Page 1 of 9

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 11

Publication Date: November 25, 2023

DOI:10.14738/assrj.1011.15804.

Holmes, Parker, & Willis. (2023). Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on the Triple Threat to Faculty,

Students and Community. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(11). 01-09.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on

the Triple Threat to Faculty, Students and Community

Holmes

Parker

Willis

ABSTRACT

Uncertain times, like widespread disruption from the coronavirus (COVID-19)

pandemic, exacerbate existing organizational inequity and inefficiency. Evidence of

this disparity exists in the leadership construct within academe. Toxic leadership is

not a new concept in higher education, and it persists as a pitfall, jeopardizing the

quality of educational programs, collaboration of faculty, and success of students.

This paper utilized qualitative discourse analysis to examine the social context of

ongoing dialogue among faculty members working to overcome the challenges of a

new advanced degree program plagued by the lack of organizational capacity to

respond to toxic leadership manifested during a global event affecting all of higher

education around the world. The lived experience of faculty working with a new

senior leader and the disruptive actions threatening to diminish the quality,

sustainability and future success of a terminal degree program is the foundation of

this paper.

INTRODUCTION

The research literature is rich and robust with explorations of leadership styles and traits.

However, Green (2014) concluded that the phenomenon of toxic leadership is rarely discussed

and needs to be investigated. This paper examines the lived experience of faculty members

charged with the development, mentoring and guidance of advanced degree students while

balancing the dirge of organizational capacity to respond to deeply rooted toxic leadership

within one departmental structure.

Smith & Fredricks-Lowman (2019) agree that gaps exist in the literature around the harmful

effects of toxic leadership on college and university personnel, stakeholders, and the

community-at-large. Further, the appearance of empirical evidence to underpin the research

on toxic leadership in higher education did not appear until 2007. The concept of toxic

leadership emerges in 1996 related to other fields, including military and corporate

organizations. Morris' (2019) study explains that the effects of toxic leadership include job loss,

devaluation, and high stress. Subsequently, the qualitative study's major themes reveal that

toxic leadership effects permeate the organization and affect employees' long term. The themes

from analysis of data suggest that personal health complications result from poor leadership,

effects of a debilitating work environment spill over into private life, the need for coping

strategies are high, and that emotional reaction are characteristic when working under duress.

Page 2 of 9

2

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 11, November-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Additional scholarship expounds upon the connection between toxic leadership and politics.

Lorenzi (2012) explains “Peter’s Theory of Entrepreneurial Aggressiveness in Higher

Education” by Laurence Peter, which holds that politics in the realm of academia is more vicious

than actual politics because the stakes are so low. The theory is most frequently attributed to

former Harvard University faculty member Henry Kissinger in the mid-1970’s, as well as

Harvard professor Richard Neustadt. The hunger for authority and overemphasis of

management lead individuals in higher education to operate in less than positive environments

that become harmful to the overall educational process.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Hinshaw (2020) explains that toxic leadership is a threat to the academy and its organizational

personnel. Consequently, toxic leadership, if left unchecked, has the effect of making faculty and

staff anxious, stressed, uncomfortable and most importantly, powerless.

The leading theorist in toxic leadership, Jean Lipman-Blumen (2005) posits that many toxic

leaders are individuals in leadership positions who are not equipped with the requisite

leadership skills and do not know how to lead or develop followers. Using a mixed methods

study approach, Green (2104) identified four patterns that explain leader toxic behaviors:

egotism, ethical failure, incompetence, and neuroticism. All agree that toxic leadership must be

explored and investigated especially in educational organizations.

Brooks (2017) offers an alternative view of toxic leadership. Brooks concluded that the

organization may accrue short term benefits of toxic leadership. When toxic leaders are first

put in charge of an organization their aggressive and bullying behaviors may show short term

benefits, but long-term risks. As such, employees succumb to the leader’s aggressive tactics for

a short time, but tire of the toxicity over time and choose not to remain in the employ of the

organization. Toxic leaders’ authoritative and abusive methods not only present long-term risk

for the organization but also indicates a lack of moral character (Singh, Singupta and Dev, 2018)

Similar to Brooks (2017), this doctoral research concluded that toxic leadership intentionally

demolishes subordinates in a multitude of ways. Singh et al (2018) sounded the alarm:

“Those narcissist, self-promoting leaders who by their derisive supervision, managerial

incompetency and erratic behaviors intentionally seek to erode their self-esteem, burn out their

employees, breed counterproductive performing subordinates and future overbearing

bosses.... they represent not only a long-term risk for the organization but also trickledown to

the society and the nation.”

