Defeating the Toxic Boss: The Nature of Toxic Leadership and the Role of Followers

The Nature of Dark Leadership

Dark leadership has received heightened attention in recent years despite the lack of accepted definitions (see Krasikova et al., 2013, for an important exception in the realm of destructive leadership) and a unified theoretical framework (Tepper, 2007). In an early article, Tepper (2000) argued that abusive supervision entails a sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact, by superiors toward their subordinates. Following his seminal work, interest in dark leadership (destructive, toxic, abusive, etc.) has grown, albeit with less precise definitions. One reason, perhaps, for slow development of this line of research as well as general focus on abusive supervision rather than leadership, has been reluctance of leadership scholars to recognize dark aspects of leadership and the potential harmfulness of its outcomes (Howell & Avolio, 1992).

However, more recently, there has been a concentrated effort to build theoretical models of dark leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007; Krasikova et al., 2013; Padilla et al., 2007) as well as inquire into specific behaviors (Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007; Pelletier, 2010; Thoroughgood et al., 2012) and outcomes (Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Thoroughgood, Hunter, & Sawyer, 2011). For example, Einarsen et al. (2007) introduced a model of destructive leadership that encompasses three specific categories of destructive leading behaviors: tyrannical, derailed, and supportive–disloyal. More recently, Krasikova et al. (2013) defined destructive leadership 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)

Despite these insights, the ambiguity with regard to toxic leadership and its outcomes relative to other dark leadership styles, such as destructive, seems to persist.

The Theoretical Framework: Intent and the Outcomes of Influence

To more clearly understand the boundaries of toxic leadership and its process of influence, we build on the work of Krasikova et al. (2013), Padilla et al. (2007), and Schilling (2009) and theorize that dark leadership styles may be usefully differentiated based on (1) the leader’s intent to create harm and (2) the degree of harm that followers and organizations experience. According to Krasikova et al. (2013), intent is evident in volitional choices leaders make about what goals to pursue and how to achieve them. Building on Krasikova et al.’s (2013) arguments, we further theorize that leaders who are highly competent and experience higher levels of narcissism together with the ability to set destructive goals manifest the strongest intent to create harm. On the other end of the spectrum, leaders with low competence and relatively low aptitude to lead are less likely to be intentional in their actions due to inability or unwillingness to set goals, destructive or constructive, and influence others toward achieving them (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Toor & Ogunlana, 2009).

We further theorize that leaders with the strong intent to harm others as described above are also likely to engage in actions that will be highly harmful for the followers and organization. They may leverage their competence to manipulate others in fulfilling goals that harm the organization or engage in destructive actions to shield their self-esteem (Grijalva, & Harms, 2014; Kernberg, 1975). However, the intent of the leader may not be to pursue the destructive goals, but the influence tactics they use are destructive in that they create considerable harm for others (James & LeBreton, 2010; Tepper, 2000). For example, frequent emotionally abusive outbursts characteristic of abusive leaders are less intentional (i.e., the intent to induce harm is less calculated), but the harmfulness for the followers is considerable (Tepper, 2000).

This line of theorizing presents a useful framework to understand dark leadership because it delineates different ways in which dark leaders may affect the organization. On one end of the spectrum, the higher the intent to induce harm and the more harmful influence tactics are, the more destructive leadership style is for the organization and employees (Krasikova et al., 2013). On the other end of the spectrum, lack of intent to pursue destructive goals and relative benevolence of influence tactics the more ineffective leadership style is for the organization and employees resulting in less optimal performance (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). For the purpose of parsimony and to more clearly illustrate the nature and boundaries of toxic leadership, rather than engage in extensive theorizing on dark leadership, we endeavor to differentiate among four types of dark leadership styles: destructive, abusive, ineffective, and toxic leadership using the above framework (see Figure 1 ¹ ). However, we do recognize that there are other dark leadership styles (e.g., autocratic, bullying, tyrannical; Pelletier, 2010) that future research should consider.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Situating toxic leadership.

Destructive leadership

Padilla et al. (2007) postulated several key features of destructive leadership. They hypothesized that it is a construct that yields both positive and negative outcomes for organization and followers, although it is the negative ones that dominate. The positives are embedded in leaders’ often charismatic appeal that enables them to quite effectively motivate action (Grijalva, & Harms, 2014; Krasikova et al., 2013). More specifically, due to the high levels of narcissism (Krasikova et al., 2013), leaders seem charming and engaging on the surface, thus attracting some followers. However, below the surface, these leaders are exploitative and quite ruthless (Grijalva, & Harms, 2014; Kernberg, 1975). Given their ability to attract followers and their propensity for destructive behaviors, the harmfulness of their action is considerable. These leaders are perceived as highly competent and able to influence others to pursue goals that are destructive for the organization (Krasikova et al., 2013). More specifically, Roberts and Robins (2000) suggest that destructive leaders can set self-serving goals that are contrary to organizational objectives and be quite successful in influencing others to achieve them.

