How Narcissists Cannot Hold An Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach To A Fictitious Puzzle Factory

How Narcissists Cannot Hold an Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach to a
Fictitious Puzzle Factory
by
Melissa Tara Sasso
An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Abraham S. Fischler College of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Nova Southeastern University

2017

ProQuest Number: 10819904

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10819904

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Approval Page
This applied dissertation was submitted by Melissa Tara Sasso under the direction of the
persons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education
and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Education at Nova Southeastern University.
David B. Ross, EdD

Committee Chair
Katrina Pann, PhD

Committee Member
Kimberly Durham, PsyD

Interim Dean
ii
Statement of Original Work
I declare the following:
I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the
Student Handbook of Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents
my original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material of
other authors.
Where another author’s ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s ideas by citing them in the required style.
Where another author’s words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have
acknowledged the author’s words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations in
the required style.
I have obtained permission from the author or publisher—in accordance with the required
guidelines—to include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments,
large portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript.
Melissa Tara Sasso

Name
November 12, 2016

Date
iii
Acknowledgments
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing
is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded
genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.” – Calvin Coolidge
This educational journey that seemed never ending has finally come to a close.
Throughout my entire life, I have struggled with academics believing that receiving a
high school diploma was going to be the greatest academic achievement I could attain. I
could still remember the numerous nights I would cry with frustration while my parents
tried explaining the various educational concepts I was supposed to have already learned.
I look back on those days and now realize, that with determination, persistence, and
dedication, that I am capable of doing it all, but this could not have been possible without
the continuous support of my parents and exceptional educators who were always by my
side, every step of the way.
I would first like to thank my mother, who has always been my rock. Thank you
for the continuous support and encouragement that you have given me throughout the
years. I would also like to thank my father for always providing means for me to ensure
that I can continue my education. In addition, I would like to thank my brother for being
a part of my life, as your constructive criticism in my writing abilities, led me to become
a better writer.
In addition, I would like to thank my elementary and high school teacher, Mr.
Casarotto. You are an admirable educator as you always pushed me to my limits, even
when I thought I could not be pushed any further. You made me realize my academic
potential and that if I worked hard enough, I was going to succeed. Thank you.
To the wonderful Dr. Lakhdar, who was the first professor at NSU within my
iv
master's program to spark interest in attaining my Ed.D. I will always cherish the
conversation we had during our chat session of, not “if I attain my doctorate, but rather
when I attain my doctorate.” Thank you for believing in me!
To my committee chair member, Dr. Katrina Pann, thank you for your
collaboration, and it was a pleasure meeting you at the summer institute. Another thank
you to Dr. Mills and especially to Dr. Edmonds for your opinions and suggestions on the
direction of my dissertation.
They say that you should always save the best for last, and this holds true for my
professor, mentor, dissertation chair, and someone who I can call a dear friend, Dr. David
B. Ross, or as he simply likes to be called, David. Where shall I start? You were my
very first professor of the doctorate program, and a professor that I must admit, I was
ever so fearful of. However, as time progressed, I realized that you were not that scary
after all. I am so great full that from that class on, that you became my mentor and
finally my chair, and gave me the strength and belief that I needed to complete this
program. You inspired me and helped me grow, in a plethora of venues. I have never
crossed paths with an educator such as yourself who is so committed and loyal to their
students and ensures that your students not only succeed but surpass one’s expectations.
You truly are the epitome of what all educators should be, a gem amongst stones, and
someone who I am thankful of and will cherish eternally. God broke the mold when he
made you.
v
Dedication
I dedicate this study to all of those who have had to endure the hardships of
working for a narcissistic leader and the possible scars that may have been left due to the
high levels of toxicity within that organization. No sole individual should ever have to
bear such scars or experience this form of leadership.
“As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the
people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; the next, the people hate.”- Lao Tzu
vi
Abstract
How Narcissists Cannot Hold an Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach to a

Fictitious Puzzle Factory. Melissa Tara Sasso, 2017: Applied Dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler College of Education. Keywords:
Narcissism, Power, Toxic Culture, Mixed Methods, Toxic Leadership, Organizational
Climate
The applied dissertation was designed to explore how narcissistic characteristics of

leaders, toxic leadership characteristics, and power are related to the climate of an
organization. This mixed methods study utilized an embedded-correlational approach,
where two self-administered surveys were used to collect data, of which one was The
Survey on Toxic Leadership and the other the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and
Satisfaction. Due to the sensitive nature of the study, the researcher did not have a study
site, therefore the surveys were administered online, where participants had access to a
web link to complete the survey. In order to attain participants the researcher relied on
snowball sampling. The exclusion criteria included individuals who were under the age
of 18 and those who did not have at least an associate’s degree. A total of 87 participants
took part in the study.
Once the data was attained, the quantitative data was analyzed by conducting
nonparametric statistics, and more specifically by utilizing the Spearman rho test. The
researcher then carefully analyzed the survey’s qualitative portion to create themes based
on the participants’ answers. The qualitative data was then analyzed, where the
researcher discovered themes based on the participants answers. The results of the
quantitative analysis revealed that of the nine findings, two were weak and four were
very weak, with the remaining ranging from moderate to strong, in which some were
statistically significant and others were not. A total of 35 themes were discovered from
the qualitative analysis, and the top themes that were pertinent to the study were (a)
unrealistic demands and expectations of the leader, (b) lack of or no motivation of the
employees, (c) employees being kept in the dark, (d) the leader causes stress, (e) the
leader lacks comprehension of individual and team dynamics, (f) the leader is ineffective
at creating a conducive environment for communication and collaboration, and (g) the
leader’s gender. When analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data, it was revealed
that qualitative data supported the quantitative data, as participants illustrated both
positive and negative feelings about their leader and their organizations climate.
The results of this study illustrated that when pertaining to participants’ satisfaction and
importance of the organizational climate throughout the results, that satisfaction is higher
correlated than importance. It was further revealed that in reference to narcissistic
characteristics, toxic characteristics, and elements of power, perceived quality was
significant, however the correlations varied for both narcissistic and toxic characteristics
as well as elements of power. Of the nine quantitative findings, narcissistic and toxic
leadership as well as elements of power indicated a weak correlation with importance.
However, satisfaction indicated a stronger correlation with narcissistic and toxic
leadership in addition to elements of power. To conclude, recommendations for future
vii
research on the topic of narcissism and leadership are provided.
viii
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................1
Background and Justification ...................................................................................3
Deficiencies in the Evidence ....................................................................................3
Audience ..................................................................................................................4
The Role of the Researcher ......................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................11
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................12

Introduction ............................................................................................................12
Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................12
Leadership Styles ...................................................................................................14
Transformational Leadership .................................................................................18
Transactional Leadership .......................................................................................20
Laissez-Faire Leadership .......................................................................................22
Charismatic Leadership .........................................................................................24
Toxic Leadership ...................................................................................................27
Narcissistic Leadership ..........................................................................................29
Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior ..............................................36
Narcissistic Leaders and Job Satisfaction ..............................................................40
Organizational Structure ........................................................................................49
Toxic Culture .........................................................................................................54
Power .....................................................................................................................57
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................62
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................64

Overview ................................................................................................................64
Philosophical Worldviews .....................................................................................64
Sensitivity Nature of the Study ..............................................................................68
Type of Study.........................................................................................................71
Participants and Sample Strategy...........................................................................72
Instruments.............................................................................................................73
Validity and Reliability of Instruments..................................................................75
Characteristics of the Study ...................................................................................79
Procedures of the Study .........................................................................................80
Data Analyses ........................................................................................................81
Limitations of the Methodology ............................................................................87
Delimitations of the Methodology .........................................................................88
Confidentiality and Security ..................................................................................89
Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................89
ix
Trustworthiness and Rigor .....................................................................................90
Opportunities for Further Study .............................................................................91
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................91
Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................93

Overview ................................................................................................................93
Research Questions ................................................................................................93
Participant Recruitment .........................................................................................94
Demographic Background of Respondents ...........................................................95
Quantitative Data Analysis ....................................................................................96
Qualitative Data Analysis ......................................................................................99
Mixed Methods Analysis .....................................................................................136
Additional Data Analysis .....................................................................................141
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................142
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ...........................................143

Overview ..............................................................................................................143
Anticipated Outcomes ..........................................................................................144
Interpretation of the Study and Context of Findings ...........................................145
Additional Data Analysis .....................................................................................159
Implications of the Study .....................................................................................160
Limitations ...........................................................................................................163
Delimitations ........................................................................................................164
Suggested Research .............................................................................................165
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................167
References ........................................................................................................................169
Appendices
A The Survey on Toxic Leadership (Other) .....................................................190
B Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction.................................196
C Permission for Use and Amendment of Survey ............................................198
D Invitational Letter ..........................................................................................202
E Participation Letter ........................................................................................204
F Demographics for Participants Within Their Independent Fields:
Business, Education, Government, Medical, Social Services, and Other......207
G Quantitative Correlation Findings ..................................................................213
Tables
1 Q12 Survey Items by Buckingham and Coffman ...........................................76
2 General Guidelines for Interpreting Reliability Coefficients .........................90
3 Guidelines for Interpreting Spearman’s Correlation ......................................98
4 Identified Themes Regarding The Survey on Toxic Leadership
Question 1 .....................................................................................................101
Question 2 .....................................................................................................106
x
Question 3 .....................................................................................................111
Question 4 .....................................................................................................116
Question 5 .....................................................................................................124
Question 6 .....................................................................................................129
10 Identified Themes Throughout The Survey on Toxic Leadership................133
Figures
1 Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder .....................13
2 Bass Leadership Factors .................................................................................18
3 Contemporary Model of Pathological Narcissism ..........................................33
4 Dark Triad Traits.............................................................................................38
5 Five Bases of Power........................................................................................60
6 Position Power and Personal Power ...............................................................60
7 The Interconnection of Worldviews, Design, and Research Methods............65
8 Embedded-Correlational Approach ................................................................71
9 Dependent Variable of Narcissistic Characteristics of Leaders ......................78
10 Independent Variable of Organizational Climate ...........................................78
11 Data Analysis in Qualitative Research ...........................................................86
xi
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), Bass’s theory of leadership is based on
three main styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. That
stated, there are a plethora of leadership styles that have spawned from this theory.
Narcissistic leadership, for example, is a form of leadership that has been linked to
ineffective and immoral leadership, counterproductive leadership, counterproductive
work behavior, and low job satisfaction (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; Mehta &
Maheshwari, 2013; O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Therefore, employees
who work under this leadership within organizations, are experiencing a decrease in
motivation and moral, stress, and faced with unsatisfying work conditions (Doty &
Fenlason, 2013; O’Reilly, Doerr, Caldwell, & Chatman, 2013). The analogy of a puzzle
factory is based on the importance of leaders holding their organization together, while
maintaining a healthy workplace environment and one that is conducive for all employees
to meet their organizational goals, mission, vision, and value statement. According to
Kouzes and Posner (2012) values refers to how tasks are to be accomplished, whereas
visions refer to the long term ends that leaders would like to obtain. It has been
illustrated that leadership necessitates both.
Narcissistic leadership has slowly peaked an interest among researchers and
therefore an increase in data collection; although still very limited in comparison to other
forms of leadership, has become available (Gray, 2014; Ouimet, 2010). This type of
leadership has been illustrated to attach itself with negative and destructive behavior and
in turn, has created an unhealthy and toxic work environment for its employees (Brunell,
2
Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert, & DeMarree, 2008; Ouimet, 2014). Therefore, the
intent of this study is to investigate employees’ perceptions of their leaders based on the
characteristics that the leaders display, the toxic cultures created, and the utilization of
power by these leaders who demonstrate narcissism. Due to the sensitive topic of the
study and the behaviors the researcher will recruit participants through professional
organizations and social networking.
The leadership style that a leader selects to utilize within their organization will
impact the productivity of their employees and establish the workplace environment, and
therefore will affect the organization's success (Saeed, Almas, Anis-ul-Haq, & Niazi,
2014). Northouse (as cited in Harper, 2012) commented that the most successful leaders
have numerous theologies of characteristics and behaviors of leadership.
The most influential approach will include the use of multiple leadership styles.
The leader coach is the most effective model of the multi styled leader, as he or
she exercises a myriad of theoretically proven techniques by a practice and craft
of his or her profession. (Harper, 2012, p. 1)
It is also noted that leadership is crucial in determining how subordinates’ actions
towards fulfilling and meeting the organization's goals will transpire (Saeed et al., 2014).
Research has illustrated that narcissistic leadership is the culprit of an employee’s low
work morale and employee satisfaction, as well as a decrease in motivation (Doty &
Fenlason, 2013; Rosenthal & Pittinsky 2006). Although there is research that illustrates
toxic/narcissistic leadership and follower perception, narcissism and counterproductive
work behavior, as well as narcissistic leadership and job satisfaction, there is a lack of
research that observes employees’ perceptions about their leaders within all fields and
3
how they utilize their power which in turn causes a toxic workplace environment (Doty &
Fenlason, 2013).
Background and Justification
Narcissistic leadership is not limited to one particular field, and various studies
have made this evident. That stated, Ross, Matteson, and Exposito (2014) indicated and
illustrated that narcissistic leadership is found within the fields of politics, higher
education, local school districts, and civil services, which was determined through
various case studies that illustrated such. Furthermore, research indicates that such
leadership is not uncommon, as virtually every working individual has experienced this
form of leadership (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008).
Narcissistic leadership has been depicted as having both positive and negative
aspects to it. Both positive and negative sides of narcissism fall under various names and
categories such as normal and abnormal narcissism, covert and overt narcissism, adaptive
and maladaptive narcissism as well as grandiose and vulnerable dimensions (Clarke,
Karlov, & Neale, 2015). The negative aspects of narcissism are attached to
characteristics such as a distorted view of self-importance, being in delusion of having
unlimited power and success, entitlement, and exploiting others (Blair et al., 2008).
Deficiencies in the Evidence
Research illustrates that there is a plethora of knowledge available about various
effective leadership styles, such as that of transformational, transactional and those
leadership styles that derived from them (Chua, & Murray, 2015; Muchiri, Cooksey,
Milia, & Walumbwa, 2011). However, research further illustrates that there is a
significant lack of evidence concerning toxic leadership in general (Blair et al., 2008;
4
Boddy & Croft, 2016). Evidence depicts that toxic leadership styles, namely the
narcissistic leadership style, have only recently become a growing topic of interest among
researchers. Therefore, this form of leadership as well as how it affects the
organization’s environment and employees is essential to explore. According to
Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, and Marchisio (2011), there is little research in regards to
narcissistic characteristics of leaders and how they may affect their organization.
Audience
By observing the fields of education, business, medical, social services, and
government, employees within these areas will be capable of comprehending better how
they can deal with their leaders who display narcissism and thus create a toxic culture.
Therefore, employees who are currently working for a narcissistic leader will have access
to information and be more knowledgeable on how to manage their leader. Furthermore,
leaders can benefit from this information, as it may shed light to those who choose to take
accountability for their narcissistic behaviors and change their style of leadership to
possibly improve their organization's environment and their treatment towards their
subordinates based on what this study’s findings illustrate.
The Role of the Researcher
“Some would argue that the more promising areas of business ethics research are
sensitive” (Dalton, Daily, & Wimbush, 1997, p. 1049). This researcher understands that
no organization would allow them to survey their employees regarding any toxic
behaviors in that set organization as the topic of the study is a sensitive one. Workplace
bullying, otherwise known as mobbing, is also considered a sensitive topic (Fahie, 2014).
Sensitive research topics can be defined in a myriad of ways (Dickson-Swift, James, &
5
Liamputtong, 2008; Elmir, Schmied, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2011), however Lee (as cited in
Dickson-Swift et al., 2008), provided a definition of sensitive research that consists of the
topic, the situation as well as the possible consequences that may come about. That
stated, sensitive research can be defined as research which can threaten both the
participants as well as the researcher conducting the study and therefore affecting all
individuals who are part of the study (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Elmir et al., 2011;
Fahie, 2014; McCosker, Barnard, & Gerber, 2001). The areas in which research may be
threatening include (a) where research burrows into personal experience, (b) if the study
pertains to deviance or social control, and (c) if the study intrudes on influential
individuals (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; McCosker et al., 2001). It was further revealed
that research, which is brought to one's attention that was formerly hidden, could also
pose a problem for those participants who are taking part of the study (Dickson-Swift et
al., 2008).
The researcher also comprehends that it is their responsibility to address this
sensitive topic due to the limited research that has been conducted. As mentioned in
Dickson-Swift et al. (2008), steering away from research on such a topic due to it being
controversial can be viewed as avoidance of responsibility. For the reasons mentioned
above, the researcher has attended numerous professional organizations, has been
networking, and attended seminars and was able to network with individuals who have
agreed to take an anonymous and confidential survey. As stated in Dickson-Swift et al.
and Elmir et al. (2011), to conduct sensitive research, the researcher must form a relation
with potential participants and therefore build a personal relationship.

6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods study is to investigate how narcissistic
characteristics of leaders, toxic leadership characteristics, and power are associated with
the climate of an organization. As Schein (2010) illustrated, “Some culture analysts see
climate as the equivalent to culture, but it is better thought of as the product of some of
the underlying assumptions and is, therefore, a manifestation of culture” (p. 24). It could
determine employees’ perceptions of their leader and explore how it will aid individuals
to grasp an understanding of what narcissistic leadership is, the elements of power, and
the possible environment that might generate a narcissistic leader due to the leadership
style. Therefore, it will be determined whether this form of leadership is beneficial for an
organization and how to adequately handle the problem they are facing with their leader
and the environment (i.e., organizational climate) that is being created due to their
leader's style of leadership. To accomplish this purpose, two surveys will be
administered, of which one is The Survey on Toxic Leadership, and the other is an eight-
item survey that questions the climate of an organization and is called Eight Climate
Questions: Importance and Satisfaction.
The Survey on Toxic Leadership will be administered to individuals within all
fields that will attain data and ascertain: (a) the connection among narcissistic
characteristics of leaders and the quality level of an organization, (b) the association of
toxic leadership characteristics and the quality level of an organization, (c) the
relationship among leaders who utilize the power of control over the power of influence
as well as the quality level of an organization, (d) how narcissistic characteristics affect
the culture of an organization, (e) how the characteristics of a toxic leader impacts the
7
culture of an organization, and (f) how the characteristics of power affect the culture of
an organization (see Appendix A).
In regards to the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction, it is a five
point Likert scale that will also be administered to all those who complete The Survey on
Toxic Leadership and will attain data and discover: (a) the level of cooperation, (b)
clarity of roles and responsibilities, (c) the level of access to resources to complete work
adequately, (d) the sense of appreciation for work completed, (e) whether an individual
can grow professionally, (f) being cared for as an individual, (g) being given the
opportunity to do what an individual can do best, and (h) the value of diversity within the
organization (see Appendix B).
Research Questions
Quantitative Research Question 1. What is the relationship between narcissistic
characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational climate?
Objective 1. Identify narcissistic characteristics.
Objective 2. Identify the quality level of an organizational climate.
Objective 3. Determine the association between narcissistic characteristics and the
perceived quality of an organizational climate.
Quantitative Research Question 2. What is the relationship between toxic
leadership characteristics and the perceived quality of an organizational climate?
Objective 1. Identify toxic leadership characteristics.
Objective 3. Determine the association between toxic leadership characteristics
and the perceived quality of an organizational climate.

8
Quantitative Research Question 3. What is the relationship between leaders
who use the power of control over the power of influence and the perceived quality of an
organizational climate?
Objective 1. Identify power of control.
Objective 2. Identify power of influence.
Objective 4. Determine the relationship between the power of control and the
power of influence and the perceived quality of the organizational climate.
Qualitative Research Question 1. How do employees view the relationship
between productivity, motivation, change, and health within the culture of an
organization?
between team dynamics, communication and collaboration within the culture of an
organization?
Mixed Method Research Question. How does the qualitative data add further
meaning to the quantitative data regarding the culture of an organization?
Definition of Terms
Throughout the study, various terms are utilized to describe the numerous forms
of power and leadership styles. These terms include the following.
Charismatic power. Max Weber, an influential sociologist, portrayed charisma
as an individual who possesses qualities that separate extraordinary individuals from
ordinary ones. In turn, this quality illustrates the charismatic power and the air of having
superhuman tenacity in leadership to promote change (Milosevic & Bass, 2014).

9
Coercive power. This form of authority is additionally known as punishment
power. Therefore, employees are reprimanded if they choose to go against their
organization's policies, procedures or rules (Ross, Matteson, & Exposito, 2014).
Covert narcissism. Also known as vulnerable narcissism is defined as an
individual who displays internalizing behaviors, that are low self -esteem,
hypersensitivity, and vulnerability (Luchner, Houston, Walker, & Houston, 2011).
Culture of an organization. This consists of the organizations, vision, values,
norms, systems, symbols, language, assumptions, beliefs, and habits (Needle, 2004).
Dysfunctional culture. For the purpose of this study, the researcher was
incapable of finding sufficient research for toxic culture; however, found literature on
dysfunctional culture, which was synonymous with toxic culture.
Expertise power. Having the ability to influence others based on the knowledge
that one has attained from their prior or present experience in a specific field (Ross,
Matteson, & Exposito, 2014).
Informational power. Where an individual possesses wanted or needed
information (Ross, Matteson, & Exposito, 2014).
Legitimate power. This is also known as title or positional power. This type of
power entails that an individual can utilize their position from within their organization to
influence or direct their subordinates (Ross, Matteson, & Exposito, 2014).
Mixed methods approach. For this study, the mixed method approach will be the
concurrent philosophy.
Narcissism. Narcissism is a type of personality that consists of a distorted sense
of self-importance, illusions of indefinite amounts of power or success, desire to be

10
admired, entitlement, absence of empathy, and exploiting individuals (Blair, Hoffman, &
Helland, 2008).
Overt narcissism. Also called grandiose narcissism, is known as an individual
who illustrates externalizing behaviors, that are inflated self-esteem, aggressiveness,
arrogance and grandiosity (Luchner, Houston, Walker, & Houston, 2011).
Power of control. This is when an individual applies negative techniques to
accomplish a specific task, such as avoiding, manipulating, intimidating and threatening
(Bacon, 2011).
Power of influence. This is when an individual applies positive techniques to
accomplish a specific task, such as socializing, appealing to relationship, consulting,
alliance building, appealing to values, and modeling (Bacon, 2011).
Psychological entitlement. This is when an individual believes that no matter
their performance levels that they are to be praised rewarded and be given recognition
(Klimchak, Carsten, Morrell, & MacKenzie,William, 2016).
Referent power. This is when an individual leads by example. The leader can
gain respect and is admired by others in such a fashion that they desire to be just like their
leader.
Reward power. Reward power is the most rapid method to persuade a person
(Dawson, 1994). When a leader gives a reward to an employee to motivate the individual
to produce and such a reward may be tangible or intangible.
Situational power. When a person is not capable of attaining power in other
aspects of their life, however, are able to achieve that power over others due to situations
(Dawson, 1994, 2011).

11
Toxic leadership. This form of leadership consists of aspects that include
elements of “abusive supervision along with narcissism, authoritarianism, self-promotion,
and unpredictability” (Dobbs, 2014, p. 15).
Organization of the Study
This study is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 consists of the statement of the
problem, background, and justification, deficiencies in the evidence, audience, definition
of terms, purpose of study, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 is a review of the
literature based on the theory of narcissism and includes a description and comparison of
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles. This is then directed
towards the topic of toxic leadership and finally, leads its way to the discussion of
narcissistic leadership. Chapter 3 represents a mixed method embedded correlational
approach, which provides a look into employees’ perceptions of their leaders and the
environment that has been created by their leaders within various fields. Therefore,
Chapter 3 will consist of a description of the methodology and an overview of the study,
the participants, and the approaches taken to attain the samples. The findings in Chapter
4 will offer a background of participants, the analysis of the data, and results of the
research conducted. Lastly, Chapter 5 will consist of an overview of the study,
discussion of outcomes, limitations, delimitations, and implications of the study.
Recommendations for further possible research will be explained as well as a conclusion
of the study will be stated.

12
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
An abundance of research has been based on Bass’s theory of the three main
leadership styles that are (a) transformational, (b) transactional, and (c) laissez-faire.
However, in comparison, the notion of toxic leadership, has not been given much
attention and is still limited in research (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013). Narcissistic
leadership is often compared to the chocolate cake theory, where initially, biting into the
first couple of pieces of chocolate cake is incredibly enjoyable as one savors the richness
of the chocolate. However, after some time, this once pleasant chocolate rich taste then
becomes revolting (Ong, Roberts, Arthur, Woodman, & Akehurst, 2016). Therefore, this
can be said for a narcissistic leader, as subordinates perceive them to be effective
initially, only to later realize that they are not as effective as they thought and the positive
feelings once attached, starts to dissipate (Ong et al., 2016). Research within this review
will indicate the differences between leadership styles and then focus more so on
narcissistic leadership and its destructive nature. The importance of researching
narcissistic leadership, and more specifically the effect it has on subordinates and the
work environment that is created by such leaders. The purpose of this review is to
decrease the gap of literature on this topic and in turn to broaden the knowledge of
individuals on this subject.
Theoretical Framework
History of narcissism. The term narcissism was initially utilized to label the
ancient Greek myth character, Narcissus (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Based on this myth,
Narcissus was a handsome man who was loved by all but did not love in return and who
13
fell in love with his reflection the first time he viewed it in a pond of water. It was
Aphrodite who eventually cursed him, and he was unaware that it was his image that he
loved. As he attempted to get closer to his reflection, he fell over and drowned himself
(Grijalva & Harms, 2014).
After that, much time passed before narcissism was coined and it was in 1898 that
Havelock Ellis, an English psychologist who utilized the term narcissus-like that referred
to excessive masturbation in that people are their sexual object (Millon, Millon, Meagher,
Grossman, & Ramnath, 2004). This was followed by Otto Rank, an Austrian
psychoanalyst’s 1911 publication that was the first psychoanalytic paper that dealt with
narcissism and associated it to vanity and self-admiration (Millon et al., 2004). In 1914,
Sigmund Freud published On Narcissism: An Introduction that was entirely dedicated to
narcissism and illustrated that narcissism is normal, and in healthy amounts would make
room for mature object-relationships (see Figure 1). Freud introduced the concept,
primary narcissism which is based on infants who are living in an environment made up
of only one’s self yet come to appreciate other’s existence. In 1939, an additional
theorist, Karen Horney viewed narcissism as individuals who saw more value in
themselves than what was there. Therefore, individuals have great admiration for
themselves and expect others to feel the same for them (Millon et al., 2004).
Figure 1. Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

14
Lastly theorists Heinz Kohut and Otto Kernberg, additionally both wrote
extensively on narcissism with Kohut’s belief in self-psychology and Kernberg’s in
object relation’s theory (Millon et al., 2004); Kohut is also in agreement with primary
narcissism. Therefore, as Millon et al. (2004) and Mitchel (1981) stated, Kohut
illustrated that all children begin their life with a mother who diligently nurses and
nurtures them. Kohut’s publications focused mainly on narcissistic personality
development and just like Freud's view and correctly nurtures their every wants needs
and desires. However, at some point, the child comes to terms that rewards do not
originate from the self, but from outside and this is where the child develops what is
known as self-objects. It was indicated that once the child realizes that their needs cannot
be entirely met, feelings of uncertainty arise and hence the sense of vulnerability. This
leads the child in desiring and going back to primary narcissism and develops a grandiose
self. As Millon et al. and Mitchel illustrated, according to Kohut, developing grandiose
self is a regular part of the development and will eventually phase out as the feeling of
empathy takes its place.
However, unlike Kohut’s theory, Kernberg, did not believe that the grandiose
self-was a stage of one's healthy development. As stated in Tuttman (1981) according to
Kernberg, normal narcissism is the “libidinal investment of the self” (p. 309), whereas,
severe narcissism is a disintegration of object relations. Therefore, Kernberg indicated
that the relationship is of self to pathologically grandiose self (Tuttman, 1981).
Leadership Styles
According to Zareen, Razzaq, and Mujtaba (2015), the concept of leadership
began with the theory of “Great Man,” which is based on the idea that leaders are born
15
and not made. However, theories after that concentrated on the notion that individuals
can be trained to be effective leaders based on past leaders (Zareen et al., 2015).
Additionally, theories illustrated that the most efficient leadership behavior are those that
are more towards the situational variables (Zareen et al., 2015). It was further stated that
effective leadership determines the competitiveness of the organization. Effective
leadership also determines how employees will perform and the progress of the
organization and as illustrated within their study, the success of one’s job is far more
dependent on the leader’s style (Zareen et al., 2015). However, as Moors (2012)
indicated in his study, the theory of leadership styles gained momentum when the Bass's
theory of leadership was created. According to Bass's theory, there are three main
leadership styles, and that is transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (Moors,
2012).
Leadership styles and their effect on subordinates and the organization. The
study conducted by Zareen et al. (2015) examined the relationship between leadership
styles and motivation within five banks in Pakistan with 20 participants per bank and
therefore a total of 100 participants. An additional study conducted by Lutz Allen,
Smith, and Da Silva (2013) determined the relationship between leadership styles and the
effect on psychological climate for organizational creativity within Presbyterian churches
and consisted of 178 participants of which 66% are female and 34% male with an
average age of 55. Therefore, in this study, the leaders are the churches pastors.
The method utilized to gather the data was a two-section questionnaire where the
first part acquired demographic data and the second section consisted of 20 questions
based on transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles and its effect
16
on the employees' motivation (Zareen et al., 2015). Similar to Zareen et al. (2015) study,
a survey was given in Lutz Allen et al. (2013) study, which was composed of a 36-item
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess leadership style. Also, nine items
were utilized to evaluate psychological climate for organizational change readiness and
six items to assess the psychological climate for organizational creativity.
Results revealed that all three styles of leadership had a positive effect on
motivation with transactional leadership having the greatest impact, followed by laissez-
faire and then transformational leadership (Zareen et al., 2015). However, it was
illustrated in Lutz Allen et al. (2013) results that the relation amid the psychological
climate for organizational change and readiness with leadership styles was statistically
significant. The leadership styles that were most important were transformational and
laissez-faire leadership style, as the transformational style was positively associated with
psychological climate for organizational change readiness. Also, there was not a
significant relation among transaction leadership style and psychological climate for
organizational change readiness. Lastly, there was a significant negative relationship
between laissez-faire leadership and psychological climate for organizational change
readiness.
Transactional versus transformational leadership. Bealer and Bhanugopan
(2014) conducted a study, which examined the differences between transformational and
transactional leadership behaviors and how they are perceived within the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) and compared them to leadership behavior of individuals in Europe and
United States of America (USA). Whereas Dey and Carvalho (2014) conducted a study
in Mumbai, India to examine the relationship between transactional leadership and a

17
more accurate angle of behavior, emotional intelligence, to determine whether results
would illustrate the same positive relation that transformational leadership has with
emotional intelligence.
A total of 213 managers of which 70% are male, and 30% are female were part of
this study and came from Australia, Canada, Europe, USA, Jordan, Syria, India,
Philippines, Palestine, Egypt, and Lebanon (Bealer & Bhanugopan, 2014). To gather
data for the study, an MLQ was utilized and consisted of 45 items that measured the type
of leadership and leadership outcomes (Bealer & Bhanugopan, 2014). However, in the
study by Dey and Carvalho (2014), 41 first line sales executives served as the participants
and a Transformational-Transactional leadership instrument was utilized that consisted of
a 10-item questionnaire as well as an EQI questionnaire to measure emotional
intelligence that consisted of 14 dimensions (Dey & Carvalho, 2014).
Results from the Bealer and Bhanugopan 2014 study indicated that when
comparing aspects of transactional leadership, between UAE and USA, such that of
contingent rewards that it scored in the 40th percentile, pointing out that it was not
utilized as much as it is in the USA. Also, management by exception scored at 60%,
indicating that managers in UAE take far more initiative in attending to their employees
when mistakes are made more so than managers in the USA. However, opposite results
were illustrated when comparing UAE to Europe. Therefore, UAE does less
management by exception than those managers in Europe, and this is also illustrated for
contingency rewards. In conclusion, results illustrated that UAE is more transactional,
however also score lower in leadership effectiveness and the USA and Europe is more
transformational and effective. Results in the Dey and Carvalho (2014) study illustrated
18
that transactional leadership was in fact positively correlated with emotional intelligence.
However, further results revealed that certain aspects of emotional intelligence do not go
together. Lastly, the three demographic variables, age, previous experience and tenure
demonstrated a degree of influence on emotional intelligence (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Bass Leadership Factors.
Transformational Leadership
According to Sudha, Shahnawaz, and Farhat (2016), transformational leadership
is the most positive and efficient type of leadership in which is associated with
motivation and emotional connectedness that in turn has a significant influence on
performance. Furthermore, Sudha et al., and Mathew and Gupta (2015) stated that the
transformational style is associated with leaders who are charismatic and have
consideration for individuals. Similarly, Kareem (2016) indicated that transformational
leaders are those who “supports, recognizes, corrects and lays down expectations” (p. 9).
Mathew and Gupta also shared the same findings as Kareem, as well as Sudha et al. and
stated that the characteristics of a transformational leader include being viewed as a role
model, inspires motivation, stimulates creativity, and considers individuals. It is also

19
noted that this type of leadership promotes successful organizations, a greater chance of
employees being promoted, and created better financial results (Kareem, 2016).
Transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness. Mathew and Gupta
(2015) conducted a study that examined the relationship between transformational
leadership and emotional intelligence. Also, Sudha et al. (2016) conducted a study on
leadership styles and its direct and indirect relation to collective efficacy as well as
leaders’ effectiveness and well-being. To attain results for Mathew and Gupta’s study,
300 participants answered a questionnaire with 46 questions of which 20 questions are
for transformational leadership and 26 questions are for emotional intelligence. The 300
participants came from seven different industries of which 60% are men, and 40% are
women and fall between the 36-45 age bracket (Matthew & Gupta, 2015). In regards to
the questions about emotional intelligence, the Six Seconds International Emotional
Intelligence tool was utilized to adapt the questions. These questions surrounded four
variables for transformational leadership and the five variables for emotional intelligence.
Whereas the Sudha et al. 2016 study was comprised of 90 participants with an average
age of 30, who are management employees from an education management organization
located in Delhi. The tools utilized to retrieve the data required consisted of the MLQ,
which is a 45-item questionnaire that identifies leadership behavior. Also, the Job-related
Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) was used, which is a 50-item questionnaire that
determines individual's emotional reactions to their jobs and lastly, a 15-item scale,
which was developed to measure collective efficacy (Sudha et al., 2016).
Results indicated that transformational leadership is related to emotional
intelligence and illustrated that emotional intelligence roadmaps could be created as a

20
form of intervention to improve transformational leadership (Matthew & Gupta, 2015).
Results for Sudha et al. (2016) revealed that transformational and transactional leadership
were greatly and positively related to collective efficacy. Furthermore, collective
efficacy was highly relevant to the leader's effectiveness, whereas laissez-faire leadership
was negatively related to collective efficacy. Therefore, it can be concluded that
transformation leadership is correlated to emotional intelligence and collective efficacy.
Transactional Leadership
According to Bealer and Bhanugopan (2014), transactional leaders are defined as
“mundane contractual exchange based on self-interest” (p. 296). Transactional leaders
are, as stated in the study conducted by Dey and Carvalho (2014) and Bealer and
Bhanugopan, individuals who have a tendency to adhere to the job requirements
faithfully. Also, they are such leaders that set up work requirements in a manner that
their subordinates will be capable of completing their deadlines and meeting those
expectations. However, Bealer and Bhanugopan further indicated that this style of
leadership lacks inspiration. As Basham (2012) stated, this style of leadership is based on
two factors, and that is management by exception and rewards. Dey and Carvalho
similarly indicated that transactional leaders normatively would function by getting their
subordinates to complete their work requirements through the use of punishment or
rewards such as praise, an increase in salary or career opportunities that will advance
their position. However, it is also illustrated that some transactional leaders will give
their subordinates complete responsibility and only get involved with their subordinates
when they notice that they are incapable of completing their tasks or follow the
organizations' standards (Dey & Carvalho, 2014).