Toxic leadership is related to the devolvement of employees’ motivation and dedication to the

organization, and is closely associated with subordinates’ intentions to leave, as well as

instances of high turnover rates (Reed & Bullis, 2009). Along with these outcomes, toxic

leadership behaviors produce health problems of both physical and psychological natures,

which have a distinct decreasing effect on employees’ performance and commitment to the

organization (Schmindt, 2014). Stress, anxiety, and isolation become the norm rather than the

exception. Başar, Sığrı and Basım (2016) posit that sleeplessness and fatigue are also outcomes

of employees’ exposure to toxic leadership behaviors.

Page 3 of 9

3

Holmes, Parker, & Willis. (2023). Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on the Triple Threat to Faculty, Students and

Community. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(11). 01-09.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1011.15804

Managerial incompetence has also been found to have the potential for toxicity as it destabilizes

organizational agility and effectiveness (Whicker, 1996). More recently, DeAngelis (2009)

focused on passive-aggressive behaviors and describes them as common in organizations.

Undergirding these behaviors, toxic leadership causes harm to employees and negatively

impacts organizational success (Tepper, 2007; Kusy & Holloway, 2009). A quantitative study

conducted by Hitchcock (2016) found that in nonprofit organizations, mid-level managers

experience the highest levels of toxicity in the workplace, which in academe, translates to the

levels of Dean, and above. Senior leaders also reported having to confront toxic leadership

behaviors, which suggests that toxic supervision is an issue at all levels of the organization, but

greatest at the mid-manager level.

Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) identify the attributes of a toxic leader as consisting of five

elements: charisma, personalized power, narcissism, negative life theme, and ideology of hate.

In carrying out their detrimental styles, toxic leaders need conformers and colluders. Padilla et

al, (2007) explain that Conformers have unmet needs, low maturity, and/or low core self- evaluation. Colluders, on the other hand, seek to benefit from a toxic situation alongside the

leader. In academia, conformers may be new or non-tenured faculty who are not acclimated to

the toxic culture of the department or college. Colluders may be professionals who have a desire

for promotion and are willing to withstand the toxicity until their goal is achieved.

METHODOLOGY

This qualitative study utilized case study analysis along with qualitative discourse analysis to

explore the phenomenon of toxic leadership. The framework for the case is illustrated below.

Figure 1

Context for Single-Case Design Unit of Analysis in Illustrative Case Study

In case study research, data derives from either internal or external information sources

(Crawford, 1997). Additionally, Yin (2009) describes a case as a bounded system wherein a set

of parts or activities work together to create the whole. Figure 1 illustrates the holistic single- case design of this study.

This study was conducted using methods of illustrative case study analysis, which are primarily

descriptive in nature, and useful when the targeted audience knows little about the

Secret Meeting with Students Plagiarizing Work of Black Faculty

Restructuring of the terminal degree

program

Removal of Black Associate Faculty

Unit of Analysis: The

Case

Decisions and Behaviors

of the Senior Leader

Context for Toxic Leadership

Page 4 of 9

4

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 11, November-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

phenomenon at the center of the case (Epler, 2019). This type of case study is used to describe

a context, actions taken, and explanation of reactions. Illustrative case studies provide the

reader with visually descriptive details about the physical or psychological environment, how

participants involved acted and reacted within the context, and any other information that is

important to support the case analysis. (Epler, 2019).

For this study, internal sources were the five faculty who were exposed to and impacted by the

behaviors and decision-making practices of the new dean. Faculty members met regularly to

discuss and describe the new dean’s leadership patterns and actions, which eventually

evidenced the existence of toxicity. Internal sources provided personal narratives that

described context for actions and behaviors pertaining to their case. Additionally, a synthesis

of written documents, including email correspondence, contributed to the illustration of the

phenomenon. The qualitative data was analyzed using processes of textural analysis of both

narrative discourse and digital communications. This analysis confirmed four critical incidents

of leadership toxicity: Secret Meeting with Doctoral Students, Restructuring of Education

Doctoral Program, Removing Black Faculty from the College and Plagiarizing the Intellectual

Property of Black Faculty.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNING

In this case analysis, we apply the toxic triangle framework, in its entirety, to a public university

upon the entry of a new president to present day. We found considerable fit of the theoretical

triad to the university: a destructive leader, an enabling environment, and susceptible

followers. Consistent with the theory, an environment that lacked fundamental checks and

balances, coupled with instability and perceived threats, spawned the conditions that brought

a toxic leader to the institution, which, in turn, revealed and fostered conformers and colluders.

