Update Article: 199

Original Title

Sanitized Title

Clean Title

Source ID

Article Id01

Article Id02

Corpus ID

Dup

Dup ID

Url

Publication Url

Download Url

Original Abstract

Destructive leadership may negatively impact an organization and its members. Although scholars recognized that destructive leadership behavior exists, there was little qualitative empirical evidence of its effect on an organization and its members. The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they worked or had worked. The conceptual framework consisted of Van de Ven and Poole’s dialectical change theory, Benson’s dialectical analysis, Schein’s organizational culture, Schneider’s organizational climate, and Weick’s sensemaking process. Twenty individual organization members who were at least 18 years old, had at least 3 years of work experience, and had at least one experience of destructive leadership were purposefully selected and interviewed. Data were gathered using virtual, semistructured interviews. Moustakas’s modified Van Kaam method of phenomenological reduction was used to analyze the transcribed interview data. Eight themes emerged from the data to answer the research question: affected personally, affected professionally, discrimination, an employee reported destructive leader behaviors, human resources’ role, reasons for behavior, harassment, and destructive leader behaviors. Findings indicated that the essence of each organization member’s shared lived experience was the impact of the destructive leader and the destructive behaviors exhibited by the leader. Findings may promote social change by increasing awareness of the negative effects of destructive leadership on organizations

