An Exploration of Human Resource Personnel and Toxic Leadership

MGMT 7073 - Human Resource Management

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Current literature has included a significant amount of discussion on the

subordinate’s opinion of the bully, the narcissist, and the abusive supervisor. The

literature did not provide sufficient information on the human resource personnel’s

perception of working with the toxic leader. The literature also lacked information on

processes the human resources managers who work through conflict created within a

company by this leadership style have used. This study entails a discussion on the topic of

toxic leadership, a definition of the leadership style, and the perspective of the human

resource personnel on working with the toxic leader within organizational dynamics. An

examination of processes currently used within industries to resolve conflict created by

the toxic leader is included within this study.

Background of the Study

Leadership as a skill comes in various forms and develops based on education,

experience, and stages of life. Most people experience both good and poor leaders within

their lifetime. Kellerman (2004) states that good leadership will leave a person feeling

supported, stable, and motivated. Bad leadership can lead to feelings of rejection,

confusion, and can destroy a team atmosphere. Leadership development creates team

motivation, supports team atmosphere, provides direction, and carries forward the

organizational purpose.

Clinton (1988) listed four stages of development in leadership: (a) the challenges

of potential leadership, (b) the skills and gifts to enhance the leader’s effectiveness, (c)

relating to people in ways that motivate, and (d) principles of leadership. Bennis (2003)

mapped the terrain of leadership with specific steps of innovation, motivation,

development, focus, and structure. The security of good leadership is trust, acceptance,

and feelings of safety (Bennis, 2003). Bad leadership defies these four stages and the

skills that are necessary for productive leadership by creating issues of confusion,

insecurity, poor to no direction, and limited support for the team and team members, thus

creating chaos and an unsafe, toxic atmosphere.

The term toxic leader refers to leaders who display five specific characteristics.

Schmidt (2008) labeled toxic leadership as “narcissistic, self-promoters who engage in an

unpredictable pattern of abusive and authoritarian supervision” (p. 57). The term toxic

leadership often refers to leaders who bully employees, treat them with abuse, act in an

irresponsible manner, and are poor communicators (Tepper, 2010). Tepper, Moss, and

Duffy (2011) showed there was a financial loss for companies when toxic leadership was

evident. Lipman-Blumen (2005) argued that toxic leaders “first charm but then

manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than

when they found them” (p. 3). Toxicity creates conflict and can complicate the business

environment by causing emotional damage to those who work for the toxic leader (Illies

& Reiter-Palmon, 2008). Although researchers have identified toxic leadership from the

position of the subordinate, there is a gap in the literature regarding the human resource

personnel’s viewpoint of the toxic leader. There is also limited information where human

resource managers discussed their experiences and involvement with the toxic leader. In

this dissertation, I connect new knowledge from the perspective of human resource

managers on their experiences with the toxic leader as well as offer a description of

processes currently in place for resolving conflict during the toxic leader’s tenure.

An atmosphere of toxicity may result from leaders with neurotic personalities

(Freud, 1989). Certain traits are inborn within the psyche of some people that naturally

create a personality with social neurosis (Freud, 1989), which can create an environment

of anxiety. Some of these persons are born with a natural tendency toward narcissism,

authoritarian and abusive behaviors, attitudes of self-promotion, and are unpredictable.

“Similarly, it is more probable that man is born with a specifically human mode of

behavior… Integral to this characteristic behavior is his psychic phenomenology” (Jung,

1959, p. 99). The toxic leader does not consider his or her behavior as negative, but

deems actions as normal and acceptable for societal interaction. He or she may not realize

or understand why others consider his or her actions to be toxic. It may be who those

leaders are as human beings, but their harmful behaviors should not be allowed to

continue when they negatively affect others in the workplace. Toxic leaders must be held

accountable for their actions, just as other employees are. This study offered the

opportunity to discover a mediating a relationship with the toxic leader and examined the

processes used to reduce the negative impact of their actions on an organization.

This study lead to discovering that human resource personnel did not openly

discuss the toxic leadership phenomenon. Human resource managers acknowledge there

are difficulties with toxic leaders (Goldman, 2006), but few researchers have presented

the human resource manager’s perspective on why the toxic leaders are hired or how to

deal with them. This study has provided additional knowledge about the process for

identifying the toxic leader and resolving the conflict.

Problem Statement

Human resource personnel are required to handle the discipline of poor

performing employees within organizations. Senior management may hire a toxic leader

with the intent to increase productivity and ultimately force productive results within a

team. Once a toxic leader is hired, and the required level of productivity is reached,

negative results typically follow (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2008; Lipman-Blumen, 2005;

Tepper, 2010). Those results are as follows: (a) rebellion in the workplace, (b) employee

termination, (c) lost tacit knowledge, (d) eventually lower productivity, and (e) higher

cost to motivate employees (Dotlich & Cairo, 2003). Therefore, there is value in

collecting knowledge to understand how organizations identify and manage a toxic

leader. Toxic leaders are destructive of morale, productivity, and organizational

effectiveness. The problem in the current study was the lack of understanding of how

organizations address these destructive effects.

The perspective of the human resource managers who must address the toxic

environments did not appear in the available literature. Thus, this study provided human

resource personnel a chance to express their experiences dealing with toxic leaders, and

they were able to discuss what it takes to work through the interpersonally dysfunctional

situations that arise during the toxic leader’s reign.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore and

describe lived experiences of human resource managers regarding identifying and

managing a toxic leader and to discover how human resource managers handled the

ensuing consequences. New information within this study is provided regarding what

methods work when addressing the toxic leadership style. The objective was to close the

gap in knowledge regarding how human resource managers mitigate the effects of toxic

leaders. Through the interview process, I was able to collect information about their lived

experiences. My goal is to promote positive social change within organizations by

helping others minimize the negative effects of toxic leaders on their subordinates and

companies.

Research Questions

Current researchers primarily focused on the experiences that subordinates had

with their toxic leaders (Bond, 2010; Cangemi, 2009; Crocker, 2005; Goldman, 2002,

2006, 2008). However, I found little research regarding lived experiences of the human

resource personnel who managed the consequences of a toxic leader. The research

questions posed for this study were as follows:

1. What processes and methods do human resource managers use to identify toxic

leaders?

2. What processes and methods do human resource managers use to manage toxic

leaders?

3. How do human resource managers handle the ensuing consequences?

Conceptual Framework

Organizations require productive work environments as a foundation for harmony

in the workplace. When there is conflict within the workplace, organizations should have

methods for resolving the conflict. The product of mediating any residual conflict restores

peace. Senior managers and human resource personnel need methods to intervene and

overcome the toxicity that may arise when a toxic leader is hired. The toxic leader

destroys peace, creates conflict, and precludes chaos by antagonizing the subordinate

through their toxic behavior. “…predominantly survey-based research suggests that the

prevalence of self-reported bullying is between 10% and 35% within the workforce…”

(Harrington, Warren & Rayner, 2013). With this framework in mind, I set out to

understand the organizational perspective of this dilemma. In order to begin to gather this

knowledge, I believed an interview human resource personnel would be most effective.

This knowledge may lead to understanding the consequences that occur within

organizations from this negative leadership style by sharing the perspective of the human

resource manager.

Kellerman (2008), Lipman-Blueman (2004), and Pellitier (2010) completed

interviews to collect the followers’ or subordinates’ perspectives of working with a toxic

leader. These authors provided the position of the subordinate, the negative effects of the

toxic leader on their performance, and conflict caused within an organization by the toxic

leader. The literature showed that the organizational climate is generally not supportive

when working under a toxic leader (Cocker, 2005), and that “employees generally

interact with leaders who model behaviors they deem appropriate” (Gelfand, Leslie,

Keller, & de Dreu, 2012, p. 1132). Supportive culture within the workplace enhances

team workmanship and unity. However, the destructive behaviors of the toxic leader

affect the workplace by destroying harmony. “Schein (1983) was among the first to argue

that the personality of the leader affects the development of organizational culture” (as

cited in Gel and, et al., 2012, p. 1134). Organizations identify management processes for

collaboration and cooperation by the standards of behavior they accept from their leaders.

Impairment caused by the environment of the toxic leader does negatively affect

productivity, as discovered by Martinko, Sikora, and Harvey (2012). Franke and Felfe

(2011) discovered that predictors of motivation derived from “specific relations for the

different leadership dimensions with perceived strain and idealized influence” (p. 306).

According to some researchers, dominative conflict cultures reflect open and heated

debates, direct confrontations, and organizational disagreements (as cited in Gelfand, et

al., 2012, p. 1133). The subordinate who perceives his or her superior as toxic, abusive,

authoritative, or narcissistic will react negatively due to his or her perceived emotional

and physical stress within the work environment.

By completing this study, I discovered how to better understand the organizational

side of toxic leadership through the views of the human resource manager. Employees

only adapt the culture of handling conflict within the organization when they observe

“normative behaviors for handling conflict [which] may include active listening to the

opinions of all parties involved” (Gelfand et al, 2012, p. 1133). This knowledge may

provide conflict cultures an opportunity to address the toxicity in the organization with

positive reinforcement for change.

Toxic leadership and behaviors demonstrated by this leadership style have been a

part of human history since the dawn of the working organization (Vecchio, 1997). This

style of leadership has been discussed within literature from the position of the

subordinate, also defined as the follower. “A study on workplace bullying by Zapf and

others (2003) found that around 5% to 10% of employees experience bullying at least

once on the job” (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013). The study I have completed is the first

study to document issues with toxicity from the human resource manager’s position.

Significant studies, both qualitative and quantitative, have been performed to show the

negative effects a toxic leader can have on a team, an individual, and an organization.

Schyns and Hansbroughn (2010) determined the conflict toxicity creates can complicate

the business structure by causing emotional damage to those who work for the toxic

leaders.

To determine processes that mediate between subordinates and the toxic leaders, it

is necessary to comprehend the dynamics that create toxicity in the workplace. This

understanding can be difficult to learn without knowing the perspective of the follower

(Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011) and the organization. The knowledge available within

this study provides additional awareness from the human resource manager’s perspective.

A human resource manager is required to interact with the follower and the organization

to better understand the perspective of the team, the employee, and the company. The

human resource manager must be able to communicate the needs of the company and

work with an employee to ensure the duties of resolution are performed (Avey, Luthans,

& Jensen, 2009). Senior leaders must also understand they will need to work in

conjunction with the human resource department to obtain and maintain control over

toxic leaders. Managing the toxic leaders, and negative consequences brought on by this

leadership style, is a group effort that includes senior management, human resources, and

the toxic leader.

The framework of this study included the use of information gathered from

current literature regarding the complaints, concerns, and collected data of the

subordinate. This information from the literature was used to create the interview

questions in Appendix C and was used to determine a qualitative study appropriate for

gathering the perspective of human resource personnel. The completed study identified

actions used by human resource personnel to resolve work-related issues generated by a

toxic leader’s behavior. These generated ideas should be supplied to human resource

personnel and senior management so the organization may move toward functioning as a

healthier company even while the toxic leader remains employed by the company.

Through the stories and experiences of human resource managers who have

worked with the toxic leader, information was collected about what is known and what is

not known in relation to processes of intervention when resolving conflict created by the

toxic leader. Prior researchers had not yet grasped the personal experience of human

resource practitioners dealing with this phenomenon, nor was there an understanding of

the processes used to resolve organizational issues resulting from the phenomenon of

toxic leadership. Identifying action and structures that can mitigate the effect of toxic

leadership and employee relationship issues from the human resource manager’s position

may assist with a better understanding of how to handle the ensuing consequences of the

toxic leader. The situational examples provided through the human resource manager’s

stories helped to understand why toxic leaders are difficult to work for and indicated how

their behavior affects human resource personnel in resolving difficulties with these

problem leaders. Identifying and supporting intervention processes that work, and

understanding what processes do not work, may ultimately provide new knowledge on

how the negative impact of a toxic leader can be reduced.

Nature of the Study

This study was qualitative, using face-to-face interviews with human resource

personnel on the subject of toxic leadership. The interviews were exploratory in nature to

draw out thoughts, beliefs, concepts, and concerns of the human resource personnel

regarding how to minimize damage from toxic leaders. The phenomenological approach

was completed with nine human resource managers who had direct experience with a

toxic leader and who had observed or been involved with the negative consequences in

their workplaces. Once the interviews were completed, the data were gathered and coded

into various shared experiences to create themes. The sampling labels represent the ideas

brought to fruition by the interviewees. Domain and taxonomic coding (Saldana, 2009)

was completed in order to conclude the phenomenological study. Accessing the

participants’ lived experiences and professional responsibilities in detection of the

toxicity in the workplace are a part of the coded themes. Saldana’s (2009) terminology of

first cycle coding and second cycle coding was used to identify themes in the data. Data

were analyzed to discover the specific hierarchy of terms, categories, and labels used by

the participants. Collating and documenting the information was useful for discussing a

possible process for addressing the conflict. This knowledge may provide a process to

organizations to determine and resolve the impact of the experiences from the human

resource manager’s position, then define how best to approach and resolve conflict

created by the toxic leaders.

Operational Definitions

Follower: A subordinate or any employee who reports to a manager (Kellerman,

2008; Lipman-Blumen, 2004, 2005).

Human resource department: The department is created to assure the laws of any

state regarding employment are upheld. According to Wright, McMahan, and

McWilliams (2006), “they are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable” (p. 301).

The human resource department is created for the purpose of protecting the organization

by assuring the rules, laws, and state hiring requirements are followed to the letter, and

under the guise of legal requirements. Human resource personnel are specifically trained

in all aspects of state and federal requirements, and assist the company in compliance

with these requirements (pihra.org).

Human resource management, personnel, and managers: The formal structure

within an organization responsible for all the decisions, strategies, factors, principles,

operations, practices, functions, activities and methods related to the management of

people (shrm.org, 2013).

Leadership: The actions of any person who guides a team of subordinates in

directing their work, instructing process and procedure provided thorough organizational

support, and providing accountability within the organization for final product or service

produced by an organization (Vecchio, 1997).

Senior management: The final decision maker for any organizational structure,

function, product, or economic decision (Blau & Duncan, 1967).

Toxic leadership: The leader who displays specific negative behaviors of abusive,

authoritarian, narcissistic, self-promoting, and unpredictable conduct (Schmidt, 2008).

Assumptions, Scope, Delimitations, and Limitations

Assumptions

I assumed that those human resource persons who volunteered for the study had

experience and would be able to articulate that experience with at least one toxic leader.

Confirmation of their interaction with a toxic leader was established at the onset of the

discussion. It was assumed those human resource managers that I interviewed would

testify regarding processes their company used to manage the conflict and the toxic

leader. It was assumed the human resource managers who participated in this study would

be willing and able to communicate their experiences. The human resource personnel

interviewed were able to tell their stories in a manner that offered suggestions, assistance,

or demonstrated a method that could be standardized for managing the toxic leader. As

the nature of the study was the interaction of senior management, human resource

personnel, subordinates, and a toxic leader, I believed there may be a significant effect of

new information to narrow the gap in knowledge and/or processes to address the

relationship between the groups.

Scope of the Study

The original scope of the study was to interview 20 human resource managers

from various industries, and understand the specific effects toxic leadership has on the

subordinate, the human resource personnel, senior management, and the organization as a

whole. Nine managers ultimately participated in this study completion of the study. The

explanation for the variance was due to the human resource manager’s concern about

commitment to their respective organizations and comfort with discussing the subject of a

potential conflict with a toxic leader or a past suit that occurred from the experience.

Further information with regard to differences between the proposed and actual number

of participants appears in Chapter 4.

The common denominator of the group was their membership in the Professional

Institute of Human Resources Association (PIHRA). The definition for the toxic leader

used in this research encompasses the five characteristics identified by Schmidt (2008) as

“narcissistic, self-promoters who engage in an unpredictable pattern of abusive and

authoritarian supervision” (p. 57). The scope of research included gathering the data by

interviewing current human resource personnel to establish frequent concerns and issues

they dealt with when attempting to resolve situations with toxic leaders within an

organization. The data included recorded conversations with human resource personnel,

coded narrative linking common viewpoints. The interpreted data identified themes that

emerged related to the identification of toxic leaders and handling the consequences of

their behavior. I also investigated what human resource personnel had done to manage

toxic situations through analyzing their stories, experiences, and the problems they

encountered.

Delimitations

Establishing the limits of the study included focusing solely on what is considered

toxic leadership, and not focusing on other forms of ineffective or difficult leadership.

Names of companies and the research participants as well as dates of the reported

experiences were not included in order to protect the trust and confidence of those

interviewed. Any digressions to experiences of outstanding leadership, positive actions

taken by good leadership, and stories not related to toxic leaders were not relevant thus

not included in the focus of this study. Although leaders can learn from good experiences,

the purpose of this study was to understand the human resource managers’ perspectives

on toxic leadership. The focus must be on toxic situations or resolutions related to this

subject.

Limitations

The gap in knowledge regarding human resource managers’ perspectives and the

toxic leader was itself a limitation. Supportive literature was available from followers’

stories, authors’ interpretations, and research on what knowledge was currently available.

Another limitation was that only the viewpoint of human resource managers and not the

people who hired these toxic leaders was presented. The presentation, then, was the

human resource managers’ perceptions of reality. Few and limited literature studies on

this subject could be found. The shared experiences of the human resource personnel may

serve as a ground-breaking construct to learning key steps toward handling conflict and

managing the toxic chaos created by negative leadership of this nature.

Limitations included preconceived ideas regarding toxicity and the definition of

the toxic leader. Limitations included assuring sufficient human resource personnel were

willing and able to volunteer to be interviewed due to their concerns over confidentiality,

trustworthiness, and security. It was important to confirm trustworthiness in order to gain,

affirm, and retain trust of the interviewees. There were issues of time and distance, but

not issues of representation by a wide industry. The interview process did not require

additional interview sessions because there was enough variety in representation from

multiple industries. Limitations also included the inability to specifically interview the

toxic leader who displays all five behaviors used to define toxic leadership. Therefore, all

data derived from observers of toxic leadership consequences. This study represents the

beginning of newly found information on human resource process and procedure, which

may open the door to further studies of this type.

Significance and Social Change

The knowledge gained by understanding toxic leadership and methods for dealing

with the situations created by the toxic leader could help other organizations learn how to

control the damage done by toxic leaders. It may also provide human resource personnel

with a voice in defining, understanding, and mediating consequences brought upon by

toxic leaders. Finally, it may provide better understanding of the lived experience of

human resources personnel in coming to terms with the presence of toxic leaders and the

consequences of their actions. Positive social change may result by reducing the

employee exposure to toxic leaders in the workplace by intervening earlier and more

effectively in cases where toxic leaders are present.

Summary

This research is an effort to determine how human resources professionals handle

the consequences of working with toxic leaders. The knowledge gained by this research

helped narrow the gap in literature in understanding how organizations manage the

consequences of toxic leadership. Chapter 2 provides a review of the current literature on

toxic leadership and subordinates’ difficulties in working within a toxic work

environment and how this creates interpersonal issues. Chapter 3 covers the methodology

of the study. Chapters 4 and 5 complete the data analysis and recommendations for future

studies of this subject matter.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Leaders in management circles have been discussing abusive, authoritarian, and

narcissistic leadership styles since the early 1970s (Duncan, 2003). Although the terms

authoritative and abusive leadership have existed since the early 1970s (Hogan &

Smither, 2001), discussions of negative leadership styles have led to toxic leadership

becoming a categorical phenomenon (Dotlich & Cairo, 2003; Hogan, 2007; Kellerman,

2004, 2008; Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Schmidt (2008) labeled toxic leadership as

“narcissistic, self-promoters who engage in an unpredictable pattern of abusive and

authoritarian supervision” (p. 57). For the purposes of this research, the toxic leader must

display all five of these behavioral attributes in order to meet the criteria labeled as the

toxic leader.

While there has been a consensus that toxic leaders are bad for organizations and

destructive of good relationships in the workplace, there have been occasions when toxic

leaders were hired because of their industry knowledge with the intent to repair an

ineffective team or inoperative noncompliant culture. “According to the norm of

reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), when employers do not fulfill their promises and

obligations, the employee reciprocates by altering his or her contributions to the

organization (e.g. by reducing their efforts and performance)” (Bal, Chiaburu & Jansen,

2010). A toxic leader’s short-term success in terminating unproductive or difficult

followers is one motivation for senior teams to knowingly hire them. Schyns and

Hansbroughn (2010) observed that senior management would hire a toxic leader because

past positions of employment demonstrate short-term success in progressing teams and

organizations to higher productivity. Once the toxic leader has reached a high

performance level, the actual symptoms of a destructive culture begin to appear. The

classic case of this behavior was Dunlap (1997), whose success upon initial appointment

rapidly declined, leaving chaos in his wake. Dunlap received a judgment “permanently

barring [him]…from serving as officers or directors of any public company” (Securities

and Exchange Commission, n.d.). His self-destructive manners included the

unpredictability, narcissistic, abusive, self-promoting, and authoritarian behavior of the

toxic leader.

The success of the toxic leader often becomes a problem for human resources

managers to resolve when conflicts arise due to persistent toxicity within an organization.

Human resource personnel are able to identify toxic leaders from multiple perspectives

and may even express apprehension when senior management considers hiring one

(Boddy, 2014; Meyer & Casile, 2010). Human resource managers confronting the

consequences of toxic leadership must identify (a) manageable methods of intervention in

light of the consequences of the additional conflict within the workplace, (b) worker’s

compensation claims and stress management claims that arise, and (c) any potential

litigation that may arise from a toxic leader’s behavior. This research explored (a) why

and under what circumstances toxic leaders are creating chaos, and (b) how the noxious

consequences are managed.

Literature Review and Strategy

The review of literature was conducted by using books and journal articles from

PSYCHINFO and Business Source Complete accessed through EBSCO host in the

Walden University online library. Key words used in this literature review were fear in

human behavior, followership and the follower’s perspective on bad, poor, or negative

leadership, trust in leadership, bullying, psychological contract, authoritarian

leadership, abusive leadership, emotional intelligence, the environment of the toxic

leader, organizational culture, human resource personnel, toxic behavior, toxic

leadership, and toxicity in the workplace. The literature review is inclusive of a 9-year

timeframe from 2005 through 2014. During the exhaustive search for subjects related to

toxic leadership, toxic behavior, and toxicity in the workplace, it was discovered that

there was insufficient literature available that defined the perspective of the human

resource manager or human resource department. This is the gap in literature—a

perspective of human resource personnel.

Conceptual Framework

Many theorists have identified, tested, interviewed, and delineated the positions,

beliefs, and complaints of subordinates regarding the toxic leadership (Krasikova, Green,

& LeBreton, 2013; Martinko & Harbey, 2012; Meyer & Casile, 2010). Subordinates who

describe their frustrations about the toxic leader are referred to as followers

(LipmanBlumen, 2005). Followers conveyed the bullying, narcissistic behaviors, and

destructive forces aligned with the toxic leader (Pellitier, 2010; Tepper & Duffy, 2011).

There is insufficient information—a gap in the literature—regarding the viewpoint of the

human resource personnel who manage the company’s toxic circumstances.

Organizations need methods to intervene and mediate the conflict created by the toxic

leader behavior. In an effort to discover what methods are being used by human resource

to resolve toxicity from the toxic leader, an interview with human resource managers

would broaden and support this knowledge. The framework is to gain a viewpoint from

the organizational side on the subject of the toxic leader and then consider how the

application of mediating methods might assist with resolving issues that appear to

negatively affect the followers. By completing a phenomenological study to describe the

viewpoint of the human resource personnel, a more thorough understanding of the

destruction caused within organizations by the toxic leader could become clear.

Interviewing participants who have had to administer decisions regarding behavior by the

toxic leader may lead to data that helps reduce the gap in literature.

The Construct of Toxic Leadership in the Workplace

The purpose of this research is to understand the human resource personnel

viewpoint on who these toxic leaders are, what defines them, the human resource

manager’s experiences, and how they handle the toxic consequences. The construct of

toxic leadership in the workplace was developed by reviewing and comparing what is

currently know about Schmidt’s (2008) definition of toxic leaders to new knowledge

provided by human resource managers. By comparing the definitions of toxic leadership

through the view of various authors, the similarity of behavior became evident. Hogan

(2007), Pellitier (2010), Reed (2009), and Schmidt (2008) completed the research on

toxic leadership terms referenced in this dissertation and demonstrated that this subject

affects all organizations. However, the need to discover the perspective of human

resource managers regarding toxic leaders was also apparent.

The construct of understanding the relationship and responsibilities of the human

resources department to senior management and how this affects the entire organization

contributed to the development of a phenomenological study. Although I used the

description of toxic leadership provided by Schmidt (2008), the perspective of human

resource personnel may lead to a broader definition of the toxic leader’s behavior.

Exploring this variation led to a new and deeper definition of the toxic leader. The

implication of any change this revealed is discussed in Chapter 4 and 5.

Several other questions arise when expanding upon the research questions

regarding the lived experiences of human resource managers who are responsible for

working with leaders identified as toxic and methods and processes human resource

managers use to identify and resolve issues of conflict with the toxic leader. These

questions derived from thorough examination of the literature on followers’ comments

regarding the difficulty of working with toxic leaders. It was clear through multiple

literature articles that toxic leadership is a negative experience for the follower, which is

harmful to any organization (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013; Pellitier, 2010; Tepper, 2010;

Yagil & Luria, 2010). Therefore, a closer examination of the lived experiences of the

human resource personnel was necessary in order to collect a complete understanding of

this subject. Following are some of the questions posed to the human resource personnel

that needed to be expanded upon:

1. What other terms, if any, define the toxic leader from the human resource

manager’s perspective?

2. How do human resource personnel discover toxicity is present in the

workplace?

3. How do the human resource personnel handle working with the toxic leader?

4. How are the consequences of a toxic leader managed among employees and

the organization?

5. Are there barriers to removal of a toxic leader?

Toxicity in the workplace is created when subordinates and/or teams feel bullied,

harassed, or abused. The actions of the toxic leader are identified as creating situations

where the subordinates complain about a negative atmosphere working under the leader

who suppresses them, abuses them, and is harassing them. This leader may use

inappropriate methods of causing the subordinate to believe they are forced into actions

and/or procedures that they may not normally perform. The definition used in this

dissertation was developed by Schmidt (2008). It was important to use this definition

because of the specific actions and behaviors Schmidt (2008) identified as being toxic.

Using this definition eliminated mere personality differences or derailed managers from

being included. This also eliminated any doubt about the actual toxicity of the leader.

This dissertation provides a definition of toxic leadership, presents a view of

toxicity in organizations, and discusses the human resource manager’s viewpoint on

working with the toxic leader. Three case studies will be included as examples. These

examples are provided only to further support the need for understanding some of the

issues human resource personnel must deal with in order to resolve conflict, or manage

how a department can work with a toxic leader.

Literature Review

Subordinates, Followers, and Followership

Lipman-Blumen (2004, 2005) wrote several books on the subject of toxic

leadership from the perspective of the follower or subordinate. A subordinate is a

descriptive term for anyone who officially reports to a superior. Current literature uses the

term follower or followership when describing the perspective of the subordinate. The

definition of follower or followership used by Lipman-Blumen (2004, 2005) was

supported by Kellerman (2008), Pellitier (2010), and Tepper (2011), who also used the

term of follower rather than subordinate. The term subordinate can be perceived as

derogatory and possesses a negative connotation. In this dissertation, the reference to

subordinate is transposable with follower and followership since it is used within the

literature.

Lipman-Blumen (2005), Kellerman (2008), Pellitier (2010), and Tepper (2011)

used the term follower to better define the depth of connection a leader has to his or her

subordinate. The relationship is not merely one of a manager directing a subordinate to

complete certain tasks, it is an emotional connection that the follower allows, and the

leader must earn. The relationship is one of commitment from the follower to the leader.

A leader is only as good as a follower will follow (Cavaiola, 2000). While this is a

desirable relationship to build between a leader and subordinate, the toxic leader is unable

to successfully establish this bond because of toxic behavior. As a result, of the negative

leadership qualities displayed by the toxic leader, the positive emotional connection

between leader and follower is not established resulting in a follower who does not

commit to their toxic leader. Consequently, the follower will rebel, either by actions or

exiting the company, and/or file a worker’s compensation claim against the organization.

