxic leader’s supervisor saw nothing wrong with the atrocities being committed in the workplace, or he lacked the leadership required to take a stand on the issue and end the toxic leader’s reign. In addition to failing to act to end the toxic leadership, the toxic leader’s supervisor made matters worse by informing the toxic leader that Participant 13 had filed a complaint against him.

Examined collectively, the accounts reviewed in this section demonstrate that while some study participants remained hopeful that things would improve for a variety of reasons, their hopes were misplaced, as the toxic leaders remained toxic, and, in some cases, intensified their toxic attacks on study participants. Eventually, all study participants who reported remaining hopeful that things would improve realized that they had hoped in vain, which, in turn, solidified for them the need to leave the organization.

Lacked Self-confidence to Get New Job

Study participants reporting a lack of self-confidence as a result of having been targeted with toxic attacks in the workplace evidenced a propensity to link this lack of

172

self-confidence to the extended length of their departure time. Participants who reported

a lack of self-confidence cited the existence of a vicious circle as a result of toxic

targeting and noted that as the cycle progressed, they suffered from ever-decreasing self- confidence, which, in turn, caused them to remain with the toxic leader for longer and longer periods of time. The extended length of time spent with the toxic leader, in turn, provided an opportunity for additional toxic targeting, which further eroded their self- confidence. Participant 7, for example, discussed the psychologically damaging impacts of toxic targeting in terms of the destruction of her self-confidence, which, in turn, caused her to feel unworthy and unqualified for other jobs. Participant 7 explains:

She [the toxic leader] caused me to be critical of myself and to question whether she actually might be right about me. Maybe I was unworthy, and maybe my voice did sound like an unprofessional child. She caused me a lot of agony, and I cried a lot at night because of her. I felt like I couldn’t apply for other jobs because who would actually hire me? My family noticed that I was depressed a lot when I had that job, and it was actually my mother who gave me the confidence I needed to get out of there (p. 6).

Participant 7 recognized that the toxic leader’s demeaning attacks on her caused her to lose the self-confidence she needed to apply for other jobs. Participant 7 was caught in a vicious circle under the toxic leader in which the toxic targeting caused her to lose self- confidence, which, in turn, prevented her from applying to other jobs, which forced her to remain under the toxic leader for over 3 years after the time of the first critical incident.

It was not until Participant 7’s mother suggested that the causes of her problems and depression were her workplace, that she started to re-gain the self-confidence she needed to apply to other positions.

One of the reasons Participant 9 cited for having remained with a toxic leader for over 4 years from the time of the first critical incident was, like Participant 7, a lack of

173

self-confidence brought about by constant berating, belittling and other types of toxic

targeting attacks. Participant 9 identified a vicious circle in which the berating and

belittling toxic attacks continuously eroded her self-confidence, making her feel

worthless:

I can’t recall another time in my life when I felt so defeated and worthless. I was targeted every day at work, and my work was constantly under the microscope for no good reason. I lost my self-confidence and was paranoid every day. It got to the point that I didn’t think I could ever get another job because I had no confidence that I could get hired. My lack of self-confidence was not helped by the fact that there were very few jobs I could find that would not have been a significant salary cut. I felt trapped, and it was depressing (pp. 5-6).

Participant 9 experienced a lack of self-confidence caused by both internal and external

factors. On the one hand, she experienced toxic targeting on a daily basis in the

workplace, which continually eroded her self-confidence; however, she also cited a lack

of job prospects outside of the organization as exacerbating the situation in which she

found herself. These internal and external factors operated in tandem to further decrease

her self-confidence, causing feelings of depression, paranoia and entrapment.

Participants 7 and 9 provide accounts of the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on

self-confidence and link eroded self-confidence to the extended lengths of time they

remained under a toxic leader. They expressed their entrapment in a cycle of toxicity

characterized by ever-eroding self-confidence, a general void in external opportunities, and depression which prevented them from actively pursuing opportunities elsewhere.

Could no Longer Tolerate the Toxicity

Unlike study participants who reported extended periods of time between the first

critical incident and the time of their departure, Participants 1, 8 and 14 reported

relatively short departure times, which they linked to an inability and unwillingness to

174 continue to tolerate toxicity and the toxic leader. Participant 1 reported leaving the toxic leader without having another job offer because he could no longer tolerate the toxic leader. Participant 1 voluntarily resigned 1 month after the initial critical incident containing the Toxic Targeting Trigger as a result of the constant berating he received from a supervisor who demanded that he perform managerial tasks in addition to his full- time job without additional compensation. As Participant 1 recalled:

I was basically doing work for free for this guy [the toxic leader], and he refused to compensate me for it, even after I confronted him with this problem. He would make unreasonable demands on me to hire certain people he had hand-picked, who weren’t qualified. He would not take ‘no’ for an answer, and he berated me until I had the positions filled so that he could make a profit on the positions. I wasn’t going to take it anymore (p. 4).

Participant 1 was unwilling to tolerate the toxicity he experienced and voluntarily resigned 1 month following the first critical incident. He reported being fortunate enough to find another position within a few months of his departure and avoided long-term unemployment. Nevertheless, he admitted that quitting without having another job offer was a very risky proposition.

Participant 8 reported voluntarily resigning approximately 1 year following the initial critical incident because she wanted to ensure that she had another job offer in hand before she resigned. The toxic targeting continued unabated throughout the year

Participant 8 remained with the toxic leader. In Participant 8’s words:

After that [the first critical incident containing the toxic tantrum], I increased my job searching and tried to get out of there. It took me about a year to find something, but I didn’t give up. I wanted to quit right away, but I didn’t want to be unemployed, so I had to tough it out until I found something suitable (p. 5).

Participant 8 found a comparable position within a year of the first critical incident, but decided to remain employed, no matter how miserable the workplace was, to ensure that

175 she would not quit and be unemployed. The contrast between the approaches Participants

1and 8 used demonstrate the very personal nature of the decisions involved in handling toxic leadership. Whereas Participant 1 willingly accepted the risk of long-term unemployment to escape the toxic leader, Participant 8 adopted a less risky approach and remained employed while intensely searching for other work to avoid unemployment.

Participant 14 first attempted to find a comparable position before voluntarily resigning, but following 9 months of unsuccessful searching and constant toxic targeting in the workplace, she decided that she could no longer tolerate the toxicity. The psychological impacts of the toxic targeting caused Participant 14 serious harm and illness, and she was no longer willing to be exposed to the toxicity. In Participant 14’s words:

I immediately started looking for a new job after he [the toxic leader] first attacked me. It was hard to find anything, and I looked for about 9 months before I finally just quit. The toxic work environment had caused me to suffer serious health consequences, and I could no longer continue being exposed to him [the toxic leader] (p. 4).

Participant 14’s situation is unique in that extenuating health circumstances brought about as a consequence of the toxicity she faced in the workplace accelerated her voluntary resignation, an issue which is examined in detail in a subsequent section.

Unable to find another comparable position, and unable to continue endangering her health by remaining with the toxic leader, Participant 14 saw no other option than to resign 9 months following the first critical incident.

Needed to Fulfill Employment Contract

Study participants who cited the need to fulfill an employment contract as the reason for the extended length of time they remained employed under a toxic leader

176 tended to discuss their concern for breaching the employment contract. Specifically, these study participants expressed concern that such a breach might impact their future employment options or result in some negative action against them with the current employer. These study participants tended to seek ways to escape the toxic leader by accepting a different assignment within the organization, such that they could fulfill the employment contract, while also escaping the toxic leader.

Participant 4 cited the need to fulfill an employment contract as the reason for her extended length of time under a toxic leader following the first critical incident.

Participant 4 remained with the toxic leader for 2 years from the first critical incident, but she was able to escape the toxic leader by searching for and accepting a position within the same organization. Participant 4’s story offers an extreme example which highlights the extent to which some employees are willing to go to escape toxic leadership because

Participant 4 accepted a position to deploy to a war zone in the Middle East. Participant

4 explicates how she believed that deploying to a war zone was a better option than having to remain with and face the toxic leader:

I had had it with him [the toxic leader] and his cronies. I needed to fulfill my employment contract with the military, so I had to think of some way to get another position to escape him while still fulfilling my contract. An opportunity became available to deploy to a war zone, and I accepted it. Going to a war zone was, in my mind, better than having to stay here and face him and his cronies (pp. 3-4).

Participant 14 offers a strong critique of toxic leadership by comparing its detrimental impacts to those of a war zone. By electing to deploy to a war zone and to voluntarily face the extreme dangers of war instead of continuing to face a toxic leader, Participant

14’s narrative highlights the most extreme comparison of toxic leadership made by any participant in this study. Participant 14 refused to allow a toxic leader to force her to

177 breach her contract, and she also refused to remain under his control; the war zone was the only way out.

Valued Longevity in a Job

Study participants who discussed the value they placed on longevity in a job and with a particular employer tended to express concern that switching jobs and employers too quickly would negatively reflect on their resume and with future employers. These study participants cited loyalty to an employer as an important characteristic of employees that need to be demonstrated to future employers. In addition to the other previously discussed reasons Participant 7 provided for remaining with a toxic leader for over 3 years, Participant 7 identified valuing longevity in a job. As Participant 7 explicates, she valued longevity because she did not want to be viewed by future employers as a person who “job-hops” and is unreliable:

I always valued longevity in a job because I knew there are people out there who ‘job-hop.’ The moment they think there is a better option out there, or that they might be able to get paid more, they leave a position, no matter how little time they spent in that job. I did not want to be that person. I wanted to show on my resume that I was a loyal employee who stayed in jobs for an extended period of time. I wanted to show that I was reliable and trustworthy (p. 4).

Despite the psychological damage previously discussed in Participant 7’s case, at least part of her wanted to remain with the toxic leader so that her resume did not show evidence of ‘job-hoping’ to future employers.

Liked Co-Workers

Study participants who discussed liking their co-workers as a reason for remaining employed under a toxic leader for an extended period of time tended to discuss their interactions with co-workers as therapeutic and helpful. Participants discussed the extent to which co-workers comforted them and sought, to the extent they were able, to

178 neutralize the impacts of the toxic leader’s attacks. Participant 7 explicates the way in which her co-workers attempted to help her cope with the toxic targeting she experienced:

They [Participant 7’s co-workers] knew I was upset and they saw the impact she [the toxic leader] was having on me. Some of them tried to help me cope by talking to me about what was going on. They told me that she [the toxic leader] was a nasty, jealous woman who hated me because she felt threatened by me. They told me that this was not the first time they had seen this in workplaces, and that it was no reflection on me or my abilities. They were the only friends I had there, and they tried to help me put things in perspective. I never would have been able to make it through without them (p. 6).

Recognizing Participant 7’s inexperience in dealing with toxicity in workplaces, her more experienced co-workers attempted to help her to cope and to understand what was going on. By showing sympathy and empathy to Participant 7, in her time of plight, her co- workers earned her respect and friendship and, according to Participant 7 constituted one reason for her extended stay on the job.

Needed Time to Start New Business

Some study participants discussed remaining under a toxic leader because they needed to retain a stable source of income while they worked outside of their full-time employment to start a new business, which, they believed, would eventually afford them the financial independence they needed to resign and escape from the toxic leader. These study participants generally focused upon their overarching dissatisfaction and disgust with organizations and their leaders, which they had come to believe were consistently toxic, regardless of the specific organization. As previously discussed, Participant 2 wanted to completely remove himself from toxic leaders, toxic organizations and constant unsuccessful job searching, but doing so required time and money, which caused

179

Participant 2 to remain with the toxic leader while he started his business. In Participant

2’s words:

I felt like I had too much education, too much drive and too much to offer to stay in this workplace or any other for that matter. I needed to get away from toxic leaders and organizations. I came to the realization that there would be no organization that would ever offer me what I needed and wanted, and that I would always be held back, no matter what job I ended up getting. I became cynical of organizations, but not without good reason. I saw the maliciousness and immorality they promoted, and I had had enough. Organizations are terrible places, and they trap you and exploit you. Still, I needed time and money to start my own business, and that meant I had to stay until I could get things running (pp. 6-7).

Dismayed with organizations and their toxicity, Participant 2 recognized that no workplace, no leader, no organization was likely to offer him the freedom he desired. He remained with the toxic leader out of necessity while he launched a business to permanently escape from organizations and their toxicity.

The accounts presented in this subsection provide a sampling of the wide range of reasons study participants cited when asked to explain what had caused them to remain with the toxic leader for the length of time they reported having stayed following the first critical incident. As the reasons reviewed in this subsection indicate, participants’ reasons, decisions and circumstances vary greatly and are highly personal in nature.

Examined collectively, this seems to indicate that, although all study participants reported immediately thinking about leaving the toxic leader at the time of the first critical incident or toxic targeting trigger, extenuating circumstances from an array of sources reviewed here intervened and complexified the decision-making process, while, in most instances, also extending the length of time study participants remained with their respective toxic leaders. Several of the quotes from study participants cited in this

180 subsection alluded to physical health and psychological consequences of toxic leadership, to which attention is now turned in the subsequent section.

Reactions to Toxic Leadership and Toxic Targeting

Study participants evidenced a propensity to cite certain physical and psychological aliments from which they began to suffer during their time under a toxic leader. All study participants identified specific physical and psychological consequences they experienced as a result of toxic leadership and toxic targeting in the workplace. The onset of these symptoms, according to study participants, coincided with their experience of the trigger event and persisted, nearly unabated, until study participants could resign and escape the toxic leader. The subsequent subsections address the physical and psychological consequences of toxic leadership study participants reported.

Physical Consequences

Study participants’ reports of physical consequences resulting from toxic leadership clustered around five thematic foci: (1) developed sleeplessness/ exhaustion,

(2) experienced tension aches, (3) began alcohol use, (4) developed high blood pressure, and (5) developed a serious illness. All study participants discussed experiencing multiple physical consequences of toxic leadership. Each of these physical consequences is addressed in the subsequent subsections using exemplar narrative excerpts from study participants’ interviews.

Developed Sleeplessness

Participants 2 and 14 both identified sleeplessness as a concrete physical consequence of the toxic leadership they experienced in the workplace. For both study

181 participants, sleeplessness was not something from which they suffered prior to experiencing toxicity and toxic targeting in the workplace, and they therefore attribute the onset of sleeplessness directly to the toxic targeting to which they fell victims. As

Participant 2 recalled:

I don’t think I had a decent night’s sleep in all the years I worked in that dreadful place. Weekends were not much reprieve, either, because I would always dread the thought of having to go back on Monday morning, and I couldn’t block that thought from my mind, even on the weekends. The only time I slept well was when I was so exhausted that I could not continue to function without collapsing and falling asleep. The rest of the time, I would try to sleep, but I was so tense and anxious and disgusted that I just could not settle my mind enough to fall asleep. I suffered for years like this, all while I was trying to start my business, but even before I came up with the idea to start my business, I started suffering from insomnia after I started to be targeted at work. It took a serious toll on me, and there were times when I almost fell asleep while driving because of that place (p. 8).

Participant 2’s account of the sleeplessness he suffered as a result of toxic leadership illustrates the severe physical consequences which can result from toxic leadership. As with the aforementioned examples, this account further underscores the importance of taking the consequences of toxic leadership seriously and the responsibility organizations have to address and resolve situations in which employees are suffering under toxic leaders. Participant 2 demonstrates remarkable tenacity in his unwillingness to be defeated by the toxic leader and his targeting, as evidenced by his continued pursuit of building his own business while continuing to suffer from toxicity in the workplace and while constantly operating at the brink of physical exhaustion. Importantly, Participant 2 links his sleeplessness to other categories of physical and psychological ailments brought on by toxic leadership, such as dread of going to work and an inability to shut workplace occurrences out of one’s mind to achieve peace of mind in one’s personal life and personal time. The experience of multiple physical and psychological consequences of

182 toxic leadership is indicative of what all study participants reported having experienced and illustrates the far-reaching effects of toxic leadership in employees.

Participant 14 also reported suffering from sleeplessness as a result of toxic targeting, but linked the sleeplessness to the eventual development of a serious, life- threatening illness, which is discussed in a subsequent subsection. In Participant 14’s words:

I had always slept well my entire life, but that all stopped when I started suffering at work. I could not stop thinking about how much I was suffering at work. I had no peace of mind, and it impacted my sleep. Eventually, the exhaustion brought on by lack of sleep led to a serious and life-threatening disease (pp. 7-8).

Participant 14’s inability to achieve peace of mind as a result of toxic targeting in the workplace caused her to suffer from a lack of sleep, which, in turn, led to physical exhaustion, which made her susceptible to the onset of a serious disease. Based upon the accounts Participants 2 and 14 provided, it seems difficult to deny that toxic leadership has serious physical impacts on those who suffer from it in the workplace. In the cases of these two study participants, the sleeplessness brought about as a result of toxic leadership had very serious consequences.

Experienced Exhaustion

In the instances of Participant 2 and 14, the link between the sleeplessness discussed in the previous section and physical exhaustion is evident. Participant 3, however, presents a different kind of exhaustion in her account of the consequences of toxic leadership she suffered. Specifically, Participant 3 directly links her physical exhaustion to psychological consequences of toxic leadership and characterizes it as psychosomatic in nature. While Participants 2 and 14 may also have suffered physical exhaustion as a psychosomatic symptom, neither of those two study participants

183 explicitly characterized their exhaustion as psychosomatic in nature. According to

Participant 3:

I think I was exhausted because I was psychologically and mentally exhausted and emotionally drained. I experienced physical exhaustion because my mind was tired and drained, and I just couldn’t keep going. I would get home at the end of the day and feel like I had been through a war zone, which is exactly what it was, because the battles raged all day long. I couldn’t enjoy anything because I had no energy left to do anything in my free time that I wanted to do. It was depressing, and I hated every day I had to be exposed to that evil (p. 5).

Participant 3’s characterization of her experience of physical exhaustion is unique in that she characterizes it as psychosomatic in nature, but like other study participants,

Participant 3 discusses her experience of multiple consequences of the toxicity she suffered in the workplace, including depression, lack of energy to do things outside of work that she once enjoyed doing, and general decreased satisfaction with life. As evidenced in Participant 3’s account, physical exhaustion can result from lack of sleep brought about by toxic leadership, as in the cases of Participants 2 and 14, or, alternatively, it may manifest itself as a psychosomatic symptom, as Participant 3 claims.

Experienced Tension Aches

Of all the study participants who cited tension aches and migraine headaches among the physical consequences of the toxic leadership under which they suffered,

Participant 1 provides the most descriptive and compelling evidence that his migraine headaches were the direct consequence of toxic leadership. Participant 1 linked the onset of his migraine headaches to the time of his experience of the Toxic Targeting Trigger and identified the end of the migraines as coinciding with his departure from the toxic leader. In Participant 1’s words:

I never had migraines in my entire life until he [the toxic leader] started in on me. There was just no escape – he would call me at home and demand that I do more

184

work in the evenings. There was always something he demanded, and it was never a polite request, either. I had migraines every night from him, and that’s why I had to leave without having another job already lined up. The day I left was the first day in a long time I didn’t have a headache. I was under constant stress and pressure from him (p. 4).

Participant 1’s explicit linkage of toxic leadership to his migraines mirrors the explicit links other study participants made between their experiences of toxic leadership and the onset of physical symptoms and serves to increase the corpus of evidence linking organizations and their toxic leaders as the responsible parties for the physical ailments of those who suffer under toxic leadership.

While Participant 1 also reported experiencing tension aches in conjunction with his migraine headaches, out of all study participants who reported experiencing tension

aches, Participant 2 offers the most descriptive account of the impact of tension aches he

experienced as a result of toxic leadership. Participant 2 described how the debilitating

pain in his neck, shoulders and back, coupled with his lack of sleep, combined to make

his suffering under a toxic leader all the more, literally, painful. According to Participant

The pain would get so bad in my shoulders, neck and back that I could barely move. It was very painful, and I also was not sleeping, which made matters even worse. The amount of physical suffering that organization and boss caused me was unbelievable. I don’t think I’ve ever been to the doctor so many times in my entire life as I was when I worked there (p. 9).

Beyond his linkage of toxic leadership to his experience of tension aches, Participant 2

makes an important link between toxic leadership and the number of times he sought

medical care, an issue which is addressed in Chapter 5 of this work under conclusions

and implications.

185

Began Alcohol Use

“Beginning alcohol use” in the context of this study, for all study participants who reported having started using alcohol, implies that study participants began using alcohol on a daily basis, when, prior to having experienced toxic leadership, they consumed alcohol occasionally, which is defined as casual use on special occasions. Participant 3 provides a quote which succinctly summarizes the increase in alcohol consumption which the impacted study participants reported:

The only way I could relax after those days in a war zone was to have a few drinks at night after work. It wasn’t that I was opposed to drinking – I drank socially with friends on special occasions for years, but I never had to rely on drinking, and on drinking alone before as a way to relax. I didn’t like what was happening to me, and I suspected that this drinking had started as a result of my workplace. Because I always keep all of my receipts for my monthly expenses for at least 3 years, I looked back at those receipts to find out when I first started needing to buy additional alcohol. I always kept some alcohol on hand, but I never drank alone, and I would only ever need to replace it after I had had friends over. Sure enough, I bought alcohol for myself the same week that I first started experiencing the full wrath of my toxic boss. I was shocked and didn’t want the workplace and my boss to have that kind of power over me, so I knew right then and there that I needed to get out of there and stop drinking alone (pp. 5-6).

