Action Needed: Examining the Detrimental Side Effects of Toxic Leadership in Public Education pt. 5

  This episode covers the discussion points regarding Dr. Johnson's findings as a result of his interviews with the various participants including the implications and ramifications of Toxic Leadership in Public Ed.   The primary goal of this study was to enhance comprehension of the adverse impacts of toxic leadership on educational personnel and the subsequent series of consequences. The researcher employed the method of 'thick description' (Hong & Cross Francis, 2020; Ponterotto, 2006) by conducting a series of open-ended interviews with six participants who self-identified as having encountered toxic leadership during their employment at a primary or secondary public education institution. This approach allowed for a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the participants' lived experiences. As mentioned in the literature review, meta-analytical study has provided substantiation for the correlation between toxic leadership and several negative outcomes, such as diminished well-being, reduced organizational commitment, negative follower attitudes towards the leader, decreased job satisfaction, increased turnover intention, heightened stress levels, elevated workplace deviance, and impaired job performance (Haider et al., 2018; McCleskey, 2013; Odhiambo, 2022). The correlation between toxic leadership and the previously mentioned negative outcomes was shown during the analysis of the interview transcripts of the six participants. The terminology spoken by the participants suggested an unfavorable and discontented work atmosphere characterized by diminished morale, an absence of trust, and a lack of job satisfaction. The analysis of the data revealed a variety of harmful behaviors associated with toxic leadership, such as counterproductive work actions, social exclusion, egocentrism, bullying, and intimidation (Balasundaram, 2016; Burns, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2021; Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020; Snow et al., 2021). The participants characterized the toxic leader as someone with authoritarian tendencies, showing narcissistic traits and engaging in unpredictable autocratic behaviors, as well as micromanaging supervision. Discussion Research Sub-Question One The research question asked, 'How do educators and support staff describe toxic leadership practice and its impacts in the arena of public education?' In pursuit of the goals of this research, consideration was given to the two sub-questions. The first sub-question asked, 'What are the effects of destructive or toxic leadership on employee turnover, morale, and job performance in public education institutions?' The discussion section of this chapter will cover the three distinct categories found in sub-question one. Employee Turnover Data analysis of the six participants' transcripts, as seen in Figure 1, revealed correlations with hegemonic culture, abusive conduct, and bullying, which are significant factors related to employee turnover. P1 stated, "If you're in an environment where there is a lack of motivation, which is a key sign because it's usually not the employees; employees don't leave bad jobs; they leave bad leaders. So, as a whole, this is a toxic environment. I chose to leave it after I realized that I couldn't be beneficial to anyone there anymore. And others chose to do the same a little later; it took them a little longer, but others chose to go their own way as well, or they were forced out." Figure 1 – Employee Turnover & Childcodes Frequency   Employee Turnover & Childcodes Frequency         P1's decision, and ensuing colleagues' decisions to leave the toxic environment after realizing they could no longer contribute positively serves as an example of employees taking control of their own career paths in response to unfavorable work conditions. Ultimately, addressing issues such as toxic leadership and hostile work environments is crucial in reducing employee turnover and creating a more positive and productive workplace. P3 further supported P1's statement in this transcript excerpt, "We had gone through several teachers. You know, the turnover got to where somebody would quite often resign, and these were pretty good-paying jobs. So initially, I was surprised, but I understood why when people would leave. We had usually talked, and I tried to keep a pretty good relationship with everybody. We let each other know what we were going through and it was, I'll just say it was rough." Concurrently, P4 commented, "I had decided and put in my letter of resignation. I just felt like it was time for me to move on. It had just become too negative for me and I was also at a point where I was ready to be away from that environment. I just couldn't do it anymore," while P5 provided a single comment, "There's always turnover." P6 echoed the statements from other participants, "Well, there were some that ended up quitting, moved on elsewhere because they couldn't take it anymore." The literature review revealed that there exists a positive correlation between toxic leadership and employee turnover and stress, while a negative correlation is observed between toxic leadership and organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Balasundaram, 2016; Baskan, 2020; Kasalak, 2019; Khumalo, 2019; Rahmani et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021; Snow et al., 2021). Employees working with toxic leaders often feel they have only two options: conform or leave (Balasundaram, 2016; Baskan, 2020; Kasalak, 2019; Khumalo, 2019; Rahmani et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021; Snow et al., 2021).   