Clean Abstract

Tags

Original Full Text

Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 7-23-2024 Organization Members’ Lived Experiences of Destructive Leadership Angela E.C. Etson Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu.   Walden University    College of Management and Human Potential     This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by   Angela E. C. Etson  has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,  and that any and all revisions required by  the review committee have been made.   Review Committee Dr. Robert Levasseur, Committee Chairperson,  Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty  Dr. Holly Rick, Committee Member,  Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty     Chief Academic Officer and Provost Sue Subocz, Ph.D.    Walden University 2024    Abstract Organization Members’ Lived Experiences of Destructive Leadership by Angela E. C. Etson  MA, Clark Atlanta University, 1999 BS, Clark Atlanta University, 1987   Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management   Walden University August 2024   Abstract Destructive leadership may negatively impact an organization and its members. Although scholars recognized that destructive leadership behavior exists, there was little qualitative empirical evidence of its effect on an organization and its members. The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they worked or had worked. The conceptual framework consisted of Van de Ven and Poole’s dialectical change theory, Benson’s dialectical analysis, Schein’s organizational culture, Schneider’s organizational climate, and Weick’s sensemaking process. Twenty individual organization members who were at least 18 years old, had at least 3 years of work experience, and had at least one experience of destructive leadership were purposefully selected and interviewed. Data were gathered using virtual, semistructured interviews. Moustakas’s modified Van Kaam method of phenomenological reduction was used to analyze the transcribed interview data. Eight themes emerged from the data to answer the research question: affected personally, affected professionally, discrimination, an employee reported destructive leader behaviors, human resources’ role, reasons for behavior, harassment, and destructive leader behaviors. Findings indicated that the essence of each organization member’s shared lived experience was the impact of the destructive leader and the destructive behaviors exhibited by the leader. Findings may promote social change by increasing awareness of the negative effects of destructive leadership on organizations.     Destructive Leadership: Organization Members’ Lived Experiences of Destructive Leadership by Angela E. C. Etson  MA, Clark Atlanta University, 1999 BS, Clark Atlanta University, 1987   Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management   Walden University August 2024   Dedication If anyone, should ever write my life story. For whatever reason there might be. You’ll be there, between each line of pain and glory. Because you’re the best thing that ever happened to me. (Weatherly, 1973) This study is dedicated to the people in my life who are my raison d’être. To my mother, Diane Chandler, without you and everything you have done, I would not be at this pivotal juncture in my life. Thank you for educating me, helping to raise my children, and showing me how to be strong and independent. To Timothy Etson Sr., this crazy road called life led us both down the path to academia. I’m not sure that I would have taken that road had I not met you on that cold day in January of 1997, when I first embarked on the path of higher education. The road has been bumpy. For better, for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.  To my children, Timothy Jr. and Chandler. You are my everything. I am so proud to be your mom. The most important thing in my life was to be a good example for both of you. This degree is especially dedicated to you. You all are my most important accomplishment. You all are why I could never give up. This is all for you.   Acknowledgments A special thank you to the associate dean of the College of Management and Human Potential, Dr. Gail Miles, for seeing the value of my effort and allowing me to bring my dream to fruition. To my chair, Dr. Robert Levasseur, words cannot express my appreciation to you for stepping in and seeing the hard work that I put in, giving me your feedback, and helping me to make sense of it all. To my committee member, Dr. Holly Rick, your contribution to my success is priceless and immeasurable.   i Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Background ....................................................................................................................2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................9 Research Question .......................................................................................................10 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................11 Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................14 Definitions....................................................................................................................20 Assumptions .................................................................................................................23 Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................26 Limitations ...................................................................................................................27 Significance..................................................................................................................27 Significance to Practice......................................................................................... 28 Significance to Theory .......................................................................................... 29 Significance to Social Change .............................................................................. 31 Summary and Transition ..............................................................................................31 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................33 Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................34 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................36  ii Dialectics............................................................................................................... 37 Dialectical Change Theory ................................................................................... 39 Dialectical Analysis .............................................................................................. 43 Ontological Foundation ........................................................................................ 47 Epistemological Foundation ................................................................................. 48 Organizational Culture .......................................................................................... 48 Organizational Climate ......................................................................................... 55 Sensemaking ......................................................................................................... 61 Literature Review.........................................................................................................64 Leadership ............................................................................................................. 70 Romanticizing Leadership .................................................................................... 78 Charisma ............................................................................................................... 79 Dialectics............................................................................................................... 80 Dialectical Change Theory ................................................................................... 87 Dialectical Analysis .............................................................................................. 89 Organizational Culture and Climate ..................................................................... 91 Sensemaking ......................................................................................................... 94 The Unknown of Destructive Leadership ............................................................. 96 Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................99 Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................102 Research Design and Rationale .................................................................................103 Role of the Researcher ...............................................................................................111  iii Methodology ..............................................................................................................115 Participant Selection Logic ................................................................................. 118 Instrumentation ................................................................................................... 122 Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection ........................ 124 Data Analysis Plan .............................................................................................. 129 Issues of Trustworthiness ...........................................................................................133 Credibility ........................................................................................................... 133 Transferability ..................................................................................................... 135 Dependability ...................................................................................................... 136 Confirmability ............................................................................................................137 Ethical Procedures .....................................................................................................138 Summary ....................................................................................................................142 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................144 Research Setting.........................................................................................................144 Demographics ............................................................................................................145 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................149 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................152 The Modified Van Kamm Method ..................................................................... 154 Epoche155 Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction .................................................... 156 Individual Textural Descriptions ........................................................................ 162 Composite Textural Description ......................................................................... 169  iv Constructing Meaning Through Bracketing and Imaginative Variation ............ 172 Individual Structural Descriptions ...................................................................... 172 Composite Structural Description ....................................................................... 179 Synthesis of Textual and Structural Descriptions ............................................... 179 Discrepant Cases ................................................................................................. 179 Evidence of Trustworthiness......................................................................................181 Credibility ........................................................................................................... 182 Transferability ..................................................................................................... 184 Dependability ...................................................................................................... 185 Confirmability ..................................................................................................... 186 Study Results .............................................................................................................187 Theme 1: Affected Personally ............................................................................ 189 Theme 2: Affected Professionally ...................................................................... 192 Theme 3: Discrimination .................................................................................... 194 Theme 4: Employee Reported Destructive Leader Behaviors ............................ 198 Theme 5: Human Resources’ Role ..................................................................... 200 Theme 6: Reasons for Destructive Leader Behavior .......................................... 202 Theme 7: Harassment ......................................................................................... 206 Theme 8: Destructive Leader Behaviors............................................................. 210 Summary ....................................................................................................................215 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..........................................217 Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................218  v Affected Personally ....................................................................................................219 Affected Professionally ..............................................................................................221 Discrimination............................................................................................................223 Employee Reported Destructive Leader Behaviors ............................................ 224 Human Resources Role ..............................................................................................227 Reasons for Destructive Leader Behavior .......................................................... 228 Harassment .................................................................................................................228 Destructive Leader Behaviors ....................................................................................230 Comparison of Findings to Conceptual Framework and Theories ..................... 233 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................247 Recommendations ......................................................................................................249 Implications................................................................................................................250 Conclusions ................................................................................................................253 References ........................................................................................................................254 Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer - Destructive Leadership ..............................................337 Appendix B : Destructive Leadership Interview Protocol ...............................................339 Appendix C : Transcript Analysis....................................................................................343 Appendix D : Individual Textural Descriptions ...............................................................344 Appendix E : Individual Structural Descriptions .............................................................365 Appendix F : Permissions to Use Copyrighted Information ............................................403   vi List of Tables Table 1. Qualitative Research Approaches ..................................................................... 110 Table 2. Participants’ Role in the Organization When Destructive Leadership Occurred................................................................................................................................. 146 Table 3. Leaders’ Position or Role in the Organization When They Engage in Destructive Behavior .................................................................................................................. 148 Table 4. Thematic Analysis ............................................................................................ 161 Table 5. Composite Textual Description ........................................................................ 170 Table 6. Affected Personally Invariant Constituents and Themes .................................. 190 Table 7. Affected Professionally Invariant Constituents and Themes ............................ 193 Table 8. Discrimination-Invariant Constituents and Themes ......................................... 195 Table 9. Employees Reported Leader Behavior Incidence-Invariant Constituents and Themes .................................................................................................................... 199 Table 10. Human Resources–Other-Invariant Constituents and Themes ....................... 201 Table 11. Reasons for Behavior-Invariant Constituents and Themes............................. 204 Table 12. Harassment...................................................................................................... 207 Table 13. Destructive Leader Behaviors-Invariant Constituents and Themes ............... 211   vii List of Figures Figure 1. Dialectic Helix ................................................................................................... 40 Figure 2. Process Theories of Development and Change ................................................. 42 Figure 3. Institutionalization and Institutional Change: Processes From a Dialectical Perspective ................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 4. Organizational Culture Model by Schein (1985) .............................................. 54 Figure 5. Dialectic Helix of Destructive Leadership ........................................................ 63 Figure 6. Steps of Phenomenological Data Analysis by Moustakas .............................. 155 Figure 7. Dialectical Approach To Destructive Leadership ........................................... 236   1   Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Leadership involves demonstrating specific behaviors that are determining factors assisting an organization in reaching its goals. A leader influences the way employees think and behave and shapes an organization’s culture and context (Popa et al., 2023). This influence can be invasive and persistent, consisting of behavior that can be constructive or destructive based on the conflicting values and ideologies of an organization’s culture, climate, and members’ perspectives (Khanna et al., 2021). Researchers have sought to improve organizational effectiveness by studying positive, visionary, and charismatic leadership and avoiding leadership’s negative, destructive side deserving of investigation. The study of leadership should be empirical and holistic, including its positive, constructive aspects and its negative, destructive aspects. Destructive leadership is an ongoing pattern of behavior exhibited by a leader that results in overall adverse organizational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower, and environment (Thoroughgood, 2021). Although the study of destructive leadership is relatively new, the literature revealed that its occurrence is pervasive. Because destructive leadership can proliferate, it may create an imbalance in what leaders espouse to value and what organization members observe as being valued by leaders. This imbalance can create a paradoxical environment. The current study may normalize these incongruences by showing that leadership is not always positive, and that destructive leadership may not be one obvious action by a single leader, but a series of dynamics created by the actions and reactions of many individuals within the organization. 2   Destructive leadership should be perceived based on the long-term and lingering effect on the quality of life of followers and the organization, rather than concentrating on the characteristics of the destructive leader (Li et al., 2022). In the epistemological assumption, it is important to conduct studies contextually, where the participants live and work to gain an in-depth understanding of what the participants are saying (Bohl, 2019). The longer researchers spend interviewing participants, the more they know what they know from firsthand information (Stahl & King, 2020). The effects of destructive leadership are outcomes that compromise the quality of life for constituents and detract from the organization’s primary purpose to remain profitable. The literature has little empirical, qualitative, or exploratory evidence to provide a cohesive picture of destructive leadership (Thoroughgood, 2021). The qualitative approach to social science research is a way to obtain meaning by understanding the world from subjective experiences (Busetto et al., 2020). The current qualitative transcendental phenomenological study included experiential evidence based on the personal internalized thoughts, perceptions, and attitudes of individual organization members to understand elements of participants’ experiences. Chapter 1 includes the background of the study, problem statement, purpose of the study, research question, conceptual framework, nature of the study, definitions, assumptions, scope and delimitations, limitations, and significance. Background Destructive leadership affects an organization’s culture and organizational effectiveness. Kellerman (2004) divided the subject of destructive leadership into two 3   broad categories: ineffective and unethical leadership. However, destructive leadership is a phenomenon that is not the result of ineptitude. Destructive leadership occurs when a leader acts or takes part in harmful acts to followers, the organization, or other stakeholders (Thoroughgood et al., 2021). Destructive leadership manifests in the leader (a) identifying destructive goals and fostering followers’ pursuit of those goals and (b) using destructive actions to mobilize followers to attain goals set by the leader (Khanna et al., 2021). There are many conceptualizations used to describe destructive leadership, such as (a) abusive supervision, which involves hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Smith et al., 2022); (b) deviance, or the intentional violation of organizational norms (Fan et al., 2023; Farooq et al., 2023); and (c) tyranny, which involves abuses of power by humiliating, manipulating, bullying, and/or intimidating a follower (Ashforth & Humphrey, 2022). Destructive leaders may also be charismatic, influencing people using a self-inflated vision (Padilla et al., 2007). Destructive leaders may be narcissistic, having grandiose, arrogant, and selfish behavior (R. Williams, 2023), which is a significant reason why leaders fail (Gamball, 2021). Destructive leaders may be toxic, engaging in behaviors such as corruption, manipulation, and other unethical, illegal, and criminal acts that may cause severe and lasting harm (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). No matter how the literature conceptualizes destructive leadership, it is inherently harmful (Thoroughgood et al., 2021), distinguishing it from what Khanna et al. (2021) labeled as counterproductive work behaviors or behaviors not effective in leading others. 4   A comprehensive definition of destructive leadership is challenging to construct because it has many dimensions, such as its paradoxical nature and its effect on organizations and organizations. A literature review on destructive leadership showed that it negatively affects organizational citizenship and effectiveness (Ashforth & Humphrey, 2022). The definition of destructive leadership that guided the current study was “the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and or sabotaging the organization’s structure, goals, tasks, resources, effectiveness, motivation, as well as the personal well-being and job satisfaction of followers” (Einarsen et al., 2007, p. 208). The literature on destructive leadership did not show whether the leader’s intent is an essential component in the definition (Ashforth & Humphrey, 2022). Researchers such as Wolor et al. (2022) determined that destructive leadership, whether intentional or unintentional, obstructs and sabotages the health and welfare of followers and the functional and structural effectiveness of the organization. Although a leader may not intend to harm, the perception of malicious intent could result from the antecedents and frequency of leadership exhibiting destructive behaviors. In an organizational culture audit, 60% to 75% of employees surveyed claimed that their immediate supervisor showed destructive behavior toward them (Einarsen et al., 2023). In another study, executive behavior was seen as a critical indicator of company culture, with 68% of internal auditors surveyed in Audit Board’s 2023 Organizational Culture and Ethics Report pointing to poor tone or executives not living up to company values as a key risk indicator (Noto, 2023). Likewise, in a study measuring organizational antecedents of workplace victimization, 5   Samsudin et al. (2019) found a silent epidemic among junior doctors, with 30% to 95% of those working in the central zone of Malaysia reporting being bullied and persistently exposed to negative and aggressive behaviors, resulting in humiliation, intimidation, and fear of punishment, and only 12% reporting their experience to a superior.  Adverse organizational outcomes result from dysfunctional leader behaviors interacting with followers in a conducive environment (Kellerman, 2004). A leader’s behavior can be constructive or destructive based on the conflicting values and ideologies of an organization’s culture and climate among organization members, and whether these varying perspectives converge (Khanna et al., 2021). Although both are evident in organizations, only the positive side has maintained the attention of researchers (Ford et al., 2022).  The implication in contemporary leadership literature has been that leaders are a constructive force that positively affects people and organizations. Previous scholarly research has romanticized leadership, focusing only on its charismatic, transformational, and ethical aspects and its positive effect on followers’ behaviors and organizational culture while avoiding its harmful and destructive side (Zhang et al., 2020). Destructive leadership embeds itself in the dichotomous process of leading (Khanna et al., 2021). The nature of leadership is context, behaviors, and perceptions of followers (Benmira & Agboola, 2021; Oc et al., 2023). The existence of destructive leadership in an organization is contingent upon the availability and vulnerability of followers. Leader effectiveness measures the degree to which a situation gives them power, control, and influence over the actions of their 6   followers (Çakır & Adıgüzel, 2020). This influence can be invasive and persistent, having lasting effects on followers and shaping the future context of the organization’s culture. Linked to destructive leadership are (a) displays of both short-term and long-term psychological distress such as anxiety and depression (Lu & Lin, 2021; Tepper, 2000), (b) diminished self-efficacy (Raeder et al., 2019), (c) increased family problems (Tepper, 2000), (d) somatic or unexplained health complaints (Raeder et al., 2019), (e) burnout (Tepper, 2000), and (f) job strain (Dolce et al., 2020). These behaviors can hurt a follower’s organizational citizenship and affective commitment (Fan et al., 2023).  Destructive leadership affects not only organizational members but also the organization. Researchers of the countervailing view of leadership documented sabotage, theft, and corruption among leaders (Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2006), although only theoretically. Researchers also documented a variety of other behaviors aimed at organizations, such as corruption and other unethical and illegal acts in the literature (Ashforth & Humphrey, 2022; Einarsen et al., 2020; Tepper, 2000). There is little empirical research on these organizational behaviors. The impact destructive leadership can have on an organization depends on the role that the leader plays in the organization (Thoroughgood, 2021). Leaders at the lowest level of the organization destroy team effectiveness by bullying and lying, midlevel leaders destroy morale and trust by poorly executing strategies, and high-level leaders make poor strategic decisions that destroy an entire organization (R. W. Griffin et al., 2022).  Organizations exist in a pluralistic world of competing and opposing forces, events, norms, and contradictory values, each vying for domination and control (Van de 7   Ven & Poole, 1995). The literature has documented the existence of destructive leadership in organizations through quantitative analysis. A review of the literature revealed a lack of qualitative experiential research on the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The lack of firsthand accounts of this phenomenon’s personal, internalized thoughts and attitudes left a gap in knowledge and understanding. This gap in the literature justified the need for my study. My research may help fill this gap by capturing the lived experiences of organization members who encountered destructive leadership and the meanings these individuals assign to their experiences.  It is in the essence of lived experiences that subjective meanings and structures emerge (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). By providing multiple perspectives on the essence of these shared lived experiences (Moustakas, 1994), I may provide the reader with a more holistic understanding of destructive leadership (see Emblemsvåg & Emblemsvåg, 2023). This insight may help in developing practices or policies to deal with this phenomenon. Insights from this study might also help leaders create ways to avoid this type of destructive behavior, or at least identify it at its inception to intervene as early as possible (see Riggio & Newstead, 2023). Early detection, prevention, and social change may ensue by minimizing or eliminating destructive leadership and its long-term effects.  The results of my study may also add to the body of knowledge on leadership, extending the understanding of destructive leadership. An increased account of destructive leadership may support the premise that this phenomenon is composed not of 8   one obvious action but a series of dynamics created by the actions and reactions of many individuals within the organization. An account such as this could be used to develop leadership theories, an essential factor in leadership and organizational development (Lussier & Achua, 2022). Problem Statement Researchers have taken a positive and biased approach toward the study of leadership, estimating that 25% of the leaders in organizations exhibit destructive behavior (El-Metwally et al., 2019). In the 2021 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey, it was reported that 30% of adult Americans suffer abusive conduct at work, 19% witness it, 49% are affected by it, and 66% are aware that workplace bullying happens (Namie, 2024). Also, several studies of incivility in the workplace indicated that destructive and toxic leadership was responsible for significant decreases in work effort and work quality (Appleby, 2010; Porath, 2015; Porath & Gerbasi, 2015; Porath & Pearson, 2009). In the WBI 2021 survey, for the first time the self-report of some individuals as perpetrators rose to 4% (Namie, 2024). In a 2023 Work in America workforce survey, 19% of respondents labeled their workplace as toxic, 1 in 5 respondents (22%) said their work environment has harmed their mental health, and 58% of those who reported a toxic workplace also indicated their intention to look for another job outside of their current company (American Psychological Association, 2023). Likewise, a 2022 study in the MIT Sloan Management Review cited toxic work cultures as the top driver of employee attrition (Sull et al., 2022). A leader’s behavior influences the way followers think and behave, which shapes an organization’s culture and context (Li et al., 2023).  9   A leader who shouts has a different effect on a follower than a leader who exploits them or violates organizational rules (Metin-Orta, 2021). However, empirical evidence regarding how followers perceive or react to leadership behavior is limited (Schmid et al., 2019). The general problem addressed in this study was that destructive leadership may negatively influence an organization and its members (Einarsen et al., 2007). The specific problem addressed in this study was that not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. This research was different from previous scholarly research. This study focused on the personal internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions of individual organization members about destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work. I used a qualitative interpretivist approach with interviews as the primary method of data collection (see Khan, 2014). My study illuminated how destructive leadership can negatively influence an organization. I collected and analyzed data that allowed me to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The data helped me better understand life and the 10   world (see Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004) and gain a deeper understanding of destructive leadership.  Destructive leadership should be perceived based on its enduring, prolonged effect on the quality of life of organization members and the organization itself rather than by emphasizing the characteristics of the destructive leader. Although scholars recognized that destructive leadership behavior exists, leadership research has focused on the positive, quantitative, and constructive aspects, leaving a gap in understanding the complexity of destructive leadership. The current study could narrow the knowledge gap by increasing awareness of the antithesis of positive leadership. By moving beyond leaders and toward organizational outcomes and the contributing roles of followers and environments over time, I sought to provide more effective solutions and preventive remedies (see Thoroughgood, 2021; Thoroughgood et al., 2021). Research Question A qualitative design requires that research questions guide the data collection for the study. The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The overarching research question for this study was the following: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have 11   worked? I used a semistructured interview instrument to collect data from participants (see Appendix C). Conceptual Framework I collected data that reflected feelings, emotions, behaviors, and meanings that individuals assigned to their experience. Responses were categorized into units of relevant meaning, organized into clusters of similar meaning, and organized into themes (see Wæraas, 2022). Phenomenology begins with an experience or condition and explores the phenomenon through the subjective eyes of the participants (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). The primary purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to describe the universal essence (Van Manen, 1990b). The result of a conceptual framework analysis strongly suggested five common categories where data could fall. These five areas aligned with my philosophy, informed the methodology, and provided the context for this study (see Gretschel et al., 2023). The five categories were (a) Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) dialectical change theory, (b) Benson’s (1977) dialectical analysis, (c) Schein’s (2011) organizational culture, (d) Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate, and (e) Weick’s (1995) sensemaking. These categories and the relationship between them created a mental model construct that allowed me to filter the themes extrapolated from responses to the interview questions using the mental model construct that made up the conceptual framework. Concepts from dialectical change theory and dialectical analysis are about opposing views and were the grounding concepts of this study. Leaders are catalysts for change in organizations. Leadership and destructive leadership are dialectically 12   interrelated (Collinson, 2014). A pattern, value, ideal, or norm in an organization that is always present with its opposite is the basis of Hegel’s (1827) dialectical perspective and the foundation of dialectical change theory. The dialectical nature of destructive leadership may cause an imbalance in the organization. This imbalance is paradoxical and may negatively affect the organization’s culture, which senior leadership maintains, and the organization’s climate because employees tend to behave in ways consistent with leadership. Organization members who encounter destructive leadership may perceive their lived experiences based on what leaders in the organization espouse to value. An imbalance may be why Nadler and Tushman (1992) contended that in any system, what is important to know is not what the components are, but the nature, interaction, and relationship among variables and how they combine to produce output.  Dialectical analysis looks at the ways an organization changes or develops. Based on Marx’s (1843) dialectal view, dialectical analysis involves social life, economic structure, and capitalism. Because opposing views may cause an incongruence between what the leaders espouse as valued behaviors and what the employees observe as valued, Benson (1977) used dialectical analysis to study organizations because prevailing approaches failed to deal with what he referred to as the “production of contradiction” (p. 2) or conventional, divergent views of the organizational process. Although diverse in their approaches, each of these dialectical theories models how human social order based on tensions and contradictions results in cohesion and potential social change and transformation (Bristow et al., 2021). Dialectics is one way to categorize a leader’s behavior, which can be constructive or destructive based on the conflicting values and 13   ideologies of an organization and organization members and whether these varying perspectives converge or not (Khanna et al., 2021). Dialectics allowed me to categorize the personal internalized thoughts, perceptions, and attitudes of each occurrence of destructive leadership.  I also used Schein’s (2011) organizational culture model, Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate model, and Weick’s (1995) sensemaking model to create an organizational perspective for this conceptual framework. An organization’s culture and climate are how organization members observe, experience, and make sense of their work environment (Schneider et al., 2011a). Organizational culture and climate were fundamental in exploring the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Schein named three key concepts of his culture model: (a) artifacts, (b) espoused values, and (c) assumed values. Schneider conceptualized organizational climate by integrating the traditional generic, molar, and strategic approaches, arguing that if researchers focused on the most relevant aspects of the environment for an outcome, then the predictive validity of those climate measures should be more substantial.  The current phenomenological study viewed destructive leadership in terms of Weick’s (1995) notion of sensemaking, in which organizational reality is based on how participants interpret their collective experience. Sensemaking is a social process of shared meaning in which cues are extrapolated from lived experiences (Weick, 1995), normalizing incongruences that triggered sensemaking in the first place. Sensemaking 14   occurs in organizations when members confront events, issues, and actions that are somehow surprising or confusing (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Weick, 1995). Weick articulated a framework in which individuals (a) recognize problems by surveying current and previous events, (b) form mental models by interpreting situations (Johnson-Laird, 1983) and assigning meaning, and (c) use their mental models as a point of reference in gathering and evaluating information (Thiel et al., 2012).  The current study explored, from multiple perspectives, the essence of the lived experiences of individuals working in or who had worked in an organization where destructive leadership behavior occurred. The conceptual foundation of this research informed the methodology and provided the context for this study. A more detailed explanation of these key concepts and their connection is provided in Chapter 2. Nature of the Study The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. By using a phenomenological research method, I addressed a gap in the literature and made an original contribution to the body of knowledge on leadership by explicating the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experiences of a purposive sample of 20 individual organization members. One of the purposes of social science research is to find explanations for unexplained phenomena by exploring, analyzing, and conceptualizing human social life by discovering new knowledge and verifying existing knowledge to help societies progress 15   and adapt to change (Lawal, 2019). Social science research refers to any scientific study of human action and interaction focusing on elements of thought and behavior that are in some sense social (King et al., 2021).  Phenomenology is one approach to social science research. Transcendental phenomenology brings added dimensions to the study of human experiences through qualitative research. Transcendental phenomenology, as suggested by Moustakas (1994), was employed as the approach to social science research used to describe the meaning of the lived experiences of organization members who encountered destructive leadership. Transcendental means “that which is perceived freshly as if for the first time” (Rao, 2019, para. 5), and transcendental phenomenology is an appropriate method to address meaning and human perspectives (Gallagher, 2022).  Quantitative analysis was not recommended as an applicable research method for this study (see Strijker et al., 2020). Quantitative methods are best suited for studies seeking causation or documenting results related to range and correlation (Noyes et al., 2019). Previous research on destructive leadership used quantitative methods and objective analysis of numerical data, such as social surveys, structured questionnaires, and official statistics, because these have good reliability and representativeness to understand the complexity of how destructive leadership has affected the organization and its members ability to function. Phenomena such as experiences, attitudes, and behaviors relating to destructive leadership can be difficult to capture quantitatively, and it is important to ensure that the context and narrative of qualitative work are not lost by trying to quantify something that is not meant to be quantified (Tenny, 2022).  16   Because the focus of the research on destructive leadership has primarily been quantitative, I approached the subjective experiences of individual participants to conceptualize destructive leadership more thoroughly. Knowledge is known through individuals’ subjective experiences of people. Qualitative research is a naturalistic approach based on the observations and interpretations of people’s personal internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions of different events (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative research draws from interpretivist paradigms seeking to understand a research subject rather than predict outcomes, as in the positivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). The interpretivist approach to social science research is an umbrella term for a heterogenous field of inquiry (Kunisch et al., 2022). Interpretivists build knowledge by understanding how individuals perceive and give meaning to their experiences while constructivists view knowledge as constructed as people work to make sense of their experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The recent quantitative positivist leadership literature lacked empirical and experiential evidence to validate the existence of destructive leadership. The available literature on destructive leadership reflected quantitative positivist approaches to social research such as surveys to describe followers’ experiences, while tempering individual experiences (Geels, 2022). Although quantitative research is important, it lacks breadth and depth, it fails to meet the basic conditions of qualitative methods to develop insights and in-depth exploration of an under researched phenomenon, and it does not contribute to the analysis of destructive leadership (De Allegri et al., 2019).  17   Researchers who collect quantitative data use positivist deductive methods that focus on the phenomenon and the causal relationship between variables that can be observed and measured (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). Positivist methods aspire to test theories or hypotheses, while interpretivist methods employ an inductive approach that starts with data and tries to derive a theory about the phenomenon of interest from the observed data (Bhattacherjee, 2012). In the current study, data saturation, when no new knowledge is gained from the interviews, was reached using 20 individual organization members. Following the constructivist paradigm, I conducted the study in the participants’ natural environment (see Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In qualitative research, the population of the study is the targeted group of people from which the sample is drawn, who have the desired characteristics to participate in the study (Bhandari, 2023).  A sample is a subset of a population that is selected for a study. The sample of 20 individual organization members was drawn from a population meeting the following criteria: (a) 18 years of age or older, (b) have at least 3 years of current or previous work experience, and (c) encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership. The age criterion, work experience criterion, and encounter with destructive leadership criterion for participant selection of individual organization members were used to ensure that the subjects sampled were able to provide important perspectives related to the phenomenon of destructive leadership being studied. Data were collected using Zoom video conferencing and were audio recorded using Zoom Cloud from individuals who had firsthand experiential knowledge of the phenomenon of destructive leadership. Semistructured interviews using open-ended 18   questions were used to enable unscripted questions to emerge as details increased. Data and meaning emerged organically from the context of the study. The data collected in the interviews yielded several pages of rich, thick descriptions of participants’ lived experiences of destructive leadership. Data collection centered around a broad general question as suggested by Moustakas (1994): What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? I used an interview protocol to interview participants via Zoom with the open-ended questions listed in Appendix C. Each respondent’s personal internalized attitudes, thoughts, and perceptions were captured in their own words, conveying their understandings, feelings, emotions, and behaviors (see Wæraas, 2022). Evidence collected during the interview of individual organization members produced rich, thick descriptions that were used to capture a wide range of contextual details relating to the phenomenon of destructive leadership (see Younas et al., 2023).  I used the transcendental tradition to approach phenomenological analysis to systematically organize and analyze the phenomenological data (see Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). I transcribed the data collected from each interview by hand and used NVivo 12 Plus transcription software. Through phenomenological reduction, I intentionally and continuously bracketed my suppositions and looked at the noema or phenomenon with an open mind for noesis or meanings (see Moustakas, 1994), focusing on the description of the participants. The transcribed data were horizontalized by listing 19   every expression relevant to the experience and giving equal value to each expression. I deleted irrelevant, repeated, or overlapping statements so that significant themes could emerge (see Moustakas, 1994).  Moustakas (1994) modified Van Kaam’s method of phenomenological data analysis as a rigorous and structured process. I engaged in the process of epoche by describing and writing down any relevant aspects of myself, including any biases and assumptions, expectations, and experiences (see Moustakas, 1994). This approach is consistent with Husserl’s (1931) phenomenological approach. Using phenomenological reduction, I identified specific statements in the interview transcripts that provided information about the participants’ experiences, allowing the range of perspectives about destructive leadership to be identified (see Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). This left the invariant constituents until data saturation occurred to create themes and a textual description of what was experienced (see Moustakas, 1994).  I captured respondents’ imagination, senses, and memory using an imaginative variation, uniting what each respondent reported with what was being studied (see Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022; Phillips-Pula et al., 2011). Imaginative variation revealed a description of the context or setting that influenced how the participants experienced destructive leadership, allowing a structural description to emerge. Next, I synthesized the textual and structural descriptions of the experiences of individuals (see Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022; Phillips-Pula et al., 2011) into a composite description of the phenomenon of destructive leadership called the essential invariant structure (see Moustakas, 1994). The textural-structural description that emerged represented the 20   meaning and essence of the experience (see Creswell, 1998; Moustakas, 1994). Transcendental phenomenology was the appropriate methodology to search for understanding and meaning from the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. I provide a more detailed description of the study methodology in Chapter 3. Definitions The following operational definitions guided this research: Constructive leadership: Leader behavior that is in accordance with the valid welfare of the organization by supporting and enhancing the organization’s goals, tasks, and strategies as well as making the best use of organizational resources. These leaders feel that employee well-being, goal attainment, and the effective use of resources in the service of the organization’s legitimate interests are not mutually exclusive (Einarsen et al., 2007). Contradiction: Incongruities in social arrangements (Seo & Creed, 2002), which result in internal and external tensions and conflict (Benson, 1977; Seo & Creed, 2002). This is contingent on human action and interaction where contradictions and inconsistencies may facilitate new thinking (Foldy, 2006).  Destructive leadership: Volitional behavior by a leader that can harm or intends to harm a leader’s organization or followers by (a) encouraging followers to pursue goals that contravene the legitimate interests of the organization and (b) employing a leadership 21   style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers, regardless of justifications for such behavior (Khanna et al., 2021). Dialectical analysis: A method of examining and discussing opposing ideas to find the truth (Ponsioen, 2019). Dialectical analysis explains the social change that can take place between multiple divergent entities over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Also, it explores the ongoing tensions and contradictions involving organizational actors attempting to shape and make sense of the organization’s culture and climate (Bristow et al., 2021). Dialectical change: A pattern, value, ideal, or norm in an organization that is always present with its polar opposite (Hegel, 1827; Marx, 1843). Epoche: Refraining from judgment, which requires eliminating judgment and suppositions and raising knowledge above every doubt (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004).  Essence: The central underlying meaning of the experience shared within the different human experiences and that all experiences have an underlying structure for the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Horizontalize: A process used by data analysts in which a review of interview transcriptions, significant statements, sentences, or quotes that provide an understanding of how the participants experienced the phenomenon is highlighted (Moustakas, 1994). Imaginative variation: When a researcher seeks possible meanings through the use of imagination. A researcher finds meaning by varying the frames of reference, 22   employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, positions, roles, or functions (Moustakas, 1994). Mental model: Personal, internal representations of external reality that people use to interact with the world around them, constructed by individuals based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the world (Abel et al., 2022).  Organizational climate: An experientially based description of what people see and report to them in an organizational situation (James & Jones, 1974; Schneider, 2000). Climate involves employees’ perceptions of what the organization is like in terms of practices, policies, procedures, routines, and rewards (Schneider et al., 2011b). Organizational culture: The integrated pattern of human behavior within an organization that includes thought, speech, action, and artifact and depends on the human capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations by customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group (Breitinger et al., 2003). The pattern of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions may not have been articulated but shape how people behave and things are done (Armstrong, 2001). Phenomenological reduction: The analysis of statements and themes and the search for all possible meanings (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological reduction includes bracketing, horizontalizing, and organizing invariant qualities and themes, and constructing textual descriptions (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). 23   Phenomenology: The study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view describing what a person perceives, senses, and knows in their immediate awareness and experience (Gallagher, 2022).  Praxis: The efforts of humans to enforce change in their world (Reese, 1993), which is the essential element that anchors dialectical materialism and drives the creation and synthesis of opposites. Because people continually construct and reconstruct the social world, Benson (1977) viewed dialectics in relation to ethics and viewed praxis to understand how organizations respond to tensions. Sensemaking: The process of social construction when discrepant cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activity and involve the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalize what people are doing (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Social construction: The construction and reconstruction of social structure emerging from the ongoing interactions in everyday life (Seo & Creed, 2002). Social media: Communication websites that facilitate relationships formed between users from diverse backgrounds, resulting in a rich social structure. User-generated content encourages inquiry and decision making (Kapoor et al., 2018). Totality: Human behavior being studied in its sociocultural context (Laske, 2023). The assumption is that phenomenon can be understood only in relation to other phenomena (Farjoun, 2019). Assumptions Assumptions are unexamined beliefs made by a researcher that are taken for granted and understood to be true (Creswell, 2002). These beliefs are accepted as true or 24   at least plausible (Bower & Maxham, 2012) by researchers and peers who may want to replicate a study given the population or research design (Stating the Obvious, 2021). Relevant researcher assumptions, beliefs, and biases should be stated in the body of the dissertation (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Assumptions are the focal point for any theory or paradigm (Sulaima, 2019). Several basic assumptions are characteristic of qualitative research: (a) the multiple realities of the researcher, of the individuals being studied, and of the reader or audience interpreting the results; (b) that the study will include the diverse perspective and voice of each participant; (c) that researchers will interact with the participants being studied and actively work to minimize any imbalance between the researcher and those being researched; (d) that researchers recognize and acknowledge the value-laden nature of the research; (e) that the research is contextual; (f) that research is based on inductive forms of logic; (g) that categories of interest may emerge from participants (internal) and be used to frame understanding (external); (h) that the goal of qualitative research is to uncover patterns or theories that help explain a phenomenon of interest; and (i) that determining accuracy involves verifying the information with informants or triangulating among different sources of information (Qualitative Research, n.d.). Assumptions are based on the researchers’ decisions, actions, and judgments that are made formally, informally, or subconsciously based on previous experiences that reveal patterns in how the world works. When new situations are encountered, these patterns or assumptions are applied to the new environment. This process saves the researcher the time and energy of analyzing each situation anew (Mayne, 2023). 25   I made several assumptions regarding the methods used in the process of qualitative research (see Creswell, 2002) that I believed to be true or at least plausible but could not be demonstrated to be true (see Bower & Maxham, 2012). The procedures I used were inductive and based on my experience in collecting and analyzing data. A key characteristic of qualitative research is a willingness to tolerate ambiguity. Examining issues from all angles to demonstrate the most plausible explanations is an indication of high-level analysis. The integrity of a researcher is given credence by the inclusion of all information, even that which challenges inferences and assumptions (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). I assumed that the use of a phenomenological approach would adequately address the research problem, purpose, and research question. I also assumed that individual participants who had experienced the same phenomenon but under different circumstances may perceive the experiences differently, allowing for diverse data to emerge to understand the phenomenon (see Merriam & Grenier, 2019). A third assumption was that change in organizations occurs dialectically. As historically and politically established power structures, organizations exist in relatively long periods of permanence in which chaos and change coexist symmetrically, offsetting the power and social structure that influence workers to resist change, preserving their privilege (Käufer & Chemero, 2021). Another assumption was that the participants would be honest in describing their lived experiences. The final assumption was that the responses gathered would be sufficient for data saturation. 26   Scope and Delimitations The problem that a researcher seeks to resolve should align with the confines of certain parameters. The scope of a study refers to the boundaries or conditions in which a study will be conducted (Simon & Goes, 2013). The scope of the current study was destructive leadership as defined by Einarsen et al. (2007), which emphasizes a leader’s negative influence on organizational members’ personal and professional lives. Data were collected through semistructured interviews. The research boundaries included the research problem and the conceptual framework made up of a mental model construct that included dialectical change theory, dialectical analysis, organizational culture, organizational climate, and sensemaking.  Delimitations are characteristics that limit the scope and define the boundaries of a study (Gabriele & Chiaravalloti, 2013). The current study addressed a targeted population of 20 individuals who encountered destructive leadership, to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The population was large enough to obtain an appropriate sample of 20 in-depth interviews necessary to uncover 90%–95% of the data needed (see A. Griffin & Hauser, 1993). Participants were at least 18 years old, had at least 3 years of work experience, and had encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership. Samples for qualitative studies are generally much smaller than those used in quantitative studies because there is a point of diminishing return to a qualitative sample, such that as a study progresses saturation can occur (Mason, 2010). 27   Limitations Limitations are factors outside of a researcher’s control that limit the generalizability of a study (Simon & Goes, 2013). Three limitations could have affected the current study’s results. The first limitation was that as I had limited experience in conducting social science research. The second limitation was that in the data collection and analysis phases, the potential for researcher bias existed. I reduced this risk by ensuring preparation and practicing epoche and bracketing before engaging in the recruitment, data collection, and data analysis processes. The final limitation was that participant selection occurred using the social media site Facebook, and interviews were conducted using Zoom video conferencing platform or Skype. The lack of intimate contact increased the psychological distance between me and participants, which may have decreased the participants’ feeling of accountability (see Gosling et al., 2015). There was a privacy constraint to using video communication because I could see details of a participant’s personal space, whether at home, in the office, or at another location. Finally, because Facebook participants come from diverse backgrounds, they could have misunderstood instructions or interview questions due to linguistic or cultural differences (see Gosling et al., 2015). Responses were an indication of individual perceptions regarding destructive leadership and may not represent others’ experiences. Significance Although scholars recognized that destructive leadership behavior exists, leadership research has focused on the positivist and quantifiable aspects that leaders espouse and what followers expect in an organization, leaving a gap in understanding the 28   complexity of destructive leadership. Qualitative research had not been conducted on the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Because the focus of the research on destructive leadership has primarily been quantitative, there was a gap in understanding the individual experience, which qualitative research may capture. The current qualitative transcendental phenomenological study addressed this gap by looking at purposively selected participants’ experiences to conceptualize destructive leadership more thoroughly. I used experiential evidence from individual semistructured interviews to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The findings may contribute to the body of knowledge on leadership by revealing more about the possible negative side of leadership. Significance to Practice The current study may be significant to practice because of its unique approach to increasing the body of knowledge on leadership and destructive leadership. By providing multiple empirical perspectives on destructive leadership, the study may explicate participants’ lived experiences (see Moustakas, 1994). This qualitative study may fill a gap in the literature, which has been mainly quantitative, by providing a deeper understanding of destructive leadership features, which may be used to develop practices or policies to address the phenomenon. This study’s findings could also assist in 29   developing resources for business leaders by increasing their awareness of destructive leadership. The people and things impacted by destructive leadership, such as the subordinates of destructive leaders, the organizational culture, and processes destroyed by this type of behavior, may benefit from this study. Data collected in this study may also fill a gap in the literature regarding what happens after destructive leadership has occurred in an organization. Findings may reveal how destructive leadership may negatively influence the personal and professional lives of organizational members. Awareness is the best safeguard to avoid this type of destructive behavior or at least identify it at its inception and intervene as early as possible (Riggio & Newstead, 2023). The actions of organizational leaders have implications for the organization and its members and stakeholders outside of the organization (Kathuria et al., 2010). For an organization to be successful in a global market, it is imperative to accomplish what Senge (1990) referred to as continually enlarging the ability to construct the future. Awareness of how the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked may give an organization a competitive advantage necessary to remain competitive in the industry. Studying destructive leadership may be a matter of competitive necessity.  Significance to Theory The first goal of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to contribute to the body of knowledge on leadership and fill a gap in the literature on the 30   essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Phenomenological research assumes that there is an essence of shared experiences (Flick, 2022). Although leadership and leaders have been lauded as having a significant short-term and long-term effect on subordinates, few studies have described the nature of destructive leadership behaviors or the experiences of individuals who work or have worked in an organization during this type of phenomenon to determine how it transformed the culture. Previous scholarly research romanticized leadership by focusing only on its charismatic, transformational, and ethical aspects and positive effects on an organization. This dichotomy in leadership research left a gap in knowledge.  I explored the lived experiences of 20 employees regarding destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked and the meaning that these individuals assigned to their experiences to offer insight into the underlying features that may provide the foundation for future cause-and-effect studies on the relationships of factors (see Khanna et al., 2021). In addition to providing a better understanding of the harmful or destructive side of leadership, this study could also be used to develop leadership theories, which are essential factors in leadership and organizational development. The subjective meanings and themes extrapolated from participants’ lived experiences may provide insight into how destructive leadership can transform an organization and what it is like to work where this type of behavior is prevalent.  31   Significance to Social Change The findings from this study may enable organizations to avoid this type of destructive behavior or identify it at its inception and intervene as early as possible (see Riggio & Newstead, 2023). An awareness of the existence and essence of destructive leadership may advance awareness of the antecedents and causes of destructive leadership. An in-depth analysis of the lingering effects of this type of social calamity may help promote awareness, early detection, and prevention and may be the impetus for positive social change, which may reduce or eliminate the occurrence of destructive leadership in the future. Summary and Transition Chapter 1 began with a discussion of leadership as a dichotomous process in which destructive leadership is deeply rooted (Khanna et al., 2021). Scholarly research has focused on leadership’s charismatic, transformational, and ethical aspects and their positive effect on organizational culture, climate, and organizational members. An examination of the literature on destructive leadership revealed the prevalence of quantitative research studies but few qualitative studies (see Khan, 2014). This dichotomy in leadership research left a gap in knowledge. The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The specific problem addressed in this study was not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive 32   and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. A mental model construct of dialectical change theory and dialectical analysis grounded this study, and organizational culture, organizational climate, and sensemaking provided an organizational perspective. I conceptualized the data collected to answer the overarching research question: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? Chapter 2 consists of the literature review that guided this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study. The literature review assisted me in making a deeper examination of how individual organization members perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked.  33   Chapter 2: Literature Review The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The specific problem addressed in this study was not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. This study focused on employees’ experiences at work and their personal internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions. Knowledge of how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked is essential in developing influential leaders and healthy organizations. Understanding the impact of destructive leadership through the lived experiences of individuals who have firsthand knowledge may have implications for the followers of destructive leaders and their organizations. Destructive leadership is a growing and costly phenomenon (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). This phenomenon costs corporations billions of dollars annually in legal, property, and employee expenses (Thoroughgood, 2021, Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Recent scholarly research romanticized leadership, focusing on its charismatic, transformational, and ethical aspects and its positive effect on followers’ behavior and organizational culture. Recent research on destructive leadership used a quantitative approach to describe the followers’ experiences, leaving a gap in the literature on the firsthand lived experiences of organization members involving 34   destructive leadership (Khan, 2014). There was a need to examine firsthand accounts of destructive leadership’s negative influence on how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The use of qualitative methods to study the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked may offer a way to understand the world from the subjective experiences of followers. The results of this study may illuminate how destructive leadership affects the organization, its members, and society. This chapter provides evidence indicating a gap in the literature regarding leadership’s destructive influence and the conceptual framework for this study. The conceptual framework was a mental model construct consisting of concepts from Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) dialectical change theory, Benson’s (1977) dialectical analysis, Schein’s (2011), organizational culture model, Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate model, and Weick’s (1995) sensemaking model. Literature Search Strategy Sources used to gain insight into destructive leadership for the literature review included local libraries such as Emory University, Georgia State University, Robert W. Woodruff Library at The Atlanta University Center, Walden University Library, and various academic and subject databases. The primary databases used were Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, Dissertations & Theses, ebrary, 35   EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central, Sage Journals, Science Direct, Emerald Journals, JSTOR, Academy of Management, and Thoreau Multi-Database Search. I used several terms to search these resources: destructive leadership, destructive leadership behaviors, leadership, destructive leader, transformational leadership, constructive leadership, organizational culture, dialectics, dialectical change, dialectical analysis, organizational climate, sensemaking, mental model, the dark side of leadership, phenomenology, qualitative, quantitative, transcendental, essence, dichotomy, antithesis, thesis, synthesis, Schein, Schein and organizational culture, Van de Ven and Poole’s dialectical change, Benson’s dialectical analysis, Schneider and organizational climate, and Weick and sensemaking. I also used other combinations of these terms.  I limited my search to peer-reviewed journals, books, periodicals, and journal articles no more than 5 years old. A search of the term leadership from 2019 to 2023 resulted in 947,000 peer-reviewed journal articles. A search of destructive leadership using the same time parameters yielded 19,700 results. Likewise, a search of the terms dialectical change and destructive leadership yielded 17,800 peer-reviewed journal articles; dialectical analysis and destructive leadership resulted in 17,100, organizational culture and destructive leadership resulted in 17,700, organizational climate and destructive leadership resulted in 17,500, and sensemaking and destructive leadership resulted in 14,000 peer-reviewed journal articles.  The use of sources dated more than 5 years old provided a historical perspective. A search using the history of leadership, the history of dialectics, and the evolution of dialectics yielded several seminal sources such as Bass (1985), Burns (1978), Marx 36   (1967), and (Hegel, 1827) that were related to the foundation of this study. These searches indicated a gap in the literature that this study was conducted to fill. Conceptual Framework A leader’s behavior can be constructive or destructive based on the conflicting values and ideologies of an organization and among organization members and whether these varying perspectives converge (Khanna et al., 2021). To understand the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, I chose a conceptual framework composed of a mental model construct based on a dialectical worldview with grounding theories that provided an organizational view. A mental model is a way of looking at the world that provides a lens for the interpretation of ideas (Magzan, 2012). According to Senge (1990), a mental model helps individuals make sense of the world by providing a mechanism through which new information is filtered and stored.  The conceptual framework of the current study was grounded in the opposing views, tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions of leadership dynamics and organizational life (see Collinson, 2006). The grounding theories that provided the foundation of this mental model construct were Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) dialectical theory of change and Benson’s (1977) dialectical analysis. Organizational culture based on Schein’s (2011) organizational culture model, organizational climate based on Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate model, and sensemaking based on Weick’s (1995) sensemaking model provided the second part of this mental model construct and composed an 37   organizational perspective for this framework. The theoretical choices that guided this research were aligned with the philosophical assumptions that informed this study that shaped the problem, research question, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation (see Gretschel et al., 2023). Concepts from these theories and other models created a lens to view how individual organization members perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked.  Dialectics The conceptual framework of this study relied on the dynamic interaction between opposing but interdependent forces (Bristow et al., 2021) in search of truth. A dialectic is a dynamic system in which a conflicting but reciprocal relationship exists between elements. Therefore, when people view oppositional relationships as both interdependent and complementary, they are thinking dialectically (Butera & Buchs, 2019). I used dialectical theory to examine how relationships develop from the interplay of perceived opposite forces or contradictions and how communicators negotiate these changing processes (see Ottu & Ekore, 2019). Dialectical theory is about unity and differences within relationships (Baxter, 1990). Dialectics proposes a logical system to explore and understand a world (Kaminstein, 1987) afflicted by paradox and contradiction. The conceptual framework of the current study was based on the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked.  38   Organization members who encounter destructive leadership may perceive and make sense of their lived experiences based on what leaders in the organization espouse to value, which may be inconsistent with what employees see as value. The essence of leadership lies in identifying goals and influencing followers to pursue those goals (House & Shamir, 1993; Yukl, 2006). Therefore, destructive leadership is manifested in the leader when (a) identifying destructive goals and fostering followers’ pursuit of those goals and/or (b) using destructive actions to mobilize followers to attain goals set by the leader (Khanna et al., 2021). When discord emerges because these entities espouse opposing values, the collision creates a synthesis or change.  The term dialectic, in Hegelian philosophy, is a logical subjective development in thought from a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two is resolved by means of a synthesis or a continuous unification of opposites (Popper, 1940). The Hegelian dialectic is a change process composed of three stages. These stages are usually presented as Fichte’s (1982) thesis, antithesis, and synthesis triad (Breazeale, n.d.). In the first stage of a beginning proposition, a thesis, or a concept of pure being, gives rise to its reaction (Fichte, 1982). The second stage is a negatively rational moment of instability or antithesis or nothing, which contradicts or negates the thesis (Breazeale, n.d.). Being and nothing results in a unification of opposites with the tension between the prior two being resolved by means of a synthesis or becoming a speculative or positively rational moment (Wallace, 1874). Hegel’s powerful dialectical interaction between opposites may best be illustrated in the form of a helix as seen in Figure 1 (Sameroff, 2010). As synthesis results from 39   conflict, the conflict is reconciled by truths contained in the thesis and antithesis at a higher level. The synthesis becomes the new thesis and generates a new antithesis, restarting the process until the arrival of truth.  Dialectical Change Theory Although a variety of dialectical perspectives exists (Nielsen, 1996), the conceptual framework of the current study focused on the theoretical perspectives of Hegel and Marx. Hegel’s (1827) and Marx’s (1843) seminal research was grounded in the assumption that an organization exists in a pluralistic world of opposing forces and their diametrical opposites, competing for dominance and power (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). In such pluralistic environments, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) noted that an organization’s engagement in dialectical tensions represented organizational change taking place. Van de Ven and Poole identified dialectics as a process theory that leads to organizational change. In the current study, change was defined as a difference in state, quality, or form of an organizational entity over time, and process was defined as a sequence of empirical observations (see Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). 40   Figure 1 Dialectic Helix  Note. Adapted from “Dialectical Materialism and Soviet Science,” by L. S. Feuer, 1949, Philosophy of Science 16(2), pp. 105 – 124 (https://doi.org/10.1086/287023). Copyright 2022 by Cambridge University Press. Dialectical process theories clarify stability and instability between competing forces by referencing their relative symmetry (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Process theories are systematic examinations that assess how specific occurrences in a process result in a specific outcome (Van de Ven, 2007). Four different archetypes are prescribed by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) to explain how and why change unfolds in organizations as seen in Figure 2: (a) life-cycle, assumes that change is an immanent (Garud & Van de Ven, 2002), progression through a predetermined sequence of stages (Erikson, 1982); (b) teleological, planned change, that is a purposeful social construction among individuals within the organization changing and do not recognize the need for 41   change (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011); (c) dialectical, assumes that change results from contradictory forces in opposition and conflict (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004); and (d) evolutionary, explains the process of change as a recurring, progressive, and the probabilistic (Garud & Van de Ven, 2002). These four process theories are fundamentally different accounts of how and why change occurs in organizations (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).  Van de Ven and Poole (1995) identified dialectics as a process theory that leads to organizational change, therefore dialectical change theory will be the process theory used in this study to explain how and why the concept of change may unfold or result from destructive leadership behaviors. Dialectical process theories assume that stability and change occur in relation to the relative balance of power between opposing entities (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Starting from a point of momentary stasis (Nuzzo, 2017), or thesis, stability occurs because the struggle between the power of a conflicting paradigm or antithesis mobilizes to balance and maintain the status quo between oppositions and sets the stage for producing a synthesis (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017; Poole & Van de Ven, 2004). The conflict between thesis and antithesis occurs because they espouse opposite values that generate the dialectical cycle in which the synthesis will become the thesis in the next cycle of a dialectic. Change occurs when these conflicting espoused values strengthen enough to pursue the status quo.   42   Figure 2 Process Theories of Development and Change  Note. From “Explaining Development and Change in Organizations,” by A. H. Van de Ven, and M. S Poole, 1995, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), p. 520 (https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329). Copyright 1995 by Academy of Management. Reprinted with permission.   43   The perception of the potential influence of an opposing paradigm or antithesis may activate and challenge the current thesis or conditions initiating change or synthesis (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). My study used the concept of dialectical change as a lens to view the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, to see if change or synthesis occurred and how it affected the organization and its members (see Avolio & Bass, 1988). Dialectical Analysis There is an increasing awareness of leadership dynamics and organizational life (Collinson, 2006). Because the study of organizations narrowly concentrates on rational and functional aspects, Benson (1977), proposed a dialectical approach, committed to the concept of change and the process of becoming. In my study, Benson’s (1977) dialectical approach to organizational analysis served as a conduit, connecting deeply rooted, established institutional structures and the human need to change those structures (see Seo & Creed, 2002). Specifically, Benson (1977) proposed a dialectical analysis of the study of organizations because prevailing approaches have failed to deal with, what he referred to as “production of contradiction” (p. 2) or conventional, divergent views of organizational process. Dialectical analysis searches for a fundamental understanding of collective processes (Benson, 1977).  Dialectical analysis also explains the social change (Farjoun, 2019) that can take place between multiple divergent entities over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). It explores the ongoing tensions and contradictions involving organizational actors 44   attempting to shape and make sense of the organization’s culture and climate (Bristow et al., 2021). The socially entrenched nature of organizational contradictions in institutional discourse involves aspects of conflict, paradox, and mutual interaction (Benson (1977). A Marxist perspective of social life, taken from Marx’s (1967) seminal analysis of economic structure and capitalism, was applied to the study of organizations by Benson (1977). As shown in Figure 3, a dialectical analysis looks for evidence of (a) social construction, which can be understood as the construction and reconstruction of social structure emerging from the ongoing interactions in everyday life (Seo & Creed, 2002); (b) totality, which means that human behavior should be studied within its sociocultural context (Martin, 2009); (c) contradiction, which refers to the inconsistencies and gaps that cause tensions (Werner & Baxter, 1994), in the fabric of social life; and (d) praxis which means the human capability to act rationally. These four elements create, maintain, and transform organizations in institutional environments (Rusch & Wilbur, 2007), by awakening actors from cognitive and behavioral inertia (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Dialectical analysis is a way to understand collective processes (Benson, 1977) because analysis explores how multiple divergent entities change and develop over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).  Dialectical analysis has had a long and diverse tradition in philosophy (Di Domenico et al., 2009). Hegel was an idealist and his perspective of dialectics assumed that rationality would lead people to an idealized worldview (Friedman, 1974). Marx focused on material influences as directing the world’s future. Marx extended Hegel’s objective dialectical idealism and theoretical nature and stressed that the contradictions 45   that produce a dialectical pattern of historical change have roots in materialism that can be scientifically studied (Boer, 2021). Marx substituted economics for Hegel’s metaphysical to explain the historical process which he conceived as a struggle between classes. Figure 3 Institutionalization and Institutional Change: Processes From a Dialectical Perspective  Note. Adapted from “Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective,” by M. G. Seo and W. E. D. Creed, 2002, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), p. 225. Copyright 2000-2018 by ITHAKA. Reprinted with permission. Marx used Hegel’s dialectic as the basis of his own dialectically based theory of capitalism known as dialectical materialism (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Dialectical materialism is the Marxist philosophy of history that sees labor and class struggles as the drivers of change (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024). In Marxist thought, dialectical materialism implied that reality was essentially material and contained within dialectical contradiction between opposing elements that function as the engine of change  46   (Lichtheim & Jordan, 1968). Marx’s materialist ideology exposed the contradictions inherent in a capitalist society (Eagleton, 2006) and focused on the transformation through which one set of arrangements transcended another (Benson, 1977).  The general problem addressed in this study was not enough is known about how individual organization members perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Dialectical change theory may show how an organization and its members, when confronted by destructive leadership, may be changed, transformed, or synthesized (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Leadership is by nature dialectical because it is socially constructed for the interactions of leaders and followers (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Leadership has traditionally been associated with transformational leaders who eliminate dilemmas and ambiguities (Collinson, 2014). Transformational leadership is the form of leadership that followers identify as the perfect model of leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Current research suggests that often effectiveness is distinct from the idealized, model of the charismatic leader (Collinson, 2014).  Destructive leadership is based on tensions and oppositions as they are acted out in organizational life (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Dialectical analysis may explain how the stability of socially constructed, traditional leadership that members espouse, and the contradictory and paradoxical phenomena of destructive leadership are conflicting yet interdependent (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). The relationship of contradictory actors espousing one element, the affirmation, engage in conflict with actors, destructive leaders, promoting the opposed element. This conflict releases the tension between the 47   conflicting elements and produces transformation, collaboration, effectiveness, and or efficiency.  Ontological Foundation Dialectical change theory and dialectical analysis are the ontological foundations of this framework and articulate the paradox between traditional constructive leadership and destructive leadership (Jabreen, 2009). Although the methodologies differ, each theory addresses how the various components of human social order (structures and institutions, social relations, interactions and behavior, and cultural characteristics, such as norms, beliefs, and values) work together to maintain the status quo and are based on tensions and contradictions and the resulting potential social change and transformation (Bristow et al., 2021). Traditional constructive leadership and destructive leadership are dialectically opposed (Collinson, 2020).  