We describe three episodes (critical incidents) that show how the toxic triangle evolved and

strengthened over time. We also offer a critical examination of all three components of the toxic

triangle with a special focus on the psychosocial forces that paralyzed even tenured faculty from

resisting. In this critical examination, organizational miasma, rationalizations, and control

myths provide substantive explanations for ineffective employee action. Further, we suggest

that leadership as processual communication can be used to advance the value of the

framework. We conclude by highlighting areas for future inquiry (Pelletier, Kotke, & Sirotnik,

2018)

DATA ANALYSIS

This study is situated in a midwestern university with approximately 8500 students. The

context of the study is within a graduate school with a new senior leader who had been aboard

for one year at the time this study was conducted. Five faculty members exposed and impacted

by the senior leader’s behaviors met to discuss and describe the leadership patterns and

decision-making and began to identify themes from the phenomenon being experienced. Four

critical incidents were explored that identified the concerning behaviors and impact on faculty

and the educational process.

Critical Incidents

Secret meeting with doctoral students

1. Unstructuring of the terminal degree program

2. Removing Black Faculty from the college

Page 5 of 9

5

Holmes, Parker, & Willis. (2023). Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on the Triple Threat to Faculty, Students and

Community. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(11). 01-09.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1011.15804

3. Plagiarizing the intellectual property of Black Faculty

Emergent Themes

After significant and substantive dialogue involving the critical incidents, the study participants

identified several emergent themes:

Theme 1: Lack of Professional Respect for Faculty Work:

Toxic leaders put enabling conditions in place that foster and reward professional

mistreatment of faculty. The perpetrators clearly understand that there is no consequence or

penalty for mistreating faculty and are rewarded for doing so. The destructive leaders still

advance in the university and earn rewards such as promotion, pay raises and tenure. Faculty

in this case learned that when the leader met secretly with students, he ascertained that some

students were disgruntled after being tasked with producing quality doctoral level work and

being graded accordingly. Having not been challenged to produce exemplary work in their past

studies, the doctoral students shared their dissatisfaction with the leader, who in turn, used

these complaints to further undermine the work of program faculty. No respect for using the

proper channels of authority for expressing academic problems was observed. Students were

able to speak directly with the leader rather than conferencing with their instructors. The

leader did not provide correction or redirection to the students, and continued to collude with

them until the entire program was restructured and all qualified faculty were ousted and

replaced with faculty with no doctoral level experience. To achieve his ends, the toxic leader

ignored standard university policy regarding the proper handling of student complaints and

directly orchestrated student subversion of faculty.

Theme 2: Use of Positional Power to Hijack Faculty Work and to Replace Personnel:

Destructive leaders often use their position as a weapon to perpetuate a toxic workplace. Black

faculty came to realize that if they create the work to build the program, the toxic leader and

his colluders would take it. The dean had no professional experience with doctoral education

and was unable to lead this academic initiative. The dean seized on the opportunity to take the

work of Black faculty as his own in order to advance in stature with his superiors. The dean

created a scorched earth culture with the Black faculty that developed the program and taught

all the courses in the program when all White faculty declined to be part of the program in any

capacity. The founding administrator completed all requirements for program accreditation,

recruited faculty, and developed all courses. The dean waited until accreditation approvals had

been obtained, and after all courses had been established, and then surreptitiously reassigned

program administration to an untenured, inexperienced While male faculty member, thus

giving the program a white face. The Black full professor that created the program was replaced

by a White assistant professor with no doctoral education experience. The dean explained that

by virtue of his position, he was empowered to make program changes however he saw fit to

do. In essence, the dean’s operational philosophy was that by power of position, he could make

any programmatic decisions of his choosing because he carried the title dean and the

collaborative nature of the academy was irrelevant.