The increased alcohol use Participant 3 brings to light, which is reflective of the other 4 study participants’ situations, draws attention to the severity of the consequences of toxic leadership. The need to increase alcohol use as a means of coping with toxic leadership and relaxing from toxic attacks suffered in the workplace is troubling. Equally important, as will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this work, the blame for increased alcohol use and alcohol abuse on the part of employees, whom organizations conveniently blame for bringing their problems, such as alcoholism, to the workplace, (per published research to be discussed in Chapter 5) is shifted to organizations and their toxic leaders as the cause of these employee problems.

186

Developed High Blood Pressure

Some study participants discussed having been diagnosed with high blood

pressure, the onset of which coincided with the beginning of toxic targeting in the

workplace. Participant 2 recalled being diagnosed with high blood pressure during the

time he endured toxic leadership, and he attributes this medical condition to the extreme

duress he was suffering in the workplace at the time of the diagnosis. As Participant 2

recalls:

The high blood pressure was just another instance of medical conditions and other ailments the workplace and toxic leader were causing me to suffer. I wasn’t sleeping, I was constantly under stress, and I had to endure attacks from him [the toxic leader] every day at work. I’m really not too surprised that I had high blood pressure, but it was something I had never had before, so my doctor was rather surprised at just how high it was (p. 6).

Participant 2’s account of his diagnosis with high blood pressure provides an explicit link between his experiences of toxicity in the workplace and his diagnosis with the condition.

The undue stress brought on by the toxic leader and his daily attacks induced physical changes in Participant 2, which resulted in the development of high blood pressure. Like other study participants diagnosed with high blood pressure as a result of toxic leadership, Participant 2 claims that his medical records will demonstrate that the onset of the high blood pressure coincides with the timeframe in which the toxic leader began attacking him at work.

Developed a Serious Illness

Participant 14 suffered the onset of a serious illness as a result of her experiences of toxicity and toxic targeting in the workplace, from which she continues to suffer at the time of this study. In order to maintain privacy, no direct quotes from Participant 14 will be provided in this section; however, Participant 14 disclosed that her health continued to

187

deteriorate so significantly as a result of the toxic leader’s targeting and attacking that she

sought medical attention for her ailments and was diagnosed with a serious illness

approximately two months after the toxic targeting began.

The physical ailments study participants reported having suffered as a

consequence of toxic leadership provide evidence of the deleterious effects of toxic

leadership upon the body. In all instances, with the exception of Participant 14, study

participants reported significant improvements in their health and well-being after having

escaped from the toxic leader.

Psychological Consequences

Study participants’ reports of psychological consequences resulting from toxic

leadership clustered around ten thematic foci: (1) feeling of depression and low self-

confidence, (2) feeling of anxiety, (3) feeling of fear, (4) feeling of decreased enjoyment outside of work and dread, (5) feeling of frustration, (6) feeling of paranoia, (7) feeling of

entrapment, (8) feeling of hopelessness, irritability and frustration, (9) feeling of being

controlled, pressured and silenced and (10) feeling of isolation. Each of these ten

thematic clusters of psychological consequences is discussed in the subsequent

subsections utilizing data from study participants’ interviews.

Feeling of Depression and Low Self-Confidence

Study participants who discussed having experienced a feeling of depression and low self-confidence as a result of toxic leader targeting focused upon their feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, and upon the increased introspection brought about by the toxic targeting. Participant 7 provides a discussion of the depression she experienced as a result of the toxic leader’s attacks on her which captures the essence of study

188 participants’ sentiments regarding the onset of depression during their time with a toxic leader. For the purposes of this study, depression was categorized as a psychological consequence of toxic leadership, although the condition can cause physical symptoms and ailments. Of the 12 study participants who reported suffering from depression as a result of their toxic workplaces and leaders, only 4 study participants reported seeking medical treatment for their depression. For the purposes of maintaining study participants’ privacy, no disclosure will be made regarding which study participants sought medical treatment. Participant 7 recounted the misery of the toxic leader and workplace which resulted in her depression:

I got really depressed because she [the toxic leader] caused me to be critical of myself, and I couldn’t see anything wrong with myself, other than I was relatively young. But she kept finding all kinds of things wrong with me, and it was depressing because she was basically telling me I needed to change myself and who I was. I struggled with that and it made me cry (p. 5).

Participant 7’s account points to an important theme which runs through all of the accounts of depression provided in this study; specifically, study participants reported feeling that their respective toxic leaders were demanding that they deny or change who they are. Participant 2 captures this theme:

A significant portion of the attacks I suffered were geared at belittling my accomplishments and education, the value of which was neither respected, nor welcomed. This was an attack on who I was and what I had worked to achieve, and it was being targeted with negativity. I think people feel a need to define themselves in our society by what they have achieved and accomplished, and leaders and organizations know this, so they also know that an effective way to destroy people is to make what they have achieved worthless, and that is depressing (p. 9).

Participant 2’s sense of worthlessness brought about by the toxic leader’s belittling of her achievements is echoed by other study participants who discussed the tendency of toxic leaders to destroy their self-confidence by making them feel unworthy of other jobs and

189 by being extremely critical of participants. In the quote examined in the previous section,

Participant 9 linked toxic targeting to a significant reduction in her self-confidence, which played a role in Participant 9’s inability to gather the confidence necessary to apply for new jobs. Participant 7 echoes the sentiments of Participant 9 and notes that she felt like she should not bother applying for other positions because other leaders and other organizations would see the same things wrong with her as did her toxic leader and not want to hire her. In Participant 7’s words:

Participant 7 cites feelings of unworthiness as constituting a hindrance in her ability to search and apply for new jobs to escape the toxic leader. This state of affairs points to the existence of a vicious cycle in which study participants who reported experiencing a lack of self-confidence as a result of toxic targeting, of which Participants 7 and 9 constitute two examples, found themselves trapped. Toxic Targeting led to feelings of worthlessness, which, in turn, prevented study participants from attaining the confidence needed to apply to new jobs, which, in turn, caused some study participants to expose themselves to extended periods of toxic targeting until they could finally find a new position. As Participant 7 expressed:

I never really regained my self-confidence until I started my new job and saw that I was not worthless. I was fortunate that I found a new job; it was very difficult to get the motivation to apply, but I’m glad I forced myself to apply to at least a few jobs (p. 7).

190

Participant 7’s commentary demonstrates the long-lasting effects of toxic leadership on

study participants in that Participant 7 reported not having regained her self-confidence until she escaped from the toxic leader. The consequences of Participant 7’s loss of self-

confidence brought about by toxic targeting is illustrated by her statement that she had to

force herself to apply for new jobs.

Feeling of Anxiety

The tendency among study participants who reported experiencing feelings of

anxiety as a result of toxic targeting was to emphasize the constant feelings of stress,

anxiousness and short temper they suffered. Participant 9 provides a discussion of the

anxiety she experienced as a result of toxic targeting which succinctly summarizes the

general sentiments of all study participants who reported anxiety as a consequence of

toxic leadership. According to Participant 9:

I felt constantly stressed out and anxious, and those feelings didn’t leave when I left work for the day. I had very little patience, and I had what I would describe as a short fuse. The smallest things at home would upset me because I was prone to overreacting. I felt like I could never relax, like I was constantly anxious and like something bad was going to happen as a result of work (p. 8).

Important in Participant 9’s account of her anxiousness is the finding that leaving the

workplace did not alleviate the feelings of stress and anxiousness. All study participants

who reported feelings of anxiousness as a psychological consequence of toxic leadership

also reported that they remained anxious outside of the workplace and that it negatively

impacted their personal lives because it predisposed them to a state of being in which

they were less able to cope with issues of daily life outside of the workplace. The

importance of this finding lies in the fact that it exemplifies the impact that toxicity in the

191

workplace has on employees outside of the workplace and is addressed in detail in

Chapter 5.

Feeling of Fear

Study participants who reported experiencing fear tended to discuss it in terms of

fear for their jobs and fear brought about by a sense of uncertainty from toxic leader’s abuse of power and threats. Participant 11 described how fear resulting from toxic targeting and constant threats of dismissal from the toxic leader gripped her in- and outside of the workplace. Focusing upon the financial aspect of the threat of dismissal,

Participant 11 discussed how she lived in a state of constant fear:

I was constantly afraid for my job, and it impacted me at work and at home. I tried not to think about it when I was with my family, but it was hard, and I never knew what was going to happen at work and when the axe would fall, and I would no longer be able to support my family. Of course, I was anxious along with being afraid, and it was a terrible feeling. He [the toxic leader] stole time away from my family because I wasn’t the same person when I had to work for him. I didn’t enjoy my time with my family the way I should have been able to (p. 7-8).

Participant 11’s account of the impacts of fear on her life outside of the workplace echoes

previous discussions of other categories of psychological and physical consequences of

toxic leadership which likewise had negative impacts on study participants outside of the

workplace. Participant 11’s fear of financial ruin decreased her enjoyment of activities

outside of the workplace with her family and constituted a fear which she had great

difficulty removing from her mind. According to Participant 11, the toxic leader reveled

in abusing his power to induce fear:

You could just tell that he [the toxic leader] loved having absolute power and control over everybody. He loved the fact that he got to dictate what people earned, whether or not they were going to have jobs, and so on. He loved having the power to make people afraid (p. 7).

192

Participant 11 identifies abuse of power as a core element of the toxic leader’s exercise of

hegemonic control over employees and of his reveling in the fact that he could dictate

salary and employment security. This kind of abuse of power and fear-inducing behavior, as Participant 11 described, caused her to suffer and have years of her life stolen from her outside of the workplace.

Feeling of Decreased Enjoyment Outside of Work and Dread

The inclination among study participants who discussed feelings of decreased enjoyment outside of work was to mention a general inability to move beyond the toxic workplace when not at work, as well as the extent to which toxic leaders and organizations ruined their entire lives and stole their personal time. Participants reported experiencing a constant replaying of toxic events from the workplace in their minds, even when not at work, and a feeling of dread which overcame them when they thought about having to return to work. Participant 13’s case provides an example of these themes in that he identified decreased enjoyment of his personal time and of activities he once greatly enjoyed as a consequence of the toxic targeting he suffered in the workplace. As

Participant 13 recalled:

I could never escape his [the toxic leader’s] effects because I would still think about work even when I wasn’t there. My weekends were ruined for years because of him, and the organization tolerated him and his behaviors. I couldn’t really enjoy things the way I used to because I always had a sinking feeling of dread hanging over my head, knowing that I would always have to return to face him the next week (p. 5).

Participant 13’s account of his suffering outside of work in the form of decreased enjoyment of activities he once enjoyed in his free time illustrates what study participants characterized as stolen time or time they will never be able to re-live. In essence, the impacts of toxic leadership study participants suffered outside the workplace represent

193

lost parts of their personal lives which they will never be able to recover, time which was

wasted with worry due to the toxic leader’s targeting of study participants.

A sense of dread of the next workday was particularly pervasive on Sundays.

Participants spoke of their cognizance of the wretchedness they would face, the torture they knew awaited them, and the loss of an entire day of their weekend. Participant 13 alluded in the previous section to the dread he experienced outside of the workplace knowing that he would have to return to face the toxic leader. Participants 1 and 15 provide additional commentary regarding their experiences of dread associated with their eminent return to the toxic leader and workplace. In Participant 1’s words:

I hated going to work, and I hated even the thought of having to go to work. It was miserable, and it was hard to forget about because I had migraine headaches as a constant reminder (p. 8).

Participant 15, while not having experienced migraine headaches as a constant reminder

of the workplace and toxic leader as did Participant 1, echoes Participant 1’s sentiments

about the dread she experienced:

Every day was torture, and having to wake up and go to work was the worst. I never wanted to get out of bed, I hated it so much. I dreaded every single day in there, and I just didn’t think it was normal to suffer psychologically like that, so I knew I had to leave (p. 9).

Participant 15 characterizes her experience of workplace dread as torture and notes that

the psychological effects of the toxic leader and workplace were so great upon her that

she would have rather not gotten out of bed in the morning. Recognizing the abnormality

of this psychological suffering, Participant 15 knew that the torture had been caused by

the toxic leader and that she needed to remove herself from the situation to recover and

lead a more normal existence.

194

Study participants who spoke about the endless replaying of workplace occurrences in their minds tended to characterize this phenomenon as a mental prison from which they could not escape, and a general inability to achieve a restful and peaceful psychological state. Participants 9 and 14 reported an inability to remove themselves psychologically from the agony they experienced in the workplace under the toxic leader after having left the workplace each day. Like other categories of psychological and physical consequences of toxic leadership, the endless replaying of workplace occurrences in the mind constitutes a consequence of toxic leadership which remains with employees outside of the workplace and which impacts their personal lives.

Participant 9 recalled her experiences:

Every day was a bad day, and something bad always happened to me. It might have been a threat, a nasty comment, a belittling statement, or an outright attack on me, but somehow there was always something. I found myself replaying the events of the day in my mind after I would leave for the day, and this was especially true when I was trying to fall asleep. It was like I could not escape the day’s events in my own mind, and it was torture (p. 8).

Participant 9 describes the replaying of toxic events from the workplace in her mind as psychological torture, and it impacted her ability to sleep. Participant 14 echoes the sentiments of Participant 9:

I could never stop thinking about work. No matter how hard I would try to forget about what happened at work, I just couldn’t. I could not clear my mind, so I just kept thinking about what had happened on a particular day at work and could never escape it (p. 8).

The mental torture and psychological entrapment Participants 9 and 14 describe constitute a significant impact of toxic leadership on those who are targeted. The inability to escape the toxic events, even outside the workplace, because they are constantly replayed in the mind, exemplifies the insidious way in which toxic targeting

195

can completely consume a victim’s entire life with psychological consequences. The

victims fail to achieve a state of rest and peace of mind because they are tormented with

toxicity at all times.

Feelings of Paranoia

Study participants generally expressed experiencing feelings of paranoia in terms

of fear. These feelings of paranoia became manifest through fear of the next threat and fear of unemployment. Participant 9 recalled her feelings of paranoia brought on by her experiences of toxic targeting and recounted how difficult life with a feeling of constant paranoia had become:

Participant 9 couples her feeling of paranoia with feelings of loss of self-confidence, depression and entrapment. Participant 9’s paranoia is grounded in her lived experiences of toxic targeting, which conditioned her to suspect that future targeting events would occur. This phenomenon of paranoid conditioning is captured by Participant 10 in her account of the paranoia she experienced as a consequence of toxic targeting:

The next attack could have always been right around the corner. You never knew what was going to happen next, but you knew it would be bad. I think, looking back on the situation now, I resented the control the leader had over my emotions. He made me paranoid that something bad was always going to happen, and it usually did (p. 7).

Participant 10 equates the emergence of her paranoia with her lived experiences of toxic targeting in the workplace and reflects upon the control that the toxic leader had over her

196

emotions and feelings. She directly links the toxic leader’s behaviors and targeting to the

emergence of her paranoia.

Feelings of Entrapment

Most study participants experienced difficulty securing a new job which would

have allowed them to quickly escape from the toxic leader and focused upon the long and

grueling job search when they discussed their feelings of entrapment and enslavement to

a toxic leader and their employing organizations. Participant 9’s commentary on her

feelings of entrapment under a toxic leader summarize the sentiments of study

participants who reported experiencing a sense of entrapment associated with toxic

leadership. In Participant 9’s words:

As previously discussed, the key element present in accounts of entrapment is the existence of a vicious cycle, which is clearly evidenced in Participant 9’s commentary.

Once study participants experienced toxic targeting, they experienced a number of psychological and physical consequences of the toxic targeting which, in some instances as previously discussed, led to decreased motivation to apply for and find new jobs. This decreased sense of motivation, coupled with poor economic conditions and job prospects, led some study participants, of which Participant 9 serves as an example, to cite feelings of entrapment as a consequence of toxic leadership. Associated with these feelings of entrapment was a sense of hopelessness, as described in the subsequent section.

197

Feelings of Hopelessness, Irritability and Frustration

Study participants who reported experiencing a sense of hopelessness as a

psychological consequence of toxic leadership and toxic targeting fell into two main

groups: (1) study participants who felt hopeless in their attempts to find alternative

employment and (2) study participants who felt hopeless in their attempts to handle the

toxic leader and to reach resolution of the issues with which they were confronted in the

workplace. As previously discussed, Participant 9’s case provides an example of the

sense of hopelessness associated with continuing to remain with a toxic leader, whatever

the circumstances surrounding the extended period of time with the toxic leader may be.

Participant 8 provides an example of a study participant who experienced a sense of

hopelessness associated with an inability to effectively address and resolve confrontations

with the toxic leader. As Participant 8 noted:

Participant 8’s commentary illustrates a sense of hopelessness originating from a lack of resolution. Her attempts to resolve the issues with the toxic leader directly failed, as did her attempts to seek resolution through the Human Resources Department. Realizing that

198 a resolution was not possible in her organization, she experienced a sense of hopelessness; however, this sense of hopelessness differs from the sense of hopelessness

Participant 9 identified. In the instance of Participant 8, the hopelessness stemmed from an inability to effect resolution and a change in the toxic leader’s behavior, not from an inability to find other employment; in the instance of Participant 9, the hopelessness emanated from an inability to quickly find other employment.

Study participants generally reported experiencing increased irritability that negatively impacted their relationships outside of work. Participants tended to discuss this increased irritability in terms of the frustration they experienced as a result of long and grueling job searches while continuing to have to face toxic targeting on a daily basis in the workplace. Participants also tended to cite the dread of knowing they had to face the toxic leader every day as another source of their increased irritability. Participant

12’s account of the irritability she experienced outside the workplace impacted her relationship with her family because it carried over into her personal life. Participant 12 recalled her shortness of temper and her annoyance with routine occurrences and situations outside of work which had never bothered her prior to her experience of toxic targeting:

The combination of a long, unsuccessful job search and the utter dread of having to go to work gave me a short fuse. My family noticed that I seemed to be irritated all the time and that I would have a short fuse when it came to little things that never really bothered me before. I just seemed to have very little patience for anything those days (p. 7).

Participant 12’s commentary succinctly captures the sentiments of all study participants who reported irritability as a consequence of suffering toxic leadership in the workplace.

As with other categories of physical and psychological suffering discussed in this

199 chapter, study participants collectively identified irritability as a consequence of toxic leadership that impacted their personal lives and relationships outside of the workplace, providing further evidence for the detrimental impacts of toxic leadership and toxic targeting on employees that extends beyond the actual workplace and enshrouds their entire lives with toxicity.

The frustration study participants reported experiencing as a result of toxic leadership and toxic targeting assumed two forms: (1) frustration with the toxic leader, and (2) study participants’ frustration with themselves for having to continue to suffer and not being able to escape quickly enough. Participant 1 recalled his frustration with the toxic leader:

He [the toxic leader] would just not listen to reason. He demanded more and more from me and refused to pay me for my work. It was very frustrating because there was just no way to get through to him or to reason with him (p. 8).

Participant 13, like Participant 1, expressed frustration with the toxic leader, but also with himself for tolerating the toxic leadership and workplace because he was unable to quickly find another position. According to Participant 13:

I was frustrated because he [the toxic leader] refused to perform any kind of quality check on our work, and that should have been standard practice. But I was also frustrated that I could not find another position and that it ended up taking as along as it did for me to leave. I had reached the end of my rope long before I was actually able to leave (p. 7).

Participant 13 experienced two kinds of frustration associated with toxic leadership. On the one hand, like Participant 1, he was frustrated with the toxic leader’s refusal to conduct quality control of employees’ work; on the other hand, Participant 13 was frustrated with the job market and with the length of time it took him to find a

200 comparable position, which, in turn, extended the length of time he remained with the toxic leader. Participant 13 goes on to note the impact the frustration had on him:

The frustration caused me a lot of stress and anxiousness because I desperately wanted to leave, but I needed another job first. The leader wasn’t going to budge – he said he was not going to do any work, and he made sure that he didn’t. That increased the amount of work I had to do, and I wasn’t being paid for it (p. 7).

Participant 13 experienced increased levels of stress and anxiety because of his frustration with the toxic leader, his inability to rapidly escape the toxic leader, and the increased workload he had to assume as a result of the toxic leader’s refusal to do any work. Frustration, then, constitutes a factor in increased levels of stress and anxiety, as exemplified in Participant 13’s account.

Feeling of Being Controlled, Pressured and Silenced

Study participants generally expressed sentiments that they were under the total control of the toxic leader and the employing organization and that they were pressured and silenced by their respective toxic leaders. Participants tended to discuss these issues from a broader perspective by linking the control they realized the toxic leader and organization had over them to the control that all organizations have over people. The participants expressed that contemporary society appears to believe that organization and their leaders have a right to control every aspect of people’s lives and that they can treat people poorly without experiencing any consequences. Finally, participants expressed concern about the way organizations and their leaders collude to maintain a stranglehold on people in order to ensure the perpetuation of their oppressive ways. Participant 3’s insight on the extent of control organizations and their toxic leaders exert over people constitutes the sine qua non of study participants’ sentiments regarding experiencing a feeling of being controlled by a toxic leader. Participant 3 comments:

201

Believe me, I wanted to just walk out the door when I finally landed a new job, but I knew that in today’s world, organizations hold all the power over people. When people apply for new jobs, the new organization always wants to do background checks, and to call the old employer to see what dirt they can find on you. No organization ever believes an employee; they only ever believe other organizations and managers and what they have to say about employees. Organizations and their leaders can threaten you, fire you at a moment’s notice and make your life miserable, and you really can’t do anything about it except accept it with a smile, because organizations always have the final say; they always win. And even though they can treat you terribly and give you a bad recommendation to other employers, you had better follow all the rules yourself and give your two weeks’ notice because that would be just another nail in the coffin when the next employer calls to check up on you (p. 8).