21
Transactional leadership and follower job performance. A study conducted by
Shah and Hamid (2015) analyzed the correlation between transactional leadership and job
performance amongst employee’s working within six banks in Pakistan. An additional
study conducted by Buch, Thompson, and Kuvaas (2016) observed the moderating role
of leader political skills and its relation between transactional leader-member exchange
and subordinates job performance. Unlike Shah and Hamid (2015) utilization of bank
managers, Buch et al. had utilized supervisors and their subordinates from various
organizational levels in 35 organizations from Norway.
Surveys from Shah and Hamid (2015) were administered to the full-time branch
bank managers, which consisted of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
with 12 items developed by (Bass & Avolio, 2000) to measure transactional leadership.
To measure job performance, a 37 items scale created by (Williams & Anderson, 1991)
was given to the participants. The 297 participants from Shah and Hamid’s 2015 study is
comprised of 39.1% who are in the 31 to 40 age group and 8.1 % who are aged 51 and
above. Furthermore, 94.9% of the participants are male, and 4.7% of the participants are
female. However, there were far greater participants from Buch et al. (2016) with a total
of 753 subordinates and 153 leaders who completed the survey in which of the leaders
69.3% are men and 30.7% are women, and of the subordinates, 65.3% are men and
34.7% are women. In addition, Buch et al. utilized the following surveys to attain the
data required (a) Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) seven item LMX-7 scale to measure
transactional LMX; (b) Ferris et al. (2005) political skill inventory, which is a 7-point
scale; and (c) a five-item scale created by Linden and Graen (1980) to measure
subordinate job performance.

22
Results illustrated that transactional leadership is not only positively correlated
with job performance but also an increase in job performance was observed and hence
increasing the effectiveness of an organization (Shah & Hamid, 2015). However, Buch et
al. (2016) study revealed that leaders span of supervision of their subordinates was
associated negatively with their subordinates’ job performance. Results further indicated
that there was a negative relation between transactional LMX and subordinate job
performance and leader political skill was positively related to subordinate job
performance (Buch et al., 2016).
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, and Einarsen (2014) defined laissez-faire as a leader
who completely avoids their subordinates when they are in need of their leader, as well as
leaders who are the most inactive and ineffective in comparison to all other styles of
leadership. Zareen, Razzaq, and Mujtaba (2015) included that this style of leadership is
one that subordinates are given full reign to making decisions and providing them with
the resources to do so. Furthermore, laissez-faire leaders are known to have their
subordinates work in stressful environments due to a lack of information that is required
to execute their projects as well as adhere to their responsibilities (Skogstad et al., 2014).
However, Zareen et al. stated that laissez-faire leadership style is rather effective when
subordinates are highly qualified, motivated and can independently complete their tasks.
Moreover, this style of leadership is also beneficial when there is an abundance of
decisions to make, or when decisions are not complex (Zareen et al., 2015).
Laissez–faire leadership and workplace environment. A longitudinal study
conducted by Skogstad et al. (2014) examined how perceived laissez-faire leadership

23
plays a role on stress. A survey was utilized to attain the data with a total of 1,771
participants located in Norway and randomly selected from the Norwegian Central
Employee Register with 52% of the participants being female and 48% male with an
average age of 43.8 years (Skogstad et al., 2014). Additionally, a study conducted by
Buch, Martinsen, and Kuvaas (2015) examined a broader view in comparison to Skogstad
et al. of the relationship between laissez-faire leadership behavior and the mediating role
of economic leader-member exchange. Buch et al. further examined the negative
relations that exist between laissez-faire leadership and subordinates. Like the Skogstad
et al. study, the participants were retrieved from Norway, however, in Buch et al. study,
they were retrieved from two international organizations. It is important to note that the
study conducted consisted of two studies. The first study consisted of 199 participants of
which 69% were men, 43 years of age and the second study consisted of 197 participants
of which 70% were men who were 36 years of age (Buch et al., 2015).
To measure role ambiguity within the Skogstad et al. (2014) study, a six-item
questionnaire was used, and to measure laissez-faire leadership behavior, four items were
utilized from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Lastly, to measure initiating
structure and consideration, three items were used from Ekvall and Arvonen's leadership
questionnaire. The Skogstad et al. 2014 study and the Buch et al. 2015 study also utilized
Bass and Avolio’s MLQ form to measure laissez-faire leadership behavior. Also, an
economic leader-member exchange assessment was utilized, a six item affective
commitment scale, a five-item self-reported scale, as well as a seven-item helping
behavior scale to assess organizational citizenship behavior (Buch et al., 2015).

24
Results for the Skogstad et al. (2014) study indicated that laissez-faire leadership
was found to be an antecedent of role ambiguity. Further results revealed that laissez-
faire leadership illustrated the main cause for workplace stress via the role of ambiguity
(Skogstad et al., 2014). The results for the Buch et al. (2015) study illustrated that
economic leader-member exchange completely serves a mediating role between laissez-
faire leadership and affective commitment as well as work effort. Whereas, it only
somewhat acted as a mediating role between laissez-faire leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior, and therefore it is evident that laissez-faire leadership serves as a
form of destructive leadership.
Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic leaders are known for their great ability of persuading, motivating
and inspiring their followers via their tenacious confidence, positive emotions,
extraordinary mission and the vision they offer to their organization (LePine, Zhang,
Crawford, & Rich, 2016; Oreg & Berson, 2015). In fact, they are viewed as exceptional
people who are separated from ordinary ones, which in turn gives the illusion that such
individuals possess supernatural strength in leadership to produce a change in an
organization (Milosevic & Bass, 2014). Also, they are said to communicate optimism
about attaining goals in the future (LePine et al., 2016). Charismatic leaders are viewed
as most effective when there is a crisis that is occurring within their organization, and
they are capable of providing their subordinates with solutions that are both innovative
and appealing (Oreg & Berson, 2015; Sosik, Chun, & Zhu, 2014). Individuals who
possess and implement this form of leadership will display traits and characteristics that
are of high self-confidence, dominance, charismatic and narcissistic. Moreover, they are
25
seen as eccentric due to their partaking in personal risk taking behavior (Sosik et al.,
2014).
Charismatic leadership and job performance. LePine et al. (2016) conducted a
study based on the notion that charismatic leaders have the ability in changing their
employee's perception of work stress, suggesting that stress is enhancing and illustrating
to their employees of future goal attainment. It was further demonstrated that charismatic
leaders could shield the destructive effects of stress that employees face on task
performance as they have the aptitude in dampening the negative emotional,
motivational, and strain-related states that affect job performance. This, in turn, leads to
increasing one’s job performance (LePine et al., 2016). An additional study conducted
by Tuytens and Devos (2012) investigated the relationship between procedural justice,
charismatic leadership and feedback reactions in performance appraisal within the public
human resource sector of education. It is believed that these positive reactions are linked
to employee performance improvement.
LePine et al. (2016) gathered data from four different ranks of the U.S Marine
Corps. A total of 149 Mariners who are 95% male and an averaged age of 21 and who
are currently enlisted, completed surveys based on appraisals and job stressors. Whereas,
the Tuytens and Devos (2012) study took place at Flemish secondary schools in which a
total of 28 schools partook in this study, in which, 20 surveys were offered to each of the
teachers within those 28 schools who recently had an encounter with their supervisor of
having a performance appraisal session. A total of 299 teachers completed the survey
that included 71% who are female and 29% male with an average length of 15 years in
the teaching profession (Tuytens & Devos, 2012).

26
The surveys in LePine et al. (2016) study measured challenge stressors and
hindrance stressors with a total of 20 items, ten items for each stressor. Challenge
stressors included items such as workload, accountability, and responsibility. Whereas
hindrance stressors included administrative problems, role conflict, and organizational
politics. A five-point Likert scale with two three item measures was utilized to measure
challenge appraisals and hindrance appraisals, in which definitions and descriptions were
taken from Lazarus and Folkman (as cited in LePine et al., 2016), and LePine (as cited in
LePine et al., 2016). Lastly, task performance and charismatic leadership were measured
with charismatic leadership being measured with Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ). However, in Tuytens and Devos (2012) study, existing scales were utilized to
measure charismatic leadership and procedural justice as well as feedback accuracy and
utility. That stated portions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used for
measuring charismatic leadership, and procedural justice was measured utilizing the scale
of Colquitt. Whereas feedback accuracy and utility was measured utilizing scales of
Heneman and Milanowski (Tuytens & Devos, 2012).
Results from LePine et al. (2016) study demonstrated that charismatic leadership
is linked with a positive relationship between challenge appraisals and challenge
stressors. It was further revealed that a positive correlation existed between challenge
appraisals and performance. Results from Tuytens and Devos (2012) illustrated that
there was not any evidence made available in regards to procedural justice and its
moderating effects in its relationship between charismatic leadership and feedback
reactions. However, it was further illustrated that procedural justice and charismatic
leadership have a direct influence on feedback reactions, but there was no proof in
27
regards to the hypothesis that stated that fair performance appraisal procedure does atone
for poor quality charismatic leadership (Tuytens & Devos, 2012). Additional results
revealed that there was a partial mediating effect of procedural justice in the relation
between charismatic leadership and perceived feedback accuracy and perceived feedback
utility and therefore charismatic leadership has direct as well as the indirect effect on
feedback reactions. Lastly, there was a significant link between charismatic leadership
and procedural justice (Tuytens & Devos, 2012).
Toxic Leadership
Chua and Murray (2015) stated that corrupt leadership constitutes six forms and
that is abusive, tyrannical, destructive, bullying, laissez-faire, and toxic. Toxic leadership
can be illustrated when such leaders attack their subordinates’ personalities, and their
capabilities (Chua & Murray, 2015). Therefore, toxic leadership characteristics
encompass the leader criticizing their subordinates’ performance, not giving their
subordinates credit for their ideas and using it as their own as well as humiliating their
subordinates in front of their colleagues (Chua & Murray, 2015). Pelletier (2012) added
that a leader is defined as toxic if they inflict long lasting serious harm onto their
subordinates. It was further illustrated that toxic leaders can be identified as individuals
who already have a predisposed idea of hatred, significantly high levels of narcissism and
charisma, a desire to have power as well as negative life themes (Chua & Murray, 2015).
Moreover, it has been revealed through research that toxic leadership affects numerous
regions such as the mental and physical health of subordinates, an elevation in
counterproductive work behavior, as well as tardiness, resignation or transfers (Ross et
al., 2014).
28
Interestingly, followers of toxic leaders tend to fall into two categories;
conformers and colluders, in which the conformers tend to be individuals who are
considered to be psychologically immature, have low self-esteem and therefore believe
they deserve to be mistreated and disrespected by their leaders (Chua & Murray, 2015).
They, in turn, seek to be accepted by their leaders, whereas colluders are individuals who
share and have the same beliefs of their toxic leaders and tend to prosper in that
environment that the toxic leader creates (Chua & Murray, 2015).
Toxic leadership and follower perception. A study conducted by Chua and
Murray (2015) examined the differences in how genders perceive their leaders level of
toxicity within their organization. Similarly, an additional study based on perceptions of
one’s leader, which was conducted by Pelletier (2012) who observed how the relation
that subordinates have with their leader would affect their perceptions of their leaders
level of toxicity. Chua and Murray’s study included 395 employed participants that were
between the ages of 18 and 65, of which 179 were randomly chosen through the survey
monkey online database and 202 participants were randomly chosen via Facebook.
Whereas the study conducted by Pelletier included 298 participants, who are
undergraduate and graduate students from a public university in the United States of
which 34% are male, and 66% are female.
The participants within Pelletier’s (2012) study included three experimental
conditions and two groups, which were 147 in-groups and 151 out-groups. The
conditions consisted of participants viewing a video of a leader illustrating toxic behavior
toward their subordinates and the participants were made to believe that they were going
to be a part of it, as it was based on a task for a team to complete. The participants were
29
then assessed using a survey that consisted of 12 items from the LMX-MDM
questionnaire that assesses the quality of exchange relationships. Also, an 18-item scale
was developed by the author and utilized in this study to measure participant’s
perceptions of toxic leadership. Lastly, a five-item scale was created by the author and
utilized to assess the participant's intentions to challenge the leader. However, within
Chua and Murray’s (2015) study, the participants were required to take an online survey
that had questions based on scenario development-recognition and recognition tasks.
Results indicated that 76% of the participants viewed the case study scenario
given within the survey in a negative light and perceived the leader to be toxic and were
further seen as not encouraging nor motivating. However, it was also illustrated that
women perceived and viewed toxic leaders far more negatively than the men in the study
(Chua & Murray, 2015). Pelletier’s (2012) results revealed that participants who were in
the out groups and therefore less favored perceived the leader to have greater levels of
toxicity versus those participants who were part of the in-group. Furthermore, it was
illustrated that participants from the out groups challenged the leader far more than those
who were part of the in groups. Moreover, it was indicated that the participants who had
a favored status with the leader reported the leader to be less toxic than those participants
who were not favored by the leader (Pelletier, 2012).
Narcissistic Leadership
Narcissistic leadership and follower perception. Ong et al. (2016) conducted a
study, which was two-fold and examined whether narcissistic leaders were initially
perceived as leaders by their subordinates and whether those feelings would dissipate
over time. Also, the study was to determine how transformational leadership played a
30
role in conciliating the relation between narcissism and leadership. An additional study,
conducted by De Hoogh, Den Hartog, and Nevicka (2015) demonstrated a similar interest
in how narcissistic leaders are perceived and utilized one’s gender to moderate the
relation of narcissism and perceived leadership effectiveness. However, an additional
study conducted by Blair, Hoffman, and Helland (2008) examined the relationship
between narcissism and leadership to ascertain the degree of how narcissism is associated
with managerial effectiveness and integrity. To attain these results, Ong et al. conducted
two longitudinal studies of which the first study consisted of 112 freshman college
students who were randomly assigned to groups that did not have an established leader
and the second study consisted of 152 students who were self-assigned to groups.
However, the multi-source study conducted by De Hoogh et al. included 145 managers
and their subordinates of which 53% and 47% were male, from various organizations in
the Netherlands.
Within both studies conducted by Ong et al. (2016), narcissism, leadership, and
transformational leadership were measured using the Narcissism Personality Inventory
(NPI), Brunell et al. (2008) leadership measure and a multifactor leadership
questionnaire. The De Hoogh et al. (2015) study also utilized the NPI along with a three-
item scale to measure perceived leader effectiveness, leaders and follower's gender and
finally control variables such as age and tenure. Like the Ong et al. study, Blair et al.
(2008) utilized 154 students from an MBA program within a large American university,
of which 81% are male, and 19% are female and who represented various industries.
However, unlike Ong et al. and De Hoogh et al. who utilized the NPI, Blair et al.
measured narcissism by utilizing a California Psychological Inventory (CPI) created by

31
Wink and Gough (1990) which is based on non-clinical narcissism. Also, Blair et al.
utilized professional evaluation forms to assess managerial performance that included
nine work-related dimensions.
Results to Ong et al. (2016) first study indicated that those who had high ratings
for narcissism were originally perceived as leaders. However, those perceptions
dissipated over time. However, Ong et al.’s second study demonstrated that individuals
were not rated higher in narcissism initially, and were also negatively perceived as
leaders as time progressed. Results of the first study further revealed that
transformational leadership initially behaved as a moderator between narcissism and
leadership, but this effect also disappeared over time, whereas this was not the case for
the second study. In regards to the results for Blair et al. (2008), it was revealed that
narcissism was greatly and negatively correlated with supervisor ratings of participation,
confrontation effectiveness, team building, and sensitivity. There were, however, no
relation to narcissism and subordinate ratings of interpersonal performance. Also, the
study illustrated that narcissism was not greatly correlated to supervisor or subordinate
ratings of conceptual performance. Lastly, there was a negative relation between
narcissism and managerial ratings of integrity (Blair et al., 2008).
Results for the De Hoogh et al. (2015) study revealed that there was a notable link
between a leader’s gender and leader’s narcissism when relating to the perceived leader
effectiveness. In regards to female leaders, the levels of narcissism are negatively linked
to the perceived effectiveness of a leader. Furthermore, in regards to male leaders, there
is no relation found for perceived effectiveness of a leader (De Hoogh et al., 2015).
Further results indicated that female subordinates did not illustrate any gender bias when
32
evaluating the effectiveness of their narcissistic leaders (De Hoogh et al., 2015). Also, it
was examined that male employees’ perceptions of leaders high on narcissism to be less
effective when compared to female employees (De Hoogh et al., 2015).
Definition of narcissism. As stated in a study conducted by Grijalva, Harms,
Newman, Gaddis, and Fraley (2015), narcissism is defined by utilizing the diagnostic
criteria that are found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-IV
(DSM) for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That being said, an individual who is
narcissistic, is one who is arrogant, manipulative and exploitative (Grijalva et al., 2015).
Additionally, this person has an exaggerated sense of self-importance, is in need of an
abundance of admiration, lacks empathy and has a sense of entitlement (Grijalva et al.,
2015; Roberts, Woodman, Lofthouse, & Williams, 2015). Narcissists are individuals
with a fragile self-concept of their influence on others (Roberts et al., 2015; Wales, Patel,
& Lumpkin, 2013). Furthermore, narcissists excel in stressful situations and scenarios
that other individuals cannot cope to be a part of (Roberts et al., 2015). Environments,
where narcissists have the opportunity to compete and demonstrate the talents that they
perceive to have, illustrates that they comprehend that various situations will allow them
to show more or less of their talents (Roberts et al., 2015). That said, when there is an
opportunity for narcissists to demonstrate their abilities, they are motivated to do well,
however when that opportunity is not given, they no longer illustrate any effort and
perform badly (Roberts et al., 2015).
Overt and covert narcissism. An abundance of evidence illustrates and backs the
notion that there are two forms of narcissism and that is covert and overt narcissism
(Luchner, Houston, Walker, & Houston, 2011). Overt narcissism, otherwise known as
33
grandiose narcissism is also considered to being more adaptive, which is associated with
psychological health and resilience (Clarke, Karlov, & Neale, 2014). Whereas
maladaptive narcissism is related to covert narcissism and is linked to entitlement and
negative affect (Clark et al., 2014; Reina, Zhang, & Peterson, 2014). Luchner et al.
(2011) illustrated that overt narcissism is visible via externalizing behaviors such as
arrogance, inflated self-esteem, aggressiveness, and grandiosity (see Figure 3).
However, covert narcissism is displayed through internalizing behaviors, such as
vulnerability, deflated self-esteem and hypersensitivity (Luchner et al., 2011). Also,
individuals who are covert narcissists, display significant levels of aggression and distrust
(Reina et al., 2014).
Figure 3. Contemporary Model of Pathological Narcissism (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010).
Although both forms are distinct from one another, they both share characteristics
that are dominant; such as self-absorption and sensitivity to slights (Luchner et al., 2011).
Moreover, Luchner et al. (2011) revealed that regardless the form of narcissism, that all
narcissists’ self-esteem is fortified when they are admired by others. This concept is akin
to normal and pathological narcissism, where normal narcissism is linked to foster a
positive self-image, look for experiences that are self-enhancing in social environments
as well as attain power in aspects related to achievement (Clarke et al., 2014). However,
34
pathological narcissism is associated with problematic self-regulation processes, which in
turn leads its way into grandiose and vulnerable elements (Clarke et al., 2014).
Studies indicate that overt narcissism is positively linked to self–esteem and
negatively correlated with neuroticism as well as symptoms of distress and negative
affect (Clarke et al., 2015; Gerhardt & Le, 2013). Furthermore, there is a positive link
between overt narcissism and general competitiveness as well as hypercompetitiveness,
which has frequently been displayed in previous research (Luchner et al., 2011). In
addition, studies reveal that the aftermath of being a grandiose narcissist is associated
with both positive and negative leadership among United States Presidents (Reina et al.,
2014).
The bright and dark side of narcissism. A study conducted by Watts et al.
(2013) sought to determine how narcissistic traits affect the performance of United States
presidents, as it was researched that certain traits are associated with presidential job
performance. To gather the results, 121 American scholars who have previously
published a biography of a U.S. President were selected as participants who were to rate
the 41 presidents including William Clinton, with an average of 4.2 raters per president
(Watts et al., 2013). A similar study was conducted by Luchner, Houston, Walker, and
Houston (2011) that compared two forms of competitiveness, which are general and
hyper-competitiveness with the two forms of narcissism that are covert and overt
narcissism. The study comprised of 324 undergraduates of which 187 are females and
137 are males with an average age of 19 years that were selected from a small college in
the states and introductory psychology classes.

35
A 596-item questionnaire was utilized for the participants in Watts et al. (2013)
study to complete which evaluated the presidents' behavior and personality. It included a
240-item Likert-type questions from the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness personality
inventory test that assesses the five personality dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion,
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Watts et al., 2013). Also,
a Five Factor Model (FFM) prototype was utilized, the Simonton Survey Composite, the
2010 Siena College Poll, the 2009 C-SPAN poll of 64 U.S. historians who rated
presidents on ten dimensions and the 2010 Siena College Poll (Watts et al., 2013). A
survey was also utilized to attain results for Luchner et al. (2011) study that comprised of
a revised competitiveness index, which contains 14 items, the 26-item Hypercompetitive
Attitude scale, the 10-item Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale and the 40-item Narcissistic
Personality Inventory scale.
Results from Watts et al. (2013) study illustrated that grandiose narcissism is
related to some indicators of negative presidential performance and more so in the area of
ethics. Furthermore, grandiose narcissism is more so evident and increased amongst U.S.
Presidents than in the general population and has been seen more in presidents over time.
Moreover, grandiose narcissism is linked to objective indicators of superior leadership,
whereas, vulnerable narcissism was not greatly associated with most of the presidential
performance indicators (Watts et al., 2013). Fearless dominance was also solely linked to
adaptive features of presidential performance. Therefore, based on the study’s results,
grandiose narcissism was related to both positive and negative outcomes. However, it
was also indicated that when extroversion was controlled, that the associations between
grandiose narcissism and positive results were not significant (Watts et al., 2013).
36
Whereas, agreeableness can be utilized as a suppressor for positive results, as the
association between grandiose narcissism and positive indicators of performance were
more evident (Watts et al., 2013).
Results from the Luchner et al. (2011) study indicated that both forms of
narcissism were greatly associated with both forms of competitiveness, with a positive
relation between overt narcissism and general competitiveness. Also,
hypercompetitiveness was positively related with overt narcissism (Luchner et al., 2011).
In regards to results about covert narcissism and the two forms of competitiveness, it was
indicated that there was a small yet significant negative correlation between general
competitiveness and covert narcissism (Luchner et al., 2011).
Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior
A meta-analysis study conducted by Grijalva and Newman (2015) focused on
determining whether narcissism correlated with counterproductive work behavior (CWB)
in comparison to other personality traits that are part of the dark triad (see Figure 4).
Furthermore, there was interest in discovering how the role of the collectivist culture
related to the relationship of CWB and narcissism. Lastly, Grijalva and Newman
examined whether there was a correlation between CWB and the various facets of
narcissism. Just like Grijalva and Newman, an additional meta-analysis study conducted
by O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, and McDaniel (2012) examined how the dark triad
personality traits, which consist of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy,
affected job performance and counterproductive work behavior.
Furthermore, an extensive study conducted by Braun, Aydin, Frey, and Peus
(2016) examined the relationship between narcissistic leaders, supervisor targeted CWB
37
and malicious and benign envy and created a pilot study, two experimental studies, and
two field surveys to attain the results. Moreover, Meurs, Fox, Kessler, and Spector
(2013) conducted a study that investigated the moderating function of narcissism between
stressors and counterproductive work behavior.
The meta-analysis conducted by O’Boyle et al. (2012) consisted of 186 articles
from the 1950s to 2009, which produced 43,907 participants that came from 11 nations.
However, 75% of those participants resided in the United States and worked in an array
of industries. Whereas, the meta-analysis that Grijalva and Newman (2015) executed
consisted of results from 16 studies from Canada, United States, Australia, and one,
which encompassed a mix of international countries. Whereas, the studies conducted by
Braun et al. (2016) had the participants from a university and different organizations in
Germany. The participants for each study were as follows; 31 women and 19 men for the
pilot study with an average age of 23.9, 43 women and 31 men with a mean age of 23.6
for the first study. For the second study, 24 women and 26 men with a mean age of 23.7
were utilized (Braun et al., 2016). For the third study, 365 employees from various
organizations in Germany of which 212 are men and 150 women with an average age of
37 years. Therefore, there were 50 leaders (20 women 30 men) and 50 followers (26
women and 24 men) with a mean age of 48 for leaders and 37 for followers from various
organizations for the fourth study (Braun et al., 2016). An additional method for Grijalva
and Newman’s study was utilized to collect the data, which involved an online survey for
CWB and narcissism to an international sample that consisted of 433 participants who
were over the age of 18 and currently employed and whose average age was 36.
However, the study conducted by Meurs et al. (2013) included 515 employed people who
38
were attained from the Psychology Department participant pool, that are from classes in
an urban university where most are already employed. It was illustrated that 81% of
these participants are women and that 48% are white collared and 52% blue collared.
Lastly, of this sample, 14% indicated that they are managers (Meurs et al., 2013).
Figure 4. Dark Triad Traits.
Results for O’Boyle et al. (2012) illustrated that when an increase in
Machiavellianism was present, that there was a decline in performance and an increase in
CWB. Moreover, results indicated that there was a significant positive relation between
narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Similar to
O’Boyle et al. results, the study from Grijalva and Newman (2015) also revealed that
narcissism is highly correlated to CWB and that cultures which are high in, in-group
collectivism, have a weak correlation with CWB and narcissism (Grijalva & Newman,
2015). Additional results indicated that the relationship between CWB and narcissism
may alter depending on the facets of narcissism, with entitlement and exploitativeness
being an excellent predictor and leadership and authority being a low predictor (Grijalva
& Newman, 2015). Similar results were indicated for the study conducted by Braun et al.
39
(2016) with the pilot study revealing participants perceiving leaders as more narcissistic
in the high narcissistic conditioned group versus participants who were in the low
narcissism conditioned group. Results for study one illustrated that there was a
significant effect on narcissistic leadership when related to malicious envy and it was
further indicated that participants in the high-narcissism condition revealed greater levels
of malicious envy in comparison to the low narcissism condition (Braun et al., 2016).
Results for study two stated that there were lower levels of benign envy in high
narcissism conditions (Braun et al., 2016).
In regards to the results attained by Meurs et al. (2013), it was revealed that
interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints were positively associated with
CWB for both individuals and organizations, whereas narcissism was negatively linked to
organizational constraints and grandiose exhibitionism was positively correlated to CWB
in individuals. Moreover, results indicated that narcissism moderated the relationship
between CWB in both organizations and individuals (Meurs et al., 2013). Also, it was
demonstrated that grandiose exhibitionism moderated the relation between interpersonal
conflict and CWB in individuals; however, it did not moderate the interpersonal conflict
of counterproductive work behavior in organizations (Meurs et al., 2013). Lastly,
grandiose exhibitionism moderated the relation between organizational constraints and
CWB in organizations as well as in individuals. Therefore, based on results, it is evident
that the relation between counterproductive workplace behavior intensifies when levels of
narcissism or grandiose exhibitionism increase (Meurs et al., 2013).

40
Narcissistic Leaders and Job Satisfaction
Two studies were conducted based on job satisfaction and narcissistic/toxic
leadership, of which one was carried out by Mathieu (2013) and the other by Mehta and
Maheshwari (2013). Both studies utilized surveys to gather their data and a total of 224
subordinates of which 41.5% are men and 58.5% are women with an average age of 44.3
years who work for a public service organization were given various assessments for the
Mathieu (2013) study. Whereas, Mehta and Maheshwari’s (2013) study consisted of 104
participants of which 73.1% are males and 23.9% are females who are junior and middle-
level managers of various departments of organizations. A similar study conducted by
Owens, Wallace, and Waldman (2015) examined how the role of humility affected
narcissistic leaders and their employee's perception of how effective they are, how
humility on narcissism affects how engaged employees within an organization are. The
participants included in this study were 876 employees, of which 76% are female with an
average tenure of 21% and are an average age of 37 years, who rated 138 leaders of
which 61% are female.
The surveys that were completed by the subordinates of Mathieu (2013) study
consisted of self-report measures of job satisfaction, the five- factor model and
narcissism. Therefore, Mathieu utilized the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the
NPI, and the Big Five Inventory to attain the results of this study. In contrast, the survey
that was administered by Mehta and Maheshwari (2013) included three sections, of
which section one included 24 items that dealt with toxic leadership behaviors, section
two included six items that pertained to participant’s job satisfaction and section three
consisted of six elements that pertained to organization commitment. Owens et al. (2015)
41
survey was administered online and consisted of two parts that were given one month
apart. Just like Mathieu’s study, Owens et al. also utilized the NPI, amongst other scales
such as an 11 item consensus-other report scales to measure leader humility, a four-item
leadership effectiveness scale, a nine-item follower job engagement scale, and a four-
item follower subjective performance scale.
Results to Mathieu’s (2013) study revealed that narcissism was positively linked
to extraversion and openness and negatively associated to agreeableness. In regards to
job satisfaction, it was indicated that higher scores of job satisfaction were related to
higher scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness and lower scores on neuroticism
and narcissism. Further results to Mathieu’s study indicated how FFM traits influenced
job satisfaction and it was noted that agreeableness was positively related to job
satisfaction and neuroticism was negatively related. Lastly, it was illustrated that
narcissism had a negative influence on job satisfaction. Similarly, results for Mehta and
Maheshwari’s (2013) study revealed that there is a negative correlation with toxic
leadership behaviors and job satisfaction as well as with job commitment. However,
results in Owens et al. (2015) study illustrated that narcissistic leaders were perceived as
effective leaders when leader humility was high, however, when leader humility was low,
leadership was not perceived as effective.
Narcissism in the business field. A study conducted by Olsen, Dworkis, and
Young (2014) observed the association between narcissistic personality characteristics of
CEOs in Fortune 500 companies and the financial performance measures of earnings-per-
share (EPS) and stock value. To conduct the study, Olsen et al. acquired 283 CEOs in
235 firms of which 1,118 firms had year observations to assess the effects of narcissism.
42
The participants consisted of 278 males and five females with an average starting year of
2000 (Olsen et al., 2014). An additional study conducted by Aktas, Bodt, Bollaert, and
Roll (2016) analyzed CEO narcissism and its effects on the takeover process. The
sample acquired to go forth with the study consisted of completed deals from the year
2002 to 2006 which was attained from the Securities Data Company’s (SDC) U.S.
Mergers and Acquisitions Database. This study limited completed deals to those which
are considered significant (deal value greater than $1 million), and therefore the sample
included 642 takeovers. The narcissism variable was built utilizing CEO speeches from
fair disclosure wires in which a total of 123 to 135 observations for the study was made
available (Aktas et al., 2016).
Various variables were utilized and measured, and therefore, to measure CEO
narcissism, Olsen et al. (2014) used a measure based on the CEO’s relative cash pay to
the second-highest paid executive, the CEO’s relative non-cash pay to the second-highest
paid executive, and on the size and composition of CEO’s picture in the annual report.
Earnings-per-share was also measured in which various control variables were included
such as the CEO’s age, CEO’s tenure, whether the CEO is, also, the chairman of the
board as well as the CEO’s gender. Furthermore, earning management was measured by
observing the numerator and denominator effect, and therefore the discretionary accruals
and the stock buyback and EPS accretion were measured. Lastly, stock price and its
relations to CEO narcissism were measured via the use of the organization’s annual
closing stock price for their fiscal year (Olsen et al., 2014). Whereas, in the Aktas et al.
(2016) study, variables that were measured included narcissism indicator by observing
the frequency of the CEO utilizing the total of first person pronouns to the total first
43
person pronouns within their speech. Furthermore, CEO overconfidence variables for
both target and acquirer CEOs were measured by utilizing the same speech transcripts
used for this study and observing for confident and non-confident utterances.
The results of Olsen et al. (2014) study illustrated that there is a statistically large
positive association between CEO narcissism and EPS once factors like firm and industry
were controlled. Therefore, narcissistic CEOs have higher EPS, which in turn provides
them with praise and attention that they seek. Further results indicated that there was no
evidence that CEO narcissism is linked to discretionary accruals (Olsen et al., 2014).
Additional results depicted that firms who have narcissistic CEOs are not more likely to
be considered as a buyback firm. Moreover, it was illustrated that narcissistic CEOs can
meet or beat the consensus analyst forecast and that greater levels of narcissism in CEOs
are linked with (Olsen et al., 2014). Lastly, higher levels of narcissism in CEOs are
connected with greater real-activities manipulations that augment EPS and that CEO
narcissism is statistically significant and positively associated with stock price (Olsen et
al., 2014).
Whereas results for the Aktas et al. (2016) study revealed that a greater level of
narcissism in acquiring CEO’s augments the probability of the acquirer initiating a deal,
however results for target CEOs illustrated a negative and insignificant relationship with
initiating a deal. That stated it was made visible that a 10% augmentation in acquirer
CEO narcissism is linked with a 10% augmentation in the likelihood that an acquiring
firm initiates the takeover process. Moreover, results for overconfidence illustrate that
target CEO is negative and significant; however, there is a much smaller percentage for
acquiring CEO narcissism. Also, when measuring overconfidence, results demonstrated