However, unlike abusive leaders discussed below, destructive leaders are premediated in their intentions to do harm. In other words, their competence and high levels of narcissism fuel calculative and intentional advancement of destructive goals (Krasikova et al., 2013). Consequently, unlike abusive leaders, these individuals are considerably more manipulative and calculative in their approach to fulfilling their goals and are, thus, more likely to intentionally inflict harm on their path to goal attainment (Hare, 1999; Wu & LeBreton, 2011) resulting in considerably high harmfulness of their actions. The convergence of selfish goals and utter disregard for welfare of other stakeholders, amplified by the existence of the conducive environment, may enable destructive leaders to act in truly vile ways. Thus, the key differentiating factor is the very high intent to harm, either via deliberate destructive influence methods or by successfully influencing others to pursue destructive goals (Krasikova et al., 2013). It is no surprise that focus on causing harm in fact leads to most damaging outcomes for most stakeholders, except the leaders themselves.

Abusive supervision

Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as subordinate’s perception of the degree to which supervisors engage in the display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, not including physical contact. Abusive supervision comprises behaviors that are both intended to inflict harm for personal gain, as well as behaviors that could be considered as a form of indifference, rather than actions undertaken to directly damage organizations and/or its employees. Leaders who display abusive behaviors also tend to have high levels of narcissism but are less calculated in their behavior (Penney & Spector, 2002). More specifically, these individuals have relatively high self-esteem and are sensitive to threats to their self-esteem such as questioning their actions or providing less positive feedback on their performance (Grijalva, & Harms, 2014). When this occurs, these individuals are more likely to experience anger and frustrations, which results in them lashing out on others and engaging in generally abusive behaviors (Kernis & Sun, 1994).

Consequently, the intent to cause harm is somewhat variable, stemming more likely out of leaders’ inability to manage emotions resulting in an inappropriate response (Vazire & Funder, 2006) rather than from a calculated intention to induce harm. Indeed, abusive behaviors are associated with heightened emotions (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and thus tend to be more spontaneous (less intentional), harder for the leader to manage (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), and likely to occur in the presence of witnesses (Grijalva, & Harms, 2014). The lack of awareness of the social impact combined with significant damage they produce places abusive supervision lower in intent than destructive leadership on our conceptual scale but on equal footing regarding the amount of damage caused. Irrespective of the ignorance regarding abusive actions, their effects are profound and can be enormously damaging.

Ineffective leadership style

Ineffective leaders are often described as laissez-faire leaders who, although still occupying the leadership position, tend to avoid making decisions and taking responsibility for the work (Antonakis et al., 2003; Toor & Ogunlana, 2009). These leaders avoid the responsibility of leading that often manifests as a general inaptitude and/or low motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). As a consequence, these leaders do not tend to engage in calculative behaviors or self-promotion. However, Frischer and Larsson (2000) suggest that the harmfulness is evident in their lack of initiative and failure to provide important information to their followers. Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) also suggest that these leaders are less likely to provide support for followers who are attacked by others, leading to job dissatisfaction, increased job stress, and overall low efficiency.

Krasikova et al. (2013) argued that although ineffective leadership is indeed harmful as illustrate above and hence categorized as dark here, the key distinction between other dark leadership styles and ineffective leadership is the intent to do harm or, in this case, lack thereof. More specifically, they argue that the volitional nature of harm-doing underlying destructive leadership is a key demarcation line that sets it apart from ineffective leadership (Krasikova et al., 2013, p. 1314). As such, unlike destructive or abusive leaders who are associated with active and highly visible harmful behaviors, these leaders tend to be passive and inflict indirect harm (Skogstad et al., 2007). Nonetheless, despite the low intent to cause harm, the potential harmfulness of their actions (or inactions) is evident (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). Indeed, Einarsen et al. (2007) argue that ineffective leaders violate the objectives of the organizations via inefficiencies and poor performance that weaken the motivation and well-being of employees. To this end, ineffective leadership may be portrayed as having relatively low intent to induce harm and, thus, moderately harmful influence overall.

Toxic Leadership

Although previous research has, to a degree, treated toxic and destructive leadership interchangeably, important distinctions seem to exist. Pelletier (2010) evaluated behaviors associated with toxic, destructive, abusive, tyrannical, bullying, and laissez-faire leadership to determine areas of overlap and to build clarity. In doing so, Pelletier (2010) recognized that although overlap does seem to be prevalent, differences do emerge. For example, differentiating behaviors that toxic leaders engage in include efforts to separate people and limit productive interactions, such as placing obstacles to their work (i.e., harmful influence tactics), rather than intentionally harm or lead others toward destructive goals as destructive leaders may do (Krasikova et al., 2013). Further examples might include leaders going behind others’ backs to achieve their goals, intentionally withholding important information, criticizing follower’s work in demeaning manner, and making subjective assessment about their abilities and their work (Pelletier, 2010).