Aspects of Toxic Leadership

Schmidt (2008) labeled toxic leadership as “narcissistic, self-promoters who

engage in an unpredictable pattern of abusive and authoritarian supervision” (p. 57).

Although some of these behaviors may be displayed in a toxic environment, it is essential

that the leader display all five behaviors in order to be classified as a toxic leader for this

dissertation. Hogan (2007) revealed through the Hogan Development Survey

(Hogan/HDS/asp) the pattern of derailing when senior management hires a leader who

later becomes toxic. Hogan specifies the leader or manager who is feeling significant

pressure and stress may act in toxic manners and derail their career. Hogan has developed

the survey to identify the derailed from a toxic leader.

Harms, Spain, and Hannah (2011) established the dark side of leadership, which

also appears when managers perform under pressure and behave as borderline sociopaths

creating psychosocial unsafe climates. Harms et al. (2011) provided several points of

interest, including the lack of empirical studies on “narcissism, psychopathy, and

Machiavellianism as the most widely studied subclinical traits” (p. 496). The dark side of

personality is another way of describing toxic behaviors in individuals. Understanding

those traits may help to identify leaders who tend to practice the behaviors of the

authoritarian, the narcissist, and illustrate abusive traits.

Goldman (2008b) defended the use of the term toxic leaders versus abusive or

other terms for toxic behavior as applied to organizational development and

organizational behavior. As reported by Goldman (2008):

The toxic leader is an insidious and pernicious spreading of negative

emotional contagion—a toxic process accelerated by highly destructive

and dysfunctional leadership behavior. In a circular fashion, the diffusion

of dysfunction perpetuates toxic organizational systems, and high toxicity

levels, in turn, create new pockets of dysfunction. (p. 245)

Goldman expressed that toxicity is a social construct that generates social conflict

and further discussed the need for a measurement. He specified the levels of toxins and

toxic atmospheres might be difficult in parallel with scientists who use formulas and

methods of measurement for toxins in environmental situations. The difficulty may be

positioned in part by each individual’s point of view. Toxicity may feel toxic to one

person who is not used to chaos or criticism, whereas another individual may consider the

criticism as normal if their childhood surroundings were one of dysfunction. This

measurement, if allowed, would be handled through the human resource personnel for

presentation to senior management.

Authoritarianism and Toxicity

Authoritarianism is one of the behaviors displayed by the toxic leader and this

term is often interchanged with social dominance. Although the leaders displaying social

dominance often do not volunteer to be interviewed and questioned about their toxic

behavior, Duncan (2003) determined methods of deriving their psychological state.

Duncan suggested using a “content-coding system to measure social dominance (SDO)

and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)” (p. 182) and further described developing an

understanding of the styles of “large-scale repressive social movements” (p. 183) as a

method of analyzing the authoritarian personality. Duncan looked at the psychological

motive for power, affiliation, and intimacy and how authoritarian leaders differ from

followers in the levels of these human needs. The difference may be part of what

separates authoritarian leaders from leaders who practice emotional intelligence and may

be a key concept to understanding the innate behavior of authoritarian leaders who

contribute to a toxic work environment. It is possible to be authoritarian and not toxic,

however; authoritarian is one of the behaviors that when expressed with the others

constitute toxic leadership. The difference is the behavior of unpredictability. Followers

can learn how to work around the authoritarian leader while appeasing them in order to

cope with few ill effects by anticipating their reaction, thus causing the authoritarian

leader to believe they are still in control. The toxic leader is unpredictable, and the

follower is unable to predict reactions to positive or negative situations. The authoritarian

leader has certain repeatable reactions the follower can anticipate, and will learn what

causes those reactions. The toxic leader; however, does not have predictive reactions, and

the follower cannot anticipate their change. This creates a toxic anxiety within the

workplace.

Abusive Behavior and Toxicity

Toxicity may be seen through different individual perspectives as a negative

influence from individuals within organizations. Incivility is used interchangeably with

the term abusive, and considered to be one perspective of negative influence for leaders

to display. Crocker (2005) stated that behaviors of incivility resemble behaviors of the

toxic leader since they display narcissism, abusiveness, and authoritarian action.

Furthermore, he developed hypotheses to define employee perceptions of “interactional

injustice, managerial incivility and turnover intentions, withdrawal behaviors,

performance behaviors, and negative effects on the organization” (p. 42). Crocker also

included a brief discussion of the “human cost approach” (p. 61) of labor replacement and

employee support when incivility occurs within the workplace. He noted the relationship

within the hypotheses was positively related to managerial incivility.

Incivility will have a negative effect on employee perception that negatively

affects an organization. Crocker (2005) further acknowledged that behaviors within

cultures are seen as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with their accepted norm,

thus individual employee perception may not be enough to convince senior management

there is an issue. Crocker described various studies performed to define and measure

petty tyranny, bullying, and abusive supervision, but noted there is insufficient empirical

evidence to rely on or validate “managerial incivility” (p. 3). As the definition of toxic

leadership includes abusive supervision and employee perceptions of incivility from a

leader, other measurements inclusive of abusive leadership may be necessary to fully

convince senior management of the issues at hand.

Narcissism and Toxicity

Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) examined the perception of deep-level differences

between subordinates and leaders. The narcissistic leader displays an attitude of

superiority, impatience, and dwells on their image of leadership and ability. The attitude

and behavior that accompanies the narcissism may become toxic as a leader is consumed

with their accomplishments or successes. Tepper et al. (2011) applied a test to measure

and determine the validity of their thesis that unfavorable outcomes arise when a leader

perceives an extremely dissimilar trait or personality and moral code from a follower. If

the leader displays additional toxic behavior because of getting ahead, he or she would be

aligned with the definition of the toxic leader defined in this dissertation by displaying

narcissism, which is one of the five behaviors of a toxic leader. This further supports an

alignment with actions of incivility and the toxic leaders. The toxic leader may display

incivility toward the follower, which may be discussed within the team then reported to

the human resource department, thus indicating toxicity and possible follower rebellion or

potential turnover intentions.

Self-Promoting Action, Communication, and Unpredictability

The narcissist leader will self-promote him or herself to rise above everyone else

and attempt to take all the credit for successes and place the blame on others for his

failures. The toxic leader displays to senior management behaviors that self-promote thus

causing senior management to believe the toxic leader has the necessary skill set to

manage the team. Self-promotion alone is not toxic. It is only toxic as a behavior when

combined with the other four behaviors of the toxic leader. It is also toxic when the

actions represented are destructive to continuity of the team, team goals, and coworkers.

The action of self-promotion becomes toxic when accompanied with subversive acts

toward others, along with the other specific behaviors that are considered toxic in the

work environment. Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2008) determined that “harming

organizational members or striving for short-term gains over long-term organizational

goals leads to focusing on sustained destructive acts with profound implications rather

than minor slip-ups” (p. 24). Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) described “annual losses of

an estimated $23.8 billion in increased health care costs, workplace withdrawal, and lost

productivity” (p. 279) due to the consequences of followers’ perceptions of toxic

leadership. The member of a team depends on the team leader to develop company goals,

positively motivate the team, and have sufficient knowledge and business sense to make

good decisions, and provide guidance and purpose. Through self-promotion, the actions

of the leader harm the team as a whole by destroying motivation and inducing feelings of

fear, anxiety, stress, and rebellion among the followers.

Toxicity and the Organization

Many theorists have noted hiring a toxic leader negatively affects followers

(Ashforth, 1994; Kellerman, 2005, 2008; Lipman-Blumen, 2004, 2005; Padilla, Hogan, &

Kaiser, 2007; Tepper, 2003, 2007). Discovering how hiring a toxic leader affects a

department, team, and organization is a very important part of this dissertation.

Uncovering how human resource managers handle toxic situations and how information

from both the followers and the senior team leader is managed uncovers the unknown

information that influences senior management and uncovers who toxic leaders are, while

understanding how the behavior of this negative leader affects an organization. Schyns

and Hansbroughn (2010) stated that the cognitive “process employed by the leader play a

large role in how he or she gathers information, interprets it, and makes decisions toward

a course of action” (p. 23). Schyns and Hansbroughn discovered the importance of

understanding destructive leadership through the multiple studies employed. Toxicity is

an organizational disease that can destroy cohesion, as discovered by these authors. The

conflict toxicity can create can complicate the business structure by causing emotional

damage to those who work for toxic leaders.

Toxic Environments

Some organizational leaders choose toxic leaders, seem willing to tolerate the

inefficiencies, human toll, and other costs related to the toxic behavior, and are slow to

respond to mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness before it reaches crisis proportions.

Lipman-Blumen (2005) addressed these phenomena by noting, “Organizations qua

organizations can yield their own toxins. They do so through detrimental policies and

practices—including setting unreasonable performance goals, promoting excessive

internal competition, and creating a culture of blame” (p. 17). Corporate leaders on the

senior team are frequently given goals by stockholders or owners that fulfill personal

dreams and visions while exploiting or making excessive performance demands on

employees. The environment will evolve from what appears to the follower to be an

organized routine of day-to-day duties and responsibilities to one of sudden chaos and

change. The follower anticipates this as a familiar schedule, when it becomes a day of

conflict, uncertainty, and unpredictability.

Bal, Chiaburu, and Jansen (2010) discussed authoritarianism management and the

effects this behavior has on rebellion by the follower. Bond, Tuckey, and Dollard (2010)

discussed workplace bullying and the personal stress related to this action. The behaviors

of authoritarianism, bullying, and the personal stress these behaviors cause a follower to

feel are related to actions toxic leaders display. All of these actions push the follower

toward defensive reactions and conflict within the team. These warning signs described

findings that forewarn the leader of any company that toxicity is on the rise.

The literature includes articles on negative leadership styles and how the

perception of bad leadership will harm organizations. Baker (2007) believed that

followers no longer hold a passive role, and leaders are people with a role to fill rather

than inherent personality “specifically graced” (p. 55) upon them. Cangemi and Pfohl

(2009) described seven conditions of actual events occurring under the reign of a

sociopathic leader, the chameleon-type personality, verbally aggressive, and got-to-

beright attitude. Bond et al. (2010) discussed how bullies react to the competition and the

internal stress factors, and how they generate a work environment that creates such

behavior. Bond et al. provided insight referencing narcissism, bullying, abusive, and

authoritative behaviors of which all assist with the understanding of toxic behavior. The

relationship between these articles further supports (a) toxicity is a real issue within

workplace atmosphere, (b) toxicity is recognized by these behaviors, and (c) although the

behavior is recognized there is limited discussion regarding human resource personnel’s

process or perspective regarding the management of a toxic leader.

Recognizing and Managing the Warning Signs

The costs of litigation, decline of employee morale and decreased motivation are

negatively affecting organizations (Hogan, 2007). Categories of failure included being

reactive instead of proactive, being unable to cope with coordinating actions with

relationships, failing to provide good leadership, being overly emotional, and having an

“overriding personality defect” (Hogan, 2007, p. 113). Workplace climates, which feel

unsafe to the follower and end in litigation or a worker’s compensation claim may cost

the company significant dollars toward protecting the organization’s name, but may not

necessarily rid the organization of the cause of a toxic situation, or ongoing conflict.

According to Bond et al. (2010):

The symptoms are: work-related harassment, job demands, meaningless tasks,

professional humiliation, belittlement, intimidation, and isolation. These work

symptoms are reflected in employee posttraumatic stress by a) intrusions,

flashbacks, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, b) avoidance of people, places,

objects, and thoughts associated with the traumatic event; and c) physiological

and psychological hyper-arousal. (p. 39)

Encouraging workers to talk through these concerns, involving them in

decisionmaking processes, and realigning a strong healthy commitment to the

organization is a first step toward eliminating the toxic mentality and behavior, and

usually should be processed through the human resource department. If an issue arises

within a company the human resource department is expected to resolve the issue prior to

it becoming a serious conflict. This study provides a process for resolution to these

concerns.

Corporate leaders, who realize the effects of the problem are creating

organizational climates that support, acknowledge, illustrate emotional intelligence, and

promote healthy physical and psychological safety (Dotlich & Cairo, 2003). An

organizational goal should be to strive for climates of positive reinforcement that

motivate workers toward a healthy leader–follower relationship.

Barriers to Removal of the Toxic Leader

Although formulas are available to recognize narcissism as well as authoritarian,

abusive, self-promoting, and unpredictable behavior, it is difficult to convince the upper

echelon leaders to accept the existence of a toxic situation without these measurements.

Goldman (2008) noted senior management will often not act on toxicity due to fear of

litigation, wrongful termination claims, or other allegations until it is too late and

followers have left a company, a worker’s compensation case is filed, or a lawsuit ensues.

Goldman (2008b) noted, “Although there are individuals who may be labeled as

dysfunctional, this only constitutes a subset of larger, systemic issues” (p. 245). Goldman

noted that after organizational leaders accept the existence of an issue of concern, the

leaders would treat the solution as a patient-doctor relationship by hiring an outside

person to identify the cause of the illness or toxin and recommend a repair to reverse the

effects.

Today’s employment is considered to be at will, meaning termination may occur

at any time, by either party. The case studies discussed clearly show the organization

must have clear indication they have worked with the toxic leader to establish the

termination is due to a negative effect on productivity. Human resource personnel must

document all activity and maintain clear records of the occurrences in order to support the

organization in the event any court case might arise.

Perspective of the Follower

Followers have identified toxic leader behavior through multiple questionnaires

that have been conducted within the field of management and leadership. The follower’s

perspective may partially influence what eventually becomes toxic leadership, but

organizational effectiveness can be notably affected by a follower’s negative perception.

That is, the followers will abandon an organization due to their perceived belief in the

existence of abusive or toxic supervision (Martinko, Sikora, & Harvey, 2012). The

followers may revolt within an organization, or an organization may fail both financially

and ethically if the power of the toxic leaders is not controlled. ”Toxic leadership

situations leading to destructive outcomes leave the organization worse off relative to its

rivals” (p. 52). One follower’s perspective of toxic behavior may not be the same as

another’s, and individuals may define fear and toxic behavior differently. Individuals may

relate to or have experienced toxic leaders as abusive fathers and mothers, authoritarian

bullying parents, or narcissistic teachers. Discovering the perspective of the follower is

helpful to the human resource department, but without the support of senior management

in controlling the toxic leader, the knowledge would not be used.

Perspective of Senior Management

Senior management must acknowledge the information human resource managers

are providing regarding negative affects the toxic leader is having on the organization,

and when the toxic behavior is creating resentment and conflict in the workplace.

Mossholder, Richardson, and Settoon (2011) completed research on creating value in

organizations by having human resource personnel create systems through the human

resource department to promote relational climates. “Human resource systems influence

organizational performance by eliciting and controlling employee behaviors”

(Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011, p. 33, as cited in Schuler & River, 1989). By

developing more integrated and knowledgeable team atmospheres, and supporting a more

ethical atmosphere for the follower “Human resource systems affected employee

perceptions of a concern-for-employee climate” (Mossholder et al., 2011, p. 34).

Kellerman (2004) supported the value of managing toxicity by noting, “Unethical

leadership fails to distinguish between right and wrong because common codes of

decency and good conduct are in some way violated, the leadership process is defiled” (p.

34). Through fully developing parameters for measuring toxicity, organizational leaders

will be able to monitor and set limits on the degree of toxicity tolerated within a

company. Thus, monitoring and decreasing toxicity will serve as a positive benefit toward

organizational ends.

Legal and moral decisions to follow the rules, support a company, and perform a

work task within legal limits are an individual’s choice, but can be affected by the

individual’s stress level. This in turn affects the overall productivity and success of the

organization. The stress level will play a role in influencing the overall morality of the

leader, manager, and follower (Seek & Parzefall, 2008). They all must make a moral

decision regarding how they will behave during times of high stress. Human nature

sometime reacts unreasonably when stress factors interfere with the leader’s role. The

toxic leader may not necessarily be aware of the team stress or be open to discussing team

stress yet their decision-making affects the overall productivity of the team and

organization.

It is equally as important to realize that the ethics of leaders and followers may

also be affected by the stress levels of various individuals. According to Selart and

Johansen (2010), “Given the detrimental consequences of unsound ethical decisions,

understanding how leaders make ethical decisions and the factors that influence ethical

decision making and ethical decisions become critical” (pp. 129-130). Selart and

Johansen studied the effects of stress for leaders and managers when company demands

become overwhelming. When conflicting roles, time demands, and multiple directions

are given, leaders and managers will experience toxic stress and therefore act in an

unethical manner. Negative actions performed under stress by individuals will cause

people to execute behavior, which is not typical of their nature or persona. Selart and

Johansen (2010) noted, “Stress is a relational concept in that it constitutes the relationship

between a set of external stressors and the individual’s ability to cope… [Stressors] create

feelings of “powerlessness, work overload, a lack of feedback and punishment” (Selart &

Johansen, 2010, p. 131). This may lead to a pattern of unethical behavior, which may

contribute to toxic behavior, a temporary experience with the dark side of personality, and

career derailment.

Selart and Johansen (2010) completed a study to recognize the perception of

negative stress, ethical issues, stress outcome, and demographics on managers. The study

produced evidence that a lack of feedback from senior management created additional

stress, which in turn caused some leaders to believe unethical behavior was their right to

compensate themselves for such disappointments. In some instances, stress leads to

thoughts of “if the company abandons me it is all right to abandon the company” (Selart

& Johansen, 2010, p. 136). According to Selart and Johansen, perceived stressful

situations measured positive on leaders’ and managers’ behavior toward unethical

decisions. Frustration over poor teamwork related to stressful workload was also

measured positively toward leaders’ and managers’ behavior of an unethical nature. The

common denominator in the perception of stress and perception of acceptable ethical or

unethical behavior was highly correlated to positive feedback, communication from

senior management, the upper echelon, and the capacity for self-regulation due to a

depleted capacity to cope. Of utmost importance is knowledge about the effects of stress

and the role a leader plays when stress affects normal leaders as well as toxic leaders.

Human resources personnel would also be called upon to assist with resolving employee

dissatisfaction within the stresses of an organization. Stress from a manager can cause

forms of toxicity in the department, which may lead to employee turnover. Senior

management will need to know when stress hits a leader and derailment occurs.

The Human Resource Manager’s Role

Human resource personnel are expected to step in and find a solution to the

troubles created from employing a toxic leader, although the power to control the toxic

leader is a responsibility held by senior management. If toxicity already exists within an

organization, human resource personnel must be able to recognize it, test for its presence,

or be prepared to handle the wave of negative change that will overcome the department

if toxicity is not addressed. Without this knowledge an organization may not be able to

rebound from the negative consequences of employee turnover, endless distractions from

unproductive work, absenteeism, and health issues a toxic leader can produce among

followers. Part of the responsibility of human resource personnel is to recognize when

toxicity affects team members and subordinates within an organization.

However, there is a gap in current literature on this subject. The disparity is the

absence of understanding how organizations manage toxicity. This is demonstrated

through the lived experience of human resource managers by this phenomenological

study regarding how they handle the consequences of toxic leadership. This gap is created

in part due to confidentiality clause agreements organizations require human resource

personnel to sign, and in part due to studies focused more on followers and the follower

reactions of working under a toxic leader. There are many stories of industries, people,

corporate communities, and social stigmas that almost lead to emotional bankruptcy in

organizations or cause irreparable damage to the essence of a company. Nonetheless,

there are some stories told by human resource personnel on the effects of the toxic leader

in organizations. Discussions abound regarding a definition of and viewpoints about toxic

leaders from followers, managers, consultants, and sociologists. Human resource

personnel, though, have not expressed their opinion regarding the concerns they have of

working through conflict created by the toxic leader. Human resource managers also have

not expressed specifics regarding mediating the conflict, or reasonable resolution for

working with the toxic leader.

Human Resource Personnel: Support to Management

If followers are tuned into the realization that a leader must have subordinates to

direct, are provided the company and team rules, plus understand the boundaries of the

leader-follower relationship, they too will react from consequence of a negative leader. A

leader can only direct if the subordinates will follow. Employees experiencing this

negativity may decide to leave a company, rebel against a leader, or become a

whistleblower while informing the human resource department of the unethical behaviors

of a toxic leader (Hogan, 2007). Employee motivation, as well as leader motivation, will

work together to create a positive atmosphere of joint responsibility for completing tasks

and successfully contributing to an organization for recognition in a joint effort to support

the team. Human resource members perform the function of interacting between

subordinate and senior management.

Challenges for the Human Resource Manager

Some of the challenges for the human resources personnel include quantifying

behavioral boundaries and tracking employee performance. Organizations nowadays must

open their visions for hiring dedicated employees who support the organizational goals.

Seeck and Parzefall completed a survey to confirm this truth. The conclusion of this

survey supported their statement that “Rather than providing job security, certain benefits

and salary, interesting work that allows employees to develop themselves and put their

creativity to use is in the core of the appeal of workplaces” (Seeck & Parzefall, 2008, p.

485). Seeck and Parzefall (2008) further claimed that human resource personnel will then

need to provide documentation of an atmosphere conducive to opportunity and growth.

Through understanding the issues that arise regarding toxic leadership from the viewpoint

of the human resource personnel knowledge is gained regarding how to limit toxic

behavior hold toxic leaders accountable for their actions.

Mehta and Maheshwari (2013) completed a study to confirm the effects of toxic

leadership on employee job satisfaction, and how it affects commitment to the job

performance. Their findings confirmed that employee commitment is lessened due to

their belief in the degree of abusive or bullying treatment, and existence of toxic

leadership. Mehta and Maheshwari supported that followers may sabotage organizations

where they believe toxic leaders are encouraged. Employee support and satisfaction is

directly related to treatment.

Examples of Case Studies Reveal Some Difficulties Human Resource Personnel

Manage

The case studies below demonstrate specific situations relevant to the subject

matter of bullying, negative leadership, and toxic behavior. The purpose of inclusion for

these case studies is to demonstrate that human resource personnel have difficulty trying

to resolve conflict with toxic leaders. Sometimes human resource managers must progress

through processes to the extreme of hiring an outside agent to act in behalf of the

organization in order to satisfy legal, ethical, emotional, and modes of moral conduct. The

set of circumstances surrounding the facts will demonstrate how toxic behavior by leaders

negatively affects followers. Cangemi and Pfohl (2009) shared several situations that

developed the definition of the toxic leader and personality behaviors the leader may

demonstrate. The circumstances and case studies reveal the damage related to the

behaviors of toxic leaders. The interaction required by human resource personnel in

resolving conflict arising between the toxic leader and the follower in communicating this

to senior management is also demonstrated in case studies. Included within this study are

three case studies to serve as examples of this demonstration. Bond et al. (2010) provided

some evidence regarding a degree of knowledge human resource managers have on the

evidence of toxic leadership, but do not supply the viewpoint of the human resource

manager during the process of resolving negative management concerns. As this study

examined the viewpoint of human resource personnel, it may provide the evidence to

reduce the gap in knowledge regarding the experiences of the human resource personnel.

Senior managers are often not willing to spend funds toward costs to support the

subordinate when they consider it unnecessary to request outside assistance in handling

toxic personalities. “Harassment training is good for your business in two ways. It’s not

only the law, but harassment in the workplace can damage your employee’s morale and

your company’s productivity” (CalChamber, n.d., para. 1). The example provided by

Goldman (2006) demonstrated limitations on the ability of human resource manager to

assist in all disputes when toxic leaders are involved.

High Toxicity Leadership: A Case Study

Case Study 1. Goldman (2006) discussed the interrelationships between

dysfunctional organizations, their leaders, and the effect toxicity has on the organizational

systems. This case study involved a leader named Favio in the design industry. Favio was

seen to have a borderline personality disorder. Goldman first discussed the background of

the strong personality Favio displayed as an artist and very powerful designer. Switching

personalities, displaying inconsistencies, and two lawsuits filed against the corporation by

employees created a situation where human resource managers looked to outside

consultants for assistance. The corporation recognized the talents Favio had in the design

world, and Favio had made a substantial initial income of $55 million for the corporation.

Although senior management recognized his dysfunction as a leader, they acknowledged

his talent as a designer. Favio was the head of 212 employees within a corporation that

had 711 employees. Although Favio was given every opportunity to make amends for his

behavior as a leader, he was unable to do so.

Providing evidence that the leader is toxic without attacking their personality is

essential to disciplining or terminating the toxic leader. In the case study of Goldman and

Favio, the human resource personnel had to convince senior management to find another

route for handling conflict from this bad leader. Not only did the human resource

manager document all activity Favio performed, both good and bad, but the case study

reveals that Goldman was hired to assist with resolving the conflict from this leader. The

case study also reveals that the human resource managers may warn senior management

about this concern before them hiring the toxic leader, but senior management sometimes

decides to hire the toxic leader anyway.

Unveiling Toxic Behavior in Dysfunctional Organizations

Goldman (2008a) reflected on two case management studies involving a human

resource manager who was new to the company who discovered toxic behavior in the

leader of one department and proceeds to diagnosis and resolve the conflict.

“Organizations have recognized that toxins have the effect of a poison and contaminate

individuals, team, and entire systems, and may spread insidiously and undetected”

(Goldman, 2008a, p. 226). Goldman further related toxic behavior and the poison it can

distribute to a cancer attacking the “human immune system, ranging from low-level

viruses to the highly toxic melanoma cancer” (p. 226). Goldman changed the company

name and company dynamics to protect the organizations, but claimed the case was a real

scenario and he assisted in discovering toxic supervisors, organizational systems, and

management styles that encourage conflict resolution when addressing toxic leaders.

Case Study 2. During an exit interview for a transferring employee, the human

resource manager was able to determine the existence of a toxic situation created within

the research and development department through the volatile behavior of the department

supervisor (Goldman, 2008a). The human resource manager used this opportunity, along

with the plunging profits, to convince senior management to allow the company to hire

Goldman as an outside consultant who would interview the department team members

and ascertain the toxic situation. “Clearly there was a lot of psychobabble in the form of

dangerously unqualified DSM-styled diagnoses being spewed about in the form of

character assassinations” (Goldman, 2008a, p. 229). The two head engineers of Research

and Development had been highly competitive and had on more than one occasion

expressed hurtful and emotionally damaging behavior toward each other. The negative

behavior had smoldered for 6 years and was a root dysfunction within the company.

During the performance of toxic detection and treatment of the cause, the organizational

climate changed. The senior management team had to develop into a healthier

organization and management style with new knowledge for identifying toxicity. They

also had to create a plan for healing the toxic environment in order to create better teams.

This is another demonstration of senior management hiring a toxic leader without full

knowledge of the negative consequences of toxic leadership.

Case Study 3. The third case study was at a heart institute where one cardiologist

was allowed to act inappropriately in the surgical room (Goldman, 2008a). According to

Goldman (2008a), the doctor was highly talented, knowledgeable, and preferred within

his field, but his work ethic and behavior toward the surgical team was intolerable. The

lead doctor displayed an “inappropriate temper and elitist behavior” during surgical

procedures, leaving all personnel involved in the surgery feeling uneasy, nervous, fearful,

and under emotional turmoil. Goldman (2008a) was hired to determine the cause of the

turmoil and offer an assessment and intervention. “The Human Resource Director served

as a toxin detector and handler for Eisenhower (the surgeon) but when crisis struck in

cardiology, she chose to pass the baton along to the Durk and Borgus training team

(outside consultants)” (Goldman, 2008a, p. 234). Through the Employer’s Resource

Behavioral Assistance Program at the hospital, the doctor was diagnosed with anger

issues arising from “temporarily suffering from a changing organization in a state of flux

and upheaval” (Goldman, 2008a, p. 234). The ending commentary indicated that this

situation was not recognized as serious until the human resource manager presented an

issue of toxicity and recommended assistance or training takes place.

Goldman (2008a) noted organizational leaders often bury the issue because they

do not want to address it. Toxic situations do not fix themselves, but require supportive

top management, proactive decision-making, and strategic planning. The

recommendation was that detection, assistance, and intervention should come from an

internal source of support, if possible. When toxicity continues without timely detection,

organizational dysfunction continues, and the chances of malpractice increase. Goldman

clearly noted that human resources and upper echelon leaders should address toxicity

immediately. As a practicing consultant for companies willing to recognize toxic issues,

Goldman (2008a) wrote about these firsthand experiences. The knowledge gained by the

organization supports that there is value added to the company and employees by

working through conflict situations and bonding that is created by understanding the need

to address the consequences of toxic leadership.