44
that target CEO is negative and significant, however, the degree of this is smaller than for
acquiring CEO narcissism. In regards to results for bid premiums, the CEO variables
were not significant. That stated, as a narcissist, it is not uncommon to not demonstrate
any form of concern for others (Aktas et al., 2016).
Furthermore, when measuring acquirer CAR’s, results reveal greater levels of
target CEO narcissism is associated with more significant negative market reactions for
the acquirer. There was not any evidence of an adverse effect of acquirer CEO
narcissism on CARs. Results for deal completion demonstrate that the negative, as well
as a significant coefficient for acquirer CEO narcissism, reveals that an increase in
narcissism in the acquiring CEO lessens the probability of takeover completion. Lastly,
results demonstrate that both acquiring and target CEO narcissism, when taken
separately, do not show any serious effect on the likelihood that the target CEO attains a
prominent position (Aktas et al., 2016).
Narcissism in the social services field. Doty and Fenlason (2013) stated that the
Army revealed a study that reported 80% of workers who were surveyed have admitted to
observing a toxic leader in their field and 20% had worked for a toxic leader. As Doty
and Fenlason additionally revealed, this form of leadership style has become accepted
within the social services field, as had it not, it would no longer exist. Therefore,
behavior such as constant yelling, screaming, being selfish and commanders scolding in
front of their soldiers are regular occurrences. Additional behaviors illustrating
narcissism among leaders and that are detrimental to units include being an inadequate
listener, requiring continuous attention and admiration, being excessively sensitive to
criticism, exaggerating one’s achievements and talents, lacking empathy as well as

45
having a preoccupation with power or success (Doty & Fenlason, 2013). Rehman (2016)
further observed in their study the relation between narcissism, perfectionism, and
aggression among police officers. The study comprised of 150 police officers who were
currently in service, of which 75 are female, and 75 are male, whose age range from 25 to
55 and are from various police stations in Lahore, Pakistan. The measures utilized to
assess the participants consisted of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, the
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and the Buss & Perry Aggression Scale (Rehman,
2016).
Unfortunately, this form of leadership is not uncommon within all of the social
services field, such as law enforcement, as the U.S. Navy have also relieved a percentage
of commanders who engaged in toxic behaviors and created unhealthy environments for
their subordinates (Doty & Fenlason, 2013). Although such leaders proved to be
effective in accomplishing missions and hence successful, it did not better the
organization nor motivated the soldiers nor build any trust (Doty & Fenlason, 2013).
This also holds true for the study conducted by Rehman (2016) as results indicated that
there was a significant relation between narcissism, perfectionism, and aggression among
police officers. Interestingly, it was further illustrated that female officers displayed
more aggression than male officers. However, it was revealed that male officers are far
more narcissistic and perfectionistic in comparison to female police officers (Rehman,
2016).
Narcissism in the health field. Liderlerin, Kuruluslari, and Etkileri (2016) stated
that hospitals are just like any other organization and therefore need powerful leaders that
can pave a road for their employees and the organization to a successful path. A cross-
46
sectional field study conducted by Ozer, Ugurluoglu, Kahraman, and Avci (2017) aimed
to determine the toxic leadership perceptions of all healthcare workers, as well as to
illustrate whether various characteristics such as participants demographics would alter
their feelings about toxic leadership. Moreover, the study also was meant to determine if
the toxic leadership scale that is utilized in various other fields could also be valid and
reliable when employed in the health field. Ozer et al. utilized the Toxic Leadership
Scale created by Celebi et al. (2015), in which the face-to-face technique was used. The
participants for this study were comprised of a total of 292 participants who are (a)
doctors, (b) nurses, and (c) other health care workers who are employed in a state hospital
in Ankara, Turkey. Of these 292 participants, 85.3% were women, and 14.7% were men,
and the average age was 34 years. Also, 83.6% of these participants were nurses.
Results from Ozer et al. study indicated that there was a statistically significant
difference in toxic leadership perception when observing the participants age. Therefore,
those whose age range was 28-38 illustrated a high perception of toxic leadership and
those, whose means aged 39 and older demonstrated a low perception of toxic leadership.
Furthermore, participants who formed the most experience and had a minimum of 16
years work experience scored the lowest on the Toxic Leadership Scale within all four
dimensions of toxic leadership. However, an impressive result demonstrated that those
who were from the 28-38 age group; and had 5-15 years of experience illustrated the
highest toxic leadership perceptions. Lastly, it was made evident that the Toxic
Leadership Scale is also valid and reliable within this study, and therefore can be utilized
within the healthcare field as well as the other fields it is already utilized in (Ozer et al.,
2017).
47
Narcissism in the education field. Green (2014) conducted a concurrent mixed
methods study to observe toxic leadership within educational organizations as well as
determine its commonality, characteristics and early indicators. An additional qualitative
study conducted in South Africa by Mahlangu (2014) observed the effects of toxic
leadership on teaching and learning brought on by the secondary school’s principal and
school governing bodies comprised of educators, parents, learners, non-teaching staff,
and co-opted members.
Therefore, the Schmidt’s (2008) Toxic Leadership Scale, along with an additional
open-ended survey, which asks participants their experiences with toxic leaders, was
administered to 300 educators throughout all 50 states by email, in which 150 went to
educators in P-12 schools and the remaining 150 to educators in higher education. Of the
300 surveys that were dispersed, 51 participants of which 59% were female and 43%
were males responded to the surveys. Also, 53% of those were from higher education,
and 48% were from P-12 schools. Furthermore, these participants have 11 or more years
working within the education field. Just like Green’s (2014) study, Mahlangu (2014) also
utilized a survey, which was distributed to 200 participants throughout 20 schools, which
comprised of principals and the student governing body, of which 153 replied to. The
survey consisted of two sections, in which the first pertained to the participants'
demographics and the second section consisted of statements that dealt with the
government and management of schools; therefore, the second section consisted of a
five-point scale (Mahlangu, 2014).
Results from Green (2014) surveys revealed that numerous participants indicated
that there was a high presence of self-serving, egotistical leaders. Controlling and
48
micromanaging behaviors among leaders also scored high with 61%. Lastly, in regards
to the participants' leader’s personality characteristics, results revealed that 65% of their
leaders varied in the degree of how approachable they are and 55% revealed that the
leader allows their current mood to create the climate of their organization (Green, 2014).
In regards to the open-ended question survey, results illustrated high rates of participants
referring to their leader as arrogant and self-absorbed. Furthermore, ethical failure,
incompetence and neurotic were all other common characteristics that participants
mentioned their leader as. Lastly, 31 out of the 36 participants revealed that it was
evident that their leader was toxic within no more than a year of working for that leader
(Green, 2014).
Similarly to Green (2014) study, the results illustrated from Mahlangu (2014)
study demonstrated the adverse effects that toxic leadership has on teaching and learning
within the education system. Results demonstrated that the primary negative effect was
inferior working relations between the various stakeholders. Results further indicated
that these adverse effects brought on other issues within the schools such as inadequate
mutual trust between stakeholders, an insufficient amount of resources, a dictatorship by
the principal and the student government body of stakeholders as well as unprofessional
and unacceptable behavior by stakeholders (Mahlangu, 2014).
Narcissism in the political field. A study conducted by Hill and Youssey (1998)
observed whether narcissism was more prevalent in persons with fields that involved a
number of opportunities for, “attention and admiration from others, social prestige, and
power” (p. 164). Therefore, the occupations that were chosen for this study consisted of
(a) university faculty, (b) librarians, (c) clergy, and (d) politicians. To attain participants
49
for this study, random selection was utilized from occupation-related mailing lists and of
the 2,334 questionnaires mailed out, 459 participants returned and completed the
questionnaire. Hill and Youssey utilized the NPI self-report questionnaire to gather the
required data for their study. Based on Hill and Youssey results, it was illustrated that
there was a great difference in total narcissism scores based on the participants'
occupation. That stated, it was revealed that politicians were significantly higher in total
narcissism in comparison to the three other fields studied, with the other fields displaying
minute differences amongst each other. It was further illustrated that politicians scored
highest within the leadership and authority dimension. This dimension is linked with
“warmth, dominance, extroversion, and social boldness” (Hill & Youssey, 1998, p. 166).
Seltzer (2011), a clinical psychologist and the author of Paradoxical Strategies in
Psychotherapy, further added to Hill and Youssey’s (1998) study, which indicates that a
common and additional narcissistic characteristic noted among politicians is their sense
of entitlement and lack of feeling guilt. Entitlement within this field has been made
evident due to their grandiose sense of self, and their privileged position (Goldstein,
1995; Seltzer, 2011). This grandiose sense of self further gives politicians the reason to
believe that they deserve everything they attain (Seltzer, 2011). In addition, Goldstein
(1995) explicated the idea of the narcissistic bubble where public figures, such as
politicians, enter a bubble, which entails that they no longer feel nor believe that they are
accountable for their actions or behavior.
Organizational Structure
A study conducted by Dekoulou and Trivellas (2017) observed how
organizational structure dimensions impacted innovation performance in addition to its

50
association with financial performance within the business to business market in media
and advertising industries in Greece. An additional study conducted by Joseph,
Klingebiel, and Wilson (2016) examined how organizational structure, as well as
performance feedback, impacted termination decisions, and more specifically when
concerning a product being phased out in Germany. Unlike the other two studies,
Shafiee, Razminia and Zeymaran’s 2016 study observed the organizational structure
factors and how it affects employee performance within two insurance companies in Iran.
The participants for Dekoulou and Trivellas’ (2017) study were recruited via
purposive sampling and consisted of individuals within advertising and media businesses
located in Greece, of which 49 were advertising agencies. In regards to media
organizations, 11 organizations consisted of national television stations, 40 newspaper
and 40 magazine titles as well as 40 radio stations in Greece. Of the 180 structured
questionnaires that were delivered, 163 were completed and returned and hence a 90.5%
response rate. The participants consisted of 63.2% men, of whom 47.9% ranged in age
from 41 to 50 years, and 68% had 16 or more years of work experience. Like Dekoulou
and Trivellas’ study, Shafiee et al. (2016) also utilized a questionnaire by the name of the
Friedman test to rank the organizational factors in their study. However, they had far
fewer participants, with a total of 80 participants of which 52 were female, and 28 were
men. These participants were recruited via the convenience sampling method from two
insurance companies within Kerman, Iran (Shafiee et al., 2016).
Whereas within the study conducted by Joseph et al. (2016), data sample was
utilized that covered all German market mobile phones that were released to the public
after January 2004 and ended before December 2009 by the five largest firms. Therefore,
51
a total of 3,192 product observations consisting 461 product exits across 546 devices
within the sample were utilized to attain the necessary data. These observations were
then followed by semi-structured interviews utilizing individuals from the five firms that
had knowledge of the product management process. Lastly, a formal survey was created
and delivered to the primary senior interview subject from each firm.
Results within Dekoulou and Trivellas (2017) indicated that direct supervision
and training are two organizational structure dimensions that create a positive impact on
the organization's ability to innovate. This, in turn, creates high business customer
relationship value in addition to achieving the greatest financial outcomes (Dekoulou &
Trivellas, 2017). Furthermore, it was illustrated within Shafiee et al. (2016) study that
there is a grand relation between employee performance and organizational structure
factors. However, results for Joseph et al. (2016) study illustrated that organizational
structure forms information processing as well as gives attention to solutions and
problems. It was further noted that centralized structures allow managers to take a close
look at all products and therefore when performance problems are addressed, strategic
actions are initiated. This, in turn, affects the complete portfolio. Lastly, results revealed
that centralized structures illustrate far less unwanted behavior in comparison to
decentralized structures, even when performance is seen to decrease (Joseph et al., 2016).
Climate within an organization. A study conducted by Vashdi, Vigoda-Gadot,
and Shlomi (2013) examined the relation of multiple organizational climates and how it
relates to politics as well as performance within public organizations, namely public
schools, in Israel. An additional study conducted by Basu (2017) explored how
organizational climate can impact employees’ development of innovative work behavior

52
within the banking system in India. Within Vashdi et al. study, data collection, which
was based on a survey of teachers from different schools, was conducted between August
2004 and April 2005. A total of 2,102 teachers from 108 schools were utilized to partake
in the study, of which random sampling from each school’s list was utilized to attain the
participants. Like Vashdi et al., Basu utilized a survey, which comprised of the
Organizational Climate Scale created by Gupta and Ray (2005) as well as the Innovative
Work Behavior Scale created by Janseen (2000), to collect data in which 300 bank
officers from Indian banks partook in the study whose age ranged from 25 to 60 years.
Various surveys were utilized to measure the variables within the study that observed (a)
leadership climate, (b) innovation climate, (c) participative climate, (d) organizational
politics, (e) job satisfaction, (f) exit orientations, and (g) group level organizational
citizenship behaviors (Vashdi, 2013).
Results from Vashdi’s 2013 study illustrated that service climate had a grand
positive impact in regards to the teachers' job satisfaction at the individual level. It was
also noted that service and participative climate had a great positive impact on the
teachers' assessments of the group level organizational citizenship behaviors. In addition,
a negative association was found between multiple organizational climates and
organizational politics. Furthermore, it was revealed that organizational politics was
negatively associated with micro and macro level performance. Unlike Vashdi’s results,
Basu’s 2017 study interestingly illustrated that neither organizational climate nor the
innovative work behavior is appreciated by the employees and was not significantly
favorable. However, the positive climate did illustrate the significant effect of
developing innovative work behavior. It was additionally indicated that there was
53
considerable improvement required in leadership support as well as in customer-oriented
systems.
Organizational climate and work engagement. A study conducted by Kataria,
Garg, and Rastogi (2013) observed how work engagement was utilized to mediate, where
the psychological climate of an organization is associated with the effectiveness of the
organization. An additional study conducted by Chaudhary, Rangnekar, and Barua
(2013) explored how human resource development climate quality and climate strength is
utilized to determine work engagement at organizational levels of analysis. The
participants attained for this study comprised of 375 employees, of which 307 were males
and 68 females, from 28 various organizations in which an average of 13 participants per
organization took part in the study. Furthermore, the participants comprised of junior,
middle and senior level business executives from certain business organizations in India.
Similar to Chaudhary et al.’s participants, to attain data for the study conducted by
Kataria et al., 300 participants were recruited of which 81% were male, with an average
age of 34 years old and who were executives and supervisors from various service
organizations.
Kataria et al. (2013) measured psychological climate through the Psychological
Climate Measure developed by Brown and Leigh (1996), which is a scale that comprises
of six subscales, the work engagement through the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES-9) and was developed by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006), which is a
scale that comprises of nine items, and lastly organizational effectiveness via an eight-
item scale developed by Mott (1972). These surveys administered occurred face to face
as well as via email. Similar to Kataria et al., Chaudhary et al. (2014) also utilized the
54
UWES-9 scale to measure work engagement, however also utilized a climate survey
instrument created by Rao and Abraham (1986).
Results from Kataria et al. (2013) study revealed that the variables were
significantly correlated. It was further revealed that work engagement completely
mediates between the relation of psychological climate and organizational effectiveness.
In addition, the psychological climate was greatly and positively associated with
organizational effectiveness, whereas results from Chaudhary et al. (2014) illustrated that
all climate dimensions were greatly correlated with work engagement. However,
when measuring climate strength, it was revealed that there was no great association to
work engagement with an exception to one climate strength dimension. It was further
depicted that the quality of the climate for each aspect revealed to predict a significant
mass amount of work engagement.
Toxic Culture
Chamberlain and Hodson (2010) stated that toxic work environments are a social
problem affecting millions of employees around the world. Too and Harvey (2012)
depicted that an employee’s workplace environment may have either a positive or
adverse effect on their psychological well-being in addition to their job productivity.
Furthermore, Seago (2016) illustrated, one’s culture has been proven to determine how
successful an organization may become. It was indicated within a corporate culture study
conducted at Duke University that results revealed 91% of CEOs as well as chief
financial officers from North America stated culture is pertinent to an organization.
Furthermore, 91% also illustrated that improving their organization's culture will increase
the value. Lastly, more than 50% agreed that culture has a striking effect on the
55
organization’s (a) growth and rate, (b) the amount of profit it can make, (c) productivity,
and (d) creativity (Millage, 2016; Seago, 2016).
Chamberlain and Hodson (2010) further included that organizational effects also
include (a) turnover in employees, (b) absenteeism, (c) low morale, and (d) defective
judgment. Millage (2016) added that the effect of toxic cultures, which is evident on
employees, illustrates one’s life being affected for both the employee as well as their
family members. Too and Harvey (2012) depicted that a toxic work environment has
multiple aspects to it and could affect individuals psychological, sociological and
physical well-being. It was further revealed that these elements could stem from various
origins such as (a) the physical building itself, (b) the barriers that have been placed, (c)
obstacles that prevent employees from face to face communication, (d) electronic contact,
and (e) absence of personal privacy (Too & Harvey, 2012). Employees are affected when
they come across these aspects individually, however, when combined employees have
been seen to have a debilitating effect on the employee’s well-being (Chamberlain &
Hodson, 2010; Too & Harvey, 2012). It was additionally illustrated that toxic cultures
are created to protect the leaders’ selfish goals and provide the organization with no
productive value (A Toxic Culture, 2016).
The cause of toxic culture and its effect on job performance. A study
conducted by Balthazard, Cooke, and Potter (2006) observed how organizational culture
could affect behavioral norms and expectations, and more specifically concentrating on
behavioral norms linked with constructive, passive/ defensive, and aggressive/ defensive
cultural styles. Balthazard et al. analyzed data from 60,900 persons who completed the
Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI) questionnaires between 2001 and 2004 within all
56
fields and all levels within an organization in America. Of the 60,900 individuals, 54%
were male, and 46% were female and who were predominately Caucasian with 83%,
followed by 7% identifying themselves as Black, 4% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 2% as
other.
Results for Balthazard et al. (2006) revealed that constructive cultural norms are
positively and greatly linked with participants indicating role clarity, job satisfaction, as
well as the quality of communication within the organization. However, constructive
norms were negatively associated with participants indicating behavioral conformity
within the organization. Contrarily, expectations for passive and aggressive behaviors
were negatively related to role clarity, job satisfaction, and communication quality and
are positively linked with behavioral conformity. Furthermore, constructive norms are
positively related to the quality of services, excellent customer service, quality of the
workplace, as well as flexibility. Lastly, it was revealed that constructive norms were
also negatively associated with turnover intentions.
Although the following study did not observe the effect that toxic culture has on
job performance as illustrated in Balthazard et al. (2006), Singh and Kumar (2013)
analyzed what aspects had an impact on internalization of dysfunctional norms among
employees within their organization. The aspects studied included leader integrity,
socialization strategies, cultural values, and organizational structure. Singh and Kumar
developed their survey to attain data on internalization of dysfunctional norms, titled
Internalization of Dysfunctional Organizational Norms (IDON), to attain data for their
study, which comprised of a five-point scale of 40 items. Furthermore, the use of
additional surveys, such as Pareek and Rao’s (1992) survey known as OCTAPACE
57
profile, the scales developed by Aiken and Hage (1967) to examine organizational
structure, the assessment created by Jones (1986) to assess socialization tactics, and the
assessment drawn up by Craig and Gustafson (1998) to examine leader integrity were
utilized for this study to attain data.
Results from Singh and Kumar’s 2013 study illustrated that pervasiveness had
five predictors, of which perceived leadership integrity was the most significant and
strongest predictor of pervasiveness. This was then followed by strong growth, and
following that was job codification, a hierarchy of authority, and lastly, serial versus
disjunctive socialization tactics. Therefore, based on results, leaders play a crucial role in
being a role model as well as socializing agents. That stated it is critical that leaders
display integrity for their effectiveness to decrease the number of individuals within an
organization who follow dysfunctional norms.
Like Singh and Kumar’s (2013) study that illustrated the organization’s leader to
play a crucial role in dysfunctional norms, Van Fleet and Griffin (2006) further depicted
the role of the leaders and illustrated that the most powerful and detrimental of
organizational cultures is the leader. It was additionally noted that what a leader pays
close attention to will illustrate influential messages within the organization and in turn
influence the organizational culture as well as how one behaves within that organization.
As cited in Singh and Kumar, Smith (2000) stated that dysfunctional organizational
cultures occur when leaders demonstrate poor people skills.
Power
The idea of power can be located in the literature that is dated in 1517 within
Niccolo Machiavelli’s dissertation on power, titled The Prince (Ross, 2008). According
58
to Berle (1967), power comprises of three elements, (a) individuals, (b) philosophy, and
(c) a group that has the ability to organize into institutions. Winter’s 1973 theory of
power is acquired from observing abilities in which these power abilities are to either
control or influence individuals. Moreover, Winter (1973) stated that there are three
conditions that are paramount to define power and that is to (a) leave an impression on an
individuals behavior, (b) the ability to control others to execute a task, and (c) to generate
a conscious and/or an unconscious influence on a persons’ emotions and/or behaviors.
Lastly, Winter illustrated that when leaders utilize power in a positive light, effective
leadership, authority, and direction are evident.
Ross (2008) indicated that when individuals are influenced, some form of power,
whether it is positive or negative, is utilized by them. Moreover, Maxwell (1993) opined
that an individual who has a position of power is to have qualities that motivate as well as
inspire subordinates, which in turn, a positive work environment emerges in addition to a
cooperative climate. However, in contrary to Maxwell, Gardner (as cited in Ross, 2008)
explained that some administrators utilized power in such a manner that created a culture
of intimidation, coercion, and fear.
Types of power. According to Aldag and Joseph (2000), power is perceived as
(a) relative, (b) dynamic, (c) latent, and (d) perceived. As Ross (2008) opined, relative
power is based on a person’s expertise, position or knowledge. Dynamic power is
associated with the interactions of individuals as they gain or lose specific types of power
related to others, whereas latent power serves as a tool or weapon. Lastly, perceived
power is when one individual believes another person has power over them. As Aldag
and Joseph stated, Psychologists E. P. Hollander and L. P. Offerman listed three general
59
utilization of power, (a) power over, (b) power to, and (c) power from. Power over is
defined as dominance and therefore is utilized to make another individual behave in a
certain manner, whereas power to, also known as empowerment is utilized to influence
other individuals to behave more freely. However, power from, which is also called
resistance, aids in protecting individuals from those who possess power (Aldag & Joseph,
2000).
Elements of power. According to Stogdill (1974), power was recognized as: (a)
referent, (b) coercion, (c) reward, (d) legitimative, and (e) expertness. French and Raven
and Daft (as cited in Ross, 2008) have established that there are five power bases and
those are (a) legitimate, (b) coercive, (c) reward, (d) expert, and (e) referent (see Figure
5). Furthermore, Dawson (1992, 1994, 1995) developed additional power bases, and
those are (a) charismatic; (b) information; and (c) situational and described that they were
utilized for performance, persuasion, and negotiating with employees (Ross, 2008).
However, as Pierro, Raven, Amato, and Belanger (2013) and Sousa and Dierendonck
(2017) stated, it has been illustrated that there are far more types of power bases. Raven
(as cited in Krause, 2015; Pierro et al., 2013) further expanded the five bases of power
into 11 bases of power. As illustrated in Mittal and Elias (2015), the power bases were
divided again, in that reward and coercive power were diverged into personal and
impersonal categories (see Figure 6). Additionally, legitimate power was sectioned into
four categories: (a) position power, (b) legitimate reciprocity, (c) legitimate equity, and
(d) legitimate dependence. Furthermore, expert and referent power were regarded as
positive and negative, and lastly, informational power was split into direct and indirect.
That stated, a total of 14 power bases currently exist.

60
Figure 5. Five Bases of Power.
Figure 6. Position Power and Personal Power.
However, regardless the quantity of power bases, power bases have been divided
into two categories; soft and harsh bases, in which the soft base powers comprises (a)
expert, (b) referent, (c) informational power, and (d) legitimacy of dependence. Whereas
hard base powers consist of (a) coercion, (b) reward, (c) legitimacy of position, (d)
equity, and (e) reciprocity (Mittal & Elias, 2016; Norbom & Lopez, 2016; Pierro et al.,
2013). A method of differentiating between the two bases is some freedom employees
have within the organization they are employed in (Mittal & Elias, 2015). Harsh base
powers entail that inhibit an employee’s freedom and must comply with their leaders'
demands, whereas soft base powers empower employees within organizations with more
61
freedom to accept the leaders' demands. Daft (as cited in Ross et al., 2014) opined that
employees would share the leader’s vision and viewpoint. Whereas, if the leader
possesses legitimate and reward power, employees will carry through with the
instructions attained by their leader, even though they may not agree with such
instructions.
However, when a leader utilizes coercive power, resistance is created, which in
turn is the cause for employees to go against the organizations' orders, ignore the leaders'
requests and instructions, as well as destroy any efforts (Ross et al., 2014). Lee-Chai and
Bargh (2001) additionally included that coercive power is utilized by individuals who do
not display confidence and illustrate a lack of other levels of power, such as
informational and expertise power. That stated employees, favor the soft base powers
and in turn results in far more positive outcomes. Dawson (as cited in Ross, 2008)
described that when leaders acquire four or more of these power bases, that the team or
individual has the ability to be very powerful.
Toxic power. The framework for storytelling or the narrative paradigm was
presented by Fisher (as cited in Takala & Auvinen, 2016) and is known as a philosophy
of human reason, value, and action. Takala and Auvinen (2016) stated that the reasoning
of the narrative paradigm is known as narrative rationality, which is, “an extension of the
logical-scientific approach and traditional rationality theories” (p. 23). As Takala and
Auvinen demonstrated, unlike traditional forms of power possessed by leaders, the kind
of storytelling exudes leadership power. The storyteller, in which this case is the leader,
desires to influence their followers' reality by molding it in an advantageous direction.
Therefore, storytelling may involve the leader in attempting to manipulate and even
62
seduce their followers with villainous purposes, which is also a form of hidden power.
These intentions may very well be masked with manipulation and indoctrination in which
their followers are not aware of the effort that the leader craves power over them (Takala
& Auvinen, 2016). Burns (as cited in Friedman & Friedman, 2014) additionally revealed
the difference between leaders and manipulators, illustrating that manipulators appeal to
the most deplorable instincts in their subordinates, whereas leaders upraise their
subordinates. This form of leadership power is considered unethical and according to
Bass (1998) is called pseudo-leadership due to its manipulative nature.
As indicated in Takala and Auvinen (2016), when discussing storytelling, Adolf
Hitler is a persona that exemplifies how such a form of power can become toxic. His
utilization of storytelling demonstrated massive ethical problems, not just through
manipulation, but via indoctrination and even brainwashed from systematic propaganda
(Friedman & Friedman, 2014; Takala & Auvinen, 2016). Dreijmanis (2005) further
included how Hitler had significant oratorical talents and was coined an orator of genius
by Howard Gardner (as cited in Dreijmanis, 2005). Hitler could turn the once small
National Socialist German Workers Party into a massive political party by focusing on
propaganda, mobilization of the masses, and speaking (Dreijmanis, 2005). As Hitler
stated (as cited in Dreijmanis, 2005), “We must bring the masses illusions” (p. 125).
Chapter Summary
Based on the research gathered, it can be concluded that of the leadership styles
discussed, that narcissistic leadership is the most destructive form of leadership.
Although this type of leadership may have positive aspects to it as illustrated, the
negative aspects take over, as it leads to job dissatisfaction, and counterproductive work
63
behavior and thus a toxic workplace environment. However, in comparison to other
leadership styles that have been studied exhaustively, narcissistic leadership and its
effects on organizations and their subordinates are scarce, and therefore still requires
further research. Hence, the researcher’s interest in adding research in the field of
narcissistic leadership.
64
Chapter 3: Methodology
Overview
The purpose of this mixed methods study, with an embedded-correlational
approach, is to investigate how narcissistic characteristics of leaders, toxic leadership
characteristics, and power are associated with the climate of an organization. This
chapter will consist of a discussion of the philosophical worldviews, where the researcher
will focus on the worldview that most relates to the study. In addition, due to the
sensitivity of the researcher’s topic, various methods of attaining sensitive data will be
explored. Moreover, the type of study, the participants and sample strategy will be
revealed; in addition to the instruments, validity and reliability as well as the
characteristics of the study will be discussed. Furthermore, the procedures, analyses,
limitations of the methodology, and delimitations of the study will be described. Lastly,
the confidentiality and security, ethical considerations, trustworthiness and rigor as well
as opportunities for further study will be revealed.
Philosophical Worldviews
The mixed methods approach has a variety of philosophical assumptions. These
philosophical assumptions have been termed, worldview and alternate worlds, which
have been utilized synonymously as (a) paradigm, (b) epistemologies and ontologies, or
(c) broadly conceived research methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Slife &
Williams, 1995). It was Thomas Kuhn who originally used the term, paradigm, and
defined it as “a set of generalizations, beliefs, and values of a community of specialists”
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 39). There are a plethora of worldviews, however the
four worldviews, (a) postpositivism, (b) constructivism, (c) advocacy and participatory,
65
and (d) pragmatism can be utilized on their own or combined; as well as offers a broad
“philosophical orientation to research” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 40). Figure 7
illustrates the interconnection of worldviews, design, and research methods.

Figure 7. The Interconnection of Worldviews, Design, and Research Methods.
The postpositivism worldview stems from 19th century writers such as Comte,
Mill, Durkheim, Newton, and Lockewriters (Slife & Williams, 1995). Furthermore, it is
linked with quantitative approaches (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Slife & Williams,
1995). This method is also termed scientific method and empirical science. However,
the reason behind its term postpositivism is due to the thinking that occurs after
positivism (Slife & Williams, 1995). With this worldview, the characteristics encompass
(a) determination, (b) reductionism, (c) empirical observation and measurement, and (d)
theory verification (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Slife & Williams, 1995). That stated,
when conducting a study utilizing the postpositivist worldview, the researcher initially
starts with a theory, gathers data that will support or reject the theory and lastly alters and
conducts further testing (Slife & Williams, 1995). Therefore, the process of this form of
66
research is deductive and formal style language is utilized (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011).
As Slife and Williams (1995) indicated, the concept of constructivism came from
Mannheim as well as from literature written by Berger and Luekmann’s (1967) The
Social Construction of Reality and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. The
constructivist worldview, which is also termed social constructivism, is frequently united
with interpretivism and is linked with qualitative approaches (Slife & Williams, 1995).
The characteristics of this worldview consist of (a) understanding, (b) multiple participant
meanings, (c) social and historical construction, and (d) theory generation (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2011; Slife & Williams, 1995). That stated, the method utilized for this
worldview is inductive, and the style of language is informal (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011). Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003) opined that the constructivist movement in cognitive
psychology is exemplified with Piaget’s theory of intellectual development in children.
As Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) stated, the advocacy and participatory
worldview, also known as the transformative worldview, are more often than not linked
to qualitative approaches rather than quantitative methods. This view was born during
the 1980s and 1990s from those who believed that the postpositivists brought on
structured laws that did not pertain to marginalized people or concerns related to power
and social justice, discrimination, and oppression (Slife & Williams, 1995). That stated,
Silfe and Williams (1995) indicated that writers from this worldview include works from
individuals such as Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Freire. Additional writers
include Fay (1987), Heron and Reason (1997), and Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) (Slife
& Williams, 1995). The characteristics of this worldview are (a) political, (b)
67
empowerment and issue-oriented, (c) collaborative, and (d) change-oriented (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2011). Also, the language utilized for this research is one that will aid in
bringing change and advocate for participants (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Pragmatism. It was Charles S. Peirce, a scientist, and logician, who first coined
the term pragmatism during the late 1860s and early 1870s (Webb, 2012). Therefore, the
work of Peirce, James, and Mead, and Dewey is where such philosophies were derived
from (Slife & Williams, 1995). Pragmatism stems from the Greek word pragma, which
signifies action and the words practice and practical derive from those words (Farjoun,
Ansell, & Boin, 2015). Although this worldview lost its influence during the first two-
thirds of the twentieth century, it picked up its popularity during the 1970s where
philosophers were eager to utilize the ideas and literature of this worldview (Webb,
2012). Farjoun et al. (2015) indicated that organizational scholars had employed
pragmatism to study themes such as (a) routines, (b) innovation and creativity, (c)
institutional change, (d) ethics, (e) virtual work, (f) knowledge, (g) learning, and (h)
organizational boundaries, which covers the researcher’s topic. It was further indicated
by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) that pragmatism is one of the most favored methods
when conducting mixed methods research as 13 different authors viewed it as such.
This worldview is linked with mixed methods, and its characteristics are the
following (a) consequences of actions, (b) problem centered, (c) pluralistic, and (d) real
world practice-oriented (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Slife & Williams, 1995). The
pragmatist worldview has various elements that distinguish it from the others such as its
ontology having single and multiple realities. In addition, the relationship between the
researcher and the individuals being researched was considered to be practical.

68
Therefore, researchers will obtain data employing what works best (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011; Slife & Williams, 1995). Moreover, the role of the values is that of multiple
stances, and the methodology combines both qualitative and quantitative methods
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Based on the information given, the researcher has
elected to utilize this worldview for her study.
Sensitivity Nature of the Study
History of developing sensitive research. Researchers from Chicago were the
first individuals to conduct social research on sensitive topics and more importantly, to
give it credibility (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008). The sensitive topics that were studied
included families, friendships, as well as communities in which participants had to reveal
private and personal information. Due to the social transformations in the 1960s and
1970s, there was an abundance of change that occurred in social research throughout the
world. Examples of this include research programs that broadened their topics to those
that were overlooked due to perceived sensitivity such as (a) domestic violence, (b)
alcoholism, and (c) practicing safe sex (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008).
Additional developments in social research included studying topics coined as
underdog sociology, where writers such as Howard Becker concentrated on the topic of
deviance. Feminist research also began in the 1960s as a form of research where feminist
methodology was observed. A multitude of feminist research attempts to comprehend
the experiences that women have in regards to power as well as domination. A plethora
of feminist research studies the personal and private experiences of issues women have
endured and are considered sensitive such as (a) eating disorders, (b) rape, (c) domestic
violence, and (d) miscarriage (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008).