Consequently, toxic leaders seem to interfere with other’s ability to perform work (similar to the way poison may interfere with individual’s ability to function, therefore being considered toxic) rather than successfully lead followers toward destructive goals as destructive leaders do or emotionally and physically abuse them as abusive leaders do. Furthermore, unlike ineffective leaders, toxic leaders are concerned with the position of control and act to protect that position. Consequently, despite the lack of strong intent to induce harm, the harmfulness of toxic leaders is higher relative to ineffective leaders but somewhat less harmful compared with destructive and abusive leaders whose intent and harmfulness of influence are quite considerable.

Lipman-Blumen (2005) identifies leaders who are intentionally toxic and deliberately harm others (i.e., have high intent to cause harm) and unintentionally toxic and harm others through their recklessness and incompetence (i.e., have low intent to cause harm but relatively harmful influence tactics). This suggests that depending on the type of toxicity, these leaders may be more or less destructive. Based on past theorizing, the level of destructiveness and intent to cause harm may be viewed as a function of relevant competence coupled with narcissism of the leader that fuels deliberate engagement in harmful activities (Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Krasikova et al., 2013). This may act as an important differentiating factor between destructive toxic leaders (what we refer to as destructive leaders to enhance clarity) and toxic leaders (a concern in this study). More specifically, dark leaders with higher competence and higher levels of narcissism are likely to be intentionally destructive and deliberately set goals and engage in influence attempts that harm others (i.e., destructive leaders). Conversely, leaders with lower levels of competence, and perhaps lower narcissism levels, may inflict less harm and correspondingly be less destructive because of the lack of explicit intent and ability to do so. Padilla et al. (2007) implicitly suggested this by arguing that to determine the toxicity, one must consider consequences rather than the immediate effects of leader’s actions. Despite this, the nature and boundaries of toxic leadership relative to other dark leadership styles, namely destructive, remain unclear.

Study Design

The research question for this study emerged during a separate study in which one of the authors examined organizational change failure. At that time, the third author recorded participants’ descriptions of an individual in leadership position regarded as key impediments to positive change. This leader, according to the participants, had insufficient competence and often used bureaucratic mechanisms to suppress positive change that would likely illuminate this lack of competence. Participants referred to this individual as toxic because they seem to be slowly poisoning the organization through their incompetence and interference with others’ work performance. As these descriptions became more prominent, the author began to consider more broadly the nature of toxic leadership and its influence on the organization. In doing so, the author engaged with dark leadership literature in general and toxic leadership literature in particular for insight. Brief review of the literature indicated that these descriptions are indeed relevant to toxic leadership literature as discussed in several studies, but they also illuminated some important omissions (Hornstein, 1996; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Pelletier, 2010). Building on this, the author embarked on a new study driven by the following preliminary research question: What is the nature of toxic leadership and toxic influence process?

To explore the new research question, we utilized multiple case study methodology (Creswell, 2012; Eisenhardt, 1989). Case study methodology focuses on exploring a phenomenon within a bounded setting (Eisenhardt, 1989). Unlike a single case study that focuses on the uniqueness of a particular case (i.e., understanding a particular incident within a particular context), the objective of the multiple case study is to explore an issue (e.g., toxic leadership) across theoretically related cases. Furthermore, multiple case study methodology enables researchers to expand on the insights from the single case and “clarify whether an emergent finding is simply idiosyncratic to a single case or consistently replicated by several cases” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 27). In doing so, the multiple case study design enabled us to gain richer insight into toxic leadership, draw parallels with existing research, and create an opportunity for theory building.

Case Selection Procedures

Based on the recommendation from Eisenhardt (1989), we selected cases that had theoretical relevance and used embedded design (Creswell, 2012) where multiple units are embedded within the particular bounded context. Starting with Luthans, Peterson, and Ibrayeva’s (1998) argument that dark leadership may be more prevalent in cultures with high levels of uncertainty avoidance, collectivistic behavioral patterns, and high power distance, we focused on contexts with set characteristics—companies located in a former communist European country. Furthermore, previous research has suggested that environments with high levels of instability and change, as well as lack of checks and balances, may create contexts for emergence of toxic leadership (Pelletier 2012; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Correspondingly, we focused on five distinct yet theoretically related cases (cases exhibiting ambiguity and change) within the above-mentioned bounded context (national culture): agriculture, banking, education, health care, and information technology (IT), as will be elaborated upon below. Table 1 details the information about each context and corresponding data collection steps.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Data Collection.

The case context	Case characteristics	First stage of data collection		Second stage of data collection		No. of toxic leaders (total)	No. of participants (total)
		Toxic leaders	Participants (per leader)	Toxic leaders a	Participants (per leader)
Agriculture	Ambiguity driven by ● Privatization ● uncertain regulatory context	1	3	0	1	1	4
Higher education	Ambiguity driven by ● University reform ● Lack of priorities	1	3	1	2	2	5
Health care	Ambiguity driven by ● Hospital reforms ● Emergence of privately owned competitors	/	/	2	2(1); 3(1)	2	5
Information technology	Ambiguity driven by ● New sector ● Lack of established logics	/	/	2	3(1); 2(1)	2	5
Banking	Ambiguity driven by ● Foreign competitors ● Financial crisis	1	2	1	2(1); 1(1)	2	5
Final						9	24

a

Number of toxic leaders in addition to the number in the first stage.