Summary

The definition used by Schmidt (2008) for toxic leadership, which includes

narcissism, abusive supervision, authoritarian behavior, unpredictability, and

selfpromotion is supported through the review of literature. The literature reviewed in

Chapter 2 includes a discussion on the negative effect a toxic leader can have on an

individual, a department, and an organization. Some organizations are purposeful in

hiring a specific skill set, believing the leader will produce positive results by performing

as the taskmaster to shape a team or department. It is not until after chaos arises or havoc

is created that senior management may reconsider decisions made toward hiring the toxic

leader. Human resources personnel must then cope with the stress of the employees and

any legal issues that may occur.

The community connectedness that occurs when a supportive nontoxic leader

bonds with followers is more productive and beneficial for a company. In contrast, there

is a great deal of discussion regarding toxic leadership, identifying toxic leaders,

follower’s attitude toward toxic leaders, and follower’s identifying toxicity. Measuring

the level of toxicity against the level of connected leadership can produce knowledge,

which gives senior team leaders information for organizational decision-making. Better

decision-making benefits the staff members, followers, and leaders while complementing

the organization.

Senior management and the human resource personnel must then become a team

formed to retain employees and resolve workplace conflict. Only by cultivating a way to

identify the damage done by toxicity can a path to recovery for the team member, the

department, or the organization clearly be seen (Cavaiola & Lavender, 2000). If staff

members, leaders, and human resource personnel are prepared, trained, and

knowledgeable prior to pandemonium or anarchy, organizational leaders will have more

opportunity to resolve the conflict and manage the negative results from a toxic leader.

Working through toxicity, resolving issues of conflict, and gaining knowledge

about the toxic leader will create hope for all organizational members, thus create more

productive workplace atmospheres. An analysis of toxic leadership can take place within

any viable human resources department whose leadership can convince senior

management of the value of knowledge and the purpose of research. Toxicity within a

company can destroy hours of hard work, devastate communities of teams, and have a

severe adverse effect on the foundation of any company. Discovering a mediating

mechanism to avoid this loss is an essential part of the human resources team. Providing

the information to senior management for informed decision-making regarding handling

toxicity is also an essential part of the responsibility of human resource personnel. Human

resource managers must be given the support to complete the analysis, the respect from

senior management to accept the measurements, and the confidence from organizational

leaders to handle the job of keeping a toxic leader accountable for displayed behaviors.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this study was to understand the phenomenon of toxic leadership

from the perspective of human resource personnel. This investigation was completed

through interviews to understand how the human resource department dealt with toxicity,

the toxic leader, and resolving the conflict created by this leadership style. This varied set

of behaviors and personal qualities exhibited by toxic leaders creates the background

against which we can view the larger forces that make us suffer them…At other times,

however, the leader’s toxic behavior is far more circumscribed. (Lipman-Blumen, 2005,

p. 22)

Toxicity can be an environment within a workplace, whereas the toxic leader is a

specific individual acting in the leadership role, having a negative effect on a team or

organization. Chapter 3 includes an overview of the research design and describes the

method used to understand the phenomenon.

Research Design and Rationale

I reviewed and compared current literature and determined that the concept of

toxic leadership in practice cannot sufficiently be captured using the approach of a

quantitative study. There were no quantitative studies available to describe the human

resource manager’s viewpoint and insufficient qualitative literature available on this

subject. This provided some evidence that a quantitative analysis would not be sufficient

to capture the viewpoint of any human resource personnel. Goldman (2008) and Pellitier

(2010) both posited there is a need for additional research in the area of clarity on toxic

leaders. Goldman (2008) equated the need for a study to that of a scientific experiment.

The essence of capturing personal experience with those human resource managers who

have mediated toxic situations may not be captured through the quantitative data. There

are limitations to locating participants through a questionnaire who have experienced

toxic leaders specifically, limitations to collecting data from those human resource

personnel, or in understanding what specific questions to ask. When formulating a

questionnaire for the human resource manager, the experience should be formulated to

draw out the experience to create the questions. To explore the experiences that a human

resource manager has had with the toxic leader, a qualitative analysis is favored. I was

interested in locating those human resource managers who have direct experience of this

nature. Therefore, I used a qualitative approach to understand this phenomenon of toxic

leadership from the perspective of the human resource personnel. Because all

knowledge and experience are connected to phenomena, things in consciousness that

appear in the surrounding world, inevitably a unity must exist between ourselves as

knowers and the things or objects that we come to know and depend upon (Moustakas,

1994, p. 249).

There are various qualitative designs, but the one that seemed most appropriate to

this investigation involves an inquiry among practitioners to determine their lived

experience of the toxic leader in the workplace, which is a phenomenological study. Case

study would not allow the exploration required to identify lived experiences of the human

resource manager. Human resource personnel sign confidentiality agreements with their

employers; therefore, in this situation keeping confidentiality was more controlled with

the phenomenological study. Grounded theory would not be appropriate as insufficient

literature or information was available to produce a theory regarding lived experiences or

processes used by human resource personnel, and I was not trying to develop a theory. A

grounded theory may be adaptable as a future study, but would not be appropriate at this

junction. A qualitative design such as ethnography would not be appropriate as

ethnographic studies require observation over a lengthy timeframe and investigations of

everyday behaviors would be required. Ethnographers will try to understand the culture

of a group through historical observation (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamout, Lofland, &

Lofland, 2001). It was not feasible for this study to record and observe the toxic situation

each organization experienced as defined within this dissertation. Toxic leaders, as well as

human resource managers, would not volunteer to be observed over several months.

Thus, phenomenology was the best design for this study. “A phenomenological study is

rooted in questions that give a direction and focus to meaning, and in themes that

sustained an inquiry, awakening further interest and concern, and accounted for

passionate involvement with whatever is being experienced” (Moustakos, 1994, p. 59).

By interviewing human resource managers regarding toxicity and their experience with

the toxic leader, I was able to understand the nature of their lived experience and the

perceived effect of toxicity on the interpersonal environment in organizations.

Furthermore, I collected data regarding how human resource personnel managed

the negative results of the toxic leader. An interview process was the best method for

collecting this data and ensured the opportunity to confirm the participants had in fact

experienced the conflict of a toxic leader. It also allowed dialog on recommendations for

processes and explaining processes currently used. A qualitative study provided support

to develop a perspective of the experiences human resource managers had regarding

discipline actions that should hold toxic leaders accountable for their actions. The data

were coded for shared experiences to capture the major elements of their experience. This

study may further the understanding of the impression toxic leaders leave on a teams and

organizations.

Originally, the goal was to interview 20 human resources personnel, though 10 is

a typical quantity for a phenomenological study (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004). Volunteers

represented various industries and answered a series of questions specific to experiencing

toxic leadership. The questions aimed at understanding the perspective of human resource

personnel and the concerns they have in resolving the conflict arising from working with

a toxic leader. The toxic leader has been identified in the literature (Cavaiola, &

Lavender, 2000). However, there was insufficient literature available to show how human

resource personnel identified, detected, and dealt with resolving conflicts due to the

behaviors of toxic leaders within the workplace. I explored the experiences of human

resource personnel to gain an understanding of toxic leadership and its perceived effect

on interpersonal conflict between the toxic leader and the subordinates.

Rationale for Qualitative Research

Both quantitative and qualitative designs could be used in a study of toxic

leadership. However, a qualitative design was most appropriate for this study because I

was interested in understanding the lived experience of the human resource managers

who dealt with toxic leaders in their organizations. “Quantitative research is a formal,

objective, systematic process, in which numerical data are utilized to obtain information

about the world” (Simon, 2011, p. 83). Quantitative research reflects “narrowness,

conciseness, and objectivity, and leads to rigid adherence to research designs and precise

statistical analysis” (Simon, 2011, p. 84). Where a phenomenon is still vague, as is the

handling of deliberately using toxic leaders and the consequences of doing so, a

qualitative approach is more appropriate.

An understanding of personal and subjective experience was created as a result of

perspectives captured through the interviews with the human resource managers. During

the research review, I was unable to find either a quantitative or qualitative research

design regarding how to manage the toxic leader once chaos erupts within the

organization from the perspective of human resource personnel. This study may inform

and substantiate knowledge regarding how human resource personnel handle working

with the toxic leader and what happens when management hires this personality type.

Role of the Researcher

I performed the role of interviewing with as much of an unbiased position as

possible. Although there was a specific set of questions to start the interview process, I

treated these questions only as a starting point—see Appendix C. The definition of toxic

leadership created by Schmidt (2008) was shared, and I explained that this was an

exploratory study to collect data on the perspective of human resource personnel on

behaviors of toxic leaders and issues they knew of that arose with this type of leader. It

was imperative the interviewees were aware that the conversations were to be recorded

and letters of consent were in place. All participants were aware that notes would be taken

on their responses and they knew I would be the one taking these notes. I have no

professional attachment with the PIHRA organization, as my current position in the

workforce is in commercial real estate.

Once the individual was ready to be recorded, the interview process began. Each

question noted in Appendix C was presented and time allowed for the participant to have

a turn at responding. My participation included acting as a moderator to assure the

conversation stayed on track and the conversation was specific to the treatment of toxic

leaders as defined in this research. As a moderator, it is important to keep the focus

directly on the subject matter and provide courteous yet timely opportunity for each

participant to answer each question accordingly. A time of 20 minutes per person for the

entire interview was expected to suffice, with a 10-minute debriefing at the end.

Researcher Bias

Through completion of a Master of Arts in Dispute Resolution and through life

experience, it became evident to me that more discoveries are needed in the area of toxic

leadership. Several studies were available regarding various forms and aspects of

leadership, but limited knowledge was available on toxic leadership. This motivated me

to understand the behaviors and the on-the-job reality of toxic leadership in organizations

and how toxicity is managed. However, before steps toward conflict resolution can be

applied in this arena, a full understanding of the actions, personality, behaviors, and

consequences of working with the toxic leader must be clear. This research is yet another

step toward understanding the current organizational consequences of the toxic leader and

may assist in developing a deeper understanding of what is required for conflict

resolution to be applied when working with a toxic leader.

Methodology

In this dissertation, the phenomenon discussed is related to how human resource

managers describe their experience with identifying and working with a toxic leader.

During the discussions, I anticipated conversation to arise regarding other related

subjects, such as how the toxic leader influences their subordinates, and how the toxic

leader’s behavior affects the organization. The basis for the research is to understand how

the consequences of conflict by a toxic leader within an organization are handled through

the human resource department. An attempt was be made to understand if/why some

executives deliberately delay dealing with toxic leaders.

Using a Phenomenological Study

A phenomenological study uses interviews or key focus groups to explore the

nature of the lived experiences of people in a particular situational concern. The human

resource managers in this association would be provided an opportunity to openly and

safely discuss what is experienced, felt, believed, and thought about working with the

toxic leader. Expanding knowledge in the area of toxic leadership will occur from the key

discussions, the analysis, and extensive examination of the responses.

The Gap in Knowledge

The gap in knowledge within this area was: (a) what the human resource

personnel experience about working with the toxic leader, (b) how they develop beliefs

about and define toxic behaviors, and (c) how they use their experience when advising

senior management when a conflict arises. There is insufficient literature available to

show how human resource managers resolve conflicts arising from toxicity or a toxic

leader.

How This May Close the Gap

This research provided an opportunity to share and expand valuable new

information on the perspective of the human resource personnel. The data gathered

provides the human resource perspective and perceptions regarding the toxic leader and

what processes are available to build accountability for the toxic leader. Human resource

personnel signed consent forms to assure that all discussions were held in confidence so

they should not and cannot discuss specific employee situations. However, they can

discuss situations from their experience without indicating the identities of individuals.

These interviews allowed them a safe place to express their thoughts regarding their

recommendations for working with toxic leaders.

Participants

Interviews with 10 human resource managers who have experienced the problem

of toxic leadership would be the correct quantity of interviews to be collected. In the

original proposal, I intended to interview 20 human resource professionals from a

Southern California professional human resource association. However, I was only able

to secure 13 interviews after months of trying with the assistance of the association’s

executive director. Over a 3-month period of attempting to collect additional participants,

I found that the human resource individuals were nervous and hesitant to discuss this

subject. The consensus of those I spoke with stated the subject is very sensitive and they

were concerned about violating organizational confidentiality. Therefore, the final

interviews were reduced to nine participants, because four of the participants opted out of

the interviews after approximately 20-minutes. Creswell (2007) and Heidegger (1988)

discussed the phenomenological approach to qualitative study and provide directive on

the importance of saturation. The number of interviews decided upon is for the purpose of

collecting a data saturation level. Ten interviews with human resource managers of varied

work experience, a diverse organizational style, and specific experience with the toxic

leader is sufficient to reveal a broad range of strategies for dealing with toxic leaders. The

stories may be different, although the behaviors, conflicts, and results, are similar enough

to ascertain sufficient conceptual representation through the sample of this quantity. The

sample size led to a point when additional data will not add to the thematic understanding

of the phenomenon. Additionally, Saldona’s (2012) definition of saturation includes a

view of the culture involved in the phenomenon. Thirteen human resource managers is

representative of this culture involved in the activities of the toxic leader. If more than 13

individuals volunteered to participate, they would provide further support for this study.

Pilot Study

The supporting evidence for 13 participants was derived from a pilot study that

was performed. A general discussion with through human resource managers before

beginning the data collection for this dissertation study was completed in order to test the

research questions in Appendix C. The test consisted of interviewing the three human

resource personnel in order to determine if the questions in Appendix C were clear and

understandable. The participants in the pilot study were asked about their lived

experiences in working with a toxic leader, how they managed the process, and what

occurred to manage the aftermath of any conflict or chaos created by the toxic leader. The

goal of the pilot study was to determine if the interview questions were sufficient, and if

the discussions led to similar comments, conclusions, and methods of resolution used by

these three individuals. The discussions were performed by the use of face-to-face

interviews with human resource managers who have had prior experiences with toxic

leaders, and developed processes for organizations to manage the toxic leader. A face-

toface conversation did support the use of questions as presented in the Appendix C. The

pilot study consisted of three volunteer individuals who have had prior experience

managing a toxic leader, were employed as a human resource manager during the toxic

event, and had a minimum of 5 years of experience in human resource. The study took

place after IRB approval of the proposal. All participants in the pilot study signed the

consent form, but they were not recorded.

Participant Collection

Professional Institute of Human Resource Association currently has a membership

of 3,500 people representing 2,500 organizations (pihra.org, 2012) and is known to be the

largest affiliate chapter in the Society for the Human Resource

Management, with 180 continuing education programs available at all times. Southern

California has 13 individual areas of representation (pihra.org, 2012). A convenience

sample of 13 managers from a PIHRA chapter who have experienced the hiring,

consequences of, and response to a toxic leader would assure a broad perspective of the

human resource manager’s experience. Appendix A represents the initial e-mail interest

sent to confirm PIHRA is willing to allow participation. Appendix A-1 is a copy of the

letter of cooperation sent to the representative for PIHRA, which was signed and sent

directly to the Walden IRB.

The participants in this study were volunteers drawn from the Los Angeles

membership basin of PIHRA. District 8 consists of 236 members within a County

division of the Los Angeles basin. The population size for this study were 75 human

resource individuals who attending the monthly meeting where a presentation was given,

and the 236 members who received the e-mail message. A primary sample of 13

responded as being willing to participate in the study. The sampling technique was

practiced by giving a short presentation during a monthly meeting in order to gain

volunteer interest, and the use of the e-mail message as illustrated in Appendix B. The

criteria for accepting volunteers was that they must have had at least 5 years of

experience in the business sector in a department of human resources and were currently

employed in this capacity. Most importantly, they had to confirm having had direct

experience managing situations involving toxic leaders.

The 13 original volunteers were asked to express their thoughts and feelings

regarding the effect of the experience on themselves, and their organization. These

participants shared on a volunteer basis any experience, thoughts, concerns, or

recommendations for managing the toxic leader and managing a toxic environment in the

workplace. There were nine final independent, individual interviews of human resource

managers, as explained in the results, rather than the 13 anticipated. Four of the primary

study participants opted out of the interviews during the first 20-minutes by stating they

felt uneasy sharing confidential company information. The interviews were scheduled

within 10 days following the presentation and e-mail blast, or advertisement for

volunteers, regarding discussions on their general experiences related to toxic leaders. All

participants were interviewed at an office close to the PIHRA location in California

within 2 weeks.

Interviewing Human Resource Personnel

Often human resources are required to find a fix, a resolution, to the problems and

deliver a recommendation for those issues that arise within a company. “Strategic

importance and orientation of human resource management has a multi-factor influence

on improving the competitive advantage and position of the company” (Milica, 2012, p.

83). However, human resource managers may not be given the support or foundation by

top management to resolve the issues resulting from toxic leaders, or be trained in

mediation.

The shared information also establishes some of the difficulties human resource

managers experience in dealing with this leadership style. “In all forms of qualitative

research, some and occasionally all of the data are collected through interviews with

individuals. The most common form used in phenomenological research is the person-

toperson encounter in which one person elicits information from another” (Merriam,

2001,

p. 71). The results of the phenomenological study are presented from the perspective of

the human resource personnel to inform organizations and the executive board members

regarding circumstances resulting from employing toxic leaders. A presentation to the

PIHRA organization at their monthly meeting was arranged once the dissertation is

completed and approval received from IRB. This presentation provided the necessary

feedback to those who participated, without the use of any names, and gave back valuable

information on managing the toxic leader.

Participant Selection Logic

The logic in interviewing the members of this association is self-explanatory. The

literature research shows there is insufficient information from the perspective of the

human resource personnel on the subject of the toxic leader. The best way to obtain this

knowledge is to ask human resource personnel about their lived experience. The most

efficient way to select a group of individuals was by using an existing human resource

association because the duties of the human resource manager are discussed within the

alliance of the members. It would be too daunting of a task to go to independent

companies and ask if their human resource manager would be allowed to attend and

interview. Additionally, it is less than probably that an organization would be comfortable

with having the interview on site regarding this subject at their company. Therefore,

finding an association specifically for the human resource personnel who would allow a

volunteer study is a more logical choice for obtaining volunteers.

Procedures for Recruitment

Recruiting volunteers for the data collection was handled through PIHRA. I spoke

to the regional representative to confirm interviews may occur with volunteers who may

be interested in the subject of toxic leadership. The intent was to collect 10 to 20

volunteers in the field of human resource management that have had direct contact with

the experience of working with a toxic leader. The overview would entail a

presentation—not more than 10 minutes—showing the group the subject of the study, an

advertisement – shown as Appendix B, and/or an e-mail message from the PIHRA Career

Center designed to collect volunteers. The advertisement informed volunteers to contact

me directly via cell phone, or at my Waldenu.edu e-mail address. Once participants

volunteered for the interview it was important to have the scheduled dates set to quickly

capture their attention and obtain commitment from them. During the presentation of the

project, the discussion included explaining the consent form, assuring the confidentiality

of the volunteer’s experience, the purpose of understanding the human resource

perspective on toxic leaders, and the process of the interviews.

Instrumentation

Materials used for data collection included the questions in Appendix C, and an

observation sheet, which was a yellow lined note pad used to jot down notes and actions

of verbal and nonverbal language. The questions in Appendix C were derived from the

research questions, and were developed to create verbal interaction regarding the lived

experiences of the participants. The interview protocol was to first discuss the consent

form and the purpose of the study. All participants were given the consent form and were

required to sign it in order to proceed with the interview—see Appendix D. Participants

were also informed that the meetings was recorded using an audio tape recording method.

No other instrumentation should be necessary to complete the initial interviews.

Data Collection

The interviews determined the basis for understanding the phenomenon and

experiences of working with a toxic leader. The interviews were scheduled for 40-minute

sessions one at a time. All volunteers were told they may terminate the meeting if they

feel uncomfortable at any time. Volunteers were assured that the names of individuals and

companies would be left out of all records. Time of day and confirmation of a 40minute

window was clarified at the start of each interview. Each participant was scheduled for

different time slot of interviews during a 2-hour timeframe, within a 2week period. The

data were used to create a descriptive understanding of what human resource personnel

experience when working with the toxic leader (Moustakas, 1994). This data illustrates

the various steps human resource managers take when a conflict arises. A future

quantitative study may be a follow up to this qualitative study. Currently no information

is available for quantitative analysis, and the interviews may assist in creating relevant

questions. The completed study includes how situational conditions influence the

experience (Moustakas, 1994). Data were collected using interview questions listed on

Appendix C and a recording device. The data were then transferred to transcripts for

easier analysis using Dedoose. This data will be stored for 5 years in a secure locked box

stored in a secured offsite storage unit. All materials will be destroyed after the 5 years by

delivering the materials to a shredding location for proper disposal.

Data Analysis

The initial coding categorized the information into identifiable ideas and thoughts

shared by the human resource personnel. Similar concepts were collected into themes.

Initial codes were then aggregated by matching similar ideas to create themes thus

presenting a pattern of beliefs, concepts and steps each human resource manager

expresses or experiences. This process was repeated at least once and another aggregation

occurred to connect any similar patterns to those concepts already analyzed and labeled.

The steps consist of:

1. Complete the interview.

2. Read and transfer the data into a transcript.

3. Complete open coding to prepare labels that fit the interview

responses.

This is known as horizonalization or preliminary grouping.

4. Complete a constant comparison of the coding to narrow the data into

code categories until the data fits the defined set. This is called reduction or

elimination.

5. Complete a theoretical re-sampling, as needed, to confirm there is

sufficient understanding of the experience. Anything that does not express the

experience would be eliminated.

6. Write the memorandum on each data set. Cluster and theorize each

data set for related constants or Invariant Constituents. The related clusters

would define the core theme of the experience.

7. Focus the coding to fit the data codes that seem to reappear.

8. Examine the data for common phenomenon and experiences until

there is saturation. Confirm the themes against the completed record of the

participant to confirm there is compatibility. This would be considered the

Textural Description for each participant. Verbatim examples would be

included as verification and confirmation.

9. Prepare an understanding on the common thread of the phenomenon,

thus developing a composite description of the meanings and essences of the

experience, which would represent the entire group of participants. 10.

Repeat the process, as needed until a complete understanding is obtained

from the experience to confirm the data is dependable.

Exit Study and Debriefing

The interviews were kept to 40-minutes per participants. This is sufficient time to

have a thorough conversation, and to keep the attention of the participants. It was also

sufficient time to provide a respect for their personal schedules, and keep the dialogue

specific to the subject of toxic leadership. At the beginning of the interview sessions the

timeframe for the interviews was made clear. Toward the end of the interviews,

approximately 10 minutes before the end of the 30-minute window, I reminded the

interviewee that there was approximately 10 minutes left of our time and began to debrief

the individual. This was completed in a bullet point fashion, by restating a few of the

ideas introduced. I then thanked all participants for their time and the fact they

volunteered, than ask for any last thoughts on the subject they would like to share.

Anyone having last minute thoughts was given 2 to 3 minutes to share as healthy closure

to the discussion. Upon completion and acceptance of the dissertation, PIHRA has agreed

to allow me to return to a monthly meeting and share a Power Point presentation of the

results. This will open a door for future conversations on this subject and share valuable

information to the human resource association.

Issues of Trustworthiness and Ethical Procedures

PIHRA is an organization specifically created for the purpose of coordinating and

updating human resource tools within the community of human resource managers. The

organization assists in the coordination of news and information, which is specific to the

needs of human resources personnel (pihra.org, 2012). Newman, a division manager of

PIHRA, at The Career Center, agreed to cooperate in coordinating the interview process

for this study, see Appendix A. PIHRA provides what they call an online Job Career

Opportunity for human resource personnel to volunteer to participate this study. The

participants had an opportunity to be interviewed regarding their personal experiences

with the toxic leader. There were nine people interviewed, and all participants signed a

consent form. The information provided by the participant was held in strict confidence

and the content protected. The participant was presented with questions regarding their

thoughts, beliefs, experiences, and viewpoints of working with toxic leaders. IRB

approval was obtained prior to further communications with PIHRA.

Completing the research through the PIHRA location lessened several ethical

concerns and provided the volunteers a sense of community since they were familiar with

their surroundings. “Most ethical issues could be categorized by one of the following: (a)

protection from harm, (b) informed consent, (c) rights to privacy and (d) honesty with

professional colleagues” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001, p. 107). There was no need for

incentives for the participants in order to complete these interviews. An incentive

includes items such as a dinner gift card, or a percentage discount on their PIHRA

membership, although none were distributed.

The data were collected close to the PIHRA office in order to assure a safe and

comfortable place where the human resource volunteers felt relaxed about sharing their

thoughts. Separate interviews within separate 2-hour timeframes were performed. All

participants who sign a consent form were assured the information would not be shared

openly outside of these meetings, and that no company names or personnel will be

mentioned. Appendix D, the Consent Form, was provided to each participant during an

introduction and informational session at the start of the interview. Each participant had

the opportunity to sign the form, or decline to be interviewed, if they were uncomfortable

or did not fit the necessary criteria for experience with the toxic leader.

A participant number was used in place of a participant’s name. The interview and

recording took approximately 40 minutes, and I kept the interview to that time limit.

During mediation training for my Masters in Dispute Resolution I learned the attention

span of humans is best if interviews fit within this time frame. This is a sufficient time

span to capture the thoughts and ideas of the participants. Additional interviews were set

at a separate time for individuals who wished to extend the discussion, or essential

questions in Appendix C are not completed. An open opportunity at that time was allowed

as needed for deeper and more intent conversation that arose.

Credibility and Confirmability

In order to confirm the credibility of information provided by the human resource

personnel the analysis of the collected data included matching between the responses of

the participants. Member checking was completed by building a rapport with the

participant to obtain open responses, and then restating and confirming what they shared

by summarizing what they said. A return response of confirmation from the participant

assured accuracy and completeness. This data were then used for coding. Once the data

were coded into preliminary grouping, the data were compared to participant responses

for similarity and confirmability. The realities represented by the similarity supported the

credibility of the particular perspective or position provided by the participant. “Member

checking is the process of verifying information with the targeted group” (Simon, 2011,

p. 98). This exercise was repeated until reliable and justifiable confidence in the data was

confirmed by the repeated concept of the individual perspective. A description of how the

results are accepted or restricted is elaborated on within the analysis of Chapter 4 and 5.

Transferability

Organizations that decide to analyze their own structure or level of toxic

leadership may be able to use the processes shared by this research. The logic for

transferring this procedure to another PIHRA chapter may possible as the same process

can be duplicated, yet the participants would be different. The procedure for collecting

the data is foundational and may be extended. The participants who volunteer for this

study were random, with the control theme being prior experience with the toxic leader.

The literature review provides sufficient support for the issue of toxic leadership as

applied to any culture, and any industry (Lipman-Blueman, 2004; Tepper, 2007). Toxic

leadership is found as an organizationally wide predicament, and does not discriminate

against a particular industry, race, or creed (Appelbaum, Semerjian & Mohan, 2012). As

the instrumentation is skeletal, its use is also foundational and may be easily constructed

and repeated within expanded arenas. Additional research and future studies may

continue to elaborate on this test process to discover even more methods for managing the

toxic leader.

Dependability

A point of sufficiency can be found within the quantity of the nine individual

perspectives that support the concepts and opinions of those who were interviewed. This

is a significant saturation point for dependability of this phenomenon. Although the study

is built upon individual experiences, the parallels of each experience were matched up to

show consistency with the methods of managing the toxic leader within those who

participated. The processes can be understood through the repeated coding, words,

definitions, and rational for methods used by the human resource managers in identifying,

managing, and handling consequences of the conflict. The data were initially coded in

accordance with repeated terms, or ideas the participants used when describing their

experiences. These terms were then coded into focused concepts and categories in order

to align the ideas. Themes were developed from the concepts, and then any theories

categorized in order to establish saturation in concepts.

