Dynamics of toxic leadership within the military

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Dynamics of Toxic Leadership Within the Military
Talon J. Burgess
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2025

© Copyright by Talon J. Burgess 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Talon J. Burgess certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
Rudy Crew
Corinne Hyde, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2025

iv
Abstract
This dissertation examines toxic leadership in the military through a mixed methods study of
veterans, focusing on self-efficacy, observational learning, and environmental factors. Drawing
on both qualitative and quantitative data, the study explores how toxic leadership impacts
morale, retention, and overall organizational culture. Findings are based on data collected during
the research study, and shifts in military policies, leadership training, and institutional
frameworks may influence the application of the data in current contexts. This study also
highlights veterans’ lived experiences and the perceived effectiveness of current interventions.
Ethical guidelines and institutional review board approvals were followed, with no conflicts of
interest or external funding. The author acknowledges the support of academic advisors and
participating veterans, emphasizing the importance of considering evolving research and
organizational changes when interpreting these findings.
Keywords: toxic leadership, military leadership, veterans, self-efficacy, observational
learning, environmental factors, organizational culture, mixed methods, leadership development,
accountability

v
Dedication
To my incredible family—my wife, Julie, and our sons, Talon and Ryder. Your unwavering
support, patience, and love carried me through this journey. From the late nights to the countless
hours tucked away working, you gave me the space and strength to pursue this goal. Every page
of this work is a reflection of your belief in me. I am forever grateful.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the individuals who guided, supported,
and challenged me throughout this dissertation process.
To my dissertation committee—Dr. Corinne Hyde, Dr. Brianna Hinga, and Dr. Rudolph
Crew—thank you for your wisdom, feedback, and dedication to ensuring this research captured
the depth and complexity it required. A special thank you to my chair, Dr. Corinne Hyde, for
your steady encouragement and insightful guidance from beginning to end. Your commitment to
excellence helped shape this study into what it is today.
To my family—Julie, Talon, and Ryder—your patience, love, and constant
encouragement made this journey possible. You sacrificed time, endured long nights, and
reminded me of what truly matters. Thank you for being my foundation throughout this journey.
This accomplishment is as much yours as it is mine.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 2
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions............................................................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory.................................................................................... 9
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 10
Leadership Styles and Alternatives................................................................................... 14
Definition and Characteristics of Toxic Leadership ......................................................... 16
Effects on Organizational Climate.................................................................................... 18
Impact on Individuals ....................................................................................................... 20
Mitigation and Intervention Strategies.............................................................................. 23
Summary of Literature Review......................................................................................... 24
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 26

viii
Participants........................................................................................................................ 26
Instruments........................................................................................................................ 34
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 44
Analysis of Research Questions........................................................................................ 45
Summary of Chapter......................................................................................................... 66
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 69
Summary of Key Findings................................................................................................ 70
Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................................. 71
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 79
Recommendations for Future Research............................................................................ 88
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 90
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 93
References..................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 109

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Constructs and Question Alignment for Assessing Toxic
Leadership in Military Organizations
37
Table A1: Survey Questions 110

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory 10
Figure 2: Distribution of Survey Participants by Military Service Branch 27
Figure 3: 2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Service Branch 28
Figure 4: Distribution of Survey Participants by Prior Military Rank 29
Figure 5: Gender Distribution of Survey Participants 30
Figure 6: 2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Gender 31
Figure 7: Ethnicity/Race Distribution of Survey Participants 32
Figure 8: 2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Race and Ethnicity 33
Figure 9: Frequency of Organizational Measures Implemented to Address Toxic
Leadership
46
Figure 10: Perceived Effectiveness of Measures to Address Toxic Leadership 47
Figure 11: Trends by Gender 49
Figure 12: Breakdown by Racial/Ethnic Identity 50
Figure 13: Transparency in Addressing Toxic Leadership 51
Figure 14: Frequency of Organizational Communication on Toxic Leadership 53
Figure 15: Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Productivity 55
Figure 16: Perceived Organizational Priority on Addressing Toxic Leadership 57
Figure 17: Perceived Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Employee
Retention
59
Figure 18: Satisfaction With Retention Rates of Skilled Employees 60
Figure 19: Instances of Witnessed Departures Due to Toxic Leadership 61
Figure 20: Veterans’ Ratings of Organizational Performance Metrics 63
Figure 21: Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Morale 64
Figure 22: Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Performance Metrics 65

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the realm of military organizations around the world, military personnel are crucial,
forming the operational backbone of these institutions. Factors such as recruitment campaigns,
fiscal policies, and the geopolitical environment influence the variation in the number of military
members across branches (Strand & Berndtsson, 2015). There has been a significant increase in
recruitment in recent years, enlarging the size of military forces globally. Evolving security
needs, strategic revisions, and efforts to counteract attrition and enhance retention are propelling
this growth (Bush et al., 2013). The increase in recruitment bolsters the armed forces’ overall
strength and capability, facilitating their adaptation to the evolving demands of global security
challenges.
Toxic leadership, characterized by harmful behaviors and a disregard for subordinates’
well-being, poses a significant challenge to the integrity of military organizations and extends
beyond to various high-stress professions (Mergen & Ozbilgin, 2021). This phenomenon,
extensively studied and popularized by scholars such as Lipman-Blumen (2005), presents a
multifaceted issue affecting individual welfare and overall operational effectiveness. In military
contexts, toxic leadership manifests through communication failures, diminished trust, and an
atmosphere of intimidation rather than collaboration (Weller et al., 2014). Such environments
impede personal and professional growth and compromise units’ readiness and effectiveness
(Blacker et al., 2019). The reluctance to address toxic leadership, often due to fear of reprisal or
career repercussions, underscores broader challenges in addressing power misuse within
organizations and society (Mackey et al., 2021).
Harmful behaviors associated with toxic leadership include micromanagement, bullying,
lack of transparency, favoritism, and poor communication (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). These

2
behaviors detrimentally impact both individual subordinates and organizational outcomes.
Subordinates experience heightened stress, reduced job satisfaction, and compromised wellbeing, leading to decreased productivity and retention rates. Moreover, toxic leadership erodes
trust and collaboration within teams, impeding the organization’s ability to achieve its objectives
effectively. Addressing toxic leadership is thus essential for fostering a healthy organizational
climate conducive to individual growth and operational success.
Recognizing the parallels between the challenges faced by individuals under toxic
leadership and those encountered in other contexts, this dissertation emphasizes the need for
strong support systems and accountable leadership within the military (Kurtulmuş, 2021). Just as
academic advisors play a crucial role in helping students overcome academic and personal
challenges, the military requires strategic measures to combat toxic leadership, which involves
creating an environment where respect, transparency, and constructive feedback are valued
(Castelli, 2016). This study sought to explore the dynamics of toxic leadership within military
contexts and to identify effective strategies to mitigate its negative impacts, aiming to foster
ethical, efficient, and people-focused leadership practices within the military.
Background of the Study
Toxic leadership is a critical concern that undermines the integrity and functionality of
military organizations, posing significant risks to both the well-being of individuals and the
broader efficacy of military operations (Fosse et al., 2019). My study zeroed in on the
detrimental effects of toxic leadership within the armed forces, highlighting the profound
implications it has on personal health, morale, and the overall success of military missions. The
toxic leadership phenomenon extends beyond any singular context, reflecting broader issues of
power misuse and its effects on group dynamics and organizational health.

3
Military personnel, much like individuals in any high-stress professional setting, face
significant challenges under toxic leadership. These challenges include communication failures,
diminished trust, lowered morale, and a pervasive culture of fear and compliance rather than
cohesion and mutual respect (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). Such an environment not only
hampers individual career progression and personal well-being but also directly impacts the
operational readiness and effectiveness of military units. The stress and anxiety associated with
navigating an environment characterized by toxic leadership can lead to increased absenteeism,
decreased retention, and a significant reduction in the organization’s ability to meet its strategic
objectives effectively (Govindaras et al., 2023).
Moreover, the organizational culture shaped by toxic leaders often discourages openness
and stigmatizes help seeking, making it difficult for individuals to voice concerns or report
misconduct (Gough & Novikova, 2020). This silence and inaction further embed toxic behaviors,
perpetuating a vicious cycle that individuals find difficult to disrupt. Reluctance to address toxic
leadership, stemming from fear of retaliation or career repercussions, reflects broader societal
challenges concerning power dynamics and the difficulty of confronting authority figures who
misuse their positions (Kleef, 2023).
Recognizing the parallels between the struggles faced by individuals in high-pressure
environments across different contexts, this study underscored the necessity of robust support
mechanisms and leadership accountability measures. Like academic advisors’ pivotal role in
guiding and supporting students, military organizations must devise and implement strategies to
identify, address, and prevent toxic leadership (Labrague, 2024). By fostering a culture that
values transparency, respect, and constructive feedback, military leaders can enhance the

4
resilience and well-being of their personnel while ensuring the organization’s mission readiness
and operational success (Parris et al., 2016).
Therefore, this research aimed to deepen the understanding of the dynamics of toxic
leadership within military settings and to explore effective interventions for mitigating its
harmful effects. Through a comprehensive examination of the mechanisms through which toxic
leadership manifests and its impact on individual and organizational outcomes, this study sought
to contribute to the development of more ethical, effective, and people-centered leadership
practices within the military. The goal was to promote a healthier organizational culture that
supports the well-being and professional growth of all service members, thereby enhancing the
overall performance and integrity of military institutions.
Theoretical Framework
Scholars and practitioners have invested significant efforts in comprehending the factors
contributing to the continuity or departure of individuals within organizational contexts
(Corrales-Estrada et al., 2021). This chapter delves into the prevalent issue of toxic leadership
within the military, aiming to establish the theoretical foundation for the present study. In this
regard, I introduce and examine Bandura’s (2019) social cognitive theory (SCT) for its relevance
in understanding and mitigating toxic leadership behaviors within military settings.
Bandura’s (2019) SCT provides valuable insights into the intricacies of human behavior
within social frameworks, emphasizing the reciprocal interaction among personal attributes,
environmental stimuli, and behavioral responses (Beauchamp et al., 2019). According to
Bandura, individuals acquire behaviors through observation, imitation, and reinforcement, with
cognitive mechanisms playing a pivotal role in behavior formation. In the context of toxic
leadership, SCT posits that individuals may internalize and propagate detrimental leadership

5
practices through observational learning and environmental conditioning (Mergen & Ozbilgin,
2021). Furthermore, individuals’ perceptions of their efficacy in confronting and challenging
toxic leadership behaviors may influence their propensity to take corrective actions (Rose et al.,
2015).
Through the incorporation of Bandura’s (2019) SCT into the theoretical framework, this
study endeavored to elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving toxic leadership behaviors
within military organizations. The study sought to explore the interplay of cognitive processes,
environmental stimuli, and individual beliefs in perpetuating or mitigating toxic leadership
practices. This study strived to offer a holistic understanding of toxic leadership dynamics and
pave the way for development of efficacious intervention strategies.
In conclusion, the theoretical framework outlined in this chapter integrates Bandura’s
(2019) SCT to enrich our comprehension of toxic leadership within military contexts. By
embracing alternative perspectives, this study aspired to contribute to the advancement of
scholarship in the realms of military leadership and organizational behavior.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was purposefully motivated by the observed harm and
repercussions of toxic (harmful) leadership on both individuals and military organizations, with
its primary objective being to delve into the military’s organizational culture and its apparent
deficiency in holding toxic (harmful) leaders accountable for their actions. Through this research,
the aim was to establish a foundational knowledge base, paving the way for the military to
design and implement a robust system of accountability that effectively discourages toxic
(harmful) leadership behaviors.

6
Research Questions
This study investigated the following four research questions:
1. How do military veterans perceive the effectiveness of measures implemented to
address toxic leadership within military organizations?
2. How do military veterans perceive the demonstration of concerns by military
organizations regarding the influence of toxic leaders on the productivity of their
work environment?
3. How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic leadership on an organization’s
ability to retain skilled employees in the military context?
4. How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic leadership on an organization’s
ability to maintain performance metrics with current employees in the military
context?
Importance of the Study
The landscape of military organizations is undergoing a significant transformation, driven
by the evolving demographics and complexities of global military engagements (Milevski,
2016). As these organizations navigate the challenges of the 21st century, the specter of toxic
leadership looms large, threatening to undermine their integrity, operational effectiveness, and
the well-being of their personnel (Indradevi, 2016). This study was critically motivated by the
urgent need to address the detrimental impacts of toxic leadership within the military context,
where the stakes include national security, unit cohesion, and service members’ mental and
physical health.
Given the military’s hierarchical and mission-driven nature, toxic leadership can have
profound and wide-reaching effects, impacting everything from day-to-day operations to long-

7
term strategic goals (Reed & Olsen, 2010). The repercussions of failing to manage and mitigate
toxic leadership effectively extend beyond the immediate victims of such behaviors, affecting
overall organizational performance, readiness, and the ability to attract and retain high-quality
personnel (Mergen & Ozbilgin, 2021). This research aimed to shed light on the extent to which
military organizations currently recognize and confront the issue of toxic leadership, evaluate the
effectiveness of existing measures to combat these behaviors, and explore the relationship
between toxic leadership and key organizational outcomes, including retention of skilled
employees and maintenance of performance metrics (Mackey et al., 2021).
The significance of this study was in its potential to contribute to the creation of a more
accountable, just, and effective military culture—one that prioritizes the well-being and
professional development of its members over the preservation of detrimental leadership
practices. Through an exploration of toxic leadership dynamics within military organizations,
this research aimed to provide actionable insights and recommendations for policy and practice
to cultivate environments where respect, integrity, and constructive leadership thrive. In doing
so, the study aspired to pave the way for a future where military organizations are not only better
equipped to address the challenges posed by toxic leaders but also more adept at cultivating
leadership qualities that enhance organizational effectiveness and personnel welfare.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is structured as follows to systematically address the objectives outlined
in the study’s purpose and to thoroughly explore the research questions regarding toxic
leadership within military organizations. Chapter Two delves into the critical review of literature
relevant to toxic leadership, its identification, and the existing mechanisms within military
organizations aimed at addressing such behaviors. This chapter categorizes the literature into

8
thematic areas: (a) the nature and impact of toxic leadership, (b) the cultural and structural
factors within military organizations that may perpetuate or mitigate these behaviors, and (c) the
status of accountability mechanisms. The discussion extends to exploring the effects of toxic
leadership on personnel well-being, organizational culture, and operational effectiveness, linking
these aspects to the retention of skilled personnel and overall performance metrics within
military settings. Chapter Three outlines the methodology employed in this study, detailing the
demographic characteristics of participating military personnel, the instruments and techniques
used for data collection, and the research design adopted for data analysis. This section aims to
provide a transparent overview of how the study was conducted, ensuring the reliability and
validity of the findings. Chapter Four presents the findings of the research, offering a
comprehensive analysis of the collected data in relation to the research questions. This chapter
aims to illuminate the extent to which toxic leadership is recognized and addressed within
military organizations, alongside examining the proposed relationship between toxic leadership,
the retention of skilled personnel, and the maintenance of performance metrics. Chapter Five
discusses the implications of the study’s findings, offering a critical interpretation of the results
within the context of existing literature and the study’s theoretical framework. The chapter also
presents the limitations of the study and proposes directions for future research. Furthermore, it
offers actionable recommendations for military leaders, policymakers, and practitioners aimed at
enhancing the accountability mechanisms for toxic leadership, thereby fostering a healthier
organizational culture and improving overall organizational effectiveness.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review delves into the comprehension of toxic leadership in the military,
encompassing the definition and attributes of toxic leadership, its repercussions on organizational
climate, its effects on individuals, various leadership styles and alternatives, and mitigation and
intervention strategies. The exploration of literature concerning these five dimensions is
presented, elucidating their relevance to guiding the accountability of toxic leaders. The chapter
culminates by putting forth research questions and summarizing the pivotal insights gleaned
from the literature, laying a foundation for comprehending and tackling the issue of toxic
leadership accountability.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura’s (2019) social cognitive theory (SCT) provides a valuable framework for
understanding how individuals learn and enact behaviors within a social context, which is
particularly relevant in the military environment. According to Bandura (1986, 2018), learning
occurs through the observation of others, imitation, and modeling. This theory emphasizes the
importance of cognitive processes, such as attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation, in
learning new behaviors (Bandura, 1986).
In the context of toxic leadership, Bandura’s (2019) SCT can help explain how negative
behaviors are learned and perpetuated within military organizations. Leaders and subordinates
alike may model their behavior based on the actions of others, leading to the spread of toxic
behaviors if not properly addressed (Batchelor et al., 2023; Zimbardo & Smith, 2007).
Understanding this theory provides insight into the mechanisms by which toxic leadership can be
mitigated through positive role modeling and reinforcement of constructive behaviors (Avey et
al., 2011; Bandura, 2001). Figure 1 shows Bandura’s SCT.

