University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Toxic leadership's impact on Black officers within the United States Army

(USC Thesis Other)

Toxic leadership's impact on Black officers within the United States Army

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Toxic Leadership’s Impact on Black Officers Within the United States Army
by
Octavia LaVonne Davis
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
August 2023

© Copyright by Octavia L. Davis 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Octavia L. Davis certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Paula M. Carbone
Don Murphy
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Toxic leaders have occupied leadership positions in the U.S. Army since its inception. Prior
research has focused chiefly on toxic leaders' impact on the organization. However, little
research describes the lasting impact of toxic leaders on minoritized populations within the
organization. This research study aimed to explore the effects of toxic leaders on Black officers
in the U.S. Army. Black officers in the U.S. Army have fought in this nation's wars going back to
the American Revolutionary War. The interview data collected identified that toxic leaders
cultivate an environment of fear, intimidation, and hostility and subject Black officers to
bullying, discrimination, and harassment. Additionally, some female officers who participated in
the study faced sexual harassment and assault based on the environment that the toxic leader
created. The interview data also identified that discriminatory practices imposed by toxic leaders
also formed barriers to Black Army officers' success. The toxicity from the leaders led to a lack
of self-efficacy, ability to trust and adverse impacts on health. The findings suggest that the
Army puts forth additional efforts to foster work environments focused on diversity, equity, and
inclusion efforts and set clear and actionable goals at the lowest levels. To accomplish this,
leaders need training to improve essential skills and their emotional intelligence quotient (EQ).
Successful Army organizations create environments that identify toxic leaders, cultivate
inclusivity, and understand how demographics and political and social identities may foster
modes of privilege or discrimination.

v
Dedication
To my daughter Diana, I could not have achieved this without your patience, love, and support.
You are my reason.

vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation was only possible due to the support and teamwork of many people,
without whom this work would not have been completed. I would like to express my gratitude to
those who provided the assistance and support that I needed where possible. First and foremost, I
would like to thank my chair Dr. Jennifer Phillips for her patience, inspiration, and counsel
throughout my study. Your support and encouragement have been invaluable. You always
helped me to see the big picture by providing words of motivation and constructive advice when
I hit a roadblock. Additionally, I express my sincerest gratitude to the members of my
dissertation committee who took the time to review my work and share their feedback on this
paper.
To my family thank you for your understanding and sacrifice during this journey. Your
unwavering faith has served as my strength during times in which I needed it the most. To my
loving daughter DJ, you are my inspiration thank you for your patience, love, and understanding
throughout this study. Family, I cannot say thank you enough for your encouragement, love, and
support that you all have provided throughout this journey.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of my cohort that motivated me through
completion. Although we all went into this adventure from different places in the world and in
our lives, Candace, Kim, Diane, and Anthony, I cannot be prouder to call you all my friends.
Your unwavering support, feedback, and encouragement have been instrumental in the
completion of this study. I could not have done this alone and I am deeply grateful to everyone
who has supported me throughout. I could not have done this alone. You all have played a
significant part in shaping this study and I am eternally grateful for your support.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Organization Context and Mission ..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.0
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................. 13
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 13
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................. 15
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 20
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 22
Toxic Leadership .............................................................................................................. 22
Toxic Leaders: A Hierarchy of Needs .............................................................................. 26
Behavioral Characteristics of Toxic Leaders .................................................................... 28
Followers and Conducive Environments .........................Error! Bookmark not defined.6
Toxic Leadership's Impact on Diversity ........................................................................... 44
The Interaction Between Stereotypes and Toxic Leaders ................................................. 45
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment's Impact on Black Officers ................................ 53
Impact of Bias on Black Officers...................................................................................... 54
Mentorship Impacts on Black Officers ............................................................................. 58
Race-Based Post -Traumatic Stress' Impact on Black Officers ........................................ 61

viii
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 63
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 70
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 72
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 72
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 73
Data Source: Surveys and Interviews ............................................................................... 74
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 80
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 82
Chapter Four: Results or Findings ................................................................................................ 83
Interview Participants ....................................................................................................... 84
Category One: Personal Transformation of Followers ..................................................... 91
Category Two: Impact on Health ...................................................................................... 98
Category Three: Stereotypes Influence on Toxic Behavior ............................................ 101
Category Four: View of Self ........................................................................................... 105
Results for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 109
Results for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 110
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 110
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 111
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 111
Category One: Personal Transformation addressed through SCT Features ................... 114
Category Two: Impact on Health addressed through SCT Features Error! Bookmark not
defined.8
Category Three: Stereotypes addressed through SCT Features ...................................... 120
Category Four:View of Self addressed through SCT Features ....................................... 123
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 128
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 145

ix
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 146
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 147
References ................................................................................................................................... 151
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 179
Appendix B: Toxic Leadership Questionnaire/ Selection Survey .............................................. 182
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 187
Appendix D: Solicitation Email to Perspective Participants ...................................................... 189

x
List of Tables

Table 1: Fort Hood Report Comparison 12
Table 2: New York City Stop and Frisk Arrest Data 49
Table 3: Comparison/ Contrast Explicit and Implicit Bias 55
Table 4: Pseudonyms of Study Participants 86
Table 5: Toxic Leaders Influences: Categories and Participant Quotes 90
Table 6: Five Features of the Social Cognitive Theory 112
Table 7: Category One: SCT Features Addressed in the Study 117
Table 8: Category Two: SCT Features Addressed in the Study 120
Table 9: Category Three: SCT Features Addressed in the Study 123
Table 10: Category Four: SCT Features Addressed in the Study 126
Table 11: Sample Outline for Leader Development Training 142

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Life Expectancy at Birth by Hispanic Origin and Race: United States,
2019 and 2020
7
Figure 2: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 27
Figure 3: The Toxic Triangle 31
Figure 4: Followership Process 38
Figure 5: Subjects of Recorded Investigations and Tried in General and Special
Courts- Martial, Fiscal Years 2013-2017
47
Figure 6: Deaths From Heart Disease, Diabetes, and Kidney Disease
(Combined) per 100,000- United States, 2015
62
Figure 7: Social Cognitive Triadic Model 65
Figure 8: Social Cognitive Structural Paths of Influence 68
Figure 9: Identified Categories and Subcategories 88
Figure 10: Social Cognitive Theory Features 114
Figure 11: Implementation Steps 135
Figure 12: Example Communication Plan 138
Figure 13: Example Model of Organizational Accountability

144

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
In today’s US Army there is an increased concern regarding diversity within the ranks
(McClellan, 2020). Despite progression within the officer corps Blacks have a higher attrition
rate in comparison to their White counterparts in the US Army and are underrepresented in the
senior ranks when compared to their enlisted and civilian counterparts (Segal & Segal, 2004).
The underrepresentation of Black officers in the senior ranks led to efforts to increase officer
corps diversity focused on attrition and accessions (Jones, 2010). However, there is little
discussion regarding the causes of Black officer attrition. Toxic leadership and the perceived
racism and bias that Black officers face in their organizations may account for Black officer
attrition and higher odds of work-related limitations such as high impact pain, high cholesterol,
and hypertension (Piquado et al., 2021); however, toxic leadership’s impact on Black officers has
not been addressed in military research.
Long before military service, the positionality of Black officers is formed by their
experiences as persons in the United States (Piquado et al., 2021). Positionality as defined by
Pollock et al. (2022) is “the social and political context that creates your identity and how your
identity influences and biases your perception of and outlook on the world” (p. 123). Some
adverse experiences that Black persons face in the United States include perceived racism,
explicit and implicit discrimination, and the effects of systemic racism (e.g., disproportionate
rates of poverty and criminal justice involvement on families and poorer access to health care
and quality education) (Piquado et al., 2021). The fatigue associated with Black Americans
fighting for rights protected by the constitution in their personal lives (Winters, 2020) and the
pressure associated with denying perceived negative stereotypes in the workplace adds additional
stressors to their military service (Asare, 2021). A leader provides a positive work environment,
2

develops others, and leads by example (AR 600-100, 2017). However, toxic leaders contribute to
the emotional burden that Black officers face of living and working in spaces that diminish their
existence (Winters, 2020).
The 40
th
Chief of Staff of the United States Army stated in his initial message to the
Army team that “Our people are our greatest strength and our most important weapon system”
(McConville, 2019, para. 1). The Army consists of diverse people with varying experiences,
values, and talents, which gives the Army a competitive edge in its war for talent (Army People
Strategy, 2020). Although overt discrimination against women and minorities has declined,
covert forms of discrimination continue to persist within Army organizations (Arnhart et al.,
2015). Systematic bias characterizes the social order of the United States of America, and
manifest itself in the United States Army, through racial disparities in the adjudication of
nonjudicial punishments and performance reports (Gamble, 2020). Toxic behaviors in the
workplace harm the organization by eroding employees' physical and mental health and
negatively affect organization heterogeneity (Kurtulmuş, 2020). Army regulation charges leaders
to create a positive environment, motivate others, accomplish tasks, and achieve organizational
results (AR 600-100, 2017). Discrimination in any form removes the blanket of safety that
protects employees' physical and mental health (Chae et al., 2011). Toxic leadership and its
residual effects adversely impact an organization’s ability to promote diversity, equity, and
inclusion and limit its ability to accomplish organizational missions or functions (Hinshaw,
2020).
Every year the Army invests millions in leadership policy reform; however, more than
80% of soldiers who participated in the Center for Army Leadership survey report encountered
toxic leaders within their careers (Steele, 2011). Only 27% of the survey participants agreed that
3

the Army can identify and is effective in retraining those identified with toxic characteristics,
which demonstrates that toxic leadership is a known problem within the Army (Steele, 2011).
The evidence suggests that although there are programs in place, the Army has yet to reach its
self-identified goal of identifying incivility amongst its leadership ranks to retain exceptional
talent to support its national security role and enhance the total force (Army People Strategy,
2020).
Although the Army has analyzed toxic leadership, it has taken a one-sided view of the
topic, emphasizing the leader’s attributes; this focus on leadership instead of looking at the
persistent overarching climate of toxic behavior in the organization promotes continued incivility
within an organization (Williams, 2019). Organization reactions to reports of discrimination
against minoritized populations shape how the organization is perceived by subordinates, which
impacts the culture of trust (Ensher et al., 2001). Social inequalities are not just the fault of the
toxic leaders; they are the result of a system cultivated through structural inequality and
institutional social biases (Gamble, 2020). This study examines the adverse effects of toxic
leadership on Black officers within the United States Army.
Background of the Problem
Leadership is a practical skill encompassing the ability of an individual to accomplish the
organizational mission by providing purpose, direction, and motivation (Howell, 2004). The
United States Army has produced some of the best leaders in this world (Anderson, 2019). The
Army puts a great deal of emphasis on leadership to develop company and field grade officers
through Professional Military Education (PME) courses such as the Captains Career Course and
the Command and General Staff College (Anderson, 2019). The Army’s PME Courses are
designed to emphasize leader critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication to
4

produce US Army officers of character, commitment, and competence (AR 350-1, 2017). The
courses emphasize the development of leadership competencies while facilitating life-long
learning through an emphasis on self-development (AR 350-1, 2017). However, results from
numerous Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) organizational Climate
Survey (DEOCS) between 2014-2019 indicate there are prevalent issues in equal opportunity and
inclusion at the U.S. Army installations that the Army has failed to address.
Leaders create a positive environment by establishing and maintaining positive
expectations and attitudes, which creates a culture for positive attitudes and effective work
behaviors (AR 600-100, 2017), but destructive leadership compromise organizational
effectiveness and deter servicemembers from continuing service (AR 600-100, 2017). Toxic
leadership is antithetical to good leadership (Kusy & Holloway, 2008). Leaders who are toxic
engage in a wide range of behaviors associated with incompetence, malfunction, maladjustment,
malcontent, and egotism (Williams, 2005). The Army defines toxic leadership as a “combination
of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates,
the organization, and mission performance” (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, 2012, p. 3). This
definition is consistent with academic literary works such as Marcia Whicker’s (1996)
introduction of the term toxic leadership, which described harmful leaders as “maladjusted,
malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious. They succeed by tearing others down. They
glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers” (p.11).
Although there is a myriad of definitions for toxic leadership the Army definition will be used
for this study. The Army definition provides a common foundation for Army personnel, a sample
of which will be the subjects of this study to understand toxic leadership throughout the
organization.
5

The Army’s definition emphasizes the symptoms of toxicity, such as traits and
characteristics. However, the Army struggles with identifying the social or cultural factors that
beget toxicity (Anderson, 2019). If a social organization lacks the mechanisms for identifying
toxic leaders, anyone predisposed to toxic leadership will go unnoticed (Padilla et al., 2007).
Additionally, cultural norms can lead an organization to good or bad behavior (Singh, Tay, &
Sankaran, 2017). Toxic leaders create environments where individuals are less likely to exceed
work standards, treat others with compassion, or share ideas (Barling, 2014). Individuals
observing negative behaviors may rationalize the negative conduct and practices in the
workplace (Schein, 2010). The negative behaviors may then intensify and spread to others
(Fulmer & Ostroff, 2017).
The destructive behaviors of leaders have an adverse impact on military readiness
(Williams, 2019). Once the Army identifies the leader as toxic, the leader receives a negative
evaluation leading to service dismissal (Williams, 2019). However, this practice ignores the
influence of the toxic leader on the culture and the residual effects of that leader on the affected
organization (Kusy & Halloway, 2009). Additionally, this practice provides an easy response to
the problem. Still, it disregards the adverse effects of toxic leadership on organizational
followers despite research that indicates that toxic leaders exist because the organizational
culture empowers them (Reed & Olson, 2010). Toxic leadership in the workplace has been
associated with soldier attrition, increased medical costs due to workplace stress, absenteeism,
suicide, and decreased performance (Williams, 2019).
According to data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, the active-duty enlisted
corps is more racially diverse than the U.S. resident population (Congressional Research Service,
2019). However, in the senior level of the officer corps, minoritized populations are
6

underrepresented relative to the enlisted corps and the United States population (Congressional
Research Service, 2019). White servicemembers continue to dominate these senior-level
positions. Although there have been slight increases in the diversity of the senior officer
population over the last 22 years, barriers to equitable representation in the senior officer ranks
remain (Defense Manpower Requirements Report, 2020). These barriers may be found in the
culture of the organization and implicit bias that prevent diversity in the Army (Rodriguez,
2018).
The stressor of military life can impact service members' psychological well-being (U.S.
Army Health Center, 2019). However, the stress of military life coupled with experiences of
unjust and inequitable experiences which lead to violence against Black people can also affect
their mind, body, and spirit increasing the probability of mental fatigue (Winters, 2020). Health
disparities adversely impact Black people more than any other group outside of American
Indians or Alaskan Natives (AIAN) (Winters, 2020). Arias and Xu (2020) identified that the life
expectancy for all races in the United States is 77.0 years however, Blacks have a lower life
expectancy in comparison to other populations excluding AIANs in the U.S. at 71.5 (Arias &
Xu, 2017). The lower life expectancy rates are attributed to elevated blood pressure, heart rate,
and hypervigilance that eventually result in disease and mortality (Mays et al., 2007). Figure 1
displays the life expectancy at birth, by Hispanic origin and race in the United States, 2019 and
2020.

7

Figure 1
Life Expectancy at Birth, by Hispanic Origin and Race: United States, 2019 and 2020

Note. Arias E, Xu JQ. United States life tables, 2020. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 71 no
1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2022. https://dx.doi.
org/10.15620/cdc:118055.

Although the Department of Defense through the Veteran’s Healthcare Administration (VHA)
has reduced healthcare disparities amongst racial and ethnic groups there continues to be
mortality disparities that have persisted mainly for Black veterans (Peterson et al., 2018). Health
disparities are caused by multiple factors, including physiologic, behavioral, environmental, and
cultural differences among racial groups (Marmot & Allen, 2014) and if a leader does not
cultivate a positive environment, it may affect the officers mental and physical health (Winters,
2020).
8

Behavioral health conditions can lead to medical non-readiness, early discharge, suicidal
behavior, and high medical cost (U.S. Army health Center, 2019). Army active-duty suicide and
attrition rates increased from 2003-2014, causing senior Army Commanders to officially
announce a problem within their formations (Zwerdling, 2014). The Army active-duty suicide
rate continued to statistically soar from 2014 to 2019, while the Reserve and National Guard
suicide rates did not show evidence of an increase or decrease (DoD Annual Suicide Report,
2019). Curtin et al. (2021) found that although the overall rate of suicide in the U.S. decreased by
3% in 2020, the rate of suicide among minoritized populations and young people has increased.
Additionally, the CDC (2022) found that in 2020, suicide was the third leading cause of death,
respectively, for blacks or African Americans, ages 15 to 24.
In 2010 the U.S. Army commissioned a study led by Dr. David Matsuda, a cultural
anthropologist. Matsuda (2014) identified that toxic leadership played a significant role in why
soldiers conceive, attempt, or successfully take their own lives (Matsuda, 2014). The Department
of Defense (DoD) suffered the loss of 957 active-duty servicemen from 2017-2019 (DoD Annual
Suicide Report, 2019). Of the 957 confirmed suicide deaths, the Army suffered the loss of 399
Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, comprising 42% of the DoD suicidal
military population (DoD Annual Suicide Report, 2019).
Researchers have found that the military embraces masculinity, emphasizes
psychological and physical fitness and reliance on self, and its culture acts as an obstacle to
service members searching for help within the organization (Fox & Pease, 2012). Initial research
shows that toxic cultures correlate with a host of negative outcomes, ranging from
organizational-level perceptions and behaviors (e.g., lower psychological safety, more bullying,
and harassment) to individual-level attitudes and outcomes (e.g., burnout, turnover intentions)
9

(Glick et al., 2018; Rawski et al., 2018). The suicide rate among women in the military has
skyrocketed in the last 12 years, increasing at twice the pace of male service members (Gorn,
2018). Compared to civilian women, those in the service are two to five times more likely to take
their own lives. (Gorn, 2018). One primary cause for the dramatic rise in suicide among women
in the military is sexual trauma, particularly incidences of harassment and rape (Gorn, 2018).
Seventy-five percent of all Army Active Component doctor's office visits are for stress-
related ailments and complaints (Reed, 2015). Toxic leaders have been shown to have a
significant impact on an organization's culture and job stress (Norito, 1999). When toxic
leadership exists in an organization, it spreads, destroys morale, erodes trust and respect, and
diminishes employee drive to accomplish the mission (Aubrey, 2012). Even though the Army
provides tools to combat toxic leadership, such as policy and academic opportunities, destructive
leadership continues to persist in the ranks and remains a strain on the institution (Katrosh,
2015).
Discrimination-related experiences ranging from microaggressions, overt and covert
racism may lead to constant vigilance or even paranoia, which over time may result in trauma or
contribute to PTSD when a more stressful event occurs later (Carter, 2007). Baca et al. (2012),
in their study of female veterans, found that Blacks scored higher on measures of ideas of
prosecution and paranoia, which they credited to racism. One study of racial discrimination and
psychopathology across three ethnic groups found that Blacks, Asians, and Hispanic Americans
faced more instances of discrimination than Non-Hispanic Whites (Cokley et al., 2011) and are
more likely to experience symptoms of PTSD as well. National security is dependent on a
diverse force (Gamble, 2020). Toxic leaders hinder diversity and inclusion efforts necessary to
maintain combat readiness (DOD Equal Opportunity Studies, 1995).
10

Organization Context and Mission
The United States Army is a multicultural force serving nearly 80 countries with a
primary mission to serve and protect the American people (AR 600-20, 2020). The United States
Army comprises one active and two reserve components with over one million soldiers from
diverse backgrounds. The Army draws people from the United States of America, a country rich
in diversity (AR 601-2, 2020). The Army strives to develop professional and diverse leaders of
character, competence, and commitment to different ideas and perspectives to foster innovation
(AR 600-20, 2020).
General James C. McConville, the Chief of Staff of the Army, stated in his May 2, 2019,
senate confirmation hearing that his number one priority is people. People are the greatest
strength of the Army (McConville, 2019), and the way that Army officers approach leadership
can positively or negatively impact hundreds of soldiers. Toxic leadership interferes with the
overall mission of the Army, which is "to deploy, fight and win our Nation's wars by providing
ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict
as part of the Joint Force." (AR 600-100, 2017, p. 1) To accomplish this mission, the Army
requires leaders that create, shape, and embody their organization's culture through their words
and deeds (Schein, 2010).
In 1995 the Department of Defense examined discrimination in the military focused on
21 studies dating from 1974 to 1994 that identified equal opportunity issues throughout the Army
(DOD Equal Opportunity Studies, 1995). The 20-year study found that servicemembers faced
sexual harassment and racial discrimination at alarming rates at several Army installations (DOD
Equal Opportunity Studies, 1995). Although this study occurred 26 years ago, the themes
remain constant. The 2020 Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee report
11

highlighted current discrimination practices. Specifically, the report identified that 54% of
respondents had concerns about how women or minorities were treated in the Army, and 44%
believed the Army had not gone far enough to promote women. Even though there were
accomplishments in diversity and inclusion, they neither improved widespread diversity amongst
senior leaders nor aided in eradicating discrimination against racial and ethnic minority service
members (DOD Board on Diversity and Inclusion Report, 2020). Table 1 captures participant
responses based on their level of trust in the climate at Fort Hood from both reports.

12

Table 1
Fort Hood Report Comparison
Section of Report 1995 Report 2020 Report
Sexual Harassment “At Fort Hood, Texas, soldiers
said that making EO and
sexual harassment
complaints through the chain
of command did not always
work and cited several
reasons: lack of results from
previous complaints, the
presence of a harasser in the
chain of command, the time
and burden of proof required
to file complaints, and the
perception that a “good old
boy” system existed.” (p. 12)
“Females Soldiers in the 3CR talked
about the disregard for their
privacy and safety at Fort Hood,
particularly in their barracks and
at their workplaces on
base, specifically by their NCOs,
and how their complaints of
mistreatment and even assault
were ignored. (p. 108). The
contributions of female Soldiers in
this command is still not
appreciated as much as those of
the males -there is a definite 'boys
club' among the staff" and
commanders. (p.121)

Note. EQUAL Opportunity DOD Studies on Discrimination in the Military (pp. 1-57, Rep. No.
GAO/NSIAD-95-103). (1995). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-103.

The U.S. Army Field Manual 22-100 (2002) expresses that Army leaders must do what is
legally and morally right and foster a command climate that treats people with dignity and
respect. However, a recent study found that nearly one in four women in the Veterans Affairs
(VA) Healthcare System have been subjected to gender-based harassment by male Veterans
(MacDonald et al., 2020). Additionally, about 81% of service members decide not to remain in
13

the military until they are eligible to retire, demonstrating that this is a problem. The evidence
suggests that Toxic Leadership in the Army impacts unit morale, increases soldier mental stress
and leads to the attrition of valuable service members (Aubrey, 2012).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the perception of Black officers in the United
States Army of their experience with toxic leadership and its impact on their desire to pursue
senior leadership positions. The problem is necessary to address because toxic leaders have a
significant impact on the organization's culture, ultimately affecting diversity, equity, and
inclusion, the number of military suicides, and an increase in soldier physical and mental stress
(Hadadian & Zarei, 2017). Previous studies have looked at racial disparities within the military;
however, the studies have not addressed the leaders who allow and promote counterproductive
behavior within organizations. Leader discriminatory behavior reduces the trust in the
organization (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2017). The actions or inactions of organizations prove to be an
important factor in how employees perceive justice in response to perceptions of leader
discriminatory behavior (Pepper, 2018). The following research questions guide this study:
1) In what ways does toxic leadership impact Black Army officers?
2) How does toxic leadership affect the desire of Black Army officers to pursue senior
leadership positions within the Army?
Importance of the Study
One in five Americans has left a job in the past five years due to bad company culture
(Society for Human Resource Management, 2019). The cost of that turnover is an estimated
$223 billion, according to a new Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) report on
workplace culture (2019). The effects of toxic leadership expand further than the leader
14

(Williams, 2019). Toxic leaders influence the organization's culture and organization
performance (Barling, 2014). The problem of toxic leadership is important to solve for a variety
of reasons. The aggregate effect of toxicity is costly in employee attrition, increased medical
cost, and the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion within the Army (Williams, 2019).
Unhealthy stress impacts the health and well-being of the force (Anderson, 2019).
Soldiers in combat who experience toxic leadership report higher mental health problems than
those with positive direction (Reed, 2019). Toxic leaders are a significant cause of soldier stress
and negatively affect their subordinates' psychological and physical health (Anderson, 2019).
Toxic leaders sacrifice the interests of their subordinates to meet their goals (Thomas, 2010). The
stress can lead to mental issues such as insomnia, difficulty learning, headaches, and chest pains
(American Institute of Stress, 2019). Toxic leadership affects soldiers' well-being and
organization mission accomplishment (Davis, 2016).
Organizations often take the personality of their leaders (ADP 6-22, 2012). Leaders
establish the moral guidelines and the core principles for the organization (Aubrey, 2012). The
Army incentivizes subordinate leaders to emulate toxic leaders' actions when they are advanced
and rewarded for their achievements (Aubrey, 2012). Steele (2011) identified that when
members of the organization perceive a contradiction between the organization's values and their
leaders' values, they choose which values to adopt. Although toxic leaders deliver excellent
short-term results toxic leadership can result in the organization losing gifted people, which puts
the organization's success at risk (Davis, 2016). Lamb (2020) stated that the military retains toxic
leaders due to their intellectual properties and there was “no appetite” to remove them from the
Army but shift them to another prestigious position. The decision to retain toxic leaders has long-
term results within organizations including high attrition, low morale, and a myriad of other
15

factors (Aubrey, 2012). The decisions by senior leaders to retain toxic leaders provides a
perception that the organization value results over people (Aubrey, 2012). When organizations
create environments that are results driven employees are less motivated to preform to the best of
their abilities additionally, the focus on results leads to a lack of balance leading to physical and
mental health problems (Williams, 2019). Toxic leaders publicly humiliate, micromanage, and
use other toxic behaviors to motivate employees (Schmidt, 2018).
The military culture creates a permissive environment that makes identifying toxic
officers difficult (Katrosh, 2015). Toxic leaders often promote hypercompetitive work
environments where employees seek to maintain their status at all costs (Matos, 2017).
Organizations that support hypercompetitive work environments create a high yielding ground
for toxic leadership (Schmidt, 2008). Toxic cultures perpetuate cultural dynamics that negatively
impact subordinates' attitudes and well-being (Matos et al., 2018).
The 2019 Army Health of the Force Executive Summary indicated that approximately
30% of sexual assaults are due to a toxic workplace. The residual effects of the toxic behavior
affect the soldiers who serve under the leader and affect soldiers' families and future generations
(Aryee et al., 2007). It is essential to identify the outcomes of toxic leadership; however, it is also
important to identify the root causes of toxic leadership to assist senior leaders in implementing
the best solutions to prevent the spread of toxicity (Davis, 2016). This research intends to
recommend strategies to identify and mitigate the impacts of toxic leadership on Black Officers
in the United States Army.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theory used to address the problem of toxic leadership in the United States Army is
the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). This theory explains how people learn from the behavior of
16

others and provides a structure for how people are influenced by their environment (Bandura,
2012). The SCT focuses on the shared relationship between leaders, followers, and the
organization (Bandura, 2012). SCT considers the previous encounters of individuals, which
influences motivational behavior (Bandura, 2012). SCT is comprised of multiple processes for
goal achievement and has five constructs to explain how people regulate their behavior to
achieve goal-directed behavior (Bandura, 2012). The five constructs include reciprocal
determinism the reciprocal interaction of people, behavioral capability a person’s ability to
perform a behavior by means of using their own knowledge and skills, reinforcements the
internal and external responses to a person’s behavior, expectations the anticipated consequences
that person has of their behavior, and self-efficacy a person’s confidence in their ability to
successfully perform a behavior (Bandura, 2012).
The Social Cognitive Theory is appropriate to examine toxic leadership because it reveals
how leader actions influence the current and future behaviors of followers and change the culture
of the organization. The military is bureaucratic; therefore, leaders play a significant part in
follower development (Williams, 2019). The SCT helps explore why leaders, followers, and
organizations are susceptible to toxicity and can potentially identify traits related to low self-
efficacy to assist with the leader selection process.
This research uses a qualitative approach, which uses open-ended data within the
framework of a single multiple case design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative data does
not include counts or measures but includes human interaction through written and verbal
communication (Gibbs, 2018). This approach is based on the disciplines of social sciences and
allows for in-depth probing and questioning of respondents to understand their motivation and
feelings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The researcher recruited participants using network
17

sampling and selected participants using a questionnaire based on the Toxic Leadership Scale
(TLS) created by Schmidt (2008). Utilizing an interview approach the researcher identified the
participants Army experiences with toxic leadership.
Definition of Terms
The below terms are important to this study and are used frequently throughout the
dissertation.
• African American refers to the Black descendants of slaves forcibly brought to the United
States from Africa (Adams, 2020; Berlin, 2010; Lynch, 2020; Prewitt, 2005)
• Blacks/Black People refers to all members of the skin-color based racial grouping
inclusive of African Americans, pan-African, Caribbean, African immigrants, etc.; a
racialized global classification of people with brown or dark brown skin, it does not
define ethnicity (Adams, 2020; Berlin, 2010; Hollinger, 2005; Lynch, 2020)
• Counterproductive Leadership refers to the demonstration of leader behaviors that violate
one or more of the Army's core leader competencies or Army Values, preventing a
climate conducive to mission accomplishment (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, 2019)
• Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a movement comprised of several key beliefs: racism is
normal, change requires interest convergence, race is used to define societal hierarchies,
experiences are complex – there is intersectionality, researchers must be a voice for an
inclusive narrative (Delgado & Stefanic, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1998)
• Discrimination refers to the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on
characteristics such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation (American Psychological
Association, 2019).
18

• Diversity refers to all attributes, experiences, cultures, characteristics, and backgrounds of
the total force are reflective of the Nation we serve and enable the Army to deploy, fight,
and win (Army People Strategy, 2020, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex).
• Emotional Tax refers to “the heightened experience of being different from peers at work
because of your gender and/or race/ethnicity and the associated detrimental effects on
health, well-being, and the ability to thrive at work” (Catalyst, 2016, p. 2)
• Equity refers to the fair treatment access, opportunity, choice, and advancement for all
soldiers and civilians while striving to identify and encourage drivers and identify and
eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of the total force (Army
People Strategy, 2020, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex)
• Grit refers to a term used to describe the combination of desire or passion coupled with
perseverance (Duckworth et al., 2007)
• Inclusion refers to the process of valuing and integrating each individual’s perspectives,
ideas, contributions into the way an organization functions and makes decisions; enabling
workforce members to achieve their full potential in focused pursuit of organizational
objectives (Army People Strategy, 2020, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex)
• Intersectionality considers how the combination of different factors, such as gender, race,
class, sexual orientation and national origin play together and impact people's
experiences (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017)
• Microaggression refers to a subtle behavior, often unintentional– verbal or non-verbal,
directed at a member of a marginalized group that has a derogatory, harmful effect.
Rather than an overt declaration of racism or sexism, a microaggression often takes the
19

shape of an offhand comment, an inadvertently painful joke, or a pointed insult (Hopper,
2020)
• Minoritized Population refers to Groups that are different in race, religious creed, and
nation of origin, sexuality, and gender and, because of social constructs, have less power
or representation compared to other members or groups in society (Pattison-Meek &
Kovulchuk , 2014)
• Narcissism refers to an overindulgence in the self; a narcissistic leader is more concerned
about his/her self-worth, appearance, and or ability to be admired and respected than
about the well-being and success of her organization or colleagues (Rhodewalt, 2023)
• Organizational Culture refers to a distinctive pattern of thought and behavior shared by
members of the same organization and reflected in their language, values, attitudes,
beliefs, and customs (American Psychological Association, 2019)
• Racism is a form of prejudice that assumes that the members of racial categories have
distinctive characteristics and that these differences result in some racial groups being
inferior to others. Racism generally includes negative emotional reactions to members of
the group, acceptance of negative stereotypes, and racial discrimination against
individuals; in some cases, it leads to violence (American Psychological Association,
2019)
• Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) defines those innate tribal aspects of human behavior and
learning. It demonstrates how the behaviors modeled around us define what is and is not
acceptable, and influence human learning and behavior (Bandura, 2005)
20

• Susceptible Followers refers to followers who obey toxic leaders out of fear and are naïve
to the fact that toxic behavior is wrong or play into the toxic leader’s agenda as a means
towards personal gain (Padilla, et al., 2007)
• Sexual Assault refers to the intentional sexual contact characterized by use of force,
threats, intimidation, or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent
(DOD Directive 6495.02, Sexual Assault prevention and Response Program, 2020)
• Sexual Orientation refers to a part of individual identity that includes “a person’s sexual
and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that
may result from this attraction” (APA, 2015a, p. 862)
• Toxic Leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivation, and behaviors
that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance.
The leader lacks concern for others and the climate of the organization, which leads to
short-and long-term negative effects (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, 2012.
Organization of the Study
The dissertation uses five chapters to organize this study. Chapter One provided the
reader with the key concepts and terminology commonly found in discussing the aggregate cost
of toxic leadership on DEI in the Army. Additionally, the chapter introduced the organization’s
mission and the framework for the project. Chapter Two provides a review of the current
literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of toxic leadership, diversity, equity, and
inclusion will be addressed. Chapter Two also presents the intersectionality of toxic behavior and
DEI and explores why leaders, followers, and organizations are susceptible to toxicity. Chapter
Three details the methodology for the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. In
21

Chapter Four, the data are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides recommendations for
practice and future research.