We selected the agriculture sector because most companies in this sector have recently undergone a privatization process and are thus still experiencing ambiguity, instability, and change. The complexities in this context are further amplified by uncertain regulatory context concerning customs and protection tariffs.

We selected educational sector due to the reforms universities underwent for them to be more aligned with the European counterparts. This induced ambiguity with regard to what priorities are and how those priorities should be achieved.

We selected the health care sector for a similar reason. More specifically, health care is still to a large extent governmentally owned in this country and plagued with corruption, inefficiencies, and poorly defined checks and balances and work boundaries. Furthermore, over the past decade, a larger number of private health care institutions emerged resulting in lack of understanding how the care among these institutions should be provided.

We selected the IT sector because it is a relatively new sector in this environment with insufficiently developed procedures and expectations. To this end, due to instability and ambiguity firms in these sectors experience, they provide appropriate settings to explore our research question.

We selected the banking sector for three reasons. First, with the transition from command to a market economy, the role banks played in the society changed. Second, over the past decade, several foreign banks entered the market, thus fundamentally disrupting established institutional logics. Finally, after rapid growth in early years, the 2008 Great Financial Crisis affected banking in this region heavily. Once the pinnacle of white-collar job stability, the banking sector entered a downsizing cycle and changed the career dynamics in this industry.

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis Procedures

In the embedded design (Creswell, 2012), analysis begins with a focus on subunits, allowing the higher perspective to emerge and shift during fieldwork. Because our objective was to remain open to emergent insights (Pratt, 2009), the embedded design provided appropriate tools to collect data. As indicated above, the preliminary data analysis took place in between the two stages to ensure that our data collection efforts were complete and our questions appropriate. Once we reached theoretical saturation in the second stage of data collection (additional interviews provided little new insight), we commenced the formal data analysis process. Given that all authors are fluent in the local language, to ensure trustworthiness of the insights (Bass & Milosevic, 2018), two of the authors completed the analysis using data in the original form. The representative quotes used in the final manuscript were later translated into English language.

The formal analysis process developed across four stages. In the first stage, we carefully read through all the interview transcripts and interview notes to immerse in detail and understand the overreaching story (Agar, 1980). In the second stage, all three authors discussed the emergent insights to understand the general direction as well as to identify any potential remaining gaps in the data. Once we ensured that theoretical saturation was indeed reached, the first author (I.M.) embarked on the third stage where they analyzed each case separately and adopted a categorical aggregation approach to data analysis (Creswell, 2012). Categorical aggregation approach to data analysis entails identifying a collection of instances from the data and allowing higher order themes to emerge. Based on the guidelines provided by Creswell (2012), we focused on identifying three types of codes: expected (codes that affirms previous findings such as leader’s efforts to limit interaction), surprising (codes that either conflict with previous findings or offer novel insight such as incompetence and upward influences attempts), and unusual (codes that are rather unexpected given the current literature such as followers’ agentic responses). The surprising and unusual codes aid in theory building and theory extension (Creswell, 2012).

In the final stage of the data analysis, the first author (I.M.) went back and forth between the cases to build an overarching narrative (Eisenhardt, 1989). At this stage, we also engaged in the theory-building process “via recursive cycling among the case data, emerging theory, and later, extant literature” (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007, p. 25). This process helped build relationships between codes and identify aggregate themes that illustrate the nature of toxic leadership. This helped us ensure that our findings were grounded in both the literature and the data, thus enhancing their trustworthiness (the validity). We provide insight into the emergent data structure and corresponding evidence in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Data Structure.