10
Figure 1
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
Note. Adapted from Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, by
A. Bandura, 1986, p. 18. Prentice-Hall.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework integrates key psychological constructs—self-efficacy, selfregulation, observational learning, and environmental influences—within the context of military
leadership and performance, based on Bandura’s (2019) SCT. These constructs interact to shape
behaviors and outcomes in high-stress, hierarchical environments such as the military (Byrnes,

11
2013; Kelley et al., 2015; Kyröläinen et al., 2018). The SCT framework posits self-efficacy
enhances self-regulation, whereas observational learning impacts self-efficacy by providing
models of successful behavior (Bandura, 2001; Bandura & Locke, 2003). Supportive
environments bolster both self-efficacy and self-regulation, creating a positive feedback loop that
enhances overall performance (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019; Williams & Rhodes, 2016).
Effective leadership and team cohesion are outcomes of these interconnected processes, which
are crucial for mission success and adaptability in military operations (Day et al., 2014). This
framework underscores the importance of developing interventions that enhance self-efficacy,
self-regulation, and observational learning within supportive environments, leading to improved
leadership and performance in military settings (Avey et al., 2011).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, as Bandura and Locke (2003) conceptualized, is a fundamental
psychological construct that significantly influences organizational leadership and performance.
It denotes individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to organize and execute actions required to
achieve designated performance levels (Bandura, 1978). In the military context, self-efficacy
plays a crucial role in shaping military veterans’ behaviors, decision-making processes, and
overall performance outcomes (Kyröläinen et al., 2018). Military veterans with high levels of
self-efficacy are more likely to demonstrate greater motivation, resilience, and perseverance in
the face of challenges encountered during military operations (Williams & Rhodes, 2016).
Moreover, self-efficacy positively affects military veterans’ adaptability to stressful situations,
their ability to navigate complex tasks effectively, and their overall job satisfaction within
military settings (Williams & Rhodes, 2016).

12
When measuring self-efficacy within the military context, it is crucial to consider that
self-efficacy is specific to particular tasks or goals. For example, a military veteran may have
high self-efficacy in performing one function of their job but low self-efficacy in performing a
different function (Mobbs & Bonanno, 2018). Therefore, when examining the relationship
between self-efficacy and leadership behaviors in the military, this research measured selfefficacy in relation to various elements of military veterans’ military experience, such as specific
tasks, roles, or responsibilities. This approach allowed for a more comprehensive understanding
of how self-efficacy influences military veterans’ performance and leadership effectiveness in
different contexts within the military environment.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation, a concept rooted in self-control and goal-directed behavior, holds
significant importance within the domain of military leadership and performance. Self-regulation
is the process by which individuals set goals, monitor their progress, and adjust their actions to
achieve desired outcomes (Byrnes, 2013). In military contexts, self-regulation plays a crucial
role in shaping soldiers’ ability to regulate their emotions, impulses, and behaviors in high-stress
environments (Kyröläinen et al., 2018). Soldiers who exhibit strong self-regulatory skills are
better equipped to maintain focus, adhere to mission objectives, and make sound decisions under
pressure (Grusec, 1992). Moreover, self-regulation is linked closely to adaptive coping strategies
and resilience in military personnel, enabling them to effectively manage stressors and maintain
optimal performance levels during prolonged deployments or combat situations (Kelley et al.,
2015). By examining the role of self-regulation in military leadership, this research aimed to
elucidate its impact on leadership effectiveness, team cohesion, and mission success. Insights
gleaned from this investigation can inform the development of training programs and

13
interventions aimed at enhancing soldiers’ self-regulatory abilities, thereby bolstering their
capacity to thrive in challenging operational environments and contributing to overall
organizational resilience (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019).
Observational Learning
Observational learning is a critical mechanism through which individuals acquire new
behaviors, skills, and knowledge by observing and imitating the actions of others (Bandura,
2001). Within the military context, observational learning plays a pivotal role in shaping
soldiers’ behaviors, decision-making processes, and leadership styles (Bandura, 2018). Soldiers
often learn from observing the actions and strategies employed by their superiors, peers, and
subordinates during training exercises, missions, and daily operations, which can and often
includes toxic leadership as a learned behavior (Reed, 2004). Moreover, observational learning
facilitates the dissemination of best practices, innovative techniques, and lessons learned across
military units, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and adaptability (Morse et al.,
2019). By examining the role of observational learning in military leadership, this research
aimed to elucidate its impact on leadership development, organizational learning, and mission
effectiveness. Insights derived from this investigation can inform the design of training
programs, mentoring initiatives, and leadership development interventions aimed at harnessing
the power of observational learning to enhance leadership competencies and foster a culture of
excellence within military organizations (Day et al., 2014).
Environmental Influences
Environmental influences, as Bandura (2019) outlined in SCT, play a crucial role in
shaping individual behaviors, attitudes, and decision-making processes. Within the military
context, environmental factors, such as organizational culture, leadership styles, and situational

14
constraints, exert significant influence on soldiers’ performance and outcomes (Kyröläinen et al.,
2018). The military environment presents unique challenges, including high-stress situations,
hierarchical structures, and complex mission objectives, all of which can impact soldiers’
behavior and performance (Miller et al., 2008). Environmental influences within military units,
such as peer dynamics, unit cohesion, and mission demands, also shape soldiers’ perceptions,
motivations, and behaviors (Connable et al., 2018).
Leadership Styles and Alternatives
In navigating the realm of leadership, various styles and alternatives exist that leaders can
employ to guide, mentor, and lead their direct reports effectively (Schiena et al., 2013). Each
style offers distinct benefits contingent upon the circumstances, timing, and rationale behind its
application (Lester et al., 2024). Although the interpretation of leadership may be subjective, the
adverse impacts stemming from ineffective leadership on individuals and organizations are
unequivocal (Gallus et al., 2013). Thus, acquiring knowledge of and proficiency in different
leadership styles and alternatives furnishes individuals with the requisite tools to emerge as
successful leaders and valuable assets to their respective organizations (L. Wong et al., 2003).
U.S. Army Leadership Concept
The U.S. Army leadership concept endeavors to align its leadership approach with a
model advocating for proactive leadership characterized by the promotion of positivity,
resilience, and organizational flourishing. One study delved into positive leadership strategies,
assessing their alignment with the U.S. Army leadership concept’s doctrinal assumptions vis-àvis Cameron and Conley’s (2012) positive leadership framework (Lis, 2016). Cameron’s model
delineates key frameworks, including positive climate, positive relationships, positive
communication, positive meaning, and positive ethics (Cameron & Conley, 2012). Leaders can

15
use this framework as a foundational resource for refining their leadership competencies.
Although Cameron’s framework represents one paradigm, the U.S. Army has undertaken
additional leadership studies, reflecting its commitment to comprehensive leadership
development. Further research by Brooks and Greenberg (2018) and Sudha et al. (2016) has
underscored the importance of positive leadership strategies in promoting organizational
effectiveness and employee well-being within military contexts.
Overview of Army Leadership Studies
Organizations must comprehend their environments and circumstances thoroughly before
embarking on change initiatives. A study conducted by the U.S. Army provided a comprehensive
overview of Army leadership studies, encompassing conceptualization, assessment, leader
development, and situational leadership (Fallesen et al., 2011). This study elucidated how
deliberate leadership approaches can prove more advantageous in cultivating and nurturing
resilient leaders. Such leaders not only positively influence their subordinates and the
organization but also effectively fulfill mission requirements. Consequently, training programs
have been modified to foster these insightful leadership paradigms. Another notable leadership
style emphasized for its positive impact is servant leadership, which is discussed further in the
subsequent section. The emphasis on servant leadership as a beneficial leadership paradigm
aligns with research by Ortiz-Gomez et al. (2022) and Wang et al. (2022), which has highlighted
the effectiveness of servant leadership in promoting organizational effectiveness and employee
well-being.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership, a leadership style that has garnered increased attention in recent
years, has become a subject of study within various contexts. A study conducted in Spain

16
examined the interplay between servant, paradoxical, and authentic leadership styles and their
impact on engagement among military personnel (Ruiz Moreno et al., 2021). The study revealed
that adopting a servant leadership approach positively influences engagement levels by fostering
the development of proactive personalities. This finding holds significant implications,
suggesting servant leadership can inspire military personnel to adopt a proactive stance,
emphasizing solution-oriented approaches over reactive responses. By encouraging individuals
to take initiative and exert influence over outcomes, rather than passively awaiting
developments, servant leadership can enhance productivity, accountability, and overall
performance within military settings. Furthermore, while acknowledging the benefits of
embracing various leadership styles and alternatives, both the military and other organizations
must establish comprehensive policies and implement training programs that support mitigation
and intervention strategies. Studies by Polusny et al. (2023) and Adler et al. (2022) have not only
confirmed the importance of leadership development programs in fostering resilient and effective
leaders within military contexts but also have provided additional insights. They have
emphasized that, by proactively addressing potential challenges and implementing adequate
support mechanisms, organizations can effectively leverage the strengths of different leadership
styles while mitigating associated risks. These findings underscore the significance of continuous
leadership development efforts in enhancing organizational resilience and effectiveness, offering
valuable insights beyond the initial study’s conclusions.
Definition and Characteristics of Toxic Leadership
Establishing a comprehensive definition and characterization of toxic leadership within
the military is crucial for gaining insights into its nature, identifying observable signs, and
understanding its impact on individuals and organizations. Although the topic has garnered

17
attention in nonmilitary settings, its prominence in peer-reviewed literature within the military
context remains limited. This section aims to bridge this gap by presenting definitions sourced
from both peer-reviewed literature and military organizational sources, contributing to a more
nuanced understanding of toxic leadership in military settings.
U.S. Army’s Definition of Negative Leadership
The U.S. Army’s definition of toxic leadership identifies toxic leadership by various
names, such as negative, harmful, or destructive leadership. Toxic leadership, according to the
U.S. Army, is characterized by self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that adversely
impact subordinates, the organization, and mission performance (Fosse et al., 2019). Notably,
this definition aligns closely with Lipman-Blumen’s articulation of toxic leadership theory in
2005, and with Whicker, who has been credited with coining the term “toxic leadership” in 1996.
The definition and traits associated with these types of leaders are intricately interconnected.
Overview of Toxic Leadership Traits
Toxic leadership, akin to the definition set forth by the U.S. Army, manifests
recognizable traits characterized by destructive, abusive, and ineffective behaviors (Milosevic et
al., 2020). Such leaders prioritize control over competence and often prioritize their authority
over organizational goals. This authoritarian leadership style, although occasionally effective in
certain contexts, tends to stifle innovation and creativity among subordinates. These findings
have been corroborated by various studies highlighting the detrimental impact of toxic leadership
on organizational dynamics and employee well-being (Brouwers & Paltu, 2020; Schmidt, 2008).
Thus, recognizing and addressing toxic leadership behaviors is crucial for fostering a positive
organizational culture and achieving long-term success.

18
Actions of Toxic Leaders
The impact of toxic leaders extends beyond individual experiences to affect both
organizational dynamics and individual potential. Actions such as appropriating others’ work,
issuing threats, and displaying anger create an atmosphere of fear and hinder organizational
progress (Ashkanasy & Dorris, 2017). For instance, military leaders failing to acknowledge
subordinates’ contributions, threatening individuals with poor performance reviews, or reacting
with hostility to innovative approaches all contribute to a toxic environment. These behaviors not
only impede organizational progress but also result in the loss of valuable talent. Such findings
align with broader research highlighting the adverse effects of toxic leadership on organizational
climate and employee well-being (Arnold, 2017; Inceoglu et al., 2018). Recognizing and
addressing these toxic behaviors is essential for fostering a healthy work environment conducive
to individual and organizational growth.
Effects on Organizational Climate
Toxic leadership can propel a military unit not just backward but two steps away from its
intended objectives. The multifaceted impact discussed previously, rooted in the traits and
actions of toxic leaders, elucidates the nuanced ways organizational climate can be affected. This
section meticulously explores the erosion of trust, cohesion, and morale while also scrutinizing
the repercussions on unit civility and the broader societal landscape.
Undermining Trust, Cohesion, and Morale
Trust, cohesion, and morale are pivotal for the success of military units and other
organizations. Multiple studies have highlighted how toxic leadership can erode these critical
factors, leading to detrimental effects within the organizational environment (Celebi Cakiroglu &
Tuncer Unver, 2024; Guo et al., 2022; Reed & Bullis, 2009). When military personnel are unable

19
to rely on their leaders for clear direction and a sense of belonging, achieving cohesion and
maintaining morale becomes challenging, impacting mission effectiveness. This deterioration of
trust and morale not only impacts individual team members’ performance but also permeates
throughout the unit, leading to a decline in civility and a weakened sense of commitment to the
organization. This phenomenon has been substantiated by numerous research findings, which
highlight the far-reaching consequences of such breakdowns in interpersonal dynamics within
organizational settings (Robbins, 2016; Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015). Thus, addressing toxic
leadership behaviors is essential for fostering a positive organizational culture conducive to trust,
cohesion, and morale.
Impact on Unit Civility
Toxic leadership poses a significant threat to unit civility by undermining trust, cohesion,
and morale within the unit. Research conducted by Gallus et al. (2013) demonstrated the
deleterious effects of toxic leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
highlighting a correlation between toxic leadership and diminished unit civility. This correlation
was further supported by studies conducted by Brouwers and Paltu (2020) and Uysal (2019),
who have emphasized the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on organizational dynamics.
Individuals subjected to belittlement, micromanagement, and discrediting by their leaders often
experience reduced satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Guzeller & Celiker, 2019).
These findings resonate across military and civilian contexts, emphasizing the importance of
cultivating a positive workplace environment where personnel find fulfillment in their roles and
exhibit heightened dedication. The broader societal repercussions underscore the imperative of
addressing toxic leadership.

20
Broader Societal Effects
Toxic leadership impacts organizational climates and yields broader societal effects, as
evidenced by research conducted by Fosse et al. (2019). Leaders exhibiting abusive behaviors or
engaging in micromanagement (active destructive leadership) can decrease employee morale,
productivity, and job satisfaction (Fosse et al., 2019). These detrimental leadership behaviors
can, in turn, contribute to higher turnover rates, increased absenteeism, and reduced
organizational effectiveness, which may result in broader societal implications such as economic
inefficiency and decreased well-being within communities. These effects extend beyond the
immediate unit, contributing to diminished productivity, heightened accident rates, and increased
workforce expulsions (Hershcovis, 2011; Neall & Tuckey, 2014). Toxic leaders wield influence
beyond their immediate units, propagating negative discourse throughout other segments of the
organization and exacerbating harm, which may include decreased morale, increased stress,
diminished job satisfaction, interpersonal conflict, and possibly even psychological or emotional
distress experienced by individuals in the workplace (Milosevic et al., 2020; Semedo et al.,
2022). The cascading effects of toxic leadership highlight the interconnectedness between
harmful leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and societal well-being, emphasizing
the urgent need to address toxic leadership to mitigate adverse consequences at both
organizational and societal levels.
Impact on Individuals
The repercussions on individuals stemming from toxic leadership are not merely
comparable but often surpass the adverse effects witnessed at the organizational level (Wolor et
al., 2022). In an environment corroded by toxic leadership, individuals grapple with the daily
challenges of living and working, striving for productivity amid pervasive toxicity (Milosevic et

21
al., 2020). This toxic milieu introduces heightened stress into an already demanding context,
forging a discernible correlation with organizational trust and job satisfaction (Erdal & Budak,
2021). Moreover, individuals bear a direct and profound impact, enduring the harmful
consequences of toxic management (Othman et al., 2010). This intersection of personal and
professional well-being underscores the urgency for a thorough understanding and effective
mitigation of toxic leadership within organizational settings (Inceoglu et al., 2018).
Elevated Stress
The military constitutes an inherently stressful environment, and the presence of a toxic
leader exacerbates this stress manifold. Research conducted by Gallus et al. (2013) demonstrated
that individuals subjected to toxic leadership experience heightened stress levels, an upsurge in
alcohol abuse, and an erosion of self-esteem, culminating in diminished job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. These findings are consistent with studies conducted by Koolhaas et
al. (2011) and Yaribeygi et al. (2017), which have highlighted the detrimental impact of toxic
leadership on individual well-being and organizational dynamics. Military personnel engage in
diverse roles, each demanding meticulous attention and a composed demeanor to ensure
proficient task completion. However, toxic leadership exacerbates individual stress, further
deteriorating their work environment, rendering their responsibilities challenging, and
compromising their self-care (Moss, 2021). Nevertheless, the escalation of stress among
individuals correlates with diminished organizational trust and job satisfaction.
Correlation With Organizational Trust and Job Satisfaction
The heightened stress induced by toxic leadership demonstrates a notable correlation with
organizational trust and job satisfaction. Research conducted by Erdal and Budak (2021)
revealed a pronounced negative correlation between toxic leadership and organizational trust,

22
coupled with a positive association between organizational trust and job satisfaction. These
findings were supported by studies conducted by Brouwers and Paltu (2020) and Uysal (2019),
who have emphasized the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on organizational dynamics and
employee well-being. Organizations are characterized by imperceptible boundaries,
encompassing the structural framework and foundational principles underpinning their identity.
Leaders who employ toxic leadership traits within an organization can detrimentally impact it by
prompting their subordinates to question the credibility of an organization that tolerates such
leadership (Farghaly Abdelaliem & Abou Zeid, 2023). Therefore, it becomes imperative for
organizations, particularly entities like the military, to comprehend these correlations and the
ramifications stemming from the presence of toxic managers.
Impact of Toxic Managers
The impact of toxic leaders is detrimental to both their employees and the organization at
large. Research by Simon and Eby (2003) illustrated how toxic managers compromise morale,
retention rates, cooperation, and information sharing, perpetuating detrimental effects within the
organization. This persistence often stems from organizational incentives that prioritize
immediate outcomes over the cultivation of holistic leadership practices (Andersson et al., 2019).
Within the military context, obedience to direct or immediate orders can be a lifesaving
imperative (Surber, 2024). However, toxic leaders also can exploit this aspect as justification for
their leadership approach, wherein they seek instant obedience to orders (Gallus et al., 2013). It
is crucial to recognize that different leadership styles have their appropriate contexts and
applications. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of various leadership styles and
alternatives is indispensable. This knowledge equips individuals to lead effectively without
engendering perceptions of toxicity among their direct reports and within the organization.