Morale The discussion participants shared regarding the degradation of morale in the workplace brought statements such as what P6 had to say, "Talking badly about other employees right in front of you would be toxic and spread that negative energy. The constant micromanaging, having a staff meeting, you are constantly getting the boss just poking at one staff member, never encouraging them with "you're doing a good job." No, it's just constantly negative, negative, negative, negative all the time. I mean, that's toxic, and it spreads to the workforce and makes people not want to come to work. The morale in the workplace just completely faltered. Either people start quitting because they just can't stand the toxic behavior anymore or you have those that can't quit because they have a family to support. Eventually, it can either cause PTSD for employees, it can cause anxiety, it can cause stress, or it can cause work morale to decrease." The literature review evidences P6 statements. For example, in a school district, a toxic leader may constantly belittle and intimidate their teaching staff, creating a hostile work environment that affects teacher morale and, ultimately, students' learning experience (Orunbon, 2020).   Figure 2 – Low Morale & Childcodes Frequency   Low Morale & Childcodes Frequency     P3 relayed, "Our morale seemed to go down and it was like we didn't care because no matter what we felt like was the best, we wouldn't get to voice our opinion. The principal was going to do whatever she wanted. I dreaded coming to work after that because you never knew what was going to happen," while P2 conveyed, "Morale? It went down. We could not meet together. We could not be one on one. She would be watching us on the camera and then talk about our conversation. We should have a right to have an opinion that may or may not agree with hers. 'But if you're not for me, you're against me.' I thought, 'No, I'm not against you. I'm against the way I'm being treated. I'm against the way everybody's being treated. It's not right'." P4 added, "The joy was depleted. The joy was gone. People were unhappy but just trying to keep their jobs. People didn't really want to work for her, but they had to because they needed their jobs. So, it was kind of a forced effort, but we just weren't enjoying our jobs anymore." The transcript collected from P5 expressed the detrimental effects of the decreased morale, "The morale got very low at times. Some colleagues would come into my room just to talk. It got to where we were each other's psychologists. My morale got really bad. I felt myself getting depressed and didn't know why I was putting on a lot of weight. I didn't think I was eating that much, but I think a lot of it was job-related stress and a toxic hostile work environment." Physiological impacts encompass alterations in blood pressure or cholesterol levels, augmented muscle tension, and heightened perception of the surroundings (Khumalo, 2019; Odhiambo, 2022; Rahmani et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021; Winn & Dykes, 2019). Other physical symptoms, like hypertension, ulcers, and headaches, are common due to the stress caused by toxic leadership (Balasundaram, 2016; Burns, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2021; Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020; Snow et al., 2021). Psychological problems such as irritability, anxiety, anger, lack of concentration, depression, and memory loss are also common. The literature review and the data analysis of the transcripts as seen in Figure 2 confirms the participants' viewpoints and lived experiences. Abusive or toxic administrators use harsh and malicious influence tactics, leading to a decline in morale, motivation, and self-esteem among their constituents (Haider et al., 2018; McCleskey, 2013; Milosevic et al., 2019; Odhiambo, 2022). Consequently, toxic leaders have a detrimental impact on morale, productivity, and organizational effectiveness, yet there is still a lack of understanding in handling them (Çetin & Türkmenoğlu, 2017; Karthikeyan, 2019; Kasalak, 2019; Rasheed et al., 2021; Winn & Dykes, 2019). Destructive leadership harms both individuals and the school district by stifling enthusiasm, creativity, autonomy, and innovative expression through excessive control (Çetin & Türkmenoğlu, 2017; Karthikeyan, 2019; Kasalak, 2019; Rasheed et al., 2021; Winn & Dykes, 2019). Furthermore, toxic leadership behaviors, such as micromanagement and bullying, have been found to create a toxic work environment that negatively affects employee morale and productivity (Haider et al., 2018; Karthikeyan, 2019; Rasheed et al., 2021; Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). Job Performance According to the literature review, when education staff are subjected to abusive behavior from their leaders, they are more likely to experience feelings of anxiety, stress, and low job satisfaction. This can lead to decreased motivation and productivity, which can have a negative impact on student outcomes (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013; Rahmani et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021). P1 relayed a more buoyant attitude, "I'm resilient. So I did my job anyway. But it was hard because it was like a roadblock in the way. And every time I did something I had to run over or go through a roadblock. So, it was difficult, to say the least, to do anything. But I did it anyway. I owed that to my kids. Not to her." P2 experienced direct interference with job performance, "I always watched the door and window in the mirror to see if she was in the room or the building or coming down the hall. I thought I was always doing what I was supposed to be doing, but I shouldn't have to worry about whether she was there or not. She should be able to come into my room, and things continue like they're supposed to, but she would come in and stop the class. 