Employee Perspectives Regarding Responses to Toxic Leadership in the Modern Workplace: A Q Methodological Study

Currently, in the United States, four generations with four very different cultural norms are working in the workplace simultaneously. These four generations include Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, Millennials, and Generation Zers. The four generations working in the workplace at the same time may have different beliefs as to how they respond to toxic leaders. Consequently, some responses may promote toxic leadership to flourish, and other responses may suppress toxic leadership, including workplace bullying. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the range of perceptions regarding employee responses to toxic leadership in the modern workplace. As a result, this research asked employees how they tend to respond to toxic leaders and then analyzed to what extent do participant characteristics inform differing viewpoints. The toxic triangle was applied as a lens to understand the interplay between toxic leaders, a conducive environment, and followers. Specifically, this study extended followership by investigating unsusceptible followers and susceptible followers. This study employed the methods and techniques of Q methodology to illustrate the subjective viewpoints of 31 employees who worked in the United States. Using a forced distribution, participants sorted 41 statements ranging from ?most uncharacteristic? to ?most characteristic? according to their beliefs about how they would respond to toxic leadership. Additional qualitative data collected post Q sort and via interviews assisted with interpretation. Findings from this Q study demonstrated three distinct emergent viewpoints: Suffer in Silence (Viewpoint 1), Confront and Advocate (Viewpoint 2), and Quiet yet Concerned (Viewpoint 3). In addition, differences were noted among the three viewpoints and participants? generational identity, toxic leadership exposure, and education. Overall, this study found that susceptible follower beliefs are consistent with those in Viewpoints 1 and 3, whereas unsusceptible follower beliefs existed in Viewpoint 2. Lastly, practical implications and recommendations for future research are presented