The feeling of being controlled by toxic leaders and organizations expressed in this commentary is coupled with a sense of hopelessness which appears to synthesize the two categories of hopelessness identified and addressed in a previous section. Specifically,

Participant 3’s commentary points to the hopelessness associated with finding another job after experiencing toxic targeting and being labeled a “problem employee,” because future employers frequently consult past employers when making hiring decisions. Yet, this sense of hopelessness also encompasses the issue of being unable to control the kind of recommendation a former employer might provide to a future employer.

Study participants who reported experiencing a feeling of pressure as a result of their toxic targeting cited unreasonable demands from the toxic leader as the source of the pressure. The pressure caused psychological harm to study participants because it increased their levels of stress and frustration. Participant 1, for instance, described the increased feeling of pressure he experienced as a result of toxic targeting, which quickly manifested itself in the form of migraine headaches:

I never had migraines in my entire life until he [the toxic leader] started in on me. There was just no escape – he would call me at home and demand that I do more work in the evenings. There was always something he demanded, and it was never a polite request, either. I had migraines every night from him, and that’s

202

why I had to leave without having another job already lined up. The day I left was the first day in a long time I didn’t have a headache. I was under constant stress and pressure from him (p. 8).

Clearly, as Participant 1 contends, psychological pressure became manifest in a physical

ailment– migraine headaches. Participant 14’s account of the pressure she experienced

under a toxic leader documents an important link between pressure from a toxic leader

and a sense of entrapment. In Participant 14’s words:

As I mentioned, I was under tight deadlines for the menial tasks he gave me, and, like I said, I was micromanaged. The pressure was intense, and I felt trapped under him, like I was going to suffocate (p. 7).

Participant 14 links the pressure she received from her toxic leader in the form of tight

deadlines on menial tasks to toxic suffocation and a sense of entrapment. Participant 14’s

remarks demonstrate two important findings of this study: (1) the difficulty in identifying

unique categories from the data obtained in this study, because so many of the

descriptions study participants offered contain overlapping categories of information and

(2) the extent to which toxic leadership has an array of consequences, the complex

interplay among which defies attempts at simplistic reduction.

Study participants generally expressed toxic leaders’ desires to silence them in order to ensure that any dissenters or trouble makers remained voiceless. This silencing, in turn, would allow toxic leaders to effectively enact their own agendas without being challenged. Participants generally reported feeling increasingly worthless and feeling that they had nothing of importance of relevance to offer to the organization as a result of being silenced by a toxic leader. As previously discussed, Participants 14 and 15 experienced devoicing as part of the toxic targeting to which they were subjected. The

203 quotes of these two participants are examined again in this section in terms of the psychological consequences of devoicing. Participant 14 recalls:

In reflecting upon the impacts the feeling of being silenced had upon her, Participant 14 noted:

I felt worthless, like nothing I had to offer would ever be respected or listened to. For a while, I kept telling myself that I had too much to offer to be treated this way at work, but over time, it wore away at my soul and was very damaging (p. 8).

Participant 15’s commentary provides sentiments similar to those of Participant 14:

In reflecting upon her experience of devoicing and being silenced, Participant 15 commented:

I felt like a fool because he silenced me, interrupted me and dismissed everything I had to say. I started to think that maybe I really didn’t have anything of value to offer to anyone anymore (p. 6).

Examined collectively, the reflections Participants 14 and 15 offer regarding the psychological impact of devoicing, and the resulting feelings associated with being silenced by a toxic leader, extended far beyond the rudeness associated with the act of devoicing. Over an extended period of time, the act of devoicing and silencing people has a serious psychological impact upon its victims. In the cases of Participants 14 and

15, the psychological impacts of toxic devoicing resulted in feelings of worthlessness and a questioning of the self.

204

Feeling of Isolation

Study participants largely reported experiencing a sense of isolation as a result of

their toxic targeting because other employees believed they would be targeted if they

interacted with study participants, and because these same participants had experienced the leaders’ attempts to silence them. Participants also discussed feeling like a “lone ranger” because they received no organizational support from senior leaders and human resource personnel, both of whom supported the toxic leaders. Participant 3 recalls the feeling of isolation she experienced as a result of the devoicing and toxic targeting she endured under toxic leadership. Participant 3 reflects upon the feeling of isolation and the damaging psychological effects she suffered as a result:

I felt so alone back then [while she was under the toxic leader] because I had no support anywhere at work. I didn’t even feel like doing anything outside of work because it was depressing not being able to speak at work; but, he [the toxic leader] supposedly knew best, and I was the lone ranger. I had friends and family outside of work, but I couldn’t stand to talk to them about what was going on at work, so I really was alone, and I started thinking that I must be the one who was wrong. I questioned myself a lot back then; it was small consolation to learn recently that the company had gone under. Huummmm….knowing that, maybe I was right all along (p. 8).

Study participants reporting a feeling of isolation, like Participant 3, expressed sentiments indicative of their inability to discuss the toxicity they experienced on a daily basis in the workplace with friends and family outside of work and with co-workers or other organizational entities such as the Human Resource Department or senior organizational leaders. This resulted in a sense of isolation and general feeling that other people either would not understand the situation, or, in the case of organizational leaders and human resource practitioners, were unwilling to address employee concerns.

205

The Turnover Event

The overarching theme study participants expressed when they discussed the turnover event, defined here as the day on which study participants submitted their resignations to the toxic leaders, was the anticlimactic nature of the entire event.

Noteworthy is that, since no study participant reported leaving the workplace the same day he or she submitted the official resignation to the toxic leader, no study participant reported feeling better about his or her situation until after he or she left the workplace permanently, which, in every case, was two weeks after submitting the official resignation. Indeed, it is astounding that, after so much suffering under a toxic leader within organizations that condoned and encouraged toxic leadership, study participants all provided two weeks’ notice of their resignation. Participant 3’s comments succinctly summarize the general sentiment of all study participants when asked why they provided the standard full two weeks’ notice:

Participant 3’s sentiments succinctly summarize and synthesize what every study participant mentioned, although no account was as comprehensive as the one Participant

3 offered. Collectively, study participants recognized that organizations always have the

206 final say in their employment, in their livelihood, and in their assigned work tasks and jobs activities. The control that organizations hold over people in contemporary society was highlighted when study participants were asked why they all provided two weeks’ notice to their toxic leaders, and the overarching sentiment echoing throughout all interviews resonated loudly and clearly – organizations can do whatever they wish to whomever they wish, but employees must always follow the established rules or face the consequences for their non-compliance.

Specifically, Participant 3’s statements illuminate the extent to which an employee who is targeted with toxicity in one organization or workplace may well have great difficulty obtaining a position with another organization if that organization performs a background check which includes speaking to the former employer about the candidate. In such a situation, a candidate could receive a negative evaluation from the former employer through no fault of his or her own. Examined within the context of this study and the toxic targeting study participants reported experiencing, their unsuccessful attempts at handling the toxic targeting events, and their eventual departure from their respective toxic leaders, Participant 3’s narrative is particularly illustrative. Victims of toxic leadership who do anything other than accept the toxic targeting “with a smile,” in

Participant 3’s words, may be doomed to receive a bad evaluation from the toxic leader, and, if Participant 3 is correct, the future employer would likely not believe or wish to hear any account of past employment other than that offered by the former employer. In this scenario, victims of toxic leadership remain forever at the mercy of their former employers and toxic leaders.

207

That the act of submitting the official resignation was uneventful may appear superficially strange because of the extent of suffering study participants reported experiencing under toxic leadership. Participant 3 theorizes that the uneventfulness of the act of resignation may be explained by considering that the toxic leader finally got what he wanted. Participant 3 explains:

He [the toxic leader] was not surprised in the least when I submitted my resignation, and it almost seemed to me like he wanted to smile or laugh, but he held it back. I guess he finally got what he wanted – he got rid of his problem, the person who tried to get him and others to think outside the box. He basically ignored me for the last two weeks I was there, and I’m not even sure he knew when I left on my last day (p. 9).

Participant 3 surmises that the toxic leader’s calm demeanor on the day she submitted her resignation is representative of his winning of the battle against her. The toxic leader achieved what he wanted, her resignation, and saw no need to continue targeting her for her remaining two weeks because she would soon be gone forever. Noteworthy is

Participant 3’s commentary regarding the threat she posed to the toxic leader before she submitted her resignation. The threat, in this instance, centered on her attempts to make the toxic leader think outside the box and in her attempt to offer unique insight and to challenge the status quo, for which she was silenced and devoiced. Once the threat had been eliminated, in other words, once Participant 3 submitted her resignation, the toxic leader perhaps saw no reason to continue targeting her because he had successfully eliminated the threat to his reign.

All study participants reported similarly calm resignations, but not all study participants reported having been ignored and left alone during the final two weeks under the toxic leader. For example, Participant 2 recalled the overtasking he experienced:

208

In retrospect, I’m not really sure why I gave two weeks’ notice. I would have been better off just quitting and leaving for good the same day because I suddenly got overtasked with things to get ready so someone else could easily walk in and take over my position. I was supposed to basically create materials to train a new person on my job. I created a notebook with a title page on the cover, and filled the notebook with blank paper. The leader was such a lazy, arrogant idiot that he never thought to actually open the notebook and check it; I left it on my desk the last day I was there and walked out (p. 7).

Unlike Participant 3 who was ignored for her final weeks of employment with the toxic

leader, Participant 2 experienced overtasking, with which he did not comply. The

turnover event, conceptualized in this study as the submission of an official resignation to

a toxic leader, was uneventful for study participants.

Life After Leaving a Toxic Leader

Study participants reported an array of emotions and feelings following their

eventual departure from the toxic leader. These emotions, feelings and reactions to

escaping the toxic leader clustered around two thematic foci: (1) positive reactions to

resignation, and (2) lingering concerns about the actions of the toxic leader following

resignation. Study participants’ description of life after escaping a toxic leader which

indicate a positive reaction clustered around four thematic foci: (1) feeling of relief, (2)

feeling of freedom, (3) experiencing of positive emotions, and (4) feeling of

empowerment. Negative reactions to escaping the toxic leader through resignation

clustered around the theme of lingering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Each of these thematic foci is addressed in turn in the subsequent subsections.

Feeling of Relief

The sense of immediate relief study participants reported experiencing is captured by Participants 9 and 14 in their expression of a sense of freedom in the form of

209 immediate relief after walking out the door for the last time at their toxic workplaces.

Participant 9 recalled the overwhelming sense of relief:

I walked out for the last time and never looked back. I would never have to see his [the toxic leader’s] face ever again, never have to hear his tirades, and never have to think about ever going back. The immediate sense of relief I felt was overwhelming, but it only lasted so long (p. 8).

Participant 9’s immediate sense of relief after leaving the toxic leader forever was just that – immediate. As is subsequently addressed, Participant 9’s commentary continues with a troubling twist. Participant 14’s immediate sense of relief went a long way in helping to solidify a different frame of mind, one which was much more conducive to helping her to recover from the serious illness from which she continued to suffer after her departure:

It was immediate relief when I left on my last day. I felt better psychologically almost immediately, and that was important so that I could start healing physically (p. 8).

Participant 14 links the important role of good psychological health in promoting physical well-being and recognized that the sense of immediate relief would be the harbinger of better times to come.

The permanence of the resignation and the fact that participants would never again have to face the toxic leader constituted the themes upon which study participants focused their attention in interviews when expressing the sense of having a weight lifted off of their shoulders. Participant 14 described the sense of relief she felt after departing permanently from the toxic leader as a weight off her shoulders. As Participant 14 explained:

It was a huge weight off my shoulders when it finally sank in that I never had to return [to the toxic workplace] (p. 9).

210

Participant 12 echoes these sentiments, stating:

The day I left was the day I felt the burden lifted from my shoulders. It was a relief, and I felt light and free (p. 9).

Unlike Participant 14, for whom the feeling of having a weight lifted off her shoulders took some time after her final departure from the toxic workplace to register in her mind,

Participant 12 reported an immediate and lasting feeling of having a weight lifted off her shoulders, of being light and free.

Freedom

All study participants used a form of the word “free” or “freedom” to describe the feelings they experienced following their final day with the toxic leader. Study participants used the terms “free” or “freedom” or “feeling of being free” and went on to elaborate upon and further describe this sense of freedom using other descriptors subsequently addressed in this section. For this reason, the terms “free,” “freedom,” and

“feeling of being free” emerged in the data as overarching descriptors of the Post-

Turnover Phase. Of particular note, Participants 15 and 3 specifically use the term “free” to refer to the freedom they gained through their resignation to express themselves and to have a voice. All other study participants used “free” as one of several descriptors to express their feelings after leaving a toxic leader; therefore, their commentary is addressed under the subsequent, more exact descriptors they used.

Participant 15 discussed the freedom she experienced after escaping the toxic leader:

Things are much better for me now that I am gone. I feel free, and I have started a whole new career as an independent contractor where I never have to worry about having toxic leaders ever again. I’m much happier and people value what I say and have to offer (p. 7).

211

Participant 3 expressed sentiments similar to Participant 15:

I feel free now to speak and have my voice heard. At first, it took some getting used to, to actually have people asking for my input, rather than being shut up (p. 7).

In both Participant 15’s and 3’s cases, a part of the sense of freedom they felt after having escaped from the toxic leader entails being valued and listened to. Both of these participants had previously suffered from devoicing at the hands of toxic leaders. They are now free to express themselves and their thoughts without fear of silencing.

Study participants who tended to characterize their escape from their respective toxic leaders as a feeling of being released from jail tended to speak of the organizational prisons to which they believe all people are enslaved, by which they believe all people are controlled, and through which they believe people suffer from the presence of toxic leadership. Departing from a toxic leader felt like getting out of jail for some study participants, and Participant 2’s comments summarize the sentiment:

The last day I walked out that door [of his former employer], I felt like it was the end of a long prison sentence; I felt like I was getting out of jail. I was ready to start my new life, to take control of my life and to move forward with more important things. I had served my time, and now I was free (p. 8).

Participant 2’s comparison of the workplace to a prison, and of his suffering under toxic leadership to a prison sentence is telling and constitutes a topic which is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Experiencing of Positive Emotions

Study participants generally expressed having experienced positive emotions such as happiness, elation, and a sense of positive change and satisfaction, following their resignations. Sentiments of happiness were expressed in interviews in terms of three thematic foci: (1) the happiness associated with having escaped the toxic leader, (2) the

212 happiness associated with having secured other employment, and (3) happiness in terms of excitement to move on with one’s life beyond the toxic leader. Participant 11 captured the feeling of happiness study participants reported feeling upon their final departure from the toxic leader:

It was finally over, and I felt happy that I could start fresh in a new place. I was happy not just to have escaped, but also to have been able to find a new job (p. 8).

Participant 11’s comments succinctly capture the essence of the sentiments study participants expressed regarding the happiness they felt first upon realizing that they had finally escaped from the toxic leader, and then realizing that they would never have to return and could start a new chapter in their careers.

Study participants expressed feelings of elation after resigning to escape the toxic leader and tended to thematize and to discuss the emotion in terms of control. The participants expressed that they were elated that the toxic leader would never again have control over them. Participant 9, in conjunction with her feeling of immediate relief after permanently departing from the toxic leader, expressed a sense of elation and empowerment, but, as previously mentioned, Participant 9’s case is unique in that these positive emotions immediately following her departure from the toxic leader did not last, an issue to be subsequently addressed. Speaking about her sense of elation, Participant 9 commented:

I think I would also say I was elated and empowered. I had so many emotions running through my mind when I walked out for the last time. I felt like I was back in control of my life and that was empowering and elating at the same time because I had had no control over what happened to me at work for so long, that I felt elated that that chapter had been closed, but also empowered (p. 9).

Participant 9 captures the essence of the many emotions study participants reported experiencing upon their final departure from toxic leaders. The empowerment Participant

213

9 links to regaining a sense of control over her life and career mirrors Participant 2’s previous sentiments of having regained power and control in his life and career, as well.

These comments illustrate toxic leaders’ capacities to rob people of their sense of power, control and empowerment over their own lives and careers. When this sense of control over one’s path is re-established, study participants experienced an array of positive emotions.

Participants characterized their escape from the toxic leader as a positive change and tended to discuss the change in terms of their new jobs. Participant 14 describes her departure from the toxic leader as a positive change in her life, in addition to the other descriptors she used, and which were previously discussed. Participant 3 also used the term “positive change” among the descriptors she employed to describe her feelings after leaving the toxic leader. In Participant 3’s words:

Starting my new job was a very positive change for me. It was a complete change from what I had experienced under the toxic leader, and to this day I have never heard from him again (p. 7).

Finally, participants who expressed experiencing feelings of satisfaction after resigning to escape a toxic leader generally discussed the satisfaction in terms of two themes: (1) satisfaction with their attempts to work with and resolve issues with the toxic leader, even if those attempts were unsuccessful, and (2) satisfaction with their decision to resign once they realized that no satisfactory resolution could or would be reached with the toxic leader and the employing organization. Participant 8 cited feelings of satisfaction upon her departure from the toxic leader and captured these feelings as follows:

214

I felt satisfied when I left because I knew that I had tried to deal with the issues I had had with the toxic leader, and I tried everything I could think of, and nothing worked. I was satisfied that I had given it my best effort, and it didn’t work out because it just kept getting more unbearable. I was satisfied with how I handled the situation, and I was satisfied with my decision to leave (p. 9).

Participant 8 notes that the feeling of satisfaction she experienced after leaving the toxic leader emanated from two sources. First, she is satisfied with her attempts to address and to resolve the problems she experienced with the toxic leader, even though those attempts ultimately failed. Second, she is satisfied with her decision to leave and to engage in other employment.

Feeling of Empowerment

Study participants tended to express experiencing excitement, invigoration and a sense of empowerment after submitting a resignation to their respective toxic leaders.

Participants discussed the excitement in terms of two thematic foci: (1) their excitement to be free from the toxic leader’s clutches, and (2) their excitement to begin a new chapter of their lives. Participant 2 expressed excitement at the prospect of being able to finally work full-time on his business. As Participant 2 stated:

For me, the excitement was two-fold – I got to work full-time on my business, and I got away from my toxic boss. It was a win-win for me, and I never looked back. I still get excited when I think that I have my own business (p. 9).

Participant 2 alludes to a lasting sense of excitement he continues to derive from owning and running his own business, and which has lasted long after he left the toxic leader.

For Participant 2, part of his excitement was his escape from the toxic leader, while the lasting excitement heralds from operating his own business.

Study participants experienced a sense of invigoration after submitting their resignations to the toxic leaders and discussed a renewed sense of empowerment and

215

belief in oneself. Participant 2, in addition to expressing excitement for having escaped

from the toxic leader and to begin full-time his business endeavor, expressed a sense of invigoration:

It wasn’t just excitement, it was invigoration I felt when I left. I felt like there was nobody to hold me back anymore, and like I could do anything I put my mind to. It was a thrilling and invigorating feeling (p. 8).

Participant 13 expressed similar sentiments of invigoration, not because of a business venture he had begun, but because he felt as if he had transcended the obstacles the toxic leader had created:

All the days of negativity were behind me, and it was invigorating to think that I never had to go back to that again, and that, no matter where I worked, I would never allow myself to succumb to toxic leadership again. If I ever find myself in a toxic situation in the future, I think I’ll handle it more quickly by simply removing myself from the situation. Knowing that I have the power to do so is invigorating (p. 9).

Participant 13’s commentary touches on issues of power, which were previously discussed in these findings, but Participant 13 has reclaimed power over his own career and life by leaving the toxic leader and by possessing an awareness of what he will never allow to happen to him again. A toxic leader will never again hold Participant 13 under his reign, and the power to say no to toxicity is an invigorating prospect for Participant

13.

As previously discussed utilizing commentary from Participants 2 and 9, the sense of empowerment study participants reported experiencing is directly linked to the physical and emotional separation of the self from the toxic leader, embodied in the final departure. Having severed ties to toxicity and having shed the shackles of toxic oppression to which study participants were bound under toxic leaders, the re-

216

establishment of control over one’s life, career and destiny is empowering, invigorating

and freeing.

Lingering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Symptoms

Some study participants reported experiencing lasting physical and psychological

symptoms associated with stress. In each instance in which study participants discussed

these lingering symptoms, they mentioned the term post-traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD), and they associated what they had experienced under a toxic leader, as well as the lasting impacts of their suffering with PTSD. Participant 9 presents a unique case among study participants in that no other participants reported having experienced anything other than positive emotions following their departure from toxic leaders.

