Perspective Chapter: Toxic Leadership in Higher Education – What We Know, How It Is Handled

Abstract

The concept of toxic leadership has been widely addressed in management, with demonstrated effects over the performance and climate of an organization. Although in recent years work has been done to identify the main aspects of this type of harmful leadership in various areas, such as financial, military, and health environments, not much has been concluded in relation to its influence and impact in the educational area, especially in higher education. However, there are several authors who have worked to identify the main aspects that compromise those who are affected by it, concluding that toxic leadership does indeed exist in tertiary education, and due to its often hierarchical structure, it sometimes becomes difficult to make it visible enough to be able to implement enough measures to contain it. The main objective of this chapter was to review the main features literature offers about toxic leadership, focusing it on the higher education scenario. Likewise, it was also developed its impact on those who suffer from it and its incidence on motivation of teachers and students within the learning environment. Finally, it was delved into how university structure works in relation to management of human resources, investigating its impact on leadership.

1. Introduction

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”—Abraham Lincoln.

Leadership in social systems has the dual responsibilities of complying to system requirements and at the same time satisfying what is needed at a local level [1]. However, toxic leadership remains as a shallow edge within leadership concept, despite the evidence indicating its effects and repercussions on people, in the both short and long terms [2, 3, 4].

One of the reasons that perhaps makes this topic remain even less explored than others in the area is because it is difficult to dismantle; affected people often find it difficult to talk about the issue, mainly due to fear of reprisals and greater stress caused by the leadership itself. However, it has been possible to verify its effects on a larger scale on the health and well-being of those affected, as well as on the organization in the long term. Although making a construct based on the various definitions of destructive leadership that exist in the literature is not easy, it has been possible to determine common characteristics and traits, which focus on the leader’s own attributes and their impact on their environment. In this way, toxic leadership can be defined as summation of characteristics and behaviors within leadership that can adversely affect the outcomes of an organization or the well-being of their employees, where exists a volitional nature in the decision of harm-doing. Many authors have tried to define what makes a leader toxic, appearing multiple features that characterize it. Within these, there are mentioned traits related to abusive compliance, with a consequent decline in followers’ morale, self-esteem, and performance, but, overall, toxic leadership has been openly related in the diminishment of aspects related to personal and collective well-being, having negative repercussions mainly in areas related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and mental health. There are other psychological aspects that may also relate to this kind of leadership, like work engagement, but there is still not enough evidence to reaffirm there is a clear impact in this aspect.

Considering all the aforementioned and in relation to the repercussions that leadership styles have on the followers, especially in the educational area, the concern is raised in this chapter to delve into how the toxic leader affects higher education management and academic results, specifically focusing on academics and their impact in their engagement and motivation. As we will see, the relationship between both can be very complex and not necessarily can be so easily related. However, determining the presence of toxic leadership may become a useful tool to develop strategies that can foster a culture of ethical leadership and early detection of potentially disruptive leaders.

2. Toxic leadership and its implications in higher education: impact and influences

2.1 Toxic leadership: searching for the proper definition

In order to understand the emergence and consolidation of a destructive leadership style in a certain environment, especially educational settings, it is first necessary to understand some basic notions regarding how leadership works. Regarding this, Ryan et al. (2021) define leadership in an exceptional way, understanding it not only as a phenomenon, but more as a process of influence, which requires a dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, within a given context, in order to achieve a certain purpose.

In this way, it is important to emphasize that leadership is developed and defined mainly by the interaction of three fundamental components: the leader him/herself, the follower, and, as Padilla et al. (2007) call it, a conductive environment. Thus, leadership becomes a co-constructed, relational and mutually influential process [5], where misleading or destructive behaviors or actions can have harmful consequences in the process and/or for those who compose it.

Having said this, the concept of the “dark side of leadership” [6], or toxic or destructive leadership, “can be defined as the summation of characteristics and behaviours within leadership that can adversely affect the outcomes of an organization or the well-being of their employees” [7]. Consequently, a relationship of leader-follower abuse is generated, in which an organizational sacrifice is visualized in the long term, despite, at first, being able to appreciate favorable operational results [8].

