International Journal of Leadership in Education

Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Conflict in the workplace: a 10-year review of toxic

leadership in higher education

Natesha Smith & Imani Fredricks-Lowman

To cite this article: Natesha Smith & Imani Fredricks-Lowman (2020) Conflict in the workplace:
a 10-year review of toxic leadership in higher education, International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 23:5, 538-551, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512

Published online: 28 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3903

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION
2020, VOL. 23, NO. 5, 538–551
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512

Conflict in the workplace: a 10-year review of toxic

leadership in higher education
a
Natesha Smith and Imani Fredricks-Lowmanb
a
Student Affairs Administration-CCPA, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA; bZayed
University, University College Dubai, United Arab Emirates

ABSTRACT
Despite the breadth of literature on destructive leadership styles
and its impact on organizational culture, mission, and people, there
has been sparse research specifically looking at toxic leadership,
a more complex and comprehensive destructive leadership style in
college/university settings. With the introduction of the term ‘toxic
leadership’ in 1996, corporate and military organisations began to
examine its role in influencing leadership culture. However, empiri-
cal research connecting this concept with higher educational sys-
tems did not appear until 2007. To better understand how the
research in this area has evolved since then, the authors use the-
matic synthesis to examine the literature on toxic leadership in
higher education from three contextual lenses: understanding
toxic leadership; reviewing the influence of toxic leadership on
organizational culture and employee morale; summarizing implica-
tions for managing resiliency in toxic environments. Suggestions for
future research and limitations of the review are included.

Educational leadership is a field of study that has developed from organizational science,
with most academic researchers focusing on leadership development and how leaders
improve the educational landscape for primary, secondary and tertiary education. This
article emphasizes educational leadership for tertiary education. In an effort to under-
stand the complexity of higher education and provide the necessary education and
training for university administrators, research centered around higher education leader-
ship and higher education graduate programs has grown tremendously over the years
(Goodchild, 2014). Recently, scholars in the field of educational leadership have begun to
explore the continuum of leadership approaches, from constructive to destructive leader-
ship and its characteristics (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Pelletier, 2010). A cursory
review of the literature suggests that interest in understanding destructive leadership
appears to be strong, especially in military and private business organizations.
For decades, academic researchers focused on how leaders improve their organiza-
tions and increase the effectiveness of their followers. Many theories of positive leader-
ship appear to assume that dysfunctional leadership is simply the absence or opposite of
effective leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Pelletier, 2010). However, as organizations
are beginning to recognize that some leaders are hostile toward employees, and peers,

CONTACT Natesha Smith nlsmith@binghamton.edu

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 539

they are searching for more understanding about how these destructive leadership styles
impact workplace outcomes.
Of all the destructive leadership styles discussed in existing literature, toxic leader-
ship is seemingly the most comprehensive in terms of the number and types of negative
behaviors included in the definition (Pelletier, 2010). Therefore, toxic leadership can be
considered an umbrella term that covers several distinct but related dimensions of
negative leadership (e.g. workplace bullying, abusive leadership). Toxic leadership is
a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse
effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance. There are three key
elements of this destructive leadership style: an apparent lack of concern for the well-
being of subordinates, a personality or interpersonal technique that negatively affects
organizational climate, and a conviction by subordinates that the superior is motivated
primarily by self-interest (Whicker, 1996). Employee’s experiencing a toxic leader’s
behavior may have feelings of helplessness, reduced autonomy, reduced efficiency and
innovation, lower job satisfaction, psychosomatic problems such as anxiety, depression,
frustration, and gastrointestinal problems (Fowlie & Wood, 2009; Walton, 2007).
Toxic leadership has long existed in organizations and societies. However, the
concept of toxic leadership has not been given due importance in the whole gamut of
leadership theories which exist (Walton, 2007). Toxic leadership not only impacts
performance at the organizational level but also at the individual level. When focusing
on toxic leadership, many researchers emphasize the symptoms of toxicity (i.e. indivi-
dual characteristics, traits) and not the disease (i.e. culture, climate, outcomes)
(Pelletier, 2010). Although characteristics and traits may be helpful in identifying
toxic leaders, they fall short of a holistic view by failing to identify or discuss how an
organization’s culture may contribute to toxicity in its leaders. Culture is a key strategic
factor in predicting behaviors and outcomes. An organization’s culture may have
a moderating effect on the behavior of its members and may ultimately serve to
promote toxic behavior (Fowlie & Wood, 2009).
The aim of this paper is to critically review and synthesize the existing literature on toxic
leadership, with the goal of highlighting how toxic leadership has evolved in the field of
higher education. This analysis will identify critical organizational insights for senior-level
administrators and researchers interested in the sustainment of healthy work environments
leading to increased employee retention and productivity in higher education. To better
understand the effect of toxic leadership on higher education organizations, Tierney’s
framework of organizational culture is used to organize the themes arising from the review
of existing literature. The concept of toxic leadership is further explored in the discussion of
findings and juxtaposed against other destructive leadership styles within higher education
organizations. Following this, the authors present an analysis of the effect of toxic leader-
ship on the elements of organizational culture, employee morale, and performance. Lastly,
strategies for maintaining resiliency at the macro and micro levels are presented along with
a discussion of significance, implications, and concluding thoughts.