Participant 9, however, noted that she initially experienced positive emotions, but that these feelings quickly faded once she began her new job. Concern and worry began to grip her, and she feared that the evil of the toxic leader would resurface in her life and that it would negatively impact her standing in her new job and organization. In

Participant 9’s words:

It is widely known that organizations and their leaders talk to one another, and even though no specific threat was made when I left [the toxic leader], I started to fear that somehow he would be able to inflict harm on me or on my reputation in my new organization. If that were to happen, I know that organizations never believe employees and their sides of the story, so whatever my former toxic boss would say about me if he had the opportunity, would be what the organization would believe. It still worries me to this day that this could still happen to me. It probably sounds like I’m paranoid, but after what I went though, I have reason to be. There are still to this day times that I wake up in the middle of the night or have trouble falling asleep, or that I feel anxious because my mind suddenly returns to the toxic leader. I honestly feel like I have PTSD (p. 9).

Participant 9 identifies the issue of control that organizations have over people which extends beyond the immediate workplace and may impact a person’s career long-term.

217

Participant 9 characterizes the physical and psychological symptoms she experiences as a form of PTSD and links these symptoms to the fear which continues to grip her, which is an extension of the toxic leader’s continued control over her, long after her departure from the leader. Her fear of the collusion among organizations and their leaders and the negative consequences she could suffer as a result of this collusion, quickly replaced

Participant 9’s initial positive emotions following her departure from the toxic leader.

Summary

The findings of this study were presented and discussed in terms of four unique phases which link toxic leadership to voluntary employee turnover, and which appear, based upon study participants’ interview data, to proceed as part of a process. This process linking toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover as developed from the individual narratives of study participants gleaned from interview data represents the phases through which all study participants passed on their journey from toxic workplace environments, to toxic targeting, to the complex process of deciding how to handle toxic targeting events and deciding how and when to voluntarily resign to escape the toxic leader, to the final phase of life after the toxic leader. The phases of the model and the categories of data relevant to each phase of the model were discussed and illustrated using selected quotes from study participants’ interviews.

218

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Expounding upon the findings of this study presented in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 answers the research and analytic questions that guided the study and formulates final conclusions gleaned from the data. It also offers preliminary augmentations to extant literature on toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover, as well as recommendations for organizations, their leaders, and society. The chapter commences with a review of the research and analytic questions that guided this study and an overview of the answers to these questions. The subsequent discussion shifts to a model, termed in this work “The Toxic-Turnover Model,” which depicts the relationship between toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover, and which has been developed based upon the temporal phases that emerged from the broader narrative linking toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover distilled from study participants’ interviews. This model depicts the process study participants reported having traversed from the genesis of their time under toxic leaders to the time of their departure.

The chapter progresses by discussing “The Toxic-Turnover Model” in light of

Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover. The discourse then shifts to a discussion of this study’s contributions to the extant literature characterizing toxic leadership by highlighting several thematic foci that emerged from this study which have not been discussed in the extant literature. Subsequently, the role of gender and generational cohort is addressed, followed by a discussion of recommendations for organizations and their leaders for neutralizing the impacts of toxic

219

leadership and mitigating employee turnover as a result of toxic leadership. Finally, the

chapter concludes with broader implications of this study for organizations and society at

large and recommendations for future research.

Interpretation of Findings

This study sought to answer the research question: “What do participants consider to constitute toxic leadership and how did toxic leadership impact their decision to leave an organization?” Evidence gleaned from study participants’ personal interviews appears to indicate that study participants generally agreed that toxic leadership is broadly comprised of leader behaviors which stand in contradiction to truth, honesty, fairness, hard work and emotional stability, as indicated by the extensive discussion of toxic leader behaviors in Chapter 4. The findings in this study generally appear to support Pelletier’s

(2010) conclusions that people seem to demonstrate general agreement about what constitutes toxic leadership. Although participants in this study also demonstrated such overarching agreement, several categories of toxic behaviors and features of toxic leaders emerged in this study, which are not found in the extant literature on toxic leadership, and which will be addressed in a subsequent section of this chapter. Several scholars, notably

Hogan and Hogan (2001), and Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007), have contended that certain features of organizational environments may support the rise and presence of toxic leadership in workplaces. The findings of this study appear to support this theorization, and study participants generally associated workplaces conducive to toxic leadership as those in which senior organizational leaders, human resource personnel and other organizational entities charged with leader oversight fail to effectively execute this role, but rather, support organizational leaders at all costs.

220

Regarding the first analytic question: “What specific leader behaviors do participants characterize as toxic?”, there was general agreement about what constituted toxic leadership, and although most categories of toxic leader behaviors evidence agreement with the extant conceptual and empirical research on toxic leadership, several noteworthy categories of leader behaviors emerged in this study which were either not previously discussed in the literature, or which were theorized in a way counter to the findings of this study: (1) hegemony, power and control, (2) intentionality of toxicity; (3) unwillingness of organizations to deal with toxic leaders, and (4) physical and psychological consequences resulting from toxic leadership and a toxic workplace.

These topical foci will be addressed in detail in subsequent sections and it should be noted that, due to the interrelated nature of these topical foci, each of the aforementioned categories is not discussed as a separate entity in a subsection.

In terms of the analytic questions: “How do participants describe their daily workplace experiences under toxic leaders?”, and “How do study participants describe the impact of exposure to toxic leadership in the workplace on their lives inside and outside of the workplace?”, study participants characterized these experiences as stressful, demeaning and generally dreadful in nature. Study findings indicate that study participants all agreed that the very thought of having to face the toxic leader and go to work conjured feelings of dread, which, in turn, brought about increased psychological and physical suffering. Study participants reported experiencing decreased satisfaction and motivation in- and outside of the workplace, in addition to negative impacts on their interactions with others in- and outside of the workplace, decreased happiness in life at

221

home, and psychological imprisonment and torture caused by an inability to escape the

events of the workplace when at home.

The findings of this study indicate that the answer to the analytic question “Was there a specific event that occurred in the workplace which caused participants to leave the organization, and if so, what was the event and how do participants describe it?”, was a resounding “yes” for all study participants. All study participants reported having experienced a specific event with a toxic leader which caused them to immediately consider leaving the organization to escape the toxic leader. This event constituted the critical incident which initiated the process through which all study participants went as they moved toward resignation. This process is depicted in Figure 1.2 and has elements in common with Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee

Turnover. Both the process depicted in Figure 1.2 and its parallels to Lee and Mitchell’s model are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. Study participants described this event or critical incident as one in which the toxic leader directly attacked them for one of a variety of reasons, ranging from questioning the leader’s decisions to correcting his or her mistakes, to being the victim of lies of the leader’s cronies, to pursuing higher education and being physically and/or sexually unattractive to the leader. A core element of the critical incident was the toxic temper tantrum, which a majority of study participants reported having experienced. The toxic temper tantrum is characterized by a display of childish behaviors, such as yelling, kicking furniture, pounding of the fist on a table or desk, lunging out of a chair at the victim and pointing a finger at the victim while chiding him or her, which the toxic leader displayed when he or she perceived the study participants to constitute a threat for any reason. Unable to deal with perceived threats

222 maturely, toxic leaders appear to have resorted to childish behaviors and petty threats, in essence relegating themselves during these tantrums to the status of what Ashforth (1994) terms the “petty tyrant.” These displays of petty tyranny constitute the events which caused study participants to initiate the process of securing other employment.

Finally, regarding the analytic question, “Was the event which caused participants to leave the organization different from previous encounters with toxic leaders, and if so, how was it different?”, study participants’ reports evidenced general agreement that the critical incident was different from previous encounters with their respective toxic leaders, and that the direct nature of the attack distinguished the critical incident from previous encounters. Specifically, study participants differentiated between interactions with toxic leaders prior to the critical incident, during the critical incident and following the critical incident. Study participants characterized interactions with the toxic leader prior to the critical incident as generally unpleasant, but as part of an overall

Organizational Context of Toxicity, in which toxic leadership behaviors were tolerated within the organization and were witnessed by study participants, although they were not directed toward study participants in the form of an attack. By contrast, study participants characterized their interactions with toxic leaders during and after the critical incident as direct assaults on them, often including a toxic temper tantrum at the time of the critical incident, and followed by continuous toxic targeting in the workplace after the critical incident. In sum, study participants reported experiencing relentless toxic targeting following the critical incident. The period of relentless toxic targeting following the critical incident constitutes one temporal phase in the overarching narrative linking the experience of toxic leadership to voluntary employee turnover, and it is to

223

these temporal phases evidenced in all study participants’ interview data that attention is

turned in the subsequent discussion of Figure 1.2.

Conclusions

Interpretation of this study’s findings yields four major conclusions: (1) study participants demonstrated overarching consistency in identifying leader behaviors and organizational contexts they characterized as toxic, and these leader behaviors and organizational features are generally consistent with those identified in the extant literature; (2) study participants identified power, control and hegemony as toxic features of organizations and leaders, and, in so doing, provided a basis from which to extend the extant theoretical lens through which toxic leadership is conceptualized; (3) study participants provided preliminary evidence to suggest organizations and their toxic leaders may constitute the causes of many employee health problems, thereby placing the burden of increased healthcare costs on organizations themselves, while simultaneously dispelling the myth that organizations are forced to bear the brunt of healthcare costs for health problems employees bring to the workplace; (4) study participants demonstrated regularity in their discussions of the temporal phases they underwent from toxic targeting to voluntary resignation, and these phases are captured in Figure 1.2 and subsequently discussed. Each of the aforementioned core conclusions of this study is discussed in turn

throughout the balance of this section in light of the extant literature.

Characterizing Toxic Leadership

Study participants’ characterizations of what constitutes toxic leadership and toxic

leader behaviors generally aligned with the definitions and theorizations found in the

224 extant literature germane to the topic with a few notable exceptions as discussed in this section. Examining first the definition of toxic leadership previously presented in this work, the narratives study participants provided in their interviews appear to validate the theoretical and definitional frameworks through which toxic leadership is conceptualized.

Lipman-Blumen (2005), for example, contends that toxic leadership behaviors must

“inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm on followers” (p. 18) to be characterized as toxic; Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007) argue that toxic leadership is determinable only in retrospect to the extent that a “ cumulative effect” of demotivation and low morale is observed over time (p. 18); Bostock (2010), like Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007), argues that toxic leadership may only be identified in retrospect upon the “objective historical evaluation of all of the relevant evidence” (p. 12); and finally, Krashikova,

Green and LeBreton (2013) contend that toxic leadership is best defined as “volitional behavior by a leader that can harm or intends to harm a leader’s organization and/or followers” (p. 1310). Examined in aggregate, these definitions of toxic leadership all appear to be supported by the empirical evidence gleaned from the narratives of participants in this study. Specifically, study participants reported that, in being targeted by toxicity from a toxic leader, the leader intended to do harm to them, which supports the definitions offered by Lipman-Blumen (2005) and by Krashikova, Green and

LeBreton (2013); furthermore, the evidence gleaned in this study was comprised of retrospective accounts of events study participants experienced, and which they characterized as toxic in nature. The retrospective nature of these accounts as toxic appears to support the definitions offered by Bostock (2010) and by Appelbaum and Roy-

Girard (2007). From the perspective of definitions of toxic leadership, therefore, the

225 evidence study participants provided in their narratives seems to support theoretical conceptions of the constitution of toxic leadership.

Considering next the factor theorized to allow toxic leadership to thrive in organizations, Lipman-Blumen (2005) argues that context, personal characteristics of leaders and compliant followers produce an organizational environment conducive to the emergence or toxic leadership; Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) propose a “toxic triangle” model and argue that toxic leadership emerges from dysfunctional personality traits, subordinates’ desire for direction and authority, and an organizational environment in which toxic leadership is accepted. Common to both of these theorizations are conducive organizational environments and dysfunctional leader personality traits. The findings of this study appear to validate these arguments in the extant theoretical literatures; however, the contention that followers are necessarily compliant and evidence a desire for authority and direction appear not to be supported in this study’s findings.

Specifically, study participants resented the authority and control wielded over them, as well as the arrogance of toxic leaders as they oppressed those whom they perceived to constitute threats to their regimes and hegemonic despotism. Furthermore, in contrast to

Lipman-Blumen’s (2005) assertion, participants in this study evidenced a propensity to attempt to end toxic tyranny in their workplaces and, accordingly, were not compliant and silent in their quest for resolution and neutralization of toxicity. Although participants were eventually forced into silence and compliance by their toxic organizations and leaders, the assumption that followers are willingly compliant in the face of toxic leadership appears to require additional nuance, because employees may only appear to be compliant when forced to decide between dismissal from a job and

226

silently tolerating toxicity until another job can be found. Furthermore, there existed no

empirical evidence in this study to support the theorization that study participants desired authority, as Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) assert; indeed, the opposite appears to hold true among the participants in this study. Study participants resented toxic leaders’ abuses of authority and power, as well as their arrogant attempts to control, exploit and oppress them.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the extant literature specifies a plethora of contextual, cultural and environmental factors which are theorized to promote toxic leadership.

Appelbaum and Roy-Girard (2007) argue that organizational cultures characterized by control and ineffectiveness promote toxic leadership; Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad

(2007) contend that organizational cultures which promote and accept toxic leader behaviors are particularly conducive to the emergence and proliferation of toxic leadership, and that such organizational cultures make recognition and neutralization of toxic leaders especially difficult. The empirical evidence gleaned from this study supports the theorizations that organizational cultures characterized by control, ineffectiveness and acceptance of toxicity promote toxic leadership; indeed, all of these features of organizational cultures were reported by participants in this study. Hogg

(2005) contends that prototypical members of a leader’s in-group gain significant latitude to deviate from organizational norms, which, in turn, serves to spread a leader’s toxicity through in-group members. Yet, the empirical evidence collected in this study appears to indicate that Hogg’s (2005) underlying assumption, namely, that the overarching organizational culture’s normative ethos is non-toxic, requires further nuance and critique. Specifically, study participants consistently reported encountering overarching

227 cultures of toxicity in their organizations, as evidenced by senior leaders and human resources personnel who tolerated and condoned toxic leadership, while readily accepting the array of negative consequences with which it is associated. Accordingly, the implication in theoretical literature that broader organizational cultures are non-toxic requires re-conceptualization. Participants in this study did, nevertheless, confirm the presence of in-group members, whom they identified as cronies of toxic leaders, and whom they characterized as toxic influences upon leaders, from whom they were granted the power to target employees.

Krashikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) theorize that leaders are likely to exhibit toxic behaviors when they have experienced or witnessed such behaviors from their superiors, or when they have faced no repercussions from their superiors as a result of their toxicity. Although the findings of this study provide no empirical evidence to support or disconfirm the extent to which toxic leaders described in this study experienced or witnessed their superiors acting toxically, the evidence from this study appears to support the theorization that toxic leaders were empowered to act in a toxic fashion because they faced no repercussions from the organization. Moreover, study participants consistently reported organizational and senior leader support of toxic leadership. The destructive behaviors toxic leaders are theorized in the extant literature to exhibit were organized in Chapter 2 on Table 1.2 into three categories:

Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. The personality features, characteristics and leader behaviors study participants cited all confirm that the three categories accurately capture the plethora of traits toxic leaders exhibit. A review of the specific behaviors and traits aggregated on Table 1.2 reveals that study participants reported all

228 having experienced all of the traits and behaviors extracted from the extant literature on toxic leaders. The findings of this study indicate that the extant literature generally captures the definitional, cultural, environmental and behavioral aspects inherent in toxic leadership and its proliferation in organizations. Yet, two findings from this study appear to disconfirm the theorizations that followers enable the proliferation of toxic leadership through compliance and a desire for authority. In this study, participants explicitly cited examples in which they proactively sought to combat toxic leadership, albeit unsuccessfully, and in which they resented the authority and control toxic leaders wielded over them.

Finally, study participants identified controlling organizational environments and organizational arrogance as factors which are conducive to the emergence of toxic leadership and which provide fertile ground for senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel to either collude in the promotion of toxicity or to fail to act to neutralize its presence and impact upon employees. The identification of organizational environment as a factor in the promotion of toxic leadership is also consistent with previous theoretical and empirical work (Einarsen, 1999; Erikson, Shaw & Agabe, 2007;

Kirchler & Lang, 1998; Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007; Vartia, 1996). Within the context of this study, three topical foci emerged in participants’ interview data that either were not addressed in the previous literature on toxic leadership, or which were theorized from a perspective which differs from the findings of this study. Each of these three topics is addressed in turn, as are their implications. These topics include: (1) hegemony, power and control, (2) intentionality of toxicity, and (3) unwillingness of organizations to address and neutralize toxic leadership.

229

Hegemony, Power and Control

As discussed in Chapter 4, study participants demonstrated a propensity to discuss in the interviews their perception that the toxic leaders under whom they suffered sought to wield power and control over employees in much the same way that a colonialist despotic hegemon exercises illegitimate power and control over subjects. The identification of hegemony, and its corollaries, power and control, as characteristics of toxic leadership contributes a unique dimension to the extant literature on toxic leadership and opens the discourses surrounding toxic leadership to a new lexicon. The dynamics of power and control in extant literature on organizational behavior and leadership is a well-established domain of theoretical and empirical inquiry (Clegg,

Courpasson & Phillips, 2006; Jermier, Knights & Nord, 1994; Kusy & Halloway, 2009); yet, the characterization of toxic organizational leaders as hegemons, a term typically associated with political despots and used extensively in the discourses of colonialism, has the potential to provide fresh insight into toxic leadership (Deetz, 1992; Mumby,

1998; Prassad, 2003).

The consolidation of hegemonic power and control over employees as subjects of the toxic leader constitutes a topic which has yet to be fully theorized or empirically investigated in the literature on toxic leadership. Nevertheless, the issue of organizational colonialism, concerned primarily with the increasing extent to which mankind has become colonized by organizations and their leaders in contemporary society under the modernist project, constitutes a well-theorized construct, particularly among European academicians (Prassad, 2003). Although the construct of organizational colonialism has been examined from an array of perspectives (Prassad, 2003), perhaps the most relevant

230

perspective for the context of toxic leadership is that of illegitimate claims to exercise

control over people. Theorists of colonialism liken the illegitimate claims of the

Occident’s hegemons during the Era of Colonialism, which spanned from the 15th century

through early 20th century, to conquer, dominate, oppress, control and otherwise exert

power over indigenous peoples around the world, to the contemporary social context in

which organizations have assumed the role of the hegemon and have staked illegitimate

claims to pillage, exploit, oppress, enslave, dominate and control employees (Deetz,

1992; Mumby, 1998; Prassad, 2003). Following this line of argumentation, the toxic

leaders of whom study participants spoke in this study, and whom they characterized as

exerting control and power over employees, particularly in the form of toxic targeting for

the purposes of silencing and instilling fear in employees, with the intent of forcing them

to comply with the leader’s demands or preventing them from disclosing damaging

revelations about the toxic leader, may be viewed as hegemons who seek to consolidate

control over and to colonize employees in the same way as hegemonic leaders of the

Occident colonized indigenous peoples.

Study participants captured the ethos of colonization in an organizational context, emphasizing contemporary organizations’ enslavement and exploitation of employees, and pointed out the use of fear and control of economic resources as a means to ensure

total compliance of employees with the demands of organizations and their leaders,

noting that most employees cannot simply resign from a job without having another

source of income, and that companies appear to exploit employees’ financial dependence

upon them as an excuse to exercise control over them, to exploit them, and to generally

treat them poorly. This picture of contemporary colonialism in organizations centered

231 upon the notion of financial enslavement. Specifically, by ensuring that employees are financially enslaved to them, organizations and their leaders seize the opportunity to consolidate control over employees, to demand their allegiance to the wishes and doctrines of the organization and to hold over employees the constant threat of termination and financial ruin for non-compliance. The social and political fabric of contemporary Occidental society, which legitimizes de facto the rights of organizations and their leaders to exert power and control over employees (Deetz, 1992), provides a rich context for the emergence of petty tyranny and toxic leadership (Ashforth, 1994).

De facto legitimacy infuses organizations and their leaders with the illegitimate assumption that they, like the hegemons of the bygone Era of Colonialism, may dominate and rule their annexed human capital, whether peacefully or violently, in any way they choose. These assumptions, legitimized through the societal imposition of hierarchically- structured organizations, provide the illusion that omniscient and omnipotent leaders are perched upon the apex of the organization’s hierarchy, and leaders, particularly toxic leaders, leverage this façade to oppress and to target employees with toxicity. Yet, as the findings of this study indicate, far from being omniscient, toxic leaders were characterized as lazy, uneducated fools by participants in this study. Armed with control over employees’ incomes, extensive networks of contacts at competitor organizations, and the power to blacklist “troublemakers,” toxic leaders and their employing organizations are able to force employees to tolerate toxicity. Senior organizational leaders, living the motto “profits over people,” turn a blind eye to observations or complaints of toxic leadership and leverage human resource personnel as a weapon by which to discredit, silence and threaten complainers.