69
Sensitive research. Due to the nature of the topic, the researcher did not have a
setting for this particular study. The reasoning for this was due to the sensitive nature of
the study, which pertains to employees revealing their experiences about their leader's
leadership style and how it affects them as workers as well as the climate of the
organization. Dalton, Daily, and Wimbush (1997) mentioned that topics related to
business ethics would have participants of the study either guard their responses or not
respond accurately. It was further revealed by De Schrijver (2012) that sensitive topics,
regardless of the topic, will prevent individuals from truthfully answering the questions
asked, refuse to cooperate in the study or refuse to answer specific questions. That stated,
it is essential that the researcher’s method of attaining data does not give participants any
doubt of putting themselves in any form of negative risk (De Schrijver, 2012).
Researchers may face a problem in attaining various forms of valid data, such as
(a) internal, (b) external, (c) the construct, as well as (d) statistical conclusion, which may
be a threat to the data gathered (Dalton et al., 1997). It was noted that sensitive topics are
considered as those that pertain to (a) domestic violence (Fahie, 2014); (b) homicide
(Fahie, 2014); (c) rape (Fahie, 2014); (d) mental health (Fahie, 2014); (e) death (Fahie,
2014); (f) abortion (Fahie, 2014); (g) sexual health (Fahie, 2014); and (h) sex (Noland,
2012). It was further illustrated that sensitive areas within the business field include (a)
sexual harassment, (b) complying with an organization’s policies and legal guidelines, (c)
workplace diversity, and (d) employee integrity (Dalton et al., 1997).
Methods of attaining data. Dalton et al. (1997) described that in comparison to
the multitudes of methods in attaining data, the most frequently used is the written self-
report survey. The reasoning behind relying on this technique for sensitive topics is that
70
other methods pose legal and ethical limitations, which can be seen in observational,
ethnomedological, interview, or peer report methods. In addition, data is directly attained
by the participant versus methods such as archival sources. Lastly, and most crucially,
participants are given the ability to be completely anonymous. This is pertinent as when
sensitive data is required; there is a low compliance rate in participants replying (Dalton
et al., 1997). An additional study by De Schrijver (2012) illustrated that utilizing the
randomized response technique could remove or minimize participants from not
responding and increase the chances of participants from truthfully answering survey
questions. This method allows the participant's identity to be protected by incorporating
an extent of ambiguity into the responses (De Schrijver, 2012).
Like Dalton et al. (1997), Elmir et al. (2011) discussed the myriad of methods in
collecting data for sensitive topics, and it was illustrated that utilizing qualitative methods
such as in-depth semi-structured or unstructured interviewing are the ideal. More so was
open-ended questions that demonstrated clarity and geared at attaining responses from
participants who showed their personal experiences while being sensitive to the method
the questions were asked (Elmir et al., 2011). Moreover, using computer-mediated
communication (CMC) is also a preferred means of collecting data as this technique
prevents participants from being embarrassed, humiliated, or awkward of revealing
personal experiences and this, in turn, may increase participant recruitment (Elmir et al.,
2011; Langer & Beckman, 2005). Furthermore, for participants who live far away, CMC
saves time on travel, and it also prevents the researcher from having to transcribe any
form of narrative data (Elmir et al., 2011; Langer & Beckman, 2005).
71
Although Dalton et al. (1997) stated that ethnography could pose legal and ethical
considerations, Langer and Beckman (2005) discussed the benefits of utilizing
netnography as a means of collecting data. Netnography is a newer qualitative research
method that adjusts to ethnographic research methods to research the various
communities that have been materializing via communications on the Internet (Langer &
Beckman, 2005). Netnography makes it more accessible for researchers to collect data
via the Internet, where typical methods are deemed difficult (Langer & Beckman, 2005).
Type of Study
According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), a mixed method research design is
a way of collecting, analyzing as well as combining either quantitative and qualitative
methods in one sole study or multiple studies to comprehend a research problem. The
researcher utilized an embedded correlational explanatory design, that the “researcher is
interested in the extent to which two variables or more covary” (Creswell, 2015, p. 341)
(see Figure 8). Therefore, explanatory designs comprise of a simple link between two
variables or more than two (Creswell, 2015).
Figure 8. Embedded-Correlational Approach.
This design was suitable for this study as the researcher utilized two self-
administered surveys, of which one is The Survey on Toxic Leadership (Other)(TSTL)
and is composed of both quantitative and qualitative questions; that contained three
subsets to measure narcissism behavior, toxic leadership characteristics, and elements of

72
power (Ross, 2016). The second component of that survey has six open-ended items, and
hence the qualitative portion of the study, which measures the perceived effectiveness of
leading an organization as well as demographics of the participants (Ross, 2016). The
second survey, Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction, gathered
quantitative data and measures the climate of an organization (Paris & Schutt, 2004).
The utilization of surveys is an additional method to attain data for a quantitative or
mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Utilizing mixed methods offers strengths that counterbalance the weaknesses
found in both qualitative and quantitative research. Furthermore, using mixed methods
provides answers that neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone could provide.
Moreover, this approach produces more evidence for studying the researcher’s research
problem then if one were utilizing either quantitative or qualitative research alone.
Within this form of study, the researcher is capable of using all possible methods to
address their research problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Participants and Sample Strategy
Inclusion criteria. The base of the population includes participants who work
within an organization of various fields, such that of government, business, education,
medical, social services, and other. Therefore, individuals from all continents of the
world, of any gender, all races and who are of age 18 and over, as well as attain an
education with a minimum of an associate’s degree are eligible to complete the survey.
Exclusion criteria. The exclusion of participants includes those who are below
the age of 18 and those who do not have a minimum of an associate’s degree. The
purpose of excluding individuals that do not hold the criteria is because individuals under
73
the age of 18 and those who do not have a minimum of an associate’s degree may not
have the level of experience required to adequately complete and comprehend the survey.
Instruments
Permissions. The researcher attained permission from Ross (2016) and Paris and
Schutt (2004) of the surveys that were utilized for the study (see Appendices A and B).
Also, the researcher received permission from the University’s Institutional Review
Board required going forth with the study. Due to the nature of the study, the researcher
did not need any permission from the site as no site was utilized for the study and this
was illustrated within the sensitivity of the research.
The Survey on Toxic Leadership (Other). Two instruments were self-
administered for this study. The first instrument that was utilized was The Survey on
Toxic Leadership (TSTL) created by Dr. David B. Ross. The survey, utilized for the
mixed method design is a self-administered instrument that should take no more than 26
minutes to complete and measures characteristics of narcissism, toxic leadership, and
elements of power. Therefore, being that it was self-administered, individuals did
complete it online as it was accessible and uploaded on a plethora of Internet sites that
abide by and follow privacy and confidentiality policies.
The TSTL survey consists of three sections for the participants to complete, of
which the initial portion is a 24-item survey with a five-point response Likert scale that
measure’s an individual's characteristic of narcissism (eight items), toxic leadership
(eight items) and elements of power (eight items). The second portion encompasses six
open-ended questions that bring up the overall leader’s effectiveness (Ross, 2016). The
last portion of the survey pertains to attaining demographic information about the
74
participants of the study. When Dr. Ross created the TSTL survey, he had survey fatigue
in mind and therefore created the Likert scale as a method that would reduce the time of
participants completing the survey (Ross, 2016). Instead of the typical wording to
identify the many Likert scale choices, he used terminology as no way, well sort of,
middle of the road, I can see that, and very much so.
Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction. The second survey
utilized for this study was the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction,
which was designed regarding a brief questionnaire labeled One Minute Climate
Assessment developed at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. This survey was further
based off a prior 12-item survey, the Q12, with a 10-point response scale created by, the
researchers of the Gallup organization, Buckingham and Coffman (1999), which
measured employee engagement. Therefore, the current 8-item survey measures
organizational climate and was created by Paris and Schutt (2004), from the University of
Wisconsin. This 8-item questionnaire was also divided by two 5 point response scales,
where the participant must initially rate the importance from least to most and then rate
their level of satisfaction from least to most (i.e., Likert scale).
This instrument was also self-administered and required no more than five
minutes to complete. The nature of this survey allowed participants to complete it via the
Internet. As the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey was
fabricated and divided in 2 sections, Paris and Schutt (2004) still considered survey
fatigue while maintaining its validity and reliability.

75
Validity and Reliability of Instruments
The validity of the instruments. To ensure the validity of the TSTL instrument,
formative and summative committees were utilized. The formative committee was
composed of an expert panel based on their knowledge of “characteristics of leadership,
narcissism, and power” (Ross, 2016, p. 8). The formative committee was comprised of
one executive vice-president from a grand European based company, a full professor
employed at a public university and who has published worked in toxic leadership and
bullying as well as a retired federal agent who once taught leadership at the National FBI
Academy (Ross, 2016). The summative committee was composed of individuals who
had experience as administrators, role models, and mentors within the area of leadership,
as well as those who dealt with people, team dynamics, and groups. Therefore, the
summative committee was comprised of three organizational leaders from various
regions as well as two professors that hold doctorate degrees and who are experienced in
research (Ross, 2016).
In regards to the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey,
Paris and Schutt (2004), still wanted to keep the validity of the One Minute Climate
Assessment questionnaire, the recipient of the 2001 Macolm Baldrige National Quality
Award, as well as the 12-item survey created by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) which
measured employee engagement (see Table 1). To demonstrate validity, Paris and Schutt
utilized 6 of the 12 questions from Buckingham and Coffman’s Q12 survey and utilized
two questions from the One Minute Climate Assessment. The two questions utilized
from the One Minute Climate Assessment Survey consisted of a demographic question,
which were used in an abundance of surveys in order to attain demographic information.

76
The additional question consisted of the spirit of cooperation among those who people
work with. The researcher felt it was necessary to include that Harter, Schmidt, Killham,
and Asplund (2006) Q12 meta-analysis study illustrated that the Buckingham and
Coffman survey had been carried out to more than 7 million employees in 112 countries.
The One Minute Climate Assessment Survey is conducted yearly across campus at the
University of Wisconsin-Stout (Paris & Schutt, 2004). Furthermore, in regards to the
Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey, the One Minute Climate
Assessment Survey is conducted yearly across campus at the University of Wisconsin-
Stout (Paris & Schutt, 2004).
Table 1
Q12 Survey Items by Buckingham and Coffman
Items Questions
1. I know what is expected of me at work

2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right
3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day
4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good
work
5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person
6. There is someone at work who encourages my development
7. At work, my opinions seem to count
8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important
9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work
10. I have a best friend at work
11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress
12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow
Reliability of instruments. A pilot study was conducted for the TSTL survey, in
which 15 participants were utilized. Based on Cronbach’s Alpha, which is the inter-item
reliability, and based on the 15 participants from the pilot study, utilizing the Cronbach’s
77
alphanumeric coefficient of reliability, a score of .803 was revealed. It is stated that .700
or higher is considered a decent score and therefore .803 is a good score. In regards to
the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey, which as previously
stated, utilized 6 of the 12 questions from Buckingham and Coffman (1999) survey and
according to Litwin (2003), internal consistency has disparate items that can measure the
identical issue. It was further illustrated that,
The development of the GWA (Q12) was based on more than 30 years of
accumulated quantitative and qualitative research. Its reliability, convergent
validity, and criterion-related validity have been extensively studied. It is an
instrument validated through prior psychometric studies as well as practical
considerations regarding its usefulness for managers in creating change in the
workplace. (Harter et al., 2006, p. 10)
Previous studies. As of present, there has only been a pilot study conducted on
the TSTL study itself. Therefore, my dissertation was the first study that utilized the
TSTL survey. The TSTL is a novel survey, therefore it is imperative to include an
additional survey within the study to strengthen and validate it, in which case, the Eight
Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey will be utilized. It is essential to
note that the researcher’s topic of study, narcissistic leadership characteristics and its
effect on an organization’s climate is still highly understudied and therefore there is a
lack of studies that utilize the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction
survey for that particular topic.
Relationship to variables. As the researcher’s dependent variable was
narcissistic characteristics of leaders, the TSTL survey was utilized to measure

78
narcissistic characteristics of leaders, toxic cultures, and the use of power (see Figure 9);
hence, the reasoning for utilizing this survey. The researcher’s independent variable was
organizational climate (see Figure 10), and therefore the researcher selected the Eight
Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction survey by Paris and Schutt (2004), which
measures an organization’s climate.
Conceptual defini(on
A leader who is perceived as
displaying characteris(cs in
their organiza(on such as: Opera(onal
Variables Defini(on
arrogance and
Narcissis(c , conceitededness, insolent, The Survey on
toxic, and craving admira(on and Toxic
power constant a?en(on, poor Leadership
characteris(cs skills that lead to a?ri(on, (TSTL)
of leaders cause chaos in the work
Ross, David B.
seAng, u(lizing one's (tle to
(2016)
bully others, concerned with
personal success of power.
Ross, David B.(2016)
Figure 9. Dependent Variable of Narcissistic Characteristics of Leaders.
Opera(onal
Conceptual Defini(on
Variable Defini(on
Eight Climate
Organiza(onal An overall Ques(ons:
climate atmosphere, tone Importance and
and ethos (Owens, Sa(sfac(on
2004). (ECQIS)(Paris &
Schu? , 2004).
Figure 10. Independent Variable of Organizational Climate.

79
Characteristics of the Study
Recruiting procedures. The method that was selected to gather participants
included the use of social networking, and therefore, the link of the survey was made
available via Facebook and LinkedIn. Furthermore, networking through professional
development, professional organizations, and other various seminars was utilized to attain
participants. Also, participants were gathered via the method of snowball sampling.
Therefore, as the researcher was also relying on snowball sampling, and was estimating
an approximate 120 participants who will complete the survey.
Resource requirement. Due to the sensitive topic and style of the study, the
researcher had no intentions of financially reimbursing the participants, and it was under
the researcher’s impression that individuals would want to remain anonymous when
submitting the completed survey due to the sensitive topic covered. At this time, there
are no other resources that the researcher intends on utilizing.
Demographic variables. The demographic variables that were measured within
this study consisted of the samples gender, age, and race. This included the option of
male or female for one’s gender. In regards to the age, this has been grouped by
increments of nine years, with the first age to select being 18 and ending with a 60 years
old and over option. Lastly, the population was able to select their race with options of
White, Black, Hispanic, and Other as possibilities. Moreover, the highest level of
education, years of work experience and leadership position, were also variables that was
included. The options of education level included High School, Associate, Bachelor,
Master, and Doctorate. The years of work experience were also grouped in increments of
80
nine, beginning with one year and ending with 40 years and over. Lastly, a yes or no
option for teachers in regards to their leadership positions.
The final two demographic variables included within this survey determined
whether the individuals completing the survey wish to have held a leadership position,
which participants were given a yes or no option. The final demographic area asked for
the individuals to select the area of affiliation of which one was employed and consisted
of the following options: government, education, business, medical, social services, and
other.
Procedures of the Study
The research design. The researcher utilized the embedded correlation mixed
methods research design. This form of research gave the researcher the ability to gather
both qualitative and quantitative data, as well as fuse the data, contrast the data, and
finally illustrate the differences in the results attained (Creswell, 2015). Hence, this study
was designed to attain data from employees who worked in all fields and gathered their
feelings about their perceptions of the organizational climate and how it related to their
leaders’ characteristics. The study utilized a survey that aligned with the researcher’s
research questions as well as an additional survey that determined how employees
perceive their organization’s climate. The method employed to deliver the survey was
solely through the Internet. Dykema, Stevenson, Klein, Kim, and Day (2012) illustrated
that of the two most utilized methods of inviting participants to complete a survey, e-
mailed invitations are the most utilized due to how easy it is to send the survey, the
easiness of responding as well as it being cost effective. Whereas mailed invitations are
more tedious, as it requires participants to manually type into a browser, require a mailing
81
address, requires more time for participants to reply and are also more costly (Dykema et
al., 2012).
Steps in the procedures. When the researcher received approval from Nova
Southeastern University’s Institutional Review Board, the survey was made available for
participants to access through Google Forms, in which participants were able to access
the surveys through a link that was posted on various social media networks (Facebook,
Instagram, Linkedin). The surveys were also sent by email, and had a link where
participants had direct access to the electronic survey once the individuals clicked on the
link. Therefore, the survey had been taken wherever the participant had access to
Internet. A cover letter accompanied the survey in which the importance of the
participant was illustrated, to encourage the participant to complete and return the survey.
Furthermore, the participants’ assurances were provided. Hence, the participant was
made aware that their participation for this research was completely voluntary and that
they were assured that they will remain anonymous and their responses will be
confidential. In addition, a description of the purpose of the survey was included. Both
surveys had taken approximately 31 minutes to complete and which consisted of 38
questions that comprised of both open and closed ended questions. When possible, the
researcher also sent participants reminder emails to complete the survey. It has been
illustrated that when participants receive reminder messages, there is an increase in
survey response by 25% (Schirmer, 2009; Sheehan & Hoy, 1997).
Data Analyses
The surveys were made available through Google Forms and were designed so
that the participant did not have the ability to continue to the next question until they had
82
answered the current question. The researcher was able to maintain participant
anonymity as the two surveys were attainable only through an Internet link that was only
accessible to the researcher. Therefore, as it was completed electronically; this left no
room for missing or incomplete data. The quantitative survey data was entered utilizing
the SPSS software system as this was the method the researcher determined most
suitable. The qualitative data was analyzed via exploring the connections, patterns, and
themes in the data and will be utilized as supplemental data.
Quantitative data analysis. In order to analyze the data, a codebook, which has
been previously utilized for the survey’s pilot study, was applied for The Survey on Toxic
Leadership. This codebook was separated by the number of participants of the study.
The participants were coded by their gender, age, ethnicity, educational level, and years
employed. The participants were also coded based on whether they have had a leadership
role or not as well as whether they may have illustrated interest in a leadership role within
the future. Moreover, the 24-item responses were coded and divided into 3 groups: (a)
narcissistic characteristics, (b) toxic leadership, and (c) elements of power. Therefore,
the questions Q1, Q4, Q7, Q10, Q13, Q16, Q19, and Q22 were coded for narcissistic
characteristics. The questions Q2, Q5, Q8, Q11, Q14, Q17, Q20, and Q23 were coded
for toxic leadership. Lastly, the questions Q3, Q6, Q9, Q12, Q15, Q18, Q21, and Q24
were coded for elements of power (Ross, 2016). The method that was utilized to code the
survey was previously utilized for the pilot study conducted by Ross (2016). That stated,
the same method was also utilized for the current study and therefore, items Q3, Q5, Q6,
Q9, Q14, Q15, Q18, Q23, and Q24 of The Survey on Toxic Leadership were reversed
scored.
83
Non-parametric statistics were utilized to analyze the researcher’s quantitative
data. Morgan, Reichart, and Harrison (2002) revealed that nonparametric statistics are
regularly utilized in the social sciences to explore “the differences or associations for
nominal and ordinal data” (p. 35). Since the research questions involve assessing the
relationship between two ordinal variables a Spearman rho test was conducted to answer
all three quantitative research questions. According to Creswell (2011), researchers
utilize the Spearman rho correlation coefficient for, “nonlinear data and for other types of
data measured in categorical scales” (p. 347). Median scores were computed in SPSS for
the three variables: (a) narcissistic characteristic using survey questions Q1, Q4, Q7, Q10,
Q13, Q16, Q19, and Q22; (b) toxic leadership using survey questions Q2, Q5, Q8, Q11,
Q14, Q17, Q20, and Q23; and (c) the elements of power using survey questions Q3, Q6,
Q9, Q12, Q15, Q18, Q21, and Q24. Furthermore, the median score from all of the
responses were then utilized to attain the one score for narcissism. The following
procedure consisted of the researcher computing a median for both the importance and
the satisfaction variables. Therefore, the importance and satisfaction variables were both
ran differently and then combined, where the researcher ran the test again to observe the
varied results. This was followed by running a test for the overall climate median, as the
researcher felt it was pertinent to determine if there was a difference in results between
satisfaction and importance.
Ho There is no relationship between narcissistic characteristics of leaders and the

84
Ha There is a negative relationship between narcissistic characteristics of leaders
In order to answer research question one, a Spearman rho analysis was conducted
to determine the relationship between narcissistic leadership and perceived quality of an
organizational climate. Since perceived quality was weakly related to narcissistic
leadership, the researcher conducted two follow-up Spearman rho analyses, one with
narcissistic leadership and satisfaction, and the other with narcissistic leadership and
importance to determine if the individual elements of perceived quality were related to
narcissistic leadership.
Ho There is no relationship between toxic leadership characteristics and the
Ha There is a negative relationship between toxic leadership characteristics and
the perceived quality of an organizational climate.
To answer research question two, three Spearman rho analyses were conducted to
determine the relationship between (a) toxic leadership and perceived quality of an
organizational climate, (b) toxic leadership and satisfaction, and (c) toxic leadership and
importance.
Ho There is no relationship between leaders who use the power of control over the
85
power of influence and the perceived quality of an organizational climate.
Ha There is a negative relationship between leaders who use the power of control
over the power of influence and the perceived quality of an organizational climate.
In order to answer research question three, three Spearman rho analyses were
conducted to determine the relationship between (a) power and perceived quality of an
organizational climate, (b) power and satisfaction, and (c) power and importance.
As initially stated, the researcher utilized the Spearman rho test due to the two
variables being observed, and that is narcissistic characteristics and organizational
climate. Therefore, a test for narcissistic characteristics and the importance of work
climate was run, followed by narcissistic characteristics and the satisfaction of work
climate, and lastly narcissistic characteristics and the importance and satisfaction of work
climate was run. A one-tailed test was ran based on the researcher’s hypothesis of
narcissism and organizational climate, as based on the literature gathered, there is a high
negative correlation between narcissism and organizational climate. The same procedure
was conducted for the second and third research question.
Qualitative data analysis. The researcher analyzed and interpreted the qualitative
data by reviewing the information gathered from the open-ended questions posed within
the second portion of the TSTL survey. This then allowed the researcher to discover and
attain any possible overlapping themes, as well as count the number of themes based on
the participants’ answers. Therefore, the coding process consisted of comprehending the
data attained, separating it into text segments; followed by labeling these segments with
codes (see Figure 11). Hence, as explicated in Creswell (2015), “To analyze open-ended
responses, qualitative researchers look for overlapping themes in the open-ended data,
86
and some researchers count the number of themes or the number of times that the
participants mention the themes” (p. 219).
The researcher utilized the qualitative data as secondary information as it revealed
how employees view the relationship between productivity, motivation, change, and
health within the culture of an organization as well as illustrate how employees view the
relationship between team dynamics, communication, and collaboration within the
culture of an organization. In addition, the qualitative data made room for further
meaning to the quantitative data when concerning the culture of an organization.
Figure 11. Data Analysis in Qualitative Research.
Mixed methods data analysis. The researcher utilized the six qualitative survey
questions to adequately explain the correlational data. Although the qualitative data
indicated that there were both positive and negative correlations, there was still a
significant amount of participants revealing that they perceived their leader to possess
narcissistic and toxic characteristics as well as power of control. Therefore, this was
aligned with the quantitative data, as results also revealed a combination of positive weak
87
correlations, to moderate negative correlations as well as strong negative correlations.
The qualitative data revealed some low frequency themes that were negatively correlated
and hence making room for there being a weak relationship in regards to the importance
of perceived quality of the organizational climate. The qualitative portion of the survey
will aid in explaining the correlational coefficients by providing additional data that will
support the quantitative data.
Limitations of the Methodology
In the present study, a limitation of the survey was that the participants must have
had a minimum of an Associate’s Degree. This prevented those who may have had an
extensive amount of experience in dealing with narcissistic leaders to be able to complete
the survey and add to the data needed. Furthermore, the survey did not include a
demographic category for participants to select what country they resided. As the survey
was posted via multiple social network sites, the possibility of participants completing the
survey could subject to come from various continents of the world (Rubin & Babbie,
2009). In addition, due to the sensitivity of the topic, the researcher was not able to
purchase a participants’ list, as individuals may want to remain anonymous.
The researcher did not have a study site and therefore was limited in where I was
able to administer their survey due to the nature of the topic. This researcher could not
attain honest responses due to the method of the survey delivered, which was solely
online compared to a face-to-face interaction. That stated, an additional limitation was
that face-to-face interviews were not conducted, which put the researcher at a
disadvantage, as a face-to-face interview allows a rapport to be built, which in turn allows
participants more susceptible to feel comfortable and answer interview questions more
88
thoroughly (Boddy & Croft, 2016; Nulty, 2008). An additional limitation is that due to
this being an online survey, populations such as the elderly and the poor may have been
prevented from having access to this survey, as the elder population is not as computer
literate as the younger generation (Rubin & Babbie, 2009). Furthermore, as this was an
online survey, where one method of attaining participants was via email, there was a
possibility that not all possible participants had the chance of completing the survey due
to individuals changing email addresses. Moreover, individuals may have multiple
emails under their name and therefore consequences of underrepresentation (Bradley,
1999).
The researcher’s method of research was the utilization of a survey, and this
methodology alone could have impacted the response rate of participants. It has been
revealed that the response rates of surveys; regardless of the form of surveys, has
dramatically decreased as the population is being over surveyed. Therefore, individuals’
attitudes towards completing surveys have changed (Bickart & Schmittlein, 1999; Curtin,
Presser, & Singer, 2005; Groves, Cialdini, & Couper, 1992).
Delimitations of the Methodology
The researcher determined that it was not appropriate to utilize a
phenomenological approach as this method solely utilized an interview to attain data.
Rather, the researcher deemed it was imperative to utilize a survey with specific
terminology that would adequately attain the data necessary, and hence the researcher’s
utilization of a survey that included both open and closed questions. Also, the researcher
did not select a particular organization as it was not my interest to target solely one field,
but rather to reach out to all fields. Furthermore, the researcher chose not to go outside of
89
the United States to a set organization as other countries have different ethical values and
therefore their perception on this topic will not be consistent with that of the United
States.
Confidentiality and Security
To guard participants’ privacy and well-being, the researcher took various steps to
ensure confidentiality and security of the data gathered. As the instruments of the study
were two surveys that were solely attainable via the Internet through a link that was set
up via Google Forms, the researcher was able to maintain participant anonymity.
Therefore, only the researcher had access to the Google Forms formatted surveys, which
left no trace of participant identification. According to Google’s privacy policy, the
researcher was not able to gain any form of knowledge revealing participant information
(Google, 2017). Also, all forms of data gathered from this study will be stored in the
researcher's password protected computer, which will be kept for three years and then
destroyed.
Ethical Considerations
Researching sensitive topics, such as narcissism, increases the potential for a
significant amount of emotional distress for participants to endure (Watts, 2013).
However, the researcher was aware and considered the participants by skillfully adhering
to specific procedures to avoid any unethical scenarios. The researcher respected all
participants who took part in the study and at no point in time were the participants
obligated to complete the surveys administered. In addition, the researcher illustrated
respect and sensitivity in the following domains (a) attaining permissions, (b) ensuring
participants remained anonymous, (c) participants were made aware of the purposes of
90
the study, (d) not utilizing deceptive practices, (e) respecting populations who are deemed
vulnerable, and (f) not revealing sensitive information (Creswell, 2015).
The researcher relied on snowball sampling and therefore, it was advantageous for
the participants as this method allows for complete anonymity, as the researcher seeks
help from participants to recruit other individuals to be part of the sample (Creswell,
2015). Also, as the researcher adopted the pragmatic worldview for their study, its
perspective recognizes the obligation of protecting participants as well as the obligation
of not hurting them (Langer & Beckman, 2005).
Trustworthiness and Rigor
The researcher trusted the instruments utilized, the data collection, as well as the
method employed for data analysis based on the distinct actions taken to complete the
study. First off, the researcher utilized instruments that illustrated validity and reliability
as the TSTL has a reliability score of .803 and it is stated that .700 or higher is considered
to a decent score as illustrated in Table 2 (Ross, 2016).
Table 2
General Guidelines for Interpreting Reliability Coefficients
Reliability coefficient value Interpretation

.90 and up Excellent
.80 - .89 Good
.70 - .79 Adequate
Below .70 May have limited applicability
Note. Adapted from “Testing and Assessment: An Employer’s Guide to
Good Practices,” by U.S. Department of Labor Employment and
Training Administration, 1999. Retrieved from http://uniformguidelines
.com/testassess.pdf
In addition, formative and summative committees were utilized to ensure the
validity of the instrument. Furthermore, as the TSTL survey is still novel, the use of an
91
additional survey, Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction, was utilized to
support and create validity and reliability of the TSTL.
In regards to collecting data, the researcher utilized the Google Forms format that
required participants to answer every survey question before they could proceed to the
next question. Therefore, there was assurance of all surveys were completely answered.
The researcher sought out professionals who were experts in their field of statistics to
consult on analysis of the data. Lastly, during data analysis the researcher was enrolled
in a statistical methods class, where all data was analyzed and checked for discrepancies.
Opportunities for Further Study
Based on the sensitivity of the topic, most organizations would not permit an
unfamiliar researcher to conduct research within any set organization. However, if the
opportunity arose that a proactive leader of a learning organization or a group of
organizations within the same profession would want to uncover any evidence of toxic
organizational climate, it would be beneficial to conduct such research. An additional
opportunity is to determine if a complete field is willing to discover if their organization
is suffering from a toxic organizational climate.
Chapter Summary
An embedded-correlational, mixed methods study approach was designed to meet
this study’s research questions and further the understanding of perceived narcissistic
leadership and how it is related to the organization’s climate. This chapter summarized
the overview, philosophical worldviews, sensitivity nature of the study, and type of study.
In addition, the participants and sample strategy, instruments, validity and reliability of
instruments, characteristics of the study, and procedures of the study were discussed.
92
Moreover, the chapter summarized the limitations of the methodology, delimitations of
the methodology, confidentiality and security, ethical considerations, trustworthiness and
rigor, and opportunities for future studies.

