Toxic Leadership: Behaviors, Characteristics, and Consequences

INTRODUCTION

Toxic leadership is a type of leadership that is destructive to members of a team, an organization, and society at large. It is ubiquitous and has been for centuries. Yet, within the larger body of the leadership literature, toxic leadership accounts for an alarmingly small percentage of the leadership research. There are dozens of widely known and well documented cases of the devastating consequences of toxic leadership. So, why is there such little scientific interest in conceptualizing and operationalizing toxic leadership? It seems, at an outset, that toxic leaders are found everywhere. Indeed, it appears to occur in every industry and at every level of government (Lipman-Bluman, 2005). As Wright (2015) points out from a military context, there are almost a countless number of historical examples whereby leaders place an emphasis on service and sacrifice above anything else resulting in the destruction of follower morale. More disturbingly, nobody is immune to toxic leadership.

This paper endeavors to examine toxic leadership. It starts the journey by exploring the multi- faceted elements of toxic leadership which makes this paper compelling in the broader scholarly discourse on leadership. The paper then reviews the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences of toxic leadership, which is essential to the development of a philosophical, pragmatic, and comprehensive understanding of toxic leadership. This in and of itself, as the paper will demonstrate, is foundational to more organizations and individuals saying no to toxic leadership. Students of leadership should care about this research because virtually everyone has been exposed to toxic leadership at some point in their lives whether in a workplace, family setting, or even within a community context and volunteer activities. Toxic leadership impacts all of us, which is why we so desperately need to understand it. The primary purpose of this paper is to examine what healthy and toxic leadership look like, drawing

an important comparison and juxtaposition between the two for current and aspiring leaders to examine. This comparison becomes important because, while there are still many scholars pointing to personality as the primary driving force behind leader behavior, while Itzkovich, Heilbrunn, and Aleksic (2020), rightly assert that there are many other complex variables that can contribute to leader behavior. Thus, the objective of this paper is to develop a working definition of toxic leadership based on the existing research surrounding both healthy and toxic leadership. From a structural point of view, the paper will first demonstrate what healthy leadership looks like both in theory and practice. Second, the paper will review some of the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences of toxic leadership. Third, the paper will present a working definition of toxic leadership from which future research can be built from. Finally, the paper will present concluding thoughts and a call to action for further scientific study.

HEALTHY LEADERSHIP

How leadership is defined is essential to the discourse surrounding toxic leadership. As Stogdill argues in his study, “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the subject” (Brookes, 2014, p. 202). Yet, there are a few definitions that have permeated academic and popular press resources consistently throughout the years. Previous research and publications by the authors of this paper have explored dozens of definitions of leadership, accounting for deep research into each of the widely accepted styles of leadership. From this work, the authors arrived at their own unique definition of leadership as follows:

“An intentional means by which a leader influences a group of people in an organization to a widely understood future state that is different from the present one.” (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018).

The word intentional is a critical element of this definition. Gandolfi and Stone (2017) discuss the intentionality required to practice leadership, as

well as to cultivate and develop leadership skills. Two important points are noteworthy: One, while this paper is not about leadership styles per se, every leadership style does in fact require intentionality (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017). Second, it cannot be assumed that all intentional efforts to build and grow leadership skills is done so for the mutual benefit of the leader and the follower, or even if this is the intent that it will remain that way indefinitely. The notion of organizational variables discussed previously (Itzkovich, Heilbrunn, & Aleksic, 2020) can influence the intentionality and ultimately the output of a leader.

Influence is one of the most important elements of the stated leadership definition. Good, or healthy leadership is influence driven by motivation, inspiration, and prioritization, which can engender a sense of calm and safety (McDermott, Kidney, & Flood, 2013). Whether it is top down, matrix, or a flat organizational structure, leaders must be able to influence others. Gandolfi (2016) asserts that the combination of five components render a potent working definition of leadership - (i) there must be one or more leaders, (ii) leadership must have followers, (iii) it must be action oriented with a (iv) legitimate course of action, and there must be (v) goals and objectives. Several important points are made here. One, there is an inherent leader/ follower dynamic. Two, goals and action steps become very important in that the leaders and followers must work together to achieve the goals set out by the leader(s). The question then arises as to what end? Are followers giving their time joyfully or forcefully? For instance, when organizational advocates joyfully give their time and talents to the organizational mission, they in turn enhance the value of the organization (Stone, 2015). When the followers are subjected to do the inverse, they become robbed of their joy and resentful of the organization and its leadership.