'You need to come over here right now and do this right now.' So she didn't want me to teach; she wanted whatever she thought needed to be done executed her way and immediately." The literature review discovered that certain leaders acted subversively, prioritizing their own interests over those of their workers. This realization challenged the traditional view of leadership (Baskan, 2020; Green, 2014; Winn & Dykes, 2019). Figure 3 – Job Performance & Childcodes Frequency   Job Performance & Childcodes Frequency     P3 further confirmed a decrease in productivity stating, "Well, just from, just from those experiences of being watched closely and knowing that I was being watched and knowing that I was being evaluated at all times and never really receiving any positive reinforcement. It made my job performance drop because I was so leery of making a mistake that I didn't want to go out and try anything new or take any chances." Direct relation to the literature review revealed education personnel who encounter toxic leadership may experience a sense of powerlessness, diminished independence, decreased levels of job satisfaction, and encounter psychosomatic issues such as anxiety and melancholy (Balasundaram, 2016; Burns, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2021; Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020; Snow et al., 2021). P4 expressed, "I shut down a little bit, and I lost my passion for what I was doing, and I just was going through the motions and definitely felt a sense of depression and anxiety, just was always scared of what, what she was going to say next. And it almost felt like, what is that word where you just felt like you could never please them? So it's almost like you didn't try as hard to please the boss because you felt like there was nothing you could do good enough. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy." Psychological problems such as irritability, anxiety, anger, lack of concentration, depression, and memory loss are also common. The root causes of abusive supervision encompass factors such as negative affect, perceived violation of psychological contract, and organizational unfairness (Burns, 2017; (Khumalo, 2019; Odhiambo, 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021; Winn & Dykes, 2019) according to the literature review. The experience of trauma could potentially provide adverse consequences for an organization's effectiveness, culture, and productivity in general (Khumalo, 2019; Odhiambo, 2022; Rahmani et al., 2022; Rasheed et al., 2021; Winn & Dykes, 2019). Finally, P6 experienced a dichotomy between personal ethics and emotional stress, "Well, honestly, I tried to give as much as I could because, at the end of the day, it wasn't about me. I tried to put my feelings aside. Even though I would be upset and not even want to show up, I still tried to give 110% for those kids. I still tried to make the best effort I could. But sometimes, I wouldn't do certain things because I would get in trouble. We used to do X, but we kept getting in trouble even though that's what we were told to do, so we had to change things up, which was stressful. I had to keep reminding myself it was for the kids. My heart is for these kids, but I got so overwhelmed many days from trying to do my job by trying to do the special education teacher's job as well because she had too much workload. It was just exhausting. Then you get in trouble left and right for doing what you're told to do. But there were some days when I would want to throw my hands up and say I'm done; I'm done for the day. That's the mentality a lot of us started getting toward work. 'What did you hire me for? If you can't trust me to do my job? What, what's the point? I give 110%. Still, get my ass chewed.' So sometimes my work ethic is that I work as hard as possible for as long as possible. But there were some days my work ethics were like done." In correlation with the data collected from P6, the literature review reinforces how complex destructive leadership involves damaging actions that affect productivity and workplace attitudes. It can show as a development plateau, demotion, termination, or sudden failure to meet district goals. Understanding the concept of derailment causes and determinants in the context of toxic leadership in public education helps researchers prevent it. Derailment studies have examined destructive leaders' behaviors, likelihood, personality qualities, and organizational failure as a unique phenomenon (Haider et al., 2018; McCleskey, 2013; Odhiambo, 2022). Further support for the participants viewpoints in correlation to the literature review can be noted in Figure 3. Research Sub-Question Two The research question asked, 'How do educators and support staff describe toxic leadership practice and its impacts in the arena of public education?' In pursuit of the objectives of this research, consideration was given to the two sub-questions. The second sub-question asked, 'What strategies do participants offer to address destructive or toxic leadership in public education institutions?' This