93
Chapter 4: Findings
Overview
This chapter describes the findings of this study based on the mixed methods
design, with an embedded-correlational approach, depicted in Chapter 3: Methodology.
This portion will reveal an overview of the study in addition to the survey participant
response rate. Furthermore, a description of the participant background profiles is a
component of this chapter, and the analysis of the data is displayed in three sections.
That stated, the initial section displays the descriptive analyses and the Spearman’s rho
analyses conducted on the collected quantitative data. The second section highlights
themes found via the analysis of the gathered qualitative data, and lastly the third section
focuses on the merging of the collected quantitative and qualitative data to depict its
interaction.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods research questions:
Objective 1. Identify narcissistic characteristics.
Objective 3. Determine the association between narcissistic characteristics and the

94
Objective 1. Identify toxic leadership characteristics.
Objective 3. Determine the association between toxic leadership characteristics
Objective 1. Identify power of control.
Objective 2. Identify power of influence.
Objective 4. Determine the relationship between the power of control and the
power of influence and the perceived quality of the organizational climate.
between productivity, motivation, change, and health within the culture of an
organization?
between team dynamics, communication and collaboration within the culture of an
organization?
Mixed Method Research Question. How does the qualitative data add further
meaning to the quantitative data regarding the culture of an organization?
Participant Recruitment
To obtain participants for the online survey, the researcher utilized various social
media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. In addition, individuals met through
95
professional seminars were also obtained. However, the researcher mostly relied on
snowball sampling to attain a majority of the participants for this study. The survey was
made available to the public as of July 2017 and was left open until October 2017.
Reminders were delivered to those participants who agreed to take the survey when
asked. Survey responses were obtained from Google Forms after the survey was closed,
however due to the researcher’s method of setting up their survey questions on Google
Forms, there were no incomplete or missing responses.
Demographic Background of Respondents
Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the researcher hoped to attain a minimum of
120 participants for the study. A total of 88 individuals partook in this study, however
due to the exclusion list, which comprised of the minimum holding a high school degree,
one participant was excluded from the study. Therefore the data for this study was
attained from 87 participants. That stated; the researcher attained a 72.5% response rate.
According to Schirmer (2009), Rubin and Babbie (2009) and Nulty (2008), a response
rate of at least 50% is considered adequate in regards to analysis and reporting, whereas
60% is considered good, and a 70% rate is considered very good. Of the 87 participants,
45 were female, and 42 were male. In regards to the participants’ age, 18 participants fell
between the age group of 18-29 years of age, 29 participants fell within the age group of
30 to 39 years of age, 25 participants fell between 40 to 49 years of age, 9 participants
fell between the age group of 50 to 59 years of age, and 6 individuals fell in the group of
60 years of age or older (see Appendix F).
Of the 87 participants, 52 were White, 19 were Hispanic, 10 were Black, and 6
participants were comprised of other. As the researcher previously indicated, the

96
exclusion list was comprised of those who only had a high school diploma, therefore,
those participants will not be counted for in this section. In reference to the highest level
of education, 27 participants had a bachelor’s degree, 21 participants had a master’s
degree, 24 participants had an associate’s degree, and 14 individuals had a doctorate’s
degree. When pertaining to the amount of years of work experience, 21 participants
indicated that they had 1 to 9 years of experience, 27 participants revealed that they had
10 to 19 years of experience, 26 participants indicated that they had 20 to 29 years, 8
participants had 30 to 39 years of experience, and 5 participants had 40 or more years of
work experience (see Appendix F).
Of the 87 participants, 68 individuals revealed that they have held a leadership
position and 19 indicated that they have not. It was further demonstrated that 66 of the
participants wanted to hold a leadership position, whereas 21 illustrated that they did not.
Furthermore, 34 participants explicated that they were affiliated within the education
field, 17 participants revealed other, 16 indicated that they were employed within the
business field, 7 participants demonstrated that they were in the medical field, 7
participants stated that they worked for the government, and the final 6 participants
worked for the social services field (see Appendix F).
Quantitative Data Analysis
The goal of all quantitative survey research is to attain data that offers practical
information about a specific population of individuals (Schirmer, 2009). The following is
how the researcher created the variables for research questions one through three. For
research question one, the survey questions Q1, Q4, Q7, Q10, Q13, Q16, Q19, and Q22
were coded for narcissistic characteristics. For research-question two, the survey
97
questions Q2, Q5, Q8, Q11, Q14, Q17, Q20, and Q23 were coded for toxic leadership.
Lastly, for research-question three, the survey questions Q3, Q6, Q9, Q12, Q15, Q18,
Q21, and Q24 were coded for elements of power.
Research Question 1. Research question one stated, What is the relationship
between narcissistic characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an
organizational climate? The null hypothesis stated there is no relationship between
narcissistic characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational
climate. The alternate hypothesis stated there is a negative relationship between
narcissistic characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational
climate. To answer research question one, a Spearman rho correlation was conducted
with narcissistic characteristics and perceived quality. Results of the Spearman rho
correlation revealed a significant, negative correlation between narcissistic characteristics
(Med = 2.00) and perceived quality (Med = 4.00), rs (86) = -.19, p = .04; however, the
correlation was very weak (see Appendix G). Consequently, since perceived quality is a
combination of importance and satisfaction, two additional Spearman rho correlations
were conducted. Results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a very weak, positive
correlation between narcissistic characteristics and importance, rs (86) = .16, p = .06,
which was not significant (see Appendix G). Finally, results of the Spearman rho
correlation revealed a statistically significant, moderate, negative correlation between
narcissistic characteristics and satisfaction, rs (86) = -.43, p < .001 (see Appendix G).
Consequently, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis. Table 3 illustrates the
guidelines for the strengths of the correlation for all research questions regarding the
quantitative data.
98
Table 3
Guidelines for Interpreting Spearman’s Correlation
Range of rs Strength of correlation

No correlation or perfect
.00
quadratic
.00 - .19 Very weak
.20 - .39 Weak
.40 - .59 Moderate
.60 - .79 Strong
.80 – 1.0 Very strong
Research Question 2. Research question two stated, What is the relationship
between toxic leadership characteristics and the perceived quality of an organizational
climate? The null hypothesis stated there is no relationship between toxic characteristics
of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational climate. The alternate
hypothesis stated there is a negative relationship between toxic characteristics of leaders
and the perceived quality of an organizational climate. In order to answer research
question two, a Spearman rho correlation was conducted with toxic characteristics and
perceived quality. Results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a statistically
significant but weak, negative correlation between toxic characteristics (Med = 2.50) and
perceived quality (Med = 4.00), rs (86) = -.30, p = .002 (see Appendix G). Similar to
research question one, two additional Spearman rho correlations were conducted for
importance and satisfaction. Results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a very
weak and not statistically significant correlation between toxic characteristics and
importance, rs (86) = .07, p = .26 (see Appendix G). Finally, results of the Spearman rho
correlation revealed a moderate, statistically significant negative correlation between
toxic characteristics and satisfaction, rs (86) = -.50, p < .001 (see Appendix G). That
99
stated, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis.
Research Question 3. Research question three stated, What is the relationship
between leaders who use the power of control over the power of influence and the
perceived quality of an organizational climate? The null hypothesis stated there is no
relationship between leaders who use the power of control over the power of influence
and the perceived quality of an organizational climate. The alternate hypothesis stated
there is a negative relationship between leaders who use the power of control over the
power of influence and the perceived quality of an organizational climate. In order to
answer research question three a Spearman rho correlation was conducted with elements
of power and perceived quality. Results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a
statistically significant but weak, negative correlation between elements of power (Med =
3.00) and perceived quality (Med = 4.00), rs (86) = -.39, p < .001 (see Appendix G).
Similar to research question one and research question two, two additional Spearman rho
correlations were conducted for importance and satisfaction. Results of the Spearman
rho correlation revealed a very weak and non-significant positive correlation between
elements of power and importance, rs (86) = .01, p = .45 (see Appendix G). Finally,
results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a strong and statistically significant
negative correlation between elements of power and satisfaction, rs (86) = -.61, p < .001
(see Appendix G). Therefore, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Themes from Survey Question 1: How realistic are the demands and
expectations of your leader to create a productive and positive work environment?
The researcher attained five themes within this question, which comprised (a)
100
unattainable goals, (b) unproductive work environment, (c) productive environment
created by employees themselves, (d) unrealistic demands and expectations, and (e)
realistic demands and expectations (see Table 4).
Unattainable goals. Of the 87 participants, seven participants deemed that their
leader had unattainable goals for them. Of the seven participants, six participants were
within the field of education, and one participant was from the field of business. The first
participant indicated that they have too much to do in a short time and that the leader
does not ever listen to the employees’ suggestions to get things done. The second
participant stated that they do not have any books for their students and therefore have to
make photocopies during their break time. This participant further claimed that, “This
leaves me tired throughout the day and I have less energy to teach my students.” The
third participant additionally admitted that the demands are not very realistic as the
leader, “does not have a good grasp of everyone’s responsibilities.” The fourth
participant declared that, “More work with less personnel creates animosity among
employees. Production vs. quality is the norm.” The fifth and sixth participant shared
similar views as one participant indicated that their leader does not comprehend what the
job entails, therefore believes that the employees’ responsibilities should be completed at
a quicker rate. The seventh participant stated, “We need more resources to achieve the
goals.”
101
Table 4
Identified Themes Regarding The Survey on Toxic Leadership Question 1
Number of
Theme identified Sample of participants’ quotes
participants
7 Unattainable goals “We need more resources to achieve the goals.”
“He does not understand what the job entails, so
believes it should be done quicker.”
“Too much to do in a short time and never listens
to suggestions to get the things done.”
3 Unproductive work “Always puts one employee against another.”

environment
4 Productive “The demands are realistic for the job to help other
environment created police officers for their specific responsibilities,
by employees but not so much in our division as it is more of a
themselves bully format. It is not positive for us, but we make
it positive for others as we tune him out and get to
work for ourselves and others. Definitely not for
him, and we let others know this.”
23 Unrealistic demands “The demands have to do with the job, which is

and expectations fine because I have a strong will to work and do
my job well. It is just that she is terrible on how
she places the demands on us. She expects so
much while she does nothing. A very negative
person and hates both men and women, but mainly
men.
25 Realistic demands “The principal at my school makes realistic and

and expectations attainable goals while encouraging us to strive for
more.”
“The expectations are beyond possible.”
Unproductive work environment. Three of the 87 participants revealed that they
are working in an unproductive environment. Of the three participants, 2 participants
were from the education field, and one participant was from the government field. The
first participant indicated,

102
They are not realistic at all as she decides on a daily basis with last minute
decisions to do anything, which is mainly to advance her needs. When a person
who is supposedly your boss, should create a positive environment. In her case,
not at all, unless it is for her gain. Things fall apart and no motivation or drive . . .
bottom line is people start to think, "who cares anymore?"
The second participant explicated that no employee wants to follow their leader,
followed by the third participant stating that their leader, “Always puts one employee
against another.”
Productive environment created by employees themselves. Four of the 87
participants, of which one participant was from social services, one participant was from
the education field, one was from the “other” field, and one was from the government
field, revealed the following about their leader, with the first participant explicating,
The demands are realistic for the job to help other police officers for their specific
responsibilities, but not so much in our division as it is more of a bully format. It
is not positive for us, but we make it positive for others as we tune him out and
get to work for ourselves, and others. Definitely not for him, and we let others
know this.
The second participant revealed,
The positive work environment was created in spite of our leader, by those of us
who understood that we are responsible for our own joy and contentment in what
we are called to do. While she would praise the efforts of some individuals in the
organization, she would ignore the efforts of others. Her control over every
aspect of the organization, her resistance to allowing others to gain leadership

103
skills within the organization, and her unpredictable attitude and mindset caused
negativity in the workplace.
The third participant explicated,
In my law enforcement organization, we do not necessarily have leaders, they are
more managers. A more fitting term since they manage resources, they do not
lead individuals on a case-by-case or daily basis. Any sort of direction or
guidance is usually gleaned from another individual on the squad who has
experience with that particular problem. Any productive or positive work
environment is strictly fostered by the interpersonal skills of the squad members,
and the supervisor’s ability to remove individuals from the squad who do not
work well with others.
The fourth participant opined,
He is exceedingly passive aggressive, demanding the highest standards verbally
while accepting sub-par results from 'favorites' and bestowing praise. So it
becomes unclear as to what he is actually looking for and more importantly the
rest of staff, including elected, appointed and protected employees, are driven by
their own self-worth to achieve results within an oppressive environment.
Unrealistic demands and expectations. Out of the 87 participants, 23 participants
explicated that their leaders’ expectations and demands are unrealistic. Of the 23, eight
were from the field of education, four were from the business field, four were from the
medical field, three were from other, two were from social services field and the last two
participants were from the government field. Of those participants, three participants
stated they were “highly unrealistic,” two participants stated they were “very unrealistic,”
104
two participants stated they were “not at all realistic” followed by “not realistic at all”
and three participants stated they were “unrealistic.” Furthermore, one participant
explicated, “not very realistic due to everything being time based with FedEx.” One
participant opined, “My leader has not specified how he would like our work
environment to be.” A subsequent participant revealed, “Not realistic at all. No direction
is given, just demands.” An additional participant explicated,
The demands have to do with the job, which is fine because I have a strong will to
work and do my job well. It is just that she is terrible on how she places the
demands on us. She expects so much while she does nothing. A very negative
person and hates both men and women, but mainly men.
It was further revealed by one participant that they believed that their leaders’
demands and expectations needed to be differentiated according to the level that the
educators were teaching. An additional participant stated that their leaders demands and
expectations are unrealistic and that they ignore the behavior of their favorite employees.
Moreover, one participant explicated, “Right now we are very short staffed, so her
demands and expectations are not realistic at the moment.”
A subsequent participant illustrated,
The demands seemed realistic as we did have a job to do and solve the major
issues that we were faced with. It seemed productive at the time, but not so much
with a positive point of view. It was more about getting it done. I feel things can
get done if you want to, whether positive or negative. I feel if it takes forever to
do a job and it is a negative climate, you might as well hurry up and get it done
just to get away from the negative environment.

105
Furthermore, one participant indicated, “There is not such a thing as a positive
environment. They do not have rules, just let everyone run their shift as they prefer.”
It was additionally stated by one participant that, “The reality isn't there because
one component is missing which is the how. The manager in every businesses focuses on
the how.”
The final participant explained that their leader’s expectations are, “too high.”
Realistic demands and expectations. Of the 87 participants, 25 participants stated
that their leaders’ demands and expectations are realistic. Of the 25 participants, nine
participants were from the education field, seven participants were from the business
field, six participants were from the “other” field, one participant was from social
services, one participant was from the medical field, and the last participant was from the
government field. Of the 25 participants, 14 participants stated that they were, “very
realistic,” with one participant adding, “she is very positive and supportive,” one
participant indicated that they were “very much so,” one participant explicated that they
were, “quite realistic,” six participants opined that they were, “realistic” with one
participant adding, “my supervisors expectations are realistic, expected to perform as
trained” and an additional one further stated that, “The principal at my school makes
realistic and attainable goals while encouraging us to strive for more.” One participant
explicated that they were, “extremely realistic.” An additional participant revealed, “they
are as realistic as expected.” The final participant stated, “The expectations are beyond
possible.”
Themes from Survey Question 2: Explain how your leader motivates you to
produce a positive image. If not, please clarify. The researcher attained four themes
106
within this section and this consisted of (a) self-motivation, (b) bonuses/monetary, (c)
work ethics, and (d) lack of or no motivation (see Table 5).
Table 5
Number of
participants
11 Self-motivation “It is up to the employee to produce the image.”
“My leader did not necessarily motivate me to
produce a positive image. I am intrinsically
motivated to do so.”
“The only motivation I have for the job is internal
due to my willingness to do the job. She could
not motivate a fly to smell garbage. She has no
clue about a positive climate nor image. The only
thing she cared about were her clothes, Botox and
plastic surgery.”
4 Bonuses/Monetary “Incentives such as bonuses get the job done.”
“She gives praise to those who go over and
beyond as teachers. She felt that teachers need to
feel appreciated and she teamed up with a local
business owner and awarded one teacher $100
cash/ each month. She gave a speech about that
teacher who was receiving the cash prize and
acknowledged (my) our hard work, dedication.”
2 Work ethics “He does not motivate us at all, but we have a
strong work ethic to help others in our field of law
enforcement. So again, we tune him out and do
what is right as we do not want to place anyone in
a life or death situation; we train them well.”
22 Lack of or no “Top down directives that change from day to
motivation day, making it very difficult to be motivated or
gain momentum toward a specific objective or
goal.”
Self motivation. Eleven out of 87 participants illustrated that they were self-
motivated within their organization and therefore did not receive or did not require their
107
leader to motivate them. Of the 87 participants, six participants were from the “other”
field, three participants were from the government field, one participant was from the
social services field, and one participant was from the field of education.
The first participant stated that their leader does not in any method, motivate a
positive image; rather, “It is up to the employee to produce the image.” The subsequent
participant opined that they did not feel that their leader did anything out of the ordinary
or anything specific to motivate them, rather every individual within the team wants to do
their best and tries to do so. The third participant stated, that they are a self-motivator,
followed by, “I do not rely on anyone to motivate me for a positive image. I do this for
myself because it is who I am.” The fourth participant illustrated that “My leader did not
necessarily motivate me to produce a positive image. I am intrinsically motivated to do
so . . . ” The fifth participant simply stated that they are self-motivated, and the sixth
participant revealed, that their leader does not, and included, “That’s up to me and
whomever I interact with.” The seventh participant stated,
The only motivation I have for the job is internal due to my willingness to do the
job. She could not motivate a fly to smell garbage. She has no clue about a
positive climate nor image. The only image she cared about were her clothes,
Botox, and plastic surgery.
The eighth participant revealed,
We were motivated to accomplish our goals and individual tasks. I can't really
say it produced a positive image, only that we finished the project. I would say I
was more motivated internally, not as an external factor from the person.
The ninth participant indicated that their leader did not motivate them, rather,
108
demotivated them and they had to motivate themselves to do a good job. The tenth
participant revealed that they rely on their self-motivation system, as their leader does not
really motivate them. The last participant explicated, “She just comes to work doesn't
give direction. My own image is created by me to do a great job because if I don't
motivate myself no one will.”
Bonuses/monetary. Four out of 87 participants revealed that their leader utilizes
bonuses as a form of motivating their employees. Of the 87 participants, two participants
were from the education field, one participant was from the business field and the last
participant was from the “other” field. The first participant indicated this when they
stated that their leader motivates them through training and monetarily. The subsequent
participant opined that their leader gives them, “Incentives such as bonuses to get the job
done.” The third participant described that their leader pays them to produce a positive
image. The final participant explicated,
She gives praise to those who go "over and beyond" as teachers. She felt that
teacher need to feel appreciated and she teamed up with a local business owner
and awarded one teacher $100 cash/each month. She gave a speech about that
teacher who was receiving the cash prize and acknowledged (my) our hard work,
dedication.
Work ethics. Two out of 87 participants indicated that it is their work ethics and
not their leader that motivates them. Of the two participants, one participant is from the
education field and one participant is from the social services field. Both participants had
very similar experiences, as the first participant stated, “Never motivates any employees .
. . the only thing that motivates people are their work ethics, but after getting beat down
109
day to day, the work ethic lessens.” The subsequent participant opined that,
He does not motivate us at all, but we have a strong work ethic to help others in
our field of law enforcement. So again, we tune him out and do what is right, as
we do not want to place anyone in a life or death situation; we train them well.
Lack of or no motivation. Twenty-two out of 87 participants indicated that their
leader does not motivate them or fails to properly motivate them. Of the 22 participants,
11 participants were from the education field, 3 participants were from the business field,
3 participants were from the government field, 2 participants were from the social
services field, 2 participants were from the “other” field, and the last one participant was
from the medical field. Of the 22 participants, 8 participants simply stated that their
leader does not motivate them, without any other further detail. However, the additional
participants revealed in greater detail about the lack of motivation that comes from their
leader. The first participant indicated that there is no motivation, followed by, “just
demands.” Similarly, the second participant illustrated that there is no motivation,
followed by “just orders- higher ups pressure to produce.” The third participant indicated
that there is no motivation, and how the leader just expects it from the employees.
The fourth participant illustrated that their leader began a system called “Star
Teacher” by putting stars on the teachers’ doors if the teachers were caught helping their
students. However the participant then revealed that this program only lasted 9 weeks
and it fell through. The participant additionally stated that their leader is “arrogant and
tends to get under the skin of most teachers by creating distrust among us.”
The fifth participant opined that their leader, “bullies people to get them to do what she
thinks is right.” The sixth participant declared that the leader provides, “top-down
110
directives that change from day to day, making it very difficult to be motivated or gain
momentum toward a specific objective or goal.”
The seventh participant explicated that their leader does not motivate the
employees, followed by, “save when it is an image about him or the school. An
additional participant revealed, “Not very motivating; mostly browbeating into donating
money to the organization.” A subsequent participant illustrated that their leader does not
and that it tends to turn into more of, “an expected responsibility to produce a positive
image.” An additional participant opined, “He does not motivates leadership within the
company. He does not show leadership skills at all.” Moreover, one participant claimed
that their leader does not motivate them and that, “she comes to work hungover and goes
to the bar once or twice a week. There is no positivity with her.” Furthermore, one
participant revealed that,
There is very little motivation provided to staff, he is most concerned with his
own image or likeability from his superiors and peers. There appears to be very
little concern for the individual of a lower rank and the belief that he will take no
responsibility for their failings but will grab the attention for their achievements.
The final participant explained that, “Not much motivation provided. Likes to talk down
to employees.”
Themes from Survey Question 3: Explain how your leader informs all
personnel regarding organizational change. If not, please clarify. The researcher was
able to gather five themes within this domain and this comprised of (a) emails, (b) kept in
the dark, (c) meetings, (d) second party, and (e) individual verbal communication (see
Table 6).
111
Table 6
Number of Theme identified

Sample of participants’ quotes
participants
25 Emails “Any true organizational change is done by email
from further up the power structure.”
“My leader informs all personnel of organizational
change by email communication. Always creates
paper trail that can be accessed very easily.”
16 Kept in the dark “Half of the time we do not get notification until it
is happening . . . We will be told the same day…”
“Always comes to a surprise . . . no one is ever
informed.”
“Everything is a secret. She doesn’t discuss
changes. She expects you to hear through the
grapevine.”
“Only early when it is a convenience to him.”
“She lets us know after the change has taken place
and says do it. She does not care of our input,
especially when the workforce are all experts in
their area and she was promoted because she dated
one of the bosses. She went to a meeting and came
out of the meeting promoted to 3 steps above her
current position. Definitely a transactional
environment . . . a true business deal of I do for you
if you do this for me . . . disgusting.”
33 Meetings “Our leader opens up the table for discussion on
how any changes would impact the work that we do
before making any changes.”
4 2nd party “Other employees or whoever is working on their
shifts.”
3 Individual verbal “My leader gives me a heads up before changes
communication take place.”
Emails. Of the 87 participants, 25 indicated that their leader utilized emails as a
means of communicating with personnel in regards to organizational change. Of the 25
participants, 13 were from the education field, 6 were from the business field, 3 were
112
from the “other” field, 2 were from the social services field, and 1 was from the medical
field. One participant illustrated that, “an email that is copied and pasted from the
superintendent without our role in carrying out the changes. He just states this is what we
have to do.”
An additional participant indicated, “My leader informs all personnel of
organizational change by email communication. Always create paper trail that can be
accessed very easily.” It was further revealed by one participant that, “Any true
organizational change is done by email from further up the power structure.” The
remaining participants did not provide with any further detail concerning the leader’s
utilization of emails as a form of communication.
Kept in the dark. Of the 87 participants, 16 participants revealed that they were
left in the dark or that there was a lack of communication from their leaders. Of the 16
participants, 5 participants were from the education field, 4 participants were from the
business field, 3 participants were from the government field, 2 participants were from
the social services field, and the last 2 participants were from the “other” field. One
participant indicated that they are never informed, and rather only a few are informed. A
second participant illustrated that the changes “always come to a surprise . . . no one is
ever informed.” The third participant stated that the leader does not and that they are
kept in the dark about a plethora of things. An additional participant opined that most of
the time, the leader does not at all say anything, followed by,
It is always a hurry up and wait type of environment. Quick change, quick
change and then nothing. Sometimes he does ask us for input, but does nothing
with it. I think he just goes through the motions and thinks we are stupid;
113
meaning that if we have a meeting on new issues or policies and he asks us our
thoughts, he thinks he will use them, but does not. He is a fake.
Furthermore, the fifth participant indicated that,
None, unless it has to do with her promotions and communications that we need
to know on a case by case situation . . . kept in the dark. Not even allowed to talk
with certain people within the department or organization without going to her
first. Very controlling as I am sure she doesn't want people talking about her,
which they do, because she is so terrible and actually, she brings it upon herself.
An additional participant stated that “half the time we do not get notification until
it is happening . . . We will be told the same day . . .” A subsequent participant illustrated
that their leader is inconsistent as it was stated, “one day we are allowed to do something,
the next day we are not . . . Some faculty are able to do things, while others are not.” One
participant explained that the communication within the organization is weak, while
another participant stated that their leader informs them of the changes late all the time
and added, “Only early when is convenience to him.” One participant indicated that their
leader does not make their employees aware of the changes, however has, “every
opportunity to do so during a pre shift.” An additional participant opined, “Everything is
a secret. She doesn’t discuss changes. She expects you to hear through the grapevine.”
A subsequent simply stated that their leader does not inform them of the change. The
final participant indicated,
She lets us know after the change has taken place and says "do it." She does not
care of our input, especially when the workforce, are all experts in their area and
she was promoted because she dated one of the bosses. She went to a meeting
114
and came out of the meeting promoted to 3 steps above her current position.
Definitely a transactional environment . . . a true business deal of "I do for you if
you do this for me" . . . disgusting. Definitely she has no self-esteem or care of
her character, which she has none anyways.
Meetings. Of the 87 participants, 33 indicated that their leader utilizes meetings as
a means of informing them about organizational change. Of the 33 participants, 16 were
from the education field, 7 were from the “other” field, 5 were from the business field, 3
were from the government field, and 2 were from the medical field. Of these, four
participants stated they have daily meetings, with one participant revealing they have a
daily 10 minute meeting before their shift, and the subsequent participant stated that they
have one every morning to go over the days task. Furthermore, three participants
indicated bi-weekly meetings, with one participant stating that their leader “opens up the
table for discussion on how any changes would impact the work that we do before
making any changes.” One participant indicated that they have weekly meetings,
whereas another participant indicated that they have monthly meetings, in which they
stated, “Decisions she made were hers alone.” The remaining participants did not specify
the frequency of the meetings held within their organization.
Second party. Four of the 87 participants opined that their leader does not
communicate the change with them, rather it is left to others within the organization. Of
the four participants, two participants were from the “other” field, one was from the
business field, and the last one was from the government field. The first participant
stated that their secretary is left with that task. The second participant illustrated that it is
lower management who is left with that duty. The third participant revealed that change
115
is made aware via, “other employees or whoever is working on their shifts.” The fourth
participant indicated that the leader has the office manager relay the information to the
employees.
Individual verbal communication. Of the 87 participants, three illustrated that
their leader vocalizes the changes. Of the three participants, two participants were from
the social services field and one was from the “other” field. As one participant opined
that their leader’s explanations occurs via general orders. The subsequent participant
added that their leader explains the organizational change, followed by the third
participant stating that their leader gives them a “heads up” prior to the changes that will
occur.
Themes from Survey Question 4: How does the leader help reduce stress or
cause an increase in stress levels within the organization? Of the 87 participants for
this study, question four revealed nine themes that the researcher felt was pertinent to this
study. The themes consist of (a) micromanaging, (b) utilizing curse words when
referring to the leader, (c) favoritism, (d) unpredictability, (e) political games, (f) lack of
communication, (g) reasonable time frame, (h) communication, and (i) leader causes
stress (see Table 7).
Micromanaging. Of the 87 participants, four deemed that their leader increased
stress levels within their organization due to the amount of micromanaging that occurred.
Of the four participants, two were from the education field, one was from the medical
field, and one was from the social services field. As one participant stated,
By micromanaging, watching the security cameras and interrupting classrooms by
telling the students to sit down and stop talking in the middle of a class while
116
looking at the video’s. He should bring the teacher to the side when students are
not around when he see's things he does not like.
An additional participant illustrated that their leader displayed a ridiculous
amount of control on every facet of the organization. A subsequent participant revealed,
“He usually is the cause of stress with his micromanaging.”
Utilizing explicative words when referring to their leader. Although this is not a
major theme, the researcher felt this theme was crucial to illustrate. Two of the 87
participants coined their leaders as a jerk and an asshole. Of the two participants, both
were from the social services field. As one participant indicated that “he is an asshole
and everyone knows it.” This was followed by an additional participant stating, “does
not because she’s a jerk.”
Table 7
Number of
participants
4 Micromanaging “By micromanaging, watching the security
cameras and interrupting classrooms by telling the
students to sit down and stop talking in the middle
of a class while looking at the videos. He should
bring the teacher to the side when students are not
around when he see’s things he does not like.”
“He usually is the cause of stress with his
micromanaging.”
2 Utilizing explicative “He is an asshole and everyone knows it.”
words when referring “Does not because she’s a jerk.”
to their leader
2 Favoritism “She has a very small group of her favorites that

she trusts and displays her favoritism openly which
causes the rest of the faculty stress.”
(table continues)
117
Table 7 (table continued)
Number of
participants
7 Unpredictability “It was often that personnel would not know how
she would respond to a situation, thus causing
stress. She was not consistent among staff or with
decisions. For instance, she allowed one
individual to use her position within the
organization to conduct doctoral research, but
would not allow another . . . ”
“You never know what side of the bed he is
waking up on. He must stay awake all hours of the
night thinking how to mess with his people the
next day.”
3 Political games “I feel that his whole purpose is to keep teachers at
each other so that he can talk down or try and
make peace to get a good name . . .”
4 Lack of “They only come in to do their work and rarely
communication talk to anyone, unless asking people to do things.
So people fend for themselves.”
6 Reasonable time “He will reassure and lessens work load for
frame unnecessary things.”
5 Communication “Allows me to call them and chat.”
“Always asked us to call for any reason to help or
listen. Offers ideas to help.”
21 Leader causes stress “The only reduction of stress is when she goes on
vacation. But when she is there, everyone has no
clue what she will do next to piss off her people.
The organization would be a great environment to
test the results of Xanax. She sucked at
communication and treating people right . . . Her
middle name was stress.”
“He is a walking stressor, which he takes great
delight in.”
Favoritism. The act of favoritism was evident in two of the 87 participants and is
seen as a stressor while working for their leader. Of the two participants, one was from
the education field and the other was from the social services field. One participant
118
opined that their stress levels were increased due to the utilization of favoritism versus
merit for “lateral transfers and promotions.” It was also determined by a subsequent
participant that the leader has their small group of favorites whom she trusts and
illustrates her favoritism openly. This in turn creates stress for the participant as well as
others within that organization.
Unpredictability. Seven of the 87 participants explicated that their leaders
unpredictable ways increased their stress levels while at work. Of the seven participants,
three were from the education field, two were from the government field, one was from
the social services field, and one was from the business field. As one participant
indicated that their organization does not have any policy or procedure manual and they
feel as though they never know what they are permitted to do. The same participant
further indicated that due to not having any policy or procedure manual, that they are not
aware when and if the leader may get mad for not doing what they are supposed to do.
An additional participant indicated that it is their leaders unpredictable attitudes and
behaviors that cause an increase in stress levels. The same participant explicated that,
It was often that personnel would not know how she would respond to a situation,
thus causing stress. She was not consistent among staff or with decisions. For
instance, she allowed one individual to use her position within the organization to
conduct doctoral research, but would not allow another. Additionally, she would
allow one individual to adjust her contract so she could go on vacation, but would
not allow another to go on a mission trip.
The third participant declared,
He increases stress by making seemingly random declarations or changes without

119
consultation, and then moving the target again and again. There is a lack of
predictability about what's coming next, and that makes it difficult to come to
work and do our job to the best of our ability.
The fourth and fifth participant declared that the mood of their leader was
unpredictable, with one participant stating, “you never know what side of the bed he is
waking up on. He must stay awake all hours of the night thinking how to mess with his
people the next day.” The sixth participant revealed, “The stress level is not reduced on
the contrary, since everyone does whatever they consider right, the level of stress is high
because employees do not know if they are doing the right or wrong thing.” The seventh
participant stated that their leader is incredibly moody and one never knows what to
expect.
Political games. Three of the 87 participants, whom were all from the education
field, displayed that their leader plays political games within their organization. One
participant revealed how their leader increases their stress levels due to all the mind
games that the leader plays. An additional participant indicated that their leader attempts
to make their employees feel guilty. The subsequent participant explicated,
I feel that his whole purpose is to keep teachers at each other so that he can talk
down or try and make peace to get a good name. I have watched him make snide
comments to other, younger teachers and reduce them to considering if they
should leave or remain at our school.
Lack of communication. Four of 87 participants declared that insufficient
communication held between employees and the leader was found to increase ones stress
levels. Of the four participants, one participant was from the education field, one
120
participant was from the business field, one was from the medical field, and one was
from the “other” field. As one participant explained that their leader did not adequately
communicate the required information, yet still expected the faculty to know.
Furthermore, the additional participant indicated that their leader has yet to develop the
needed skills to decrease the stress levels within the organization. A subsequent
participant stated, “They only come in do their work and rarely talk to anyone unless
asking for people to do things so people fend for their selves.” The last participant
revealed, “They only come in to do their work and rarely talk to anyone, unless asking
people to do things. So people fend for themselves.”
Reasonable time frame. Of the 87 participants, six participants indicated that
their leader gives them adequate time to complete their tasks helped reduce stress. Of the
six participants, four were from the business field, one was from the education field, and
one was from the “other” field. One participant revealed that their leader offers the
employees flexible schedule hours, while another participant stated that they are not
overworked. The third participant explicated, “He will reassure and lessens work load
for unnecessary things.” The fourth participant explained that their leader tries to reduce
stress by, “giving us enough time to do our work . . . ” The last two participants indicated
that they are given adequate time to complete their tasks in a “timely fashion.”
Communication. Of the 87 participants, five participants revealed that their leader
is always available to chat with them to help alleviate the stress they are experiencing.
Of the five participants, two were from education, two were from the medical field, and
one was from the “other” field. The first participant explicated that their leader is very
positive and offers support if their employees need anything. They further stated that
121
their leader will listen to their employees and aid them in any way that they can. The
second participant illustrated that their leader is always present, as well as listens to the
concerns of their employees and helps to reduce the stress levels. The third participant
explained that their leader, “allows me to call them and chat.” The fourth participant
opined that, “My manager/leader is very open and welcome each employee to come into
his office, sit down, and discuss any issues that are causing stress.” The final participant
revealed that their leader, “always asked us to call for any reason to help or listen. Offers
ideas to help.”
Leader causes stress. Of the 87 participants, 21 participants indicated that their
leader does not reduce stress and is the cause of stress within their organization. Of the
21 participants, seven were from the education field, four were from the business field,
four were from the government field, four were from the “other” field, and two were
from the medical field. Of the 21 participants, four participants simply stated that their
leader does not reduce stress, without providing any further detail. In addition, two of the
21 participants revealed that stress is only reduced if their leader is on vacation. As the
first participant stated,
Never reduces stress, unless she is on vacation. When she is there, stress levels
increase dramatically. You can see a difference in the office when she is gone
and when she returns . . . People are relaxed when there is no sight of her, but
when she returns, people are sickened by her presence.
The second participant illustrated,
The only reduction of stress is when she goes on vacation. But when she is there,
everyone has no clue what she will do next to piss off her people. The
122
organization would be a great environment to test the results of Xanax. She
sucked at communication and treating people right . . . Her middle name was
"stress."
An additional participant indicated that their leader increases stress levels as,
“good employees are worked to the bone. Less efficient employees are left alone.” A
subsequent participant revealed that their leader causes increased stress levels, “with
overly honest financial reports that lay the burden of improvement solely at the
employees’ feet.” Moreover, one participant stated that, “high demands and last minute
decisions caused stress” followed by another participant explicating, “he does not reduce
stress, actually increases stress amongst the employees.” Furthermore, one participant
explained, that their leader, “increases in stress for those that want to improve and want
the organization to be seen as consistent” followed by a subsequent participant stating
that their leader causes stress by being, “too anal and takes too long to make decisions.”
One participant additionally revealed that stress was created as their leader continuously
utilizes the same strategy, even when the strategy has proved to be unsuccessful.
Moreover, one participant indicated that their leader increases stress due to, “their lack of
leadership, it’s more like they are telling us what to do.” Furthermore, one participant
opined, “increase in stress: yells when there is a mistake, points fingers. Always
someone to blame.” In addition, one participant explained that their leader is a drama
queen and that, “she creates problems more than she solves it.” Lastly, one participant
illustrated, “He is a walking stressor, which he takes great delight in.”

123
Themes from Survey Question 5: Explain how your leader understands
individual and team dynamics for the organizational culture. If not, please clarify.
The researcher found three themes for the fifth question, and those are (a) the leader
acknowledging strengths and weaknesses of their employees, (b) The leader lacks
comprehending individual and team dynamics, and (c) the leader invests time on each
employee to get a better grasp of how to best build teams (see Table 8).
The leader acknowledging strengths and weaknesses of their employees. Of the
87 participants, five illustrated their leaders acknowledging their employees’ strengths
and weaknesses. Of the five participants, three participants were from the “other” field,
one participant was from the business field, and one participant was from the education
field. The first participant illustrated that their leader comprehends, “each individuals
weaknesses and strengths and puts those individuals with the manager who best work
with that particular individual.” The subsequent participant stated that their leader,
“understands group dynamics and assembles teams based on individual strength and
weaknesses.” The third participant similarly indicated, “She understands that everyone
has their strengths and weaknesses. She believes in departmentalization and will place
teachers in positions they are strong in.” The fourth participant declared that their leader
comprehends their strengths and weaknesses and tries to work with their abilities. The
last participant stated that,
The leader has an assessment of what each individual’s skills are on the squad.
Decent cases, or important cases, are assigned to the individuals who will bring
resolution. Things that are a waste of time, or are unimportant, are assigned to
those who are less focused or not as goal oriented.