Theme 3: Using “I HAVE a New Vision” as Justification for Direct Assault on Black Faculty:

Toxicity may be couched in coded “dog whistles” from leaders wanting to communicate

messages to a specific audience. Learning to decode the language of perpetrators is important

for Black faculty. During a meeting with doctoral faculty and students, the newly appointed

Page 6 of 9

6

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 11, November-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

dean used the words “I have a new vision”. Black faculty clearly understood that the message

being transmitted was “I am coming for you”. In other words, the dean meant that he was

eliminating all Black faculty from the new doctoral program that they created because the new

sign read “For Whites Only.” Contrary to the message that the university welcomes diversity, in

this case, diversity was a goal in name only, as the dean was unprepared to accept the iteration

of diversity as it existed in the doctoral program. The doctoral program was the only one in the

School of Education being implemented solely by Black faculty with only White students being

enrolled. Indeed, the dean brought his new vision to fruition. Sadly, the silence of university

senior officers witnessing this phenomenon empowered the dean to continue to act in bad faith

and be rewarded for doing so.

Theme 4: Use of Undermining Actions to Intimidate Black Faculty:

To sustain the diminishing actions that targeted Black faculty, the dean demanded all of the

source documents that supported the new doctoral program. The dean demanded that Black

faculty send to him all course syllabi developed, the doctoral program handbook, all academic

residency program activities, and all doctoral student library resources. When faculty failed to

comply, the dean requested that university technology services send him copies of Black faculty

emails detailing the development of the program. However, these efforts were not totally

successful, as the Black faculty protected their documents with a firewall that could not be

breached by the dean or his colluders.

When faculty enter into a contract, they have expectations that the terms of the contract will be

fulfilled, especially compensation. Faculty pay was delayed reduced for an extensive time

toward the end of the dean’s implementation of this “new vision” for the doctoral program.

When Black program faculty sought redress of the situation, the dean’s secretary was unable to

explain how the delay and reduction occurred. The issue moved on to the office of the provost.

Promises of resolution were made, but no resolution was reached. When faced with this

situation, the provost attempted to cover for the dean by saying the dean is a “good man”. This

sentiment did not translate to a timely and accurate paycheck for Black faculty.

As a final blow, the dean’s office then refused to comment on the professional development

reports (PDR) of Black faculty as required by the union’s master agreement. To comment on

the PDR, the dean would have to acknowledge the work of Black faculty in developing the new

doctoral program and producing the first doctoral graduates. Rather than admit to these

accomplishments in the dean’s review of the faculty’s professional development report, the

dean refused to comment. This decision-making practice was never questioned by upper-level

administration. A new dean hired in Fall 2023 admitted to this omission and wrote the

following to the senior faculty member who developed the doctoral program: “I have come to

understand that past administrative/dean responses to your PDP/PDR Review have been

inconsistent.”

CONCLUSION

Toxic leadership destroys people, culture, and organizations. Pizzaro (2022) references The

United States Army definition of toxic leadership:

"Toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that

have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance... Toxic

Page 7 of 9

7

Holmes, Parker, & Willis. (2023). Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on the Triple Threat to Faculty, Students and

Community. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(11). 01-09.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1011.15804

leaders consistently use dysfunctional behaviors to deceive, intimidate, coerce, or unfairly

punish others to get what they want for themselves" (Callaghan, 2022).

Toxic leaders are predatory. They want what others have that they are not able to achieve

themselves. Pizarro (2022) concluded that toxic leaders work only to promote themselves at

the expense of others. In these conditions, organizations cannot succeed, and individual growth

does not occur. Awareness of the presence of toxic leadership helps followers understand the

work climate and conditions. Followers can then put self-preserving conditions in place to

survive the toxic leader who eventually self-destructs or moves on to another organization. In

this study, the toxic leader prevailed for three years before his toxic tactics were directed

toward senior administration and he was encouraged to depart the university.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON SURVIVING A TOXIC LEADER

Fortunately, the evidence-based research offers several strategies for surviving a toxic leader.

Employees need to be conversant in these coping strategies in order to insure some degree of

organizational survival (Roselle, 2019)

The employee self- care plan depends on acquiring coping behaviors that help to promote

professional well-being.

1. Dealing with toxic leadership first starts with identification. Learn to recognize and

identify the devil in all of his many forms. For the Black faculty, the identity of the “devil”

was revealed during the meeting where the dean iterated the words, “I have a new

vision”.

2. Recognize that leader toxic behaviors are not the result of anything the employee has

done. To the contrary, the Black faculty understood it was their successful work that

drew the ire of the dean and made them targets of elimination to fulfill his “new vision”

for the doctoral program.