232

Study participants evidenced a propensity to discuss their perceptions of toxic

leaders who believed they were omniscient, omnipotent and beyond organizational

sanctions for promoting toxicity in the workplace; furthermore, the findings of this study

indicate that, in all situations study participants discussed, the leaders were immune from

repercussions for their toxicity and wrong-doing. The power vested in senior organizational leaders to regulate, to lead and to manage subordinate leaders and to neutralize toxic leadership within the ranks of leadership was not used for that purpose; rather, senior organizational leaders wielded their power and the power of human resource personnel to condone toxic leadership. The findings of this study, therefore, appear to support recent theorizations and empirical findings in the academic literature on leadership which call into question the assumptions that have underpinned all leadership theories produced in the 20th century, and which have characterized leaders and

leadership in a positive light (Kalloway, 1999). Additionally, this study’s findings

illustrate the implications of leader cartels in organizations which align themselves

against employees; indeed, study participants noted that everyone knows that

management sticks together. Such cartels consist of organizational leaders at all levels of

an enterprise who support one another de facto and who work in tandem to extinguish

what they perceive as any form of dissent, malcontent or attempted critique of any of

their decisions. Many of the toxic tantrums study participants reported having

experienced at the time of the critical incident were the consequence of leaders having

felt threatened by study participants whom they perceived to be questioning them, their

decisions, or their right to unilaterally reign over and control subordinates. It is

noteworthy that no participants in this study reported having been targeted because of a

233

performance problem or as a result of having produced poor work; on the contrary,

several study participants had received awards for their excellence. This finding

indicates, therefore, that study participants appear to have been targeted with toxicity because they were perceived by toxic leaders to constitute a threat to their hegemonic despotism, not because the toxic leaders or human resource personnel had complaints about their work ethic or the quality of their work. This finding is of consequence because it contradicts the findings of Lindebaum & Fielden (2011), that toxic leadership may be used strategically to encourage poor performers to improve the output and quality of their work; in the present study, toxic targeting was used vindictively as a weapon of oppression.

Intentionality of Toxicity

The findings of this study demonstrate that study participants consistently emphasized the intentionality of the toxicity they faced from leaders in their respective workplaces. As previously discussed, scholars of toxic leadership have contended that toxic leadership may be characterized as either intentional or unintentional (Lipman-

Blumen, 2005; Rose, et. al., 2015). The findings of this study call into question the notion that toxic leadership may be unintentional. Specifically, within the context of the present study, participants emphasized the intentionality of the toxic targeting they experienced, which occurred only after their respective toxic leaders perceived them to constitute threats. Yet, fully comprehending the concept of intentionality requires a differentiation between the common denotation of the term as used in daily life and the philosophical denotation of the term. Freeman (2000) distinguishes between intentionality and consciousness and argues that, while the notion of intentionality as

234

used in daily life may imply that the actor is conscious of his or her actions, the concept

of intentionality, when viewed from a philosophical perspective, constitutes a concept

separate from consciousness. Following Freeman’s (2000) argument, human beings may

perform acts with intention, whether or not they are consciously aware of all of their

actions during such a performance. Freeman (2000) grounds his argument for the separation of intentionality from consciousness in neuroscientific research on the function of the human brain and cites dancers and athletes as examples of people who may act with intent in the course of their performances, but who need not necessarily be conscious of the actions they are performing. The insight Freeman (2000) provides regarding the distinction between intentionality and consciousness may provide for researchers such as Rose et. al. (2015) unique insight into questions regarding the possibility that toxic leaders learn the dysfunctional and toxic behaviors they employ against their targets from their present and former leaders. If, as Rose et. al. (2015) find in a literature review, toxic leader behaviors are passed from leader to leader, then there may exist a certain degree of unconsciousness in the employment of those dysfunctional and toxic behaviors against employees. In other words, having themselves been exposed to toxic and dysfunctional behaviors from their leaders, toxic leaders may have assimilated the behaviors from their leaders to such an extent that they operationalize them unconsciously against their subordinates. Consequently, toxic leader theorists who claim that toxic leadership may be either intentional or unintentional may benefit from re- framing the discussion in terms of intentionality and consciousness. Clearly, the participants in the present study experienced intentional toxic targeting in their workplaces, but the issue of whether or not leaders were fully conscious of the behaviors

235 they displayed while they were displaying them constitutes an important area for future investigation.

Physical and Psychological Damage: Organizations as Responsible Parties for Increased Healthcare Costs

The findings of this study indicate that, in the instances of all study participants who reported suffering physical or psychological harm as a consequence of toxic targeting in the workplace, the participants also reported not having previously suffered from those physical or psychological ailments prior to experiencing targeting from a toxic leader. Additional empirical research is required to verify these findings, and future research could include studies performed by members of the medical community to examine the onset of physical or psychological ailments as a function of the onset of toxic leadership or toxic targeting in the workplace. This finding is of significance for two reasons: (1) it contradicts previous work which has sought to empirically place the blame for physical and psychological ailments and detrimental behaviors, such as alcoholism, squarely on the shoulders of employees, thus making employers the victims of the problems employees bring with them to the workplace (Scanlon, 1994), and (2) it appears to support the notion that leaders can be health endangering, and that organizations themselves are frequently responsible for the onset of employee problems, including drug and alcohol abuse, as found by Markowitz (1984) and Lubit (1994). In addition to pointing to the need for additional research in these areas, these findings provide preliminary evidence that employers, organizations and their toxic leaders may no longer be able to comfortably perpetuate the notion that they are victims of problems employees bring with them to the workplace, and for which organizations and their leader cartels are not responsible; rather, organizations and their toxic leaders must be called to

236

answer for physical and psychological damage they inflict upon employees. For

example, in this study, all participants reported the onset of physical and/or psychological

ailments which coincided with the genesis of toxic targeting, and one-third of the participants reported that they began using alcohol as a result of the suffering they were forced to endure on a daily basis, with no recourse for mitigation, relief or immediate escape. Human resource personnel and senior organizational leaders, through their complacency, must also be indicted with toxic leaders as responsible parties for the ailments study participants suffered.

Contemporary organizations have sought to control the costs of providing healthcare as part of employee benefits packages through the implementation of wellness programs, which have included encouraging employees to exercise regularly and eat healthily (Scanlon, 1994), and some employers and health insurance companies have begun requiring employees to disclose biometric information in order to obtain health insurance or to determine the insurance premium a particular employee will be forced to pay for coverage (Scanlon, 1994). Such approaches to controlling the cost of healthcare are employer- and organizational-centric approaches, which allow employers to escape scrutiny for their contributions to employee health problems. The findings of this study challenge the notion that employees are solely to blame for their health problems and call attention to the need for organizations to critically examine their leaders and the efficacy of internal mechanisms for reporting and resolving employee complaints, as toxic leaders and broken internal resolution mechanisms appear to allow toxicity to flourish in the workplace, which, in turn, negatively impacts employee health and well-being, and may raise healthcare costs.

237

The Toxic-Turnover Model

The model developed to illustrate the regular pattern study participants described

having traversed on their journeys from toxic targeting to voluntary resignation is

illustrated in Figure 1.2 and described in detail in a subsequent section of this chapter.

Relative to the extant literature on employee turnover, however, this model contains

elements which appear to mirror some components of Lee and Mitchell’s (1994)

Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover in that study participants experienced

a shock, which was the onset of toxic targeting in the workplace, and that shock initiated

the process of study participants commencing a search for other employment with the

intention of resigning from their at-the-time current positions to escape the toxic leader.

The toxic targeting constituted what may be termed in Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model a

“script violation,” in that the onset of toxic targeting represented the onset of a direct and abrupt disjunction in study participants’ interpretation of the social context of the workplace with respect to their interactions with the leader. The toxic leader targeted study participants, and, in so doing, disrupted the state of stasis in which study participants resided, even if that state of stasis was achieved within an overarching organizational context of toxicity.

Although the intent of this study was not to test Lee and Mitchell’s Unfolding

Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover (1994), this study provides preliminary evidence which appears to support several tenets of the model. Lee and Mitchell’s (1994)

Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover posits that rational choice drives a decision-making process that leads to employee turnover, and that employees follow up to three images or gestalts in the course of deciding whether to resign from an

238 organization. These three images or gestalts include values, trajectories and strategies.

According to Lee and Mitchell (1994):

The value image is described as a set of general values, standards, and individual principles that defines a person. The trajectory image is defined as a set of goals that energizes and directs an individual’s behavior. The strategic image is defined as the set of behavioral tactics and strategies that an individual believes to be effective in attaining his or her goals (p. 58). Lee and Mitchell (1994) suggest that an employee screens information and images from his or her organizational environment against these three gestalts to determine the extent to which the external information is compatible with his or her gestalts. In instances of incompatibility, Lee and Mitchell (1994) theorize that the employee compares alternatives to the status quo, and that the status quo typically triumphs over change. Lee and Mitchell (1994) posit the existence of a set of processes which underpins the decision-making process an employee undergoes when confronted with information or images from the environment that are incompatible with his or her gestalts, and that these processes are initiated by a shock to the individual’s system, which disrupts the employee’s state of stasis in the status quo and causes him or her to consider alternatives to the status quo.

Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model suggests that employees leave organizations via one of five mutually exclusive decision-making paths, the first three of which are characterized by a single shock which initiates thoughts of resignation. The final two paths are characterized by gradual image violation brought about by lack of intellectual engagement or financial reward in a particular position over time. Relevant to the present study are the first three paths in which employees are shocked by a particular event into

239 considering alternatives to their present position. Lee and Mitchell (1994) summarize the first three paths:

Decision Path #1 describes a fairly automatic, simple and script-driven process; it involves minimal mental deliberations, whereas Decision Path #2 describes a more employee-controlled process that focuses on compatibility of images involving greater mental deliberation than Decision Path #1, and Decision Path #3 describes an even more extensive employee-controlled process that involves image compatibility and assessment of alternatives (p. 69). As described in Chapter 4, participants in this study all described having experienced a specific event, the trigger event, which caused them to begin thinking about leaving their employing organization. Viewed from the perspective of Lee and

Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover, the Trigger Event study participants identified as having initiated their mental deliberations about resignation may be termed the shock. Although study participants described general dissatisfaction with the workplace under toxic leadership before having experienced the shock or Trigger Event, they did not consider resigning until they were first specifically targeted by the toxic leader during the Trigger Event. Interpreted within the context of

Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model, this finding is indicative of the general unwillingness of participants to disrupt their state of stasis within the status quo of their daily workplace environment, even though that environment was tainted with toxicity. Beyond being predicted by Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model, this finding supports Holthom et. al.’s

(2005) contention that “contrary to conventional wisdom, accumulated job dissatisfaction is not the immediate cause of most voluntary turnover. Job dissatisfaction is a factor, but to focus on it as the dominant cause of most turnover is incomplete and limited. Instead, we argue that turnover is often triggered by a precipitating event (e.g. a fight with the boss or an unexpected job offer)” (p. 337). The findings of this study appear to support

240 this conclusion in that study participants actively engaged in mental deliberations related to resignation only after the Trigger Event, or shock, which may be considered a form of altercation with the toxic leader.

With few exceptions, study participants deliberated their resignation for extended periods of time, ranging from a few months to several years, as they searched for other positions and weighed other employment options against their current situation with the toxic leader. During this time, study participants reported experiencing continuous toxic targeting from their respective toxic leader. The period of time that elapsed between the

Trigger Event or shock and study participants’ resignation may be viewed in the context of Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model as the period of time study participants required to form a “script” or plan for resigning. Lee and Mitchell (1994) theorize that a script is required before employees resign from a position; yet, the findings of this study indicate that a certain degree of nuance is required when considering the notion of script.

Specifically, if, as Lee and Mitchell (1994) theorize, a script is required before a resignation can occur, then study participants who resigned without having first formulated a script to ensure employment after their resignation must be considered outliers in Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model. Moreover, study participants who cognized a script before resigning, while behaving in accordance with the Lee and Mitchell’s

(1994) theorization, required significant periods of time to develop the script before resigning. This finding is unsurprising, given that these study participants first thought about resigning following a sudden shock during the Trigger Event. Economic factors appear to have been responsible for the extended period of time study participants required to develop a script, as evidenced by participants’ commentary that they

241 continued to suffer on a daily basis in the workplace under the toxic leader while executing extensive job searches outside of work to find suitable employment. While most study participants considered suitable employment to constitute positions paying a salary equivalent to their salaries under their respective toxic leaders, some study participants accepted lower-paying positions in order to escape the toxic leader. It is possible that study participants who resigned after having searched extensively for other employment at a level of pay equivalent to what they received under the toxic leader at some point in time determined that the suffering they endured under continuous toxic targeting in the workplace was no longer worth a higher salary, and they decided to accept a lower salary in order to escape the toxicity.

Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover predicts that employees weigh alternative employment opportunities against their current situation following a shock, and that the decision-making process is highly specific to the individual. This contention appears to be supported by the findings of this study in that participants all reported first considering resignation to escape the toxic leader after they experienced a shock, which may be considered the trigger event. Participants further indicated that despite working in the Organizational Context of Toxicity prior to the

Trigger Event, they did not initiate the decision-making process and consider resignation until they were directly targeted with toxicity. Finally, it is noteworthy that, at least for the sample of participants in this study, employees appear to be willing to accept a toxic organizational environment if they are relatively well-paid and able to maintain a state of stasis in which they are not personally targeted by a toxic leader. This finding has

242 important implications for the broader relationship between organizations and their employees, as discussed in a subsequent section.

The Toxic-Turnover Model previously presented in this chapter, while conceptualized in a linear fashion, contains elements which overlap with Lee and

Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover as follows: (1) it depicts the Organizational Context of Toxicity in which study participants suffered in a state of stasis; (2) it depicts the shock or trigger event which caused study participants to initiate the decision-making process necessary for eventual resignation, and (3) it captures the study participants’ formulation of a script or plan needed before resignation occurred contained within the expanse of an extended period of continuous toxic targeting during the execution of a job search. Accordingly, while the purpose of this study was not to test Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) model, certain tenets of that model appear to be supported with empirical evidence from this study as discussed in this section.

As study participants shared and discussed their experiences with toxic leaders and their resultant resignations to escape toxic leaders, their narratives evidenced a certain sequential pattern with distinct phases through which each participant passed on his or her journey from the experience of toxicity to voluntary resignation. Figure 1.2 presents a graphical depiction of the phases study participants explicated in their interviews and which were extracted from interview narratives through discourse analysis. The discourse analysis conducted on interview data entailed examining each participant’s narrative from a macro-, discourse-level perspective, which revealed key temporal phases in each study participant’s interview. In contrast to the analysis of interview data described in Chapter 4, which entailed the identification and discussion of

243 discrete micro-level categories of data, the discourse-level analysis illuminates patterns of narrativity and temporality across interviews. An overarching meta-narrative linking toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover is discernible from the interviews obtained in this study. Macro-level discourse analysis of interview narratives across study participants appears to indicate that the meta-narrative is characterized by temporal phases through which study participants reported passing as they journeyed toward voluntary resignation. Figure 1.2 presents a graphical representation of the synthesis of micro- and macro-level characteristics inherent in all study participants’ interviews and illustrates the positionality of categorical data presented and discussed in Chapter 4 within the context of an overarching meta-narrative containing distinct temporal phases to produce a grand narrative linking the presence and experience of toxic leadership in the workplace to voluntary employee turnover.

Figure 1.2: Graphical Depiction of the Grand Narrative of the Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee Turnover.

244

This graphical depiction provides a visualization of the grand narrative of the relationship between toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover. The narratives

study participants provided in the interviews all followed the generally linear pattern

depicted in the graphic. The first three narrative phases are encapsulated within the

Organizational Context of Toxicity, and the final, Post-Turnover Phase, is located outside of the oval representing the organization and its toxic environment, indicating that this phase lies outside of the turnover process and outside of the organization. “Targeting

Triggers” is a category not labeled as a phase in the graphic because the triggers emerged within the context of a single incident; the same concept holds for the Turnover Event because it is conceptualized in the context of this study as a single event, the submission of the resignation. Although study participants reported being targeted for the same reason in the Targeting Phase (Phase II) as they were in the incident associated with the targeting trigger, the Targeting Phase (Phase II) is characterized by increased frequency and thematic scope of the attacks. Reactions to and consequences of toxic leadership begin with the event associated with the targeting trigger(s) and continue through the

Post-Turnover Phase of the narrative in the form of what study participants variously

described as “lingering consequences” and “symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD).” Unsuccessful attempts at handling toxic incidents with the leader occur within

the phases spanning from the targeting triggers to the Decision-Making Phase (Phase III).

Noteworthy regarding unsuccessful attempts at handling toxic incidents is the finding,

which is detailed subsequently, that study participants appear to have had no options

available to handle the incidents in such a way as to secure a positive outcome. Thus, the

unsuccessful handling of these events occurred repeatedly between the incident

245

associated with the toxic trigger and the end of the Decision-Making Phase (Phase III) as indicated by the arrows encasing the phases from the Trigger Event through Phase III.

The circle encapsulating Phases II and III of the model depicts the single component of the model not characterized by overarching linearity. Study participants reported alternation between Phases II and III of the model, nearly on a daily basis as they searched for jobs, weighed any offers of jobs, but continued to face daily toxic targeting in the workplace. Study participants, therefore, remained in a state of flux between decision making, as they attempted to find new jobs, weighed job offers, and yet remained targets under their toxic leaders. This state of nonlinear flux lasted for an extended period of time, from months to years, for most study participants. Finally, the boxes below the oval with arrows pointing to specific phases depict the broad categories of data representative of each phase of the model, and the dotted lines below the narrative phases indicate study participants’ experiences, reactions to and consequences of toxic targeting from the time of the Targeting Trigger through the Post-Turnover Phase.

The relationship between toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover is

conceptualized as linear in nature, and although it is possible that employees may remain

with a toxic leader indefinitely, all participants in this study had decided to resign as a

result of their experiences of toxicity. This point is important because the linear model

presented here as a graphical depiction of the grand narrative of the relationship between

toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover is contextually specific in scope and

limited to serving as an explanation of employees who actually resign due to toxic

leadership. Certainly, there may exist people who have suffered leader toxicity, and who

have not and will never, resign from their positions; however, these individuals were not

246

included in this study. The length of time between each phase of the model is not

indicated in words or in the graphic because it varied greatly among study participants.

Each narrative phase illustrated in Figure 1.2 is marked by temporality, although

closure of a specific narrative phase does not constitute a pre-requisite for the

commencement of a subsequent phase. This phenomenon is particularly well illustrated

by the temporal spanse encompassed between the “Targeting Trigger” and “Phase III:

Decision-Making,” which varied significantly across participants as a function of their

personal circumstances in- and outside of the workplace. Some study participants, for

example, recalled having remained with the toxic leader for over 5 years while searching

for other suitable employment, while, by contrast, other participants resigned only 1

month following the initial targeting trigger event, and without having first secured other

employment before resigning. Consequently, although each narrative phase is depicted

in Figure 1.2 as linear and discrete, the phases overlap and blend significantly in study

participants’ narratives. The subsequent portions of this section are devoted to discussing

the narrative phases depicted in Figure 1.2.

Organizational Context of Toxicity

The Organizational Context of Toxicity enshrouds all four narrative phases and

the targeting trigger depicted in Figure 1.2. Study participants variously described the

Organizational Context of Toxicity as the features, mechanisms and people who enabled and supported toxic leadership. Specifically, the features comprising the Organizational

Context of Toxicity tended to include toxic leader behaviors identified and discussed in

Chapter 4 and the support and defense of toxic leaders and their behaviors on the part of

247 senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel. These key characteristics of the toxic environment comprised the Organizational Context of Toxicity and produced an environment in which study participants described a general sense that toxic leaders were empowered by the larger organization to continue, without accountability, to negatively impact employees with toxic behaviors. The Organizational Context of Toxicity provided the environment within which leader wrong-doing and mistreatment of employees was sanctioned by those in the organizations charged with oversight responsibilities and seems to demonstrate the extent to which organizational cultures may serve to promote toxic leadership. Indeed, some study participants spoke of a culture of toxicity which seemed to permeate the entire company. Organizational cultures in which the behaviors and decisions of leaders are assumed legitimate de facto, according to study participants, tended to provide the context necessary for the emergence of toxic targeting

, which initiated the process of voluntary employee turnover. Some study participants, for example, discussed the concept of de facto leader legitimacy as a component of organizational culture characterized by toxic leadership, noting that leaders were always right in the eyes of the company, even though, in actuality, they were very wrong and made terrible decisions. The Organizational Context of Toxicity, supported and legitimized by an organizational culture of toxicity and toxic leadership, provided a rich setting within which study participants reported having passively experienced or having witnessed their colleagues experiencing toxic targeting.

Phase I: Pre-Targeting Phase

Study participants all discussed a period of time prior to being personally targeted by toxic leaders, when they witnessed and experienced toxicity and toxic leader targeting

248

around them in the workplace but were not directly targeted with toxicity. This initial

temporal phase of study participants’ narratives constitutes the one in which participants

spoke of environmental characteristics and a general sense of workplace toxicity, as

evidenced by bearing witness to toxic leaders targeting co-workers and/or generally

behaving in unethical, improper or illicit ways. The Pre-Targeting Phase shares common characteristics with the Organizational Context of Toxicity in that the environmental features which characterize the Organizational Context of Toxicity are the same which underpin the Pre-Targeting Phase. Yet, the Organizational Context of Toxicity differs from the Pre-Targeting Phase in that it is not a temporal phase of the meta-narrative linking toxic leadership to voluntary employee turnover; rather, the Organizational

Context of Toxicity describes an organizational culture which enshrouds the entire workplace and all temporal phases depicted in Figure 1.2. Some study participants described the Pre-Targeting Phase as one in which they witnessed wrong-doing, discrimination, favoritism and targeting of certain employees in the workplace, noting an ever-increasing number of people becoming victims of the toxic leader, while worrying that they would become the next victims. Study participants generally observed that anyone who questioned the leader or attempted to provide input on any issue became an immediate target. Characteristic of the Pre-Targeting Phase is the sense study participants reported having that their respective toxic leaders seemed to be empowered to target certain employees and commit wrongful acts against employees, customers and the organization without experiencing negative repercussions.