When exploring destructive leadership from an ontological perspective, the focus is on the ways of being that constitute being a leader (Fairhurst & Collinson, 2023). To open and reveal the nature and function of being, when one is being destructive or exhibiting destructive behaviors, and to reveal the source of the destructive leadership in the process of leading. Ontology involves the inherent character of social reality (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022), constructed by the interaction of individuals attempting to understand the world around them. A unique attribute of dialectical analysis is that every phenomenon derives its ontology or social reality from its relation to other phenomena (Lawson, 2019). Framed broadly, dialectical analysis focuses less on meaning and more on the interpretive process of dialogues and practices (Bristow et al., 2021).  48   Epistemological Foundation The philosophical assumptions of this ontology and epistemology are rooted in a social constructivist interpretive framework (Otoo, 2020), which informed the methodology and provided the context of this study. The impact of opposing forces can affect how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Organizational culture, organizational climate, and sensemaking provided the epistemological assumptions in this framework and an organizational perspective to view and understand the ontology of dialectical change and dialectical analysis. Epistemology, in the context of leadership, is concerned with how ontological assumptions can be known, understood, justified, and explained, logically and rationally (Bohl, 2019). Dialectics as ontology refers to a view of reality as a powerful interaction of opposing forces, whereas dialectics as epistemology refers to a method of reasoning in which understanding is achieved through the clash of opposing arguments (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The epistemological assumptions of this framework are based on the unresolved and fluid paradox of constructive, charismatic, and ethical leadership and its positive effect on followers’ behavior and the organization, traditionally romanticized in scholarly leadership research.  Organizational Culture Destructive leadership behaviors can proliferate, changing and transforming the culture and climate of an organization (Tepper, 2000). The purpose of this qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived 49   experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. As such, this mental model construct provided an organizational lens to view and categorize the data from participant responses to interview questions. I used Schein’s (2011) organizational culture model to filter the data gathered from individual organization members, about how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Organizational culture researchers have traditionally taken a macro level approach, focusing on how various aspects of culture influence the organization and organization members, neglecting a more micro level analysis of the personal, internalized thoughts, and attitudes of organizational members and how they perceive, engage with and experience organizational culture and how those experiences influence their work and professional lives (Wæraas, 2022).  When leaders engage in self-interest, a culture of destructive leadership behaviors will ensue (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). This is why Joseph (2019) contended that a rational way to make sense of or check the severity of destructive leadership in an organization is to estimate the effect on the culture of the organization. Culture, in this study, was defined in an organizational context, according to Schein (2010), as a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 18). Culture is reflected at different levels through 50   the organization's mission, through individual beliefs and perceptions, and subconsciously (Bastedo, 2012). It is a sense-making and control mechanism that guides and shapes employees’ attitudes and behavior (Weick, 1995). For the purpose of this study, influence was defined as a force that brings about a change, as in nature or behavior or an affect or to have an effect on or shape (Bandura, 2009), norms and rules, whether overt or covert, that when shared, define organization members expectations of appropriate behaviors (Skills for Care, 2019). This research study relied on qualitative methods that use participant interviews, and examination of historical information to understand how culture provides a context for understanding the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The use of employee interviews to understand employee attitudes, behavior, and performance dates back to the 1930s (Ostroff et al., 2013). Organizational culture is deeply rooted in anthropology, which includes the history, traditions, symbols, rituals, shared values, beliefs, and deeply held assumptions of its members (Ostroff et al., 2013). Organizations are regarded as political entities in which prevailing parties manipulate their power to preserve the status quo and maintain their privilege (Baldridge, 1971). Political models demonstrate how prevailing culture forms and reforms organizational processes (Benjamin, 1996). Dialectical models (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995) and the political metaphor of change (Morgan, 1986) are similar in their assumptions.  51   Based on the Hegelian perspective, change rests on the assumption that an organization exists in a pluralistic world of competing opposing forces, events, norms, contradictory values, and their polar opposite, each vying for domination and control (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Organizations pass through long periods of evolutionary change and short periods of second-tier revolutionary change. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) noted that an organization’s engagement with dialectical tensions represents organizational change taking place as thesis and antithesis meet and one takes precedence or the two are merged, creating a new organizational reality. The result of the change is a modified organizational identity.  Culture is related to causation and helps define why these things happen (Schein, 2004). Culture is learned over time (Ostroff et al., 2013), and may be acquired through acculturation, assimilation, or amalgamation of new members through a variety of socialization and communication processes. Acculturation refers to cultural changes resulting from contact with culturally dissimilar people (Gibson, 2001), assimilation adopts the receiving culture and discards the heritage culture (Kamali-Chirani, 2022; Salins, 2023), and amalgamation is the absorption of the culture and social structure of an incoming group into the dominant society (Essays, UK., 2013). Culture is what the organization values (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Although there have been a variety of definitions and connotations of organizational culture (Ostroff et al., 2013), there are common characteristics identified consistently such as: (a) it has multiple layers (Schein, 2010), and contexts such as assumptions, symbols and cognition (Mohan, 1993); (b) it is socially constructed and 52   historically influenced along spatial boundaries (Schein, 2004; Schneider et al., 2011b); and (c) shared meaning is fundamental to organizational culture (Ostroff et al., 2013). Schein took these connotations and developed a model that divided organizational culture into three levels: (a) artifacts, which are surface-level realizations of underlying values that represent manifestations of deeper assumptions (Schein, 2010), such as symbols (natural and manufactured objects, physical settings), organizational language (jargon and slang, gestures, signals, signs, songs, humor, jokes, gossip, rumor, metaphors, and slogans), narratives (stories, legends, and myths), and practices (rituals, taboos, rites, and ceremonies) (Gonmei et al., 2021); (b) espoused values, which are values that specifically reflect that which is are endorsed by management or the organization (Ostroff et al., 2013) and, according to Schwartz (1992) possess five components: (i) are concepts or beliefs, (ii) pertain to desirable end-states or behaviors, (iii) transcend situations, (iv) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (v) are ordered by relative importance (p. 4); and (c) basic underlying assumptions which are unobservable, reside at the center of organizational culture (Schein, 1990), and typically start out as values but become so entrenched that they take on the character of assumptions (Schein, 1990, 2010). Culture is viewed on two levels, a visible level, which can be observed, and an invisible level, of espoused values, underlying assumptions, and deep beliefs as seen in Figure 4. To understand organizational culture, an understanding of the concept of culture may be needed. The concept of culture according to Tylor (1871, as cited in Schmitt, 2019) is “that complex whole comprised of knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, 53   and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies. Culture is learned, not innate. It is a product of vicarious and experiential learning (Bandura, 1977; Schein, 2010) that results from numerous interactions between leaders and unit members and produces sense-making (Hartnell & Kinicki, 2011).  Hofstede (1998) viewed culture as consisting of mental programs, calling it the software of the mind, meaning each person “carries within him or herself patterns of thinking, feeling, and potential acting which were learned throughout their lifetime” (p. 4). The sources of one’s mental programs lie within the social environments in which one grew up and collected one’s life experiences. Similarly, Senge (1990), argued that mental models lock individuals and groups into a specific perception about the world (pp. 8–9). The conscious and unconscious learning we experience, over time, turns into beliefs that we consider to be valid. We then teach each other that these beliefs are cultural norms, and they are then expressed in our daily lives as behaviors and actions. A persistent issue in conceptualizing culture is whether it should be thought of as a continuous, enduring property of an organization and its members, or if it should be thought of as a social process of perpetual personification and shared meanings (Schein, 1999). Organizational culture is both a dynamic and perpetual phenomenon that is created by interactions with others and shaped by leadership behavior (Schein, 2004). Organizational culture is also the character and personality of the organization (McNamara, 1999). Personality is a complex system of psychological traits within an 54   individual that account for consistent patterns of feelings, thinking, and behaving that influence interactions with the environment (Mayer et al., 2007). A leader’s personality influences followers and organizational culture in general to become the perfect vehicle for destructive leaders to operate within (Khanna et al., 2021; Padilla et al., 2007). Figure 4 Organizational Culture Model by Schein (1985)     Note. From “Organizational Culture and Leadership,” by Edgar H. Schein, with Peter A. Schein, 1996, p. 17. Copyright 1996 by E. H. Schein. Reprinted with permission.  Schein (1983) argued that the personality of the leader affects the development of organizational culture. Schein (1985) contended that leaders create organizational culture, manage organizational culture leaders, and destroy organizational culture. It influences the way members think, feel, and act and how they make sense of situations and events at     Artifacts   (visible behavior) Espoused values (invisible) (rules, standards, prohibitions)  Basic underlying assumptions (invisible)  (invisible, unconscious) 55   work. Culture is also a sense-making method that regulates the behavior and attitudes of an organization’s members (Robbins & Judge, 2017; Weick, 1995). It gives meaning to what employees encounter and gives a sense of what is valued and how things should be done (Scott-Findlay & Estabrooks, 2006). While it is true that culture is produced through perpetual enactment and sense-making, it is also true that organization members bring prior meanings, stereotypes, and expectations that can only be understood in a historical context (Schein, 1999). As such, the culture of an organization creates a distinct atmosphere that people can feel, which is the organization’s climate. Schein’s model will allow the data gathered from respondents to be horizontalized, extrapolating their lived experiences.  Organizational Climate In addition to Schein’s (2011) organizational culture model, Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate model will also be used as a mental model to filter the data gathered from a purposive sample of approximately 20 individual organization members, regarding their personal, internalized, thoughts, perceptions, attitudes, meaning their relationship with and self-integration to the phenomenon of destructive leadership. Data collection will be guided by the overarching research question: RQ1: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? This allowed me to identify significant statements or quotes and combine them into themes. Data gathered from participants may fall into the 56   category of organizational climate. Destructive leadership may influence the climate of an organization. Organizational climate is an artifact of culture and is how individuals experience the culture of an organization. It is the shared formal and informal perceptions of organizational policies, practices, procedures, and routines that individual organization members may experience and see rewarded (Ehrhart et al., 2014). Climate’s focus is on the organizational experience, as it pertains to the lived experience of individual organization members, and its link to perceptions, feelings, and the behavior of employees. It is an experientially-based description of what people “see” and report happening to them in an organizational situation (James & Jones, 1974; Schneider, 2000). Climate is an abstraction of the environment that is based on a pattern of experiences and behaviors that people perceive in their situation (Schneider et al., 2011b).  Most contemporary climate research addresses organizational climate, viewing climate as a property of the unit that is distinct from individual perceptions (Ehrhart et al., 2013). Organizational climate is seen as an intervening factor between the context of the organization and the individual, their social climate, their psychological and social experiences, and how they make sense of their environment (Schneider et al., 2011b). Organizational climate is also the shared perceptions of organization members regarding the policies, practices, procedures, and behaviors that are supported, accepted, and rewarded (Schneider et al., 2013). Theoretically, people and their social environment should be viewed as a behavior of that person and his or her environment (Lewin, 1951). 57   The study of the environment is a construct that is separate from the people who operate within it (Roberts et al., 1978). Historically, there have been three major approaches to the study of climate: (a) a generic or multidimensional approach focused on multiple climates with the same organization and subcultures (Schneider et al., 2013), (b) a molar or global approach focused on the shared perceptions in an organization and a holistic view of functions (Schneider et al., 2011b), and (c) a strategic or domain specific approach focused on the shared perceptions of targeted and precise information and the organizations specific goals and outcomes (Hidayati et al., 2022; Schneider et al., 1998). At the macro level, organizational climate can be thought of as “distinct perceptions and beliefs about an organization’s physical and social environment” (Dickson et al., 2006, p. 351). At the micro, individual level of analysis, psychological climate refers to individuals’ perceptions and the meanings they ascribe to their environment (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022). The foundation of organizational climate research is in organizational science (Glick, 1985). Climate research, specifically, social climate research materialized out of the gestalt psychology of Lewin (1951) and Lewin et al. (1939), from an aggregate level of analysis and experimentation to Schneider’s individual differences levels of analysis (Schneider et al., 2013). Controversy over whether organizational climate should be measured through objective features of organizations (Glick, 1985) or through assessments of how individuals perceive the organization (James et al., 1988).  58   The measurement of organizational climate depends on its intended use. Lewin and his colleagues examined the climate and outcomes of the climate created by different leadership styles on the behaviors and attitudes of young boys (Ostroff et al., 2013). Theoretically, the relationship between people and their social environment was viewed as the equation: behavior = a person + his or her environment (Lewin, 1951). As such, the study of the environment was considered a construct separate from the people who operate within it (Roberts et al., 1978).  Following the work of Lewin, conceptualizations of organizational climate research were narrowly focused, and divided into specific organizational dynamics and consequences such as the health and well-being of the organization, leadership styles, and the shared perceptions of employees (Schneider et al., 2013). Leadership was viewed as an antecedent of climate (Lewin et al., 1939). While Schneider et al. (2011b) viewed leadership as an attribute of climate. An organization's climate involves more than the behavior of leaders (Ostroff et al., 2013). The definition of climate does not include leader behaviors (Schneider et al., 2011b). From the perspective of Ostroff et al., (2013), the constructs of leadership and climate are mutually exclusive, as such, leader behaviors and leadership styles can be considered as causes or antecedents of climate. To resolve the controversy over whether organizational climate should be measured through objective features of organizations (Glick, 1985) or through assessments of how individuals perceive the organization (James et al., 1988), the organizational climate began being conceptualized at both individual and organizational levels. Psychological climate, which is an individual employee’s perception of the work 59   environment captures the meaningful psychological representations made by individuals relative to the structures, processes, and events that occur in the organization (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988). Organizational climate exists when psychological climate perceptions are shared among employees of a work unit. An aggregate measure of organizational climate can be computed and employed as an organization level measure of climate only when perceptual agreement among employees exists (Iwai et al., 2023). Organizational climate is based on members’ shared perceptions of the social climate and their psychological and social experiences. It encompasses the human experience in organizations, such as how organizations look and feel to members.  Although research into specific climates has proven to be beneficial, contemporary research calls for the global conceptualization of organizational climate (Powell et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2013). Schneider et al. (2005) suggested that climate is behaviorally oriented. He conceptualized organizational climate by integrating the traditional generic, molar, and strategic approaches, arguing that if researchers focused on the most relevant aspects of the environment for an outcome, then the predictive validity of those climate measures should be stronger (Schneider et al., 2013). In this conceptualization, generic aspects such as objectivity and collaboration, represent the dormant concept of a molar climate for employee well-being. Molar climate provides the framework for constructing strategic climates (Ostroff et al., 2013). Climate, in this study, will encompass the social lived experience such as how organizations look and feel to members. Social climate refers to the psychological conditions created by group leaders. Shared perceptions are related to group outcomes. 60   Destructive leaders create destructive climates by changing the content of the culture (Schneider et al., 1995) to reflect their own goals, values, norms, and personal characteristics (Kim et al., 2022). It creates a culture of fear and diminishes trust but embraces political behaviors such as favoritism and nepotism (Einarsen et al., 2015). The effects of destructive leadership can be social, psychological, and psychosomatic (Trépanier et al., 2019) consequences that impact organization member's quality of life and detract from the productivity and financial performance of organizations (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).  Destructive leadership behaviors challenge the motivation, personal well-being, and job satisfaction of organization members. Destructive leaders typically do not work with organization members but at the organization members' expense (Ashforth & Humphrey, 2022; Tepper, 2000) by humiliating, belittling, bullying, and manipulating them to increase productivity through fear. Destructive leadership behavior is syntactic and is only meaningful when studied pragmatically and semantically for context and meaning.  As such, organizational climates provide members with cues regarding how to make sense of the broader organizational context (Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schneider, 1975), that is, the practices, procedures, and kinds of behaviors that are rewarded, supported and expected by the organization (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). In so doing, organizational climates foster institutionalized normative systems that guide member behavior (Schneider, 1987). Reichers and Schneider (1990) suggested that such normative systems lead to shared perceptions amongst organizational members “of the 61   way things are around here” (p. 22). Research suggests that such normative influences can create widely accepted systems of dysfunctional behavior, shape employee perceptions of normality, and promote a variety of negative organizational and employee outcomes (Van Kleef et al., 2019).  Sensemaking Finally, this conceptual framework employs Weick’s (1995) sensemaking model to explore how organization members attempt to understand phenomena that occur in organizations. Sensemaking is a multifaceted thought process (Drazin et al., 1999; Weick, 1995) in which individuals (a) recognize problems by surveying current and past events (Weick, 1995), (b) form mental models based on current situations and past experiences (Johnson-Laird, 1983), and (c) develop probable meanings using the mental models formed as a point reference to filter and evaluate information and form contingency plans (Thiel et al., 2012).  Sensemaking is also a social process, of shared meaning that occurs when cues are extrapolated from lived experiences (Weick, 1995) and are bracketed and connected to frames of reference to create a picture of what individuals are attempting to understand (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). It is the process of organizing ambiguous information (Waterman, 1990) into a mental model for clarity and understanding (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). Then, testing the mental model with others through data collection, conversations, and other actions; improving or abandoning the mental model depending on its credibility, in favor of a more plausible one that better explains the phenomenon (Ancona, 2011). Phenomenology is best displayed in the work of Karl E. Weick. Weick’s 62   (1995) conceptualization of sensemaking is based on the organizational reality of how participants interpret their collective experiences. Sensemaking privileges human interpretation of events over the brute facts of reality and is less about discovery than invention (Weick, 1995). The outcome of successful sensemaking is that individuals can describe the meaning of their circumstances in a way that facilitates action (Weick et al., 2005).  Organizational climate is an artifact of culture and is how individuals experience the culture of an organization (Ehrhart et al., 2014). Culture and climate converge in the day-to-day work lives of organization members (Schneider, 2000). As seen in Figure 5, culture originates at the top via artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions that ascribe meaning to shared member experiences (Schein, 2004). An organization’s climate is an extraction of the environment that arises from the “bottom-up” (Glick, 1985; Schneider, 2000) in response to the perception of experiences and behaviors (Schneider et al., 2011a) used to make sense of phenomena. When these perceptions are shared across individuals, a higher-level social construct emerges (James et al., 2008). In this way, the two theoretic frames of culture and climate address the same elements while being rooted in distinct but complementary paradigms. Culture is produced through endless execution and sense-making (Schein, 1999). It is an abstraction of the environment and should be thought of anthropologically to be understood (Schein, 2010). Culture is a perpetual idea or concept and although not tangible, it is a phenomenon that human beings are constantly interacting with (Schein, 2004). 63   Figure 5  A Dialectic Helix of Destructive Leadership        Culture       Climate  Note. Adapted from “A Unified Theory of Development: A Dialectic Integration of Nature and Nurture,” by A. Sameroff, 2010, Child Development, 81(1), p. 10. (https//doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x). Copyright 2010 by the Author(s). Journal Compilation Copyright 2010 by Society for Research in Child Development.     64   Destructive leadership behaviors may influence an organization to the point that it changes the culture and climate. Although scholars recognize that destructive leadership behavior exists, there is a gap in the literature regarding experiential accounts, such as personal interviews. My study may fill that gap in the literature by exploring the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive  and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The essence of participants’ lived experiences will enable a transcendental, experiential account of the impact of destructive leadership behaviors. Literature Review Destructive leadership is a harmful form of leadership deeply rooted in the process of leading (Khanna et al., 2021). Thoroughgood et al. (2012) and Thoroughgood (2021) stated that destructive leadership is a form of leadership, which involves a leader voluntarily engaging in behaviors that are considered malicious and harmful toward followers and/or the organization. Destructive leadership is also a continuous pattern of behavior displayed by a leader such as abuse, harassment, corruption, and other illegal or criminal acts that can result in counterproductive organizational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower, and environment (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023). Khanna et al. (2021) came closer when they defined this phenomenon as volitional behavior by a leader that can harm or intends to harm a leader’s organization and/or followers by (a) encouraging followers to pursue goals that contravene the legitimate interests of the organization and/or (b) employing a leadership style that involves the use 65   of harmful methods of influence with followers, regardless of justifications for such behavior. The study of the phenomenon of leadership should be holistic and philosophical, to address the behaviors of leaders and followers and their subjective experiences (Bohl, 2019). Destructive leadership is a continuous pattern of behavior displayed by a leader such as abuse, harassment, corruption, and other illegal or criminal acts that can result in counterproductive organizational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower, and environment (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023). Destructive leadership is also a systematic behavior, that negatively affects an organization´s structure and processes, as well as subordinate motivation, job satisfaction, personal, interpersonal, and organizational relationships (Aravena, 2017). Thoroughgood et al. (2016) drew from systems theories, and integrative approaches from the leadership literature, to suggest a holistic conceptualization of destructive leadership that includes followers, environments, and time. Schmid et al. (2018) deduced three major forms of destructive leader behaviors: (a) destructive behaviors that are follower-directed, (b) destructive behaviors that are directed toward the organization, and (c) destructive leader behaviors that occur because of self-interest.  Additionally, destructive behaviors do not just come from leaders, but also their subordinates. Schyns and Schilling (2013) concluded that there is a high correlation between a leader’s destructive behavior and attitudes toward the leader. They also directly correlate negative attitudes towards a leader with subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior. Similarly, destructive leadership is also negatively 66   associated with subordinate employee behavior mechanisms because subordinates are likely to experience a low level of mediation by organizational justice and psychological contract violation (Pandey et al., 2021).  A destructive leader’s degree of selfishness will affect the subordinates, whose responses constitute a form of feedback that either moderates or worsens destructive behavior (Wolor et al., 2022). Self-interest and exploitation of others is a recurring theme in the literature on destructive leadership, pointing to the relevance of these aspects (Schmid et al., 2019). Hogan et al. (1990) suggested that the root of leaders' bad behavior is that they are self-centered and are unable or unwilling to consider other perspectives. They believed that there are two causes of self-centered behavior, insecurity and arrogance.  While the nature of leadership influences followers, the nature of destructive leadership behaviors is self-interest (Greenleaf, 1977). When leaders engage in self-interest, a culture of destructive leadership behaviors will follow (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). Leaders behaving in a way that is exceedingly focused on their own needs or desires, or exploitative of others, is a common theme in destructive leadership literature (Schmid et al., 2019). Knowledge of leadership’s destructive side is important in developing effective leaders and healthy organizations (Hays, 2022). An ontological approach to leadership has the unique power to unfold and expose the nature and function of being, when one is being or exhibiting destructive behaviors (Fairhurst & Collinson, 2023), and to reveal the source of one’s actions when exercising leadership in the process 67   of leading, the essence of destructive leadership concerns negative organizational outcomes.  There is a growing body of knowledge that views the nature of leadership through a new problem highlighting why and how leadership is not always positive (Glambek et al., 2020). Researchers have proposed numerous destructive leadership concepts aimed at followers (Thoroughgood, 2021; Singh et al., 2017). Although empirical research on the nature of destructive leadership is minimal, there is theoretical research on leaders who pursue goals using destructive methods of influence (Harris & Jones, 2018). For example, Glambek et al. (2020) stated that evidence from leadership literature suggests that negative leadership behaviors manifest themselves as actions directed toward specific individuals or groups. Neves (2014) found that submissive employees, who do not maintain social support from peers, received more abuse from their leaders than those more well-connected to others within the organization. Moreover, Samier and Milley (2018) have explored the concept of maladministration to describe the phenomena of harmful administrative and organizational behaviors, as well as toxic leadership and management practices. To classify harmful behaviors as destructive leadership, the behavior must be used in the process of leading followers toward some goal (Balwant, 2017).  Destructive leadership can have social, psychological, and psychosomatic effects (Trépanier et al., 2019). Researchers have proposed several concepts aimed at followers that fall within the domain of destructive leadership (Singh et al., 2017). Conceptualizations used to describe destructive leadership include bullying, 68   Machiavellianism, tyranny, narcissism, and toxic (Einarsen et al., 2007). Workplace bullying is a social phenomenon that involves targets and perpetrators involved in harassing, offending, socially excluding someone, or negatively affecting work tasks (Glambek et al., 2018). Tehrani (2019), a counselor of victims of war and violence in Northern Ireland, concluded that soldiers returning from combat and victims of workplace bullying exhibited similar psychological and physical symptoms, such as nightmares, severe anxiety, and somatic ailments.  The adjective Machiavellian is often used to describe cunning and manipulative opportunists and tactics in politics or business. Machiavellianism refers to a personality type characterized by master manipulators (Hartley, 2015). Machiavellians are temperamentally predisposed to be calculating, conniving, and deceptive (Hartley, 2017). Marie (2021) contended that Machiavellians thrive on manipulating others in the pursuit of their self-interest. According to (Nevicka et al., 2018), They exhibit a high standard of ethics if it will help attain their personal goals. As a personal leadership style or behavior, Wu and LeBreton (2011) and Allen and Hallett (2022) noted that individuals high in Machiavellianism are called high-Machs, and are characterized by: (a) functioning best in situations where the rules and boundaries are ambiguous; (b) emotional detachment and a cynical outlook that enables them to control their impulses and be careful, patient opportunists; (c) charismatic tactics as well as guilt, and pressure, if necessary; (d) subtle tactics to disguise their true intentions and easily negate if detected; and (e) being preferred as competitors, but not as a friends, colleagues, or spouses. 69   Tyrannical leaders emphasize completing the task at hand but devote as little time as possible to interacting with followers but aggressively micro-manages them to make them more productive (Cooper, 2016). Narcissistic behavior is a grandiose sense of entitlement, self-focus, inflated self-esteem, and intense competitiveness (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). They are concerned with establishing their status, prestige, and superiority, feel that they are entitled to be served, and tend to use others for their purposes (Fuller et al., 2018). Toxic leaders are primarily concerned with gaining and maintaining control through methods that create fear and intimidation (Einarsen et al., 2007). The toxic leader operates with an inflated sense of self-worth and acute self-interest (El-Metwally et al., 2019).  Burke (2017) categorized destructive behaviors into deluded, paranoid, sociopathic, and narcissistic. By transcending beyond leadership, and moving toward organizational outcomes, the role of followers, and the role of the environment, effective solutions and preventative measures are possible (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). The effects of destructive leadership can be social, psychological, and psychosomatic (Trépanier et al., 2019) consequences that impact organization member's quality of life and detract from the productivity and financial performance of organizations (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Destructive leadership behaviors also challenge the motivation, personal well-being, and job satisfaction of organization members. Destructive leadership creates a culture of fear and diminishes trust but embraces political behaviors such as favoritism and nepotism (Einarsen et al., 2015). Destructive leadership behaviors can lead to a toxic organizational culture that creates more destructive leaders. 70   Different definitions and constructs of destructive leadership exist, all describing different behaviors (Schmid et al., 2019), that are not limited to the mere absence of effective leadership behavior. As previously stated, destructive leadership is a harmful behavior imbedded in the process of leading, and as such destructive leadership should be studied through the same conceptual lens as more traditional organizational leadership (Khanna et al., 2021). The theoretical foundation of destructive leadership comes from the existing literature on decision-making, charisma, and transformational leadership (Zuo, 2023). Early leadership theories focused on the traits and behaviors that make some leaders more compelling than others (Day et al., 2014; Lord et al., 2017).  Leadership Organization members who have encountered destructive leadership may perceive their lived experiences based on what leadership in the organization espouses to value, which may be inconsistent with what employees see as valued (Jonsen et al., 2015). Leadership can be defined in terms of process as a social and purposeful process of influence that occurs in a physical, three-dimensional setting (Antonakis et al., 2017). Antonakis and Day (2018) defined leadership as both a formal and informal process, which is contextually bound, and a motivating process, which is operationalized by the perception of a positive result (Vilkinas et al., 2020). Leadership is also a social process of influence and guidance, neither inherently good nor inherently bad, but which can be put to better or worse uses (Day et al., 2014). Critical leadership studies hold that leadership is fundamentally about the effective or ineffective exercise of power, authority, and influence (Collinson, 2020).  71   Leadership, for this study, will be defined as the power to influence the way people think, feel, and behave to the point that they make a conscious decision to act (Patterson & Winston, 2006). Conceptually, the study of leadership has taken place through the lens of philosophy, psychology, sociology, physiology, anthropology, medicine, art, and literature (Lipman-Blumen, 2014). Leadership literature has traditionally been what Thoroughgood et al. (2016) have referred to as leader-centric, because of the micro focus on traits and behaviors as opposed to a more macro focus, on sociology, economics, history, and political science. In the broader leadership literature, the term leadership has been too narrowly defined, and the definition should reflect a dynamic, co-created process between leaders, followers, and the environment (Avolio, 2007). Leadership literature has traditionally been leader-centric, focusing on traits and behaviors related to leader emergence. Similarly, existing perspectives on destructive leadership are primarily leader-centric, focusing on traits and behaviors believed to produce destructive consequences for followers and organizations. Traits comprise, among others, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and a personalized need for power. Destructive leadership can be viewed through the same theoretical and philosophical lens as traditional leadership, which include transformational leadership, charisma, and an interpretivist ontology.  Critically analyzing leadership according to ontology and epistemology is a way to address the behaviors of leaders and followers and the problems associated with knowing subjective experiences through philosophical methods (Bohl, 2019). Leadership behavior is traditionally defined and made operational through conscious perceptions of 72   positive outcomes (Vilkinas et al., 2020). Building on Fairhurst and Connaughton’s (2014) future research agenda, Collinson (2014) critically examined three key themes extracted from the leadership literature: (a) dichotomies, viewed as an attempt to avoid analysis ambiguity, paradox, and tension; (b) dialectics, or forms of inquiry that transcend oppositional binaries and dialectic transformation; and (c) dilemmas, unavoidable characteristics of organizational decision making. Similarly, critical research studies on males explored how the category man has many different forms, and how hegemonic and subordinate maleness typically shape gender leadership, management, and followership (Collinson et al., 2023). The word leadership has roots in the beginning of civilization (Kovach, 2018). Leadership began as far back as the cave, with troglodyte, and an alpha male hierarchy (Garfield et al., 2019). The historical view of the study of leadership spans more than 100 years (McCleskey, 2014). The discourse of leadership has its roots in the history of humanity (Spear, 2016). During the personality era, beginning in the mid-19th century, the prevailing leadership theories were the Great Man Theory (Patterson & Winston, 2006). and Trait Theory (Antonakis & Day, 2018). The great man theory’s overarching belief was that leaders were born and not made and only those men with heroic potential could ever become a leader (Nawaz et al., 2016).  Leadership theory advanced to some degree with the emergence of several general traits, that if adopted, would increase potential performance (Van Seters & Field, 1990). Traits are psychological, behavioral, and physical characteristics used to describe people (Wyatt & Silvester, 2018). Leaders are born with certain traits and exhibit them in 73   certain orders and sequences (Allport, 1937), to form an individual’s unique personality. The principal belief was that leaders are made, rather than born under this perspective (Mango, 2018). Contradictions in the association between traits and effectiveness led to a new justification of effective leadership (Amanchukwu et al., 2015). A lack of leaders with common, universal traits and behaviors shifted the focus to the circumstances in which leaders function (Oc, 2018; Oc et al., 2020). The prevailing assumption was that leadership was very restrictive and only the very elite were members (Mango, 2018). Leadership research evolved into the follower-centered leadership theories of behavioral, contingency, and situational in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Northouse, 2018). This progression shifted the scope of leadership from performance to interaction, by linking trait, behavioral, and contingency theories to create an integrative paradigm (Morrisette & Oberman, 2013). Researchers began looking at behavior rather than traits to measure leadership effectiveness (Patterson & Winston, 2006).).  Behavioral theories began with the assumption that an effective leader exhibits the behaviors that are most favorable to group productivity and psychological and social development (Kovach, 2018). Robbins and Judge (2017) advanced this concept, with the premise that leadership can be learned. In the late 1970s, behavioral theories were thought to be too simplistic, and contingency theories, based on the proposition that circumstances play a key role in determining whether a person will succeed as a leader, ensued (McLean & Smits, 2014). It was in Fiedler’s (1972) contingency model, that the connection between a leader’s personality and his or her ability to control a situation was 74   first identified as a predictor of leadership performance (Danişman et al., 2015). Situational theories like Hersey and Blanchard’s, (1977) situational leadership model, involve altering leadership style based on changing circumstances or situations outside of an individual’s control (Luo & Liu, 2014). As such, behavior is a result of external, environmental factors rather than internal, intrinsic factors (Van Wert, 2015). This evolutionary progression shifted the perspective from leader performance to leader interaction by linking trait, behavioral, situational, and contingency theories to create an integrative paradigm (Benmira & Agboola, 2021). This integration led to the emergence of theories such as transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), charismatic leadership theory (House, 1976; Northouse, 2016; Weber, 1947); and decision-making theory (Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Tait (2024) summarized 20th-century theoretical leadership research when he stated that trait and behavioral theories cannot fully justify leadership behaviors with physical, social, and personal characteristics inherent in leaders. Contingency theories state that no leadership style is exact by itself (Nawaz et al., 2016), and situational theories propose a conditional style that aligns with the maturity of subordinates (Avolio & Bass, 1997) but does not explain innovation and inspiration. Transformational leadership comes closest to defining good leadership (Avolio et al., 1987).  Transformational leadership’s theoretical roots are in the previous leadership forms, of trait, behavior, and situational theories. It is the integration of trait, behavioral, and contingency theories, coupled with charisma, vision, and personality (Shamir & Howell, 2018). Transformational leadership asks followers to look beyond their personal 75   needs, desires, and interests, and consider their long-term versus short-term needs, for the good of the organization (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership comes closest to defining good leadership and is the form of leadership that followers identify as the perfect model of leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Burns (1978) defined transformational leadership as a higher level of ethics and motivation. In his seminal text Leadership, Bass (1985) argued that a leader motivates followers to perform beyond expectations.  Transformational leadership consists of four components: idealized influence or charisma; inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation; and individualized consideration. Idealized influence summarizes leader behaviors that emphasize the leader’s shared vision, collective interests, and a mutually desired future (Zdaniuk & Bobocel, 2015). Inspirational motivation refers to the leader’s ability to offer meaning and show optimism and enthusiasm about goals and the future (Niessen et al., 2017). Through intellectual stimulation, leaders continuously inspire followers to think innovatively, creatively, critically, and analytically by challenging their own beliefs and being open to new ideas (Sánchez-Cardona et al., 2018). Individualized consideration provides the linchpin between transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). This component of transformational leadership refers to the amount of time a leader focuses on each follower’s needs, through mentoring and coaching to provide individualized training, development, and feedback (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). The literature suggests that followers and leaders set aside personal interests for the benefit of the group (Nawaz et al., 2016). 76   Transformational leadership theory identifies with characteristics such as charisma, vision, and influence (Bass, 1985). Charisma is values based, symbolic, and emotion laden leader signaling (Antonakis & Day, 2018). The Apostle Paul first used the term charisma to describe the gifts of divine grace which manifest themselves in forms such as prophecy and healing. The term charisma was first introduced into modern academia by Max Weber, as one of the three types of pure authority and about exceptional radical leadership in a time of crisis (Weber, 1947). Weber was also the first to use the term to describe the charismatic leader as an agent of social change (Antonakis & Day, 2018). Charisma is a multidisciplinary construct, which includes sociology, organizational research, and anthropology (Sy et al., 2018).  Charismatic leadership is embedded in the personal and behavioral characteristics of leaders who influence followers by articulating the organization’s vision (House, 1976). House suggested that charisma is the sum of the interaction of followers contextual factors, and the physical and social cues of leaders. Charismatic leadership differs from other leadership forms because the leader formulates a shared and idealized future vision, articulation of this vision, as well as a leader dedicated actions on the organizational path to the vision, which build an impression that they and their mission are extraordinary (Banks et al., 2017). Transformational leaders have charismatic leadership behavior, whereby the content of a transformational leader’s message is vital, but the leader’s charismatic delivery of that message may be significant in inspiring followers (Williams et al., 2018).  77   In decision-making, Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) model took both a situational and a prescriptive stance. The model recognizes that the situation or environment may change how decisions are made. The model challenges the decision maker to assess the characteristics of each decision situation against seven factors attributes and five decision methods. Vroom and Jago’s (1988) model focused on the role that leaders played in decision making (Hellriegel et al., 1998). An evolutionary analysis of leadership gives depth and insight into the distinction between leaders with a personal need to have power over people and leaders with a socialized desire for power through people (Kaiser & Craig, 2014). Leadership has traditionally been perceived through the lens of ethics and morality (Antonakis et al., 2017). Leadership research has primarily concentrated on the positive side of leadership, with the presumed assumption that ineffective or negative leadership reflected the absence of leadership at all (Wang et al., 2020). Leadership is a process that falls along a holistic spectrum that ranges from clearly destructive to mostly positive (Trevisani, 2016). Similarly, Thoroughgood (2021) concurred that leadership behaviors are seldom entirely constructive or destructive, and it is the outcomes that fall along a constructive-destructive continuum. Therefore, the study of leadership should be empirical and holistic, to include not only its positive, constructive aspects but also its negative, destructive aspects (Neves & Schyns, 2018). Zhang et al. (2020) stated that generally, leadership research has taken a biased approach, emphasizing the positive and constructive aspects, such as leader effectiveness and identifying characteristics of successful leaders, while avoiding its negative and destructive side. This could be due to 78   a lack of empirical and experiential evidence to validate the existence of destructive leadership (Kargas & Varoutas, 2015).  Romanticizing Leadership The scholarly study of leadership is consumed with bias that almost consumes the definition of leadership with a favorable connotation (Kaiser & Craig, 2014). Contributors to the leadership literature continue to romanticize many of the most prominent theories only recognizing a leader’s positive attributes and engagement (Hammond et al., 2023). The roots of leadership romanticism are in Meindl et al.’s (1985) classic article, where they critically evaluated how and why the concept of leadership became romanticized in scholarly research and the perception of observers of and participants in organizations. Romanticized leadership can be thought of as a tendency to assign credit for organizational successes to a leader, even if they do not deserve it (Hammond et al., 2023). When people romanticize a leader, they ignore the tensions and contradictions in his or her behavior (Hammond et al., 2023). The influence of other factors is deemphasized, and the influence of leadership has a greater emphasis (Moasa et al., 2023).  Romanticized leadership can be defined as a biased view of leadership, attributing its sole influence on the success or failure of organizations (Felfe & Petersen, 2007). Those who romanticize leadership overattribute both successes and failures to leaders, who are clear and compelling visionaries, dissatisfied with the state of affairs, and who have out of the ordinary behavior (Grint, 2018). In Meindl et al.’s (1985) view of leadership romanticism, scholars are not only biased toward a romanticized view of 79   leadership but also followers’ resistance. Much value can be gained by extending the conception of romanticism beyond leader attribution and by approaching romanticism as a concept and movement with a more generally salient legacy (Hammond et al., 2023). When organizations encounter extreme outcomes, organization members make sense of these outcomes by attributing them to the influence of the organization’s leader (Hammond et al., 2023). Romanticizing the role of the leader makes it easier to make sense of complex organizational phenomena, misrepresenting and/or masking the true causes of success or failure.  Charisma People tend to overuse and glorify leadership, due to the psychological need to make sense of organizational phenomena, consequently romanticizing leadership, suggesting that leader’s control and influence organizational outcomes despite outside influences (Bligh et al., 2011; Meindl et al., 1985). Research into destructive leadership identifies charisma as a dominant characteristic (Pundt, 2014). The literature romanticizes charismatic leadership despite some charismatic leaders’ abuse of power, exaggeration of their achievements, taking undeserved credit, and covering up or blaming others for mistakes (Belschak et al., 2018). It has been noted that dark side personality traits are often accompanied by strong social skills, such as charisma, which keep a leader’s dark side hidden (Oc, 2018; Oc et al., 2020). Charismatic leaders are not always destructive, but destructive leaders often are charismatic, self-serving visionaries (Musa, 2016). Charisma is a special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman or 80   exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person being treated as a leader (Weber, 1947). Destructive leadership and charisma are empirically linked. Three distinct components of charisma that also apply to destructive leaders are vision, self-presentational skills, and personal energy. Transformational leadership, which emphasizes charisma and vision, is an attribution based on followers’ perceptions of a leader’s behavior, myths, and symbols, and is likely to have a romanticized component to it (Ehrlich et al., 1990). Romancing leadership also influences top leaders’ behavior in terms of decision-making (Felfe & Petersen, 2007). Dialectics Leadership is a concept deeply rooted in experience (Bohl, 2019). Leadership and destructive leadership are dialectically inter-related (Collinson, 2014), and maintain a paradoxical relationship (Sparr, 2018). Dialectics highlights the tensions and mutually reinforcing inter-relationships. Paradox, in organizational theory, refers to the interrelationship and interdependence between two seemingly contradictory things (Amer & Shaw, 2018). Paradox and dialectics provide different but equally and concurrently acceptable ways of understanding organizational contradictions (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017).  When exploring leadership from an ontological perspective, the focus is on the ways of being that constitute being a leader and that result in an effective exercise of leadership (Collinson, 2020). The dialectical perspective or world view comprises the nature of existence or ontology and the nature of knowledge or epistemology (Putnam, 81   2015). Dialectical change theory and dialectical analysis are the grounding theories in this study's framework ontological foundation and articulate the paradox between traditional constructive leadership and destructive leadership (Jabreen, 2009). Dialectical ontologies emphasize: (a) the fundamental processes of change; (b) in processes of change, organizations emerge; and (c) everything that exists is in relation to other things internal and external (Farjoun & Fiss, 2022).  Individuals characterized by elevated levels of dialectical thinking are inclined to see opposites as being perpetually in a state of flux and transforming into the opposite (Bai et al., 2015). Dialectical thinking is a form of analytical reasoning that pursues knowledge and truth as long as there are questions and conflicts (Ben-Ari & Enosh, 2013). Leaders with a highly dialectical thinking orientation will welcome differences in the team by fostering a cooperative (as opposed to competitive) team environment, this may lead to increased levels of task conflict and reduced levels of relationship conflict, and this will ultimately enhance the level of employee performance (Bai et al., 2015). Greek Dialectic  The origins of word dialectics come from the Greek word dialektike, which means conversation or dialogue (Rankin, 2014). The idea that in the natural world everything is made up of opposites or yin and yang (Chen, 2018) dates back 3,000 years to I Ching (Li et al., 2018) and 2,500 years to Lao Tzu and Taoism (Moon, 2015). Yin and yang are the starting point for evolutionary change (Li et al., 2018). In Western thought, the idea of dialectical movement dates to Heraclitus around 600 B.C. (Howell, 2016). Heraclitus advanced the idea that all change comes through the struggle of 82   opposites, which was a major influence in the future development of the Hegelian Dialectic (Halper, 2017).  Zeno of Elea, an Italian, pre-Socratic philosopher, best known for his paradoxical arguments against the motion (Ashworth, 2023), was described as the first dialectician by Aristotle (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024) in his classic work Physics. Zeno provides the first example of evidence or proof called reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction (Norman, 2024). While many scholars deem Socrates the paramount ancient dialectician of Greece, the term dialectic, translated from Greek, literally means the art of conversation. The Socratic dialectic refers to the informal method of dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors described in Plato’s works (Byrd & Byrd, 2017). The ancient use of the term dialectic appears to have originated with Socrates, the most famous student of Plato (Samson, 2019), and stresses change through a back-and-forth dialogue between opposing propositions (Dolan, 2018). Plato’s writings are almost entirely in the form of dialogues or conversations between Socrates and others (Samson, 2019). It is in these dialogues that Plato’s view of dialectic as a philosophical method to arrive at truth appears (Fink, 2012). Interlocutors were those who took part in his dialogues, (Cowan et al., 2019), using a question-and-answer method called elenchus, to show that a given assumption leads to a contradiction, forcing the withdrawal of the assumption as a candidate for truth (Howell, 2016). Because Socrates left no written literary work, the back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors is Plato’s philosophical display of the contradictory process between opposing sides (Mintz, 2018). In Plato’s writings, dialectic 83   is a mechanism of truth. He used dialectic to unite metaphysics and logic (Mintz, 2018). His form of dialectic was a process of a deductive syllogism (Zahra & Shehzad, 2017), where an issue begins as a major premise and the major premise is divided by a contradictory minor premise, and from this inorganic confrontation descends a synthesis or conclusion (Saulius, 2016). Aristotelian dialectic refers to reasoning based on generally accepted principles (Duncombe & Novaes, 2016). Aristotle is ordinarily given credit for having laid the foundations of logic. The most important of his logical works is Prior Analytics, which presents the theory of syllogism (Mintz, 2018). Logic for Aristotle was an essential tool of any inquiry, and syllogism was the sequence that all logical thought followed (Smith, 2020). Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle transformed the pre-Socratic Greek philosophy involving the search for truth and logic, into the foundations of Western philosophy (Halper, 2017). For Plato dialectics represented the highest level of knowledge, for Aristotle it was a probabilistic syllogism, and for Kant, it was the analysis of the obstacles to reason (Huber, 2019).  German Dialectic Dialectic, within the German philosophical tradition, began in 1781 with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Smith, 2003). The genesis of the dyad, thesis, and antithesis came from Kant’s Dialectic of Human Reason (Kanterian, 2016). Kant’s philosophy became known as transcendental idealism (Kant, 1999). In Transcendental Dialectic, a chapter in Critique of Pure Reason referenced antinomies or contradictions that cannot be addressed until the value of the opposition is realized (Mudd, 2016). Kant’s Critique of 84   Pure Reason showed that as mutually exclusive, opposing propositions, thesis, and antithesis can be proven as right (Kant, 2003), reasoning involving propositions is futile and beyond the grasp of human intellect (Li et al., 2018). Beginning with Fichte (1794/1795) and culminating with Hegel (1827) and Marx (1843), the German idealists moved to find a more solid foundation of knowledge than Kant had provided in 1781 (Clarke, 2014). Inspired by Critique of Pure Reason, Fichte (1794/1795) developed his system of transcendental idealism, which he called Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with respect to the Theoretical Faculty (Breazeale, n.d.). He produced an involuntary version of the dialectic, which implied that any thesis opposed by an antithesis was automatically resolved into a synthesis (Li et al., 2018). The dialectical method of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis originated with Fichte’s (1794) Foundations of the Science of Knowledge and resolved Kant’s duality with synthesis (Breazeale, n.d.).  Hegelian Dialectic The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel extended the modern idea of dialectic (Smith, 2014). The term dialectic, sometimes called dialectical idealism, in Hegelian philosophy, was a logical subjective development in thought (Kennedy 2017). Hegel recognized that discord occurs and reoccurs in sophisticated interaction. Each conflict results in tensions and contradictions, and each tension and contradiction refute the other, causing the previous conflict to intensify, starting the entire process over (Stone, 2014). Dialectics is central to Hegel’s objective idealism and linked to the notion of the Absolute (Redding, 2017).  85   Hegel portrays the Absolute as a complete, self-contained, all-encompassing conceptual system that the phenomenal world is imbedded (Farneth, 2017). Hegel’s dialectic is usually presented as Fichte’s (1794) thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (Trivedi, 2023). But Hegel (1827) specifically condemned this triad in Phenomenology of Mind (Clarke, 2014). Hegel spoke in terms of double negation or negation of the negation, or Abstract-Negative-Concrete (Vouros, 2014). Unlike Fichte, Hegelian dialectic is not mechanical in nature (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). The Abstract-Negative-Concrete triad makes it necessary for the abstract thesis to have a negative antithesis, for the thesis is flawed and the antithesis can make it less flawed, and the struggle between the two forms the concrete synthesis (Bhatawadekar, 2014). The Being-Nothing-Becoming model is similar to the idea that Hegel’s dialectics aligns with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern (Trivedi, 2023). The dialectic is categorized into (a) a concept of pure being or the moment of the understanding, which when re-examined in relation to its contradiction with itself, is indistinguishable from (Fuchs, 2014); (b) nothing or self-sublation, the dialectical, negatively rational, moment of instability, hence being and nothing result in; (c) becoming or the tension between the prior two being resolved or the speculative or positively rational moment, a unification of opposites (Stone, 2014). Hegel’s dialectic assumed that rationality would lead people to an idealized worldview (Diehl, 2020).  Marxist Dialectic Marx concentrated on material or physical influences as commanding the future of the world (Fuchs, 2014). Marx extended Hegel’s objective dialectical idealism and 86   theoretical nature (Smith, 2014), and stressed that the contradictions that produce a dialectical pattern of historical change have roots in the materialism, and can be scientifically studied (Cudworth & Hobden, 2014). Marx used Hegel’s dialectic as the basis of his own dialectically based theory of capital known as dialectical materialism (Kennedy, 2017). In Marxist thought, dialectical materialism implied that reality was essentially material and that it contained within itself a dialectical contradiction between opposing elements that function as the engine of inevitable development (Camfield, 2016). For Marx, society was based upon the means of production and the individual’s relations to economic forces (O’Connell, 2018). Culture, politics, socioeconomic status, religion, ideology, etc., all reflect this material foundation (Beetz & Schwab, 2017). Marx viewed society as a system of oppression comprised of (a) an oppressor or thesis, the bourgeoise, in control of the means of production and (b) the oppressed or antithesis, the proletarian, who provide labor or means of production (Schmitt, 2014). The bourgeoisie can exploit the proletarian by ceasing the value they possess in the exchange of their energy to produce necessary commodities (Raz & Wagner, 2014). These opposing forces created an imbalance that allowed the bourgeoisie to control the proletarians. Marxian dialectical materialism liberated the working class from their economic existence (Kennedy, 2017). Society, the division of labor, and the entire oppressive class inevitably created economic tensions, and consistent with Marx’s dialectic, the tensions, created societal changes, and new epochs of economic relationships, until finally culminating in revolution (Wolff & Leopold, 2021).  87   Hegel presented an idealist view of history as a process of constantly resolving contradictions (Halvorsen, 2017). Marx’s materialist re-reading exposed the contradictions inherent in capitalist society (Baumann, 2016). At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction (Abazari, 2018). According to the dialectical perspective, organizational paradoxes occur when members socially construct and accept as conflicting, the relationship among and between discursive and material elements of organizations (Putnam, 2015). Hegel indicated that the thesis and antithesis are more fully developed by the synthesis (Mascolo, 2017). Marxist theory states that the synthesis becomes the new contradiction or anthesis beginning a new dialectic at a level higher than the previous, incorporating attributes of both former levels.  Dialectical Change Theory A dialectical approach to destructive leadership behaviors will explain how destructive leadership represents a specific form of leadership embedded in the larger social whole, the process of leading, rather than a point of static and unchanging facts independent of other social factors (Collinson, 2020). Dialectical research questions the organizations historically constituted power structure, and the conflicts, tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions that have been relegated and under-investigated within conventional leadership studies (Collinson, 2014). The fact that the world is in a constant position of instability is the essence of dialectics (Cudworth & Hobden, 2014). Change is a difference in the nature of an entity over time (Knight et al., 2018). In organizational change, both leaders and followers experience paradoxical tensions, to which they often react defensively (Sparr, 2018). In organizations, change is dialectical and characterized 88   by periods of relative inactivity maintained by opposing organizational politics until the equilibrium is disrupted by an insurgence of activity, and change occurs (Käufer & Chemero, 2021).  There is growing interest in the tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions of leadership dynamics and organizational life (Collinson, 2006). Organizational contradictions and tensions can be viewed through multiple lenses (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Dialectics is grounded in the assumption that reality is composed of socially and rationally constructed paradoxes (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Dialectics is paradoxical when the relationship between the thesis and antithesis is contradictory, interconnected, and enduring (Costanzo & Di Domenico, 2014). The dialectical perspective views the correlation between these elements not as relentlessly existing in tension but as transforming through conflict (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Van de Ven and Poole (1995) noted that an organization’s engagement with dialectical tensions represents organizational change taking place as thesis and antithesis meet and one takes precedence or the two are merged, creating a new organizational reality. Smith and Lewis (2011) described the dialectical nature of the contradictory thesis and antithesis through integration or synthesis, which, in time, will be engaged by a new opposition. Whereas paradox research depicts tensions between contradictory elements as irreconcilable and best managed through acceptance and synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays the relationship of such elements as adversarial and transformed through conflict (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017) 89   Dialectical Analysis Dialectical analysis looks at the ways an organization changes or develops. It involves the search for fundamental principles that support social change (Farjoun, 2019). Dialectical analysis is a tool that recognizes, incorporates, and accommodates indeterminacy in complex and dynamic environments in general and specifically in social environments (Dolan, 2018). Dialectical studies can surface important questions about organizational power relations, conflicts, tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions that are typically under-explored or marginalized within mainstream leadership studies (Collinson, 2020). The organization is socially constructed by internal stakeholders who identify multiple attributes that they assign to the organization (Damaschin, 2023). A basic element of the dialectical process is that organization members construct their social world, and ironically, their social world, is what constrains them (Benson, 1977; Wenzel et al., 2019).  The social construction that Benson (1977) described proposed that actors decide which knowledge goes forward to transform their world through ongoing interaction and task performance in everyday life. It is a part of a larger social whole, rather than a static and unchanging fact independent of other social factors (Ross, 2023). Totality focuses on the whole organization, and its constituent interconnectedness (Salaman, 1978), built-up in social patterns (Seo & Creed, 2002). Examining the internal relation of any part clarifies the whole, or its totality, in which all social phenomena change constantly in the course of dialectical interactions with each other (Lukács, 2017). Totality is powerful and 90   fundamentally contradictory because tensions characterize all the concepts of critical way of thinking (Horkheimer et al., 2002). The concepts of totality and contradiction are basic to a dialectical perspective of organizations (Benson, 1977). The tension created between contradictory elements leads to a dialectic which creates a temporary synthesis (McGuire, 1992). Contradictions and inconsistencies are both among and within the established social arrangements (Seo & Creed, 2002). Contradiction refers to incongruities in social arrangements (Seo & Creed, 2002), which result in internal and external tensions and conflict (Benson, 1977; Seo & Creed, 2002). This is contingent on human action and interaction where contradictions and inconsistencies may facilitate new thinking (Foldy, 2006).  Contradictions within totalities are the engine of change (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2023). Change is the result of internal contradictions and paradoxes that exist within a totality (Turner & Gottlieb, 1988). This involves two assumptions: (a) totalities are composed of powerful forces that struggle between opposites, upsetting the balance of totality; and (b) change is a process that unfolds in a spiral with occasional qualitative breaks in continuity (Rees, 1998). When actors espousing an antithesis develop the critical understanding that affirmation does not serve their beliefs and interests, they engage in political action to build power so that they may challenge the affirmation (Freire, 2018). This political action, praxis, is the uninhibited and innovative re-establishment of social patterns based on a reasoned analysis of both the limits and the potentials of social forms (Benson, 1977).  91   Although praxis has different levels of meaning, what is common to all of them is a concrete, goal-directed act being performed by a human being giving a concrete situation at a specific time (Reese, 1993). Advocates of the antithesis become motivated to engage in praxis as contradictions become more pronounced. Praxis is the efforts of humans to enforce change in their world (Reese, 1993), and is the essential element that anchors dialectical materialism and ultimately drives the creation and synthesis of opposites. Because people continually construct and reconstruct the social world, Benson (1977) viewed dialectics in relation to ethics and viewed praxis to understand how organizations respond to tensions. Dialectical theory explains change processes when aggressor entities are sufficiently powerful and choose to engage opposition entities through direct confrontation, bargaining, or partisan mutual adjustment (Knight et al., 2018). The paradox perspective has deep historical roots and is often associated with Eastern philosophical traditions such as Taoism (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). Organizational Culture and Climate Culture has been at the fore front of anthropologists seeking to understand different groups around the world (Warrick, 2017). Organizational culture’s roots are in anthropology and sociology, and culture has long been studied to describe differences, especially in essential values, which characterize social groupings, (Schneider & Barbera, 2014). Organizational culture describes the environment in which people work and the influence it has on them personally and professionally (Warrick et al., 2016). A well-constructed and managed organizational culture can create a significant competitive advantage for a company (Mohelska & Sokolova, 2015). To remain competitive, it is 92   vital for firms to develop capabilities that lead them to adapt and offer quick responses to market changes (Felipe et al., 2017).  Schein (2015) criticized culture research for focusing on isolated specific elements such as norms or stories, because culture is all of them and a more complex, holistic gestalt phenomenon. Schein’s (2010) culture-embedding mechanisms describe what leaders do to articulate their values, and primary mechanisms and reinforce, secondary mechanisms. Destructive behaviors can proliferate and become hard to purge from the organization's culture and result in devastating consequences for the organization, the leader, and the community (Atan, 2014). Organizational culture is based on culture science, and is inter-disciplinary, linking methods and knowledge together, especially in sociology, psychology, economics, and management (Mohelska & Sokolova, 2018).  Destructive leadership behaviors can change or transform the culture and climate of an organization (El-Metwally et al., 2019). Organizational culture refers to a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it conducts business, which are valid and taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 2010). It is a sense-making and control mechanism that guides and shapes employees’ attitudes and behavior (Weick, 1995). As such, the culture of an organization creates a distinct atmosphere that people can feel, which is the organization’s climate (Organizational Climate: Definition, Factors & Impacts on Culture, 2013). Organizational climate is based on members' shared perceptions of the 93   social climate, their psychological and social experiences, and how employees make sense of their environment (Joseph & Panchanatham, 2016).  Destructive leader behaviors may influence the climate of an organization (El-Metwally et al., 2019; Erickson et al., 2015). The destructive influence of a leader who does not share the same set of values, goals, and commitment expected by the organization will weaken an organization's culture (George & Jayan, 2012). As a collaborative construct, organizational culture, and climate focus on how organization members observe, experience, and make sense of their work environment (Schneider, 1987), and are fundamental in analyzing organizational phenomena (Schein, 1985). If culture and climate are characteristics of an organization, then destructive leaders can influence, manipulate, and alter it (Ozcan, 2021). Destructive leaders create destructive climates by changing the scope of the culture’s (Schneider et al., 1995) goals, values, and norms to reflect their characteristics.  When leaders engage in self-interest, a culture of destructive leadership behaviors will follow (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). The effects of destructive leadership can be social, psychological, and /or psychosomatic (Trépanier et al., 2019) impacting organization member’s quality of life and detracting from the productivity and profitability of organizations, and possibly making organizations civilly liable. Destructive leadership behaviors also challenge the motivation, personal well-being, and job satisfaction of organization members (Jowers, 2015).  Destructive leaders typically do not work with organization members but with organization members by humiliating, belittling, bullying, and manipulating them to 94   increase productivity through fear (Wolor et al., 2022). Destructive leadership behaviors can lead to a toxic organizational culture that creates more destructive leaders (Norton, 2016). Destructive leadership behaviors may influence an organization to the point that they change the culture and climate (Neves & Schyns, 2018). Although scholars recognize that destructive leadership behavior exists, there is a gap in the literature regarding experiential accounts, such as personal interviews. My study may fill that gap in the literature by exploring the essence of the lived experiences of organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The essence of participants’ lived experiences will allow a transcendental, experiential account of the impact of destructive leadership behaviors.  Sensemaking The first published mention of sensemaking in the organizational context is in Weick's (1969a) seminal study. Sensemaking is the process of social construction that occurs when inconsistent cues interrupt an individual’s activities and the reactive development of probable meanings that rationalize what occurred (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Leaders produce their environment, thus the environments that leaders deal with are socially constructed (Daft & Weick, 1984; Weick, 1995). Sensemaking was born out of the need to explain complicated discord in organizations. Weick (1969b), postulates the recipe for sensemaking: How can I know what I think until I see what I say? and was the first to articulate a coherent framework for perception, cognition, action, and memory.  95   This framework consisted of seven properties to understand the sensemaking process: (a) identity construction, who individuals think they are they are now in relation to the environment (Weick et al., 2005); (b) retrospection, individuals shape experiences into meaningful patterns according to an individual’s memory of the experience and how an individual interprets the disruption that about (Dunford & Jones, 2000); (c) enactive and sensible environments as a key output of sensemaking is an enacted environment that is more orderly than the environment that triggered sensemaking in the first place (Weick, 1995); (d) social, as sensemaking is a social process where interpretations are negotiated and enacted through social interactions (Maitlis, 2005); (e) ongoing because sensemaking never stops because the world, interactions with the world, and understandings of the world are constantly changing (Helms-Mills et al., 2010); (f) focused on cues extracted from the environment for context because informational cues provide the raw material for interpretation (Brown et al., 2007) and (g) driven by plausibility rather than accuracy because individuals have neither the perceptual nor cognitive resources to know everything, plausibility helps people reach clarity in context to coordinate appropriate action (Weick, 1995).  Although the idea of sensemaking has pervaded much of the organizational literature, there is considerable variation in how it is used. While some scholars refer to sensemaking theory (Holt & Cornelissen, 2014; Jensen et al., 2009; Stein, 2004), there is no single theory of sensemaking. Consistent with many other writers (Drazin et al., 1999; Hsieh et al., 2011; Schultz & Hernes, 2013), Weick speaks of a “sensemaking perspective”, describing his seminal 1995 book as “a developing set of ideas with 96   explanatory possibilities” (Weick, 1995, p. ix) and observing, “There is no such thing as a theory of organizations that is characteristic of the sensemaking paradigm” (Weick, 1995, p. 69). Others refer to a “sensemaking lens” (Sonenshein, 2009; Stensaker & Falkenberg, 2007; Vough, 2012), while still others (Helms-Mills et al., 2010; Mikkelsen, 2013) write of Weick’s sensemaking framework, often referring to the seven properties of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). A phenomenological study such as this is best viewed in terms of Weick’s (1995) notion of sensemaking, in which organizational reality is based on how participants interpret their collective experience. As previously stated, sensemaking, a social process of shared meaning, can extrapolate cues from lived experiences (Weick, 1995), normalizing incongruences that triggered sensemaking in the first place. The outcome of successful sensemaking is that individuals can describe the meaning of their circumstances in a way that facilitates action (Weick et al., 2005). The basic purpose of phenomenology is to reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence (Van Manen, 1990b). According to Patton (1990), a phenomenological study focuses on the descriptions of what people experience and how they experience what they experience.  The Unknown of Destructive Leadership Not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. This could be due to a lack of empirical and experiential evidence to validate the existence of destructive leadership (Kargas & Varoutas, 2015). 97   Society has made the mistake of rarely addressing the negative attributes of leaders, especially in the realm of higher education. Accordingly, Powers et al., (2016), empirically examined how a collegiate athletic staff reacted to 6 years of destructive leadership. Similarly, Balwant (2017) suggested that instructor leadership in higher education research has focused primarily on constructive leadership, therefore he set out to (a) conceptualize destructive instructor leadership and (b) investigate the association between destructive instructor leadership and student reactions. Vveinhardt and Kuklytė (2017) examined employee perception of destructive leadership in the workplace and found that destructive leadership damaged organizational values and norms. Academics, organizations, and managers have traditionally sought to improve organizational performance through the study of good leadership, effective leadership, and visionary and charismatic leadership (El-Metwally et al., 2019; Erickson et al., 2015). Destructive leadership is unexplored as a fundamentally empirical phenomenon (McCleskey, 2013). Although the literature on leadership has traditionally celebrated leaders for their influence on organizations and organization members, Woestman and Wasonga (2015) believed that few studies have empirically identified how destructive leadership affects followers. A leader’s behavior can be constructive or destructive, based on the conflicting values and ideologies of an organization's culture, and climate, among organization members and whether these varying perspectives converge or not (Khanna et al., 2021). Because of the personal and organizational damage that can be caused by destructive leadership, it is imperative that a better understanding of why a leader would 98   choose to exhibit destructive behaviors rather than more positive behaviors (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023).  Otto et al. (2018), contended that the evidence on the existence of dark leadership is still growing and not well represented in the literature in comparison to positive leadership studies. This is especially true regarding contextual conditions where leadership behavior is directly linked to a negative impact on individuals. This duality and opposing relationship have left a gap in research and understanding of the complexity of leadership. This could be due to a lack of empirical and experiential evidence to validate the existence of destructive leadership (Khanna et al., 2021). However, it is difficult to obtain information from a damaged organization and its equally damaged members and leaders due to legalities, gag orders, and constituents simply not wanting to incriminate themselves. Often organizations would rather cover up leadership improprieties than correct, change, and learn from the experience.  Previous researchers of destructive leadership have used quantitative methods to measure and describe the followers’ experiences, leaving a gap in experiential accounts of this phenomenon (Martin, 2009). A review of the literature on destructive leadership primarily revealed quantitative, positivist studies using methods such as survey research, correlational research or causal–comparative research to capture, analyze and understand individual experiences (Khan, 2014). There is a gap in understanding the individual experience, which qualitative research may be able to capture. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) identified dialectics as a process theory that leads to organizational change, therefore dialectical change theory will be the process theory used in this study to explain 99   how and why change unfolds or results from destructive leadership behaviors. A leader behaving in a way that is exceedingly self-interested and exploitative of others is a recurring notion in destructive leadership literature, pointing to the relevance of these aspects (Schmid et al., 2019). By transcending beyond leaders and toward organizational outcomes and the contributing roles of followers and environments over time, more effective solutions and preventative remedies are possible (Thoroughgood, 2021; Thoroughgood et al., 2021). Summary and Conclusions The specific problem addressed in this study was that not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. It is known that destructive leadership is a form of traditional, constructive leadership that is inherently harmful to individuals and the organization. The same theoretical and conceptual lens can be used to view destructive leadership that is used in traditional, constructive leadership. Much of the research on destructive leadership behaviors has been quantitative, leaving a gap in the literature on qualitative approaches to destructive leadership behaviors (Martin, 2009). Traditional, constructive leadership values are what leaders espouse and are what followers expect in an organization. Generally, leadership research has taken a biased approach, focusing on the positive and constructive aspects, such as leader effectiveness and identifying characteristics of successful leaders, while avoiding its negative and destructive side (Inyang, 2013). Comparatively, a plethora of research studies are available on the 100   positive, constructive effects of leadership behaviors. Although the literature on leadership has traditionally celebrated leaders for their influence on organizations and organization members, few studies have empirically identified how destructive leadership affects subordinates. A review of the literature revealed a lack of a holistic framework to grasp the effect of this phenomenon (Jabreen, 2009). Conceptual framework analysis revealed four common, empirical, and multidimensional themes in the existing literature on leadership and organizational theory (Sheard & Kakabadse, 2004).  The five themes are (a) dialectical change theory, (b) dialectical analysis, (c) organizational culture, (d) organizational climate, and (e) sensemaking. These themes, and the relationship between them will create a construct of mental models that will enable me to horizontalize the data gathered from individuals, categorize it, and build themes based on participants' lived experiences. To understand how destructive leadership can negatively influence individual organization members, I collected and analyzed data that explicated the essence of the lived experiences of participants, to understand life, and the world (see Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004) and gain a deeper understanding of the nature of destructive leadership. The five themes that are foundational and support the underlying characteristics and structures that define destructive leadership are (a) dialectical change theory, (b) dialectical analysis, (c) organizational culture, (d) organizational climate, and (e) sensemaking. This mental model construct explored the ongoing tensions and contradictions of organizational actors attempting to shape and make sense of the organization’s culture and climate (Gaim et al., 2022). In Chapter 3, I discussed the 101   methodology used to answer the research question: RQ1: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? 