22

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter includes literature regarding the key components of the dissertation. The
historical context behind toxic leadership, toxic masculinity, and susceptible followers are
discussed, along with toxic leadership's residual effects. Demographic variables, the relationships
between demographic components, and the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as
strategies to solve the problem will also be investigated. Finally, Albert Bandura’s Social
Cognitive Theory will be used to explore social influences and its emphasis on external and
internal social reinforcement (Bandura, 2012).
Toxic Leadership
Black people in the United States continue to face present-day forms of overt and subtle
discrimination in several domains, including housing, employment, medical care, the criminal
justice system, and society (Chae et al., 2011). Studies conducted in the U.S. among Black
people found positive associations between discrimination and poor mental health outcomes,
including depression, anxiety, and global psychological distress (Branscombe, Schmitt, &
Harvey, 1999; Broman et al., 2000; Jackson et al., 1996; Klonoff et al., 1999). Toxic leaders
engage in numerous destructive behaviors, exhibit certain dysfunctional characteristics, and
inflict some reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and organizations (Lipman-
Blumen, 2005). When leaders believe that personality, behavior, and morals can be traced to
race and that through these characteristics one race is superior to another it leads them to act on
racist thoughts (Headlee, 2021). The actions on racist thoughts cultivate environments where
individuals do not feel safe or supported causing a lack of support for their teammates (Hinshaw,
2020).
23

The Army draws from America’s population and must embrace the diversity that is
within it (Army People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex). While diversity in the Army has increased
over the years, compositional differences impact the senior leader ranks (Army People Strategy,
2020, DEI Annex). Toxic leaders that are cruel, incompetent, evil, deceptive, malicious, abusive,
manipulative, and fail to understand and act competently in leadership situations directly
influence the culture and create environments that are harmful to individuals within the
organization (Davis, 2016). In fiscal year 2020, the military processed more than 750 complaints
of discrimination by race or ethnicity from service members (Stafford et al., 2021). Stafford et al.
(2021) in their article for The Associated Press found that current and former enlisted servicemen
and officers in every branch of the armed service described a “deep rooted culture of racism and
discrimination that stubbornly festers, despite repeat efforts to eradicate it.”
Toxic leadership is not a new occurrence. A review of military history and surveys
demonstrate that toxic leadership is prevalent in the ranks (Report of the Fort Hood Independent
Review Committee, 2020). Toxic leaders negatively affect organizational performance,
followers’ well-being, and organizational citizenship behavior (Hinshaw, 2020). Strong
leadership is required in all organizations, regardless of profession. Good leadership maximizes
innovation, cultivates a positive culture, and ensures a shared understanding (Davis, 2016). Good
leadership is vital in organizations because soldiers look to leaders to guide them in their actions;
additionally, the leader develops the organization's culture (Sample, 2003). Good leaders serve
as role models within their organizations. These leaders motivate, support, and facilitate
discourse and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion among their lead.
The Army teaches leaders through Professional Military Education (PME) to model the
core leader competencies and guard against counterproductive leadership (AR 600-100, 2017).
24

The U.S. Army Field Manual 22-100 (2002) expresses that Army leaders must set the example
for subordinates to emulate and identifies leadership as doing what is legally and morally right.
Additionally. The Army Field Manual 22-100 says that Army leaders must foster a command
climate where people are treated with dignity and respect. Transformational leadership is
paramount in the Army. Strategic leaders depend on officers at all levels to provide mentorship
and guidance to their followers (Army People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex). Research has
demonstrated that when people work with a positive mindset in an inclusive environment,
innovation improves (Anchor, 2012).
Army doctrine defines toxic leadership as “a combination of self-centered attitudes,
motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and
mission performance” (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, 2012, p. 3). Counterproductive
behavior, which the Army uses synonymously with toxic behavior, is incompatible with Army
leadership doctrine and Army values and impedes mission accomplishment (ADP 6-22, 2019).
Although the Army provides the tools to combat toxic leadership in policy and scholastic
opportunities, destructive leadership persists in the ranks (Williams, 2005). Outside of peer and
subordinate 360 surveys, there are few tangible methods to measure the potential for toxic
behavior in the Army (Williams, 2005).
Definitions of Toxic Leadership
Toxic leadership is not just inherent to the United States Army. Destructive leadership
represents the gloomy side of leadership, adversely affecting individuals within the organizations
they serve (Veldsman et al., 2016). Box (2012) defined toxic leadership as leaders who abuse
their power over subordinates for personal gain. Jean Lipman-Blumen (2005) characterized toxic
leaders as leaders who take part in destructive behaviors and show signs of dysfunctional
25

personal characteristics. Williams (2005) examined the origin of the word toxic means “arrow
poison, containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or
serious debilitation.” Williams (2005) used the origin of the term toxic and nested it with Jean
Lipan-Blumen’s definition to identify toxic characteristics of leaders in the Army. Toxic leaders,
through destructive practices, cause deterioration of unit quality (Greene, 2016). Veldsman et al.
(2016) defined toxic leadership as ongoing deliberate actions by leadership to undermine the
sense of dignity and efficacy, resulting in destructive, degrading, and disparaging work
experiences.
In the Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL)
Technical Report 2011-3 (Steele, 2011), the Army described toxic leaders as those who work to
promote themselves at the expense of their employees without considering the long-term effects
on their subordinates and the Army. Toxic leaders halt productivity and organizational growth
(Williams, 2005). Toxic leaders rarely take the blame or share success, and their supervisor
seldom admonishes the officer or pretends as if a problem does not exist (Ulmer, 2012).
However, 83% of Army leaders participating in the 2011 CASAL survey noted that they
observed one or more leaders demonstrating destructive behaviors and 17% report having
observed five or more destructive leaders throughout their careers (Daniel & Metcalf, 2015).
The U.S. Army War College examined and interviewed 183 officers from four divisions
returning from Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010. In the report titled Leadership lessons at division
command level – 2010: A review of division commander leader behaviors and organizational
climates in selected army divisions after nine years of war, Ulmer et al. (2011) described toxic
leaders as self-serving, arrogant, volatile, and opinionated to the point of being organizationally
dysfunctional. Additionally, Reed and Olson (2010), in a study conducted at the Command and
26

General Staff College, identified that toxic leaders lacked empathy and had unreasonable
standards for subordinates and held them accountable for events beyond their control.
Toxic Leaders: A Hierarchy of Needs
There are different levels of toxicity. On the one hand, leaders may be inexperienced and
lack awareness of their leadership shortcomings, and on the other, the leader may find a sense of
accomplishment in tearing others down and destroying the morale and the trust within the
organization (Williams, 2005). Many attributes of Toxic leadership overlap, and often, the leader
will present a combination of traits (Williams, 2005). Lipman-Blumen (2004) utilized
Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to characterize disparaging leader attributes.
The hierarchy of needs is a theory modeled as a pyramid based on the assumption that everyone
has five hierarchical needs (Maslow, 1983). The base of the pyramid is an individual’s basic
needs. Maslow groups basic needs e.g., food, water, and security into two categories:
physiological and safety. As people move upward on the pyramid the needs transition to
psychological needs such as belongingness, love needs, and esteem needs. Finally, at the top of
the pyramid is self-actualization, which is achieving one’s full potential, including creative
activities. According to Maslow, people must satisfy hierarchical needs at the base of the
pyramid before they attend to needs higher up. However, the satisfaction of needs does not have
to be satisfied 100 percent before the next need emerges (Maslow, 1987). Figure 2 displays
Maslow’s pyramid based on the identified five hierarchical needs.

27

Figure 2
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Note. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-
396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346. Copyright 1943 by the American Psychological
Association.

Mcleod (2020) classified the first four levels of the pyramid for leaders as deficiency
needs. When the needs are satisfied, they will go away, and shift focus to the next level on the
pyramid. However, when deficiency needs are unmet, the need to fulfill the needs increases
throughout the period that they are denied (McLeod, 2020). While transformational leaders
possess self-esteem and efficacy, fostering their ability to drive innovation within their team,
destructive leaders will find it difficult to emulate transformational leadership behavior because
they lack self-efficacy and esteem (Williams, 2005). Lipman-Blumen (2005), also identified:
28

Toxic leaders comfort us with reassuring and often grand illusions that life in the factory
or in the family will work out just fine. By signing on to their grand illusions, we can
work on our immortality projects. There are only two catches. For one to achieve this
desired state, we must agree to do as the leader says no ifs ands or buts. Thus, just like
when we were children, dependent upon parents whose rules we followed in exchange for
love, safety, and Oreos, we now trade our obedience and autonomy for the toxic leader’s
pledge of security, certainty, and other goodies, including a shot at life eternal. (p. 4)
Behavioral Characteristics of Toxic Leaders
Hightower (1997) discovered that tolerant individuals demonstrate good mental health
and persons who are prejudiced demonstrate poor psychosocial functioning. Additionally,
Hightower (1997) ascertained that leaders who discriminate within the workplace overtly assert
that members of minoritized populations are inferior and leaders who discriminate in the
workplace covertly blame social inequities on minority group cultures and customs. Leaders who
are tolerant of others are psychologically healthier than overt and covert leaders who are racist or
marginalize members within their organization (Hightower, 1997). Both overt and covert leaders
who cultivate toxic environments within their organizations struggle with confidence, self-
efficacy, and often have hostile relationships with peers (Hightower, 1997).
Williams (2005) identified that esteem is a significant factor that influences the
behavioral characteristics of leaders presumed toxic. The characteristics include maladjusted,
incompetence, sense of inadequacy, malfunctioning, amoral, malcontent, irresponsible, feeling
insecure, possess cowardice, arrogance, selfish values, avarice and greed, lack of integrity,
deception, malevolence, egotism, malfeasance, maliciousness about your ability to perform a
specific task and sense of inadequacy (Williams, 2005). Low self-efficacy, the belief in your
29

abilities to succeed in a specific task (Bandura, 2012), is a primary reason why leaders are
vulnerable to maladjusted and inadequate characteristics associated with toxic behavior (Lipman-
Bluman, 2005a). Clearly defining character traits of toxic leaders helps identify leaders
susceptible to this behavior (Williams, 2005). Identifying leaders susceptible to this behavior
early in their career will help combat the high percentage of employees that attrit after their
initial commitment directly correlated to the adverse effect of toxic leadership in organizations
(Williams, 2005).
According to Kaiser et al. (2008), toxic leadership is antithetical to good order and
discipline; toxic leadership characteristics result in serious negative results to employees. Toxic
leadership compromises the organization’s values and norms and promotes noncompliant
behaviors if left unchecked (Aubrey, 2012). Toxic behaviors are associated with the abuse of
subordinates and counteract good order and discipline of the profession (Anderson, 2019). Toxic
leaders focus on short-term mission accomplishment and provide superiors with impressive,
articulate presentations and enthusiastic responses to missions (Steele, 2011). Box (2012)
describes toxic leadership as commanders, who put their own needs first, micromanaged
subordinates behaved in a mean-spirited manner, or displayed poor decision making.
Doty and Fenlason (2013) confirmed in their study that toxic leaders destroy the morale
of their subordinates and units. They suggest that these leaders lack self-efficacy and disregard
the needs of others when seeking to achieve their goals (Krasikova et al., 2013). Reed (2004)
further stated that a toxic leader is not necessarily loud or demanding. A leader with a mask of
authenticity and a soft voice can also be toxic (Reed, 2004). There is no specific behavior that
identifies one as toxic; however, it is the cumulative effect of a myriad of behaviors that
contribute to unhealthy organizational climates with adverse residual effects (Reed, 2004). The
30

negative characteristics that beget toxicity have an insidious effect on the organization and those
who work diligently to pursue the organization’s success (Kusy & Halloway, 2009).
Hogan and Hogan (2001) emphasized the syndromes of toxic leadership such as
narcissism and psychopathic behaviors, whereas other authors focus on the adverse outcomes
experienced by organizations and followers (House & Howell, 1992). Padilla et al. (2007)
identified in their research on toxic leadership that toxic leadership cannot exist alone. In the
Toxic Triangle, which comprises the leader, susceptible followers, and a conducive environment,
leaders need an environment in which they can thrive and support them (Padilla et al., 2007).
Figure 3 highlights the characteristics of the Toxic Triangle that toxic leaders need to thrive
within their organizations.

31

Figure 3
The Toxic Triangle

Note. Padilla A, Hogan R, Kaiser RB, 2007, The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly. 18(3):176-194.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1048984307000367?via%3Dihub.
Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association.

Padilla et al. (2007) highlighted that destructive leadership behaviors and traits are based off five
critical leader factors, which will be discussed below: charisma, personalized use of power,
narcissism, negative life themes, and discriminatory actions towards others.

32

Charisma and Personalized Use of Power
Charisma and destructive leadership are empirically linked (Lipman-Blumen, 2004).
Lipman-Blumen (2004) stated that a kindhearted charismatic leader could impact the world, but
a charismatic destructive leader can prey on the vulnerabilities of their employees. Toxic leaders
project their insecurities on their subordinates and portray a world where safety depends on the
defeat of their opponents (O’Connor et al., 1995). The visions that charismatic toxic leaders
portray to subordinates improve their personal power and build support for themselves rather
than the organization (House & Howell, 1992). Leaders who are charismatic quickly establish
their personal power amongst their followers (Anderson, 2019). Toxic leaders establish personal
power amongst their followers by imposing their will on others without considering the opinions
of their team members (Anderson, 2019). LaFollette (2006) found that all persons must make
ethical choices; however, some people are oblivious to morality in pursuance of their own
interests, oblivious of how their actions affect others. Destructive leaders use this power to
control and persuade their followers (Padilla, et al., 2007).
Toxic leaders engage in several self-promoting behaviors by managing perceptions of
senior leaders (Milosevic et al., 2020). Toxic leaders praise the ideas of their supervisors to
befriend them (Milosevic et al., 2020). They work to shape approval of higher-level managers by
presenting evidence of success even if the supervisor’s initiatives fail (Milosevic et al., 2020).
The toxic leader masks their toxicity by distracting the supervisors with the thought of partial
success (Bolino & Grant, 2016). They use the distraction of success to skew the supervisor’s
perceptions amplifying their toxic influence throughout the organization (Milosevic et al., 2020).
The Bathsheba Syndrome, a biblical story, speaks to a leader’s inability to cope with and
respond to the by-products of success (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). The Bathsheba Syndrome
33

describes King David of the Old Testament’s success, which ultimately led to complacency that
diverted attention to things outside of the management of the King’s organization (Ludwig &
Longenecker, 1993). King David, whose name means beloved, was a very charismatic leader
(Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). The Lord favored David due to his consistent faith in him
(Czovek, 2002). However, King David’s success led to smugness and unethical behavior
(Minear, 2014). King David used his position to marry Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, one of his
military officers (Minear, 2014). King David placed Uriah in the most treacherous fight with the
hopes that Uriah would die. During the battle Uriah died and King David married Bathsheba.
The Bathsheba Syndrome illustrates that many ethical failures are the by-product of success, not
competitive pressures (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). Toxic leaders are often charismatic
leading to success within organizations; however, a leader’s success allows access to privileged
information, people, objects, and complete control of organizational resources (Minear, 2014).
Ultimately, the toxic leader’s inability to cope with success leads itself to a sense of overcontrol
and the idea that they can evade any wrongdoings (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993).
Narcissism
The Bathsheba Syndrome also highlights how narcissism and power can stray from
transformational selfless leadership (Ludwig & Longenecker, 1993). Narcissism derives from the
myth of Narcissus, who preferred illusion as opposed to reality and killed himself for the love of
his own reflection in a pool (Kets de Vries, 2003). Narcissism is linked to the lead characteristic
of the toxic egotistical abuser (Anderson, 2019). Narcissistic leaders have an excessive need for
admiration from other people, but the leader cannot take pleasure in his accomplishments
because of the need for more power (Williams, 2005). For the narcissistic leader, the world
revolves around the self however, the leader often times lack self-esteem (Williams, 2005). The
34

leader who lacks self-esteem believes they are the only ones who can do the things they do
without appreciating the fact that others can contribute to the organization (Padilla et al., 2007).
In 2017 an Australian study identified that there is a direct link between narcissism and
racism (Duspara & Greitemeyer, 2017). Additionally, Roy et al. (2021) found a link between
racism and psychopathy which is a psychiatric disorder characterized by a lack of empathy,
grandiose sense of self-worth, and manipulation. Roy et al. (2021) identified that traits such as
lack of empathy and callousness are predictive of prejudicial tendencies. Individuals who possess
these traits may support the subjugation of marginalized groups and a willingness to employ
force against personnel that stand-up to social norms developed from oppression (Roy et al.,
2021).
As mentioned in the previous paragraphs toxic leaders possess a grandiose sense of self-
importance or uniqueness which fits into the racist’s idea of racial superiority (Bell, 1980). There
is a relationship between narcissism and a proclivity for xenophobia or a fear of someone
different (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Xenophobia overlaps with forms of prejudice, including
racism and homophobia and is rooted in the perception that members of the outgroup do not
belong to the ingroup community (Bell, 1980). Their aspirations of power and achievement
cause narcissists to ignore what is going on in their external environment (Conger, 1990; Kets de
Vries & Miller, 1985). They often claim special knowledge or privilege and demand
unquestioning obedience (O’Connor et al., 1995), and their sense of entitlement often leads to
self-serving abuses of power. The leader leaves his followers doubting their self-efficacy and the
organization in disarray (Williams, 2005). Although the narcissistic leader is usually praised as a
leader with great potential, over time, it becomes clear that prestige and power are more
35

important than commitment to the organization performance and the people within the
organization (Kets de Vries, 2003).
Negative Life Themes and Discrimination
Leaders who harm their organizations tend to have negative life stories that can breed
many suppressed emotions and ideologies (Anderson, 2019). A negative life story reflects the
leader’s view of the world and their role in it (Padilla, 2012). Leaders who suffer from abuse
compartmentalize pain which can have lasting effects on their view of the world and future
leadership styles (Pelletier et al., 2019). Adolf Hitler’s childhood was traumatic: his father was
highly abusive and abused him for the slightest transgressions (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Trauma
in a leader’s adolescence often leads to coercion, manipulation, and use of personalized power in
adulthood to escape the feeling of being powerless, causing the leader to ignore the feelings of
others for personal gain (Gustaffson & Ritzer, 1995).
Negative life themes from painful childhood experiences can develop an ideology of hate
(Anderson, 2019). Additionally, painful childhood experiences adversely affect the child's self-
esteem, causing self-hatred (Freud, 1964). The response to self-hatred is turned outward as the
child matures. Stalin suffered under the hand of an alcoholic, abusive father (Montefiore, 2004).
Stalin hated authority and anyone who reminded him of his father (Montefiore, 2004). The
hatred for authority manifested in the approval of murders of authoritative figures and fellow
Russians who supported his efforts (Montefiore, 2004). Hate is a significant factor in the toxic
leader’s view of the world, legitimizing violence, and revenge (Strange & Mumford, 2002).
Hateful examples emerge throughout the Army, specifically at a time of war (Aubrey,
2012). When members of the organization identify inconsistencies between the leader and
organizational values, they are forced to choose (Aubrey, 2012). For example, an Army leader
36

was sentenced to life in prison for leading four Army soldiers in the slaughter of three civilians
for sport (White, 2011). Two of his followers testified against him, portraying him as an
aggressive, bloodthirsty leader who prided himself in the torture and humiliation of innocent
civilians (White, 2011). Toxic leaders exploit the organizational culture and incentivize
subordinate leaders to adopt their toxic beliefs to garner success (Aubrey, 2012). When
employees do not adopt leaders' beliefs, they are often cast out of their organizations by the
leader and their followers (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Followers and Conducive Environments
Toxic leaders are depicted by charisma, personalized need for power, narcissism, adverse
life history, and an ideology of hate (Padilla et al., 2007). Toxic leaders create competitive
cultures where subordinates cannot show weaknesses (Matos, 2017) and cultures of in-group
bias that exclude members of the minority in favor of those who identify with the defining
features of the main in-group (Hogg, 2001). Stereotyped characteristics and qualities of a
minoritized group validate toxic leaders’ belief that minorities lack the qualities to be successful
within their organizations, creating an environment that is not inclusive (Eagly & Chin, 2010).
Although toxic leaders possess characteristics that promote incivility, they cannot destroy the
organization without the support of the followers and conducive environments within their
organization (Padilla et al., 2007).
Followers
Followers are vital to leadership; without followers, there will be no leadership (Uhl-Bien
et al., 2014). In research, followers have held a large but obscure role (Baker, 2007). Part of the
reason is that leadership research has been tied to the characteristics of the leaders more than the
leader-follower relationship (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Understanding followers and their desire for
37

leader influence and their role in leadership behavior are essential in understanding leader
effectiveness (Milosevic et al., 2020). The study of the follower-leader relationship is
particularly relevant in toxic leadership, where followers are portrayed as enablers of toxic
behavior (Padilla et al., 2007).
Effective followers are innovative thinkers committed to the vision and the mission of the
organization (Kelly, 1992). Effective followers are confident in their abilities to succeed and are
not prone to toxic leadership (Thomas et al., 2016). Followers that are effective are partners with
leaders who are willing to stand up to leaders and provide critical and honest feedback (Chaleff,
2008). Figure 4 focuses on the factors that influence followers’ perceptions of their roles.
Reversing the lens helps to understand how the behaviors of followers serve to advance the
leader in the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).

38

Figure 4
Followership Process

Note. Uhl-Bien M, Riggio RE, Lowe KB, Carsten MK. Followership theory: A review and
research agenda. The Leadership quarterly. 2014;25(1):83-104.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

Petsko & Rosette (2023) in their research found that people imagined leaders, more than
non-leaders, as possessing stereotypically White attributes. These biases contribute to the
accelerated promotion rates of Whites vs non-White people (Petsko & Rosette, 2023). Certain
followers are unable to resist toxic leaders due to their ability to make them feel special, their
need for safety and belonging and affinity biases (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Kellerman (2004)
identified two types of followers that enable toxicity. He distinguished between bystanders who
allowed bad leadership to happen and those who believed in the leader's vision (Kellerman,
2004). Padilla et. al., (2007) combined the concepts and established two groups of followers:
conformers and colluders. Conformers comply out of fear, and colluders support the agenda of
39

the toxic leader (Padilla et. al., 2007). Self-interest motivates both groups, however, for different
reasons (Higgins, 1997). Conformers follow toxic leaders based on unmet needs, negative self-
evaluations, and psychological immaturity (Padilla et. al., 2007). In comparison to the colluder
that is in for personal gain (Padilla et al., 2007).
Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified six psychological needs that drive followers into the
path of complicity:
● Need for reassuring authority figures to fill their parents’ shoes
● Need for security and certainty
● Need to feel chosen or special
● Need for mentorship in the human community
● Fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death
● Fear of personal powerlessness to challenge a bad leader
Drawing on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, followers’ yearning to fill the basic,
psychological, and self-fulfillment needs must also be met to engage higher goals (Maslow,
1954). Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified that parental figures of the followers have immense
power in the hierarchy of needs. The yearning for followers to fill the void left by parental
authority prompts adults to accept controlling leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Some followers
miss the external influence of authority figures, whether positive or destructive (Lipman-
Blumen, 2005). For followers like these, leaders who act as parental substitutes offer great relief
(Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Subsequently, they project their fears, expectations, and love desired
from their parents on the surrogate parental figure (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Children become
skilled at offsetting their parents’ anger using unauthentic emotions (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Followers are vital in the perseverance of toxic leaders as they give them credibility (Milosevic
40

et al., 2020). Negative role models can cause followers to seek out leaders who enact this
behavior leading to a constant cycle of toxicity (Olmstead, 1999).
Padilla et al. (2007) stated that destructive leaders could attract followers by offering
them a sense of community belonging. The most corrupt governments lead the most
impoverished countries in the world (Padilla et. al., 2007). Totalitarian regimes thrive in places
where people feel isolated and long for a sense of belonging (Arendt,1951). Jim Jones capitalized
off his parishioners' need for community, sense of belonging, and purpose (Abbot, 2015). Jim
Jones had a dream of a multiracial congregation of parishioners living in a utopian society in the
jungles of Guyana (Chidester, 1988).
Jones blended Pentecostal beliefs with social activism providing a sense of family and
security for his primary Black congregation (Harrison, 2004). He was praised in California for
his work in Southern California and was named the Humanitarian of the year in 1977 by the Los
Angeles Herald (Chidester, 1988). Unfortunately, Jones lost his way and emerged as a leader
centered on self without concern for his congregation (Scheeres, 2011). His followers had true
allegiance to their leader, dismissing the idea that he was on the verge of insanity despite the
decline of their utopian society and his daily abuse of his parishioners (Moore, 1985). On
November 18, 1978, Jones called for the murder-suicide of his congregation. Many followers
who believed in his dream voluntarily died for his dream (Maaga, 1998). Jim Jones's followers
provided him the credibility and assets to lead (Milosevic et. al, 2020).
Follower’s gain meaning and worth when they are a part of a group (Lipman-Blumen,
2005). The process of leaving organizations that create deeply meaningful purpose creates an
addiction to the environment due to rejection and isolation (Simi et. al., 2017). The rejection is
comparable to social death evoking anxiety (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Alford (2003) argued that
41

those individuals who are not a part of the team feel isolated and alienated. Insiders, however,
due to their need for belonging, cause them to step in line with the organization disregarding
others that fall outside their organizational bubble (Alford, 2003). This is especially true in
hierarchical organizations, such as the military, where there is an emphasis on respect for the
rank even if there is no respect for the leader (Elle, 2012). If left unchecked toxic leaders can
create a lineage of future toxic leaders in the Army (Reed, 2004).
Toxic leaders feed their followers illusions of grandeur, ultimately enhancing the leader’s
power and impairing the follower’s ability to act independently (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). The
illusion of grandeur blinds the follower, preventing them from identifying with the victim of
toxicity (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). If the victims of the toxic leader are unlike the susceptible
followers, their plight is less likely to drive the followers to act (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Conducive Environments
An organization’s culture shapes our expectations and sets the stage for working with the
members within the organization (Lipman-Blumen, 1996). Cultures create guidelines for leader
selection and set limits on the leader’s behavior (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Organizations that
identify strong measurable goals and have checks and balances are strong organizations
(Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). However, organizations without them are more susceptible to a
leader that thrives off power (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). An organization’s culture
response to toxicity can influence toxic leader behavior and sublimely send a message to the
organization regarding its values (Aubrey, 2012). Healthy organizations are integrated, providing
independence within the organization (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). The characteristics and
knowledge of a particular group foster a cultural identity based on social patterns unique to the
42

group (Zimmermann, 2017). Toxic leaders mesmerize supporters by conforming to the belief
systems of the organization (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).
Toxic subcultures thrive in climates where supporter’s stability and certainty are
threatened (Aubrey, 2012). When subordinates face uncertainty, they look to leaders for
guidance and are vulnerable to toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Leaders that assume
power during organizational distress receive more authority to make quick decisions
autonomously (Janis & Mann, 1977). Centralized power within an organization can provide a
biased view in the decision-making process (Anderson, 2019). When leaders have a full
centralization of power, subordinates may become dependent on the leader (Padilla et. al., 2007).
When people's basic needs are not met, they are more willing to accept toxic leadership (Padilla
et. al., 2007). The actual threat of danger is not necessary for leaders to assume complete control
of their organization; however, all that is needed is the perception of threat (Padilla et. al., 2007).
When organizations enable toxic behavior, a culture soon develops, allowing and encouraging
toxicity (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985).
Military culture is also an enabler of toxic leadership (Reed, 2014). The military culture
places loyalty in high regard, and members are taught to respect the rank if not the individual
(Reed, 2014). Toxic leaders who hear of an emerging complaint will do everything in their
power to create a negative picture of the complainant (Reed, 2014). Cultures that emphasize
loyalty prefer strong leaders to bring the organization together (Hofstede, 1991). However,
followers are more acceptant of toxic leaders in organizational cultures where there are members
who blindly follow orders and lack initiative (Thomas et al., 1991). Followers are drawn to toxic
leaders who provide them with a strong alternative worldview and a stable self-concept
encouraging them to support the leader (Blumen, 2005) When a subordinate muster enough
43

courage to verbalize their issues, the toxic leader usually disregards their feedback and
rationalizes their negative behaviors (Reed, 2004).
These leaders produce at the expense of their subordinates, although the results are short-
lived and damaging to an organization (Kusy & Holloway, 2008). Some senior leaders do not see
the need for alarm if the toxic leader meets all objectives, and everything appears to be fine
(Schmidt, 2008). It is not until they peel back the onion and identify that the leader meets their
goals at the expense of the morale and health of the team (Schmidt, 2008). When senior leaders
allow the actions of the toxic leaders to persist in the organization, it communicates to employees
within their organization that they are not valued or respected (Schmidt, 2008). Toxic leaders
hide in plain sight to escape detection (Aubrey, 2012). Therefore, senior leaders enable toxic
leaders by not intervening or refusing to stop their behavior (Aubrey, 2012).
The Army is hierarchical and bureaucratic; therefore, relieving toxic leaders can take
months or maybe years (Aubrey, 2012). Senior leaders have almost total control over their
organization, and their span of control is expanded in times of combat (Aubrey, 2012). Army
values also emphasize loyalty, making it unlikely that the subordinate will question their leader’s
authority even if it is harmful to the organization (Reed, 2004). Organizations may use
restructuring techniques to deal with toxic leaders (Kusy & Holloway, 2008). It is often easier
for an organization to relocate a person than to document the misdeeds of a person (Aubrey,
2012). If a person fails or causes organizational issues, some leaders will reassign him or her to
fix the immediate problem (Aubrey, 2012). However, the reassignment does not help the
organization identify and prevent the spread of toxicity (Kusy & Holloway, 2008). The practice
of reassignment is damaging to an organization because the senior leaders do not want to
confront the problem, ultimately creating a burden on the inbound organization (McNeal, 2010).
44