Conceptual framework: organizational culture theory

Tierney (1988) sought to better understand higher education organizational culture and
its significance for improving management and performance within an organization.
540 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

He explains, ‘An organization’s culture is reflected in what is done, how it is done, and
who is involved in doing it. It concerns decisions, actions, and communication both on
an instrumental and symbolic level’(p. 3). His research suggests that using a framework
to diagnose organizational culture can improve administrators’ decisions making skills
when they attempt to manage organizational change and conflicts. Effective decision-
making will thereby enhance institutional performance. Tierney’s framework (1988)
focuses on six elements that determine organizational culture. Namely: environment,
mission, socialization, information, strategy and leadership.
The environment, in this conceptual framework, extends beyond the physical envir-
onment of the university to include the community at large that the institution serves.
An example of how the extended environment impacts the institutional environment is
when a change in the environment such as a shortage of nursing professionals in the
area forces a change in university programs to cater to that shortage. It is also important
to note the role that the institutional mission plays in the organization. Mission
statements should be effectively communicated to constituents and used as a guide to
make decisions in accordance with the ultimate vision of the university. The socializa-
tion of new team members also has an impact on the organization’s culture. New
members of the community are formally as well as informally made aware what it will
take to ‘fit in.’ Fitting in refers to what is socially acceptable or unacceptable at the
institution. An institution, for example, can demand that all of its employees work as
a team and has established this collaborative culture within the institution. Individuals
that join the institution that displays individualistic attitudes will be seen as less effective
and are ostracized by their team members.
In order to get additional insight of the organizational culture of the institution, it is
important to observe how information is used and shared. At many institutions, informa-
tion can be used as power and only shared with individuals that are perceived to be in
leadership positions. However, more effective organizations use formal and informal ways
to communicate what is happening at the institution and allow ample opportunity for
individuals to come together to foster oral discourse. How this information is shared
determines what strategy is used to make decisions. Effective decision-making has been
linked to involving employees in the process, often referred to as participatory decision
making. Employees that are part of this process often experience buy in and will go to
great lengths to achieve goals that were created at the grassroots levels of the organization.
Finally, the leadership styles of administrators at the institution can reflect the values that
the institution embodies and thereby enforces the organizational culture. In summary, the
institutional culture can be explored by understanding how employees define and perceive
their environment, use their institutional mission and information to strategies and make
decisions. As well as how employees are socialized within the institution and what they
expect from their leaders. Upon further reflection, it becomes evident that organizational
culture can foster or discourage destructive leadership styles within an organization.
Tierney’s organizational culture framework (1988) is therefore used as a conceptual
framework for this literature review on toxic leadership in higher education institutions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 541