Example from the data	First-level codes	Second-level codes	Aggregate themes
Those are leaders who unjustifiably and without foundation achieve a position where they manage a system. But their competency is far below the level needed to adequately lead a particular business unit—to manage people, resources, and organizational assets—and with that incompetence they may harm the system	● Descriptions of leader’s lack of competence ● Leader’s inability to make decisions/making drastic decisions	Levels of incompetence	The intent
There is a level of insecurity . . . I think . . . and that insecurity creates the need to showcase who is the person with formal authority. Who is in charge? And because of that, they want to control people who are maybe better . . . more competent so they cannot show it in the work. And sometimes it is not just the control . . . it is a continuous effort to smear something that the competent person did.	● Descriptions of fear from the loss of position ● Micromanagement tendencies ● Emphasis of authority	Desire for position/control
Because of self-promotion activities, this [getting the position] is possible. And to do that, they often play on several fronts and do everything in their power to achieve and then maintain the position, often through personal connections with the owners where these leaders “sell them” wild stories.	● Description of self-promotion activities ● Development of friendly relationships	Upward influence tactics	Toxic influence
The smaller the number of people that know information, the easier it is to manipulate them. If everyone knew all the information, there would be no problem. But [name of the leader] does not give needed information, so I could potentially be seen as knowing more than him. Or that I could actually offer a solution to the problem. That is how they manipulate others and present themselves as superior.	● Controlling behaviors ● Limiting interactions ● Overuse of procedures	Downward influence tactics
It is like a black hole of negativity. Can it change? Yes—I do not want to be a pessimist. There is always room for reserved hope. But taking into accounts her character and lack of competency, and the fact that relationships are already poisoned . . . and she continuous to poison the culture . . . I am afraid that there is only a small chance for optimism.	● Negative atmosphere ● Fear of making a mistake ● Mistrust	Negativity of the context
I think that this [toxicity] is further enhanced because there is continuous pressure to change something . . . to make progress . . . but the problem is that the objectives we have are unclear . . . how can we improve something if we do not know what needs to be achieved?	● Ambiguous objectives ● Lack of clear work boundaries	Ambiguity of the context	Toxic contexts
When you do not want to just pick up and leave. You feel demotivated. To the point where you do not want to do something that you would otherwise be more than happy to do . . . like help a colleague. I was in a situation . . . a very demotivating moment . . . instead of feeling ready to help people and have good intentions; you simply do not care for work and do a bare minimum.	● Inhibited to reach top performance ● Feeling the process of work is endangered	Powerlessness
These people create the feeling of powerlessness and despair that you cannot complete any of the important activities. You are stuck in one place. So even the people who were not directly influenced felt very bad because they could see that wall when they come closer. And that wall prevents you from moving forward.	● Inability to perform the work ● Fighting bureaucracy ● Goal blockage	Frustration	Followers’ states
I was doing my work and shielding my reputation. Everything I did, I formed arguments why this is the right thing to do. I did not do anything past executives or past the process. Everyone in the headquarters knew exactly what I was doing.	● Search for alternative avenues ● Protecting one’s work from influence ● Building informal networks	Workarounds
You have to be ready to fight. At the end of the day if you can show value to headquarters, you can succeed. You have to show the value and fight it up [show to headquarters].	● Focusing on doing everything right ● Use of external procedures and findings ● Continuous learning	Education	Followers’ responses

We engaged in three validity procedures as suggested by Creswell (2012): member checking, triangulation, and thick description. As indicated above, all interviews were transcribed in their original form and data analysis was completed in the local language by two authors. The translated representative quotes as well as the complete manuscript were discussed with key informants who were fluent in both English and the local language to ensure that themes that we identified made sense and that our overall narrative as well as representative quotes reflected their experiences. We triangulated our findings by interviewing participants across organizational levels and across cases. The consistency of the insights across these differences enhanced our confidence in the data. Finally, we employed thick description in the presentation of our findings. More specifically, in an effort to uncover the nature of toxic leadership, we asked our participants to provide tangible examples of interactions and events involving particular toxic leaders. This in turn enabled us to provide richer, emic insight into the process of toxic leadership as experienced by our participants.

Dynamics of Toxic Leadership Process

To explicate dynamics of toxic leadership process, we present (1) three elements of the process—the intent, the influence, and the follower’s response and (2) interconnections between them (see Figure 2). Our findings indicate that toxic leaders may lack relevant competence in the field they are leading. Because of this, their primary intent is to conceal the lack of relevant competence and maintain the position of control to the exclusion of other organizationally beneficial objectives. Our findings indicate that to do so toxic leaders induce ambiguity that diminishes opportunities for performance evaluation (that may illuminate their lack of relevant competence) via upward and downward influence tactics. Through these tactics, toxic leaders manipulate both their superiors and subordinates, thereby increasing the toxicity (or “poisoning,” in the words of one participant) of the organizational context. This toxicity interferes with followers’ work performance and limits productive interactions. To this end, our findings suggest that although the intent of toxic leaders is less harmful compared with destructive and abusive leaders (i.e., there is no explicit intent to induce harm), the outcomes of their influence are harmful for the followers and the organization.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Process of toxic leading.

Our findings also illustrate, surprisingly, that followers of toxic leaders are more agentic than previously suggested in their effort to neutralize the toxicity of their leaders. We show that the toxicity of the context contributes to the feeling of powerlessness and demotivation of followers, as they face considerable difficulties in performing their duties at the desired levels and achieving their work objectives. However, our findings also illustrate that these individuals are agentic and create workarounds to neutralize when possible, or at least minimize, the leaders’ toxicity, thus defeating the toxic leader. In the subsequent paragraphs, we present our findings visually depicted in Figure 2.

The Intent of Toxic Leaders: Concealing Incompetence and Protecting a Position of Control

Toxic leaders either lack relevant competence for the position they are in (i.e., lawyer leading an IT team) or have insufficient competence (relative to others) to be in a position of control (i.e., medical doctor who has insufficient medical competence). This lack of relevant competence manifests in poor understanding of the work processes and inability to meaningfully contribute to the work processes. Despite the lack of relevant competence, these individuals do reach leadership positions largely due to the inadequate performance management systems and ambiguity of the context. Given this, unlike destructive leaders who have considerable intent to do harm or lead others toward destructive goals (Krasikova et al., 2013) or abusive leaders who abuse others due to their emotional imbalance (Tepper, 2000), the primary intent of toxic leaders is to conceal the lack of competence and protect their position of control.

