HOLDING ON TO WHO THEY ARE: PATHWAYS FOR VARIATIONS IN RESPONSE TO TOXIC WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR AMONG U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Graduate School of Leadership & Change Antioch University In partial fulfillment for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Greta E. Creech ORCID Scholar No. 0000-0001-7215-1746 May 2021 HOLDING ON TO WHO THEY ARE: PATHWAYS FOR VARIATIONS IN RESPONSE TO TOXIC WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR AMONG U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS This dissertation, by Greta E. Creech has been approved by the committee members signed below who recommend that it be accepted by the faculty of the Graduate School in Leadership & Change Antioch University in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dissertation Committee: Elizabeth Holloway, PhD, Committee Chair Aqeel Tirmizi, PhD, Committee Member Jan Goldman, EdD, Committee Member ii Copyright © 2021 Greta E. Creech All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT HOLDING ON TO WHO THEY ARE: PATHWAYS FOR VARIATIONS IN RESPONSE TO TOXIC WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR AMONG U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS Greta E. Creech Graduate School of Leadership & Change Antioch University Yellow Springs, OH The U.S. intelligence community is a critical mission industry responsible for protecting lives and safety in ways that impact the global security environment. Research on the deleterious impact of toxic workplace behavior on other critical mission fields, such as health care and the U.S. military, is robust. However, intelligence scholars publishing within the unclassified arena have been silent on the phenomenon, how personnel respond to it, and how it may impact the intelligence function. This lack of scholarship has afforded an opportunity to understand what constitutes toxic behavior in the intelligence environment and how it may affect U.S. national security objectives. This study presents a theoretical model of response to toxic workplace behavior among intelligence officers in the U.S. intelligence community that centers on a single goal: Holding Self. Using grounded theory methodology and situational analysis in two segments, the study examines how intelligence officers responded and the role that efforts to hold onto self-concepts played in those responses. The findings included three psychological dimensions, three action dimensions, and two inter-dimensions of response. The findings also included identification of the broader ecological situation conditioning response and how those choices operationalized into the business of being intelligence officers. The final model serves iv as a foundation for future empirical research on the topic. This dissertation is available in open access at AURA: Antioch University Repository and Archive, https://aura.antioch.edu/, and OhioLINK ETD Center, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/. Keywords: toxic workplace behavior, toxic leadership, grounded theory, situational analysis, intelligence community, national security v Dedication To the women and men of the U.S. intelligence community and their boundless courage. vi Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my families (and those who know me well will understand why that word is plural). Your love, support, and encouragement have been so appreciated, even if you thought I was crazy for going back to school at this point in my life. To Dr. Elizabeth Holloway—my chair, second-year advisor, and now my colleague and friend—thank you for your enthusiastic support, guidance, and friendship over the last few years. What you did not know was that I had chosen you for my “Yoda” even before I began Antioch simply based on your background. I knew you would be phenomenal to work with. What I never realized is how you would be able to translate me so that this tangled mess inside my brain could emerge into something coherent and contributory to the research. Most importantly, thank you for making me feel valued and understood at each step of the process. To Dr. Aqeel Tirmizi, your expertise in the complexities of teams and relationships were invaluable to my growth early in the program. That foundation was instrumental in my ability to make sense of the dynamics I would ultimately study. Finally, thank you for your gentle demeanor and helping me to simplify my writing so that my work seemed comprehensible and relevant. To Dr. Jan Goldman, fate is a funny thing. You served on my Master’s committee all those years ago. Who knew at the time that we would end up working together again, 500 miles away, and in a completely different context? Thank you very much for agreeing to work with me again on this dissertation, your insights, and your support. To Dr. Steve Taylor and Dr. Rosemary Taylor, thank you for your guidance and insights while I prepared Chapter 2 for this study. You both broadened my thinking and shaped my approach in significant ways. I will be forever grateful. To Dr. Harriet Schwartz, thank you for your dedication during my ILA-B to ensure that I had the depth of knowledge in grounded theory principles and practices to support my study. vii Your methods and instruction were instrumental to my success. Additionally, your encouragement when I needed it in those early days were critical. To Dr. Philomena Essed, thank you for the encouragement and insights over the years. You are truly inspiring. To my coding partners (alphabetically), Kelly Meehan, Dr. Beth Valicenti, and Nicole White, thank you so much for your time and attention to making this study stronger and more meaningful. To Dr. Donna Ladkin. I was in awe of you as a scholar when we first met. I knew of and admired your work, and I was so honored to be studying under you. Over the last couple of years, I have become equally in awe of you as my close friend. Thank you so much for your support and encouragement—especially during my “dark” situational analysis phase and while you were usually sitting in a grocery store parking lot somewhere in Maine. I feel like we rode the rapids together over the last couple of years. I cannot wait to see what else is in store! To my “posse” (alphabetically) Roz Cohen, Stacey Guenther, Dr. Amy Huntereece, Liz Paxton, and Nicole White, thank you for the cheerleading, laughs, and support over the last few years. We will move from fellow students and friends to being colleagues and friends. We will always be grounded in this experience that brought us together. To the wider Cohort 17 family, I would not trade a moment with any of you. Thank you so much for being the greatest cohort that Antioch University has ever produced. viii Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... XII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. XIII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 STUDY PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 2 POWER, VOICE, CONTEXT, AND TWB ........................................................................................ 3 Fear and Failure ................................................................................................................. 5 Research Opportunity ........................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ......................................................... 8 Research Question ............................................................................................................. 9 Methodological Approach ..................................................................................................10 RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY ..................................................................................................11 RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................14 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................19 Grounded Theory Methodology .........................................................................................19 Situational Analysis ...........................................................................................................20 SCOPE AND FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................21 CHAPTER OUTLINE ..................................................................................................................22 Chapter 1—Introduction ....................................................................................................22 Chapter 2—Literature Review ...........................................................................................23 Chapter 3—Methodology and Design ................................................................................24 Chapter 4—Findings for Grounded Theory Segment .........................................................25 Chapter 5—Findings for Situational Analysis Segment ......................................................25 Chapter 6—Implications for Leading Change and Future Research ..................................25 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................25