Methods
In order to review and synthesize the existing literature on toxic leadership in higher
education, Thomas and Harden’s (2008) thematic synthesis was used to review studies
published as full-length articles written in English in scientific journals, proceedings of
international conferences, symposia and workshops, as well as books, book chapters,
and dissertations. Although the term toxic leadership was first introduced in 1996, the
first located source mentioning toxic leadership within a higher education context
appeared in 2007. Therefore, a ten-year review, 2007–2017, of the literature is being
conducted instead of a 20 year review. Table 1 shows our search results in two-year
increments. The search process for identifying literature included using key terms (i.e.
toxic leadership, destructive leadership, adult bullying, incivility) as well as identifying
additional publications from the reference section of the found sources. This method
was chosen because this scholarly paper goes beyond identifying key concepts in the
literature by ‘pulling corroborating concepts together and crucially going beyond the
content of the original studies’ (Thomas & Harden, 2008, p. 46).
Thematic synthesis combines and adapts approaches from both meta-ethnography and
grounded theory. Meta-ethnography utilizes multiple empirical studies but, unlike meta-
analysis, the sample is purposive rather than exhaustive because the purpose is an inter-
pretive explanation and not prediction (Thomas & Harden, 2008). This suggests that it may
not be necessary to locate every available study because the results of a conceptual synthesis
will not change if ten rather than five studies contain the same concept. Instead, findings
depend on the range of concepts found in the studies, their context, and whether they are in
agreement or not. Thus, principles such as aiming for conceptual saturation are considered
more appropriate when identifying qualitative studies to review (Thomas & Harden, 2008).
Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the possible impact of study quality on the
systemic review’s findings (Thomas & Harden, 2008). Publications were assessed accord-
ing to three main criteria: 1) quality of the reporting of a study’s aims, context, rationale,
methods, and findings; 2) sufficiency of the strategies employed to establish the reliability
and validity of data collection tools and methods of analysis, and hence the validity of the
findings; and 3) appropriateness of the study methods for ensuring that findings about
toxic leadership are conceptually sound. See Figure 1 for a description of the method.
The empirical basis of this article has been derived from 20 sources representing
a Western perspective of toxic leadership in higher education. The thematic synthesis
approach used to analyze these sources assisted with extracting key concepts from the
publications. These key concepts were then arranged and organized according to three
emerging themes: organizational culture, employee morale, and performance. The themes

Table 1. Review of literature by type of publication, in 2-year increments.

YEAR Article Book Conference Proceeding Dissertation TOTAL
2007–2008 1 1 2
2009–2010 1 2 1 4
2010–2011 3 3
2012–2013 2 2 1 5
2014–2015 1 1 1
2016–2017 3 2 5
TOTAL 10 5 3 2 20
542 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

Identify materials from various academic databases (e.g.

Ebschost Electronic Journal Service, Google Scholar,
ProQuest) using keywords: toxic leadership, destructive Extract relevant data from the collected materials including
leadership, adult bullying, incivility. reference lists, aims, contexts, and results.

Engage in targeted article searches to gather additional

relevant materials from the compiled list of references.

All collected materials assessed according to 3 main criteria:

1) Quality of reporting study's 2) Strategies to establish 3) Findings about toxic leadership

aims, context, rationale, methods, trustworthiness, reliability and/or are conceptually sound.
and findings; validity;

Extracted key concepts from across the data set for

categorization and grouping.

Categories translated into themes using conceptual saturation.

Organizational Culture Performance Employee Morale

Figure 1. Visual model of method.

were identified after conceptual saturation was reached. In Table 2, each of the 20 sources is
presented alphabetically in relation to how they connect to the emerging themes.
The theme of employee morale is best understood by considering Tierney’s elements
of socialization and information. Organizational culture included discussions of mission
and environment. Performance aligns with the components of leadership and strategy.
The thematic synthesis methodological approach, when used to analyze previous
studies assists with recognizing, describing, and analyzing similar concepts found in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 543

Table 2. Sources emphasizing themes.

Theme: Organizational Culture
Barrow (2009) Findlay et al. (2016) Green (2014) Frazier (2011)
Hollis (2012) Kusy and Holloway (2009) Lester (2012) Padilla et al. (2007)
Pelletier (2010) Piotrowski and King (2016) Powers et al. (2016) The Impact (2016)
Thomas (2010) Thomas and Thomas (2008) Twale and De Luca (2008) Veldsman (2012)
Theme: Employee Morale
Barrow (2009) Cleary et al. (2013) Frazier (2011) Hollis (2012)
Kusy and Holloway (2009) Lester (2012) Martin (2014) Omar et al. (2017)
Padilla et al. (2007) Pelletier (2010) Powers et al. (2016) Raskauskas and Skrabec (2011)
‘The Impact’ (2016) Thomas (2010) Twale & De Luca, 2008 Veldsman (2012)
Theme: Performance
Cleary et al. (2013) Frazier (2011) Hollis (2012) Kusy and Holloway (2009)
Lester (2012) Omar et al. (2017) Padilla et al. (2007) Raskauskas and Skrabec (2011)
‘The Impact’ (2016) Thomas (2010) Twale and De Luca (2008)

each study in order garner additional insight on the topic being researched.
Reviewing the literature on toxic leadership in higher education using this method
helped the authors to identify findings that will inform policy and practice at the
collegiate level.