Toxicity in the Toxic Leadership Process: Building the “Right” Context Through Influence

Toxic leaders influence others not to reach goals (constructive or destructive; Krasikova et al., 2013; Yukl, 2008), form relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), or enable positive performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Rather, they engage in influence attempts to build the “right” context that strengthens their leadership—context permeated with ambiguity and confusion. They do so because such contexts allow them to isolate, at least partially, from others’ evaluation, critiques, or disproval. Toxic leaders build right contexts via upward influence, in which they work to shape evaluations of higher level managers and obtain their approval, and downward influence, in which they work to interfere with employee task performance. Together these influence attempts create toxic contexts that enable leaders to fulfill their intent—conceal their incompetence and maintain a position of control.

Defeating Toxic Leaders: The Agency in Followers’ Actions

When faced with the persistent obstacles toxic leaders create, many decide to ultimately leave the team, department, or organization despite lack of other job opportunities. However, surprisingly, many participants discussed the activities and workarounds that enable them to emerge out of powerlessness, such as circumventing the toxic leader, removing themselves from the proximal sphere of influence, and protecting their work from immediate harm. This is precisely because much of the influence toxic leaders engage in does not intend to cripple the organization. This leaves the space for others to minimize the negative outcomes. For example, participants discussed that toxic leaders are particularly problematic because through their influence attempts they endanger the process of work. At the same time, however, individuals work to protect the process of work. As one participant described, “Our process of work is such that work has to be in continuity. We are like one circle, one chain. And if we cannot hear and respect different opinions, that chain will break and new problems will be created.” In other words, many of our participants felt torn between feeling of powerlessness and the commitment to doing the work well because they considered the work itself important.

The Toxic Leadership Process: The Intent and Outcomes of Influence

Dark leaders are particularly detrimental for contemporary organizations because of the influence process they engage in (Krasikova et al., 2013; Padilla et al., 2007). As a consequence, there has been an increase in interest in understanding the nature of dark leadership as well as factors that contribute to the dark leadership emergence. However, there are still remaining questions with regard to how dark leaders influence others and whether different dark leadership styles may engage in the same or similar influence process. In other words, do abusive leaders lead others in the same way that toxic leaders do? Our findings indicate that the primary intent of toxic leaders is to conceal their lack of competence and maintain their position of control. To do so, these leaders engage in a host of upward and downward influence attempts to induce ambiguity that interferes with other’s work and minimizes opportunities for evaluation.

To this end, our findings show that, although the explicit intent to induce harm is lacking, thus differentiating it from destructive leaders characterized by considerable intent, the harmfulness of toxic leaders is considerable. More specifically, these leaders attempt to direct others’ attention away from work objectives and toward anecdotal evidence of success (in the context of upward influence attempts) or toward unnecessary work and artificially created obstacles (in the context of downward influence attempts) in order to position themselves as the sole problem solver. Downward influence attempts often include misapplication of rules as well as illegitimate attempts to exclude individuals from interactions, thus creating silos in the organization that interfere with the work process. This may result in less optimal decision task performance and long-term employee frustration and feeling of powerlessness. In doing so, toxic leaders build the “right” context that strengthens their leadership.

Theoretical Extension: The Agency in Followership

Followers have long held an important, yet somewhat invisible, role in leadership research (Baker, 2007; Bligh, 2011; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Part of the reason for this is that leadership has been predominately tied to the characteristics and behaviors of leaders rather than on the relationship between leaders and followers (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Yet understanding followers and their readiness to be influenced by leader, as well as their contribution to the leadership process, are critical in understanding effectiveness of a leader. Indeed, this is particularly relevant in the realm of dark leaders where followers are often portrayed as enabling these leaders to stay in power (Padilla et al., 2007) due to their lack of security and their strong desire to be accepted by others (Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005). In doing so, on one hand, these followers give credibility to the leader and provide resources they need to continue to lead regardless of how destructive that leadership is. On the other hand, these followers are usually the recipients of the destructive behavior and tend to experience considerable harm (Pelletier, 2010; Figure 1).

Our findings contribute to this line of research in two ways. First, we affirm extant findings by showing that certain followers do enable toxic leaders to stay in power. Namely, the findings show that higher level managers are often the target of the toxic leaders where toxic leaders actively engage in upward influence to shape the evaluations of those above them. As a consequence, these higher level managers are in essence followers of toxic leaders who provide much needed resources, as extant literature suggest, to toxic leaders and enable their stay in power longer. Our findings also illustrate that employees may feel powerlessness as a result of their interactions with toxic leaders, resulting in decreased performance, avoidance behaviors (avoiding situations that would require interaction with the particular leader), and failure to stand up to that leader, thus implicitly enabling the leader to stay in control (see Figure 1). Although we failed to find evidence of outright colluding, perhaps due to the perceived lack of leaders’ competence, we did discover that some followers strengthen these leaders through their powerlessness to respond.