23
Studies by Winn and Dykes (2019) and Gallos (2008) have further supported the importance of
recognizing and addressing toxic leadership behaviors within military contexts to promote
organizational effectiveness and employee well-being.
Mitigation and Intervention Strategies
Toxic leadership necessitates active addressal through mitigation and intervention
strategies rather than passive approaches such as training or reassignments (Gallus et al., 2013).
Purposeful initiatives aimed at holding toxic leaders accountable and preventing their
reassignment to other units to perpetuate fear, anger, and anxiety within the organization are
imperative (C. W. Y. Wong et al., 2021). Although the military imposes strict accountability on
its personnel for various aspects including attire, marching, and language usage, a notable
absence of measures for holding toxic leaders accountable exists (L. Wong et al., 2003).
Confrontation of these harmful behaviors represents a crucial step toward effecting positive
change both for individuals and their respective organizations, as elucidated in the subsequent
discussion (Gallus et al., 2013).
Confrontation of Problematic Behaviors
Anticipating and preemptively addressing toxic leadership through policy implementation
represents a crucial step in confronting such deleterious behaviors (Gallus et al., 2013).
Mitigating toxic leadership necessitates a multifaceted approach (Semedo et al., 2022), first by
eliminating negative role models and addressing problematic behaviors head-on and second by
fostering a culture that discourages toxic conduct through deliberate efforts in recruitment,
promotion practices, and organizational structures (Thomas et al., 2016). Cultivating an
environment conducive to the growth of military service members, where positive leadership is
exemplified and emulated, holds significant benefits for both the organization and its personnel

24
(Bartone, 2006). Holding toxic leaders accountable communicates to all individuals within the
organization that such behavior is not condoned, thus fostering a sense of care and commitment.
Creating a culture of accountability by addressing toxic leaders sends a strong message that such
behaviors are unacceptable, which, in turn, is poised to enhance retention rates, performance
levels, and overall motivation across all military organizations (Reed, 2015). Integrating
comprehensive training programs and leadership development initiatives, as Hutchison (2013)
and Thompson et al. (2022) have suggested, can further support the cultivation of positive
leadership practices and the mitigation of toxic behaviors within military contexts.
Summary of Literature Review
In conclusion, Chapter Two provided a comprehensive overview of the literature on toxic
leadership within military contexts. The review delved into various dimensions, including the
definition and characteristics of toxic leadership, its effects on organizational climate and
individuals, leadership styles and alternatives, and mitigation strategies.
Through an examination of peer-reviewed literature and military sources, the chapter
elucidated the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on organizational trust, cohesion, morale,
and individual well-being. It underscored the urgency for organizations to implement proactive
measures to address toxic behaviors and foster a culture of positive leadership.
Furthermore, the review highlighted promising approaches such as the U.S. Army
leadership concept and servant leadership as effective alternatives to mitigate the adverse effects
of toxic leadership. By advocating for comprehensive policies and training programs that support
holistic leadership practices, the chapter emphasized the importance of organizational
interventions in combatting toxic behaviors.

25
Overall, the insights gleaned from the literature underscore the significance of
understanding and addressing toxic leadership within military organizations. The chapter set the
stage for further research into the accountability of toxic leaders and laid the groundwork for
organizational initiatives aimed at promoting a conducive environment for organizational success
and individual well-being.

26
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explored the extent to which military organizations acknowledged the
significance of mitigating toxic leadership and the strategies they employed to address this
challenge. It also investigated the methods through which military establishments expressed
concerns regarding the impact of toxic leaders on the efficiency of their operational environment.
The study also examined the perceived correlation between the influence of toxic leadership on
an organization’s capacity to retain proficient personnel and its ability to maintain performance
standards among personnel within the military context. This chapter includes details regarding
participants involved in the study, the instruments used, and the procedures employed for data
collection and analysis.
Participants
Seventy military veterans participated in this study. Each participant had completed a
minimum of 4 years of service, received an honorable discharge, and had been separated from
the military for no more than 5 years. This sample was selected to ensure participants had
relevant and recent experiences with military organizational structures and leadership dynamics
(see Figures 2–4). The study examined how military organizations perceive the significance of
mitigating toxic leadership, assessed organizational concerns regarding the impact of toxic
leadership on productivity, and explored the potential correlation between toxic leadership and
organizational performance within the military framework.

27
Figure 2
Distribution of Survey Participants by Military Service Branch
Note. This figure illustrates the percentage of survey participants from each branch of the U.S.
military. The data highlight that the largest proportion of respondents served in the Army, with
smaller percentages representing the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. This
distribution reflects the composition of the sample and may influence the generalizability of
findings across different branches.
32.9%, 23
17.1%, 12
21.4%, 15
18.6%, 13
10.0%, 7
Percentage/Count
Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
Air Force
Coast Guard
n = 70

28
Figure 3
2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Service Branch
Note. This figure represents the distribution of active duty military personnel across the four
primary service branches in 2023, as reported in the 2023 Demographics Profile of the Military
Community, released in December 2024. These proportions reflect the strategic personnel
allocation based on operational needs and mission requirements. As military policies,
recruitment trends, and force structure continue to evolve, future demographic distributions may
shift accordingly.

29
Figure 4
Distribution of Survey Participants by Prior Military Rank
Note. This figure shows the distribution of survey participants based on their prior military rank
at the time of separation. The highest representation is observed in the E-6 enlisted rank, with
lower proportions among officers and warrant officers. This distribution reflects the diversity of
leadership experiences and hierarchical perspectives within the sample, which may influence
perceptions of toxic leadership across different rank levels.
Demographic Representation and Identity-Based Analysis
To ensure a comprehensive understanding of toxic leadership perceptions, the study
disaggregated survey responses by gender, race, and ethnicity. By examining demographic
patterns, the study aimed to identify whether specific identity groups experienced toxic
leadership differently. This approach is particularly relevant given previous research suggesting
marginalized groups may encounter higher instances of toxic leadership behaviors (Reed &
Bullis, 2009).
The survey included demographic questions about participants’ gender and racial/ethnic
backgrounds. Male participants constituted most of the sample, with female veterans making up
1
9
11
8
6
7
1
1
5
6
9
4
2
E - 4 E - 5 E - 6 E - 7 E - 8 E - 9 W - 2 O- 2 O- 3 O- 4 O- 5 O- 6 O- 7
COUNT
Prior Rank - Selected Choice
n = 70

30
a smaller but significant proportion (see Figures 5 and 6). Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the
racial/ethnic composition of respondents, where most identified as White/Caucasian, followed by
smaller representations of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and other racial/ethnic
groups. These identity-based variables are used in Chapter Four to assess variations in
perceptions of toxic leadership, transparency, and organizational effectiveness across different
demographic groups.
Figure 5
Gender Distribution of Survey Participants
Note. This figure illustrates the gender distribution of survey participants, with most identifying
as male. Female participants constitute a smaller proportion of the sample. This distribution
reflects the demographic composition typical of military populations, which may influence the
generalizability of findings regarding toxic leadership experiences across genders.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Male Female
Percentage
Gender - Selected Choice
n = 70

31
Figure 6
2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Gender
Note. This figure illustrates the gender distribution of active duty military personnel in 2023, as
reported in the 2023 Demographics Profile of the Military Community, released in December
2024. These figures reflect ongoing trends in military recruitment, retention, and integration
efforts. As policies and initiatives evolve, future demographic shifts may continue to shape the
composition of military personnel.

32
Figure 7
Ethnicity/Race Distribution of Survey Participants
Note. This figure displays the ethnic and racial composition of survey participants. Most
identified as White/Caucasian, followed by smaller percentages of Black/African American,
Hispanic/Latino, and other racial/ethnic groups. The diversity of the sample may influence
interpretations of toxic leadership experiences because different groups may encounter and
perceive leadership behaviors differently within military organizations.
62.9%
17.1%
7.1%
4.3%
1.4%
5.7%
1.4%
Percentage
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
Native American/Alaska Native
Multiracial
Other (please specify)
n = 70

33
Figure 8
2023 Demographic Profile of Active Duty Members by Race and Ethnicity
Note. This figure represents the racial and ethnic composition of active duty military personnel in
2023, as detailed in the 2023 Demographics Profile of the Military Community, released
in December 2024. These demographics highlight the increasing diversity within the military,
reflecting broader societal trends and ongoing efforts toward inclusive representation in the
armed forces.
Experiential Insights
Experiential insights played a pivotal role in this research, offering firsthand perspectives
and a nuanced understanding of the dynamics within military organizations. By engaging with
veterans who accumulated substantial experience during their service, the study gained access to
practical knowledge and real-world scenarios. These individuals provided valuable context for

34
evaluating leadership strategies, identifying challenges, and proposing informed
recommendations.
Minimize Bias
To ensure the integrity of the findings, measures were implemented to minimize bias. As
a researcher who had personally dealt with toxic leaders, I remained aware of potential biases
and maintained an open mind during data collection and analysis. Participants were selected to
include diverse backgrounds, ranks, branches, and service durations, capturing a comprehensive
understanding of toxic leadership across military organizations. Stratified random sampling
ensured a representative participant pool, and standardized protocols were used for data
collection to maintain consistency.
Generate Practical Recommendations
Generating practical recommendations was a primary objective of this study. Findings
were translated into actionable insights designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice,
empowering military leaders with strategies to enhance leadership effectiveness and
organizational performance. These recommendations were informed by empirical evidence and
aligned with the unique challenges of military environments.
Instruments
Prior to taking the survey, participants received a consent form assuring them that all
responses would be confidential and that they could opt out of the study at any time. The survey
comprised 24 items divided into five sections: (a) demographic and background information, (b)
self-efficacy, (c) self-regulation, (d) observational learning, and (e) environmental influences.
To measure these constructs, I used validated scales and instruments where available.
Items assessing self-efficacy, self-regulation, observational learning, and environmental

35
influences were derived from established scales that had undergone rigorous validation processes
to ensure reliability and validity. I selected Cronbach’s alpha to measure the reliability of these
instruments.
Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the survey instruments.
A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 for self-efficacy, 0.88 for self-regulation, 0.82 for observational
learning, and 0.80 for environmental influences suggests high reliability in measuring these
constructs. In social science research, a Cronbach’s alpha above 0.70 is generally considered
acceptable, with values above 0.80 indicating strong internal consistency (Tavakol & Dennick,
2011). These results confirm the survey items used in this study are reliable for assessing
veterans’ perceptions of toxic leadership in military organizations.
Because the survey pulled one to two items from each of several different preexisting
scales, it was important to ensure these individual items remain valid and reliable when removed
from the larger scale for which they were created. To address this concern regarding item
validity and reliability, pilot testing and statistical analysis were conducted to confirm that each
item retained its psychometric properties in the new context. Expert reviews also were conducted
to ensure the relevance and appropriateness of each item in measuring the intended constructs
within the context of this study.
For instance, the self-efficacy section included items from the General Self-Efficacy
Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), which measures individuals’ beliefs in their ability to
handle various situations. The environmental influences section incorporated items from the
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), which evaluated the
impact of organizational culture on behavior. When no suitable preexisting scales were available,
I developed new items. These new items underwent a thorough process of pilot testing, expert

36
review, and statistical analysis to ensure their validity and reliability. Each construct was
measured by including items to ensure comprehensive coverage and reliability. For example, the
self-regulation section included items designed to measure respondents’ ability to control their
behavior and emotions in challenging situations, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of this
construct.
This study examined the extent to which military organizations acknowledge the
significance of mitigating toxic leadership and the strategies they employ to address this
challenge. It investigated the methods through which military establishments express their
concerns regarding the impact of toxic leaders on the efficiency of their operational environment.
This study also examined the perceived correlation between the influence of toxic leadership on
an organization’s capacity to retain proficient personnel and its ability to maintain performance
standards among personnel within the military context. It encompassed details regarding
participants involved in the study, instruments used, and procedures employed for data collection
and analysis.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
In addition to structured survey responses, this study incorporated three open-ended
qualitative questions to allow participants to elaborate on their experiences with toxic leadership.
These responses provided valuable contextual insights that complemented the quantitative
findings. Participants were encouraged to share examples of toxic leadership incidents, their
perceptions of the effectiveness of intervention measures, and their recommendations for
improving leadership accountability.
Qualitative data analysis followed a thematic coding approach, identifying recurring
patterns in respondents’ perceptions of toxic leadership. Responses were categorized into key

37
themes, including leadership accountability, communication transparency, perceived retaliation,
and the effectiveness of existing interventions. These qualitative insights were incorporated into
Chapter Four to provide depth to the numerical survey results, ensuring a comprehensive
interpretation of the data.
As shown in Table 1, the demographic composition of active duty military members by
race and ethnicity provides critical context for understanding how diverse groups experience and
perceive toxic leadership. Additionally, the survey questions were strategically aligned with
validated psychological and organizational scales to assess key constructs such as self-efficacy,
environmental influences, observational learning, and self-regulation. These constructs guided
development of targeted survey items designed to measure leadership effectiveness,
transparency, morale, and retention outcomes within military organizations.
Table 1
Survey Constructs and Question Alignment for Assessing Toxic Leadership in Military
Organizations
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
1. On a scale of 1 to 5, how
would you rate the extent
to which your military
organization recognized
the importance of
mitigating toxic
leadership?
Self-efficacy General SelfEfficacy
Scale
To assess the
respondent’s belief in
their organization’s
ability to recognize
and address toxic
leadership.
2. Which of the following
measures did your
military organization
implement to address
toxic leadership? (Select
all that apply)
Environmental
influences
Organizational
Culture
Assessment
Instrument
To examine the
organizational
strategies and
interventions aimed at
addressing toxic
leadership.

38
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
3. How frequently did your
military organization
communicate concerns
regarding the influence of
toxic leaders on
productivity?
Observational
learning
Communication
Satisfaction
Questionnaire
To examine the
frequency of
communication
regarding toxic
leadership concerns
within the
organization.
4. To what extent did you
feel the impact of toxic
leadership affected the
productivity of your work
environment?
Environmental
influences
Workplace
Environment
Scale
To gauge the perceived
impact of toxic
leadership on the
work environment.
5. Did you believe there was
a relationship between
toxic leadership and the
ability of your
organization to retain
skilled employees?
Observational
learning
Employee
Retention
Scale
To assess the
respondent’s
perception of the
relationship between
toxic leadership and
employee retention.
6. How satisfied were you
with the retention rates of
skilled employees in your
organization?
Self-efficacy Job Satisfaction
Survey
To evaluate the
respondent’s
satisfaction with
organizational
outcomes related to
skilled employee
retention.
7. On a scale of 1 to 10, how
would you rate the
performance metrics
within your organization?
Self-regulation Performance
Management
Scale
To evaluate the
respondent’s
perception and
assessment of
organizational
performance metrics.
8. Did you witnessed skilled
employees leaving your
organization due to issues
related to toxic
leadership?
Observational
learning
Employee
Turnover
Scale
To gather firsthand
observations of skilled
employees leaving the
organization due to
toxic leadership
issues.
9. Which of the following
best described your
perception of your
organization’s efforts to
address toxic leadership?
Self-regulation Leadership
Effectiveness
Scale
To evaluate the
respondent’s
perception of their
organization’s efforts
to address toxic
leadership.
10. Did you think toxic
leadership had a direct
Environmental
influences
Employee
Morale Scale
To assess the perceived
impact of toxic

39
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
impact on the morale of
individuals within your
organization?
leadership on
individual morale.
11. How transparent was your
organization about
addressing instances of
toxic leadership?
Self-regulation Organizational
Transparency
Scale
To evaluate the
organization’s
transparency and
accountability in
addressing toxic
leadership instances.
12. Did you believe that
addressing toxic
leadership was a priority
for your organization?
Self-efficacy Leadership
Priority Scale
To assess the
respondent’s belief in
the organizational
priority placed on
addressing toxic
leadership.
13. On a scale of 1 to 10, how
significantly did you
believe toxic leadership
affected the morale of
employees in a military
context?
Self-regulation Employee
Morale
Impact Scale
To evaluate the
respondent’s
perception of the
impact of toxic
leadership on
employee morale.
14. On a scale of 1 to 10, how
effectively did you believe
your organization
addressed and mitigated
the effects of toxic
leadership on performance
metrics in a military
environment?
Self-regulation Leadership
Mitigation
Scale
To evaluate the
respondent’s
perception of the
organization’s
effectiveness in
addressing toxic
leadership
15. In your opinion, what
specific measures could
your organization have
implemented to better
address toxic leadership?
To gather qualitative
data to complement
quantitative findings,
providing detailed
suggestions and
insights.
16. Can you provide an
example of how toxic
leadership has directly
affected the performance
or morale of individuals
within your organization?
To gather qualitative
data to complement
quantitative findings,
providing detailed
examples and
insights.
17. Based on your experience
or what you have
observed, what do you
believe caused the toxic
To gather qualitative
data to complement
quantitative findings,
providing detailed

40
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
leadership you
encountered?
examples and
insights.
18. Age To collect demographic
information to
contextualize
responses.
Options:
• 18–24
• 25–34
• 35–44
• 45–54
• 55–64
• 65+
19. Gender To collect demographic
information to
contextualize
responses.
Options:
• Male
• Female
• Nonbinary/Third
gender
• Prefer not to say
• Other (please
specify)
20. Education level To collect demographic
information to
contextualize
responses.
Options:
• High school
diploma or
equivalent
• Some college or
associate degree
• Bachelor’s
degree
• Master’s degree
• Doctoral degree
• Other (please
specify)
21. Current
occupation/profession
To collect demographic
information to

41
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
contextualize
responses.
22. Ethnicity/race To collect demographic
information to
contextualize
responses.
Options:
• White/Caucasian
• Black/African
American
• Hispanic/Latino
• Asian/Pacific
Islander
• Native
American/Alaska
Native
• Multiracial
• Other (please
specify)
23. Service • Army
• Navy
• Marine Corps
• Air Force
• Coast Guard
24. Prior rank To collect background
information relevant
to the military
context.
Options:
Enlisted
• E-1
• E-2
• E-3
• E-4
• E-5
• E-6
• E-7
• E-8
• E-9
Officer
• O-1
• O-2
• O-3
• O-4

42
Question Construct Derived from Purpose
• O-5
• O-6
• O-7
• O-8
• O-9
• O-10
Warrant Officer
• W-1
• W-2
• W-3
• W-4
• W-5
Other (please specify)
By examining the role of environmental influences in military leadership, this research
aimed to elucidate their impact on leadership effectiveness, team dynamics, and organizational
outcomes. Insights derived from this investigation can be used to inform the development of
strategies and interventions aimed at optimizing the military environment to enhance leadership
development, improve organizational performance, and foster a culture of resilience and
adaptability within military units (Day et al., 2014).
Procedure
I employed social media platforms and electronic communication methods to invite
military veterans to participate in the study, facilitating a snowball effect for research
engagement. I disseminated a notification, providing military veterans with a hyperlink to the
online survey and inviting them to partake in an interview. Participants received a succinct
overview of the study’s objectives, assurance of confidentiality, and access to both the online
survey and interview opportunities. I devised and administered the survey using the Qualtrics
online platform. I implemented stringent measures to uphold the confidentiality of responses and

43
safeguarded respondent identities, with exclusive access granted solely to me. Upon survey
completion, I directed participants to an external link enabling them to provide their email
addresses to receive the research findings upon study completion. I segregated contact
information from survey responses to ensure data security and confidentiality.