Findings
With this section of the article, a comprehensive definition of toxic leadership is
presented along with a summary of the key descriptive findings of toxic leadership in
higher education. In particular, findings from this systemic review will be outlined
according to three themes (i.e. organizational culture, employee morale, and perfor-
mance) derived from the authors’ analysis of the literature and Tierney’s six-part
framework for understanding organizational culture.

Defining toxic leadership

Similar to research focused on corporate and military organizations, the literature
describing toxic leadership in higher education indicates a high frequency of toxic
leaders can be found in educational institutions (“The Impact,” 2016, Kusy &
Holloway, 2009). In general terms, toxic leadership refers to a form of destructive
leadership that involves leader and follower behaviors resulting in negative long-term
outcomes and unhealthy environmental conditions. It differs from incivility and adult
bullying by scope and level of destruction caused. Most research on incivility identifies
it as insensitive behaviors perpetrated by an individual with a lack of regard for others
(Basu, 2012; Scanlon, 2016; Twale & De Luca, 2008). While, adult bullying is char-
acterized as patterns of behavior intended to intimidate (Barrow, 2009; Burgman, 2016;
Farley & Sprigg, 2014; Hollis, 2012; Lester, 2012; Nyberg et al., 2009; Zapf and Gross,
2001). Toxic leadership, on the other hand, includes both bullying and incivility that
has been further exacerbated by environmental conditions and complicit subordinate
behaviors (“The Impact,” 2016; Cleary, Walter, Andrew, & Jackson, 2013; Veldsman,
2012; Lipman-Bluman, 2005; Whicker, 1996).
544 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

Organizational culture
Culture within an organization highlights preferred sociocultural traditions that reinforce
or support an organization’s mission. Instances of toxic leadership typically emerge in
cultures that enact climates of collectivism over individualism, ambiguity avoidance, and
power disparity (Powers, Judge, & Makela, 2016; Twale & De Luca, 2008).
Although surprising, toxic leadership is more prone to emerge from collective versus
individualistic environments: a collectivist environment is often self-regulated by
imposed social rules that place the perceived needs of the organization above individual
concerns. Whereas, individualistic environments encourage assertiveness and indepen-
dence which leaves room to challenge the status quo. Toxic leaders thrive in organiza-
tional cultures that allow them to be in ‘control’ of their environment.
Most organizational environments and mission statements emphasize positive leadership
attributes and espouse beliefs that promote effective leadership (Pelletier, 2010; Veldsman,
2012). However, these aspirational notions can differ from what individuals’ actually
experience within the higher education organization. Organizational cultures where toxic
leadership flourishes have institutional environments and missions that are highly politi-
cized, adversarial, and competitive. While there may be instances of academic organizations
being adversarial, the majority of the cultures enabling toxicity seem to be overly political
and competitive (Barrow, 2009; Findlay, Freeman, & Findlay, 2016; Frazier, 2011; Thomas,
2010; Thomas & Thomas, 2008; Twale & DeLuca, 2008). These organizations are also
characterized by growing levels of bureaucracy (Frazier, 2011; Kusy & Holloway, 2009). An
example of this would be increased levels of approval needed from management for the
smallest of administrative actions (Hollis, 2012; Lester, 2012). Seemingly, the goal of this
action and others like it is to increase the micromanagement of employees.
Another important characteristic of these organizations, according to the existing
literature, is a preference for corporate models of management and training (Padilla
et al., 2007; Piotrowski & King, 2016; “The Impact,” 2016). To fully adapt these models
to the higher education system, administrators with stronger business or corporate
backgrounds are usually hired for key leadership roles (Farley & Sprigg, 2014; Powers
et al., 2016). The result ends up being educational institutions with a performance
driven bottom line (Thomas & Thomas, 2010); emphasis is placed on the accomplishing
the mission more than how the mission is accomplished. In other words, people within
the organization, regardless of level, began to be treated as objects needed for the goal
instead of assets that facilitate the accomplishment of the organizational goal.
Our findings bring to the forefront that one cannot underestimate the role organiza-
tional culture plays in exacerbating the toxicity level of destructive leaders at higher
education institutions.