Summary

This chapter included a detailed description of the qualitative design, the

phenomenological design, and data analysis procedures implemented to investigate the

human resource manager’s practices, and lived experiences that have helped human

resource personnel manage the toxic leader. Also included in the design is a description of

communications with senior management, and a process for resolving conflict that did or

may occur as a result of working with a toxic leader. Benefits of this research include

human resource departments being better able to develop systems for managing the toxic

leader.

The protocol for the design was (a) to interview a minimum of 10 human resource

personnel, (b) to code the transcripts and gather common perspectives into themes, and

manager’s recommend for early identification of the toxic leader and their handling once

identified.

Understanding the experience within social structures can best be described

through those who experience the phenomenon or those who have observed the

phenomenon. A phenomenological approach to this research should capture the

experience of the human resource manager through the interviews that occurred and the

collective data coding which led to a description of the experiences and the methods of

dealing with toxic leaders from the perspective of human resource managers. The goal of

this study was to describe the experiences of working with the toxic leader, define and

describe the effects toxic leaders can have on an organization, and show that conflict

would be resolved more effectively when followers and senior management learn how to

work with the toxic leader.

Chapter 4: Results

Chapter 4 describes the phenomenological study that was completed regarding the

human resource manager’s perspective of managing conflict, the consequence of toxic

leaders’ behavior. A phenomenological study was used in order to understand what the

individual’s experience is during the actual occurrence of the phenomenon (McCoy &

Northcutt, 2004). The data collected on the human resource manager’s perspective of

managing the interpersonal conflict crated by toxic leaders, and the process for collecting

the data on this subject, is included within the body of the chapter. An analysis of the data

and a narrative on the results of the findings are provided in order to understand each

individual’s experience. The chapter includes the steps taken in this study as well as the

thought process that paralleled each step. A discussion is included toward the end of the

chapter that develops the thoughts and describes the emotions of the human resource

manager regarding what it feels like to experience toxicity from their position of

responsibility in the organization.

The data collection centered on human resource managers who were members of

a chapter of PIHRA. The research questions guiding this study were as follows:

1. What processes and methods do human resource managers use to identify

toxic leaders (RQ1)?

2. What processes and methods do human resource managers use to manage

toxic leaders (RQ2)?

3. How do human resource managers handle the ensuing consequences (RQ3)?

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted with three human resource managers who had

experienced toxic leadership. These individuals were human resource managers I had

worked with at prior organizations. A telephone call to each person confirmed their

willingness to participate in the pilot study. I reached out to these specific individuals

because I knew they had prior experience with toxic leadership. Each individual had in

excess of 5 years of experience in the field of human resource management, and each

confirmed having had at least one personal experience of managing the conflict related to

a toxic leader. The characteristics of the pilot study mirrored the actual study. A pilot

study was performed in order to clarify the interview questions and complete any

modifications that may have been necessary. I contacted all three participants directly and

they agreed to participate. All participants signed the consent forms as required by the

Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Demographics of Pilot Study

The demographics of each participant are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographics of Pilot Participants

Part. Years as a Human

No. Gender Ethnicity Education Industry Age. Resource Manager

1 Female Caucasian BA Real Estate 53 16

2 Female Caucasian MA Banking 44 13 3 Male Caucasian MA Aeronautics 56 7

All volunteers were assured of complete confidentiality, and the interviews took

place at my office in California on three separate Saturdays. The interviews were not

recorded as this was a pilot study used to determine whether the interview questions

would extract the lived experience of the human resource manager. A short interval of

minor conversation took place in order to make them comfortable and at ease. The best

argument for using individual items on a questionnaire is the careful examination of the

tool during a pilot test (Simon, 2011). Each interview question was posed to the

respondent, and I wrote down their replies. Table 2 represents a sample of the responses

recorded from the pilot study paralleled to the research questions.

Table 2

Pilot Study Response as Related to Research Questions

Significant Statement Formulated Meaning Related RQ

In the beginning the toxic

The toxic leader is not

easily identified until events

occur after their

employment.

RQ1

leader appeared to be

knowledgeable and

pleasant, but when

employees started

complaining I knew we

had a real problem. It

wasn’t long before they

started quitting their jobs

for new positions and

companies.

Once employees started

complaining and we,

senior management and I,

had a meeting with him to

advise him the actions

were not acceptable. The

toxic leader then filed a

suit against the company

for stress, which put

everything on hold and we

had to hire an attorney.

Senior management must agree

to place the toxic

leader on notice for any actions

that go against

company policy. This is

the beginning of a process and

can deepen the conflict.

RQ2&3

Once we received

information that the toxic

leader had filed suit it

became a game of back

and forth with attorneys,

mediators, and stressful

communication.

Meanwhile the toxic

leader was still running the

show at the office. At the

end of the suit the toxic

leader was paid the

equivalent of 2 year’s

salary to disappear.

Since I work in the field of

human resource, have a

law degree, and am

trained in mediation I was

able to manage the

conflict and resolve this

dispute successfully.

The conflict created stress for

human resource and senior

management,

significant damage, and was

only resolved by removal of

the toxic leader.

With proper training it is

possible to resolve the

conflict created by the toxic

leader.

RQ2&3

Response Examples Taken From the Pilot Study

The interview questions as shown in Appendix C proved suitable to elicit

individuals sharing their lived experience with toxic leaders. An example of the responses

to the interview question are displayed as Participant 1 for RQ1 suggested that companies

do not identify toxic leaders during the hiring process; toxic leaders evolve. She made

this claim by telling about her experience of a reduction of staff in the company during

the economic crisis of 2008. According to the information she provided, the events

created financial strife for the organization and employees, as well as senior management.

The participant stated that toxicity emerged while the organization was trying to survive

the economic downturn. The phenomenon experienced by this participant, according to

her, left feelings of anxiety, confusion, fear, and a heightened sense of defense.

According to this participant, the fear was brought on by thoughts of a recurrence in

evolving toxicity, and doubt in measuring her ability to hire better leaders. The confusion

was developed by her doubt that senior management would provide clear direction for

replacing this leader because of the economic status the company was experiencing.

Participant 2 responded to RQ2 through a story wherein removal of a toxic leader

was difficult because senior management had to be convinced there was a negative effect

from this leader and the necessity of removing this leader. This participant’s explanation

of events included a new hire situation that evolved into toxicity after approximately 3

months of employment with the company. The human resource manager was then ordered

by senior management to document behaviors, actions, negative results, and negative

impact caused by the toxic leader. “The human resource manager had to prove there was

cause for concern” (Participant 2) to senior management in order to convince them that

teams and the corporation were being harmed by this toxic leader. When the toxic leader

then filed suit against the organization it became a legal battle of cause for releasing this

toxic leader. This participant shared that between documenting the activities and

behavior, and the multiple legal documents required; it took the organization over 1 year

to settle on severance pay for this toxic leader because of the wrongful termination suit

filed against the banking organization. The participant was not allowed to share the

specifics of evidence. However, Participant 2 stated that the event left her spent with

anxiety, cautious of speaking out to provide opinions on any subject matter, and doubting

her ability as a human resource professional.

When discussing RQ3, Participant 3 shared some of the process his company used

to cope with the conflict once the toxic leader was identified. In describing the process,

Participant 3 stated, “The vice president was willing to hire an outside consultant as an

internal ombudsman to interview the employees and hear the complaints made by the

employees” (Participant 3). According to Participant 3, the current human resource

process was riddled with legality and formal ineffective processes that stunted the

company’s ability to release the toxic leader. Senior management understood that an

ombudsman would allow the company to speed up the process of termination, support the

claims of abuse and unproductive promoting, while negotiating the enlarged pride of the

toxic leader.

Based on the results of the pilot study, the interview questions were determined to

be suitable for data collection. While interviewing the pilot study volunteers, my intent

was to discover any recommendations for revisions required in the interview questions.

All three individuals were asked about the relevancy of the interview questions and stated

they found the formatted questions provided in Appendix C to be relevant matter and

suggestive enough to be used for collection of process and perspective on human resource

personnel. The responses collected from the pilot volunteers directly relate to the research

questions of (a) a processes used to identify toxic leaders, (b) a processes for managing

the toxic leader, and (c) how the consequences are determined and managed. The

questionnaire enabled dialog that provided perspective on the impact of toxic leadership

in organizations from the position of a human resource personnel. This phenomenological

study was about their jobs and their personal experiences from their point of view. The

research questions are discussed in depth within the Results section of this dissertation.

Research Setting

The Los Angeles basin area of the Professional Institute of Human Resource

Association (PIHRA) includes a total of 14 districts. The 14 districts include several

groups within multiple counties. Those districts cover Los Angeles County, Ventura

County, North Orange County, South Orange County, and Riverside County (pihra.com,

2012). This is a total radius of 120 miles from the PIHRA Los Angeles office. I reached

out to each district, as approved through IRB, and requested volunteers from all 14

districts.

In order to assure complete confidentiality and comfort for each participant I was

able to obtain permission from a nearby management office to use a vacant suite at an

office building in California located two miles from PIHRA District 8. The setting of each

meeting included a private vacant office with two comfortable chairs, a small table to

place the recorder on, and drinks or snacks as appropriate. No other items or persons were

in the room. The room was quiet, professional, and provided a secure environment for

each participant.

Demographics

The demographics of each participant are shown on Table 3 below.

Table 3

Demographics of Interview Participants

Participant No.

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

Education

Industry

Years in

Job

Male

Caucasian

Banking

Female

Caucasian

Office

Supplies

Female

Caucasian

Office

Supplies

Male

Hispanic

Production

Female

Black

Government

Male

Asian

Production

Female

Caucasian

Education

Female

Caucasian

Production

Female

Caucasian

Banking

The group was a diverse representation of the human resource field. Each

participant had more than eight years of experience in the position of human resource

manager, and did acknowledge having had experience specifically with a toxic leader.

This is important because the guideline of the dissertation was that each participant must

have a minimum of five years of experience. Human resource managers are required to

have a minimum of a Bachelor of Arts degree and to be certified in human resource

training. According to the HR Certification Institute the human resource certification

entails a state recognized training in the field of human resources. All participants

confirmed they had attended the certification courses, as required. This information

substantiates that the human resource manager is a trained professional and represents the

company with ethical and reliable knowledge. The information they provide can be

trusted as true reflections of their experience.

Data Collection

A total of nine participants are included in the final data analysis. This group of

nine individuals does not include any of the pilot study participants. To understand the

pertinent information described within the data, specific information is drawn from the

interviews. Integrating the concepts created by Moustakas (1994), cluster samples were

created using the participant responses. The relevance of the sampling was directly

related to the research questions. Clusters are used as a method for joining the common

ideas to formulate themes for each code (Creswell, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). The

interview responses were then used to prepare codes. Codes are used to represent

matching ideas across all items where multiple responses were similar among the nine

participants. Both codes and clusters are presented in order to better represent the concept

of human resource personnel’s perspective on the issue of toxic leadership.

In compliance with the Research Design of Chapter 3, I reached out to the district

leader for each of the 14 districts. District 8 agreed to allow me to complete a short

10minute presentation to the County District shortly after receiving approval to proceed

from Walden University IRB. Recruiting participants was difficult as their main concern

was exposure. Below is a listing to clearly define the total number of participants:

1. There were originally 13 participants within the membership of 4,000 PIHRA

members who agreed to be interviewed.

2. A collection of four participants of the original 13 participants ended the

interview at the beginning stages and decided not to complete the interviews,

stating they felt uneasy, unnerved, uncomfortable, and experienced anxiety

over the discussion of toxic leadership within their specific organization.

3. Only nine participants completed the interviews and are included in the total

analysis.

All precautions were taken with respect to confidentiality, IRB processes, consent,

and assurance of a secure location to all who were presented with the opportunity to be

interviewed, and yet there were very few willing participants. The proposal was

submitted with the anticipation of obtaining 20 participants completing a face-to-face

interview on the process of managing toxic leaders. The information fell strictly within

the IRB approval and guidelines, and with 110 members in the room, I thought it would

not be difficult to obtain the 20 required volunteers. However, the final interview count

was a total of nine human resource managers who had confirmed experience with a toxic

leader.

Data Analysis

The data analysis is divided into four different sections: (a) providing specific data

about the interviews, the process used for documenting events, and discovering the

existence of a toxic leader, (b) a display of codes and themes, (c) a description of the

phenomenon experienced by the human resource manager, and (d) a narrative on the total

data collected. The data are provided first and the phenomenon of experience follows

thereafter. The transcribed interviews support the stories, share the emotions, and provide

data to interpret codes and themes.

Once all participants were recorded, the information was transcribed into several

MSWord documents. I did all the transcribing directly following the interviews. The

meaning portrayed by each participant was more accurately reflected because I

participated in the recorded sessions. Additionally, this assured that the words typed

matched the words spoken verbatim. With nine participants, this was a very manageable

task.

The transcriptions were downloaded into an analysis program called Dedoose.

Next all statistical demographic information was entered into an Excel spreadsheet and

also downloaded into the program. Dedoose is an online internet based qualitative,

quantitative, and mixed methods analysis program (userguide.dedoose.com). The data is

preserved within a secure internet access program. Once the analysis was completed all

information was exported back to my computer for proper storage, control of backup and

archiving.

The Dedoose program provides for codes to be created, labeled, and inserted into

an analysis file. The codes are matched by reading through each participant’s response,

highlighting and tying all relevant matching codes to the various responses, then

analyzing the similar patterns. Dedoose allows the researcher to run various data

analyses, and trace common themes as many times, and as many variations, as is

necessary in order to find a pattern of responses, common trends in response reflections,

and frequent terms used by each participant.

Description of the Interview Process

Of the nine interviews, three were willing to be more open, while the other

participants appeared very cautious in sharing their thoughts, concerns, and experiences.

When necessary I would remind them again that their comments are confidential, their

names and company names would not be discussed, and that the information would be

synthesized to provide a total common understanding of the toxic leader from the

perspective of the human resource manager. This seemed to be necessary in order to

remove their anxiety. The expressions of the emotional experience are fully described

within the Results section of the study.

After completing several analyses, the files were then exported back to Excel and

stored for future use within the study. Saldana’s (2007, 2009) method of qualitative

analysis was followed, which includes first cycle, second cycle, and themeing the data.

The first step of analysis is to discover codes for each participant response. A

code in qualitative inquiry is most often a word or short phrase that

symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or

evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data.

(Saldana, 2009, p. 3)

Using the Microsoft Word files, I read through each interview and highlighted the

common codes. The common remarks yielded a first cycle codes of 35 as shown in

Appendix E. One additional code was added to confirm a match between the participants’

definition and the definition by Schmidt (2008) as referenced in Chapter 2. This

definition labels five behaviors which all need to be present in order to identify the toxic

leader: narcissistic, abusive, authoritarian, self-promoting, and unpredictable.

Qualitative Analysis: First Cycle Codes

First cycle codes used by the participants were collected by using the interview

questions. Once the interviews were transcribed, the comments were first correlated by

quantity of common responses by the individuals. This allowed for the most common

ideas and experiences to be recognized. Those experiences were then paralleled with the

research questions to see how and where the themes evolved. The data in Table 2 relates

the codes identified in the responses to the research questions and demonstrates the

identification of a toxic leader, or toxicity in the workplace, matched with processes

identified by each participant. The initials SR represent senior management. The initials

HR represent the human resource manager. The initials TL represent toxic leader.

Table 4

Code

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

Behavior/Incident/Participant No

Companies do not try to

identify toxic leaders

Informative, storytelling,

shared specifics/All

Cost over $50k to address

Human resource was

annoyed, frustrated,

discussed specifics of

events, consequences, cause,

mediator or

counseling toxic leader,

and concern of repeating

incidents/2, 4, 5, 6,8 9

Discuss with senior

management does help

Human resource discussed

subordinate

complaints, team affects,

consequence of toxic leader,

and how to

proceed, felt relieved,

supported with action

plan/1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9

Toxic leader has a domino or

negative trickle-down affect

Human resource was

anxious, fidgety,

animated, storytelling,

stated that teams

expressed fear of toxic

leader consequences,

confusion, uncertainty,

company effects of toxic

leader behavior/2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7

Frequent First Cycle Codes as Related to Research Questions

Employees exit

Toxic leader is

unpredictable, Human

resource was

storytelling, anxious,

concerned, Subordinates

leaving or filing suit,

senior management

nonresponsive at first,

human resource must

convince with facts/All

Human resource has to act

as agent/motivator to keep

up subordinate moral

Toxic leader acted

authoritarian, arrogant,

abusive, subordinate

complain more,

uncertain of senior

management actions,

human resource concern

for significant negative

consequences to

company/All

New leaders bring positive

results

Current senior

management was not

responsive soon enough,

or may be a toxic leader,

toxic leader was

removed, human

resource felt relieved/1,

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

Toxic leader frequently receives

severance pay

Toxic leader

authoritarian, denial, did

not accept responsibility

for actions, does not self-

identify behavior, filed

suit, hired attorney,

human resource nervous,

fearful, bullied, stressed,

and uncertain, senior

management response

varied/1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9

Start discovery with

employee interviews

Subordinates complain,

Human resource

contemplative/1, 2, 4, 6,

7, 9

Toxic leader destroys company

processes

Toxic leader steps on

toes of others, has own

agenda, humiliates team

and bullies other

managers, forces control,

ignores warnings from

senior management/All

Toxic leader has no people skills

X Employee

negative reactions,

toxic leader

ignores others,

narcissistic, speaks over

others, bossy, rude, poor listening,

feelings of

humiliation, fear, anger,

resentment by human

resource and teams/1, 2,

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9

Toxic leader is identified by

employee complaints

Multiple employees, 5%

increase in department

issues, loss of

productivity, employee

work comp suit, third

party may be hired to

handle/All

Toxic leader is not held accountable

for actions

Human resource tells

senior management but

no actions taken, toxic

leader self-promotes to

confuse senior

management, human

resource feels

humiliated, discouraged,

anxious, toxic leader is

rude to human resource,

mistreats, malicious,

arrogant to teams and

others/2, 4, 6, 7, 8

Toxic character fits as defined

by Schmidt

Narcissistic, abusive,

authoritarian,

selfpromotes,

unpredictable./All

Examples of Specific Data Collected Related to Research Questions

As an example of how the interviews proceeded, relating to RQ1, Participant 1,

currently an outside human resource consultant, remembered an experience from 20 years

ago and said the experience never really goes away. He shared that it was such a harmful

emotional experience that “it still sticks in my brain” (Participant 1). This is significant

because it demonstrates that even human resource personnel are negatively affected by

this leadership style and the effects have a lasting negative emotional impact. The toxic

leader for this individual was authoritarian and narcissistic, thus affected both perception

and attitude within the work atmosphere. He described his experience of being transferred

into a department managed by a toxic leader.

Participant 1 provided the specifics of how this toxic leader would act narcissistic

by supplying her own agenda for timelines of reporting and processes of workflow, even

when her processes were counter-productive and against company policy. Although

employees were trying to be proactive subordinates by fulfilling what they believed their

jobs entailed, thus demonstrating what they defined as a good job, the toxic leader kept

barricading the progress through her agenda. The narcissist and authoritarian behaviors of

the toxic leader created resentment, confusion, frustration, and discouragement.

Participant 6 expressed bitterness from his toxic leader experience by sharing how

team atmospheres are destroyed, emotions are suppressed or degraded and subordinates

get depressed. “That is not really how you are going to get people to follow you. It

doesn’t bring out the best in people” (Participant 6). Participant 7 was very matter-offact,

“As a human resource person we keep a feel for personality and it becomes intuitive”

(Participant 7). The variation is partially a quality of personality and in part is derived

from the relevant experience each person endured.

The expanded version of the codes, shown in Appendix E and F, represents the

specific verbal responses of the human resource participants within each interview. The

phenomenon experienced by these nine participants is similar and reflects a pattern of

difficulty they perceive when managing the toxic leader. These responses are comments

made by the human resource that support the interpretation of the data.

Qualitative Analysis: Second Cycle Codes

The steps defined within Saldana’s (2009) method of qualitative analysis include

(a) completing the interview, (b) transcribing the data, (c) preparing open coding or first

cycle preliminary coding, (d) narrowing the coding by comparing the data (second cycle),

(e) defining a set to confirm the experience (third cycle). Using Saldana’s methods the

second round of coding shown in Appendix E discerned 14 codes, and a pattern surfaced

to design a clear path for the human resource perspective. The data from the first cycle

were again analyzed for codes that repeat or may be combined for a pattern, then

described in the second cycle. A theme was established from these combined codes in

order to clarify the human resource experience. These codes and themes were placed into

clusters to narrow the information into usable data that would explain the experience. The

data is collected, analyzed, and then cross-referenced to each research question. The

Results section of this study aggregate the collected data for each specific research

question. This presents the basis of the qualitative phenomenological analysis—how did

they feel, their perspective—when working with the toxic leader. The first, second, and

third cycle codes represent the process and methods and respond to Research Questions

1, 2 and 3 (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) regarding identifying and managing the process of a toxic

leader. The participant responses that identify the emotion are expanded within the

Research Results section of this study.

The second cycle codes of the nine participants describe their similar perspectives

of a process and reveal common definitions for the difficulty of the behavior displayed by

the toxic leader. Table 5 illustrates repeated concepts within the participants and describes

the themes established from the second cycle codes demonstrating the experience of the

participants. These codes are taken from the comments made by the participants and are

shortened only to formulate them into a table.

Table 5

Themes Established from the Second Cycle Codes

Code Significant Statements Formulated Meaning/RQ No

Negative Emotion Negative effects of a toxic leader

stay with you for a long time.

The effects of the toxic leader

trickle down to harm the entire

team or organization.

Human Resource

Support

It helps to discuss the issue with

senior management if they

support the actions and

recommendations of human

resource personnel.

Human resource must react

responsibly in an attempt to keep

morale up by acting as a

counselor of sorts, to prevent as

many employees as possible from

leaving the company.

Negative

Consequences

Sometimes subordinates will leave

anyway, and do not want to deal

with a toxic leader.

The negative effects must be dealt

with quickly to lessen harm done,

or the toxic leader’s negative

behavior will continue.

The toxic leader destroys process,

has no people skills, and harms

the organization overall.

All personnel are negatively

affected by the emotional

upheaval of the

toxic leader/ RQ1 & 3

Human resource is the first

identifier of toxic leader

outside the work group and

must convince senior

management that toxicity is

present/RQ1 & 3

Human resource managers

remain very involved as a

communication channel

throughout the process, and

experiences additional

stress/RQ2

Remove the Toxic

Leader

Even though the cost of removing the

toxic leader may be well over

$50,000.00 it is better to

severance out the toxic leader, and

companies tend to do so.

Positive change requires

cooperation and succinct

coordination within senior

management and human

resource/RQ3

Although companies are not able

to identify a toxic leader

when they are hiring for the

leadership position, toxicity will

evolve in a very short period of

time and must be dealt with

swiftly.

A New Era

New leadership that is optimistic,

supportive, genuine, and

communicates with the

subordinates must be brought to

heal the damage done by the toxic

leader within the company. The new

leadership often brings the needed

change that will keep the

organization operating.

The healing process for

subordinates, teams,

human resource, senior

management, and the

company requires time,

significant effort, and

commitment once the toxic

leader is removed/RQ3

Defining TL

The descriptions used by the 9

participants did fall within

the terms provided by Schmidt

(2008) in the definition of a toxic

leader.

Identifying the toxic

leader/RQ1

Qualitative Analysis: Third Cycle

The frequency of ideas produced by this round, and description of specific steps

taken, encompassed what the human resource manager’s experienced when managing the

conflict produced by the toxic leader. An important factor of the analysis is to recognize

the fact that these are human resource individuals, who have worked in the realm of human

resources, can explain a shared experience, but may not have met each other. The reality of

the phenomenon each human resource manager described is supported by validating

through these confirming codes how each human resource manager feels during the

process of resolving conflict. Each participant was from a different division of the Los

Angeles area basin of PIHRA, but all expressed similar patterns in their responses. This is

important to note, because the participants interviewed separately, were not be able to

influence each other’s responses. The significance of parallel experience supports and

strengthens the results of the study. The similarity in pattern speaks to the significance of

their life experience.

Defining a Process

The strong common thread of experience described by these participants in the third

cycle identifies the process of managing the negative conflict resulting from the control of

the toxic leader. Participant described the steps they practice in communicating to senior

management the issues affecting a department. More importantly though, each participant

describes the emotional chaos the subordinates experience, the difficulty of trying to

support the subordinate while representing the company, along with their own feelings of

frustration in having to convince senior management the toxicity is serious enough to

warrant action. Even when the senior manager is supportive, there is a slow process that

must be tracked, and can create stress, frustration, disappointment, and anger for the team.

The toxic leader displays his, or her, own agenda rather than the company’s process,

thus creating team confusion. According to the participants, the toxic leader is bullying,

even when communicating to the human resource personnel. The toxic leader displays

narcissistic behavior, ignoring the human resource manager’s requests and attempts at

discussing the concerns of subordinates. The human resource manager must then

communicate the experience to senior management, and at times must convince the senior

management the issues are serious. This occurs because the toxic leader displays the

behavior of self-promoting. In the face of senior management, the toxic leader is

knowledgeable, able to verbally promote them self, and convince senior management of

their accomplishments. Senior management does not witness the abusive or unpredictable

behavior that the subordinates witness.

Several participants, as displayed below in the narrative of each participant, had

periods of feeling overwhelmed at the experience, frustrated at the slow reactions and

decisions of senior management, even when it seemed apparent to human resource

personnel that the toxic leader needed to be released. The reasons for senior management

not releasing the toxic leader immediately are discussed within the narrative of each

participant. Within that narrative are descriptive comments on emotions experienced by the

human resource manager.

RQ1 is demonstrated here as a process or plan for managing the toxic leader. This

process identifies the toxic leader, establishes a method for discussing toxicity with senior

management, and moves toward managing or removing the toxic leader. According to the

participants, the emotions range from dull or numb disbelief of the issue, to a voice of

concern, deep empathy for the subordinate, the company, and confusion from the

objective and directions received from senior management. When subordinates complain

about certain behavior the human resource individual is still required to follow a specific

process, even when empathy or sympathy feels like the right action. A specific procedure

has to be followed in order to protect the rights of all parties and the organization as a

whole. Employees are dealt with respect, with open communication, and a receptive ear.

It is important to cause the subordinate to believe they can trust the process. The

participants state that the toxic leader is identified by employees leaving the company;

due to their own emotional strain from working as a subordinate to the toxic leader. A

common thread from the participant’s comments yields a definite pattern of perspective

and perception by the human resource individual, and is examined in the Research

Results portion of this dissertation.

The repeated process identified within examination of the third cycle codes

establishes a pattern used to manage the toxic leader. According to Saldana, “One of the

coder’s primary goals is to find these repetitive patterns of action and consistencies in

human affairs as documented in the data” (2009, p. 5). There are six steps that emerged

from the third cycle that are identified and labeled as the process for managing the toxic

leader. The following process was described by all the participants who identified the steps.

The process, as identified through the third cycle, and related to the research questions,

is as follows:

1. Encounter/Event—there must be an event where toxicity is exposed or

becomes evident by employees complaining or leaving the company, filing a worker’s

compensation action, acting as a whistleblower (Participant 2, para. 5), or observing a

toxic leader who over steps boundaries of control and power. RQ1 identifying a toxic

leader.

2. Toxic Leader Behavior—the 5 behaviors or characteristics identified by

Schmidt do appear: narcissistic, authoritarian, abusive, self-promoting, and being

unpredictable. Unpredictable would be actions the toxic leader takes or shows that may not

make sense to the recipient or appear to be out of sequence in a logical process. The

human resource manager or subordinate never really knows how the toxic leader will act

in any given situation. RQ1, RQ2, RQ3—displayed throughout the process.

3. Toxic Leader Episode—a discussion takes place with the toxic leader and

he/she adheres to the discussion, is given a written performance agreement that creates

accountability, leaves, or displays worsened behavior. A toxic leader episode would be an

event wherein human resource personnel receive enough subordinate complaints to

confirm toxicity is evident, employees leave the company in an excessive amount

(Example: 26 employees leaving within a one quarter period shared by Participant 5), or a

complaint filed by a subordinate within the department. RQ2 and RQ3 behaviors displayed

throughout the process.