While study participants generally expressed their dissatisfaction with the workplace and the toxic leader during the Pre-Targeting Phase, they did not consider

249 resigning during this temporal phase of the meta-narrative; rather, they appear to have maintained a state of stasis in the toxic environment and had little, if any, direct interaction with the toxic leader. The Pre-Targeting Phase lasted several months to several years, depending upon the length of the participant’s tenure in the organization and upon factors such as the extent to which a specific study participant was able to avoid direct interaction and confrontation with the toxic leader. Study participants noted the importance of “staying under the radar” to avoid being the toxic leader’s next target.

This statement generally captures the cognizance study participants demonstrated in their interviews that their workplaces were enshrouded in toxicity and toxic leader targeting, and that the best means of survival was to avoid, to the extent possible, direct interaction or confrontation with the toxic leader. Yet, for participants in this study, avoidance proved unsustainable as a coping mechanism, and the eventual confrontation with the toxic leader annihilated any prospect of remaining “under the radar.”

Targeting Triggers

The targeting triggers study participants reported represent the critical incidents which initiated a change in their state of stasis in the toxic organizational environment to one of actively being targeted by the toxic leader. The trigger events also constituted the point in the interview narratives during which study participants cited first having thought about resigning to escape the toxic leader. Since the Targeting Trigger is a single critical event, it is not represented in Figure 1.2 as a meta-narrative temporal phase; rather, it constitutes a single point in the temporal continuum which links toxic leadership to voluntary employee turnover. Participants discussed targeting triggers as events and interactions with toxic leaders in which they were personally targeted with toxicity and

250 toxic behaviors. The shift from a state of stasis within the Organizational Context of

Toxicity to a defensive position at the time of the Targeting Trigger Event characterizes the critical incident. The extent to which study participants defended themselves and their interests against toxic leaders and their attacks varied significantly among participants, with some participants having reported actively defending themselves while also seeking the assistance of senior leaders and human resource personnel, and other study participants having reported doing nothing to defend themselves, but immediately commencing a comprehensive search for other employment.

The Targeting Trigger Event constitutes the critical incident after which study participants reported experiencing repeated targeting from their toxic leaders. Study participants generally captured this phenomenon by noting that after the critical incident or Targeting Trigger, the toxic leader was relentless in seeking them out to target them and to threaten them with their jobs. Indeed, all study participants reported noticing a significant shift in their interactions with the toxic leader following the critical incident, and all participants indicated that the shift marked the genesis of continuous targeting, characterized by the use of a variety of targeting methods previously discussed in Chapter

4. Study participants indicated that the reasons for the continuous targeting following the

Trigger Event were the same reasons as those which triggered the initial event.

Phase II: Targeting Phase

The second phase depicted in Figure 1.2, the Targeting Phase, is representative of an extended period of time, lasting from a few weeks to several years, during which time study participants reported experiencing daily targeting from their respective toxic

251

leaders. The sentiment among study participants evidenced a general propensity to

characterize the Targeting Phase as one in which toxic leaders demonstrated an

unwillingness or inability to move beyond the initial trigger event. Unable to remain

isolated and insulated from the toxic leader’s targeting, study participants suffered from

daily attacks in the forms of belittling, threatening, devoicing, discrimination, favoritism,

cronyism, overtasking, toxic tantrums, micromanaging and theft, all of which constitute

methods in the toxic leader’s arsenal employed with the intent of inflicting toxicity upon

targets.

Study participants all reported continuous job searching during the Targeting

Phase, and the length of the Targeting Phase varied significantly among study

participants, in accordance with either the length of time it took study participants to

either find suitable employment which would enable them to resign to escape the toxic

leader, or with the length of time it took study participants to decide to resign without

first having secured other employment. Study participants indicated toxic leaders

appeared to evidence an awareness of their dependency on their jobs for income, which they exploited during the Targeting Phase. Study participants noted the toxic leaders’ awareness that people could not just quit without having another job, and that, as a result

the toxic leaders realized that employees had no choice but to submit to toxic targeting.

Some study participants described a “toxic suffocation” that enshrouded the workplace

during the targeting phase, and discussed organizations’ and leaders’ awareness that they

can mistreat employees without accountability or reprecussions, even after they depart

from an organization because future employers often require references from past

employers.

252

The general propensity among study participants to report that toxic leaders

appeared to evidence an awareness of their targeting behaviors and of the extended

period of job searching participants would require to find other employment, indicates a

general consciousness among study participants that toxic leaders’ actions were

purposeful and aimed at ensuring participants remained in a state of misery as long as

they continued to work under the toxic leader. Viewed from this perspective, and

coupled with the fact that the onset of toxic targeting occurred following a specific

critical incident, the findings of this study seem to indicate that among this study’s

participants, toxic leadership was decisive and very specifically utilized as a means of

retribution for threats or acts toxic leaders perceived to have been committed against

them. This finding appears to support theorizations in the literature regarding the

intentionality of toxic leadership and the intent to cause harm to followers, while

contradicting theorizations of toxic leadership which contend that its enactment may be

unintentional on the part of toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Furthermore, despite

contentions in the literature germane to toxic leadership that one person’s toxic leader

may constitute another person’s hero (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), there appeared to be

general agreement among study participants concerning what constituted toxic leadership

and the features which characterized toxic leaders, as indicated in Chapter 4 and

discussed within the various categories of toxic leader behaviors, and no study participant

characterized his or her leader as anything other than toxic.

Phase III: Decision-Making Phase

The Decision-Making Phase (Phase III) of the model linking toxic leadership to voluntary employee turnover occurred in tandem with the Targeting Phase (Phase II) of

253 the model, in that study participants reported executing extensive job searches during their free time while facing continuous toxic targeting on a daily basis in the workplace.

Study participants demonstrated a propensity to highlight the difficulties they encountered when searching for suitable employment while facing toxic targeting in the workplace and while confronted with a poor job market which presented limited employment opportunities. During the Decision-Making Phase, study participants reported evaluating job opportunities and weighing any received offers against their current position. While it may appear to the reader of this study that study participants would readily accept another job offer to escape the toxic leader, study participants discussed the difficulties in weighing the toxicity they encountered on a daily basis against the prospect of jobs that paid less and the fear that another workplace could be just as negative, if not worse, than the workplaces in which they suffered under toxic leadership. As a consequence, study participants demonstrated a general propensity to experience very long wait times between the time of the toxic trigger event and the time of their departures from the toxic leader. Indeed, most study participants continued to suffer daily toxic targeting while executing job searches at home for several years. Study participants generally encountered the vexing prospect of facing lower wages or remaining with a toxic leader, and in each instance among participants faced with this choice, money remained the primary factor in the decision-making process.

Study participants cited the need to ensure that they continued to have the financial resources needed to live in the expensive Washington, D.C. Metro Region and declared that they had been willing to continue to suffer under toxic leadership until they secured a position with a salary equivalent to that which they were receiving under the

254

toxic leader. The dominance of personal financial security in influencing study

participants’ decisions to remain with a toxic leader for an extended period of time has

important implications for this study and for research on toxic leadership in general, in

that it may serve to at least partially explain organizations’ reluctance or unwillingness to

address and to seek to eliminate toxic leadership. If organizations perceive or know that

employees are unlikely to find jobs which pay equivalent salaries and also realize that

employees are dependent upon them for survival, then organizations are cognizant of the

fact that employees are enslaved to them for the money. Consequently, organizations

may have little impetus to address or to seek to eliminate toxic leadership because

employees will have little recourse and few options in a poor labor market. This state of

affairs complexifies the decision-making process study participants reported having

undergone and serves as a plausible explanation for the unresponsiveness and pro-leader

sentiments study participants reported having experienced when interacting with and

presenting their concerns to human resources personnel and senior organizational leaders.

From the time of the initial toxic targeting event, through the period of continuous

toxic targeting in Phase III, study participants experienced the onset of physical and

psychological ailments, which they associated with their experiences of toxic leadership

and toxic targeting in the workplace, as detailed in Chapter 4. This finding is significant and will be subsequently addressed in this chapter because it contradicts certain theorizations and empirical findings in the literature germane to employee health and well-being.

255

The Turnover Event

The Turnover Event constitutes the single event in which study participants officially submitted their resignations to their toxic leaders and provided notice of their impending departures. Study participants consistently reported that the Turnover Event was uneventful and that, despite having been targeted with toxicity during their tenures under toxic leaders, they provided the organization from which they were departing with a standard two-week notice. The subdued atmosphere enshrouding study participants’ resignations is captured in study participants’ comments that at the time of their resignations, toxic leaders flashed them small smiles, gladly accepted their resignations, and appeared to have believed that they had won the war against the employees whom they targeted. Study participants tended to perceive that among other objectives, toxic leaders had targeted them as a means of making the workplace miserable so that they would resign. Upon their resignation, study participants generally perceived that the toxic leader appeared satisfied with their resignation and ignored them for the balance of the time until their last day.

Study participants all reported that they provided a standard two-week notice of their resignation, despite the prior toxic targeting they endured. Fear that the organization would retaliate against them drove study participants to provide the standard two-week notice, even though they expressed a general sentiment that they would have preferred to leave the organization the same day they signed their new job offer. As some study participants pointed out, however, it may be unwise for employees to treat organizations as organizations have treated them, because organizations and their leaders ultimately hold total power over employees, including the power to blacklist them from

256 future employment with the firm, and the power to quietly warn competitor organizations not to hire specific individuals. This analysis captures the general sentiments and concerns study participants expressed regarding retaliatory actions they believed they may have faced for not complying with the standard two-week notice practice. In contending that organizations can exhibit hypocrisy and demand things from employees that they themselves do not provide, and that they can wield their power and connections over employees and make it difficult for them to get other jobs because senior leaders usually know other senior leaders at other organizations, study participants cited and summarized their reasons for providing a standard two-week notice, despite having suffered ill-treatment under toxic leadership.

Phase IV: The Post-Turnover Phase

The final phase of the model linking toxic leadership with voluntary employee turnover displayed in Figure 1.2, The Post-Turnover Phase, constitutes the phase in which study participants reported experiencing an array of positive and negative emotions following their departure from toxic leaders. While most study participants reported experiencing positive emotions such as happiness and elation after having escaped from the toxic leader, emotions which appear to be consistent with study participants who became engrossed in new jobs and effectively transitioned away from the toxic leaders they departed, other study participants expressed having experienced lingering negative emotions, fear, and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD). Some study participants reported experiencing fear that the organization and toxic leader they left could still retaliate against them following their departure, noting that senior organizational leaders always have “blacklists” they share with one another to

257

ensure that “problem employees” are denied employment across organizations. This fear,

in turn, caused them to continue to experience physical and psychological symptoms

following their departure, which only gradually abated as the length of time since their

departure increased.

The Post-Turnover Phase of the model linking toxic leadership to voluntary

employee turnover is characterized broadly by feelings of elation and relief for most

study participants, while other study participants expressed sentiments of concern that

their former toxic leaders might attempt to undermine them in their new positions via

back channels and closed door sessions with powerful leaders from the new employing

organization. This worry resulted in lingering psychological and physical symptoms for

some study participants for up to ten months following their departure from the toxic

leader, and it is to the psychological torment and physical ailments study participants

incurred during and after their interaction with toxic leaders that attention is turned in the

subsequent section.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that, while an individual’s membership in a particular generational cohort appears to have had no impact upon his or her status as a victim of toxic targeting, gender, in some instances, appears to have played a role in pre- disposing an individual to toxic targeting. This conclusion, however, must be caveated because of the snowball sampling technique employed in this study. Verification of the tentative finding that generational cohort appears not to have played a role in toxic targeting is required, and future quantitative studies with larger sample sizes may provide

258

the necessary verification. Gender appears to have played role in pre-disposing certain study participants to toxic targeting, but not in all study participants. For example, some female study participants expressed that had they been white men, they never would have fallen victim to toxic targeting; yet, on the other hand, other female participants expressed that they did not believe gender played a role in the toxic targeting they experienced. These contradictory findings seem to indicate that the most that can be reasonably concluded from that data study participants provided in interviews is that personal experiences varied significantly among participants, in accordance with the specific organization, organizational context and leader.

Beyond pre-disposing certain study participants to toxic targeting, gender appears

to have played a role in the privileging of certain individuals, some of whom were cronies

of toxic leaders. Based upon the findings of this study, women appear to have suffered

the brunt of the discrimination, but the sources of the discrimination varied widely.

Whereas some female participants perceived having been targeted due to their gender,

race and level of education by a male leader, other female participants were overtly

discriminated against for their status as a mother and need to use lactation facilities at the

office. Yet, the initial source of the discrimination came not from the toxic male leader

under whom she worked, but from a female supervisor, one of the leader’s cronies, who

appears to have hated other women, and, as a result targeted them by spreading rumors

and lies about them to the toxic leader. Similarly, some female participants reported

having been targeted with discrimination and toxicity by a female leader for possessing

physical qualities the leader found unappealing. Examined in aggregate, these findings

provide three conclusions regarding the role of gender and sources of toxic targeting and

259

discrimination: (1) the source of discrimination may not always be the toxic leader, whether male of female, (2) the gender of the toxic leader may have nothing to do with the propensity of that leader to target employees, and (3) women appear, based upon the sample of participants used in this study, more likely to perceive having suffered

discrimination and toxic targeting based upon gender than do men. Future research could

entail quantitative studies which measure, across a larger sample size, the perception of

toxic targeting as a function of membership in a particular generational cohort and as a

function of the cohort to which a toxic leader belongs.

Recommendations for Neutralizing Toxic Leadership in Organizations

This section presents and discusses, in light of this study’s findings, four

recommendations for organizations interested in neutralizing toxic leadership and its

damaging impacts on employees: (1) examine the costs of tolerating and supporting toxic

leaders in terms of the organization’s bottom line, (2) analyze employee complaints

against leaders and look for patterns, (3) change the organization’s culture, and (4)

eliminate hegemonic despotism within the ranks of organizational leaders and human

resource personnel. Each of these recommendations is examined in turn. The findings of

this study have illustrated the characteristics study participants deem to be representative

of toxic leadership, the negative physical and psychological impacts of toxic leadership

upon employees, and the clear link between the initiation of toxic targeting against study

participants and their voluntary resignation to escape from toxic leaders. The findings

have also highlighted the unwillingness of senior organizational leaders and human

resource personnel to effectively neutralize toxic leaders’ impacts upon employees in the workplace, which, in turn, could reduce voluntary employee turnover. This state of

260

affairs is perplexing, given the high costs organizations endure due to voluntary

employee turnover (Fritz-enz, 1997; Ramlall, 2004), in addition to the increased

healthcare costs associated with treating employees for ailments caused by toxic leaders

and their targeting. This study’s findings should serve as notice to organizations and

their leaders that tolerance for and support of toxic leadership is linked to voluntary

employee turnover and to increased physical and psychological ailments, both of which

have been shown in previous empirical research to negatively impact an organization’s

profit margins (Ramlall, 2004). Organizations and their leaders would be well-served to

look introspectively, rather than extrospectively toward employees, their salaries and

benefits packages, when seeking cost-cutting measures and to critically examine, within

their own ranks sources of increased expenses other than employees.

Given this study’s finding that senior leaders and human resource personnel appear to be largely complicit in supporting toxic leadership in their organizations, neutral third-party audits and inspections of organizations and their leaders will be

required in order to neutralize the deleterious effects of toxic leadership. Organizational

contexts in which leaders support one another de facto and in which human resource

personnel follow the direction of leaders, rather than acting as neutral third parties, fail to

provide the appropriate mechanisms for employees to report and to seek resolution of

their grievances against toxic leaders. A promising approach for neutralizing toxic

leadership may lie in the utilization of external mechanisms for filing grievances against

toxic leaders, but the efficacy of such an approach will be limited by the degree of power

the external mechanisms have to hold toxic leaders accountable, and ultimately, if

necessary, to relieve toxic leaders of duty.

261

Employee exit interviews and logs of complaints against leaders to human resource personnel may provide evidence of the existence of a problematic toxic leader.

Senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel must be empowered and willing to critically examine internal data which may indicate the presence of a toxic leader. Alternatively, organizations could seek the expertise of an external auditing firm for such analysis to avoid the potential pitfalls of internal politics and old boys’ clubs who seek to protect their own at any expense, literally and figuratively. Certainly, future quantitative research is required to determine the exact costs of voluntary employee turnover resulting from toxic leadership and, by extension, to extrapolate the potential savings organizations could reap by effectively neutralizing toxic leaders’ deleterious impacts upon employees. Since it is unlikely that the modernist paradigm of “profits above people” will change in contemporary organizations, empirical research which concretely links the elimination of toxic leadership in organizations with bottom-line savings are likely to have the greatest chance of eliciting change oriented toward neutralizing toxic leadership.

Organizations that have embraced a culture of covering up or ignoring the wrong- doing of toxic leaders, supporting toxic leaders or protecting cronies of a particular group or old boys’ club will need to undergo a drastic change in culture to ensure the efficacy of the aforementioned recommendations. Related to the previous recommendation of linking the presence of toxic leadership in organizations with increased organizational costs, perhaps the most promising internal approach for instituting such a culture shift is through a careful examination, whether through internal organizational audit, academic research, or both, of the costs of employee turnover incurred as a result of toxic

262

leadership. Rigorous external audit, inspection and regulation of organizations and their

leaders is required to combat cover-up cultures, and it seems unlikely, based upon the

findings of this study, that, absent compelling financial gains for the organization and its

leaders, senior leaders of organizations would be willing to dismantle a cover-up culture which seeks to protect leaders at all costs. Examined in light of study participants’ narratives which have pointed to an array of instances of leader wrong-doing, if the findings of this study are found to be mirrored in future research, legal action against organizations and their leaders will constitute the sole method of instituting a change in organizational culture. Certainly, based upon the findings of this study, employees will not gain traction in bringing about organizational change, particularly absent the support of human resource personnel and senior leaders. Consequently, senior leaders, indeed, the most senior leaders of organizations, including boards of directors, will be responsible for re-defining organizations’ cultures in such a way that toxic leaders and their tyranny are eliminated.

Such a shift in organizational culture requires a concomitant shift on the part of senior organizational leaders away from conceptions of their roles within the organization, and within society at large, and away from hegemonic despots who are ordained with the de facto right to reign over employees, to determine the extent of employees’ well-being, and to protect the few at the expense of the masses. Similarly,

Rose et. al. (2015) suggest that a shift away from mechanistic, bureaucratic organizational cultures may assist in eliminating the organizational insulation upon which

toxic leaders rely to carry out their toxic deeds. Clearly, a drastic shift in the

conceptualization of the role of organizations in contemporary society is required, as is a

263

shift within organizations, and this re-orientation must transcend the colonialist ethos

previously discussed. The elimination of colonialism within organizations and vis-à-vis the role of organizations in society at large will require the surrender of organizational leaders’ illegitimate claims to enslave and dominate employees, which, based upon study participant’s narratives, appears unlikely to be willingly surrendered. Therefore, as previously outlined, the more effective approach to instituting change in organizations is to link the need for change to financial gains for the organization and its leaders. Absent a radical shift in the broader global society toward the postmodernist orientation previously outlined, the case for change will need to be made within the confines of the extant modernist paradigm, and couching the benefits of change and neutralization of toxic leadership in terms of financial gains for the elite will constitute the most effective approach.

Finally, it is important to recognize that not all organizational leaders are toxic, and that there exist many leaders who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of employees. Perhaps some non-toxic leaders face toxicity and suffering from their superiors and observe employees also suffering under toxic tyranny; therefore, non-toxic leaders who seek to neutralize leader toxicity they have observed, or about which they have received employee grievances, are advised to approach the problem from a financial perspective utilizing the ideas outlined in this section, but are warned to proceed cautiously, lest they become the next victims of increased toxic targeting.

264

Contributions and Recommendations for Theory

The findings of this study expand the extant theoretical frameworks relevant to toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover as follows:

1. The study critiques numerous aspects and assumptions of extant theorizations

of toxic leadership and calls attention to the need for further theoretical and

empirical work in those areas of disjunction.

2. The study illuminates the roles of hegemony, power and domination as an

aspect which limits or prevents victims from attempting to end toxic leadership

and argues for greater nuance in theorizing toxic leadership, particularly in terms

of assumptions about organizational cultures.

3. The study demonstrates that toxic leaders do not act in isolation; rather, they

have significant support systems at all levels of organizations, as well as the

legitimizing forces of organizational structures and hierarchies which serve to

conceal the illegitimacy of toxic leaders’ hegemonic despotism.

4. The study exposes the element of toxic leader cartels in organizations, which

collude to oppress, silence and exploit employees, even though astute employees

are cognizant of their oppression.

5. The study offers a critique of the notion that organizations are concerned about

the high costs of turnover and shows that organizations are more concerned about

supporting their toxic leaders and oppressing employees than the costs of

employee turnover.