Employee morale
Several studies discussing toxic leadership from the employee perspective use the term of
follower to describe employees within the organization (Padilla et al., 2007; Piotrowski &
King, 2016). A follower is either a conformer or colluder when enacting the vision of the toxic
leader (Padilla et al., 2007). ‘Both types are motivated by self-interest, but the conformers try
to minimize the consequences of not going along while colluders seek personal gain through
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 545

association with a [toxic] leader’ (Padilla et al., 2007, p. 183). In the context of toxic leadership,
employee morale is considered from the messages followers communicate with one another
about how to survive and excel within the organization. Which followers possess this
information and how it is disseminated is relevant. Additionally, apathy among followers
also informs how information and power is situated within the higher education institution
leading to increases in follower dependence on toxic leadership (Piotrowski & King, 2016;
“The Impact,” 2016). Consider the following case:

A highly qualified director is recruited for a student services department at University Y,

located in a southern state of the United States. Although the director is successful in
accomplishing university goals, his leadership style pitts employees against each other. He
rewards employees that get the job done without question and punish those that challenge
his expectations by setting unreasonable deadlines requiring employees to work excessive
hours. Information no longer flows transparently and only a select few have pertinent
information to effectively execute their jobs. Some employees find themselves gathering in
the office of a well-respected colleague attempting to put snippets of information that they
were each privy to together like a jigsaw puzzle in order to survive their current situation.
However, this survival strategy is flawed because there are usually conformers and colluders
in their midst willing to share what is happening with the Director for their own self-interest;
further exacerbating the situation.

Depending on the new employee and their ability to adapt to the socialization and
information processes within the organization, employee morale shifts to higher or
lower levels. In the literature, employees or followers are described as existing in
environments in which leaders present numerous examples of demotivational behaviors
(Omar, Robinson, & Dudau, 2017; Piotrowski & King, 2016). Physical health issues,
emotional distress, increased self-doubt, and psychological distress are some of the
common associated outcomes of being a follower in this type of toxic environment.
Individuals directly under the toxic leader or even individuals that witness the toxic
leader negatively interacting with their subordinate can experience these effects (Nyberg
et al., 2009; Raskauskas & Skrabec, 2011; Thomas, 2010, 2005).
Toxic leaders tend to lead by implementing fear tactics that essentially give the
message to followers that they are replaceable. The expectation is that this will motivate
followers to work even harder to keep their jobs but existing research shows this
method may work in the initial phases but productivity will eventually decline because
it adversely impacts employee morale. Low morale oftentimes leads to a mass exodus
and high employee turnover; further impacting an organization’s retention rates and
increasing employee recruitment costs.

Performance
Within a toxic organization, performance can be considered as a byproduct of the
decision-making strategies of leadership within the organization. Hallmarks of toxic
leadership from this perspective involve leaders that make decisions without regard to
their subordinates and leaders that engage in faux empowerment strategies (Frazier,
2011; Omar et al., 2017; Raskauskas & Skrabec, 2011; Veldsman, 2012; Walton, 2007).
Because toxic leaders are often focused on maintaining control and lack trust in their
subordinates, communication is unidirectional and it becomes difficult for the toxic
546 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

leader to value the contributions of the subordinate (Kusy & Holloway, 2009).
Consequently, those that are seen to be competent are considered opponents and
promptly marginalized within the organization (Barrow, 2009; Hollis, 2012; Omar
et al., 2017). The toxic leader usually presents faux empowerment by developing unit
committees to enforce predetermined priorities (Cleary et al., 2013; Frazier, 2011;
Pelletier, 2010). Because these leaders are often skilled at accomplishing the mission,
behavior and decision-making strategies may go unnoticed initially (Lipman-Blumen,
2005; Martin, 2014; Pelletier, 2010; Twale & De Luca, 2008). However, these accom-
plishments are usually short-term achievements with more negative outcomes develop-
ing over a longer period of time (Thomas, 2010). In the following scenario:

The Dean of the College of Engineering is under a lot of pressure to increase the bottom
line. In order to do this, the Dean believes that he needs to add another highly sought after
major to the College. He creates a committee that is charged with seeking out new ways to
increase the revenue of the college, while adding educational value for students. He
appoints one faculty member to chair the committee. He instructs the chair to ensure
that the outcome of the committee is the implementation of this new major for the college.
The faux committee is created to give the perception that a recommendation is being made
and supported by faculty. All members of the committee, as well as the Dean’s superiors,
are aware of his style of leadership. This adversely impacts the performance of his faculty
because they know that their contributions are not wanted, valued, or trusted. His super-
iors turn a blind eye because he meets their expectations and is always able to deliver.