102   Chapter 3: Research Method The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Phenomenological research was the optimal approach for focusing on the wholeness of the experience and its essence or truth (see Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenologists hold the view that human beings extract meaning from the world through personal experience (Hourigan & Edgar, 2020). By examining an experience as it is subjectively lived, researchers develop new meanings and appreciations to inform or reorient how people understand that experience (Neubauer et al., 2019). Phenomenology focuses on the subjective approach of the researcher toward the exploration of the phenomenon being investigated, the lived experience of the subject being interviewed, and the structure of the experience rather than on the opinion of the participants about the experience (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022).  In the current study, the phenomenon was destructive leadership. To understand the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, I collected and analyzed data that focused on the personal internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions that were created as participants experienced destructive leadership’s negative influence (see Wæraas, 2022). The central purpose of phenomenology is to reduce the individual experiences of a phenomenon to a description of the universal essence (Van Manen, 1990b). 103   The current study was different from previous scholarly research that sought to improve organizational effectiveness by focusing on constructive leadership, while destructive leadership, which warranted investigation, was seldom researched. Interest in destructive leadership may be related to its costs, in that destructive leadership leads to absenteeism, turnover, and impaired effectiveness (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). A review of the literature on destructive leadership primarily revealed quantitative positivist studies using methods such as survey research, correlational research, or causal comparative research to capture, analyze, and understand individual experiences (Khan, 2014). Because the focus of the research on destructive leadership has primarily been quantitative in nature, there was a gap in understanding the individual experience, which qualitative research may capture. The current qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was conducted to address this gap in the literature by analyzing multiple subjective experiences of participants. Chapter 3 presents the research design and rationale; role of the researcher; methodology; participant selection logic; instrumentation; procedures for recruitment, participation, and data collection; data analysis plan; and issues of trustworthiness. Research Design and Rationale Qualitative researchers view phenomena in their natural settings to make sense of or interpret the phenomena in terms of the meanings that people bring to them (Aspers & Corte, 2021). Transcendental means “that which is new, everything is perceived fresh, as if for the first time” (Moustakas, 1994, para. 6). Phenomenology is a qualitative approach in which researchers aim to develop new understandings of lived experiences relying on 104   first-person accounts obtained through participant interviews (Neubauer et al., 2019). The current qualitative transcendental phenomenological study explored the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. The overarching research question for this study was the following: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked?  The research question was answered from the data that emerged from participants during the interviews. Destructive leadership was the phenomenon of interest. Destructive leadership is the systematic and repeated behavior by a leader that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s structure, goals, tasks, resources, effectiveness, and motivation, as well as the personal well-being and job satisfaction of followers (Einarsen et al., 2007). Destructive leadership is the antithesis of traditional, constructive, and transformational leadership. In the current study, I examined destructive leadership from multiple social realities and organizational perspectives to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individuals who had encountered destructive leadership’s negative influence.  Participants were interviewed using an interview protocol consisting of nine open-ended questions and prompts (see Appendix C). Leadership and destructive leadership are dialectically interrelated (Collinson, 2020) and represent a paradoxical and specific form of leadership embedded in the process of leading. Through the essence of the lived 105   experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study may provide a greater understanding of what happens when pluralistic and paradoxical organizations maintain a thesis or status quo. During traditional, constructive, transformational leadership, the thesis operationalizes and competes with an opposing force or antithesis such as destructive leadership, change, or synthesis (Avolio & Bass, 1988).  This discord may cause an imbalance in the culture and climate of the organization, which senior leadership maintains, and employees tend to behave in ways consistent with leadership. This incongruence is paradoxical and may negatively affect the personal and/or professional lives of organization members. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) noted that an organization’s engagement with dialectical tensions will represent organizational change taking place as thesis and antithesis meet and one takes precedence or the two are merged, creating a new organizational reality. Dialectics is a logical and subjective development in thought from a thesis, giving rise to its reaction as an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis. The tension between the two resolves itself by means of a synthesis or a continuous unification of opposites (Popper, 1940).  Dialectical theory rests on the assumption that an organization exists in a pluralistic world of competing and opposing forces, events, norms, contradictory values, and their polar opposites, each vying for domination and control (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Dialectical change theory asserts that there are inherent tensions between 106   contradictory perspectives and how people respond to them and use them to understand how relationships work and how they grow and change over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Wood, 1997). The perception of dialectics is a state of perpetual change; therefore, dialectical analysis attempts to help humans understand the processes of change (Cudworth & Hobden, 2014). Organizational culture refers to a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it conducts business, which are valid and taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 2010). Destructive leaders create destructive climates by changing the content of the culture (Schneider et al., 1995), and goals, values, and norms that reflect their characteristics (Giberson et al., 2009). Organizational climate is based on members’ shared perceptions of the social climate, their psychological and social experiences, and how they make sense of their environment. Destructive leader behaviors may influence the culture and climate of an organization. The destructive influence of a leader who does not share the same set of values, goals, and commitment expected by the organization will weaken an organization’s culture (George & Jayan, 2012). Organization members who encounter destructive leadership may perceive their lived experiences based on what leaders in the organization espouse, which may be inconsistent with what employees see as value. A phenomenological study such as the current is best viewed in terms of Weick’s (1995) notion of sensemaking, in which organizational reality is based on how participants interpret their collective experience. Sensemaking, a social process of shared meaning, can extrapolate cues from lived human 107   experiences (Weick, 1995), normalizing incongruences that triggered sensemaking in the first place. The outcome of successful sensemaking is that individuals can describe the meaning of their circumstances in a way that precipitates action (Weick et al., 2005). There is no single, accepted way of doing qualitative research (Aspers & Corte, 2021). Researchers conduct qualitative research based on a variety of factors such as (a) their philosophical beliefs about the nature of the social reality and how individuals attempt to understand the world around them as humans, with firsthand experience (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022); (b) the nature of knowledge and how ontological assumptions can be known, understood, justified, and explained logically and rationally (Bohl, 2019); (c) the purpose of the research; (d) the characteristics of the research participants; (e) the audience for the research; and (f) the position and environment of the researchers. Ontology is concerned with the nature of social reality (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022) constructed by the interaction of individuals attempting to understand the world around them. Dialectics as ontology refers to a view of reality as the dynamic interplay of opposing forces, whereas dialectic as epistemology refers to a method of reasoning by which a person searches for understanding through the clash of opposing arguments (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). In the epistemological assumption, qualitative researchers try to get as close as possible to the participants being studied. Subjective evidence is assembled based on individual views. This is how knowledge is known, through the subjective experiences of people.  A qualitative research design enables researchers to explore behaviors, different perspectives, and life experiences to discover the complexities of the situation through a 108   holistic framework (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). A qualitative research design also describes, either explicitly or implicitly, the purpose of qualitative research, the role of the researcher, the stages of research, and the method of data analysis (Rashid, 2023). The researcher must clearly articulate the logic and appropriateness of the qualitative approach in the methodology section and include aspects of traditional quantitative designs while making it clear that the design may need to be modified during the course of data collection (Johnson et al., 2020). Although all observations are qualitative at their inception, a quantitative approach was not chosen for the current study because quantitative research uses a deductive approach and tests hypotheses using statistical analyses, which aligns with the natural sciences rather than with detailed accounts of human perceptions (Saunders et al., 2009). There are two main approaches to phenomenology: descriptive and interpretive (Sloan & Bowie, 2014). Descriptive phenomenology is also known as transcendental (Spinelli, 2005), and interpretive phenomenology is also known as hermeneutic or existential (Connelly, 2010). A qualitative researcher must decide what method best addresses the research problem in their study (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). Phenomenological methods are often chosen because of a researcher’s philosophical or methodological congruence with the nuances of the approach (Phillips-Pula et al., 2011).  This study used a qualitative, transcendental structured approach to phenomenological analysis (Moustakas, 1994). Transcendental phenomenology focuses on the essential meanings of individual experiences (Phillips-Pula et al., 2011). A qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological design was used in this study to explore 109   the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. In Table 1, a comparison of the other qualitative research methods that were considered for this study is illustrated. One reason for conducting this study via a qualitative approach was to present a detailed view of destructive leadership from the perspective of employees who have been subjected to it, and their perceptions and understandings about the experience, in natural settings such as face-to-face interviews and observations (Khan, 2014). Qualitative designs are subjective and quite different from the rigidity of data required by objective quantitative designs (Gunzenhauser & Gerstl-Pepin, 2006). Phenomenology is based on the premise that reality consists of experiences, objects, and events as experienced in human consciousness, rather than in the objects, events, and experiences themselves (Käufer & Chemero, 2021). The interpretivist or qualitative approach to social science research is a way to gain meaning by understanding the world from subjective experiences (Pervin & Mokhtar, 2022). Philosophical assumptions inform the abstract ideas and beliefs that influence the theoretical choices that guide the research.   110   Table 1 Qualitative Research Approaches Note. The data for Case Study was adapted from “Business Research Methods (9th ed., p. 140), by W. G. Zikmund, B. J. Babin, J. C. Carr, and M. Griffin, 2013. Copyright 2010 by South-Western Cengage Learning and 2013 by Cengage Learning. Reprinted with permission. The data for Grounded Theory was adapted from “Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions," by G. Hadley, in A. Bryant and A. E. Clarke (Eds.) Festschrift in Honor of Kathy Charmaz (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 56, p. 2), 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited (https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-239620220000056008). Copyright 2023 by Gregory Hadley. Reprinted with permission. The data for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Case Study were adapted from “Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their Contributions to Nursing Knowledge,” by K. A Lopez and D. G. Willis, 2004, Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), pp. 726-735 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304263638). Copyright 2004 by Sage.   Method Characteristic Grounded theory • Systematically and inductively generates a substantive theory about a core phenomenon. • Grounded in observations and the views of participants  Case study •  • A research design that focuses on a bounded case rather than a population sample. • Empirically examines a phenomenon with clear boundaries, within its real-life context.  • Bounded by time and activity, using a variety of data collection sources  Phenomenology  Transcendental:   Hermeneutic:   • A research methodology and philosophy.  • Focuses on commonality in the lived experiences described by participants.  • Epoche bracketing and essence are emphasized. Meaning is at the core.  •  • The interpretation of text or language by an observer. • Analyzes the conditions for understanding and being understood. • Integrates words, signs, and events into a meaningful whole. • Examines and reflects on text to discover something telling, meaningful, and thematic. Phenomenological case study   • Case studies are primarily a way of organizing the data. Phenomenology can be used along with case study to collect and analyze the data. All case studies study a phenomenon. Some analysis techniques used are from phenomenology analysis.  111   Role of the Researcher Phenomenology proposes a qualitative method of inquiry that can be used in a variety of experiences (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). In qualitative research, the researcher is considered an instrument, a human instrument of data collection, because data are reconciled through the human instrument instead of inventories, machines, or questionnaires (Wa-Mbaleka, 2020). The researcher should reveal their personal experiences and relevant aspects of self, including any biases and assumptions, expectations, and experiences to qualify his or her ability to conduct the research (Greenbank, 2003). In addition, it is useful for the qualitative researcher to keep a research journal explicating personal reactions and reflections, insights into self and past, in a separate journal, and how bracketing takes place (Olmos-Vega et al., 2022; Tracy, 2019). This will increase awareness of any underlying feelings or biases about the research topic. A researcher’s bias regarding the study phenomenon could lead to a misinterpretation of the data and erroneous conclusions, regardless of the detail and thoroughness of the research (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022).  The researcher should surrender any biases and approach the topic value free (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). This establishes credibility that the data was collected and analyzed correctly (Unluer, 2012). Researchers can be insiders or outsiders to the subjects of their study (Greene, 2014). A researcher who is a member of the group, organization, or culture being studied is considered an insider (Greene, 2014). An Investigation inside the researcher’s work environment is a type of insider research (McDermid et al., 2014). Phenomenologists differentiate phenomena from the point of 112   view of a human as opposed to noumena, the way things are (Willis, 2007). My role as the researcher was that of an outsider.  Although I have an enthusiastic interest in leadership, destructive leadership, organizational theory and behavior, and organizational psychology, I did not have a direct connection to any participant or their organization. Qualitative research uses non-probability samples for selecting the population for study. In a non-probability sample, units are purposely selected to reflect particular features of a group within the sampled population (Neubauer et al., 2019). Twenty participants were selected by means of a purposeful or purposive sampling strategy, using maximum variation sampling (Merriam, 2009), to ensure information rich cases that captured a wide range of perspectives relating to the phenomenon of interest (Laerd Dissertations, 2012), allowing me the opportunity to investigate the distinctiveness of each case as well as themes and patterns shared across the variation (Better Evaluation, 2014). This sampling strategy was chosen based on my perception as the researcher, my knowledge of the type of population being studied, the purpose of the study (Babbie, 2010), and obtaining information-rich samples for the study.  I used maximum variation sampling, to select heterogeneous samples (Staller, 2021) and “achieve representativeness” (see LeCompte et al., 1993, pp. 72-73) in selecting destructive leadership cases. There are two occasions for using maximum variation sampling: (a) when the sample size is very small or (b) when no population information is available, and it is not difficult to find population members with the selected characteristics (List, 2004). To gather a wide range of responses, especially the 113   “outlier” or unusual ones, a broad and diverse range of participants will be selected (Trochim, 2021, para. 10) There are two approaches to phenomenological research, interpretive or hermeneutic and descriptive or transcendental, that represent philosophical assumptions (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004), about lived, human experiences, and how to collect and organize data. Phenomenology eliminates prejudgments and biases of the researcher by bracketing out the natural world and describing things as they are. But when the consciousness intermingles with the natural world, meaning is created because “what appears in consciousness is an absolute reality while what appears to the world is a product of learning” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 2). As previously stated, meaning is the foundation of transcendental phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994). Transcendental phenomenology is an approach to acquiring and analyzing data. It is not an approach for interpretation but for describing the essence of the human experiences of the participants in the research study. This approach to organizing and analyzing data (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004) makes it possible for the researcher to set aside his or her personal opinion, to arrive at a descriptive representation of a phenomenon, and thus discover and describe the lived experiences of study participants (Kafle, 2011).  Hermeneutic phenomenological research is the interaction of multiple research activities (Van Manen, 1990a). First, researchers elicit a human phenomenon or concern, that is of interest to them (Moustakas, 1994). Next, the researcher reflects on central themes involved in the nature of this lived, human experience and writes a description of the phenomenon, maintaining a strong relation to the topic of inquiry and balancing the 114   parts of the writing with the whole. Then, because phenomenology is a descriptive and interpretive process of the meaning of the lived experiences (Van Manen, 1990b), the researcher initiates reduction which is the removal of what obstructs access to the phenomenon by epoché or opening up and bracketing or parenthesizing the various assumptions that might stand in the way (Van Manen, 2014). There are three types of reduction: (a) phenomenological reduction, suspending judgment about the nature of the external world; (b) eidetic reduction is analyzing essences; and (c) transcendental reduction, which is examining and dissecting experience in general (Chan et al., 2013). Next, the researcher identifies the essential themes involved in this phenomenon by reviewing the lived experience of people who experienced the phenomenon. The transcribed description of the organization members’ lived experiences is created in relation to the phenomenon. Finally, because phenomenology is a descriptive interpretive process, the researcher intervenes between the various meanings extrapolated from the lived experience, to describe the essence of a phenomenon or event.  Transcendental or psychological phenomenology includes the researcher: (a) identifying a phenomenon to study, (b) bracketing out one’s experiences; (c) collecting data from several persons who have experienced the phenomenon; (d) analyzing the data to identify significant statements or quotes; (e) combining the statements into themes; (f) providing a list of what the various experiences of the persons are; (g) providing a structural description of how they experienced their experiences; and (h) describing and or explaining the collective essence of the experience (Moustakas, 1994). Qualitative researchers should be open to revealing personal aspects of themselves such as biases, 115   beliefs, expectations, and/or experiences to legitimate themselves to conduct research (Greenbank, 2003). Additionally, it is useful for the qualitative researcher to keep a journal of personal thoughts, and reflections, and a separate journal of insights into themselves in a separate journal, for bracketing purposes. Methodology The methodology is concerned with the process and the method by which the researcher acquires knowledge about the world (Creswell, 2002; Edwards, 2009; Vitale, 2023), which may help answer the research question of the study. The methodology section of a research study describes actions to be taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability (Kallet, 2004). The methodology also seeks to answer two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? and, How was it analyzed?  This study utilized a qualitative design that is consistent with Moustakas’s (1994), transcendental phenomenological research method. One of the purposes of social science research is to explain things. Qualitative research is a holistic and systematic method of scientific inquiry used to understand a social or cultural phenomenon (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), such as destructive leadership. Qualitative research is also research that is not of statistical means or other means of measurement (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).  Qualitative methods are used to gain a deeper understanding of the perceptions of people regarding a particular phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative research is an 116   interpretive and naturalistic approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), based on the observations and interpretations of people’s perceptions of different events (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Neuman, 2011). In the epistemological assumption, qualitative researchers try to get as close as possible to the participants being studied. Therefore, subjective evidence is assembled based on individual views. This is how knowledge is known, through the subjective experiences of people.  Transcendental is a philosophical approach to qualitative research methodology seeking to understand human experience (Moustakas, 1994), by setting aside all preconceived ideas (epoche), allowing the true meaning of phenomena to naturally emerge (Moustakas, 1994). Transcendental means “in which everything is perceived freshly, as if for the first time” (Rao, 2019, para.5). As this study is informed by transcendental phenomenology, I will collect data reflecting the experiences of participants. Transcendental phenomenology requires that “the researcher identify a phenomenon to understand and has individuals who can provide a description of what they have experienced” (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004, p. 32). This is consistent with Moustakas’s (1994) transcendental phenomenology. Phenomenology is a qualitative method design. All phenomenological approaches seek to understand the everyday, inter-subjective world (Schwandt & Gates, 2021) or lived human experience.  In a qualitative study, the researcher collects data from individuals based on their lived experiences of the phenomenon and then develops composite descriptions of the essence of those individuals’ experiences. The goal is to understand the personal, internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions about what they experienced and how 117   they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological inquiry is the appropriate design to address meaning and human perspectives.  Meaning is at the center of transcendental phenomenology, which is based on principles identified by Husserl (1931) and translated into a qualitative method for acquiring and collecting data that explicates the essence of human experience by Moustakas (1994). Qualitative, transcendental, phenomenology was chosen as the methodology and design for this study because a review of the literature on leadership revealed that very little experiential, qualitative research exists on how to address destructive leadership. In contrast, the leadership literature and the available literature on destructive leadership reflect quantitative measures, leaving a gap in the research on the lived human experience involving destructive leadership. Although quantitative research is important, it lacks breadth and depth, fails to meet the basic conditions of qualitative methods, and does not contribute to the analysis of destructive leadership (Krug, 1992). Qualitative inquiry uses a realistic and natural approach to understanding phenomena contextually, whereas logical positivism, or quantitative research, uses experiments and quantitative methods to test hypotheses (Hoepfl, 1997). In this exploratory study, I investigated the relatively unexplored and uninterpreted phenomenon of destructive leadership (see Cavana et al., 2001; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Prior research on destructive leadership primarily used scientific methods (Tepper, 2007) to uncover its antecedents, consequences, and impact. My study explored employees’ own experiences at work. Few researchers have uncovered empirical evidence regarding how individual organization members perceived and gave 118   meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Interpretivists posit that realities are multiple and relative to other systems for meaning (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988; Neuman, 2011), that knowledge is socially constructed (Ferine et al., 2021), that researchers’ values are inherent in research, and that truth is debatable (Drolet et al., 2023). A study based on experiential accounts of destructive leadership may fill a gap in the qualitative literature. Participant Selection Logic The phenomenon of a study dictates the selection of participants. I explored the lived experiences of 20 individuals, who personally experienced destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work(ed). I selected the research sample for my study based on my knowledge and the purpose of the research, which was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. My study relied on a nonprobability sampling strategy. Sampling is defined as the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a population to determine the parameters or characteristics of the whole population (O'Leary, 2021). This is consistent with Husserl’s (1931) phenomenological approach. In the phenomenological tradition, the term sampling strategy is rarely used in the literature to refer to the selection of data sources (Gentles et al., 2015). Instead, O’Leary (2021) referred to sampling as choosing informants, while Yin (2014), always used the term selection. Samples used in qualitative studies are not intended to be statistically 119   representative and therefore are typically smaller than those used in quantitative studies (Staller, 2021). There is a point of diminishing return to a qualitative sample, so as a study progresses, repetition from multiple sources or saturation can occur, and continuing to sample may not provide any new data (Mason, 2010). The choice of sampling strategy is important because it reflects the credibility and trustworthiness of the study (Fréchette et al., 2020). A sample is chosen with the purpose to: (a) ensure that key populations, relevant to the subject matter are represented and (b) to ensure that there is diversity in perspectives so that any differences in key criteria can be explored (Aspers & Corte, 2021). In qualitative research, a suitable sample size is second to the research topic and the proper design (Marshall et al., 2013).  A researcher using a non-probability sample purposely selects a particular feature of a group that is not intended to be statistically correct but is representative of the population used (Aspers & Corte, 2021). Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique (Babbie, 2010). Purposive or purposeful sampling was the most suitable type of nonprobability sampling to identify participants for this study. Most sampling methods are purposive in nature because researchers typically approach the issue of sampling with a specific plan or purpose in mind (Trochim, 2021, para. 4). The main goal of purposive sampling is to identify and select participants who are particularly knowledgeable about or experienced with the phenomenon of interest, to help the researcher understand the problem and the research question (Duan et al., 2015). Although purposive sampling involves purposeful selection, the process requires 120   objectivity so that the sample meets the criterion of independent scrutiny (Aspers & Corte, 2021). This is also consistent with Husserl's (1931) phenomenological approach.  In my research study, I utilized the purposive or purposeful sampling strategy of maximum variation sampling (see Merriam, 2009) to select information rich cases. Maximum variation sampling is a purposive sampling technique used to capture a wide range of perspectives relating to the phenomenon of interest (Laerd Dissertations, 2012). The goal of maximum variation sampling is heterogeneity (Nyimbili & Nyimbili, 2024). Researchers want to understand how a phenomenon is perceived among a diverse group of people, in diverse settings and at diverse times (Elmusharaf, 2016). When using maximum variation sampling, the researcher selects a small sample of respondents that maximizes the diversity in relation to the research question (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).  I selected cases that were purposefully as different from each other as possible, along each of the selection criteria that allowed each case to be investigated for distinctiveness as well as themes and patterns that are shared across the variation (see Better Evaluation, 2014). With approval from the Walden Institutional Review Board (IRB), (approval number for this study is 04-21-21-0037534), the essence of the lived experiences of 20 individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organization where they work or have worked, was gathered, without bias.  This study focused primarily on the description of participants' personal, internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions, and less on my interpretations as the researcher. Data saturation is the point where little new information is coming forth and 121   the information is becoming redundant (Guest et al., 2020). In the qualitative tradition, a researcher should choose the sample size that offers the best opportunity for data saturation to be reached (Fusch & Ness, 2015). As such, the appropriateness of the sample size, instead of the actual size of the sample is of importance (Lakens, 2022). To establish appropriateness, researchers in the qualitative tradition rely on the concept of saturation (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). I recruited the study population via the social media network, Facebook, by posting a The Recruitment Flyer created in Microsoft Sway to my personal Facebook page. I changed the privacy setting regarding the audience who would be able to see this posting by de-selecting the “Friends” option and selecting the “Public” option so that anyone on or off Facebook would be able to see the Recruitment Flyer. I also posted the flyer to the following Facebook Doctoral groups, where student researchers ask questions, seek various types of support, and recruit study participants: Doctoral Scholar Community Connection, Minority Doctoral Network, and Parents Completing Doctoral Degrees.  The Recruitment Flyer included: (a) the title of the study, (b) the purpose of the study, (c) the definition of destructive leadership as it pertains to this study to provide consistency among participants in thinking of the term, (d) the approximate length of the interview and how it would be conducted, (e) the selection criteria so that prospective participants could self-select into the study, and (f) my Walden University email address and mobile telephone number. Eligibility for participation in this study, as outlined by Moustakas (1994), was: (a) participants must self-select into the study based on the 122   screening criteria on the Recruitment Flyer (see appendix A), (b) participants were interested in the topic being examined and found it meaningful to their experiences (Moustakas, 1994), and (c) participants were willing to take part in an in-depth interviews, adhere to follow-up correspondence as necessary, participate in transcript review (Moustakas, 1994) and agree to have the findings published. The criteria for self-selecting into the study were: (a) being 18 years of age or older? (b) having at least 3 years of current or previous work experience, and (c) having encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership. If an individual was interested and met the criteria, they were asked to contact me at the email address or phone number provided on the Recruitment Flyer. I secured their email address, name, and non-work phone number. I then forwarded the perspective participant the informed consent form.  Instrumentation In social sciences, instrumentation refers to the use of various survey instruments or questionnaires. Multiple data collection instruments were used in my study. I was the primary qualitative data collection instrument (see Fréchette et al., 2020) used to obtain data from individuals who had firsthand knowledge of destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work. I chose to create my semistructured interview protocol (see Appendix C), which included nine open-ended questions and additional possible probing questions, in which the wording and order of open-ended questions asked were the same for all the respondents (Singleton & Straits, 2010). Data collection was conducted virtually, using the semistructured interview protocol via Zoom and audio recorded, with the participant's permission, using a TASCAM DR-40X Digital 123   Audio Recorder to facilitate easy transfer of data from the recording device to my computer. The audio recording was done in conjunction with my handwritten notes. A semistructured interview is a technique for generating qualitative data that uses open-ended questions that are predetermined and probing questions from the interviewer as needed (Morse & Richards, 2002). When using a phenomenological approach for interviews, the purpose is to gain a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of lived experiences (Munhall, 2012). The order of the questions and how the researcher asks them affects the way the participants tell their stories. In phenomenological research, the interview questions are not pre-determined; rather the researcher follows the cues from the participants as they tell their lived experiences (Ray, 1994). In the semistructured interview, the interviewer has an interview protocol or guide of what he or she will say from the time the participant engages with the researcher. It ensures that the researcher gives all participants the same information about the process of the interview and asks the same questions in the same order to provide as much consistency to the interview process as possible. The interview protocol enables the interviewer to probe ambiguous areas for clarity that arise from participants (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Smith & Osborn, 2003). During the semistructured interview, the researcher should ask focused but not leading questions and listen carefully to the participants (Chan et al., 2013).  There is no specific way to conduct a good research interview in phenomenological research, as long as a complete description is obtained of the experience that a participant has lived through (Giorgi, 1985). In face-to-face, 124   semistructured interviews, the researcher has a better chance of obtaining the opinions, views, perceptions, and experiences of interviewees (Flick, 2022). Likewise, McMillan and Schumacher (1993) claimed that qualitative research interviews contain open-ended questions to collect data to understand the essence of an individual’s experience. The nature of semistructured interviews enables the researcher to use an interview protocol of relevant questions to be covered with each participant (Polit & Beck, 2010). The face-to-face interview lasts longer and yields richer data (Singleton & Straits, 2010).  The interviews for this research study were approximately forty-five minutes in length. The data collection centered around a broad, overarching question: RQ1: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? The interview protocol used in this study consisted of nine open-ended questions and prompts (see Appendix C). Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection In qualitative inquiry, recruitment refers to the process whereby the researcher identifies and invites participants who meet the study criteria, and who represent rich and complex data relevant to the phenomena being studied, to participate in a study (Butler et al., 2021). Participant recruitment for qualitative research is challenging and resource consuming, and failure to anticipate challenges may threaten the trustworthiness, credibility, transferability, and dependability of a research study (Archard & O’Reilly, 2022). Willis (2007) stated that the environment and situation in which the researcher 125   conducts his or her study plays a crucial role in how interviews are organized and conducted.  The participant pool is the most important resource of the study because it is not only a requirement of human subject research ethics, but also a precondition of valid data and valid conclusions from the study (Greiner, 2015). My study population was comprised of individual organization members who had firsthand knowledge of destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations they work in or have worked in in the past. After obtaining approval to conduct the study from the Walden Institutional Review Board (IRB), my participant pool was recruited from the social media site Facebook using a Recruitment Flyer that I created in Microsoft Sway. The Recruitment Flyer included: (a)The title of the study, (b) The purpose of the study, (c) The definition of destructive leadership as it pertains to this study, to provide consistency among participants in thinking of the term; (d) The approximate length of the interview and how it would be conducted, (e) The selection criteria so that prospective participants can self-select into the study, and (f) The researchers Walden University email address and mobile telephone number, to identify a population of interest, and develop a systematic way of selecting cases that were not based on advanced knowledge of how the outcomes would appear (Patton, 1990).  The participant recruitment script then offered four qualifying questions: (a) Are you 18 years of age or older? (b) Have you been employed by this organization for 3 years or more? (c) Have you previously been employed by an organization for at least 3 126   years or more? (d) Have you encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership as defined after the first paragraph at either or both places?  Participant selection came from a purposive sample, using maximum variation, of approximately 20 individuals when data saturation occurred. Polkinghorne (1989) recommends that researchers interview five to 25 individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon. Griffin and Hauser (1993) found that 20 in-depth interviews are necessary to uncover 90-95% of the data needed. The fact that a small sample size is selected for an in-depth qualitative study does not automatically mean that the sampling strategy should not be random (Patton, 1990).  Before data collection, the researcher practiced Epoche (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994), describing his or her own experiences (Chu, 2013), and then setting them aside, and taking a new perspective toward the phenomenon being studied, based on the description of the lived experiences presented by participants (Rao, 2019). This is a technique to increase awareness of the researcher’s underlying feelings about the research topic. In qualitative research, the role that the researcher plays is essential because the researcher is the primary data collection instrument (Fréchette et al., 2020). In my study, I collected qualitative data, via semistructured interviews, using a qualitative, standardized instrument or interview protocol (see Appendix C), in which the wording and order of open-ended questions were the same for all respondents (see Singleton & Straits, 2010). My study was conducted virtually via face-to-face interviews using Zoom.  Participants were asked to choose a conducive environment to conduct the interview that would not interfere with video communication. Each participant received 127   an informed consent form, to sign before the interview, which included a project description outlining the study along with the expectations for the participant. Two key elements that must be addressed are: (a) the appropriateness of the sample being recruited, such as participants who can best inform the research being recruited for the study, and (b) adequacy, is there enough data collected to develop rich thick descriptions of the phenomena under study (Butler et al., 2021). I used an interview protocol consisting of nine open-ended questions and prompts (see Appendix C) to interview participants. Each interview was scheduled to last one hour (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). Researchers frequently underestimate the time and resources required for participant recruitment, while overestimating available, willing, and eligible participants (Northouse et al., 2006). I used NVivo 12 Plus to transcribe the responses from audio to text. I simultaneously transcribed the interviews, by hand, as a cross reference. For anyone new to conducting qualitative research, it is beneficial to transcribe at least one interview to realize how difficult the task is as this realization affects their expectations when asking others to transcribe (Sutton & Austin, 2015). Transcription entails translation (Slembrouck, 2007; ten Have, 2007) or transformation of sound/image from recordings to text (Duranti, 1997). In qualitative research, transcription is conducted in individual or group interviews and is generally written verbatim (Mondada, 2007). Lapadat (2000) related differing approaches to transcription to epistemological assumptions. Positivists would argue that transcription is just a manual task., that transforms spoken data into written data which can then be analyzed. While interpretivists argue that you cannot 128   remove the context from a transcript. Instead, interpretivists rely on critical reflection to start a process of reviewing and reflecting on the data (Nickerson, 2024). In addition to the audio recording of the interviews via Zoom or Skype, I recorded any observations, or significant comments made by the participants during the interviews in the margin of the interview protocol. The transcription of data collected from participants was completed within 48 hours of each interview. I used transcript review, a technique to develop credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability of results (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), to ensure the trustworthiness of the data. Each participant was emailed a verbatim transcription of the textual data (see Forbat & Henderson, 2005), collected during their interview, allowing them an opportunity to validate, provide additional context, or offer additional evidence (see Birt et al., 2016, p. 2).  My follow-up plan, if recruitment resulted in too few participants, was to expand my recruitment effort to another social media platform, such as LinkedIn, or implement snowball sampling, where the nomination of other potential participants is made by those already enrolled in the study (Butler et al., 2021). The beginning of the interview protocol contained important information that participants needed, and the ending protocol let participants know how I would proceed and what they could expect (see Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). After the interview, I provided my contact information and explained to the participants that there might be a subsequent contact if I found a need to clarify information or ask additional questions (see Schwandt, 1997). 129   Data Analysis Plan There are no agreed upon rules or procedures for analyzing qualitative data (Lewis et al., 2003). Data analysis is the process of making meaning from collected data (Simon & Goes, 2013). Data analysis in qualitative research is defined as the systematic process of searching and arranging interview transcripts, observation notes, or other non-textual materials to increase the understanding of the phenomenon (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). Data must be collected from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. I employed a modified Van Kaam method as defined by Moustakas (1994) to analyze the data collected through phenomenological interviews. Data collection, according to Moustakas (1994), centers around two broad questions: What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? and What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon? (Moustakas, 1994).  The eight interview questions centered around the primary research question: RQ1: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? I used NVivo 12 Plus transcription software to transcribe and analyze the interview data. Giorgi (1985) suggested that the researcher must saturate him/herself with the transcripts collected during the interviews after bracketing and before beginning with any data analysis. Being saturated in the data comes from listening to the audio recordings of the interviews and reading through the transcripts repeatedly, as this provides a perspective for the materialization of codes, categories, and eventually themes (Giorgi, 1985). Listening to 130   each of the participants repeatedly helped me to become familiar with the participant's individual experiences and it also helped me to become more aware of tone change (Eddles-Hirsch, 2015).  As this study was informed by phenomenology, data analysis aligned with the modified Van Kaam method as defined by Moustakas (1994). The modified Van Kaam method of data analysis asserts that data should be raw rather than based on the researcher’s personal experience of the phenomenon. Generally, in qualitative research data analysis begins simultaneously with data collection. This is in line with the idea that data collection, analysis, and interpretation are a simultaneous, recursive, and dynamic process (Hancock et al., 2021; Merriam, 1998; Rubin & Rubin, 2011). Making data analysis run concurrently with data collection brings focus to the study and creates space for co-researchers to be partners in the production of knowledge (Daly, 2007). However, one should be careful not to impose meaning from one interview to the next when data gathering is done concurrently with data analysis (Bohl, 2019). In the preparation phase, I listened to and transcribed verbal descriptions and interviews (see Wertz, 2005). The phenomenological approach involves returning to the experience to obtain comprehensive descriptions that become the basis for accurately portraying the essence of the experience (Phillips-Pula et al., 2011). The modified Van Kaam data analysis method has seven steps to be followed using each participant’s complete interview transcription. All the steps are dependent on and flow from the process of phenomenological reduction, which requires analyzing interview transcripts, should start with the self-awareness, and self-knowledge of co-researchers and focus on 131   their lived experience free from prejudgments, to return to the “things themselves” (Moustakas, 1994). Before data analysis, I practiced epoche by bracketing out my own experiences, biases, and prejudgments as much as possible and looking at the phenomenon of destructive leadership with a fresh perspective, using systemic procedures for analyzing the data (see Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994).  Epoche is the first step of the phenomenological reduction process (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). The opportunity to examine my own experiences, and to identify and acknowledge a priori thoughts, is important to avoid judgment and biases during the research process (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). Excerpts from the literature review are used here to clarify the terminology (Phillips-Pula et al., 2011). The modified seven-step Van Kaam Method of Phenomenological Data Analysis (Moustakas, 1994) was used to analyze data. The transcendental, phenomenological reduction was used to describe the essence of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). The modified Van Kaam method of analysis of phenomenological data enabled me to continuously bracket out my own experience throughout the process. Horizontalization, the first step in data analysis involves specific statements identified in the transcripts that provide information about the experiences of the participants. I highlighted every statement relevant to the individual experiences from the transcript, giving them equal value as they pertain to the topic and the research question (see Moustakas, 1994, p. 118). These statements were collected and organized into a table so that the range of perspectives could be studied.  Next, I performed reduction and elimination to form invariant constituents, as every significant statement was initially treated as having equal value. I deleted those 132   statements or the coded invariant constituents of the previous step that were redundant or irrelevant to the topic to determine the invariant constituents (see Moustakas, 1994). This step involved a re-evaluation of each coded invariant. The remaining statements were “horizons” or textual meanings (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004, p. 14). I narrowed the list of codes into categories against two requirements: (a) contains an instance in the lived experience that is a necessary component for understanding it and (b) it must be possible to “abstract and label it, thereby ridding the study of unnecessary codes” (see Moustakas, 1994, p. 121). Then, I performed clustering and thematizing of invariant constituents, where I carefully examined the identified significant statements and then clustered the statements into themes or meaning units (see Moustakas, 1994). Lastly, the finalization of invariant constituents and themes step took take place. From the thematic analysis, I then provided a description of what was experienced in textural descriptions, and how it was experienced in structural descriptions. Also called imaginative variation, it is concerned with using the imagination, the senses, and memory to unite what is known with what is being studied. The creation of individual textural and structural descriptions is the final step. This involved constructing meanings and essences by differentiating the multiple realities expressed by study participants and integrating textural and structural descriptions from the essence of what is known individually to the essence of what is known by all (Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). The textual and structural descriptions of the experiences were then synthesized into a composite description of the phenomenon through the research process referred to as “intuitive integration” (Moustakas, 1994, p.100)  133   The conceptual framework was used to filter the data, develop a structural description, and then offer a composite description of the essence of each person’s lived experiences. Specifically, used NVivo 12 Plus, qualitative analysis software, to prepare the raw data for coding and analysis, by placing the words and phrases into themes, as suggested by (Lumivero, (2024), which allowed me to easily note the location and frequency of each occurrence. This description becomes the essential, invariant structure of the ultimate essence that captures the meaning ascribed to the experience (Merriam, 2009; Moustakas, 1994). This coding configuration aligned the results with the conceptual framework and research questions. Issues of Trustworthiness The components that establish the trustworthiness of a quality study are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. They are similar, but not identical, to elements that establish the trustworthiness of a quantitative study, such as validity, generalizability, replicability, and reliability. A description of each of the four components of trustworthiness for a qualitative study follows. Credibility Credibility establishes whether the research findings drawn from the participants’ original data are valid and were correctly interpreted from participants’ original views (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility, or internal validity, refers to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the findings. It reflects the richness of the data gathered rather than the quantity of data. Several criteria can be used to achieve credibility in a study (Mabuza et al., 2014). If research cannot be perceived as 134   trustworthy by others in the broad field of qualitative research, how much less is it perceived by those in the other fields; namely, those in the quantitative field (Loh, 2013)? Validation by academic experts was used to confirm credibility, dependability, and transferability (Stahl & King, 2020), which are the essential criteria for quality in qualitative paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).  Conducting ethical social research involves researchers’ obligations to each other and their discipline to make sure that data is sound and trustworthy because dishonesty and inaccuracy in reporting findings undermine science itself (Singleton & Straits, 2010). Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that ensuring credibility is one of the most important factors in establishing trustworthiness and offer several strategies to ensure credibility, such as a thick description of the phenomenon under scrutiny, peer scrutiny of the research project, iterative questioning, triangulation, and random sampling. I used detailed quotes, not paraphrased quotes, from participants (see Cho & Lee, 2014). Transcendental or psychological phenomenology is focused less on the interpretations of the researcher and more on a description of the experiences (Moustakas, 1994). I also used rich, thick descriptions (see Younas et al., 2023), authentic quotes (see Cristancho et al., 2021), and linked and emic narratives (see Lingard, 2019) to give a platform to the meaningful, relational, authentic, and contextual experiences, perspectives, actions, motivations, and intentions from each participant. Thick description helps other researchers to replicate the study with similar conditions in other settings (Patton, 2015). Finally, I incorporated peer debriefing to test my insights and explored aspects of my study that might otherwise remain implicit within my mind (see Lincoln & Guba, 1985).  135   A qualitative researcher should seek support during the research process from other professionals willing to provide scholarly guidance, such as a member of the academic staff, or a dissertation committee member (Anney, 2014). I sought the assistance of a team of academicians with expertise in qualitative research and a post-doctoral researcher recommended by a professional with several years of experience in the newspaper industry as recommended by Kemparaj and Chavan (2013). Kemparaj and Chavan also found it important to mention the credibility of the researcher because the researcher is the main data collection instrument and the person who performs the analysis of the data. As such, I was the main data collection instrument and my knowledge, skills, and abilities also contributed to the credibility of the study.  Transferability Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts with other respondents (Anney, 2014). The ability of others to judge transferability depends on thick description, or a detailed description of the setting, participants selection, and the findings (Mabuza et al., 2014), to enable the reader to gauge and assess the meanings attached to them (Aspers & Corte, 2021). Merriam (1998) stated that external validity is the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations. The potential user determines if the findings are transferable (Streubert & Carpenter, 1999). Ultimately, the results of a qualitative study must be understood within the context of the particular characteristics of the organization, and perhaps the geographical area where the fieldwork was conducted (Loh, 2013).  136   To assess the extent to which findings may be true of people in other settings, similar projects employing the same methods but conducted in different environments could be of value. The primary strategy utilized in my study to ensure external validity was thick, rich detailed descriptions so that anyone interested in transferability would have a solid framework for comparison (see Merriam, 1998). Three techniques were used to ensure reliability. The first technique was a detailed account of the focus of the study, the researcher’s role, the informant’s position, the basis for selection, and the context from which data was collected (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The second technique was the use of triangulation or multiple methods of data collection and analysis (Merriam, 1998). The third technique was data collection and analysis strategies reported in detail to provide an accurate picture of the methods used in the study (Aspers & Corte, 2021).  I also kept a thorough audit trail, for the safe keeping of notes, interview audio tapes, transcripts, and data analysis documents collected throughout the process. The audit trails demonstrate that research findings are based on participants’ descriptions, and clarify how data was collected and analyzed transparently and logically. It should be noted that in the end, the reader makes the final decision as to the transferability of the findings (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Dependability Dependability refers to the extent to which similar findings would be obtained if the study were repeated (Guba, 1981). Dependability involves participants evaluating the findings, interpretation, and recommendations of the study to make sure that they are all supported by the data received from the informants of the study (Anney, 2014). The 137   research process should be fully documented and have a proper flow (Porritt et al., 2014) so that the study can be repeated (Mabuza et al., 2014). Dependability examines reliability and includes data archiving and the creation of an audit trail (Bloemen et al., 2014). In my study, to ensure “credibility, transcript review was used, and data or results were returned to participants to check for accuracy and resonance with their experiences” (see Birt et al., 2016, p. 2). In addressing the issue of reliability, the positivist employs techniques to show that, if the work were repeated, in the same context, with the same methods, and with the same participants, similar results would be obtained (Johnson et al., 2020). Therefore, a study should include sections on (a) The research design and its implementation, (b) The operational detail of data gathering, addressing what was done in the field; and c) A reflective appraisal of the project to evaluate the effectiveness of the process of inquiry undertaken (Loh, 2013). Dependability is established using an audit trail, a code-recode strategy, stepwise replication, triangulation, and peer examination or iterator comparisons (Wormuth, 2024). Both methodological triangulation and an audit trail were used to achieve dependability. Confirmability Confirmability refers to the degree to which results can be confirmed by others (Malagon-Maldonado, 2014). The reader wants to ensure that the results are truly based on the data and not the characteristics or preferences of the researcher (Mabuza et al., 2014). The concept of confirmability is comparable to objectivity (Patton, 1990). Confirmability can be done in several ways. 138   It can be established through triangulation or using more than one method to capture different facets of the same phenomenon to reduce investigator bias. It can be established through the researcher’s beliefs and assumptions and how they may influence research outcomes (Ho & Limpaecher, 2022), by personally reflecting on what is being studied in relation to the conceptual bias. Confirmability can also be established through in-depth methodological descriptions using good interview techniques, extensive dialogue, rapport, and trust building, triangulation of sources, methods, and researchers, ensuring participants anonymity and researcher self-analysis (Wallendorf & Belk, 1989), allowing the integrity of the data provided by the informants to be analyzed (Anney, 2014). Finally, conformability can be established by recognition of shortcomings in the study’s methods and the potential effects. To establish conformability in this study, I practiced reflexivity throughout the study by describing my role as an outside researcher, my qualifications, my occupation, and my relationship to the participants, and continuously conducting self-evaluation (see Mabuza et al., 2014). Ethical Procedures Ethics, in relation to social research, concerns the morality of human conduct, the moral deliberation, choice, and accountability on the part of researchers throughout the research process (Edwards & Mauthner, 2012). Ethical issues arise in social research when conflicts occur between societal values such as freedoms and privacy and scientific methods aimed at obtaining the highest quality data (Singleton & Straits, 2010). Concern with ethical conduct in research is foundational to the research enterprise (De Costa, 2014). This is important because the investigator is the instrument in the inquiry (Gordon 139   & Patterson, 2013). Before a study is undertaken, researchers should gain formal ethics approval from the appropriate local ethics committee (Broom, 2006). To achieve qualitative quality, I employed several practices that attended to ethics in qualitative research, procedural, situational, relational, and exiting ethics. Procedural ethics concerns the actions that are required by large organizations that govern the research process such as a university’s IRB (Tracy, 2010). Procedural ethics encompasses the importance of truthfulness, fraud, and oversight as well as participants’ right to know the nature and consequences of the research, and that their participation is voluntary (Varpio et al., 2021). These requirements protect human participants from harm, the right to know the benefits and consequences of participating, and the right to participate or not (Sterling & Gass, 2017). Included in safeguarding participants is protecting the data collected and the participant’s identity (Tracy, 2010). There is also consideration for the ethical management of the data collected, where the researcher weighs the benefit or harm in reporting participants’ experiences during the study (Muraglia et al., 2020). Practicing procedural ethics is one way to ensure data credibility (Tracy, 2010). To ensure procedural ethics, no prospective participant was contacted, nor any data be collected until the required approval was received from Walden University’s IRB. In addition to an interview protocol (see Appendix C), I distributed an informed consent form detailing the purpose, confidentiality, benefits, and risks of participating in my study as well as a statement giving the option to withdraw at any time. To ensure the anonymity of the participants, each participant was assigned an alpha numeric identifier number to be used throughout the study to represent them.  140   Each participant was verbally informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. During data collection, I was mindful of not violating the moral rights of the participants (see Ahmed & Ahmed, 2014). The collected data was stored electronically on a USB drive and any written documents were kept in a locked file cabinet drawer. Both the electronic file and the written documents will be deleted and shredded after 5 years.  I addressed any unexpected situations by carefully weighing the benefits to the participants and making the best decision for preserving their rights. Situational ethics refers to ethical practices that emerge during data collection (Tracy, 2010). Situational ethics deals with unpredictable, subtle, yet ethically significant moments that occur while conducting research (Ellis, 2007) The researcher must be cognizant of the methods chosen and how to handle sensitive data and the possible repercussions (Barrett et al., 2020). I followed the guidelines of The Belmont Report written by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to ensure the ethical treatment of my participants. Relational ethics involves a moral self-consciousness in which researchers are mindful of their character, actions, and consequences on others (Tracy, 2010). Relational ethics refers to values of mutual respect, dignity, and the bond between the researcher and the participant, and between researchers and society (Ellis, 2007). Relational ethics requires researchers to act from both emotions and intellect. As part of relational ethics, the researcher deal with the changing relationship with research participants over time (Ellis, 2007).  141   Exiting ethics involves how the researcher interacts with the participants after the study is completed, and the method in which participants exit from the researcher and the research study (Tracy, 2010). I practiced ethical exiting strategies by thanking participants, offering them copies of the results, and instructing them on how they can access the results themselves when my study becomes available. Social researchers must clarify their role, especially those utilizing qualitative methodology to make their research credible. The qualitative researcher needs to describe relevant aspects of self, including any biases and assumptions, expectations, and experiences to qualify his or her ability to conduct the research (Greenbank, 2003). Additionally, it is useful for the qualitative researcher to keep a research journal explicating personal reactions and reflections, insights into self and past, in a separate journal, and how bracketing takes place.  Given the subjective nature of qualitative inquiry, emic and etic perspectives play a significant role in research on life experiences. Etic perspectives are those taken by a researcher who is an outsider to the population being studied (Naaeke et al., 2011). The etic perspective encompasses an external view of culture, language, meaning associations, and real-world events (Olive, 2014), developed outside of the culture, as a framework for studying the culture (Willis, 2007). Emic perspective is the perspective of the studied social group. In this approach, the perspectives, explanations, logic, meanings, beliefs, and worldviews of the studied people are used to explain the particular values, beliefs, or practices. This is the way the actual people understand what they do and think (Rasmussen et al., 2018). Ethical considerations and reliability are important 142   regardless of whether the researcher is an outsider to the camaraderie shared by participants, the role of the researcher in relation to those participating in the research is an essential aspect of the investigation (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Summary Destructive leadership is the phenomenon of interest for this study. Destructive leadership is the antithesis of traditional, constructive, and transformational leadership. This study explored destructive leadership from multiple social realities and organizational perspectives. Qualitative transcendental phenomenology is the appropriate methodology to search for understanding and meaning from lived experiences. The researcher using a qualitative method argues that another human being (e.g., himself) is the only instrument that is sufficiently complex to comprehend and learn about human existence (Lave & Kvale, 1995). The implication is that social research will benefit from being performed as field research (Burgess, 1984) based on interaction between the researcher and the individuals studied (Fink, 2000).  Qualitative researchers use strategies that promote trustworthiness in a study. Merriam (2009) outlined reasonable alternatives, or the rationales for ruling out alternative explanations and accounting for discrepant (negative) cases. Discrepant case sampling is a sampling method that aims to elaborate, modify, or refine a theory (LeCompte et al., 1993). The goal is to purposely choose cases that might support an emerging theory, not completely disprove it (Hackett, 2015). I presented all aspects of the research method: (a) research design and rationale, (b) role of the researcher, (c) methodology, (d) participant selection logic, (e) instrumentation, (f) procedures for 143   recruitment, participation, and data collection, (g) data analysis plan, and (h) issues of trustworthiness along with the rationale for all the decisions and selections made. Achieving rigor, in qualitative terms, involves using ways to establish trust or confidence in the findings or results of a research study (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). This was a recurring theme through the methodology of this study. According to Bansal et al. (2018), qualitative data is distinctly different from quantitative data, in that it cannot be easily displayed by figures and tables. Data must be visual, not just described, so the reader can connect the data extrapolated from participants with the horizontalized data, and the horizontalized data can be connected with the emergent theory. The data must create a context for the reader and provide a personal experience of the phenomenon. In Chapter 4, I will present the results of the analyzed data, and in Chapter 5 the implications of the study findings. 144   Chapter 4: Results  The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Phenomenology begins with an experience or condition and examines the phenomenon through the subjective eyes of the participants (Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022). The data collected in the current study reflected the participants’ experiences as they perceived them in their consciousness and were analyzed to answer the overarching research question for this study: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? Chapter 4 includes the research setting, demographics, data collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, and the study results. Research Setting I conducted my study virtually from my home office in the southeastern United States using the Zoom video conferencing platform. In qualitative research, the location selected for collecting data must align with the topic of inquiry (Kemparaj & Chavan, 2013). All interactions with participants occurred through email or Zoom. I interviewed participants in the late afternoon, evenings, and weekends. To ensure continued confidentiality, I requested each participant’s non-work-related email address and phone 145   number. I asked for this on the recruitment flyer, the informed consent form, and the Calendly scheduling correspondence.  I emailed each participant to verify the use of their personal email address, checking that the address given did not contain the suffix or domain of an organization, corporation, business, government, or educational institution. I conducted all interviews in a private, confidential environment conducive to this study. I could freely build rapport with each participant and establish trust and comfort. There were no changes in any interview settings throughout the data collection process, and participants did not experience adverse conditions or situations that interfered with the results.  Demographics My study population comprised 20 individuals from various organizations who had experienced destructive leadership. I purposefully selected the participants for this study using the maximum variation sampling technique (see Merriam, 2009) to yield a heterogeneous sample of 20 respondents. This sampling strategy allowed me to document information-rich cases and capture various perspectives on the phenomenon of destructive leadership (see Laerd Dissertations, 2012). This strategy also allowed me to investigate the distinctiveness of each case and the themes and patterns shared across the variation (see Better Evaluation, 2014). Although people do not experience a phenomenon the same way, there are parts of an experience that may be the same for some individuals, and this data analysis method allowed me to highlight the commonalities and differences (see Sumskis & Moxham, 2017). In addition to purposive sampling and maximum variation sampling, I used snowball sampling as a contingency. 146   Snowball sampling is a convenient sampling method in which subjects recruit future subjects among their acquaintances. The demographic data collected in the current study pertained to the participants’ role or position when they experienced destructive leadership and the number of participants who held each distinct type of position or role (see Table 2). Table 2 Participants’ Role in the Organization When Destructive Leadership Occurred Participant’s role in the organization                                References Professor             1 Teacher (K-12)             2 Sales – customer service              1 Social worker               1 Asst. director             1 Change agent             2 Religious/faith position                            1 Food service                   1 IT professional             1 Consultant              1 Military              1 Supervisor             1 Benefits manager                        2 Project manager               2 Director of human resources           3 Human resource professional                   1 Executive             1 Administrative                 3     A phenomenological study does not seek to explore lived experiences within a “gender-balanced group or a socially homogeneous group” but focuses on explaining participants and their stories as they make sense of a life experience (Van Manen, 1990b, p. 12). Although the sample for the current study comprised only 20 participants, some individuals may have held more than one position in a particular organization while experiencing destructive leadership. Also, demographic data emerged organically from 147   each interview regarding the destructive leader’s position or role when they engaged in destructive leadership behaviors (see Table 3). Eligibility for participation in this study, as outlined by Moustakas (1994), was based on these criteria: (a) participants self-selected into the study based on the screening criteria on the recruitment flyer; (b) participants were interested in the topic being examined and found it meaningful to their experiences; and (c) participants were willing to take part in in-depth interviews, follow-up correspondence as necessary, and transcript review (see Moustakas, 1994) and were willing to have findings published. Participants in the current study were allowed to have worked in any organization if they met the selection criteria. The criteria for self-selecting into the study were the following: (a) being 18 years of age or older, (b) having at least 3 years of current or previous work experience, and (c) having encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership as defined on the recruitment flyer at either or both places. Participant selection is significant because the results are based on the studied participants. Qualitative samples must be large enough to reveal all essential perceptions (Mason, 2010). 148   Table 3 Leaders’ Position or Role in the Organization When They Engage in Destructive Behavior Destructive leaders’ role in organization                                              References Director        1 Professor       1 CEO         2 CFO         1 Dept head                                   1 Acting leader                           1 Change agent       2 Religious/faith position      1 Food service mgr.      1 IT Dir/mgr.       1 Manager       1 Military officer       1 Supervisor       1 Regional mgr./Dir      2 Principal K–12       2 Director of human resources     3 Vice president       1 Executive       1     There are no set criteria for sample size in qualitative research because qualitative studies are much smaller than quantitative studies (Yin, 2014). Adequacy of sample size rather than the actual size of the sample is most important (Lakens, 2022). Data-rich information is vital in determining adequacy. Qualitative researchers rely on data saturation (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). I reached data saturation when I obtained enough information to reproduce or replicate the study, and obtaining additional knowledge and coding was not possible (see Fusch & Ness, 2015). While saturation determines most qualitative sample sizes, other factors can dictate how quickly or slowly this is achieved in a qualitative study. Although data saturation occurred, I continued with the interviews 149   because I wanted to meet the required number, as stated in my proposal. Completing all of the interviews revealed additional meaning and ensured data saturation. Although saturation determines most qualitative sample sizes, other factors can also dictate whether or how quickly saturation occurs in a qualitative study (Mason, 2010). The study’s purpose is the ultimate driver of the project design and, therefore, the sample size (Charmaz, 2006). Morse (2000) added that other factors affecting sample size are “the study, the nature of the topic, the quality of the data, the study design and the use of what Morse calls shadowed data” (p. 4). Morse (1995) felt that researchers often claim to have achieved saturation but cannot prove it, and suggested that the longer researchers examine, familiarize themselves with, and analyze their data, the more likely data saturation is to occur. Morse (1995) concluded that saturation is more concerned with reaching the point where it becomes “counter-productive” and that “the new” does not add anything to the overall story, model, theory, or framework (p. 136).  Data Collection On May 17, 2021, I posted my recruitment flyer to the public forum on Facebook. I also posted the flyer to the following Facebook Doctoral groups where student researchers can ask questions and seek distinct types of support such as recruiting participants: Doctoral Scholar Community Connection, Minority Doctoral Network, and Parents Completing Doctoral Degrees. I collected primary data from 20 individuals who had firsthand knowledge of destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or had worked. I conducted this study virtually from my home office in the southeastern United States using Zoom’s video conferencing platform. 150   Following the constructivist paradigm, I conducted this study in the participants’ natural environment (see Guba & Lincoln, 1994).  The interviews occurred in the late afternoon, evenings, and weekends. Interviews were not conducted during the participants’ workday, and I asked them not to use their work phone or email addresses in this study. Although each participant provided a non-work-related phone number, all interviews were conducted using Zoom video conferencing. I checked each email address to make sure that it did not contain the suffix or domain of an organization, corporation, business, government, or educational institution. I conducted each interview in a quiet, private, and confidential environment conducive to this study.  Intentionally and continuously throughout this study, I reflected on the praxis of leadership and destructive leadership, my awareness of how knowledge is constructed, and how I needed to deal with that knowledge to mitigate my researcher bias. In a research journal, I identified and wrote down significant events and experiences that may have resulted in feelings, biases, and judgments based on prior knowledge about destructive leadership. I attended this process of intentional reflection before meeting with any participants or collecting any data and revisited it at each phase of this study by practicing mindfulness techniques. I was this study's primary qualitative data collection instrument (see Marshall & Rossman, 2016). I conducted my first interview on May 28, 2021, and after the interview, participant A001 said that she knew two people who wanted to participate in the study. She asked if I needed any more participants. On June 15, 2021, I expanded my Facebook 151   recruitment effort by posting my recruitment flyer in several other groups: (a) Qualitative Research Group, (b) Dissertation Success Forum, (c) Online Doctoral Students, (d) Walden Doctoral Candidates, (e) Dissertation Support Group, and (f) Doctoral Dissertation Cohort. Expanding my recruitment effort yielded seven responses to my expanded effort: participants A008, A019, A011, A014, A015, A016, and A017. Three additional individuals responded to my recruitment flyer. One individual returned the informed consent form but needed help to schedule a date and time. The other two individuals did not return the form.  I started the interview process on May 28, 2021, and completed the final interview on June 30, 2021. I conducted one interview per day except on June 5, June 25, and June 26. I conducted two interviews on those days. I scheduled each interview for one hour, but seven out of the 20 were less than one hour, five were more than one hour, and eight ran precisely one hour. As transcendental phenomenology informed this study, I collected data reflecting participants’ experiences, just as they perceived them in their consciousness.  To ensure confidentiality, I assigned each participant a non-identifiable label, specifically A1, A2, A3, and A4, to represent them throughout the study. I verified the participants’ personal email addresses and phone numbers. I collected primary data using an interview protocol (see Appendix C) that I created. The wording and order of open-ended questions were the same for all respondents (Singleton & Straits, 2010). I used open-ended questions that enabled unscripted questions and answers to emerge as details 152   increased. Before starting each interview, I assessed the audio recording device for sound clarity and compatibility with my computer.  With the participants’ permission, I audio-recorded the interviews, using a TASCAM DR-40X Digital Audio Recorder to facilitate the uncomplicated data transfer from the recording device to my computer. I also took handwritten notes to cross-reference the audio recording. I immersed myself in the data transcripts collected during the interviews to acquire a perspective on the materialization of codes, categories, and themes. I stated in Chapter 3 of my proposal that I would conduct member checking. After securing IRB approval, I decided to conduct a transcript review instead because member checking is a reactive validation strategy to solicit the credibility of the research findings. In contrast, transcript analysis is a more proactive validation technique.  Data Analysis Using transcendental phenomenological analysis, I explored the data obtained from the semistructured interviews of 20 individual organization members. This study aimed to understand the personal, internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions about what they experienced and how they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). As this study was informed by transcendental phenomenology, data transcription and analysis aligned to the modified Van Kaam method as defined by Moustakas (1994), where transcription, in qualitative research, should be raw rather than based on the researcher’s personal experience of the phenomenon. Participant interviews were transcribed before the data was analyzed. I uploaded the audio files for transcription to NVivo 12 Pro, and an embedded transcript with the media files was created. Audio recording of the interviews 153   and transcribing the audio into written text is necessary for management, organization, and data analysis because only written language can be managed, sorted, copied, examined, evaluated, and quoted.  After completing the data collection, I began transcribing the data collected from the qualitative interviews into written text to create, as accurately as possible, an objective, written account of the perceptions, perspectives, understandings, and feelings of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, for analysis. The qualitative researcher must describe relevant aspects of self, including any biases, assumptions, expectations, and experiences (Greenbank, 2003). I used NVivo 12 Plus transcription software to transcribe the audio-recorded participant interviews verbatim. The verbatim method of data transcription, where the transcription software transcribes every sound, was employed to convert participant interviews from audio recordings to textual descriptions. There are no rules for formatting and structuring a transcript. For each interview transcript, I included: (a) The name of the interviewer and the confidential identifier assigned to the interviewee, (b) The date and time when the interview occurred, (c) The location of the interview, (d) The speaker designation (who says what?), (e) The line numbers and timestamps and (f) The transcripts should also include page and line numbers and should have sufficiently large margins to allow for coding.  I transcribed each interview shortly after it was finished, so the dialogue remained notable. After performing epoche and before beginning data analysis, I immersed myself 154   in the data transcripts by listening to the audio recordings of the interviews and reading the transcripts repeatedly. I compared each NVivO transcribed interview to the digital audio recording of each interview before emailing the transcript to participants for review. As this study was informed by phenomenology, I employed Moustakas’s (1994) modification of Van Kaam’s (1966) phenomenological data analysis to analyze the data obtained from the 20 individual organization members. The Modified Van Kamm Method The modified van Kamm method of phenomenological data analysis (see Figure 6) begins with Stage 1, Epoche, then proceeds to Stage 2, Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction, which has six steps: (a) Bracketing, (b) Horizontalization, (c) Reduction and Elimination, (d) Clustering and Thematizing Invariant Constituents, (e) Identification/Validation of the Invariant Constituents, and (f) Construction of individual textural descriptions. Employing the modified Van Kaam method (Moustakas, 1994), I was able to identify the invariant constituents and thematic categories in the data. According to Moustakas (1994), the invariant constituents represent the experiences and perceptions of the participants related to the topic under investigation. I used NVivo 12 Pro, qualitative analysis software, to code, the transcribed text of the interviews, note the location and frequency of each invariant constituent, group the invariant constituents into categories, and generate frequencies of the occurrence of invariant constituents.  The final two stages that Van Kaam proposed are Stage 3, Imaginative Variation, which has two steps: (a) construction of an individual structural description and (b) construction of an individual textural-structural description, and Stage 4, Synthesis of the 155   individual textural-structural into a composite description or essence. I performed this data analysis process using transcriptions from the individual participant interviews.  