This idea of joy and satisfaction in the workplace accounts for the Winston and Patterson (2006) definition of leadership. They discuss a distinct bond between the leader(s) and the follower(s). One that points to traits, skills, and abilities on the part of the follower(s) that can be utilized in a healthy way for the benefit of both the organization and the follower(s), where the follower(s) feel they are truly valued in the grand vision toward achieving the mission, and not just a cog in the corporate wheel (Winston & Patterson, 2006). This is important because it places equal emphasis on both relationship and purpose between the leader(s) and the follower(s). When this type of relationship reaches equilibrium, it generates trust, commitment, and longevity. The reason is that followers want to be heard. Gandolfi & Stone (2018) assert that placing the needs of the follower first is arguably the most unselfish posture that leaders can take toward their followers. This is significant in creating organizational humility and essential in discerning if the leader/follower relationships are positively influential or coercive.

In his seminal work, Collins (2001) defines five levels of leadership, where the Level 5 leader “blends extreme personal humility with intense professional will” (p. 21). There is a clear balance here - results versus humility. The two can live in harmony, but it is not an easy line to walk for any leader. “Driven” leaders can easily forget about followers, and humility in the wrong context or without the proper understanding of what humility is can be perceived as weakness. Effective leadership is not linear, nor is it a one-way form of communication or event; rather it is highly interactive (Northouse, 2007). Interaction is critical, and it comes in many forms, though it must be driven from the top. If there is no incentive to be interactive, it simply will not happen. This encompasses another key element of the authors of this papers’ definition of leadership, how the leader moves the organization toward the widely understood desired future state. This becomes the critical moment for the leader, the follower, and the organization. It is the proverbial fork in the road where healthy leadership and toxic leadership start to noticeably deviate from one another determining the all-important means by which the future organizational state gets achieved. Achieving the desired future state begins to bring about difficult questions that are beyond the scope of this current paper but are worth serious consideration for future research. For instance, are there leadership styles that start with the best of intentions and become toxic? If so, what styles are most susceptible? Does toxic leadership become pervasive from the idea of results at any cost?

There is a clear understanding at this point that healthy leadership considers the mission, vision, and followers equally. An example of this is the leadership of Herb Kelleher, Co-founder of Southwest Airlines. Freiberg and Freiberg (2019) state that Southwest Airlines became a beacon on a hill. Herb and the people of Southwest Airlines showed that it is possible to love people, employees, and customers alike, have fun, and make money simultaneously. Kelleher never believed that the discipline necessary to run an on-time airline with fantastic service was mutually exclusive with treating people like family and making work fun. Kelleher famously said, ‘A company is stronger if it is bound by love rather than by fear.’ (Freiberg & Freiberg, 2019). Kelleher treated mission vision, and people equally and the result was the emergence of the largest domestic airline in the United States.

An understanding of healthy leadership coupled with a concrete definition as well as a practical example, form the basis of a framework that acts as a catalyst for exploring toxic leadership, as well as, understanding the stark differences between the two. This discourse is critical since it identifies how the mission, vision, and followers are treated differently under healthy leadership versus toxic leadership.

UNDERSTANDING TOXIC LEADERSHIP

So, what is toxic leadership? Undeniably, it has very specific behaviors, characteristics, and consequences. Reed (2004) points out that there is no one specific characteristic that shines the light on toxic leadership. Rather, it is “a cumulative effect of the many elements of a leadership style” (p. 67). Though the academic community is yet to settle on a definition of toxic leadership, individuals in the public and private sectors recognize that toxic leadership has profound consequences. Therefore, the remainder of this paper will focus on the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences of toxic leadership. The aim is to demonstrate the stark contrast between healthy leadership and toxic leadership. Thus, it is critically important to create a working definition on toxic leadership that can be examined and applied across industries, cultures, and academic settings.