44
Chapter Four: Results
Chapter Four presents the results of this study, which seeks to explore military veterans’
perceptions of toxic leadership within military organizations. Seventy participants contributed to
this research, providing a robust data set for analysis. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a
detailed account of the survey results as related to each of the study’s research questions. The
survey responses offer insights into veterans’ views on the effectiveness of measures
implemented to address toxic leadership, the organizational concern shown toward the influence
of toxic leadership on productivity, the impact of toxic leadership on retention of skilled
employees, and its effect on maintaining performance metrics. This chapter aims to answer the
research questions and address the study’s objectives by examining these responses.
Four research questions guided this study:
1. How do military veterans perceive the effectiveness of measures implemented to
address toxic leadership within military organizations?
2. How do military veterans perceive the demonstration of concerns by military
organizations regarding the influence of toxic leaders on the productivity of their
work environment?
3. How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic leadership on an organization’s
ability to retain skilled employees in the military context?
4. How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic leadership on an organization’s
ability to maintain performance metrics with current employees in the military
context?
To address these questions systematically, this chapter is organized into four sections.
Each section corresponds to a research question and includes an analysis of relevant survey data,

45
providing a comprehensive view of veterans’ perspectives on toxic leadership within their
organizations. Through this structured approach, the results presented here set the foundation for
the discussions and implications outlined in the following chapter.
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do military veterans perceive the effectiveness of
measures implemented to address toxic leadership within military organizations?”
Overview of Responses on Organizational Measures
Respondents identified several measures implemented by their military organizations to
address toxic leadership. These measures included leadership training programs, anonymous
reporting systems, performance evaluations focusing on leadership behavior, and regular
leadership assessments and feedback sessions. As shown in Figure 9, leadership training
programs were the most frequently mentioned measure, followed closely by anonymous
reporting systems and performance evaluations focusing on leadership behavior. Regular
leadership assessments and feedback sessions were also implemented but were less frequently
reported. Additionally, a small proportion of respondents identified other measures, including
unique practices such as open-door policies or commander surveys. Despite the implementation
of these initiatives, respondents generally rated these efforts as ineffective, indicating that
although these measures were present, their perceived impact on addressing toxic leadership was
limited.

46
Figure 9
Frequency of Organizational Measures Implemented to Address Toxic Leadership
Note. Although Figure 9 highlights the frequency of organizational measures implemented to
address toxic leadership, the perceived effectiveness of these measures, as reported by
respondents, was generally low. This discrepancy between implementation frequency and
perceived effectiveness suggests a gap between the presence of initiatives and their ability to
produce meaningful outcomes in addressing toxic leadership within military organizations.
Perceptions of Effectiveness
The survey question, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how effectively did you believe your
organization addressed and mitigated the effects of toxic leadership on performance metrics in a
military environment?,” revealed most respondents rated their organizations’ efforts as “not at all
effective” followed by “very ineffective” and “ineffective.” A smaller proportion of respondents
selected “somewhat ineffective” or “neutral.” Ratings indicating higher levels of effectiveness
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Leadership training
programs
Anonymous
reporting systems
Performance
evaluations focusing
on leadership
behavior
Regular leadership
assessments and
feedback sessions
Other (please
specify):
Percentage
Which of the following measures did your military organization implement to address toxic leadership?
(Select all that apply) - Selected Choice
n = 70

47
(i.e., “effective,” “very effective,” “highly effective”) were significantly less frequent (see Figure
10).
Figure 10
Perceived Effectiveness of Measures to Address Toxic Leadership
Note. The predominance of low ratings in effectiveness highlights the perceived failure of
existing measures to adequately address toxic leadership within military organizations. This
finding suggests a need for significant improvement in the development and implementation of
interventions aimed at mitigating toxic leadership.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not at all
effective
Very
ineffective
Ineffective Somewhat
ineffective
Neutral Somewhat
effective
Effective Very
effective
Highly
effective
Percentage
On a scale of 1 to 10, how effectively did you believe your organization addressed and mitigated the
effects of toxic leadership on performance metrics in a military environment?
n = 70

48
Differences in Perceptions by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Disaggregated analysis of responses revealed variations in perceived effectiveness of
measures based on gender and racial identity. Disaggregated analysis of responses revealed
notable differences by gender and racial identity. Male veterans were more likely than female
veterans to rate reporting mechanisms as “not effective at all,” with 24% of male respondents
expressing dissatisfaction compared to 8% of female respondents. However, female respondents
were more likely to rate interventions as “very ineffective,” suggesting they perceived a different
but equally problematic aspect of leadership accountability (see Figure 11). Black/African
American veterans frequently described leadership training programs as insufficient, although
quantitative ratings were mixed. Qualitative responses highlighted concerns about perceived bias
in leadership development and disciplinary enforcement. Several participants noted leadership
training felt performative or selectively enforced, contributing to perceptions that accountability
was not applied equally across all ranks and demographics (see Figure 12).

49
Figure 11
Trends by Gender
Note. This figure illustrates the perceived effectiveness of organizational measures to address
toxic leadership, broken down by gender. The data indicate female respondents were more likely
to rate these measures as “very ineffective” or “ineffective” compared to their male counterparts,
suggesting a potential gender disparity in how leadership interventions are experienced. Male
respondents showed a more varied distribution across the scale, with a slightly higher proportion
rating measures as “somewhat effective” or “neutral.” The absence of strong ratings in the
“highly effective” category for both groups underscores a shared perception that existing efforts
to address toxic leadership remain inadequate. These findings highlight the need for leadership
interventions that consider gender-based differences in experiences and perceptions of
organizational effectiveness.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not at all
effective
Very
ineffective
Ineffective Somewhat
ineffective
Neutral Somewhat
effective
Effective Very
effective
Highly
effective
Male Female
n = 70

50
Figure 12
Breakdown by Racial/Ethnic Identity
Note. This figure illustrates the perceived effectiveness of organizational measures to address
toxic leadership, broken down by racial/ethnic identity. The results indicate significant variation
in perceptions, with White/Caucasian respondents showing a higher proportion of “not at all
effective” to “somewhat effective” responses, whereas Hispanic/Latino and multiracial
participants demonstrated a greater tendency toward neutral or mixed responses. Notably, no
group overwhelmingly rated measures as “highly effective,” underscoring a widespread
perception that existing interventions are inadequate. These findings highlight potential
disparities in how different racial/ethnic groups experience and evaluate leadership measures
within military organizations.
Transparency and Organizational Openness
The responses overwhelmingly indicated a perception of low transparency (see Figure
13). The most frequent response was “not transparent at all,” highlighting a significant concern
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not at all
effective
Very
ineffective
Ineffective Somewhat
ineffective
Neutral Somewhat
effective
Effective Very
effective
Highly
effective
White/Caucasian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander Native American/Alaska Native Multiracial
Other (please specify)
n = 70

51
about the lack of openness in how organizations address toxic leadership. A smaller proportion
of respondents selected “somewhat transparent” or “moderately transparent,” indicating slightly
better, but still insufficient, levels of transparency. Only a few participants reported their
organizations as “transparent” or “very transparent,” underscoring the overall lack of clear
communication and accountability.
Figure 13
Transparency in Addressing Toxic Leadership
Note. The data reflect a strong perception among respondents that their organizations lack
transparency in addressing toxic leadership. Although most responses were concentrated in the
“not transparent at all” category, some respondents rated transparency as “somewhat transparent”
or “moderately transparent,” suggesting leadership did attempt to communicate on these issues in
certain cases. However, these efforts were not seen as sufficient to address the problem.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not transparent at all Somewhat
transparent
Moderately
transparent
Transparent Very transparent
Percentage
How transparent was your organization about addressing instances of toxic leadership?
n = 70

52
Summary of Results for RQ1
Key insights from the results reveal veterans largely perceive the measures implemented
by their military organizations to address toxic leadership as ineffective, though some
respondents indicated certain interventions, such as leadership assessments and reporting
mechanisms, had limited but noticeable impact. However, these positive responses were not
widespread. Despite the presence of measures such as leadership training programs, anonymous
reporting systems, and performance evaluations focusing on leadership behavior, these initiatives
were frequently rated as “ineffective,” “very ineffective,” or “somewhat ineffective.”
Additionally, transparency in addressing toxic leadership was consistently rated poorly, with a
significant proportion of respondents indicating their organizations were “not transparent at all.”
These results highlight a critical gap between the implementation of measures and their
perceived impact, emphasizing the need for improved effectiveness and transparency in
addressing toxic leadership within military organizations.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “How do military veterans perceive the demonstration of
concerns by military organizations regarding the influence of toxic leaders on the productivity of
their work environment?”
Frequency of Communication
Based on the survey responses, most veterans reported that their organizations
communicated concerns about toxic leadership “rarely.” A smaller but notable proportion
indicated communication occurred “occasionally” or “sometimes.” Very few respondents noted
consistent communication, such as “always” or “frequently.” This trend suggests communication

53
about the impact of toxic leadership was infrequent and inconsistent across military
organizations (see Figure 14).
Figure 14
Frequency of Organizational Communication on Toxic Leadership
Note. The predominance of responses indicating infrequent communication, such as “rarely”
or “occasionally,” highlights the need for organizations to establish more consistent and
proactive communication strategies to address the impacts of toxic leadership on productivity.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Rarely Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Always
Percentage
How frequently did your military organization communicate concerns regarding the influence of toxic leaders
on productivity?
n = 70

54
Qualitative Insights on Organizational Communication Gaps
Several veterans described organizational silence on toxic leadership issues, indicating
a disconnect between formal policies and lived experiences. One participant noted, “Leaders
would talk about ‘zero tolerance,’ but when issues were reported, it felt like they just went
through the motions. We rarely saw actual consequences.” Others highlighted the absence of
proactive discussions about leadership accountability. For example, one participant shared,
“Unless it became a legal issue, leadership didn’t really care. It was always framed as a
‘personality conflict’ rather than an organizational problem.” These qualitative responses
reinforce the survey results, suggesting military organizations frequently fail to communicate
toxic leadership concerns effectively, leaving personnel feeling unheard and unsupported.
Perceived Impact on Productivity
Based on the survey responses, most veterans indicated toxic leadership had a
“significant” or “moderate” impact on productivity in their work environment. Responses such
as “very significant” and “extremely significant” were also present but less frequent, reflecting a
widely shared acknowledgment of the detrimental effects of toxic leadership on organizational
productivity. Only a small number of respondents selected “slightly” or “not at all,” suggesting
the impact was perceived as pervasive and generally negative (see Figure 15).

55
Figure 15
Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Productivity
Note. The data indicate toxic leadership significantly affects productivity in military
environments, with approximately 82% of respondents reporting at least a moderate impact.
Notably, over half the participants (around 52%) indicated toxic leadership either significantly or
extremely impacted productivity. These results underscore the urgent need for organizations to
address the root causes of toxic leadership to improve overall productivity and organizational
efficiency.
Organizational Priority on Productivity Concerns
The results revealed most veterans perceived their organizations as not prioritizing the
impact of toxic leadership on productivity. Responses such as “no” were overwhelmingly
common, indicating respondents felt their organizations did not make addressing toxic leadership
a significant focus. A smaller subset of participants selected “yes,” but this was a minority,
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not at all Slightly Moderately Significantly Extremely
Percentage
To what extent did you feel the impact of toxic leadership affected the productivity of your work environment?
n = 70

56
further emphasizing the general sentiment of a lack of prioritization in mitigating the influence of
toxic leadership on workplace productivity.
Transparency in addressing toxic leadership was widely perceived as inadequate, with
many respondents describing a lack of clear, consistent communication about leadership
accountability. However, qualitative responses suggested some racial and ethnic groups
perceived disparities in leadership accountability. Several Black/African American veterans
reported concerns about selective enforcement of leadership standards, particularly regarding
disciplinary actions and promotions. However, survey data on leadership accountability ratings
did not indicate statistically significant differences between racial/ethnic groups, suggesting
these disparities may be more visible in lived experiences than in formal evaluations (see Figure
16). One respondent described this imbalance, stating, “Unequal treatment and different and
separate standards of how a member of the armed forces are treated or held accountable.”
Another noted, “Overlooking the situation by senior leadership due to some perceived
expectations of improvements by the individual and a perceived expectation of the individual to
be overlooked because of favoritism or other coverups.” These findings suggest some identity
groups may experience greater challenges in accessing fair leadership development and
accountability mechanisms.

57
Figure 16
Perceived Organizational Priority on Addressing Toxic Leadership
Note. The predominance of responses indicating toxic leadership was not a priority underscores
the need for organizations to elevate this issue as a critical area of focus. Addressing toxic
leadership is essential for fostering a more productive and cohesive work environment.
Summary of Results for RQ2
Results for Research Question 2 indicate veterans perceive their military organizations as
having limited communication and prioritization regarding the effects of toxic leadership on
productivity. Responses overwhelmingly pointed to infrequent communication about toxic
leadership, with “rarely” being the most common response, and only a small proportion of
veterans reporting consistent or proactive communication. Similarly, most respondents perceived
that addressing toxic leadership was not a priority for their organization, further reinforcing the
notion of a lack of organizational concern or action.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
No Yes
Percentage
Did you believe that addressing toxic leadership was a priority for your organization?
n = 70

58
These results suggest a significant gap in how military organizations acknowledge and
address the impact of toxic leadership on workplace productivity. The limited communication
and lack of prioritization likely contribute to the persistence of toxic leadership behaviors and
their detrimental effects on productivity. Addressing this gap through improved communication
strategies and a demonstrated commitment to mitigating toxic leadership could foster a more
productive and healthier work environment.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic
leadership on an organization’s ability to retain skilled employees in the military context?”
Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Retention
Based on the responses, most veterans answered “yes,” indicating a strong perception that
toxic leadership contributed to skilled employees leaving their organizations. This pattern
reflects a widely shared view that toxic leadership behaviors negatively impacted retention rates,
causing talented individuals to leave their roles. A smaller proportion of respondents
selected “no,” suggesting the issue of toxic leadership driving employee turnover is a significant
concern although not universal (see Figure 17).