Moving toxic leaders within the organization only endorse negative behavior compromising the
quality of life of all employees (Kellerman, 2005). Toxic leaders influence the organization and
their followers through their destructive practices (Padilla et al., 2007). However, when leaders
inspire growth and positive feelings in their followers through transformational practices, they
will create inclusive, diverse, and innovative teams (Bass, 1990; Pishgooie et al., 2019).
Toxic Leadership’s Impact on Diversity
The United States Army draws from a diverse population. The presence of diversity in
the services contributes to creative problem solving, innovation, and improved decision making
(Phillips, 2014). Diversity within organizations cultivates a broader range of perspectives,
knowledge, and experience. Diversity also garners social equality with the belief that the risks of
military service should be shared equally among all members of the population regardless of
race, sex, or gender (Armor, 1996). Homogeneity disadvantages organizations because it may
lead to the marginalization of members from the less dominant groups (Petersen & Dietz, 2005).
Miller & Katz (2002) identified in their research that diversity in small groups is associated with
better creative problem solving, innovation, and improved decision making. The presence of
demographic in-groups negatively affects group productivity, particularly if active biases exist
between the subgroup (Kamarck, 2019).
Perceived discrimination from a leader can have severe negative impacts on the
organization's culture (Pepper, 2018). In the United States, employers with at least 15 employees
are covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Bayt, 2021). In 2020
there were 67,448 charges of discrimination and over $333 million spent on settlements (Bayt,
2021). When employees perceive discrimination in the workplace, they lose trust in leaders
45

which has an adverse effect on the perceptions of an organization’s culture, their opportunities,
and their coworkers’ intentions (Tschida & Jamal, 2021).
Trust enables a leader to influence subordinates (ADP 6-22, 2019). Toxic leaders do not
promote a culture and climate of trust; however toxic leaders cultivate a cultural climate rich in
suspicion, doubt, and distrust (ADP 6-22, 2019). The studies reviewed in this section assisted the
researcher in identifying how toxic leaders create environments that disadvantage Black officers
through bias, favoritism, unethical behavior, and poor communication (ADP 6-22, 2019).
Organizations born of toxicity eventually lead to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and a higher
percentage of Black officers who suffer from post-traumatic stress (Clark, 2014).
The Interaction Between Stereotypes and Toxic Leaders
Toxic leaders often use harmful stereotypes when they can’t relate to someone
(McClellan, 2020). Stereotypes are cognitive shortcuts that can lead to negative bias (Eagly
&Carli, 2007). Due to the amount of information that humans process, mental shortcuts are
required to allow the brain the ability to navigate the world (Milkman & Brabaw, 2020). The
groups most affected by stereotypes are typically from minoritized populations and the
stereotypes can often adversely impact workplace dynamics (Gibson, 2022). The leader often
blames the person for solvable problems and adversely assesses their performance (McClellan,
2020). Stereotypes can be based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, and sexual orientation (Eagly &
Carli, 2007). Stereotypes cause low morale for the individual or group impacted due to the
constant negative results due to the stereotypes causing them to lose motivation and interest in
their jobs (Milkman & Brabaw, 2020). Eagly and Karau (2002), in their research, identified that
when leaders hold stereotypes about a particular group and when the stereotypes conflict with the
characteristics that are associated with success, there is a potential for discrimination.
46

Research suggests some roots of racism lie in the stereotypes that people hold about
different groups (Milkman & Brabaw, 2020). People commonly place people in certain
categories based on similarities and themselves (Dovidio, 2000). The mental categorical
separation of subordinates by the leader directly leads to stereotypes (Pepper, 2018). The
potential for discrimination is prevalent when individuals take mental shortcuts and action on
their beliefs (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). Stereotypes can affect everything from the
way police diagnose danger, to judicial adjudication, and who gets selected for promotion
(Milkman & Brabaw, 2020). The subsequent paragraphs address the popular and pervasive
stereotypes of Black men and women and how the adverse impact of the stereotypes impacts
them in the workplace.
Stereotypes of Black Men
Stereotypes have a lengthy and complex history in the USA, widely influencing Black
men who are the most visibly stereotyped racial group in the USA (Harpalnai 2017). Larnell et
al. (2014), stated that stereotypes are linked to prejudice, biases, and systemic discrimination.
Stereotypes can be conscious or unconscious and can influence educational outcomes,
employment opportunities, and the disproportional incarceration rates of African American men
(Hadden 2001). African Americans are incarcerated five times more than their White
counterparts and are 2.5 times more likely to be searched when stopped by the police (Mauer,
2011). Black Americans make up 12% of the US population, however, Black American men
account for 34% of drug arrests, and 40% of the total prison population (Darensbourg et al.,
2010). Mauer, 2011 estimated that one in every three Black American men born today will be
imprisoned at least once during their lifetime.
The statistics within the military are very similar to the statistics of the civilian

47

population. GAO’s (2019) analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male
service members were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of
investigations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all the military services.
According to the report, men were as much as six times more likely to face a trial, while black
service members were about twice as likely to have their charges referred (Myers, 2019).
Additionally, Black service members of either gender were about twice as likely to see court-
martial in the Army (Myers, 2019). Figure 5 depicts fiscal years 2013-2017 recorded
investigations and general and special courts-martial broken down by demographics.

Figure 5
Subjects of Recorded Investigations and Tried in General and Special Courts-Martial, Fiscal
Years 2013-2017

Note. United States Government Accountability Office. (2019, May). DOD and the coast guard
need to improve their capabilities to assess racial and gender disparities. Government
Accountability Office. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-344.pdf

48

One very pervasive stereotype that continues to impact the way that Black men are
perceived in America is the Mandigo stereotype (Noble, 2022). To promote the strength,
reproductive ability, and athleticism of muscular young Black men, the Mandingo stereotype was
born (Bogle, 1973). The stereotype was fabricated by the minds of slave owners and peddlers to
make their slaves more appealing for monetary gain (Bogle, 1973). Slave owners had a fear that
through emancipation physically powerful Black men would exact revenge against their slave
owners through their daughters (Bogle, 1973). The Mandingo stereotype characterizes Black
men as brutes, innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal deserving punishment
(Pilgrim, 2012). Bell Hooks’ book on Black masculinity described the Mandigo as, animals,
brutes, natural born rapists, and murderers (Hooks, 2003).
Although this stereotype is centuries old there are residual effects in modern day. Hester
and Gray (2017) in their research determined that demographic factors influence how people
interpret physical traits. Research finds that tall men seem healthier, more intelligent, more
successful, and more physically attractive (Blaker et al., 2013). Coleman (2014) discussed the
fear and fascination that other races subconsciously possess regarding the Black male body. His
position evokes the Mandingo stereotype, which portrays Black men as savages or brutes. The
Mandingo stereotype and all the characteristics that accompany it impacts judgements of threat
more strongly for Black men than for their White counterparts (Wilson et al., 2017). Hester and
Gray (2018) in their research determined that New York City police officers disproportionately
stopped and frisked tall Black men. Under stop and frisk rules, police officers had the authority
to stop anyone they deemed suspicious or threatening. Hester and Gray (2018) through their
research determined that height is beneficial for men regarding salaries and success however, for
49

Black men, height signals threat rather than competence. Table 2 Captures arrest data for Black
and White persons based on height.
Table 2
New York City Stop and Frisk Arrest Data
Height Black Arrest White Arrest
5’4” 4.5 1
5’10” 5.3 1
6’4” 6.2 1

Note. Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2018). For Black men, being tall increases threat stereotyping and
police stops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2711 - 2715.
Livingston and Pearce (2009) postulated that Black leaders who possess disarming
mechanisms: physical, psychological, or behavioral traits are more prone to elevate in leadership
positions. In their study describing the benefit that Black males with baby faces have in corporate
in comparison to their Black male counterparts with mature faces. In contrast, disarming features
are unnecessary for archetypal leaders i.e., White males and warmth can be counterproductive
for their success (Rule & Ambady, 2008). For White men with baby faces their physical
attributes serves as a liability when attempting to attain higher positions of leadership in
government (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2005). The social- dominance theory maintains that racial
discrimination is disproportionately directed towards members of minoritized populations that
pose the greatest threat to the hierarchical status of the dominant group (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999).
50

The baby face serves as a signal of warmth and is perceived as less threatening and has
special utility for groups perceived as threatening (Livingston & Pearce, 2009). Stereotypes
perpetuated from slavery negatively impact the lens that Black men are viewed in the United
States. Even those individuals who capitalize on disarming mechanisms may still face the bias of
lower perceived confidence forcing them to intensify their efforts to gain respect (Livingston &
Pearce, 2009). The animalistic brute in the Mandigo and the characteristics of the stereotype
create feelings of threat and continue to have pervasive effects today by adversely contributing to
the inequalities of Black males (Hester & Grey, 2008). Stereotypes lead to devastating
consequences on Black males (Hester & Grey, 2008). Stereotypes impact laws and policies that
perpetuate race disparities in education and employment outcomes, and arrests and sentencing in
the judicial system (Hester & Grey, 2008).
Stereotypes of Black Women
Black women have served in the U.S. military since the Civil War and have played a role
in every war effort in the history of the United States (National Association of Black Military
Women, 2018). The intersectionality of being both Black and being a woman did not stop those
who felt that it was important to serve their country (National Association of Black Military
Women, 2018). Women were fully integrated into the Army on October 20, 1978, and on that
day the Army provided female troops the same rights as their male counterparts. Despite the
opposition to opening more jobs to women, according to a 2019 report by the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DEOMI, 2019), there were a total of 2978 women of all races promoted
to the ranks of major through general, out of a total of 14,734 women.
The civilian equivalent to general officership in the military is the C-suite in a
cooperation. The C-suite consists of the most important senior executives (Bloomenthal, 2021).
51

Although opportunities for more leaders to enter the C-Suite have increased throughout the
years, representation of Black women at the highest levels remains low (Kemp, 2020). Despite
increased diversity efforts specifically after the social unrest in America due to police brutality,
Black women make up less than 5% of C-Suite leaders (Kemp, 2020). Very similar to the C-
suite, the numbers of senior Black women in the Army drastically decrease as they propel
through the ranks. There are only two Black women general officers out of a total of 653
generals in the Army (DEOMI, 2019). Although the structural barriers to the inclusion of women
are crumbling, there is a significant decrease in the number of women in Army senior leader
positions. Female commissioned officers had higher attrition rates and lower promotion rates
than their male counterparts and are generally more likely to separate due to a variety of reasons
including the lack of mentors, sexism, and racial bias (McClellan, 2020).
Black women endure stereotypes about their hair, body, attitude, and speech (Crenshaw,
1989). Enslaved Africans were taught to detest their physical attributes and embrace European
standards of beauty (Degruy, 2005). Internalized oppression starts in early adolescence
(Winters, 2020). In the 1940’s psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted a doll
experiment to demonstrate the negative self-image that Black children have at an early age
(Clark & Clark, 1948). In the experiment the psychologists showed children ages four to seven
several dolls varying in skin color and asked a series of questions ranging from which one is
good or bad, which one is pretty, and which one is smart. Ninety-nine percent of the time the
children attributed the positive attributes to the White dolls and the negative attributes to the
Black dolls. Although the research took place in the 1940’s many Black people in present day
continue to show a preference for Whiteness due to a consequence of living in a society that
disproportionately associates positive images to Whiteness (Howard & Kennedy, 2020). These
52

experiences can lead to feelings of self-doubt, erosion of self-esteem and self-worth (Winters,
2020).
Kimberle’ Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality in 1989 to describe the way in
which multiple forms of inequality can compound and create different modes of advantage and
disadvantage (Crenshaw, 1989). Before the idea of intersectionality was known, most people
assumed that Black women shared the experiences of racism similarly to their Black male
counterparts (Crenshaw, 1989). Although Black men do not hold as much power and privilege as
White men but because of gender, Black men have more power and privilege than Black women
(Crenshaw, 1989). Black women bear the burden of being a victim of racism and sexism
(Crenshaw, 1989). Race and gender biases erode Black women’s efficacy and undermine their
ability to thrive (Frye, 2019).
Every structure in American society is rife with bias, both implicit and explicit. The
Sapphire stereotype is viewed as aggressive, condescending, bossy, and hard to get along with
(Putnam et al., 2001). The Sapphire officer is viewed as obnoxious and wonders why the
organization does not support or trust her (Thompson, 2016). The sexual harassment of the
Sapphire does not include sexual or romantic relations but, rather, makes the woman feel
unwelcome on the job based on sex (Fitzgerald et al., 1997). Black women have had to endure
flawed or incomplete narratives about their work performance (Frye, 2019). Gender harassment
undermines, humiliates, or rejects the victim and is motivated by sexist hostility, not sexual
desire (Fiske & Glick, 1995). When sexism and racism connect in the workplace, the effect is
disastrous (Frye, 2019).

53

Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment’s Impact on Black Officers
Toxic leaders can foster a culture where sexual harassment may become more prevalent
(Hart et al., 2018). Toxic leaders cultivate organizational climates that are lenient toward sexual
harassment (Hart et al., 2018). In some cases, toxic leaders abuse their power to coerce or exploit
their subordinates (Yapp, 2016). Research has shown that women in male-dominated career
fields are sexually harassed more often than women in balanced or female-dominated fields
(Fitzgerald et al., 1997). According to a report published by the National Women’s Law Center
(2018), Black women filed sexual harassment charges three times more often than their white
and Hispanic counterparts.
Stereotypes play a considerable role in the racialized nature of sexual violence and
harassment inflicted upon Black women in the military (Reynolds-Dobbs et al., 2008). One
prevalent stereotype that Black women face is the Jezebel stereotype (Bennett &Yarbrough,
2000). The Jezebel stereotype is based on the Biblical character who uses her sexuality to win
the affections of King Ahab to gain political power (Bennett &Yarbrough, 2000). Since the
institution of slavery, the Jezebel stereotype socialized the narrative of viewing Black women
and girls as sexual objects (Morris, 2014). The Jezebel stereotype translates to the modern-day
Army because it describes a woman who is not a team player and tries to elevate herself in her
career at the expense of others by utilizing her sexuality in lieu of her technical and tactical
expertise (Thompson, 2016).
General James C. McConville, the Chief of Staff of the Army, in a 2023 twitter message
to the force, stated that “Sexual harassment and sexual assault violate everything we stand for as
soldiers. It is our responsibility as one Army to take care of one another and not tolerate these
violations.” The number of sexual assault reports by service members increased by 3% in Fiscal
54

Year 2018 compared to the previous year (DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military,
2019). Studies confirm that Black women face a great deal of sexism and racism in the
workplace (Turner, 2019).
Culture is the basis for group-oriented behavior (Dahlberg & Byars-Winston, 2019).).
Culture is organic and a reflection of the underlying beliefs of the organization (Dahlberg &
Byars-Winston, 2019). Individuals assimilate into cultures in a myriad of ways to certain degrees
(Lisak, 2014). Culture is a” pattern of shared basic assumptions by a group as it learns to cope in
certain contexts and taught to new members as an example for new members as the correct way
to think and feel in relation to the problem” (Schein, 1985). When organizations are tolerant of
other forms of misconduct, the risk of sexual assault increases (DoD Annual Report on Sexual
Assault in the Military, 2019). Over a decade of DoD research correlates the occurrence of
sexual assault with military workplace climate (DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the
Military, 2019). The Army regulation ADP 6-22 (2019) instructs leaders to build a culture and a
climate of trust and be competent, good character, fair, and reliable. When toxic leaders use or
condone discriminatory practices in the workplace, it leads to negative employee impact on job
satisfaction, increases attrition, lower productivity, depression, and anger (Carter et al., 2016).
Impact of Bias on Black Officers
Toxic leaders often have their own biases against people on their team and they do not
practice inclusive leadership (Waters, 2021). The biases that toxic leaders possess lead to
workplace bullying, counterproductive work behavior, and job dissatisfaction (Waters, 2021).
Bias is the cognitive tendency among humans to make systematic decisions in certain
circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence (Balsa & Mcguire, 2003). Bias is
not something that leaders can avoid and has been rooted in the brain since birth (Rodriguez,
55

2018). Bias comes in two forms conscious and unconscious (Burgess et al., 2007). Bias in the
workplace is the purposeful or accidental assumptions made when delegating tasks or comparing
employees (Indeed, 2023). Conscious bias are feelings that are intentional prejudicial attitudes
toward a group based on stereotypes however, unconscious bias are unintentional prejudicial
attitudes toward a group based on stereotypes (Burgess et al., 2007). Bias could manifest itself as
sexism, ageism, racism, homophobia, and more (Waters, 2021). Table 3 details the differences
between conscious and unconscious bias.
Table 3
Comparison/Contrast, Explicit and Implicit Bias
Conscious Bias Unconscious Bias
Expressed directly (verbally) Expressed indirectly (non-verbally)
Aware of bias Unaware of bias
Operates consciously Operates sub-consciously
Example 1: I like White soldiers more than
Blacks soldiers
Example 1: Sitting further away from a Black
soldier than a White soldier

Example 2: I like lighter-skinned soldiers more
than darker-skinned soldiers

Example 2: Evaluating lighter-skinned
soldiers higher than darker-skinned soldiers

Example 3: I like tall soldiers more than I like
short soldiers

Example 3. Promoting the 6' tall soldier with
blonde hair instead of the 5'2" soldier.

Note. McClellan, B. J. (2019). Disparity in black officer promotions: A survey of implicit racial
attitudes among US army officers [PhD Dissertation, Northeastern University].
https://doi.org/10.17760/D20382022
56

Leaders that are consciously biased are very clear of their feelings and attitudes; their
behaviors are conducted with intent (Burgess et al., 2007). Conscious biases are prejudices and
are usually characterized by negative behavior such as physical or verbal harassment (Murphy,
2021). Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated in his 60 min interview when discussing bias in
the Army:
There’s probably not a job that I had since I was a lieutenant colonel where some people
didn’t question whether or not I was qualified to take that job. It’s a world I live in. And
I’m sure that the other officers that you talked to would probably say the same thing.
There’s not a day in my life when I didn’t wake up and think about the fact that I was a
Black man. (Martin, 2021)
Unfortunately, this is a reality that Black officers face and even the most successful Black
officers routinely feel the sting of racial bias (Martin, 2021). However, when individuals
recognize their bias, they are more likely to acknowledge and challenge their own beliefs and the
origin of their beliefs (Lachmann, 2021).
When a feeling is conscious, an individual must be able to express it (Cooks-Campbell,
2023). Those that are consciously biased have attitudes about a group that they are aware of
(Ottsen, 2022). However, while most people are not overtly racist, unconscious biases sometimes
undermine their non-prejudiced values (Grimm, 2023). Unconscious bias subconsciously
impacts the way individuals feel and think about others around them (Whitfield, 2023). In the
Army, unconscious bias manifest itself in a myriad of ways specifically in the areas of criminal
justice violations adjudication and performance evaluations (McClellan, 2021). In 2019 the
Government Accountability Office found that:
57

Even when controlling for factors like rank and education, Black and Hispanic service
members across the armed forces are more likely than white service members to be
investigated, receive nonjudicial punishments such as an Article 15 or be court-martialed
for alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justic (Government
Accountability Office, 2019).
Lyall (2020) found that mistrust stemming from racial bias can be devastating to a unit on the
battlefield and that to prepare soldiers for war they must trust each other, form bonds, share
information with each other so they can react to surprises on the battlefield. When members of
organizations lack trust in one another, based on group identity, information flows more slowly
and the organization does not accomplish its mission (Lyall, 2020).
Retired Admiral Mike Mullen in his interview with 60 minutes identified that during his
tenure, unconscious bias played a role in the selection of senior leaders. Mullen (2021)
mentioned,
I have a phrase I use called ducks pick ducks. And when you have White guys pickin',
they pick other White guys. That, to me, is the bias and that's what the leadership has to
break up to make sure that we're not in that kind of a situation (Martin, 2021).
Unconscious bias can have a significant impact on our attitudes and behaviors towards other
people when quick decisions are required or when an individual is in a stressful situation
(Murphy, 2023). Unconscious biases can contribute to inequality. Trying to remove all bias is
not feasible and when organizations attempt to do so they run the risk of worsening the
environment in which their organization operates (Bielby, 2000). To cultivate organizational
change, unconscious bias must be explored regarding how current inequities within the
institution came to be (Cooks-Campbell, 2023). Addressing cultural bias in the workplace
58

requires a cultural focus that encourages openness to empathy and rely on external motivation
(Bartlett, 2009).
Mentorship Impacts on Black Officers
Toxic leaders are often in the forefront of discriminatory practices (Burns, 2017). The
toxic leader’s stereotypes based on inferences about a group’s social role leads to negative
attitudes about the group (Dzurec & Albataineh, 2014). Businesses with an underlying bro or
good ol boy culture use race and gender to substantiate their bias because race and gender are a
visible distinction between people (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The good old boy network refers to
an informal system of friendships and connections through which men use their positions of
influence by informing and advancing other men (Dahlberg & Byars-Winston, 2019). Often the
men are connected because they share a similar social background (Dahlberg & Byars-Winston,
2019). Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed through their Social Identity Theory that a person’s
sense of who they are depends on the groups to which they belong. The subconscious mind
develops a thinking pattern based on repetition.
When organizations have an underlying bro or good old boy culture leaders use three
processes to create this ingroup/ outgroup mentality: social categorization, social identification,
and social comparison. First, leaders categorize people to understand and identify them. Next,
the leader adopts the identity of the group that they belong to and last the leader compares the
group that they belong to against another group. Low-self-esteem motivates discrimination, and
the social identity of the leader is determined by the groups to which an individual belongs
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Leaders feel good about themselves by uplifting the group that they
belong to and discriminate against others who fall into one of the outgroups (Tajfel & Turner,
1979).
59

Research suggests that Black officers face greater difficulties forming peer and mentor
relationships (Lim et al., 2009). The Army defines mentorship as the voluntary developmental
relationship that exists between a person of greater experience and a “person of lesser experience
that is characterized by mutual trust and respect” (AR 600-100, 2017, p.6). Organizations outside
of the military view mentorship as a relationship between two people where the more senior
individual shares their experience, knowledge, and connections with the more junior individual
(Beckett, 2010).
The Army charges leaders with the responsibility to develop leaders through mentorship,
coaching, and counseling (ADP 6-22, 2019). Mentorship affects personal growth e.g.,
communication, maturity, and interpersonal skills) in addition to the personal development of
leaders (ADP 6-22, 2019). Due to the lack of Black officers in senior leader positions, Black
officers do not have enough senior Black role models to help them grow professionally in the
Army (Smith, 2010). Colonel Florentino Lopez Carter (2008) stated that mentorship is a
fundamental component to leader development, and leaders have a responsibility to develop
future leaders. Due to the lack of mentors, Blacks tend to have less favorable work experiences
and career outcomes and face obstacles from ethnocentrism within an organization’s culture
instead of their White male counterparts (Carter & Virdee, 2008).
Brigadier General (Retired) Remo Butler, in his 1996 US Army War College paper “Why
Black Officers Fail,” sites the good old boy network as a historical exclusion of Black officers
from higher levels of leadership in the Army. The good old boy network relies on biases and
assumptions to exist (Butler, 1996). One cognitive bias that leads to the good old boy network is
affinity bias. Leaders that unknowingly struggle with affinity bias gravitate to people who are
like themselves (Adams & Hart, 2014). Affinity bias has negative effects on diversity and
60

inclusion efforts and often leads to a lack of representation in environments specifically in senior
leadership (Nikolopoulou, 2023). Minorities end up disadvantaged because leaders tend to
extend a greater trust, positive regard, cooperation, and empathy to ingroup members as opposed
to outgroup members (Bekar, 2021).
Johnson (2001) analyzed descriptors used on officers’ evaluation reports. They concluded
that recommendations for early promotion were more often associated with White officers,
whereas descriptors for on time or no promotion were attributed to Black officers. The
conscious or unconscious bias derived from the language used due to deep-rooted stereotypes
can positively or adversely shape an officer’s career (Johnson, 2001). In the Armed Forces there
are indicators of the presence of bias. Brook (2020) highlighted the disparities in a USA today
article. In the article he found that in the US Air Force there is “persistent and consistent racial
disparity.” Additionally, Shane III (2022), in his study on White nationalism in the military
found that about one-third of all active -duty respondents said they saw signs of White
supremacy in the ranks.
Seck (2020) described the details of racial bias in naval aviation. Seck found that there
were errors and inconsistencies in the grading and ranking process of two aviators who were
relieved due to substandard performance (Seck, 2020). Additionally, there were allegations that
they were assessed unfairly compared to their White counterparts and that the instructors altered
their grade sheets (Wolff, 2019). Discriminatory behaviors are evident in the workplace when a
person is fired or not promoted because they are believed to have undesirable traits which
commonly belong to a particular group of people (Pepper, 2018). Regardless, if the person
exhibits stereotypes based on a certain race, toxic leaders may be led to believe that the person
lacks the attributes for success (Diekman & Hirnisey, 2007).
61

Race-Based Post-Traumatic Stress’ Impact on Black Officers
Lipman Blumen (2005) analyzed toxic leadership as having severe long-term effects due
to the culture of hate that the toxic leaders cultivate. Systemic racism and racial classification
have been and continue to be widespread and ingrained in all aspects of American life (Chae et
al., 2011). Posttraumatic stress disorder is an anxiety disorder that forms after a traumatic event
(Baca et al., 2012). Studies of men and women imply that rates among Black men and women
are higher than White males (Baca et al., 2012). A major contributing factor to racism is the
failure to understand the emotional, psychological, and physical effects of racism on
marginalized populations (Carter, 2007). Racism is a stressor, and the adverse effects of racism
on Black officers can potentially cause clinical depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, or
personality disorders (Firestone, 2020). While Blacks have a lower risk for many anxiety
disorders, they have a 9.1% prevalence rate for PTSD, compared to 6.8% in Whites (Himle et al.,
2009). Figure 6 displays some chronic health issues that are associated with the stresses of
everyday discrimination (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2022).