Identifying the behaviors and characteristics of toxic leadership is an important first step in differentiating between healthy and toxic leadership. Boddy and Croft (2015), put it bluntly by stating that “toxic leaders employ and demonstrate dysfunctional characteristics” (p. 46). While this is a true statement, it is important to go deeper for the purposes of understanding and clarification. Dysfunctional characteristics can mean different things to different people, can be applied across various contexts, and most certainly are observed through different lenses that must account for industry type, geography, and local customs and cultures. This is not to say that toxic leadership should be excused in some cultures or industries and not in others. Rather, a more finite examination of toxic behaviors and toxic leader characteristics can help the academic and business communities reach consensus on what toxic leadership is, how to identify it, and how to see the gaps between toxic and healthy leadership. Practically speaking, it is essential to identify these gaps because, in stressful work environments, followers’ attention can be diverted from their work and focus on where the stress is coming from, thus reducing their own performance and the organization’s overall effectiveness (Srikanth, 2020). Therefore, a review of how toxic behaviors and traits impact both the followers and organizational mission is of equal importance.

According to Webster, Brough, and Daly (2014), there are key leader behaviors associated with toxic leadership which include, “intimidating, bullying, manipulating (Machiavellianism), micromanaging, arrogance (narcissism) and engaging in abusive or unethical behaviour” (p. 346). These are deeply intentional behaviors that are designed to produce the precise results that one person or group of individuals desire for an organization whether it be in the short-term or long-term. Left unchecked, these behaviors can be woven into the very fabric of the organization and once this occurs, it becomes extremely difficult to shift the organizational culture back to a healthy state. Some of the additional behaviors of toxic leadership as postulated by Williams (2019), include shaming, passive hostility, the sabotaging of teams, and a genuine lack of compassion for others. As noted previously, every leadership style, decision, and action have intentionality (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017) and these behaviors are not excluded from that statement.

When examining each of these behaviors and characteristics of toxic leadership, they are a clear pathway to disciplinary, punitive, and fear- based relationships between leaders and followers. According to Viscuso (2018), discipline as a fear tactic almost never produces effective outcomes in the workplace. This runs counter to the notion that healthy leadership puts the needs of followers on an equal plane with the mission and vision that an organization might be seeking to achieve. Additionally, they place extreme mental, emotional, and sometimes physical pressure on the followers who are trying to execute and achieve the desired organizational outcomes. Lipman-Blumen (2005), aptly notes that toxic leaders play into followers’ anxiety, psychological needs, and their fear of rapid change to achieve their desired result. The sustained pressure of this variety on followers creates tension within leader/follower dynamics and they inevitably have consequences. In the case of toxic leadership, these consequences can be severe and irreparable.

At the follower level, toxic leadership is a direct cause of emotional exhaustion (Tiwari & Jha, 2022). This statement alone should be enough to give any leader or aspiring leader pause, as emotional exhaustion leads to burnout, which is when followers get completely overcome by stress and are no longer able to sustain the pressure of their jobs (Weisberg, 1994). With mental health deeply under the research microscope on a global level more than ever before, this is something to be concerned with for a myriad of reasons from leader/follower relationships, employee engagement and satisfaction, and employee retention in what has become a hyper-competitive war on talent in many parts of the world. For the follower, the traits and behaviors of toxic leaders can result in physical and mental health issues, and an overall heavy burden of personal distress (Webster, Brough, & Daly, 2016). When one or a combination of these consequences of toxic leadership become reality, the logical conclusion for many followers is to leave the organization.

Beyond the important concept of the emotional and mental exhaustion of employees, there are several other deceptive tactics that toxic leaders use to manipulate and coerce followers, particularly when they are in a vulnerable mental or emotional state. Winn and Dykes (2019) articulate the connection between toxic leadership and familial origin. Inevitably, people bring personal experiences to work. These translate to success, trauma, heartbreak, joy, and many other emotions. It is these very emotions that toxic leaders tend to misuse or take advantage of:

“Toxic leaders comfort us with reassuring and often grand illusions that life in the factory or in the family will work out just fine. By signing on to their grand illusions, we can work on our immortality projects. There are only two catches. For one, to achieve this desired state, we must agree to do just as the leader says—no ifs, ands or buts. Thus, just like when we were children, dependent upon parents whose rules we followed in exchange for love, safety, and Oreos, we now trade our obedience and autonomy for the toxic leader’s pledge of security, certainty and other goodies.” (Winn & Dykes, 2019, p. 39).