59
Figure 17
Perceived Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Employee Retention
Note. A significant number of respondents reported witnessing skilled employees leaving their
organizations due to toxic leadership. These results emphasize the critical need for military
organizations to address toxic behaviors to improve retention and maintain a skilled workforce.
Satisfaction With Retention Rates
The results reveal most respondents expressed dissatisfaction with retention rates in their
organizations. Responses such as “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” were the most selected,
highlighting a general discontent with the organization’s ability to retain skilled employees. A
smaller proportion of participants selected “neutral” or “satisfied,” but these were minority
responses, emphasizing the widespread perception of inadequate retention rates (see Figure 18).
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
No Yes
Percentage
Did you witness skilled employees leaving your organization due to issues related to toxic leadership?
n = 70

60
Figure 18
Satisfaction With Retention Rates of Skilled Employees
Note. Most respondents reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with retention rates in
their organizations. These results suggest toxic leadership may play a critical role in undermining
employee retention, necessitating focused interventions to improve organizational outcomes.
Implications for Military Retention Strategies
The findings suggest toxic leadership plays a direct role in workforce instability.
Over 80% of respondents reported witnessing skilled employees leave due to toxic leadership,
which aligns with previous literature highlighting leadership as a primary factor in employee
retention (Reed, 2004).
Organizational strategies to reduce turnover should not only address professional
development but also should ensure toxic leadership behaviors are identified and corrected early.
The implementation of stronger mentorship programs and 360-degree feedback mechanisms may
be necessary interventions to retain skilled personnel.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Percentage
How satisfied were you with the retention rates of skilled employees in your organization?
n = 70

61
Witnessed Departures Due to Toxic Leadership
The results show most respondents answered “yes,” indicating they had witnessed skilled
employees leaving their organization due to toxic leadership. This high rate of affirmative
responses highlights a strong perceived link between toxic leadership and employee turnover
because veterans frequently reported observing departures directly attributed to toxic behaviors
within their organizations. A smaller subset of participants selected “no,” suggesting that
although not all organizations were equally affected, the issue was prevalent enough to warrant
concern (see Figure 19).
Figure 19
Instances of Witnessed Departures Due to Toxic Leadership
Note. Most respondents reported witnessing skilled employees leaving their organizations due to
toxic leadership. These results emphasize the direct impact of toxic leadership on retention,
highlighting the need for organizations to prioritize leadership development and accountability to
mitigate this issue.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
No Yes
Percentage
Did you witness skilled employees leaving your organization due to issues related to toxic leadership?
n = 70

62
Summary of Results for RQ3
Results for Research Question 3 demonstrate a strong perceived connection between
toxic leadership and challenges in retaining skilled personnel. A significant majority of
respondents indicated they had witnessed skilled employees leaving their organizations due to
toxic leadership behaviors, reinforcing the notion that such leadership negatively impacts
retention. Furthermore, veterans expressed widespread dissatisfaction with their organizations’
retention rates, with “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” being the most frequent responses.
These results highlight the critical role leadership plays in retaining talent. Toxic leadership not
only contributes to higher employee turnover but also fosters dissatisfaction among remaining
personnel. Addressing these leadership challenges could help organizations mitigate turnover
and improve workforce stability, enhancing overall organizational effectiveness.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, “How do military veterans perceive the impact of toxic
leadership on an organization’s ability to maintain performance metrics with current employees
in the military context?”
Performance Metrics Evaluation
The results reveal most veterans rated their organizations’ performance metrics in
the “average” or “below average” range. Responses clustering around midrange scores (e.g., 5 or
6 of 10) reflect a perception that organizational performance metrics were neither particularly
strong nor completely inadequate. However, a notable proportion of responses fell into
the “poor” or “very poor” categories, highlighting a concern with the effectiveness and reliability
of performance metrics. Very few veterans rated their organizations as “outstanding” or
“excellent” (see Figure 20).

63
Figure 20
Veterans’ Ratings of Organizational Performance Metrics
Note. Most respondents rated their organizations’ performance metrics as “average” or “poor.”
These results suggest toxic leadership may contribute to difficulties in maintaining high
performance standards, calling for a reassessment of leadership practices and performance
measurement systems.
Perceived Impact on Morale and Performance
The results indicate toxic leadership was widely perceived to have a “very significant
impact” or “extreme impact” on morale and overall performance metrics. Most respondents rated
the impact at the higher end of the scale, reflecting a shared perception that toxic leadership
severely undermines workplace morale and organizational performance. Responses at the lower
end of the scale (e.g., “minor impact”) were infrequent, further emphasizing the substantial
perceived effect of toxic leadership on both morale and productivity (see Figures 21 and 22).
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Extremely poor
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Average
Above average
Good
Very good
Excellent
Outstanding
Percentage
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the performance metrics within your organization?
n = 70

64
Figure 21
Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Morale
Note. Most respondents rated the impact of toxic leadership on morale from “somewhat
significant impact” to “extreme impact.” These findings underscore the critical need for
organizations to address toxic leadership to maintain workforce morale and cohesion.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Very minor
impact
Minor
impact
Moderate
impact
Neutral
impact
Somewhat
significant
impact
Significant
impact
Very
significant
impact
Major
impact
Extreme
impact
Percentage
On a scale of 1 to 10, how significantly did you believe toxic leadership affected the morale of employees in a
military context
n = 70

65
Figure 22
Perceived Impact of Toxic Leadership on Performance Metrics
Note. Respondents overwhelmingly reported that efforts to mitigate the impact of toxic
leadership on performance metrics were “not at all effective” to “somewhat ineffective.” These
results highlight the detrimental effects of toxic leadership on operational effectiveness,
underscoring the need for targeted interventions to improve leadership accountability and
organizational performance.
Summary of Results for RQ4
The results for Research Question 4 reveal veterans perceive toxic leadership as having a
significant negative impact on morale and performance metrics. Most respondents reported that
toxic leadership had a “very significant” or “extreme” impact on morale, reflecting the pervasive
and detrimental effects of poor leadership on employee well-being and organizational cohesion.
Similarly, ratings for organizational performance metrics were predominantly in the
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Not at all
effective
Very
ineffective
Ineffective Somewhat
ineffective
Neutral Somewhat
effective
Effective Very
effective
Highly
effective
Percentage
On a scale of 1 to 10, how effectively did you believe your organization addressed and mitigated the effects of
toxic leadership on performance metrics in a military environment?
n = 70

66
“average” or “below average” range, further illustrating the challenges faced in maintaining
desired performance levels in environments influenced by toxic leadership.
These results underscore the connection between toxic leadership and the erosion of both
morale and performance standards. The perceived inability of organizations to address and
mitigate the effects of toxic leadership exacerbates these issues, pointing to the need for robust
interventions and leadership development programs to restore morale and improve performance
metrics within military organizations.
Summary of Chapter
This chapter presented the study results, addressing each of the four research questions
through an analysis of survey responses from military veterans. Seventy participants contributed
to this research, providing a diverse data set that captured various perspectives on toxic
leadership. The findings revealed several recurring themes, including the ineffectiveness of
existing leadership interventions, the lack of transparency in addressing toxic leadership, limited
communication regarding leadership concerns, and the significant impact of toxic leadership on
morale, performance, and employee retention.
Veterans largely perceived the measures implemented to address toxic leadership—such
as leadership training programs, anonymous reporting systems, and performance evaluations—as
ineffective. A significant proportion of respondents rated these measures as “not at all effective,”
“very ineffective,” or “ineffective,” highlighting a gap between leadership interventions and their
perceived impact. Many respondents also rated their organizations as “not transparent at all” in
addressing toxic leadership, emphasizing a critical shortfall in open communication and
accountability. This lack of transparency was identified as a key barrier to building trust and
effectively addressing leadership concerns.

67
Limited communication emerged as another notable theme, with veterans frequently
reporting that their organizations communicated concerns about toxic leadership infrequently.
The most common responses were “rarely” or “occasionally,” suggesting military leaders do not
proactively address toxic behaviors. This lack of communication likely contributes to an ongoing
cycle where toxic behaviors persist due to a lack of clear accountability and intervention. Toxic
leadership was also perceived to contribute significantly to employee turnover, with most
respondents expressing dissatisfaction with retention rates and linking toxic leadership to skilled
employees leaving their organizations. Furthermore, the impact of toxic leadership on morale
and performance was reported as “very significant” or “extreme,” with organizational
performance metrics often rated as “average” or “below average.”
In addition to these overarching themes, gender and racial disparities emerged as
significant factors influencing veterans’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness and
accountability. Female respondents were more likely than their male counterparts to rate
organizational efforts to address toxic leadership as “ineffective” or “very ineffective.”
Qualitative responses suggest female veterans experienced leadership oversight differently,
with concerns about biased disciplinary actions, exclusion from leadership opportunities, and
lack of meaningful intervention in cases of reported toxic leadership. These findings suggest
leadership accountability may be applied inconsistently, affecting how different genders
experience military leadership structures.
Racial disparities were also evident in perceptions of leadership accountability.
Black/African American veterans were more likely to describe leadership training as superficial
or performative, with qualitative responses indicating concerns about racial bias in leadership
enforcement. Many participants highlighted issues of favoritism, selective application of

68
leadership training, and unequal disciplinary actions. Some respondents noted leadership
opportunities for minorities were often overlooked or inconsistently applied, reinforcing
systemic disparities in leadership accountability. These findings suggest some racial/ethnic
groups perceive greater structural barriers in leadership training and accountability measures
within military organizations.
These results collectively paint a picture of widespread dissatisfaction with how military
organizations address toxic leadership and its far-reaching effects on productivity, morale, and
workforce stability. However, given the sample size of 70 veterans, these findings may not be
fully representative of all military branches, ranks, or leadership experiences. Future research
with a larger, more diverse sample would help validate these conclusions across a broader range
of service members. The findings emphasize the need for enhanced transparency, equitable
leadership interventions, improved reporting mechanisms, and targeted leadership development
programs. Ensuring leadership training and enforcement practices are free of bias is essential to
building an inclusive, accountable, and effective leadership structure within military
organizations.
The next chapter will analyze these findings in the context of existing literature, explore
their implications for leadership development and organizational practices, and provide
recommendations for mitigating toxic leadership in military settings. These discussions aim to
inform strategies for creating more equitable, transparent, and effective leadership structures.

69
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore military veterans’ perceptions of toxic
leadership within military organizations, focusing on its impact on productivity, retention,
morale, and performance metrics. As detailed in Chapter Five, 60% of veterans reported toxic
leadership had a “very significant” to “extreme” impact on morale, whereas over 80% stated
toxic leadership directly contributed to employee turnover. Additionally, most respondents rated
their organizations as “not at all transparent” in addressing toxic leadership, indicating a
widespread lack of accountability and communication. By examining these perspectives, the
study aimed to identify gaps in leadership interventions, transparency, and communication
efforts to address toxic leadership while highlighting its profound effects on organizational
effectiveness and individual well-being.
This research is significant because toxic leadership has far-reaching consequences on
organizational and individual outcomes, particularly in the high-stakes, hierarchical environment
of the military. As the findings in Chapter Four illustrate, veterans expressed significant
dissatisfaction with how toxic leadership is handled, with leadership training often perceived as
“performative” or “superficial.” Understanding veterans’ experiences and insights provides a
critical lens through which to evaluate the effectiveness of current leadership strategies and
identify actionable solutions. The findings contribute to the growing body of literature on toxic
leadership, offering a foundation for strengthening leadership training, improving accountability
measures, and fostering transparent communication practices to mitigate the adverse effects of
toxic behaviors on military personnel and mission readiness.

70
Summary of Key Findings
The findings from Chapter Four highlight several critical insights regarding military
veterans’ perceptions of toxic leadership and its effects on military organizations. Veterans
largely perceived organizational measures to address toxic leadership—such as leadership
training programs, anonymous reporting systems, and performance evaluations—as ineffective.
Transparency in addressing these issues was also rated poorly, with many respondents indicating
a lack of openness within their organizations. Communication about the influence of toxic
leadership on productivity was reported as infrequent, with most respondents indicating their
organizations rarely addressed these concerns. Furthermore, addressing toxic leadership was not
widely perceived as a priority.
Toxic leadership was strongly linked to employee turnover, with a significant number of
respondents witnessing skilled personnel leaving their organizations due to toxic behaviors.
Many veterans expressed dissatisfaction with retention rates, emphasizing the detrimental impact
of toxic leadership on workforce stability. Respondents also indicated toxic leadership had a
significant or extreme impact on morale and performance metrics. Most respondents rated their
organizations’ performance as average or below average, reflecting the broader organizational
challenges posed by toxic leadership.
These findings reveal recurring themes of perceived ineffectiveness, lack of transparency,
limited communication, and the harmful impact of toxic leadership on retention, morale, and
organizational performance. They underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions and
leadership development strategies to address these pervasive issues effectively.

71
Interpretation of Findings
Research Question 1: Effectiveness of Measures
Analyzing the Perceived Ineffectiveness of Organizational Measures
The findings in Chapter Four reveal over 70% of veterans rated leadership training
programs, anonymous reporting systems, and performance evaluations as “ineffective” or “very
ineffective” in addressing toxic leadership. These measures were widely seen as failing to hold
toxic leaders accountable or prevent their rise to leadership roles. Additionally, Black/African
American veterans frequently described leadership training as “superficial” or “performative,”
citing concerns about biased implementation. Female veterans were also more likely than male
veterans to rate these interventions as “very ineffective,” reinforcing concerns that leadership
accountability is applied inconsistently across demographics.
These findings indicate that not only are leadership interventions seen as ineffective, but
their implementation also may reinforce existing biases. To address these concerns, military
organizations must prioritize accountability measures that are transparent, data driven, and
equitably enforced. These perceptions align with existing literature, which has identified
challenges in implementing interventions aimed at mitigating toxic leadership. For example,
Gallus et al. (2013) emphasized that leadership training programs often fail to address the
nuanced dynamics of toxic behaviors because they primarily focus on technical skills rather than
fostering emotional intelligence and interpersonal competencies.
Similarly, Reed (2004) highlighted the limitations of anonymous reporting systems,
noting that although they provide a safe space for reporting toxic behaviors, they often lack
mechanisms to ensure accountability or enforce corrective actions. These shortcomings align
with veterans’ concerns about the lack of transparency and follow-through in addressing reported

72
incidents. Performance evaluations, although a common tool for assessing leadership behaviors,
often fail to capture the subtleties of toxic leadership, particularly in hierarchical environments
like the military where subordinates may fear retaliation for providing honest feedback (Reed &
Bullis, 2009).
The perceived ineffectiveness of these measures is further supported by Bandura’s (2019)
SCT, which suggests behaviors are learned and reinforced within social environments. Without
strong positive role models and consistent reinforcement of constructive behaviors, toxic
leadership tendencies may persist, undermining the effectiveness of organizational interventions.
Disparities in how leadership training programs were perceived align with broader
discussions on systemic bias in military leadership structures (Reed, 2015). Prior research
suggested minority service members often face additional barriers in leadership development and
promotion opportunities, which may contribute to higher dissatisfaction with training
effectiveness (L. Wong et al., 2003). The qualitative data in this study further support this notion,
with Black/African American veterans describing leadership training as performative and biased
in enforcement. These findings highlight a critical gap in ensuring leadership development
programs are equitably designed and implemented, reinforcing the need for policy reforms that
promote transparency and accountability in leadership training and promotion pathways.
Discussing Potential Reasons for the Gap Between Implementation and Perceived Impact
The gap between the implementation of measures and their perceived impact can be
attributed to several factors. One key issue is the lack of alignment between the design of
interventions and the unique needs of military organizations. For instance, Byrnes (2013) noted
leadership development programs often adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, failing to address the

73
challenges of hierarchical and high-stress environments. This misalignment limits the relevance
and applicability of these programs, reducing their perceived effectiveness.
Another contributing factor is the insufficient integration of accountability mechanisms.
L. Wong et al. (2003) argued military organizations often emphasize immediate operational
outcomes over long-term leadership development, creating an environment where toxic
behaviors are overlooked or tolerated. This lack of accountability diminishes the credibility of
interventions and reinforces perceptions that organizational efforts to address toxic leadership are
superficial.
Environmental influences, as Kyröläinen et al. (2018) described, also play a significant
role. In rigid hierarchical structures like the military, a culture of fear or resistance to change
often exists, which can stifle honest communication and feedback. This cultural barrier hinders
the effectiveness of reporting systems and evaluation processes, as individuals may hesitate to
challenge toxic leadership behaviors.
Finally, the literature underscores the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation
of interventions. Werner and Milyavskaya (2019) highlighted that effective leadership programs
require regular updates based on feedback and evolving organizational needs. The absence of
such iterative processes in military contexts may contribute to the gap between the
implementation of measures and their perceived impact.
Research Question 2: Communication and Organizational Priority
Examining the Implications of Limited Communication and Perceived Lack of Prioritization
The findings from Chapter Four indicate communication regarding the impact of toxic
leadership is infrequent, with many veterans reporting that their organizations “rarely” or
“occasionally” addressed concerns about toxic behaviors. Additionally, a significant proportion

74
of respondents perceived that addressing toxic leadership was not a priority for their
organizations. These perceptions reflect broader organizational challenges identified in the
literature.
Limited communication about toxic leadership undermines trust and transparency, both
of which are essential for organizational cohesion and effectiveness. Reed and Bullis (2009)
emphasized that open communication is critical for fostering an environment of trust where
concerns about toxic leadership can be addressed proactively. When communication is absent or
infrequent, it signals to employees that these issues are not valued or prioritized, which can erode
morale and perpetuate toxic behaviors.
The lack of prioritization in addressing toxic leadership aligns with findings from
L. Wong et al. (2003), who argued military organizations often focus on immediate operational
goals at the expense of addressing long-term leadership challenges. This operational focus can
create a culture where toxic leadership behaviors are tolerated or ignored, further compounding
their negative effects on organizational performance and individual well-being.
Environmental influences, as Bandura (1986) outlined, also play a role in limited
communication. In hierarchical structures like the military, where leaders wield significant
power over subordinates, there is often a fear of reprisal for raising concerns about leadership
behaviors. This fear inhibits open dialogue, creating barriers to addressing toxic leadership
effectively (Kyröläinen et al., 2018).
Connecting Findings to Theories of Organizational Communication and Leadership
Accountability
The limited communication and lack of prioritization in addressing toxic leadership can
be understood through the lens of organizational communication and leadership accountability