This harmful type of leadership is described by different terms, being recognizable mainly as toxic or destructive [2, 3, 4, 9, 10]. However, it is possible to find some common denominations and dimensions to clarify what should be understood as a toxic leader. A destructive leader must necessarily count with a “harmful behavior imbedded in the process of leading” ([9], p. 1310), in which it can be recognized into two different methods of action: or the leader invigorates the group to go after harmful goals or targets, and/or uses methods of influence. Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasize that, regardless of the observed behavior, there must be a volitional intention in the decisions where harm-doing is involved; this aspect differentiates it from merely ineffective leadership. “Thus, destructive leadership must be intentional, as in the way the leader chooses to adopt these types of conducts, despite other valid and ethical choices” ([7], p. 3).

In an effort to understand how toxic leadership emerges and develops, various authors have delved in its traits and impact [2, 3, 9, 10, 11], but overall it can be considered as a leadership style based on the physical and emotional impairment of people, with harmful consequences for their followers at a personal and organizational level.

Toxic or destructive leaders engage in negative behaviors with volitional intention [9], covering “several distinct but related dimensions of negative leadership” ([12], p. 2), such as abusive behavior, bullying, narcissism, self-promotion, and authoritarian practices.

Several authors note the common attributes and specific behaviors that toxic leaders display [2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15], which mainly implies abusive conducts, resulting in a decrease on the employer’s performance, as well as in their physical and mental well-being. In relation to this, some have dedicated themselves to typifying the most common or frequent attributes to recognize within toxic leadership, finding characteristics that focus on aggressive behaviors that negatively affect a third party, directly or indirectly. Within them, we identify Pelletier (2010), who suggests eight main characteristics: attack on followers’ self-esteem, lack of integrity, abusiveness, social exclusion, divisiveness, inequity, threats to security, and laissez-faire. According to what she describes, any of these dimensions have repercussions at a self-esteem level, resulting in a lack of integrity. On the other hand, Schmidt (2008) defines and operationalizes toxic leadership within five main dimensions, which include abusive supervision, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, unpredictability, and self-promotion.

Regarding these traits, several authors agree in categorizing narcissism as a critical part of the toxic leadership paradigm. Dominated by self-centered, dominant features, a narcissistic leader can demonstrate a “grandiose sense of entitlement, self-focus, inflated self-esteem and intense competitiveness” ([16], p. 1323), with actions triggered mainly by egotistical needs [17]. This type of leader also demands abusive obedience and is highly capable of disregarding other’s needs when setting a goal, driven by a selfish need for power [2, 3, 9]. From an educational point of view, Oplatka (2017) adds that narcissistic educational leaders “might be intolerant of criticism from teachers and stakeholders” and “enjoy manipulation of others and adopt a distorted stance of reality that is reinforced by their position” (p. 5).

Although to date there are no studies that categorically conclude that this aspect is the most dangerous and determining factor in the emergence of destructive leadership, it is important to emphasize its importance in the development of a destructive leader, since it enhances an environment of dysergy in an organization.

Comprehensively, Smith & Fredericks-Lowman (2019) impeccably summarize three key elements in toxic leadership: lack of concern for the well-being of their followers, a personality that can negatively affect organizational climate, and actions motivated primarily by self-interest. Also, this leadership must be deemed as a systematic practice, as its negative outcomes extend to long periods of time [13].

The results of these behaviors are reflected not only in the organization, but also in their subordinates. Repercussions fall mainly on aspects of mental and physical health, with a direct effect on work effectiveness and commitment [15]. Both of these concepts are closely related to motivation, which plays a key role in maintaining and perpetuating a good work environment. This is an important point to consider when measuring the impact of good leadership, since the level of motivation tends to influence job performance; therefore, and as many authors reckon, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are indeed two of the aspects more affected and diminished by leader toxicity [15, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Until recently, however, there was little evidence showing how the effects of toxic leadership could relate with other motivational traits in higher education, such as work engagement. In this way, novel investigations show that the impact over work engagement may not always relate directly to a toxic environment, especially in educational settings [7].