However, our findings also extend current understanding by illustrating that, despite feelings of powerlessness, many followers engage in proactive activities to minimize the impact of toxic leadership on their work. The role of followers has traditionally been absent from leadership research, driven by the assumptions that these individuals are passive recipients in the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Our findings challenge this assumption by illustrating that followers, who feel committed to their work and their careers, endeavor to shield their work despite the toxic leader influence attempts. More specifically, we show that followers display considerable agency in not just deciding to “unfollow” these leaders, as suggested before (Carsten et al., 2010), but in working to minimize their toxic influence. This work manifests in proactive relationship building with others around the toxic leader to circumvent toxic leaders as well as to engage in personal learning and development in order to acquire resources needed to stand up to toxic leaders (Figure 1). We theorize that this somewhat surprising finding may have emerged because toxic leadership is less harmful relative to destructive and abusive leadership as discussed below. That is, due to lack of explicit intent to harm others manifested by lack of relevant competence and deliberate goal setting, toxic leaders may create space for followers to challenge the status quo and drive positive change. We hope future research will examine this more and inquire into follower proactivity in difficult contexts.

Situating Toxic Leadership: The Boundaries and Connections

Building on our model of toxic leadership process and extant literature, we endeavor to extend theory by situating toxic leadership relative to other dark leadership styles—namely, destructive, abusive, and ineffective. Previous literature suggests that dark leaders may differ based on the intent to influence as well as degree of harmfulness that their influence creates (Kellerman, 2004; Krasikova et al., 2013; Schilling, 2009). However, apart from theorizing provided by Krasikova et al. (2013), there is limited insight into the nature of different types of dark leadership styles (e.g., do all dark leaders have the same intent to induce harm?), as well as boundaries of influence of each style (e.g., do abusive and destructive leaders influence followers in the same manner?). Although there is some rationale to allow a degree of overlap in order to build a more inclusive theory (Pelletier, 2010), it seems prudent to more explicitly discuss different dark leadership styles, recognize the degree of overlap, and analyze different outcomes.

In this study, we relied on a framework put forth by Krasikova et al. (2013) that differentiates dark leadership styles based on leader’s intent to harm and resulting harmfulness of their actions. This is a useful framework for several reasons. First, it provides key factors based on which different dark leadership styles may be differentiated (intent vs. outcome). Second, it is both parsimonious (in focusing on two factors) and overreaching (in encompassing leadership as a process). Finally, it both differentiates between the dark leadership styles systematically and provides space for overlap suggested by the literature and evident in practice. Using this framework, we discuss the typology of dark leadership that ranges from ineffective leadership (low intent and low to moderate harm) to destructive leadership (high intent and high harm) and situate toxic leadership within (see Figure 1).

Our findings suggest that the intent of toxic leaders is self-directed (i.e., conceal lack of relevant competence and maintain the position) and outcomes are relatively less harmful. This is in contrast to destructive leaders who have the high intent to induce harm that manifests in leader’s competence, narcissism, and volitional encouragement of followers to pursue destructive goals (Krasikova et al., 2013) or to abusive leaders who, although less intentional and calculated compared with destructive leaders, are equally narcissistic and engage in hostile emotional outbursts, thus inflicting significant harm on others (see Figure 1). Furthermore, unlike ineffective leaders who are relatively passive with low aptitude for leadership, toxic leaders are more direct and intentional in their behavior. More specifically, our findings suggest that toxic leaders are inward oriented and have little concern for others (i.e., relatively low intent to induce harm) but still intentional in their behavior in terms of achieving their own objectives—concealing the lack of competence and maintaining the position of control—thus exhibiting higher intent compared with ineffective leaders (see Figure 1).

Our findings further suggest that toxic leaders engage in influence attempts that differ from those of other dark leaders. More specifically, we show that toxic leaders engage in downward and upward influence attempts that create toxic contexts. Downward influence attempts entail creation of obstacles that interfere with the followers’ ability to perform their tasks. Upward influence attempts entail tactics that obstruct supervisors’ ability to evaluate leader’s competence. These influence attempts create a toxic context that negatively affects the organization and followers—they slowly poison the context through rising frustration and feelings of powerlessness. Consequently, these influence tactics are more harmful relative to ineffective leaders whose lack of initiative and general inaptitude to lead result in inefficiencies and poor performance that weaken the motivation and well-being of employees (Einarsen et al., 2007; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Skogstad et al., 2007). However, they are less harmful relative to destructive or abusive leaders whose negative effect on followers and organizations is considerable and long term.