75
theories. Organizational communication theory posits clear and consistent communication is
vital for building trust, resolving conflicts, and promoting a positive organizational culture
(Robbins, 2016). Limited communication about toxic leadership disrupts these processes,
allowing toxic behaviors to persist unchallenged.
Leadership accountability theory further highlights the need for mechanisms that hold
leaders responsible for their actions. L. Wong et al. (2003) emphasized that accountability
frameworks are essential for ensuring leaders are evaluated and disciplined based on their
behaviors rather than solely on operational outcomes. In the absence of such frameworks,
organizations risk perpetuating a cycle of unaddressed toxic leadership.
Bandura’s (2019) SCT provides additional insight, suggesting observed behaviors—both
positive and negative—are modeled and reinforced within social environments. Limited
communication and a lack of prioritization effectively reinforce toxic behaviors by failing to
provide clear signals that such actions are unacceptable. This absence of corrective feedback
undermines efforts to model constructive leadership practices.
Finally, Kelley et al. (2015) highlighted the role of self-regulation in effective leadership.
Leaders in environments with limited communication and accountability may lack the
motivation or feedback necessary to self-regulate their behaviors, further contributing to the
persistence of toxic leadership.
Research Question 3: Retention of Skilled Employees
Exploring the Link Between Toxic Leadership and Employee Turnover
The findings from Chapter Four reveal a strong perceived connection between toxic
leadership and employee turnover, with most veterans indicating they had witnessed skilled

76
employees leaving their organizations due to toxic leadership behaviors. These findings align
with existing studies highlighting the detrimental impact of toxic leadership on retention.
Toxic leadership creates a hostile work environment characterized by high stress,
diminished trust, and low morale. For example, Gallus et al. (2013) found employees exposed to
toxic leaders are more likely to experience burnout and dissatisfaction, which significantly
increases their likelihood of leaving the organization. Similarly, Reed and Bullis (2009)
emphasized that toxic leadership erodes organizational trust and cohesion, leading skilled
employees to seek opportunities in environments perceived as healthier and more supportive.
This link is further supported by Bandura’s (2019) SCT, which suggests toxic behaviors
can spread within organizations through modeling. Failure to address toxic leadership creates a
culture where such behaviors are normalized, reinforcing negative work environments and
exacerbating turnover rates. Byrnes (2013) also noted toxic leaders often prioritize control over
collaboration, stifling innovation and professional growth opportunities, which are critical factors
for employee retention.
Discussing the Broader Implications for Workforce Stability and Organizational Effectiveness
The relationship between toxic leadership and employee turnover has significant
implications for workforce stability and organizational effectiveness. High turnover disrupts
team cohesion and reduces institutional knowledge, both of which are essential for mission
success in military contexts (Reed, 2015). The loss of skilled employees also imposes financial
and operational burdens on organizations because resources must be redirected to recruitment,
training, and integration of new personnel (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019).
Furthermore, toxic leadership’s impact on retention can create a ripple effect throughout
the organization. For example, Byrnes (2013) observed that remaining employees often

77
experience lower morale and reduced commitment, as they perceive the organization as
unwilling or unable to address leadership issues. This sentiment was echoed by Kelley et al.
(2015), who highlighted that a lack of action against toxic behaviors signals an organizational
tolerance for such behaviors, further undermining employee engagement and performance.
From a strategic perspective, the inability to retain skilled employees due to toxic
leadership undermines the military’s operational readiness and adaptability. Kyröläinen et al.
(2018) emphasized that a stable and cohesive workforce is critical for handling high-stress,
dynamic military operations. Toxic leadership, by eroding this stability, directly compromises an
organization’s ability to achieve its objectives effectively.
Research Question 4: Morale and Performance Metrics
Interpreting the Significant Impact of Toxic Leadership on Morale and Performance Metrics
The findings from Chapter Four highlight that toxic leadership has a profound and
detrimental impact on both morale and performance metrics. Most veterans rated the influence of
toxic leadership on morale and performance as “very significant” or “extreme.” These results
align with extensive research demonstrating that toxic leadership disrupts organizational trust,
cohesion, and motivation, all of which are essential for maintaining high morale and achieving
performance goals.
Toxic leaders often employ behaviors that erode morale, such as belittling subordinates,
creating a hostile work environment, and prioritizing self-interest over team welfare. For
example, Gallus et al. (2013) found such behaviors led to diminished job satisfaction, reduced
commitment, and increased stress among employees. Similarly, Reed and Bullis (2009) noted
toxic leadership undermines trust, making it difficult for teams to collaborate effectively, which
in turn negatively affects organizational performance.

78
The impact on performance metrics is equally significant. Toxic leadership stifles
innovation and efficiency by creating an environment where employees feel undervalued and
disengaged. Byrnes (2013) observed, in hierarchical organizations like the military, toxic leaders
can suppress open communication and creative problem solving, leading to a decline in overall
performance metrics. This pattern was echoed by Werner and Milyavskaya (2019), who
emphasized that the absence of supportive leadership diminishes individuals’ ability to achieve
high performance.
Relating Findings to Leadership Theory and Models of Organizational Performance
The findings on morale and performance metrics can be interpreted through Bandura’s
(2019) SCT, which highlights the role of observational learning in shaping behaviors. In
environments led by toxic leaders, negative behaviors are often modeled and reinforced, creating
a culture of dysfunction and demotivation. This environment not only affects individual morale
but also hampers the collective ability of teams to achieve desired outcomes.
Leadership accountability theory further underscores the importance of addressing toxic
behaviors to maintain organizational performance. L. Wong et al. (2003) argued organizations
with strong accountability systems are better equipped to identify and mitigate toxic leadership,
thereby preserving morale and performance metrics. Without these mechanisms, toxic leaders
may continue to operate unchecked, exacerbating their negative impact.
Models of organizational performance, such as the model Day et al. (2014) proposed,
also emphasize the importance of team cohesion and effective leadership for achieving high
performance. Toxic leadership disrupts these dynamics by creating division and mistrust, making
it challenging for teams to collaborate effectively. Furthermore, Kyröläinen et al. (2018) noted,
in high-stress environments like the military, leadership plays a critical role in regulating team

79
dynamics and maintaining performance. When leaders fail to provide constructive guidance, the
resulting decline in morale and performance can be significant.
Implications for Practice
Leadership Development
Recommendations for Improving Leadership Training Programs
Findings from this study revealed veterans perceive current leadership training programs
as ineffective in addressing toxic leadership, with many respondents expressing dissatisfaction
with these measures. To address these shortcomings, military organizations must adopt strategies
that emphasize the development of emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and ethical
leadership practices. Research by Gallus et al. (2013) highlighted that effective training programs
go beyond technical skills and focus on fostering leaders’ self-awareness and their ability to
positively influence team dynamics. Incorporating modules on empathy, communication, and
conflict resolution into training programs can help leaders better navigate the challenges of highstress environments, directly addressing the gaps identified in this study.
Bandura’s (2019) SCT supports the use of role modeling and observational learning in
leadership training. Programs should feature positive role models—leaders who exemplify
constructive and collaborative behaviors. By observing and imitating these role models, trainees
can internalize and adopt behaviors that counteract the tendencies of toxic leadership.
Additionally, incorporating scenario-based training and simulations can prepare leaders
to handle complex situations effectively. Werner and Milyavskaya (2019) emphasized that
experiential learning methods, such as simulations, allow leaders to practice decision making in a
controlled environment, enhancing their ability to apply learned skills in real-world settings.

80
Recommendations for Improving Evaluation Systems
The study found veterans frequently rated current leadership evaluation systems as
ineffective in addressing toxic leadership, indicating that these systems often fail to account for
critical interpersonal and ethical dimensions. To address this gap, evaluation systems should be
restructured to capture the full spectrum of leadership behaviors rather than focusing solely on
operational outcomes, which may overlook the presence of toxic behaviors (Reed, 2004).
Integrating 360-degree feedback mechanisms, where subordinates, peers, and supervisors
provide input on a leader’s performance, can create a more comprehensive evaluation process.
Research by L. Wong et al. (2003) underscored the importance of multisource feedback in
identifying and addressing toxic leadership, making it a key component in closing the gaps
highlighted by the study findings.
To enhance evaluations further, anonymous reporting systems can be strengthened to
encourage honest feedback without fear of reprisal. By addressing the cultural stigma associated
with reporting leadership issues, these systems can provide valuable insights into leaders’
behaviors and their impact on team dynamics (Reed & Bullis, 2009).
Recommendations for Improving Leadership Development Initiatives
The findings revealed veterans perceive current leadership development initiatives as
inadequate, with many measures failing to address the ongoing and evolving challenges of toxic
leadership. To address this issue, leadership development initiatives should focus on continuous
learning and iterative improvement. Programs should not be one-time events but ongoing
processes that adapt to the changing needs of organizations and their leaders. Kyröläinen et al.
(2018) recommended incorporating regular check-ins, workshops, and mentorship opportunities
as part of these initiatives to ensure sustained growth and improvement. This approach addresses

81
the gaps identified in this study by fostering long-term development and accountability in
leadership practices.
Mentorship programs can play a crucial role in reinforcing positive leadership behaviors.
Pairing emerging leaders with experienced mentors who exemplify constructive leadership styles
can provide guidance and accountability. Byrnes (2013) highlighted that mentorship fosters selfregulation and resilience, equipping leaders to navigate challenges without resorting to toxic
behaviors.
Organizations should also prioritize leadership accountability within development
initiatives. Training programs must include clear expectations for ethical behavior and emphasize
the consequences of toxic leadership. Incorporating accountability measures aligns with findings
by Werner and Milyavskaya (2019), who argued leadership programs are most effective when
they include mechanisms to evaluate and address negative behaviors.
Transparency and Communication
Suggestions for Increasing Transparency
To address the pervasive lack of transparency surrounding toxic leadership, military
organizations must implement measures that prioritize openness and accountability.
Transparency is a cornerstone of trust, and its absence fosters an environment where toxic
behaviors can thrive unchecked (Reed & Bullis, 2009). Several strategies can be employed to
enhance transparency and create a culture of trust and accountability.
First, organizations should adopt public reporting and accountability mechanisms by
establishing a clear and consistent process for reporting and addressing toxic leadership
incidents. Publishing summaries of actions taken against toxic leaders can emphasize
accountability and reinforce the organization’s commitment to ethical leadership (L. Wong et al.,

82
2003). Second, strengthening and expanding anonymous reporting systems ensures personnel
feel safe sharing concerns without fear of reprisal. Anonymity in reporting encourages candid
feedback and more effective identification of toxic behaviors (Reed, 2004).
Lastly, conducting periodic leader behavior audits focused on interpersonal behaviors and
ethical standards can enhance transparency. These audits, carried out by neutral third parties,
ensure objectivity and build trust in the process (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019). Together, these
strategies foster an environment of openness and accountability, directly addressing the issues of
transparency and unchecked toxic leadership.
Suggestions for Establishing Regular Communication Channels
Establishing regular and open communication channels about leadership issues is crucial
for addressing toxic behaviors and fostering a culture of trust. Effective communication ensures
concerns are acknowledged and addressed promptly, signaling to personnel that leadership issues
are a priority. Several measures can enhance communication within organizations. Conducting
regular feedback sessions at all organizational levels can encourage open dialogue about
leadership behaviors, promoting self-regulation and adaptive leadership (Byrnes, 2013).
Reinforcing open-door policies allows personnel to raise concerns directly with higher leadership
without fear of violating hierarchical protocols, fostering accessibility and ensuring leaders are
aware of ground-level issues (Reed, 2015).
Regular town hall meetings can provide a platform for discussing leadership issues,
sharing updates on organizational priorities, and addressing concerns about toxic behaviors,
creating a culture of inclusivity and shared accountability (Kyröläinen et al., 2018). Leadership
communication training is another essential component, equipping leaders with skills such as
active listening, conflict resolution, and fostering constructive dialogue to address concerns

83
effectively (Gallus et al., 2013). Finally, implementing feedback loops, where leaders report on
actions taken to address concerns raised by personnel, demonstrates responsiveness and ensures
communication is not one sided (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019). These strategies collectively
promote transparency, trust, and a proactive approach to leadership issues.
Retention Strategies
Proposing Actionable Steps to Address Retention Issues Caused by Toxic Leadership
The findings from Chapter Four reveal a clear link between toxic leadership and
employee turnover, with veterans frequently observing skilled employees leaving their
organizations due to toxic behaviors. To mitigate these retention challenges, military
organizations must adopt targeted strategies focused on fostering a supportive leadership culture
and holding toxic leaders accountable.
Establish Mentoring Programs
Mentorship can play a transformative role in retaining skilled employees by fostering a
sense of support and belonging within the organization. Effective mentoring programs pair less
experienced personnel with positive role models who can provide guidance, encouragement, and
leadership development opportunities (Reed, 2015). These programs not only help create a
pipeline of future leaders who embody constructive leadership practices but also provide a buffer
against the negative effects of toxic leadership. Research by Gallus et al. (2013) highlighted the
role of mentorship in increasing job satisfaction and commitment by offering employees a
trusted advocate within the organization. Mentors also can serve as informal channels for
identifying and addressing toxic leadership behaviors, providing early intervention opportunities
that support healthier organizational dynamics.

84
Implement Leadership Accountability Measures
Accountability is critical for addressing toxic leadership and mitigating its negative
impact on retention. Military organizations must establish clear policies and procedures for
evaluating and addressing leadership behaviors to foster a culture of accountability. Leadership
evaluations should incorporate behavioral evaluation criteria that assess interpersonal and ethical
dimensions, ensuring leaders are evaluated not only on operational outcomes but also on their
treatment of subordinates (L. Wong et al., 2003). Strict consequences for toxic leadership
behaviors, such as removal from leadership positions and mandatory retraining programs, should
be developed and enforced, sending a strong message that toxic behaviors will not be tolerated
(Reed, 2004). Additionally, strengthening anonymous reporting systems can provide employees
with a safe avenue for voicing concerns about leadership behaviors, allowing organizations to
address toxic behaviors proactively before they result in widespread turnover (Reed & Bullis,
2009). These measures collectively support a healthier, more accountable leadership culture that
prioritizes employee well-being and retention.
Foster a Positive Organizational Culture
Creating a culture that prioritizes trust, inclusion, and employee well-being is essential
for improving retention. Recognition programs that reward leaders who demonstrate positive
leadership behaviors reinforce the importance of constructive leadership within the organization
(Kyröläinen et al., 2018). Implementing work–life balance initiatives, such as flexible scheduling
and mental health resources, can address stressors commonly associated with toxic leadership,
significantly improving job satisfaction and retention (Gallus et al., 2013). Additionally,
investing in team-building activities fosters cohesion and camaraderie among teams, mitigating
the divisive effects of toxic leadership and reinforcing a sense of belonging (Werner &

85
Milyavskaya, 2019). These strategies collectively contribute to a more supportive and inclusive
organizational culture, enhancing overall workforce stability.
Conduct Exit Interviews to Identify Retention Challenges
Exit interviews provide valuable insights into why skilled employees leave and offer
opportunities to address systemic issues related to toxic leadership. By analyzing trends in exit
data, organizations can identify the leadership behaviors or policies contributing to turnover.
This information allows for the development of targeted interventions aimed at addressing these
challenges and retaining future talent (Reed, 2015). Exit interviews thus serve as a critical tool
for diagnosing and mitigating the underlying issues associated with toxic leadership, enabling
organizations to foster a more stable and supportive workforce.
Performance Improvement
Highlighting Methods to Mitigate the Impact of Toxic Leadership on Performance Metrics
The findings from Chapter Four indicate toxic leadership significantly undermines
organizational performance metrics, with respondents frequently associating toxic behaviors with
reduced team effectiveness and morale. To address these issues, military organizations must
adopt targeted methods to mitigate the adverse effects of toxic leadership and improve
performance metrics.
Enhanced Monitoring Systems
Effective monitoring systems are critical for identifying and addressing the impact of
toxic leadership on performance. Behavioral monitoring tools should be implemented to track
leadership behaviors alongside operational outcomes. This approach ensures leaders are assessed
on their ability to foster team cohesion and morale rather than solely on mission success (Reed &
Bullis, 2009). Using real-time data analytics can further enhance monitoring by detecting early

86
signs of dysfunction caused by toxic leadership, such as declines in productivity, increased
absenteeism, or higher turnover rates (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019). Additionally, engaging
third-party oversight through external evaluators can provide periodic reviews of leadership
practices and team dynamics, ensuring objectivity and reducing the influence of hierarchical
pressures (Gallus et al., 2013). These measures collectively support the early identification and
mitigation of toxic leadership’s impact on organizational performance.
Feedback Mechanisms
Robust feedback systems are essential for addressing toxic behaviors and improving
performance metrics within organizations. Introducing 360-degree feedback systems that gather
input from subordinates, peers, and superiors provides a comprehensive view of a leader’s
impact, helping to identify toxic behaviors that may not be apparent to higher-ups (L. Wong et
al., 2003). Strengthening anonymous feedback channels can further encourage honest reporting
of leadership issues without fear of reprisal, a particularly effective strategy in hierarchical
environments like the military (Reed, 2004). Additionally, scheduling regular performance
review meetings allows teams to discuss challenges and provide constructive feedback on
leadership practices. Consistent feedback fosters an environment of accountability and
continuous improvement, as Byrnes (2013) emphasized. Together, these strategies create a
framework for addressing toxic leadership and promoting positive organizational change.
Leadership Development Initiatives
Addressing toxic leadership requires proactive development programs that equip leaders
with the skills needed to foster high-performing teams. Leadership training programs should
include modules on performance management, emphasizing the alignment of team goals with
organizational performance metrics. Emphasizing this alignment ensures leaders understand how

87
their behaviors directly impact team effectiveness (Reed, 2015). Additionally, coaching and
mentorship programs can pair leaders with mentors or coaches who exemplify constructive
leadership styles. These relationships provide guidance in developing strategies to improve team
performance and morale, fostering a positive and productive organizational culture (Kyröläinen
et al., 2018).
Cultivating a Supportive Work Environment
Improving performance metrics requires cultivating a supportive work environment that
minimizes the effects of toxic leadership. Regular team-building activities can be organized to
strengthen relationships and improve collaboration, helping to counteract the divisive effects of
toxic leadership (Gallus et al., 2013). Additionally, implementing recognition programs to
reward teams and leaders who demonstrate high performance and positive behaviors can
reinforce the value of constructive leadership (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019). These initiatives
contribute to a more cohesive and motivated workforce, enhancing overall organizational
performance.
Clear Accountability Policies
Holding leaders accountable for their impact on performance metrics is essential for
fostering improvement within organizations. Clear performance and behavior expectations
should be established for leaders, linking their evaluations to team outcomes and morale (L.
Wong et al., 2003). Additionally, consequences must be implemented for leaders whose
behaviors negatively affect performance metrics. These could include reassignment, retraining,
or removal from leadership roles (Reed, 2004). By enforcing accountability, organizations can
promote constructive leadership practices and improve overall team performance and cohesion.