Within existing literature, research regarding toxic leadership has been mainly focused in areas such as military, business, and health care-related settings; nonetheless, attention toward educational organizations is not widely mentioned. Despite this, there are some important inputs such of those of Blasé & Blasé (2002), who noted that school teachers are indeed exposed to emotional abuse from their heads; furthermore, effects of such mistreatment can be extremely harmful to teachers’ professional and personal lives. Aravena (2019) also records the presence of toxic leadership in Chilean primary education, introducing behaviors reported by teachers that circulate between autocratic leadership, poor communication, inconsistent behavior, and poor strategic skills. Regarding this, he adds another interesting fact to the understanding of this leadership mechanism, since, when carrying out his study, he was able to observe that the personal perception of people affected by toxic leadership does not necessarily coincide with the perception of job experience. In this way, it concludes that the most mentioned behaviors, when consulting personal impressions of destructive leadership, were autocratic leadership and poor communication; however, when they are asked to recognize what do school principals do to be perceived as destructive leaders, inconsistent or erratic behavior, and poor strategic skills are the most frequent characteristics reported, showing that perceptions of toxic leadership and real experiences do not necessarily coincide. At the same time, he reports that although personal values are more profoundly impacted on the perception of a destructive leader, when it comes to identify their perceptions over job experience, managerial aspects are the actions that most influence teachers’ perceptions.

The collection of these conclusions is sometimes difficult to achieve, considering that many times these kinds of leaders become increasingly hard to unmask, due to the obstacles that exist in achieving the victim’s report of this type of abusive leadership.

If the leader faces no repercussions for their behavior or manages to achieve desired outcomes without being sanctioned, it is more likely to prolong this model over time [8]. Thus, “a toxic culture is sometimes difficult to detect from outside the organization, and for that reason often more difficult to deal with” ([8], p. 184), as once established, can be very difficult to overcome [22].

As Thoroughgood et al. (2017) explain, sometimes destructive leadership traits can become “highly functional in in situations requiring speed and decisiveness” ([23], p. 898), being associated with positive effects in the short term. In this way, there is little knowledge in explaining why, despite the clear negative impact, destructive leader behaviors are permitted not only by followers, but also by superiors or other figures in an organization.

2.2 Toxic leadership in higher education

Although there is not a large amount of evidence in the existing literature displaying the effect of toxic leadership in higher education, it is possible to say that there is knowledge of the existence of this type of leadership in this educational setting. Despite it has not yet been possible to explain with accuracy why this occurs, it is possible to elucidate it through its structure and management, which could lead to the enduring of these leaders in high positions defined by performance and efficiency.

In higher education, leadership relationships are influenced by many factors, not only related to leaders´ traits, but also by the cultural environment, such as organizational structures and hierarchies, which can enable competitive cultures [24]. In this way, Fahie (2020) highlights universities as institutions particularly susceptible to bullying, “given their decentralized organizational structures and explicit hierarchical power structures” (p. 346). Moreover, Klahn & Male (2022) attribute to quality management approaches “the emergence of policies centered on quality monitoring and market driven strategies, which can affect the worker’s perception of the type of leadership under which they are directed, as ‘increased attention to quality management yields opportunity costs and can meet reluctance of academics who feel these procedures are externally constructed, managed and imposed’” ([7], p. 7). This agrees with other appreciations, in which it is recognized that public institutions have adopted a shift in the way of understanding and managing higher education, with changes to hierarchical forms that determine a vertical and delimited leadership [25, 26]. With respect to this, there is also an important focus on corporate models of management and training, in which “emphasis is placed on accomplishing the mission more than how the mission is accomplished” ([12], p. 7), relating to the “lack of diverse thought when it comes to problem solving departmental or institutional financial challenges, engaging/supporting students as part of retention efforts, and innovating curriculum or student services” ([12], p. 8).

Concerning how it is possible to explain and apply these assertions to tertiary education reality, specifically in Latin America, the development of university policies and leadership styles are highly related to several changes in its structure, which have been taking place in the last three decades. This appears to have led institutions to adopt, as it has been said previously mentioned, managerial approaches, subjecting them to focus on competitiveness, increasing their internal efficiency and productivity [27]. In this way, the approach higher education had adopted has allowed an important diversification of the academic offer [28]; however, the current framework of governance is considered rigid in its structure, and “managerialism promoted by this model is strongly linked to the promotion of authoritarianism as a management mode” [24]. Understanding that this approach can normally be associated with authoritarian forms of leadership, it is possible to assume that a rigid environment could be more likely to be considered toxic and therefore be considered as a conductive environment.