4. Identifying Process – represents the interview and discovery process where

human resource personnel discuss the actions with all who were involved in the conflict.

RQ1 and RQ2

5. Hierarchical Role or Support – senior management may be a good support,

or may not. If senior management is the toxic leader they will not support the human

resource personnel. If senior management is intimidated by the toxic leader, he or she will

not act responsibly. If senior management is strong, supportive leader, the human resource

manager will have the backup they need to address the toxicity. RQ2 and RQ3 this is

required to resolve conflict with the toxic leader.

6. Emotion—the negative results stay with an individual, sometimes causing

trauma. The emotional trauma would potentially cause a subordinate to file a worker’s

compensation claim, leave the company because he or she feels abandoned, rejected,

abused, bullied, or emotionally traumatized to a point of fear of retaliation, fear of losing

their job, or totally powerless. RQ3 managing the consequences of the conflict.

The human resource manage may feel and react from some of these destructive

emotions through the process of managing the toxic leader. An elaboration of the emotions

is provided in the results and matched to each RQ. These emotions characterize the

experience of the human resource manager. The sixth element of emotion is used to

understand the qualitative descriptions of lumping the codes (Saldana, 2009). Furthermore,

these elements will describe the anxiety felt by human resource personnel when handling

this type of conflict.

The code word of emotion is correspondingly being used to identify and examine

the emotional upheaval and frustration human resource individuals experience as

demonstrated by all nine participants. Qualitative analysis calls for reflection on

respondent’s way of thinking in order to fully comprehend the phenomenon. “Define your

codes and rationalize your specific choices for the data” (Saldana, 2009, p. 35). An

example of this appeared in the interview with Participant 1 wherein he stated, “That kind

of interaction with a toxic leader is like a scary or something, like you know, a wound you

look down on and say – oh I remember that dog that bit me – the kind of thing that sticks

with you and stays in the mind” (Participant 1, para.1). Of the nine participants, four

submitted remarks of the same or similar influence and complexity of emotions remaining

from the experience. From a phenomenological perspective, this is reflective of frequent

experiences within human resource individuals.

The theme for the third cycle code identified that there is a method in place within

multiple industries that follows the same pattern for causing accountability for the toxic

leader. Toxic leadership actions are traceable, are documented, and these specific steps

may be used to remove the toxic leader where necessary. Although the described process

may appear to be similar steps taken for any employee write-up of poor work behavior the

difference is dependent upon how the employee reacts to the write-up and the level or

position of the employee being disciplined. The consequences that follow the position are

more intense and severe dependent upon the level the employee has within the

organization. As an example terminating a senior manager is more difficult than an

administrative person because of the duties and responsibilities held by the position, the

strength of decision-making power, the role of the employee and the dependence the

organization has on that position, as well as that employee.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Requesting assistance from PIHRA, and being endorsed to complete the study, was

a valuable tool to collect trustworthy information and volunteers. The endorsement by

PIHRA to assist and allow the data collection is evidence that the issue is real. This

organization, along with Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), is a part of

maintaining communication in current laws, and educating for the HR Certification. As a

whole, the organization is a reputable association spoken highly of by human resource

personnel, as well as organizations that support PIHRA. As professionals in this

organization and trained professionals within this discipline their endorsement adds

credibility to the research.

Anticipating the human resource participants to be available within two hours of

each interview, however, turned out to be unrealistic. Schedule conflicts, operational

delays in their busy work lives, and obtaining sufficient volunteers all were problematic.

Phenomenological studies consist of 6 to 10 volunteers who respond to the interview

questions (Chenail, 2011). This spectrum of interview participants reflects multiple ethnic

diversities, various corporate atmospheres, with the common element of experience with a

toxic leader, but is not enough to make generalizations except of their experience and

does not establish saturation per se. However, it is adequate as the foundation for

understanding the effect of a toxic leader on human resource professionals and is an

attempt to capture the general approach of human resource managers to these situations.

The responses provided by this pool of participants represent original accounts of

the perspective of human resource personnel. “The composite of the interview …serve to

partially triangulate the …results” (Northcutt & McCoy, 2004, p. 239). Content analysis, as

defined by Saldana (2009) is completed for trustworthiness, as well as deepening

descriptive analysis. Together this information shows an apparent commonality of

procedure, and is representative of the steps human resource managers take in the entire

conflict process. The triangulations of respondent comments being persuasive in degree,

and repetitive in quality, demonstrate the substance of reality in this form of conflict.

Since this is knowledge gained through those who perform the functions of human resource

management there is a higher degree of trustworthiness in the gathered data than non-

human resource person’s concept of working with a toxic leader. Specific examples

to demonstrate the trustworthiness are provided in the results section of this study.

A cross-reference and general remark made by all participants except for

Participant 2 was that toxicity emerges within a company rather than senior management

looking for and hiring a toxic leader type. In the case of Participant 2 the toxic leader was

transferred in a merger. Events within the organization over time bring out the actions and

behaviors of the toxic leader to create employee’s dissatisfaction and the desire to leave

the company. Another widespread remark made by all participants except Participants 5

and 6 was that the behavior is discussed with the toxic leader. Human resource managers

and senior management together meet with the toxic leader to have an open discussion

regarding their actions. This provides the toxic leader an opportunity to address their

choice of action, and supports the company in the event the toxic leader decides to file an

Unlawful Termination suit. The interview questions being used were successful in

opening up discussion with the participants, and were supportive in each participant

response while they contemplated actions they take with a conscious perspective they

may not have experienced before. The interview process knowingly provided these

decisions, explanations, and the questions did not need any adjustments.

Credibility and Confirmability

A comparison of participant responses will support the credibility and confirmability

of the data collection, and is demonstrated in the Results section.

Credibility and confirmability is used to help to suspend the researcher’s preconceived

ideas on any study in order to allow the reader to see the participant’s lived experience

(Chenail, 2011). The interviewee is not a human resource professional, thus cannot

interpret personal reflection within the human resource experience. An advantage to the

cycle code method of analysis is that the first cycle includes scrutinizing the information

into individual comments to cross-reference and link similar responses. This is jointly

supported by a majority of the participant remarks, thus proving and supporting credibility.

Relevant expressions and statements made by the participants will aid in an

understanding of their perceptions, and adds a rich color to the emotions involved in their

experiences, as well as providing explicit description to comprehend the issues. Individual

descriptions are listed below to enhance this understanding. Credibility is shown by the

repeated responses by these human resource professionals that parallel each other.

Triangulation is a method of verifying a position of facts and supplying additional

perspective of a viewpoint. Triangulation is supported by comparing other sources of data and

the steps and actions human resource personnel perform with similar investigative actions

other fields of society use to analyze toxic actions. Psychology is a field where an example of

the investigative action is taken. As noted within Chapter 2, the literature of

Levinson (1980) noted:

The work of pre-eminent students of leadership does not deal with

leadership as a whole but only with a limited number of highly

circumscribed techniques with which to understand, predict, and guide

executive behavior. (p. 498)

The human resource personnel perform the function of interviewing followers,

confirming accusations by subordinates or others, and investigating actions of leadership

to determine if there is toxicity, and the severity of toxicity. Levinson further explains that

within psychology “Aggression in the form of a search for power has long characterized

power-oriented organization structures whose hierarchical models have dominated our

society” (1980, p. 499). Subordinates complain to the human resource manager that they

often feel bullied into actions or inactions (Part. 2, Part. 6, & Part. 8).

Within the field of psychology Menesini, Modena, and Tani (2009) quote Caprara,

Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, and De Leo (1997) as stating “bullies, tend to manifest

externalizing symptoms, such as conduct problems, aggressiveness, and attention deficit

and hyperactive disorders” (p. 116). Menesini et al. (2009) additionally explained, “they

are emotionally and psychologically strong, and their problems are exclusively behavioral”

(p. 116). The fields of psychology and business are not the only field of study that

develops scales of measurement for leadership actions.

Within the military, the effect of leadership is without a doubt the forefront of organizational

accountability, structure, hierarchical power, and leadership attitude.

George (2009, 2011) performed an analysis of the military behavior and determined

“positions of authority sometimes not only fail to meet our highest expectations but actually

misuse their power over subordinates” (2009, p. 7). Even the educational field finds the

process of evaluating performance and discovery of misconduct to be time consuming,

distracting, and a frustrating. Myer and Casile (2010) discussed the steps of documentation

to determine whether or not the inappropriate actions of a leader are toxic, which include

understanding and evaluating the credibility, lethality, and specificity of the toxic behavior

as well as determining the importance of proper response to accountability for the toxic

leader.

Organizations that lose employees due to the negative behavior of superiors can

cost the organization in lost person-hours, lost productivity, tacit knowledge, and team

support. A retail operation called Measure-X explains “calculating the cost of employee

turnover can be quite involved and intimidating” (measure-x.com). The replacing of

subordinates can be expensive when subordinates leave due to toxic leaders. Regardless of

the industry, an unproductive team frozen in fear, or caught up in chaos of uncertainty will

be detrimental to the company. Too and Harvey (2012) stated that “Destructive leadership

can have detrimental effects of productivity” (p. 175). Emotional trauma caused from

toxic leadership will affect followers, damage the company, and even affect human

resource managers in a fashion that may eventually bring the demise of the organization.

Continued acceptance of such behavior may become the accepted norm of the company

and chase away healthy behavior. Social learning theory “describe(s) how workplace

incivility has the potential to spiral into increasingly aggressive behavior” (Boddy, 2013,

p. 108). Group dynamic analysts have studied and recommended process of resolution for

reinventing team atmospheres and team accountability. Some of the issues found within

group dynamics and toxic leaders allude to “groups with more extroverted leaders are less

effective due to heightened competition and conflict” (Bendersky & Parlkh, 2013, p. 5).

Bendersky and Parlkh discussed specifically toxic behavior where human resource

personnel must then step in to identify the issues subordinates have with the leader, notify

senior management of these issues, then proceed with the process of documentation and

possibly termination.

All participants stated the first step to recognizing toxicity as an issue is that either:

(a) employees begin leaving the company, or (b) there is an increase in multiple

subordinate complaints within the department when managed by the toxic leader.

Additional signs of toxicity include employees filing worker’s compensation claims for

stress relief, increase in absenteeism, and a decrease in productivity. If a worker’s

compensation claim is filed against the company, the claims address the behavior of the

supervisor as being abusive, bullying, highly inappropriate, or causing emotional stress and

physical illness by the subordinate, as stated by all participants. The frequent reflection

made by every participant supports the credibility of this.

Participants also mentioned that the toxic leader often destroys company processes

and influence or attempt to replace the process with their own agenda. This repetitive

comment supports credibility, validating the participant’s belief that toxic leaders destroy

process, team atmosphere, and cause emotional upheaval within organizations. Creswell

(2009) stated the credibility, validity, and trustworthiness must be understood from the

participant’s position thus causing the responses to be believable. Every participant,

except for Participant 1 and 4, also claimed the toxic leader will step on toes, ignore

respective political channels of communication because the leader believes he/she does

not need to. The toxic leader actions demonstrate through their narcissistic attitude that it

is unnecessary to confirm or communicate their agenda with senior management since

they know what they are doing.

The significance of multiple comments within human resource individuals being

so analogous is supportive of credibility for this study. Semi-structured interviews support

phenomenological research by allowing the researcher to adjust questions as needed. The

interview is aligned to discover the lived experience of the human resource manager and

that experience includes specific steps they are required to take whether or not they are

emotionally connected to the steps. The lived experience also includes a description of

their thoughts, reflection of their emotions, and defining the phenomenon of working with

the toxic leader. The toxic behavior did not only affect the teams, but permeated the

organization. Participants stated that in most cases they found toxic leader’s behavior to

lack inspiration and encouragement, resulting in decreased motivation, productivity, and

lack of purpose in their role. During the interview process, it became quite clear that

discussions on toxic leadership are an extremely sensitive conversation for human

resource personnel to be involved in. Using the interview questions allowed the

participant to focus on specific experiences they had and formulate them into a story

describing their involvement in the process. The participants also described how this

phenomenon of toxic leadership affects followers and human resource personnel, creating

anxiety, overly cautious behavior, introverted physical appearance, fearful demeanor, and

defensiveness. These actions stem from the toxic behavior of the toxic leader, through the

abusive demanding, and bullying fashion of the control, they exude.

Transferability

In Chapter 2, the discussion included comments from Schyns and Hansbroughn

(2010) wherein a toxic leader has short-term success in prior positions of employment.

These findings create the belief by senior management that this leader will bring the

knowledge needed to support and grow the company. Participants 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 seemed

to support this information by stating the toxic leader typically has valuable industry

knowledge that senior management deems necessary to obtain. Meyer and Casile

(2010) stated “Using these perspectives in a threat assessment allows for more

systematical data collection and analysis, resulting in a more comprehensive identification

of the risks associated with the recognized threat” (p. 59). Therefore, this supports the

comments made by human resource personnel regarding identifying manageable methods

of intervention for any potential conflict or litigation arising from the toxic leader. In

order to develop an understanding of the common elements within the participants for

managing the toxic leader, it makes sense to identify where similar patterned responses

come from.

All participants except for Participant 2 stated toxicity emerges from employee

complaints within an organization and is not a leadership style a company typically

searches for. All participants stated they interview team members and subordinates to

measure the damage once toxicity is identified. Participants 1, 4, 5, and 6 identified the

agenda of a toxic leader as hidden and unknown at first, but recognized as poisonous once

it develops. By comparing processes used within seven of the nine participants the six

steps for managing a toxic leader were developed into a recognizable plan of action.

In addition to the sample of comments made by each participant, the third cycle coding

provided a theme for how to remove the toxic leader that resulted in a six-step plan used to

remove any toxic leader. This process is a sample of their collective comments as a

manageable method for handling the toxic conflict and is mentioned above with the third

cycle codes.

The recommended six steps created from their comments can be used as a

foundational method within any organization for identifying and managing a toxic leader.

If a company is concerned about toxicity within their organization, these steps can be

used to determine the viability of their apprehension. Transferability is suggested because

of the homogeneity in responses, the ability to repeat this examination in any company, or

other locale, and the fact that the ease with legitimacy of answers produced specific steps

to a process. During the conversation with Participant 6 he discussed vehemently how

frustrating it is to work with the toxic leader when this leader has his or her own agenda

for establishing company procedure, especially when it is not communicated to others and

offends members of the team. Participant 1 stated that when she realized the toxic leader

was acting within his own power, and lacked authority, she immediately notified the

corporate office on the east coast with concerns of policy breach and broken contract

promises.

Every single participant stated employees start to complain to human resource

personnel about their leader when a toxic event occurs. This is then followed by interviews

within the team to validate the difficulty that has transpired for the group, and the

company. These situations that occur are identified as a toxic event within the six steps of

identifying toxicity. The human resource manager must then communicate to senior

management their concerns affecting the teams and company. Transferability is further

suggested since the results reflect that toxic leaders have a negative affect not only

followers, but also others within the organization, or performance outcomes. Replication

of interviewing human resource managers within other organizations, such as SHRM,

other counties, states, and countries is recommended to demonstrate this. Using a variety

in the participants makes a case for a general negative impact on organizations and is not

specific to one industry, one culture, or one nationality. This is suggestive that toxic

leadership is a widespread concern for all human resource personnel. It is worth

considering that the process described within the third cycle code is a basis for

approaching the problems of toxic leadership in other arenas.

Dependability

By using Saldana’s method of coding and themeing the data to analyze the cycle of

comments, than cluster the concepts to create an understanding, dependability is

supported. It is clear that each participant evidenced the behaviors and consequences

arising from managing the toxic leader. Since all participants voiced such strong remarks

for this behavior, it is possible to infer the study results were dependable in this area. The

point of sufficiency for concepts and opinions provided by these participants was being

repetitive in remarks. The evidence of multiple participants making the same or very

similar comments produces saturation of ideas about this phenomenon. Saturation is the

point in data collection when no new or relevant information emerges with respect to the

newly constructed theory (Creswell, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). Nine participants making

the same claim or comment supports the potential for saturation within these nine people,

and imply that additional interviews may respond with similar comments. Because the

parallels of the experience, emotions, and the observations held by the human resource

participant matched consistently with the methods of managing the toxic leader this is a

dependable study. Participants answering with similar values yet independent of each

other provide “a coherent domain of knowledge” (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 65)

that supports dependability. Repeating codes, words, definitions, and rationale aligned the

ideas and themes used by the human resource participants. A follow up study would be

useful to determine if the experience of these nine participants represent the perception of

majority of other human resource managers. Additional studies will also assist with

determining whether others have more effective ways of removing toxic leaders at the first

confirmation of their presence. These human resource managers seemed to have unique

cases where suits and countersuits or negotiations wore on perpetuating an environment

deemed unhealthy for their subordinates.

Research Results

During the interview process, I listened to multiple people telling their stories and

experiences of difficult conflict. According to the data collected the toxic leaders

themselves are moody, express an attitude of entitlement, and are controlling. Yet, the

emotions managed by human resource participants increased the layer of stress because the

human resource managers were protecting their employees, their company, and

themselves. During the interviews Participant 2 made five comments to support this,

Participant 4 made five comments of the same fashion, Participant 6 made four comments stating the

human resource personnel must protect the organization and the employees, and Participant 5 and 7 both

stated this three times. All participants identified similar patterns of emotional roller coasters, team

debate, fearful concern, and reactive subordinates within the organization while they were completing

discovery for the existence of the toxic leader. According to the participants their duty is to not only

manage the toxic leader, but also it is to manage the entire relationship of subordinate productivity,

interpersonal behavior, subordinate loyalty, and company loyalty, as well as senior management’s

commitment to right this wrong.

Results as Related to Current Literature

Recent literature discusses the subject of leader toxicity (Kellerman, 2004, 2008:

Lipman-Blumen, 2005: Tepper, 2000, 2007) and shares the perspective of the subordinate

on the issues of conflict that arise from the toxic leader. Sufficient evidence is available to

clearly identify that toxic leaders exist, create troublesome commotion within

organizations, and cause employees to leave a company (Bendersky & Parikh, 2013:

Boddy, 2014). Chapter 2 of this dissertation includes major themes about the existence of

abusive, bullying, toxic leaders. Kellerman (2008) and Lipman-Blumen (2005) wrote

entire books on the subject of toxic leadership. Mueller (2012) completed a dissertation

regarding toxic leaders in the army, and described a short history of the evolution of toxic

leaders. Mueller established that toxic army leaders display the faults appearance of a

vision that is in the best interest of the organization, but in reality has a hidden agenda,

satisfies personal goals, and increases control over the followers.

The toxic leader manages to promote himself or herself to a position within any

company that enables the narcissistic, authoritarian, abusive, self-promoting, and

unpredictable behavior characteristic of the toxic leader. Through the research and analysis

of discovering what a toxic leader is, the gap in literature is identified as knowledge

regarding a process for resolving issues of conflict from the behaviors of the toxic leader.

The stories of perspective from the position of human resource manager and senior

manager are not found within the literature: that define the depth of perspective within

organizational decision makers.

This is only one portion of the whole picture of toxic behavior. The remainder of

the picture, and the gap in literature, is to identify what methods are available, and what

methods are used by organizations to both discover and manage the toxic leader within the

company. Discovering how organizations identify and manage the toxic leader was the

goal and purpose of this research. Learning that the process of managing toxicity is based

highly upon the human resource manager’s ability to correctly identify the chaos is only a

portion of the entire picture. This research study enables the reader to understand and

visualize some of the difficulty with identifying and managing the toxic leader.

Additionally, this research explains why human resource personnel must have

support from senior management in order to manage or even terminate the toxic leader. If

senior management is not supporting the human resource personnel, then the human

resource manager cannot call out accountability to the toxic leader. It takes a team of

human resource managers and senior management to resolve these concerns, and to

correct the consequence of hiring the toxic leader. Senior management must support

human resource managers, listen to the recommendations given by human resource

personnel, and follow through with threats of discipline for the toxic leader.

There is value to leadership and organizations in quickly realizing when the new

manager is toxic, or reveals behaviors that are abusive, narcissistic, authoritarian,

selfpromoting, and unpredictable. The value in this information acts as a guidance to divert

potential negative consequences. This dissertation will provide new knowledge to fill the

gap in literature. The research is explored to examine the collected data in order to

understand the logical process established within companies, along with the lived experience

of the human resource manager.

RQ1: Participant Responses for Identifying a Toxic Leader

In order to identify specific issues of toxicity the human resource manager

performs interviews with employees, coworkers, or others within the team or

organization. Once this information is gathered human resource managers will share with

senior management to decide and create a plan for the discipline of the toxic leader,

coaching for the toxic leader, or removal of the toxic leader. The methods used by

participants to handle toxic leadership were of a personal preference; commitment to the

company they were employed by, type of industry, organizational setup, and senior

leadership support. An example of this is the government employees. Participant 5 is

employed within government agencies and expressed a more tolerant attitude toward the

toxic leader. This individual seemed to believe the tolerance level was expected within the

government agency since it is more difficult to terminate employees who are employed by

the government. More proof, support, or backup than normal is required for termination

within these government agencies, so the toxic leader lasted a longer term than private

industry.

Participant 1. Participant 1 stated identifying a toxic leader is a collective effort

between human resource personnel, senior management, and the subordinates to work

through the conflict created by a toxic leader. Companies do not try to identify toxic

leaders specifically. The toxicity will evolve over a short period of time; less than 6

months. It is a typical standard to try and discuss with the toxic leader any negative

behavior affecting the team. However, depending upon the severity of their narcissistic

behavior they may or may not be open to discussing it or understanding it. More

frequently toxic leaders are identified because an employee will file a workers’

compensation claim for stress leave. This gets very expensive for the company and the

employee will typically end up leaving anyway. Legal assistance is always used to address

these issues. Toxic leaders always have their own agenda, and the toxic activity will repeat

if it is not addressed quickly.

Participant 2. Participant 2 also stated it is a collective effort between

management and human resource personnel to address the effects of the toxic leader. It is

helpful to discuss the situation with senior management when toxicity is identified because

employees begin leaving the company. When the company discovers a toxic leader they

hire consultant coaches to assist with training the toxic leader in people skills. The human

resource manager then has to become a cheerleader of sorts to keep up the subordinate’s

morale since the rumors are rampant and the negative effects will trickle down harming

the organization’s productivity. Toxic leaders have their own agenda, and do not care how

they harm company process. Participant 2 stated that typically the toxic leaders destroy

processes, assume more authority than they should, and are not held accountable for their

actions. This is what creates the toxic atmosphere. Occasionally senior management will at

first allow the toxic leader free-reign to manage the department as he or she sees fit, only

to discover the chaos and damage in the aftermath of conflict. Their toxic behaviors are

identified through employee interviews. Although the toxic leaders typically are hired for

their industry knowledge they do not self-identify their behavior as negative.

Participant 4. Participant 4 remarked that toxicity will evolve within the company

rather than an intentional hiring of a toxic leader. Frequently the behavior is discussed

with the toxic leader, although they resist acknowledging the behavior is negative.

Significant discovery is required by human resource personnel to substantiate if the

actions are negative, and the issues must be addressed immediately before the company

processes are further disrupted. Toxic leaders have good industry knowledge, are

intelligent people, but their inability to recognize how their actions harm the subordinates

is what causes toxicity. The toxic leader will step on the toes of subordinates, coworkers,

and senior management through bi-passing corporate policy, and company chain of

command. This is one of several causes for the discussion between human resource

personnel and senior management regarding terminating the toxic leader.

Participant 5. Participant 5 experienced the toxic leader when a merger affected their

company. The toxic leader was retained after the merger because of his significant industry

knowledge. There was no use in discussing this with senior management, as they supported

the toxic leader and would not acknowledge the toxic behavior or consequences. The toxicity

specifically was recognized because employees started leaving the company after the merger.

In one particular case they had a 25% loss of employees within one department over a period

of 5 months. The company is a government agency. It is very difficult to terminate people,

subordinates, or leaders, as the government agency requires such a heavy paperwork trail,

and frequently board approval to make these changes. In this particular situation, the toxic

leader was over stepping his authority and processing information without proper approval.

Subordinates complained about his demands and human resource managers tried to convince

senior management he needed to be terminated. However, in government agencies people

have more protection and job security than in business. When he finally overstepped the

boundaries with a board member, this was significant enough to cause senior management to

consider terminating the toxic leader. When they discussed this with the toxic leader, he filed

a suit against the government agency. The cost of resolution exceeded $60,000, but they were

successful in removing the toxic leader. This activity of toxicity within a company, and the

authoritarian behavior of a toxic leader will repeat if it is not handled quickly. These actions

of abuse negatively affect teams, atmosphere, and may have a domino effect within a

company. In many cases, the senior management is the toxic leader, so there is nothing you

can do but learn how to work with the leader. This is more frequently the case and toxic

leaders will not go away. You have a choice to learn to work within the toxic atmosphere or

just go get a different job.

Participant 6. Participant 6 acknowledged that toxicity emerges when employees

begin exiting the company. In his case, the toxic leader is senior management. Participant

6 also labeled the situation a cultural norm. The business was passed from father to son.

The son was arrogant, a know-it-all, and had never really run the business. The son was

being allowed to make decisions because of his status in the family company, he was

allowed to express his desire to control, and would appear as an authority, thus

mishandled the treatment of employees. Recommendations for internal processes were

met with disrespect and abusive treatment. Toxic leaders have their own agendas and will

not respect the order of reporting, even when they are disciplined for such activity. The

narcissistic behaviors come across as abusive to the employees. All you can do as the

human resource manager is try to calm people down, to placate the parties when the top

people are the toxic leaders. Employees can listen to complaints and sad stories, and know

there is minimal that can be done to really change anything. At the same time, managers

do not want to discourage workers and lose jobs. As a human resource representative you

are trained to follow instructions and support the company. When human resource

employees make recommendations, they are frequently met with more questions,

requesting support for the claim, and reasons for the recommendations. Employees have

to be ready for the unexpected as it is known how the senior executives will respond.

Participant 7. Participant 7 stated it is a collective effort to address the consequences

of toxic leadership. Toxicity will be recognized by employees complaining, leaving the

company, or filing a stress case with worker’s compensation. The domino effect of toxicity

evolves from these employee complaints, and must be discussed with the toxic leader. It is

the human resource manager’s responsibility to act as the communicator between leadership

and subordinate and keep morale positive, although it is difficult to do. Keeping morale

positive is a part of the human resource department’s responsibility and the difficult part is

being politically correct in answering employee questions, complaints, fears, and anxieties

that arises from the drama of the situation. The sooner the consequences are dealt with the

better, which will lessen the company losses in the long run. Legal assistance or a third-party

counselor is frequently used to mediate issues, or to severance out the toxic leader. The

emotional effects of dealing with a toxic leader remain with you for several years. It is an

emotional drain to manage, especially if you do not have the support of senior management.

Toxic leaders have no people skills, have their own agenda, and will destroy company

process in how they manage their teams. The best way to discover the entire damage done

during the conflict is to take employee interviews.

Participant 8. Participant 8 shared the story of experiencing toxic leadership

when new management was brought in to revolutionize the organization. When he was

hired his toxic behavior was not known. The senior management and human resource

manager worked toward removing this toxic leader for one year. The dollar costs were not

specified since it was a confidential case, but were provided as an average well over

$50,000.00 plus or minus. Employees were leaving the company because they

complained of abuse, or the toxic leader was terminating them because they questioned

his authority. It was the human resource manager’s responsibility to maintain some form

of monitoring, communication, and support for all departments and the senior

management. The toxic leader’s own agenda was very problematic because he would not

follow the company’s standard for operations. Since the company is so large and worth

several million dollars there are multiple offices across the United States. Through

conversations with the east coast office I discovered the east coast office was having a

similar crisis of toxicity. When the toxic leader on the west coast connected with the east

coast toxic leader the issue became more serious and the organization had to work toward

defining behavior and finding ways to hold them both accountable. The toxic leader is a

personality we need to learn to deal with because they are everywhere, in every company,

industry, and always make their way to top leadership—as stated by the participant.