265

6. The study illuminates the significant power of money and monetary

enslavement as the primary force compelling employees to remain with toxic

leaders.

Extant theorizations of toxic leadership have focused upon toxic leader behaviors operationalized within organizational contexts conducive to the pursuit of destructive goals or to harming followers (Krashikova, Green and LeBreton, 2013). Toxic leadership is theorized to be volitional and harmful to followers and/or organizations, while encouraging followers to pursue, along with the leader, goals which run counter to legitimate organizational interests (Krashikova, Green and LeBreton, 2013). The findings of this study, while supporting the notion that toxic leadership is volitional and harmful to followers, provides evidence which demonstrates the need for nuance with respect to followers pursuing illegitimate goals. First, participants in this study did not participate in the pursuit of destructive goals, although cronies of the toxic leaders discussed in this study did collude with toxic leaders to pursue such goals and to target victims. Second, the theoretical assumption that toxic leaders pursue goals which run counter to those of the organization may be incorrect in some organizational contexts.

The findings of this study indicate that toxic leaders were fully supported by senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel in their pursuit of targeting and other destructive goals. This indicates that, while the official rhetoric of the organizations may condemn the behaviors associated with toxic leadership, in reality, those same organizations support and condone toxic leadership practices. Consequently, the theorization that toxic leaders pursue goals counter to legitimate organizational goals must be questioned. While stated organizational goals may have statutory or other forms

266 of institutionalized legitimacy, undisclosed toxic agendas and illegitimate goals may characterize the true nature of some organizations, even if thinly veiled in the rhetoric and structures of legitimacy.

Further, the theorization that toxic leaders’ goals may be destructive to the organization, to followers, or to both (Krashikova, Green and LeBreton, 2013), appears to be unsupported by the findings of this study. Although employee turnover may be construed as a destructive force upon organizations due to the associated financial impact, the findings of this study indicate that participants’ organizations were much more concerned with supporting toxicity and toxic leaders than with the costs of turnover.

Consequently, senior leaders appeared to be concerned solely with supporting toxic leaders, which begs the question of how significant the costs associated with turnover were to the organization, since they appear to have been insignificant enough to incur in the name of ensuring the supremacy of the toxic leader cartel. Further, this finding calls attention to the need for behavioral, affective and emotional change at all levels of organizational leadership. While the specific dysfunctional behaviors toxic leaders display may be specifically to blame for the suffering study participants experienced at the hands of their oppressors, behavioral changes flow from and are the consequence of emotional and affective changes. Accordingly, affective and emotional changes may first be required before behavioral changes follow suit.

The aforementioned instances appear to support theoretical claims that environments and organizational cultures allow toxicity to thrive. Hogan and Kaiser’s

(2007) “toxic triangle” model, grounded in the premise that organizational contexts provide conducive environments for the emergence and enactment of toxic leadership

267

behaviors and personality traits, and that these features, coupled with subordinates’

desires for direction and authority, create conditions favorable for toxic leadership,

appears to be largely supported by this study’s findings. The sole exception lies in the

claim that subordinates desire direction and authority. Study participants generally

indicated that they resented the hegemonic despotism under which they suffered and

found the abuses of authority problematic and toxic, and they further indicated that the

toxic leaders were generally inept at their jobs and had no claim to legitimate expert

authority. Consequently, the findings of this study seem to indicate that employees do

not necessarily desire direction and authority, particularly from leaders they perceive as

inept or illegitimately in power.

Certainly, Appelbaum and Roy-Girard’s (2007) theorization that toxic

organizational environments are characterized by control and are largely ineffective, is

supported by the findings of this study. Toxic organizational environments are the

products of toxic organizational cultures, and Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2007)

contend that organizational cultures which promote and accept toxic leader behaviors are

toxic and significantly impede the extent to which senior organizational leaders can

neutralize the impacts of toxic leaders within their ranks. The findings of this study

generally support this theorization, but they also illuminate an important question

regarding senior organizational leaders. The findings call attention to senior leaders’ de

facto acceptance and defense of organizational leaders, which may indicate one of two areas of concern for future theorization and research: (1) the senior leaders are also toxic, so they perceive toxic leaders as unproblematic reflections of themselves, or (2) the

268

organizational culture prevents senior leaders and human resource personnel from acting

to neutralize toxic leadership.

Hogg’s (2005) theorization, grounded in social identity theory, that there exist in-

and out-groups in organizations, and that members of the in-group are perceived by

members of the out-group as having power and influence over the leader, is supported by

this study’s findings; however, Hogg’s (2005) contention that out-group members accept

that the actions of prototypical members of the in-group must be in the best interests of

the larger group, is not supported. On the contrary, study participants indicated that they

viewed in-group members as cronies of toxic leaders who were privileged for illegitimate

reasons. Participants further indicated that these cronies, as extensions of and informants

for the toxic leader, were not acting in the best interest of the larger group; rather, they

abused employees and assisted in the creation of a toxic workplace environment. Hogg’s

(2005) assertion that in-group members are granted significant latitude by toxic leaders,

thus allowing them to deviate from norms or the organization, requires additional

research for the purposes of verification because, within the context of this study,

participants reported that in-group cronies were granted significant latitude by toxic leaders, but their behaviors were consistent with those of the toxic leader. This finding calls into question the extent to which in-group members deviated from organizational

norms for three reasons: (1) the in-group members could have simply been mimicking the toxic leader’s behaviors; (2) the in-group members could have been acting in accordance with the norms of a toxic organizational culture; or (3) the in-group members could have deviated further from the norms of the organizations, which were already toxic.

Goldman (2006), for example, proposed that toxic leaders are characterized by their

269

propensities to conflict, crises and repeated violations of cultural norms, but while the

findings of this study appear to support the assertion that toxic leaders create conflict and

crisis, the notion that they repeatedly violate cultural norms must be questioned, based

upon this study’s finding that toxic leaders and their behaviors were fully supported by

senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel, even if unwillingly. This finding indicates that the assumption underpinning present theories of toxic leadership that organizational cultures inherently represent and perpetuate justice, truth, honesty and other positive virtues (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), may be seriously flawed. This study’s findings provide preliminary evidence demonstrating that, much like leaders traditionally have been characterized in purely positive terms in the extant leadership literature

(Lipman-Blumen, 2005), so too has organizational culture largely been discussed in positive terms. Such an approach constitutes a naïve and limited perspective because just as leaders may be toxic, so too may organizational cultures; therefore toxic leaders and toxic organizational cultures often exist in tandem. Consequently, toxic leaders’ behaviors may not constitute violations of the norms of toxic organizations and of toxic organizational cultures. Theorizations of toxic leadership and of toxic workplace environments must account for the possibility that organizational cultures may be toxic and may permit and accept toxic leadership as normal.

Theoretical work focused upon the psychological and behavioral aspects toxic leaders exhibit is supported by the findings of this study. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser

(2007), for example, theorize that toxic leaders are characterized by personalized use of power, narcissism and an ideology of hate. The findings of this study support this theorization, and the theme of personalized power is particularly supported by the

270 interview data obtained from study participants. Based upon this study’s exposure of thematic foci, including hegemony, power and domination as dimensions of toxic leadership, the extant theoretical literature may benefit from subsequent theorizing drawing upon the works of Foucault (1988), which deals specifically with hegemony and domination, as well as the works of Deetz (1996) and Prassad (2012), which address aspects of corporate and institutional colonialism and domination. The theoretical thematic foci of control, domination and personalized use or abuse of power may also be expanded more broadly in the directions of oppression, exploitation, commodification and collusion. The findings of this study illuminate the toxic corporate cartels under whose oppression employees suffer. Beyond the inclusion of toxic organizational cultures into the extant toxic leadership theoretical framework, the work of Braverman

(1974) regarding control and resistance in the workplace, the work of Pierre Bourdieu

(1992) on power dynamics in social contexts, domination and institutionalized linguistic structures and discourses of control, and the work of Baudrillard (1991), which addresses the thinly veiled forms of oppression and disenfranchisement which characterize contemporary social and organizational life, and of which participants in this study were keenly aware, all provide fruitful theoretical bases from which to theorize the significance of this study’s findings within the context of toxic leadership. Baudrillard’s

(1991) work may prove particularly insightful in this theoretical exercise, as it explicitly addresses the extent to which leaders of organizations manipulate organizational cultures to trick employees into willingly colluding in their own oppression and exploitation. The participants in this study, however, largely appear to have demonstrated an awareness of their oppression, yet they found resignation to constitute their sole means of escape, and

271 only after having found suitable forms of alternative employment. The significant length of time many study participants spent suffering under toxic leadership due to financial enslavement to organizations further illuminates the forces of oppression and exploitation which have been concealed in plain view and legitimized through the discourses of capitalism, such that employees of organizations are transformed into willing slaves, thus colluding in their own exploitation and oppression. This finding illustrates the potential power of utilizing the aforementioned works to more completely and globally theorize toxic leadership and may provide insight into other issues raised by the findings of this study.

Relevant to escaping toxic leadership, an emerging stream of literature regarding the impact of toxic leadership and toxic workplace environments upon victims and bystander witnesses may, when coupled with the works of the aforementioned theorists, provide insight into the dynamics of toxicity and its extended victimology. Estes and

Wang (2008) found in a literature review extensive empirical evidence that workplace incivility negatively impacts individuals, organizations and witnesses of toxic targeting.

Reio and Reio (2011) found in an empirical study that co-worker and supervisor incivility are linked to decreased engagement in terms of meaningfulness, safety and availability.

Although participants in the present study did not report specifically disengaging from their work and the workplace after having been targeted with toxicity, the finding that toxic leadership and toxic targeting has an impact upon employee engagement, and that regardless of the source of the toxicity, the negative impact persists, may provide insight for theorizations of toxic leadership and the role of toxic leaders’ cronies. Similarly, job satisfaction has been found to be negatively correlated with workplace incivility, whereas

272 positive affect, as well as strong relationships in the workplace, were found to be positively correlated with job satisfaction (Reio & Gosh, 2009). Although only one participant in the present study reported having strong co-worker relationships, which mitigated the impacts of the toxic leadership, the participant still eventually resigned. An interesting avenue for future work utilizing the literatures on employee engagement and affect could theorize and conceptually model the roles of engagement and affect in transcending toxicity. This stream of literature may also provide fruitful ground for theorizing the reasons why participants in the present study did not report having acted in a toxic way toward others.

Beyond negatively impacting individual performance, preliminary empirical work has demonstrated that onlookers and bystander witnesses, defined as people who are not directly targeted, but who are negatively impacted by the toxic targeting of others, also suffer in much the same way as victims of targeting. Ferguson and Barry (2011), for example, found that witnesses of deviant organizational behavior vicariously experience the emotions of victims, but that group cohesion, defined as the extent to which the victim and bystander are members of a group of co-workers, moderated the impacts upon both the victim and the bystander. Further, Reio (2011) found that within the context of incivility in the workplace, frustrating events are linked to counterproductive and aggressive workplace behaviors. These findings may provide fertile ground for future theory development, taking into account the role of frustrating events and the role of critical incidents of toxic targeting in seeking to explain different reactions to toxic leadership and incivility victims and bystanders display. Finally, the link between toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover established in this study indicates that

273 voluntary employee turnover as a result of toxic leadership is highly contextual and must be discussed and theorized with great nuance. Specifically, participants in this study resigned to escape the toxic leader only after they had been directly targeted, and not during the time when they witnessed others being targeted. Given the emerging streams of literature on bystander phenomena previously discussed, future theoretical work could seek to explain why turnover required direct targeting, even though, as previous studies have found, affect, engagement and incivility may be impacted by and have an impact upon bystanders.

Examined in aggregate, the findings of this study call into question several key tenets of extant toxic leadership theory and invite theorists to consider and to incorporate new streams of literature into future theorizations and augmentations of extant toxic leadership theory. In so doing, this study has expanded the theoretical framework and lenses through which toxic leadership is conceptualized, while illuminating dimensions of toxic leadership at both global and local levels which, in some cases, are veiled in plain sight. Finally, the findings of this study point to the need to address in theoretical terms some aspects of organizational life and of leadership which have proven to be uncomfortable for theorists and practitioners in the United States. Whereas European scholars have long recognized the dark side of organizations, organizational life and leaders in philosophical, theoretical, literary and empirical works in an array of languages representing a plethora of perspectives, American scholars have tended to cling to presentations and theorizations of organizations and their leaders in positive terms. The findings of this study and the theoretical recommendations in this section, in particular, are calls to action for American scholars to lift the veil and to begin seriously examining

274

the dark, oppressive and exploitative sides of organizations and leaders to counter-

balance and to provide a counter-discourse to the skewed positivity which has

traditionally underpinned leadership and organizational studies grounded in modernist

understandings of the world throughout the 20th century.

Recommendations for Future Research

This section is dedicated to reviewing the theoretical and empirical research opportunities that emerged in the course of this chapter. Although the purpose of this study was not to test Lee and Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee

Turnover, the findings of this study provide preliminary evidence to support central tenets of the model in instances of toxic leadership and toxic targeting. Future empirical research could fully test the model in contexts in which employees were exposed to toxic leadership and identified this exposure as the reason for their resignation. Such research could illuminate in more detail the decision-making processes employees undergo when determining the extent of toxicity they are willing to tolerate and could establish an empirical threshold of toxicity, which, upon being exceeded, tips the scales in the minds of employees and causes them to resign. The Toxic-Turnover Model developed in this study to explicate the general phases through which study participants travelled on their journeys to escaping toxic leadership could serve as a basis for future research in this area and could be expanded upon or revised, based upon the findings of future research.

This study has illuminated aspects of toxic leadership not previously examined in theoretical and empirical research and provides a basis from which to execute future research grounded in theories of colonialism, hegemony, power and control. While to

275 some extent related to one another, these theoretical orientations might be applied individually or in tandem to ground empirical research, which could provide unique insight into the phenomenon of toxic leadership and could provide a broader social context within which to explore possible links between features of toxicity in organizations and social trends and phenomena within the contemporary modernist paradigm. Such approaches to studying toxic leadership may also provide historical links to understanding the genesis of toxic leadership and provide insight regarding the reasons toxic leadership frequently thrives unabated in organizations. Further, studies grounded in theories of organizational or social psychology or psychopathy may provide insight into the reasons leaders display toxicity, beyond the conducive organizational environments which allow toxicity to thrive.

The medical community could find opportunities for research based upon the findings of this study which may specifically seek to solidify empirically the preliminary link illuminated in this study between the onset of health problems and exposure to toxic leadership in the workplace. Such research could establish an important link between increased health care costs and toxic leadership, and, by extension, could determine across the broader population the percentage of cases in which employers and their leaders are responsible for employee health problems. Perhaps most importantly, such research could significantly shift the discourses of blame for health problems and increased healthcare expenses away from employees and to employers. By determining the financial loss organizations incur as a result of toxic leadership and increased costs of healthcare, organizations might come to understand that they have a vested interest in eliminating toxic leadership.

276

Regarding the role of gender and generational cohort in toxic targeting, the findings of this study are inconclusive, as some participants reported perceiving that their gender and age did play a role in the toxic targeting they experienced, and other participants did not. Future research could quantitatively examine the issue of gender and generational cohort in toxic targeting across a broader population to provide more conclusive findings, as this study was limited by the snowball sampling technique employed in finding participants.

Although the costs of voluntary employee turnover have been previously researched and determined (Fritz-enz, 1994), the findings of this study indicate that the actual turnover of employees may not constitute the sole cost organizations bear as a consequence of toxic leadership. In addition to establishing the link between toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover, this study has provided preliminary evidence to suggest that employers may bear additional healthcare costs as a result of employees seeking treatment for physical or psychological ailments that develop as a result of toxic leadership and toxic targeting in the workplace. The findings of this study also indicated that senior organizational leaders and human resource personnel are either unwilling or unable to neutralize toxic leadership, which implies that organizations would rather have employees resign than eliminate toxic leaders within their ranks. If this finding holds true across a broader sampling of organizations, and, if the claim participants in this study made that leaders and managers protect their own at all costs is also correct, then the key to eliminating toxic leadership in organizations may well lie in statistically demonstrating the potential savings organizations stand to realize, both in terms of healthcare costs and reduced turnover.

277

The revelation that hegemony, power and control appear to play significant roles

in the emergence and tolerance of toxic leadership in organizations warrants further

empirical investigation, and the to-date underutilized streams of literature from the fields of organizational colonialism, and relatedly, hegemonic despotism, as well as from studies capitalizing upon the discourses and theoretical models of power and control in organizations (Deetz, 1992; Mumby, 1988; Prassad, 2006) provide fertile material for grounding future studies. Utilization of such models and theoretical orientations in future empirical research on toxic leadership may provide additional insight for a broadened understanding of toxic leadership and may provide insight regarding approaches for its neutralization within organizational contexts. Additionally, since this study’s findings appear to indicate that study participants experienced toxic targeting once the toxic leader perceived them to constitute a threat to his or her despotic reign, empirical research grounded in the field of organizational psychology, and, specifically, work which examines the psychology or psychopathy of toxic leaders, could expand the extant literature on toxic leaders, which, to date, has been largely characterized by the identification of traits and behaviors of toxic leaders, but which has neglected to address the underlying psychological features of toxic leaders which cause such behaviors and traits to become manifest.

Further research is also warranted to examine the impacts of toxic targeting upon bystanders, in terms of affect, organizational engagement and workplace deviance.

Preliminary empirical work in these areas suggests that victims and bystanders are equally impacted by toxic leadership and workplace incivility, and that employees who are targeted with toxicity or who witness others being targeted, may react by disengaging

278 or committing deviant acts in the workplace as a means of retaliation against the toxicity.

The participants in this study did not report having reacted in such a way to the toxic targeting they experienced and, initially, witnessed others experiencing. Rather, the participants in this study initiated the process of searching for new positions once they were targeted, citing fear of losing their jobs and other retaliation on the part of the leader and the organization if they spoke out against toxicity, either in their roles as bystanders or as victims. Future empirical research could seek to determine the contexts in which employees react in various ways, from turnover to deviant acts, to incivility. Future research could also seek to determine whether bystanders change their behavior to avoid being targeted by toxic leaders. The findings of this study indicate that bystanders simply remained silent in order to avoid becoming targets, but they did not report changing specific aspects of their behavior. Eventually all participants in this study became targets and victims of toxic leadership, so future research could examine why or why not bystanders change their behaviors when faced with toxic leadership. Further, why or why not do victims of toxic leadership change their behaviors?

As previously discussed, behavioral changes are the consequence of affective and emotional changes, and additional research and theoretical work is required to determine the types of affective and emotional changes toxic leaders will require to change their behaviors. Organizational psychologists may provide insight into this domain of toxic leadership, but such research will need to address affective and emotional changes required at all levels of organizational leadership, since the findings of this study indicate that toxic leaders are supported by senior leaders, human resources personnel and organizational cultures which promote and accept toxicity. A core component of such

279

research will be the methods through which emotional and affective changes may be

elicited in toxic leaders, and the extent to which the toxic leaders are open to such

changes. Rose et. al. (2015), for example, contend that reflective training sessions may be used to elicit the required emotional and affective changes, but they question the extent to which toxic leaders will willingly accept such training sessions. Future research could examine the effectiveness of training or counseling sessions, grounded in a variety of methods and approaches, in eliciting affective and emotional changes in toxic leaders.

Finally, postcolonialist approaches to organizational analysis (Prassad, 2006) and postmodernist orientations to organizing may provide a useful theoretical orientation for grounding future empirical work which could examine alternative ways of organizing that transcend those inherently linked to the modernist project. These “post” orientations

may provide a counterbalance to the assumptions of the modernist project which have

dominated leadership and organizational theories, and leadership and organizational

research, throughout the 20th century. Tarnus (1991) succinctly captures the ethos of

postmodern critique of the Occident and its institutions of oppression and exploitation,

detailing within a broader social context what he terms their “intellectual and moral

bankruptcy” as viewed through a postmodernist lens:

Under the cloak of Western values, too many sins have been committed. Disenchanted eyes are now cast upon the West’s long history of ruthless expansionism and exploitation– the rapacity of its elites from ancient times to modern, it systematic thriving at the expense of others, its colonialism and imperialism, its slavery and genocide, its anti-Semitism, its oppression of women, people of color, minorities, homosexuals, the working classes, the poor, its destruction of indigenous societies throughout the world, its arrogant insensitivity to other cultural traditions and values, its cruel abuse of other forms of life, its blind ravaging of virtually the entire planet” (p. 400).

280

Organizations, as microcosms of society, and willing beneficiaries of the colonialist and

imperialist sins Tarnus references, certainly constitute a primary force driving the

commission of these sins. Within the context of this study, Tarnus’ postmodern critique

of Western society offers a broader perspective within which to contextualize the

enslavement, oppression, exploitation, discrimination and cruel abuse study participants

detailed having experienced under toxic leaders, for, in formulating his postmodernist

critique, Tarnus lists the very values organizations have embraced and under which study

participants suffered.