Figure 6 Steps of Phenomenological Data Analysis by Moustakas  Note. Adapted from “The Effects of Implementing Clinical Supervision Model on Supervisors Teaching Perspectives and Qualifications: A Case Study in an EFL Context,” by E. Khaef and A. Karimnia, 2021, Education Research International, p. 7. Copyright 2021 by Creative Commons Attribution License. Epoche I began Stage 1 of data analysis by practicing epoche. According to Greenbank (2003), the qualitative researcher must describe relevant aspects of self, including any biases, assumptions, expectations, and experiences, to qualify their research ability. I 156   cleared my mind and reflected on my personal and professional experiences with destructive leadership. I set aside my prejudgments by reflecting on my experience with destructive leadership and making notes in my research journal about my own experiences with the phenomenon. I opened the analysis process the same way I opened the recruitment and data collection processes, with an unbiased, receptive presence of my own experiences (see Chu, 2013). I shifted my paradigm toward participants’ lived experiences of destructive leadership. Moustakas (1994) noted that epoche is a conscious identification process and isolation of naturally occurring thought patterns. Blum (2012) described epoche as “the suspension of the natural attitude” (p. 1032), “allowing things, events, and people to enter anew into consciousness, and to look and see them again, as if for the first time” (p. 85). Moustakas (1994) also noted the difficulty, and yet necessity, of the process so that “we may see with new eyes in a naïve and completely open manner” and “suspend everything that interferes with that fresh vision” (p. 86). I revisited epoche throughout this research study by reviewing and reflecting on the notes in my research journal and practicing mindfulness techniques.  Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction Bracketing I initiated Stage 2, Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction, removing what obstructs access to the phenomenon by opening up and bracketing the various assumptions that might stand in the way (see Van Manen, 2014), which is the first step in Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction. The modified Van Kaam method of 157   phenomenological data analysis suggests that researchers continuously bracket their experiences throughout the research process (Moustakas, 1994). I placed the focus of the research in brackets, setting aside my values, ideologies, and feelings based on any prior knowledge of destructive leadership previously identified and held in epoche. I did this to “remain open to the emerging data on destructive leadership so that the entire research process focused on the research topic and research question” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 97). This step is vital in grasping the essence and meaning of the phenomenon solely through the information gathered. Horizontalization The second step in Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction, horizontalization, involved a subjective process where I evaluated the relevance of the participant interview data to the research topic. I listed and grouped the relevant responses made by the participants. I immersed myself in the audio recordings and repeatedly read through the transcripts of the interviews so that each word and statement of significance to this phenomenon could be extracted and examined more thoroughly (see Creswell & Poth, 2018; Eddles-Hirsch, 2015). I treated all the data equally, with no quote or excerpt being more critical than the other (see Modified Van Kaam Analysis, n.d.). Adhering to Moustakas (1994), I identified and highlighted every quote or statement about destructive leadership, the research question, and the interview questions (p. 118). The statements that were repetitive and had no meaning were deleted to get a focused look at the phenomenon. The remaining statements are the horizons or “the 158   grounding or condition of the phenomenon that gives it a distinct character” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 95). I began the process of preliminary listing and grouping (see Modified Van Kaam Analysis, n.d.). As I used NVivo 12 Plus to transcribe the audio-recorded interviews into a written document, I continued to use this same transcription software to organize and analyze the interview data and quickly note each occurrence’s location and frequency. The data collected in the interviews yielded several pages of rich, thick descriptions of participants’ lived experiences of destructive leadership. With the research question in mind, I proceeded to the next step. Reduction and Elimination The third step in Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction is reduction and elimination (delimited horizons or meanings). Because each horizon statement was of equal value, the next logical step in following Moustakas’ (1994) process was to narrow the statements to the phenomenon's unique and meaningful invariant constituents. I accomplished the third step by taking each horizontalized transcript and asking myself: (a.) Did it contain a moment of the experience that is a necessary and sufficient constituent for understanding it, and (b) Is it possible to abstract and label it? Although each significant statement was initially treated as equal, I deleted it if I answered no to the qualifying question. I also evaluated each noteworthy statement to identify and delete any repetitious or ambiguous language (see Moustakas, 1994). I also deleted the introduction portion of each interview from the interview protocol. The remaining new document contained the invariant constituents of participants’ lived experiences. An 159   invariant constituent is the component of an experience that must be present in the description, or it would no longer adequately describe the experience (Hammershaimb, 2019).  Clustering and Thematizing Invariant Constituents The fourth step in Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction is clustering and thematizing invariant constituents. I grouped the invariant constituents from the interviews of the 20 participants to determine the significant, relevant, and invariant meanings that described participants’ lived experiences with destructive leadership (see Moustakas, 1994). Using NVivo 12 Pro, qualitative analysis software, I analyzed the word and sentence structure (see Medelyan, n.d.), of every interview transcript, examining and re-examining the significant statements to generate meaning and clearly defined codes. Codes assign symbolic meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study (Naeem et al., 2023).  I also used NVivo 12 Plus software to organize, label, and inductively code the invariant constituents. Coding is the primary process for developing themes by identifying items of analytic interest in the data and tagging these items with a coding label (Sud, 2020). Inductive coding is a bottom-up approach where the researcher has no preconception of the codes but allows codes to emerge from the participant narrative (Qualitative Dissertation: Qualitative Data Analysis & Coding Qualitative Data, 2021). Inductive coding resulted in 211 primary, level 1 codes that emerged from the invariant constituents. According to Deterding and Waters (2018), coding is more than reducing data to its simplest form; it can also help the researcher expand, transform, and re-160   conceptualize data, allowing more diverse and systematic potential. I revised, combined, divided, and refined the initial 211 primary codes and extracted 30 themes or parent codes.  Themes are broad units of information that comprise several codes aggregated to form a common idea (Elliott, 2018). I clustered all of the related invariant constituents of each participant’s experience into a thematic label. These clustered and labeled constituents are the core themes of the experience. I used NVivo 12 Plus, to track the frequency of each coded theme and subtheme. By dividing each reference number, or the number of times each of the thirty individual themes was coded, by the total reference number, or the total number of times each theme was coded, and multiplying each quotient by 100 to get the proportion of each theme out of the total reference number. The three percent and above themes represent the study's eight core or parent themes (see Table 4). The remaining 181 initial codes were aggregated until 47 subthemes or child codes remained (Chang & Wanh, 2021). The 47 coded invariant constituents were clustered into eight core themes: (a) Affect personally, (b) Affect professionally, (c) Discrimination, (d) The employee reported destructive leader behavior incidences, (e) Human Resources – other, (f) WHY-Reason for behavior, (g) Harassment, and (h) Destructive Leader Behavior.  161   Table 4 Thematic Analysis Overall Theme            Number               Percentage Harassment  Behavior  Affect professionally  Discrimination  Affect Personally  WHY- Reason for behavior  HR - other  Employee reported leader behavior-incidence  Organization-Environment  Higher ups do nothing  Destructive Leader disciplined  Organization aware of or supported destructive leadership behavior  Destructive Leaders position in organization  Fear  Customer-Client satisfaction impacted or affected  Destructive leader - experience  Trust Factor-Employee  Investigation Education - college Other people witnessed or affected destructive leadership WHY employee stayed with the organization  Employee did not report COVID-19 Not charismatic Physical contact Promises Hidden agenda Loyalty - lack of Destructive leader employed in different position Nationalization  GRAND TOTAL 422 350 260 145 121 87 81 64 48 46 38 31  30 29 27 26 22 21 19 16  15 13 9 6 6 6 2 2 1 1 1944 22% 18% 13% 7% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%  2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%  1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 162   Identification-Validation of the Invariant Constituents I checked the invariant constituents and the themes against each transcript to make sure the themes were explicitly expressed or compatible with the constituents. This process helped determine the relevancy of the experience and strengthened the meaning and impact of the eight main themes and 47 subthemes. I asked the following questions suggested by Moustakas (1994): (a) are they expressed explicitly in the complete transcription? (b) or are they compatible if not explicitly expressed? If they are not explicit or compatible, they are irrelevant to the co-researcher's experience and should be deleted (Moustakas, 1994).  Individual Textural Descriptions From the thematic analysis, I have provided a textual description of what each participant experienced. An individual textual description is a complete description of the phenomena experienced by the participant in their own words (Moustakas, 1994), including quotes. I employed the validated main themes and important experiences from the previous stages to establish the individual textual descriptions of the 20 participants. Moustakas (1994) stated that individual textural descriptions of participants’ lived experiences fuse the invariant constituents and themes to reveal what was experienced (p. 78). The textural description encompassed each participant’s experience of destructive leadership using verbatim statements and quotes to ensure their voice in the co-constructed meaning. Verbatim examples of the first three participants’ textual descriptions are presented below. Textual descriptions for all 20 participants are in Appendix E. Creating 163   a textural description did not revise the original conversation but ordered and refined the actual conversation toward a description of the essence.  Textural Description for Participant A001 Participant A001 was the Director of Human Resources for a municipality in the southern United States. This participant was hired as a change agent to bring the organization into one compliance and have an office where the employees could come, voice their opinions, get information, et cetera. A001’s lived experience of destructive leadership involved a leader she reported to, who was unqualified for the position for which she was hired. Participant A001 recounted that this destructive leader was the accounts payable clerk in her previous position. She was promoted to Finance Director and Administrative Services Director, which included IT, Fleet, and Human Resources.” Participant A001 also believed that this destructive leader’s background was not at the level to which she was promoted. Specifically, A001 said, “This destructive leader had an associate degree and no working knowledge of Human Resources, Risk Management, or General Liability. She was promoted because of her friendship with the City Manager, to whom she now reported.” This destructive leader managed subordinates who had more experience and education. Participant A001 went on to say: As a Director of Human Resources, I have always reported to the City Manager, which meant I had a straight line to the person who could assist me in making decisions or could say yes or no, and the same with all of the other Directors. Those of us with several years of experience and education in our fields reported 164   to this person, who was an account payable clerk and was promoted to this leadership position. Destructive leadership usually does not occur due to ineptitude. Instead, it occurs when a leader acts or participates in harmful acts to subordinates, the organization, or others (Buss, 1961). Hiring the wrong person resulted in destructive behaviors that impacted organizational effectiveness. The literature on destructive leadership and the definition that guides this study does not overtly include or indicate whether intent should be included in the definition (Mackey et al., 2021) nor does it include nepotism or leader qualifications. The Participant went on to say:  That position was created for her to make more money. She valued money and getting to her retirement. I do not know what made her think she could fit in except for privilege. She just did badly, but she was allowed to stay. Although Participant A001 was a change agent, she stated, “It was challenging to facilitate change. Based on her relationship with the City Manager and their friendship inside and outside of work, I knew they did not want to change the structure.” Participant A001 also believed that “Because of the friendship between her and the City Manager, any recommendations that we made or tried to put into place, we had to go through her to talk to him.” This participant was not the only one who complained or tried to complain about this destructive leader. Still, as she was the Director of Human Resources, it was her role to manage destructive behavior. Participant A001 contended: 165   There were so many complaints about her because she was attempting to function at a level she had not reached. Her team wanted to complain about her. The union did not have a good relationship with her. They dealt with me. I was the messenger for the city and the union because they did not want to deal with her. This leader’s behaviors were harmful and overtly destructive to individual achievement and positive group functioning. A001 said:  For employees that reported directly to her, as I did, it was challenging to make any changes in the environment. Several directors and I were disillusioned because she did not have experience and was unclear on the direction. However, she still did not want to take the advice of those of us who were experienced. According to Participant A001, “She left the environment very, very broken.” Textural Description for Participant A002 Participant A002 was a Project manager when his department missed a significant deadline. His lived experience with destructive leadership involved lies, discrimination, and harassment. The participant stated:  Before the deadline came up, I informed my direct supervisors and their bosses that we were NOT going to be able to meet the date, and I told them why. I told them that the date was not attainable, and they insisted that I keep it, and we missed that deadline. Participant A002 went on to say:  Once we missed the date, the customer wanted to meet with us internally, with our chain of command. I participated in that meeting with my boss, their direct 166   boss, and the VP. Before that meeting, my boss approached me and said, “Can you just say that you missed the date because you had other projects?" I said no. Then it changed to, ‘Can you just say that you overlooked your work and did not catch it yourself.’ I said no again. Textural Description for Participant A003 Participant A003 was a Benefits Analyst, promoted to Human Resource Director, and told of a culture of discrimination, harassment, and other destructive behaviors from leadership. When this participant was the Benefits Analyst, the Human Resource Director at the time was very destructive. According to Participant A003, “He would bypass the policies and procedures and make up his own.” Specifically, what A003 said: Our policies and procedures under our Human Resources Administrative Code had to be voted on. It had to be brought to (City) council to change specific policies. He took the accountability out of the hands of (City) council and put it into his friend’s hands, the City Manager. One, in particular, was the authority to sign off or approve the administrative code without bringing it to power.  Another example given by A003 was “The defined contributions to our retirement benefit. He left it in the hands of a former City Manager, and it never went to (City) Council. It should have gone to City Council for approval, and he bypassed that.” There were no systems of checks and balances. A003 went on to say:  He seemingly made sure that the (City) council members were blind, unaware, or it was not transparent. His strategic goal was to take responsibility or accountability away from the City Council and put it in the hands of the City 167   Manager at that time, his best friend. He undermined the organization by scheming, plotting, and performing unethical behaviors. It was discovered two years later during a JLAC (Joint Legislative Audit Committee) audit of the city. There were 31 infractions discovered.  The participant stated: This leader’s behavior was well-known, and everyone feared him. This 75-year-old man had about 50 years of experience in Human Resources, and he walked around as if he was a czar, and everyone was afraid to say anything about it.  Participant A003 contended:  I am a direct eyewitness and victim. He would make off-color jokes, comments, and racial and sexist slurs. I reported it to the personnel manager, and they just shrugged it off as just his personality.  Organizations may not intend to create a culture that breeds toxic behaviors, but toxic leadership exists because people tolerate, accommodate, and protect it. The City Manager and the Director of Human Resources were walked out on the same day by this participant and another colleague. In 6 years, this participant had worked under three City Managers. The Director of Human Resources was on the path to becoming the City Manager. He became the deputy City Manager. That is when Participant A003 was moved to the Director of Human Resources. Participant A003 became the Director of Human Resources, and a new acting City Manager was brought in. A003 stated:  168   Then they brought in the I.T. Director, who had absolutely no City Manager experience, to be the acting City Manager. She was a pawn to eliminate the former City Manager, the destructive leader. The week before Thanksgiving, the new acting City Manager called me asking me to have letters separating the City Manager and Director of Human Resources. The destructive leader/ Director of Human Resources was best friends with the City Manager at the time. He became angry when the I.T. Director got the City Manager position. He thought that he was going to be the next City Manager.  Participant A003 thought, “No one could be worse than he was (the former H. R. Director), but she (IT Director/acting City Manager) was even worse, in a female version.” Participant A003 went on to say:  She changed when the City Council voted her in as the acting City Manager. We started on good terms. She was fun-loving, she joked around, and she would talk to me. She introduced me to her daughter before she went off to college. Her demeanor changed. The atmosphere became tense again.  Specifically, A003 said: She made promises. "I am not going to be like that. Let us get rid of him (former Human Resources Director/Destructive Leader). Let us clean this up. Six months later, she turned on us, and I was one of her biggest cheerleaders.  Participant A003 gave specific things that this destructive leader did. Specifically: She started speaking condescendingly. She did not have those soft skills, coming from I.T. If someone had an opinion, she would embarrass them in front of the other staff. She would degrade them. She would yell. I was about to have a 169   nervous breakdown. My doctor advised me to find another job because of this destructive behavior.  Destructive behaviors have a negative effect on a subordinate’s social and organizational citizenship. A003 contended, “She and her husband owned several businesses. He was arrested for embezzlement. This was in the media. It is public knowledge.” As this participant was the Director of Human Resources, she had to report the destructive behavior outside the organization. Participant A003 stated, “I filed a complaint with the EEOC. I also called the president of the NAACP, and he said, ‘Oh, very interesting.’ The participant proceeded to inform the Mayor about the steps she had taken because of the destructive behavior exhibited by the City Manager. A003 said the Mayor responded, “Oh, you should not have gone to him because he is going to tell her about it, and then they will deny it.” [Note: Textual descriptions for all 20 participants are in Appendix E.] Composite Textural Description Destructive leadership behaviors are best understood contextually. After completing the individual textural descriptions of each participant’s significant statements, I studied each co-researchers invariant meanings and themes to describe the group’s experiences. I created a table of themes from each participant’s responses. This table allowed me to identify the recurring and prominent themes across all the participants. The themes from individual participant’s responses are outlined in Table 5. Reoccurring themes included, Affect Personally, Affect Professionally, WHY-Reason for behavior, and Destructive leader behavior. The themes that are in parenthesis indicate 170   that the participants’ experience also involved how they perceived and gave meaning to the destructive leadership that they witnessed toward other employees. Participants that have the theme Human Resources-Other underlined, held the position of Human Resources Manager or above. Utilizing the total group of individual textural descriptions obtained, I was able to form a collective composite textural description from the themes and meanings obtained from every individual participant. Table 5 Composite Textual Description Participant Theme A001 (Affect personally), (Affect professionally), The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Destructive Leader Behavior A002 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A003 (Affect personally), (Affect professionally), Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A004 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A005 (Affect personally), (Affect professionally), Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A006 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A007 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior 171   A008 Affect personally, Affect professionally, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A009 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A010 Affect personally, Affect professionally, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior, Human Resources – other A011 Affect personally, Affect professionally, (Discrimination), The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, (Harassment), WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A012 Affect personally, Affect professionally, (Discrimination), The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, (Harassment), Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A013 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A014 Affect personally, Affect professionally, WHY-Reason for behavior, Destructive Leader Behavior A015 (Affect personally), (Affect professionally), (Discrimination), The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, (Harassment), Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior  A016 Affect personally, Affect professionally, WHY-Reason for behavior, Destructive Leader Behavior A017 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A018 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A019 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Harassment, Destructive Leader Behavior A020 Affect personally, Affect professionally, Discrimination, The employee reported destructive leader behavior-incidences, Human Resources – other, WHY-Reason for behavior, Destructive Leader Behavior 172   Constructing Meaning Through Bracketing and Imaginative Variation I reflected on my preconceived ideas about destructive leadership and bracketed them (see Moustakas, 1994) to construct the structural descriptions of individual participants’ lived experiences. Using imaginative variation, and the data collected from textural descriptions, I constructed structural descriptions of the individual participant’s experiences. Removing quotes from individual participants that were not relevant to participants' lived experience of destructive leadership. Individual Structural Descriptions The next step in Moustakas's (1994) data analysis process is the process in which the researcher reviews the data collected through textural descriptions to see the data from all angles. The description of the context or setting influences how the participants experienced the phenomenon, allowing possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, (Moustakas, 1994). I revisited participant transcripts to identify structural elements that describe how participants experienced destructive leadership. Respondents' imagination, senses, and memory were captured using imaginative variation (Phillips-Pula et al., 2011), to reveal the structures of participants’ experiences. These descriptions revealed the emotional, social, and cultural aspects of participants’ experiences. Below are three examples of how destructive leadership was experienced. All 20 structural descriptions for the participants are in Appendix F. Structural Description of Participant A001 Context is a central element in recalling destructive leader behaviors. The context that accounts for how Participant A001 experienced destructive leadership is contained in 173   a structural account. The destructive leader described in this Participant's textual description was hired before the participant arrived. When the participant accepted the position, she knew she would report to the Administrative Services Director. However, the participant did not know this person’s background then.  As a Director of Human Resources, Participant A001 always reported to the City Manager or General Manager, giving her a direct line to someone who could approve or assist her in making decisions. The reporting structure in this municipality was such that this participant’s position was reported to an Administrative Services Director, who reported to the City Manager. Before this destructive leader was hired, there was no Administrative Services Director position. Employees and directors who had been there for some time recognized the difference in the reporting structure. Employees and directors recognized that they would have to work within those confines. Participant A001 was never able to get the reporting structure changed in any way. Those behaviors and those obstructions remained in place.  Although Participant A001 was hired as a change agent in a city of over 900 employees, it was difficult to make changes when you could not talk face to face. People stopped bringing ideas to the table. She did not hold staff meetings. She did not engage the team or ask what was wrong and how could be improved. The destructive leader made City Hall off-limits for employees. She was also very vindictive. There was no way for employees to come in to meet with the H.R. Director without the destructive leader knowing. The destructive leader did not interact with Participant A001. The participant attributed this to the fact that this destructive leader could not debate 174   Human Resources with her. Because the destructive leader did not understand, it was not easy to establish a relationship without the ability to have organizational banter back and forth about what is best and what is not. For the employees that reported directly to this destructive leader, as Participant A001 did, it was exceedingly difficult to start new processes, change processes that did not work to be more efficient, or bring ideas of changes the participant had implemented in other locations. For this participant to try and effect any change, she had to talk to the City Manager, the destructive leader’s friend who had already told this participant more than once not to bring him that kind of nonsense. Participant A001 said: Department heads were unhappy because of the favoritism from the City Manager and the fact that he overlooked that this destructive leader was not qualified. She talked to people as if she were more than she really was.  This destructive leader had people reporting her crying because she was so disrespectful, the environment was so toxic, and she did not care who heard how she spoke to people. The participant also said. “The unions’ concern was her understanding of negotiations. Because she was so tight with the budget, she did not allow discussion.” To this destructive leader, the budget was just numbers. To the Director of Human Resources and the union, discussions symbolized progress, comparability, or recruitment and retention. Participant A001 tried to implement a program to hire people more quickly into positions so that departments could get those services to the citizens.  175   She did not want to put the money in the budget I was asking for. She did not understand that she had a well-versed, educated, experienced professional reporting to her that could make her look good and make the organization better.  This participant did not feel that she was personally affected by this destructive leadership. Because Participant A001 has been the Director of Human Resources for 30 years, she understood not to take it personally and that she could only do what she was allowed to do versus what she was capable of doing. This experience did not personally change the participant in any way. Professionally, the participant became apathetic. She knew that she was working for an obstructionist. She was able to manage herself because she knew that it was not going to change unless the destructive leader left, or she left.  Participant A001 gained some insight because this was her only experience dealing with someone who had less experience but was not willing to take the recommendations of somebody in her position who was experienced. The employee population who did not know her experience and background did not completely understand her experience and capabilities. Participant A001 felt that was a blemish on her professional reputation. The participant felt that someone else controlled how the population perceived her.  Systematically, this destructive leader’s behavior stained the organization daily. People did not want to come to work on the floor where this destructive leader’s office was because she had a very nasty disposition. The climate was such that somebody was in the way of all the staff being efficient. Employees always came to this participant needing FMLA time because reporting to this destructive leader stressed them. 176   Individuals would walk around the other way, not pass her office door. Whatever goals departments had, or individuals had for themselves were hard to reach because she was in the way. It affected people's well-being. Structural Description of Participant A002 Participant A002 shared the context of his experience with destructive leadership. This participant stated, “On three occasions, I was asked to lie and accept the blame for something I had warned leadership about.” In the organization’s final attempt to deceive the customer by lying, Participant A002 said: “They wanted me to say that I missed the deadline, the target date because I had an additional workload, which was not true. That was not the reason that the date was missed.” Participant A002 explained, “The deadline was missed because it was an 0C3 that needed to be implemented within the network. They said to keep the date anyway.” Participant A002 also said, “After that, my boss’s boss would sometimes overshadow me. She always commented, ‘You can do this better.’”  A002 continued to explain: I asked for a promotion, and they said that I had not been in the position long enough and had not taken on enough projects, yet they handed me additional projects and told me I was doing well. My performance ratings were always above and beyond. Participant A002 went on to say:  It was just that it made it a hostile environment. It did not make a productive environment for wanting to come to work. Then, the regional manager contacted 177   me directly, asking me what was happening with this project. It came to the point where she made me copy her on every email, so she would be informed of what I was doing. It was micromanaging.  Structural Description of Participant A003 Participant A003 believed: “He was, in my opinion, a narcissist. He felt as if he knew everything. He instilled so much fear into our former city attorney that he had to be Baker Acted because he had a nervous breakdown.” This participant believed that He knew what he was doing. He used to brag about it. He would tell the H.R. staff, Watch; they will not know what hit them.” A003 continued by saying: He would make off-color jokes and comments. A003 said this destructive leader told her, “You know, you are Black. You are a woman. No one will ever touch you because you are in a protected class. He would be condescending, but he would do it with a smile. He would use all kinds of racial slurs and sexist slurs. He said everyone has a little bit of ism, like sexism, racism, feminism.  This participant reported his behavior, and they just shrugged it off as his personality.  Contrary to what the Mayor said, the Mayor betrayed this participant’s trust by telling the City Manager (destructive leader) exactly what Participant A003 told him. Consequently, A003 became the target of the destructive leader. Participant A003 said, “She asked me did I say something to the Mayor, and I said, yes, I did.” Participant A003 went on to say: 178   After that, I was always the target. She would embarrass me. She would just badger me and harass me. She would call me on Saturday mornings. She would call me late at night, at nine o’clock at night. She was always on me. She was bullying me. She would sit on a stoop outside my office and watch me, trying to use scare tactics to intimidate me. She would listen in on phone calls. She did everything she could to break me, to get me to resign. She made the workforce volatile. Morale was at an all-time low.  Participant A003 revealed another incidence of destructive leadership when she revealed, “The destructive leader gave the Public Works Director an ultimatum. She forced them to quit. He was African American. A003 went on to say:  The Labor Attorney asked me to attend the Public Works Director name-clearing hearing. That only angered her (destructive leader). She commented, ‘How can one of my subordinates tell me whether or not my separating this Public Works Director was right or wrong.’ Destructive leadership affects organization members’ ability to function personally and professionally. Participant A003 believed: It made me second-guess my abilities, my skills, and my knowledge. It made me rethink my values. Others did not respect me then because the City Manager had set the stage that ‘You are nothing; you do what I say. It made me think, ‘Why am I in this field, this profession?’ So, it broke me. I started to become depressed. I lost confidence in my abilities after 20 years of being in the H.R. profession. I became withdrawn. 179   Composite Structural Description In the final step of the data analysis process, I applied the process of imaginative variation to construct a composite structural description, integrating all the individual participant’s structural descriptions into one comprehensive, universal structural description of the meanings and essences of the lived experiences of individual organization members. Through this data analysis process, I identified the cultural, emotional, racial, social, and gender aspects of how participants experienced the phenomenon. Synthesis of Textual and Structural Descriptions The last step of this phenomenological analysis process was to synthesize the textual and structural descriptions of the experiences of individuals (see Alhazmi & Kaufmann, 2022) into a composite description of the phenomenon of destructive leadership called the essential invariant structure. Textural and structural descriptions make up the composite descriptions that convey a synthesis or integration of the meanings and essences of the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). I completed this by incorporating the formed themes and essential experiences. I synthesized the significant descriptions and actual lived experiences from the findings in the previous step. Discrepant Cases During the data collection process, cases that did not align with most findings were categorized and listed as discrepant. Discrepant cases, sometimes referred to as negative cases, outliers, contradictions, deviations, exceptions, or anomalies, are data records in which the participant’s experience or perception differs from the majority of 180   evidence collected. There were three cases out of the 20 individuals who participated in the research study that I considered discrepant. These discrepant cases were reviewed thoroughly and analyzed for conclusions to contribute to the overall findings of the research study. Participant A001 believed that because she had been a Director of Human Resources for 30 years, her experience of destructive leadership did not affect her personally. She understood not to take it personally and that she could only do what she was allowed to do versus what she was capable of doing. Participant A017, a Project Manager with a Consulting firm, was so guarded during the interview, speaking theoretically and only in the third person throughout the entire interview. She had been fired by the destructive leader, and her devastation consumed and terrified her. She told her story, speaking only in the third person and anecdotal language. I received an email from her after the interview clarifying what she experienced and how it affected her. The final discrepant case was my last interview with Participant A020. This participant gave an account of 2 instances of destructive leadership. The first was when she attended college and worked as a work-study student. She gave an account of blatant discrimination because of her race, skin tone, kinky hair, and sexual orientation. Her second account of destructive leadership occurred while she was employed as an elementary school art teacher. She gave an account of being fired because a student that she had previously warned the administration about because she “smelled marijuana” near him. The school administration and resource officer never found any evidence, nor did they smell anything. She was terminated after she allowed the student to sit outside 181   and draw because it was a nice day. The student started a fire while passing a marijuana cigarette around to other students. The participant was not aware of this because she was in the classroom.  She was terminated after she allowed the student to sit outside and draw because it was a nice day. The student started a fire while passing a marijuana cigarette around to other students. The participant was not aware of this because she was in the classroom. This case is discrepant because the participant’s account of the destructive leadership that she encountered was outlandish. Although the participant’s account of destructive leadership is possibly her truth, her account could also be easily explained psychologically. Evidence of Trustworthiness The trustworthiness of a research study is essential in evaluating its rigor (Adler, 2022). The qualitative researcher should write with enough clarity regarding the processes employed in a study to enable a reader to evaluate the scientific rigor and consequently agree or reject the findings (Mabuza et al., 2014). Trustworthiness, or validity in qualitative research, relates to the truthfulness of the study findings and conclusions based on the participants’ voices (Stahl & King, 2020). Trustworthiness adds credence to the research study and must be a part of the system of checks and balances in the research process (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Moran, 2024). Trustworthiness involves establishing: (a) credibility or confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings: (b) dependability or showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated, (c) transferability or showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts; and (d) confirmability, or 182   the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest. Researchers consider the elements of credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability as criteria that ensure the rigor of qualitative work (Megheirkouni & Moir, 2023).  Credibility Credibility establishes whether interpreting the research findings, drawn from the participant’s original data, is valid. Credibility, or internal validity, refers to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the findings. It reflects the richness of the data gathered more than the quantity. Credibility concerns the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. It also means there is alignment between theory, research question, data collection, analysis, and results and that the sampling strategy, the depth, and volume of data, as well as the analytical steps taken, are appropriate within that framework (Stenfors et al., 2020). The credibility of the findings and interpretations depends on carefully establishing trustworthiness and being cognizant of personal biases and subjectivity (Amin et al., 2020). Researchers can establish credibility in several ways (Poerwandari, 2021). First, sharing qualitative research findings with participants is an essential methodological, moral, and ethical procedure intended to enhance study credibility. I ensured evidence of credibility and trustworthiness by inviting participants to review the transcript of their interview (see Appendix D). Transcript review improves rigor, ensures the validity of the transcription (Polit & Beck, 2010), and reduces significant errors that may impact the transcript quality and the entire research study. To 183   do this, I returned the participants’ interview transcripts and asked them to validate each transcript by checking its accuracy and resonance with their experiences (see Birt et al., 2016) correcting or clarifying ambiguities. In contrast to other approaches for validating research findings, such as member checking or triangulation, I applied the concept of transcript review as a methodological approach for verifying the accuracy of the interview transcript before it is formally coded and analyzed (see Hagens et al., 2009).  I established trustworthiness in the data analysis of my research study by guaranteeing reflexivity and countering bias (Lemke et al., 2016). I did this by placing the focus of my study in brackets and setting aside my values, ideologies, and feelings based on prior knowledge of destructive leadership that was previously identified and held in epoche so that the entire research process was grounded solely in the phenomena of destructive leadership and the overarching research question. Bracketing involves identifying and clarifying research bias intentionally and continuously throughout data collection and analysis (Van Manen, 2014). Keeping a research journal allowed me to establish boundaries or parenthesis and combine aspects of both the processes of setting aside presuppositions and rendering explicit the studied phenomenon; this included both the internal (researcher) suppositions and the external (phenomenon) suppositions, delineating the start point, duration, and endpoint of bracketing.  Transcendental or psychological phenomenology focuses less on the researcher’s interpretations and more on describing the experiences (Moustakas, 1994). I used detailed, thick descriptions from the interviews (see Moon et al., 2013) to justify the entire research process, from data collection to the final report. The thick descriptions 184   will help other researchers to replicate the study under similar conditions and in another setting (Patton, 2015). I also used detailed quotes, not paraphrased quotes, from participants (see Cho & Lee, 2014). Iterative questioning (reflexive) involves revisiting the data and connecting them with emerging insights, progressively leading to refined focus, and understanding. Patton (2015) has provided a valuable set of three categories of reflexive questions for triangulated reflexive inquiry. Throughout the research process, I asked myself: What do I know? How do I know what I know? How do the individuals that I studied know what they know? and How will those who receive my findings understand what I have given them? and (f) Triangulation because I interviewed more than one individual from a variety of perspectives. It is also important to mention the credibility of the researcher. I was the primary data collection instrument and the person who analyzed the data and my knowledge, skills, and abilities also contributed to the credibility of the study (see Kemparaj & Chavan, 2013).  Transferability Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be assigned to other contexts with other respondents (Megheirkouni & Moir, 2023). It relies on the rationale that research findings can be generalized or transferred to other settings, groups, locations, populations, etc. (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The ability of others to judge transferability depends on a thick description or a detailed description of the setting, participants selection, and the findings (Mabuza et al., 2014) to enable the reader to gauge and assess the meanings attached to them (Aspers & Corte, 2021). To establish transferability, I used: (a) a detailed account of the focus of the study, (b) the 185   researcher’s role, and (c) thick, rich, detailed descriptions so that anyone interested in transferability would have a solid framework for comparison (see Merriam, 1998). The rich, thick descriptions were generated from a semistructured interview protocol and open-ended questions to detail every aspect of the study, especially the study setting, using Zoom from my home office and a place other than the participant’s workplace, (b) the participant’s position and basis for selection, using Facebook and purposive sampling with maximum variation and as a contingency, snowball sampling and the results of the study; (d) data saturation through methodological triangulation or interviewing different informants (Anney, 2014), (e) the context analyzed, specifically Moustakas’ (1994) modified Van Kaam method, (f) the results of the study (Aspers & Corte, 2021); and (g) a thorough audit trail, for safe keeping of notes, interview audiotapes, transcripts, and data analysis documents collected throughout the process. Audit trails show that research findings are based on participants’ descriptions and clarify that data collection was analyzed transparently. The participants were qualified because they had first-hand knowledge of destructive leadership and met the selection criteria. Ultimately, the reader determines the transferability of the study results (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Similar projects employing the same methods but conducted in different environments could be valuable in assessing the extent to which findings may be accurate for people in other settings.  Dependability Dependability refers to data stability over time and conditions (Janis, 2022). Dependability involves participants evaluating the findings, interpretation, and 186   recommendations of the study to ensure that they are all supported by the data received from the study informants (Anney, 2014). The researcher should fully document the research to ensure proper flow (Porritt et al., 2014) so the study can be repeated (Mabuza et al., 2014). Dependability examines reliability and includes data archiving and the creation of an audit trail (Bloemen et al., 2014).  In addressing the issue of reliability, the positivist employs techniques to show that comparable results would be obtained if the work were repeated in the same context, with the same methods, and with the same participants (Johnson et al., 2020). Therefore, this study includes sections on (a) The research design and its implementation, (b) The operational detail of data gathering, including field notes; and (c) A reflective appraisal of the project to evaluate the effectiveness of the process of inquiry undertaken (Loh, 2013). I established dependability using an audit trail, a code-recode strategy, methodological triangulation, and iterator comparisons used in the previous steps to establish trustworthiness (see Stahl & King, 2020).  Confirmability Confirmability involves establishing that the findings are based on participants’ responses instead of the researcher’s preconceptions and biases (Moran, 2021). The reader wants to ensure that the results are genuinely based on the data and not on the characteristics or preferences of the researcher (Mabuza et al., 2014). The concept of confirmability is comparable to objectivity (Patton, 1990). I achieved confirmability in three ways. First, I established confirmability through triangulation by using more than 187   individuals’ perceptions of destructive leadership to capture different facets of the same phenomenon and to reduce investigator bias.  Second, I used in-depth methodological descriptions, good interview techniques, such as extensive dialogue with participants, building rapport, and trust, ensuring participant confidentiality by replacing names with labels (A001, A002), and practicing reflexivity and researcher self-analysis through epoch and bracketing, (Mabuza et al., 2014), allowing the integrity of the data provided by the informants to be analyzed (Anney, 2014). Finally, I established conformability by recognizing shortcomings in the study’s methods, such as the limitations I identified in Chapter 1 and the potential effects.  Study Results The purpose of this qualitative, transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. I developed the research question for this study based on the purpose of the study, the research problem, and the qualitative research design. The research question for this transcendental phenomenological research study was the following: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? With the research question in mind, the following interview questions were crafted:  1. What was your position or role in the organization where destructive leadership occurred? 188   2. Tell me about your experience regarding destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organization where you work or previously worked. 3. How (in what context) did you encounter destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organization where you work or have worked? 4. Thinking back to when you experienced destructive leadership’s negative influence in the organization where you work or have worked. What was that like for you?  5. What was the organization like for you before destructive leadership’s negative influence?  6. What has it been like for you, working in the organization since the negative influence of destructive leadership occurred?  7. What did you feel this leader(s) espoused to value?  8. What do you feel this leader(s) actually valued?  9. How do you feel destructive leadership negatively influenced the organization?  10. Other open-ended questions, such as a. You mentioned ___describe that in more detail. b. How did that make you feel?  c. What else?  d. Anything else?  As the purpose of my research study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members, based on how they perceived and gave 189   meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, I deviated from Moustakas (1994) modified Van Kaam. I embraced a more thematic analysis process. Using thematic analysis, each research participant’s individual and composite textural description and imaginative variation participant’s responses were categorized into themes to reveal how participants experienced destructive leadership. The composite structural description examines the emotional, social, and cultural connections across all the participant’s experiences. Theme 1: Affected Personally The first theme is Affected Personally (see Table 6). If something affects a person or thing, it influences them or causes them to change in some way. This theme describes how destructive leadership behaviors influenced the personal lives of individual organization members. Affected Personally also describes how individual participants perceived the impact of destructive leadership on their personal lives. I combined five subthemes that emerged from the invariant constituents and aggregated them to conceptualize the theme Affected Personally. The five codes are: (a) emotional, (b) faith, (c) family, (d) physical aches and pains, and (e) stopped taking part in usual activities. The physical and emotional impact of destructive leadership behaviors on subordinates includes headaches, GI issues, depression, isolation, and in some cases, suicide (Latina, 2023). Of the 20 participants interviewed, all described some enduring effect on their well-being as a result of their lived experience with destructive leadership. According to the participants, destructive leadership created discord. This discord may have caused an imbalance in the organization’s culture and climate and the participant’s 190   well-being, causing stress, anger, anxiety, and humiliation. Stress is the interaction of a person and that person’s environment. Stress causes anxiety.  Table 6 Affected Personally Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Affect Personally   10    8%  Emotions  85  70%  Physical aches and pains  10    8%  Stopped participating in usual activities    3    2%  Faith     3    2%  Family  10    8%  Total  121 100%     Subordinates whose leaders engage in destructive behaviors show higher stress levels (Hauge et al., 2010). Anxiety is a normal reaction to stressful situations. In this study, anxiety refers to occupational stress related to work. Anxiety is an emotion characterized by an unpleasant state of inner turmoil, accompanied by nervous behavior and somatic complaints (Kuldeep & Sehrawat, 2020). Anxiety is closely related to fear, the response to a real or perceived immediate threat.  Participants described the personal impact of destructive leadership and how it changed them in a specific way. Participant A006 explained that her experience with a destructive leader influenced her faith. Specifically, this participant stated, “I stopped going to the Kingdom Hall. I lost my faith and everything.” A003 said:  I am a woman of faith. I have done much praying on a personal level and a professional level. I have maintained my values, morals, integrity, and dignity. I 191   have four children; I am their role model. I must be here to tell them how to manage situations like this.  Participant A012 stated, “When they first took over, it was so bad, the treatment, how they spoke to me, how they would humiliate me in front of businesses we interacted with.” At the same time, A011 said, “I experienced panic attacks, and I could not sleep. I cried every time the phone rang. I gained so much weight from the depression.” Participant A003 also indicated that: I became a target. I was to the point, now this is me personally, where I was about to have a nervous breakdown. I went to my doctor, who advised me to find another job because of this destructive behavior. Similarly, participant A006 also shared, “I lost money. I had to retire early. This is synonymous with battered woman syndrome.” Various other participants stated that destructive leadership could affect an individual’s mental and physical health. The physical and emotional symptoms of destructive leadership behaviors in subordinates include headaches, GI issues, depression, isolation, and in some cases, suicide (Latina, 2023). Participant A018 said, “19 years in the military, and when I told you I had no health issues, I was not taking anything. Then, twelve months to retirement, I have high blood pressure.” Participant A008 reported being “Physically and emotionally tired with stomach aches, headaches.” The participants also shared their perception of how destructive leadership affected their family life.” This was clear in participant A013’s story of:  192   I was mad as hell, and I wanted to fight. I wanted to hurt somebody. I told myself, you have babies at home that need you, and you need this job. I could handle all the stress, anger, and stuff before I got home. I would feel less than. I would go home crying. Participant A013 went on to say: When I got home, I was talking to my daughter. Every time I walked past her, she flinched. I saw it the first time and thought I was seeing things, then I saw it a second time, and I asked her, why are you jumping? She said because I know you are mad.  While A019 said, “I am surprised I am still married. My husband said, do not let anyone talk to you like that.” Participant A019 went on to say:  I could not sleep. I had terrible stomach pains. I would get headaches. I would have panic attacks. I would drive to the parking lot and physically could not get out of my car. It was so traumatizing to even go to work. My stress level was 10m plus. I did not have the luxury of just quitting. I carry health insurance for my family. I was physically incapable of regular, everyday activity.  These behaviors have been found to negatively affect a subordinate’s organizational citizenship and affective commitment (Fan et al., 2023).  Theme 2: Affected Professionally The second theme, Affect Professionally (see Table 7), revealed how destructive leadership affected organization members’ ability to function professionally. Wolor et al., (2022) highlighted that bad leadership might negatively impact an individual’s job 193   performance. The most common reaction is a decline in motivation to work, which may negatively impact the organization’s performance. The theme Affected Personally suggests that experiencing destructive leadership personally influenced, impacted, or changed the participant in a specific way. Of the 20 individuals interviewed, 19 stated that destructive leadership influenced, impacted, or changed them professionally. Specifically, what emerged from the data and was used to code invariant constituents was the influence of destructive leadership on their professional lives affected them: (a) emotionally; (b) affected their performance at work; and (c) affected their work status. The most common reaction is a decline in motivation to work, which will negatively impact the organization’s performance. Participant A010 stated: The H.R. Director did my performance evaluation, showed it to the Assistant  City Manager, who was the former H.R. Director. She told her she had to redo my evaluation…. that I needed improvement in all areas, and put me on a PIP, a performance improvement plan. Table 7 Affected Professionally Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Affect Professionally  131   50%  Emotions and feelings   29   11%  Performance   63   24%  Work Status                                           37   14%  Total 260 100%     Participant A017 said, “Sometimes I feel the disruptive leader won. I gave up everything I worked for and had to start over.” However, participant A001 said that the 194   destructive leadership in the organization did not affect her personally. She indicated that: “professionally, the employee population did not know my experience and background. They did not fully understand what I could and could not do. It was a blemish on my professional reputation.” Participant A003 said, He would say to me, you know, you are black, you are a woman. No one will ever touch you because you are in a protected class. I have spoken with other professionals in my field. I have just maintained a steady consciousness of "I know what I am doing.” While participant A015 said: “I wanted to leave the company. They do not treat us with respect. They support this type of behavior from a leader.” Evidence of destructive leadership affecting a participant’s professional life could not be more apparent than what was described by Participant A006. The participant stated:  He screwed my life up. I have been depressed about having to leave my job. I went to work for another company because I did not have my stuff together. I was not planning on being put out of the office. I never dared to apply for another full-time job that would utilize my qualifications. Theme 3: Discrimination The third theme, Discrimination (see Table 8), revealed that discrimination is inherent to destructive leadership. The codes that made up the aggregate for this theme were (a) race, (b) religion, (c) age, (d) gender, (e) sexual orientation, and (f) disability. Discrimination happens when adverse actions are taken against an employee because of their race, skin color, national origin, gender, disability, genetic information, pregnancy, religion, age, or relationship with another person. 195   Table 8 Discrimination-Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Discrimination   25   17%  Age    4     3%  Disability  18   12%  Gender  22   15%  Sexual Orientation     4     3%  Race Religion  65    7   45%     5%  Total  145 100%     Discrimination, in this study, is defined as the specific treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on groups, classes, or other categories, especially ones protected by federal discrimination law, to which they belong or are perceived to belong, rather than individual merit (Definitions for Discrimination, n.d; Discrimination, 2022). Federal discrimination laws prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants and employees based on age, race, and religion (Discrimination, 2022.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an overarching law that serves as an example of federal discrimination law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, n.d.). Out of the 20 participants interviewed, 12 perceived instances of discrimination from their destructive leader toward them directly. This was clear in the description given by Participant A003:  She was a great person, but she did not have the charisma and the eloquence perhaps that the new leader wanted. So that person was either pushed aside, 196   forced to resign, or terminated. It was demoralizing because that person happened to be a female Mexican American who was admired and highly regarded by many of us. Similarly, participant A006 described several instances of discrimination from the destructive leader she worked for as an administrative assistant. One instance described by the participant involved race:  He was not being forthright with me. He asked me if I could get together a list of applicants to take my place so that I could then assume the position of his Executive Assistant. He told a white guy he needed a white, blue-eyed blond out front to represent his office. He hired a white female without computer experience who failed Word Perfect. The other applicant that passed the test and interviewed well was a black female. We both sat in on her interview, and he knew she was the most qualified. He pretended to hire someone as my assistant when he was really hiring my replacement. He told me I did not qualify.  While participant A020’s perception was:  You cannot trust your principal. Your principal is supposed to be your backbone. They are supposed to stand up for you. However, when you place race, gender, power, money, and reputation in front of your teachers, they will not survive.  Participant A006 described another instance of discrimination involving religion. What the participant shared was:  197   He tried to make me go to a program they offered downstairs. It was around the time of Martin Luther King Day. Because I decided not to go, he got upset and said, You mean to tell me Jehovah’s Witnesses do not like Martin Luther King?  Participant A009 described her destructive leader’s reaction to her disability. This participant said: “I have an injury that I got in the military, and I needed surgery. One day, she commented, “When are your limitations going to be up because I am tired of doing your job?” Participants also described instances of destructive leadership that involved disabilities. These behaviors occur when a leader is cognizant that their active or passive, physical or verbal, direct or indirect behavior harms subordinates. (Buss, 1961). Participant A012 described an instance of destructive leadership in an organization that services adults with special needs. She explained: It was well known to the managers that they had not trained this staff member in behavior modification. My job was to help train her with aggressive individuals. She did not do well with her, putting both the individual we served and the staff member in a violent situation where they could get hurt. The man should not have been in our program because he was beyond the capability that we could do. He was aggressive. I kept advocating, saying it would not work and they could get hurt. However, they (destructive leaders) did not want to hear that, even though they knew both were in situations where they could get hurt. I had to advocate repeatedly, again, and again, and again. I was met with, “No, we know better than you. You need to go to your job.” They (the destructive leaders) were upset with her. She was one of the ones that had written the manager up. 198   Theme 4: Employee Reported Destructive Leader Behaviors The fourth theme, Employee reported leader behavior incidence (see Table 9), describes how participants began to make sense of the destructive leadership they encountered. The codes that emerged from the data that were used to conceptualize the theme Employee reported leader behavior incidence were: (a) employee discussed behavior with the destructive leader, (b) employee followed destructive leader behavior, (c) employee reported destructive leadership outside of the organization, (d) employee reported destructive leadership to Director level or above, (d) employee reported destructive leadership to Human Resources (HR) and (e) employee reported destructive leadership to a supervisor. Out of the 20 participants, 12 reported one or more incidences of destructive leadership to their organization’s hierarchy. Reporting destructive leadership can be a sensemaking tactic. The sensemaking process commences with action (Suarez, 2022). When people act, they bring events and structures into existence and set them into motion” (Weick, 2001, p. 225). Sensemaking is the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or, in some other way, violate expectations by extracting and interpreting cues from their environment, using these as the basis for a plausible account that provides order and makes sense of what has occurred, and through which they continue to enact the environment (Brown et al., 2007; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Sensemaking goes beyond interpretation and involves creating 199   events and frameworks for understanding, as people play a role in constructing the very situations they attempt to comprehend (Sutcliffe, 2013; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Table 9 Employees Reported Leader Behavior Incidence-Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Employee reported leader behavior incidence     Employee discussed behavior  with destructive leader 12     5 19%     8%  Employees follow destructive leader behavior          13 20%  Reported outside of the organization  2  3%  Reported to Director level  or above         11 17%  Reported to HR 13       20%  Reported to a supervisor   8       13%  Total         64     100%  Participant A006 tried to make sense of the destructive leadership that she was experiencing by illuminating the series of events to her organization’s board of directors. She described her effort:  I went to EEO. I wrote letters to the board of directors, individually and at their place of business. I compiled a package of the three issues the organization was up against, including mine, and sent it to the board of directors three times at least. 200   Similarly, participant A012 revealed, “It was not until a couple of other people and I wrote the manager up for the verbal abuse that something was done. Because three people wrote her up, she did get suspended for a week.”  While A004 reported, “I told the CEO she could not talk to me like that. He said, oh, I want you guys to talk. I said, what would you like for us to discuss? I want you to see if you have any differences.” Likewise, A003 revealed, “I filed with EEOC. I called the president of the NAACP. The Mayor alleged that the President of the NAACP knew her (destructive leader), and he would tell her that I called him, and then I would become her target.” Participant A008 reported that: After H.R. spoke to him and he discovered that it was me, it made it worse. In the same way, A011 also reported, “That I met with H.R. and the CFO. They said I should have known where my staff was at all times. They should not have been late.”  Theme 5: Human Resources’ Role The fifth theme Human Resources’ Role (see Table 10), describes human resource personnel whose job it is to detect the existence of destructive leader behaviors, manage the consequences, and identify and manage the conflict created by the behavior of the toxic leader. The codes that were aggregated to conceptualize this theme were: (a) Job position particulars, (b) Incentives, (c) Organization structure, (d) Pay, (e) Performance Management Review, (f) Training and Development, (g) Leadership, (h) Management, (i) Compliance, (j) Diversity, and (k) Ethics. Participants’ statements varied widely 201   regarding this theme. Of the 20 participants, 15 indicated that their experience with destructive leadership involved Human Resources or a Human Resource issue. Specifically, participant A018 said: “So E8 would have been the next level for me. And then E9 would have been my max out. So, I was only two ranks from maxing out to the highest rank as an enlisted person.”  While participant A011 revealed:  I had no mental health days. I, moreover, had very minimal days off. So, in your first year, you make it zero or only three days off—zero depending on when you started. So, if I started on January 15th, I would have no PDOs (paid days off) for that entire year until January 1st of the following year.  Table 10 Human Resources–Other-Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Human Resources- other     Job-Position particulars  15     1 16%     1%  Incentives            5   5%  Organization structure 11 12%  Pay           6   6%  Performance Management-Review 19        20%  Training  24        26%  FMLA         13        14%  Total         94      100%  Participant A010 stated that it was the current and past H.R. Directors who ruined her review:  202   So, the Assistant City Manager saw my performance review and made the current H.R. Director change it, all the ratings, and put me on a performance improvement plan (PIP) because she (the current H.R. Director) was afraid of losing her job. or it might have been that she wanted her input since she was the former H.R. Director because the one who did my evaluation had not been there the entire year. Similarly, participant A013 got mixed messages about her review: “He always gave me a glorified evaluation. Always. That is what confused me. If my work is bad, why are you giving me above satisfactory? Why are you giving me outstanding”?  Participant A018 said that she was denied overtime pay: I am like, well, at least I can get overtime. I am on the road and coming home between six to seven o’clock in the evening. She (the VP-destructive leader) said: “No, you got to watch it. You know, we have to watch the salary. You know, you cannot get into overtime. You have to clock out early one day or leave early or compensate that way.”  Theme 6: Reasons for Destructive Leader Behavior Destructive leadership behaviors are not the result of incompetence or good intentions. These behaviors occur when a leader is cognizant that his or her active or passive, physical or verbal, direct or indirect behavior, is harmful to subordinates. (Buss, 1961). While the Moustakas (1994) modified Van Kaam method of phenomenological data analysis used in this study sought to describe what participants experienced and how they experienced it, the sixth theme of this study, WHY-Reason for behavior (see Table 203   11), sought to describe the reasons for destructive leader behavior, based on the perceptions and the meaning assigned to the lived experiences by participants. The nature of destructive leadership is manifested through behaviors that would be considered by most to be harmful to followers (Milosevic et al., 2020). It is “a unique form of harm unequivocally tied to the leader’s voluntary engagement in such behavior.” However, the behavior may be precipitated by situational or environmental stimuli or personality and traits (p. 231). The codes that grounded the conceptualization of this theme were: (a) Did not think they would ever be found out, (b) Hierarchy-Position Power, (c) I do not know, (d) Low self-esteem, (e) Money, (f) Power, and (g) Undiagnosed disorder. Two of the 20 participants in this study indicated that they were inclined as to why this behavior occurred. Although empirical research on destructive leadership behaviors is minimal, theoretical research on leaders who pursue goals using destructive methods of influence (Krasikova et al., 2013). This phenomenon is not due to ineptitude; instead, this occurs when a leader acts or participates in harmful acts to subordinates, the organization, or others (Buss, 1961). One theoretical reason identified in the literature is that leaders may become destructive when they feel they cannot achieve their personal goals (i.e., promotion, finances, career) using legitimate means (El-Metwally et al., 2019; Erickson et al., 2015). Another reason is that it seems to be a recurring theme that numerous incidents of destructive leadership are only brought to light by accident or via an internal whistle-blower.  204   Table 11 Reasons for Behavior-Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  WHY-Reason for behavior      Didn't think they would ever be found out      2        3     2%       3%  Hierarchy-Position Power            27   31%  I don't know      4    5%  Low self esteem             7    8%  Money           17        20%  Power            18        21%  Undiagnosed disorder             9        10%  Total           87      100% The empirical data collected from participants in this study revealed why or the reason for leaders’ destructive behavior. Participants shared various instances from their lived experience of destructive leadership based on their perception and the meaning they assigned. Participant A001’s empirical stance aligned with the theoretical literature. A001 contended: “She valued money and getting to her retirement. : Participant A003 gave this insight: “It is in the moment, it is what can I gain at the moment, or I will never get caught. They do not think of the repercussions.”  Participant A007 shared:  His behavior was a result of the hotel he came from. At his previous hotel, he got away with everything. A007 divulged: H.R. asked him why he was doing this or something to that effect. He said something about wanting to see me crack. He wanted me to break.  205    While participant A018 said:  To me, it was because he thought he got no respect. Not that people disrespected him, but the level of authority that he had. So now I am an officer, and I can give it back to you because when I was enlisted, that was the level of respect I wanted. So that is what I got from it. Participant A003 disclosed: Once the City Manager left and she (the destructive leader) took her role, the Mayor told her to go to all the Directors. She said I apologized and said, ‘I did see it. You were right. Several times I turned a blind eye to keep the peace because I  thought I would lose my job.’ So, she did what she needed to get into that position. Once she got into the position, she became corrupt. Participant A013 touted: “I think something was wrong with the man.” Another theoretical reason for this behavior is that a leader may become frustrated when his or her personal goals align with those of the organization. However, achieving those goals is thwarted by followers performing in unacceptable ways such as incompetence, retaliation, playing politics (Erickson et al., 2015), or insubordination, perceived or otherwise.  Research has found that bad managers are often the cause of employee misbehavior. Poor treatment can also result in employees who are resentful, disruptive, and vengeful (Furnham, 2015). This was the case described by Participant A011: “Her best friend since first grade, who also worked there, died suddenly. She became an angry 206   person.” While leadership influences followers, destructive leadership's seemingly widespread and omnipresent nature is self-interest (Greenleaf, 1977). When leaders engage in self-interest, destructive leadership behaviors will ensue (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). This is why Participant A016 said: “I think she did not want to deal with this problem anymore. She just wanted to not deal with it and then, later on, blame me.” A001 said: Well, the deadline was missed. Somebody had to take the blame. So, I was the only one in the project who could probably take the blame because I was in control.  Likewise, A012 contended:  She portrayed herself as completely different, like when families would walk in and suddenly, I was the best in the world, smiling at me, like me. She knew she had to present herself differently when she was around other people. She valued; I feel “power” because that is what she presented...... “power.” She valued people that were subordinate with no thoughts of their own.  Theme 7: Harassment The next theme is Harassment (see Table 12). In this study, harassment involved workplace harassment, which is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission., n.d.). Although similar, harassment and discrimination have distinct differences. While discrimination is poor treatment expressed through official employment actions like a demotion, termination, or failure to promote, harassment 207   begins with biases expressed through words or conduct used towards any of the protected classes and is expressed through interpersonal relations in the workplace. Offensive conduct can take the form of jokes, cartoons, written or verbal comments, and unwelcome touching, among other things (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 2023). The codes that grounded the conceptualization of this theme were: (a) Complaint filed, (b) Hostile work environment, (c) Legal, (d) Ethics, (e) Accountability, (f) Nepotism, (g) Policy violation, and (h) Sexual Harassment. Collins and Jackson (2015) contended that destructive leadership is a continuous pattern of behavior displayed by a leader, such as abuse, harassment, corruption, and other illegal or criminal acts that can result in counterproductive organizational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower, and environment. Of the 20 interview participants, 16 revealed incidences of harassment.  Table 12 Harassment Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Harassment     Complaint Filed 16   22     3%      5%  Hostile work environment          89  22%  Legal  29   7%  Ethics         93 23%  Accountability         35         9%  Nepotism          53       13%  Policy  violation         61       15%  Sexual Harassment         11         3%  Total       409     100% 208   According to Participant A003, she experienced harassment when a leader used language that violated her civil rights. Specifically, the destructive leader said to her:  You know, you are Black; you are a woman. No one will ever touch you because you are in a protected class. He would make off-color jokes and comments. He would make these comments and use all kinds of sexist racial slurs. He said everyone has a little bit of ism, like sexism, racism, feminism.  A003 went on to describe the destructive leader who replaced the prior destructive leader in the toxic organization where she worked:  I went to the NAACP. I filed with the EEOC. She would embarrass me. She would speak condescendingly. She would just badger me and harass me. She would call me on Saturday mornings. She would call me late at night, at nine o’clock at night. She just was always on me. She was hounding me. I would say she was bullying me. That prompted me to go outside to my attorney, who advised me, “if she starts to retaliate, you come back to me, and we will take it from there.” Similarly, participant A006 also hired a lawyer: “I filed a lawsuit. I went to EEO, and then I got a lawyer.” Before A006 filed a lawsuit, she experienced other types of harassment from this destructive leader. Specifically, He said, “Suppose I wanted to take you out to the ESPN Zone in the evening.” On another occasion, he said: That he did not know how I got the job that I had. That he would have never hired me for anything.” Then when her trial date came, A006 described the experience as follows:  209   Four days of trial came to nothing. They allowed him to go in on the stand and tell all kinds of lies about me.” He said: “I did not even know how to use the computer. This is what she gives me to work my day, a three-by-five card. He went on about why I was not worthy of getting the job.  A006 disclosed sexual harassment by this destructive leader:  The lady he (the Executive) hired me hired to replace me. He took her to his house and sexually harassed her when his wife was not home. That is in the newspapers, along with my contractual cases.  While participant A017 shared the derogatory statement: “The time when he commented that I do not know how you worked here for so long, and during a presentation not even to pay attention.” Equally derogatory, Participant A020 revealed that her Principal “sent people to sit in my class to verify I was teaching properly.” Participants also shared instances of destructive leaders asking unethical requests, such as what participant A002 contended: “They wanted me to say that I missed the actual deadline, the target date because I had an additional workload, which was not true,” and what participant A008 described: “So in sales, you are always pushed to sell and sell and sell. You are not supposed to tell people the truth about health plans so that we can sell more. During our scripted interview, we should ask whether they are offered health insurance from or anywhere else. The boss said, leave that question out. We can sell more plans because they do not like the plan offered by their employer.”  210   Theme 8: Destructive Leader Behaviors Destructive leadership describes bad leadership behaviors believed to be associated with harmful consequences for followers and organizations (Thorogood et al., 2016). A destructive leader’s behavior will affect subordinates whose responses constitute a form of feedback that will temper or worsen destructive behavior. Certain destructive leadership behaviors repeatedly emerged as each participant detailed their lived experience of destructive leadership. Behaviors are actions or reactions to internal or external stimuli. In the context of leadership, behaviors are particular acts or responses to stimuli while interacting with subordinates. Destructive leader behaviors are “harmful behaviors perpetrated by the leader and embedded in the process of leading” (Ryan et al., 2019, p. 5). All 20 participants revealed behaviors relating to this theme and the subthemes (see Table 13), (a) Intimidation, such as coercion, bullying, threats, aggression, and fear; (b) Attitude toward employees, (c) Personality, (d) Communication, and (e) Behavior characteristics that emerged during the interviews such as lower workplace productivity, absenteeism. When staff members are affected by poor leadership, there is virtually nothing they can do to defend themselves, and they are forced to suffer in silence (Haricharan, 2023). Participant A003 said that the destructive leader in her organization said:  Give this person a three percent raise. I asked, what is the justification? He responded, ‘Because I want to. I responded we need substantiation, justification, and validation. He said, ‘because I said so, do it.’ People just followed what he said. 211   Table 13 Destructive Leader Behaviors-Invariant Constituents and Themes Theme  Coded Invariant Constituent References Percentages  Destructive Leader Behaviors      Communication  2   62     1%     18%  Personality           14     4%  Attitude toward employees 75   21%  Intimidation        150   43%  Behavior characteristics          46        13%  Total       349      100% Participant A004 gave the example of the destructive leader in her organization, giving her the unsubstantiated directive: “When you write to Germany, can you copy me on the email? I said, “Why would I copy you on email? Because I want to keep up with what you are doing.” Participant A014 recalled, “I could send her (the destructive leader, VP) an email right when we get off teleconference or call her, and she would not reply. She would not even acknowledge that I was calling or contacting her.” Similarly, participant A016 said: “There were numerous instances where an event would happen, and I would look to my peers and say, hey, did you know this was going to happen? Did you get communication at all? Moreover, they would all go, no, I did not either. “ Participant A016 described her Principal’s avoidance behavior:  When I called the office for assistance, initially, she was supportive, and she would take him (a disruptive first-grade student) out of the classroom, talk with him, and try to get him back on track. Around January, I felt that change. If I called, no one 212   would come, or they would always send someone else. She (the principal) never came again. Participant A018 described the lack of communication and avoidance tactics of the military officer she reported to. She said:  He told me I needed to go through the reserve chief for anything I needed to do or any requests, and then he would get together with her. I said, sir, that is not going to work. She is only here one weekend a month. My office was right next door to his. I will not hold something I need because I have to communicate it to somebody outside of this office only for it to be returned to you. Because you do not want to get it from me.  In the same way, participant A018 contended: “To document the conversation, I would send an email saying, per our conversation today, this is what I captured. If it is inaccurate or I omitted anything important, please let me know. He never responded.” The phenomenon of destructive leadership encompasses abusive power over others through various methods, such as humiliation, manipulation, bullying, and intimidation. A destructive leader exhibits pro-organization behaviors while simultaneously displaying anti-subordinate behaviors (Cooper, 2016). Participant A006 discussed another example of destructive leadership and the deception that she witnessed. She described the following incident:  He brought in one of his friends on a contract that was supposed to be at a certain amount and no more. He brought this person in at three times the contract amount. 213   The contract was supposed to be for a year. Moneywise, he went over two or three times the amount he was supposed to without board approval. Destructive leadership should be perceived based on its enduring, prolonged effect on the quality of life of organization members and the organization itself rather than focusing solely on the characteristics of a destructive leader. Participant A006 revealed how this destructive leader attacked her for something out of her control. The participant stated that:  He had me advertise for a particular position reporting to him from California. Because I could not get the person there in a week, the paperwork had to go to Personnel to get approved. He told me I would be fired if I did not have someone there next week. Another participant gave insight and an example of a charismatic destructive leader. Charismatic leadership is the ability to attract, charm, and influence people. Charismatic leadership is embedded in the personal and behavioral characteristics of leaders who influence followers by articulating the organization’s vision (House, 1976). As such, Padilla et al. (2007) contended that not all charismatic leaders exhibit destructive behavior. However, destructive leaders, more often than not, are charismatic, self-inflating visionaries. As such, destructive leadership behaviors can coexist with more sophisticated behaviors and conceal harmful characteristics, making a leader appear desirable. This study previously noted that the literature on leadership romanticizes charismatic leadership despite some charismatic leaders abusing power, exaggerating 214   their achievements, taking undeserved credit, and covering up or blaming others for mistakes (Belschak et al., 2018). Participant A005 shared his perception of the charismatic destructive leader and the meaning that he assigned to this kind of leader. This is what the participant said about the leader that he encountered:  This person was a charismatic leader. He wanted his entourage of executives and direct reports to be that type of leader. Some people did not fit that mold. Not all charismatic people are good. In some cases, their goals or their motives can be self-serving, or they can be misguided. They can have reasonable goals, good thoughts, and ideas, but the execution can be poor. So many good people left because they did not fit that person’s vision.  Similarly, participant A003 asserted that:  This 75-year-old man had approximately 50 years of experience in Human Resources. He walked around like a czar, and everyone was afraid to say anything about it. In my opinion, he is a narcissist. He felt as if he knew everything. They elevated this person to this deity. They made them like demigods as if they were invincible. They sit high, look low, and make all the changes to the rules.  Participant A003 gave another example:  He instilled fear into our former city attorney and had to be Baker Acted because he had a nervous breakdown. This gentleman, and I am using that term loosely, would instill fear into everyone. All of this is a public record. What I am telling you is not confidential. It has been in the news and the media. 