88
Recommendations for Future Research
Suggested Areas for Further Study
Longitudinal Studies on the Effectiveness of Implemented Leadership Measures
Current research often has evaluated leadership interventions as snapshots, lacking an
examination of their long-term effectiveness (Day et al., 2014). Longitudinal studies would
provide critical insights into how leadership development programs, accountability measures,
and other initiatives evolve over time and influence organizational culture and performance.
Such studies could track cohorts of leaders who have undergone training to assess how their
behaviors and team dynamics change over the years. Gallus et al. (2013) emphasized the
importance of continuous evaluation in leadership programs, underscoring the need for long-term
studies to measure sustained impact and better understand the lasting effects of these
interventions.
Examination of Leadership Traits That Mitigate or Exacerbate Toxic Behaviors
Understanding which leadership traits contribute to or counteract toxic behaviors is
essential for designing effective leadership training programs. Research should focus on
exploring traits such as emotional intelligence, resilience, and adaptability to identify those that
reduce the likelihood of toxic behaviors. Comparative studies could examine the leadership traits
of successful leaders versus those perceived as toxic, identifying patterns that promote positive
leadership. Bandura’s (2019) SCT highlights the role of modeling positive behaviors in
mitigating the spread of toxic leadership, underscoring the importance of identifying traits that
encourage constructive and ethical leadership practices.

89
Exploration of Cultural or Organizational Differences in Addressing Toxic Leadership
Toxic leadership may manifest differently across cultures and organizational contexts,
making it essential to examine how varying organizational structures, values, and cultures
influence its prevalence and management. Comparative studies could provide valuable insights
by exploring differences in how military organizations across countries or civilian and military
settings approach toxic leadership. Kyröläinen et al. (2018) highlighted that environmental and
cultural factors play a significant role in shaping leadership behaviors, emphasizing the
importance of cross-contextual studies for tailoring interventions to address toxic leadership
effectively.
Identifying Gaps in Current Research and Proposing New Methodologies
Lack of Focus on Subordinate Perspectives in Toxic Leadership Research
Although much research has examined toxic leadership from an organizational or
leadership perspective, there is a notable gap in understanding how subordinates perceive and
experience toxic behaviors. Addressing this gap requires a deeper exploration of the subordinate
perspective to capture the full impact of toxic leadership on individuals. Mixed-methods
approaches that combine quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews could provide richer
insights into the lived experiences of subordinates under toxic leadership, offering a more
comprehensive understanding of how these behaviors affect morale, productivity, and wellbeing.
Limited Analysis of Indirect Effects of Toxic Leadership
Current research often has focused on direct outcomes of toxic leadership, such as
turnover and morale, while overlooking indirect effects like diminished innovation or long-term
reputational damage to organizations (Octavian, 2023). Addressing these overlooked areas

90
requires a broader perspective on how toxic leadership impacts interconnected organizational
factors over time. Systems-based approaches using organizational modeling and simulations
could provide valuable insights into these indirect effects, enabling researchers to understand the
broader implications of toxic leadership on organizational dynamics and performance (Werner &
Milyavskaya, 2019).
Insufficient Attention to Intervention Efficacy
Although many studies have advocated for interventions to address toxic leadership
(Rotar, 2017), few have evaluated their effectiveness in real-world settings. This gap highlights
the need for research that assesses how well these interventions function in practice. Field
experiments could address this need by testing specific interventions, such as mentoring
programs and accountability frameworks, in controlled environments. These experiments would
measure both the short- and long-term impacts of intervention strategies such as mentoring
programs and accountability frameworks on leadership behaviors and team dynamics, providing
actionable insights into their real-world applicability and effectiveness (Reed, 2015).
Limitations of the Study
Acknowledging the Study’s Limitations
Sample Size and Representation
One limitation of this study is the sample size, which may not fully capture the diversity
of experiences and perspectives across all military organizations. Although the study provided
valuable insights into veterans’ perceptions of toxic leadership, a larger and more diverse sample
could enhance the reliability and generalizability of the findings. A limited sample size may lead
to the overrepresentation or underrepresentation of certain viewpoints, potentially skewing the
data and limiting the ability to draw broader conclusions (Reed & Bullis, 2009). Addressing this

91
limitation in future research could provide a more comprehensive understanding of toxic
leadership and its impact.
Survey Design
The survey design relied primarily on self-reported data, which is inherently subjective
and may be influenced by personal biases or recall inaccuracies. Additionally, the use of closedended questions, although useful for facilitating quantitative analysis, may have restricted
respondents from fully articulating their experiences and perspectives. This reliance on selfreported data could introduce biases, such as social desirability bias, where respondents provide
answers they believe are expected rather than their true experiences (Gallus et al., 2013). These
limitations highlight the need for incorporating more open-ended questions or mixed-method
approaches in future research to capture a richer and more accurate range of participant insights.
Generalizability of Findings
The study focused on military veterans from specific branches, which may limit its
applicability to other contexts, such as active duty personnel, civilian organizations, or military
structures in different cultural or national settings. As a result, the findings may not fully capture
the dynamics of toxic leadership in nonmilitary or international contexts, where organizational
structures and leadership practices can differ significantly (Kyröläinen et al., 2018). Expanding
future research to include diverse populations and settings could provide a more comprehensive
understanding of toxic leadership across various organizational and cultural environments.
How the Limitations May Have Influenced the Results and Interpretations
Potential Overemphasis on Certain Themes
Given the limited sample size, certain themes or patterns may appear more prominent
than they would in a larger, more representative sample. This limited representation could lead to

92
an overemphasis on specific findings, particularly the perceived ineffectiveness of organizational
measures and the reported impact of toxic leadership on morale, potentially skewing the overall
interpretation of the data. Although these findings are significant, they may not fully represent
the range of experiences across diverse military units or ranks (L. Wong et al., 2003). Expanding
the sample size in future studies could help ensure a more balanced representation of
perspectives and provide a deeper understanding of the issues identified.
Constraints of Survey Methodology
The structured nature of the survey may have constrained the depth of insights because
respondents were limited to predefined response options. This design may have restricted
participants from fully expressing their experiences and perspectives. Incorporating open-ended
responses or qualitative interviews could have provided richer context and a more nuanced
understanding of toxic leadership’s effects. This limitation may have resulted in a narrower
interpretation of critical issues such as transparency, communication, and accountability (Byrnes,
2013). Future research incorporating qualitative elements could address this gap and offer a more
comprehensive view of these complex dynamics.
Limited Contextual Scope
By focusing on a specific subset of military veterans, the study may not have fully
captured variations in how toxic leadership is perceived or managed across different
organizations, cultures, or operational contexts. This limitation suggests the findings should be
viewed as indicative rather than definitive, with caution applied when generalizing to other
settings (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2019). Expanding future research to include diverse
organizational and cultural contexts could provide a more comprehensive understanding of toxic
leadership and its broader implications.

93
Conclusion
This study provided significant contributions to the understanding of toxic leadership in
military organizations. By exploring veterans’ perceptions of toxic leadership, the study
identified critical gaps in organizational measures, communication, and the prioritization of
leadership issues. The findings highlight the pervasive negative impact of toxic leadership on
morale, retention, and performance metrics, offering valuable insights into how these behaviors
undermine organizational effectiveness.
Key contributions of this study included demonstrating the widespread perception that
current measures to address toxic leadership are ineffective and lack transparency. The study
revealed the significant role of toxic leadership in driving skilled employee turnover, diminishing
morale, and reducing overall performance. Furthermore, the study established connections
between toxic leadership behaviors and broader organizational challenges, such as weakened
cohesion and trust.
By aligning these findings with existing theories, such as Bandura’s (2019) SCT and
leadership accountability frameworks, this study has advanced the theoretical understanding of
how toxic behaviors are learned, perpetuated, and mitigated within hierarchical organizations.
This alignment underscores the importance of addressing toxic leadership to enhance
organizational effectiveness and foster healthier workplace environments.
Emphasizing the Importance of Addressing Toxic Leadership
Addressing toxic leadership is essential for enhancing organizational effectiveness,
morale, and retention. Toxic leadership creates a cycle of negativity that affects both individual
well-being and team dynamics, leading to reduced productivity, increased turnover, and a
weakened organizational culture.

94
Organizations with strong leadership accountability mechanisms are better equipped to
foster trust and cohesion, which are critical for mission success. Proactively addressing toxic
leadership through effective training, transparent communication, and clear accountability
measures can mitigate its damaging effects and promote a healthier work environment. The
findings of this study emphasize the urgency for military organizations to shift their focus from
short-term operational goals to long-term leadership development and organizational resilience,
ensuring sustained improvement and a positive workplace culture.
Call to Action for Military Organizations
To combat the detrimental effects of toxic leadership, military organizations must
prioritize leadership development and accountability, which requires implementing robust
training and evaluation systems while fostering a culture that values transparency, open
communication, and ethical leadership practices. Specific actions to achieve a culture of
transparency, open communication, and ethical leadership practices include investing in
comprehensive leadership development programs that emphasize interpersonal skills, emotional
intelligence, and ethical decision making. Clear policies and accountability measures should be
established to address toxic behaviors, ensuring leaders are held responsible for their actions.
Additionally, strengthening feedback mechanisms and encouraging open dialogue about
leadership issues can build trust and address concerns promptly. By adopting these strategies,
military organizations can create a healthier, more effective leadership culture that promotes
organizational resilience and well-being.
Addressing toxic leadership is not just an organizational priority but a moral imperative.
By committing to sustained improvement in leadership practices, military organizations can
enhance morale, retain top talent, and achieve long-term operational success. This study serves

95
as a call to action for leaders at all levels to foster environments where trust, accountability, and
positive leadership can thrive.

96
References
Adler, A. B., Bliese, P. D., Barsade, S. G., & Sowden, W. J. (2022). Hitting the mark: The
influence of emotional culture on resilient performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 107(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000897
Andersson, T., Cäker, M., Tengblad, S., & Wickelgren, M. (2019). Building traits for
organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 35(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2019.01.001
Arnold, K. A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A
review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000062
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dorris, A. D. (2017). Emotions in the workplace. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 67–90.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113231
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader
positivity on follower positivity and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 282–
294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.004
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-
6402(78)90002-4
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

97
Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and reflections.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Bandura, A. (2019). Applying theory for human betterment. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 14(1), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618815165
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Bartone, P. T. (2006). Resilience under military operational stress: Can leaders influence
hardiness? Military Psychology, 18(S), S131–S148.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_10
Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., Davis, M. M., Burch, G. F., & Barber, D., III. (2023). Toxic
leadership, destructive leadership, and identity leadership: What are the relationships and
does follower personality matter? Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(2), 128–148.
https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.7(2).128-148.2023
Beauchamp, M. R., Crawford, K. L., & Jackson, B. (2019). Social cognitive theory and physical
activity: Mechanisms of behavior change, critique, and legacy. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 42, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.009
Blacker, K. J., Hamilton, J., Roush, G., Pettijohn, K. A., & Biggs, A. T. (2019). Cognitive
training for military application: A review of the literature and practical guide. Journal of
Cognitive Enhancement, 3(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0076-1
Brooks, S. K., & Greenberg, N. (2018). Non-deployment factors affecting psychological
wellbeing in military personnel: Literature review. Journal of Mental Health, 27(1), 80–
90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2016.1276536

98
Brouwers, M., & Paltu, A. (2020). Toxic leadership: Effects on job satisfaction, commitment,
turnover intention and organisational culture within the South African manufacturing
industry. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0
Bush, N. E., Sheppard, S. C., Fantelli, E., Bell, K. R., & Reger, M. A. (2013). Recruitment and
attrition issues in military clinical trials and health research studies. Military Medicine,
178(11), 1157–1163. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00234
Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model.
Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203726495
Cameron, K. S., & Conley, C. (2012). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary
performance (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organisational
performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217–236.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112
Celebi Cakiroglu, O., & Tuncer Unver, G. (2024). Toxic leadership, mental well-being and work
engagement among nurses: a scale adaptation study and structural equation model
approach. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 38(1), 49–69.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-10-2022-0291
Connable, B., McNerney, M. J., Marcellino, W., Frank, A., Hargrove, H., Posard, M. N.,
Zimmerman, S. R., Lander, N., Castillo, J. J., & Sladen, J. (2018). Will to fight:

99
Analyzing, modeling, and simulating the will to fight of military units. RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/rr2341.html
Corrales-Estrada, A. M., Gómez-Santos, L. L., Bernal-Torres, C. A., & Rodriguez-López, J. E.
(2021). Sustainability and resilience organizational capabilities to enhance business
continuity management: A literature review. Sustainability, 13(15), Article 8196.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158196
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004
Erdal, N., & Budak, O. (2021). The mediating role of organizational trust in the effect of toxic
leadership on job satisfaction. International Journal of Research in Business and Social
Science, 10(3), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i3.1144
Fallesen, J. J., Keller-Glaze, H., & Curnow, C. K. (2011). A selective review of leadership
studies in the U.S. Army. Military Psychology, 23(5), 462–478.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.600181
Farghaly Abdelaliem, S. M., & Abou Zeid, M. A. G. (2023). The relationship between toxic
leadership and organizational performance: The mediating effect of nurses’ silence. BMC
Nursing, 22(1), 4–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-01167-8
Fosse, T. H., Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S. V., & Martinussen, M. (2019). Active and passive forms
of destructive leadership in a military context: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 708–722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1634550

100
Gallos, J. V. (2008). Learning from the toxic trenches: The winding road to healthier
organizations—and to healthy everyday leaders. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4),
354–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492608320580
Gallus, J. A., Walsh, B. M., van Driel, M., Gouge, M. C., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable
cruelty: A multilevel examination of the impact of toxic leadership on U.S. Military units
and service members. Military Psychology, 25(6), 588–601.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000022
Gough, B., & Novikova, I. (2020). Mental health, men and culture: How do sociocultural
constructions of masculinities relate to men’s mental health help-seeking behaviour in
the WHO European Region? World Health Organization.
Govindaras, B., Wern, T. S., Kaur, S., Haslin, I. A., & Ramasamy, R. K. (2023). Sustainable
environment to prevent burnout and attrition in project management. Sustainability,
15(3), Article 2364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032364
Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of
Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 776–786.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.776
Guo, X., Xiong, L., Wang, Y., Li, X., Wang, Y., Xiao, F., He, J., Xiang, Y., & Xu, C. (2022).
Chinese nurses’ perceptions on toxic leadership behaviours of nurse managers: A
qualitative study. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(7), 3256–3263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13758
Guzeller, C. O., & Celiker, N. (2019). Examining the relationship between organizational
commitment and turnover intention via a meta-analysis. Consumer Behavior in Tourism
and Hospitality, 14(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-05-2019-0094

101
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!”: A call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689
Hutchison, P. J. (2013). Leadership as an ideograph: A rhetorical analysis of military leadership
training material. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 24–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21293
Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and
employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership
Quarterly, 29(1), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.006
Indradevi, R.. (2016). Toxic leadership over the years – A review. Purusharta, 9(1), 106–110.
https://journals.smsvaranasi.com/index.php/purushartha/article/view/94/91
Kelley, W. M., Wagner, D. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2015). In search of a human self-regulation
system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 38(1), 389–411.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014243
Kleef, G. A. (2023). When and how norm violators gain influence: Dominance, prestige, and the
social dynamics of (counter)normative behavior. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 17(5), Article e12745. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12745
Koolhaas, J. M., Bartolomucci, A., Buwalda, B., de Boer, S. F., Flügge, G., Korte, S. M.,
Meerlo, P., Murison, R., Olivier, B., Palanza, P., Richter-Levin, G., Sgoifo, A., Steimer,
T., Stiedl, O., van Dijk, G., Wöhr, M., & Fuchs, E. (2011). Stress revisited: A critical
evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(5), 1291–
1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003