62

Figure 6
Deaths from Heart Disease, Diabetes, and Kidney Disease (Combined) per 100,000- United
States, 2015

Note. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2022, April 15). How racism can
Affect Child Development. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/racism-and-ecd/

The implementation of racism sets barriers and endorses acts reflected in the unequal
outcomes in social systems (Carter, 2007). The unequal outcomes compromise the dignity of
Black officers at individual and cultural levels (Carter, 2007). Psychical outcomes such as high
blood pressure and heart disease are by-products of racism (Bennett et al., 2004). Attig (2021)
found that when Black veterans experienced racial prejudice or other harassing remarks, they
were more likely than others to experience PTSD symptoms. Harrell et al. (2003) found that
overt and covert acts change physiological functioning.
Mustillo et al. (2004) found that Black women exposed to discrimination were more
likely to deliver low birth weight infants when compared with White women who did not face
discrimination. The anxiety caused by racism prompts the targeted population to rehearse
defensive and aggressive responses to cope and adapt to the racism within their organization
63

(Harrell et al., 2003). Experiencing PTSD symptoms leads to a higher rate of domestic violence,
poor physical health, and a higher mortality rate than their White counterparts, who do not face
discrimination through toxic leadership (Teten et al., 2009).
Toxic leaders who lack self-efficacy often criticize others and make the employee
question their worth (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), which can exacerbate the impacts of post-
traumatic slave syndrome that may be experienced by Black officers. DeGruy (2005) coined the
term post-traumatic slave syndrome as “a condition that exists when a population has
experienced multigenerational trauma resulting from centuries of slavery and continues to
experience oppression and institutionalized racism today” (p. 7). She posited that survivor
syndrome manifests in the second and third generations as stress and self-doubt (DeGruy, 2005).
The self-doubt due to generational stressors and racism is only exacerbated when a person faces
discrimination (DeGruy, 2005). Toxic leaders cultivate an environment in which they undermine,
demean, seduce, marginalize, intimidate, demoralize, disenfranchise, terrorize members within
their organization as well as their opponents (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). The biases and, at times,
overt discrimination of toxic leaders impacts the mental and physical health of Black people
(Walker, 2020). The cyclical effects of discrimination lead to embodied inequality, which creates
poor health outcomes lasting for generations (Winters, 2020).
Conceptual Framework
The theory used to address the problem of toxic leadership in the United States Army is
the social cognitive theory (SCT). This theory explains how people can influence their
perception, motivation, and behavior (Bandura, 2003). The SCT focuses on the reciprocal
interactions between people, environment, and practice (Bandura, 2000). SCT considers a
person’s past experiences, which factor into whether behavioral action will occur. According to
64

SCT, past experiences influence expectations and expectancies, and if a person will participate in
that behavior (Bandura, 2003). The goal of the SCT is to explain how people regulate their
behavior through control and reinforcement to achieve goal-directed behavior that can be
maintained over time (Bandura, 2000).
In the Social Cognitive Theory, self-development, adaptation, and change occur through
an interplay of personal, behavioral, and environmental influences (Bandura, 2003). In this
model, people are producers of their environment, not just products of it. A person’s knowledge,
beliefs, values, and biological endowment influence how they behave (Bandura, 2000). As
shown in Figure 7, the personal, environmental, and behavioral factors continuously interact
through influencing and being influenced by each other (Bandura, 2003).

65

Figure 7
Social Cognitive Triadic Model

Note. Bandura, A. (2003). Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory: An Introduction. [Video/DVD]
Davidson Films. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/bandura-s-social-cognitive-theory-an-
introduction.

The Social Cognitive Theory is appropriate to examine the problem of practice because it
reveals how, through examination, individuals learn to shape the conduct of others. Because the
military is hierarchical and formal, leaders play a critical role in the development of soldiers
through social learning. Leaders shape organizations through mission and vision (Army
Leadership and the Profession, ADP 6-22, 2019). The mission and the vision of the leader are a
primary influence on employees’ interpretation of their work environment and their responses to
these environments (Bandura, 2003). When people see others like themselves succeed by
sustained effort, they come to believe that they too have what it takes to succeed (Bandura,

Environment Behavior
Personal
Triadic
Reciprocal
66

2000). However, in the case of toxic leadership, leaders who mistreat others set the example in
their unit that toxic behavior is acceptable in the organization and provide an example for
employees to emulate (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Additionally, employees that are the victims of
toxic behavior may develop a fight-or-flight response leading to poor work performance, disease,
or premature death (BetterHelp, 2023).
To cope with cognitive overload, humans engage in a series of cognitive
compartmentalization that enables them to react to situations (Schimming, 2022) quickly. The
categorization of age, gender, race, or sexual orientation is called schemas, and from the
information embedded within the schemas, humans make predictions about a person (National
Institutes of Health, 2023). The meanings may include both stereotypes and prejudices about the
groups with which the leaders associate a person (Bandura, 2000). Psychologists believe that
schemas influence every aspect of how a person receives and classifies information (Lipman-
Blumen, 2005). The cognitive processes are often automatic and happen whether a person wants
them to happen or not (Bandura, 2000).
Leath et al. (2019), through their research on the development of awareness, identified
that racial meanings, beliefs, and feelings about members of other racial groups are derived from
both direct and vicarious experiences. Direct experiences with other races are more influential;
however, vicarious experiences may be more frequent (Leath et al., 2019). Vicarious experiences
may include social media, news outlets, television shows, and music that describe or report on
members of different racial groups (Bandura, 2003). By large live in homogenous
neighborhoods, people are more likely to rely upon vicarious experiences when evaluating others
(Bandura, 2012). However, the material presented through vicarious experiences is sometimes
67

skewed, often identifying perpetrators of crimes as Blacks leading to implicit bias (Maryfield,
2018).
Self-Efficacy as a Component of Social Cognitive Theory
Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in producing desired results by their own actions
(Bandura, 2012). Perceived discrimination increases the risk for suicidal ideations by decreasing
the individual’s feelings of efficacy or mastery of their environment, increasing social isolation,
and reducing support and other effective coping techniques (Castle et at., 2011). Hirschmann
(2003) stated that systems of power, privilege, and oppression emerge in the daily thoughts and
actions although innocent of well-intentioned people who may not be aware of the social
significance of their thoughts and actions. Efficacy beliefs affect people's motivation, the
challenges they set for themselves, and their commitment to them (Bandura, 2003). The strength
of the leader, employees, and organization lies partly in the collective organizational cultural
efficacy to solve their problems and improve their lives through unified effort (Bandura, 2012).
The Social Cognitive Theory serves as a theory of learning and change and specifies the
modes and mechanisms of learning (Bandura, 2012). The learning portion of the theory specifies
how individuals acquire knowledge, cognitive, social, and behavioral competencies (Bandura,
1986). Efficacy beliefs also affect the choices people make in their lives (Bandura, 2012). And
this affects the courses their lives take (Bandura, 2012). Bandura centered the Social Cognitive
Theory around self-efficacy because it affects other aspects of a person’s life such as work
performance (Bandura, 2012). Figure 8 shows the structural paths of influence where perceived
self-efficacy affects workplace performance (Bandura, 2013).

68

Figure 8
Social Cognitive Structural Paths of Influence

Note. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy
revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606

Those with low self-efficacy perceive that their efforts are worthless when they face
institutional challenges, whereas those with high self-efficacy figure out ways to overcome the
challenges (Bandura, 2012). Toxic leaders’ demonstration of superiority, exhibitionism,
entitlement, vanity, and abusive behaviors have deleterious influences on their employees' self-
efficacy and suppress the positive effect of self-sufficiency (Pizarro, 2022). Lent et al. (2008)
deduced that self-efficacy beliefs are an indicator of career pursuits for Blacks. Specifically, the
environmental factors that may influence self-efficacy belief patterns, e.g., “cultural constraints,
pay inequity, and truncated network opportunities” (p. 283).
Value systems also influence behavior and provide incentives and guides for action
through self-reactive mechanisms (Bandura, 2012). Self-regulation is essential not only in self-
69

development and accomplishments but in moral conduct as well (Bandura, 2003). Self-regulation
in moral conduct is rooted in personal goals and standards. Toxic leaders have created ways of
disengaging their moral self-sanctions from destructive conduct, enabling them to preserve their
sense of self-worth while treating others inhumanely (Bandura, 2003).
Hughes and Demo (1989) found that personal efficacy is influenced by experiences in
social statuses and that systemic racism and discrimination have historically and continue to
impact the well being of Black people in the United States. Structural barriers and biases created
additional challenges for Black people to maintain and develop high self-efficacy (Hughes &
Demo, 1989). Ashfaq et al. (2021) identified that a positive environment shaped by leadership
creates self-efficacy and organizational commitment. According to Zhou et al. (2012) leaders’
conduct, like resources, has a significant impact on the efficacy of their employees. Employees
reciprocate supportive leadership by investing this obtained resource to achieve greater
engagement in their work (Ashfaq et al., 2021).
Throughout history, perpetrators of inhuman acts rarely considered themselves evil
(Bandura, 2012). Toxic leaders avoid responsibility for horrific acts by shifting responsibility to
others (Bandura, 2003). Or they spread their responsibility around so that no one feels
responsible (Bandura, 2012). The toxic leader cultivates an organizational culture that breeds
aggression by modeling it and attaching value (Aubrey, 2012). However, the transformational
leader cultivates a peaceful organizational culture in which aggression is rare because it is
devalued, rarely modeled, and has no functional value (Uhl-Bien et al., 2013). From a SCT
perspective, this study seeks to explore the impact of toxic leaders, and the environments they
create, on Black Army officers from a behavioral and cognitive perspective (Research Question
70

1) and the desire of Black Army officers to pursue senior leadership positions (Research
Question 2).
Summary
Toxic leadership’s impact on diversity is complicated because of the relationship between
the leader, follower, and the environment (Padilla et al., 2007). Toxic leadership harms the
organization and its followers by adversely influencing organizational learning, innovation, and
job satisfaction (Rousseau & Aube, 2018). The toxic leader can have significant impacts on the
organizational environment perpetuating discrimination and inequality (Padilla et al., 2007). The
self-efficacy of a leader can factor into the leader’s behavior and how they perceive members of
various racial and ethnic makeups (Bandura, 2003). Toxic leaders’ biases and prejudices often
appear in the guise of sexism, racism, ageism, and other discriminatory behavior (Pizarro, 2022).
Toxic leaders through their actions normalize prejudice and discrimination by utilizing their
platform to cultivate an environment that encourages discrimination and prejudice against certain
racial and ethnic groups (Ashfaq et al., 2021).
Toxic leader’s covert and overt acts of discrimination against Black officers may lead to
several medical conditions and attrition (Williams, 2005). Toxic leaders and their rhetoric can
constantly adversely impact the mental and physical health of the Black officers under their
command (Ashfaq et al., 2021). The constant exposure to toxic behavior can lead to heightened
stress, anxiety, and a diminished sense of self-worth (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard
University, 2022). The actions of the toxic leader can have long-lasting effects on the impacted
individuals (Williams, 2005). Toxic leaders through their influence, can potentially lead to the
underrepresentation of Black officers in senior leadership positions preventing Black officers
from having a meaningful say in the decision-making process (Rousseau & Aube, 2018). Current
71

literature is abundant regarding the influence of toxic leadership on the followers and the
organization (Hinshaw, 2020). However, the literature is scarce regarding the residual adverse
effects of toxic leadership on Black officers.

72

Chapter Three: Methodology
The previous chapter provided a review of present and previous toxic leadership research.
The review demonstrated the numerous studies conducted displaying the negative impacts of
toxic leadership generally and on Blacks, including military officers, specifically (Enalls-Fenner,
2017). Chapter Two also showed limited research on the effects of toxic leaders on Black
officers (Hope et al., 2016). Chapter Three outlines the research design, researcher positionality,
data collection, and ethical considerations associated with the dissertation in practice.
This study explores the effects of toxic leadership on Black United States Army officers.
Using Bandura’s social cognitive theory, I determined how toxic leaders' behaviors influence
long-term knowledge, such as the Black mid-level leader's ability to recognize when toxic
behavior is present in their work environment. Additionally, I used the social cognitive theory to
identify the ways in which the toxic leader influences the work performance and self-efficacy of
Black officers. The research questions that guide this study are:
1) In what ways does toxic leadership impact Black Army officers?
2) How does toxic leadership affect the desire of Black Army officers to pursue senior
leadership positions within the Army?
Overview of Methodology
To answer the questions in this research study, I used qualitative methodology. The
qualitative methodology provided the skeletal frame for analysis that leads into interpretation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative descriptive studies aim to provide a comprehensive
summary of events in commonplace terms (Sandelowski, 2000; Vaismoradi et al., 2013).
Researchers present the data directly to increase understanding instead of an interpretive or
theoretical manner (Colorafi & Evans, 2016). Qualitative descriptive studies are recommended
73

when little is known about the subject (Sandelowski, 2000). As discussed in Chapter Two, a
plethora of research discussed toxic leader characteristics and organization effects; however,
scarce literature exists regarding toxic leadership's effects on Black officers.
Although there is limited data on the effects of toxic leadership on Black officers in
qualitative research studies, the researcher studies things in their natural settings, attempting to
make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016 p. 15). Researchers use a qualitative descriptive study design to collect data
through mildly to moderately organized interviews with individuals who experienced the event
(Sandelowski, 2000). Qualitative descriptive studies include data collection, purposeful
sampling, data analysis, and data representation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I will discuss each
method of the study in subsequent potions in Chapter Three. I conducted semi-structured
interviews with individuals who experienced toxic leadership (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
participants in the study were retired or separated Black U.S. Army officers (no longer on active
duty in the military) who currently or previously reported to toxic leaders. I also used a
questionnaire based on Schmidt’s (2008) Toxic Leadership Scale (TLS). A detailed description
of the TLS and selection criteria is presented in the Interview section of Chapter Three.
The Researcher
It is essential to account for potential biases that may have affected this study (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Researchers should account for personal positions before engaging in research,
especially qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). When biases are not considered, the
research may become skewed, and the study may become more about the researcher than the
participant (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I am a Black female officer in the United States Army
and a graduate from a Historically Black University. I previously reported to a toxic leader in a
74

prior work environment which fueled my interest in the topic. I am aware of the potential for
confirmation bias. Confirmation bias occurs when a researcher forms a hypothesis or belief and
uses the respondent’s information to confirm that belief (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). However,
I used utilize member checking and auditing to mitigate my own bias.
Issues of positionality may challenge the subjectivity of research. I mitigated these issues
by being reflexive. Probst and Berenson (2014) defined reflexivity as awareness of the
researcher's influence on what is being studied and simultaneously how the research process
affects the researcher. I considered issues, such as my positionality, to understand its effects and
the insider-outsider stances in research (Merriem & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Source: Surveys and Interviews
Surveys are methods that gather information from a sample of people. Responses from
the surveys help the researcher gain insights and data to help the researcher draw conclusions
about a subject (Merriem & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative survey collects data to describe a topic
specifically, opinions about a subject (Merriem & Tisdell, 2016). I used qualitative surveys for
two purposes: a.) to identify Black Army officers who have experienced toxic leadership
(primary) as a means for selecting the interview participants and b.) to help gain insights into
how the participants think, their motivations, and their attitudes about toxic leadership (Merriem
& Tisdell, 2016) from a wider population of Black Army officers beyond those who were
interviewed.
Interviews are the primary data source for the study. Data collection in this approach
extracts participants’ verbal recollection of their experiences. Interviewing is necessary when the
researcher cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the organization around
them (Merriem & Tisdell, 2016). The most common form of interview is the person-to-person
75

encounter in which the researcher draws information from the participant (Merriem & Tisdell,
2016). The interview describes the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects.
The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say.
(Kvale,1996). I used the interviews to get the story behind the participants’ experiences and as a
follow-up to the input provided by respondents in response to the recruitment survey
(McNamara, 1999). The following sub-sections detail the participants, instrumentation, data
collection procedures, and data analysis plan for the study.
Participants
The participants of the study are Black United States Army officers who, at one point in
their career, had engagements with toxic leaders. The criteria for inclusion in the study are that
participants must be retired or separated Black U.S. Army officers (no longer on active duty in
the military) and served in the rank of Captain to Colonel, and have held a command position.
Command is the first opportunity where officers can take charge and implement their vision to
soldiers and leaders with varying levels of experience (AR 600-20, 2020).
Commanders from the ranks of Captain to Lieutenant Colonel range from at least five to
18 years in their Army career and manage a unit that typically consists of one hundred to eleven
hundred soldiers. Blacks make up 11% of Army officers (Defense Manpower Data Center,
2019). Black women make up 33% of the total Black Army officer population, and Black men
make up 67%. For this study, I interviewed eight Black female and eight Black male officers to
reflect the Black officer population (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2019).
Instrumentation
Interview protocols provide a baseline for the interviews (Colorafi & Evans, 2016).
Interview protocols include an overview of the study, open-ended questions, prompts, and a
76

closing statement (Jacob& Ferguson, 2012). I used the Hinshaw (2020) toxic leadership
interview protocol as a framework for the interview protocol and incorporated three stages to
develop the interview protocol for the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Stage 1: Selecting the kind of interview.
Stage 2: Establishing ethical guidelines.
Stage 3: Crafting the interview protocol.
In qualitative studies, the semi-structured interview guides include a mix of more and less
structured interview questions. I guided the interviews with a list of questions to address the
effects of toxic leadership on Black officers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview questions
are open-ended and flexibly worded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In semi-structured interviews,
researchers develop questions before the interview; however, the exact wording nor the order is
determined ahead of time (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through the interview process, the
participants shared their stories to gain more insight into the perceived effects of toxic
leadership.
The second stage established ethical guidelines for the interview. Stake (2005) identified
that qualitative researchers are guests in private spaces of the world of those interviewed. Privacy
is an essential feature of the interview (Mneimneh et al., 2018). It is the researcher’s
responsibility as the interviewer to ensure that they do not invade the participants' privacy. I
disassociated each participant’s response following all interviews to ensure privacy and
confidentiality (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Additionally, I assigned aliases and pseudonyms for
individuals and places to protect the participants' identities (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
In the final stage, I crafted the interview protocol. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) mention
that this may be the most time-consuming of all stages because a researcher must think of how to
77

introduce themselves to a person interviewed and what questions to ask. The interview protocol
for the study is two pages in length and consists of basic information about the interview, an
introduction, opening and content questions, and closing instructions. The interview protocol's
opening statement was carefully crafted to ensure respondents are at ease, and the questions were
carefully constructed to establish communication with the respondents to elicit stories. The
questions and follow-up questions were developed using toxic leadership reading material
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I piloted the interview protocol with individuals who mentioned that
they experienced toxic leaders throughout their careers but who are not part of the participant
population for the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Vaismoadi et al. (2013) identified that data collection procedures are critical in
conducting research. Before participation in recruitment, I gained approval from the University
of Southern California Institutional Review Board. I collected data meticulously and
chronologically to ensure the integrity of data collection. As data is collected, I tracked data on a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
I recruited participants for the survey through network and snowball sampling. Network
sampling involves locating key participants who meet the criteria established for the participation
in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I utilized network sampling to recruit participants on
Facebook through postings on the African American Army Officer (9.4K members), African
American Female Army Officers (2.5K members), and African American Lady Army Officers
(828 members) sites (see Appendix D for social network posts). The recruitment message
includes a link to the survey, which primarily consists of an adaptation of Schmidt’s (2008) toxic
leadership survey and includes a link to a digital form (see Appendix B) for individuals to
78

indicate their interest in the study. However, due to the limited number of responses, I used
snowball sampling as a supporting sampling method by asking individuals to refer other
potential participants to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through this method I received
participation from participants that met the requirements of the study.
The survey that I used for the recruitment of interview participants is based on Schmidt’s
(2008) Toxic Leadership Survey. The survey used five components to measure toxic leadership:
abusive supervision, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability
(Hinshaw, 2020). I added an additional component of discrimination supporting this study’s
research objectives based on my review of the literature. The survey includes 15 questions using
a 6-point Likert scale (ranging from Strongly Disagree=1 to Strongly Agree= 6). Schmidt’s
(2008) toxic leader scale identified that an average score is 3.42 for toxic leaders with a standard
deviation of 1.2. For my study, I combined the standard deviation and the average score to
identify the minimum score of 4.62 as the threshold for interview selection criteria. My original
intention was to only those survey participants who rated their leader at 4.62 or above on the
toxic leader scale were invited for an interview.
I received 10 responses through social media. The survey asked the 10 participants for
their email address and phone number to contact for an interview if they identify that they have
worked with a toxic leader; as such, the survey is confidential but not anonymous. I invited
participants for a interview whose leader rated at a score of 4.62 or greater on the Schmidt scale.
I did not receive enough individuals who rated their leaders at this threshold to meet my desired
goal for interviews; therefore, I contacted subsequent potential interviewees in descending order
of their leader’s rating until I had completed 10 interviews. I used the recommendations from the
participants to interview the other five participants.
79

After completing the selection process, I emailed participants who met the study criteria
to schedule a 45-to-60-minute virtual meeting via Zoom (Zoom.com). Once I scheduled the
interviews, the participants received an email confirmation, which included a link to the
interview with instructions for room access. The interview participants were in different time
zones; therefore, I identified times that worked best for all parties. I conducted the interviews in
an area free of clutter as per Kvale’s Doing Interviews (2007), which stressed the importance of
ensuring that the interview area is free of clutter and noise. I ensured there were no technical
difficulties by checking the computer to ensure start times do not conflict during the interview
and ensure the computer battery has a full charge to ensure there are no technical difficulties.
Before the interview, I ensured that I had everything readily available that I needed. I used audio
and video for nonverbals to record interviews and the Zoom notes, along with field notes to
transcribe the meeting. Field notes were essential as they filled the gap of contextual information
not captured in transcripts (Milne & Oberle, 2005). The interviews contained open-ended
questions to ensure I captured the main ideas from the interview to answer the research
questions.
Data Analysis
Once the participants validate the accuracy of their interview transcripts, I began the data
analysis process. First, I drew on a priori codes derived from Hinshaw (2020) to guide my
coding and create a conceptual framework of toxic leaderships impacts on Black officers in the
U.S. Army. organized the data for analysis. I then began the data coding process by organizing
the data in thematic brackets (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using thematic analysis, I transcribed
the interviews and identified, analyzed, and interpreted themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Additionally, I used the data from the qualitative survey to recruit participants to provide insight
80

about the topic, specifically insight into the percentage of Black officers that have experienced
toxic leadership throughout their careers (Merriam &Tisdell, 2016).
The themes that I derived from the interview data helped identify further analysis areas
and formed complex theme connections (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The thematic analysis
served as a translator or a voice for the participants in the study (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I then
identified the best way to represent the themes throughout the study using tables, figures, and a
narrative depiction (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Additionally, I used a three-step coding process to identify the categories and
subcategories of the data. I started with open coding, to develop overarching categories, followed
by axial coding, to draw connections between codes, and ended with selective coding, which
selects one central category that connects all the codes from analysis and captures the essence of
research (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To streamline the phased coding process, I used NVIVO
(qsrinternational.com), which is a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis program.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility is the confidence placed in the truth of the research findings and establishes
whether the findings represent a correct interpretation of the participants' original views (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). I used four strategies to establish credibility throughout the study. The four
strategies include triangulation, peer reviews, interviewee transcript review, and clarifying the
bias I bring to the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I used triangulation by examining
evidence from the sources to develop themes, conduct analysis, and examine findings from the
interviews to increase the credibility of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
81

Another way that I enhanced the accuracy of the study was by utilizing peer reviews.
Peer reviews provide a second set of eyes to the paper to determine if the findings are credible
(Merriam &Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the peer review assisted with accounting for and
identifying personal biases, potentially influencing conclusions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The
strategy involves interpretation beyond the researcher and adds validity to the study (Merriam
&Tisdell, 2016). I sent Chapter 4 to my peers, so that they could assess and provide feedback
about the qualitative study to ensure the study resonates with the reader, as suggested by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
To determine what the participant meant throughout the interview I gained fidelity
through transcript review. I provided each interviewee verbatim transcripts of their interview.
The purpose of is step was to verify accuracy, correct errors and provide clarifications (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). The last strategy that I used to maintain credibility throughout the story is
clarifying the biases that I brought to the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I continuously
reflected on personal comments and the comments provided by the participants to provide an
open and honest narrative that would resonate with readers (Creswell& Creswell, 2018).
Trustworthiness refers to the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and methods
used to ensure the quality of the study (Polit & Beck, 2014). As discussed in the Instrumentation
section, I piloted the interview protocol (see Appendix A) to prepare for the study and to receive
feedback. I took additional steps to validate the study's trustworthiness, such as the adequate
engagement of data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using meticulous record-keeping, I
demonstrated a clear decision trail, ensuring data interpretation is consistent and transparent,
engaging with other researchers to reduce research bias. I followed the interview protocol to
82

ensure that the study measured what it set out to measure and that the study was not affected by
personal interest and bias (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Ethics
Best practices and ethical research standards were considered throughout the study
process. I applied to the University of Southern California’s institutional review board (IRB), an
administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects
recruited to participate in research activities (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Before the interviews,
participants received information about the study and any potential risks. I issued the participants
the University of Southern California’s information sheet for exempt research (Appendix C). The
information sheet, designed for their protection, addressed the researcher's identification,
sponsoring institution, the purpose of the study, and confidentiality to the participant with a
language easily understood (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Confidentiality is vital in this study. Anonymity and confidentiality are often confused
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The surveys helped me obtain data about the participants’ leaders
using the Schmidt (2008) TLS to help to prevent bias from impeding the survey findings
(Saunders et al., 2015). However, I ensured the confidentiality of all participants by employing
several methods to protect the participants' identity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Specifically, I
removed personally identifiable information (PII), protect files with passwords only accessible
by me, and use number codes to mask the identity of interviewees (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants had the opportunity to withdraw from
the study at any time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

83

Chapter Four: Results or Findings
Chapter Four presents the findings of this study. The goal of the study is to explore the
perception of Black officers in the United States Army of their experience with toxic leadership
and its impact on their desire to pursue senior leadership positions. The study findings are
organized by research question, followed by the discussion of themes and findings that answer
each research question. The following two research questions were developed to guide the study:
1. In what ways does toxic leadership impact Black Army officers?
2. How does toxic leadership affect the desire of Black Army officers to pursue
senior leadership positions within the Army?
I posted qualitative surveys to various social media sites targeting persons meeting the
prerequisites for the study. The survey served two purposes: a.) to identify Black Army officers
who have experienced toxic leadership (primary) as a means for selecting the interview
participants and b.) to help gain insights into how the participants think, their motivations, and
their attitudes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) about toxic leadership from a wider population of Black
Army officers beyond those who will be interviewed. However, I did not use the survey data due
to the low responses throughout all social media venues. Because I only received 10 responses to
the surveys on social media, as discussed in Chapter 3, I used the snowball sampling method by
asking participants to refer other potential participants that met the requirements. Through the
snowball sampling method, the participants referred six additional participants for the study
creating a larger sample size of 16, ensuring that data provided stronger and more reliable results
from participant feedback.
Initially, it was my intent to utilize the surveys along with the interviews to assess thoughts
and attitudes on a large scale. However, the low survey responses compromised the validity of the
84

survey by leading to potential sampling bias. Sampling bias occurs when there is not a fair or
balanced presentation of data samples. Sampling bias is a significant challenge and has multiple
categories that can alter the study. The type of sampling bias that impacted this study is non-
response bias. Non-response bias is a bias that occurs due to systematic differences between
responders and non-responders (Kypri et al., 2011). The lack of participation from survey
participants who do not respond may differ from those who do, resulting in skewed data due to
mistakes in estimating population characteristics based on the underrepresentation of the non-
responders. For the best results from a study, there must be fair presentation samples from the
population. As a result of the low response rates, I did not use the survey data to support the
findings of the study.
Interview Participants
The participants of the study were Black United States Army officers who, at one point in
their career, had engagements with toxic leaders. I received 10 responses from the surveys;
therefore, I used the snowball sampling method by asking the 10 participants to refer other
potential participants that met the requirements to participate in the study. Through the snowball
sampling method, the participants referred six additional participants for the study creating a
larger sample size of 16. The participants in the study were retired or separated Black U.S. Army
officers (no longer on active duty in the military) who served in the ranks of Captain to Colonel.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, Blacks make up 11% of Army officers (Defense Manpower Data
Center, 2019). For this study, I interviewed eight Black female and eight Black male officers.
Sixteen retired or separated United States Army Black officers agreed to participate in
this study. I originally scheduled interviews with 15 individuals who met the selection criteria.
However, a recently retired officer showed interest in the study and requested to serve as an
85

interview participant. As a result, I interviewed 16 participants, which met the goal of the
minimum interview goal of 15 participants. The rank at retirement or separation and
demographics for each participant is included in the study; however, organization and
background information were eliminated to protect their identities. Pseudonyms were also
assigned and are identified in Table 4. These pseudonyms will be used in the discussion of the
findings throughout this chapter.

86

Table 4
Pseudonyms of Study Participants
Participant number Sex Assigned pseudonym Rank at retirement or
separation
1 M George Colonel
2 M Chet Colonel
3 F Abigail Colonel
4 M Brian Lieutenant Colonel
5 F Melissa Lieutenant Colonel
6 M Justin Lieutenant Colonel
7 F Samantha Major
8 M Fred Major
9 F Julie Major
10 M Benjamin Major
11 F Carrie Major
12 F Cassandra Major
13 F Sophia Major
14 M Arthur Captain
15 F Christie Captain
16 M James Captain

87

In addition to the demographic data, I collected data regarding the interaction that the officer had
with the toxic leader and the impetus behind their departure. Fifteen of 16 individuals stated that
they waited for their scheduled Permanent Change of Station (PCS) date or for their leader to
depart in lieu of electing to leave their leadership position. The interviews had a median duration
of 60 minutes and an average duration of 69.5 minutes. The conversations were framed by the
interview protocol in Appendix B; however, some conversations evolved organically. The key
topics from the research questions were addressed and provided insight regarding the lived
experiences of Black officers in the U.S. Army who initially desired to progress in rank but were
halted due to the actions of toxic leaders.
I drew on a priori codes derived from Hinshaw (2020) to guide my coding and create a
conceptual framework of toxic leaderships impacts on Black officers in the U.S. Army. In
Hinshaw’s (2020) research, she identified six categories and 10 subcategories to answer the
research question that guided her study: “How do toxic leaders influence followers who no
longer report to them?” Hinshaw in her study identified the influence that toxic leadership had on
followers regardless of demographics. Although the themes from the study were similar, they
differ due to the intersectionality of the participants. The participants’ race; educational
background e.g., military service academy, Predominantly White Institution (PWI), or
Historically Black College and Universities (HBCU); and gender created overlapping and
mutually dependent system of discrimination from their toxic leader that differed from the
participants in Hinshaw’s (2020) study.
For the purpose of the study to identify the impacts of toxic leadership on Black officers, I
identified four categories and nine subcategories. The categories identified were:
• Category One: Personal Transformation
88

• Category Two: Impact on Health
• Category Three: Stereotypes
• Category Four: View of Self
To describe how toxic leaders impacted the personal transformation of the participants (Category
One), three subcategories were created: (a) traumatic experiences, (b) ability to trust, and (c) halted
opportunities for promotion. I broke Category Two into two subcategories to describe the ways in
which toxic leadership impacted the health of the participants: (a) physical health and (b) mental
health. Category Three discussed emerging stereotypes that the participants believed influenced
the leader’s perception of them: (a) aggressive and (b) overtly sexual. Last, the researcher
identified two subcategories to describe Category Four how toxic leadership changed the
participants' view of self: (a) confidence and (b) efficacy. Figure 9 illustrates the categories and
the subcategories identified in the data.