In addition to intent and outcomes of dark leaders, we point out another important difference that concerns the “negativity” of characteristics these leaders have. Previous literature has suggested that both destructive and abusive leaders tend to score high on the narcissism scale (Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Penney & Spector, 2002; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006; Shaw et al., 2011). For example, narcissistic individuals tend to be less aware of their performance levels and, thus, may engage in abusive behaviors (i.e., “lash out”) toward those presenting them with information that is not consistent with their views of their performance (Grijalva & Harms, 2014; Robins & John, 1997). In addition, Krasikova et al. (2013) argued that narcissism, alongside psychopathy and Machiavellianism, is what fuels destructive leaders. More specifically, due to higher levels of narcissism, these individuals tend to engage in destructive acts and pursue destructive goals.

The degree to which toxic leaders may be narcissistic is left somewhat unclear by our findings. Building on the Grijalva and Harms (2014) argument that narcissism is a risk factor for the emergence of destructive leadership, as well as extant research that associated narcissism with a host of counterproductive work behaviors (Braun, Aydin, Frey, & Peus, 2015; Roberts & Robins, 2000), it is reasonable to expect that toxic leaders may have narcissistic characteristics as well. ² Indeed, Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990) argued that narcissists have an innate desire for status and power that guides their behaviors, and Roberts and Robins (2000) found that narcissists tend to pursue goals that will advance their careers over other objectives. Therefore, the intent of toxic leaders to maintain the position of control may be fueled by their narcissism. However, other key aspects often associated with narcissism seem to be lacking, indicating, perhaps, that toxic leaders may have lower levels of narcissism relative to abusive and destructive leaders, or perhaps a different type of narcissism. We hope that these theoretical insights will invite further dialogue on the process of influence of dark leaders as well as their potential characteristics such as narcissism.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite several important contributions to the extant literature on dark leadership, this study is not without limitations. First, we chose the research setting that was theoretically relevant. More specifically, Luthans et al. (1998) suggested that broader environments characterized by high levels of instability and high power distance are more conducive to the emergence of toxic leadership. Similarly, Padilla et al. (2007) suggested that toxic leadership strengthens in conducive environments and with followers who are responsive to toxic influence attempt. Although this provided a unique and theoretically relevant insight into our central phenomenon (Creswell, 2012; Siggelkow, 2007), it has also limited the generalizability of our findings. It is likely that contexts with both proper institutional environments as well as strong organizational systems will weaken toxic leadership. Karakitapoğlu-Aygün and Gumusluoglu (2013) imply that human resources managers should find and use effective procedures in the selection process to identify and screen out potentially negative and nontransformational leaders. These findings also imply that a heavy emphasis on ethical behavior and judgment (Treviño, Brown, & Hartman, 2003) in management training and education is essential. We hope future research will inquire into dynamics of toxic leadership across different contexts.

Second, the nature of qualitative research requires researchers to make several trade-offs. Tracy (2010) discusses trade-offs qualitative researchers have to embrace in their effort to provide valid findings on one hand and preserve the dynamism of qualitative research on the other. Atherton and Elsmore (2007, p. 72) discuss the trade-offs in the realm of theoretical precision by discussing how messiness of the data creates messiness in theoretical framing. To this end, Karpiak (2006, p. 93) states that qualitative researchers should embrace “the unpredictable and evolving nature of the research.” We as well were torn between increasing theoretical precision while remaining true to the experiences of our participants and presenting the complete story (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011; Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011). This trade-off is perhaps most evident in our presentation of our findings where we endeavored to present our participant’s narratives in a as theoretically precise manner as it was possible. We invite future research to employ other methods to continue advancing dark leadership literature and strengthen theoretical precision.

Finally, in our focus on participants’ experiences as suggested above, we primarily relied on dark leadership literature to theoretically situate our findings. Doing so enabled us to infuse additional clarity into dark leadership literature and identify the usefulness of the theoretical framework we used. However, it also prevented us from fully considering and incorporating several theories that may be relevant to our findings. For example, one potentially important aspect of dark leadership is impression management. That is, we show that toxic leaders engage in several impression management behaviors to maintain the position of control. This is likely relevant for other dark leadership styles as they work to manage perceptions of multiple stakeholders. For example, Grijalva and Harms (2014) discuss leadership style of Steve Jobs who was considered by most as a visionary charismatic leader who changed the world of technology. The same leader was described by his follower as an arrogant and abusive manager who was often very cruel to others. Given this, it seems prudent to further explore the role impression management plays in leadership, particularly in the realm of dark leadership.

In addition, the motives of dark leaders will likely differ. In other words, why do some dark leaders have high intent to harm while other less so? This is likely a function of their dark characteristics such as level of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy as suggested by Grijalva and Harms (2014) and Krasikova et al. (2013). However, it may also be a function of the underlying motives (Higgins, 1998). Although some dark leaders will primarily be driven by advancements and accomplishments (e.g., narcissistic destructive leaders) and thus engage in behaviors to achieve those, others may be driven by security and safety and non-losses (e.g., toxic or ineffective leaders). Furthermore, although our findings indicate that competence, or lack thereof, is an important element in the intent to induce harm, we did focus only on the task competence and not on other types of competence (leadership competence, political savvy, etc.). We hope our findings will trigger additional exploration of these dynamics and consideration of other relevant literatures.