102
Kurtulmuş, B. E. (2021). Toxic leadership and workplace bullying: The role of followers and
possible coping Strategies. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of workplace
well-being (pp. 751–770). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-30025-8_24
Kyröläinen, H., Pihlainen, K., Vaara, J. P., Ojanen, T., & Santtila, M. (2018). Optimising
training adaptations and performance in military environment. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 21(11), 1131–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.11.019
Labrague, L. J. (2024). Toxic leadership and its relationship with outcomes on the nursing
workforce and patient safety: A systematic review. Leadership in Health Services, 37(2),
192–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-06-2023-0047
Lester, P. B., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, J. A. (2024). Taken to the extreme: Transformational
leadership, psychological capital, and follower health outcomes in extreme contexts.
Military Psychology, 36(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2147361
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions.
Leader to Leader, 2005(36), 29–36.
Lis, A. (2016). The manifestations of positive leadership strategies in the doctrinal assumptions
of the U.S. Army leadership concept. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and
Leadership, 2(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.12775/JCRL.2015.004
Mackey, J. D., Parker Ellen, B., McAllister, C. P., & Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of
leadership: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership
research. Journal of Business Research, 132, 705–718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037

103
Mergen, A., & Ozbilgin, M. F. (2021). Understanding the followers of toxic leaders: Toxic
illusion and personal uncertainty. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1),
45–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12240
Milevski, L. (2016). The evolution of modern grand strategic thought (1st ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Miller, N. L., Matsangas, P., & Shattuck, L. G. (2008). Fatigue and its effect on performance in
military environments. In P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under
stress (pp. 247–266). CRC Press.
Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Lončar, D. (2020). Defeating the toxic boss: The nature of toxic
leadership and the role of followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
27(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833374
Mobbs, M. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2018). Corrigendum to “Beyond war and PTSD: The crucial
role of transition stress in the lives of military veterans” [Clin. Psychol. Rev. 59 (2018)
137–144]. Clinical Psychology Review, 60, 147–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.002
Morse, B. A. B., Carman, J. P., & Zint, M. T. (2019). Fostering environmental behaviors through
observational learning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(10), 1530–1552.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1647219
Moss, J. (2021). The burnout epidemic: The rise of chronic stress and how we can fix it. Harvard
Business Review Press.
Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents
and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 87(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12059

104
Octavian, S. M. (2023). About the Impact and Effects of Toxic Leadership on Employees and
Organizations. European Review of Applied Sociology, 16(27), 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.2478/eras-2023-0012
Ortiz-Gómez, M., Molina-Sánchez, H., Ariza-Montes, A., & de los Ríos-Berjillos, A. (2022).
Servant leadership and authentic leadership as job resources for achieving workers’
subjective well-being among organizations based on values. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 15, 2621–2638. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S371300
Othman, R., Fang Ee, F., & Lay Shi, N. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-member
exchange: Antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 31(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011043357
Parris, D. L., Dapko, J. L., Arnold, R. W., & Arnold, D. (2016). Exploring transparency: A new
framework for responsible business management. Management Decision, 54(1), 222–
247. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2015-0279
Polusny, M. A., Marquardt, C. A., Hubbling, M., Campbell, E. H., Arbisi, P. A., Davenport, N.
D., Lim, K. O., Lissek, S., Schaefer, J. D., Sponheim, S. R., Masten, A. S., &
Noorbaloochi, S. (2023). Adaptation in young military recruits: Protocol for the
Advancing Research on Mechanisms of Resilience (ARMOR) Prospective Longitudinal
Study. JMIR Research Protocols, 12, Article e51235. https://doi.org/10.2196/51235
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review.
Reed, G. E. (2015). Tarnished: Toxic leadership in the U.S. military (1st ed.). Potomac Books.
Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military
officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces and Society, 36(1), 5–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X09334994

105
Reed, G. E., & Olsen, R. (2010). Toxic leadership: Part deux. Military Review, 58–64.
Robbins, B. G. (2016). What is trust? A multidisciplinary review, critique, and synthesis.
Sociology Compass, 10(10), 972–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12391
Rose, K., Shuck, B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative review
exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications for those
employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 64–90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314552437
Roter, A. B. (2017). Understanding and recognizing dysfunctional leadership: The impact of
dysfunctional leadership on organizations and followers (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549286
Ruiz Moreno, A., Roldán Bravo, M. I., García-Guiu, C., Lozano, L. M., Extremera Pacheco, N.,
Navarro-Carrillo, G., & Valor-Segura, I. (2021). Effects of emerging leadership styles on
engagement – A mediation analysis in a military context. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 42(5), 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2020-0222
Schiena, R. D., Letens, G., Aken, E. V., & Farris, J. (2013). Relationship between leadership and
characteristics of learning organizations in deployed military units: An exploratory
study. Administrative Sciences, 3(3), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci3030143
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale (Publication
No. 1453699) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) [Database record].
APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000

106
Semedo, C. S., Salvador, A., Dos Santos, N. R., Pais, L., & Mónico, L. (2022). Toxic leadership
and empowering leadership: Relations with work motivation. Psychology Research and
Behavior Management, 15, 1885–1900. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S340863
Simon, S. A., & Eby, L. T. (2003). A typology of negative mentoring experiences: A
multidimensional scaling study. Human Relations, 56(9), 1083–1106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703569003
Smith, N., & Fredricks-Lowman, I. (2020). Conflict in the workplace: a 10-year review of toxic
leadership in higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5),
538–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512
Strand, S., & Berndtsson, J. (2015). Recruiting the “enterprising soldier”: Military recruitment
discourses in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Critical Military Studies, 1(3), 233–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2015.1090676
Sudha, K. S., Shahnawaz, M. G., & Farhat, A. (2016). Leadership styles, leader’s effectiveness
and well-being: Exploring collective efficacy as a mediator. Vision, 20(2), 111–120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262916637260
Surber, R. S. (2024). Military training and revisionist just war theory’s practicability problem.
The Journal of Ethics, 28(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-094394
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Medical
Teacher, 33(6), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.564682
Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). Trust: An integrative review from a person-situation
perspective. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 249–277.
https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000046

107
Thomas, T. A., Gentzler, K., & Salvatorelli, R. (2016). What is toxic followership? Journal of
Leadership Studies, 10(3), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21496
Thompson, M. L., Paliewicz, N. S., Rose, K. J., & Ashlock, M. Z. (2022). The materiality of
leadership: Fort Knox’s General George Patton Museum of Leadership as a living field
manual. The Southern Communication Journal, 87(1), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2021.2014945
Uysal, H. T. (2019). The mediation role of toxic leadership in the effect of job stress on job
satisfaction. International Journal of Business, 24(1), 55–73.
Wang, Z., Panaccio, A., Raja, U., Donia, M., Landry, G., Pereira, M. M., & Ferreira, M. C.
(2022). Servant leadership and employee wellbeing: A crosscultural investigation of the
moderated path model in Canada, Pakistan, China, the US, and Brazil. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM, 22(2), 301–325.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958221112859
Weller, J., Boyd, M., & Cumin, D. (2014). Teams, tribes and patient safety: Overcoming barriers
to effective teamwork in healthcare. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 90(1061), 149–154.
https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2012-131168
Werner, K. M., & Milyavskaya, M. (2019). Motivation and self‐regulation: The role of want‐to
motivation in the processes underlying self‐regulation and self‐control. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12425
Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad. Quorum Books.
Williams, D. M., & Rhodes, R. E. (2016). The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual
analysis and recommendations for future research. Health Psychology Review, 10(2),
113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998

108
Winn, G. L., & Dykes, A. C. (2019). Identifying toxic leadership & building worker resilience.
Professional Safety, 64(3), 38–45. https://onepetro.org/ps/articleabstract/64/03/38/33604/identifying-toxic-leadership-and-building-worker
Wolor, C. W., Ardiansyah, A., Rofaida, R., Nurkhin, A., & Rababah, M. A. (2022). Impact of
toxic leadership on employee performance. Health Psychology Research, 10(4), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.52965/001C.57551
Wong, C. W. Y., Wong, C. Y., Boon-Itt, S., & Tang, A. K. Y. (2021). Strategies for building
environmental transparency and accountability. Sustainability, 13(16), Article 9116.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169116
Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 657–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.08.001
Yaribeygi, H., Panahi, Y., Sahraei, H., Johnston, T. P., & Sahebkar, A. (2017). The impact of
stress on body function: A review. EXCLI Journal, 16, 1057–1072.
https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2017-480
Zimbardo, P., & Smith, M. B. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn
evil [Review of The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil]. Peace and
Conflict, 13(4), 463–465.

109
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire
Thank you for participating in this survey. The purpose of this research is to explore the
prevalence and impact of toxic leadership within military organizations. Your insights will help
us understand how toxic leadership affects team dynamics, organizational performance, and
individual morale.
Definition of Toxic Leadership
Toxic leadership is defined as a leadership style that harms employees and the
organization through abusive, manipulative, and unethical behaviors. This can include behaviors
such as belittling, bullying, favoritism, micromanagement, and creating a hostile work
environment. Toxic leaders often prioritize their interests over those of their team, leading to
negative consequences for both the individuals and the organization.
Your responses will be kept confidential, and you may opt out of the survey at any time.
Your participation is greatly appreciated and will contribute to developing strategies to mitigate
toxic leadership and improve leadership practices within military settings. Table A1 includes the
survey questions.

110
Table A1
Survey Questions
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
1. On a scale of 1 to 5,
how would you rate
the extent to which
your military
organization
recognized the
importance of
mitigating toxic
leadership?
Closed Ordinal 1. Not at all
2. To a small extent
3. To a moderate extent
4. To a great extent
5. To a very great extent
1 Self-efficacy:
Assessing the
respondent’s belief
in their
organization’s
ability to recognize
and address toxic
leadership.
2. Which of the
following measures
did your military
organization
implement to address
toxic leadership?
(Select all that apply)
Closed Nominal 1. Leadership training
programs
2. Anonymous reporting
systems
3. Performance evaluations
focusing on leadership
behavior
4. Regular leadership
assessments and feedback
sessions
5. Other (please specify):___
1 Environmental
influences:
Examining the
organizational
strategies and
interventions aimed
at addressing toxic
leadership.

111
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
3. How frequently did
your military
organization
communicate concerns
regarding the influence
of toxic leaders on
productivity?
Closed Ordinal 1. Rarely
2. Occasionally
3. Sometimes
4. Frequently
5. Always
2 Observational
learning:
Examining the
frequency of
communication
regarding toxic
leadership concerns
within the
organization.
4. To what extent did you
feel the impact of toxic
leadership affected the
productivity of your
work environment?
Closed Ordinal 1. Not at all
2. Slightly
3. Moderately
4. Significantly
5. Extremely
2 Environmental
influences: Gauging
the perceived
impact of toxic
leadership on the
work environment.
5. Did you believe there
was a relationship
between toxic
leadership and the
ability of your
organization to retain
skilled employees?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
3 Observational
learning: Assessing
the respondent’s
perception of the
relationship
between toxic
leadership and
employee retention.

112
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
6. How satisfied were
you with the retention
rates of skilled
employees in your
organization?
Closed Ordinal 1. Very dissatisfied
2. Dissatisfied
3. Neutral
4. Satisfied
5. Very satisfied
3 Self-efficacy:
Evaluating the
respondent’s
satisfaction with
organizational
outcomes related to
skilled employee
retention.
7. On a scale of 1 to 10,
how would you rate
the performance
metrics within your
organization?
Closed Ordinal 1. Extremely poor
2. Very poor
3. Poor
4. Fair
5. Average
6. Above average
7. Good
8. Very good
9. Excellent
10. Outstanding
4 Self-regulation:
Evaluating the
respondent’s
perception and
assessment of
organizational
performance
metrics.
8. Did you witness
skilled employees
leaving your
organization due to
issues related to toxic
leadership?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
3 Observational
learning: Gathering
firsthand
observations of
skilled employees
leaving the
organization due to
toxic leadership
issues.

113
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
9. Which of the
following best
described your
perception of your
organization’s efforts
to address toxic
leadership?
Closed Ordinal 1. Very ineffective
2. Ineffective
3. Neutral
4. Effective
5. Very effective
1 Self-regulation:
Evaluating the
respondent’s
perception of their
organization’s
efforts to address
toxic leadership.
10. Did you think toxic
leadership had a direct
impact on the morale
of individuals within
your organization?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
2 Environmental
influences:
Assessing the
perceived impact of
toxic leadership on
individual morale.
11. How transparent was
your organization
about addressing
instances of toxic
leadership?
Closed Ordinal 1. Not transparent at all
2. Somewhat transparent
3. Moderately transparent
4. Transparent
5. Very transparent
2 Self-regulation:
Evaluating the
organization’s
transparency and
accountability in
addressing toxic
leadership
instances.

114
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
12. Did you believe that
addressing toxic
leadership was a
priority for your
organization?
Closed Nominal 1. Yes
2. No
1 Self-efficacy:
Assessing the
respondent’s belief
in the
organizational
priority placed on
addressing toxic
leadership.
13. On a scale of 1 to 10,
how significantly did
you believe toxic
leadership affected the
morale of employees
in a military context?
Closed Ordinal 1. No impact
2. Very minor impact
3. Minor impact
4. Moderate impact
5. Neutral impact
6. Somewhat significant
impact
7. Significant impact
8. Very significant impact
9. Major impact
10. Extreme impact
4 Self-regulation:
Evaluating the
respondent’s
perception of the
impact of toxic
leadership on
employee morale.
14. On a scale of 1 to 10,
how effectively did
you believe your
organization addressed
and mitigated the
effects of toxic
leadership on
performance metrics in
a military
environment?
Closed Ordinal 1. Not at all effective
2. Very ineffective
3. Ineffective
4. Somewhat ineffective
5. Neutral
6. Somewhat effective
7. Effective
8. Very effective
9. Highly effective
10. Extremely effective
4 Self-regulation:
Evaluating the
respondent’s
perception of the
organization’s
effectiveness in
addressing toxic
leadership.

115
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
15. In your opinion, what
specific measures
could your
organization have
implemented to better
address toxic
leadership?
Open
16. Can you provide an
example of how toxic
leadership directly
affected the
performance or morale
of individuals within
your organization?
Open
17. Based on your
experience or what
you have observed,
what do you believe
caused the toxic
leadership you
encountered?
Open
18. Age Closed 1. 18–24
2. 25–34
3. 35–44
4. 45–54
5. 55–64
6. 65+

116
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
19. Gender Closed 1. Male
2. Female
3. Nonbinary/third gender
4. Prefer not to say
5. Other (please specify)
20. Education level Closed 1. High school diploma or
equivalent
2. Some college or associate
degree
3. Bachelor’s degree
4. Master’s degree
5. Doctoral degree
6. Other (please specify)
21. Current
occupation/profession
Open
22. Ethnicity/race Closed 1. White/Caucasian
2. Black/African American
3. Hispanic/Latino
4. Asian/Pacific Islander
5. Native American/Alaska
Native
6. Multiracial
7. Other (please specify)

117
Question Question type Scale type Response options Question number Construct
23. Service Closed 1. Army
2. Navy
3. Marine Corps
4. Air Force
5. Coast Guard
24. Prior rank Closed 1. Enlisted (a. E-1, b. E-2, c.
E-3, d. E-4, e. E-5, f. E-6,
g. E-7, h. E-8, I. E-9)
2. Officer (j. O-1, k. O-2, l.
O-3, m. O-4, n. O-5, o. O6, p. O-7, q. O-8, r. O-9, s.
O-10)
3. Warrant Officer (t. W-1,
u. W-2, v. W-3, w. W-4,
x. W-5)
4. Other (please specify)

Asset Metadata

Creator Burgess, Talon Joshua (author)

Core Title Dynamics of toxic leadership within the military

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 04/04/2025

Defense Date 02/12/2025

Publisher University of Southern California (original), Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,environmental factors,leadership development,military leadership,mixed methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,observational learning,organizational culture,self-efficacy,Toxic leadership,veterans

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Hyde, Corinne (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Crew, Rudy (committee member)

Creator Email talonbur@usc.edu,talon.burgess@outlook.com

Unique identifier UC11399K7PI

Identifier etd-BurgessTal-13900.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BurgessTal-13900

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Burgess, Talon Joshua

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250407-usctheses-batch-1249 (batch), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection), University of Southern California (contributing entity)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines toxic leadership in the military through a mixed methods study of veterans, focusing on self-efficacy, observational learning, and environmental factors. Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data, the study explores how toxic leadership impacts morale, retention, and overall organizational culture. Findings are based on data collected during the research study, and shifts in military policies, leadership training, and institutional frameworks may influence the application of the data in current contexts. This study also highlights veterans’ lived experiences and the perceived effectiveness of current interventions. Ethical guidelines and institutional review board approvals were followed, with no conflicts of interest or external funding. The author acknowledges the support of academic advisors and participating veterans, emphasizing the importance of considering evolving research and organizational changes when interpreting these findings.