89

Figure 9
Identified Categories and Subcategories

Qualitative research aims to understand human experience (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The approach focuses on behavior and identifies how the participant views experiences and why
they act in a particular manner (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To understand the participants’
beliefs, experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and interactions with toxic leaders, I utilized interview
data from the participants to create categories and subcategories. Table 5 provides quotes from the
interviews nested with the supportive category and subcategory.

90

Table 5
Toxic Leaders Influences: Categories and Participant Quotes
Category Participant quotes

Personal Transformation

“Working for the toxic leader gave me PTSD. It
was difficult integrating into other work
environments. – Carrie

“I lack patience due to my interaction with the
leader. It is tough for me to trust.- George

Impact on Health “I used alcohol to cope from the impacts from
my toxic leader. – Fred

“I have really bad anxiety and I wake up with a
lot of mental strain. – Melissa

Stereotypes “I walk on eggshells because I think there’s a
fear stereotype threat, you know yeah the
stereotype threat oh you’re gonna make it bad
for all Black people. – Christie

View of Self

“He didn’t believe that an African American
could perform better or should be in senior
roles. – Brian

He preferred leaders who went to the United
States military Academy and would often
question my ability to hold leadership
positions. – Benjamin

“He didn’t think I deserve to be where I was at.
– Arthur

The categories and subcategories with supported sample quotes are described in subsequent
sections. The findings section of this chapter combines the thoughts of the interviewees into a
coherent whole.

91

Category One: Personal Transformation of Followers
A common theme described by all 16 participants was the transformation that they saw in
themselves due to their interaction with the toxic leader. Many of the officers described feeling
isolated, but they expressed that they believed they had to suppress their feelings of hurt and
frustration and endure racism and microaggressions within the workplace. All participants stated
that their interaction with the toxic leader changed their views, motivations, and belief in the
Army ultimately changing their behaviors within their organizations.
Microaggressions, as defined in Chapter 2, are indirect or unintentional discrimination
against minoritized persons (Hopper, 2020). In the study, seven participants provided instances
of microaggressions committed by their leaders. For example, George recalled one experience
with microaggressions in the workplace by describing one leader’s comment about how a fellow
soldier was speaking:
I remember during a deployment, he tried to straighten out one of our African American
female members of our team he said, look you can’t be out here, you know, using
Ebonics, English is the standard language in the Army.
Another participant, Samantha shared a similar experience as well as her struggle with how to
address the situation with a superior officer:
When President Obama got elected in 2012 the XO who is a White female was upset
about that and said disparaging things about his ethnicity and his inability to lead. I did
not feel as if I could express that it was wrong, so I put a note under her door letting her
know that he was our commander in chief and that her actions were wrong.
Finally, Abigail summed up her experience with microaggressions under her toxic leader: “I
faced microaggressions often. My coworkers would turn around and say, I didn’t know that you
92

were combat arms, I thought that you were an administrative officer.” Other participants shared
similar stories regarding the transformation that took place within them due to the toxic leader.
The Social Cognitive Theory posits that “learning occurs in a social context” (Bandura, 1977, p.
22). The Social Cognitive Theory considers the social environment in which individuals learn
their behavior. The lived experiences that the participants faced under the toxic leader impacted
their view of the organization and adversely transformed them. Three subcategories emerged
from the interviews describing how toxic leadership changed them through traumatic
experiences, which impacted their ability to trust and halted their potential for promotion.
Subcategory A: Traumatic Experiences
All 16 participants stated that the toxic leader created an insurmountable amount of stress
to their lives that influenced their beliefs in the Army. Post-Traumatic Stress is a mental health
condition that’s triggered by a terrifying event (Mayo Clinic, 2022). Symptoms include
nightmares, flashbacks, and severe anxiety as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event. In
the Army, Soldiers may be exposed to different types of traumas than their civilian counterparts
due to war and extensive military training (U.S. Department of Veterans, 2019). However,
workplace stress also causes similar effects that wartime post-traumatic stress does on Soldiers
after experiencing traumatic events during deployments (Beaudry, 2021). The study participants
often used the word “trauma” to recount their interactions with the leader who they perceived as
toxic. Discussing these experiences during the interviews led to strong emotional and physical
responses from participants, including displaying substantial amounts of anger or sadness
including weeping.
Participants could remember in vivid detail the events that led to their stress. Arthur
recalled an experience with a toxic leader that continues to impact them today: “He didn't take
93

time out to like mentally develop me, he just criticized me on every single thing it didn't matter
what I did he would always find something negative about it.” Additionally, Arthur mentioned
that his leader stated that he, “Was also infantry and that he likes officers within his organization
to be seen but not heard.” Samantha relayed a story about a particular event that influenced her
beliefs in the Army. She recalled: “My experience with the toxic leader forced me to seek help
and talk to somebody. I felt like I was losing it and with that came the migraines and I felt my
health deteriorating.”
Two participants, Fred and Benjamin, shared the same beliefs that engagements with
toxic leaders continue to have long-term effects on their mental and physical well-being. The
participants expressed how the interactions with the senior leader left residual effects and
contributed to agonizing memories. Fred recalled in his statement:
My supervisor would often ask me if I watched good times and if I was dy-no-mite. He
prevented me from attending leadership courses which would aid in my career
advancement. From my time served with him, I was mentally and physically scarred by
the underlying racism and the stress from coming into work. My experience made it
difficult for me to trust leaders in and out of the Army.
The memories expressed by the participants stayed with them leaving long-lasting effects. All
participants shared that they suffer from varying degrees of trauma due to their time under the
leadership of the toxic boss and had difficulty adjusting and coping with new work experiences.
Subcategory B: Ability to Trust
Sixteen participants expressed how their interactions with toxic leaders impacted their
ability to trust. Trust is the foundation of any successful relationship both personal and
professional, and when trust is broken it is extremely hard to repair (Holmes & Rempel, 1989).
94

Additionally, participants discussed the influences that the toxic leader had on their ability to
trust their current leaders. Julie stated, “I value trust in a leader. My best leader possessed
characteristics of someone that I can trust. Due to my experience with my leaders, I don't trust a
lot of men, because of my experience in the military.”
All participants discussed the trust that eroded due to their interactions with their toxic
leader. Six of the 16 participants identified that they encountered multiple toxic leaders from all
races. However, 10 of the 16 participants provided statements regarding their interactions with
toxic leaders that are White. Five participants made note that due to their interaction with White
toxic leaders these adverse interactions impacted future relations with leaders of other races and
made them more reserved dealing with future leaders. Participant Carrie stated,
I had a leader who told me that I did not deserve to be an officer. He was White. It didn’t
matter how hard I worked; I knew that it would never be good enough. Additionally,
there was an engagement that we had in which I served on a detail that by the base policy
superseded all tasks within the organization. My supervisor was upset that I missed
formation although I called to inform him. He accused me of lying. When I met with him
in person to explain the Army policy, he told me to shut up in front of other leaders and
Soldiers who worked with and for me. I felt so humiliated.
All 16 participants stated that trust issues made them more suspicious of others, which
led to isolation. Additionally, Arthur discussed that there were significant differences between
the way that his senior leader treated him, and the one other Black officer as opposed to the
White officers in his organization. Arthur stated that,
He questioned my competency and openly asked in front of my peers why and how I was
here. I felt on edge during every engagement with him. After two years working with
95

him and immersed in the culture of the organization, I questioned any future engagement
with White leaders. My time in the organization hurt me so bad, I questioned the motives
of future leaders. I always believed that they had ulterior motives even if the event was
positive, I just never trusted them following my time in the organization.
This sub-section discussed the study participants' experiences with leaders that impacted their
ability to trust. The impacts include their trust in their current leaders, trust in other races, and
trust in the Army.
Subcategory C: Halted Opportunities for Promotion
The first two subcategories discussed the impact that the leader had on the participants
ability to trust and added an element of post-traumatic stress. However, a common theme
described by all 16 participants was the impact that the toxic leader had on their career. This
third subcategory identifies how a toxic leader adversely impacted the participants’ career
trajectories.
In this subcategory, nine of the 16 participants mentioned that the toxic leader gravitated
toward and shared similar interests to people who looked like them. This idea is also known as
affinity bias. Affinity bias is an unconscious bias that causes people to gravitate toward others
who appear to be like them including those with similar interests, backgrounds, and appearances
(Louis, 2019). Arthur summarized this by stating, “My commander would hang out with the
White officers and ostracize the Black officers, often criticizing the Black officers for things that
were often not in their control.” Additionally, participant Carrie described being isolated due to
her gender:
The issue with the glass ceiling is that you can see through it. I say this because often
there were times in which me and another female officer weren’t invited to outings with
96

our boss and coworkers. On one occasion we sat downstairs and weren’t invited to go
upstairs to look at the whiskey or the cigar lounge or see the second story portion of my
supervisor’s home. We weren’t even included in their conversations.
Second, four of 16 participants expressed that the toxic leader influenced future positions
by not affording them the opportunity to compete for special assignments that historically
catapulted officers' career paths in their field. Julie stated,
In my organization, racism was so prevalent that the senior commander pulled everyone
in to have a discussion about it. He recognized that minoritized officers in his
organization did not receive the same opportunities as their White counterparts and
wanted to address it.”
Further, participant Brian mentioned, “I was treated differently, unfavorably, and not given those
opportunities that my peers received. To get the key jobs for my career progression, I will have
to fight for them.”
Last, participants mentioned that toxic leaders failed to mentor those that did not share
similar backgrounds or beliefs to the toxic leader. Mentorship is defined as a mutually beneficial
relationship between a seasoned professional who informally guides a less experienced person in
their professional endeavors (D’Angelo, 2022). The mentor acts as an advisor and helps the
individual grow in their profession. According to Arthur, his experience with mentorship from
his leader differed from that of his White colleagues:
My boss constantly criticized me and never took the time to develop me. There were
three other Captains, all White who received positive attention from the boss. He spent
the time discussing the transition from tactical to hospital operations. I never received
quarterly counseling’s, however, when I received my final evaluation I rarely received
97

quality feedback for improvement. I was confused because when I received my final
counseling I ’didn’t have a great evaluation but wasn’t provided with a way forward for
success.
Additionally participant Melissa stated that:
I had a boss who believed that she was indoctrinated in African American culture.
Although she was an Asian woman, she used a lot of terminology and mannerisms that I
thought were overtly offensive. Such as waving her neck and smacking her lips in and an
effort to try to communicate and connect with me, but that didn’t register with me. She
didn’t understand that so she obviously became offended because she was like what you
don't know what I mean and I'm looking at her like no ma'am I don't. Following that
encounter, she did not aid in my progress in the Army or nominate me for future career
enhancing jobs.
Mentorship can provide networks and personal connections (Brand, 2019). When leaders
fail to mentor Black officers there is not equal access to networks that can accelerate their
careers, as described by Benjamin:
I think I was a little different because I am Ranger qualified. Senior officers gravitated
towards me because of my tab. However, because I intentionally have a non-threatening
demeanor, I observed that they took to me more than other Black officers that I worked
with. I was provided with more opportunities than others that I worked with.
This category discussed ways in which toxic leaders adversely changed the person’s
perceptions of the Army through traumatic experiences, impacted the participants’ ability to trust
current and future leaders, and changed the trajectory of their career path. The three
subcategories discussed in this section have long-lasting impacts that take time to heal, and the
98

participants’ words clearly indicate they continue to struggle with the lasting impact of their
experiences.
Category Two: Impact on Health
The second category that emerged from the data is that toxic leadership had a significant
impact on the mental and physical health of the participants. Lipman-Blumen (2005) stated that
psychological factors, including an individual’s need for belonging, makes one think carefully
before challenging a toxic leader. Seven of the sixteen participants stated that the fear of isolation
led to their silence regarding the toxic behaviors of the leader. Five of the participants mentioned
that they believed that they were complicit in their silence and that their complicity led to mental
and physical anguish. Participant Julie spoke about the effects on both her mental and physical
health due to her interaction with the toxic leader. She stated, “Yes, I suffer from a lot of anxiety.
I actually started my journey with therapy. I felt so guilty that I did not say anything to my leader
about his actions.” Additionally, participant Abigail stated,
I will say that working for my leader definitely caused medically diagnosed depression. I
gained weight and I lacked sleep. Many times, I thought I had insomnia following my
time with the leader. I took a sleep study and was diagnosed with sleep apnea. The study
determined that I wasn’t getting the amount of sleep that I needed as a leader and the lack
of sleep impacted my decision making.
The below subcategories discuss the impacts that toxic leadership had on the participants mental
and physical health, which will be discussed in the two subcategories below.
Subcategory A: Physical Impacts of Toxic Leadership
Throughout the study, 10 participants stated that their interactions with their leader
caused them physical stress. Research has shown that stress anxiety due to toxic leadership may
99

lead to a risk of angina, heart attack, and death (Martin & Gillen, 2020). Participant Brian
described the physical impacts on his body due to his interactions with his toxic leader:
So, my health changed, primarily because my leader questioned the fidelity of my
doctors’ notes. My leader created a culture in which I was not comfortable addressing
medical issues with him due to previous interactions. My plantar fasciitis had gotten so
bad that I could barely run, and I was on the verge of having a bilateral hip replacement
at 37.
Although all 16 participants no longer reported to their toxic leader, they all stated that the
effects were long-lasting. Some reported they suffered effects from toxicity that they receive
veterans’ disability payments monthly. Participants recounted recurring medical issues that
developed after their interaction with their toxic leader. Brian disclosed, “My injuries began to
compile because I did not go on sick call because of fear of reprisal.”
Subcategory B: Mental Health Impacts of Toxic Leadership.
An emerging theme throughout the study was the impacts that toxic leadership had on the
participants mental health. Research has shown that employees working for a toxic boss were
more likely to experience clinical anxiety or depression (Rowe, 2022). Sixteen participants
identified that they suffered mental strain from working with their toxic leader which had
adverse psychological impacts. Participant Fred stated,
When working with the toxic leader I always felt a mental strain, which I think
contributed to the migraines, cluster, and tension headaches. I had an emotional
detachment from the situation or situations and did not address the medical issues with
my provider and now I have to advocate for myself now through Veterans Affairs to
annotate the migraines on my medical records.
100

Additionally, participant Brian expanded on the daily mental struggle of working for a leader
who was not supportive:
It was a mental fight going into work daily. You remember that you still have soldiers
and junior officers that you have to take care of even though you know pretty much what
the end result is going to be for you. I often asked myself, how do I remain active in the
army, when my leaders are not loyal and supportive to me.
Several of the participants discussed the adverse effects that the toxic leader had on their
relationships. According to Brian, “It was really a mental struggle, and my wife could tell that
something wasn’t right, but I didn’t want to stress her out. She recommended that I seek mental
health in which I obliged.” Julie also added that: “My husband really served as my sounding
board. He carried the burden of a lot of my stress which made him question our marriage. Times
were certainly tough.” George voiced that in his experience, “My wife faced the same issue as if
she was right there with me, my work issues were beginning to cause a strain on my marriage.”
All 16 participants described the adverse mental impacts that they currently struggle with
due to the toxic leader. Fred described his current experiences five years after their interaction
with the toxic leader. The mental impacts of toxic leadership have long-lasting effects that the
participants reported linger with them years after the incident. As stated by participant Fred, “I
think it has also affected me and how I deal with people. My experiences were so poor in the
Army that I put up a mental block when dealing with White leaders. I am jaded but getting
better.” Participant Julie stated that her toxic leaders led to medically diagnosed depression.
All participants described the long-lasting mental and physical effects due to the
behaviors of the toxic leader. Additionally, 14 of the 16 participants report that they receive
medical compensation through the Department of Veterans Affairs and that their ailments are a
101

direct result of the toxic leader. The participants will receive the payments rendered by veterans’
affairs in perpetuity.
Category Three: Stereotypes Influence on Toxic Behavior
The previous two categories discussed the way in which the toxic leader changed the
person and also impacted the short- and long-term health of the participants. Category Three
discusses the perceived stereotypes that the participants faced and the residual effects of the
stereotypes. As discussed in Chapter 2, stereotypes are a widely held set of cognitive
generalizations and essential beliefs about a specific group or social category (Eagly & Carli,
2007). Stereotypes are simple expedited judgements of people that are often negative,
exaggerated, and resistant to revision even when perceivers encounter persons that possess
qualities that are not consistent with the stereotype (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). The
data collected from participants identified two prominent stereotypes experienced in interactions
with their toxic leaders: aggressive and overtly sexual.
Subcategory A: Aggressive Stereotype
Black men and women have historically been depicted as aggressive (Hackman, 2016).
Participants discussed how experiences with this perceived stereotype from their toxic leader
impacted their view of self and their career path in the Army. Fourteen of the 16 participants,
both male and female, described how the toxic leaders struggled with interpersonal
communication that adversely impacted their officer evaluation reports (OERs). Melissa stated
that her OER was directly affected by her toxic leader because of stereotypes and how she
responded to her leader:
My leader called me sistergirl. I told her that the term did not resonate with me. This was
one of many uncomfortable conversations that we had. My evaluation struggled because
102

of it. Because I didn't fit the stereotype of what I look like on the outside it offended her,
and therefore we had a clash and opinions and beliefs and ways of how we managed our
people. She took it so personally that when she did my evaluation she put in the
comments, to only give this officer limited leadership opportunities.
Several of the male participants in this study stated that their large stature served as a
physical characteristic that adversely impacted their careers. Five of the eight men said that they
felt as if their height intimidated their leaders. Arthur mentioned that he had to make himself
“small in order to not intimidate his leaders.” Additionally, participant Arthur recalled when
talking about an engagement with his boss:
My stature I think intimidated him a lot, he was 5’9 and I am 6’4. Every time I came into
his office, he always asked me to sit while he stood and when he came to my office, he
requested that I sit. His favoritism of my White counterparts was so apparent that a senior
leader invited me to lunch and told me that he would help me navigate through his
toxicity. There were other complaints, however, they were unfounded.
All eight female interviewees discussed their daily struggle with aggressive stereotypes
that were rooted at the intersection of their gender and race. The angry Black woman stereotype
has penetrated many parts of American culture, including the workplace (Motro et al., 2022).
Carrie stated,
I was often weary of the Angry Black Woman stereotype. I did my best to overcome it
however, to no avail. My boss treated me with more aggression than he did with others
because he assumed that I would be angry. He would often recall his disdain for women
rolling their eyes and necks. Additionally, there were times when he was overtly angry
103

with me for misunderstandings similar to my White counterparts in which he showed
them more understanding.
Further, Seven of the eight female participants mentioned that they struggled with having
to mask their true and authentic selves so they would not appear angry in the workplace.
Participant Christie stated that,
I was told that I am intimidating. There are times that I am forced to stick to the sidelines
by myself. I always noticed that, White officers were always more embraced and people
love to be around them so it's just interesting regarding the dynamics.
Additionally, Julie mentioned:
A lot of people said to others that I was a straight bitch. I told my supervisor that I felt
uncomfortable in the workplace, and he said that there was nothing that he could do.
Later I found out that he perpetuated a lot of the rumors and name calling because he was
upset that I was in the position that I was in.
One participant, Abigail, mentioned that she worked consistently to code switch to ensure that
she never “put herself in a predicament in which she perpetuated any stereotypes.” Code
switching is the act of changing behaviors, including speech, dress, and mannerisms, to conform
to a different cultural norm than what is done authentically (Stitham, 2020). According to
Abigail,
You know I've tried to yell to get my point across but that was not in my character. My
supervisor talked down to me, in an effort to break me down or to see me perform poorly
in my position. He occasionally told me that he did not think that I deserved to be in the
position.
104

All 14 participants who dealt with stereotypes mentioned that they internalized the stereotypes
resulting in a sense of inadequacy becoming part of their personality.
Subcategory B: Overtly Sexual
One area that did not impact the male respondents but was overwhelmingly reported by
the female participants is the area of sexual harassment and assault. A surprising theme that was
consistent in the interviews was the number of women who struggled with sexual harassment or
assault from their toxic leaders during their time in the Army. The portrayal of Black women as
overtly sexual is an enduring stereotype (Amoah, 1997). Participant Julie described enduring
sexual harassment and assault throughout her entire career:
I have been sexually harassed and assaulted a lot in my military career, starting with basic
training and ending as a Major. Men regardless of race would kiss and grope me. I had
someone kiss and grope me in front of other people in the office while I was in the front
office for a senior leader.
Regardless of rank, from Captain to Colonel, seven of the eight participants mentioned that they
faced sexual harassment or sexual assault from their leaders or that their leaders were aware of
the harassment or assault. Participant Abigail mentioned: “I once went on a work trip with my
boss and during the evening he was extremely inappropriate. He attempted to kiss me. When I
turned him down he pretended it was a joke.”
These examples provided by participants illustrate how previous toxic leaders created a
culture of sexual assault and harassment. Participant Melissa stated that: "The culture of the
organization became dysfunctional because the leader was toxic.” Additionally, participant Julie
mentioned that:
105

The culture of toxicity fostered a climate in which male officers of all ethnicities
regardless of rank or position sexually harassed me and other women in the organization.
A leader assaulted me at work in front of other individuals. Soon after I received
harassment from others within the organization. I don't trust a lot of men, because of my
experience in the military. I used to kind of blame myself like Is there something I'm
doing to attract these people to behave in an unprofessional manner towards me? There
wasn’t any flirting like promiscuous behavior, drinking, on the job, going to the field, or
sitting in the office.
As seen in the quotes, the participants expressed that they faced sexual harassment and
assault that adversely impacted how they viewed their male counterparts and their view of the
culture of the Army. Their experiences with sexual harassment and assault was the impetus
behind the participants consideration to remain or attrit from the Army profession. The final
category that will be explored in response to this research question is View of Self.
Category Four: View of Self
A prevalent theme throughout the interview was the impact that the toxic leader had on
the confidence and the efficacy of the study participants. Self-confidence as defined by Branden
(1995) is the personal evaluation of self-worth, the extent to which we approve of and respect
ourselves. Although similar, self-efficacy differs from self-confidence. Self-efficacy as
described by Bandura (1977) refers to one’s perceived ability to effectively accomplish or
demonstrate a behavior or series of behaviors in a given situation. Melissa summarized this sub-
category: “When people don’t have purpose and they don't have dignity they start focusing on
other little stupid things like hair, makeup, and weight, you lose discipline.”
106

Six participants compared their experiences to an abusive relationship in which they
developed an unhealthy desire to please their boss. Abigail described her interaction with her
leaders:
I served as a battle captain on a division staff. There were several times where our first
line supervisor would go to the senior enlisted person for updates and totally overlook
me. The senior enlisted person would then say, no, no, you got to ask the major, she has
the information. The leader would ask where is the Major? Oh she's right there. I would
often rephrase the way that I answered questions because leaders always seemed
perplexed when I provided responses. I worked hard to ensure that I provided the leader
with what he needed but it never seemed as if it was good enough. For years it made me
question my abilities.
As expressed by the participants, there were regrets about the abuse endured at the hand of the
toxic leader and the impact that it had on their ability to defend themselves in the moment of the
abuse. Additionally, the participants expressed frustration regarding remaining in the position
and not reporting the toxic leader’s actions due to fear of reprisal.
Subcategory A: Lack of Self-Efficacy
Ten participants discussed a lack of self-efficacy in their ability to accomplish tasks
provided by their leader because of experiences with toxic behavior. Participant Samantha stated
that: “I was on pins and needles and started to believe that I could not do anything right. I
checked my work over 50 times versus the 10 times I would have normally checked it.”
Additionally, seven participants discussed how the toxic leaders' actions impacted them in their
current positions. A similar sentiment was echoed by participant Benjamin: “The leader kind of
107

made me question what I was doing and if I was doing enough, because the prior leader thought I
walked on water.”
Two participants also mentioned that their toxic leaders reinforced their negative beliefs
in themselves that they developed from childhood experiences. The two participants mentioned
that they struggled in school or other programs because they had leaders who did not believe in
their abilities to perform certain skills. Because the toxic leader confirmed the beliefs, the two
participants constantly questioned their ability to perform tasks, which led to failure. Participant
Sophia stated,
I struggled with confidence based on experiences in my childhood. I was told that I was
not the best student and I stopped studying because what’s the point. I finally met
someone who believed in me and motivated me to study. I received the grades and a
ROTC scholarship fast forward to the present day. Constant adverse engagements with
military leaders and being told by my leader that I am not good at basic officer skills was
demoralizing. Additionally, I felt as if I had to put on a false smile to get through the day.
The struggles reinforced the negative beliefs that I adopted about my potential in the
Army.
Throughout the study it was evident that toxic leaders impacted the participants’ self-
Efficacy in their own performance and leadership. The adverse effect to the participants’ efficacy
impacted their career development in the Army due to their leaders’ constant criticism of their
ability to perform specific tasks related to officership in the Army.
Subcategory B: Self Confidence
Not only did the participants express a lack of efficacy, but they also expressed a lack of
confidence. Price (2021) stated that self-confidence differs from efficacy because “it describes a
108

general personality trait referring to strength of belief but is non-specific as to what the certainty
is about” (p. 1). The participants expressed that their experiences with the toxic leader impacted
their confidence to this day. When asked about the long-lasting impacts of toxic leadership
Abigail mentioned: “I was depressed I definitely I went through depression, because I felt like
ok, I'm not going to make it to the next level, they have pretty much tried to put a fork in me and
make me done.” A similar sentiment was echoed by participant George when discussing their
hesitancy to begin a career after the Army: “The impacts of the leader took a toll on me. It would
cause me to question myself.”
Six participants shared that they began to question if they were good enough and
qualified to be in the positions, they were in. Christie stated that: “Working under the toxic
leader shattered my confidence and self-esteem. I began to second guess myself.” Ten
participants discussed the long-term effects that toxic leaders had on their perception of self. As a
result, the participants reported that they doubt their abilities and struggle maintaining personal
and professional relationships. Arthur stated: “It made me feel like sometimes I couldn’t get
right, and I was like nothing.”
The study had 10 participants who graduated from Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs). All ten HBCU graduates mentioned that they struggled more with their
toxic leader than their White counterparts. Participant Abigail described how she was treated
differently due to attending a HBCU rather than a service academy:
My leader definitely made me feel different because I did not graduate from a service
academy. He treated officers from service academies with a different level of respect than
those who did not graduate from a service academy, he especially treated those who
graduated from HBCUs poorly. He once mentioned that officers who graduated from
109

HBCUs were not as strong as their counterparts which made it an incredibly tough
mountain to climb.
Additionally, participant James mentioned that: “I graduated from a service academy and I
realized that I was given more autonomy than my counterparts that graduated from HBCUs. I
knew that it wasn’t right.”
RQ1. Findings: In What Ways Does Toxic Leadership Impact Black Army Officers?
All participants responded that they sought approval from their toxic leaders. The lack of
approval from the toxic leaders caused the participants to lose confidence in their abilities in the
workplace. Participant Justin stated: “No matter what I did I could not make my boss happy.”
Toxic leadership for many of the participants caused psychological and physical impacts leading
to feelings of frustration, low self-esteem, and anger. Additionally, participants faced negative
effects due to chronic stress causing follow-on ailments associated with stress.
Black women in this study faced discrimination that was interdependent of their Black
male counterparts. The social categorizations of race and gender created intersecting and
interlinked systems of disadvantage. Due to their gender identities, there were some acts of
discrimination that Black women faced that their male counterparts did not, such as sexual
harassment and sexual assault. Sexual harassment was reported by five of eight Black female
officers in this study, and sexual assault was reported by two of eight Black women in this study.
Those that experienced either or both discussed the lasting effects on them. All eight participants
mentioned that the trust that eroded due to the actions of the leader and the followers that
participated was irreversible, and the officers reported during interviews that they did not feel
comfortable in the organization or in the Army.
110

RQ2. Findings: How does toxic leadership affect the desire of Black Army officers to
pursue senior leadership positions within the Army?
The participants conveyed that toxic leader created barriers in employment and education
opportunities. Additionally, toxic leadership led to social exclusion and discrimination. The
social exclusion led to unequal opportunities hindering the participants’ chances for success.
Toxic leadership manifested itself through overt and covert unequal treatment in the workplace.
The unequal treatment led to disparities in access to training and mentorship. The discriminatory
practices cultivated by the toxic leader created a hostile work environment which hindered the
participants professional growth and diminished the ability of the participants of the study to
thrive and succeed. Participant Fred mentioned that: “I became stagnant under the toxic leader,
and I stopped pursuing my goals. I didn’t believe that I could attain them.” The lack of self-
confidence mentioned by the participants resulted in a lack of desire to serve in the Army.
Conclusion
The stories shared by the participants and the details accumulated by the researcher in
support of the research study were compelling, important, pertinent and applicable. These
findings aid in examining in greater depth one cause of attrition of Black officers in the U.S.
Army. The lived experiences of the Black officers in the study adds additional information to an
area of research not represented in academia. Although there is research that identifies the
underrepresentation of Black officers in the Army due to mentorship and commissioning
sources, there are not enough studies that explore the lived experiences of Black officers in the
Army, from their perspective, in their opinions. The findings were analyzed to identify categories
that impacted the officers throughout their time in the Army and contributed to their departure
from the Army.
111

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter summarizes the recommendations for the Army to aide in the prevention of toxic
leadership and to identify strategies to assist officers impacted by the destructive actions of the
toxic leader. These recommendations are based on the participant data provided within the findings
of this study and the research questions that guided this research study. This chapter addresses the
research questions introduced in Chapter One:
1. In what ways does toxic leadership impact Black Army officers?
2. How does toxic leadership affect the desire of Black Army officers to pursue senior
leadership positions within the Army?
Following the recommendation for practice are sections that detail the limitations and delimitations
of this study, recommendations for future research, and the conclusion of the study.
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study were closely aligned to the literature. The participants shared
experiences of how toxic leadership negatively impacted their careers. I used a qualitative
descriptive study to provide a summary of views (Colorafi & Evans, 2016) by speaking to people
and hearing their words. Qualitative studies, as described by Fournier (2022) are grounded in the
philosophy that the “social world is ultimately unmeasurable, that no measure is truly ever
objective, and that how humans make meaning is just as important as how much they score on a
standardized test” (p. 3). Additionally, I utilized Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and a series
of other literature to provide a framework for understanding how the participants were shaped by
their environment developed by the toxic leader.
The SCT places an emphasis on social influence and its impacts on external and internal
social reinforcement (LaMorte, 2022). Participants shared experiences of their interactions with
toxic leaders during their time in service which influenced their health, belief in self and other
112

areas within their lives. The discussion with the participants identified emerging themes which I
discussed in Chapter 4 and in the subsequent paragraphs utilizing the five features of Bandura’s
(2001) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Table 6 is an overview of the five features of the Social
Cognitive Theory.