124
Table 8
Number of
participants
5 The leader acknowledging “Understands group dynamics and assembles
strengths and weaknesses of teams based on individual strengths and
their employees weaknesses.”
“The leader has an assessment of what each
individual’s skills are on the squad. Decent
cases, or important cases, are assigned to the
individuals who will bring resolution. Things
that are a waste of time, or are unimportant,
are assigned to those who are less focused or
not as goal oriented.”
30 The leader lacks “He does not. He is socially/emotionally
comprehending individual divested from the people who work for him,
and team dynamics and has no understanding of the impact of his
actions.”
“I cannot say she understands individual and
team dynamics. Personnel often feel as if she
were the dictator, making demands and
decisions that others executed.”
“She has no clue of the term of team
dynamics, unless it was a team of plastic
surgeons to make her look better, but that
would not help. She was in her 50s trying to
look in her 20s. Just like her ability to build
an organization and or department . . . on a
scale, she definitely had lower numbers.”
“He doesn’t. He wants to be in constant
control and have things done his way.”
3 The leader invests time on “My leader takes their time to understand
each employee to get a people individually and can fit them and work
better grasp of how to best them well in a group setting. Due to this the
build teams team meshes well and is a well-oiled
machine.”
The leader lacks comprehending individual and team dynamics. Of the 87
participants, 30 participants declared that their leader does not illustrate any leadership or
125
people skills and thus incapable of comprehending individual and team dynamics for the
organizational culture. Of the 30 participants, 11 were from the education field, 6 were
from the business field, 5 were from the “other” field, 3 were from the medical field, 3
were from the government field, and 2 were from the social services field. The first
participant indicated that their leader does not display any form of understanding
pertaining to individual and team dynamics and as further illustrated, “nor does she
illustrate that she cares for that matter.” Both second and third participants shared similar
experiences as they both stated that teams are non-existent and that the leader does not
like any employee speaking to one another. The fourth participant had explicated that,
There is none . . . the only time there is a team spirit is when she is gone. We
always pray that she has meetings away from the office so we can get things done.
Although she has no clue to any dynamics, people come together when she is
gone to get things done. We come together as a team to vent and try to get things
accomplished.
The fifth participant shared that, “He does not. He is socially/emotionally
divested from the people who work for him, and has no understanding of the impact of
his actions.” The sixth participant stated that, “She considers her team of favorites is an
inside circle and separates everybody else to be on their own.” The seventh participant
indicated,
He understands it as we train others on team dynamics, but when it comes to our
division, no way. He does not preach what he teaches. The team I belong to does
because we care, he does not care. He is such a hypocrite.

126
The eighth participant explained, “I cannot say she understands individual and
team dynamics. Personnel often felt as if she were the dictator, making demands and
decisions that others executed.” The ninth participant proclaimed that their leader does
not do anything in regards to individual and team dynamics, rather he relies on his
administrative team to take care of it. The 10th participant described that their leader
does not introduce employees to one another, therefore making it difficult to be a team.
The 11th participant explicated,
The understanding of team dynamics is not the issue, the issue would be how to
best use those in your employ and use the abilities of those to further the
command versus go against the grain and plug in those who are lacking but nice.
The 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th participants indicated that their leader does not
comprehend individual and team dynamics, however did not explain themselves in
further detail. The 16th participant revealed that their leader, “Wants everyone to be a
"yes" response. It is more important that the people in his organization want to have
drinks together and socialize than be productive.” The 17th participant explained that
their leader, “does not understand, manages by insults.” The 18th participant stated that
their leader does not understand and that the leader, “lacks people skills and leadership
skills.” The 19th participant explicated,
She has no clue to the term of team dynamics, unless it was a team of plastic
surgeons to make her look better, but that would not help. She was in her 50s
trying to look in her 20s. Just like her ability to build an organization and or
department . . . on a scale, she definitely had lower numbers.

127
The 20th participant indicated that they did not feel as the leader demonstrated
any understanding of dynamics, as they never discuss it with their employees. The 21st
participant revealed, “Managers do not want to be bothered by employees and for this
reason they let them create their own rules. So, there is not an organizational culture.”
Similarly, the 22nd participant revealed that their leader does not care to know anyone,
nor tries to communicate with anyone either. The 23rd participant illustrated, “I don't
think he understands what a team means. He has everyone do separate work and then
just expects them to work together and help out.” The 24th participant opined, “He sees
it as a chance for him to attack different people from different cultures.”
The 25th participant stated, “She wants to please every associate, which doesn’t
show much leadership.” The 26th participant indicated that their leader only focuses on
their favorite employees who, “kiss her ass.” The 27th participant explicated, “She does
not understand the dynamics and it is all about her.” The 28th participant stated, “Leader
does not understand dynamics as does not fully grasp the sheer volume of work to worker
ratio. Also, will not listen when team conflicts border on hostility.” The 29th participant
claimed, “I believe he understands these concepts very well, it is simply not in his nature
to work together for the improvement of the organization nor for the benefit of society.”
The last participant explicated, “He doesn’t. He wants to be in constant control and have
things done his way.”
The leader invests time on each employee to get a better grasp of how to best
build teams. Of the 87 participants, three participants explicated that their leader invests
their time on getting to know each individual, therefore making a sound decision in
allocating the person in the proper team. Of the four participants, three participants were
128
from the “other” field and one was from the business field. The first participant indicated
that their leader speaks to their employees, one to one and takes the necessary time to
comprehend the employees’ perspectives. Similarly, the second participant opined that,
“My leader takes their time to understand people individually and can fit them and work
them well in a group setting. Due to this the team meshes well and is a well-oiled
machine.” The third participant stated that their leader conducts “leverage assessments”
as well as “one on one meetings” to adequately comprehend the employees.
Furthermore, the leader, “hosts sub-team meetings.”
Themes from Survey Question 6: How does the leader create an environment
of communication and collaboration? If not please clarify. The researcher discovered
four themes for the sixth question, and those are (a) open door policy, (b) emails, (c)
meetings, and (d) ineffective at creating a conducive environment for communication and
collaboration (see Table 9).
Open door policy. Ten out of 87 participants indicated that their leader utilized
the open door policy. Of the 10 participants, 4 were from the field of “other,” 3 were
from the education field, 2 were from the medical field, and one was from the business
field. One participant stated, “Has an open door policy, however that sometimes can take
the authority away from management trying to apply their positions of authority as best
as they can to the underlying advisors/ sales team.” The other six participants illustrated
their leaders open door allowed for open communication and sharing of thoughts.
Emails. Ten out of 87 participants revealed that their leader utilized emails to
create an environment of communication and collaboration. Of the ten participants, six
were from the education field, one was from the medical field, one was from the business
129
field, one was from the social services field, and one was from the government field. Of
the ten participants, two explicated that the utilization of emails is the primary method in
which their leader communicates and delegates to and among their employees. A
subsequent participant stated that emails are utilized in the form of a memorandum,
which tends to be delivered on Friday afternoons. The remaining participants did not
provide any in depth information about the utilization of emails.
Table 9
Number of
participants
10 Open door policy “Has an open door policy, however that sometimes
can take the authority away from management
trying to apply their positions of authority as best
as they can to the underlying advisors/ sales team.”
10 Emails “Communication is completed via email in the
form of a memorandum which is normally
distributed on a Friday afternoon if negative and
any day if positive.”
“Relies heavily on emails.”
16 Meetings “Holds meetings which he heads while often
missing them, or requiring people to work through
them.”
“Communication is done in person during monthly
meetings.”
30 Ineffective at “We are not involved in a lot of the
creating a communication or decision making which has a
conducive direct impact on us and it could be improved.”
environment for “They really don’t encourage communication, and
communication and when it is done it can be either shot down or
collaboration ignored.”
Meetings. Sixteen out of 87 participants illustrated meetings as a form of creating
an environment of communication. Of the sixteen participants, nine were from the field
130
of education, three were from the business field, two were from the “other” field, one was
from the government field, and one was from the social services field. Of the sixteen
participants, seven illustrated the frequency of the meetings, as two illustrated daily
meetings, three participants stated they are held monthly, whereas the other participant
indicated that they are held bi-weekly and the last participant stated they are held weekly.
Of the sixteen participants, eight associated the meetings with a positive regard, whereas
two participants did not seem as positive about the meetings, as one participant stated,
“Holds meetings which he heads while often missing them, or requiring people work
through them.” The subsequent participant indicated, “Meetings are all about the office
and not about us.”
Ineffective at creating a conducive environment for communication and
collaboration. Based on the 87 participants, 30 participants indicated that their leader
does not create an environment of communication and collaboration. Of the 30
participants, 12 participants were from the education field, 7 participants were from the
business field, 4 participants were from the government field, 3 participants were from
the social services field, 2 participants were from the medical field and 2 participants
were from the “other” field. One participant stated that their leader, “does not like
teachers talking to one another” and a subsequent participant further added that, “the
employees collaborate among themselves with communication when needed.”
Moreover, one participant opined, “She creates an environment of disgruntled
employees.” An additional participant explicated that, “we are not involved in a lot of
the communication or decision making which has a direct impact on us and it could be
improved.” Moreover, one participant stated, “They preach team work and never follow
131
through..” In addition, one participant explicated, “They really don't encourage
communication and collaboration, and when it is done it can be either shot down or
ignored.”
Furthermore, one participant revealed a disturbing response when they opined,
“he does not create an environment, he makes everyone work against each other.”
Moreover, participants further declared their leader not having the ability of creating an
environment of communication and collaboration by stating that, “there are no meetings
at all” while another participant indicated that their meetings are, “so few and far between
that it does not ensure that we talk with each other and work our details . . . ”
An additional participant was highly dissatisfied with their leader as they
explained, “There is no environment of collaboration. She makes decisions and expects
others to execute them. Communication consisted of decisions she made that were then
shared. There was no true collaboration among the entire staff.” This was followed by a
participant explicating, “Sure, only if it is him pointing fingers and threatening to write us
up. The communication is demeaning. But definitely NO communication and
collaboration for anything positive.” Moreover, two participants illustrated grief when
they explained that, “No communication as I stated earlier as she is very controlling of
who we speak to. No collaboration as communication is to encourage collaboration, as a
result = no communication = no collaboration. This ultimately leads to no team.” This,
was then followed by the second participant stating,
He doesn't. Communication comes in spurts and through rumor and innuendo.
Nobody knows what's next, and groups within the organization do their best to
'duck and cover' to avoid working with others and putting themselves at risk of
132
being called out.
An additional participant revealed, “Maybe in the beginning, but it soon falls
apart.” A subsequent participant stated that there is no communication and that the leader
does not talk to any of the employees, rather ignores people. It was further revealed by
one participant that there could be, “more communication from the supervisor to the
team” as it employees would be less paranoid. One participant also illustrated,
She would need an elementary school student to help her spell the words
communication and collaboration. The closest she could be to these words is the
letter "C" for the "C" word if you know what I mean. The only communication
she would have is to demand us what to do . . . do it, do it, don't ask questions,
just do it. Maybe she liked Nike and that companies logo and statement. Ha
Moreover, one participant revealed,
He actually causes discord and discontentment throughout the ranks by informing
one group of his concerns and/or opinions while informing another group of the
exact opposite. There is only one area that he does not do this with and that is the
law wherein there is little or no room for interpretation.
The final three participants revealed their leader got “moved to other
responsibilities” due to not creating any environment for communication and
collaboration and the subsequent participant stated that there is minimal communication,
followed by, “you do your job and you’re lucky if you get to hear the leader at all.” The
last participant stated, “There is none. They don’t really talk to the employees. Ignores
people.”
Themes throughout the survey questions. The researcher discovered the

133
following 5 themes throughout the survey questions, (a) control of employees speaking to
one another, (b) demanding leaders, (c) leaders gender, (d) bullying, and (e) participant
failing to comprehend survey question (see Table 10).
Table 10
Identified Themes Throughout The Survey on Toxic Leadership
Number of
Theme identified Participants’ quotes
participants
5 Control of “Very controlling of who we speak to.”
employees
speaking to one
another
3 Demanding leaders “No motivation, just orders, higher ups pressure to
produce.”
53 Leaders gender “He normally does ask for input.”
5 Bullying “The demands are realistic for the job to help other
police officers for their specific responsibilities,
but not so much in our division as it is more of a
bully format. It is not positive for us, but we make
it positive for others as we tune him out and get to
work for ourselves and others.”
9 Participants failing “She just does her door.”
to comprehend
survey questions
Control of employees speaking to one another. Within Questions 3, 5, and 6,
there were five participants that illustrated that their leader is controlling in regards to
when they communicate with their colleagues. In regards to question 3, one participant
stated that they are not even permitted to talk with specific individuals within the
department or organization without asking the leaders permission first. The participant
further stated, “Very controlling as I am sure she doesn't want people talking about her,
which they do, because she is so terrible and actually, she brings it upon herself.” In
134
Question 5, there were two participants who stated that their leader does not have teams
nor does not like them and further explicated that they are watched over when speaking
to their coworkers. Lastly, within question 6, there were two participants that also stated,
the same; as one explained that “he does not like teachers talking to one another.” This
was followed by the subsequent participant indicating that their leader is, “very
controlling of who we speak to.”
Demanding leaders. Within Questions 2 and 5, there are three participants who
illustrated their leader as being demanding. In Question 2, there were two participants
that indicated this, as the first participant stated, “No motivation, just orders, higher ups
pressure to produce.” The second participant stated, “There is absolutely no motivation,
just demands.” For Question 5, one participant further included that, “Personnel often
feel as if she were the dictator, making demands and decisions that others executed.”
Leaders gender. Throughout all 6 open-ended survey questions, 53 out of 87
participants revealed the gender of their leader, with 23 of the leaders being female and
30 being male.
Bullying. Of the 87 participants, five indicated within questions one, two, five,
and six that their leader creates a bullying environment or behaves as a bully. In question
one, one participant explicated that,
The demands are realistic for the job to help other police officers for their specific
responsibilities, but not so much in our division as it is more of a bully format. It
is not positive for us, but we make it positive for others as we tune him out and
get to work for ourselves, and others.
In question two, two participants also illustrated their leader behaving as a bully,
135
as the first participant indicated that their leader does not motivate them to produce a
positive image and explained that, “When your leader seems to be the bully within your
organization, and takes the side of those who are causing havoc within your department,
there is no way that I feel motivated by her . . . ” This was followed by the second
participant revealing that their leader bullies individuals to, “get them to do what she
thinks is right.” In question five, one participant explicated that, “My leader does not
understand, manages by insults.” Lastly, in question six, one participant stated, “Sure,
only if it is him, pointing fingers and threatening to write us up. The communication is
demeaning.”
Participants failing to comprehend survey question. Throughout all questions,
nine participants failed to comprehend the questions asked and therefore inadequately
answered the questions. Two participants answered with the letters “l” and “s” for
questions one through six. For question one when asked, how realistic are the demands
and expectations of your leader to create a productive and positive work environment?
One participant replied with, “It's a tall task when one of the responsibilities of leader(s)
is to change culture . . . it takes time, consistency, and attention, but it's it can happen and
is a realistic long term outcome.” For question three when asked explain how your leader
informs all personnel regarding organizational change. If not, please clarify. One
participant indicated that, “ by bringing my name up to others in leadership.”
For question four when asked, how does the leader help reduce stress or cause an
increase in stress levels within the organization? One participant stated, “Great
leadership is an example to follow which reduces stress and uncertainty. A poor leader
will increase stress as there isn't a specific target to strive for.” An additional participant
136
replied by stating, “Great question, I think a great stress reduction is communicating the
direction of the company.” For question five when asked, explain how your leader
understands individual and team dynamics for the organizational culture. If not, please
clarify. One participant revealed, “She just does her door” followed by the subsequent
participant stating,
A good leader examines individual strengths and leverages them in a group
setting which the sum of the parts makes a whole that's for the good of everyone.
When a good leader does this and enables all individuals to see how their
organizational fight is their fight as well.
Lastly, when asked, how does the leader create an environment of communication
and collaboration? If not, please clarify. One participant explicated, “My boss doesn't
have much of an ego when dealing with collaboration.”
Mixed Methods Analysis
As the researcher utilized a mixed methods approach to conducting the study,
which illustrates the correlation of narcissistic and toxic characteristics and elements of
power and the quality of one’s organizational climate, a mixed methods analysis was
included. Therefore, the analyses were comprised of the results of the quantitative and
qualitative analyses. Furthermore, this analysis was directed by the mixed method
research question: How does the qualitative data add further meaning to the quantitative
data regarding the culture of an organization?
The quantitative data results based on running Spearman rho revealed that
narcissistic and toxic characteristics, as well as elements of power, were all negatively
correlated with quality of organizational climate, but the correlations were weak. Results
137
further revealed that when running data separately for importance and satisfaction, that
there was a weak, positive correlation between narcissism and importance, which was not
significant, a very weak positive correlation between toxic characteristics and
importance, and lastly, a very weak positive correlation between elements of power and
importance. Whereas satisfaction illustrated a moderate and statistically significant
negative correlation with narcissistic characteristics, a moderate and statistically
significant negative correlation with toxic characteristics, and a strong negative
correlation with elements of power, meaning that when employees indicated that their
leaders had high levels of these characteristics (narcissism, toxic leadership, and elements
of control), they reported lower satisfaction in the workplace. The qualitative data
indicated that participants had mixed feelings in regards to their perceptions of their
leaders, as of the 35 themes discovered, 11 themes were deemed as participants viewing
their leaders in a positive light, and the remaining themes were illustrated in a neutral or
negative light.
The mixed methods analysis results are organized into three categories that
encapsulate the correlations. Therefore, narcissistic and toxic characteristics, and the
elements of power, and the perceived quality of the organizational climate will be
discussed first. This will be followed by the narcissistic and toxic characteristics, the
elements of power, and the importance of the quality of the organizational climate.
Lastly, the narcissistic and toxic characteristics and the elements of power and the
satisfaction of the quality of the organizational climate will be discussed.
Narcissistic and toxic characteristics, elements of power and perceived
quality of the organizational climate. The results displayed for narcissistic

138
characteristics and the perceived quality of the organizational climate suggested that,
although weak, a leader’s narcissistic characteristics were negatively associated with the
perceived quality of an organization’s climate overall. Results further indicated that there
was a weak negative correlation between toxic characteristics and perceived quality of
the organizational climate and results also revealed a weak, negative correlation between
elements of power and perceived quality of the organizational climate. These results
were supported by the qualitative analysis as participants expressed their dissatisfaction
with their leaders, as their leaders had unattainable goals for them and also created an
unproductive work environment. It was also indicated that the leaders caused an increase
in stress levels within the organization for the participants as they complained about
micromanaging, favoritism, unpredictability, lack of communication, and political games.
Furthermore, participants indicated that their leaders were controlling and demanding of
them and illustrated that their leader took charge of whom they were allowed to
communicate with within their organization. Lastly, participants discussed their leaders
bullying them, which is a problem as it caused a lack of motivation as well as one to
work in fear.
Narcissistic and toxic characteristics, elements of power and the importance
of the organizational climate. Results illustrated a weak, positive correlation between
narcissistic characteristics and importance and a very weak positive correlation between
toxic characteristics and importance. Lastly, there was also a very weak positive
correlation between elements of power and importance. These results were supported by
some of the qualitative data as participants shared that their leaders were realistic with
their demands and expectations of them at work. Some participants even added that their
139
leader is encouraging and that employees are “expected to perform as trained.” It was
further revealed that participants were content with their leaders as they received bonuses
from them as a means to motivate them to produce a positive image.
The utilization of proper communication via frequent emails and meetings to
inform employees of organizational change further appeased participants, as one
participant claimed that creating a paper trail for easy access was appreciated. Meetings
were also favorable as they made room for discussion on how changes were to unfold. In
addition, participants appreciated their leaders allotting adequate time to complete their
tasks as it reduced their stress levels they were experiencing at work. Moreover, the
participants explicated that their leaders acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses of
their employees as well as investing time in each employee to help comprehend
individual and team dynamics for the organizational culture, with one participant stating
that leverage assessments are conducted in addition to one on one meetings. Lastly,
leaders implementing the open door policy to produce an environment of communication
and collaboration also allowed participants to view their leaders as a positive force within
the organization.
Narcissistic and toxic characteristics, elements of power and the satisfaction
of the organizational climate. Results indicated a moderate, negative correlation
between narcissistic characteristics and satisfaction, a moderate negative correlation
between toxic characteristics and satisfaction, and a strong negative correlation between
elements of power and satisfaction. Qualitative data supported the quantitative data as
participants explicated that their leaders’ demands and expectations were unrealistic and
therefore not creating a productive and positive work environment. Some participants
140
illustrated that their leaders expect so much from them, yet the leaders themselves do not
attempt to do any work, while others revealed that the demands and expectations required
to be differentiated based on the level that the educators were teaching. Moreover,
participants indicated their frustration with the lack of or no motivation from their leader
as one participant claimed that their leader only has demands. Phrases such as “just
orders-higher ups pressure to produce,” “top down directives that change from day to
day,” and “the leader is mostly concerned with their own image” were commonly stated
by participants.
Participants also demonstrated concern as their leaders kept them in the dark
regarding the organizational change. This was illustrated as several participants stated
that information always comes as a surprise or that they are informed of the changes late
all the time. Furthermore, participants revealed that their leader caused and increased
stress within their workplace as some participants stated that the only time their leader
reduces stress is if they are on vacation. It also was not uncommon for participants to
make statements such as their leader behaving unprofessionally by yelling at them or
pointing fingers. In addition, many participants declared that their leader lacked
comprehension of individual and team dynamics, with phrases such as, “He is socially/
emotionally divested from the people who work for him” and how the leader wants to be
in total control and have things done their way. Lastly, participants disapproved of their
leader being ineffective at creating a conducive environment for communication and
collaboration.
141
Additional Data Analysis
Based on the literature review, one’s gender and age had an effect on one’s
perception of the leaders’ level of narcissism and or toxicity. For those reasons, the
researcher chose to run additional data analyses utilizing the Mann Whitney U test to
compare the participants’ gender, and the Kruskal-Wallis Test to compare the
participants’ age.
Gender. H0: There will be no significant differences between males and females’
perception of narcissistic characteristics, toxic characteristics and elements of power. Ha :
There is a difference between males and females’ perception of narcissistic
characteristics, toxic characteristics and elements of power. The Mann Whitney U test
revealed no significant differences between males (Mrank = 43.82) and females’ (Mrank =
44.17) perception of narcissistic characteristics (Z= -.07, p = .95), toxic characteristics (Z
= -.84, = .40; Mrank = 46.32 and Mrank = 41.83, for males and females, respectively) and
elements of power (Z = -.68, =.50; Mrank = 45.88 and Mrank = 42.24, for males and
females, respectively). Consequently, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis
for gender.
Age. Ho: Age has no effect on participants’ perceptions; Ha: Age has an effect on
participants’ perceptions. A Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of ranks revealed that the
participants’ age had no significant effect in regards to perception of their leader’s level
of narcissistic X2(4) = 2.84, p = .60 and toxic characteristics X2(4) = 3.17, p =.53 as well
as elements of power X2(4)= 1.24, p = .87. Consequently, the researcher failed to reject
the null hypothesis for age.

142
Chapter Summary
In Chapter 4 the researcher analyzed the quantitative data, which consisted of the
Likert scale questions with the researcher’s survey and the qualitative data, which was
comprised of six open-ended survey questions. Therefore a summary of the quantitative
analysis results, which included descriptive analyses, and Spearman’s rho test results as
well as the qualitative analysis results, which consisted of the themes discovered; and
lastly the mixed methods analysis results which illustrated the relationship between the
participants’ age and gender to narcissistic and toxic characteristics, elements of power
and the perceived quality of an organizational climate. The participant protocol, as well
as the demographic background of respondents, was also included.

143
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Overview
This mixed methods study, with an embedded-correlational approach, examined
how narcissistic characteristics of leaders, toxic leadership characteristics, and power are
related to the climate of an organization. The researcher’s literature review was
comprised of observing the various forms of leadership, therefore beginning with the
common styles of transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, and charismatic. The
subsequent leadership style examined was toxic leadership, which then was followed by
narcissistic leadership. The researcher delved into the relationship between narcissism
and counterproductive work behavior, and this opened the door for narcissistic leaders
and job satisfaction to be explored. Lastly, organizational structure, toxic culture, and
power were examined.
Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the researcher did not have a study site and
utilized snowball sampling as a method of attaining participants. The instruments
utilized in the study to collect data consisted of the TSTL and the ECQIS survey. In
addition, the study comprised of three quantitative, two qualitative, and one mixed
methods research questions. The researcher made their survey available from July to
October 2017 and began analyzing data in October. Quantitative data were analyzed
utilizing non-parametric statistics, and more specifically by running the Spearman rho
test. Whereas, the qualitative data was analyzed via coding and discovering themes.
This chapter illustrates a summary of the study, in addition to the anticipated
outcomes and the implications of the findings. This chapter further delved into the
144
limitations of the study, delimitations of the study, relevance of the study, suggested
research, and a conclusion.
Anticipated Outcomes
It was anticipated that this study would aid both employees and proactive leaders
within all fields by improving the organizational climate based on the leaders’ leadership
style. The employees would have a better grasp and understanding of what
characteristics to look out for in their leader and determine whether it is in their interest to
continue being employed by that organization. Moreover, proactive leaders could take a
stand and determine if their leadership style is the cause of their current organizational
climate and the changes that will be required to improve the workplace environment,
which in turn will improve the organization’s success.
As the researcher was employed in both the public and private sector of the
education field, in addition to having colleagues and friends working in that field, the
researcher not only had numerous negative experiences with their leaders within that field
but also has heard numerous stories told by friends and colleagues. That stated, the
researcher anticipated that there would be a strong correlation of narcissistic, toxic, and
power of control characteristics within one’s leader, that is associated with a negative
organizational climate. Furthermore, the researcher also anticipated to observe the same
results for the other fields studied, as the literature in Chapter 2 indicates that narcissistic
and toxic leadership was found in the fields of (a) business, (b) social services, (c) health,
(d) education, and the (f) political field.
In addition to what research suggests about narcissistic leaders and toxic
workplace environments within all fields, the researcher has exchanged conversations
145
with various individuals from different fields about their leaders and the experiences they
have had with them. The researcher had concluded that narcissistic and toxic leadership
does not discriminate against any one particular field and that a plethora of individuals
have experienced an abundance of grief within their organization due to their leader and
their narcissistic tendencies. Moreover, the researcher anticipated that the quantitative
data would be positively associated with the qualitative data. Therefore, the researcher
also anticipated that the themes that were going to be discovered would pertain to topics
such as poor communication, work related stress, and negative work environment. It was
also anticipated that there was going to be a high frequency of themes that pertain to
perceived narcissistic and toxic characteristics of leaders, as power of control, in addition
to themes pertaining to negative organizational climate.
Interpretation of the Study and Context of Findings
Results within the quantitative portion of the study illustrated that personal
importance of various aspects of the workplace environment was not significant in
relationship to narcissistic characteristics, toxic characteristics, and elements of power. It
can be argued that importance being indicated as insignificant makes sense, as the
characteristics of a positive climate may not be all that important in comparison to one’s
level of satisfaction. However, it is also crucial to note that satisfaction, which is a
portion of the overall perceived quality score, deemed to be negatively correlated with
narcissistic and toxic characteristics and elements of power. Stainback and Stainback
(1988) indicated that qualitative researchers rarely affirm that their reports are completely
unbiased. Therefore, they attempt to let their audience know what their views and biases
were, in addition to the method of collecting and analyzing data, to let the audience judge
146
for themselves the possible practicality of the findings. Furthermore, it is essential that
the researcher inform the audience of unanticipated findings or themes that were derived
from the data and report various evidence to support claims or interpretations illustrated
(Stainback & Stainback, 1988). The researcher discovered 35 themes throughout the six
open-ended questions, of which 21 themes were deemed as low frequency, and 14 themes
were viewed as high frequency. The researcher believes in the importance of discussing
and exploring the low frequency themes’ as they were equally pertinent to the study. The
researcher further believes that due to the nature of the study, that some participants
feared to reveal some or even any negativity and hence the low frequency of some
themes. The following selected themes discussed were themes, which the researcher felt
were critical to the study and therefore crucial to discuss. The interpretations within
Chapter 5 are based on the participants’ responses. The subsequent section will pertain to
the research questions in this study.
characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational climate? The
results attained via running the Spearman rho indicated that there was a negative
correlation between narcissistic leadership and perceived quality; however, the
correlation was very weak. Therefore, the increased presence of narcissistic
characteristics decreased the participants’ perceived quality of their organization’s
climate. The researcher was not expecting a very weak correlation between these two
variables; however, believes that the possibility that participants may have had a
misperception of their leaders, should not be overlooked. This concept was made evident
in a study conducted by Ong et al. (2016) where participants’ perceptions of their leaders
147
changed over time, where they were initially rated lower on the narcissism scale, to
eventually being negatively perceived as time progressed.
Results further revealed a weak, positive correlation between narcissistic
characteristics and importance, which was not significant and a moderate, negative
correlation between narcissistic characteristics and satisfaction. Therefore, as the
presence of narcissistic characteristics of a participants’ leader increased, so did the
participants’ perception of the importance of one’s organizational climate. Whereas, the
increased presence of narcissistic characteristics of one’s leader, decreased the
participants’ perceptions of satisfaction of their organizational climate. It has been
indicated through research that there are various forms of narcissism, including overt and
covert narcissism, as well as grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, of which both have
demonstrated effects on the leaders performance (Luchner et al., 2011; Watts et al.,
2013). It was additionally indicated by Meurs et al. (2013) that narcissism was
negatively associated with organizational constraints. The researcher strongly believes
that although a positive correlation was found between narcissism and importance, that
there was a multitude of unexpected factors that could have come into play. These
additional factors will be further discussed within the qualitative research questions.
leadership characteristics and the perceived quality of an organizational climate? Results
of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a weak, negative correlation between toxic
characteristics and perceived quality. That stated, as the presence of toxic characteristics
of a participants’ leader increased, the participants’ perception of the perceived quality of
one’s organizational climate decreased. The researcher determined that participants

148
could have fallen into two possible categories that would illustrate the weak, negative
correlation, and that is conformers and colluders. According to Chua and Murray (2015),
followers of toxic leaders can be conformers, who are individuals who believe that they
are supposed to be mistreated by their leaders, whereas colluders are those individuals
who thrive in the toxic environment that a toxic leader creates. Therefore, one’s belief of
how a leader is to behave and treat their employees within one’s organization can
potentially be the cause of the researcher’s results.
Furthermore, results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a very weak
positive correlation between toxic characteristics and importance, and a moderate
negative correlation between toxic characteristics and satisfaction. Therefore, as the
presence of toxic characteristics of a participants’ leader increased, so did the participants
perception of the importance of one’s organizational climate. Whereas, the increased
presence of toxic characteristics of one’s leader, decreased the participants’ perceptions
of satisfaction of their organizational climate. It was again illustrated that there was not
much significance in regards to the importance of one’s organizational climate and it is
essential to comprehend that this could signify a myriad of things. Although there is
currently limited research on toxic leadership, a study conducted by Pelletier (2012)
revealed that favoritism plays a factor in one's perception of their leader, where those
who are favored perceive their leaders to be less toxic than those who are not favored.
organizational climate? Results of the Spearman rho correlation revealed a weak,
negative correlation between elements of power and perceived quality. That said, as the
149
presence of elements of power of a participant’s leader increased, the participants’
perception of the perceived quality of one’s organizational climate decreased. Results of
the Spearman rho correlation also revealed a very weak positive correlation between
elements of power and importance. That indicated, as the presence of elements of power
of a participants’ leader increased, so did the participants perception of the importance of
one’s organizational climate. Literature has indicated that the form of power that one's
leader possesses will determine the employee's productivity level and ultimately will
affect the organization. That stated as results indicated a weak negative correlation as
well as a very weak positive correlation between perceived quality and importance, it is
essential to explore the possible causes. Lee-Chai and Bargh (2001) opined that
employees favor soft base powers, which in turn results in greater positive outcomes,
whereas harsh base powers are least favored and may result in negative outcomes. These
soft base powers consist of (a) expert, (b) referent, (c) informational power, and (d)
legitimacy of dependence (Mittal & Elias, 2016; Norbom & Lopez, 2016; Pierro et al.,
2013). It is also crucial to note that soft base powers also entail that employees have
more freedom. That stated, being given the opportunity to be more creative and
implement one’s knowledge and expertise for the better of the organization, would
produce far more content and productive employees.
Lastly, results demonstrated a strong negative correlation between elements of
power and satisfaction, which proved to be the researcher’s strongest correlation within
the study. Therefore, the increased presence of elements of power of one’s leader,
decreased the participants’ perceptions of satisfaction of their organizational climate. As
previously mentioned, there are two categories of power, and the harsh base powers have
150
proven to produce negative outcomes. These harsh base powers comprise of (a)
coercion, (b) reward, (c) legitimacy of position, (d) equity, and (e) reciprocity (Mittal &
Elias, 2016; Norbom & Lopez, 2016; Pierro et al., 2013). Also, employees who are
exposed to harsh base powers have limited freedom. Interestingly enough, Lee-Chai and
Bargh (2001) illustrated that leaders who utilize harsh base powers are those who do not
display confidence. French and Raven (1959) indicated that leaders who utilize soft base
powers yield greater rates of compliance among their employees, and there are also
higher rates of job satisfaction among employees.
Qualitative Research Question 1. The researcher discovered 23 themes that
pertain to this research question, of which 15 themes were low frequency and 8 themes
were high frequency. It was observed that in regards to the realism of demands and
expectations of one’s leader to create a productive and positive work environment, that,
seven participants felt that their leader had unattainable goals. The researcher felt it was
interesting to observe that of these seven participants, six came from the field of
education, as it is the field of education, more specifically the public school system,
which has been experiencing a plethora of issues, from teacher shortages to pay cuts and
even benefit losses. It was also discouraging to observe two participants who stated that
they lacked the resources to teach their students adequately. This is further illustrated in
the study conducted by Mahlangu (2014) who revealed the adverse effects that toxic
leadership has within the education system, which included dictatorship by the principal
and an inadequate amount of resources.
Although few, three participants indicated that their work environment was
unproductive, and again two of these participants were from the education field. It was
151
made evident through the answers that due to the leaders’ inability to create a positive
work environment, that the participants no longer had any motivation or drive, and
therefore failed to produce to the best of their ability. The researcher’s review of the
literature indicated that narcissism was associated and had a negative influence on job
satisfaction in addition to illustrating that a negative correlation was evident with toxic
leadership behaviors and job satisfaction in addition to job commitment (Mathieu, 2013;
Mehta & Maheshwari’s, 2013). Literature based off of O’Boyle et al. (2012) and
Grijalva and Newman (2015) also indicated that there was a high correlation between
narcissism and counterproductive work behavior.
An additional low frequency theme was the productive environment that was
created by employees themselves, in which four participants from various fields took it
upon themselves to create an environment, which promoted productivity. The
participants illustrated the importance of creating a positive environment despite the
negativity they were experiencing from their leader. The positive environment that was
created by the participants themselves allowed them to attain the desired results within
their organization. The researcher found it interesting to discover a close to equal amount
of participants illustrating both realistic and unrealistic demands and expectations from
their leader, of which both were high frequency themes. The fields that the participants
were a part of also were similar in number.
How one’s leader motivates an individual to produce a positive image yielded two
high themes of self-motivation, which was comprised of 11 participants and lack of
motivation with 22 participants. Participants opined that their leader did not do anything
to motivate them to create a positive image and therefore the need to motivate themselves
152
to produce a positive image or to be intrinsically motivated to do so. In regards to
participants indicating that there was a lack of motivation, most explicated that their
leader was more concerned about their image, as well as referring to their leader as being
arrogant or a bully, therefore failing to motivate their employees to produce a positive
image for the organization. A study conducted by Chua and Murray (2015) illustrated
that participants within their study perceived their leader to be toxic and furthermore,
were viewed as not encouraging nor motivating. A leader informing all employees
regarding organizational change revealed high frequency themes, such as (a) being kept
in the dark, (b) emails, and (c) meetings. When participants referred to being left in the
dark, they discussed feelings of frustration, as leaders failed to give them timely
notifications, were inconsistent with notifications or absolutely no notifications of
change. The researcher also surprisingly discovered themes of emails and meetings as a
means of leaders informing change to their employees. Participants stated various
frequencies of meetings from daily to monthly which appeared to aid them in being
aware of the organization’s changes, followed by participants revealing the importance of
paper trail that their leader created via emails to illustrate changes made within their
organizations.
The researcher discovered a plethora of low frequency themes that pertained to
how a leader helps in reducing stress or creating an increase in stress levels within an
organization that was deemed to be critical to the study. The low frequency themes
included, (a) micromanaging, (b) explicative words when referring to their leader, (c)
favoritism, (d) unpredictability, (e) political games, and (f) lack of communication. In
regards to favoritism, a study conducted by Pelletier (2012) revealed that participants

153
who are considered the out groups within an organization and therefore less favored, will
perceive their leader to have greater levels of toxicity in comparison to those who are
favored by their leader. The researcher’s participants opined that the utilization of
favoritism versus merit for lateral transfers and promotions created an increase of stress.
When pertaining to micromanaging, Green’s (2014) study illustrated that a plethora of
participants revealed that they perceived their leader as toxic and demonstrated
controlling and micromanaging behaviors.
The researcher further found a high frequency theme of leader causes stress
where there was not one common theme; however, the theme in itself was that the leader
was responsible for causing stress in a myriad of ways. That stated, participants
explicated the lack of being treated properly by their leaders by having high demands,
being too anal, lacking leadership and utilizing previously failed procedures as methods
of how their leader created an increase of stress.
Qualitative Research Question 2. A total of six themes were found that related
to the second qualitative research question. Of which 4 were high frequency themes and
2 were low frequency themes. Participants revealed how their leaders understood or
failed to understand individual and team dynamics for the organizational culture. Low
frequency themes included, (a) the leader acknowledging strengths and weaknesses of
their employees, and (b) the leader invests time on each employee to get a better grasp of
how to best build teams. However, unsurprisingly, the researcher also found a high
frequency theme of leaders lacking to comprehend individual and team dynamics. The
participants discussed how teams are non-existent in their organization or that team spirit
is only evident when the leader is gone.