Having said this, the structure of universities in different countries of America focuses on a market scheme, concerned with developing functions of analysis and strategic planning for its positioning in higher education. In turn, its policies focus strongly on quality assurance, obliging universities to establish units with specific functions for the analysis of institutional information and the continuous evaluation of their performance, in order to ensure quality of their teaching and learning and therefore their presence in the market [28]. In such manner, this system based on obtaining determined results could facilitate a competitive and highly demanding environment, which can lead to toxic behavior on the part of those who lead teams. Many times, and due to this, not meeting the objectives can lead to situations of pressure and stress, affecting the leader, and through him, if he/she does not know how to handle it, his employees.

In addition to this, the organizational framework of universities, functioning with three main levels—strategic level, middle line, and operational level—reveals the hierarchical nature of higher education, which although it focuses on rigid structures with defined functions, is in turn diversified into a set of units that may allow the decentralization of leadership and management.

Due to these institutional diversification strategies, higher education institutions have had to adapt and professionalize their administrative structure, incorporating to universities management professionals designated to hold academic-administrative positions [29]; however, the academic area, at the middle line and operational level, faces a different scheme, since leaders who guide units in the academic area do not always have formal leadership training, insomuch as selection criteria are based mainly on experience within the area and track record. Aravena (2019) offers an explanation of this, indicating that leaders are often elected due to personal aspects, rather than their effective aptitudes in leadership practices. This evidences a gap in educational leadership, as “leadership is viewed as inspirational models with examples of how to be rather than what to do” ([13], p. 85-86).

A work environment that enables a toxic leadership style has proved to have an effect on employees, who have their goals and well-being affected. Just as in other areas in which toxic leadership has been widely studied, higher education also experiences the consequences of this kind of leadership, including increases in absenteeism and turnover [12]. Blasé & Blasé (2002) highlight this problem as a direct result of the victim’s inability to have viable opportunities for recourse, as normally organizational cultures of this nature tend to turn a blind eye on these kind of destructive management practices. In turn, the victims´ complaints can result in no action from the upper-level authorities, including protection actions toward the toxic boss, or furthermore, reprisals against the victim for registering complaints (p. 679).

There are many researchers who can support these actions, in which it is explained that higher education academics often do not trust the educational system in terms of reporting harmful actions. This is mainly due to the absence of protection measures for those affected, despite the fact that institutions normally offer formal complaint channels [22].

Along with this, inefficiency in promotional systems is also reported, since they can focus on the productive result rather than on the assessment of leadership execution. In this regard, Fahie (2020) mentions how academics in Ireland report how, despite existing protocols to initiate a formal complaint against individuals, they still remain reluctant to do so due to the absence of protection measures if the identity of the plaintiff does not remain anonymous. Moreover, Aravena (2019) adds that an important number of destructive leaders can be frequently promoted or rewarded by their organizations, so this is an aspect that needs to be further investigated.

The implications of all the above make us reflect on the counterpart of toxic leadership: ethical leadership, and how this could improve a destructive environment. “Ethical leadership, in its true sense, promotes ethical conduct by practising as well as consciously managing ethics and holding everyone with the organization accountable for it” [30]. Although some authors agree that ethical leadership has not yet been sufficiently discussed and developed in the area [30], it could be considered as a valid mechanism that could detect a toxic leader in an early stage and thus contemplate the necessary measures to prevent its emergence.

However, understanding that ethics links to morality, it is important to point out that morality is socially derived, and as Male (2012) explains, “what is sometimes acceptable to one society is not always universally acceptable.”

Keeping this in mind, “the ethical issue is to determine whether the subsequent chosen courses of action are morally and philosophically acceptable” ([1], p. 200).