discussion section of this chapter will cover the various participant perceptions identified by asking sub-question two. It is crucial to recognize that a positive work environment plays a vital role in promoting growth and learning for all students. This directly links the instructional delivery by teachers and support staff to student outcomes. In the context of education, the culture of a school plays a vital role in figuring out its level of success. Effective schools are often linked to factors such as school climate, leadership, and quality instruction (Detsky, 2011). The overall morale within a building is influenced by a positive school climate. Administrators who are effective recognize the connection between school climate and morale (Detsky, 2011). Achieving job satisfaction and keeping high-quality educators are outcomes of their diligent efforts to ensure that their leadership cultivates a positive school climate and boosts teacher morale (Detsky, 2011). When individuals in the education field feel supported and appreciated, they are more likely to actively cultivate positive connections with students and deliver instruction that yields favorable results. P1 offered suggestions in alignment with the literature, "The two biggest things are training in identification measures in conjunction with how to deal with it, and that it's ok to report it. Because too many people are afraid to report it because the next person up is probably the same way. That's usually why they are like that. And training methods on other ways to report it other than within their chain, because if it's happening within their chain, there are other ways to report it. And then I'd say empowering your people, you know, letting them have that opportunity and that chance to do that, you know, a little bit of freedom in the micromanagement section." While accountability was echoed by P2, the participant offered a different viewpoint of the suggestion, "There has to be more accountability for the people [board members and superintendent] who are hiring the bosses [principals]." Parallel to the perspective of P2, P3 stated, "Accountability. She really didn't have anybody over her; even though there was a superintendent, that superintendent had no idea what was going on. I always follow the chain of command, but the chain should have gone higher, and people should have been watching who would hold her accountable for the way she ran the program. I don't know if she was ever evaluated. But as far as I know, there were no repercussions for anything that she did." The suggested measures to resolve the issues involved in a school administrated by a toxic leader brought forth by P4 concur, "I definitely think it should be taken seriously. It should be a priority. I think there should be accountability. You should be able to write a report, and that report should go to the top, like the superintendent, and the superintendent should then be required to talk with that principal. Because those relationships in the work environment at schools can be dangerous if they are getting to the point of being toxic. It can affect students. I would say it does because the way the teacher feels and acts—you know, based on how they are feeling stressed, overwhelmed, or negative—definitely affects how they teach and how they come across to the students." The literature discusses the idea of positive leadership and how it can positively impact the overall morale and performance of the education staff. Creating a supportive and collaborative environment where teachers feel valued and empowered is essential for effective leadership. This style of leadership fosters an environment that promotes innovation, professional development, and a powerful sense of purpose among the team, resulting in enhanced student achievements. In addition, leaders who have a positive approach create an environment of trust and open communication. This kind of atmosphere promotes teamwork and enables effective problem-solving. Stories of effective leadership often showcase individuals who have the ability to uplift and motivate their team members, encouraging them to reach their objectives (Karthikeyan, 2019). Additional research indicates that the behavior of teachers and the overall performance of schools are greatly impacted by school leadership (Cetin & Türkmenoğlu, 2017; Khumalo, 2019; Klahn, 2023; Mahlangu, 2020). Effective leadership plays a crucial role in the socio-cultural contexts of schools and is widely recognized as the driving force behind achieving organizational goals. Numerous studies have highlighted the significance of strong leadership in this regard (Cetin & Türkmenoğlu, 2017; Khumalo, 2019; Klahn, 2023; Mahlangu, 2020). Effective school leadership cannot be emphasized enough to ensure the success of schools and the smooth implementation of educational programs. P5 offered, "The bosses or supervisors of our supervisors themselves, who create the toxic environment, should not ignore the situation, or think that person's just perfect. You know, a lot of times these people who are toxic—I do not know if I can say this in this interview, but I'm going to anyway—are narcissistic people a lot of the time. Leaders and supervisors always have an excuse instead of addressing the issue, and that's one thing I would want. As I said, for them to address this issue, they would not take people's feelings, opinions, and concerns lightly. But for them to listen instead of disregarding or dismissing them." Finally, P6 suggested, "I really feel like toxic leaders should have leadership