Participant 9. Participant 9 shared her experience of a toxic leader emerging from

the ranks within the banking industry. This particular company merged with another bank

and offered the toxic leader a promotion because of her knowledge, not knowing she was

toxic. The company realized employees were transferring or leaving after about six

months. The discovery began within the exit interviews as subordinates opened up about

the behaviors and actions of the toxic leader. When the corporate senior management

attempted to discuss the policies and procedures of their bank, the toxic leader saw the

writing on the wall and filed suit against the bank. While the process of the legal action

was ongoing the toxic leader continued to work for the bank. The lawyers stated to the

senior management that if they terminated him immediately and did not keep him on it

would appear to support his case against the bank. Therefore, the toxic leader was not

terminated since legal recommended otherwise. Because of the hierarchical demands and

processes within the banking industry, and this particular bank, it took them 2.5 years to

remove the toxic leader. The payout to the toxic leader was 18 months of salary, and

waivers by the bank to protect his ability to obtain future employment. A full court

process and legal assistance was required, and several of the human resource personnel

had to be involved in the court proceedings. New leaders were brought in and were

significant in assisting with identifying this toxic leader. They were also significant agents

in the successful removal of the toxic leader.

Results Determined From Data

As stated above, there were a total of 13 individuals who agreed to be interviewed

in the beginning stages of collecting the data. However, four of those participants retracted

their consent prior to our meeting. When asked what the concern or issue was that caused

them to retract their interest they stated: “My boss is the toxic manager and I would be

placing my job in jeopardy” (Participant 10). “This is a highly sensitive subject that could

yield very negative consequences for me and I am just not comfortable discussing it”

(Participant 11). “I really don’t want to speak on negative consequences in regards to my

organization” (Participant 12). “If they found out I was talking about this I could lose my

certification because the employee files and activity are of a confidential nature”

(Participant 13). “We are still in the throes of this scenario and until I know the end result

it would be a breach of confidentiality for me to discuss it” (Participant 13). In addition, it

appeared to be a consensus that toxic leaders will not go away, and companies can only,

and must, learn how to remove them or work around them.

During the interviews, there was a heightened emphasis in voice expression,

adjusting of body language, and shifting of eyes from the nine participants. The participants

stated they experienced an internal anxiety when discussing the subject of toxic leadership.

Within the interviews of the nine participants, it became clear that the toxic leader is not

identified until after he or she has been hired and is working for the company. Once a toxic

leader is identified, the human resource manager remains very involved in the process of

communicating the negative actions to senior management, while continuing to act in the

capacity of intermediary between subordinate, toxic leader, and senior management.

Toxic leaders destroy team atmosphere (Reed, 2009), cause stress on subordinates

(Selart & Johansen, 2011), and create long term chaos for companies, and yet they

continue to be hired by organizations. “Actions of organizational leaders have

implications not only for organizations and organizational members but also for

organizational outsiders” (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013, p. 1310). There is

strength in power (Vecchio, 1997) and it may be true that subordinates sometimes get

languid and unproductive in their job performance. Senior management may believe a

hard leader will change the atmosphere and increase productivity. This does not; however,

support the inappropriate action of a toxic leader. Although the literature indicates that

followers stay at their jobs, under the guise of a toxic leader, for financial reasons, or until

they can no longer handle the abusive authoritarian (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), there is still

no specific documentation to support the senior manager hiring of the toxic leader.

When I reached back out to all of the contacts for each district over a 3-week period

I was unable to obtain additional volunteers. From a quantitative position, this would pose

a real problem. Conversely, from a qualitative perspective I believe it speaks loudly to the

concerns, wounded emotions, dilemmas, and frustration human resource personnel have

with managing the toxic leader. The emotions of dealing with this toxic event pulls heavy

on the minds of those involved, and the statement was made by several participants that

dealing with the toxic leader is exhausting and overwhelming. The Data Analysis portion

of this paper will synthesize specifics from the comments.

The results of the data are divided by research question with the related analysis

following. Each research question reflects the human resource manager’s perspective and is

stated to uncover the essence of the experience.

RQ1: ... What Processes and Methods do Human Resource Managers Use to Identify

Toxic Leaders?

Human resource managers and senior managers are not aware of toxicity until subordinates

begin complaining, leaving, or a pattern of negative events evolves within a department.

It is clear that senior management and human resource personnel may not be aware

they hired a toxic leader. The discovery of toxicity within a company evolves over time.

Participant 2 was the only member who did not agree with this response because the toxic

leader was hired in during a merger and immediately displayed toxic behaviors. According

to five of the nine participants, unless subordinates complain, file a stress case, there is a

noticeable decrease in productivity, or in some way employees rebel, the human resource

manager is unaware of the toxic leader’s negative affects within the organization.

Employees will leave the company, start substantial complaints about a toxic leader, or file

a suit against the organization. Current literature also supports this finding as stated by

Martinko, Sikora, and Harvey (2012) where their research suggests

“followers may abandon an organization due to their perceived belief in the existence of

abusive or toxic supervision” (Martinko, Sikora, & Harvey, 2012, as quoted by Maxwell,

2014, p. 20). Participant 4 was the only human resource manager stating they offer the 360

reviews of leaders by subordinates, peers, and bosses as a method of identifying a toxic

leader. All participants did agree that interviews must take place once the toxic leader is

identified. According to Participants 1, 4, 7, 8, And 9 the human resource department has

to intervene and bring to the attention of senior management how the negative behavior of

the toxic leader is distressing the company.

RQ2:What Processes and Methods do Human Resource Managers Use to Manage Toxic Leaders?

Human resource personnel must follow the same beginning process for all employees to determine what

issue, if there is an issue, is occurring. With the toxic leader, the process changes when senior

management is involved. Senior management may be hesitant to take action because the toxic leader

typically displays the behavior of ‘self-promotion’ by informing senior management of what a great job

they are doing and diverting the senior manager’s attention from the toxic behavior.

A clear path of progression was developed for managing the conflict, investigating

the validity of complaints, and managing the actions of the toxic leader. “Identifying the

determinants of work team process, innovation, and performance, therefore, is

fundamental to our understanding or organizational effectiveness” (O’Neill & Allen,

2014, p. 159). There are six-basic steps to a process that was synthesized from the

comments of all nine participants. The steps are as follows.

1. There has to be an event—something happens to raise a concern regarding the

reality of a toxic leader being present. Employees either: (a) complain, (b) exit,

Toxic leaders are not identified without an employee experiencing a heinous

event that precipitates employees’ actions.

2. Human resource individuals will then begin the interview process. They

observe behavior, team performance, and nonverbal action within the

department. Individual employees are asked to open up and share their

complaints and opinions. Internal confidential surveys are performed in order

to complete analyses on the leader. Other organizations will use legal aid and

consultants to complete the interviews.

3. Once the information is gathered the human resource manager has to discuss

the results with senior management. This can be a very delicate discussion if

senior management is the toxic leader, or if the senior manager is intimidated

by the toxic leader. Providing senior management is supportive of the human

resource personnel a discussion with the senior management, the toxic leader,

and a human resource representative together will take place. According to the

participants the toxic leader will either contribute to the discussion, try to

adjust their behavior, or get haughty and file a suit.

4. There are various options for addressing the negative behavior of the toxic

leader. Performance agreements that insure accountability for the toxic leader

may be put in place. Or, a third-party coach and consultant may be brought in

to assist the toxic leader with adjusting their behavior. Senior management then

holds them accountable for their actions.

5. These options often are not successful and the toxic leader takes legal action

against the company. Alternatively, a process of negotiating a separation and

severance pay to remove the toxic leader from the company begins.

6. Senior management does not necessarily want the toxic leader removed

because they typically have significant industry knowledge in their respective

field (Participants 3, 4, 6, 8, & 9). The self-promoting behavior of the toxic

leader creates an impression of knowledge by the toxic leader for the senior

manager. It is the behavior of intimidating, pressuring, forceful attitudes they

display that creates fear in the human resource. Some results may come to

fruition at the start of the toxic leader employment then within less than 6

months evolve into a toxic event. If change occurs, the toxic leader will remain

employed with the company.

Participants Lived Experiences

Selart and Johansen (2010) confirmed the lack of feedback from senior management

produces an attitude of abandonment wherein the toxic leader may believe they have the

right to manage the department in whatever way they believe necessary. Participant 2

described this by stating “This showed the managers below them that it looks like they do

not care, which resulted in a trickle-down effect. So, from there people started to just check

out” (Participant 2). In other words people may show up to work, but are not motivated to

work at their best performance level. This brings the real issue to a human resource

manager and provides the evidence needed to discuss with senior management. Behaviors

by the toxic leader bring negative results within the teams, the company, and even affect the

bottom-line net income of the organization.

When human resource personnel discover the leader is toxic and contradiction is

displayed between what original commitments were made by the toxic leader and what

actions are displayed, human resource personnel must then attempt to manage the issue

with the required standard processes of discovery. Because of the status of the toxic leader,

the position in the company, and the fact that the human resource manager is subordinate

to the toxic leader in many cases, this discovery creates anxiety, doubt, and internal

confusion for them. The human resource department supports all managers and leaders

within the company since they represent the organizational compliance of the human

resource department. Their duty is to confirm that all employees follow laws, rules,

regulations, and that all employees understand these rules.

A toxic event occurs and the human resource manager begins discovery in order to

confirm the issue, and validate either the toxic leader’s claim or the subordinate’s claim of

wrongdoing. During this period of discovery, the human resource manager has their own

thoughts of confusion, worrisome emotions, and self-reflection on process, protection,

truth, and evidential support. At first the human resource participants stated the initial

investigation and subordinate interview was standard, simple, and they anticipated the

possibility of an angry employee who merely wanted to vent. However, as discovery

continued working with the toxic leader became tense, they felt edgy, unsure, doubtful,

and apprehensive. Addressing the toxic leader and bringing up the concerns of the

subordinate made the toxic leader angry, defensive, belligerent, and rude. Follow-up

conversations with the toxic leader were no more successful, and the participants stated

that it was then they realized senior management must be brought into the arena of

clarifying, controlling, and holding the toxic leader accountable for their actions.

Participants 5 and 6 stated there was very poor support from senior management when

they presented the issues that arose. All other participants believed senior management to

be supportive of human resource personnel, and immediately scheduled a conference to

discuss the behavior with the toxic leader.

Example 1 of a Participant’s Lived Experience

Participants 2 and 3, both employed in the office supply industry reported a more

family type work atmosphere that was less tolerant of the toxic leader. They displayed

frustration and annoyance by defining the problems as a quality management issue where

the toxic leader is not held accountable for actions taken. “The managers over the toxic

leaders have the skill set to deal with this issue and must be the ones to hold the toxic

leader accountable for their actions. If the senior management is supportive of the human

resource personnel, then they will immediately request a meeting with the toxic leader to

discuss their actions. But sometimes the senior manager doesn’t want to deal with the

issue, is too busy to address the conflict, or does not understand the seriousness of the issue

until it is too late and employees are quitting” (Participant 3). It was almost as if the human

resource personnel made the conflict personal, that the toxic leader would dare to disturb

their family, or company, and were abhorred that the behavior continued for more than 5

months. The only solution in their opinion was to remove the toxic leader, even if a

severance pay was determined as the tool for removal.

However, convincing senior management to hold the same belief was more

difficult for some of the human resource people. Participant 2 was able to produce

sufficient evidence from employee interviews, comments from both suppliers and sales

people, and trend reports that displayed disturbing proof for senior management that this

was a toxic event. Senior management was supportive and immediately called a meeting

with the toxic leader. Participant 3, on the other hand, did not share the same or a similar

experience. Participant 3 was not supported by senior management, and although stated

the toxic event must be handled immediately—the quicker the better—senior management

did not act quickly, and instead held off on confronting the behaviors of the toxic leader.

The toxic event was escalated by employees in the department leaving the company in a

noted quantity. The toxic leader was disrupting the company process and “stepped on the

toes of others” (para. 2). Once an employee filed a worker’s compensation claim for stress

relief the senior management had to take action and hold the toxic leader accountable for

the negative behavior toward the subordinate.

Example 2 of a Lived Experience

Participant 8 was anxious to speak with me and share her experience because she

considered the discussion a healing process. She works for an Asian technology company that

produces internationally with an office on both the east and west coast. Her position was a

recent promotion, which handed her the responsibility of managing the conflict created by the

toxic leader. This was her first encounter with toxic leadership, and she stated that she found

herself unprepared for the encounter. Her employment history with this company for 32 years

was reflected in her exceptional devotion to the organization.

A new manager/leader had been recently hired by the corporate office to increase

productivity and improve the functionality of process flow. In the beginning the new leader

appeared to be merely evaluating everything, process, procedure, employee performance,

and other standard areas of productivity. However, this toxic leader began criticizing

employees openly, threatening tenured personnel with accusations about attitude,

performance, knowledge, and general appearance. Participant 8 began receiving

complaints about the new leader from employees who were with the company for many

years, even decades. The complaints included comments that he was mistreating

employees, had verbally accused and abused them, was not following procedure as they

knew it to be, but did not share what his expectations were, thus the team members we

were unable to manage work tasks, were not motivated to continue any performance.

They were generally dissatisfied with the company choice for new leadership.

Although she realized there would be anticipated changes with a new leader, she

found that within 6 weeks there had been four employees who decided to leave the

company for other offers. This action concerned her here, so she contacted the human

resource department on the east coast for advice and a recommendation on how to manage

this conflict. The human resource personnel were supportive and made recommendations

as to how to approach senior management to notify them of the alarming departure of

some very good employees, along with informing senior management there were other

performance issues by this toxic leader that concerned her.

When the toxicity rose to a head she felt overwhelmed since this was the first time

she was in charge of handling such a momentous occasion and related performance issues.

Even though she had been in this position a significant amount of time, she knew she was

unprepared for the turmoil that entered the company dynamics. The east coast human

resource personnel recommended interviewing other employees, still with the company,

and even calling some of those who left to see if they would consider elaborating on their

experience. Shortly thereafter—approximately 3 weeks—two additional employees gave

notice of their leaving the company, and at this point, she contacted senior management to

alert them about her concerns. Senior management requested that she begin to document

actions, complaints, and continue the route to discovery. Meanwhile, the west coast toxic

leader had met the east coast toxic leader and news of the similar actions and behaviors by

both toxic leaders began to surface. Both the east and west coast toxic leaders were

described as displaying the five behaviors of narcissistic, authoritarian, abusive, self-

promoting, and unpredictable actions. When the two of them conversed in joint corporate

meetings, there suddenly was a race for power and control, yet at the same time they fed

off each other’s ideas and actions. Employees were leaving the company in significant

numbers: a total of 12 people in the department left employment with the organization

within the time it took to settle the conflict.

For Participant 8 the entire process from start to finish lasted 2 years. At the end of

the 2 years, new leadership finally was hired to bring back the calm status of the

organization. When she reached out to me for the one and one-half hour interview, she

stated this was her way of talking through the chaos. She said there was a “need to walk

through the memory of the process, and bringing some sanity to what had occurred in her

life” (Participant 8, para. 3). As she had been employed by this company for such a long

time, and her actions showed dedication to the company, senior management believed

there was credibility to the information she shared. Thus, when the toxic leader began to

revise process to suit his personal agenda she was unprepared for the chaos that erupted.

The events that occurred left her feeling completely unprepared for the severity of

extreme conflict happening where she spent so much of her day. As a valued employee,

committed to this organization, she was lost by senior management’s approval of control

by this toxic leader and lack of accountability by this toxic leader. In fact, she called me a

second time, one month later, and asked that I come to her home for a more personal

discussion to share additional thoughts.

Her statements support the chaotic circumstances of more than one of the nine

participants interviewed. The other participants interviewed described similar feelings of

anxiety, uncertainty, disbelief at the arrogant actions of the toxic leader, and doubt about the

support being given to reprimand the toxic leader. This type of anxiety a toxic leader can

create, merely because of their attitude and toxic behavior, was enough to upset the regular

flow of process and productivity. The experience left a painful memory stained in the mind.

The hurtful confusion handling this type of conflict can create came across as draining for

each of the participants. It is best said by Participant 2, “I had to assure the employees to

believe in corporate and that there was a plan. I had to create the hope, be the cheerleader

within the company so people would keep working. We had to round up everyone and rally

support to motivate them” (Participant 2, para. 7). Nevertheless, the job description of the

human resource manager can demand this form of supportive action by those who chose

this field of employment.

Participant’s Perspective

Other participants were equally descriptive of the chaos and emotional upheaval a

toxic leader can create. Organizations are disrupted by narcissistic behavior, abusive

actions, and authoritarian attitudes that cause subordinates to leave the company, or sever

any emotional commitment they may have toward the organization. Participant 5 describes

this by sharing,

Attrition causes a lot of problems, a series of unique problems. It is not

just that you have vacancies and key leader positions missing, but our top

boards of directors are hired by an outside consultant, and for our board of

directors this is extremely problematic. (Participant 5, para. 3)

Participant 5 worked for an organization that utilized an employment agency to

find individuals with specific skill sets. The organization had employed and lost good solid

individuals with required knowledge for working within this industry because of toxic

behaviors by leaders. This situation left few if any new personnel to fill the needed

positions within the organization. The outside agency was unable to find new

knowledgeable personnel for the needed positions and chose not to continue support for

the organization because of this.

Although some of the participants had fewer years of work experience than others,

a majority of the participants expressed the same feeling of overtiredness that toxicity and

managing the toxic leader can produce. Participant interviewed displayed frustration,

doubt, and confusion they felt as they managed the conflict of the toxic leader. Table 6

displays the emotions produced from each participant during the interview, as well as the

range of emotions, and nonverbal physical responses demonstrated in each interview

while discussing RQ1 through RQ3.

Table 6

Emotional Responses of Participants

Participant

Number

Emotion

Behavior/ Display of Emotion

Thoughtful, hurt, angry, annoyance,

straightforward, resolved.

Looked at me directly, then the ceiling,

then scowled his face, shook his head,

then looked back at me.

Happy, content, worried, frustrated,

excitable, despair, disturbed,

shocked, annoyed, hope, calm,

sarcastic, suspicious, hope, joy,

proud.

Smiling, eyes rolled, concern,

storytelling, mimic, joking,

undemanding, responsible, loud,

smiling.

Unemotional, annoyed, irritable,

calm.

Matter-of-fact, detached, sarcastic,

shifting positions for comfort, then

resolved.

Positive, cheerful, confident, happy.

Feels supported, positive open seating,

issues resolved.

Sarcastic, calm, annoyed, irritated,

proud.

Loud, confident, storytelling, back to

confident, resolved.

Bitter, angry, frustrated, resentful,

rejected.

Complaining, annoyed, taken advantage

of, unsupported and unresolved.

Unemotional, happy, resolved.

Stating the facts, cheerleader,

responsible, supported by resolution.

Disturbed, confused, shocked,

unemotional, resolute, confident,

calm.

Very emotional, thoughtful, reaching

for the right words, eyes full of

question, contemplative, finally peace.

Nervous, hesitant, happy, unsure,

serious, fear, calm, confident.

Shift of eyes and hands, rolling eyes,

squinting in confusion, wide eyed, and

smiling with resolve.

The attitude and demeanor for each participant varied between those who felt

relieved that resolution had occurred and those who felt bewildered, betrayed by senior

management, or frustrated at the end result. Participants 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 discussed their

experience as if they were storytelling. These participants were more animated, frustrated,

and then expressed a resolved physical status. The demeanor shifted from professional

introductory stature, when we first met, to agitated and excited, while telling their story.

Once the ending of the story was reached and resolution occurred for the participant and

organization, the demeanor returned to a calm and relaxed position.

Participants 1, 7, and 8 had a more protective demeanor when the interview began.

At first they were hesitant to share, waiting to discover what questions would be posed,

protective of responses and the organization, as well as their job. As the discussion

continued to unfold, these participants showed agitation in their demeanor, as if they were

uncertain of the outcome. Those participants who experienced a good resolution to the

toxic conflict—a termination of the toxic leader, and work-life returning to what they

believed to be normal—expressed demeanors of resolve; a status of calm and comfort.

Participant 6 was still mid-stream the conflict and was quite angry at senior management

for what he believed poor choice to retrain the toxic leader rather than terminate the toxic

leader. He stated multiple times that senior management must hold the toxic leader

accountable for action, must act swiftly at the first sign of toxicity, and the sooner the

better. This participant also shared that he had started looking for a new job himself

because he was dissatisfied with the lack of accountability senior management placed

upon the toxic leader.

The active physical responses of the participants displayed parallel emotional

responses as well. The Participant 6 information from Table 6 was observed during the

interview process and inserted within field notes taken during the sessions. Using the

information collected, observations of non-verbal responses were noted. “Data are supposed

to derive directly from observation: theories are supposed to account for, explain, and

predict these observation-based data” (Ericsson, 1984, 1993). During the analysis of the

data these responses were analyzed in terms of their meanings. Each meaning was then

given a concept, and mapped to the circumstance described by that participant. The voice

inflection heard by the participants is also reflected in Table 6. The protocol for determining

this was developed by taking significant field notes during the interviews. Those field notes

were then loosely written on a paper using a bubble type flowchart. Similar comments,

words, and concepts were connected by the bubble comments dependent upon words used

by the participants, inflection in the voices, and the non-verbal actions shown during the

interview. The emotions of each participant also represent the phenomenon of their lived

experience. Table 6 below describes the participant’s expressions beginning with RQ1 then

continuing through RQ3.

The swing of emotion displayed by the nonverbal language of all participants

demonstrates how the struggle of toxic leader conflict does affect even the human

resource person who is personally removed from the situation. Each participant was

deeply involved in the interviews, the discovery, and the management of the toxic leader.

As stated by Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 it is necessary for human resource personnel

to feel supported, to have the confidence of senior management and the organization

behind them, or their job as cheerleader—motivating the employees onward to completing

their tasks—cannot be performed with confidence.

The human resource support of the organization is equally demonstrated through the

support shown by senior management. Participant 2 continuously commented, “We wanted

everyone to come together, and you want to keep the main players, you want to keep the

business running, and you want to keep hiring good people” (Participant 2, para. 10). As

she was describing the experience, she became loud and animated. She commented that

experience was a roller coaster of emotions from shock, dismay, denial, to acceptance,

defensiveness, and successful happiness. She also made the comment: When you challenge

somebody like that, who is so insecure they end up coming right back at you - with every

insecurity they have, and throwing every card they can at you. It is very hard from and

human resource manager’s perspective to handle somebody who throws every card back at

you. (Participant 2, para. 12)

Participant 2 was describing how the toxic leader challenged not only the human

resource representative but also the corporate policy, corporate process for control, and the

concept of whose agenda would be in charge. This toxic leader was the controller of the

company and held high control over the transactions for the company. There was a lot of

favoritism shown by this toxic leader to the staff who reported directly to her. She would

approve budget increases of over budget expenses for certain items, and deny others that

seemed more important to certain departments. She was also Chinese and would make

sarcastic comments about her ‘Chinglish” (the accent she had when speaking English).

When senior management finally began holding her accountable for behaviors and

unapproved actions, her claims and accusations began to flow. Negative comments were

made about various department heads, accusations of fraudulent activity that was unfound,

and unexplained increases in pay for the staff members she favored. The cards then

represented the actions of challenge shown by the toxic leader against the human resource

manager and the corporate administrators who were requiring accountability on the part of

the toxic leader.

Participant 4 was cheerful. He showed through his attitude that he believed in his

company and felt supported by his direct report. His comment was, “All have to trust

human resource. In this case they trust human resource because they trust me, because I

have performed” (Participant 4, para.3). Meanwhile Participant 6 said, “HR is like a

junior attorney for the company. We are there to protect them, make sure things are going

great and protect the company. But at the same time you see all the dark things”

(Participant 6, para. 5). Matching the emotions shown by these participants with the

words clearly displays a range of emotions from contemplation, anxiety, confusion,

doubt, and back to resolve—at least for those who have rectified with the toxic leader.

RQ 3: How do Human Resource Managers Handle the Ensuing Consequences? The

consequences are managed by using the specific steps within the human resource

department process, with the support of senior management. Dependent upon the actions

of the toxic leader, a performance agreement may be arranged, or an outside coach might

be hired to work with the toxic leader. There are occasions when a suit arises between the

organization and the toxic leader, at which time legal advice is obtained.

Once subordinates were interviewed, and a discussion completed with senior

management and the toxic leader, then the human resource manager has paperwork to

complete. Documentation is required in order to protect the organization from a wrongful

termination suit (Human Resourceci.org). “Documentation is in place, recommendations are

made, recap in an e-mail. If it continues we sit with the leader one-on-one, writing up an

acknowledgement by each person” (Participant 4, para. 6). If the toxic leader is placed on a

Performance Agreement, then it is a matter of tracking the performance and reporting to

senior management. The time frame of a follow up with the toxic leader is documented

within the agreement.

If the toxic leader does not track to the agreement, human resource personnel then

must confirm approval with senior management as to what steps to take. A coach may be

hired to work with the toxic leader on conflict issues, soft skills, and communication.

Participant 6 defined a 2-year time where a coach was hired to work with the toxic leader

and introduce new communication tools, along with new behavior. Participant 4 defined a

situation where legal counsel was sought in order to assure protection for the organization,

and move forward with removal of the toxic leader. Once the toxic leader was severanced

(Participant 2) from the company, new leadership must work with human resource to heal

the wounds and damage done to the team members, staff, and others involved.

Participants verbally commented that some organizations—those who could afford the

cost—would hire outside counselors, not employed with the company permanently and

similar to grief counseling, would be available for anyone who felt the need to discuss and

work through any emotional damage (Participants 2, 8, and 9).

As established within this chapter, specific anxiety and stress is demonstrated as

the human resource manager works through the discovery and validity that the leader is

toxic. Human resource personnel continue to support the senior management, as well as

the subordinate, by how they communicate between the parties. A narrative within the data

is provided to establish the consequences arising from working toward handling the

conflict, and creating accountability for the toxic leader. More frequently than not at this

stage of any conflict the actions will end up as an attempt to retrain the toxic leader or

terminate him or her. The study uncovers how the stress of collecting all the necessary

information from the subordinates and sharing this with senior management can be

overwhelming, disturbing, and emotionally overwhelming for the human resource

manager, and is not successful without the positive support of senior management. Of the

nine human resource managers interviewed, all stated they experienced at least one toxic

leader who sued the organization at one time or another.

Summary

The concept of this study was to explore the lived experiences of human resource

personnel and how they identify and manage toxic leaders. This research attempted to fill

the gap in this area, to determine how human resource personnel sense, manage, and

remove toxic leaders. Chenail (2011) explained that “qualitative studies are most likely

exploratory, naturalistic, subjective, inductive, ideographic, and descriptive/interpretive”

(p. 1). This design for examination includes a thorough review of current literature, which

mostly included remarks, studies, stories, and research from the subordinate point of view.

A large discovery included the realization that missing information within literature

included the human resource and senior manager’s point of view. Discussions within those

interested in the effects of toxic leadership are opening new avenues of questions

regarding senior management and organizational effects and attitudes about the toxic

leader, but limited information from this point of view is available. A case analysis by

Herring (2013) discussed the factors that render an organization to misbehave when

following the toxic leader. The HR Roundtable Review blog discusses how “Human

resource professionals…must find strategies for recognizing, managing, and containing

their own badly behaved executives” (tempositions.com, 2014). Kets de Vries (2014)

described coaching techniques currently used to assist senior executives with dysfunctions

that affect their work. However, there is limited information available to describe what

senior management thinks, feels, or does to settle issues with the toxic leader. This lead to

a discovery of the gap in literature with a charter set out to gain knowledge. The desired

knowledge to obtain was a perspective of the human resource methods and practices for

managing the toxic leader. A continuation of this knowledge will be the lived experience

of senior management.