Hence, an ethical leader should demonstrate an appropriate ethical behavior, influencing followers through the promotion of adequate interpersonal relationships, communication, and ethical decision making, for being able in effect to predict positive outcomes in a working environment, such as job satisfaction, willingness to extra effort in the work, report problems to management, and increased perceived effectiveness of leaders [30]. Along with this, it is also recognized that a leader’s behavior not only impacts the follower’s well-being, but their own behavior via modeling, which contemplates practices that include imitation, observational learning, and identification [31]. “Therefore, credibility, legitimacy, and attractiveness of ethical supervisors as role models can stimulate individuals to model their behaviour” ([31], p. 78). Taking this into account, it becomes important not only to investigate the effects of character attributes, but also “to construct an understanding of how negative effects of traits can emerge and be prevented” ([13], p. 85).

Brown et al. (2005) refer to the importance of organizations expressing and reflecting development and monitoring policies of ethical leadership, giving some recommendations such as emphasizing care in the selection of qualified personnel. However, throughout literature there is no evidence or proposals of how this can be properly monitored, and given the implications that this can generate, it becomes necessary to suggest or consider the need for a formal framework of supervision, which may prevent the emergence of toxic leaders and therefore ensure an ethical leadership practice.

In conclusion, as Ryan et al. (2021) summarize in their study, there exists several factors by which a destructive leadership environment could be enabled in an educational environment. In this regard, the most important to consider would be the hierarchical structure and organization of schools or universities and the prevailing power relations in favor of those in authority, the nature of the specific leader–follower relationship and the sociological and psychological susceptibility of some subordinates to the behaviors and actions of the leader, or the deficiency of moral parameters or little applicability of social norms that determine the leader’s behavior and actions (p. 70).

2.3 Toxic leadership’s impact in academic performance and motivation

Available literature supports the negative impact of toxic leadership on people, specifically at work and personal levels. The consequences of its endurance over time have been extensively analyzed [4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, 32], and some studies have noted the different strategies that victims apply to cope with and overcome the oppressive and debilitating style of this leadership model [10, 20]. The most frequent and undesirable repercussion relies mainly on evading rather than confronting the leader, with determinant consequences such as leaving the organization, taking leave, and/or bypassing the leader [20]. However, other aspects such as work commitment have not yet been extensively explored, nor how toxic leadership could have any real influence on academic motivation, which in turn can have direct consequences on students learning. In relation to this, Hargreaves & Fullan (2012) affirm that educational work is firmly linked to a strong vocation and therefore motivation for teaching, so destructive leadership could sometimes not be enough to abandon this adverse environment. In the case of academics in higher education, this aspect becomes particularly relevant, since the majority do not have formal education in the pedagogical area; however, they choose to engage in education and possibly endure in it because of the same reason [33].

Conclusions reached in literature are, however, contradictory: For example, in the study, we carried out jointly with Male (2022), it was observed that “a relationship between the degree of toxicity of the leader and the level of engagement was not identified. Contrary to the expected result, despite the existence of average to high perceptions of toxicity in the work environment, none of the lecturers surveyed reported a decrease in their commitment” (p. 13). On the other hand, authors such as Hadadian & Sayadpour (2018) disprove this result, by identifying in their study a direct relationship between toxic leadership and job stress, which results in conflicts at individual and collective level [34]. In addition to this, Schmidt (2014) also reports an inversely proportional relationship between toxic leadership and other job outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, Fahie (2020) also complements these assertions, indicating how could productivity be negatively affected by destructive leadership.

Although these last results contrast with the first study mentioned, it is still important to establish that, although engagement is not an aspect that has been further investigated, it is still considered related to the concepts of well-being and mental health.

Explanations for this result may be difficult to elucidate, but there can be interpretations to understand the behavior of the findings. Firstly, it is important to consider the significance of callings or vocation on work-related outcomes, as “experiencing a calling to a particular career is likely to lead to one to become committed to that line of work” ([35], p. 216). Contrary to what happens in the pedagogical career, academics in higher education are not professionals trained entirely for teaching, but are also dedicated to working in their discipline; due to this, many decide to engage in the area essentially for vocational purposes. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that academic professionals do not necessarily tend to have an exclusive bond with the institution they work for, so this could be added as another justification for why they could labor more toward the objective than for the leader who directs them [7]. Considering this, they could be more willing to withstand and perpetuate in adverse environments.

Also, it must be acknowledged that perceptions and real experiences of this harmful leadership style may not always coincide; or, in other words, toxic leadership behaviors are not necessarily attributable to work experience (including work engagement) directly, since, as it has been said before, in the perception of destructive leaders, the personal and emotional component has bigger impact than management aspects [13].