Finally, the findings of this study indicate that a drastic shift in culture will be

required for organizations infected with toxic leaders if the organizations wish to provide non-toxic workplaces for employees. Based upon the data study participants provided in

their interviews, employees appear unlikely to elicit such change without the support of

senior organizational leaders. Drawing on the aforementioned need to statistically

demonstrate potential organizational savings as a function of elimination of toxic leadership, changes in organizational cultures away from protecting toxic leaders at all costs and toward neutralizing them and their negative impacts upon employees and the organization’s bottom line will likely occur only when the most senior leaders and board

of directors are provided with quantitative evidence of significant financial savings. The

difficulty in this approach lies in the hierarchical structure of organizations, which greatly

reduces the extent to which employees may be able to present such data to the most

senior organizational leaders, who are in a position to elicit the necessary change.

Consequently, while research oriented toward determining such financial benefits to

organizations may provide the best avenue for arguing for organizational change aimed at

281

eliminating toxic leaders, the research and its findings will need to be conducted by, or at

least presented by, senior leaders whose voices are heard by those charged with running

organizations.

Conclusion

The findings of this study have expanded the current understanding of toxic leadership in three ways. First, the study participants’ narratives, and the phases of narrativity inherent therein, were used to develop a conceptual model which links the presence of toxic leadership and toxic targeting in the workplace to voluntary employee turnover. This Toxic-Turnover Model appears to support the central tenets of Lee and

Mitchell’s (1994) Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover, but invites future research into this domain which may test Lee and Mitchell’s model in toxic leadership contexts and provide additional support of the Toxic-Turnover Model developed in this research.

Second, the findings of this research have illuminated additional domains for future research to expand understanding of toxic leadership, as previously discussed in this chapter. Specifically, bringing the discourses and theoretical orientations of colonialism, hegemony, power and control to bear on future research on toxic leadership may provide unique insight into the phenomenon and expand the academic discourses germane to the topic. These approaches may also provide a basis from which to formulate recommendations for the neutralization of toxic leadership in organizations and from which to propose forms of organization less likely to support the emergence of toxic leaders.

282

Finally, as previously discussed, the findings of this study have indicated the need

for additional research in a variety of dimensions within and outside of the community of

organizational academicians. The medical community, to cite one example, may glean

important insight from this study for future research oriented toward determining the

healthcare costs associated with toxic leadership in the workplace. This line of research

may yield important implications for the neutralization of toxic leadership in

organizations if it links increased organizational expenses with the presence of toxic

leadership. The findings of this study indicate that, particularly when confronted with

organizations in which cultures of cover-up, cronyism and protection of toxic leaders

thrive, employees suffering under toxic leaders may have little recourse except to resign.

A desperate need exists for significant change in many organizations, as the findings of this study have pointed out; yet, given the colonialist and hegemonic orientations many organizations appear to have adopted, change will likely not occur from the expenses incurred from high rates of employee turnover. Ultimately, the cycle of cover-up, cronyism and protection afforded toxic leaders must be broken, beginning at the highest ranks of organizations. Toxic infection at those ranks makes the problem all the larger, and its elimination all the more difficult, but, as previously suggested, those seeking to neutralize toxic leadership and its deleterious effects on employees and organizations will likely have the best chance of success by locating leaders within a particular organization with whom they can cautiously broach the subject without bringing accusations or destructive, negative emotions to bear on the discussion. By convincing such a leader of the need for emotional and affective change, and by suggesting that empirical research be

283 conducted to determine the true costs of toxicity in organizations, in-roads to change could be established and nurtured.

284

References

Afifi, S. S. (1991). Factors affecting professional employee retention. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 7(2), 187-202.

Alevesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive

companies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1101-1124.

Appelbaum, S.H., & Roy-Girard, D. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: Affect on

organizations and employees. Corporate Governance, 7(1), 17-28.

Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations:

Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 2-8.

Bamberger, P., & Bachrach, S. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem

drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account.

Human Relations, 59(6), 723-752.

Beach, L.R. (1990). Image theory. New York: Wiley. Beach, L.R. (1993). Four revolutions in behavioral decision theory. Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, 271-292. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Seduction. London: St. Martin’s Press. Bostock, W.W. (2010). Evil, toxic and pathological categories of leadership:

Implications for political power. In: Challenging evil, time, society and changing

concepts of meaning of evil: At the interface. Schlegel, J., & Hansen, B. (Eds.).

Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press,

11-18.

Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Brenner, M. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli &

P.B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research

(357-370). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

285

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis:

Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing

Company.Butterfield, L.D., Borgen, W.A., Amundson, N.E., & Maglio, A.T.

(2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond.

Qualitative Research, 5, 475-497.

Carleton, K. (2011). How to motivate and retain knowledge workers in organizations: a

review of the literature. International Journal of Management, 28(2), 459.

Chell, E. (1998). The critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell et.al. (Eds.),

Qualitative Methods and Analyses in Organizational Research – A Practical

Guide. London: Sage.

Chell, E. (2006). Critical incident technique. In Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (Eds.).

Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London:

Sage Publications.

Chell, E., & Adam, E. (1994). Researching culture and entrepreneurship: A qualitative

approach. Discussion Paper No. 95-8, Department of Management Studies,

University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Chell, E., & Baines, S. (1998). Does gender affect business performance? A study of

microbusinesses in business services in the UK. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(4), 117-135.

Chell, E., Haworth, J.M., & Brearley, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality:

Concepts, cases and categories. London: Routledge.

Chell, E., & Pittaway, L. (1998). A study of entrepreneurship in the restaurant and café

industry: Exploratory work using the critical incident technique as a methodology.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17(1), 23-32.

286

Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Cortina, L., Magley, V., Hunter, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:

Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curran, J., Jarvis, R., Blackburn, R.A., & Black, S. (1993). Networks and small firms:

Constructs, methodological strategies and learning. International Small Business

Journal, 11(2), 13-25.

Darmon, R.Y. (1990). Identifying sources of turnover costs: A segmental approach.

Journal of Marketing, 54, 46-56.

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in the age of corporate colonization: Developments in

communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University

of New York Press.

Duffy, M., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

Dellasega, C., & Volpe, R. (2013). Toxic nursing: Managing bullying, bad attitudes, and

total turmoil. Sigma Theta Tau: Indianapolis.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A

definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.

Erikson, A., Shaw, J., & Agabe, Z. (2007). An empirical investigation of the antecedents,

behaviors and outcomes of bad leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3),

26-43.

287

Ferris, G., Zinko, R., Brouer, R., Buckley, M., Harvey, M. (2007). Strategic bullying as a

supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 18, 195-206.

Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 1-

33.

Fitz-Enz, J. (2005). The 8 practices of exceptional companies: How great organizations

make the most of their human assets. Amacom.

Freeman, W.J. (2000). How brains make up their minds. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P.H. Hutton

(Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michael Foucault, 16-49.

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Ferguson, M., & Barry, B. (2011). I know what you did: The effects of interpersonal

deviance on bystanders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 80-

94.

Gallos, J. (2008). Learning from the toxic trenches: The winding road to healthier

organizations and to healthy everyday leaders. Journal of Management Inquiry,

17(4), 354-367.

Gangel, K.O. (2007). Surviving toxic leaders: How to work for flawed people in

churches, schools and christian organizations. Eugene: Wipf and Stock

Publishers.

Ghosh, R., Jacbos, J.L., & Reio, T.G. (2011). The toxic continuum from incivility to

violence: What can hrd do? Advances in Developing Human Resources 13(1), 3-

288

Glaso, L., & Vie, T.L. (2009). Toxic emotions at work. Scandinavian Journal of

Organizational Psychology, 2(1), 13-16.

Goldman, A. (2006). High toxicity leadership: Borderline personality disorder and the

dysfunctional organization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 733-746.

Goldman, A. (2008). Company on the couch: Unveiling toxic behavior in dysfunctional

organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(3), 226-238.

Gremler, D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of

Service Research, 7, 65-89.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1991). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hausknecht, J.P., J.M.Rodda & M.J.Howard (2008). Targeted Employee Retention:

Performance-Based and Job-Related Differences in Reported Reasons for

Staying. CAHRS Working Paper Series. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 34.

Hershcovis, S. (2010). Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my! A call to

reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.

Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal

of Change Management, 9(2), 165-178.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2), 40-51.

Hogg, M.A. (2005). Social identity and misuse of power: The dark side of leadership.

Brooklyn Law Review, 70(4), 1239-1257.

Holtom, B., Mitchell, T., Lee, T., & Inderrieden, E. (2005). Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are and how organization can manage them. Human Resource Management, 44(3), 337-352.

289

Hom, P.W., & Griffeth, R.Ws. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati: South-Western. Jackofsky, E.F. (1984). Turnover and job performance: An integrated process model.

Academy of Management Review, 9, 74-83.

Jermier, J., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations:

Critical perspectives on work and organization. Florence: Taylor & Frances.

Johnston, R. (2005). Service operations management: return to roots. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(12), 1278-1297.

Kelloway, E.K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Handbook of work

stress. London: Sage.

Kets de Vries, M. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. Wiley: New York.

Krashikova, D.V., Green, S.G., & LeBreton, J.M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39, 1308-1338. Kusy, M. & halloway, E. (2009). Toxic workplace! Managing toxic personalities and their systems of power. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Lee, T.W., & Mitchell, T.R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of

voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89.

Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., McDaniel, L.S., & Hill, J.W. (1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450-462. Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and

Victims,5(2), 119-126.

Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretative

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.

290

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks:

Sage.Lindebaum, D. & Fielden, S. (2011). It’s good to be angry: Enacting anger

in construction project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness.

Human Relations, 64(3), 437-458.

Lipman-Blumen (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses

and corrupt politicians – and how we can survive them. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Liu, C., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its

criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.

Lubit, R. (2004). The tyranny of toxic managers: Applying emotional intelligence to deal

with difficult personalities. Ivey Business Journal, 1-7.

Markowitz, M. (1984). Alcohol misuse as a response to perceived powerlessness in the

organization. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 45(3), 125-142.

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-

526.

Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.

McClelland, D.C. (1976). A Guide to Job Competency Assessment. Boston: McBer &

Co.

McClelland, D.C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 21(3), 219-233.

McCracken (1988). The Long Interview. New York: Sage Publications.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

291

Michel, S. (2001). Analyzing service failures and recoveries: A process approach.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (1), 20-33.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition.

Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Mobley, W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between jobs satisfaction

and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 327-240.

Morrell, K., Loan-Clarke, J., Arnold, J., & Wilkinson, A. (2007). Mapping the decision to quit: A refinement and test of the unfolding model of voluntary turnover. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37(1), 128-150. Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. New York: Ablex. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,

susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly,

18, 176-194.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and

rhetoric. Leadership 6(4), 373-389.

Pittaway, L., & Chell, E. (1999). Entrepreneurship in the service firm life cycle.

Proceedings from the eighth annual CHME hospitality research conference,

volume 1 (April 7-9), 203-219. University of Surrey: UK.

Prassad, A. (2003). Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical

engagement. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.

Qu, S., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in

Accounting and Management, 8(3), 238-264.

292

Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for

employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Academy of

Business, 5(1/2), 52-63.

Reed, G.E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, July/August 2004, 67-71.

Reio. T. (2011). Supervisor and coworker incivility: Testing the work frustration-

aggression model. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 54-68.

Reio, T., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility:

Implications for human resource development research and practice. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 237-264.

Reio, T. & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about workplace engagement: Does

supervisor and coworker incivility really matter? Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 13(4), 462-478.

Rose, K., Shuck, B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative

review exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications

for those employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review,

4(1), 64-90.

Scanlon, W. (1994). Alcoholism and drug abuse in the workplace: Managing care and

costs through employee assistance programs. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Schulter, J., Seaton, P., & Chaboyer, W. (2007). Critical incident technique: A user’s

guide for nurse researchers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(1), 107-114.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.

Shaw, J.B., Erikson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive

leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 575-590.

293

Smith, H.L., & Watkins, W.E. (1978). Managing manpower turnover costs. Personnel

Administrator 23 (4), 46-50.

Snijders, T. (1992). Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: How to weight.

Bulletin Methodologie Sociogique, 36, 59-70.

Speedy, S. (2006). Workplace violence: the dark side of organizational life.

Contemporary Nurse, 21, 239-250.

Spencer, D.G. (1986) Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management

Journal 29, 488–502.

Starratt, A., & Grandy, G. (2010). Young workers’ experiences of abusive leadership.

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(2), 136-158.

Staw, B.M. (1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

1, 253-273.

Steel, R.P., Griffeth, R.W., & Hom, P.W. (2002). Practical retention policy for the

practical manager. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 149-162.

Steers, R.M., & Mowday, R.T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, 235-281). Greenwich: JAI Press. Strober, N.H. (1990). Human capital theory: Implications for HR managers. Industrial Relations, 29, 214-239. Tarnas, R. (1991). Passion of the western mind: Understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. New York: Ballantine Books. Tavanti, M. (2011). Managing toxic leaders: Dysfunctional patterns in organizational leadership and how to deal with them. Human Resource Management, 6, 127-136. Tepper, B. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43(2), 178-190.

294

Walton, M. (2007). Leadership toxicity – an inevitable affliction of organizations?

Organization & People, 14(1), 19-27.

Wang, M., Sinclair, R., & Deese, M. N. (2010). Understanding the causes of destructive

leadership behavior: A dual-process model. In: Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T.

(Eds.). When Leadership Goes Wrong Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and

Ethical Failure, 73-97. New York: Information Age Publishing.

Wheelock, J., & Chell, E. (1996). The business-owner managed family unit: An inter-

regional comparison of behavioral dynamics. London: Economic and Social

Research Council.

Whicker, M. (1986). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad. Westport, CT: Quorum

VI.

Wakeman, C. (2010). Reality-based leadership: ditch the drama, restore sanity to the

workplace, and turn excuses into results. San Francisco: Wiley.

Zareen, M., & Razzaq, K. (2013). Job design and employee performance: The

moderating role of employee psychological perception. European Journal of

Business and Management, 5(3), 216-225.

295

Appendix A

Interview Guide

Introduction and Ethical Issues

As a participant in the study “Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee

Turnover: A Critical Incident Study,” you have agreed to share your experiences regarding toxic leadership in an organization of which you are no longer a member.

Specifically, you have agreed to share three to five critical incidents or events related to the toxic leadership you experienced, and which you believe led to your eventual decision to leave organization where you suffered from the toxic leadership. The purpose of gathering these critical incidents from you and other study participants is to understand the particular forms of toxic leadership which cause employees to consider leaving a toxic leader, and which ultimately lead to voluntary employee turnover.

Before beginning the interview, I will review confidentiality protocols and the interview process.

• The interview should last about 1 hour and will, with your permission, be tape

recorded. Your permission to record the interview will be recorded as part of the

interview, and you will be asked to respond on tape to the question “Do I have

your permission to tape record this interview?” In the event that you do not wish

to have the interview recorded, the researcher will take detailed notes throughout

the course of the interview.

• Please do not identify yourself by name during the interview. Please select an

alias for the purposes of the interview, and you will be addressed by this alias

throughout the interview.

296

• Please do not identify the name of the employer you left due to toxic leadership.

Please refer to the employer as “the company,” “the organization,” or “the firm.”

• Please do not disclose the name of the toxic leader about whom you are speaking

in the interview.

• Please do not disclose any sensitive, classified or proprietary information in the

interview.

• In the event that you accidentally disclose the name of the organization, the name

of the toxic leader, or sensitive, classified or proprietary information in the course

of the interview, this information will be purged from the interview transcript.

• You do not need to answer any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.

• The tapes of interviews will be stored in a locked place by the researcher and will

be destroyed three months following the conclusion of this study. If you feel your

confidentiality has been violated, please contact me at [email protected].

• You will be given the opportunity to review the transcript of your interview to

ensure no sensitive, classified or proprietary information has been disclosed, and

to provide you with the opportunity to make revisions of the transcript. In order

to protect your identity, the interview transcript will be hand-delivered to you at

an agreed upon location.

• The information obtained from this interview will be used solely for the present

study, and no identifying information will be disclosed about you, your former

organization or the toxic leader about who you speak in this study.

• Do you have any questions about these established protocols?

297

The Interview

• Do I have permission to tape record this interview?

As a participant in the study “Toxic Leadership and Voluntary Employee

Turnover: A Critical Incident Study,” you have indicated that you (1) have suffered under toxic leadership in an organization (2) where you were employed within the past year, and (3) from which you voluntarily resigned as a result of the toxic leadership within the past year. You have indicated that you are confident that you can describe, from your perspective as a former employee who has suffered under toxic leadership, three to five critical incidents which led to your voluntary resignation, and which you directly link to the presence of toxic leadership in your former workplace. You have been asked to think about these critical incidents prior to this interview, in order to facilitate your recall of the critical incidents and allow you to narrate your story in this interview. The three to five critical incidents which you have pondered prior to this interview, these events or instances of toxic leadership which you are able to vividly recall, and which you believe led to your voluntary resignation from the organization, are those which are of interest in this interview. Please take a moment to recall these three to five critical incidents before the interview begins.

Overarching Question for First Critical Incident

1. When you recall your time as an employee under a toxic leader, think about a critical incident, event or situation in which you experienced toxicity, which caused you to consider leaving the organization to escape from the toxic leader. Describe what happened. How did you handle the situation?

298

Follow-up Questions for First Critical Incident

1. What specific leader behaviors do you characterize as toxic, based upon the incident you just described?

2. Did this type of incident occur more than once? If so, how often did it occur?

3. How would you describe your workplace experience during and after this incident?

4. Did this experience have an impact on your life outside of the workplace? If so, describe the impact.

5. Describe how experiencing this incident impacted your decision to leave the organization employing the toxic leader under which you suffered.

6. Was the leader you just described male or female?

7. Would you say that the leader you just described is of the same generation as you, or of an older or younger generation?

8. Do you believe age and/or gender, or any other discriminatory factors played a role in your having experienced toxic leadership? If so, describe how.

Overarching Question for Second Critical Incident

Follow-up Questions for Second Critical Incident

1. What specific leader behaviors do you characterize as toxic, based upon the incident you just described?

299

2. Did this type of incident occur more than once? If so, how often did it occur?

3. How would you describe your workplace experience during and after this incident?

4. Did this experience have an impact on your life outside of the workplace? If so,

describe the impact.

5. Describe how experiencing this incident impacted your decision to leave the

organization employing the toxic leader under which you suffered.

6. Was the leader you just described male or female?

7. Would you say that the leader you just described is of the same generation as you, or

of an older or younger generation?

8. Do you believe age and/or gender, or any other discriminatory factors played a role in

your having experienced toxic leadership? If so, describe how.

Overarching Question for Third Critical Incident

1. When you recall your time as an employee under a toxic leader, think about a critical

incident, event or situation in which you experienced toxicity, which caused you to

consider leaving the organization to escape from the toxic leader. Describe what

happened. How did you handle the situation?

Follow-up Questions for Third Critical Incident

1. What specific leader behaviors do you characterize as toxic, based upon the incident you just described?

2. Did this type of incident occur more than once? If so, how often did it occur?

3. How would you describe your workplace experience during and after this incident?

300

4. Did this experience have an impact on your life outside of the workplace? If so,

describe the impact.

5. Describe how experiencing this incident impacted your decision to leave the

organization employing the toxic leader under which you suffered.

6. Was the leader you just described male or female?

7. Would you say that the leader you just described is of the same generation as you, or

of an older or younger generation?

8. Do you believe age and/or gender, or any other discriminatory factors played a role in

your having experienced toxic leadership? If so, describe how.

Overarching Question for Fourth Critical Incident

1. When you recall your time as an employee under a toxic leader, think about a critical

incident, event or situation in which you experienced toxicity, which caused you to

consider leaving the organization to escape from the toxic leader. Describe what

happened. How did you handle the situation?

Follow-up Questions for Fourth Critical Incident

1. What specific leader behaviors do you characterize as toxic, based upon the incident

you just described?

2. Did this type of incident occur more than once? If so, how often did it occur?

3. How would you describe your workplace experience during and after this incident?

4. Did this experience have an impact on your life outside of the workplace? If so,

describe the impact.

301

5. Describe how experiencing this incident impacted your decision to leave the organization employing the toxic leader under which you suffered.

6. Was the leader you just described male or female?

7. Would you say that the leader you just described is of the same generation as you, or of an older or younger generation?

8. Do you believe age and/or gender, or any other discriminatory factors played a role in your having experienced toxic leadership? If so, describe how.

Overarching Question for Fifth Critical Incident

Follow-up Questions for Fifth Critical Incident

1. What specific leader behaviors do you characterize as toxic, based upon the incident you just described?

2. Did this type of incident occur more than once? If so, how often did it occur?

3. How would you describe your workplace experience during and after this incident?

4. Did this experience have an impact on your life outside of the workplace? If so, describe the impact.

5. Describe how experiencing this incident impacted your decision to leave the organization employing the toxic leader under which you suffered.

6. Was the leader you just described male or female?

302

7. Would you say that the leader you just described is of the same generation as you, or

of an older or younger generation?

8. Do you believe age and/or gender, or any other discriminatory factors played a role in

your having experienced toxic leadership? If so, describe how.

Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study; I appreciate your

willingness to share your experiences of toxic leadership. May I contact you for a short

follow-up interview, if necessary, in order to clarify any points you raised in this interview? As I previously mentioned, I will hand-deliver the interview transcript to you for your review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments at [email protected].

303