Table 6
Five Features of Social Cognitive Theory
Feature Description
Reciprocal Determinism The central concept of the social cognitive
theory, refers to behavior that is both
influenced by personal factors and the
social environment
Behavioral Capability Refers to a person’s actual ability to perform a
behavior through essential knowledge and
skills
Reinforcements The responses to a person’s behavior that
affect the likelihood of continuing or
discontinuing the behavior
Self-efficacy
Refers to a person’s confidence in their ability
to successfully perform a behavior. Self-
efficacy is influenced by a person’s specific
capabilities, individual and environmental
factors.
Expectations The expected consequences of a person’s
behavior that are derived primarily from
previous experiences

Note. Nickerson, C. (2022). Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn from the Behavior of
Others. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/social-cognitive-theory.html

113

Discussion of Findings for Research Question 1
This section will explore the four categories identified in the analysis linked to
RQ 1 through the lens of the five features of SCT and additional supporting literature. Although
the participants had distinctive stories in sharing their ordeals with toxic leaders, they all shared
similar feelings following the events. I grouped the common feelings shared among the
participants into themes, which assisted in developing the four categories. The categories help
depict the effects from the participants interactions with the toxic leaders. Toxic leaders create
environments where individuals are less likely to exceed work standards, treat others with
compassion, or share ideas (Barling, 2014). The discussion of the lived experiences of the
participants within the hierarchy of the toxic leader revealed organizational gaps, which led to
counterproductive environments and cultures that are not conducive to diversity, equity, and
inclusion efforts. Utilizing the features of the Social Cognitive Theory nested with literature
addressed in Chapter Two, I will address each category that emerged from the interviews in
Chapter Four. The below figure displays the linkage between the features of the Social Cognitive
Theory and the emerging themes identified throughout the study.

114

Figure 10
Social Cognitive Theory Features

Note. 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

Category One: Personal Transformation
A consistent theme throughout all interviews were the changes that the toxic leader had
on the participants. Ninety-five percent of the participants stated that the toxic leader changed
their views, motivations, and belief in the Army ultimately changing their actions within the
organizations. Through discussion with the participants three themes emerged. The three themes
as discussed in Chapter four are: traumatic experiences, ability to trust, and halted opportunities
for promotion. The most consistent theme across all participants was the traumatic experiences
115

that they faced at the hands of the toxic leader. The findings demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the value of diversity by the leaders within the organizations in which the
participants served.
The study participants often used the word “trauma” to recount their interactions with the
leader who they perceived as toxic. Carter (2007) stated that discrimination-related experiences
may lead to constant vigilance or even paranoia, which over time may result in trauma or
contribute to PTSD. Additionally, Clark (2014) stated that organizations born of toxicity
eventually lead to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and a higher percentage of Black persons
who suffer from post-traumatic stress. The interviews led to substantial amounts of anger or
sadness to include weeping from participants, which is indicative of the stress that challenged
them. Additionally, all of the female participants discussed instances of sexual assault and sexual
harassment present in their environments, either at the hands of or apparently condoned by their
leaders.
All participants discussed that their trust eroded in the Army and future leaders due to
their experience with toxicity. Toxic leadership in the workplace has been associated with soldier
attrition, increased medical costs due to workplace stress, absenteeism, suicide, and decreased
performance (Williams, 2019). When toxic leadership exists in an organization, it spreads,
destroys morale, erodes trust and respect, and diminishes employee drive to accomplish the
mission (Aubrey, 2012). Trust enables a leader to influence subordinates (ADP 6-22, 2019).
Perceived discrimination influences cultural mistrust, which affects trust in leaders and has both
a significant, inverse direct effect on employees’ perceptions of an organization’s culture, their
opportunities, and their coworkers’ intentions (Jamal & Tschida, 2021). Toxic leaders as
described by ADP 6-22 (2019) do not promote a culture and climate of trust; however, they
116

cultivate a cultural climate rich in suspicion, doubt, and distrust. The previous sentiment served
as a reoccurring participant discussion throughout the study.
Last, 56% of participants shared that their toxic leader halted opportunities for promotion.
Frequently the participants mentioned that the leaders cultivated the careers of the officers who
they shared similar backgrounds and interests with. Brigadier General (Retired) Remo Butler
(1996) attributed the good old boy network under the umbrella of affinity bias within the military
as a force that excludes Black officers from higher levels of leadership in the Army. Leaders that
unknowingly struggle with affinity bias gravitate to people who are like themselves (Hart &
Adams, 2014). This bias sees leaders provide opportunities to specific persons because of their
similarities. Sixty-seven percent of the participants in the study believed that bias played a role in
the lack of mentorship from their leaders. Affinity biases often make the person on the opposite
end of the advantage feel disadvantaged because leaders tend to extend a greater trust, positive
regard, cooperation, and empathy to ingroup members as opposed to outgroup members (Bekar,
2021). There are four features of the Social Cognitive Theory that are aligned with the beliefs of
the participants regarding their personal transformation under the toxic leader. Table 7 discusses
the Social Cognitive Theory features addressed in Category One.

117

Table 7
Category One: SCT Features Addressed in This Study
Feature Description
Reciprocal Determinism The learned experience of the participants due
to adverse actions of the toxic leaders
impacted participant beliefs that they can
achieve set goals in the Army.
Behavioral Capability 56% of participants identified that the toxic
leader halted their career growth due to a
lack of mentorship based on affinity biases.
Through behavioral capability a person must
know how and what to do to carry out a
behavior. Because the leaders elected not to
mentor and develop the participants, they
faced a learning curve and failed to meet
the job requirements established by the
leader.
Reinforcements 100% of participants stated that they suffered
trauma based on the actions of the toxic
leader. The toxic leaders negatively
reinforced the actions of the participants
which stifled innovation and initiative.
Expectations The participants' trust in the Army and future
leaders eroded due to the toxic leader’s
actions. The expected outcome of their
actions was based on their interactions with
the toxic leaders. The adverse interactions
impacted the successful completion of
tasks.

Note. The categories of the features are taken from: 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

118

Category Two: Impact on Health
Throughout the study, all 16 participants identified that their interactions with toxic
leaders negatively impacted their mental and physical health. Toxic behaviors in the workplace
harm the organization by eroding employees' physical and mental health and negatively affect
organization heterogeneity (Kurtulmuş, 2020). Chae et al. (2011) identified in their study that
discrimination in any form removes the blanket of safety that protects employees' physical and
mental health. The findings of this study identified that toxic leaders are a significant cause of
soldier stress and negatively affect their subordinates' psychological and physical health, which
aligns with the research of Anderson (2019). Toxic leadership conditions can lead to medical
non-readiness, early discharge, suicidal behavior, and high medical cost (U.S. Army Health
Center, 2019). The participants discussed the long term mental and physical effects of toxic
leadership and the medical support required for them to live day to day following their time
served under the toxic leader.
Participants identified that they struggled with lower rates of job satisfaction that
impacted their personal lives. Toxic leadership harms the organization and its followers by
adversely influencing organizational learning, innovation, and job satisfaction (Rousseau &
Aube, 2018). The lower rates of job satisfaction impacted their desire to serve under the leader
and in the Army. To begin, the participants identified that toxic leadership had an adverse impact
on their physical health. Toxic leaders are a significant cause of soldier stress and negatively
affect their subordinates' psychological and physical health (Anderson, 2019).
Nine of the participants suffered effects from toxicity in which they received medical
coverage. The nine participants recounted recurring medical issues that developed after their
119

interaction with their toxic leader. The fear of reprisal from the leader prevented the participants
from seeking the help that they needed to immediately address their injuries.
Next, the participants discussed the impacts of toxic leadership on their mental health.
Studies conducted in the U.S. among Black people found positive associations between
discrimination and poor mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and global
psychological distress (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Broman et al., 2000; Jackson et
al., 1996; Klonoff et al., 1999). The mental health impacts of toxic leadership on the participants
had long lasting effects and remained with the participants years after the incident. Additionally,
the interactions with the leader affected how participants viewed and interacted with future
leaders, spouses, friends and coworkers inside and outside of the Army. In summary, all
participants described the long lasting mental and physical effects due to the behaviors of the
toxic leader. Table 8 addresses the participants’ views aligned with the Social Cognitive Theory
features.

120

Table 8
Category Two: SCT Features Addressed
Feature Description
Reinforcements 60% of participants stated that leaders
criticized and questioned the integrity of the
request when they addressed the need for
medical support. Negative reinforcers
decrease the likelihood of the behavior
being repeated. Because of the negative
reinforcers participants failed to request
medical support for their ailments which led
to complex medical issues.
Expectations 80% of participants stated that they did not
seek medical help because of their previous
encounter with the toxic leader. The
participants anticipated the consequences of
their actions therefore they did not request
the time to receive medical support causing
compounding issues.

Note. The categories of the features are taken from: 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

Category Three: Stereotypes
Participants identified that stereotypes from their toxic leader impacted their view of self
and their future career path in the Army. Toxic leaders are often in the forefront of
discriminatory practices (Burns, 2017). The toxic leader’s stereotypes based on inferences about
a group’s social role leads to negative attitudes about the people in which they are charged to
lead (Dzurec & Albataineh, 2014). Negative stereotypes had harmful consequences for the
participants. The stereotypes influenced how the leader and the organization treated the
121

participants and, in some cases, elicited particular behaviors from the participants consistent with
the stereotypes. The negative stereotypes had serious consequences on the way that the leader
treated the participants. Two themes came from the study that directly impacted the participants.
The two themes that emerged from the study is that participants were often identified as
aggressive and faced overt sexual harassment and assault within the workplace (overtly sexual).
The anxiety caused by racism prompts the targeted population to rehearse defensive and
aggressive responses to cope and adapt to the racism within their organization (Harrell et al.,
2003). There were three participants whom I assessed to be large in stature who mentioned that
they faced the aggressive stereotype often. The Mandingo stereotype characterizes Black men as
brutes, innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal deserving punishment (Pilgrim,
2012). However, Livingston and Pearce (2009) postulated that Black leaders who possess
disarming mechanisms, including physical, psychological, or behavioral traits, are more prone to
elevate in leadership positions. To combat the aggressive stereotype, the participants reported
making attempts to appear small to not intimidate their leader. The defensive mechanism that the
male participants utilized has been described by Bogle (1973) as a residual effect from the fear
that slave owners carried from the emancipation of their slaves. They feared that physically
powerful Black men would exact revenge against the slave owners because of the hardships of
slavery. Surprisingly, the participants reported that they continued to utilize the defense
mechanism of making themselves small when interacting with future leaders even outside of the
Army.
The intersectionality between female and male participants came to light throughout this
category. Stereotypes play a considerable role in the racialized nature of sexual violence and
harassment inflicted upon Black women in the military (Dobbs et al., 2008). One stereotype that
122

impacted five of the eight female participants and not their male counterparts is that leaders often
treated them as overtly sexual. Five participants shared a reluctance to trust male leaders
following their interaction with the toxic leader, which three participants reported that their
negative interactions with the leader continues to impact their ability to trust in the current day.
In summary, the toxic leaders have an extended influence on the way that participants view the
Army, leaders outside of the Army, and themselves. Table 9 addresses the SCT features
associated with the stereotypes that the Black female participants experienced under their
leadership.

123

Table 9
Category Three: SCT Features Addressed
Feature Description
Expectations The participants faced stereotypes that had
undesirable effects on them in the
workplace. Four participants reported that
they became so angry with the stereotypes
they internalized them causing a decline in
work performance. Additionally, the threat
to their social identity hindered their
potential for success. Due to the
participants’ previous experience with their
toxic leader and the stereotypes that they
faced some were not motivated to continue
service in the Army because they believed
that they were disadvantaged.
Self-Efficacy The self-efficacy of the study participants was
affected by leadership stereotypes. The
participant that faced stereotypes eventually
lost the desire to apply effort to tasks
assigned. Those officers that did not face
stereotypes from their leaders had high self-
efficacy and were more resilient in the face
of setbacks. Those that faced stereotypes
had low self-efficacy and were quick to
disengage from situations.

Note. 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

Category Four: View of Self
The last category that emerged from the interviews was the impact that toxic leaders had
on the confidence and efficacy of the participants. In toxic organizations, low self-efficacy and
124

self-esteem are common character traits in both the leader and the follower (Padilla et al., 2007).
Although the interactions with the toxic leaders varied by participant, each identified a
degradation in efficacy, and in even worse situations confidence, due to interactions with the
leader. As discussed in Chapter Two, Bandura (1977) described self-efficacy as people’s beliefs
in their capabilities to exercise control over events impacting their lives. The participants
discussed a lack of self-efficacy which affected their belief in their ability to accomplish a task
provided by the leader. The belief in your ability to perform a task influence how resilient a
person is when challenges arise. All sixteen participants indicated that they lost the motivation to
perform at work due to the toxicity from the leaders in the form of favoritism, bullying, and
stereotypes. Additionally, according to ten participants both male and female, the leaders caused
the participants to have low self-efficacy by not mentoring them, or clearly defining goals. Due
to the lack of motivation to succeed in the position and the desire to depart the organization
based on the actions of the leader, four of the participants struggled with the accomplishment of
tasks. The failure to perform the tasks assigned by the leader often reinforces the internal beliefs
that the leaders possessed about the participants (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Four of the participants
believed that the internal beliefs that the leaders had about them based on demographics created
a cycle of poor performance by the Black officers within the organization.
The degradation of the participants' self-efficacy due to the leader’s toxic actions
eventually impacted some of the participants' self-confidence. Twenty percent of the participants
in this study identified they struggled with self-confidence following their interactions with the
leader. The participants whose leaders impacted their self-esteem had a low regard for their self-
worth. The low regard for self-worth impacted not only their career within the Army but it
impacted personal relationships with others. Seventy percent of the participants mentioned that
125

they lacked motivation and optimism regarding their lives and through behavioral health efforts
began to regain their confidence. Table 10 addresses the SCT features associated with confidence
based on participant feedback.

126

Table 10
Category Four: SCT Features Addressed
Feature Description
Reciprocal Determinism The participants’ performance at work was
influenced by the actions of their leaders.
The environment cultivated by the leader
influenced the thinking of the participants
and their subsequent behavior impacted
their environment in the workplace.
Behavioral Capabilities Due to the lack of mentorship and the actions
from the toxic leaders towards the
participants their behavior skills e.g.,
technical know-how, teamwork, and
leadership skills were adversely impacted
ultimately impacting the organizational
culture.
Reinforcements Negative reinforcements from the toxic leader
perpetuated the belief that the participants
did not possess the skills to perform the
tasks required for performance growth.
Expectations Because the participants’ self-confidence and
self-efficacy were impacted by the leader
the participants were not motivated to
achieve higher positions because they
believed that they could accomplish the
tasks necessary for the positions.
Note. 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

The study identified four categories that addressed the impacts of toxic leadership on
Black officers. The sections above provided a summary of the participants’ experiences under
the toxic leader nested with literature and the features of the Social Cognitive Theory. The
interviews in which the participants shared their experiences under the toxic leaders provides a
127

lens into what some Black officers encountered while on active duty. The findings are consistent
with the negative leader attributes noted in Chapter Two of this study. The next section addresses
the research questions that were identified throughout the study and the summary of findings.
Research question one asked: “In what ways does toxic leadership impact Black Army
officers?” The findings of this research study highlighted four emerging categories that impacted
Black officers. The environment that the leaders of these Black officers created influenced
participants’ thinking and ultimately impacted their performance. Toxic leaders impacted the
officers in a myriad of ways, but the categories that emerged were the adverse mental and
physical changes and the negative view of self that the participants experienced under the leader.
Stereotypes perpetuated from slavery negatively impact the lens that Black people are viewed in
the U.S (Livingston & Pearce, 2009). Individuals who capitalize on disarming mechanisms due
to stereotypes suffer from lower confidence due to their constant efforts to gain respect from
their peers and supervisor (Livingston & Pearce, 2009). The behavior of the participants was
influenced by the cognitive processes and environmental factors created by the toxic leaders and
the followers that supported them. The leader’s negative reinforcement played a huge role in the
behaviors of the participants. The negative reinforcement conditioned the participants’ thoughts
regarding their ability to perform well in the workplace and impacted their futures in the military.
Based on the interviews of the participants the leaders created a vicious cycle of verbal bullying,
which impacted their view of self, ultimately impacting their work performance. Because of their
experiences under the toxic leader the participants lost their desire to work in the organization
and serve in the Army. Additionally, the negative reinforcements of the toxic leader led to long
lasting mental and physical impacts to the participants of the study. Newman (2021) identified
that in fear-based environments, the adrenaline that is produced causes persons to breathe hard
128

and fast. The physical changes in the body impacts digestion, hormone regulation, and sleep. The
next section will address research question two, the impact of toxic leadership on Black female
officers in the Army.
Recommendations for Practice
Researchers have identified best practices to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion
efforts in the workplace. However, there is limited research on changing the culture of Army
organizations once toxic leadership is identified and adjudicating adverse actions of the leader
once it destructively impacts the officer. There is some research regarding why Black officers
fail and high attrition rates among Black officers; however, there is no research to discuss the
remedies of the toxic leaders impacts. The Army has made great efforts in identifying toxicity
within its formations, however, there is little research regarding solutions for the residual effects
of toxicity.
This study identified the impacts of toxic leadership according to the participants, but due
to a lack of specific data in the Department of Defense regarding toxic leadership impacts on
Black officers, to the recommendations often leverage studies targeted towards civilian
organizations. These recommendations are centered around training Army officers on the value
of diversity equity and inclusion efforts, creating mentorship programs that fosters workplace
belonging, and establishing clear diversity goals and devoting resources tied to eradicating toxic
leadership in the Army. If the Army wants to eliminate attrition, and achieve a larger pool of
diverse candidates, the organization must maintain practices that promote representation
throughout the leadership pipeline. Following the recommendations there is a subsequent section
that discusses a proposed implementation plan.
129

Recommendation 1: Cultivate Organizational Culture Focused on Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion Efforts
This study found that all 18 participants believed that their leaders did not value diversity,
equity, and inclusion within their organizations. Organizations that value diversity, equity, and
inclusion understand their value and how it applies to their organizations (CTI, 2020a; Herring,
2009; McKinsey & Company, 2019). Diversity in the workplace drives innovation and financial
performance (McKinsey & Company, 2019). Army organizations need to promote a culture that
understands that diversity, equity, and inclusion drive innovation, aids in the retention of diverse
talent, and increases financial performance (Kalev & Dobbin, 2019). Kovvali (2018) found that
the more similar the partners within the organization, the lower the performance. Additionally,
Kovvali (2018) found that homogenous teams have worse performance outcomes due to
differences in decision quality that helps shape strategy. The recommendation is focused on
cultivating an organizational culture that values diversity and inculcates the members of the
organization into a clear mission and vision regarding diversity expectations.
Army organizations can begin by addressing the psychological needs of their racialized
and marginalized employees by providing them the space to speak their minds to address these
needs (Rosenbaum, 2019). Black officers should not face consequences for providing
recommendations for change or recommendations for organizational procedures. Army
organizations must encourage open conversations in which employees can learn about the
positionality of the members within the organization and solicit feedback from employees
regarding the conversations. Some ways an organization can solicit feedback includes surveys,
360-performance reviews for leaders, and establishing a remediation process for reported leaders
(Hinshaw, 2020). Receiving and valuing feedback demonstrates that the organization values the
130

opinion of their employees which leads to fundamental systemic changes. When employees feel
as if they are heard, they feel safe to express their thoughts and opinions (Kalev & Dobbin,
2019).
Maslow (1987), as discussed in Chapter 2, categorized human needs into five levels:
physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Individuals must have
their basic needs (physiological and safety) met before they attempt to pursue their higher needs
(Maslow, 1987). The impacts of workplace discrimination on an individual’s basic needs affects
the officer’s social and emotional needs, diminishing their self-worth (Randall, 2010). Black
officers face unique challenges in the Army that differ from their White counterparts. Racism
and discrimination via microaggressions may lead to constant vigilance or even paranoia, which
over time may result in trauma or contribute to PTSD when a more stressful event occurs later
(Carter, 2007).
Although the Army has explicitly stated its expectations of leaders and the importance of
diversity, equity, and inclusion through regulations, (Army Regulation 600-100) it must find
ways to tackle the implicit bias that permeates throughout its formation. Training programs
should target the entire population and address multiple issues that minoritized populations face,
including implicit bias and microaggressions (Kalev & Dobbin, 2019). The Army must invest in
its training programs and employ qualified instructors that can speak to the diverse challenges
facing the Army, address the issues in totality, and have the ability to communicate the issues.
Effective instructors provide advice based on empirical data and not personal emotions
(Akpapuna et al., 2020). The cultural shift focused on DEI efforts prepares the organization for
the implementation of the second recommendation which is to create cross cultural mentorship
programs.
131

Recommendation 2: Develop a Workplace Mentorship Program focused on Cross Gender
and Cultural Mentorship
The participants in the study expressed the need for belonging and the feeling of
isolation, and all 16 participants recommended the need for a mentorship program within the
organizations that the officers serve. Thomas (2001) identified that Whites and minority
executives do not progress in their career the same way. Research suggests that Black officers
face greater difficulties forming peer and mentor relationships (Lim et al., 2009). Colonel
Florentino Lopez Carter (2008) stated that mentorship is a fundamental component to leader
development, and leaders have a responsibility to develop future leaders. The organizations
within the Army need to be deliberate when developing mentorship programs for Black officers
(Beeson &Valerio, 2012; Korn Ferry, 2019). Organizations must allocate resources to develop a
diverse talent pipeline (Clark & Estes, 2008) The mentor is not only the coach, advocate, and
counselor of the Black officer, the mentor must understand the challenges that the officer faces
and assist them with navigating through the challenges (Thomas, 2001).
Cross-race, as well as cross-gender mentorship, can have difficulty forming; however,
mentorship across race is imperative (Thomas, 2001). The participants in this study
recommended that the Army create mentorship programs focused on mentorship and training
development programs. The mentorship of Black officers in the Army is important for many
reasons, including:
• Removing systemic barriers from senior leader positions
• Biases can create invisible barriers for Black officers to excel in their career field.
Mentors can assist in the destruction of the barriers by offering assistance, sharing
their personal experiences, and providing feedback on how to navigate throughout
132

the workspace (Smith, 2010). Mentors must be willing to invest in their mentees
because they expect them to succeed (Thomas, 2001).
• Cultivating networks for mentees
• The networks that the mentors expose Black employees to increase their chances
of personal and professional growth. The exposure to the networks creates
opportunities to build genuine, personal long-term relationships with both Whites
and Black executives (Thomas, 2001).
• Growing the next generation of Black leaders in the U.S. Army
• Mentoring provides Black officers the necessary skills and tools to become
powerful leaders in the Army (Smith, 2010). Mentors support the development of
young Black officers and aid in narrowing the gap to ensure that there is diversity
amongst our senior leader ranks (Butler, 1996).
• Placing Black officers in senior leader positions increases representation and
fosters creativity and innovation (Anchor, 2012). When Black officers see
successful people who look like them in positions of senior leadership it inspires
them to pursue their own goals (Smith, 2010).
• Addressing inequalities in the Army
• Mentoring aids in addressing the inequalities that Black officers face in and
outside of the Army by providing opportunities for personal and professional
development (Army People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex).
As mentioned by the participants, the Army needs to develop a mentorship program that aids in
dismantling the systemic barriers that some Black officers face in the Army. The mentorship
program must promote diversity, inclusion, and foster new generations of leaders.
133

Recommendation 3: Set Clear and Actionable DEI Goals to Eradicate Toxic Leadership
Within the Army Ranks
Twelve of the sixteen participants stated a need for clear DEI goals for leaders to action
within their organizations. Successful organizations must provide clarity regarding the future
state of their organization (Schneider et al., 1996). Army organizations must set expectations of
their employees and identify the goals oriented around the organization’s diversity and inclusion
outcomes (Schneider et al., 1996). Organizations that identify strong measurable goals and have
checks and balances are strong organizations (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). Communicating
the diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of the organization with employees allows them to feel
a sense of inclusivity in which they feel as if they are valued members of the organization
(Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). Additionally, the programs should include timelines, methods to
track progress, and mechanisms to hold leaders accountable for the success or failure of the
training program (Clark & Estes, 2008). Identifying clear goals provides an organization and its
stakeholders with a metric for assessing success (Blackwell, 2019).
Participants suggested that the Army provide strategic, tactical and operational goals to
address DEI issues. Strategic goals are set by the Army through policy and procedure (Army
People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex). Strategic goals provide the framework for the overarching
goal (Army People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex). Tactical goals are set by mid-level managers to
focus on actions necessary to achieve the goals (Wong, 2019). Tactical goals are short range
goals that breaks down the strategic goals into actionable plans (Blackwell, 2019). Operational
goals chart out the roadmap to accomplish the goals (Blackwell, 2019). The participants
recommended that Army mid-level organizations set tactical goals tied to strategic goals. Last,
organizations must be learning organizations open to different thoughts and ideas (Senge, 1990).
134

Identifying clear diversity goals for senior leadership, having candid conversations with the
members to discuss positionality and bias, and understanding the importance of diversity aids
Army organizations to change the thought process of the normalcy of homogeneity within the
senior leader rank (Army People Strategy, 2020, DEI Annex). As Givens (2022) observed,
“Representation matters, you’ve got to have representation to show everybody that they have
access to opportunity” (p. 146).
Recommended Implementation and Evaluation
The Army can implement the recommendations of this study in support of the cultural
transformation required in response to the social injustices in the world that bleed into our
formations (Givens, 2022). Implementing a program to eradicate toxicity within the Army
requires a shared approach to ensure its effectiveness and success. Tornatzky and Johnson (1982)
define implementation as “the translation of any tool or technique, process, or method of doing,
from knowledge to practice” (p. 193). To implement the change, organizations need to convince
stakeholders to alter practices, processes, procedures, work arrangements, and personal beliefs
(Lewis, 2018). Implementing change is a complex process requiring careful planning,
communication, buy-in from the stakeholders, and a willingness to adjust along the way (Lewis,
2018). The previous paragraphs discussed three recommendations to eradicate toxic leadership in
the Army and aid in the support of Black officers within the organization. The three
recommendations include: cultivating an organizational culture focused on diversity, equity and
inclusion efforts, developing a workplace mentorship program focused on cross gender and
cultural mentorship, and setting clear and actionable DEI goals to eradicate toxic leadership
within Army ranks. The implementation plan requires a thoughtful approach to ensure its
effectiveness and long-term success. Figure 11 identifies five steps nested with the study
135

recommendations to implement the change that the Army needs to eradicate toxic leadership and
provide Black officers with the assistance that they need to communicate issues, grow, and
develop in the Army.

Figure 11
Implementation Steps

Note. The steps of this table are in sequential order.

136

Step One: Set Clear Objectives.
The first step to implementing the three recommendations are for the Army to establish
clear objectives. Setting clear objectives are essential for effective goal achievement to
implement the plan to eradicate toxic leadership and provide the assistance that Black officers
need in the U.S. Army. Goals are broad statements that focus on the desired results and do not
describe the methods to get to the desired outcome (Birt, 2022). However, objectives feed into
goals, they are specific, actionable targets that are achieved in a shorter time frame (Brit, 2022).
The Army must first complete an assessment of the culture of the organization and use the
information to define the desired goals (Givens, 2022). The Army must clearly define goals and
objectives required to achieve the implementation plan. The goals must be aligned with the
overall mission and the vision of the organization (Lewis, 2018). Having CLEAR goals is
essential for Army organizations (Lewis, 2018). Setting goals helps guide and align the focus and
foster new behaviors within organizations (Riopel, 2019). The participants shared thoughts about
the changes in Army demographics and the need for updates in policy and procedures through
clearly defined goals. Communicating the clearly defined goal creates a shared understanding
across the formation. Many of the participants attempted to identify and communicate goals
during their tenure in the Army, but they were often unheard.
Step Two: Create Guidelines and Policies.
Once the Army establishes its goals aligned with the eradication of toxic leadership,
guidelines and policies must be defined. The guidelines and policies identify the roles and
responsibilities and expectations of the employees (Symonds, 2022). Additionally, the roles and
responsibilities outline the guidelines for the interactions that the employees have, such as the
frequency of meetings and methods to ensure a positive work environment through conflict
137

resolution (Symonds, 2022). Guidelines provide an overview of how to perform a task (Bahadur,
2014). Guidelines are recommended but not mandatory (Bahadur, 2014). However, procedures
are a series of detailed steps to accomplish an end with step-by-step instructions for
implementation (Bahadur, 2014). Once the organization develops guidelines and procedures for
implementing the plan, the Army must develop ways to communicate the guidelines and
policies.
Communication is important and shapes the understanding its members have of the plan
(Lewis, 2018). Communication practices are a prominent part of change and often used to reduce
uncertainty with the plan (Bordia et al., 2004). Effective communication allows for a smooth
transition of the plan and eases negative emotions that may arise by building trust, providing
clear direction, and creating a shared understanding (Lewis, 2018). The Army, in addition to
providing regulations and annexes in support of the eradication of toxic leadership, must also
develop a communication plan. Figure 12 identifies the required steps to effectively
communicate the plan.