215   Summary This chapter consisted of an in-depth analysis of the data extracted from the qualitative interviews of the 20 individual organization members who participated in this study. Data analysis yielded thematic categories and textual and structural descriptions, representing study participants' lived experiences in relation to the research question. The findings are explained in detail, and the personal thoughts, attitudes, perceptions, and essence of participants' lived experiences of destructive leadership are provided. The modified Van Kaam (Moustakas, 1994) method of data analysis was used to analyze participant interview data.  Eight themes were identified: (a) Affected personally, or how the participants perceived the impact of the negative influence of destructive leadership on their personal life; (b) Affected Professionally, or the negative impact on the organization and individual job performance; (c) Discrimination, or actions that violated their civil rights; (d) Employee reported destructive leader behaviors, both inside and outside of the organization; (e) Human Resources’ role, or the need to identify and manage the conflict created by the behavior of a destructive leader; (f) Reasons for behavior, or major reasons for destructive leader behaviors usually have nothing to do with competence, knowledge, or experience; (g) Harassment, or unwelcome, offensive, and unlawful conduct, especially toward a protected class, as a condition of continued employment resulting in a hostile work environment; and (h) Destructive leader behaviors, or behaviors that are supported, accepted, and rewarded and can cause serious and lasting harm.  216   These eight themes that emerged from the data answered the central research question: What is the essence of the lived experience of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? These themes also suggest that the essence of the phenomenon of destructive leadership can be found in the structure or impact that the experience has on the attitude and behavior of the organization and the organization’s members. In Chapter 5, I interpret these findings in relation to the existing literature presented in Chapter 2, discuss the limitations of the study, make suggestions for future research, and discuss the social change implications of the study. 217   Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations Not enough is known about how destructive leadership negatively influences an organization and its members. The purpose of this qualitative transcendental phenomenological study was to explore the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. This study focused on the personal internalized thoughts, attitudes, and perceptions of individual organization members. The data gathered from participants in this study affirmed that destructive leadership is best understood based on its long-term and lingering effects (see Aravena, 2017) on the culture and climate of an organization and the personal and professional lives of organization members. This chapter contains a summary of the findings followed by a discussion and interpretation of how the results of the thematic data analysis related to the pertinent literature and the conceptual framework. Then I discuss the limitations and future recommendations of the study, followed by methodological and practical implications, and finally the conclusion.  In this study, I explored the lived experiences of 20 individual organization members who encountered destructive leadership. Inductive data analysis revealed eight themes that emerged from participant interviews: (a) affected personally, or how the participants perceived the impact of the negative influence of destructive leadership on their personal life; (b) affected professionally, or the negative impact on the organization and individual job performance; (c) discrimination, or actions that violated participants’ civil rights; (d) employee reported destructive leader behaviors, both inside and outside 218   of the organization; (e) human resources’ role, or the need to identify and manage the conflict created by the behavior of a destructive leader; (f) reasons for behavior, or major reasons for destructive leader behaviors that usually have nothing to do with competence, knowledge, or experience; (g) harassment, or unwelcome, offensive, and unlawful conduct, especially toward a protected class, as a condition of continued employment resulting in a hostile work environment; and (h) destructive leader behaviors, or behaviors that are supported, accepted, and rewarded and can cause serious and lasting harm.  The eight themes reflected the participants’ experiences as they perceived them in their consciousness, and answered the overarching research question for this study: What is the essence of the lived experiences of individual organization members based on how they perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked? The narratives shared by the participants illustrated that destructive leadership is harmful and voluntary and that working in a culture where destructive leadership behaviors are prevalent can compromise the quality of life of organization members and sabotage an organization’s effectiveness. The narratives also illustrated how destructive leadership may not be one obvious action by a single leader but a series of dynamics created by the actions and reactions of many individuals within the organization.  Interpretation of Findings The interpretation of findings is organized around the eight themes that emerged from the data analysis. Although the literature on leadership has celebrated leaders for 219   their influence on organizations and organization members, few studies had identified how destructive leadership affects subordinates. The current study’s findings confirm the research reviewed in Chapter 2 on destructive leadership. The findings confirm that destructive leadership should be understood based on the long-term and lingering effect of these behaviors on the organization and the quality of life of organization members. A review of the literature on destructive leadership behaviors revealed a gap in qualitative accounts of how this phenomenon influenced organizations and organization members to the point that it may have changed an organization’s culture and climate as well as organization members’ personal and professional lives. The literature on destructive leadership also revealed the lack of a holistic framework to grasp the complexity of this phenomenon. Affected Personally Destructive leadership behaviors have been linked to displays of short-term and long-term psychological distress such as anxiety and depression (Webster et al., 2016), diminished self-efficacy (Raeder et al., 2019), and sustained negative emotions at home with reduced family interactions (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019). Of the 20 participants interviewed in the current study, 19 disclosed that their experience with destructive leadership affected them physically:  “I would get headaches and have panic attacks.” “Oh, I hated going to work. I would cry on my way to work.” “I became this ball of anxiety.” “I have acute stress disorder. I am currently in a trauma counseling class. I have a lot of panic attacks. I couldn’t sleep. I gained a lot of weight from depression.”  220   “I would feel less than. I would go home crying. I thought that I had handled all this stress and anger before I got home. But my youngest daughter was 17, and I asked her ‘Why are you jumping every time I walk past you?’ She said, “Because I know you are mad.”  Employees may become silent due to role conflict, ambiguity, and overload when facing destructive leadership (Wu et al., 2018). Participants described how the humiliation, torment, and trauma of destructive leaders’ influence caused physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and depression (see Tepper, 2007), somatic or unexplained health complaints (see Escobar & Canino, 1989), and burnout (see Ali et al., 2020). A participant in the military said, “Then I got high blood pressure 12 months before retirement. I would've done 25 or 30 years, but it was because of that experience with him, I knew it was time to go.” Another participant said, “She just started harassing me and making it a volatile workforce. Any time someone challenged her or had an opinion, she would embarrass, degrade them, or yell at them publicly. She had a way of making you feel lower without having to scream.”  Participants also disclosed witnessing the negative influence of a leader’s destructive behavior on others in the organization: “I was verbally abused, and I witnessed other people being verbally abused.” “I had a number of employees come to me because they needed FMLA time due to stress because they reported to her.” “Sometimes the tone of voice was not very friendly with the individuals that we served as well.” “I am surprised I am still married. My husband said, ‘Do not let anyone talk to you 221   like that.’” The findings of this study confirm that destructive leadership negatively affects the personal lives of organization members. Affected Professionally The findings of this study confirm that destructive leadership negatively influenced how individual organization members perceived and gave meaning to their professional lives. Self-interest and exploitation of others were the recurring themes in the literature on destructive leadership, pointing to the relevance of these aspects (Schmid et al., 2019). A current participant disclosed that the destructive leader  pretended to hire someone as my assistant when he was really hiring my replacement. He told me that I didn't qualify to even apply for the executive assistant. He told a white guy that he needed a white, blue eyed blond out front to represent his office. He basically ran me out of out of town. Another participant said: “my performance review was changed because the rating manager was afraid of losing her job.” Another participant disclosed “it’s a power trip. They feel as if they are gods, or they are Hitler or rulers because the final authority comes down to them.” Destructive leadership has been found to have a negative effect on a subordinate’s organizational citizenship and effective commitment (Bakkal et al., 2019). Destructive leadership can result in disengaged employees (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2020) and diminished self-efficacy (Bandura, 2005), self-concept (Davis, 2021), organizational citizenship (Parke et al., 2021), performance motivation (Souders, 2020) and organizational commitment (AL-Jabari & Ghazzawi, 2019; MasterClass, 2022).  222   Participants recounted “I second-guessed my abilities, skills, and knowledge. Others did not respect me because of this destructive leader. This person broke me. I asked myself, ‘Why am I in this profession?’” Another participant said “I dreaded going to work. But it actually motivated me to finish school faster.” “He won. I gave up all I worked for and had to start over.”  Participants affirmed “I didn’t like the management. I didn’t like that I was not paid what I was worth.” “I stayed because I was going to school full time. I needed four weeks of vacation for school. It actually motivated me to get school done faster so I could get out of there.” “My biggest problem was I could be effective in my role.” Destructive leader behavior is negatively associated with employee innovative behavior and job insecurity (Wang et al., 2020) and employee well-being (Choi et al., 2022). When destructive leadership increases, employee innovative behaviors and employee well-being decrease; when destructive leadership decreases, employee innovative behaviors and employee well-being increase. The impact of abusive supervision on innovative behavior is mediated by its effect on job insecurity. Innovation drives enterprise development, and companies rely on employees’ innovative contributions as a matter of competitive necessity. Participants disclosed “I was very stressed, I felt like I was not maximizing my skills and abilities. I was not effective in providing patient care. I didn't intend for patients to see or feel it, but I'm sure they did.” “It was very difficult to make any changes because I reported to her. She didn’t want to put the money in the budget that I was asking for.” Participants also disclosed instances 223   of absenteeism and turnover (see Schyns & Schilling, 2013): “feeling apathetic, lacking confidence, and being or feeling ineffective in their role or position.”  Destructive leader behavior is positively associated with employee emotional exhaustion (see Xu et al., 2015): “Because of the stress of that environment, I failed my last residency course. So, I had to retake it.” “No one tried to save me and ask me not to leave.” “I was forced to retire earlier than planned in retaliation for not passing a friend of the Lt Major’s.” Destructive leader behavior is also associated with followers’ interpersonal aggression (see Richard et al., 2020): “The employee population did not know my experience and background. They did not have a full understanding of what I could and could not do.” Finally, destructive leader behavior is associated with coworker knowledge-hiding behavior (Feng & Wang, 2019). The findings of my study confirm that leadership is a key driver in employee engagement. Discrimination The findings of this study extend the knowledge found in the literature review. The literature did not indicate a correlation between discrimination and destructive leadership. Destructive leadership is associated with systematic practices, not only with episodic actions or decisions (Aravena, 2017). The results of the current study revealed that discrimination and destructive leadership are parallel in nature. Despite being illegal, discrimination in the workplace is pervasive, with 55% of workers having experienced discrimination in their current employment (Schmidt, 2022). A Williams Institute study reported that 45.5% of LGBTQ workers and 48.8% of transgender employees have experienced discrimination (Sears et al., 2021). Current participants disclosed incidents 224   of discrimination toward all of the protected classes  (race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability): “When are your limitations going to be up because I am tired of doing your job;” “so, my perception was I was not a college graduate, I was the only Hispanic woman, so, I thought that he thought that I couldn't do the job or I wasn't up to par compared to the guys that he played golf and went to lunch and happy hour with. I wasn't in that mix.” Participants also said “you're Black, you're a woman. No one will ever touch you because you're in a protected class;” “The person making comments, especially about weight, was African American. With Black Lives Matter and everything that happened with George Floyd, I feel like they were very scared of any scandals;” “He tried to make me go to an MLK program. He said, ‘You mean to tell me Jehovah's Witnesses do not like Martin Luther King?’ I stopped going to the Kingdom Hall. I lost my faith and everything;” “the other applicant that passed the test and interviewed well was a Black female. She was the most qualified. He hired somebody that didn't pass the test. He somehow ‘persuaded’ Human Resources into hiring her;” and “when that leader came in, many people of color were transferred or left, or their position was eliminated.” Participants also said “being Black, lesbian, outspoken, dreaded, and from New York. In the south, that’s a turnoff for a lot of people.” Employee Reported Destructive Leader Behaviors The findings of this study both confirm and extend the knowledge found in the literature review of this study regarding participants reporting destructive leadership to a manager, human resources, or above. Specifically, of the 20 participants interviewed, eight did not report the occurrences of destructive leadership to a higher authority in the 225   organization. These participants chose not to report the abusive leaders for a variety of reasons. The destructive leader demanded that one participant take responsibility for a project's failure and threatened him with retaliation if he refused. He stated, “If I would have brought that situation to light through an EEOC complaint or brought it above their heads, I think that really would have hindered the project, as well as what I want to do in the company.” When asked why she did not file a complaint, another participant stated, “It didn't even cross my mind. I'm not really the kind of person that tattles. Well, I probably should have reported it. I did know that other people were reporting on their things. So at least someone did.”  Similarly, a project manager endured destructive, subtle abuse and faced termination and public chastisement, but chose not to report. This participant said, “If someone reports something, they must be removed immediately. If I report this, I will have to move.” In a post-interview email, this participant said:  There are times when I feel the disruptive leader won. I gave up all I worked for, and I had to start over. I regret not sharing my discomfort and events. Why was I silent? I lost my life. Having to explain to others why I quit. Why did no one try to save me and ask me not to leave? Was I the target of the system and the disruptor was following directives using their own methods?  Of the 12 participants that did report incidences of destructive leadership, one participant, the Director of Human Resources, said, “I went to the City Manager on a number of occasions and was told not to bring him that kind of nonsense.” Likewise, another participant, Head of People and Culture, said, “I want you guys to talk. I want 226   you guys to see if you have any differences. I don't like enforcing boundaries because it's a short-term fix.” Another Human Resource Director said, “Absolutely nothing was done. People were afraid. Department heads as well. The participant went on to say, “I think is more about the culture. They elevate this person to this, to this deity. They make them like demigods, as if they are invincible, that they sit high and they look low.” Four participants not only reported destructive leadership behavior inside of their organization but also outside of the organization. Participants revealed: “I went to the NAACP. I filed with EEOC and my personal attorney.” “I went to EEO and then I got a lawyer and filed with the lawyer......” “I felt like it was harassment, so I filed a complaint.” “We were thinking of disclosing it to the public. The CEO did meet with us three times and brought in several outsiders to investigate the situation” Additional findings confirm that participants reported destructive leadership, and nothing was done. Toxic leaders or managers, empirical findings suggest, tend to focus predominantly on issues of compliance, are conflict adverse in person, and normally have a powerful advocate, at some level in the organization, supporting them in the shadows (Padilla et al., 2007). Participants said: “After H.R. got back to him, and he found out it was me, it made it worse.” “I reported it to the personnel manager, and they just kind of shrugged it off as it is his personality.” “Reported to upper management and nothing was ever done, H.R. Director agrees it is just two high school girls fighting.” “Absolutely nothing was done. People were afraid.” “I told an upper-level manager that I believed this leader was racist and was attempting to force me out of his department. Management did nothing to help me.” “I was afraid to report it. However, I did report it to my manager, 227   and they said they were going to call that person's supervisors, but nothing ever came of it.”  Human Resources Role The findings of this study extend the knowledge found in the literature review. An organization’s Human Resource department has the obligation to protect the organization as a whole and the people in it against the damaging effects of destructive leadership (Schyns et al., 2022). Destructive leadership is a systematic behavior that negatively affects an organization´s structure and processes, as well as subordinate motivation and job satisfaction (Aravena, 2017). The Human Resources department takes care of the organization’s most valuable assets, employees, structure, and processes. Human Resources is the department in charge of all employees and employee-related operations in an organization (What is Human Resources (HR)? n.d). Human Resources manages the employee life cycle, including recruiting, retaining, hiring, firing, onboarding, training, performance management, administering compensation and benefits, employee relations, legal compliance, and corporate image (Williams, 2022).  Participants described their perception of human resources in relation to their experience with destructive leadership. Participants said: “In retrospect, I should have gone to HR.” “He somehow persuaded Human Resources to hire her. He pretended to hire someone as my assistant when he was really hiring my replacement.” “I was never able to change the structure of the organization or change the reporting structure.” “I had a number of employees come to me who needed FMLA time because they were stressed because they reported to her.” “He always gave me a glorified evaluation. Always. And 228   that is what confused me, I think. If my work is bad, why are you giving me above satisfactory? Why are you giving me outstanding?”  Reasons for Destructive Leader Behavior Harmful behaviors can only be classified as destructive leadership if they are used in the process of leading followers toward some goal (Balwant, 2017). The findings of this study confirm that organizations may not intend to create a culture that breeds destructive and toxic behaviors, but destructive and toxic leadership exists because people tolerate, accommodate, and protect it. Toxic leaders leave people and organizations in a worse state than they found them (Riggio & Newstead, 2023). Self-interest and exploitation of others is a recurring theme in the literature on destructive leadership, pointing to the relevance of these aspects (Schmid et al., 2018). One participant described a destructive leader’s motivation as follows: She valued privilege, money, and getting to her retirement, I think it is something that's inherent. Once they receive that power because the culture allows it, gives them so much power, they feel invincible like they are on top of the world.  Harassment The findings of this study confirm that destructive leadership is a continuous pattern of behavior displayed by a leader. such as abuse, harassment, corruption, and other illegal or criminal acts that can result in counterproductive organizational outcomes based on the interactions between the leader, follower, and environment (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023). Harassment in employment is a form of discrimination that involves unwelcome conduct based on these protected classes: race, color, religion, sex (including 229   pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, abortion, and related medical conditions and procedures), sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age (40 or older) (see Hentze & Tyus, 2021), disability, genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, status as a protected veteran, or protected activity (such as filing a complaint or lawsuit) (see U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Toxic leadership phenomena will lead to moral crises such as the recent one involving employee abuse at Amazon, mishandling and monetization of personal user data by Facebook, and unrepentant discrimination at Uber (Mergen & Ozbilgin, 2021). Participants disclosed how they perceived harassment: “He walked around and instilled fear into everyone.” “My boss's boss would sometimes overshadow me, in my work and my project, which wasn't necessary. She was always making comments, like ‘You can do this better....’ and just nit picking at every project that I had, for no reason.” The high costs of sexual harassment are evident, from employee outrage and lost productivity to employee attrition, for each sexually harassed employee a company can lose an average of $22,500 in lost productivity (Hart et al., 2018). Participants revealed: “She accused the City Manager of sexual harassment. It is believed that she did that in order to take his job.” “He said, suppose I wanted to take you to the ESPN Zone in the evening. He kept trying to nudge me to go. He got visibly upset. He got angry.” “He walked around and instilled fear into everyone.”  Those who are more socially or personally vulnerable within the organization are more likely to be subjected to harassment and bullying (Harris & Jones, 2018). Participants disclosed: “I am very disappointed with you as a leader. I came to you in 230   confidence to tell you about a medical procedure that I have to have, and you are standing out here with another employee joking about it.” “That's why your husband's leaving you because you're this and that.”  Destructive Leader Behaviors  The study of destructive leadership should focus on the harmful behaviors perpetrated by the leader and embedded in the process of leading. It has been previously stated in the literature that destructive leadership behaviors are often the product of the interplay between personality traits, the situational context, and organizational influences, which create the conditions for their hidden dark sides to surface (Schmid et al., 2018). This study extends the literature on destructive leadership behaviors and focuses on the long-term and lingering effect on the quality of life of subordinates and the organization, rather than concentrating on the characteristics of the destructive leader.  The findings of this study confirm that destructive leader behaviors are harmful behaviors perpetrated by a leader and embedded in the process of leading. Behaviors are actions or reactions to internal or external stimuli. Destructive aspects of leadership, documented in the literature, are that this phenomenon includes a variety of different behaviors that are not the result of a mere absence of effective leadership behavior (Einarsen et al., 2017). In the context of leadership, behaviors are particular acts or responses to stimuli while interacting with subordinates. Participants revealed that they experienced destructive behaviors from leaders, revealed in statements like: “I'm better than the men.” “She was very vindictive.” “Because I said so, do it.” “I'm the only one that needs a private office. If we both have offices, then that makes you equal to me.”  231   Bies and Tripp (1998) described leaders as “abusive” when they consistently engage in mistreatment of their employees, which encompasses both aggressive verbal and non-verbal actions. Participants described: “Constant bullying and the intimidation,” “Micromanaging to the point where staff members were crying frequently because of the negative words that the leader used and just the anger.” “She was supportive at first. Then around January, I felt that change. When I called for assistance, either no one would come, or they just would always send someone else she never herself came again.”  Further evidence suggests that negative leadership or management behaviors manifest themselves in certain actions that are directed toward specific individuals or groups (Glambek et al., 2020). Participants disclosed: “You do not get to treat me poorly until we build a relationship. You treat me humanely until I give you a reason to treat me differently.” “He instilled fear into our former city attorney, and he had to be Baker Acted because he had a nervous breakdown.” “My boss came to me, and said, “Can you just say that you missed the date because you had other projects.” “If you were not one of her favorites, she made it very difficult for you to work there, even if you were not in her direct line of sight.” Destructive leaders never regard their behavior as being negative, and they always believe that their behavior is socially acceptable (Wolor et al., 2022). One participant described a leaders’ ways of justifying their behavior as follows: “He would make these comments and he would use all kinds of racial and sexist slurs. He said, well, everyone has a little bit of ism..... you know, like sexism, racism, feminism.” Another said: “The leader thought that his department's goals were more important than the ethics of the 232   organization as a whole.” A third stated: “I was told when I went to the City Manager on a number of occasions not to bring him that kind of nonsense.” The City Council was not in the least bit aware of the new policies that he had unilaterally implemented.  Destructive leaders leave people and organizations in a worse state than they found them (Suskind, 2022). This is why Singh et al. (2017) contended that a rational way to check the severity of destructive leader behaviors in an organization is to estimate the effect on the culture of the organization. Specifically, participants said that a destructive leader asked them to lie; bullied them; practiced deceptive, manipulative, and retaliatory behavior; did not communicate; denied their destructive behavior; and personally attacked them. Participants also disclosed that the destructive leader earned their trust and stabbed them in the back. One participant said, “They wanted me to say that I missed the deadline, the target date because I had an additional workload, which was not true.” It is also important to note that destructive leaders, more often than not, are charismatic, self-inflating visionaries (Shonk, 2023), and as such, destructive leadership behaviors can often coexist with more sophisticated behaviors and conceal the harmful characteristics, making a leader appear desirable. Participants confirmed this when they disclosed, “This person was a charismatic leader. He wanted all of his executives and direct reports to be that type of leader, and that excluded some people because not all persons are charismatic and charming.” “He would be condescending, but he would do it with a smile.” 233   Comparison of Findings to Conceptual Framework and Theories  Destructive leadership behavior is the antithesis of constructive, traditional leadership behavior (Hansbrough & Schyns, 2010). Therefore, I used conceptual framework analysis to explore the concept of destructive leadership by applying the same theoretical lens and philosophical assumptions typically applied to traditional leadership research. Drawing on decision-making, charisma, transformational leadership (see Ugochukwu, 2024), philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology (see Lipman-Blumen, 2014), as well as organizational leadership theory and the more general research on deviant behaviors in organizations (see Wolor et al., 2022), I identified the underlying features of the complexity of destructive leadership behaviors.  The results of conceptual framework analysis strongly suggested five distinct and interlinking theoretical concepts that were synthesized into a mental model construct to frame this study. The mental model constructs that make up the conceptual framework of this study are Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) dialectical change theory, Benson’s (1977) dialectical analysis, Schein’s (2011) organizational culture model, Schneider’s (1975) organizational climate model, and Weick’s (1995) sensemaking model. These five concepts align with the researcher's philosophy, the focus of the study, and the philosophical assumptions that will inform study. Transcendental phenomenology was the appropriate method of inquiry to search for understanding and meaning from the lived experiences of those who have encountered destructive leadership. I discovered the essence of participants’ lived experiences by engaging in epoche, phenomenological reduction, and imaginative 234   variation (see Moustakas, 1994). The basis of participants’ lived experience of destructive leadership is how they perceived and gave meaning to its negative influence. The following are the study themes that align with the conceptual framework of this study. Dialectical Change Leadership and destructive leadership are dialectically interrelated (Collinson, 2014) and maintain a paradoxical relationship (Sparr, 2018). Destructive leadership is based on tensions and oppositions as they are acted out in organizational life (Baxter & Montegomery, 1996). Dialectical change theory is one part of this framework’s ontological basis, articulating the paradox between constructive and destructive leadership behaviors. Dialectical change is the process theory used in this study’s conceptual framework to explain how and why change unfolds (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), or results from destructive leadership as seen in Figure 18. Destructive leadership can cause an imbalance in an organization and with organization members. A dialectical approach to destructive leadership is a tactical way to explain how destructive leadership behaviors represent a specific form of leadership, embedded in the process of leading (Khanna et al., 2021). This qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological illuminated that when pluralistic and paradoxical organizations maintain a thesis or status quo, such as constructive, transformational leadership, when operationalized, competes with an opposing force or anti-thesis, such as destructive leadership, change, transformation, or synthesis can occur (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Harmful behaviors are perpetrated by the leader and embedded in the process of leading. Discord emerges because these entities 235   espouse opposing values. Synthesis is the final attempt to reconcile the inherent contradiction between thesis and antithesis. It is an integration of two or more pre-existing elements which results in a new creation. Change occurs when these conflicting, espoused values cause an imbalance in the status quo. The synthesis becomes the thesis (status quo) in the next dialectic cycle. The result of the change is an altered organizational identity. The dialectical change model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can explain participant experiences with destructive leadership tactically. One participant stated, “There was no Administrative Services Director position prior to her employment” (thesis, status quo).   236   Figure 7 Dialectical Approach To Destructive Leadership   In addition, the participant stated: She held an associate degree but required additional education in general liability, risk management, and human resources. However, she still did not want to take  the advice of those of us with experience. She was very vindictive. She was an obstructionist. Her tentacles reached far and wide, creating a closed environment” (antithesis, tension, and contradiction).  The participant also contended, “Some people left for less money, in order not to deal with her. She retired because I think she finally recognized that she was in over her head and because there were so many complaints” ( synthesis, change, new reality). Another example of dialectical change in the participant interviews was:  Espoused Values, Status Quo, ThesisTransformational Leadership, Stability, BalanceAntithesis    Destructive Leader Behavior,  Tensions, Opposing Values, and Contradictions  Change, Resolution, New Organizational RealitySynthesis237   I mean, it was a pleasant place to work. I worked for another Lieutenant Commander, who was a Hispanic woman. She was very pleasant, very caring. She was emotionally intelligent and in tune with not just me, but all the employees. She and I worked together to do things, to boost morale. I'm not going to say it's because the previous Lieutenant Commander was a woman, but it is in a sense it was. She had a family and she'd been on deployment. She was in tune. She understood that we spend more time with the people that we work with than our families (thesis, status quo). The participant further stated: He came in with smiles and handshakes and we're going to work great together. He asked me about some of my goals and what my contribution was to the command. He presented himself to be very friendly, and cooperative, “We're going to make this a great place.” Then he got there, and it was completely different. He probably has an issue with black people, and then women. He told me that I needed to go through this reserve chief for anything that I needed, in spite of her only being there on weekends. He felt like I did not need my own office because I'm enlisted. If we both had offices, then that would make me equal to him. He gave me my performance evaluation and attempted to rate me below average and then he tried to justify it. He said, "Chief you're doing a great job, running the office, but there are some deficiencies". I said then why not bring it to my attention before today? And he didn't have any answer for it (antithesis, tension, contradiction). 238   The participant continued: The following year, I was eligible for the next senior rank. This particular evaluation would have accompanied all of the information and the paperwork required for me for the next year, which would have been my 19th. He prevented me from receiving my promotion, just like I prevented his friend from receiving one. My name came up to go to Afghanistan, and I was the second person on the list. It was almost as though he was glad about it. He said the only way around it is to retire. At that time, I was the mother of young children. I informed him that I would not be going to Afghanistan; instead, I would be retiring (synthesis, change). In organizational change, both leaders and followers experience paradoxical tensions, to which they often react defensively (Sparr, 2018). In organizations, change is dialectical and characterized by periods of relative inactivity maintained by opposing organizational politics until the equilibrium is disrupted by an insurgence of activity, and change occurs. Dialectical Analysis Dialectical analysis explains how social change (Martin, 2009) can occur between multiple opposing entities over time (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Dialectical analysis may explain how the stability of socially constructed, traditional leadership that members espouse, and the contradictory and paradoxical phenomena of destructive leadership are conflicting yet interdependent (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2017). The socially entrenched nature of organizational contradictions in institutional discourse involves conflict, paradox, and mutual interaction (Benson, 1977). 239   Dialectical analysis looks for evidence of (a) social construction, which is the social process and patterns that make and keep order in daily life (Seo & Creed, 2002); (b) totality, which is the whole organization and how its parts link together in social patterns (Seo & Creed, 2002), (c) contradiction, which is the lack of consistency and gaps that cause problems in social life (Werner & Baxter, 1994), and (d) praxis, which is a person’s ability to act in a rational way. Organizational Culture A rational approach to assessing the severity of destructive leadership behaviors within an organization is to assess the impact on the organization's culture (Singh et al., 2017). Destructive leadership behaviors significantly influence an organization's culture and individuals' personal and professional lives. When organization members encounter destructive leadership behaviors, they may interpret their experiences according to the values their leaders advocate, even if these values contradict the values that the organization or its employees hold dear. I analyzed portions of the interview data from participants A002, A012, and A015 to identify the fundamental assumptions and values of destructive leaders. Participant A002 stated: The core principles that guided our organization were respect, integrity, and a focus on performance and productivity. Those stick out, especially in that particular situation. As bottom-line managers, my direct supervisor and the regional manager prioritized metrics. That is the impression I formed of them. Participant A012 disclosed: 240   She portrayed herself as someone completely different. When families would walk in or when we were in business meetings, I was the best in the world—smiling at me and liking me. She knew she had to present herself differently when she was around other people. What she valued was power, because that is what she presented. She valued people who were subordinate and had no thoughts of their own. Participant A015 maintained that: The presence of these women in leadership roles, particularly those of African Americans and Hispanics, instilled a sense of empowerment in me upon my arrival at this organization. I believed that they had the potential to alter the prevailing perception of women in leadership roles. In my opinion, they could serve as mentors or role models for me. My ambition was to return to school to one day achieve their status. Why? Because if they can do it, I can too. After a period of employment, I was exceedingly disheartened. The personal comments, the blatant favoritism, and the gossip directed at employees caused significant discomfort for me and my colleagues. Additionally, participant A015 stated: Maybe they are in denial. Before making a complaint, we talked to our management first, women to women. We told them that this was very uncomfortable and that we didn't appreciate that you guys showed favoritism and gossip and personally attacked us. When I left that meeting, I felt stupid. I wasted time discussing these concerns with them. They did not think that what we were 241   telling them was happening, that it was a misunderstanding; however, when multiple people are experiencing something, that is not a misunderstanding. When we complained to our director, he came back to us, saying we were being sensitive. We took it to Human Resources, who just told us that management is always correct and that we should not complain about these comments. When discord emerges because these entities espouse opposing values, the collision creates a synthesis or change. Participant A002 contended: There was a project. It was the very first milestone. I advised everyone connected with this project that we would be unable to meet the deadline because integrating the OC3 into the network would not allow us to activate the OC3 by the deadline. I told them that the date would need adjusting. They insisted on keeping that milestone for that date. We missed the deadline. My boss wanted me to say that I missed the deadline, the target date, because I had an additional workload, which was not true. The result was that the project was completed on time and within scope. While leadership influences followers, the seemingly widespread and omnipresent nature of destructive leadership behaviors is "self-interest" (Antonakis & Day, 2017). When leaders engage in self-interest, destructive leadership behaviors will ensue (Thoroughgood et al., 2016). Participant A002 also stated: They were influencing me or wanting me to lie! You lose trust in your leadership. I felt like they were trying to take advantage of me. It went against the code of conduct. It did not align with the actual corporate values.  242   Likewise, participant A012 said: Although this was a facility for people with disabilities, the management that I worked with was not always accommodating. Many people have gotten hurt working with individuals that they should not have. There was a violent situation where both the employee and the individual could have gotten hurt. I specialized in behavior modification. She did not. I had to advocate repeatedly for the employee. I was told, "No, we know better than you". They did not want to hire anyone more qualified because they wanted to save money. The destructive leader said that if I was afraid, then I did not belong in that field. I encountered verbal abuse, and I watched the verbal abuse of other people. I found out that they would speak negatively about me to outside companies. It was not very respectful. Participant A015 said: "This influence can be invasive and persistent, with lasting effects on subordinates and shaping an organization's future context and culture." Participant A002 said, "For some people, it may have become more of a job than a career. For anybody left in that position, why would you have any confidence in your leadership"?  Participant A012 also revealed, "I do not know if anyone else wrote her up, but the yelling slowed down, but she would say things in other ways. As far as I know, it is still going on based on the people I used to work with."  Participant A015 contended:  I have been working here for six years, and she got fired at the beginning of this year. It went on for a very long time. I have co-workers who have been there 243   longer than I have. I cannot imagine how they have suffered working under that management. This participant also said: The organization started as a small city hospital. Because it was about to go bankrupt, a more well-known company took over. The organization resisted the transition and the changes that were happening. However, it meant better benefits and better pay for us. The organization brought in the old processes and resisted any new changes. The organization was already very negative before the transition. I was not part of that group and knew they would make my working life miserable.  This discord may cause an imbalance in the culture and climate of the organization, which senior leadership maintains, and employees tend to behave in ways consistent with leadership. This paradoxical incongruence may negatively affect the organization and the organization's members' personal and professional lives.  Organizational Climate An organization's climate directly affects the employees' level of involvement with their work and their motivation to do that work well. Abusive behavior, especially when displayed by leaders, can spread throughout the organization, creating entire climates of abuse (Priesemuth, 2020). Participant A002 said: My peers experienced similar behaviors, but not to the level that I was experiencing. They knew how the regional manager was, and they conducted themselves accordingly. We all decided to come in, do the job, and move forward. 244   Out of sight, out of mind. The way I perceived the situation was that it was an issue with the leadership. Not necessarily me. It did not necessarily give me faith in my direct chain of command, but it did not hinder me from being productive and meeting my deadlines for my other projects. It added stress because I had to do extra work to answer my regional manager's questions, which took away the time I could have given to other projects. It hindered the morale within my group. I felt like I could not talk to my manager. I was physically present. However, I was looking for other positions at that point. While participant A012 said: We had all different levels. Some are in wheelchairs, visually impaired, hearing impaired, have down syndrome, or have autism. I would encounter verbal abuse and watch other people encounter verbal abuse all the time by multiple people. Sometimes, the tone of voice was not very friendly to the individuals we served. The organization was not always sympathetic to the needs of the staff or the individuals we serve. I wrote my supervisor up and went to the director. She received a one-week suspension. She came back with the same behavior. She had a way of making you feel lower without having to scream. You are always on edge. Is management in a good mood today or in a bad mood? Are they going to care about what you say, or will they not care? Are the individuals going to come first? Often, it came down to money because the individuals made the money. Those are the ones they seem to care about most.  Participant A012 continued by saying: 245   Many people called out all the time, including myself. People needed to be more motivated. They hated the job. Nobody wanted to come to work. It was a toxic environment. Because we had to work short-staffed, the individuals we served needed proper care. Putting staff members with individuals who had severe behavioral issues put the individuals and the staff members at risk. Burnout from being short-staffed because they could not get staff to stay. They could not keep new staff. Participant A015 said: Destructive leadership in the organization makes staff members unproductive and dramatically affects the health and well-being of the staff. You become ineffective as an employee, affecting patient care, decreasing revenue, and increasing employee retention rates. We first complained to the managers who were gossiping and being offensive, and they denied that they were behaving as we perceived. We complained next to the director, and he came back to us with a slap on the wrist, like we were being sensitive. So, we went to Human Resources, and he told us that management is always correct. Sensemaking The most effective perspective for interpreting a phenomenological study of this nature is to consider Weick’s (1995) concept of sensemaking, which suggest that organizational reality is contingent upon participants’ interpretation of the collective experience. Organizational members who encounter destructive leadership may interpret their lived experiences based on the values that their leaders advocate, which may be 246   contradictory to what employees consider to be valuable. The social process of sensemaking, which entails the establishment of connections and the creation of meaning, is characterized by organization, reflection, synthesis, and testing. Sinclair (2021) defined sensemaking as organizing the unknown to behave within it. Sensemaking involves pulling together disparate views to create a plausible understanding of the complexity around us and testing that understanding to refine it or, if necessary, abandon it and start over (Ancona et al., 2020).  The findings of this study revealed that participants reported incidences of destructive leadership, both inside and outside of their organization, to make sense of what was occurring. Sensemaking activities are essential in dynamic and uncertain situations, as they involve developing and preserving coherent understandings that facilitate collective action and relationships. Participating in these activities can present challenges in such conditions (Weick, 1995).  Sensemaking occurs in organizations when members confront events, issues, and actions that are surprising or confusing (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Weick, 1995). When individuals encounter ambiguous or uncertain organizational circumstances, they seek to comprehend the situation by scrutinizing and interpreting environmental cues. These signals create a logical and meaningful explanation that gives structure and importance to the situation, allowing individuals to understand and interact with their environment (Brown et al., 2007; Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). In my study, participants attempted to make sense of the destructive leadership they encountered by 247   reporting the incident and the leader to someone higher up in the chain of command. A participant said: A few others and I wrote the manager up for the verbal abuse. A group decided to go to our higher-ups. We approached the CEO directly. She was suspended for a week after I approached them, and two others followed suit. Participants also stated that reporting destructive leadership to higher-level administration was only sometimes beneficial. One participant stated:  In the spring of 1999, I told an upper-level manager that I believed that this destructive leader was racist and was attempting to force me out of his department. Management did nothing to help me, so I went to his supervisor and talked to him. His attitude was, Oh, that is just so and so. Finally, I felt like it was harassment, so, I filed a complaint. “My feelings were swept under the rug.” Limitations of the Study As a researcher, I am aware of the limitations of this research study (see Hassan, 2023). Identifying the limitations of a study is critical for ensuring the trustworthiness of qualitative research. While this study may contribute to the body of knowledge on destructive leadership by providing a deeper awareness and understanding of how individual organization members perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked, this study has limitations. The first limitation is a disparity the in gender of participants. Although factors such as race, gender, and age were not used in the selection of participants for this study, 248   it is worth noting that only two males participated in this study, one African American and one Hispanic. There were other males interested in participating, but after numerous reminder emails, they did not meet the deadline to participate. The second limitation is that, as the researcher of this study, I have witnessed and experienced destructive leadership firsthand. To ensure that having similar experiences to the study participants did not introduce bias, I engaged in the epoche process intentionally and continuously throughout this study. I reflected on the praxis of leadership and destructive leadership, as well as my awareness of how knowledge is constructed and how I should attend to that knowledge in order to mitigate my position as a researcher. Applying the epoche process supported confirmability and trustworthiness in this study. I attended this process of intentional reflection before meeting with any participants or collecting any data and revisited it at each phase of this study by practicing mindfulness techniques.  A third limitation of this study relates to the research methodology. This study followed a transcendental phenomenological methodology. Qualitative transcendental phenomenology brings a multi-dimensional nature to the study of human experiences (Neubauer et al., 2019). However, this research method presented specific challenges (see Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004). Researchers in many fields, such as psychology, nursing, and health science, have used phenomenology as a research method (Farrell, 2020). However, critics and skeptics have questioned the viability of Husserl’s reflective methodology (Tse, 2020). Husserlian reflective methodology has been specifically challenged on the basis of its perceived inability to meet the standards of objectivity and 249   reliability (Dennett, 2018). Therefore, the results of this study are subject to alternative interpretations by the reader. Recommendations The primary objective of this research study was to understand the subjective perceptions and interpretations of individual members regarding the negative impact of destructive leadership on their overall workplace experiences. The findings of the study provide opportunities for future research. The findings confirm that destructive leadership negatively affects both the personal and professional lives of organization members, that destructive leadership negatively influences how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to their professional lives, and that leadership is a key driver in employee engagement.  Dealing with destructive leadership behaviors can impact an employee's whole life, manifesting as fatigue, irritability, anger, lack of motivation, headaches, and heart attacks. In fact, the authors of one report examining the relationship between workplace stressors and mortality claimed that "more than 120,000 deaths per year and approximately 5%–8% of annual healthcare costs are associated with and may be attributable to how U.S. companies manage their work forces” (The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States, n.d.).  The results of this study confirm that destructive leadership behaviors are detrimental actions that leaders consistently execute and are deeply ingrained in their leadership process. Future studies should focus on how an ineffective leader demonstrates 250   behaviors such as low emotional intelligence, disrespect, bias, intimidation, and a lack of empathy, support, recognition, and self-accountability (see Miller-Jones, 2020).  The results of this study revealed that discrimination and destructive leadership are related. This opens new possibilities for future comparative studies. This study can be replicated with a variety of participants from different types of organizations and the findings compared. Quantitative studies based on the themes identified in the study can measure their individual and collective impact on employees. The findings of this study confirmed that destructive leadership is a continuous pattern of behavior displayed by a leader, encompassing mistreatment, intimidation, dishonesty, and other illicit or unethical actions, which can lead to unproductive consequences for the organization. The consequences stem from the interactions between the leader, followers, and the surrounding environment (see Fischer & Sitkin, 2023). This study’s findings confirmed that an organization’s human resources department is responsible for protecting the organization and its individuals from the harmful effects of destructive leadership. The study findings indicate that individual members of the organization do not perceive this organizational resource as providing them with protection. Finally, the findings of this study confirm that organizations may not intend to create a culture that breeds destructive and toxic behaviors, but destructive and toxic leadership exists because people tolerate, accommodate, and protect it. Implications This research study is significant because it may fill that gap in the literature by, according to Moustakas (1994), providing multiple perspectives of the essence of these 251   shared lived experiences, which may, by developing in leaders a deeper awareness and understanding of the features of the phenomenon and thus lead to improved organizational practices or policies to deal with destructive leadership behavior. The essence is the central underlying meaning within the different shared lived experiences (Van Manen, 1990b). This study could also illuminate how to avoid destructive leadership behavior or at least identify and enable its identification at its inception, resulting in organizational action to curb the destructive behaviors as early as possible (Henriques et al., 2016).  Second, much of the research on destructive leadership behaviors has been quantitative, leaving a gap in qualitative research (Grill, 2023). A review of the literature on destructive leadership revealed the prevalence of quantitative, positivist approaches to social research, such as surveys, to describe a followers’ experiences, while tempering individual experiences (Khan, 2014). Consequently, there needs to be more emphasis on qualitative (i.e., non-positivist) research and data collection. By investigating this phenomenon through the subjective experiences of participants selected through purposive sampling, this qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological study has the potential to address the gap in the literary record. Third, this research has the potential to influence current and future business practices and business leaders by offering a diverse perspective on the long-term impact of destructive leadership behaviors on an organization’s culture. Destructive leadership behaviors are a growing and costly phenomenon (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). This phenomenon costs corporations billions of dollars annually in legal, property, and 252   employee expenses (Thoroughgood, 2021). This phenomenon may compromise the quality of life for organizational members and detract from the organization’s primary objective, which is to maintain profitability. For an organization to achieve and maintain success in a global market, expanding its capacity to construct the future is essential Senge (1990). Awareness of and actions to control the long-term negative effects of destructive leadership behaviors on an organization’s culture may, at one time, have been enough to provide an organization with a competitive advantage. Efforts to identify the nature and effects of destructive leadership behaviors by conducting rigorous academic research and devising ways to counteract them may now be a competitive necessity.  Fourth, previous scholarly research romanticizes leadership, focusing on its charismatic, transformational, and ethical aspects and positive effects on organizational culture. This bias in leadership research has left the breadth of knowledge on leadership incomplete and the ability to develop influential leaders and effective organizations stifled. This study, by disclosing some of the underlying characteristics and causes of destructive leadership behavior, may enable organizations to identify better the long-term consequences for an organization’s culture (see Krasikova et al., 2013). This revelation could advance leadership theories, a crucial aspect of organizational and leadership development (see Aasland et al., 2009; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Achieving early detection, prevention, and social change possible by eliminating destructive leadership behaviors and their long-term is consequences.   253   Conclusions A qualitative approach to social science research involves the examination of subjective experiences in order to develop a more profound understanding of the world. The specific problem addressed in this study was that not enough is known about how individual organization members perceive and give meaning to destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations where they work or have worked. Prior researchers on destructive leadership primarily used quantitative methods (Tepper, 2007) to uncover its antecedents, consequences, and impact. As a result, the literature marginalizes the employees’ understanding and perception of destructive leadership. The purpose of this qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological study was to explore in depth the lived experiences of a purposeful sample of participants who have experienced destructive leadership.  Traditional, constructive leadership values are what leaders espouse and are what followers expect in an organization. Destructive leadership represents a specific form of leadership embedded in the process of leading. This study addressed the imbalance in what leaders espouse to value and what organization members observe as being valued by leaders. This study showed that the results of this phenomenon compromised the quality of life for constituents and detracted from the organization’s main purpose, which is to remain profitable.   254   References Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). The prevalence of destructive leadership behavior. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x  Abazari, A. (2018). Marx’s conception of dialectical contradiction in commodity. Hegel Bulletin, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/hgl.2018.29  Abel, N., Jones, N. A., & Ross, H. (2022). Kelly, meet craik: A role for mental models in personal construct psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(4), 1180–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1805071 Adler, R. H. (2022). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 38(4), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344221116620  Ahmed, S. P., & Ahmed, M. T. Z. (2014). Qualitative research: A decisive element to epistemological & ontological discourse. Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, 8(2). https://infinitypress.info/index.php/jsss/article/view/846 Alhazmi, A. A., & Kaufmann, A. (2022). Phenomenological qualitative methods applied to the analysis of cross-cultural experience in novel educational social contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785134 Ali, I., Ali, M., Grigore, G., Molesworth, M., & Jin, Z. (2020). The moderating role of corporate reputation and employee-company identification on the work related outcomes of job insecurity resulting from workforce localization policies. Journal of Business Research, 117, 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.060  255   AL-Jabari, B., & Ghazzawi, I. (2019). Organizational commitment: A review of the conceptual and empirical literature and a research agenda. International Leadership Journal, 11(1), 78–119. http://internationaljournal.com  Allen, N., & Hallett, K. K. (2022, March 13). 6 signs you’re dealing with a Machiavellian & what to do. MindBodyGreen. https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/machiavellianism Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt. Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanley, G. J., & Ololube, N. P. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.mm.20150501.02  Amer, H., & Shaw, C. (2018, November). Lean leadership paradoxes: A systematic literature review [Paper presentation]. The 2014 (5th) International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. American Psychological Association. (2023). 2023 Work in America survey. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2023-workplace-health-well-being  Amin, M. E., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(10), 1472–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.02.005 Ancona, D. (2011). Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership (pp. 3–19). SAGE. 256   Ancona, D., Williams, M., & Gerlach, G. (2020, September 8). The overlooked key to leading through chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-overlooked-key-to-leading-through-chaos/ Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 272–281. http://jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.com/abstractview.php?id=19     Antonakis, J., & Day, D. (2017). The nature of leadership (3rd ed.). SAGE. Antonakis, J., & Day, D. (2018). Leadership: Past, present and future. In J. Antonakis & D. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3–27). SAGE. Antonakis, J., Fischer, T., & Dietz, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830  Appleby, C. (2010). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about It. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811011031373 Aravena, F. (2017). Destructive leadership behavior: An exploratory study in Chile. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1384501  Archard, P. J., & O’Reilly, M. (2022). Email correspondence, interpretation and the psychoanalytically informed research interview. Nurse Researcher, 30(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2022.e1809  257   Armstrong, M. (2001). Human resource management: Strategy and action. Korgan Publishing. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (2022). Institutionalized effect in organizations: Not an oxymoron. Human Relations,75(8), 1483–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221083093 Ashworth, W. B. (2023, May 05). Scientist of the day - Zeno of Elea. Linda Hall Library. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/zeno-of-elea/ Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2021). What is qualitative in research? Qualitative Sociology, 44(4), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-021-09497-w  Atan, T. (2014). Destructive leadership: From retrospective to prospective inquiry (Antecedents of destructive leadership). Archives of Business Research, 2(6), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.26.757  Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.1.25  Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachter, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29–49). D. C. Heath and Company. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90035-7 Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the 258   Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mindgarden. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., Bebb, M., & Waldman, D. A. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118701200106  Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage.  Bai, Y., Harms, P., Han, G. H., & Cheng, W. (2015). Good and bad simultaneously? International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-09-2014-0070  Bakkal, E., Serener, B., & Myrvang, N. A. (2019). Toxic leadership and turnover intention: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 66, 88–102. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.66.6  Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organizations. Wiley. Balwant, P. T. (2017). The dark side of teaching: Destructive instructor leadership and its association with students’ affect, behavior, and cognition. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(5), 577–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1112432  Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191  Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (p. 1). Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 259   3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0303_03  Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2016.12.003   Bansal, P. T., Smith, W. K., & Vaara, E. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research. The Academy of Management Journal, 61(4),1189–1195. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4004  Barrett, A., Kajamaa, A., & Johnston, J. (2020). How to … be reflexive when conducting qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13133   Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. Free Press. Bastedo, M. (2012). Organizing higher education: A manifesto. In M. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education (pp. 3–17). Johns Hopkins University Press. Baumann, C. (2016). Hegel and Marx on individuality and the universal good. Hegel Bulletin, 39(1),1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/hgl.2016.33  Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590071004  Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). The Guilford communication series: Relating dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press. Beetz, J., & Schwab, V. (2017). Material discourse-materialist analysis: Approaches in 260   discourse studies. Palgrave.  Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H., & Nevicka, B. (2018). Narcissistic leaders and their victims: Followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer most. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00422   Ben-Ari, A., & Enosh, G. (2013). Power relations and reciprocity: Dialectics of knowledge construction. Qualitative Health Research, 23(3), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312470030  Benjamin, M. (1996). Cultural diversity, educational equity, and transformation of higher education: Group profiles as a guide to policy and programming. Praeger. Benmira, S., & Agboola, M. (2021). Evolution of leadership theory. BMJ Leader, leader-2020, 296. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000296 Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391741  Better Evaluation. (2014, January). Maximum variation sampling. [Blog post]. https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2016/04/how-to-cite-a-blog-post-in-apa-style.html Bhandari. (2023, June 21). Population vs. sample | Definitions, differences & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/population-vs-sample/ Bhandarker, A., & Rai, S. (2019). Toxic leadership: Emotional distress and coping strategy. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 22(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-03-2018-0027  261   Bhatawadekar, S. (2014). Islam in Hegel’s triadic philosophy of religion. Journal of World History, 25(2/3), 397–424. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43818487  Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3  Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Revenge in organizations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Monographs in organizational behavior and industrial relations (Vol. 23, Parts A & B). Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 49–67). JAI Press. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870  Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1058–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.003  Bloemen, M., Backx, F., Takken, T., Wittink, H., Benner, J. L., Mollema, J., & De Groot, J. F. (2014). Factors associated with physical activity in children and adolescents with a physical disability: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 57(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12624 Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (4th ed.). Sage. Blum, J. N. (2012). Retrieving phenomenology of religion as a method for religious 262   studies. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(4), 1025–1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfs080 Boer, R. (2021). Contradiction analysis: History, meaning, and application. In Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1622-8_3 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon. Bohl, K. W. (2019). Leadership as phenomenon: Reassessing the philosophical ground of leadership studies. Philosophy of Management, 18(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-019-00116-x  Bower, A. B., & Maxham, J. G. (2012). Return shipping policies of online retailers: Normative assumptions and the long-term consequences of fee and free returns. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 10–124. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0419  Breazeale, D. (n.d.). Fichte, Johann Gottlieb (1762–1814). In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-db030-1  Breitinger, E., Ojaide, T., & Obi, J. (2003). Culture, society, and politics in modern African literature: Texts and contexts. African Studies Review, 46(3), 158–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/1515067  Bristow, A., Tomkins, L., & Hartley, J. (2021). A dialectical approach to the politics of learning in a major city police organization. Management Learning, 53(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507621991996 Broom, A. (2006). Ethical issues in social research. Complementary Therapies in 263   Medicine, 14(2), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2005.11.002 Brown, A., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007, January). Making sense of stories: The development of a new mobile computer game. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (p. 51). IEEE. Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the field—An introduction to field research. Routledge. Burke, R. J. (2017). Toxic leaders: Exploring the dark side. Effective Executive, 20(1), 10–14. https://www.iupindia.in/1703/Effective%20Executive/Toxic_Leaders.html   Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.  Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z  Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. Wiley. Butera, F., & Buchs, C. (2019). Social interdependence and the promotion of cooperative learning. In K. Sassenberg & M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social psychology in action (pp. 111–124). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_8 Butler, C. R., O’Hare, A. M., Kestenbaum, B., Sayre, G., & Wong, S. (2021). An introduction to qualitative inquiry. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 32(6), 1275–1278. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2021040473 Byrd, M., & Byrd, J. (2017). The Socratic method. In T. Miranda, & J. Herr (Eds.), The value of academic discourse: Conversations that matter (pp. 3–22). Rowman & Littlefield. Çakır, F. S., & Adıgüzel, Z. (2020). Analysis of leader effectiveness in organization and 264   knowledge sharing behavior on employees and organization. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824402091463. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020914634 Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons. Camfield, D. (2016). Elements of a historical-materialist theory of racism. Historical Materialism, 24(1), 31–70. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206X–12341453  Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2020). Motivating people: How to work with someone who’s disengaged. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-to-work-with-someone-whos-disengaged  Chan, Z. C., Fung, Y., & Chien, W. (2013). Bracketing in phenomenology: Only undertaken in the data collection and analysis process. The Qualitative Report, 18(30), 1–9. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss30/1  Chang, C. C., & Wanh, Y. H. (2021). Using phenomenological methodology with thematic analysis to examine and reflect on commonalities of instructors’ experiences in MOOCs. Education, Science, 11(5), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050203  Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.  Chen, C. C. (2018). Yin-yang dialectics and communitarianism in cross-cultural management research. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(3), 492–500. 265   https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0199 Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1028 Choi, S. B., Jung, K. H., & Kang, S. (2022). What hinders team innovation performance? Three-way interaction of destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.879412 Chu, H. (2013). A brief introduction to the techniques used in phenomenological research. Education Issues for Female Baby Boomers. https://boomerwomaned.wordpress.com/tag/transcendental-phenomenology/  Clarke, J. J. (2014). In search of Jung (RLE: Jung): Historical and philosophical enquiries. Routledge. Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership. Leadership. Quarterly, 26, 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.005  Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005  Collinson, D. (2014). Dichotomies, dialectics, and dilemmas: New directions for critical leadership studies? Leadership 10(1), 36–55. 266   https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013510807  Collinson, D. L. (2020). ‘Only Connect!’: Exploring the critical dialectical turn in leadership studies. Organization Theory, 1(2), 1–22. https://doi. org/10.1177/2631787720913878 Connelly, L. M. (2010). What is phenomenology? Medsurg Nursing, 19(2), 127–128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20476524/  Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118801300302  Cooper, T. (2016). Manifest leadership styles in a Caribbean cross-sector network. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2014-0080  Costanzo, L. A., & Di Domenico, M. (2014). A multi‐level dialectical-paradox lens for top management team strategic decision‐making in a corporate venture. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12073 Cowan, B. R., Doyle, P., Edwards, J., Garaialde, D., Hayes-Brady, A., Branigan, H. P., Cabral, J., & Clark, L. (2019). What’s in an accent? The impact of accented synthetic speech on lexical choice in human-machine dialogue. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ‘19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342786  267   Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. SAGE. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Prentice Hall. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2021). Three principles for writing an effective qualitative results section. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 22(3), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v22i3.556 Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2014). Civilization and the domination of the animal. Millennium, 42(3), 746–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814540355   Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277657  Damaschin, A. (2023). Social construction of organization. A new model in organizational development. Postmodern Openings, 14, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/14.2/607  Danişman, Ş., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Karadağ, E. (2015). The effect of leadership on organizational performance. In Karadağ E. (Ed.) Leadership and organizational outcomes (pp. 143–168). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14908-0_9  Davis, T. (2021). What is self-concept and why does it matter: Learn about your self-268   concept and how it affects well-being. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/click-here-happiness/202109/what-is-self-concept-and-why-does-it-matter  Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004  De Allegri, M., Brenner, S., Kambala, C., Mazalale, J., Muula, A. S., Chinkhumba, J., Wilhelm, D., & Lohmann, J. (2019). Exploiting the emergent nature of mixed methods designs: Insights from a mixed methods impact evaluation in Malawi. Health Policy and Planning, 35(1), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czz126 De Costa, P. I. (2014). Making ethical decisions in an ethnographic study. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 413–422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43268058 Definitions for Discrimination. (n.d.). Definitions. https://www.definitions.net/definition/Discrimination  Dennett, D. C. (2018). Reflections on David Rosenthal. In B. Huebner (Ed.), The philosophy of Daniel Dennett (pp. 165–170). Oxford University Press.  Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE. Deterding, N. M., & Waters, M. C. (2018). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–269   739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799377 Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.351  Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate—social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609334954  Diehl, U. (2020, September 21). Hegel’s philosophy – Insights and illusions. bold attempt of a critical assessment at the occasion of Hegel’s 250th birthday. VoegelinView. https://voegelinview.com/hegels-philosophy-insights-and-illusions-bold-attempt-of-a-critical-assessment-at-the-occasion-of-hegels-250th-birthday/ Discrimination. (2022, January 17). Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination  Dolan, T. E. (2018). Framing indeterminacy: Dialectical analysis and futures studies. World Futures Review, 10(1) 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756717739628   Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., & Ghislieri, C. (2020). Far away, so close? The role of destructive leadership in the job demands–resources and recovery model in emergency telework. Social Sciences, 9(11), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9110196  Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1893937  270   Drolet, M. J., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, J. C., Ruest, M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2023). Ethical issues in research: Perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3  Duan, N., Green, C. A., Palinkas, L. A., Hoagwood, K., Horwitz, S. M., & Wisdom, J. P. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y  Duncombe, M., & Novaes, C. D. (2016). Dialectic and logic in Aristotle and his tradition. History and Philosophy of Logic, 37(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2015.1086624  Dunford, R., & Jones, D. (2000). Narrative in strategic change. Human Relations, 53(9), 1207–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539005  Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press. Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Institute of Qualitative Methodology,8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105 Eagleton, T. (2006). Criticism and ideology: A study in Marxist literary theory. Verso. Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(8). http://www.journalijar.com/article/5631/phenomenology-and-educational-research/  271   Edwards, A. (2009). Research paradigms in qualitative sport management research. Qualitative Research in Sport Management, 15–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/b9780-7506-8598-6.00002-2  Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2012). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 14–28). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913912  Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809  Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2014). Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. Routledge. Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R., & Viellieu, B. (1990). The charismatic appeal of a transformational leader: An empirical case study of a small, high-technology contractor. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(4), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90003-z  Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002  Einarsen, S. V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2020). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429462528 Einarsen, S. V., Skogstad, A., & Aasland, M. S. (2017). Destructive leadership. In D. 272   Poff & A. Michalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_54-1  Einarsen, S. V., Skogstad, A., & Aasland, M. S. (2023). Destructive leadership. In D. C. Poff & A. C. Michalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics (pp. 540–547). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_54 El-Metwally, D., Ruíz-Palomino, P., Metwally, M., & Gartzia, L. (2019). How ethical leadership shapes employees’ readiness to change: The mediating role of an organizational culture of effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02493 Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560  Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947  Elmusharaf, K. (2016). Qualitative sampling techniques. Training course in sexual and reproductive health research. https://www.gfmer.ch/SRH-Course-2016/research-methodology/pdf/Qualitative-sampling-techniques-Elmusharaf-2016.pdf  Emblemsvåg, M. S., & Emblemsvåg, J. (2023). How bad leaders can drive out good leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(3), 5–26. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21864 273   Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., & Branch, S. (2015). Destructive leadership: Causes, consequences, and countermeasures. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.003  Erikson, E. H . (1982). The life cycle completed. W. W. Norton & Company. Escobar, J., & Canino, G. (1989). Unexplained physical complaints: Psychopathology and epidemiological correlates. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 154(S4), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1192/S000712500029572X  Essays, UK. (2013, November). Cultural values amalgamation. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/cultural-values-amalgamation.php?vref=1  Fairhurst, G. T., & Collinson, D. L. (2023). Leadership dialectics. In The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 484–497). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529781892.n41  Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013509396  Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2023). Performing organizational paradoxes. Taylor & Francis. Fan, Q., Wider, W., & Chan, C. K. (2023). The brief introduction to organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181930 Farjoun, M. (2019). Strategy and dialectics: Rejuvenating a long-standing relationship. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 133–144. 274   https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018803255  Farjoun, M., & Fiss, P. C. (2022). Thriving on contradiction: Toward a dialectical alternative to fit‐based models in strategy (and beyond). Strategic Management Journal, 43(2), 340–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3342 Farneth, M. (2017). Hegel’s social ethics: Religion, conflict, and rituals of recognition. Princeton University Press. Farooq, W., Bhatti, O. K., Ishaq, R., & Kashif, S. (2023). Investigating the non-work antecedents of workplace deviance. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2171559 Farrell, E. (2020). Researching lived experience in education: Misunderstood or missed opportunity? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920942066  Felfe, J., & Petersen, L. E. (2007). Romance of leadership and management decision making. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320600873076  Felipe, C. M., Roldán, J. L., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. (2017). Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability, 9(12), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122354  Feng, J., & Wang, C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23, 1455–1474. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737  275   Ferine, K. F., Aditia, R., Rahmadana, M. F., & Indri. (2021). An empirical study of leadership, organizational culture, conflict, and work ethic in determining work performance in Indonesia’s education authority. Heliyon, 7(7), e07698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07698 Feuer, L. S. (1949). Dialectical Materialism and Soviet Science. Philosophy of Science, 16(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1086/287023  Fichte, J. (1982). The science of knowledge. (P. Heath & J. Lachs, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032668  Fink, A. S. (2000). The role of the researcher in the qualitative research process. A potential barrier to archiving qualitative data. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(3), 4. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs000344 Fink, J. L. (2012). Introduction. In J. Fink (Ed.), The development of dialectic from Plato to Aristotle (pp. 1–23). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511997969.001  Fischer, T. M., & Sitkin, S. B. (2023). Leadership Styles: A comprehensive assessment and way forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 331–372. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0340 Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research (7th ed.). SAGE. 276   Foldy, E. G. (2006). Dueling schemata: Dialectical sensemaking about gender. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306290309  Forbat, L., & Henderson, J. (2005). Theoretical and practical reflections on sharing transcripts with participants. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1114–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305279065  Ford, J., Harding, N., & Gilmore, S. (2022). Re/searching leadership: A critique in two agonies and nine fits. Human Relations, 76(6), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221079167 Fréchette, J., Bitzas, V., Aubry, M., Kilpatrick, K., & Lavoie‐Tremblay, M. (2020). Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940692090725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920907254  Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Friedman, J. (1974). Marxism, structuralism and vulgar materialism. Man, 9(3), 444–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/2800695  Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labor and Karl Marx. Routledge.  