154
It was further illustrated by one participant that the leader is socially and
emotionally divested of their employees. Phrases such as (a) the leader does not care, (b)
the leader is a dictator, (c) wants everyone to be a yes response, (d) manages by insult, (e)
lacks people skills, and (f) it is all about the leader, were common for this theme. In
regards to lacking people skills, a study conducted by Smith (2000) indicated that
dysfunctional organizational cultures are a result of leaders illustrating poor people skills.
Grijalva et al. (2015) opined that a narcissistic individual is one who is arrogant,
manipulative, and exploitative. It was additionally stated that a narcissistic person has an
exaggerated sense of self- importance, requires an abundance of admiration, lacks
empathy, have a fragile self- concept of their influence on others, and have a sense of
entitlement (Grijalva et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2015; Wales et al., 2013).
Participants further explicated how their leader created or failed to create an
environment of communication and collaboration, which one main and critical high
frequency theme discovered, was the leaders being ineffective at creating a conducive
environment for communication and collaboration. The participants demonstrated that
leaders do not involve them in decision making, that their decisions are ignored, or that
they are discouraged from communicating with their colleagues. It was further revealed
that any communication that was had between leaders and employees was demeaning.
Balthazard et al. (2006) indicated that constructive cultural norms are positively and
highly associated with participants demonstrating, (a) role clarity, (b) job satisfaction, and
(c) quality of communication within organizations. However, the researcher’s
participants experienced differently.

155
Additional themes. The researcher discovered themes throughout the survey
questions and believes these are critical to discuss as they exemplify characteristics that
can be found in narcissistic and toxic leaders, as well as leaders that illustrate power of
control. Most of the themes found were low frequency and consisted of, control of
employees speaking to one another, demanding leaders, bullying, and participants failing
to comprehend survey questions. According to Chua and Murray (2015), corrupt
leadership comprises of six forms, and that is abusive, tyrannical, destructive, bullying,
laissez faire, and toxic. However, there was one high frequency theme discovered, and
that was the theme of mentioning the participants’ leader’s gender. A study conducted by
De Hoogh et al. (2015) described that there was a considerable association between a
leader’s gender and leader’s narcissism in relation to the perception of leader
effectiveness. It was further demonstrated that a female leaders level of narcissism is
negatively associated with the perceived effectiveness of a leader. Whereas with male
leaders, there was no relation discovered for perceived effectiveness of a leader. Lastly,
female employees did not reveal any gender bias in regard to evaluating the effectiveness
of their narcissistic leaders and that male employees’ perceptions of leaders who are high
on narcissism to be less effective in comparison to female employees (De Hoogh et al.,
2015).
Mixed method research question. How does the qualitative data add further
meaning to the quantitative data regarding the culture of an organization? The
researcher’s utilization of the mixed methods approach made room for additional data to
be analyzed. This additional data, more specifically the qualitative data, allowed for the
researcher to determine how it gave additional significance to the quantitative data. After
156
careful interpretation and analyzing, the researcher observed that the participants
illustrated various perceptions of their leaders, as some viewed their leaders as
narcissistic and toxic with traces of power of control, while others did not. It was further
illustrated that some participants were content with their organizational climate, whereas
others were not. Therefore, in essence, this did correlate with the quantitative data, as not
all data revealed significant correlations.
Positive correlations and the importance of the perceived quality of an
organization’s climate. Positive correlations were discovered in both quantitative and
qualitative data. Quantitative results revealed a weak, positive correlation between
narcissistic characteristics and importance in addition to a very weak positive correlation
between toxic characteristics and importance. Furthermore, there was also a very weak
positive correlation between elements of power and importance. The qualitative data
provided details about some of the leaders’ narcissistic and toxic characteristics as well as
elements of control that may have been associated with higher levels of satisfaction
among employees. This included (a) realistic demands and expectations, (b) receiving
bonuses from their leaders, (c) emails, (d) meetings, (e) leaders providing enough time to
complete tasks, (f) acknowledging strengths and weaknesses of employees, (g) investing
time on each employee to understand individual and team dynamics, and (h) the open
door policy. According to Stein (2013), there are two forms of narcissistic leaders, and
that is unproductive and productive narcissists’. That stated the researcher believes that
the positive themes that emerged may have stemmed from the participants experiencing
the productive side of their narcissistic leader. Based on the literature gathered from
Chapter 2, as well as the researchers' personal experience, the researcher noted that
157
employees would initially admire their narcissistic leader due to their charisma; however,
as time progresses, employees witness what their leader is liked. Therefore, the
researcher also makes room for the possibility of results being based on the participants’
misperceptions of their leaders.
Hence, it can also be said that participants may not care that their leader possesses
narcissistic and toxic characteristics as well as the power of control, as what is important
to them are things such as receiving bonuses from their leader or having their needs met,
via multiple meetings and emails. Furthermore, it is critical to note that some participants
may have developed techniques on how to work for a narcissistic leader. It was indicated
by Knight (2016) that individuals develop methods of surviving to work for a narcissistic
leader, such as ensuring that one gets to understand the type of personality they are
dealing with. This is followed by getting a firm grasp as to what may make their leader
upset or for individuals to flatter their leaders and emulate their positive characteristics.
That said, if the adequate steps were taken to prevent the participants' narcissistic leaders
from affecting them, it would explain the positive themes that emerged from the
qualitative data.
Narcissistic and toxic leadership characteristics, elements of power, and the
satisfaction with an organization’s climate. Quantitative results illustrated a moderate,
negative correlation between narcissistic characteristics and satisfaction, in addition to a
moderate negative correlation between toxic characteristics and satisfaction. Moreover, a
strong negative correlation between elements of power and satisfaction was revealed.
The qualitative data provided details about some of the leaders’ narcissistic and toxic
characteristics as well as elements of control that may have been associated with lower
158
levels of satisfaction among employees. These themes included (a) unrealistic demands
and expectations, (b) the lack of or no motivation from their leader, (c) being kept in the
dark, (d) leaders caused increase of stress within their workplace, (e) lacked
comprehending individual and team dynamics, and (f) ineffective at creating a conducive
environment for communication and collaboration. Stein (2013) opined that a narcissistic
leader takes great pleasure in demonstrating how their employees may have failed a
particular task for the organization, as this would support the notion of their superiority.
This, in turn, can create a toxic environment within the organization as other employees’
reactions to those actions by their leaders may escalate to more significant problems
(Stein, 2013). As the researcher indicated, an increase in stress levels, was one of the
themes discovered in the study. It is important to note that there is a difference in how
employees react to toxic and narcissistic characteristics as well as elements of power
among the different fields. That said, the stress levels created by a toxic or narcissistic
leader that a police officer endures is far more grave than the stress levels that a teacher
may experience, as a cop can cause life or death situations, whereas a teacher will vent to
their family members.
The results indicated for narcissistic characteristics and the perceived quality of
the organizational climate suggested that a leader's narcissistic characteristics weakly and
negatively affected the perceived quality of an organization’s climate. Results also
illustrated that there was a weak negative correlation between toxic characteristics and
perceived quality of the organizational climate. Finally, a weak, negative correlation
between elements of power and perceived quality of the organizational climate was also
found. Qualitative data also illustrated similar results as the themes attained consisted of
159
(a) unattainable goals, (b) unproductive work environment, (c) micromanaging, (d)
favoritism, (e) unpredictability, (f) lack of communication, (g) political games, (h)
controlling and demanding, and (i) leaders behaving as bullies. Although these themes
mentioned were all low-frequency themes, the researcher believed they were critical to
illustrate as they demonstrated elements of narcissistic and toxic characteristics of
leadership and how it, in turn, resulted in a toxic organizational climate. A narcissistic
leader has an exaggerated view of their power and control over their organization and any
other aspect of an organizations environment (Howell & Avolio, 1992; Sankowsky,
1995; Stein, 2013). The researcher’s participants also revealed that their leaders were
very controlling as they were told who they can and cannot speak to within their
organization. Stein further revealed that narcissistic leaders are committed to devaluing
their employees as well as being disdainful of their views or the information they may
have to better the organization.
Additional Data Analysis
The researcher wanted to run additional data based on the perceptions of the
participants' age and gender as literature within Chapter 2 indicated that these variables
played a role in one's perception of their leader’s level of narcissism and toxic
characteristics. Therefore, the Mann Whitney U test, as well as the Kruskal Wallis test,
was run to attain the necessary data. Although the researcher expected to discover
significant differences, the results indicated that there was no significant difference
between males and females’ perception of narcissistic characteristics, toxic
characteristics, and elements of power.

160
In addition, the participants’ age had no significant effect in regards to perception
of their leader’s level of narcissistic and toxic characteristics as well as elements of power
and believes that these results occurred due to the sample utilized. The researcher
discovered a study conducted by De Hoogh et al., (2015) that observed the perceptions of
narcissistic leadership and one’s gender, as well as a study conducted by Ozer et al.,
(2017) that explored an individual's age and their perception of narcissism within their
leaders. The study conducted by Ozer et al. had interestingly revealed that there was a
statistically significant difference in one's age and how it affected their perception of
toxic leadership. It was illustrated that those whose age ranged between 28-38, revealed
a high perception of toxic leadership and those who age ranged from 39 and older with a
lower perception of toxic leadership. However, the researcher still believed that these
variables were pertinent to explore, to determine if there was, in fact, any additional
information that one could attain in regards to narcissistic and toxic leadership as well as
elements of power and the perception of organizational climate. Based on the results, the
researcher will explore these variables for future research.
Implications of the Study
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore how narcissistic
characteristics of leaders, toxic leadership characteristics, and power are related to the
climate of an organization. As Blair, Hoffman, and Helland (2008) illustrated, bad
leadership is far more common than good leadership, and almost every working
individual has experienced and worked for a leader whom they perceived as intolerable at
one point in their life. It was further stated that a majority of researchers agreed that a
leader’s personality is a critical factor at determining ineffective and unethical leadership,

161
and one personality trait that has been continuously linked with unethical leadership is
narcissism (Blair et al., 2008). Narcissistic leadership, as explicated by Mathieu (2013),
may initially seem attractive, and illustrate short-term success within an organization, it
will inevitably result in destructive consequences to one’s organization in the long run.
Narcissistic leadership has a negative effect on the organizational climate, as Campbell,
Hoffman, Campbell, and Marchisio (2011) revealed that narcissism is the cause of issues
that occur and are relevant to counterproductive work behavior such as aggression, as
well as having an overly sexualized workplace.
Some of the findings, which were statistically significant, in the current study
indicated similar verdicts to the literature explored in Chapter 2. However, the researcher
also attained non-statistically significant results, which they felt were pertinent to reveal,
that all pertained to the measurement of importance, and its relation to narcissistic and
toxic characteristics and elements of power. By revealing these non-statistically
significant results, the researcher is stepping away from any possible positive bias. The
researcher’s insignificant results will also give further insight to researchers who may
have interest in the same research questions and study in addition to promoting novel
hypothesis building. Although three findings proved to be statistically insignificant,
future research should still be sought out. According to researchers such as
Meurs et al. (2013) and Chua and Murray (2015), they explicated how narcissistic and
toxic leaders can negatively affect one’s organization as well as their employees. That
stated, the researcher’s sample might have been the result of the insignificant statistical
results. Further research is required to explore how individuals perceive the importance
162
of their organizational climate and how it is affected based on their leaders’ narcissistic
and toxic characteristics.
This research study is providing additional literature to research studies that are
exploring narcissistic and toxic leadership within an array of fields and the effects that
they have on their subordinates, which in turn ultimately affects the organizational
climate. As research of narcissistic leadership within the fields of business, health,
education, government, and social services have all illustrated one thing in common, and
that is the destructive nature of narcissistic leadership on the employees and organization
(Doty & Fenlason, 2013; Hill & Youssey, 1998; Mahlangu, 2014; Olsen, Dworkis, &
Young, 2014; Ozer, Ugurluoglu, Kahraman, & Avci, 2017). Therefore, organizations
with all fields mentioned, as well as those that were not mentioned would benefit from
exploring these findings and can possibly improve their organization by how one leads.
This study focused on the characteristics of narcissistic and toxic leaders, in
addition to elements of power and its effect on organizational climate, and mixed findings
from this study were revealed, with the most significant negative correlated finding being
elements of power and satisfaction. Although results for the other variables studied
ranged from weakly to strongly negatively correlated, the fact of the matter is that the
presence of narcissism and toxic leadership, as well as power of control, does have a
negative impact on one’s organizational climate. The researcher will publish this study in
various academic journals and will continue adding literature to this field, as it will give
further insight to the public of how narcissistic and toxic leadership styles, as well as
power of control, can affect one’s organization.

163
Limitations
Stone (2011) opined, “All systematic inquiry has limitations and most often
researchers work within the humility of limits” (p. 647).
Literature. The researcher experienced difficulty in attaining scholarly articles
pertaining to narcissism within the political field and therefore had to utilize non-
scholarly articles to illustrate findings based on what other authors have examined. In
addition, there were limited scholarly articles on the topic of toxic culture and the
researcher was given no other alternative but to utilize whatever few articles to discuss
the findings of prior authors.
Participants. There was an absence of diversity among the participants, as more
than half of the participants were White and comprised of those within the education
field, and therefore there was a lack of data that demonstrated the perceptions of the
participants’ leaders for those within the other fields observed as well as other identified
races. Furthermore, there was also a very small percentage of participants who had
worked for 40 or more years. Due to the sensitivity of the study, the researcher believes
that there was a limitation in the number of participants who partook in the study. As
Dickson-Swift, James, and Liampputong (2008) explicated, participants may be scared of
exploitation or derogation by partaking in one’s study. In addition, there were a number
of participants who indicated that their highest level of education was high school, and
therefore the researcher was not able to utilize that data, as the participants needed to
have at least an associate’s degree.
Study. Participants may have required more time to complete the survey, and
therefore the survey should have been kept available for a longer period, as participants
164
may have initially hesitated in completing the survey, despite already being made aware
that the survey was completely confidential and anonymous. It is also imperative to note
that the researcher attained completed surveys in which some participants failed to
answer the questions adequately. An example of this included an individual who selected
positive ratings for all quantitative portions of the survey, whereas they described their
leader negatively throughout the qualitative portion of the survey.
Delimitations
The researcher had a couple of delimitations within the literature review. That
stated, when discussing narcissism within the political field, the researcher did not feel
comfortable in stating specific political parties, and therefore vaguely discussed
narcissism within this field. However, the researcher believes that future studies should
explore narcissism within specific political parties to determine if there is a significant
difference between parties. Moreover, the researcher discussed organizational structure,
however, did not explicate all types of structures found within organizations. This would
be of interest for future research as varying organizational structures can create leadership
styles.
As there are a plethora of affiliations of employment, the researcher selected the
five fields they felt were pertinent, and also included the option of “other” for the
participants’ field of employment portion of the demographics section. However, it
would be of interest for future research to explore the other fields of employment that
were not studied within this study, as a correlation may be discovered. Millon, Millon,
Meagher, Grossman, and Ramnath (2004) explicated that the field of entertainment and
sports are also considered fields where individuals who display narcissistic characteristics
165
tend to be employed. Furthermore, within the methodology portion of the study, the
researcher chose not to analyze data utilizing other analyzing techniques and therefore
was not able to determine various relations based on the data attained.
Suggested Research
Due to the limited scholarly articles that the researcher was able to discover
concerning politics and narcissism, it would be of interest to conduct future research on
politics and narcissistic leaders. Hill and Youssey (1998) and Millon, Millon, Meagher,
Grossman, and Ramnath (2004) stated that narcissism is far more prevalent in fields such
as politics due to the unusual amount of respect that is given to those individuals. In
addition, based on the researcher’s results, participants referred to their leaders as he or
she and therefore a theme was illustrated based on the leader’s gender. This, in turn, has
the researcher pose the question whether one’s leadership style is gender based. It has
been revealed within the DSM-IV-TR that narcissism is found primarily in men, whereas
the narcissist’s female counterpart is known as histrionic (Millon et al., 2004). Hence,
future research should delve into the various forms of toxic leadership based on one’s
gender.
Furthermore, as the researcher was unable to locate a site to conduct research,
future research would be advantageous if a proactive leader would want to determine and
ensure that no other leader within their organization develops narcissistic leadership
tendencies. As stated in Mehta and Masheshwari (2013), conducting studies to observe
toxic leadership behaviors and their effect on employees can aid in comprehending how
leadership effectiveness can be improved by taking the necessary measures to decrease
the factors that are caused by toxic and dysfunctional leadership. Moreover, due to not
166
having substantial participants from fields other than education and therefore a lack of
data within other fields, there is dire need to further research how other fields, such as
that of political, social services, health, as well as business are affected by having a
narcissistic leader within their organization. Green (2014) opined that research tends to
fixate on positive leadership by individuals who work in various fields. However there is
a lack of history that demonstrate dysfunctional leaders within fields such as ministry,
education or politics.
In addition, as more than half of the population was White, future research should
observe if one’s perception of narcissistic and toxic leadership characteristics and the
workplace environment differ based on one’s race and whether minorities have a
different perception of narcissistic/toxic characteristics and elements of power in regards
to their leader. Similarly, a very small percentage of participants represented having 40
or more years of work experience. Therefore, the researcher believes it would be
beneficial to determine if an individual’s years of work experience may also alter one’s
perception of narcissistic leadership and the organizational climate. Chua and Murray
(2013) explicated that how a leader’s behaviors are perceived by the subordinates will
determine if the leader is seen as toxic. That stated, how one subordinate interprets a
toxic or narcissistic leader may be viewed by another subordinate as a formidable leader.
Moreover, based on the researcher’s research questions, various components
were not analyzed and therefore for future research, it would be of interest to explore how
the various demographics of the participants’, as well as leaders’, relate to narcissism in
the workplace, the perceptions held and the effects felt by the participants. Furthermore,
as the researcher experienced difficulty in attaining a larger number of participants due to

167
the nature of the study, future research on methods of attaining a large number of
participants for sensitive topics should be explored.
As the researcher had a participant that was part of the exclusion list for the study,
due to the snowball sampling method, the researcher believes that future research should
include having the survey begin with the demographics, rather than placing them at the
end. This should prevent participants who do not meet the criteria in taking part in the
study. Moreover, the researcher attained various results of the nine quantitative findings,
of which two findings proved to be weak, and four findings proved to be very weak.
These weak findings were both statistically and non-statistically significant, and
therefore, future research should explore various instruments of conducting research
within this field and attain a bigger population then what the researcher had for this
current study. It has been stated that a researcher’s sample size will have an effect on the
p value, that is, the larger the population, the lower the p-value which, determines the
statistical significance (Heinzerling, 2014).
Conclusion
Leaders within all fields can dramatically impact their subordinates’ productivity
and well being, as well as their organization based on their leadership style (Buch,
Martinsen, & Kuvaas, 2015; Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014; Zineldin &
Hytter, 2012). This was made evident based on the researcher’s literature review and
results. The researcher is optimistic that in the near future proactive leaders will want to
determine if their organization is toxic by administering the survey utilized by the
researcher for their study. Taking this measure will not only salvage the leader’s
organization but also the mental state of their participants, which in turn will affect their
168
productivity within their organization. As Appelbaum and Girard (2007) and
Chamberlain and Hodson (2010) indicated, toxic organizations are known to be greatly
ineffective in addition to being destructive for the subordinates of that organization.
Unfortunately, as illustrated with this study, narcissistic leadership does not only pertain
to one specific field, but rather to all fields (Doty & Fenlason, 2013; Hill & Youssey,
1998; Mahlangu, 2014; Olsen, Dworkis, & Young, 2014; Ozer, Ugurluoglu, Kahraman,
& Avci, 2017). Therefore, it is the employees’ responsibility to determine whether they
are to continue working for that organization or to leave.
There were a plethora of the researcher’s participants that illustrated various
forms of frustration and dissatisfaction with their leader in numerous domains, and such
long-term negative emotions can lead to health problems. It is ultimately the leader’s
choice to determine whether their method of leadership is constructive towards their
employees and organization or whether it is unconstructive and toxic and change is
required.
169
References
Aktas, N., De Bodt, E., Bollaert, H., & Roll, R. (2016). CEO narcissism and the takeover
process: From private initiation to deal completion. Journal of Financial And
Quantitative Analysis, 51(1), 113-137. doi:10.1017/S0022109016000065
Aldag, R. J., & Joseph, B. (2000). Leadership and vision: 25 keys to motivation. New
York, NY: Lebhar-Friedman Books.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Girard, D. R. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: Affect on
organizations and employees. Corporate Governance, 7(1), 17-28.
doi:10.1108/14720700710727087
Balthazard, P. A., Cooke, R. A., & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture,
dysfunctional organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form
organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21(8), 709-732. doi:10.1108/02683940610713253
Basham, L. (2012). Transformational and transactional leaders in higher education. SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 77(2), 15-37. http://web.b.ebscohost.com
.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2eb225f0-cc60
-46e9-b351-4a1a23d77582%40sessionmgr107&vid=6&hid=102
Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.),
Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 169–192). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Basu, R. (2017). Role of organizational climate: Innovative work behaviour in Indian
banks. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 15(1), 98-112.

170
Bealer, D., & Bhanugopan, R. (2014). Transactional and transformational leadership
behavior of expatriate and national managers in the UAE: A cross-cultural
comparative analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25(2), 293-316. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.826914
Berle, A. A. (1967). Power. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and World.
Bickart, B., & Schmittlein, D. (1999). The distribution of survey contact and participation
in the United States: Constructing a survey-based estimate. Journal of Marketing
Research, Spring, 286–294.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A
multisource appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21(3),
254-276. doi:10.1080/08959280802137705
Boddy, C. R., & Croft, R. (2016). Marketing in a time of toxic leadership. Qualitative
Market Research, 19(1), 44-64. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1754496611?accountid=6579
Bradley, N. (1999). Sampling for Internet surveys: An examination of respondent
selection for Internet research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41(4),
387–395.
Braun, S., Aydin, N., Frey, D., & Peus, C. (2016). Leader narcissism predicts malicious
envy and supervisor-targeted counterproductive work behavior: Evidence from
field and experimental research. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:http://dx.doi.org
.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.1007/s10551-016-3224-5
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its
relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied

171
Psychology, 81, 358-368.
Brunell, A., Gentry, W., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree,
K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1663-1676. doi:10.1177
/0146167208324101
Buch, R., Martinsen, Ø. L., & Kuvaas, B. (2015). The destructiveness of laissez-faire
leadership behavior: The mediating role of economic leader-member exchange
relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 115.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu
/docview/1648680910?accountid=6579
Buch, R., Thompson, G., & Kuvaas, B. (2016). Transactional leader–member exchange
relationships and followers’ work performance: The moderating role of leaders’
political skill. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 456-466.
doi:10.1177/1548051816630227
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism
in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 268-284.
Retrieved from www.wkeithcampbell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08
/CampbellHRMR2011.pdf
Chamberlain, L. J., & Hodson, R. (2010). Toxic work environments: What helps and
what hurts. Sociological Perspectives, 53(4), 455-477. Retrieved from
doi:10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.455.
172
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2014). Organizational climate, climate
strength and work engagement. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 291-303.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.195
Chua, S. M. Y., & Murray, D. W. (2015). How toxic leaders are perceived: Gender and
information-processing. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(3),
292-307. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu
/docview/1679361604?accountid=6579
Clarke, I., Karlov, L., & Neale, N. (2015). The many faces of narcissism: Narcissism
factors and their predictive utility. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 90-
95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.021
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Creswell J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse
over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 87–98.
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Wimbush, J. C. (1997). Collecting sensitive data in
business ethics research: A case for the unmatched count technique. Journal of
Business Ethics, 16(10), 1049-1057.
Dawson, R. (1992). Secrets of power persuasion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dawson, R. (1994). The 13 secrets of power performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Dawson, R. (1995). Roger Dawson’s secrets of power negotiating. Franklin Lakes, NJ:
173
Career Press.
Dawson, R. (2011). Secrets of power negotiating: Inside secrets from a master
negotiator. Pompton Plains, NJ: The Career Press.
De Hoogh, A., Den Hartog, D., & Nevicka, B. (2015). Gender differences in the
perceived effectiveness of narcissistic leaders. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 64(3), 473-498. doi:10.1111/apps.12015
Dekoulou, P., & Trivellas, P. (2017). Organizational structure, innovation performance
and customer relationship value in the Greek advertising and media industry.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(3), 385-397. doi:https://doi.org
/10.1108/JBIM-07-2015-0135
De Schrijver, A. (2012). Sample survey on sensitive topics: Investigating respondents’
understanding and trust in alternative versions of the randomized response
technique. Journal of Research Practice, 8(1). Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org
/index.php/jrp/article/view/277/250
Dey, R., & Carvalho, S. (2014). Are transactional leaders also emotionally intelligent?
An analysis of sales executives in India. International Journal of Business
Insights & Transformation, 7(2), 42-49. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxylocal
.library.nova.edu /ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=14&sid=23c432cb-84b7-4565
-891c-df35d1a86f1e %40sessionmgr4007&hid=4212
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., & Liampputong, P. (2008). Undertaking sensitive research
in the health and social sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks.
Retrieved from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805217/18233/excerpt
/9780521718233_excerpt.pdf
174
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Dobbs, J. M. (2014). The relationship between perceived toxic leadership styles, leader
effectiveness, and organizational cynicism. Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3575052)
Doty, J., & Fenlason, J. (2013). Narcissism and toxic leaders. Military Review, 55-60.
Dreijmanis, J. (2005). A portrait of the artist as a politician: The case of Adolf Hitler. The
Social Science Journal, 42, 115-127. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2004.11.010
Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Klein, L., Kim, Y., & Day, B. (2012). Effects of E-mailed
versus mailed invitations and incentives on response rates, data quality, and costs
in a web survey of university faculty. Social Science Computer Review, 31(3),
359-370. doi:10.1177/0894439312465254
Elmir, R., Schmied, V., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2011). Interviewing people about
potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 12-16.
doi:10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.12.c8766
Fahie, D. (2014). Doing sensitive research sensitively: Ethical and methodological issues
in researching workplace bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
13, 19-36. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM
/article/view /19018
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting
the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6),
1787-1804. doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.1016
175
French, J. R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social
power (pp. 259-269). Retrieved from http://www.communicationcache.com
/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_bases_of_social_power_-_chapter_20_-_1959.pdf
Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (2014). Springtime for Hitler: Lessons in leadership.
Psychosociological Issues In Human Resource Management, 2(2), 27-42.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gerhardt, M., & Le, H. (2013). Overt narcissism and approach-avoidance motivation:
Expanding the lens to examine goal orientation. Journal of Organizational
Psychology, 13(1/2), 21-31.
Goldstein, E. (1995). When the bubble bursts: Narcissistic vulnerability in mid-life.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 23(4), 401-416. doi:10.1007/BF02191629
Google. (2017). Privacy and terms. Retrieved from https://static.googleusercontent
.com/media/ www.google.com/en//intl/en/policies/privacy/google_privacy
_policy_en.pdf
Gray, P. (2014, January 16). Why is narcissism increasing among young Americans?
Retrieved April 11, 2017, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom
-learn/201401/why-is-narcissism-increasing-among-young-americans
Green, J. E. (2014). Toxic leadership in educational organizations. Education Leadership
Review, 15(1), 18-33. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105504
.pdf
Grijalva, E., Harms, P., Newman, D., Gaddis, B., & Fraley, R. (2015). Narcissism and
leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships.

176
Personnel Psychology, 68, 1-47. doi:10.1111/peps.12072
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance
complementarity model. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108-
127. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0048
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior:
Meta-analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, big five personality, and
narcissism's facet structure. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(1),
93-126. doi:10.1111/apps.12025
Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Courier, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to
participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475–95.
Gupta, K., & Ray, A. (2005). Organizational Climate Scale. A Study on the Nature and
Characteristics of Institutional Innovativeness as Perceived by the Teachers in the
NAAC Accredited Universities of West Bengal. An Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation on Applied Psychology (sc). Department of Applied Psychology.
University of Calcutta.
Harper, S. (2012). The leader coach: A model of multi-style leadership. Journal of
Practical Consulting, 4(1), 22-31.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Asplund, J. W. (2006). Q12 meta-
analysis. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization.
Heinzerling, J. (2014). Layman’s guide to confidence intervals and statistical
significance. Retrieved from http://www.immunizeca.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/Laymans-Guide.pdf
Hill, R. P., & Hyatt, E. M. (1995). Researching sensitive topics in marketing: The special
177
case of vulnerable populations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14(1), 143-
148.
Hill, R. W., & Yousey, G. P. (1998). Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism among
university faculty, clergy, politicians, and librarians. Current Psychology, 17(2-3),
163-169. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.1007/s12144-998
-1003-x
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission
or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43–54.
Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and
less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 347-364.
Joseph, J., Klingebiel, R., & Wilson, A. J. (2016). Organizational structure and
performance feedback: Centralization, aspirations, and termination decisions.
Organization Science, 27(5), 1065-1083. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287
/orsc.2016.1076
Kareem, J. (2016). The influence of leadership in building a learning organization. IUP
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 7-18. http://web.b.ebscohost.com
.ezproxylocal.library .nova.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=c38c6afa-7a3d
-489d-bd92-0e49ada3161e%40sessionmgr103&hid=102&bdata
=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwsdWlkLGN1c3R1aWQmY3VzdGlkP
XMxMTM0NjU1JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
178
%3d%3d #AN=113422672&db=buh
Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Psychological climate and organizational
effectiveness: Role of work engagement. The IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 12(3), 34-46. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/281269521_Psychological_Climate_and_Organizational_Effectiveness_Role_of
_Work_Engagement
Klimchak, M., Carsten, M., Morrell, D., & MacKenzie,W. I., Jr. (2016). Employee
entitlement and proactive work behaviors. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 23(4), 387-396. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxylocal
.library.nova.edu/10.1177/1548051816636790
Knight, R. (2016, April). How to work for a narcissistic boss. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-to-work-for-a-narcissistic-boss
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary
things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Krause, D. E. (2015). Four types of leadership and orchestra quality. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 25(4), 431-447. doi:10.1002/nml.21132
Langer, R., & S. C., Beckman. (2005). Sensitive research topics: Netnography revisited.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 189-203.
doi:10.1108/13522750510592454
Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The use and abuse of power: Multiple
perspectives on the causes of corruption. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis
Group.
179
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. (2016). Turning their pain to gain:
Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465
/amj.2013.0778
Liderlerin, T., Kuruluslari, S., & Etkileri, U. (2016). The effect of toxic leadership on
healthcare organizations. International Journal of Social Science, 43, 519-522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3332
Litwin, M. S. (2003). How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Luchner, A., Houston, J., Walker, C., & Houston, A. (2011). Exploring the relationship
between two forms of narcissism and competitiveness. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 779-782. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.033
Lutz Allen, S., Smith, J. E., & Da Silva, N. (2013). Leadership style in relation to
organizational change and organizational creativity: Perceptions from nonprofit
organizational members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(1), 23-42.
doi:10.1002/nml.21078
Mahlangu, V. P. (2014). The effects of toxic leadership on teaching and learning in South
African township schools. Journal of Social Science, 38(3), 313-320.
Mathieu, C. (2013). Personality and job satisfaction: The role of narcissism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 55, 650-654. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.012
Mathew, M., & Gupta, K. S. (2015). Transformational leadership: Emotional intelligence.
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 12(2), 75-89. http://web.a.ebscohost.com
.ezproxylocal .library.nova.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=23c432cb-84b7-
180
4565-891c-df35d1a86f1e%40sessionmgr4007&hid=4212&bdata
=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWNvb2tpZSxpcCx1cmwsdWlkLGN1c3R1aWQmY3VzdGlkP
XMxMTM0NjU1JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=108458396&db
=buh
Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the leader within you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
McCosker, H., Barnard, A., & Gerber, R. (2001). Undertaking sensitive research: Issues
and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index
.php/fqs/article/view/983/2142
Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2013). Consequence of toxic leadership on employee
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Contemporary
Management Research, 8(2), 1-23. http://web.b.ebscohost.com
.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f0da8864-8d4e
-45e1-8a32-b57a969c1d14 %40sessionmgr120&vid=10&hid=102
Meurs, J., Fox, S., Kessler, S., & Spector, P. (2013). It's all about me: The role of
narcissism in exacerbating the relationship between stressors and
counterproductive work behaviour. Work & Stress, 27(4), 368-382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.849776
Millon, T., Millon, C., Meagher, S., Grossman, S., & Ramnath, R. (2004). Personality
disorders in modern life (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Millage, A. (2016). When toxic culture hits home. Internal Auditor, 73(3), 7.
181
Milosevic, I., & Bass, A. E. (2014). Revisiting Weber's charismatic leadership: Learning
from the past and looking to the future. Journal of Management History, 20(2),
224-240. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.1108/JMH-11
-2012-0073
Mitchell, S. (1981). Heinz Kohut's theory of narcissism1. American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 41, 317-326. Retrieved from http://icpla.edu/wp-content
/uploads/2012/10/Mitchell-S.-Heinz-Kohuts-Theory-of-Narcissim-317-326.pdf
Mittal, R., & Elias, S. M. (2016). Social power and leadership in cross-cultural context.
Journal of Management Development, 35(1), 58-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108
/JMD-02-2014-0020
Moors, G. (2012). The effect of response style bias on the measurement of
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. European Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 271-298. doi:10.1080/1359432X
.2010.550680
Morgan, S. E., Reichert, T., & Harrison, T. R. (2002). From numbers to words:
Reporting statistical results for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Muchiri, M. K., Cooksey, R. W., Milia, L.V.D., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2011). Gender and
managerial level differences in perceptions of effective leadership. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 32(5), 462-492.