This kind of work environment, that enables a toxic leadership style, fosters burnout in
the long-term, which can derail employee career goals and organizational productivity.
Employees working in toxic conditions experience decreases in efficiency and increases
in absenteeism and groupthink (Martin, 2014). Once these patterns emerge, organiza-
tional efficiency begins to decrease and human capital and financial losses may be
experienced within the institution because of low morale and high employee turnover
(‘The Impact,’ 2016, Hollis, 2012, Frazier, 2011, Thomas, 2005). When discussing toxic
leadership and the hostile environments created, it is important to remember that
individual employee performance affects the overall institution’s performance. Leaders
creating toxic environments within higher education suffer from a lack of diverse
thought when it comes to problem solving departmental or institutional financial
challenges, engaging/supporting students as part of retention efforts, and innovating
curriculum or student services.

Resiliency strategies
Stable organizations with established systems to regulate power and control create
inhospitable conditions for toxic leadership (Green, 2014; Kusey & Holloway, 2009;
Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Veldsman, 2012). Therefore, strategies for dealing with toxic
leadership need to focus on individual and unit level techniques for increasing checks
and balances within an organization, as well as increasing understandings of how to
manage interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 547

Macro level considerations

It is important for administrators to develop effective procedures at the macro level by
creating policy that outlines appropriate leader behaviors, helpful tools for identifying
toxic leadership, as well as procedures for reporting the destructive behaviors (Green,
2014; Webster, Brough, & Daly, 2016). If there are current policies or guidelines already
in place, consideration needs to be given to the language used and whether toxic
leadership is clearly defined with concrete examples of characteristics frequently dis-
played by those engaged in this destructive leadership style. Also at this level training
should be developed to educate leadership and employees on the concept of emotional-
intelligence training, which can improve interactions and toxin detection (Jones, 2013;
Kusy & Holloway, 2009).

Micro level considerations

At the micro level, individuals recognizing they are in the toxic leadership environment
can employ several strategies to better adjust or determine appropriate reactions to the
destructive style. Engaging in preventative care and building a community of support
are initial tactics that can provide the individual with an opportunity to better assess the
situation before taking more long-term actions (Jones, 2013; Kusy & Holloway, 2009).
Also important to the process is documentation of toxic situations created by leadership
and toxic behaviors displayed by leadership. This will provide support for the identi-
fication of toxic leaders if a grievance system is established in the organization. Lastly, it
is important to remain professionally agile in the event the situation cannot be easily
corrected or if there is no institutional support/process for addressing the destructive
behavior in leadership (Green, 2014; Jones, 2013; Veldsman, 2012).

Conflict resolution
Conflict in the workplace is not only inevitable but it is also necessary for growth if it is
handled constructively. Nevertheless, toxic workplace environments are usually riddled with
destructive conflicts. It is therefore of vital importance that employees understand their
preferred conflict styles because this may escalate conflicts when dealing with toxic leaders.
Conflict style refers to how one handles or resolves conflicts. Blake and Mouton
(1964) developed the Two-Dimensional Model of Conflict. The two dimensions looked
at conflict styles that were utilized based on the concern of self-interest (assertiveness
and unassertiveness) or the concern of the other party (cooperativeness and uncoopera-
tiveness). Thomas and Killman (1977) describe the five conflict styles as competing,
accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating. They suggest that one
must employ a more collaborative conflict resolution style in order to resolve conflicts
effectively.
However, employees utilizing a default conflict style for all conflict situations run the
risk of escalating conflicts, especially in toxic environments. In all conflict situations,
employees must ask themselves if the cost of confronting the conflicts outweighs the
potential benefits. In such cases, a conflict avoidance style may be more appropriate
because in order to resolve conflict effectively one must address the underlying issues.
548 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

In toxic environments, oftentimes, there are limited opportunities to address these

issues. It is, therefore, critical that employees in these environments critically evaluate
every situation and choose their battles appropriately.