Fuller, P. J., Galvin, B. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2018). Larger than life: Narcissistic organizational identification in leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 47(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.06.003  Furnham, A. (2015). Backstabbers and bullies. Bloomsbury. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative 277   research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 408–1416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311401424  Gabriele, S., & Chiaravalloti, F. (2013). Using the meteorological information for the regional rainfall frequency analysis: An application to Sicily. Water Resources Management, 27, 1721–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0235-6  Gaim, M., Clegg, S., Cunha, M. P. E., & Berti, M. (2022). Organizational paradox. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009128155 Gallagher, S. (2022). What is phenomenology? In Phenomenology: Palgrave philosophy today. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11586-8_1  Gamball, T. (2021, September 20). The most common reason leaders fail and 4 practices to avoid it. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonygambill/2021/09/20/the-most-common-reason-leaders-fail-and-4-practices-to-avoid-it/?sh=7ed66fe777ed  Garfield, Z. H., von Rueden, C., & Hagen, E. H. (2019). The evolutionary anthropology of political leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.001  Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. (2002). Strategic change processes, In A. M. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 206–231). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608313.n10  Geels, F. W. (2022). Causality and explanation in socio-technical transitions research: Mobilizing epistemological insights from the wider social sciences. Research Policy, 51(6), 104537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104537 Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. (2015). Sampling in qualitative 278   research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20(11), 1772–1789. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss11  George, R., & Jayan, C. (2012). The impact of organizational culture on personal effectiveness. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 39(5), 119–129. http;// http://www.jiaap.org.in/Default.aspx  Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural values. Journal of Business & Psychology 24(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9109-1  Gibson, M. A. (2001). Immigrant adaptation and patterns of acculturation. Human Development, 44(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1159/000057037  Giorgi, A. (Ed.). (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Duquesne University Press. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Institutional identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393936 Glambek, M., Einarsen, S. V., & Notelaers, G. (2020). Workplace bullying as predicted by non-prototypicality, group identification and norms: A self-categorization perspective. Work & Stress, 34(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2020.1719554  Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2018). Workplace bullying, the development of job insecurity and the role of laissez-faire leadership: A two-wave moderated 279   mediation study. Work & Stress 32(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1427815  Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279045  Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Gonmei, M., Gangmei, E., & Borgogoi, S. (2021). The essence of folklore to foster identity of Rongmei community, Global Media Journal-Indian Edition,13(1). https://gmj.manipal.edu/issues/JUNE2021/ Gordon, J., & Patterson, J. A. (2013). Response to Tracy’s under the “Big Tent”: Establishing universal criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413500934  Gosling, S. D., Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. American Psychologist, 70(6), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039210  Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 Greenbank, P. (2003). The role of values in educational research: The case for reflexivity. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 791–801. 280   https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137303  Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1106  Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate greatness and power. Paulist Press. Gretschel, P., Ramugondo, E., & Galvaan, R. (2023). Linking paradigms and methodologies in a qualitative case study focused on exploring the operation of power in human actions during the design of a new occupational therapy intervention. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231187590 Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4 Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.1  Griffin, R. W., Hanna, A. A., Smith, T. A., & Kirkman, B. L. (2022). How bad leaders impact organizational effectiveness. In Overcoming bad leadership in organizations (pp. 224–250). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197552759.003.0012  Grill, M. (2023). Influence of destructive leadership behaviors on the meaning of work and work productivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. 281   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1295027 Grint, K. (2018, March 7). Why romanticizing leaders as heroes is dangerous. Business Management Daily. https://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/50983/why-romanticizing-leaders-as-heroes-is-dangerous  Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE. Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PloS One, 15(5), e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 Gunzenhauser, M. G., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. I. (2006). Engaging graduate education: A pedagogy for epistemological and theoretical diversity. Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0008  Hackett, P. (2015). Qualitative research methods in consumer psychology: Ethnography and culture. Psychology Press.  Hagens, V., Dobrow, M. J., & Chafe, R. (2009). Interviewee transcript review: Assessing the impact on qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47  Halper, Y. (2017). Socrates and Socratic Philosophy in Judah Halevi’s Kuzari. Jewish Quarterly Review 107(4), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2017.0025  282   Halvorsen, S. (2017). Spatial dialectics and the geography of social movements: The case of Occupy London. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42(3), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12179  Hammershaimb, L. (2019, July 30). How students with depression experience online learning: Tracy Orr’s research offers pointers for course developers. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.aace.org/review/how-students-with-depression-experience-online-learning-tracy-orrs-research-offers-pointers-for-course-developers  Hammond, M. M., Schyns, B., Lester, G. V., Clapp-Smith, R., & Thomas, J. S. (2023). The romance of leadership: Rekindling the fire through replication of Meindl and Ehrlich. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101538  Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B., & Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Teachers College Press. Hansbrough, T., & Schyns, B. (2010). Heroic illusions: How implicit leadership theories shape follower attributions about poor leader performance. In B. Schyns & T. Hansbrough (Eds.), When leadership goes wrong: Destructive leadership, mistakes, and ethical failures (pp. 513–524). IAP Information Age Publishing. Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640843  Haricharan, S. (2023). Leadership, management and organisational implications for 283   public service employee well-being and performance. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 21. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v21i0.2080 Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2018). The dark side of leadership and management. School Leadership & Management, 38(5), 475–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1509276  Hart, C., Crossley, A. D., & Correll, S. J. (2018, December 14). 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#:~:text=As%20we%20have%20seen%20in%20many%20cases%20this,employee%20turnover%2C%20reduced%20productivity%2C%20walkouts%2C%20and%20even%20boycotts  Hartley, D. (2015). Meet the Machiavellians: These master manipulators are natural con artists and dangerous companions. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201509/meet-the-machiavellians  Hartley, D. (2017). Machiavellians: Self-made or born that way: The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201711/machiavellians-self-made-or-born-that-way  Hartnell, C. A., & Kinicki, A. J. (2011). Toward a leader–unit theory of culture emergence. Manuscript submitted for publication. 284   Hassan, M. (2023, August 15). Limitations in research: Types, examples and writing guide. Research Method. https://researchmethod.net/limitations-in-research/  Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00813.x Hays, J. (2022, January 24). Leadership Insights: Everyday leadership for everyone. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leadership-insights-everyday-everyone-jay-hays Hegel, G. W. F. (1827). Lectures on the philosophy of religion (P. C. Hodgson & R. Brown, Trans.). Oxford University Press. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J., & Woodman, R. (1998). Organizational behavior. South-Western College.  Helms-Mills, J., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641011068857  Henriques, P., Curado, C., Jerónimo, H., & Martins, J. (2016, April). Facing the dark side: How leadership destroys organizational innovation. In paper presented at ICMLG 2016-4th International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance: ICMLG2016 (p. 157). Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited. Hentze, I., & Tyus, R. (2021, August 12). Discrimination and harassment in the workplace. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-285   and-employment/discrimination-and-harassment-in-the-workplace Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall. Hidayati, T.,  Ilmi, Z., & Kasuma, J. (2022). How authentic leadership promotes job performance? The mediating role of organizational climate. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 17(5), 1431–1440. https://doi:17. 1431-1440. 10.18280/ijsdp.170507 Ho, L., & Limpaecher, A. (2022, March 17). What is phenomenological research design? Essential Guide to Coding Qualitative Data. https://delvetool.com/blog/phenomenology Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v9i1.a.4  Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19(3), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069801900305  Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00162 Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169  Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & 286   M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). Leadership Library of America. Holt, R., & Cornelissen, J. (2014). Sensemaking revisited. Management Learning, 45(5), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507613486422  Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. W., & Noeri, G. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press. Hourigan, R. M., & Edgar, S. N. (2020). The foundations of phenomenology: epistemology, methodology, and analysis. In Approaches to qualitative research: An Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199844272.013.009  House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. University of Toronto: Working Paper. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept-based theory. Organization Science 4(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577  Howell, C. M. (2016). A discussion of the influence of Heraclitus on Hegel’s dialectics. In C. M. Howell, Hegel’s reading of Heraclitus: A discussion of the foundations of Hegel’s dialectic. https://www.academia.edu/28884735/Hegels_Reading_of_Heraclitus_A_Discussion_On_The_Foundations_of_Hegels_Dialectic_2   Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Xu, S. X. (2011). Extracting business value from IT: A sensemaking perspective of post-adoptive use. Management Science, 57(11), 287   2018–2039. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1398  Huber, J. (2019). Legitimacy as public willing: Kant on freedom and the law. Ratio Juris: An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, 32(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12231  Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 508. https://doi.org/10.1086/209132 Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Northwestern University Press. Inyang, B. J. (2013). Exploring the concept of leadership derailment: Defining new research agenda. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(16), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n16p78  Iwai, T., Bortoluzzo, A. B., & Story, J. (2023). Consistency matters: Exploring the different roles of climate variability on collective turnover. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12443 Jabreen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406  Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1–10. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3  James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & 288   Kim, K. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate. A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662550 James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037511   James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306808  Janis, I. (2022). Strategies for establishing dependability between two qualitative Intrinsic case studies: A reflexive thematic analysis. Field Methods, 34(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X211069636  Jensen, T. B., Kjærgaard, A., & Svejvig, P. (2009). Using institutional theory with sensemaking theory: A case study of information system implementation in healthcare. Journal of Information Technology, 24(4), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2009.11  Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. W. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120  Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press. Jonsen, K., Galunic, C., Weeks, J., & Braga, T. (2015). Evaluating espoused values: Does 289   articulating values pay off? European Management Journal, 33(5), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.03.005  Joseph, R. D., & Panchanatham, N. (2016). Organizational climate of information technology industry in Singapore-An empirical study. International Journal of Research in Management, Economics and Commerce,6(12), 21–32. http://indusedu.org/  Joseph, S. (2019, November 30). How to address a toxic environment at work. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelcyvjoseph/2019/11/30/how-to-address-a-toxic-environment-at-work/?sh=389a7e93453c Jowers, K. (2015, November 12). Effects of toxic leadership could reach deep into families, research finds. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/2015/11/12/effects-of-toxic-leadership-could-reach-deep-into-families-research-finds/  Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.3126/bodhi.v5i1.8053  Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive leadership in and of organizations. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.014  Kamali-Chirani, F. (2022, July 25). Acculturation: Key concepts in intercultural dialogue. Center for Intercultural Dialogue.  https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.org/2022/07/25/kc105-acculturation/ Kallet, R. H. (2004). How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory 290   Care, 49(10), 1229–1232. https://rc.rcjournal.com/content/49/10/1229/tab-article-info Kaminstein, D. S. (1987). Toward a dialectical metatheory for psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy: On the Cutting Edge of Modern Developments in Psychotherapy, 17(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00946279  Kant, I. (1999). Critique of pure reason. (The Cambridge Edition of the works of Immanuel Kant). Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. (2003). Transcendental doctrine of elements. In N. K. Smith (Trans.) Critique of pure reason (pp. 65–101). Palgrave McMillian. (Original work published in 1781). Kanterian, E. (2016). Reason’s disunity with itself: Comments on Adrian Moore on Kant’s Dialectic of Human Reason. Kantian Review, 21(3), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415416000224  Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S. (2018). Advances in social media research: Past, present, and future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y  Kargas, A. D., & Varoutas, D. (2015). On the relation between organizational culture and leadership: An empirical analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 2(1), 1055953. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1055953  Kathuria, R., Greenhaus, J. H., & Partovi, F. Y. (2010). Leadership practices, competitive priorities, and manufacturing group performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(10), 1080–1105. 291   https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011082535  Käufer, S., & Chemero, A. (2021). Phenomenology: An introduction. Polity Press.  Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Harvard Business School Publishing. Kemparaj, U., & Chavan, S. (2013). Qualitative research: A brief description. Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, 67(3), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5359  Kennedy, P. (2017). Marxism, capital, and capitalism: From Hegel back to Marx. Journal of Socialist Theory, 45(4), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2017.1377924  Khan, S. (2014). Qualitative research method: Phenomenology. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n21p298  Khanna, P., Khan, S. A., Krasikova, D., & Miller, S. R. (2021). Repeated engagement in misconduct by executives involved with financial restatements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 166, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.08.003  Kim, Y. J., Toh, S. M., & Baik, S. (2022). Culture creation and change: Making sense of the past to inform future research agendas. Journal of Management, 48(6), 1503-1547. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221081031 King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (2021). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press. Knight, E., Le, J. K., Stanske, S., Wenzel, M., Garud, R., Jarzabkowski, P., Langley, A., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2018). Theorizing process research: 292   Perspectives in conversation. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (78th: 2018). https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2018.11484symposium  Kovach, M. (2018). An examination of leadership theories in business and sport achievement contexts. Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.62.1215  Krasikova, D., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471388 Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X92028003012  Kuldeep, & Sehrawat, N. (2020). Mental well-being, depression & anxiety among male and female: A comparative study. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.25215/0803.160 Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2022). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221127292 Laerd Dissertations. (2012). Purposive sampling. http://dissertation.laerd.com/purposive-sampling.php  Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267 Lapadat, J. C. (2000). Problematising transcription: Purpose, paradigm, and quality. Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 203–219. 293   https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570050083698  Laske, O. (2023). The concept of dialectics: A framework for its practical use. Advanced Systems-Level Problem Solving, 3, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40339-2_1 Latina, S. M. (2023, December 6). Destructive leadership, a chronic problem in organizations. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/destructive-leadership-chronic-problem-organizations-latina-iewue Lave, J., & Kvale, S. (1995). What is anthropological research? An interview with Jean Lave by Steinar Kvale. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080301  Lawal, S. A. (2019). Understanding social science research: An overview. Lapai International Journal of Management and Social Sciences,11(2), 1–22. https://ojs.ibbujournals.com.ng/index.php/lijomass/article/view/380 Lawson, T. (2019). The nature of social reality: Issues in social ontology. Routledge. https://doi:10.4324/9780429199035  LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Lemke, M. K., Meissen, G. J., & Apostolopoulos, Y. (2016). Overcoming barriers in unhealthy settings. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 3, 233339361663702. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393616637023 Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Harper & Row. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in 294   experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366  Lewis, J., Ritchie, J., Ormston, R., & Morrell, G. (2003). Generalizing from qualitative research. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2 (pp. 347–362). SAGE. Li, M., Ahmed, A., Syed, O. R., Khalid, N., & Muñoz, J. E. (2022). Impact of abusive leader behavior on employee job insecurity: Mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and abusive peer behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 947258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947258  Li, P., Yin, K., Shi, J., Damen, T. G. E., & Taris, T. W. (2023). Are bad leaders indeed bad for employees? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies between destructive leadership and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05449-2 Li, X., Worm, V., & Xie, P. (2018). Is Yin-Yang superior for paradox research? Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(3), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-06-2016-0116  Lichtheim, G., & Jordan, Z. A. (1968). The evolution of dialectical materialism: A philosophical and sociological analysis. Political Science Quarterly, 83(3), 451. https://doi.org/10.2307/2147518  Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.  Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE. 295   Lingard, L. (2019). Beyond the default colon: Effective use of quotes in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(6), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00550-7 Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2014). The essentials of leadership: A historical perspective. In Conceptions of leadership (pp. 15–37). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137472038_2  List, D. (2004). Maximum variation sampling for surveys and consensus groups. Audience Dialogue. http://www.audiencedialogue.net/maxvar.html  Loh, J. (2013). Inquiry into issues of trustworthiness and quality in narrative studies: A perspective. The Qualitative Report, 18(65), 1–15. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=tqr/ Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304263638   Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089  Lu, X., & Lin, Z. (2021). COVID-19, Economic impact, mental health, and coping behaviors: A conceptual framework and future research directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759974 296   Lukács, G. (2017). Reification and the consciousness of the Proletariat. Karl Marx, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315251196-1  Lumivero. (2024, May 2). Thematic analysis of interview data: 6 Ways NVIVO can help. https://lumivero.com/resources/blog/thematic-analysis-of-interview-data-nvivo/ Luo, H., & Liu, S. (2014). Effect of situational leadership and employee readiness match on organizational citizenship behavior in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(10), 1725–1732. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.10.1725  Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2022). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development. SAGE. Mabuza, L. H., Govender, I., Ogunbanjo, G. A., & Mash, B. (2014). African primary care research: Qualitative data analysis and writing results. African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v6i1.640  Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., III, McAllister, C. P., & Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of leadership: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. Journal of Business Research, 132, 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037  Magzan, M. (2012). Mental models for leadership effectiveness: Building future different than the past. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 2(2), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.5937/jemc1202057m  Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159639   297   Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies 47(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010. 00908.x  Malagon‐Maldonado, G. (2014). Qualitative research in health design. HERD, 7(4), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671400700411 Mango, E. (2018). Rethinking leadership theories. Open Journal of Leadership,7(1), https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2018.71005  Marie, S. (2021, October 7). All about Machiavellianism. Psych Central. https://psychcentral.com/lib/machiavellianism-cognition-and-emotion-understanding-how-the-machiavellian-thinks-feels-and-thrives#A-shallow-emotional-experience Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. http://iacis.org/  Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE. Martin, J. L. (2009). Social structures. Princeton University Press. Marx, K. (1843). Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right (J. Annette & J. O’Malley, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Marx, K. (1967). Capital: A critique of political economy volume I: The process of capitalist production. International Publishers. Mascolo, M. (2017). The transformation of a white supremacist: A dialectical-developmental analysis. Qualitative Psychology 4(3), 223–242. 298   https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000058  Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. FQS Forum: Qualitative social research: Sozialforschung, 11(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428  MasterClass. (2022, May 18). Organizational commitment: 3 benefits of fostering commitment. Masterclass. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/organizational-commitment  Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 929–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007. 00096.x  Mayne, J. (2023). Assumptions in theories of change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 98, 102276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102276 McCleskey, B. (2013). The dark side of leadership: Measurement, assessment, and intervention. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 8(2), 35–53. http://www.brqjournal.com  McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4). http://jbsq.org  McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2014). Conducting qualitative research in the context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.5.28.e1232  299   McGuire, J. B. (1992). A qualitative analysis of dialectical processes in educational organizations. Human Relations, 45(4), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500405  McLean, E., & Smits, S. (2014). Management, leadership, and the roles of the CIO. International Leadership Journal, 6(1), 3-22. http://www.tesc.edu/ilj  McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual understanding. Harper Collins. McNamara, C. (1999). Organizational culture. http://www.mapnp.org/library/org.they/culture/culture.htm  Medelyan, A. (n.d.). Coding qualitative data: How to code qualitative research. Thematic. https://getthematic.com/insights/coding-qualitative-data/  Megheirkouni, M., & Moir, J. (2023). Simple but effective criteria: Rethinking excellent qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5845 Meindl, J., Ehrlich, S., & Dukerich, J. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392813  Mergen, A., & Ozbilgin, M. F. (2021). Understanding the followers of toxic leaders: Toxic illusion and personal uncertainty. International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12240  Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 300   Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. John Wiley & Sons. Metin-Orta, I. (2021). The impact of destructive leadership on followers' well-being. In S. M. Camgoz & O. T. Ekmekci (Eds.) Destructive leadership and management hypocrisy (pp. 101–115), Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-180-520211007 Mikkelsen, E. N. (2013). A researcher’s tale: How doing conflict research shapes research about conflict. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 8(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641311327504  Miller-Jones, G. (2020, February 25). Ineffective leadership and the devastating individual and organizational consequences. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2020/02/25/ineffective-leadership-and-the-devastating-individual-and-organizational-consequences/?sh=4b0c7efa1f2c  Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Lončar, D. (2020). Defeating the toxic boss: The nature of toxic leadership and the role of followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833374  Mintz, A. I. (2018). Plato: Images, aims, and practices of education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75898-5  301   Moasa, H., Cunha, M. P. E., Clegg, S., & Sorea, D. (2023). Romancing leadership: Temporality and the myths of Vlad Dracula. Management & Organizational History, 18(2), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2167831 Modified Van Kaam Analysis. (n.d.). Complete dissertations by Statistic Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/about-us/  Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. W. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the “ripple effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300202  Mohan, M. L. (1993). Organizational communication and cultural vision: Approaches for analysis. State University of New York Press. Mohelska, H., & Sokolova, M. (2015). Organizational culture and leadership – Joint vessels? Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.223  Mohelska, H., & Sokolova, M. (2018). Management approaches for industry 4.0 – The organizational culture perspective. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(6), 2225–2240. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2018.6397  Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 809–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607082581  Moon, M. D., Wolf, L. A., Baker, K., Carman, M. J., Clark, P. R., Henderson, D., Manton, A., & Zavotsky, K. E. (2013). Evaluating qualitative research studies for 302   use in the clinical setting. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 39(5), 508–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2013.06.009  Moon, S. (2015). “Wuwei” (Non-Action) philosophy and actions: Rethinking “actions” in school reform. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(5), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.879692 Moran, M. (2021, June 22). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Statistics Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/trustworthiness-in-qualitative-research/  Moran, M. (2024, April 22). What is trustworthiness in qualitative research? Statistics Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/what-is-trustworthiness-in-qualitative-research/ Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. SAGE. Morrisette, S., & Oberman, W. (2013). Shifting strategic imperatives: A stages of leadership perspective on the adoption of corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.3709.2013.ap.00006  Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201 Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183 Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. SAGE.  Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE. 303   Mudd, S. (2016). Rethinking the priority of practical reason in Kant. European Journal of Philosophy, 24(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12055  Munhall, P. L. (2012). A phenomenological method. In P. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 113–176). Jones and Bartlett Learning. Muraglia, S., Vasquez, A. L., & Reichert, J. (2020, August 16). Conducting research interviews on sensitive topics. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/conducting-research-interviews-on-sensitive-topics Musa, S. (2016, January). The dark side of leadership: The nemesis of destructive followers [Post]. Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dark-side-leadership-nemesis-destructive-followers-soebowo-musa  Naaeke, A., Kurylo, A., Grabowski, M., Linton, D., & Radford, M. L. (2011). Insider and outsider perspective in ethnographic research, Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association, 2010(9). http://docs.rwu.edu/nyscaproceedings/vol2010/iss1/9  Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1992). Designing organizations that have good fit: A framework for understanding new architectures. In D. A. Nadler, M. S. Gerstein, & R. B. Shaw (Eds.), Organizational architecture: Designs for changing organizations. Jossey-Bass. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K. E., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. 304   https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789 Namie, G. (2024, February 2). 2021 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey - Workplace Bullying Institute. Workplace Bullying Institute. https://workplacebullying.org/2021-wbi-survey/ Nawaz, A., Khan, I., Khan, D. A., & Khan, Z. A. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Journal of Resources Development and Management 16, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7176/jrdm  Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2  Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson. Neves, P. (2014). Taking it out on survivors: Submissive employees, downsizing, and abusive super-vision. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12061  Neves, P., & Schyns, B. (2018). With the bad comes what change? The interplay between destructive leadership and organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446699  Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Hartog, D. N. D., & Belschak, F. (2018). Narcissistic leaders and their victims: Followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer most. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00422  305   Nickerson, C. (2024, February 13). Interpretivism paradigm & research philosophy. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/interpretivism-paradigm.html Nielsen, R. P. (1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269653014  Niessen, C., Mäder, I., Stride, C., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2017). Thriving when exhausted: The role of perceived transformational leadership. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.012  Norman, M. (2024, January 18). The strange paradoxes and puzzles of Zeno of Elea - GreekReporter.com. https://greekreporter.com/2024/01/18/strange-paradoxes-puzzles-zeno-elea/ Northouse, L., Rossett, T., Phillips, L., Mood, D., Schafenacker, A., & Kershaw, T. (2006). Research with families facing cancer: The challenges of accrual and retention. Research in Nursing and Health, 29(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20128  Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE. Norton, R. J. (2016). Tarnished: Toxic leadership in the U.S. Military [Review of the book Tarnished: Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military, by George E. Reed] Naval War College Review, 69(2), 143–145. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol69/iss2/19 Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tuncalp, O., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). 306   Synthesizing quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893 Nuzzo, A. (2017). Living in the interregnum: Hegelian reflections on the dynamic universal. Philosophy Today, 61(4), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday20171212182  Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies 5(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419 Noto, G. (2023, July 7). Culture ethics audits can prevent malfeasance: study. CFO Dive. https://www.cfodive.com/news/culture-ethics-audits-prevent-malfeasance-auditboard/685607/ Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.004  Oc, B., Chintakananda, K., Bashshur, M. R., & Day, D. V. (2023). The study of followers in leadership research: A systematic and critical review. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101674 Oc, B., Daniels, M., Diefendorff, J. M., Bashshur, M. R., & Greguras, G. J. (2020). Humility breeds authenticity: How authentic leader humility shapes follower 307   vulnerability and felt authenticity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.008 O’Connell, P. (2018, May 31). Law, Marxism, and method. Communication, Capitalism and Critique. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3172074   O’Leary, Z. (2021). The essential guide to doing your research project (4th ed. SAGE. Olive, J. L. (2014). Reflecting on the tensions between emic and etic perspectives in life history research: Lessons learned. Qualitative Social Research, 15(2), Art. 6, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs140268   Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2022). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287 O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106 Organizational Climate: Definition, Factors & Impacts on Culture. (2013, August 1). https://study.com/academy/lesson/organizational-climate-definition-factors-impacts-on-culture.html  Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Muhammad, R. S. (2013). Organizational culture and climate. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 643–676). John Wiley & Sons.  Otoo, B. K. (2020). Declaring my ontological and epistemological stance. The Journal of Educational Thought, 53(1), 67–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27128291 308   Otto, K., Thomson, B., & Rigotti, T. (2018). When dark leadership exacerbates the effects of restructuring. Journal of Change Management: Reframing Leadership and Organizational Practice, 18(2), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446691  Ottu, I. F. A., & Ekore, J. O. (2019). Contradictions and struggles in the dialogues of affection: Development and validation of the marital dialectics’ harmony scale. International Journal of Behavioral Research & Psychology. 7(1), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.19070/2332-3000-1900042  Ozcan, M. U. (2021). The bottleneck metaphor of leadership culture: How shared understandings about leadership develop in groups and impede diversity and effectiveness of leaders. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635751  Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001  Pandey, A., Nambudiri, R., Selvaraj, P., & Sadh, A. (2021). A temporal study on subordinate’s response to destructive leadership: voice withdrawal as a conflict coping mechanism. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(5), 886–911. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-09-2020-0164 Parke, M. R., Tangirala, S., & Hussain, I. (2021). Creating organizational citizens: How and when supervisor- versus peer-led role interventions change organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(11), 1714–1733. 309   https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000848  Patterson, K., & Winston, S. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66. https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol1iss2/winston_patterson.doc/winston_patterson.pdf  Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.  Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE. Pervin, N., & Mokhtar, M. (2022). The interpretivist research paradigm: A subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v11-i2/12938  Phillips-Pula, L., Strunk, J., & Pickler, R. H. (2011). Understanding phenomenological approaches to data analysis. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 25(1), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2010.09.004  Poerwandari, E. K. (2021). Minimizing bias and maximizing the potential strengths of autoethnography as narrative research. Japanese Psychological Research, 63(4), 229–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12320  Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (7th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. 310   Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–60). Plenum. Ponsioen, J. A. (2019). The analysis of social change reconsidered. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111345123 Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford University Press. Popa, S. C., Stefan, S. C., Olariu, A. A., Albu, C. F., & Pantea, M. I. (2023). Shaping the culture of your organization by the human capital: Employees’ competencies and leaders’ perceived behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(5), 1164–1183. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-05-2022-0106 Popper, K. (1940). What is Dialectic? Mind, 49(196), 403–426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2250841  Porath, C. L. (2015). The costs of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.001 Porath, C. L., & Gerbasi, A. (2015). Does civility pay? Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.005 Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2009). How toxic colleagues corrode performance. Harvard Business Review, 87(4). https://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR0904 Porritt, K., Gomersall, J. S., & Lockwood, C. (2014). JBI’s systematic reviews. The American Journal of Nursing, 114(6), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0000450430.97383.64 Powell, B. J., Mettert, K. D., Dorsey, C. N., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C. F., Lengnick-Hall, 311   R., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Barwick, M. A., Damschroder, L. J., & Lewis, C. C. (2021). Measures of organizational culture, organizational climate, and implementation climate in behavioral health: A systematic review. Implementation Research and Practice, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211018862  Powers, S., Judge, L. W., & Makela, C. (2016). An investigation of destructive leadership in a Division I intercollegiate athletic department: Follower perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954116643636  Priesemuth, M. (2020, June 19). Time’s up for toxic workplaces. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/06/times-up-for-toxic-workplaces  Pundt, A. (2014). A multiple pathway model linking charismatic leadership attempts and abusive supervision. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000186  Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse-materiality relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 706–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12115   Qualitative Dissertation: Qualitative Data Analysis & Coding Qualitative Data. (2021). Asher Consulting. https://asherconsult.com/what-are-inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-coding-qualitative-ata/#:~:text=An%20inductive%20approach%20is%20bottom-up.%20Codes%20are%20derived,that%20most%20studies%20a  312   Qualitative research. (n.d.). https://cdip.merlot.org/facultyresearch/Qualitativeresearch.html Raeder, F., Karbach, L., Struwe, H., Margraf, J., & Zlomuzica, A. (2019). Low perceived self-efficacy impedes discriminative fear learning. Frontier Psychology, 10, 1191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01191   Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905x36731  Rankin, D. (2014). Sophists, Socratics, and Cynics. Routledge Taylor Francis. Rao, N. (2019, September 11). Transcendental phenomenology. Ph.D. research methodology course and content. http://phd-research methodology.blogspot.com/2013/07/transcendental-phenomenology.html     Rashid, M. H. A. (2023, March 30). Qualitative research: Its characteristics, reasons and approaches. Library & Information Management. https://limbd.org/qualitative-research-its-characteristics-reasons-and-approaches/  Rasmussen, A., Mäder, L. K., & Reher, S. (2018). With a little help from the people? The role of public opinion in advocacy success. Comparative Political Studies, 51(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017695334 Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic, and methodologic concerns. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 117–133). SAGE. 313   Raz, A., & Wagner, Y. (2014). Financialization and its enemies: Marx, Marxism and some neglected episodes Part 1. Critique, 42(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2014.909972  Redding, P. (2017). Findlay’s Hegel: Idealism as modal actualism, Critical Horizons, 18(4), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2017.1374918   Rees, J. (1998). The algebra of revolution: The dialectic and the classical Marxist tradition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203983171  Reese, H. W. (1993). Contextualism and dialectical materialism. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 71–110). Context Press. Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). Jossey-Bass. Richard, O. C., Boncoeur, O. D., Chen, H., & Ford, D. L. (2020). Supervisor abuse effects on subordinate turnover intentions and subsequent interpersonal aggression: The role of power-distance orientation and perceived human resource support climate, Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4019-7 Riggio, R. E., & Newstead, T. (2023). Crisis leadership. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-044838 Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2017). Essentials of organizational behavior (12th ed.). 314   Pearson. Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. Jossey-Bass. Ross, L. N. (2023). What is social structural explanation? A causal account. Noûs, 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12446 Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE. Rusch, E. A., & Wilbur, C. (2007). Shaping institutional environments: The process of becoming legitimate. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0014  Ryan, P., Odhiambo, G., & Wilson, R. (2019). Destructive leadership in education: A transdisciplinary critical analysis of contemporary literature. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1640892 Salaman, G. (1978). Towards a sociology of organizational structure. Sociological Review, 26(3), 519–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1978.tb00144.x  Salins, P. D. (2023). Assimilation, American style. Plunkett Lake Press.  Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009. 01378.x   Samier, E. A., & Milley, P. (Eds.). (2018). International Perspectives on Maladministration in Education: Theories, research, and critiques. Routledge. 315   https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150222  Samson, A. (2019). The dialectical circumplex model: A theory of dialectic and its implications for education. (Record ID: handle:1808/29495). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. University of Kansas Publishing. http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:16524  Samsudin, E. Z., Isahak, M., Rampal, S., Ismail, R., & Zakaria, M. I. (2019). Organizational antecedents of workplace victimization: The role of organizational climate, culture, leadership, support, and justice in predicting junior doctors’ exposure to bullying at work. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 35(1), 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2926 Sánchez-Cardona, I., Salanova Soria, M., & Llorens-Gumbau, S. (2018). Leadership intellectual stimulation and team learning: The mediating role of the positive affect of the team. Universitas Psychologica, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-1.list  Saulius, T. (2016). Philosophical method and science. Filosofija. Sociologija, 1, 31–39. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Understanding research philosophies and approaches to theory development. Research Methods for Business Students, 4, 106–135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309102603  Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(83)90023-2   Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass. 316   Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109  Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2011). Leadership and organizational culture. Wiley. Schein, E. H. (2015). Organizational psychology then and now: Some observations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111449  Schmid, E. A., Pircher V., A., & Peus, C. (2019). Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1401–1433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317707810 Schmid, E. A., Pircher, V. A., & Peus, C. V. (2018). Different shades-different effects: Consequences of different types of destructive leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01289    Schmidt, C. (2022, March 11). Five ways business leaders can address workplace discrimination in 2022. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2022/03/11/five-ways-business-leaders-can-address-workplace-discrimination-in-2022/?sh=35f484a438ed  Schmitt, C. (2014). Hegel and Marx. Historical Materialism, 22(3-4), 388–393. 317   https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206X-12341341  Schmitt, R. (2019). Edward Burnett Tylor: Primitive culture: Research into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art and custom (1871). In C. Gartner & G. Pickel, G. (Eds.) Key works in the sociology of religion (pp 65–69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15250-5_8 Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 447–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01386.x  Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570. 1987.tb00609.x  Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. xvii–xxi). SAGE. Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (2014). The Oxford handbook of organizational culture and climate. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.013.0001 Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. A. (2011a). Organizational climate research: Achievement and the road ahead. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture & climate (2nd ed., pp. 29–49). SAGE. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. A. (2011b). Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 373–414). American Psychological Association. 318   Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. A. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809  Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organization–customer links in service settings. Academy Management Journal, 48, 1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573107  Schneider, B., Goldstiein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x  Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150 Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0731  Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Reading the “problem of evaluation” in social inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300101  Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2021). Evaluating and valuing in social research. Guilford. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Academic Press. 319   Schyns, B., Gauglitz, I. K., Wise, B., & Schütz, A. (2022). How to mitigate destructive leadership. In: D. Lusk & T. L. Hayes (Eds.) Overcoming bad leadership in organizations. (pp. 251–274). Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197552759.003.0013    Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24. 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001 Scott-Findlay, S., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2006). Mapping the organizational culture research in nursing: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56, 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04044.x  Sears, B., Mallory, C., Flores, A., & Conron, K. (2021). LGBT people’s experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment. The Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-workplace-discrimination/  Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday Business. Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588004  Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. (2023, August 28). https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace  Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (2018). Chapter 11: Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. 320   Monographs in Leadership and Management, 9, 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-357120180000009020  Sheard, A. G., & Kakabadse, A. P. (2004). A process perspective on leadership and team development. Journal of Management Development, 23(1), 7–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410511027   Shonk, K. (2023, May 15). Charismatic leadership: Weighing the pros and cons. Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/leadership-skills-daily/charismatic-leadership-weighing-the-pros-and-cons/  Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Dissertation Success, LLC. http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Analysis-of-Qualitative-DataXY.pdf  Sinclair, T. (10 February 2021). How sensemaking helps you lead in complexity. https://www.tobysinclair.com/post/how-sensemaking-helps-you-lead-in-complexity#:~:text=What%20is%20sensemaking?%20Sensemaking%20refers%20to%20how,model%20depending%20on%20how%20credible%20it%20is Singh, N., Dev, S., & Sengupta, S. (2017). Perceived toxicity in leaders: Through the demographic lens of subordinates. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.349  Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2010). Approaches to social research (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Skills for Care. (2019). Norms and expectations. 321   https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Leadership-management/managing-a-service/workplace-culture/Norms-and-expectations.aspx  Slembrouck, S. (2007). Transcription—The extended directions of data histories: A response to M. Bucholtz’s Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 822–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607082582  Sloan, A., & Bowie, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 3, 1291–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3  Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18, 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638201800303  Smith, N. K. (2003). The transcendental doctrine of elements. In A commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ (pp. 79–542). Palgrave Macmillan.  Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (pp. 53-80). SAGE. Smith, R. (2020). Aristotle’s logic. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/  Smith, T. (2014). Hegel, Marx and the comprehension of capitalism. In F. Mosely & T. Smith’s (Eds.) Marx’s capital and Hegel’s logic (pp. 15–40). Brill. 322   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270022_003  Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model or organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330958  Sonenshein, S. (2009). Emergence of ethical issues during strategic change implementation. Organization Science, 20(1) 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0364   Souders, B. (2020, January 18). Motivation & goals: The science of improving motivation at work. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/improving-motivation-at-work/  Sparr, J. L. (2018). Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sense giving, Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446696  Spear, B. (2016). The great man and the beginning of contemporary discourse. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279162.002  Spinelli, E. (2005). The interpreted world: Aan introduction to phenomenological psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE.  Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095 Staller, K. M. (2021). Big enough? Sampling in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 20(4), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211024516  323   Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers. JAI Press. Stating the Obvious. (2021). Writing assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. PhDStudent. https://www.phdstudent.com/thesis-and-dissertation-survival/research-design/stating-the-obvious-writing-assumptions-limitations-and-delimitations/  Stein, M. (2004). The critical period of disasters: Insights from sense-making and psychoanalytic theory. Human Relations, 57(10), 1243–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704048354  Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to … assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(6), 596–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13242  Stensaker, I., & Falkenberg, J. (2007). Making sense of different responses to corporate change. Human Relations, 60(1), 137–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707075287  Sterling, S., & Gass, S. M. (2017). Exploring the boundaries of research ethics: Perceptions of ethics and ethical behaviors in applied linguistics research. System, 70, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.010 Stone, A. (2014). Adorno, Hegel, and dialectic. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22(6), 1118–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2014.952264   Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory 324   procedures and techniques. SAGE. Streubert, H., & Carpenter, D. (1999). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic perspective (2nd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Strijker, D., Bosworth, G., & Bouter, G. (2020). Research methods in rural studies: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Journal of Rural Studies, 78, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.007   Suarez, C. (2022, January 11). The sensemaking mindset: Improvisation over strategy - Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-sensemaking-mindset-improvisation-over-strategy/ Sud, D. (2020, March 6). Thematic analysis part 2: Three schools of thematic analysis and study design recommendations. The Students 4 Best Evidence. https://s4be.cochrane.org/blog/2020/03/06/thematic-analysis-part-2-three-schools-of-thematic-analysis-and-study-design-recommendations/  Sulaima, S. (2019). Research paradigms: Their assumptions and relevance. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(5), 254–265. http://www.ijmra.us Sull, D., Sull, C., & Zweig, B. (2022, January 11). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/ Sumskis, S., & Moxham, L. J. (2017). The use of Van Kaam’s psychophenomenological method to interpret the meaning of resilience in the experiences of people with schizophrenia. Nurse Researcher, 25(3), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2017.e1514   325   Suskind, D. (2022, March 17). Work shouldn’t hurt: The cycle of toxic work cultures toxic culture starts with leadership and then seeps into organizational culture. Psychology Today. www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/bully-wise/202203/work-shouldnt-hur  Sutcliffe, K. M. (2013). “Sensemaking.” In Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. (pp. 1–4). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294678.0623  Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1456  Sy, T., Horton, C., & Riggio, R. (2018). Charismatic leadership: Eliciting and channeling follower emotions. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.008  Tait, B. (2024, February 10). The evolution of leadership theories! Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolution-leadership-theories-brian-tait-lsmnc Tehrani, N. (2019). Evaluation of a trauma therapy programme within emergency service organizations. Occupational Medicine 69(8-9), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqz111 ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). SAGE. Tenny, S. (2022, September 18). Qualitative study. StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470395/ Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management 326   Journal, 43, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375  Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812  The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2024, April 17). Zeno of Elea: Greek Philosopher and mathematician. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Zeno-of-Elea The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. (n.d.). Stanford Graduate School of Business. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/relationship-between-workplace-stressors-mortality-health-costs-united  Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1299-1   Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x  Thoroughgood, C. N. (2021). Destructive leadership: Explaining, critiquing, and moving beyond leader-centric perspectives. Destructive Leadership and Management Hypocrisy, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-180-520211001  Thoroughgood, C. N., Lee, K., Sawyer, K. B., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2021). Change is 327   coming, time to undermine? Examining the countervailing effects of anticipated organizational change and coworker exchange quality on the relationship between Machiavellianism and social undermining at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(3), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04943-9 Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., & Hunter, S. T. (2012). Real men don’t make mistakes: Investigating the effects of leader gender, error type, and the occupational context on leader error perceptions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9263-8  Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K., Padilla, A., & Lunsford, L. (2016). Destructive leadership: A critique of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 627–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3257-9   Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 228–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811436327  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). US EEOC. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 Tomaszewski, L., Zarestky, J., & Gonzalez, E. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174     Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big‐tent” criteria for excellent qualitative 328   research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121  Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons. Trépanier, S.-G., Boudrias, V., & Peterson, C. (2019). Linking destructive forms of leadership to employee health. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 40(7), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-04-2019-0168  Trevisani, D. (2016). Communication for leadership: Coaching leadership skills. Medialab Research.  Trivedi, R. (2023, October 19). What is dialectics? What is the triad thesis? Science ABC. https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/what-is-dialectics.html Trochim, W. M. K. (2021). Nonprobability sampling. https://conjointly.com/kb/nonprobability-sampling/  Tse, C. Y. P. (2020). Transcendental idealism and the self-knowledge premise. Journal of Transcendental Philosophy, 1(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtph-2019-0014  Turner, B. S., & Gottlieb, R. S. (1988). History and subjectivity: The transformation of Marxist theory. Contemporary Sociology, 17(6), 840–841. https://doi.org/10.2307/2073641  Ugochukwu, C. (2024). Transformational leadership style: How to inspire and motivate. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-transformational-leadership.html Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. The 329   Qualitative Report, 17(29), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1752  U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). What do I need to know about… Workplace Harassment. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/workplace-harassment/2012  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Harassment.  U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329  Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.63886530  Van Kleef, G. A., Gelfand, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2019). The dynamic nature of social norms: New perspectives on norm development, impact, violation, and enforcement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.05.002 Van Manen, M. (1990a). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action research. Theory into Practice, 29(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543448  330   Van Manen, M. (1990b). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. SUNY Press. Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press. Van Seters, D. A., & Field, R. H. (1990). The evolution of leadership theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 3(3), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819010142139  Van Wert, M. (2015). Evaluating transformational leaders: The challenging case of Eric Shinseki and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12393   Varpio, L., O'Brien, B., Rees, C. E., Monrouxe, L., Ajjawi, R., & Paradis, E. (2021). The applicability of generalisability and bias to health professions education's research. Medical Education, 55(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14348 Vilkinas, T., Murray, D. W., & Chua, S. M. Y. (2020). Effective leadership: Considering the confluence of the leader’s motivations, behaviors and their reflective ability. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2018-0435 Vitale, G. (2023). Research methodology. In SIDREA series in accounting and business administration (pp. 47–69). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30988-5_3 Vough, H. (2012). Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee accounts for workgroup, organizational, and professional identification. Organization 331   Science, 23(3), 778–800. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0654   Vouros, D. (2014). Hegel, totality, and abstract universality in the philosophy of Theodor Adorno. Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy, 21, 174–186. https://www.parrhesiajournal.org/  Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press. Vveinhardt, J., & Kuklytė, J. (2017). Forms of destructive relationships among the employees: How many and what the extent of the spread? Independent Journal of Management & Production, 8(1), 205–231.  Wallace, W. (1874). The logic of Hegel. The North American Review, 119(245), 431–436. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25109867  Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R. W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research. In E. C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive consumer research (pp. 69–84). Association for Consumer Research. Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2020). The researcher as an instrument. In Advances in intelligent systems and computing (pp. 33–41). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_3  Wang, Z., Sun, C., & Cai, S. (2020). How exploitative leadership influences employee innovative behavior: The mediating role of relational attachment and moderating role of high-performance work systems. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-05-2020-0203 332   Wæraas, A. (2022). Thematic analysis: Making values emerge from texts. In G. Espedal, B. Jelstad Lovaas, S. Sirris, & A. Wæraas (Eds.), Researching values. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90769-3_9 Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.01.011  Warrick, D. D., Milliman, J. F., & Ferguson, J. M. (2016). Building high performance cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 1(45), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.12.008  Waterman, A. S. (1990). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Mind & Behavior, 11(1), 47–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43853486  Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press.  Webster, V., Brough, P., & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership. Stress & Health, 32, 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2626  Weick, K. E. (1969a). Social psychology in an era of social change. American Psychologist, 24(11), 990–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028881  Weick, K. E. (1969b). The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of 333   sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133  Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2), 101009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.02.003  Wenzel, M., Koch, J., Cornelissen, J. P., Rothmann, W., & Senf, N. N. (2019). How organizational actors live out paradoxical tensions through power relations: The case of a youth prison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.001 Werner, C. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1994). Temporal qualities of relationships: Organismic, transactional, and dialectical views. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.). SAGE. Wertz, F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167 Williams, C. (2022, December 27). Human resources (HR): Definition and role responsibilities. Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/human-resources-definition  Williams, R. (2023, January 7). How narcissistic leaders make their organizations unethical. Medium. https://raybwilliams.medium.com/how-narcissistic-leaders-make-their-organizations-unethical-17c4d90c46db Williams, R. I., Raffo, D. M., & Clark, L. A. (2018). Charisma as an attribute of 334   transformational leaders: What about credibility? Journal of Management Development, 37(6), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2018-0088 Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. SAGE.  Woestman, D. S., & Wasonga, T. A. (2015). Destructive leadership behaviors and workplace attitudes in schools. NASSP Bulletin, 99(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515581922  Wolff, J., & Leopold, D. (2021). Karl Marx. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/marx/  Wolor, C. W., Ardiansyah, A., Rofaida, R., Nurkhin, A., & Rababah, M. A. (2022). Impact of toxic leadership on employee performance. Health Psychology Research, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.57551  Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Wadsworth. Wormuth, B. (2024, January 17). Using an audit trail to demonstrate trustworthiness in qualitative research. Statistics Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/using-an-audit-trail-to-demonstrate-trustworthiness-in-qualitative-research/ Wu, J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 593–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01220.x Wu, M., Peng, Z., & Estay, C. (2018). How role stress mediates the relationship between 335   destructive leadership and employee silence: The moderating role of job complexity. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.7 Wyatt, M., & Silvester, J. (2018). Do voters get it right? A test of the ascription-actuality trait theory of leadership with political elites. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.02.001  Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015).The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader member exchange interaction influence employee silence, The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002  Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE. Younas, A., Inayat, S., Molin, A. D., & Durante, Á. (2023). Nurses’ challenges to developing interpersonal relationships during integrated care for complex patients. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 45(10), 894–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459231189789 Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Zahra, T., & Shehzad, W. (2017). A pragmatic inquiry of syllogism and relevance in academic discourse. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education, 11(2). https://kjlr.pk/index.php/kjlr Zdaniuk, A., & Bobocel, D. R. (2015). The role of idealized influence leadership in promoting workplace forgiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.leaqua.2015.06.008   336   Zhang, X., Liang, L., Tian, G., & Tian, Y. (2020). Heroes or villains? The dark side of charismatic leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5546. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155546  Zuo, L. (2023). Leadership. In N. Hou, J. A. Tan, & G. Valdez Paez (Eds.) ,Organizational behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31356-1_7 337   Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer - Destructive Leadership Research study seeks interview participants who have experienced destructive leadership   This research study is a part of the doctoral study for Angela E. C. Etson, a Ph.D. student at Walden University studying Leadership and Organizational Change. The research study is entitled Organization Members’ Lived Experiences of Destructive Leadership . “Destructive leadership, is defined in this study  as :  The systematic and repeated behavior by a leader that violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the organization’s structure, goals, tasks, resources, effectiveness, motivation, as well as the personal well-being and job satisfaction of followers.” The purpose of this study is to learn about the experiences of individuals regarding destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organizations they work in. Participation in this research study will involve being interviewed virtually, using Zoom or Skype, for approximately 45 minutes, and reviewing a transcript of the interview that will be forwarded to you by email to check my accuracy in capturing your responses.  If you are interested in participating in this study, and: • are 18 years of age or older, • have at least 3 years of current or previous work experience, and  • have encountered at least one instance of destructive leadership at any workplace.  338   If you meet the criteria and are interested in participating in this research study, you are invited to contact the researcher and provide your non-work-related email address:  Angela E. C. Etson angela.etson@waldenu.edu 678-619-6873   339   Appendix B : Destructive Leadership Interview Protocol  Date:     Time:      Location:  Virtual - Zoom  Interviewer:  Angela Etson  Interviewee:    INSTRUCTIONS Thank you for participating in this research study. This interview involves how individuals perceive and give meaning to how destructive leadership negatively influences the organization where they work or have worked. The purpose is to get a firsthand account of this phenomenon. There is no right, wrong, desirable, or undesirable answer. I would like you to feel comfortable saying what you really think and how you feel – your “lived” experience from the standpoint of this study. The approximate length of the interview is 45minutes  RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS The interview will be audio-recorded with your permission. The purpose of recording is to gain all the details and be able to carry on an attentive conversation with you. If you do not want to be audio recorded, please let me know now, and I will not record. Do you permit me to record? I will also simultaneously take notes as you speak. All of your comments will be confidential. You have been assigned a nonidentifiable label/number to be used throughout the study. NVivO Transcription software will be used to transcribe 340   the interview data while also transcribing by hand to cross-reference with the transcription software. After the interview, a transcript will be forwarded to you via email to check for accuracy in capturing the responses. After my study is approved, I would also like to send you a summary of the results and instructions on how you can access the results when my study becomes available. PREAMBLE/CONSENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS  Before we get started, I would like to take a minute to review the Informed Consent Form again. Remember, if you must take a break or stop at any time, please let me know. Also, if you wish to withdraw at any time from the study or schedule the rest of the interview another day, please stop me and let me know.  Do you have any questions?  1. What is or was your position or role in the organization where destructive leadership occurred? Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 2. Tell me about your experience regarding destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organization where you work(ed)? Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer:  341   3.   How (in what context) did you encounter destructive leadership’s negative influence on the organization where you work(ed)? Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 4. Thinking back to the time when you experienced destructive leaderships negative influence in the organization where you work or have worked, what was that like for you?  Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 5. What was the organization like for you prior to destructive leaderships negative influence?  Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 6. What has it been like for you, working in the organization since the negative influence of destructive leadership occurred?  Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 7. What did you feel that this leader(s) espoused to value?  Response from Interviewee: Reflection by Interviewer: 8. What do you feel this leader(s) actually valued?  Response from Interviewee: 342   Reflection by Interviewer: 9. Specifically, how do you feel the organization was negatively influenced by destructive leadership?  Response from Interviewee:       Reflection by Interviewer: Other open-ended questions may also be asked based on the situation, such as:  (a) You mentioned ___describe that in more detail for. (b) How did that make you feel?  (c)What else?  (d) Anything else?  This is the end of my questions. Is there anything else you would like to add about your experience?   Yes_______  No_____ Thank you again for your assistance in conducting my research study.   343   Appendix C : Transcript Analysis Thank you for allowing me to interview you regarding how you perceived and gave meaning to destructive leadership's negative influence on the organization where you work or have worked. As I mentioned at the close of our interview, the next step in my research process is to ask you to perform a Transcript Analysis of the transcribed data from your interview. This requires you to review the verbatim transcribed interview data for clarification and accuracy before it goes through formal coding and analysis, and answer the follow-up questions:  • Does the transcribed interview data reflect your responses to the best of your knowledge?  • Are you satisfied with the accuracy of the transcribed interview data?   If there is no response within 48 hours of receiving the email, it will be assumed the transcript is accurate. If feedback is provided, a revised transcript reflecting those changes will be sent back to you within 24 hours. If there is no response within 48 hours of receiving the email with the revised transcript, it will be assumed that the transcript is accurate.   If you have any questions about this transcript analysis, please feel free to call me at 678-619-6873 or email me at angela.etson@waldenu.edu. Thank you.    344   Appendix D : Individual Textural Descriptions Steps in the Modified Van Kaam Method of Analysis Textural Description for Participant A001 Participant A001 was the Director of Human Resources for a municipality in the southern United States. This participant was hired as a change agent to bring the organization into one compliance and have an office where the employees could come, voice their opinions, get information, et cetera. A001’s lived experience of destructive leadership involved a leader she reported to, who was unqualified for the position for which she was hired. Participant A001 recounted that this destructive leader “was the accounts payable clerk in her previous position. She was promoted to Finance Director and Administrative Services Director, which included IT, Fleet, and Human Resources.” Participant A001 also believed that this destructive leader’s background was not at the level she was promoted. Specifically, A001 said, “This destructive leader had an associate degree and no working knowledge of Human Resources, Risk Management, or General Liability. She was promoted because of her friendship with the City Manager, to whom she now reported.” This destructive leader managed subordinates who had more experience and education. Participant A001 went on to say: As a Director of Human Resources, I have always reported to the City Manager, which meant I had a straight line to the person who could assist me in making decisions or could say yes or no, and the same with all of the other Directors. Those of us with several years of experience and education in our fields reported 345   to this person, who was an account payable clerk and was promoted to this leadership position. Destructive leadership usually does not occur due to ineptitude. Instead, it occurs when a leader acts or participates in harmful acts to subordinates, the organization, or others (Buss, 1961). Hiring the wrong person resulted in destructive behaviors that impacted organizational effectiveness. The literature on destructive leadership and the definition that guides this study does not overtly include or indicate whether intent should be included in the definition (Mackey et al., 2021) nor does it include nepotism or leader qualifications. The Participant went on to say:  That position was created for her to make more money. She valued money and getting to her retirement. I do not know what made her think she could fit in except for privilege. She just did badly, but she was allowed to stay. Although Participant A001 was a change agent, she stated, “It was challenging to facilitate change. Based on her relationship with the City Manager and their friendship inside and outside of work, I knew they did not want to change the structure.” Participant A001 also believed that “Because of the friendship between her and the City Manager, any recommendations that we made or tried to put into place, we had to go through her to talk to him.” This participant was not the only one who complained or tried to complain about this destructive leader. Still, as she was the Director of Human Resources, it was her role to manage destructive behavior. Participant A001 contended: 346   There were so many complaints about her because she was attempting to function at a level she had not reached. Her team wanted to complain about her. The union did not have a good relationship with her. They dealt with me. I was the messenger for the city and the union because they did not want to deal with her. This leader’s behaviors were harmful and overtly destructive to individual achievement and positive group functioning. A001 said:  For employees that reported directly to her, as I did, it was challenging to make any changes in the environment. Several directors and I were disillusioned because she did not have experience and was unclear on the direction. However, she still did not want to take the advice of those of us who were experienced. According to Participant A001, “She left the environment very, very broken.” Textural Description for Participant A002 Participant A002 was a Project manager when his department missed a significant deadline. His lived experience with destructive leadership involved lies, discrimination, and harassment. The participant stated:  Before the deadline came up, I informed my direct supervisors and their bosses that we were NOT going to be able to meet the date, and I told them why. I told them that the date was not attainable, and they insisted that I keep it, and we missed that deadline. Participant A002 went on to say:  Once we missed the date, the customer wanted to meet with us internally, with our chain of command. I participated in that meeting with my boss, their direct 347   boss, and the VP. Before that meeting, my boss approached me and said, “Can you just say that you missed the date because you had other projects?" I said no. Then it changed to, ‘Can you just say that you overlooked your work and did not catch it yourself.’ I said no again. Textural Description for Participant A003  Participant A003 was a Benefits Analyst, promoted to Human Resource Director, and told of a culture of discrimination, harassment, and other destructive behaviors from leadership. When this participant was the Benefits Analyst, the Human Resource Director at the time was very destructive. According to Participant A003, “He would bypass the policies and procedures and make up his own.” Specifically, what A003 said: Our policies and procedures under our Human Resources Administrative Code had to be voted on. It had to be brought to (City) council to change specific policies. He took the accountability out of the hands of (City) council and put it into his friend’s hands, the City Manager. One, in particular, was the authority to sign off or approve the administrative code without bringing it to power.  Another example given by A003 was “the defined contributions to our retirement benefit. He left it in the hands of a former City Manager, and it never went to (City) Council. It should have gone to City Council for approval, and he bypassed that.” There were no systems of checks and balances. A003 went on to say:  He seemingly made sure that the (City) council members were blind, unaware, or it was not transparent. His strategic goal was to take responsibility or accountability away from the City Council and put it in the hands of the City 348   Manager at that time, his best friend. He undermined the organization by scheming, plotting, and performing unethical behaviors. It was discovered two years later during a JLAC (Joint Legislative Audit Committee) audit of the city. There were 31 infractions discovered.  The participant stated: This leader’s behavior was well-known, and everyone feared him. This 75-year-old man had about 50 years of experience in Human Resources, and he walked around as if he was a czar, and everyone was afraid to say anything about it.  Participant A003 contended:  I am a direct eyewitness and victim. He would make off-color jokes, comments, and racial and sexist slurs. I reported it to the personnel manager, and they just shrugged it off as just his personality.  Organizations may not intend to create a culture that breeds toxic behaviors, but toxic leadership exists because people tolerate, accommodate, and protect it. The City Manager and the Director of Human Resources were walked out on the same day by this participant and another colleague. In 6 years, this participant had worked under three City Managers. The Director of Human Resources was on the path to becoming the City Manager. He became the deputy City Manager. That is when Participant A003 was moved to the Director of Human Resources. Participant A003 became the Director of Human Resources, and a new acting City Manager was brought in. A003 stated:  Then they brought in the I.T. Director, who had absolutely no City Manager experience, to be the acting City Manager. She was a pawn to eliminate the 349   former City Manager, the destructive leader. The week before Thanksgiving, the new acting City Manager called me asking me to have letters separating the City Manager and Director of Human Resources. The destructive leader/ Director of Human Resources was best friends with the City Manager at the time. He became angry when the I.T. Director got the City Manager position. He thought that he was going to be the next City Manager. Participant A003 thought, “No one could be worse than he was (the former H. R. Director), but she (IT Director/acting City Manager) was even worse, in a female version.” Participant A003 went on to say:  She changed when the City Council voted her in as the acting City Manager. We started on good terms. She was fun-loving, she joked around, and she would talk to me. She introduced me to her daughter before she went off to college. Her demeanor changed. The atmosphere became tense again.   Specifically, A003 said, “She made promises. ‘ I am not going to be like that. Let us get rid of him (former Human Resources Director/Destructive Leader). Let us clean this up.’  Six months later, she turned on us, and I was one of her biggest cheerleaders.”  Participant A003 gave specific things that this destructive leader did. Specifically: She started speaking condescendingly. She did not have those soft skills, coming from I.T. If someone had an opinion, she would embarrass them in front of the other staff. She would degrade them. She would yell. I was about to have a nervous breakdown. My doctor advised me to find another job because of this destructive behavior.  