The process of identifying a toxic leader, managing a process of conflict, and

handling the consequences after the negative effects are encountered was clearly defined

within the chapter. A specific process has been identified, which appears as a consensus of

each and every participant that could become a formalized tool for managing the toxic

leader. Although the process for removal may appear similar to the standard process of

removing any employee, the difference is related more to the discovery of negative effects

of toxic leadership, understanding the experience from the standpoint of a human resource

manager, and establishing there is damage to the organization. The financial strain and

emotional trauma caused to the employees, human resource personnel, and sometimes

even senior management needs more exploration, and there is more to discover regarding

the organizational point of view. The evolution of toxicity is confirmed to be damaging,

affecting employees, leaders, human resource personnel, and the finances of any

organization. The difficulty lies in getting the toxic leader to acknowledge their behavior,

its destructiveness, and to decide to change to avoid the potential negative consequences.

If senior management does not fully comprehend the negative consequences of a

toxic leader this type of leader may evolve again within the organization. All participants

except for Participant 2 made the comment that toxicity from a leader emerges and cannot

be recognized at the point of hiring. Toxic leaders are not hired specifically because they

display negative behaviors. None of the participants were able to identify a tool to

recognize the toxic behavior. Additionally, human resource laws protect interviewees

against the personality tests that would identify the behavior traits.

Therefore, there does not appear to currently be a tool of sorts to identify toxic leaders.

Participants 1, 6, and 7 describe how the behavior of the toxic leader will continue to show

up within the organization if controlled limits are not placed on the toxic leader. Senior

management may be the toxic leader, or may want a controlling force to address languid

employees, under producing teams, and subordinate who perform poorly. “The more

senior the toxic person is in the organization, the more widely spread is the impact”

(Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013, p. 6). Corporate heads may think that hiring an overly strong

personality is the correct way to address this type of problem, only to discover some

months later that they have hired a toxic leader who will destroy company focus. When

toxicity has risen to a point where subordinates are leaving in significant numbers that it is

destroying company morale some organizations will hire outside third-party coaches to

mediate the behaviors and actions of all parties while others will rely on their human

resource departments to handle the matter. “The third element of the toxic triangle is the

conducive environment which supports the toxic leaders to succeed in their personal

agenda” (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2014, p. 5). Accountability by the toxic leader to the

senior management is a main factor in resolving the conflict and behavior of the toxic

leader.

Participant 7 related an interesting observation from completing this study regarding

the personality of the toxic leader.

It is important to try to hire people who are not toxic. Examine the

behavior interviews, provide training with other supervisors. Talk about

team culture and company culture, then set them free to future ongoing

training and approach them on how to deal with issues. (Participant 7,

para. 8)

Participant 7 as quoted above is sharing personal thoughts about goals when hiring

and examining potential leaders. The above quote is taken from the discussion regarding

how and if the human resource manager is able to get a sense of the leader’s character

during the interview process. Once this human resource person completes the hiring

process the company requires the leader continue in ongoing training. The toxic leader

may stall the process of ongoing training, but the company culture should encourage and

demand continual learning. The toxic leader will not go away, and addressing the

behavior of resistance to the culture of continual learning, encouraging behavior

modification, while advocating the need to transform is not an easy task. Company

culture will be changed positively or negatively depending upon the accountability of

staff, and of senior management, human resource personnel, and the toxic leader.

The timeframe from first request for volunteers to last request of volunteers was

close to three months. In the event this action were to be replicated there would need to be

a larger expansion of parameters to include other organizations involved with a human

resource society, human resource learning and training, and to assure more volunteers for

the interviews were acquired. A larger group of human resource personnel all at one time

might be reached through other connections. Human resource personnel are resistant to

discuss toxicity within the workplace because (a) they do not want to be perceived as

criticizing their employer, (b) they do not want to take a chance of breaking

confidentiality, and (c) they are uncomfortable with discussing it because of the memory

of emotional trauma is recreated.

The results speak to the common themes, common codes, and paths of difficulty

the human resource personnel experiences in managing the negative consequences of the

toxic leader. The toxic leader often appears to be a team player, adaptable, pleasant, and

anxious to assist in creating process for a department. Human resource personnel

discovered that within less than six months conflict arises as employees begin to complain

about their lack of consistency, unfair demands, abusive actions, bullying, and offensive

behavior. The findings revealed in the analysis spoke to this difficulty and explained why

human resource managers are so hesitant to share their experiences.

The quotes drawn from the participants define emotional disruption, while attempting

to stay within the boundary of the job description and power of the human resource manager.

While observing, interviewing, and tracking the various responses I found the fear of

personal exposure, as well as the emotional trauma both during the term of the toxic leader

and during severance out of the toxic leader, turned out to be quite strenuous for the

volunteers. The human resource person defined concern for their job description and licensed

requirements of confidentiality toward the company.

Additionally, the human resource participants experienced a significant swing in

emotion from dedication and loyalty to the company, care and concern for the

subordinate, shock and dismay at the behavior of the toxic leader, and complete confusion

for how the entire episode was allowed after the conflict surfaced. The demanding

responsibility for acting as the communicator between the subordinates, senior

management, and the teams is emotionally draining, according to Participants 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,

and 9. The act of having to convince senior management there is an issue to be addressed

is difficult. Toxic leaders act in deceptive ways to control the teams toward their own

agendas. Toxic leaders will pretend to be friends and support of both the human resource

manager and senior leader until they decide control has been obtained. The narcissistic

behavior shown by the toxic leader through the selfish acts they display that promote their

power and authority defies the organization’s culture, processes, and stability. The

liability and exposure to the organization can sometimes be problematic within equal

opportunity, equal employment laws that can lay heavy on the shoulders of the human

resource manage within their job description.

Chapter 5 offers a final summary of the purpose of the study, an interpretation of the

results and close with recommendations for further study. It will also provide current advice

drawn from human resource comments on managing the toxic leader, communicating with

senior management regarding accountability for the toxic leader, while supporting human

resource personnel with a voice for positive social change.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations As recently

as January 2013, additional literature extended knowledge of the effects that destructive

leadership has on the employee’s work production and commitment to job satisfaction

(Krasikova et al., 2013). Krasikova et al. (2013) showed that destructive leadership is

inclusive of “volitional behavior by a leader that can harm or intend to harm the leader’s

organization” (p. 1310). Toxic leadership is an expression of abusive, authoritarian,

narcissistic self-promotion, and unpredictable behaviors that harm subordinates

(Schmidt, 2008) and “incivility was associated with resource depletion, which in turn

was associated with higher levels of burnout and turnover intentions” (Schmidt, 2014, p.

10). The existing literature had not, however, expressed the lived experience of human

resource managers in their efforts to intervene and resolve conflicts created by toxic

leaders. Self and Self (2014) expanded the discussion of unproductive employees and

included employees who display toxic behaviors. Their research offered insight for

organizations to consider by providing opportunities for employees to improve their

behavior, process, and/or productivity or exit the company. Some of those insights

included a corporate audit of job descriptions to clarify and confirm the performance

requirements, practicing strategic performance reviews that offer opportunity for

improvement where needed, documenting underperformance, and offering training,

coaching, and employee assistance programs for counseling, if needed.

My intention for this study was to discover what the experience of human resource

personnel regarding the conflict created by toxic leaders and the processes used to

manage the conflict. Boddy (2012) shared that “Research into toxic leadership

personalities and counter-productive work behavior is scarce” (p. 107). This study was

among the first steps toward closing the gap in literature while at the same time opening

the door for further research into the organizational side of managing toxic leaders.

Chapter 5 is organized to summarize the key findings of this study. The

significance, limitations, and implications of the study are all discussed in a manner that

provides reflection on the overall experience by the human resource manager of

discovering and managing the conflict created by the toxic leader. The chapter additionally

provides an overview of the results and discusses conducting the research.

Recommendations for future research projects in the realm of toxic leadership are given,

along with a vision for positive social change. Positive social change will occur when

organizations better identify toxic leaders and methods for managing them. Further

research on the subject of managing conflicts created by toxic leaders and exploring the

effectiveness of connection to organizational methods of mediating conflict will serve to

further close the gap in the literature. Reflections on the experience of conducting the

research study are provided at the end of the chapter.

Interpretation of the Findings

The findings developed from this research confirmed that the toxic leader has a

negative influence for any company if they are not managed or held accountable (Bond et al.,

2010). The negative influence begins with the subordinates, spreads throughout the group

and beyond, including to the human resource personnel who must mitigate the situation. Too

and Harvey (2012) found that “destructive leadership can have detrimental effects on

productivity, financial bottom-line, and employee morale. Yet, destructive leadership is often

misdiagnosed and/or mismanaged once identified in organizations” (p. 175). Several

participants commented that there are lasting destructive impressions left with those involved

even years after the toxic situation has passed. Based on recurring comments from all

participants, the negative effect of working with a toxic leader causes rebounding concerns

and anxiety for the remaining employees. The research suggested that both the human

resource manager and subordinates maintain this common repercussion of hurt,

discouragement, and confusion from the unpredictability and other behaviors of the toxic

leader. Events of bullying, aggression, rude supervisory behavior, mixed messages that create

undue blame for the employee, and outbursts of anger by the toxic leader are all experienced

as hurtful or offensive or by subordinates (Tavanti, 2012; Wang & Jiang, 2014). These

negative actions are reported and experienced by human resource personnel as well, and

were discussed by Participants 1, 5, and 6. As an example of the trends, Boddy (2012) stated

that when a corporate psychopath is present the bullying behavior “occurs approximately 1.6

times per week” versus incidents that occur where no corporate psychopath exists “occurs

about once every 4 weeks” (p. 116). According to Boddy, conflict and bullying are concerns

correlated with counterproductive work behavior and have characteristics of corporate

psychopathic behavior.

Findings of This Study Reinforce the Literature

Articles written as early as 2010 through 2014 continue to quote Lipman-Blumen (2005),

Kellerman (2008), and Tepper (2000) as the supporting seminal research for the existence of

toxic leadership and for identifying and labeling what behaviors the toxic leader displays. With

new definitions and expansions on the subject, researchers have continued to discuss the

follower’s perspective. Both Pellitier (2010) and Tepper (2011) discussed the bullying of the

toxic leader and victimization of the subordinate. Yagil and Luria (2010) discussed the effect of

social relationships when a low-safety climate is evident within a company. “When a climate is

low, employees may believe that they are expected to sacrifice various aspects of their own well-

being for the sake of organizational goals related to successful performance” (Yagil & Luria,

2010, p. 728). The manifestation of physical symptoms, such as stress-related external

symptoms, signs of depression, and nonverbal expressions of stress reaction by the follower

when delivering quality performance under a toxic leader, will cause staff to cut corners on

productivity in order to satisfy the toxic leader in hopes of winning a favored response from the

superior or avoid an unpleasant one. This ultimately results in less than quality product, low

performance, and employees desire to exit the company, as stated by all nine participants.

Literature indicated that subordinates find the toxic leader difficult enough to work

with that they prefer to leave the company for another job opportunity rather than learning

to work with the toxic leader. Martinko, et al. (2012) confirmed that the followers will

abandon the company due to their perceived belief in the existence of an abusive or toxic

leader. Current researchers established the subordinates’ perspectives of working under a

toxic leader, the difficulties and emotional trauma they experience, and the consequences

followers endure when working under a toxic leader. Recent studies, such as those by Bal

et al. (2010) and Mossholder, et al. (2011)—which supported the existence of toxic

leadership—established the negative consequences organizations have when conflict

arises from the loss of employees. Bal et al. (2010) discussed authoritarianism in

management and the effects this behavior has on rebellion by subordinates. Mossholder, et

al. (2011) established the systems influence human resource managers have on addressing

employee negative behavior that is destructive to the organization. This research adds to

the literature by being the first to consider the perspective of the human resource manager

in the conflict brought on by the behaviors of a toxic leader. Through my research into the

area of toxic leadership, I helped narrow the gap in literature with respect to the lived

experiences of human resource managers.

Extending Knowledge About Toxic Leadership

This study on the human resource manager’s perspective has extended knowledge by

supporting, through interviews with human resource participants, that organizations do

experience a phenomenon of abandonment through turnover from some followers. The

human resource managers’ consensus during the interviews confirmed the employee will

leave the company, find a new job, or file a worker’s compensation claim against the

organization because of the toxic leader’s toxic treatment.

Knowledge has been extended by learning the process used by companies for

managing the conflict of the toxic leader. Using Saldana’s (2009) method of examining first,

second, and third cycle codes, and determining the progression of documentation reflects a

common course taken by all participants. There was a specific pattern that emerged from the

interviews that determined the use of a specific process within the industry of human

resource personnel on managing the toxic leader.

The participants acknowledged that the beginning steps of the process for the toxic

leader are similar to the basic steps in writing-up any employee for an infraction of

workplace rules or expectations. The difference in process starts with a meeting held

between the human resource representative, senior management, and the toxic leader.

When a human resource manager discovers toxicity is a real concern, and senior

management is brought into the situation, a conversation with the toxic leader may either

develop animosity on the part of the toxic leader, or result in a performance agreement.

The performance agreement may include coaching with an outside agent to raise

awareness of the toxic leader on the negative consequences brought on by the toxic

leader’s behavior. This is when toxic tension begins for the human resource. All

participants in the study acknowledged that tension, anxiety, fear, humiliation, and

sometimes vindictive action on the part of the toxic leader are all displayed at this point.

Since the toxic leader will act in an unpredictable fashion the human resource

manager may have difficulty controlling or managing the situation. Terminating the toxic

leader, then, becomes more problematic though not impossible, and per the participants

will lead to cost of outside consultants or legal aid in assisting with the conflict. The

human resource person will prepare a performance agreement and then meet with the toxic

leader and senior management to obtain signatures of acknowledgement. If human

resource manager has to hire a consultant to coach the toxic leader, the toxic leader may

behave resentfully, vindictively, or may act in a manner of complete compliance. The

concern of human resource representative stated by the participants is whether or not this

complacence is true or a temporary act. It is not until several weeks of coaching are

completed, or several weeks of discussion pass, that the true intentions of the toxic leader

are discovered. If the toxic leader does not decide to sign the performance agreement, the

toxic leader often will hire a lawyer and file suit against the company for a variety of

reasons that only the toxic leader seems to understand or acknowledge. Senior

management and the human resource manager together must then develop a plan for

progressing forward toward either termination or severance pay.

Accountability is the most important, but last step within the process of managing

the toxic leader, and is apparent within the human resource comments. An important

recurring comment by Participants 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 was that senior management must hold

the toxic leader accountable for their actions, performance, treatment of subordinates, and

handling of internal procedures within the organization. Krasikova,

Green, and LeBreton noted “The actions of organizational leaders have implications not

only for organizations and organizational members but also for the organizational

outsiders” (2012, p. 1309). Only senior management is able to hold the toxic leader

accountable for their action, and it must be acted upon immediately. “The failure of

leadership to handle manageable conflict and dysfunctional behavior were failures in toxic

detection and handling” (Goldman, 2008, p. 245). Participants 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 specifically

stated this was a major concern and continuing issue for their process of handling toxicity.

The senior management either (a) did not know how to handle the toxic leader, (b) was

busy and overwhelmed with the current workload, or (c) did not seem overly concerned

until the employees began to leave the company. “Anderson and Pearson (1999) describe

how workplace incivility has the potential to spiral into increasingly aggressive behavior,

thus establishing the important link between uncivil behavior like yelling and arguments

and outright conflict” (as quoted in Boddy, 2013, p.

108). The “negative trickle-down effects of toxicity” (Part. 2, para. 5) erode teams, company

performance, and employee attitudes. Accountability at an earlier stage will enable actions

of damage control required by the human resource department.

The human resource personnel demonstrate they believe they are the motivating force

to bind employees to performance and productivity when toxicity is inflamed.

Multiple participants commented they act as a cheerleader to keep morale afloat.

Although there is a fine line for the human resource manager to draw due to a loyalty to

their superiors, their own job performance expectations, and to the company itself they act

as a facilitating force for communication between the parties. If support for the

subordinate is not provided the team, department, and organization will suffer. All

participants within this discussion expressed this. Participants believe that human

resource was the support for communication between the ranks, and was responsible for

providing the flow of information between senior management and the teams. Participant

2, 4, and 6 provided specific examples of their employee interaction, developing trust

between parties, and follow through with a plan for resolving toxic leader conflict being

shared with the teams. These participants explained that they encouraged subordinates to

meet with them at any time, reminded them of their open-door policy, and how they were

available to discuss the emotions of employees if ever and whenever needed. These

actions taken by the human resource personnel provided what Participant 2 referred to as

being the cheerleader. During the interview with Participant 2 she shared how a the

corporation started to experience financial strain from loss of business due to what she

considered negative influence in communications between the toxic leader and the

customer base. The following year the employees were told there would be no raises. The

toxic leader at the time was the CFO, and even without senior management approval,

scheduled raises only for specific employees favored by the toxic leader. This created

additional problems for the human resource manager and the company as a whole, further

supporting the needed backup to terminate this toxic leader. The human resource manager,

though, had to follow through on communicating with the other managers who heard of

the incident, and had a lot of questions about this action.

Many of the employees, as told by Participant 2, were caught between the anger of

what they believed unfair treatment, and confusion from a stated feeling of commitment

to the company after a significant amount of years with the organization. Several of the

other department managers believed they had rights to know why this happened, and how

this happened, as well as what would be done to provide equal raises to all. By acting as a

doorkeeper on information that could be shared with the subordinates the human resource

manager was able to informed the teams of what information they could so employees

might remain motivated, and the employment status of the subordinate might be retained.

Significance of the Study

Positive social change along with increased knowledge of process and procedures

are two of the benefits of this research. The camaraderie of human resource representatives

will be able to compare their current procedure with the process supplied in this review

and engage or expand on the steps currently being used within their organization.

Additionally, PIHRA may be able to use this information to prepare training tools for

human resource members who have not had experiences with a toxic leader. Participant 8

shared she had never been through the experience before, as she was promoted right before

the toxic event occurred. A corporate process, conflict resolution training, or a no tolerance

policy would have been helpful information for her to manage the anxiety she felt, and the

confusion she experienced while handling her company’s situation.

Creating a Supportive Culture

A supportive culture within an organization will enhance team development.

Wherein, destructive leaders destroy harmony. Gelfand, Leslie, Keller, and de Dreu,

(2012) completed a study on support for this claim by noting how the personality of a

leader may determine its success. The research completed within this investigation

provides significant evidence of this claim. Gelfand et al. supported the value and need for

companies to confirm their leaders are in a supportive environment so communication and

productivity is positive.

Crocker (2005) completed a study on managerial civility and developed a

validating measurement scale. His study concluded, “perceptions of interactional injustice

will positively correlate with the perceptions of managerial incivility” (p. 16).

There is a clear relationship between the follower’s perception of treatment by the toxic

leader, which is discovered only by the employee interviews performed by a human resource

manager, and the follower’s commitment to the team. An open-door policy by senior

management may appear by some to be a solution. Nevertheless, without the trust of the

subordinate the communication between the parties will not take place.

Revealing a Non-Supportive Culture

Seven of the nine human resource participants within the study clearly indicated

that toxic leaders would step on the toes of others, destroy processes, and display “no

ability to work with others” (Participant 3, para. 3). Participants 4, 6, and 8 revealed their

feelings of frustration at the senior management for not being supportive more quickly

when toxicity appears, just as the literature reveals the subordinate does. The frustration

lies in mixed thoughts between commitment to the company and concern or sympathy for

the subordinate. The human resource personnel have the departmental position of

protecting and supporting the organization’s liability. The toxic leader has brought

conflict and complications in their ability to address any concerns quickly. Goldman

(2008) confirms that the extent of conflict within an organization is determined by how

quickly senior management attends to the negative implications of the issues brought on

by the toxic leader. Too and Harvey (2012) said, “what can be predicted is that some form

of dysfunctional behavior has a higher probability of occurring in toxic physical

environments” (p. 173-174). Senior managers must hold the toxic leader accountable for

their behavior, and combat the toxic leader’s actions toward creating their own agendas.

Mehta and Maheshwari (2013) confirmed the negative leadership behaviors attributed to

toxic leadership is harmful and abusive. This difficulty contributes to the human resource

manager’s frustration and difficulty with managing the conflict.

Additionally, Mehta and Maheshwari (2013) confirmed:

There is an increase in the studies investigating harmful behaviors and

these negative behaviors are classified by various researchers into

different domains such as abusive, tyrannical, destructive, bullying,

unethical or bad, and toxic. (p. 3)

The organizational side of toxic leadership is yet to be uncovered, and the

perspective of human resource managers described in this study provides a step toward

more transparency for organizations. Some organizations as a whole may be toxic. For

example, Participant 6 acknowledged that the owners as senior executives within the

organization he worked for were the toxic leaders. He shared how this created an entire

organization filled with toxicity where nobody was immune to the negative effects. A

specific story he shared by Participant 6 was how senior management who were the toxic

leader would give contradictory instructions, then yell at the employee for doing what they

were instructed. The toxic leader would say to employees that they had no idea what they

were doing, that they were only in the organization for a paycheck so were expected to

work for that paycheck, and that every employee is replaceable while speaking

disrespectfully to the employees. According to his statement those employees remaining

within the company for long periods of time displayed highly dysfunctional personality

traits, which continued to in-breed toxic acceptance. This participant also was diligently

looking for a new job himself. The organizational side of toxic leadership, I believe, would

include understanding how these companies continue operating within the toxic

environment, and continue to be successful – if they are successful.

Managing the Conflict of the Toxic Leader

The viewpoint of the human resource personnel is discovered through the various

stories told regarding the phenomenon of working with a toxic leader. The findings fully

support the conceptual framework stated in Chapter 1 by collecting, reviewing, and

labeling toxic leadership behaviors from the human resource manager’s perspective

against the contextual understanding of toxic leadership. The stories and experiences of

human resource managers who have worked with toxic leaders were collected. This is a

primary assemblage of human resource information about what is known and what is not

known in relation to processes of intervention when resolving conflict created by the toxic

leader. Chapter 4 develops the findings and analyzes the results of the interviews with

human resource managers. The findings establish the process, but also discuss the

emotional experience that human resource representatives deal with while managing the

toxic leader. The challenge for future research is to establish and develop programs to

assist human resource department with mediating methods to resolve conflicts, while

helping them to understand the personality of the toxic leader. A deeper understanding of

the toxic leader will enable human resource personnel and senior management personnel

create a clear understanding of how to manage the toxic environment. Knowledge is

extended by introducing new data, found awareness, as well as a deeper consideration of

what human resource personnel go through when managing the conflicts created by the

toxic leader.

I was a subordinate negatively affected by a toxic leader, which caused me grief for

several years. The actions of senior management did not show their desire to change the

situation and bring about positive change. I did not understand why the organization

continued to allow the toxic leader to destroy teams through the behaviors, actions, and

overriding politics being displayed. With an understanding of the systems human resource

personnel must follow, and realizing the affect the toxic leader can have on both human

resource manager and senior management, I now understand that removal of the toxic

leader is far more difficult than the average subordinate can comprehend. Between the

labor laws in place, the interview and write up process human resource personnel must

follow, the process of removing a toxic leader is slow and difficult. Additionally, the

behaviors of self-promotion and unpredictability displayed by a toxic leader cause human

resource managers more problems in convincing senior management the extent of the

harm to subordinates and the company as a whole. The participants explained their

concerns over how the toxic leader can be so deceptive that a decision for terminating the

toxic leader may not be made quickly. The participants also frequently stated that if senior

management does not hold the toxic leader accountable for actions they take then human

resource personnel cannot change the situation.

Although there may be some companies that prefer to operate in toxicity, as a

continuum, literature supports that most companies do not. The available literature on

positive leadership, servant leadership, positive power in leadership written by such authors

as Covey (1996, 2008, 2014), Du Pree (2004, 2009), Maxwell (2000, 2005, 2007, 2011),

and Posner (2000) to name a few far outweighs support for maintaining toxic leadership.

Companies affected by the negative behaviors of the toxic leader must first acknowledge

the negative consequences of the toxicity, and then continue the process required to remove

the toxic leader. Without the team support between human resource personnel and senior

management, this is a difficult procedure to accomplish.

This study supports the current literature by confirming any company may be

affected by a toxic leader. The findings discuss some of the negative effects the human

resource manager must manage caused by the actions of the toxic leader. The results show

that senior management must acknowledge the existence of toxicity, and support the

process human resource personnel practice when managing the toxic leader. The

participants shared a common belief that senior management is the responsible party to

establish accountability for the toxic leader. Reed and Bullis (2009) completed research

on military and civilian interaction on base with leadership and determined “that

destructive leadership is as prevalent as it is due to lack of self-awareness on the part of

supervisor, or an inability to discern the organizational level long-term impact to such

behavior” (p. 13). Schmidt (2014) completed a secondary study on toxic leadership and

identified that “resource depletion was connected with negative outcomes and can be

caused by incivility” (p. 10). These finding are supported by the consensus of the human

resource participants interviewed within this study. Participants 1, 4, 5, and 6 stated the

toxic leader is unable to self-identify their toxic behavior, which was a statement made by

several participants to be part of the issue.

According to the participants, the behaviors of the toxic leader appear after they

have been hired and the destructive attitudes start to appear around 5 months. As explained

by the participants, the toxic leader frequently displays attitudes of power, creates their

own corporate agendas, and generates the destructive atmosphere that produces resource

depletion and a toxic workplace. Discovering through the experience of human resource

participants how the toxic leader is completely impractical toward acknowledging their

narcissistic, destructive, authoritarian actions, and that they are inept in the soft skills of

communication is in line with, and further supports, current literature. This is significant

because human resource managers confirmed that retaliatory behavior of employees

toward the organization may appear within the company in the form of

“sabotaging operations, providing inaccurate or misleading information, and withholding

help when a coworker has asked for assistance” (Pelletier, 2010, p. 377). The information

provided within this research further extends current knowledge by filling the gap

regarding the human resource manager’s perspective on toxic leadership. The study allows

human resource personnel an opportunity to acknowledge toxic behavior, and

confidentially suggest that the concerns, problems, troubles, and conflict caused by the

toxic leader may be more significant than recent literature suggests. The findings in

Chapter 4 establish that the emotions of both the subordinate and human resource

managers are affected by the toxic leader. A significant loss of employees occurs before

the toxicity is identified, and the situation has the potential to place significant financial

strain on companies.

Human nature will always create some form of disputes and conflict, and skill sets

to overcome disputes are essential. Some of the tools for resolution are being applied to the

area of the toxic leader’s actions. During the training of a court mediator there are specific

steps used to practice the skill of mediation. Those skills are enhanced by developing

listening tools, confirming the perspective of each party in the dispute, and learning the

keys to a caucus discussion (strausslawinstitute/pepperdine.edu). Human resource

participants within the study acknowledged the steps to identifying and managing a toxic

leader include active listening while interviewing the subordinate, practicing the process of

caucus by independently hearing what the parties represent as their position, and working

with senior management to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the toxic leader. The

process of caucusing is a tool used by mediators wherein the first meeting is a conference

with all parties, then the following meetings are independently and individually held in

order for both/all parties to “feel heard”

(Participant 1, para.1). During a mediation process the mediator separates the parties then

carries the message from one party to another, thus communicating more effectively and

unemotionally. The steps to resolution may be transferred to any company. Human

resource representatives would enhance their ability to support senior management in a

resolution with the toxic leader through learning the skill set of mediation. Although

mediation or any other method of communicating with the toxic leader is not a guarantee,

this is a process the human resource managers identified during the interviews. The

largest concern stated by the participants with any form of resolving toxic conflict is the

unpredictability of the toxic leader. No one really knows, nor can predict, what behavior

the toxic leader will display at any given time. By ingesting the new information provided

within this research senior management and human resource personnel may be able to

identify toxicity sooner and control the magnitude of chaos created when negative

leadership abounds.

Data Analysis for Research Questions

Data analysis consisted of reviewing and coding interpreting the interview

responses. Qualitative analysis tends to be more painstaking, time consuming, and

interpretive than quantitative analysis (Simon, 2011). Saturation is obtained as “the point

in data collection and analysis when new information produces little or no change to the

codebook” (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 65). The research questions within the

study were designed to explore the viewpoint of the human resource manager. Obtaining

their perspective was successfully completed, and an understanding of their position has

been made clearer. Chapter 4 includes a complete analysis of the research questions, the

paralleled responses, and an explanation of coding. Saturation was reached among the

nine participants as they established a uniform pattern of similar process steps and

emotional experience. I recognize; however, that an expansion of this study by including a

larger number of participants might uncover additional perspectives.