138

Figure 12
Example Communication Plan

Note. The steps of this table are in sequential order.

The communication plan is one of the most important documents and develops a roadmap to
how goals are accomplished (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004). The Army
created DEI goals through the DEI annex; however, the Army must communicate the goals to
organizations to create awareness. The DEI annex must be aligned to the mission and vision of
each organization in the Army to demonstrate the importance of DEI. The Army must leverage
and integrate the principles of DEI into all aspects of operations from the tactical, operational,
and strategic levels (Army People Strategy, DEI Annex, 2020). It is essential for the Army to
communicate why DEI is vital to mission readiness within formations and to ensure that the plan
is communicated to both the leaders and the followers and identify participants to lead the effort.

139

Step Three: Identify Participants.
Stakeholders are a vital part of an organization as they have an impact on the success or
failure of its operations. Stakeholders can influence success and build relationships with the team
(Edwards, 2015). When organizations attempt to force change without seeking input from
stakeholders, they rarely remain faithful to the principle of change implementation (Lewis 2006;
Lines 2007; Russ 2008, 2009). Giving stakeholders a seat at the table is not enough to empower
them to communicate (Kuhn, 2008) however, creating a parallel structure that runs alongside a
formal bureaucracy encourages healthy input and participation (Neumann, 1989). The change
agents selected occupy a crucial place within the Army. The change agents are not only
responsible for fostering a positive and inclusive culture within their organizations, but they are
also responsible for promoting diversity by assisting in the growth and retention of diverse talent
within the organization through a series of mentorship programs.
The Army must survey its population and identify stakeholders to be involved in setting
clear objectives and aiding in the mentorship and development of minoritized populations.
Mentorship programs within organizations connect underrepresented employees with
leaders who can provide them with a safe space for discussion and new opportunities.
Participants mentioned throughout the study that they felt isolated and did not receive the
mentorship that their counterparts received. All participants recommended a need for a
mentorship program throughout the Army that focused on cross-cultural communication to
reduce the achievement gap between underrepresented officers and their counterparts by
providing an opportunity for growth and inclusion. However, some participants believed that the
Army needed to take deliberate actions to prepare Black officers at the junior levels for
140

leadership within the Army through stressing the importance of cross culture mentorship early
and soliciting feedback from stakeholders.
Asking for opinions and feedback from stakeholders lowers the resistance to change,
increases satisfaction of participants, and reduces uncertainty about change (cf. Bordia et al.,
2004a; Sagie and Koslowsky 1994; Sagie et al., 2001). It is imperative that the Army selects the
right team to implement the goals and serve as mentors as stated in implementation steps one,
two, and three. The Army needs to take the time and measure leaders at all levels based on
Intelligence Quotient (IQ), which measures intellectual ability, Emotional Quotient (EQ), which
measures one ability to self-regulate based on personal and social awareness and maturity, and
eXecution Quotient (XQ), which measures one’s ability to execute and perform effectively
(Edwards, 2015). Once the Army identifies leaders who possess IQ, EQ, and XQ, the
organization then can create teams at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels that have
different points and views and assist leaders in fostering cultures that fosters respect, kindness,
and diversity. The Army must build a diverse workforce. Having a diverse and inclusive talent
pipeline aids in the innovation and growth of a company (McKinsey & Company, 2019).
Step Four: Provide Training.
For the Army to build a pipeline of talented and diverse individuals, it must invest in the
training necessary to ensure that subordinate organizations within it have the tools to become
more effective in the workplace. These tools assist the employees in identifying and combating
toxicity and raise awareness of the issues and challenges faced by different demographics, such
as racism, bias, and discrimination (Caprino, 2023). Stakeholders should be involved in the
design of the training, and organizations and a pilot program can be leveraged to address any
issues before implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This approach is imperative for
141

both DEI and leadership training. Within the training is the need for mentorship training. Study
participants recommended that the DEI training should incorporate mentor and mentee in
addition to leader and follower training on how to use their relationships effectively and cultivate
an appreciation of diversity.
As stated earlier, training is vital to creating awareness in leaders and followers. Table 11
provides a sample outline for leader development training.

142

Table 11
Sample Outline for Leader Development Training
Topic Training
Leader/ Follower/ Both
Discuss the objectives, guidelines and
policiesof the organization and ensure that
it is widely understood throughout the
organization (Lewis, 2018)

Both
Identify what constitutes toxic behaviors in
the organization including bias,
microaggressions, affinity bias, and reprisal
(Hinshaw, 2020)

Leader
Engage in 360 self-assessments by leaders
and followers to assess bias and potential
toxic behaviors (Harris, 2009)

Both
Discuss the impacts of toxic leadership on the
organization specifically regarding the area
of readiness (Army People Strategy, 2020)

Leader

Develop leadership skills in communication,
conflict resolution, emotional intelligence,
and empathy to promote a culture of
psychological safety (Degruy, 2005)

Leader
How to hold leaders accountable who engage
in toxic behaviors, and take appropriate
actions such as coaching, counseling, and
disciplinary actions (Mckinsey &
Company, 2019)
Follower

Note. This table represents an example plan that the Army can use to guide training.

Training is important for the development of employees and to ensure that they understand the
organizational goals and the implementation plan. Training employees on the value of diversity
143

and the tools they need to facilitate conversation (Givens, 2022) assists organizations to identify
and eradicate toxic behavior ultimately fostering a culture of inclusion.
Step Five: Provide Feedback Mechanisms.
The final step in the implementation plan is to provide a feedback mechanism to identify
the success of the program. Pshychological safety as discussed in the previous chapters is at the
root of creating a feedback culture (Corbett, 2022). A strong feedback environment helps to
improve and develop the organization (Belyh, 2022). To achieve this an organization must create
an environment in which everyone knows one another (Belyh, 2022). Feedback is essential for
the implementation of the plan to eradicate toxic leadership in the Army. Feedback is vital for
assessing the effectiveness of the program and ensuring that the plan meets the needs of the
servicemembers (Corbett, 2022). Feeback within the program must be normalized within the
culture and not time-consuming. Normality equals transparency (Belyh, 2022). The organization
must promote both positive and negative feedback to show that all feedback is appreciated
(Belyh, 2022). Within the feedback culture there has to be strong accountability of the leadership
within the organization (Belyh, 2022).
Accountability is a critical component of implementing any plan and is vital within the
umbrella of feedback to drive change within an organization. It requires that leaders, mid-level
managers, and soldiers within the Army hold themselves accountable for achieving goals
collectively as a team (Hinshaw, 2020). Accountability is essential for successful organizational
change as it helps clarify goals, provides a roadmap for progress, and ensures all departments
and stakeholders are compliant with the strategy (Dobak, 2022). Organizational accountability
should not be associated with punishment or reprisal and should be tied to positive
reinforcement, such as peer and leader accountability (Dobak, 2022). If leaders act in a way that
144

opposes the plan, the leader must be held accountable, and followers need to feel comfortable
reporting the leader’s counterproductive behaviors. Figure 13 provides an example model on
gaining accountability within the workplace.

Figure 13
Example Model of Organizational Accountability

Note. Hinshaw, S. (2020). The Long-Term Influences of Toxic Leaders on Their Followers: A
Qualitative Descriptive Study. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Steele, 2011. Copyright 2020

145

The recommendations highlight the methods in which the Army can eradicate toxic
leadership within its ranks. The participants provided several ideas that supported the
recommendations and implementation plan within this study. The Social Cognitive Theory
emphasizes how individuals learn through modeling and imitating the behavior of others
therefore if leaders promote positive behaviors within the organization others will emulate. Black
officers play a vital role in their career advancement however, they cannot do it alone (Givens,
2022). The Army also plays an important role in ensuring that they set goals to eradicate toxic
leadership are achieved. Black officers need equitable access to mentors and a place where it
offers them psychological safety. Black officers reading this study are encouraged to read
Chapters Two and Four to understand the journey of other Black officers and if they are in a
place of isolation and are going through microaggressions, bias, or racism that they are not alone.
The participants of this study want Black officers to have every opportunity to facilitate
successful career progression.
Limitations and Delimitations
I faced limitations throughout this dissertation in practice study. The limitations of a
study are those characteristics of design or methodology that impact or influence the application
or interpretation of the study results (Brutus, 2013). Potential limitations of the study include the
limited research on the correlation between toxic leadership and diversity, equity, and inclusion
not only in the Army but in the civilian workplace as well. Although there are numerous studies
regarding toxic leadership, few studies have investigated the impact of toxic leadership on the
Black population. Therefore, I utilized an exploratory research design to identify the potential
need for further research. Leadership spans disciplines, and employees may have different
expectations of leadership. Therefore, the differing opinions of the leadership could further be a
146

limitation of the study. Lastly, it is essential to note that my own personal biases may have
affected this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, I previously reported to a toxic
leader in a prior work environment, which fuels my interest in the topic. I am aware of the bias
and took measures to mitigate personal biases, discussed in the Credibility section of the study.
Delimitations refer to the research study's boundaries based on the researcher's decision
to include or exclude (Bryant, 2004). This study did not seek to understand toxic leaders'
influences on every Black officer who has faced toxic leaders. However, the study examined the
impact that toxic leaders have on a representative sample of Black officers. This study's results
may not apply to individuals who have worked for toxic leaders that possess different
characteristics of toxicity, e.g., narcissistic, bullying, or incompetent. Given the time allowed for
this study, I interviewed a small sample size of 16 Black officers. This sample size did not allow
me to generalize the findings (Brutus et al., 2013). The dissertation process only allocates two
years for study design, data collection, and analysis, creating increased delimitation.
Additionally, the study's interview period only consisted of a three-month timeframe, which
ensured I maintained the mandated timelines proposed by the doctoral program.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research was beneficial because there is limited research that discusses the impacts
on Black officers following their interactions with toxic leaders. However, there were multiple
topics that emerged from the interviews and the research provided within this study. Although
there were many developing topics, they all fell under the umbrella of the fruit that grows from
the toxic tree. Toxic leaders require people to follow them (Padilla et al., 2007). The toxic leader
drives the culture and climate of an organization; often, they bear fruit from their tree that can
take the form of followers and other opportunities for subordinates to excel or fail such as
147

performance evaluations. Some participants mentioned that there were followers who emulated
the style of their leader, which was harmful to the organization. Additionally, the participants
mentioned that the followers failed to acknowledge the impact of the leader’s actions and
continued the toxic actions. The findings suggest the need for the Army to study the followers or
branches of the toxic tree to determine if any of the leaders emulating toxic behaviors in other
organizations as they progressed in the service.
Additionally, there needs to be more research regarding the administrative trail of toxic
leaders as they progressed through the ranks before the Army recognized their toxic behaviors.
Once the Army identifies that a leader is counterproductive, it is essential that the Army analyzes
all performance evaluations written by the toxic leader and identify any trends, such as bias.
Also, conducting additional research on the previous supervisors of the toxic leader and
determining if any of the earlier leaders succumbed to toxicity provides a lens to the Army of
how much fruit the tree of toxicity produced. Additionally, the research helps the Army
determine if the behavior of the toxic leader can be corrected because it may be learned behavior.
Conclusion
Positive cultures still need to be established. They are the outcome of the decisions made
about an organization's goals, mission, and vision (Winsborough & Parkin, 2021). Culture is also
reflective of the leadership of the organization and who the leadership values (Winsborough &
Parkin, 2021). Toxic leadership can severely affect individuals and organizations, leading to poor
morale and high attrition (Lipman-Blumen, 2005a, 2005b). Toxic leaders prioritize their interests
over those within the organization and cultivate a culture of fear (Padilla et al., 2007).
Unfortunately, there remain toxic leaders within the Army ranks, and during the data collection
for this study's research, multiple senior leaders were relieved in their position across the Army
148

due to toxic behaviors. The current understanding of toxic leadership discusses the immediate
impacts of the toxic leader on the organization (Hinshaw, 2020). However, there is limited
research to discuss toxic leadership's long-term effects, specifically the impacts on Black
officers.
Toxic leadership can manifest itself in a leader’s biased attitudes towards certain groups
within the organization based on their race, ethnicity, and cultural background. The study
explored the long-term impacts of toxic leadership on Black officers by listening to the lived
experiences of Black officers who faced toxicity while in service. Through the interviews of the
16 participants, there were four categories and nine subcategories that emerged which included:
(a) personal transformation, (b) impact on health, (c) stereotypes, and (d) view of self. The
interviews of the officers identified that toxic leaders practiced discriminatory behaviors, such as
unfair performance evaluations, limited opportunities for career development, and inequities and
a hostile work environment. The toxic leaders as described by the participants created a
workplace culture where race and gender discrimination were normalized, and the officers
impacted felt powerless to speak out against it (Lipman-Bluman, 2005). The covert and overt
discrimination enforced negative stereotypes and fueled tribalism leading to the isolation and
attrition of the impacted officer. Workforce population analysis should drive and shape the
organizational representation goals (Lichter, 2013; Schuck, 2008). The demographics of the
entry-level workforce should persist through its general officer ranks and reflect the populations
in which it serves (Givens, 2022). Organizations that want to drive innovation must have a
diverse group of representatives that is created through repairing the leaky pipeline (Cabrera,
2009).
149

Black officers will continue to wrestle with Black fatigue due to the intersectionality of
being a Black person living in a country where the ownership of their ancestors built the
economy and the daily reminder of slavery through the naming conventions of military
installations and the service to the nation they love. “There is no organization in America that is
not impacted by the institutional and systemic racism that has shaped and built the United States”
(Givens, 2022, p. 158). Additionally, the exhaustion, emotional burdens, and stress experienced
by Black individuals as a result of racism, discrimination, and systemic racism had significant
emotional impacts on the study participants (Winters, 2020). The participants who combated
racism in their personal and professional lives struggled with Black fatigue which caused
physical and mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression, and trauma (Winters, 2020). It
also resulted in reduced productivity, diminished creativity, and a sense of disconnection from
others (Winters, 2020).
The findings of this study are framed through the lens of Social Cognitive Theory, which
suggests that an individual’s behavior, attitudes and beliefs are shaped by the interaction of
personal, environmental, and social factors (Bandura, 2001). Leaders who practice
discriminatory behavior allow social cues and cues from the environment to shape their beliefs
about certain groups of people (Bandura, 2001). They learn and perpetuate racist attitudes
through their interactions with others, the media, or other societal norms (Bandura, 2001). The
environment does not just influence the leaders, it also influences the followers, including the
Black officers who were directly impacted by the discrimination within their organizations. I
used the Social Cognitive Theory to identify a five-step implementation plan that can be used to
combat the racist ideologies of the leaders and followers. Providing alternative attitudes and
behaviors and promoting positive mental models through training and feedback mechanisms to
150

hold leaders accountable can challenge and aid with unlearning harmful behavior (Bandura,
2001).
To combat toxicity in the Army, organizations must cultivate inclusive workspaces where
everyone is treated with respect, dignity, and fairness (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Additionally,
organizations need to create a culture of transparency, accountability, and open dialogue, where
employees are encouraged to speak out against the discriminatory behavior of toxic leaders
(Padilla et al., 2007). This involves setting clear objectives, guidelines and policies, training,
education, and a communication plan to help everyone within the organization identify and
address toxic behaviors and eradicate them to close race and gender gaps within the Army
successfully.
Due to my positionality, the research was emotionally challenging to process. However,
it was important because it provided a voice to those that fell victim to the discriminatory
practices of toxic leaders throughout the Army. Recognizing and validating the participants'
experiences in the study is essential, as they are not alone in their experiences or feelings.
Despite their obstacles, the participants utilized the time under the toxic leadership as an
opportunity for personal growth, learning, and development. The participants mentioned that
their perceived setbacks made them stronger, and they could persevere and stay focused on their
goals despite setbacks or failures. Their advice to future Black officers in the Army is to focus on
the journey, the lessons learned, and the personal growth from the experience. Additionally, seek
support from others if faced with a toxic leader and persist in pursuing goals!

151

References
Adams, C. (2020, June 18). Not all black people are African American. Here's the difference.
CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/not-all-black-people-are-african-
americanwhat-is-the-difference/
Adams, J. M., & Hart, W., (2014). Are narcissists more accepting of others’ narcissistic
traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 163-
167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.038
Agyemang, C., Bhopal, R., & Bruijnzeels, M. (2005). Negro, Black, Black African, African
Caribbean, African American or what? Labeling African origin populations in the health
arena in the 21st century. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
(1979), 59(12), 1014–1018.
Amoah, J.D., (1997). back on the auction block: A discussion of Black women and pornography.
National Black Law Journal, 14(2), 204-221.
Anderson, J. (2019). Preventing toxic leadership through professional military education
[Master’s thesis, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College]. U.S. Army Command
Digital Archive. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=831591
Arias, E., Heron, M., & Xu, J. (2022). United States Life Tables,
2020. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc:118055
Armor, D. (1996). Race and gender in the U.S. military. Armed Forces and Society, 23(1), 7–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X9602300101
Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 (2012). Army Leadership.
https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/misc/doctrine/CDG/cdg_resources/manuals/adp
/adp6_22_new.pdf
152

Army People Strategy (2020). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex.
https://dml.armywarcollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Army-People-Strategy-
Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-Annex-2020.pdf
Army Regulation 600-100 (2017). Army profession and Leadership Policy.
http://data.cape.army.mil/web/repository/doctrine/ar600-100.pdf
Arnhart, L., Jessee, M., Kerekanich, P., Mcgrath, A., Jebo, J., Kasten-Lechtenberg, S., &

Williams, B., Gender integration study (2015). Fort Leavenworth, KS; TRADOC Analysis

Center. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/wisr-studies/Army%20-

%20Gender%20Integration%20Study3.pdf.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–
201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
Asare, J. G. (2021, August 2). Our obsession with Black excellence is harming Black
people. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/08/01/our-obsession-
with-black-excellence-is-harming-black-people/?sh=37872532fd99
Ashfaq, F., Abid, G., & Ilyas, S. (2021). Impact of ethical leadership on employee engagement:
Role of Self-Efficacy and organizational commitment. European Journal of Investigation
in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(3), 962–974.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030071
Atashzadeh‐Shoorideh, F., Falcó‐Pegueroles., A., Lotfi, Z., & Pishgooie, A (2019). Correlation
between nursing managers’ leadership styles and nurses’ job stress and anticipated
turnover. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(3), 527–534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12707
153

Attig, C. (2021). Does systemic white supremacy affect a Black veterans ability to service
connect PTSD? Veterans Law Blog®. https://www.veteranslawblog.org/black-veterans-
ptsd/
Aubrey, D.W. (2012). The effect of toxic leadership (U.S. Army War College thesis).
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/aubrey_toxic_leadership.pdf
Baker, S. S. (2007). Followership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–
60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002831207304343
Balsa, A. I., & McGuire, T. G. (2003). Prejudice, clinical uncertainty and stereotyping as sources
of health disparities. Journal of Health Economics, 22(1), 89–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(02)00098-x
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
Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal
of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bandura, A., Davidson, H., & Davidson, J. (2003). Bandura’s social cognitive theory : an
introduction. Davidson Films, Inc.
Barling, J. (2014). The science of leadership: Lessons from research for organizational
leaders. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199757015.001.0001
Bartlett, K. T. (2009). Making Good on Good Intentions: The Critical Role of Motivation in
Reducing Implicit Workplace Discrimination. Virginia Law Review, 95,
1893. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2734&context=facult
y_scholarship
154

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(90)90061-S
Bayt, K. (2021). EEOC Roundup: Top 5 takeaways for employers on the 2021 enforcement and
litigation statistics. (n.d.). The National Law Review.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eeoc-roundup-top-5-takeaways-employers-2021-
enforcement-and-litigation-statistics
Beaudry, J. (2021, September 21). What is workplace PTSD and How can you support your
employees who suffer from it? Lattice. https://lattice.com/library/what-is-workplace-ptsd-
and-how-can-you-support-your-employees-who-suffer-from-it
Beckett, B. (2010). Mentorship is key to career success. Strategic Finance (Montvale,
N.J.), 92(4), 21–.
Bekar, I. (2021). Workplace favoritism and affinity bias.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/workplace-favoritism-affinity-bias-ibrahim-bekar
Bell, E. L., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and White women and the
struggle for professional identity. Harvard Business School Press.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.85.3.349
Belyh, A. (2022, October 12). How to implement a feedback culture in your company.
CLEVERISM. https://www.cleverism.com/how-to-implement-feedback-culture-in-
company/
Berdahl, J., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R., & Williams, J. (2018). Work as a Masculinity
Contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
Berlin, I. (2010, February). The changing definition of african-american how the great influx of
155

people from africa and the caribbean since 1965 is challenging what it means to be
african-american. Smithsonian Magazine.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thechanging-definition-of-african-american-
4905887/
BetterHelp (2023). How Can A Toxic Work Environment Impact Your Mental Health.
Betterhelp. //https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/current-events/how-can-a-toxic-work-
environment-impact-your-mental-health/
Bielby, W. T. (2000). Minimizing Workplace Gender and Racial Bias. Contemporary
Sociology, 29(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654937
Bloomenthal, A. (2023). What is the C Suite?: Meaning and Positions Defined. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c-suite.asp
Bogle, D. (1973). Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretive History of
Blacks in American Films. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA21007249
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark
side, too: a review and agenda for research on Other-Oriented Motives, Behavior, and
Impact in Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260
Brand, R. (2019). Mentors: How to Help and Be Helped. Pan Macmillan.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.77.1.135
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
156

Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp
063oa
Broman, C., Mavaddat, R., & Hsu, S. (2000). The Experience and Consequences of Perceived
Racial Discrimination: A Study of African Americans. Journal of Black
Psychology, 26(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798400026002003
Brook, T.V. (2020). Air Force admits “persistent and consistent” racial bias against black
airmen, records show. USA TODAY.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/27/records-show-air-force-
admits-persistent-consistent-bias-black-airmen/5179439002/
Bryant, M. T. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Corwin Press.
Burgess, D. J., Van Ryn, M., Dovidio, J. F., & Saha, S. (2007). Reducing Racial Bias
Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 22(6), 882–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-
0160-1
Burke, E. (2002). Black officer under-representation in combat arms branches [United States
Army School of Advanced Military Studies thesis].
https://apps.dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a402652.pdf
Burns, W. A. (2017). A descriptive literature review of harmful leadership styles: Definitions,
commonalities, measurements, negative impacts, and ways to improve these harmful
leadership styles. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 3(1), 33-36.
doi:10.17062/cjil.v3i1.53
Butler, R. (1999). Why Black officers fail. Parameters, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-
1723.1938
157

Caprino, K. (2023, February 23). Why so many DEI programs are failing and how to improve
them. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2023/02/23/why-so-many-dei-
programs-are-failing-and-how-to-improve-them/?sh=49fede4f387d
Carter, R. T., Lau, M., Johnson, V. E., & Kirkinis, K. (2017). Racial Discrimination and Health
Outcomes Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 45(4), 232–259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12076
Carter, B., & Virdee, S. (2008). Racism and the sociological imagination. The British Journal of
Sociology, 59(4), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2008.00214.x
Castle, K., Conner, K., Kaukeinen, K., & Tu, X. (2011). Perceived racism, discrimination, and
acculturation in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among black young adults. Suicide
& life-threatening behavior, 41(3), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1943-
278X.2011.00033.x
Catalyst. (2019, July 24). New Catalyst Report Reveals “Emotional Tax” Experienced by People
of Colour in Corporate Canada. Cision PR
Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-catalyst-report-reveals-
emotional-tax-experienced-by-people-of-colour-in-corporate-canada-
300889953.html#:~:text=Emotional%20tax%2C%20first%20described%20by%20Cataly
st%20in%202016%2C,well-
being%2C%20and%20the%20ability%20to%20thrive%20at%20work.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2022, April 15). How racism can Affect
Child Development - Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/racism-and-ecd/
158

C’de Baca, J., Castillo, D., & Qualls, C. (2012). Ethnic differences in symptoms among female
veterans diagnosed with PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(3), 353–357.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21709
Chae, D. H., Epel, E. S., Nuru-Jeter, A. M., Lincoln, K. D., Taylor, R. J., Lin, J., … Thomas, S.
B. (2016). Discrimination, mental health, and leukocyte telomere length among African
American men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.09.001
Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-
Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and
organizations (pp. 67–87). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Clark, K.B., & Clark, M.P. (1947) Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In T.
M. Newcomb & E.L. Hartlety (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 602-611). Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Colorafi, K. J., & Evans, B. (2016). Qualitative descriptive methods in health science
research. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(4), 16-25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715614171
Coleman, C.F. (2019). Eric Garner: Tall, dark, and threatening. Ebony.
https://www.ebony.com/eric-garner-tall-dark-and-threatening-405/
Congressional Research Service. (2019). Congressional Research Service report: Diversity,
Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for
Congress. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44321
159

Cooks-Campbell, A. (2023). Implicit bias: What it is and ways to reduce it. BetterUp
Blog. https://www.betterup.com/blog/what-is-implicit-bias
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black Feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Chicago
Unbound. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Dahlberg, M. L., & Byars-Winston, A. (2019, December 24). The Science of Effective
Mentorship in STEMM. National Academies Press
eBooks. https://doi.org/10.17226/25568
Daniel, T.A. and Metcalf, G.S. (2005) The Fundamentals of Employee Recognition. Society of
Human Resource Management.
https://www.academia.edu/21964446/The_fundamentals_of_employee_recognition
Day, P.J. (1989). A new history of social welfare. Prentice Hall.
Defense Suicide Prevention Officials Brief DOD Annual Suicide Report for CY 2019. (2020).
In U.S. Department of Defense Information / FIND. Federal Information & News
Dispatch, LLC.
DeGruy, J. (2005). Post traumatic slave syndrome: America’s legacy of enduring injury and
healing. Milwaukie, Oregon: Uptone Press.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2010). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.
ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228197210_Critical_Race_Theo
ry_An_Introduction
Diekman, A. B., & Hirnisey, L. (2007). The effect of context on the silver ceiling: A role
congruity perspective on prejudiced responses. Personality and Social Psychology
160

Bulletin, 33(10), 1353–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303019
Dobak, J. (2022). Three ways to inspire accountability for organizational success
Doty, J. and Fenlason, J. (2012). Narcissism and toxic leaders. Military Review, January, 2012,
55-59.
Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–
1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Dzurec, L. C., & Albataineh, R. (2014). Unacknowledged threats proffered “in a manner of
speaking”: Recognizing workplace bullying as shaming. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
46(4), 281-291. doi:10.1111/jnu.12080
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018957
Edwards, M. (2015) The Leadership Quotient: How IQ, EQ, and XQ Come Together for Great
Leadership https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-quotient-how-iq-eq-xq-come-
together-great-michael-edwards/
Equal opportunity DOD studies on discrimination in the military (1995). Report to the Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives.
The Office. NSIAD-95-103 Equal Opportunity: DOD Studies on Discrimination in the
Military (gao.gov)
Enalls-Fenner, T. R. (2017). Hindering Appreciative Intelligence® and follower
sensemaking through hostile leadership. International Journal of Human
Resources Development 17 (1/2), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRD
M.2017.10005819

Ensher, E., Grant‐Vallone, E., & Donaldson, S. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on
161

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and
grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 53–72.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1<53::AID-HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-G
Firestone, L. (2020). The trauma of racism. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-matters/202006/the-trauma-
racism
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–
512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Glomb, T. M., Hulin, C. L., Richman, W. L., & Schneider, K. T.
(1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and
consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 309–
328. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2728
Frye, A. (2019, August 22). Racism and sexism combine to shortchange working Black women.
Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/racism-sexism-
combine-shortchange-working-black-women/
Fulmer, C., & Ostroff, C. (2017). Trust in Direct Leaders and Top Leaders: A Trickle-Up
Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 648–657.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000189
Fox, J., & Pease, B. (2012). Military deployment, masculinity and trauma: Reviewing the
connections. The Journal of Men's Studies, 20(1), 16
31. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.2001.16
Gamble, D. R. (2020). Toward a racially inclusive military. USAWC
162

Press. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol50/iss3/7/
Gibson, K. (2022, September 20). How to overcome Stereotypes in your Organization | HBS
Online. Business Insights Blog. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/how-stereotypes-affect-
an-organization
Givens, C. (2021). Corporate America after Ursula Burns: Building a pipeline of Black female
executives (Publication No. UC15676559) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Gorn, D. (Host). (2018, November 11). Why so many women think about suicide (No. 2) [Audio
podcast episode]. In Veterans in America. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/multimedia/podcasts/veterans-in-america/why-so-many-military-
women-think-about-suicide.html
Grimm, J. (2023). Breaking implicit racial bias. The Company Leader.
https://companyleader.themilitaryleader.com/2021/03/19/breaking-implicit-racial-
bias/#:~:text=Research%20has%20shown%20that%20implicit%20racial%20bias%20detr
imentally,and%20retained%20in%20the%20military%E2%80%99s%20field%20grade%
20ranks.
Hadadian, Z., & Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between toxic leadership and job stress of
knowledge workers. Studies in Business & Economics, 11(3), 84-89.
https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2016-0037
Harrell, J., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. (2003). Physiological Responses to Racism and
Discrimination: An Assessment of the Evidence. American Journal of Public Health
(1971), 93(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.243
Headlee, C. (2021). Speaking of race: Why Everybody Needs to Talk About Racism—and How to
163

Do It. HarperCollins.
Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2018). For Black men, being tall increases threat stereotyping and police
stops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2711 - 2715.
Himle, J. A., Muroff, J., Taylor, R. W., Baser, R. E., Abelson, J. M., Hanna, G. L., Abelson, J.
L., & Jackson, J. S. (2008). Obsessive-compulsive disorder among African Americans
and blacks of Caribbean descent: results from the national survey of American
life. Depression and Anxiety, 25(12), 993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20434
Hinshaw, S. (2020). The Long-Term Influences of Toxic Leaders on Their Followers: A
Qualitative Descriptive Study. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Steele, 2011
Hirschmann, N. J. (2009). The subject of liberty: Toward a feminist theory of
freedom. ResearchGate.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287704655_The_subje
ct_of_liberty_Toward_a_feminist_theory_of_freedom
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social Identity Theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1
Hollinger, D. (2005). The one drop rule & the one hate rule. Daedalus Journal of the American
Academy of Arts & Sciences, Winter, 18-28. https://www.amacad.org/
sites/default/files/daedalus/downloads/ 05_winter_daedalus_articles.pdf
Holmes, J.G., & Rempel, J.K. (1989). trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (ed.), Review
of personality and social psychology: Close relationships (Vol. 10, pp. 187-219)
Newbury park, CA: Sage.
Howard, S., & Kennedy, K. (2020). The doll studies Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie P. Clark,
1947. https://www.assessmentpsychologyboard.org/edp/pdf/
The_Doll_Studies_Kenneth_B_Clark_and_Mamie_P_Clark_1947.pdy
164

Howell, W., & Peterson, P. (2004). Efficiency, Bias, and Classification Schemes: A Response to
Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu. The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 47(5),
699–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203260158
Indeed, (2023). How to address 12 types of bias in the workplace. https://www.indeed.com/hire
/c/info/types-of-bias
Jacob, S. A., & Ferguson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting
interviews. Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 17, 1-10. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3/
Johnson, C. T. (1997). United states army officer professional development: Black officers’
perspectives [Research report]. Army War College Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
Jones, J. (2010). Diversity continues to challenge the military: branches work on extending
outreach to targeted communities. (SPECIAL REPORT). Black Enterprise, 41(4),
56.
Katrosh, K. S. (2015). A Cancer in the Army: Identifying and Removing Toxic Leaders. United
States Army War College. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/publication/a-cancer-
in-the-army-identifying-and-removing-toxic-leaders/
Kamarck, K. N. (2017). Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services:
Background and Issues for Congress. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It
Matters. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA68843774
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow,
and Followers who Lead Themselves. Broadway Business.
Kemp, L. (2020). Having women in leadership roles is more important than ever, here’s why.
165

World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/more-women-in-
leadership-shouldnt-matter-but-it-really-does/
Klonoff, E., Landrine, H., & Ullman, J. (1999). Racial Discrimination and Psychiatric Symptoms
Among Blacks. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(4), 329–339.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.5.4.329
Kovalchuk, S., & Pattison-Meek, J. (2014). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key
concepts in social justice education [Review of Is everyone really equal? An introduction
to key concepts in social justice education]. Journal of Peace Education, 11(2), 246–248.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2014.913352
Kurtulmus, F. (2020). The Epistemic Basic Structure. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(5),
818–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12451
Kypri, K., Samaranayaka A., Connor, J., Langley, JD., Maclennan, B. (2011). Non- responsive
bias in a web-based health behaviour survey of New Zealand tertiary students. Prev Med
(Baltim). Oct; 53(4-5):274-7
Hadadian, Z., & Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Job Stress of
Knowledge Workers. Studies in Business and Economics (Romania), 11(3), 84–89.
https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2016-0037
Hart, C., Crossley, A.D., & Correll, S.J. (2021, August 27). Study: When Leaders Take Sexual
Harassment Seriously, So Do Employees. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2018/12/study-when-leaders-take- sexual-harassment-seriously-
so-do-employees
Holloway, E., & Kusy, M. (2010). Toxic workplace: managing toxic personalities and their

systems of power (1st ed.). Wiley.