182
Muhammad Shah, S. M., & Hamid, K. (2015). Transactional leadership and job
performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management and Business,
2(2), 69-81.
Needle, D. (2004) Business in context: an introduction to business and its environment.
(4th ed.). London, England: Thomson Learning.
Noland, C. M. (2012). Institutional barriers to research on sensitive topics: Case of sex
communication research among university students. Journal of Research
Practice, 8(1). Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/332
/262
Norbom, H. M., & Lopez, P. D. (2016). Leadership and innovation: Informal power and
its relationship to innovative culture. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(1), 18-31.
doi:10.1002/jls
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What
can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.
doi:10.1080/02602930701293231
O'Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., & McDaniel, M. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark
triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(3), 557-579. doi:0.1037/a0025679
Olsen, K. J., Dworkis, K. K., & Young, S. M. (2014). CEO narcissism and accounting: A
picture of profits. American Accounting Association, 26(2), 243-267.
doi:10.2308/jmar-50638
Ong, C., Roberts, R., Arthur, C., Woodman, T., & Akehurst, S. (2016). The leader ship is
sinking: A temporal investigation of narcissistic leadership. Journal of

183
Personality, 84(2), 237-247. doi:10.1111/jopy.12155
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2015). Personality and charismatic leadership in context: The
moderating role of situational stress. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 49-77.
doi:10.1111/peps.12073
O'Reilly, C., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D., & Chatman, J. (2013). Narcissistic CEOs and
executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 218-231.
doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.002
Ouimet, G. (2014). Psychologie des leaders narcissiques organisationnels. 1-278.
Retrieved from https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle
/1866/10537/ouimet_gerard_2014_these.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Ouimet, G. (2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an
integrated research model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 713-726.
doi:10.1108/02683941011075265
Owens, B., Wallace, A., & Waldman, D. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower
outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(4), 1203-1213. doi:10.1037/a0038698
Özer, Ö., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., Kahraman, G., & Avci, K. (2017). A study on toxic leadership
perceptions of healthcare workers. Global Business & Management Research,
9(1), 12-23.
Paris, K., & Schutt, D. (2004). Improving climate from where you are right now.
Manuscript submitted for publication, The University of Wisconsin Madison.
Retrieved from https://provost.wisc.edu/deptChairs/images/ImprovingClimate.pdf
Pelletier, K. L. (2012). Perceptions of and reactions to leader toxicity: Do leader-follower

184
relationships and identification with victim matter? Leadership Quarterly, 23(3),
412. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu
/docview /1010260078?accountid=6579
Pierro, A., Raven, B. H., Amato, C., & Belanger, J. J. (2013). Bases of social power,
leadership styles, and organizational commitment. International Journal of
Psychology, 48(6), 1122-1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.733398
Rao, T. V., & Abraham, E. (1986). HRD climate in organization. In T.V. Rao (Ed.),
Readings in human resource development, (pp. 36–45). New Delhi, India: Oxford
& IBH.
Rehman, S. (2016). Narcissism, perfectionism and aggression among police officers:
Evidence from Pakistan (Lahore). Sociology and Criminology, 4(2), 1-4.
doi:10.4172/2375-4435.1000155
Reina, C., Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. (2014). CEO grandiose narcissism and firm
performance: The role of organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly,
25, 958-971. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.004
Roberts, R., Woodman, T., Lofthouse, S., & Williams, L. (2015). Not all players are
equally motivated: The role of narcissism. European Journal of Sports Science,
15(6), 536-542. doi:10.1080/17461391.2014.987324
Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 617-633.
Ross, D. B. (2008). Historical lecture on power for advanced school policy. Fischler
College of Education: Faculty Articles, 1-7. Retrieved from http://works.bepress
.com/david-ross/29/
185
Ross, D. B. (2016). Creating a survey for analyzing a culture of narcissistic, toxic, and
power behaviors in an organization. Fischler College of Education: Faculty
Articles. Paper 241.
Ross, D. B., Matteson, R., & Exposito, J. (2014). Servant leadership to toxic leadership:
Power of influence over power of control. Fischler College of Education: Faculty
Presentations, 1-37. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_facpres/244
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2009). Essential research methods for social work (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Saeed, T., Almas, S., Anis-ul-Haq, M., & Niazi, G. (2014). Leadership styles:
Relationship with conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 25(3), 214. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/docview/1660175331?a
ccountid=6579
Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of
power. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 57–71.
Schein, E. S. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Seago, J. (2016). Toxic culture. Internal Auditor, 73(3), 29-33.
Seltzer, L. F., Dr. (2011, December 21). Narcissism: Why it's so rampant in politics.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog
/evolution-the-self/201112/narcissism-why-its-so-rampant-in-politics
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and

186
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.
Schirmer, J. (2009). Ethical issues in the use of multiple survey reminders. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 7, 125-139. doi:10.1007/s10805-009-9072-5
Shafiee, H., Razminia, E., & Zeymaran, N. K. (2016). Investigating the relationship
between organizational structure factors and personnel performance. International
Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 3(2), 160-165.
Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1997). E-mail surveys: Response patterns, process and
potential. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of
Advertisers.
Singh, S., & Kumar, R. (2013). Why do dysfunctional norms continue to exist in the
workplace? Journal of Organization and Human Beahviour, 2(2), 11-19.
Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? The selection of a
research approach. Retrieved from http://wp.vcu.edu/adlt673/wp-content
/uploads/sites/4093/2014/01/Ch1-Research-Approach.pdf
Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Is avoidant leadership a root
cause of subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire
leadership and role ambiguity. Work & Stress, 28(4), 323-341. doi:10.1080
/02678373.2014.957362
Sosik, J., Chun, J., & Zhu, W. (2014). Hang on to your ego: The moderating role of
leader narcissism on relationships between leader charisma and follower
psychological empowerment and moral identity. Journal Of Business Ethics,
120(1), 65-80. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1651-0
Sousa, M., & Dierendonck, D. (2017). Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction
187
between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 13-25. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2725-y
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1988). Conducting a qualitative research study:
Understanding and conducting qualitative research. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Stein, M. (2013). When does narcissistic leadership become problematic? Dick Fuld at
Lehman Brothers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(3), 282-293.
doi:10.1177/1056492613478664
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Stone, L. (2011). Outliers, cheese, and rhizomes: Variations on a theme of limitation.
Educational Theory, 61(6), 647-658. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
Sudha, K., Shahnawaz, M., & Farhat, A. (2016). Leadership styles, leaders effectiveness
and well-being: Exploring collective efficacy as a mediator. The Journal of
Business Perspective, 20(2), 111-120. doi:10.1177/0972262916637260
Takala, T., & Auvinen, T. (2016). The power of leadership storytelling: Case of Adolf
Hitler. Tamara-Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 14(1), 21-34.
Terry, B. (2011). Elements of influence: The art of getting others to follow your lead.
New York, NY: AMACOM.
Too, L., & Harvey, M. (2012). Toxic workplaces: The negative interface between the
physical and social environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 14(3), 171-
181. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.1108
188
/14630011211285834
A toxic culture. (2016). Internal Auditor, 21-23. Retrieved from https://www.iia.nl
/SiteFiles/IA/ia201612-dl.pdf
Tuttman, S. (1981). Otto Kernberg's concepts about narcissism. American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 41(4), 307. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2012). The effect of procedural justice in the relationship
between charismatic leadership and feedback reactions in performance appraisal.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3047-3062.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.639535
Vashdi, D. R., Vigoa-Gadot, E., & Shlomi, D. (2013). Assessing performance: The
impact of organizational climates and politics on public schools’ performance.
Public Administration, 91(1), 135-158. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01968.x
Van Fleet, D. D., & Griffin, R. W. (2006). Dysfunctional organization culture: The role
of leadership in motivating dysfunctional work behaviors. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(8), 698-708. doi:10.1108/02683940610713244
Wales, W., Patel, P., & Lumpkin, G. (2013). In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism,
entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance variance. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(6), 1041-1069. doi:10.1111/joms.12034
Watts, A., Lilienfeld, S., Smith, S., Miller, J., Campbell, W., Waldman, I., . . .
Faschingbauer, T. (2013). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism:
Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among U.S. presidents.
Psychological Science, 24(12), 2379-2389. doi:10.1177/0956797613491970

189
Webb, J. L. (2012). Pragmatism(s) plural, part II: From classical pragmatism to neo-
pragmatism. Journal of Economic Issues, 61(1), 45-74. doi:10.2753/JEI0021
-3624460102
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Zareen, M., Razzaq, K., & Mujtaba, B. (2015). Impact of transactional, transformational
and laissez-faire leadership styles on motivation: A quantitative study of banking
employees in Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 15(4), 531-549. doi:10.1007
/s11115-014-0287-6
Zineldin, M., & Hytter, A. (2012). Leaders' negative emotions and leadership styles
influencing subordinates' well-being. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(4), 748-758. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.606114

190
Appendix A
The Survey on Toxic Leadership (Other)

191
The Survey on Toxic Leadership (Other)
Created by
David B. Ross, Ed.D.
This survey will have three sections to elicit the participants’ responses of their
leaders. The first section is a 24-item survey with five-point response scales that will
measure a person’s characteristics of narcissism, toxic leadership, and elements of power.
The second section of the survey is made up of 6 open-ended questions to address the
overall effectiveness of the leader. The third section will be designed to obtain
demographic data of the respondents.
Directions for the Survey
Part 1: In this first section, the survey asks you to describe your perceptions
regarding the leader of the organization. You are asked to select a box to the right of each
question. Please indicate by using a check mark ( ) how often these items are accurate
about your leader. Please use the Likert scale of No Way=1, Well Sort Of=2, Middle of
the Road=3, I Can See That=4, or Very Much So=5.
No Way Well Sort Middle of I Can See Very Much

Of the Road That So
1 2 3 4 5
1. Is your leader arrogant and

conceited?
2. Does your leader cause

organizational failure?
3. Is your leader influential towards

everyone?
4. Do you perceive your leader as

insolent?
192
5. Is there evidence to suggest your

leader has the ability to build
relationships?
6. Does your leader share their

knowledge and expertise to the team
environment?
No Way Well Sort Middle of I Can See Very Much

Of the Road That So
1 2 3 4 5
7. Does your leader crave admiration

needing constant attention?
8. Does your leader have poor

leadership skills that lead to attrition?
9. Does your leader acknowledge your

achievements and talents?
10. Is your leader self-centered?
11. Does your leader cause a disruption

(i.e., chaos) in the work setting?
12. Does your leader seem to be

preoccupied with personal success of
power?
13. Is your leader egotistical?
14. Is your leader positive and effective

to the organizational culture?
15. Is your leader charismatic?
16. Is your leader self-involved in their

personal success?
17. Does your leader convert people with

their rhetoric?
193
18. Is your leader consistent in the way

he or she conducts business on a
daily basis?
19. Does your leader seem to be superior

over others?
20. Does your leader break ethical

standards and systems that others
rely on?
21. Does your leader use their title to

bully you?
22. Does your leader lack empathy of

others?
23. Does your leader display the skills to

attract followership?
24. Does your leader ask you for input

for the betterment of the
organization?
Part 2: In this second section, the survey asks you to respond with more in-depth
responses how you perceive your leader to lead an effective learning organization (i.e.,
structure, culture, image).
1. How realistic are the demands and expectations of your leader to create a
productive and positive work environment?
2. Explain how your leader motivates you to produce a positive image. If not,
please clarify.
194
3. Explain how your leader informs all personnel regarding organizational

change. If not, please clarify.
4. How does the leader help reduce stress or cause an increase in stress levels
within the organization?
5. Explain how your leader understands individual and team dynamics for the
organizational culture. If not, please clarify.
6. How does the leader create an environment of communication and

collaboration? If not, please clarify.
Part 3: In this third section, please place a check mark ( ) next to the appropriate
item that best describes your demographic area.
1. Are you: ____ Male ____ Female
2. Identify your age: ____ 18-29 ____ 30-39 ____ 40-49 ____ 50-59 ____ 60+
3. Identify your race: ____ White ____ Black ____ Hispanic ____ Other
4. What is your highest level of education: ____ High School ___ Associate
195
____ Bachelor ____ Master ____ Doctorate
5. How many years of work experience: ____ 1-9 ____ 10-19 ____ 20-29 ____
30-39 ____ 40+
6. Have you held a leadership position: ____ Yes ____ No
7. Do you want to hold a leadership position: ____ Yes ____ No
8. Please check the area of affiliation you are employed: _____ government
(political)
_____ education _____ business _____ medical _____social services
_____other
Scoring the data:
The following questions refer to narcissistic characteristics: Q1, Q4, Q7, Q10, Q13, Q16,
Q19, and Q22. The following questions refer to toxic leadership: Q2, Q5, Q8, Q11, Q14,
Q17, Q20, and Q23; and the following questions refer to elements of power: Q3, Q6, Q9,
Q12, Q15, Q18, Q21, and Q24.
The following items are to be reverse scored: Q3, Q5, Q6, Q9, Q14, Q15, Q18, Q23, and
Q24.
196
Appendix B
Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction

197
Eight Questions to Ask About Climate
Following are eight questions about working in this department or administrative unit.
Each question reflects an essential element for a workplace that is positive and
productive.
For each question, indicate how important this issue is for you personally. Then indicate
how satisfied you are with how these things are going in your department or unit.
Answer on a scale of 1-5 with “1” being a low level of importance/satisfaction and “5”
being a high level of importance/satisfaction. Please circle your responses.
1 = Less Important/Satisfied 5 = More Important/Satisfied
Importance & Satisfaction of These Measures to Me in My Immediate Office or

Department:
Importance Satisfaction
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1. Spirit of cooperation among those with whom I work.
2. Clarity of roles and responsibilities.
3. Resources to do my work well.
4. Feeling appreciated for my work.
5. Encouragement to grow professionally.
6. Being cared about as a person.
7. Ample opportunities to do what I do best.
8. Differences are valued (including age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation).
198
Appendix C
Permission for Use and Amendment of Survey

199
From: Kathleen Paris [mailto:kathleen@kathleenparis.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:09 PM
To: David Ross <daviross@nova.edu>
Subject: RE: Organizational Climate Survey
I am delighted that it will work out!
Given your teaching and research interests (especially narcissistic and toxic workplace
characteristics), you might enjoy my book, Staying Healthy in Sick Organizations: The
Clover Practice™
I am working on another book, The Clover Practice™ for Leaders which applies the
three tenets of the practice to common leadership challenges such as performance
appraisal, planning, change management, etc.
Wishing you all the best!

Kathleen
From: David Ross [mailto:daviross@nova.edu]

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:16 PM
To: Kathleen Paris
Subject: RE: Organizational Climate Survey
Thank you again Kathleen as I passed your approval email to my student Melissa Sasso
who also wanted to thank you as well.
I totally agree about organizational climate as I teach Operations Management, Emerging

Theories of Leadership, Global Leadership, Policy, etcetera . . . and publish in narcissistic
and toxic characteristics and behaviors.
Have a great evening and let me know if you ever need something.
Respectfully,
Dr. David B. Ross, Associate Professor
Institutional Review Board Representative
Fischler College of Education
Department of Higher Education Leadership and Instructional Technology
561-613-9683 (Cellular) **preferable
954-262-8398 (Office)
200
Campus Support Building
7501 SW 36th Street, Davie, FL 33314

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Organizational Climate Survey
Thank you for the link and reminder of this work! Yes your grad student has my
permission to use the survey.
I can see that the survey was based on several others so I think it would be ideal to cite it
as such.
Wishing you and your grad student the very best! Climate is such a key variable in any
organization.
Kindest Regards,
Kathleen Paris
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2017, at 6:45 AM, David Ross <daviross@nova.edu> wrote:
It is my pleasure Kathleen. Since we have a 24-item survey on leadership, we are

looking for a survey on organizational climate that is excellent, to the point, will collect
valid and reliability data without causing survey fatigue. Your survey is perfect. I
searched online for organizational climate surveys and found yours under this link:
https://provost.wisc.edu/deptChairs/images/ImprovingClimate.pdf
Thank you again for your time and quick response. Have a great morning.
Respectfully,
Institutional Review Board Representative
Fischler College of Education
Department of Higher Education Leadership and Instructional Technology

201
561-613-9683 (Cellular) **preferable
954-262-8398 (Office)
Campus Support Building
7501 SW 36th Street, Davie, FL 33314

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: Organizational Climate Survey
Thank you for asking! Could you please share with me the link you found? Just want to
be sure I know what the document is. Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2017, at 4:16 PM, David Ross <daviross@nova.edu> wrote:
Good Afternoon Kathleen,
I am working with one of my dissertation students regarding organizational climate and

leadership behaviors. We have a survey regarding leadership; however, we searched
online and found your 8-item questionnaire on organizational climate. We would like to
have permission to use this 8-item survey as part of her methodology.
Is this possible?
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,

202
Appendix D
Invitational Letter
203
Invitational Letter
Dear Participant:
As a doctoral candidate at Nova Southeastern University, I am writing to invite you to
participate in a study that delves into the narcissistic behaviors, toxic culture, power
characteristics, and organizational climate. This study builds upon the existing body of
research on specific leadership practices, as there is an increasing amount of research
regarding narcissistic behaviors of leaders within many organizations.
I would like to invite you to participate in an online survey, which should last no more
than 30 minutes.
The sample for this study consists of individuals who work within an organization of
various fields, such that of government, business, education, medical, social services, and
other. Therefore, individuals from all continents of the world, of any gender, all races and
who are of age 18 and over, as well as attain an education with a minimum of an
associate’s degree are eligible to complete the survey.
As a participant, you will receive an email that will contain a web link to a survey hosted
by Google Forms. Your contribution is very valuable.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from this study
at any time. This study will be conducted on an anonymous basis where no participant
information will be solicited. Survey responses will be recorded and managed through
Google Forms, which is a secure, password-protected survey-hosting website. Solely the
researchers, the Institutional Review Board, and dissertation chair will have access to the
survey responses. The survey responses will be secured on the researcher’s password
protected computer. All consent forms (i.e., participation form) and other data collected
will be stored in the researcher’s locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s personal office.
At the conclusion of the study, all study-related materials will be destroyed after the 36-
month post-completion wait period.
There will be no direct benefits to your participation in the study. However, your
participation will involve reflecting on your experiences, which may provide individuals
at all levels within an organization information useful for several purposes. Ultimately,
leadership teams, employees, and staff may become better informed of the behaviors and
characteristics of narcissistic, toxic, and power elements of leaders within an
organization.
If you have questions, please contact me through e-mail at ms3303@nova.edu. Please

accept my sincere thanks for your support and participation.
Sincerely,
Melissa T. Sasso, Doctoral Candidate

204
Appendix E
Participation Letter
205
Document-Participation Letter
Title of Study: How Narcissists Cannot Hold an Organization Together: A Mixed Method
Approach to a Fictitious Puzzle Factory
Principal investigator Co-investigator

Melissa Sasso, M.S. David B. Ross, Ed.D.
18256 SW 26 court, c/o Ashley Russom, Ed.D.
Miramar, FL 33029 Abraham S. Fischler College of
786-543-3619 Education
3301 College Ave
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
800-986-3223, Ext. 27838
Institutional Review Board Site Information

Nova Southeastern University No site
Office of Grants and Contracts
(954) 262-5369/Toll Free: 866-499-0790
IRB@nsu.nova.edu
Description of Study: Melissa Tara Sasso is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern

University engaged in research for the purpose of satisfying a requirement for a Doctor of
Education degree. The purpose of this study is to relate the effects of narcissistic
leadership to determine employees’ perceptions of their leader and explore how it will aid
individuals to grasp an understanding of (a) what narcissistic leadership is, (b) the
elements of power, and (c) the environment that has been formed due to the leadership
style. Therefore, it will be determined whether this form of leadership is beneficial for an
organization and how to adequately handle the problem they are facing with their leader
and the environment (i.e., organizational climate) that is being created due to their
leader's style of leadership. To accomplish this purpose, two surveys will be
administered, of which one is The Survey on Toxic Leadership, and the other is an eight
item survey that questions the climate of an organization and is called Eight Climate
Questions: Importance and Satisfaction.
The goals of this study are to (a) observe the fields of education, business, medical, social
services, and government, and employees within these areas will be capable of
comprehending better how they can deal with their leaders who display narcissism and
thus create a toxic culture; (b) have access to information and be more knowledgeable on
how to manage their leader; and (c) shed light to those who choose to take accountability
for their narcissistic behaviors and change their style of leadership to possibly improve
their organization's environment and their treatment towards their subordinates based on
what this study’s findings illustrate.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete the attached questionnaire.
206
This questionnaire will help the principal investigator identify the most relevant criteria
of characteristics that employees perceive to be narcissistic and demonstrate power and
control, which in turn create a toxic culture. The data from this questionnaire will be
used to comprehend the challenges, triumphs, and guidance from employees who have
been subject to an organization in which leaders fabricated a narcissistic and toxic
culture. It will also be utilized to offer administrators, employees, as well as researchers
meaningful information for those who have dealt with toxic and narcissistic
environments.
Risks/Benefits to the Participant: There is no risk involved in participating in this

study. There are no direct benefits to for agreeing to be in this study. Please understand
that although you may not benefit directly from participation in this study, you have the
opportunity to provide a valuable contribution to all professions by giving employees
within all fields assurance on having a better perspective in identifying and dealing with
particular behaviors and characteristics of controlling, narcissistic, and toxic leaders.
If you have any concerns about the risks/benefits of participating in this study, you can
contact the investigators and/or the university’s human research oversight board (the
Institutional Review Board or IRB) at the numbers listed above.
Cost and Payments to the Participant: There is no cost for participation in this
study. Participation is completely voluntary and no payment will be provided.
Confidentiality: Information obtained in this study is strictly confidential unless

disclosure is required by law. All data will be secured in a locked filing cabinet. Your
name will not be used in the reporting of information in publications or conference
presentations.
Participant’s Right to Withdraw from the Study: You have the right to refuse to
participate in this study and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without
penalty.
I have read this letter and I fully understand the contents of this document
and voluntarily consent to participate. All of my questions concerning this
research have been answered. If I have any questions in the future about this
study they will be answered by the investigator listed above or his/her staff.
I understand that the completion of this questionnaire implies my consent to

participate in this study.
207
Appendix F
Demographics for Participants Within Their Independent Fields: Business, Education,

Government, Medical, Social Services, and Other
208
Demographics for Participants Within the Field of Education
Wants to
Held a
Highest level of Years of work hold a
Subject Gender Age Race leadership
education experience leadership
position
position
P1 Female 30-39 White Master 1-9 Yes Yes
P3 Female 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 10-19 No No
P4 Male 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 1-9 No No
P5 Female 30-39 White Bachelor 1-9 No Yes
P6 Male 30-39 White Associate 10-19 Yes Yes
P7 Male 40-49 White Master 20-29 Yes No
P8 Male 40-49 White Master 20-29 Yes Yes
P9 Female 40-49 White Doctorate 10-19 Yes Yes
P13 Female 30-39 White Doctorate 10-19 No Yes
P14 Male 50-59 Black Master 10-19 Yes Yes
P15 Male 40-49 Hispanic Doctorate 20-29 Yes Yes
P17 Male 40-49 Black Master 20-29 Yes Yes
P18 Female 50-59 White Doctorate 20-29 No No
P19 Female 50-59 Hispanic Doctorate 30-39 Yes Yes
P22 Female 40-49 White Bachelor 30-39 Yes Yes

209
P23 Female 30-39 Other Doctorate 10-19 No Yes
P25 Female 18-29 White Master 1-9 No Yes
P26 Male 40-49 White Doctorate 20-29 Yes Yes
P27 Male 60+ White Doctorate 40+ Yes Yes
P28 Male 40-49 White Bachelor 20-29 Yes Yes
P30 Male 40-49 White Associate 20-29 Yes No
P31 Female 30-39 White Master 10-19 Yes No
P32 Female 60+ White Doctorate 40+ No No
P34 Female 18-29 Hispanic Associate 1-9 Yes Yes
Demographics for Participants Within the Field of Social Services
Wants to
Highest Held a
Years of work hold a
Subject Gender Age Race level of leadership
experience leadership
education position
position
P2 Male 40-49 White Bachelor 10-19 Yes No
P3 Female 40-49 Black Master 20-29 Yes Yes
P5 Male 40-49 Hispanic Master 20-29 Yes Yes
P6 Male 30-39 Hispanic Associate 10-19 Yes Yes

210
Demographics for Participants Within the Field of Business
Wants to
Highest Held a
education position
position
P1 Male 30-39 White Master 10-19 No Yes
P3 Male 60+ White Associate 40+ Yes Yes
P6 Male 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 20-29 Yes Yes
P7 Female 30-39 Other Bachelor 10-19 Yes Yes
P8 Male 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 10-19 Yes No
P9 Male 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 20-29 Yes Yes
P10 Male 18-29 Black Associate 1-9 Yes Yes
P11 Female 30-39 Black Bachelor 10-19 Yes Yes
P12 Female 30-39 Black Bachelor 10-19 Yes Yes
P13 Female 50-59 White Associate 30-39 Yes No
P14 Female 30-39 Other Associate 20-29 Yes No
P16 Female 30-39 Other Bachelor 10-19 No Yes

211
Demographics for Participants Within the Government Field
Wants to
Highest Held a
education position
position
P2 Female 60+ White Bachelor 40+ Yes Yes
P3 Female 60+ White Bachelor 30-39 Yes No
P5 Male 30-39 White Bachelor 10-19 No No
P7 Female 40-49 White Associate 20-29 Yes Yes
Demographics for Participants Within the Field of Medicine
Wants to
Highest Years of Held a
hold a
Subject Gender Age Race level of work leadership
leadership
education experience position
position
P1 Female 18-29 Other Master 1-9 No No
P2 Male 18-29 Hispanic Doctorate 1-9 Yes No
P3 Male 40-49 White Bachelor 20-29 Yes No
P4 Female 18-29 White Associate 10-19 No No

212
Demographics for Participants Within the “Other” Field
Wants to
Highest Held a
education position
position
P3 Male 30-39 Other Master 1-9 Yes Yes
P4 Male 60+ White Associate 40+ Yes Yes
P6 Female 30-39 White Master 1-9 Yes No
P7 Male 30-39 Black Bachelor 10-19 Yes No
P10 Female 30-39 Hispanic Bachelor 10-19 No Yes
P11 Male 18-29 Hispanic Bachelor 1-9 No Yes
P12 Female 18-29 Black Associate 1-9 Yes Yes
P13 Female 30-39 White Associate 1-9 Yes Yes
P14 Male 18-29 White Associate 1-9 No Yes
P15 Female 18-29 Black Associate 1-9 No Yes
P16 Female 18-29 Black Associate 1-9 No Yes

213
Appendix G
Quantitative Correlation Findings

214
Correlation of Narcissistic Characteristics and

Satisfaction
Narcissistic Satisfaction
Spearman's Narcissistic Correlation 1.000 -.425**
rho Coefficient
Sig. (1-tailed) . .000
N 87 87
Satisfaction Correlation -.425** 1.000
Coefficient
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .
N 87 87
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Importance
Narcissistic Importance
Spearman's Narcissistic Correlation 1.000 .164
rho Coefficient
N 87 87
Importance Correlation .164 1.000
Coefficient
N 87 87

Perceived Quality
Narcissistic Per quality
Spearman's Narcissistic Correlation 1.000 -.185*
rho Coefficient
N 87 87
Per quality Correlation -.185* 1.000
Coefficient
N 87 87
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
215
Correlation of Toxic Characteristics and Satisfaction

Toxic Satisfaction
Spearman's Toxic Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.503**
rho Sig. (1-tailed) . .000
N 87 87
Satisfaction Correlation Coefficient -.503** 1.000
N 87 87
Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
Correlation of Toxic Characteristics and Importance

Toxic Importance
Spearman's Toxic Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .069
rho Sig. (1-tailed) . .262
N 87 87
Importance Correlation Coefficient .069 1.000
N 87 87
Correlation of Toxic Characteristics and Perceived

Quality
Toxic Per quality
Spearman's Toxic Correlation 1.000 -.302**
rho Coefficient
N 87 87
Per quality Correlation -.302** 1.000
Coefficient
N 87 87
216
Correlation of Elements of Power and Satisfaction

Elements of power Satisfaction
Spearman's Elements Correlation 1.000 -.608**
rho of power Coefficient
N 87 87
Satisfactio Correlation -.608** 1.000
n Coefficient
N 87 87
Correlation of Elements of Power and Importance

Elements of power Importance
Spearman's Elements of Correlation 1.000 .014
rho power Coefficient
N 87 87
Importance Correlation .014 1.000
Coefficient
N 87 87
Correlation of Elements of Power and Perceived Quality

Elements of power Per quality
Spearman's Elements Correlation 1.000 -.391**
rho of power Coefficient
N 87 87
Per Correlation -.391** 1.000
quality Coefficient
N 87 87
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

How Narcissists Cannot Hold An Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach To A Fictitious Puzzle Factory

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

How Narcissists Cannot Hold An Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach To A Fictitious Puzzle Factory

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

How Narcissists Cannot Hold an Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach to a

Fictitious Puzzle Factory

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Nova Southeastern University

David B. Ross, EdD

Katrina Pann, PhD

Kimberly Durham, PsyD

I declare the following:

Melissa Tara Sasso

November 12, 2016

side, every step of the way.

a part of my life, as your constructive criticism in my writing abilities, led me to become

when I attain my doctorate.” Thank you for believing in me!

bear such scars or experience this form of leadership.

How Narcissists Cannot Hold an Organization Together: A Mixed Method Approach to a

The applied dissertation was designed to explore how narcissistic characteristics of

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................12

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................64

Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................93

Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ...........................................143

Statement of the Problem

According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), Bass’s theory of leadership is based on

three main styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. That

ineffective and immoral leadership, counterproductive leadership, counterproductive

illustrated that leadership necessitates both.

Narcissistic leadership has slowly peaked an interest among researchers and

organizations and social networking.

have numerous theologies of characteristics and behaviors of leadership.

she exercises a myriad of theoretically proven techniques by a practice and craft

of his or her profession. (Harper, 2012, p. 1)

It is also noted that leadership is crucial in determining how subordinates’ actions

toxic/narcissistic leadership and follower perception, narcissism and counterproductive

Background and Justification

form of leadership (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008).

and maladaptive narcissism as well as grandiose and vulnerable dimensions (Clarke,

characteristics such as a distorted view of self-importance, being in delusion of having

Deficiencies in the Evidence

Research illustrates that there is a plethora of knowledge available about various

effective leadership styles, such as that of transformational, transactional and those

researchers. Therefore, this form of leadership as well as how it affects the

organization’s environment and employees is essential to explore. According to

By observing the fields of education, business, medical, social services, and

to information and be more knowledgeable on how to manage their leader. Furthermore,

subordinates based on what this study’s findings illustrate.

The Role of the Researcher

The researcher also comprehends that it is their responsibility to address this

controversial can be viewed as avoidance of responsibility. For the reasons mentioned

agreed to take an anonymous and confidential survey. As stated in Dickson-Swift et al.

with potential participants and therefore build a personal relationship.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this mixed methods study is to investigate how narcissistic

leader's style of leadership. To accomplish this purpose, two surveys will be

Questions: Importance and Satisfaction.

The Survey on Toxic Leadership will be administered to individuals within all

an organization (see Appendix A).

In regards to the Eight Climate Questions: Importance and Satisfaction, it is a five

organization (see Appendix B).

Quantitative Research Question 1. What is the relationship between narcissistic

characteristics of leaders and the perceived quality of an organizational climate?

Objective 1. Identify narcissistic characteristics.

Objective 2. Identify the quality level of an organizational climate.

Objective 3. Determine the association between narcissistic characteristics and the

perceived quality of an organizational climate.