Work satisfaction is a complex perception that includes many aspects, among others, the leader’s performance. As Schmidt (2014) recognizes, although many times the intentions of deserting a job are associated with the relationship between the leader and the affected, some other times it is totally unrelated. This reaffirms the importance of individual perception, which can vary from one individual to another in a very relevant way.

Finally, it cannot be left aside the importance of the rigid administrative structure that commands universities, which can also influence the degree of motivation of an academic, even in the face of a toxic or destructive environment. As indicated above, higher education institutions often work within a hierarchical framework, where leadership tends to be rigid in environments where there is not necessarily a horizontal and direct interaction between high leaders and the academic staff. Due to this, it is possible that, despite a bad leadership, professors tend to remain in their positions, since they do not directly channel their concerns with those who are responsible for creating a harmful work environment.

Taking all this into account, it is possible to say that interactionism turns out to be a key aspect to define the relevance of a relationship, both personal and work. According to Blasé and Blasé (2012), any interpersonal relationship is generated and modified through a subjective interpretive process, pushed by personal meanings according to the person, their context, and the environment in which they unravel. “Therefore, if the interaction with the leader is poor, negative appreciations may not necessarily have implications for academics’ performance in the classroom” ([7], p. 14).

As with other aspects, such as the impact of toxic leadership according to the victim’s susceptibility, the available evidence does not allow us to generate further conclusions in this regard, since although the traits that are diminished with this kind of leadership are clearly consensual, they are little associated with the context of those consulted. In other words, it is known that toxic leadership significantly decreases job satisfaction or organizational commitment, but it is not contextualized in terms of who is most likely to suffer these dismays. This is very relevant to consider, when defining intervention strategies and good practice policies, since if the profile of the most frequently affected academics is not fully known, it becomes more complicated to study the development of the toxic leader in their setting.

3. Conclusions

There is a widespread consensus on the importance of good leadership in work groups, especially in the educational area. In this regard, different studies have investigated the different aspects that characterize good management, focused on both managerial and personal aspects. Considering this, it can be concluded that these last traits are the ones that have the greatest impact on followers, since they define not only their quality of life, but also their performance and commitment, and with it, the results in the organization.

As has been reviewed, leadership is understood as a dynamic and interactional process, where performance results depend not only on the leader, but also on the people that compose the team, and the context in which the group is inserted.

It is well known and agreed the repercussions that toxic leadership has in a person’s well-being, which usually relate to aspects compromising their mental health and work commitment [4, 9, 20]. However, other aspects that can also have an impact, especially in the educational environment, must not be neglected. In this regard, the effects of toxic leadership on work engagement have been investigated, but there are no conclusive aspects that indicate there is a direct relationship.

Higher education is not an area of vast knowledge and evidence regarding toxic leadership. Nonetheless, it is possible to recognize some studies that validate it in the environment, but there is not enough proof to indicate the reasons why it emerges, nor how it is managed when it is detected.

In this regard, it is possible to conclude that there is a consensus in establishing that the hierarchical structure and top-down management styles can, as a context, facilitate the emergence of a toxic leader. In relation to the permanence over time, no objective reasons are acknowledged as to why it happens, but the scarce protection measures for victims who report abusive or destructive situations, and the lack of monitoring in the leadership within the area, are the most mentioned causes of maintenance over time.

Taking into account that not all people deal in the same way with harmful or traumatic events, having a clear idea of how the leader affects the performance of a worker at the moment is essential to establish adequate intervention strategies.

There are still many aspects to be developed within toxic leadership in education, especially in that related to university settings. As a conclusion, it can be affirmed that toxic leaders do have an impact on academics, although it is not necessarily related to their degree of dedication to work. Therefore, more background and future research is needed in which the implications of leadership styles on academics’ motivation, engagement, and well-being can be developed more deeply, through long-term studies, which may contemplate not only the victim’s appreciation. Finally, it becomes necessary to implement new policies that can ensure control of the appropriate performance of the leader, beyond the achievement of results of the institution’s goals, such as monitoring mechanisms or permanent evaluations from both superiors and subordinates to the performance of an assigned leader.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.