Hopper, Elizabeth. (2020, August 27). What Is a Microaggression? Everyday Insults With

Harmful Effects. https://www.thoughtco.com/microaggression-definition-
166

examples-4171853
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-eKvale, S.
(2007). Doing interviews. London: SAGE Publications.
Lachmann, S. (2021). How Conscious and unconscious Bias Challenge Racism. Psychology
Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/me-
we/202106/how-conscious-and-unconscious-bias-challenge-racism
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–
24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
LaFollette, H. (2006). Ethics in practice: An Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell.
LaMorte, W. (2022). The Social Cognitive Theory. Boston University.
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-
Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories5.html
Leath, S., Mathews, C., Harrison, A., & Chavous, T. (2019). Racial Identity, Racial
Discrimination, and Classroom Engagement Outcomes Among Black Girls and Boys in
Predominantly Black and Predominantly White School Districts. American Educational
Research Journal, 56(4), 1318–1352. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218816955
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2008). Social Cognitive Career Theory and Subjective Well-Being
in the Context of Work. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305769
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005a). The allure of toxic leaders. Oxford University Press.
167

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005b). Toxic leadership: A conceptual framework. In F. Bournois, J.
Hamel, S. Roussillon, & J. Scaringella (Eds.), Encyclopedia of executive
governance, (pp. 1-12). SAGE Publications.
https://www.mindmomentumtr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/toxic_leadership_a
_conceptual_framework.pdf
Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. (2009). The teddy-bear effect: Does having a baby face
benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological Science, 20, 1229–1236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009 .02431.x
Louis, C. (2019). Unconscious bias: The affinity bias. https://podojo.com/unconscious-
bias-the-affinity-bias/. Accessed 29 January 2023
Lynch, H. (2020, August 17). African Americans. Brittannica. https://www.britannica.
com/topic/ African-American
Markway, B. (2018). The self-confidence workbook: A guide to overcoming self-doubt and
improving self-esteem. Althea Press. https://icrrd.com/article/143/the-self-
confidence-workbook-a-guide-to-overcoming-self-doubt-and-improving-self-
esteem
Martin, D. (2021, March 22). Race in the Ranks: Investigating racial bias in the U.S.
military - 60 Minutes. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-
racism-60-minutes-2021-03-21/
Maryfield, B. (2018). Implicit racial bias. Justice Research and Statistics Association.
https://www.jrsa.org/pubs/factsheets/jrsa-factsheet-implicit-racial-bias.pdf
Matos, M., Duarte, C., Duarte, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Petrocchi, N., Basran, J., & Gilbert, P.
(2017). Psychological and Physiological Effects of Compassionate Mind Training: a Pilot
168

Randomised Controlled Study. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1699–1712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0745-7
Marmot, M., & Allen, J. J. (2014). Social determinants of health equity. American journal of
public health, 104 Suppl 4(Suppl 4), S517–S519. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2014.302200
Maslow, A. H. (1954). The instinctoid nature of basic needs1. Journal of
Personality, 22(3), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01136.x
McClellan, B. J. (2019). Disparity in black officer promotions: A survey of implicit racial
attitudes among US army officers [PhD Dissertation, Northeastern University].
https://doi.org/10.17760/D20382022
McConville, J.C. (2019, May). Hearing to consider the nomination of: General James C.
McConville, USA for reappointment to the grade of general and to be chief of staff
of the United States Army. [Stenographic Transcript]. Committee on armed
services, Washington D.C., United States of America. https://www.armed-
services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/19-43_05-02-19.pdf
McConville, J.C. (2023, April 28). Army Chief of Staff’s message to the Soldiers. [Online
forum post]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/USArmy/status/1651973253760425986

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller F., & Katz J. (2002). Inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of
diversity. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
169

Milne, J., & Oberle, K. (2005). Enhancing rigor in qualitative description: A case study.
Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 32(6), 413-320
https://doi.org/10.1097/00152192-200511000-00014
Murphy, N. (2021). Types of bias. CPD Online College.
https://cpdonline.co.uk/knowledge-base/safeguarding/types-of-bias/
Mustillo, S., Krieger, N., Gunderson, E., Sidney, S., McCreath, H., & Kiefe, C. (2004). Self-
Reported Experiences of Racial Discrimination and Black-White Differences in Preterm
and Low-Birthweight Deliveries: The CARDIA Study. American Journal of Public
Health (1971), 94(12), 2125–2131. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2125
Milne, J., & Oberle, K. (2005). Enhancing rigor in qualitative description: a case study. Journal
of Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nursing, 32(6), 413–420.
Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Loncar, D. (2019). 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/10.1177/1548051819
833374
Mneimneh, Z., Elliott, M., Tourangeau, R., & Heeringa, S. (2018). Cultural and Interviewer
Effects on Interview Privacy: Individualism and National Wealth. Cross-Cultural
Research, 52(5), 496–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397118759014
Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Myers, M. (2022, August 18). This report says black and Hispanic service members are more
likely to face trial. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-
military/2019/05/31/this-report-says-black-and-hispanic-service-members-are-more-
likely-to-face-trial/
National Association of Black Military Women (2018). Black Women In the Military | United
170

States | NABMW. https://www.nabmw.org/history-of-black-women-in-the-milit
National Institutes of Health (2023). Sex, gender, and sexuality https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-
guide/sex-gender-sexuality
National Women’s Law Center. (2022, January 5). Black Women Disproportionately Experience
Workplace Sexual Harassment, New NWLC Report Reveals - National Women's Law
Center. https://nwlc.org/press-release/black-women-disproportionately-experience-
workplace-sexual-harassment-new-nwlc-report-reveals/
Neighbors, H., & Jackson, J. (1996). Mental health in Black America. Sage Publications.
Newman, T. (2021). Dissecting terror: How does fear work? Medical News Today.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323492
Nickerson, C. (2022). Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others.
Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/social-cognitive-theory.html
Nikolopoulou, K. (2023). What Is Affinity Bias? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr.
https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/affinity-bias/
Noble, J. (2022). Justifying Injustice: How caricatured depictions of African Americans
impacted worldwide perception. UW Tacoma Digital Commons.
https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/gh_theses/89
Norito K, T. H. (1999). "Epidemiology of job stress and Health in Japan; Review of current
evidence and future direction. J Industrial Health." 37:174-86.
O’Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. (1995).
Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. Leadership
Quarterly, 6(4), 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90026-8
Ottsen, C. L. (2022b). Bias Conscious Leadership: How Diversity Leads to Better Decision-
making.
171

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua2007.03.001
Pattison-Meek, J., & Kovalchuk, S. (2014). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key
concepts in social justice education. Journal of Peace Education, 11(2), 246–
248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2014.913352
Pepper, A. (2018). Loss of Trust: The Negative Effects of Leader Discrimination and the
Mitigating Effects of Organizational Response. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Phillips, K. W. (2014). How diversity works. Scientific American, 311(4), 42–47.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1014-42
Piquado, T. (2022). Among black americans, is military service associated with better quality of
life? RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/
RRA1200/RRA1202-1/RAND_RRA1202-1.pdf
Pizarro, M. C. (2022, August 9). Identifying Toxic Leaders And How To Handle Them. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2022/08/09/identifying-toxic-leaders-
and-how-to-handle-them/?sh=b88bce5226b9
Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing
Practice (8th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Pollock, M., Holly, J., & Leggett‐Robinson, P. (2022). Inclusive leadership development for
engineers. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2022(173), 119–
128. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20483
Price, W. (2021). The difference between self-confidence and self-efficacy
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/difference-between-self-confidence-
self-efficacy-william-price/https://podojo.com/unconscious-bias-the-affinity-bias/.
Accessed 29 January 2023
172

Probst, B., & Berenson, L. (2014). The double arrow: How qualitative social work researchers
use reflexivity. Qualitative Social Work : QSW : Research and Practice, 13(6), 813–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013506248
Putnam, L. L., Bell, E. B., & Nkomo, S. M. (2003). Our separate ways: black and white women
and the struggle for professional identity. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 677.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30040759
Randall,V. (2010). Dying While Black in America: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need and Racial
Policy Making. In J. Culhane (Ed.), Reconsidersing Law and Policy Debates: A Public
Health Perspective (pp. 69-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761881.004
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67-71. http://www.reliev
edofcommand.com/images/COL_REED_TOXIC_LEADERSHIP.pdf
Rawski, S., & Workman-Stark, A. (2018). Masculinity Contest Cultures in Policing
Organizations and Recommendations for Training Interventions: Masculinity Contest
Cultures in Policing Organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 607–627.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12286
Reed, G., & Olsen, R. (2010). Toxic Leadership: part deux. Military Review, 90(6), 58–.
Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military
officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society
(0095327X), 36(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X09334994
Reyes, A. (2006). Addressing the Challenge of Black Officer Underrepresentation in the
Senior Ranks of the U.S. Army (U.S. Army War College thesis).
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc.pdf
173

Reynolds-Dobbs, W., Thomas, K. M., & Harrison, M. T. (2008). From mammy to
superwoman. Journal of Career Development, 35(2), 129–150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845308325645
Rhodewalt, F. (2023, July 4). Narcissism | Definition, Origins, Pathology, Behavior, Traits,
& Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/narcissism
Rodriguez, R. (2018). Bias: the hidden figure in diversity. War Room, U.S. Army War College.
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/bias-hidden-figure/
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2018). When leaders stifle innovation in work teams: The role
of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 651–664.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8
Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008). The Face of Success: Inferences From Chief Executive
Officers’ Appearance Predict Company Profits. Psychological Science, 19(2), 109–
111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in
Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x
Saunders, B., Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2015). Anonymising interview data:
Challenges and compromise in practice. Qualitative Research, 15(5), 616-632.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114550439
Sayles, A. (2009). On Diversity (U.S. Army War College thesis).
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/on_diversity.pdf
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schimming, C., MD. (2022). Cognitive overload: When processing information becomes a
174

problem. Mayo Clinic Health System.
https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/cognitive-
overload
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale,
Master’s thesis, University of Maryland. https://hdl.handle.net/1903/8176
Schmidt, A. (2015). Why do Toxic Leaders Survive? www.linkedin.com.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-do-toxic-leaders-survive-andrew-schmidtphd/
Seck, H. H. (2020). Navy to change pilot call sign protocol after minority
aviators report bias. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-
news/2019/05/21/navy-change-pilot-call-sign-protocol-after-minority-aviators-
report-bias.html
Segal, D. R., & Segal, M. W. (2004). America’s military population. Population Reference
Bureau. https://prb.org/pdf04/59.4americanmilitary.pdf
Shane, L., III. (2022, August 19). White nationalism remains a problem for the military,
poll suggests. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-
congress/2019/02/28/white-nationalism-remains-a-problem-for-the-military-poll-
shows/
Singh, R., Tay, Y., & Sankaran, K. (2017). Causal role of trust in interpersonal attraction from

attitude similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(5), 717–731.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516656826

Smith III, I. (2010). Why Black Officers Still Fail. U.S. Army War College Parameters
(Carlisle, Pa.), 40(3)
Social Cognitive Theory. (2020). In The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and
Society.
175

Society of Human Resource Management (2019). The High Cost of a Toxic Workplace Culture.
https://www.shrm.org/about-shrm/press-room/press-releases/pages/shrm-reports-toxic-
workplace-cultures-cost-billions-aspx
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (p. 443–466). Sage Publications Ltd.
Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6,613
Steele, J.P. (2011) Antecedents and consequences of toxic leadership in the U.S. Army: A two-
year review and recommended solutions. Fort Leavenworth: Center for Army Leadership
Strausbaugh, J (2007) Black Like You: Blackface, Whiteface, Insult & Imitation in American
Popular Culture." Penguin
Taylor, E., Guy-Walls, P., Wilkerson, P., & Addae, R, (2019) The historical perspectives of
Stereotypes on African -American
Thomas, T., Gentzler, K., & Salvatorelli, R. (2016). What Is Toxic Followership? Journal of
Leadership Studies (Hoboken, N.J.), 10(3), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21496
Thompson, S. (2016). Success of the african american female military field grade officers in an
army environment [PhD Dissertation]. Walden University.
Teten, A., Ball, B., Valle, L., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for the
definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization
among adolescent girls. Journal of Women’s Health (Larchmont, N.Y. 2002), 18(7), 923–
927. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1515
Tschida, B., & Jamal N. (2021). 3 Actions for Leaders to Improve DEI in the Workplace.
Gallup.com. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/348266/actions-leaders-improve-dei-
workplace.aspx
176

Turner, A. (2019, September 21). For A Black Woman In The Military, Harassment Was Its
Own Battle. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/21/762128858/for-a-black-woman-in-the-
military-harassment-was-its-own-battle
Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology
of intergroup relations, 7-24.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Ulmer, R. (2012). Increasing the Impact of Thought Leadership in Crisis
Communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 523–542.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912461907
United States Army Regulation 350-1. (2017). Army training and leader development.
https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/images/pdf/Policy/AR%20350-
1%20Army%20Training%20and%20Leader%20Development%20%20.pdf
United States Department of Defense. (2020). Diversity, inclusion final board report. Targeted
News Service. https://media.defense.gov/2020/Dec/18/2002554852/-1/-1/0/DOD-
DIVERSITY-AND-INCLUSION-FINAL-BOARD-REPORT.PDF
United States Government Accountability Office. (2019, May). DOD and the coast guard need
to improve their capabilities to assess racial and gender disparities. Government
Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-344.pdf
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing &
Health Sciences, 15(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
177

Waters, S. (2021). The 8 toxic Leadership Traits (and how to spot them).
https://www.betterup.com/blog/8-toxic-leadership-traits-to-avoid-plus-how-to-spot-
them#:~:text=Toxic%20leaders%20often%20have%20their%20own%20biases%20
against,discrimination%20can%20result%20in%20a%20highly%20toxic%20workp
lace.
Whicker, M. (1996). Toxic leaders : when organizations go bad . Quorum Books.
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA28314552
Whitfield, B. (2023). Unconscious bias: 16 examples and how to avoid them in the
workplace. builtin. https://builtin.com/diversity-inclusion/unconscious-bias-examples
Williams, D. F., Toxic leadership in the U.S. Army (2005). Carlisle Barracks, PA; U.S. Army
War College. StintFile5574_200504121029.PDF (dtic.mil)
Williams, D., & Williams-Morris, R. (2000). Racism and Mental Health: The African
American experience. Ethnicity & Health, 5(3-4), 243–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713667453
Williams, K. (2019). The Cost of Tolerating Toxic Behaviors in the Department of Defense
Workplace. Military Review, 99(4), 54–67.
Winters, M. (2020). Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Wolff, H. (2019). Navy to change pilot call sign protocol after minority aviators report
bias. American Renaissance. https://www.amren.com/news/2019/05/navy-to-change-
pilot-call-sign-protocol-after-minority-aviators-report-bias/
Yapp, R. (2019, June 23). The six Characteristics of toxic Leadership. Leadership
Forces. https://www.leadershipforces.com/six-characteristics-toxic-
leaders/#:~:text=The%20Toxic%20leader%20is%20motivated%20by%20personal%20a
mbition,so%20that%20they%20can%20take%20advantage%20of%20it.
178

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2005). Appearance DOES matter. Science, 308(5728),
1565–1566. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114170
Zhou, L., Wang, M., Chen, G., & Shi, J. (2012). Supervisors' upward exchange relationships and
subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(3), 668-680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026305
Zwerding, D., & Matsuda D. (2014). Army takes on its own toxic leaders. NPR.
http://www.npr.org/people/4173096/daniel-zwerdling

179

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Good morning/ afternoon. I am Octavia Davis, a student at the USC Rossier School of
Education. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. I will use the information I collect in
support of my dissertation. The purpose of the study is to explore and understand the impacts of
toxic leadership on Black officers in the United States Army. This is a scarcely researched topic;
therefore, your participation in this study will help advance the understanding of toxic leaders’
influence on Black officers. For this interview, I want you to focus on you and your experiences
with toxic leaders.

Participation in the survey is voluntary. You may refuse to participate, refuse to answer any
questions, or withdraw from this study. To remain confidential, I will store interview information
in a locked cabinet in a secure office and destroy the data at the end of the term. The interview
today will take approximately 45-60 minutes and, with your permission, will be recorded for
transcription. One to two weeks after this interview, you will receive a copy of the interview
transcript to review for accuracy. Before we proceed, may I record the interview? Do I have your
consent to conduct the interview?

Interview questions Potential Probes RQ Addressed
1. Describe what positive leadership means to
you? Can you provide an example?
General/Rapport
2. Describe the characteristics or traits of
your best leader?
What are some of the traits that you
admired?
General/Rapport
3. How valuable is it for you to have positive
leadership? General/Rapport
4. Describe the characteristics or traits of
your worst leader? General
5. Describe what toxic leadership means to
you? RQ1
6. In what ways, if any, have you experienced
toxic leadership throughout your time in the
Army?

Please share your experiences with a
current or past toxic leader.
What about their actions did you
consider to be toxic? RQ1, RQ2
7. In what ways does (or did) the toxic leader
influence your work life? RQ2
8. Describe how, if at all, your experience in
reporting to a toxic leader influences the
If didn’t report: Why was that your
choice, as opposed to ….x? RQ1, RQ2
180

relationships that you have with your current
leader?
If you had decided to go forward,
what do you believe the outcome
might have been?
9. How would you describe your
organization's culture under the toxic leader?
In what ways, if any, did the leader
foster an environment that was
unreceptive to inclusion or diversity
concerns?
Tell me about any other times, if
ever, when you had a situation where
other leaders were unreceptive to
inclusion or diversity concerns?
How did you handle it and what was
the outcome? ALL
10. As a result of a toxic leader, what
barriers, if any, have you experienced during
your career development?
What do you believe are the reasons
for those barriers? RQ1
12. Do you believe you have been treated less
favorably, either when facing disciplinary
actions or when opportunities are available,
than other people in your workplace by a
leader because of your race or ethnicity?

If no, are you aware of any
colleagues who may have been? Are
you aware of how they may have
handled the situation? Please
describe the experience and how you
dealt with it? RQ1, RQ2
13. Do you believe you have been treated less
favorably, either when facing disciplinary
actions or when opportunities are available,
than other people in a similar situation in
your workplace by a leader because of your
gender?
If no: are you aware of any
colleagues who may have been? Are
you aware of how they may have
handled the situation?
Please describe the experience and
how you dealt with it? RQ1, RQ2
13. To what extent, if at all, did you consider
leaving your position or asking for a transfer
due to the toxic leader you have described?
To what extent, if at all, do you know
of other subordinates who considered
leaving their positions or asking for a
transfer due to the toxic leader you
have described? RQ2
14. How, if at all, has working for this toxic
leader or other toxic leaders, affected your
desire to obtain a leadership role in the
Army? RQ2
15. How, if at all, has working for this toxic
leader or other toxic leaders, affected your RQ2
181

confidence in your ability to perform as a
leader in the U.S. Army?
14. In what ways, if any, do you believe
racial bias existed under the toxic leader?
Do you think that the leader was
aware of the ways in which they
promoted racial bias? RQ1
15. How did you react and cope with the
toxic event or leader, days, weeks, and
months after? Please describe if you coped
differently as time passed. RQ1, RQ2
16. Now, thinking about your physical health,
including physical illness and injury, were
there changes because of working under a
toxic leader in your health days, weeks, and
months after, at home and work? RQ1, RQ2
17. How do you think your experience
working for a toxic leader has changed you,
if at all? RQ1, RQ2
18. What, if anything, would you like to add
about your experiences with toxic leaders or
any other subject we have not discussed
today?

Thank you very much for your time and for sharing your experience with me today. I appreciate your
transparency. I will send you the transcript for review to ensure I captured your thoughts
accurately. I do not anticipate a follow-on meeting; however, I would like to spend another 15-
30 minutes with you if needed. Thank you again for your willingness to assist. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the Office of Research Ethics
Director. The University of Southern California at (213) 740-6709.

182

Appendix B: Toxic Leadership Questionnaire/ Selection Survey
Thank you for your interest in participating in a dissertation in practice research study about the long-
term influence of toxic leaders on Black officers in the United States Army. To learn more about
these experiences, I am seeking to interview individuals who previously reported or currently report
to a toxic leader. You are invited as a possible participant because you may meet the criteria to
participate in this study.

Participants of the study should expect to spend approximately 30 minutes completing a survey.
Additionally, you may be invited to participate in an interview. If you accept the invitation to
participate in the interview, expect the time commitment for the interview to be an hour being
interviewed in a virtual setting, and approximately 30 minutes reviewing interview transcripts.
Participation in this research study is entirely voluntary, and participants can withdraw anytime. All
information will be kept confidential.

If you are interested in participating in this study, please complete the questionnaire and provide your
information at the conclusion of the questionnaire.

Thank you for your interest and for supporting my dissertation in practice research study,
Octavia Davis
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education

183

Toxic Leadership Questionnaire/ Selection Survey

Are you of Spanish or Latino origin?
Yes
No
What would best describe you?
Black / African American
Asian
White
Native American
Mixed Race
What is your military affiliation?
Active component military member
National Guard member
Civilian employee
Military Service Academy cadet
Are you?
Male
Female
Non-binary / third gender
Prefer not to say
You are.....
A commissioned officer
A warrant officer
Enlisted officer
What is your age?
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
What is your current rank?
LTC and Above
MAJ
CPT
LT

184

Have you worked for or with a leader who you believe meets the definition of being a toxic
leader?
Toxic Leadership: Is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivation, and behaviors that have
adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance. The leader lacks concern
for others and the climate of the organization, which leads to short-and long-term negative effects.
Yes
No

Have you worked for or with more than one individual who you believe meets the definition of
a toxic leader?
Yes
No

How many toxic leaders have you worked for or with?
1
2
3
4
5+

Please think about the leader whom you identified as toxic. If you have worked for or with
more than one leader, please focus on only one individual in answering the following questions.

What is the Race of the leader?
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other

What is the gender of the leader?
Male
Female
Non-binary / third gender
Prefer not to say

185

Please rate this leader using the following scale (with possible responses for each behavior
ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree).

Believes that everyone has worth and value, regardless of how they identify.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Is inflexible when it comes to organizational policies, even in special circumstances.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Allows their mood to affect their vocal tone and volume.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Assumes they are destined to enter the highest ranks of my organization.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

How often did your leader mistreat, ignore, exclude, or insult you because of your gender?
Most of the time
About half the time
Rarely

Is receptive to inclusion or diversity concerns.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Determines all decisions in the unit whether they are important or not.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Publicly belittles subordinates
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Tells subordinates they are incompetent
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Has explosive outbursts
186

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Drastically changes their demeanor when their supervisor is present
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Denies responsibility for mistakes made in their unit.
Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Please provide your phone number

Please provide your email address

187

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089

STUDY TITLE: Examining the Effects of Toxic Leadership on Black U.S. Army Officers

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Octavia L. Davis

FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer L. Phillips, DLS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The study aims to explore and understand the effects of toxic leadership on Black officers who
served in the United States Army. As of result of this study, I hope to learn ways to identify and
mitigate toxic leadership’s effects on Black officers within the United States Army.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a one-on-one
interview with the researcher, which will last approximately 45-60 minutes. You do not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.

For accuracy in the data collection and analysis process, you will be asked to be audio recorded.
Your full identity (name and specific title) will NOT be disclosed in the recorded dialogue.
However, your race and rank must be stated for the purposes of the study. If you choose not to
be audio recorded, your responses will be hand-written or transcribed on a laptop by the
researcher. A full transcript of the interview can be provided to you if you wish to review it for
clarity and feedback.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the research results are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used. Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study
will remain confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and
maintained separately. Only your demographical profile (gender and race) and Army rank will be
used in the study. Data will be stored on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s
office for two years after the study has been completed and then removed.

188

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Octavia L. Davis at
octaviad@usc.edu or 360-584-8009.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

189

Appendix D: Solicitation Email to Perspective Participants
To: [Participant]
From: Octavia Davis
Subject: Opportunity to Share Your Experiences
Good morning [Participant], I hope this note finds you well. My name is Octavia Davis, and I am
a doctoral candidate at the Rossier School of Education within the University of Southern
California. I am contacting you today to solicit your participation in the research for my
dissertation. The current working title of my dissertation is Examining the Effects of Toxic
Leadership on Black U.S. Army Officers. The purpose of my study is to explore and understand
the effects of toxic leadership on Black officers who served in United States Army. As of result
of this study, I hope to learn ways to identify and mitigate toxic leadership’s effects on Black
officers within the United States Army. The representation of Black officers at senior level
positions is very low, in comparison to their White counterparts and there are external and
internal factors that may contribute to the high attrition. My study will examine toxic
leadership’s impacts on Black officers and identify development strategies.
As an officer who served, I would greatly appreciate your participation in my research study.
Participation in this study will require approximately 60 minutes for a virtual interview.
Interviews will be utilized to understand and capture the impacts of toxic leadership both
physical and mental on Black officers in the U.S. Army.
Thank you for your time and consideration,

Octavia
Organizational Change and Leadership Doctoral Candidate

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women general officers in a U.S. military reserve component

PDF

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

Toxic leadership and U.S. Army special forces: a qualitative, phenomenological Study

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

Outside the concrete wall: a qualitative study of Black women persisting in technology

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and people of color in executive-level information technology positions

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

Multi-source feedback in the U. S. Army: an improved assessment

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women in the senior executive service of the United States government

PDF

Leadership development and Black pentecostal pastors: understanding the supports needed to enhance their leadership development and ministry effectiveness

PDF

The importance of mentoring in leadership self-efficacy for women in supply chain: a qualitative study

PDF

Leading from the margins: an intersectional qualitative analysis of the leadership experiences of Black mothers

PDF

African American officer's experiences as leaders navigating the United States Armed Service

Asset Metadata

Creator Davis, Octavia LaVonne (author)

Core Title Toxic leadership's impact on Black officers within the United States Army

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 09/11/2023

Defense Date 09/09/2023

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

Tag Army,Black,diversity,equity,inclusion,Mental Health,OAI-PMH Harvest,officer,Toxic leadership

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Carbone, Paula (committee member), Murphy, Don (committee member)

Creator Email octaviad@usc.edu,octaviadavis177@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113305097

Unique identifier UC113305097

Identifier etd-DavisOctav-12359.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-DavisOctav-12359

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Davis, Octavia LaVonne

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230911-usctheses-batch-1095 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

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 cisadmin@lib.usc.edu