350   Destructive behaviors have a negative effect on a subordinate’s social and organizational citizenship. A003 contended, “She and her husband owned several businesses. He was arrested for embezzlement. This was in the media. It is public knowledge.” As this participant was the Director of Human Resources, she had to report the destructive behavior outside the organization. Participant A003 stated, “I filed a complaint with the EEOC. I also called the president of the NAACP, and he said, ‘Oh, very interesting.’” The participant proceeded to inform the Mayor about the steps she had taken because of the destructive behavior exhibited by the City Manager. A003 said the Mayor responded, “Oh, you should not have gone to him because he is going to tell her about it, and then they will deny it.” Textural Description for Participant A004 Participant A004 was the Head of Human Resources-North America and the Head of People and Culture for a global corporation headquartered in Germany, one of two women on the executive leadership team and the only African American woman. Her experience with destructive leadership involved the other female on the executive leadership team whose role was CFO. Participant A004 said:  There was speculation that she was part of the LGBT community. Just the way she carried herself, as far as aggressiveness, as if she was better than the men. Making sure everyone knew that she ran the company. That you came to her before you went to the CEO. 351   Participant A004 believed,  “If you were just not one of her favorites, she made it very difficult for you to work there even if you were not in her direct line of sight.” A004 also stated that:  The person who was in the position before me reported directly to her. I have a personal rule as head of HR, that I need to report directly to the top because reporting to an operational unit caused issues for me in the past. So, I reported directly to the CEO, and I don't think he made her aware of that. Textural Description for Participant A005   Participant A005 was a Human Resource professional for 17 years, with most of his experience with an organization on the West Coast, where the incidence of destructive leadership that he described to me occurred. He started in this organization as a Branch Administrator, and his last role was as a Human Resource Business Partner. A005 stated: As Human Resource professionals, we are privy to much decision-making that the average employee doesn't know. For instance, how a person is selected or not selected for a position, who moves the ranks, and who doesn’t. Unfortunately, some of the leaders were making decisions that were based on affinity and getting along or having similarities instead of looking at the entire person.  Participant A005 went on to say: When I joined the organization in 2010, the CEO of the organization, which had five thousand employees at that time, was a charismatic leader. I believe that not all people who are charismatic and charming are necessarily good, and that's because, in some cases, their goals or their motives can be of service, or they can 352   be misguided. Also, they can have good goals, thoughts, and ideas, but the execution can be poor.  Participant A005 also said: This CEO was trying to overhaul an organization that had been in place at that time, for 30 years, within three years. That was a big undertaking. This person was a good person, it’s just that the implementation was a little clunky. So, people were like, I've been an executive director for 30 years, and now I’m one of the things that are different….. that is just not going to work. Textural Description for Participant A006 Participant A006 was the office administrator for an  Executive who later accepted a position outside the agency. The Executive position was filled by another Executive, from a similar organization on the West coast. The participant said, “ Prior to this gentleman coming into the organization, everything was going fine. Before actually reporting to the office, he wanted to meet with me personally after work, to scope out the office.” The destructive leader wanted this participant to tell him everything that she knew about specific supervisors and managers in the office. Participant A006 went on to say:   I didn't have anything to tell him because I didn't supervise them. But he kept probing. He wasn’t even on the job yet. When he saw that I was not forthcoming with anything that would give him the ammunition that he needed, he really didn't have much use for me. I was not a snitch, nor was I anyone he could fool around with after work hours. I could tell that he was uneasy meeting with me. 353   This destructive leader asked Participant A006 about her family, how many kids she had, and if she was married. He also told this participant that:  The work that I was doing, I didn't get paid nearly enough money for, and he wanted to make me his Executive Assistant. He said where he came from in California, an office administrator like I was made twice my salary. He said that was the first thing he was going to do is increase my salary. He was not forthright with me. Participant A006 filed a lawsuit accusing this destructive leader of discriminating against her based on her race and religion. Textural Description for Participant A007 Participant A007 has been an Assistant Director of Services in the hotel industry in the mid-Atlantic region for eight years. This participant shared two instances of destructive leadership that she has experienced firsthand. The participant stated that: Being an Assistant Director of Services in the hotel industry, I have had two directors do this, where they take their position, and they use it not for the good of the staff, as far as protocol and confidentiality. We are supposed to handle what employees say or say confidentially. It should not go any further than my office. But the directors did the total opposite. They have grown men walking around gossiping and doing everything they shouldn't do.  Participant A007 went on to give details of a specific instance of gossiping. I had an employee call me, and she was very upset. She wanted to talk to me because the director was asking questions about me. The director wanted to know 354   what I do when I am there, working over the weekend. Am I in my office? Just probing questions trying to insinuate things. The employee called me to tell me what was happening. She was so upset that she started crying. I knew that it was an issue and that, obviously, it had been going on with not just her but other staff too.  Participant A007 went on to say, “I called my H.R. partner, and he spoke with the employee who called me, and he also spoke with the director, who was asking questions about me.” The H R Partner asked the director, why he was interrogating an employee about Participant A007, and why he was questioning her integrity, especially to her staff. His answer was, “Because I wanted her to break. I wanted to see her cry. “Textural Description for Participant A008 Participant A008 was in telephone sales at a large health insurance company for five years, three years in customer service, and only about a year in the sales position. This participant stated, "The leader thought that their department's goals were more important than the ethics of the organization as a whole.” Participant A008 went on to say:  In sales, you're always pushed to sell, sell, sell. This was before Obamacare. There were guidelines for whom we could sell plans to and whom we could not. We couldn't undermine another company. So, we weren't allowed to sell to people who already had health insurance offered to them through their jobs. It was pretty blatantly obvious that we were not supposed to tell people the truth about the health plans. 355   Participant A008 contended that:  During our scripted interview, we asked whether health insurance was offered by the employer. My boss said, just leave that question out. We can sell more plans because they don't like the plan offered by their employer. That's why they are calling us. Textural Description for Participant A009 Participant A009 worked in the after-school program and as a café worker for ten months in a local Charter School in the Southeast. This participant was also retired from the military with 25 years of service. She sustained a serious injury while on active duty and retired on disability. She experienced discrimination and harassment from a destructive leader, which affected her personally and professionally. Participant A009 explained, “So, I'm the oldest person. The supervisor is 35 years old. There was another young lady who was 30 and another one who was 27.” A009 went on to say: I had an injury that I got in the military, and I needed surgery. I told the café manager that I was having surgery and would be out for maybe a month or so. I said, when I come back, it will probably be on limited duty, where I can't lift, can't bend... stuff like that. I let them know ahead of time. I had this conversation one-on-one with the supervisor. I didn't discuss the specifics with the other two ladies, just the supervisor.  Textural Description for Participant A010 Participant A010 was the Compensation and Benefits Manager when she experienced destructive leadership from the Human Resource Director in a local 356   municipality in the southern United States. Participant A010 stated: “This destructive leader had a bully and intimidation mentality. She wanted you to do your job, but at the same time, she was micromanaging. She made you feel dumb and stupid if you made a mistake.” Specifically, Participant A010 said:  The H.R. Director did my performance evaluation, showed it to the Assistant City Manager, who was the former H.R. Director. She told her she had to redo my evaluation…. that I needed improvement in all areas, and put me on a PIP, a performance improvement plan. Textural Description for Participant A011 Participant A011 was a supervisor for ten years in a grant program and several other programs at a state mental health agency with staff in five counties. This participant was with the company for 15 and a half years. A011 stated:  This destructive leader caused a high turnover rate among the staff. This disrupted client/patient care, and it killed the morale of the workers as well. This leader micromanaged to the point that staff were crying frequently because of the negative words of the leader and just the anger that was exhibited towards them.   The participant indicated that this destructive leader would pick and choose what she would tell management. She made decisions based on basically trying to hide things from the other management. If there was bad news, she would do whatever she could to hide that from him. Participant A011 stated that “More than one leader was at fault.” The staff that was being micro-managed and bullied brought their concerns to upper management 357   and nothing was ever done. So, those staff members quit. Participant A011 went on to say:  Personally, my experience with destructive leadership involved the H.R. Director, the CFO, and my immediate supervisor, the Director of Crisis Services. My boss, the Director of Crisis Service, appeared not to know how to do anything. She couldn’t use the computer and didn’t know how to train people.  Although this destructive leader held a master's degree and managed three crisis areas, she was the antithesis of what she was trained to do. Participant A011 believed that it was a known fact that this destructive leader couldn’t do her job and that those under her did her job for her. Her lack of knowledge affected employees, clients, and the agency as a whole.  Textural Description for Participant A012 Participant A012 was a Senior Employment Specialist for 13 years in an organization that services adults with special needs. Her role was to oversee/support the staff and find the individuals’ or clients’ jobs in the community. The Participant said: We also had work in the house and in our building for the people that couldn't necessarily go out and work in the community. We had all different levels, people in wheelchairs, people that were visually impaired, hearing impaired, Down's Syndrome, and Autism.  According to Participant A012, “If they needed some type of care, I would take care of it. I was also in a support role for staff as well.” Participant A012 also said, “Although this was a facility for people with disabilities, the management that I worked with was not 358   always accommodating. Many people have gotten hurt, working with individuals that they shouldn't have.” This participant I had to advocate repeatedly for herself and for the employees. Textural Description for Participant A013 Participant A0013 worked for a telecommunications company for over 30 years. She started as a secretary, was promoted to supervisor, and before she retired, she was a lead telecommunications/IT specialist. The destructive leadership that this participant experienced occurred because she was an African American female working in an organization with a predominantly white job description. Participant A013 stated:  The federal government has something called upward mobility. Upward mobility allowed individuals to apply for jobs with no previous experience, or college degree. This was supposed to be a training-type position and guaranteed you a certain salary, or up to a certain salary. Participant A013 stated, “When I started, I was told that I was not wanted, period. I didn't have a college degree, nor did I have the experience, although the job did not require previous experience.” The destructive leader that this participant encountered was acting in a lead role. A013 stated, “This individual, a Caucasian male, informed me that he did not want me and preferred another young lady, a Caucasian, who had a college degree.” Textural Description for Participant A014 Participant A014 was the Chaplain and the Social Worker in a hospice care facility. She had been working in hospice care for 16 years and at this facility, where 359   destructive leadership occurred for three years. She was the only Social Worker and Chaplain at this facility, and covering offices approximately three hours away. Participant A014 said:  The destructive leader was the Vice President of Operations. Initially, she said, let me know when it begins to get too much. This was at the beginning of the pandemic when I was already fulfilling the Social Worker /Chaplin role only in my town. Because of the pandemic, they laid off one of the people in the other areas. Participant A014 went on to say, “I wanted to be there for them. I wanted to make sure they were taken care of.” This participant also said, “I was asking for help and begging for help. I was told that they would hire somebody.” The destructive leader told the participant, “We are looking to hire somebody. We put it on Indeed.” The participant found out that these things never happened. Participant A014 believed, “They are stalling because of money. If you have someone doing everything and you can only pay one person, to do all this.” This participant went on to say that her biggest problem was, “ I could not be effective in my role.”  Textural Description for Participant A015 Participant A015 worked as a registrar at a hospital Urgent Care facility but stated, “I do go to different departments, like for example laboratory, radiology, physical therapy.” In this position, she encountered three destructive leaders, all supervisors, who showed favoritism, gossiped about others’ personal business, and commented on employees’ physical appearance. Participant A015 revealed, “That destructive leadership 360   occurred in all departments by these three female managers, one African American, one Hispanic, and one Caucasian.” This Participant stated, “I witnessed comments such as, ‘Oh like you're getting fat’ and ‘Oh, that's probably why your husband's leaving you because of your attitude.’" Participant A015 revealed that these three supervisors favored a specific employee because she also worked at an expensive department store and got them items at a discount. When Participant A015 and her co-workers complained to management, they were told that they were being sensitive, that it must be a misunderstanding and if they didn’t like it, they could leave. Human Resources told them that, “Management is always right.” Participant A015 said, “This was very insulting to many of the staff members It created a negative environment, low morale, patient care, revenue, and retention rates.” Textural Description for Participant A016 Participant A016 had been a first-grade teacher for two years. The destructive leadership that this participant experienced involved the Principal of the school, whose previous role was Human Resource Director of the school district and prior to that role, she had been a middle school teacher. This participant stated:  The first year was the year that COVID hit...... we were all quarantined. She was fine. I mean, I had no problems at all. She supported me as a teacher. The beginning of the second year ...... I don't know what changed with her. Around January, I felt that change.....if I called, either no one would come, or they would send someone else. She never came again.  361   Participant A016 went on to say that “Her mannerisms changed. She became shorter-tempered. She would kind of snap back with an answer. It was done in such a way that made you feel incompetent, even if you had no reason to know the answer. She didn't really support me. She just kind of gave me the OK, just do this.” Participant A016 also said another thing that changed or got worse, was this destructive leader’s lack of communication. Specifically: There were so many instances where something would happen, and I would look to my peers and ask, did you know this was going to happen? Did you get any communication at all? They would all say, ‘No, I didn't know either.’ Textural Description for Participant A017 Participant A017 was a Senior Consultant with ten years of experience. This participant was very guarded and spoke anecdotally about her experience with a destructive leader. A017 began by stating:  This particular leader was fairly new to the company as a returned leader. When they were previously at the company, they weren't a leader. I didn't know whether it was their mission to dismantle the team or make a name for themselves. However, it was obvious that their behavior was from within the team. Outside the individual didn't behave the same way they behaved with the team. Participant A017 said: "A destructive leader, just like a destructive person, in many cases, starts subtly, just like an abuser. Then it starts to chip away at your overall character.” 362   Textural Description for Participant A018 Participant A018 was in the United States Navy. Her exact title was Chief Petty Officer, which is considered middle management. She was considered the manager for her particular location. According to A018, “I was the most senior enlisted person. All of the enlisted under me reported to me. I reported to the Lieutenant Commander.” This participant went on to explain:  So, he was an officer. He went to Officer Candidate School. He did not go through the academy. Instead of enlisting as an officer, he came in as an enlisted member. It's known throughout the military that if they went through the Officer Candidate route and not the Naval Academy or the West Point Route, they take issue with Chiefs. Because we're the ones who hold them accountable, as managers should do.  Participant A018 believed this destructive leader's behavior challenged morale and undermined her authority. Specifically, A018 said: I didn't want him going directly to the people that reported to me. I said sir, you can't come out into the workspace and just totally disregard me because that undermines my leadership with the people who report directly to me. He stopped that, but then he would not converse or communicate with enlisted people at all, which made them feel like they were in trouble. He maintained the hierarchy. A018 believed the main issue was his conversion from enlisted to an officer and his experience with other chiefs. Participant A018 contended: 363   I was black, he was white. He was from some very rural place in Georgia. He probably has an issue with black people and women. I observed his behavior with minority men. It was completely different than it was with women.  Textural Description for Participant A019 Participant A019 told of two destructive leadership situations. In this participant’s first encounter with destructive leadership, she was a project manager at an insurance company for three years. Participant A019 stated that her immediate supervisor’s strategic vision did not align with the company's strategic vision. Specifically, “He gave instructions on what he wanted our goals to be. Then when you were pursuing those goals, he would change it and make it seem like you were failing and not following its instructions.” Participant A019 felt that this destructive leader was never satisfied, and was never accountable. This participant also felt that she was not successful. “I never felt that I added any value.” Participant A019's second encounter with destructive leadership was with a project manager on a government project dealing with The Affordable Care Act. When A019 offered her assistance to one of the strategic managers in writing a proposal, this destructive leader responded, “Oh, you can write!” Participant A019 believed that his destructive behavior “humiliated everyone at the table.” A019 went on to say that the business unit was mainly male, white, young college grads who thought she couldn’t do the job. 364     Textural Description for Participant A020 Participant A020 gave an account of destructive leadership that occurred while she was employed as an elementary school art teacher. This participant was fired because a student that she and other staff members had previously warned the administration about had marijuana in his backpack, and had been smoking it at school. Participant A020 and several other teachers, “smelled marijuana near him.” Participant A020 said, “The school administration and resource officer never found any evidence, nor did they smell anything.” This participant was terminated after she allowed the student to sit on a patio outside of her classroom and draw on a nice day. Participant A020 said, “The student started a fire while passing a marijuana cigarette around to other students.” The participant was not aware of this because she was inside the classroom at the time.    365   Appendix E : Individual Structural Descriptions Steps in the Modified Van Kaam Method of Analysis Structural Description of Participant A001 Context is a central element in recalling destructive leader behaviors. Contained within a structural account is the context that explains the destructive leadership that Participant A001 encountered. The destructive leader described in this Participants textual description was hired before the participant arrived. When the participant accepted the position, she knew she would report to the Administrative Services Director. The participant was, regrettably, unaware of this individual’s background at the time. In her capacity as Director of Human Resources, Participant A001 was consistently accountable to the City Manager or General Manager. This reporting structure provided her with direct communication with an individual who could facilitate or approve her decision-making. The Administrative Services Director, accountable to the City Manager, was responsible for this participant’s position in this municipality’s reporting structure. There was no Administrative Services Director position before hiring this destructive leader. Employees and directors who had been there for some time recognized the difference in the reporting structure. Employees and directors recognized that they would have to work within those confines. Participant A001 was never able to get the reporting structure changed in any way. Those behaviors and those obstructions remained in place.  Despite being hired as a change agent in a city with over 900 employees, Participant A001 faced significant challenges in implementing changes due to the inability to communicate in person. Participant A001 stated: 366    People stopped bringing ideas to the table. She did not hold staff meetings. She did not engage the team or ask what was wrong and how it could be improved. The destructive leader made City Hall off-limits for employees. She was also very vindictive.  There was no way for employees to come in to meet with the H.R. Director without the destructive leader knowing. The destructive leader did not interact with Participant A001. The participant attributed this to the fact that this destructive leader could not debate Human Resources with her. Because the destructive leader needed to understand, it was not easy to establish a relationship without the ability to have organizational banter back and forth about what is best and what is not. Employees who reported directly to the destructive leader, like Participant A001, faced significant challenges initiating new processes, improving inefficient processes, or suggesting changes based on successful implementations in other locations. In order to make any changes, Participant A001 had to approach the City Manager, a friend of the destructive leader. However, the City Manager had already clarified to Participant A001 that he wanted to avoid hearing about such ideas. Participant A001 said: Department heads were unhappy because of the favoritism from the City Manager and the fact that he overlooked that this destructive leader was not qualified. She talked to people as if she were more than she really was.  This destructive leader had people reporting her crying because she was so disrespectful, the environment was so toxic, and she did not care who heard how she spoke to people. The participant also said. “The unions’ concern was her understanding 367   of negotiations. Because she was so tight with the budget, she did not allow discussion.” To this destructive leader, the budget was just numbers. To the Director of Human Resources and the union, discussions symbolized progress, comparability, or recruitment and retention. Participant A001 tried to implement a program to hire people more quickly into positions so that departments could get those services to the citizens.  She did not want to put the money in the budget I was asking for. She did not understand that she had a well-versed, educated, experienced professional reporting to her that could make her look good and make the organization better.  This participant did not feel that she was personally affected by this destructive leadership. Because Participant A001 has been the Director of Human Resources for 30 years, she understood not to take it personally and that she could only do what she was allowed to do versus what she was capable of doing. This experience did not personally change the participant in any way. Professionally, the participant became apathetic. She knew that she was working for an obstructionist. She was able to manage herself because she knew that it was not going to change unless the destructive leader left, or she left.  Participant A001 gained some insight because this was her only experience dealing with someone who had less experience but was not willing to take the recommendations of somebody in her position who was experienced. The employee population who did not know her experience and background did not completely understand her experience and capabilities. Participant A001 felt that was a blemish on her professional reputation. The participant felt that someone else controlled how the population perceived her.  368   Systematically, this destructive leader’s behavior stained the organization daily. People did not want to come to work on the floor where this destructive leader’s office was because she had a very nasty disposition. The climate was such that somebody was in the way of all the staff being efficient. Employees always came to this participant needing FMLA time because reporting to this destructive leader stressed them. Individuals would walk around the other way, not pass her office door. Whatever goals departments had, or individuals had for themselves were hard to reach because she was in the way. It affected people's well-being. Structural Description of Participant A002 Participant A002 shared the context of his experience with destructive leadership. This participant stated, “On three occasions, I was asked to lie and accept the blame for something I had warned leadership about.” In the organization’s final attempt to deceive the customer by lying, Participant A002 said: “They wanted me to say that I missed the deadline, the target date, because I had an additional workload, which was not true. That was not the reason that the date was missed.” Participant A002 explained, “The deadline was missed because it was an 0C3 that needed to be implemented within the network. They said to keep the date anyway.” Participant A002 also said, “After that, my boss’s boss would sometimes overshadow me. She always commented, ‘You can do this better.’”  Participant A002 continued to explain: I asked for a promotion, and they said that I had not been in the position long enough and had not taken on enough projects, yet they handed me additional 369   projects and told me I was doing well. My performance ratings were always above and beyond. Participant A002 went on to say:  It was just that it made it a hostile environment. It did not make a productive environment for wanting to come to work. Then, the regional manager contacted me directly, asking me what was happening with this project. It came to the point where she made me copy her on every email, so she would be informed of what I was doing. It was micromanaging.  Structural Description of Participant A003 Participant A003 believed: “He was, in my opinion, a narcissist. He felt as if he knew everything. He instilled so much fear into our former city attorney that he had to be Baker Acted because he had a nervous breakdown.” This participant believed, “He knew what he was doing. He used to brag about it. He would tell the H.R. staff, ‘Watch, they will not know what hit them.’ ” A003 continued by saying: He would make off-color jokes and comments. A003 said this destructive leader told her, “You know, you are Black. You are a woman. No one will ever touch you because you are in a protected class. He would be condescending, but he would do it with a smile. He would use all kinds of racial slurs and sexist slurs. He said everyone has a little bit of ism, like sexism, racism, feminism.  This participant reported his behavior, and they just shrugged it off as his personality.  Contrary to what the Mayor said, the Mayor betrayed this participant’s trust by telling the City Manager (destructive leader) exactly what Participant A003 told him. 370   Consequently, A003 became the target of the destructive leader. Participant A003 said, “She asked me did I say something to the Mayor, and I said, yes, I did.” Participant A003 went on to say: After that, I was always the target. She would embarrass me. She would just badger me and harass me. She would call me on Saturday mornings. She would call me late at night, at nine o’clock at night. She was always on me. She was bullying me. She would sit on a stoop outside my office and watch me, trying to use scare tactics to intimidate me. She would listen in on phone calls. She did everything she could to break me, to get me to resign. She made the workforce volatile. Morale was at an all-time low.  Participant A003 revealed another incidence of destructive leadership when she revealed, “The destructive leader gave the Public Works Director an ultimatum. She forced them to quit. He was African American. A003 went on to say:  The Labor Attorney asked me to attend the Public Works Director name-clearing hearing. That only angered her (destructive leader). She commented, ‘How can one of my subordinates tell me whether or not my separating this Public Works Director was right or wrong.’ Destructive leadership affects organization members’ ability to function personally and professionally. Participant A003 believed: It made me second-guess my abilities, my skills, and my knowledge. It made me rethink my values. Others did not respect me then because the City Manager had set the stage that ‘You are nothing; you do what I say. It made me think, ‘Why am 371   I in this field, this profession?’ So, it broke me. I started to become depressed. I lost confidence in my abilities after 20 years of being in the H.R. profession. I became withdrawn. Structural Description of Participant A004 Participant A004 explained the context of the destructive leadership that she encountered, stating:  The person in the position before me reported directly to the CFO. I have a personal rule as head of H.R., I need to report directly to the top because reporting to an operational unit caused issues for me in the past. So, I report to the CEO, and I don't think he made her aware of that. Participant A004 said that this destructive leader told her, “I want you to come up with a 90-day plan.” This participant said that she responded: “OK, you know, like, all right.” Later, this destructive leader came back to Participant A004 and said:  I want to go over your 90 - day plan. I said, what are you talking about? She said, well, you know, I told you to do a 90–day plan. I said OK. She said, “Well, you told me you would do it. I said, no, I didn't tell you I would do it. She said I told you to come up with a 90-day plan, and you said, OK. I said that was a misunderstanding. OK, meant I heard you. Not that I was going to do it. The participant continued by describing what was a major display of destructive leadership from this CFO. Participant A004 said:  The CEO was a third-party national, We had a unique benefits package that we prescribed to him. We paid for his 401K. He had 401K with the U.S. side of the 372   business, but on the Mexican side, he was losing out on some benefits. The company agreed to make a deposit every year into his Mexican pension so that he could maintain those benefits.  Participant A004 went on to tell how the CFO blocked the approval of the deposit into the CEO’s Mexican pension, blaming her in the process. The participant said: “I told the payroll contractor to go ahead and pay him. He kept wanting to go back and forth with me. Unbeknownst to me, she was on the back end, routing my emails back to the CFO.” Participant A004 continued, saying:  The CEO said I'm not sure why you guys are doing this. I don't like this underhandedness. The CFO said, “Well if A004 had told me she had talked to you, I would have paid it. I said to her, I don't report to you, and I don't have to tell you who I talked to. She expected the CEO to stand up for her and he would not, and it was treacherous. Participant A004 told of another instance. The participant stated: The CFO asked me for the keys to my file cabinets because she was doing a Sarbanes Oxley audit. I said neither Senator Sarbanes nor Senator Oxley said anywhere in their law that you needed the keys to my files. I said it's stuff about you in those files that people complain about. I'm not going to show them. In another instance, Participant A004 said: The CFO wanted to hire an employee. I said OK. Hires have to be either add to staff, and be budgeted, or it needs to be a replacement. If it's a replacement, you 373   need to tell me who it's replacing. She said this is replacement. And she told me the person was replacing and I said well, we eliminated that position. I said in fact we gave you a bonus for cutting corners. She said I want you to do it and I said, well, I have to get this approved in Germany. She also said, when you write to Germany, can you copy me on the email? I said, “Why would I copy you on email? She responded that she wanted to keep up with what I was doing.  Finally, Participant A004 told the CEO: the problem is not her behavior. The problem is that you don't enforce boundaries with her. ParticipantA004 stated: The CEO said he doesn’t like enforcing boundaries because it's a short-term fix. A004 went on to say:  You just told me two things. As the head of Human Resources, I enforce boundaries to show that we evaluate our risks and limit our liabilities. So, you're detrimentally affecting my job. But as an employee, you're telling me that you will not make her do anything even if she and I talk. Three days later, I handed in my resignation. Structural Description of Participant A005  Participant A005 stated, “The charismatic CEO of the organization wanted his entourage of executives and direct reports to be that type of leader, which excluded some people.” A005 explained, “His goal was to invigorate the organization. But he made people feel excluded, especially those that had been there for many years.” Participant A005 went on to say: 374   This CEO was trying to overhaul an organization that had been in place at that time, for 30 years, within three years. That it was a big undertaking. This person was a good person, it’s just that the implementation was a little clunky. So, people were like, I've been an executive director for 30 years, and now I’m one of the things that are different, that is just not going to work. A005 continued explaining the context of the destructive leadership that he encountered, stating:  One of the executive directors of an urban area, who did all the fundraising for that branch. She didn't have the charisma and the eloquence perhaps that the new leader wanted. So that person was either pushed aside or forced to resign or terminated. It was demoralizing because that person happened to be a female, Mexican American, who was admired and highly regarded by many of us. Participant A005 went on to say:  There was an uproar that when that leader came in and people were like, oh, a lot of people of color have been either transferred or they left, or their position was eliminated. What a coincidence. In my opinion, ever since that person started, you have to always be in a good mood, always smiling and always being the flavor of the month. You cannot always be the flavor of the month because some months are not as good as the previous ones. People have ups and downs in their professional life, and I think the organization needs to be empathetic and understanding of that and supportive. Participant A005 continued: 375   So, for the frontline staff members that don't know how branches operate and how budgets are planned and executed, they were like , oh , yeah , we have someone who's charismatic and listens to us. But the higher you go, the harder it is to execute his ideas.  Structural Description of Participant A006 Participant A006 explained the context in which she experiences destructive leadership. This participant contended that the destructive leader asked her if she would go out with him after she had repeatedly told him that she could not attend holiday parties because her religion forbids it. Specifically: He asked me what did I do in the evenings with my time? I told him that I attended my Jehovah's Witness meetings. He said, “Suppose I wanted to take you out to the ESPN Zone in the evening. On another occasion, he tried to make me go to a MLK program that they were offering downstairs. He said, You mean to tell me that you are a Jehovah's Witnesses, and you don't like Martin Luther King?  Participant A006 contended that she believed the destructive leader was racist and was attempting to force her out of his department. Management did nothing to help her. The destructive leader that she encountered passed her over for promotion and forced her out her job because he wanted to hire a “blue-eyed blond.” Also, she stated: He brought in one of his friends on a contract that was supposed to be at a certain amount and no more. He brought this person in at three times the contract amount. This destructive leader was investigated after the organization’s board of directors 376   reported to a national newspaper that without the knowledge of the board, he had authorized hiring a consultant for $100,000 which ballooned to more than $330,000.  Specifically, the participant said: He screwed my life up. I have been depressed about having to leave my job. He pretended to hire someone as my assistant when he was really hiring my replacement. He asked me if I could get together a list of applicants to take my place as secretary, so that I could then assume the position of his Executive Assistant. He told a white manager that he needed a blue-eyed blond out front to represent his office.  This destructive leader hired as a secretary, a white woman, who failed the company’s word-processing test, instead of the black women that he and Participant A006 interviewed together, and who passed the test. He later brought in another female from the field office to interview for the executive assistant position. Participant A006 said: He told me that I didn't qualify to even apply for the executive assistant position. I was floored. Why would I not believe him when he told me in the beginning that I didn't make enough money for the work that I did, and he wanted me to hire an assistant for myself and I was going to be his executive assistant, and so I ended up filing. Participant A006 filed charges with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found cause to believe that the organization discriminated against her 377   based on her race and religion. She then proceeded with filing a discrimination lawsuit against this destructive leader. This participant’s lawsuit, which sought her reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages, was filed in U.S. District Court on the same day that the organization agreed to settle a more than $100,000 sexual harassment claim against this destructive leader. The organization agreed to pay a middle manager between $100,000 and $150,000 to settle her sexual harassment claim against this destructive leader. This middle manager, who kept a detailed log of the harassment, accused this destructive leader of trying to kiss and grope her at various times and of making sexual advances toward her. Participant A013 said in the complaint that the destructive leader “forced me out by asking other managers if they had a job for me.” This participant had also told an upper-level manager that she believed this destructive leader was racist and was attempting to force her out of his department. Management did nothing to help me.” Structural Description of Participant A007 Participant A007 said:  I called my H.R. partner, and he spoke with the employee that called me, and he also spoke with the director, who was asking questions about me. The H.R. Partner asked the director, “Why would you do these things and try to make her look bad? Why would you question her integrity, especially with the staff”? His answer was, “Because I wanted her to break. He wanted to see me cry.” Structural Description of Participant A008 Participant A008 discussed the deception exhibited by the destructive leader that she encountered in her sales/customer services position. A008 revealed, “If a person's 378   employer offered coverage, they couldn't purchase additional coverage from this company because of its non-profit status. It is a legal loophole that allowed us to stay non-profit.”  The participant went on to say: During our scripted interview, we were supposed to ask whether or not they are offered health insurance from their employer or anywhere else. My boss said, just leave that question out. We can sell more plans because they don't like the plan offered by their employer. That's why they're calling us. A008 continued describing the deception that she encountered. She said:  He (the destructive leader) would just blame it on the customer later. He thought the company would never find out that they were offered coverage through their employer. Eighty percent of the time, this was true. The other 20% of the time, if they used both plans at a doctor, the health insurance company will find out that they have another coverage sooner or later.  This is why according to Participant A008, “We would get our sales numbers up front for the month. If they drop us a year later wouldn't matter to us.” Because A008 worked in customer service, she said:  If the company I worked for found out that an individual had employer coverage, or if the employer found out, they could take back all the payments on every claim from the day a person signed up because they lied on the application. Structural Description of Participant A009 379   Participant A009 discussed how destructive leadership occurred in her position as a café worker at a Charter School. A009 said, “So, I go and have surgery. When I returned, the supervisor said, “When are your restrictions going to be over, because I’m tired of doing your job.” Participant A009 went on to say to this supervisor/destructive leader:  Obviously, a conversation has taken place between you and the other employees since you felt comfortable enough to say this to me in front of everybody. So, the other young lady said, "Well, if she can't do anything until the end of the school year that she was going to quit.”  This participant asked for a meeting with this supervisor/destructive leader. In the meeting, Participant A009 expressed, “I don’t appreciate the comment that you made. You made a joke about my physical, but temporary, disability. I said you violated HIPAA.” I’m not going to work in a hostile environment.” A009 said:  So, you could see that I was in a little discomfort, but I'm still at work trying to do what I can.” The supervisor told me if I can't lift, then I can’t do the job. The job description for the participant’s position didn’t require lifting it, it just required standing. The supervisor told me that the other staff said that I was not talking, and that attitude could not go on. She added that if I couldn’t move on, then we're going to move me. Participant A009 went on to say: The supervisor/destructive leader took my complaint to her supervisor, the manager of the entire food service area. This manager reminded the participant 380   that her co-workers gave her a celebration for Veterans Day. They celebrated your birthday. She said, "You just need to get over it. You're not in the military.” Structural Description of Participant A010 Participant A010 explained the context of the destructive leadership that she experienced from a former H.R. Director, who was promoted to Assistant City Manager of a municipality in the southern United States. A010 stated: “This destructive leader accused the City Manager of sexual harassment, and it is believed that she did that to take his job. The City Attorney did an investigation and found the charges unfounded.”  A010 also said, “This destructive leader undermined the previous H.R. Director so that she could get that position. Once she got that position, she tried to undermine the City Manager to get his position.”  Participant A010 went on to say, “She (destructive leader) would act like she was your friend. Then two minutes later, she's bad-mouthing you behind your back. She told others within the organization; how bad I was and how bad my co-worker was.” A010 personally experienced destructive leadership from this person, as she explained: There was another H.R. Director, and this person had been promoted to Assistant City Manager. The H.R. Director did my performance evaluation and showed it to the Assistant City Manager, the former H.R. Director, probably because the current H.R. Director had not been in the position the entire year. The destructive leader was the prior H.R. Director. She told her that she had to redo my evaluation.... that I needed improvement in all areas... and to put me on a PIP, a 381   Performance Improvement Plan. The Assistant City Manager didn’t know that I had a copy of the original evaluation.  Participant A010 believed that the H.R. Director was afraid of losing her job. A010 said: “I did talk to the H. R. Director later. She explained why she had to do it, but she didn't want to.”  A010 went on to say: I didn’t stand up for myself because I was scared. I didn't think anybody was going to listen to me. At the time, performance evaluations weren't grievable. I felt like there was really nothing I could do. When the next performance review cycle came up, there was another new H.R. Director. The new director looked at all my performance evaluations and couldn't figure out why there was just one huge anomaly. Structural Description of Participant A011 Participant A011 revealed the context in which destructive leadership caused a high turnover rate, low morale, and disrupted client services at a mental health agency A011 believed: It was a known fact that she (destructive leader) couldn’t do her job, so those under her did her job for her. She would make decisions based on basically trying to hide things from other management or picking and choosing what she wanted them to know. 382   Participant A011 continued to explain, “I got stuck with a task that I already had plainly said I cannot do. The last time I was involved in it caused me much anxiety. Please have somebody do this.”  A011 went on to say:  So, then I get told, No, you have to do it. I found a staff member that was trained and could help me, but they had her responsible for doing mental hygiene and doing this on-call position at the same time. Obviously, you can’t be in two places at once. There was another person, her (destructive leader) best friend, but she let her get away by refusing to help. I had enough. The next day Participant A011 sent a text message to the CFO, the destructive leader’s boss. A011 said, “I explained how she never does her job, that she shops online while at work, etc. The CFO brought it to her attention, and she became vindictive.”  This destructive leader wrote up the participant for not making sure that three employees clocked out for lunch and because one of the employees was late to an on-call appointment. A011 said:  This employee had to eat lunch because she is diabetic and takes insulin.   I’ve spent an entire night at the hospital doing those. What if my staff member, who is diabetic, had gone to the hospital and met with this individual, who was in a safe place, and her sugar runs low, and she can’t get food? I made an executive decision; you wait for lunch because she already ordered it. The participant and the other three employees appealed the write-up. A011 said: 383   The destructive leader told one of the three employees that were written up and appealed that appealing the write-up was like “putting a gun to our head.” Nothing was done about her—the staff member who was told that put in her notice.  Participant A011 went on to say:  When I met with H.R. and the CFO, they said that I should have known where my staff was at all times and the staff member should not have been late, despite us calling the hospital and explaining that we were going to be late and they were fine with it, and my staff needed to clock out. Participant A011 continued, “The CFO came up with a plan that all goes through him for everything, and he will be the middleman. The H.R. director agrees to this as well because they think it’s just two high school girls fighting.” Participant A011 contended, “I realized that they are basically taking all our concerns and saying we value her more even though we know that she doesn’t do any work.”  Participant A011 continued with the context of her experience saying: Another supervisor under her left due to the way that she had treated her. It was almost like she was her errand girl. This destructive leader also owned a funeral home. She did most of her funeral business home at work. This other supervisor would do the destructive leaders photocopying because she was a midget and couldn’t reach the photocopier. A011 went on to say:  384   We had this administration building with three floors, where she (the destructive leader) was required to go for meetings, and it had no elevator. She had to climb up and down steps and somebody had to carry her walker. So, everybody thought nobody would ever do anything to her because they are afraid that she’ll sue. Structural Description of Participant A012 Participant A012 explained the context of her encounter with destructive leadership by multiple staff saying, ”The management at this facility was not sympathetic or accommodating to employees’ needs. Sometimes a staff member might have some issues themselves, but it was frowned upon.” This participant went on to say:  They would go out of their way to try to give these individuals jobs that were considered more difficult. There were times that I would write people up for abuse, and it was never handled. I personally was verbally abused, and I watched people being verbally abused all the time. A012 added:  There was verbal abuse by multiple managers in Vocational Rehab toward employees and me. Sometimes the tone of voice was not very friendly with the individuals that we served as well. It wasn't until I and a couple of other people wrote a manager up for the verbal abuse that something was done. The manager was suspended for a while.  A012 continued: I specialize in behavior modification. It was my job to train a staff member on how to deal with an aggressive client. You have to show no fear, or they see you 385   as weak and then they would attack you. A staff member was not doing well with a client. It was putting both the individual we served and the staff in a violent situation where both of them could get hurt. I had to advocate repeatedly, again, and again, and again. they did not want to hear that. I was met with, "no, we know better than you.”  A012 continued explaining: The staff member had not been trained in behavior modification and this was well-known to the managers. But because, again, they were upset with her. She was one of the ones that had written the manager up. They didn't care. The man shouldn't have been in our program because he was beyond the capability that we could do. He was very aggressive, and it took five people to restrain him. Then finally, after it escalated by force, they stopped. Participant A012 went on to reveal, “Sometimes individuals don't mesh well with another’s personality. Maybe they just don't like them. They would trigger them into a behavior just by their mere presence. But they would just have them keep working.”  A012 said:  Sometimes there is a sprained wrist, you know, bruises, scratches, cuts, all kinds of physical injuries from a physical altercation because the individual would be attacking. I've seen someone pick up some type of bar and throw it. The person had glasses on and that's what saved the eye. I dropped off an individual at the house. He hit me twice really hard in the arm. I reported it to my supervisor. I could have called the cops.  386   Participant A012 ended by saying:  The only time anything ever happened to them was when I wrote them up, and then two other people I heard wrote them up. Because three people wrote her up, she did get suspended for a week. She was good for a while and came back with the same behavior. Structural Description of Participant A013 The context that Participant A013 experienced destructive leadership began when the individual that was to train her, the destructive leader, who was actually only acting in a leadership role, told her that he preferred training people with a college education and or specific experience. Then, Participant A013 said:  The individual that actually hired me, my immediate supervisor, told me, ‘Don't do anything to mess this up, because I really fought for you.’ He had a college degree, in English, and retired from the military. I thought, okay, I can show you better I can tell you.  Participant A013 felt, “They made it hard.” The destructive leader was responsible for training the participant selected the training criteria for her, which included an electrical class. The class was a pass or fail. Participant A013 felt:  This class was not necessary for the job that I had, because the job I had, at the time, was to meet with individuals, peers, managers, upper management, to find out what type of telephone service they needed. Then once I determined what type of telephone service they needed, I put it in an ordering format and submitted it to either GSA or the phone company. So why do I need to know anything about 387   electricity? I was not going to be installing any telephones, or writing anything. So why did I need it?  According to the participant, other people that went through this same process, Caucasians, and other ethnic groups, were already being promoted to the next level, after a year. Participant A013 said:  When my year came around, my promotion didn't come. They tried to use the fact that I had problems with the electrical tests. I said, yes, I did, and I feel like I didn't need it, and I'm not going to take it again. I went to the personnel department, and they looked at the job standards to see if the electrical class was necessary. Of course, it was not. I don't know if it was 13 months, 14, 15,16, 17, 18 months later, that they decided to promote me to the next level. I thought, why do I have to fight for this? Participant A013 said:  He didn't know anything about our process. Instead of him, asking me to explain the processes, he told us anything that we ordered, he needed to see it before we sent it out. 99% of the time, he sent it back, with post it notes all over, like when you hand in your test, and the teacher sent it back and this this red pen all over it. This participant talked to him, and explained to him that, if it's something he didn't understand, she would be glad to explain it. He indicated that she didn't need to explain anything. The participant said: But at least once a week, I was called to his office. He asked one question about the work. Then he goes off on a tangent about something else, like ‘How are the 388   kids, how is this, how is that? I said, well do you have anything else you need to ask me. Finally, Participant A013 said, “So when I got tired of this, I went to his supervisor, and talked to him. His attitude was, 'Oh, that's just so and so.’ Well, that was not good enough for me. I felt like it was harassment. So, I filed a complaint.” Participant A013 went on to say: One time he came to my cubicle, and he happened to look along the side of my computer and saw my Bible. He said, ‘Oh, you going to need to close that Bible.’ I said, Why? ‘Well, it's offensive.’ I said to who? He said, 'To me. The regulations say.....’ I said, no, the regulations don't say that. The regulations say that I cannot walk around the office with my Bible in my hand, reading scripture, quoting scripture, preaching scripture. I said, this is my space. As long as my Bible is in my space, I'm not hurting anybody. If it is offending you, then you need to go back to your office. This destructive leader eventually separated from the organization. But before he left, he told Participant A013, “He said, “I value you as an employee. I value your expertise.” A013 went on to say, “He always gave me a glorified evaluation. Always! That's what confused me. If my work is that bad, why are you giving me above satisfactory? Why are you giving me outstanding?”  He explained to me, “I'm really just trying to get to know you. I wish we could communicate better.” I said, “we communicate about the work. The relationship between 389   you and I is only work related. If there is nothing going on as far as work is concerned. We have nothing to talk about. I'm making a conscious effort not to talk to you about anything other than work.” I did not want to build a friendship.........camaraderie with him. Because he was creepy. “You're not my friend. You're my boss. And that's all this relationship will ever be.” Structural Description of Participant A014  Participant A014 said, “They told me that they were trying to hire someone to help me and take on some of the load.” Participant A014 thought that they were doing this because of money! “Because if you have someone that's doing everything, and you can only pay one person.” This participant went on to say that her biggest problem was: I could not be effective in my role. It was like I was in and out because I had my mind on the next person. There were many times I stayed overnight in the areas that I went to because of course, the three-hour drive from where I live. Before, there was only one patient I could see that day and come back home. Then I started staying overnight, getting up the next morning, and seeing more patients in that area so that I wouldn't have to come back a couple of days a week. I mean, the incentive was that you got a job! Participant A014 said that the destructive leader was: She (the destructive leader) was the Vice President of Operations. Initially, she said, let me know when it begins to get too much. This was at the beginning of the pandemic when I was already fulfilling the Social Worker /Chaplin role only in my town. Because of the pandemic, they laid off one of the people in the other 390   areas. I agreed with the census level. I said, OK, I can handle this. But the census began to grow. She said, well, let me know when you’re tired. I said, OK. So, the census began to grow more and more because of the pandemic. The participant went on to say: “I wanted to be there for them, and I was because I wasn't going just to say, well, I can't go because they won't hire somebody else. I wanted to make sure they were taken care of.” Structural Description of Participant A015 Participant A015 was very disappointed that women in leadership behaved like this. This participant stated:  The negative influence of destructive leadership in the organization makes staff members become unproductive, and it greatly affects the health and well-being of the staff. You become ineffective as an employee. It affects patient care, decreases revenue, and affects the retention rates of employees. A015 continued: A group of us decided to go higher up. We went through the proper process of complaining and went to management, the director, and then H.R. Management kind of slapped us on the wrist, like we were being sensitive. The comments kept coming, so we decided we had to go to H.R. H.R. basically just told us that management is always right. Very insulting to many of the staff members. I was losing hope that they were going to do anything. I was actually looking for another job. They don't treat us with respect. They support this type of behavior from a leader.  391   A015 went on to say:   My coworker got a lawyer. The organization did an investigation with an outside investigator to minimize bias. They said that they didn't find anything. I just accepted it. It’s hard to get another job...... we all stayed with the company. Participant A015 further explained: When Black Lives Matter started, we actually went straight to the new CEO. He did actually sit us down and talked to us. He brought in more investigators. The CEO was not African American, but the person that was making comments, the manager was African American, and the person they were making comments about, especially the weight, was African American. A015 said the investigation was thorough. The participant indicated: The organization, I feel like, was very scared of any scandals. I think that's why they entertained us. The CEO met with us three times and brought in several other outsiders to investigate the situation. They interviewed providers, doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants. They also investigated the clinical staff, like nurses, medical assistants, tech, and then, of course, us staff members. They also interviewed past employees that left the company. They wanted to find out exactly why they left. Many indicated that because of the environment—specifically, managers making the working environment so negative, it was affecting their health and well-being. Finally, Participant A015 said, “It took several months, but they did let go of that particular manager.” She went on to say:  392   Managers are supposed to be there to support you, to be your backbone. But in our case, it wasn't, so. They were the ones that were putting more stress on us. I’m only part-time, but they make me work full-time hours, but on paper, I’m part-time. I mean, I don’t mind it because I like the extra money, but at the same time, they make you feel that they’re paying you to do it anyway, so you’re not doing them a favor. Structural Description of Participant A016 Participant A016 felt as though the Principal didn’t support her. A016 said, “She just gave me the OK; just do this.” Participant A016 went on to say:  I had a parent that had some specific questions about tests and was a little upset. My Principal, just kind of shrugged me off and said, just tell her the kid can retake the test if they get lower than a C.  Participant A016 told of another instance:   I had a student that had some severe behavior issues, and I would need help as a teacher because my job is to teach. So, I would call the office for help. At first, she was supportive, and she would come and take him out of the classroom, talk with him and try to get him back on track. Around January, I felt that change. If I called, either no one would come, or she would send someone. A guidance counselor or the school resource officer sometimes. One time, the front office receptionist came. She never came again. That kind of gave me the impression that she's just washed her hands of it. A016 went on to say that the Principal tried to blame her. This participant said: 393    I think she didn't want to be bothered by this problem anymore. She just wanted to not deal with it and then, later on, blamed me. So, it became, "What are you doing to make him act this way?” He has been doing this technically since his first year of kindergarten and he had 2 years of kindergarten before me. So, this is three years of data tracking that we have on that student. So, this is not me. But she still tried to tag it on me anyway. A016 continued, saying:  I attempted to contact the parents, but this parent has a reputation for being very difficult to reach. She's very combative, I guess is the right term. She didn't actually call me a racist, but when I told her about a situation over the phone, she said, well, what color of the skin is the other child? Is the other child getting the same punishment?  A016 explained:  I gave that to the Principal, and I said, any communication can that come from you from now on? She said, “You have no right to say that. You still need to contact the parent.” Her reasoning was that the situation happened in the classroom, and you were the person who witnessed it. Participant A016 continued to explain:  I had brought forward to the Principal all the data that I've been keeping track of and the parent situation. I think about a week after that, a district guidance counselor came and talked with me and gave me some ideas for how to handle him. 394   A016 went on to say:  The Principal asked this teacher, who happened to be the union rep, to come into my room and observe that student and observe me. She said to me later, “You're doing everything right. You're doing everything that the teacher is trained to do to handle that situation. I'm going to report all of this to the Principal.” The Principal wasn't very happy because she wanted the report to say that I was terrible and I'm the reason everything was wrong. The union rep also said to me, "If there's ever any meeting between you guys, I want to be there to support you and to have a witness to anything else.” Structural Description of Participant A017 The context in which this participant experienced destructive leadership was sometimes subtle and sometimes very demeaning. Participant A017 said: There was one presentation, and the entire team was in town. Our leader said to me, "Well, either that's not right or I expected something else.” Then one of my colleagues said, "I thought you would give a better presentation." Because now I want to show the leader that I support them. I don't want this to happen to me, so I'm going to join their bandwagon. Participant A017 went on to say: This destructive leader took liberties such as saying: "I don't know if I would have done it that way", or in front of everyone else, "you made a bad choice", or "I don't know how long how you've worked here that long." 395   Participant A017 also said that during a presentation this destructive leader did not to even pay attention. This participant explained:  In an audience, people take cues from their leader. If the leader is attentively listening, then they're mimicking the same behavior. But if the leader is not paying any attention, then that allows them not to pay attention. Making outward comments that are not appropriate at that level. They said, "I don't know how you've been here this long because I would be embarrassed if one of the higher-ups had traveled to listen to your presentation.”  Participant A017 also told of the time when she had secured a huge sale, that not only saved the division, but saved the company. A017 continued with:  Our CEO called to say, ”I want to take you out to lunch.” I said, well, it wasn't just me. I had a team member. So, that gave me more credibility. That caused the destructive leader to have to back off. This participant went on to say that she believed the destructive leader saw some of the team starting to become weary, and less engaged, and this leader became even more aggressive.  Participant A017 went on to say, “When you take someone's territory and in this particular case, one of our key clients, and it's been not only our key client for the team, but also for the company.” Specifically:  We all had working relationships, as well as outside relationships. Every holiday, my clients always got a basket, and a card. This particular client, because I sew, would always get something custom-made. I would always say it's from "us." Because one person paid for the fabric, etc., and then I did the work. It's hard to 396   infiltrate that. You've got a relationship with the client that is more than just a working relationship. So, you have to be very creative.  Participant A017 said, “When the destructive leader struck, she said that the client called her and said that she really doesn’t want to work with the participant anymore. She would rather work with someone else.” Participant A017 responded: I said, maybe I should call him and apologize. The destructive leader responded, “Oh, no, no, I’m just going to switch the territories off. And you, you know how they are. We’re just got to keep them happy.” Participant A017 resigned from this consulting position. The participants said: There are times when I feel the disruptive leader won. I gave up all I worked for, and I had to start over. I regret not sharing my discomfort and events. Why was I silent? I lost my life. Having to explain to others why I quit. I have asked myself, why did no one try to save me and ask me not to leave? Was I the target of the system and the destructive leader was following directives using their own methods?  Structural Description of Participant A018 Participant A018 stated: "It was almost immediate that this new Lieutenant Commander, the destructive leader, took some issue with me and several of the other chiefs.” A018 continued:  First, when he got there, I had my own office......to do counseling, for disciplinary reasons, you have to have privacy. I had training records for those who reported directly to me and other records that I maintained in my office space. He felt I did 397   not need my office because I was enlisted. He was like, you're enlisted just like they are. He said, “I'm the only one that needs a private office. If we both have offices, then that makes you equal to me.” Participant A018 went on to say: The senior enlisted person for the reservist and I worked very closely together. He told me that I needed to go through this Reserve Chief, a white female, for anything that I needed to do or any requests that I had rather than go directly to him. He and I worked together, side by side, every day. The Reserve Chief was only one weekend a month. Participant A018 continued:  When he asked me to do something that I knew was out of order or unethical. I flat out said, "Sir, I'm not doing that". I was also the physical fitness coordinator. We are required to do a physical fitness test every year. I was the one responsible for doing PT three times a week. The Lieutenant Commander’s good friend was up for evaluation. For this person's evaluation, I had to give the recommendation for their physical readiness, and I said fail. So, my boss said to me, "Are you sure he failed?” I said, sir, you can look at him and tell him he failed. Well, you know, he's up for promotion, and if he doesn't pass, then he won't be promoted. So, are you sure he failed? I said, sir, again. Yes, he's failed.  A018 said :  So, it was hell after that. It's like this destructive leader was trying to get me to do something unethical or criminal. Now that I said no, now I could tell that he was 398   starting to think well, is she going to report me? Is she going to turn me in? I wasn't thinking about doing that, but I let him know that I'm not willing to do anything unethical for you or anybody else. So yeah, it got worse after that. When it was time for me to take leave or take vacation and it was never okay.  Participant A018 continued with her destructive leadership encounter. She said:   He gave me a performance evaluation and attempted to rate me below average and then he tried to justify it. He said, "Chief you're doing a great job, running the office, but there are some deficiencies.” I received an award for sailor performance. So how can I be below average within the same 12 months that I received an award for sailor performance. This destructive leader’s vengeance was being revealed. The participant said:  So, I'm starting to put two and two together. He kept me from being promoted like I kept his friend from getting a promotion. The next year I was eligible for the next senior rank and so this evaluation would have accompanied all of the information and the paperwork required for me for the next year, which would have been my 19th.  Participant A018 continued: I appealed the evaluation, and it was overturned. They checked to see if there were any previous deficiencies. I had my award for sailor performance submitted with my grievance. I brought up the point, if there was an issue, why was it not addressed before my annual performance evaluation? So, that was the justification for it being overturned. 399   Finally, Participant A018 said: So fast forward, a list came out because senior enlisted were having to rotate to different areas like Afghanistan and places like that. My name came up and I was the second person on the list. I knew I wasn’t going we had….young kids at home. He (Lieutenant Commander) almost looked like he was happy about it. He was like, well, the only way around it is if you retire. At the time I was eligible for retirement, but he didn’t know I was eligible. I got my packet together and had to give it to him for him to sign off on for my retirement, and there was nothing he could do because I was always in my time frame where I was eligible. There is a look on his face; he was like, what? Yes, sir. Like I told you, I’m not going to Afghanistan, I’m retiring. I would’ve done 25 to 30 years, but it was because of that experience with him that I was like, nah, it’s time to go.   Structural Description of Participant A019 Participant A019 said, in the first example, it was the behavior of the leader that was my immediate supervisor. A019 continued with:  Usually, they tell you what the goals are from the beginning. And when you were marching to execute those goals, either he might have misunderstood them from larger leadership, or he was changing the goals on his own. And what he would do is say that we were not, and when I say we, it’s a project team, so it's not just only me that we were not following the goals as outlined. Participant A019 went on to say:  400   They were defined, they were written down. Part of a project charter, we write them down. Everyone agrees. However, they might not have aligned with the organization's strategic vision. So, it could have been one of his pet projects. I think I reported to him for about close to 2 years. And it was a reporting structure that was at first a dotted line, which means that I was his project manager. And then the reporting structure changed, and then I was directly reporting to him, which then made the situation a little bit worse. Participant A019 went on to tell of a second instance of destructive leadership when she was supporting a leader that they needed to create a proposal. The Participant said:  If you want, I can write it. I can write a draft for you, kind of like to get it started, His comment was, “Oh, you know how to write?” I told my manager who is black, a black male. And then he says, "oh, why did you listen to him"? The comment should have affected you. Structural Description of Participant A020 Participant A020 was an Art teacher at a middle school in the southern part of United States. The participant felt that teachers were forced to change their tactics, lose their voices, and compromise their beliefs to keep their jobs, because they have mortgages, they have a life, and they want their pensions. This participant said, “I clearly remember asking a black male administrator, if he saw what they're doing? He said, ‘Yes, but I have a mortgage and I'm about to propose to my girlfriend.’” Participant A020 went on to say: 401   Weed was in our school. So, whenever I smelled it….. if a child was smoking in the bathroom, the administration had to come up there. They have to go find a bathroom because the vent system allowed it to go into many rooms. I would call the principal, and she would come up, check the bathrooms around where I was. If she didn't find anything, then she’d go back to the office. Participant A020 said, “They could never find where the smell was coming from. Unbeknownst to me, my student had it on him. She continued explaining: I would open the back door with my blinds and my window open, so that I would never lose sight of them. There was a patio right in front of my door and they could go in and outside and work when it was warm. This was one of the things that I think they love most about my class, the individualism, to draw outside.  Apparently, this child had marijuana on him. According to Participant A020, “I smelled it. I didn't see anything. It was just like the other seven times, I smelled it. A new student said some kids were smoking outside.” The participant called it into the office. She said:  We had an officer in the building and my assistant principal was right next door, but you can't leave your room and the children alone to go anywhere. I used the phone to call it in, but no one answered and then the bell rang. They came to me and told me that I did not monitor my children well and I needed to pack my stuff and go down to human resources. "We have it on video. I got to human resources, then they've got all the paperwork already signed and decided, "We're letting you go." So apparently someone stole the child's weed. He had gotten into a fight. 402   They found out that this student had drugs in the school, and failed to share that information with me or any of his teachers. No investigation. I was told, “We have two students who said that there was smoking outside and ‘You didn't do anything about it.’” I said, “There was no smoking outside.” “Well, we have a video.” My new principal, for whom English was a second language and still used verbs and nouns improperly said, “I don't understand what you're saying.” They basically told me to sign the papers.   403   Appendix F : Permissions to Use Copyrighted Information Table 1 Case Study  This is a License Agreement between Angela Etson (“User”) and Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (“CCC”) on behalf of the Rightsholder identified in the order details below. The license consists of the order details, the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below, and any Rightsholder Terms and Conditions which are included below. All payments must be made in full to CCC in accordance with the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below. Order Date 18-Mar-2024 Order License ID 1461548-2 ISBN-13 9781804553732 Type of Use Republish in a thesis/dissertation Publisher Emerald Publishing Limited Portion Excerpt (up to 400 words) LICENSED CONTENT Publication Title Festschrift in Honour of Kathy Charmaz Article Title Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Date 11/14/2022 Language English Country United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Rightsholder Emerald Publishing Limited Publication Type Book Start Page 69 End Page 87 404   REQUEST DETAILS Portion Type Excerpt (up to 400 words) Number of Excerpts 1 Format (select all that apply) Print, Electronic Who Will Republish the Content? Author of requested content Duration of Use Life of current edition Lifetime Unit Quantity Up to 499 Rights Requested Main product Distribution Worldwide Translation Original language of publication Copies for the Disabled? No Minor Editing Privileges? No Incidental Promotional Use? No Currency USD NEW WORK DETAILS Title Destructive Leadership: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences Instructor Name Dr. Robert Levasseur Institution Name Walden University Expected Presentation Date 2024-08-15 ADDITIONAL DETAILS Order Reference Number N/A The Requesting Person / Organization to Appear on the License Angela Etson REQUESTED CONTENT DETAILS 405   Title, Description or Numeric Reference of the Portion(s) Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Editor of Portion(s) Hadley, Gregory Volume / Edition Vol. 56 Page or Page Range of Portion 69-87 Title of the Article / Chapter the Portion Is From Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Author of Portion(s) Hadley, Gregory Issue, if Republishing an Article From a Serial N/A Publication Date of Portion 2022-11-14     Grounded Theory  This is a License Agreement between Angela Etson (“User”) and Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (“CCC”) on behalf of the Rightsholder identified in the order details below. The license consists of the order details, the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below, and any Rightsholder Terms and Conditions which are included below. All payments must be made in full to CCC in accordance with the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below. Order Date 18-Mar-2024 Order License ID 1461548-2 ISBN-13 9781804553732 Type of Use Republish in a thesis/dissertation Publisher Emerald Publishing Limited Portion Excerpt (up to 400 words) LICENSED CONTENT Publication Title Festschrift in Honour of Kathy Charmaz 406   Article Title Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Date 11/14/2022 Language English Country United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Rightsholder Emerald Publishing Limited Publication Type Book Start Page 69 End Page 87 REQUEST DETAILS Portion Type Excerpt (up to 400 words) Number of Excerpts 1 Format (select all that apply) Print, Electronic Who Will Republish the Content? Author of requested content Duration of Use Life of current edition Lifetime Unit Quantity Up to 499 Rights Requested Main product Distribution Worldwide Translation Original language of publication Copies for the Disabled? No Minor Editing Privileges? No Incidental Promotional Use? No Currency USD 407   NEW WORK DETAILS Title Destructive Leadership: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences Instructor Name Dr. Robert Levasseur Institution Name Walden University Expected Presentation Date 2024-08-15 ADDITIONAL DETAILS Order Reference Number N/A The Requesting Person / Organization to Appear on the License Angela Etson REQUESTED CONTENT DETAILS Title, Description or Numeric Reference of the Portion(s) Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Editor of Portion(s) Hadley, Gregory Volume / Edition Vol. 56 Page or Page Range of Portion 69-87 Title of the Article / Chapter the Portion Is From Kathy Charmaz and Critical Grounded Theory: Memories, Reflections, and Contributions Author of Portion(s) Hadley, Gregory Issue, if Republishing an Article From a Serial N/A Publication Date of Portion 2022-11-14         Figure 2  408   This is a License Agreement between Angela E. C. Etson (“User”) and Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (“CCC”) on behalf of the Rightsholder identified in the order details below. The license consists of the order details, the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below, and any Rightsholder Terms and Conditions which are included below. All payments must be made in full to CCC in accordance with the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below. Order Date 08-Mar-2024 Order License ID 1459087-1 ISSN 1930-3807 Type of Use Republish in a thesis/dissertation Publisher ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT Portion Chart/graph/table/figure LICENSED CONTENT Publication Title The Academy of Management review Article Title EXPLAINING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS. Author/Editor Academy of Management. Date 01/01/1976 Language English Country United States of America Rightsholder Academy of Management (NY) Publication Type e-Journal Start Page 510 End Page 540 Issue 3 Volume 20 409   REQUEST DETAILS Portion Type Chart/graph/table/figure Number of Charts / Graphs / Tables / Figures Requested 1 Format (select all that apply) Print, Electronic Who Will Republish the Content? Author of requested content Duration of Use Life of current edition Lifetime Unit Quantity Up to 499 Rights Requested Main product, any product related to main product, and other compilations/derivative products Distribution Worldwide Translation Original language of publication Copies for the Disabled? No Minor Editing Privileges? No Incidental Promotional Use? No Currency USD NEW WORK DETAILS Title Destructive Leadership: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences Instructor Name Dr. Robert Levasseur Institution Name Walden University Expected Presentation Date 2024-08-15 ADDITIONAL DETAILS Order Reference Number N/A The Requesting Person / Organization to Appear on the License Angela E. C. Etson 410   REQUESTED CONTENT DETAILS Title, Description or Numeric Reference of the Portion(s) Process Models of Organizational Change Editor of Portion(s) Van De, A. H.; Poole, M. S. Volume / Edition 20 Page or Page Range of Portion 510-540 Title of the Article / Chapter the Portion Is From EXPLAINING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS. Author of Portion(s) Van De, A. H.; Poole, M. S. Issue, if Republishing an Article From a Serial 3 Publication Date of Portion 1995-07-01   Figure 3  This is a License Agreement between Angela Etson (“User”) and Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (“CCC”) on behalf of the Rightsholder identified in the order details below. The license consists of the order details, the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below, and any Rightsholder Terms and Conditions which are included below. All payments must be made in full to CCC in accordance with the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below. Order Date 18-Mar-2024 Order License ID 1461548-1 ISSN 0363-7425 Type of Use Republish in a thesis/dissertation Publisher ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT. Portion Chart/graph/table/figure LICENSED CONTENT Publication Title The Academy of Management review 411   Article Title INSTITUTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS, PRAXIS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: A DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE. Date 01/01/1976 Language English Country United States of America Rightsholder Academy of Management (NY) Publication Type Journal Start Page 222 End Page 247 Issue 2 Volume 27 URL https://journals.aom.org/loi/amr REQUEST DETAILS Portion Type Chart/graph/table/figure Number of Charts / Graphs / Tables / Figures Requested 1 Format (select all that apply) Print Who Will Republish the Content? Author of requested content Duration of Use Life of current edition Lifetime Unit Quantity Up to 14,999 Rights Requested Main product, any product related to main product, and other compilations/derivative products Distribution Worldwide Translation Original language of publication Copies for the Disabled? 412   No Minor Editing Privileges? Yes Incidental Promotional Use? No Currency USD NEW WORK DETAILS Title Destructive Leadership: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences Instructor Name Dr. Robert Levasseur Institution Name Walden University Expected Presentation Date 2024-08-15 ADDITIONAL DETAILS Order Reference Number N/A The Requesting Person / Organization to Appear on the License Angela Etson REQUESTED CONTENT DETAILS Title, Description or Numeric Reference of the Portion(s) Institutionalization and Institutional Change: Processes from a Dialectical Perspective Editor of Portion(s) Seo, M.-G.; Creed, W. E. D. Volume / Edition 27 Page or Page Range of Portion 222-247 Title of the Article / Chapter the Portion Is From INSTITUTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS, PRAXIS, AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: A DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE. Author of Portion(s) Seo, M.-G.; Creed, W. E. D. Issue, if Republishing an Article From a Serial 2 Publication Date of Portion 2002-04-01    413   Figure 4    This is a License Agreement between Angela Etson (“User”) and Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (“CCC”) on behalf of the Rightsholder identified in the order details below. The license consists of the order details, the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below, and any Rightsholder Terms and Conditions which are included below. All payments must be made in full to CCC in accordance with the Marketplace Permissions General Terms and Conditions below. Order Date 13-Mar-2024 Order License ID 1460974-1 ISBN-13 9780787903626 Type of Use Republish in a thesis/dissertation Publisher JOHN WILEY & SONS, INCORPORATED Portion Chart/graph/table/figure LICENSED CONTENT Publication Title Organizational culture and leadership / by Edgar H. Schein Author/Editor SCHEIN, EDGAR H., Schein Date 01/01/1996 Language English Country United States of America Rightsholder John Wiley & Sons - Books Publication Type Book REQUEST DETAILS Portion Type Chart/graph/table/figure Number of Charts / Graphs / Tables / Figures Requested 414   1 Format (select all that apply) Print Who Will Republish the Content? Academic institution Duration of Use Life of current and all future editions Lifetime Unit Quantity Up to 14,999 Rights Requested Main product, any product related to main product, and other compilations/derivative products Distribution Worldwide Translation Original language of publication Copies for the Disabled? No Minor Editing Privileges? Yes Incidental Promotional Use? No Currency USD NEW WORK DETAILS Title Destructive Leadership: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences Instructor Name Dr. Robert Levasseur Institution Name Walden University Expected Presentation Date 2024-08-15 ADDITIONAL DETAILS The Requesting Person / Organization to Appear on the License Angela Etson REQUESTED CONTENT DETAILS Title, Description or Numeric Reference of the Portion(s) Organizational Culture Model by Schein (1985) Editor of Portion(s) N/A Volume / Edition 2 415   Page or Page Range of Portion 4 Title of the Article / Chapter the Portion Is From Organizational Culture and Leadership Author of Portion(s) SCHEIN, EDGAR H.; Schein Publication Date of Portion 1996-01-01

Clean Full Text

Language

Doi

Arxiv

Mag

Acl

Pmid

Pmcid

Pub Date

Pub Year

Journal Name

Journal Volume

Journal Page

Publication Types

Tldr

Tldr Version

Generated Tldr

Search Term Used

Reference Count

Citation Count

Influential Citation Count

Last Update

Status

Aws Job

Last Checked

Modified

Created