Significance
Toxic leadership damages an organization’s culture by violating the legitimate interests
of the organization and decreasing the commitment and motivation of its members.
The negative outcomes caused by toxic leaders create lasting and enduring harm to the
culture, climate, and people involved in the organization. How an organization reacts to
or takes steps to prevent the effects of toxic leadership may have a direct impact on the
degree of damage. By engaging in a systemic review of the existing literature discussing
this topic, higher education stakeholders can better understand the degree to which
institutions are currently being affected by this phenomenon. Only through critical
examination can higher education leaders potentially moderate behaviors, improve
methods of organizational governance, and reduce or eliminate toxic behavior among
leaders and subordinates.
This paper critically reviewed and synthesized the existing body of literature regard-
ing toxic leadership in higher education. After reviewing the literature it became evident
that toxic leaders are either fostered or eradicated depending on the culture of the
organization. Toxic leaders thrive in organizations that value high performance and do
not have systems in place that monitors how these goals and objectives are being
achieved. Starting in 2008, the decline of the American economy served as a catalyst
for higher education institutions to evaluate how they are running the ‘business’ of
higher education. This evaluation propelled many higher education institutions to
adopt a more business model focusing on the bottom line that has lead to significant
budget cuts (Powers et al., 2016). This additional pressure on educational leaders may
be the cause of the increase of more leaders being reported as displaying toxic leader-
ship behaviors. As indicated Table 1, there has been a growing interest in under-
standing how the topic of toxic leadership relates to tertiary education. However, if
higher education institutions solely focus on what was accomplished with emphasizing
the bottom line rather than how bottom line thinking affected organizational culture,
employee morale, and performance, destructive leadership styles such as toxic leader-
ship will continue to exist and perforate the purposes of higher education.

Conclusion & future directions

In academic discussions of organizational systems, the connection between perfor-
mance and job satisfaction have long been established. Therefore, negative work
environments, like those created by toxic leadership and the underdevelopment of
human capital within organizations become important areas of assessment and self-
study. Despite the authors’ ability to locate 20 sources to use in a systemic review of the
literature, only six of these articles explicitly use the language of toxic leadership with
regard to discussing destructive behaviors in the academy. This presents as a lack of
understanding or acceptance of the term toxic leadership in evaluating the breadth of
negative behaviors, cultures, and environment within the academy. Using commonly
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 549

accepted terminology will allow those within the academy to begin developing effective
best practices and strategies to combat the presence of toxic leadership.
Therefore, more intentional reviews of this issue, through scholarship, need to
take place. Several areas needing more immediate attention for future research
include studies: examining the semiotics of ‘toxic leadership’; exploring the devel-
opment of toxic leader behaviors; examining how institutional policies and guide-
lines foster toxic environments or reinforce toxic leader behaviors; and measuring
the longitudinal effects of toxic leadership on faculty and administrator retention
in the academy. The lack of empirical research in this area presents an important
challenge not only to defining toxic leadership in ways that are relevant for the
system of higher education, but also to developing strategies to eradicate toxic
leadership from the organizational culture of educational institutions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Natesha Smith is an assistant professor in the College for Community and Public Affairs,
Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY. Email: nlsmith@binghamton.edu. Her research interests
focus on principles of teach & learning, identity, organizational culture, and internationalization.
Dr. Imani Fredricks-Lowman is an assistant professor and Associate Dean for University College,
Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Email: imani.lowman@zu.ac.ae. Her research
interest explores conflict within higher education through the lens of gender, culture, race and/or
ethnicity.