This type of maternalistic and/or paternalistic dysfunctional behavior described by Wynn and Dykes (2019) is concerning on several levels. First, one must seriously consider whether this type of relationship is appropriate in any workplace setting. With an understanding of truly healthy leadership, it is not difficult to conclude that it is not good, healthy, or appropriate (Collins, 2001; Winston & Patterson, 2007; Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). Further, the notion that the characteristics and behaviors of toxic leaders can produce these kinds of interpersonal relationships is alarming. However, the challenging aspect for followers is that toxic leaders often come off as pleasant and talented individuals but have the propensity to degrade others in either passive or aggressive ways, all for the purposes of self-gain (Williams, 2019). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the behaviors and characteristics of toxic leadership, as this type of understanding can provide greater opportunity for identifying toxic leaders, situations, and environments.

Even if followers make the active or passive choice to continue to follow a toxic leader, in toxic work environments where the leaders are driving the toxic behavior, followers will often seek coping mechanisms to deal with the toxicity, which distills down to environmental adaptation (Srikanth, 2020). Coping mechanisms often have long term consequences and can lead to the more serious mental and physical health manifestations of toxic leadership that have been previously discussed. Additionally, toxic leadership can elicit three common follower responses, assertion, avoidance, or adaptation (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019). More specifically, assertion can lead to severed relationships in a toxic work environment. Avoidance on the part of a follower can easily translate to a state of disengagement with their job and the organization, as well as a lack of productivity. Finally, adaption is almost never going to manifest into a healthy outcome in a toxic environment, because the adaptor inevitably becomes part of the toxicity. In addition to the individual consequences for followers, the organizational consequences of toxic leadership must be considered. Based on the known characteristics and behaviors of toxic leadership, it may be prudent to suggest that toxic leaders fall squarely into an authoritarian or autocratic style of leadership. Viscuso (2018) states that not to suggest that this is the only box toxic leaders fit in, “we do know that an autocratic management style and a history of retaliatory behavior can foster a demoralizing culture” (p. 66), a direct result of toxic leadership, as culture is paramount to achieving organizational mission, vision, and objective. Culture is people centric, not process or product centric, which can truly compound the problem and affect day-to-day performance on the job. Srikanth (2020) asserts that abusive leadership can be a drag on follower job performance and provide “the breeding ground for negative interpersonal relationships” (p. 1312). Saquib and Arif (2017) demonstrate that toxic leadership can stunt organizational learning. The type of dynamic described here instantly reduces organizational effectiveness and thwarts the growth and development of followers, which will produce less of the desired organizational outcome. Additionally, Toor and Ogunlana (2009) make a compelling argument about toxic leadership asserting that over time leaders can become driven by their power and personal authority, which can result in numerous toxic behaviors, such as abuse of power, narcissism, manipulation, self-service, and coercion (p. 256). Therefore, it becomes evident how the behaviors and characteristics of toxic leadership dovetail with the consequences of such behaviors for followers to create a cyclical and repetitive pattern that erodes relationships, trust, and abuse power (Tiwari & Jha, 2021). Sadly, in the end, there are no winners in that no-one is getting what they want on either a professional or personal level.

Furthermore, a noteworthy organizational consequence of toxic leadership is a perceived lack of psychological safety. This is paramount as psychological safety has been reported as the number one priority for building and nurturing effective teams (Viscuso, 2018). Unfortunately, nothing in the existing literature about toxic leadership characteristics, behaviors, outcomes, or consequences point toward psychological safety for followers. Toxic leadership is also in direct conflict with leadership effectiveness. Kouzes and Posner (2007), authorities on leadership, have produced some of the most compelling and authoritative studies on leadership effectiveness. Specifically, in a span exceeding thirty years of global research, they arrived at five key attributes of effective leadership. These are (i) to model the way, (ii) to inspire a shared vision, (iii) to challenge the process, (iv) to enable others to act, and (v) to encourage the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). None of these attributes align with what we understand about toxic leadership. Interestingly, Matos, O’Neill, and Lei (2018) refer to toxic leadership as a style, one that “protects the ego of the leader and does not threaten their immediate success” (p. 501). With an understanding of the attributes pointed out by Kouzes and Posner (2007), Winston and Patterson (2007), and the definition of leadership provided by Gandolfi and Stone (2018), this type of leadership ‘intention’ does not align with healthy leadership, as organizational success and individual satisfaction cannot coexist in an environment perpetuated by toxicity. Toxic leadership can even manifest itself in seemingly desirable or attractive forms of a leadership style for an employee or prospective employee. A recent well-documented case of now defunct Theranos and its enigmatic leader Elizabeth Holmes proves this very point. According to Linda Neider of the University of Miami, “Elizabeth Holmes is a fascinating case study of charismatic leadership gone wrong” in that “she possessed many of the classic characteristics that we normally associate with charismatic leaders” (Malone, 2021; p. 1). Having obtained a holistic understanding of toxic leadership, the next step is to arrive at a working definition of toxic leadership that can be utilized as a catalyst for further research.