While completing this study, I reflected on the intensity of each participant, the

inflection in voice and demonstrative nonverbal responses, and expressions from

frustration to satisfaction. At the time of each interview, I concentrated on their intentions,

reflections, and concerns. The formal discussion questions were only provided as a

starting point for the interviews. Several of the questions encouraged storytelling, which

became a better focus to understand the issues, similar to a word-picture. The word-

picture process is used frequently within communication tools so that one individual can

be placed into another’s point of view, thus feeling the full extent of the message. It was

gratifying to hear the remarks, be a part of the discussion, and to give the interviewees the

attention to explain their positions.

The data gathered within the interviews provided the elaboration that I expected,

with a few small variances. My original belief was that the toxic leader must be

eliminated. Through the interview process completed within the study I soon realized the

human resource personnel have a more difficult time terminating the toxic leader due to

lack of senior management support, fear of a court battle with the toxic leader because of

the lack of guaranty in support from senior management, and validation in the claim of the

inappropriate behavior by the toxic leader. Subordinates are not anxious to be involved in

claims against their leader. Although the behavior of the toxic leader is completely

unacceptable and a plan for removal appears to be the most logical answer, I became

consciously aware that human resource managers were claiming the only answer was to

document the behavior and convince senior management to support them in the quest for

their removal. The methods of the toxic leader are a serious issue. This is an issue that will

not go away, so must be managed appropriately if the toxic leader inflicts harm and the

organization must assume responsibility for his or her actions. The definition of

appropriate for the human resource manager depends on the severity of the toxic issues,

the support of senior management in the process, the length of time the toxic leader has

worked for the company, and several other factors which could be a liability of the

organization. Some of those liabilities may result in workers compensation claims, or filed

law suits against the organization by a toxic leader.

Through the analysis of information gathered during the interviews it became very

clear that the companies attempt to hold the toxic leader accountable for their behavior is

not an easy task. The stories shared by the human resource participants revealed difficulty

in a) identifying the leader as toxic, b) convincing senior management to aggressively

take action quickly enough to lessen the damage done, c) limiting the time of employment

by the toxic leader due to discovery and buy-in required by the decision makers.

Designing the interview questions in order to assimilate the thoughts and ideas of the

human resource personnel was an important part of this research study. The accumulation

of their formulated ideas became fascinating to unravel as the toxic leader behavior

continues to be a dilemma of great magnitude for organizations to grasp if the toxic leader

is getting results.

Participant Responses

The participants had differing emotional reaction to sharing their stories of the

toxic leader experience. Some participants acknowledged the subordinate’s pain when

they told their side of the problem. A portion of the participants shared how they were

shocked, stunned, and confused during the discovery of the toxic leader. A majority of the

participants only knew how to handle this because of either a prior experience with a

toxic organization, or drawing from psychology courses they had taken.

The human resource participants who had less experience with a toxic leader

displayed more non-verbal behavior; was more excited, more anxious, and less

instructional. Participants 1 through 6 stated their senior management was the toxic leader

at some point in their careers. Therefore, they needed to learn how to deal with the

behaviors or find a different job. Participants 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 stated discussing the

behavior with senior management did not make sense, as it would not bring change to the

organization unless new management would be brought into the discussions. The toxic

leader currently in placed was able to display self-promoting behavior that kept senior

management from realizing the true toxic actions of the toxic leader. Human resource

participants stated they witnessed the toxic leader in meetings where he or she appeared

to be compliant, supportive, and a team player. When the toxic leader left the meeting that

individual would continue to act on their own agenda terms regardless of what was

agreed to in the meeting. The only resolution, they believed, was to find a way to mediate

with senior management on performance issues. Discovery on the perspective of human

resource personnel may be the foundational information to broaden the perspective of

senior management, and can be built upon to further the understanding of toxic leader

behavior. Senior management must open their viewpoint, expand their knowledge, and

learn better methods of resolving conflict. Everyone would benefit in developing conflict

resolution strategies.

According to the participants, when senior management supports the human

resource manager and agrees to bring in legal assistance, or a coach, the department will

feel supported and the subordinates see immediate action. Even if the coaching for the toxic

leader does not yield positive results, the act of reaching out for support still sends a

positive message to human resource representatives and team members that senior

management acknowledges there is an issue and is taking action. In order to eliminate

frustrations of subordinates and human resource managers, providing evidence of some

positive action by senior management is essential.

Limitations of the Study

The limitation of volunteers was a hurdle to scale, although phenomenological studies

are acceptable with a participant number of six to ten (Creswell, 2007;

Moustakas, 1994; Norvell, Northcutt, & McCoy, 2004). The original proposal anticipated

a collection of 20 participants, and was adjusted by necessity and resulted in a total of nine

interviews. The fear and hesitation displayed by the volunteers became a limitation,

although each individual was assured confidentiality. During the process of collecting

volunteers it was explained that no names would be used when sharing the data or

interviews, and the IRB process would by strictly adhered to. However, the human

resource individuals still displayed inhibition with participating in the interviews.

Comments within the participant who did respond clearly identified the hesitation was

related to a concern over company breach of information.

Human resource personnel are held to strict structures of confidentiality within

their job descriptions (hci.org), and although this was frustrating, I find it respectful they

were so committed to the company and the position of a human resource manager. This

similarity could be representative of a majority perspective from the human resource

personnel. The data analysis is exploratory and does support the results and conclusions of

this material.

The inability to interview the senior management who hires the toxic leader remains

a limitation. However, it would be an interesting study to attempt. As discovered within the

interviews senior management does not typically set out to hire a toxic leader. Toxicity

evolves within a short period of time. The consensus defines a timeframe of approximately

5 months after employment before the toxic leader shows signs of toxic behaviors. A

fascinating follow up study would be the interviews with senior management. Reviewing

what senior management does believe, perceive, and acknowledge regarding the toxic

leader may shed further light on the dynamics at work.

A follow up study of this type would also provide supplementary support for this study.

The lack of information in literature on human resource manager’s procedures for

managing toxic leaders continues to serve as a limitation. There is literature available to

support the claim by human resource managers that employees complain and will leave a

company because of a toxic leader. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) completed a study to

measure and predict abusive supervision, deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict,

and subordinate performance. Their study supports the opinion of a gap in literature by

stating, “This research has helped explain why supervisors may be inclined to downward

hostility in general, but little is known about the reasons supervisors abuse specific

subordinates” (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011, p. 279). Several clues abound within the

literature to confirm toxic leaders are problematic, and to imply senior management needs

to hold them more accountable for their actions. Gelfand, Keller, Leslie, and de Dreu

(2012) completed a study on cultures within organizations that create conflict. Their study

determined subordinate burnout occurs when conflict is created by destructive leaders

and leads to counterproductive work behavior. Gelfand et al. (2012) support the concept

of creating collaborative cultures, which can only occur by understanding dominant and

avoidant organizational cultures. There remains insufficient literature to provide the

perspective of the human resource manager. This study is a first to pierce the concerns,

positions, and perspective of the human resource manager.

Assumptions and Delimitations

Within the research, it was assumed to be true that the human resource personnel

involved in this study would be able to contribute to this study through their personal

experiences with the toxic leader. The model provided for internal conflict resolution, a

training of mediation and dispute resolution, or the hiring of a professional in-house

mediator, was accepted by the participants as an idea that could create positive social

change within organizations. All participants were able to state personal experiences,

perspectives, and processes of managing the conflict created by a toxic leader would be

assisted by an internal process described above. All participants were able to contribute

ideas, and recommendations for a method of improving communications and accountability

for the toxic leader. Interestingly they also supported the need for senior managers to accept

more responsibility for holding the toxic leader accountable for their actions and behaviors.

An assumption was that the definition of a toxic leader as defined by Schmidt

(2008) would be expanded on or confirmed. All participants confirmed this definition, and

did not elaborate, expand, or negate the definition provided. There was agreement that all

five behavior characteristics described by Schmidt (2008) needed to be present to identify

a true toxic leader. The human resource participants noted that they were able to create a

method to work around the conflict if only some of the behaviors appeared. The bullying

supervisor who was not identified as a true toxic leader, as an example, was more open to

coaching, identifying areas of their managing style that need improvement, and were not

resistant to change. Participant 2 chose the word cancerous as a word interchange for the

use of toxic. However, there were no other recommendations or expansions on the

definition by Schmidt. Therefore, it is assumed the working definition of a toxic leader

would be the leader behaviors of narcissistic, abusive, authoritarian, selfpromoting when

it damages the team, and unpredictable.

There was also an assumption that this study would add valuable information on

this subject and provide an impact to organizational methods for handling the chaos

created by toxic leaders. The knowledge provided within this research is a stepping-stone

toward closing the gap in literature on the human resource manager’s perspective on toxic

leadership. Further research as suggested within the recommendation will enhance

knowledge, and allow for positive social change within organizations as improved

conditions of employment evolve from this knowledge as long as toxic leaders are

identified early and removed or reformed. If the organization establishes accountability

for manager’s actions at the forefront of employment, and acts quickly when toxicity

begins to appear, the company employees will have better, psychologically safer

environments, thus experiencing positive social change.

The limits of this study were specific to the perspective and perceptions of the

human resource personnel. The research maintains a concentration specifically on the

definition of the toxic leader, and how the human resource manager identifies, manages, and

handles any consequences related to the conflict. Any remarks made by those interviewed

that were not related to the subject of toxic leadership were not included in the dissertation.

There were limited remarks made regarding other subject matter, so it was not difficult to

keep the interviews focused on toxicity. The participants were able to keep their comments

on the subject and had enough information that provided support. Names of organizations,

superiors, and participants are not included to protect the interviewee’s confidentiality, as

well as honor the guidelines of the IRB. Trust and confidence was established and

maintained within the interviewees. The information provided by all human resource

participants suggests ideas for further research projects.

Personal Reflection

During my tenure with a toxic leader, it appeared that there was a lack of

information flow between senior management to human resource manager to subordinate.

This is what created my desire to understand toxic behavior among leaders. The behaviors

of a toxic leader described by Schmidt (2008) of narcissistic, abusive, authoritarian, self-

promoting, and unpredictable were all confirmed behaviors my team experienced.

Originally, I believed more information was needed within the literature to understand the

viewpoint of the subordinate. I thought there was and ought to be more power within the

hands of the employee. I learned very quickly that this was not the case, and the

company’s process and procedures to make money, develop the organization, and manage

change was the real controlling factor. Leaders are not necessarily hired as toxic

managers. I am told by the human resource participants they are typically hired with the

intent of bringing needed change to an organization, or to fill open positions within the

staff. It is not until after the hiring, and the real work begins, that toxicity arises.

Literature supports the opinion that toxic leaders, once identified, can create havoc on

industries, chaos in teams, and create unproductive work atmospheres for the subordinates

(Bendersky & Parikh, 2013; Boddy, 2012; Kellerman, 2008; Krasikova,

Green & LeBreton, 2013; Lipman-Blumen, 2004; Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013; Schmidt,

2008; Tepper, 2007). It was at this point that I became more interested in understanding how

the toxic leader can have such control over the subordinates.

The interviewer should be aware of their own bias, position, and comment on these

biases. In my case, tenure of 2 years with a toxic leader became problematic after

completing a Master’s degree in Dispute Resolution. I had already completed a Master’s

in Organizational Leadership, and noticed a growing concern when a toxic leader was

transferred from a different department to the one I was working in. My coworkers

referred to her as ‘the Terminator’. She was known for firing personnel without supportive

evidence, or pushing productive personnel to a point of leaving the company. The issue

was not that she pushed unproductive personnel into being productive. The issue was the

manner in which she forced personnel to leave the company was destructive,

authoritarian, narcissistic, and created fear within the department.

My bias, therefore, was already loaded with a negative viewpoint having

experienced a toxic leader. As I continued through the analysis of the literature review on

toxic leadership it became apparent that the results, implications, and concerns of

researchers already documented the issues I was experiencing. The gap in literature became

evident when I realized little to no informational data was available from the human

resource perspective. The challenge became how to collect data from the human resource

without interfering in confidentiality, or invalidating their commitment to the various

companies. When the idea of PIHRA became a reality I had hopes of obtaining more

volunteers, although all data gathered is relevant, similar, repeating, and supportive of the

final analysis provided within this discussion. I was surprised by the defensive physical

stance portrayed by the human resource individuals at PIHRA. My sense was their

resistance to discussing the experience was demonstrated as fear. These individuals were

not willing to discuss the fear openly. Therefore, I did not know exactly the cause.

Additional volunteers, I believe, would only further substantiate the existing information. I

believe the data collected within this research is explainable and substantive of the human

resources perspective on the toxic leader and extends knowledge on this subject.

Recommendations

I would recommend a repeat of this study in other cities and towns to determine if

what I identified here is generalizable. Informative collection of data, with a subsequent

analysis, would confirm with human resource personnel that toxic leadership continues to be

an issue of concern throughout other cities, states, and counties, and identify if others were

affected more deeply by the actions and behaviors of toxic leaders, thus increase the

findings. It is not likely that the results will be any different, and repeating this study in

other areas would further support the findings. Enabling human resource organizations

across the country to expand knowledge in this arena would also assist with training to

prevent the hiring and perpetuation of toxic leaders.

Another follow up study that would be fascinating is to discover the origin of toxic

leaders and how they succeed to higher organizational levels. Understanding what creates

the natural predisposition to status of leader, what creates the term Freud (1989) used of

narcissistic tendency, and what causes them to be toxic rather than collaborative or

mentoring is knowledge needed to broaden the spectrum within this subject. Followers

who complain about their leaders, will leave a company because of a toxic leader, but

there is limited literature or reference to a subordinate leaving because of a coworker.

Human resource personnel are able to curtail negative behavior between subordinate and

subordinate by the current processes in place, the company handbook, a write-up for

policy correction, or a termination at-will. However, limited reports are available on

engaging the toxic leader in processes to resolve conflicts between ranks.

Forthrightly, it would be difficult to complete such a study, as it is difficult to

envision a toxic leader volunteering to be considered a negative force. I do not believe

anyone would volunteer to be interviewed in order to discover how their negative behavior

affects others. If such an interview were to take place it would require appealing to the

narcissistic influence within the character of the toxic leader. Approaching them with the

intent of elevating them, recognizing them for the industry knowledge they encompass,

would be best way to interview them; although, only those undertones of personality could

be reckoned with, and this would be an overly subjective position to interview from.

Additionally, this may not be a straightforward approach thus not a recommendation.

Since the toxic leader displays narcissistic tendencies appealing to them with honesty by

asking their opinion on specific events would be the best method of approach. If the toxic

leader happens to be the senior manager, it would be more difficult to obtain approval and

support to interview them.

Companies as a whole, and human resource personnel, recommend using employee

handbooks. Participants 1 and 3, and 4 each stated the value and importance of a solid

handbook. It is an acceptable format to create a handbook with accountability limits of

actions and behaviors for employees. Documented training and signed waivers by all

employees, including management, would better protect an organization from the potential

risk and liability encompassed with the toxic leader’s behavior.

Since there is no pre-hiring mechanism to fully recognize a toxic leader, and human

resource laws prevent personality tests being given without full knowledge of why the test

is given, it is imperative any organization currently suffering from toxicity discover the

proper methods for accountability between all parties. The senior management must be

held responsible for holding the toxic leader accountable. Human resource personnel and

senior management together should create a method for managing the toxic leader against

actions that are not addressing issues at hand.

Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) provided an interesting proposal for additional

research. This proposal explains that perceived toxic leadership versus actual documented

toxic leadership is difficult to identify when there is a leader who does not like or care for the

personality of a subordinate. In other words, they have a personality conflict versus a toxic

relationship. The leader and subordinate perceive life through very differing lenses.

Tepper, Moss and Duffy said, “Specifically, we propose that the relationship between

perceived deep-level dissimilarity and abusive supervision is indirect, operating through

supervisor perceptions of relationship conflict and supervisor evaluations of subordinates’

performance” (2011, p. 281). Their study entailed four hypotheses regarding mediating

perceptions of relationship conflict between supervisor and subordinate. This is a

different study from what I am recommending. The first step the human resource manager

takes to identify a toxic leader is to interview subordinates to confirm the reality of their

claims of mistreatment, the degree of mistreatment, and whether it is just one subordinate

or if there are others. Generally, it is feasible for any supervisor and subordinate to have

difficulty in communication when their viewpoints or opinions are significantly different.

The first step of interviewing will lead to determining the viability of toxicity.

Implications

One implications of this study suggests the need for quicker response by senior

management to the toxicity that is identified by human resource managers. Human

resource departments have suggested a process, which it practiced throughout

organizations represented in this study. To quote Participant 8, “Once I was able to

provide evidence of bad, immoral, people complaining, lawsuits being filed, and what this

was costing the company he was ready to approve release of the toxic manager” (para.8).

Thus, a more immediate accountability for the toxic leader will provide support for the

company to manage the negative consequences of conflict that occur from the toxic

behavior. Moreover, demonstrating support for human resource manager from senior

management by creating better communications, discussing conflict resolution tools, and

updating the employee handbook to include consequences to toxic behavior is equally

important in managing toxic situations.

Potential Impact for Positive Social Change

The connection with positive social change is established by sharing knowledge

and providing opportunity to understand how organizations deal with toxic leaders and

how senior managers can improve the relationships among people at work. Positive social

change is established by providing a method for minimizing toxicity in the workplace. In

addition the impact of the toxic leader would be lessened by demonstrating the

organization’s intolerance to the toxic behavior.

Human Resource Process Considerations

Recognizing a toxic situation within any organization and identifying a toxic

leader can be controversial. The methods currently used by human resource departments

identify the toxic leader after they are hired. Identifying a toxic leader pre-employment is

not feasible, as established by the participants, because the law does not allow them to test

for personality. The participants stated that the law only allows testing for job

qualifications (Part. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7). Therefore, any support the company can create to

further manage issues that arise would support the current processes in place. The

processes currently established are commonly known as an employee write-up. Support

would be creating additional methods for identifying and confirming the leader is toxic

before significant damage occurs. This would provide additional evidence for human

resource managers and senior management to take action to sooner. The research

demonstrated that human resource personnel need senior management to hold the toxic

leader accountable for their actions. Human resource is a staff function so it must know

the actions they recommend will be followed by senior management. According to the

participants their experience with senior management who did not support their

recommendations resulted in a long period of toxicity, and financial strain on the

organization. The policies and procedures written within the employee handbook are a

bible for human resource personnel. This is the documented proof certain action will be

taken because it is written clearly in the handbook, provided to all employees, and acted

upon. “Having a good solid handbook gives you something to stand on” (Participant 1,

para.9). Handbooks need to include statements regarding behaviors that negatively affect

the organizations, and state the consequences for disruption, including termination. An

example of such a sentence might read that if a leader causes proven emotional disruption

within the company, and the result is a proven negative treatment of an employee, any

form of bullying, or abusive treatment, or causes employees to leave the company at a

significant rate, he or she could be terminated. Measurements might be included in the

definition, but would be specific to that industry or organization. This statement, if

included in the handbook, may show intent by the organization to hold employees

accountable to a set of standards and values held to be important. If so, the toxic leader

would have less of a case to dispute.

In other words by writing in the handbook, and demonstrating strict adherence to the

standard that disruptive behavior is a cause for termination, a court of law would support a

company that chose to terminate the toxic leader based on his or her action. The guidelines

in a handbook could not be used as the only source for termination of a toxic leader. The

guidelines if not adhered to are merely additional supporting evidence that an issue was

created by the behaviors of the toxic leader. According to the participants in this research

the organization must establish a significant documentation of support in order to settle a

case in court, if the toxic leader decides to sue. Written policies documented to be in place

provide a portion of the support for a case.

Human resource personnel have systems in place to identify if a leader is truly

creating problems or if a subordinate is claiming they have a bad manager because they

have issues of poor performance. Although the controversial actions of the toxic leader

cannot always be enumerated in a handbook, the boundaries of actions taken by an

individual may be monitored through the use of the procedures provided within the

handbook. Along with a statement of measurement for emotional or procedural disruption,

the process for measuring and documenting the actions might be included in the

description of the procedure. The written procedure will provide a method of documenting

positive as well as negative actions of the toxic leader. This will then aid in determining if

the leader’s behaviors are toxic, and the subordinate has a valid complaint about the

leader, or if the subordinate is simply claiming the leader is toxic.

Support may also be demonstrated through training for human resource manager

and senior management, and perhaps even subordinates, on how to mediate conflict.

Training in dispute resolution programs are currently offered by numerous universities,

colleges, and consultants within today’s society (pepperdine.edu). Learning these tools to

mediation and communication may provide an avenue for the less powerful, who may

feel intimidated, to have a voice. The awareness of toxicity evolves through employee

complaints, or employees leaving the company. Toxic environments have a domino effect

on the subordinates which will negatively affect the financial bottom-line of the company.

As noted by Participant 4 the toxic leader frequently pursues his or her own agenda that

destroys processes, while they “step on toes” (para. 5) in their communication methods.

Legal assistance is regularly required to resolve suits, severance the toxic leader, while

human resource managers claim to be the cheerleader holding up the flag of motivation

for team players as they attempt to assure subordinates that positive change is coming.

Along with the toxic leader having his or her own agenda and destroying internal

company procedure and technique there is an inability to self-identify the negative

behavior they demonstrate. According to five of the nine participants, the toxic leader

typically has significant industry knowledge, but they are lacking in sufficient soft people

skills. A program should be implemented in the organization for communications and

people skills management training as a mandatory program to both inform all managers, as

well as protect the organization. Although this would not change any personalities, this

would add the benefit of knowledge and understanding how to identify and work with

varying personality types. The organization would be able to demonstrate to the court, in

the case of a suit, that they provided employees with tools to manage the differing

personalities. This action would also support the organization in a worker’s compensation

claim. With the documentation of these training programs an organization could use this as

backup for any termination of the toxic leader they may pursue. The human resource

participants who experienced a suit expressed concern over the difficulty the organization

had when the court required factual proof and evidence that there was not a wrongful

termination. The company had to demonstrate the toxic leader was terminated for just

cause (Participants 1, 2, 4, 7).

The definition of a toxic leader used in this dissertation is support by the comments

of the participants. Schmidt (2008) labeled toxic leadership as “narcissistic, self-promoters

who engage in an unpredictable pattern of abusive and authoritarian supervision”

(Schmidt, 2008, page 57, as quoted by Maxwell, 2014, p. 1). This definition is sufficient to

use as an identification tool for the toxic leader. Actions of bullying are included within

the behavior of abuse. Those interviewed demonstrated that new leadership is frequently

required in order to remove chaos, and return the company to peaceful times. A

motivational senior management that will hold all team members accountable for their

actions, and will perform the function of guidance and decision making in a timely manner

is an important factor in removal of toxicity, as well as restoration of order to the

organization (Allio, 2012).

Organizational Implications

Research into toxic leadership from the corporate position is scarce and this study

begins to fill the gap by describing the human resource manager’s perspective of their

experience with this leadership. “There is scanty scholarship available on the concept of

toxic leadership or destructive leadership” (Mehta & Mahwshwari, 2013, p. 3). Findings

support the idea that human resource personnel are equally affected both emotionally and in

work stress by the toxic leader. The amount of time spent managing the toxic leader takes

away from the human resource manager’s regular job tasks, creating additional workload

and emotional turmoil. Furthermore, this study presents the viewpoint of the human

resource manager and examined their perspectives and perceptions. Their perspective, as

discovered, is to demonstrate firm boundaries of accountability when managing the

conflicts of toxic leaders. The human resource manager must be concerned with the

company health when affected by a toxic person. The human resource manager will be able

to identify a toxic leader because employees start to complain, or will leave the company in

significant percentages. Participant 5 shared what was considered a

“mass exodus of senior management within the last year” (para.1) as a significant

representation. The toxic leader in this example was a board member in a government agency.

Human resource personnel must then notify senior management an issue of

toxicity has arisen, and gather their approval to begin an investigation. Within the

investigation there are specific steps taken by the human resource manager in order to

manage the situation of toxicity and to verify procedures of documentation are being

followed appropriately. Human resource personnel must document the conversations with

the subordinates and every attempt to work with the toxic leader in resolving conflict. If

process is not followed, a toxic leader may try to file a claim for unfair treatment.

Although this seems absurd to the average individual, this was confirmed by all

participants. According to participants, unfair treatment suits were filed by toxic leaders

within the organization of those human resource persons who were interviewed.

Participant 2 described one toxic leader who anticipated she was going to be fired, so filed

suit against the company before the termination was complete. This toxic leader

demanded one and one-half years of her salary as a settlement to her claim. Participant 8

shared an experience where the toxic leader had been reprimanded by senior management

for segregating the female employees and expecting unequal production from them.

During the reprimand the toxic leader threatened senior management and followed this

with a suit. There was a two year court battle that followed this suit resulting in the toxic

leader receiving one full year of pay, with a written agreement that the company would

not make any derogatory or negative comments if a job referral call was received.

Senior management then must support human resource managers in the process of

a write-up. If senior management decides there is a potential for a suit, than a consultant or

legal assistance is considered as an option for resolution. It is important to note that human

resource manager must have the support of senior management in order for the conflict to

be resolved. Once the decision has been made to hire a consultant to retrain the toxic

leader, a process of accountability may begin. Either a work progress report is agreed to or

the consultant teaches the toxic leader a much needed tool for soft skills. Although senior

management recognizes the toxic leader has knowledge, a level of accountability is

imperative in order to calm the behavior and settle the disorder.

Followers will rebel in private fashion by departing or filing a worker’s compensation

claim for stress if the situation is not controlled. Participants 1, 8, and 9 described specific

events of worker’s compensation suites filed for stress when the subordinate believed they

had been bullied, belittled, spoken to in an abusive manner, or asked to perform tasks that

fell outside of the job responsibilities and would cause them harm. It is the responsibility

of senior management to listen to the human resource personnel, their recommendations

for managing toxicity, and learn to support them. This in turn will confirm for all

employees they are supported by the organization they are employed with by

demonstrating through the action human resource may take that toxic treatment is not

tolerated.

Discussions and examples in Chapter 4 defined how the human resource

participants experienced turmoil, doubt, confusion, fear, anxiety, and an extreme amount of

stress while handling the process of managing the toxic leader. The participants described

how they identified the toxic leader, what they did to inform senior management, what

steps were taken to document the conflict, how they experienced emotional and physical

strain, along with an added workload since this method is time consuming. The emotional

upheaval caused to the organization, the department, senior management and human

resource managers when the toxic leader produces the negative behaviors they are known

for can stay with the human resource manager for several years following the event.

Conclusion

This phenomenological study helps understand the human resource manager’s

perspective of managing the toxic leader. Through a sample of nine participants discovery

was made that describes a process used as a tool for human resource managers and senior

management to process the conflict created by toxic leaders within organizations. The

study should be expanded on further to discover other human resource personnel who

may be able to offer more advice for holding the toxic leader accountable for actions

earlier and to dispense with the necessary investigation and treatment of the situation in a

more timely manner. Further studies should continue in order to understand the senior

management’s responsibilities for identifying and handling toxic behaviors, and offering

tools for changing this behavior within organizations. This research builds on the prior

studies of Kellerman (2008), Lipman-Blumen (2004, 2005), Pellitier (2010), Tepper

(2007), and Schmidt (2008, 2014) who all describe the toxic leader, identifiable

behaviors, and the subordinate’s reactions to the conflict that is produced from this

leadership style. The gap in literature is narrowed through the responses provided by the

participants. This study builds on current knowledge about the subordinate’s experience

by adding the human resource experience. The research describes the emotional internal

conflict that occurs within the human resource manager as he or she described the

dilemma between loyalty to the company, but empathy for the subordinate during the

reign of the toxic leader. Toxic behavior, along with leaders who abuse their power should

not be tolerated. A process of accountability for the toxic leader, as well as human

resource manager and senior management, must be discovered, established and practiced

in order for positive social change to result when managing the toxic leader.

An Exploration of Human Resource Personnel and Toxic Leadership

Students also viewed