ORCID
Natesha Smith http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2635-5120

References
Barrow, L. (2009). In darkness light dawns: Exposing workplace bullying. Purple Crown, Port
Colborne: Nunavut Publishing.
Basu, K. (2012, June). How to tackle incivility among faculty members. Retrieved from https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/15/how-tackle-incivility-among-faculty-members
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid key orientations for achieving production
through people. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Burgman, R. (2016, June). Advice for dealing with bullying behavior. Retrieved from https://
www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/06/15/advice-dealing-bullying-behavior-essay
Cleary, M., Walter, G., Andrew, S., & Jackson, D. (2013). Negative workplace behaviours at the
University of Hard Knocks. Contemporary Nurse, 44, 253–256.
Farley, S., & Sprigg, C. (2014, November). Culture of cruelty: Why bullying thrives in higher
education. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/
2014/nov/03/why-bullying-thrives-higher-education
Findlay, H. J., Freeman, S., Jr., & Findlay, H. E. (2016). Generational and fatal leadership in a time of
unprecedented challenges and changes. Journal of Higher Education Management, 31(1), 1–16.
550 N. SMITH AND I. FREDRICKS-LOWMAN

Fowlie, J., & Wood, M. (2009). The emotional impact of leaders’ behaviors. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 33(6), 559–572.
Frazier, K. N. (2011). Academic bullying: A barrier to tenure and promotion for
African-American faculty. Florida Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 5, 1–13.
Goodchild, L. (2014). Higher education as a field of study: Its history, degree programs,
associations, and national guidelines. In S. Freeman Jr., L. S. Hagedorn, L. F. Goodchild,
& D. A. Wright (Eds.), Advancing higher education as a field of study (pp. 13–50). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Green, J. E. (2014). Toxic leadership in educational organizations. Education Leadership Review,
15(1), 18–33. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105504.pdf
Hollis, L. (2012). Bully in the ivory tower: How aggression and incivility erode higher education.
Berkly: Publisher.
Jones, J. (2013, March). Is there a bully in your department? Retrieved from https://www.sc.edu/
ombuds/doc/ProfHacker.pdf
Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-
handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37
(2), 309–325.
Kusy, M. E., & Holloway, E. L. (2009). Toxic workplace: Managing toxic personalities and their
systems of power. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lester, J. (Ed.). (2012). Workplace bullying in higher education. Boca Raton, FL: Routledge.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions.
Leader to Leader, 36, 29–38.
Martin, R. M. (2014). Consequences of destructive leadership through the experiences of millennial
followers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Incarnate Word, TX.
Nyberg, A., Alfredsson, L., Theorell, T., Westerlund, H., Vahtera, J., & KivimäKi, M. (2009).
Managerial leadership and ischaemic heart disease among employees: The Swedish WOLF
study. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 66, 51–55.
Omar, A. T., Robinson, S., & Dudau, A. (2017, June). Leaders behaving badly: Constructing
a toxic leadership for public university leaders. International Journal of Management and
Applied Science, 3(6), 75–80.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 178–187.
Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric.
Leadership, 6(4), 373–389.
Piotrowski, C., & King, C. (2016). The enigma of adult bullying in higher education: A
research-based conceptual framework. Education, 136(3), 299–312.
Powers, S., Judge, L. W., & Makela, C. (2016). An investigation of destructive leadership in
a Division I intercollegiate athletic department: Follower perceptions and reactions.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(3), 297–311.
Raskauskas, J., & Skrabec, C. (2011). Bullying and occupational stress in academia: Experiences
of victims of workplace bullying in New Zealand universities. Journal of Intergroup Relations,
35(1), 18–36.
Scanlon, P. (2016, March). Halting academic incivility (That’s the nice word for it). Retrieved
from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Halting-Academic-Incivility/235680
The impact of destructive leadership in higher education. (2016, July 2–7). Paper presented at
association of leadership educators. Sacremento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipe
ducators.org/resources/Conference%202017/SAMPLE%20Research%20Paper.pdf
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systemic reviews. BMC Med Research Methods, 45–52.
Thomas, K. W., & Thomas, G. F. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization
levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.
Thomas, M. (2005). Bullying among support staff in a higher education institution. Health
Education, 105(4), 273–288.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 551

Thomas, M. (2010). Perceptions of bullying in a higher education institution: A case study

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. The
Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.
Twale, D. J., & De Luca, B. M. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and
what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Veldsman, T. H. (2012, October). The growing cancer endangering organisations: Toxic
leadership. Conference on Leadership in Emerging Countries. South Africa: University of
Johannesburg. Retrieved from http://www.humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp?
Article_ID=1338
Walton, M. (2007). Leadership toxicity - An inevitable affliction of organizations? Organizations
& People, 14(1), 19–27.
Webster, V., Brough, P., & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses for
follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress and Health, 32(4), 346–354.
Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying:
A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,
497–522.