DEFINING TOXIC LEADERSHIP

Juxtaposing healthy and toxic leadership provides a critical junction for defining toxic leadership. The two form extremes on a continuum of opposite ends. Most people interested in leadership or students of leadership are familiar or at least acquainted with what ‘good’ or ‘healthy’ leadership looks like. Yet, few individuals take a deeper look at the dark side of leadership. It is imperative to define toxic leadership primarily since several terms have appeared including but not confined to abusive, destructive, narcistic, controlling, and toxic leadership.

As noted, there have been several correlations between destructive leadership and abusive leadership to toxic leadership. For instance, Srikanth (2020) asserts that “abusive leadership has been considered toxic and a potential source of stress associated with negative emotional and behavioral responses” (p. 1309). With this known reality of abusive leadership, it becomes important to examine an already existing definition of destructive leadership that can highlight its unique attributes, as well as those of toxic leadership. Shaw, Erickson, and Nasirzadeh (2015), derive a portion of their work on abusive and toxic leadership from a definition based on the notion of destructive leadership. Destructive leadership had been defined as “the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being or job satisfaction of subordinates.” (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007, p. 208).

It appears that the aspects we have come to understand about toxic leadership are the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences of those traits and actions, which have been identified and documented in this paper. However, hitherto, there is no universally or even widely accepted definition of toxic leadership. Thus, the authors of this paper assert that there is a critical need to establish a baseline for this phenomenon that has plagued individuals, organizations, and governments of every type for hundreds if not even thousands of years (Wright, 2015). Consequently, the authors put forth the following working definition of toxic leadership within an organizational context:

Toxic leadership is the intentional or unintentional series of acts that undermine and discourage those followers who genuinely seek to carry out the mission and vision of the organization, who then become stifled in the process of achievement by self-serving leaders who put missional or personal gain above the needs of followers, creating a demoralized state that deteriorates organizations from the inside out.

This definition of toxic leadership is important because it delineates toxic leadership from the notion of destructive and abusive leadership. At its most basic, destructive leadership focuses on the whole organization with less consideration for the people executing the organizational mission. Abusive leadership emphasizes the damaging effects that toxicity can have on one- on-one relationships. This working definition of toxic leadership is holistic in that it counts the organization and the employees/followers equally. Prioritizing mission, vision, and followers equally provides the greatest distinction between healthy leadership and potentially toxic leadership. This understanding is derived based on a review of the existing literature and supports the notion that values are paramount to the leadership discussion (Brookes, 2014). This in and of itself is a new insight in our quest to understand toxic leadership, how it manifests, and if it can be correlated to any of the existing known and widely accepted leadership styles.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The primary purpose of this paper was to examine healthy and toxic leadership. This comparison was critical since the literature still pointed to personality as the primary driving force behind leader behavior. The objective of this paper was to develop a working definition of toxic leadership based on the existing research surrounding healthy and toxic leadership. The paper demonstrated what healthy leadership looks like, reviewed the behaviors, characteristics, and consequences of toxic leadership, and presented a definition of toxic leadership. Such a working definition is vitally important in order to allow the academic community to build upon for further study and research. However, more systematic work is required, and future research will need to continue to unpack the concept of toxic leadership. For instance, toxic leadership must be discussed in relation to popularized leadership styles including but not limited to charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership styles.

Finally and unequivocally, the juxtaposition between healthy and toxic leadership is crucial to our understanding of toxicity in organizations. Understanding what healthy leadership in its truest form looks like creates a monumentally important

path to our understanding of toxic leadership based on the research depicted in this paper, thus creating a bridge to the definition of toxic leadership that is going to enrich the leadership discourse.