3. Tell. Tell. Tell- Whenever an abusive situation exists, it is incumbent upon those affected

to tell someone (HR, a co-worker, the union, your attorney). In this case, Black faculty

shared the actions of the toxic leader with senior administration. Though correction and

reprimand were not quickly enacted, the toxic leader eventually vacated the position.

4. Document. Document. Document- Creating an evidentiary trail is one of the tenets of

training for the Black faculty during their doctoral studies. As such, each faculty member

tracked all correspondence (emails, phone calls, extemporaneous notes from meetings)

describing each instance of organizational bullying perpetrated by the dean.

5. Consult the research literature on toxic leadership and become educated on how toxic

leadership behaviors manifest themselves in the workplace.

6. Be the best professional possible and always be prepared to participate in discussions

in an informed way.

7. No matter how ugly or abusive the toxic leader becomes, resist acting in kind. The Black

faculty did not retaliate; in contrast, they continued their work with the doctoral

students who remained under their tutelage and guided six students to program

completion. Those White students earned the Ed. D with through leadership of the Black

faculty.

8. Become a stronger follower. Protect professional confidence by being mindful of

psychological, emotional and spiritual attacks by the toxic leader. Regular meetings of

the Black faculty members allowed them to commiserate among themselves to share

Page 8 of 9

8

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 11, November-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

ongoing actions of the dean. These meetings provided encouragement, prayerful

support, and strength to continue with the work to prepare the doctoral students on the

journey to become experts in their chosen fields, despite the antagonistic behaviors of

the dean.

9. Retreat to a place of cultural strength and lean into the true identity as a Black scholar.

10. Remember that there is “a time and a season for all things” and the toxic leader too will

rue the day when organizational authorities say: “Game Over!”

References

Başar, U., Sığrı, R., and Basım, N. (2016). Dark leadership at work. The Journal of Humans and Work, 3(2)

Brooks, C. (2017, June 18). Toxic leaders offer short-term benefits, but long-term problems. Business News Daily.

Callaghan, C. (2022). Eliminate toxic leadership. Proceedings. 14(8)

Crawford, S. A. G. M. (1997). BOOK REVIEWS. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32(4), 449-450.

Epler, P. (2019). Types of Case Studies. In A. Baron & K. McNeal (Eds.), Case Study Methodology in Higher

Education (pp. 20-46). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9429-1.ch002

Green, J. E. (2014). Toxic Leadership in Educational Organizations. Education Leadership Review, 15(1), 18-33

Hadadian, Z., and Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between toxic leadership and job stress of knowledge

workers. Studies in Business and Economics 11(3), 84–89.

Hinshaw, S. E. (2020, February 6). Why learning about toxic leadership can help your leadership practice and

knowledge. Higher Ed Teaching & Learning.

Hitchcock, M. J. (2015). The Relationship Between Toxic Leadership, Organizational Citizenship, and Turnover

Behaviors Among San Diego Nonprofit Paid Staff (Dissertation). University of San Diego.

Kusy, M. & Holloway, E. (2009). Toxic Workplace! Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. Oxford University Press.

Lorenzi, P. (2012). Business schools: Capitalism’s last stand. Society, 49(3), 230-239.

Morris Jr, J. A. (2019). Understanding coping strategies and behaviors of employees affected by toxic leadership.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., and Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and

conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly. www.sciencedirect.com/

Pelletier, K., Kotke, J. L., and Sirotnik, B. (2018). The toxic triangle in academia: A case analysis of the emergence

and manifestation of toxicity in a public university. Leadership, 15(1).

Pizarro, M. C. (2022). Identifying toxic leaders and how to handle them. Forbes.

Reed, G. E. & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of toxic leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees.

Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 5-18.

Roselle, B. (2019). How to cope with a toxic leader. The Business Journals.

Rybacki, M., & Cook, C. (2016). Switching the paradigm from reactive to proactive. JFQ: Joint.

Page 9 of 9

9

Holmes, Parker, & Willis. (2023). Coping with Toxic Leadership in the Academy: Perspectives on the Triple Threat to Faculty, Students and

Community. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(11). 01-09.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1011.15804

Schmidt, A.A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. (Unpublished master’s thesis.)

University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Singh, N., Sengupta, S., & Dev, S. (2018). Toxic leadership: The most menacing form of leadership. Dark Sides of

Organizational Behavior and Leadership.

Smith, N., & Fredricks-Lowman, I. (2019). Conflict in the workplace: a 10-year review of toxic leadership in

higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-14.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal

of Management, 33(3), 261-289.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.