REFERENCES

Bhandarker, A. & Rai, S. (2019). “Toxic leadership: emotional distress and coping strategy,” International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 22 (1), pp. 65-78.

Boddy, C. & Craft, R. (2016). “Marketing in a time of toxic leadership,” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19 (1), pp. 44-64.

Brookes, S. (2014). “Is selfless leadership an impossible ideal for public leaders?” The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 10 (4), pp. 200-216.

Collins, J. (2001). “Good to Great,” New York: HarperCollins.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). “Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model,” The

Leadership Quarterly, 18 (3), pp. 207-216.

Freiberg, K. & Freiberg, J. (2019). “20 Reasons Why Herb Kelleher Was One of The Most Beloved Leaders Of Our Time,” Forbes, Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinandjackiefreiberg/2019/01/04/20-reasons-why-herb-kelleher-was-one-of- the-most-beloved-leaders-of-our-time/?sh=1cf3c838b311.

Gandolfi, F. (2016). “Fundamentals of leadership development,” Executive Master’s in Leadership Presentation, Georgetown University, June 2016.

Gandolfi, F. & Stone, S. (2017). “The emergence of leadership styles: A clarified categorization,” International Review of Comparative Management, 18 (1), pp. 18-30.

Gandolfi, F. & Stone, S. (2018). “Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership,” Journal of Management Research, 18 (4), pp. 261- 269.

Itzkovich, Y., Heilbrunn, S. & Aleksic, A. (2020). “Full range indeed? The forgotten dark side of leadership,” Journal of Management Development, 39 (7/8), pp. 851-868.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2007). “The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.),” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lipman-Bluman, J. (2005). “Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions,” Leader to Leader, John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., (Spring), pp. 29-36.
Malone, M. (2021). “Theranos trial highlights the dark side of leadership,” News at The U, University of Miami, retrieved from https://

news.miami.edu/stories/2021/09/theranos-trial-highlights-the-dark-side-of-leadership.html.
Matos, K., O’Neill, O., & Lei, X. (2018). “Toxic leadership and the masculinity contest culture: How ‘win or die’ cultures breed

abusive leadership”, Journal of Social Issues, 74, (3), pp. 500-528.
McDermott, A., Kidney, R. & Flood, P. (2011). “Understanding leader development: Learning from leaders,” Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 32 (4), 358–378.

Northouse, P. (2007) “Leadership: Theory and Practice (4th ed.),” Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Reed, G. (2004). “Toxic leadership,” Military Review, July/August, pp. 67-71.

Saquib, A. & Arif, M. (2017). “Employee silence as mediator in the relationship between toxic leadership behavior and organizational learning,” Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 10 (2), pp. 294-310.

Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A. & Nasirzadeh, F. (2015). Destructive leader behavior: A comparison of Australian, American, and Iranian leaders using the Destructive Leadership Questionnaire,” International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,15 (3) pp. 329–345.

Srikanth, P.B. (2020). “Coping with abusive leaders,” Personnel Review, 49 (6), pp. 1309-1326.

Stone, S. (2015). “Next: Reinventing Your Future Through Innovation,” Virginia Beach: Koehlerbooks.

Tiwari, M. & Jha, R. (2022). “Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30 (1), pp. 99-114.

Toor, S.R. & Ogunlana, S. (2009). “Ineffective leadership Investigating the negative attributes of leaders and organizational neutralizers,” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16 (3), pp. 254-272.

Viscuso, F. (2018). “How to kill morale,” Fire Engineering, July, pp. 65-67.
Webster, V., Brough, P. & Daly, K. (2016). “Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership,”

Stress and Health, 32, pp. 346–354.

Weisberg, J. (1994). “Measuring workers’ burnout and intention to leave,” International Journal of Manpower, 15 (1), pp. 4-14.

Williams, K.R. (2019). “The cost of tolerating toxic behaviors in the department of defense workspace,” Military Review, July/August, pp. 55-67.

Winn, G. L. & Dykes, A.C. (2019). “Identifying toxic leadership & building worker resilience,” PSJ Professional Safety, March, pp. 38-45.

Winston, B.E. & Patterson, K. (2006). “An integrative definition of leadership,” International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1 (2), pp. 6–66.

Wright, K. D. (2015). “Great results through bad leaders: The positive effects of toxic leadership,” Military Review, May-June, pp. 33- 39.