classes at least twice a year. I feel like that would benefit them. I think that if they have too much on their plate, they need to take a step back. They need to ask for help, but they need to do it the right way. I prayed a lot for my bosses and for the people who were over me because I knew it was a lot to have to deal with. I know it was a lot of stress on their part too. But whenever you are a leader, you have to be a team leader. You must get your hands dirty too. You must get in there. You must trust; you have to build that relationship, or the whole thing is going to crumble if you don't have trust and you can't work with your staff as a leader." These words convey a sense of teamwork, empowerment, accountability, and constructive feedback in a supportive and collaborative environment. Furthermore, the literature review highlighted the statements of P6. Effective leadership has a crucial role in fostering team stability and motivation, but ineffective leadership can engender sentiments of exclusion and bewilderment, finally resulting in the dissolution of the team (Karthikeyan, 2019). Limitations of the Study This qualitative phenomenological research set out to investigate the ripple effects of toxic or destructive leadership on public school systems, and it succeeded in doing so. In addition, the researcher hopes to illuminate the public-school system's shadow by identifying solutions to address the consequences of toxic leadership, including staff attrition, morale, and work performance. Beyond the main purpose, the limitations, strengths, weaknesses, credibility, and generalizability must be examined in a transparent and exhaustive manner. Limitations There are several limitations associated with using a qualitative phenomenological research method, namely utilizing a purposeful convenience sample of teachers and education staff who have experienced toxic or destructive leadership. An inherent limitation is the potential for participants to possess biased or distorted viewpoints. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that the findings of this research may not be applicable to larger populations or other contexts. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that people may have hesitancy in sharing their genuine experiences or hold limited memories of certain occurrences. Nevertheless, this specific technique aims to thoroughly analyze toxic leadership's impacts on those affected, thereby making substantial contributions to future research and potential remedies.     Strengths and Weaknesses The strengths of this present research are based on well-established frameworks and methodologies that have been proven effective over time. These include theories such as Rawl's Theory of Social Justice and Critical Leadership Theory, as well as the use of qualitative phenomenology to uncover fresh insights. This researcher had the opportunity to delve into the firsthand experiences of six individuals who endured the negative impact of a toxic leader for an extended period of time. By conducting extensive interviews and analyzing themes, the researcher discovered the profound impact of damaging leadership on individuals within an organization, both emotionally and psychologically. The findings highlight the significance of ethical and transformational leadership practices in fostering a positive and supportive work environment. This study provides a significant addition to the current body of knowledge on leadership and organizational behavior, offering valuable insights for both researchers and professionals in the field. Conversely, the limitations and delimitations discussed earlier in Chapter 1 of this current study highlight the study's flaws. Specifically, the findings have a limited ability to be applied to other states throughout the country that may have different demographic characteristics. In addition, the study did not consider factors such as the quality of teachers, their level of experience, degree level, and tenure. However, it is possible that these variables could have influenced the findings if they had been considered. In general, the study's conclusions may not be relevant to every school and area because of these limitations. Considering these factors in future research is crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Although there are some weaknesses, the study offers valuable insights and serves as a basis for future research on the relationship between toxic leadership in public education and its effects on education staff. Credibility and Generalizability The research findings accurately reflect the perspectives and real-life experiences of the six education staff members who were interviewed. The participant group consisted of education staff who had earlier encounters with toxic public education leadership but no longer employed by a public education institution through a purposive convenience sampling. The primary emphasis of phenomenological research lies in capturing the individual's firsthand experiences and articulating findings in a manner that faithfully reflects their lived reality (Christensen et al., 2014; Leedy & Ormrod, 2021; Rudestam & Newton, 2015). The participants' specific phrases were meticulously documented to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding the phenomenon of toxic leadership and of the detrimental effects of leadership characterized by toxicity. These phrases vividly depict their personal encounters and lived experiences. Steps were implemented to enhance credibility, including ensuring clarity in interview instrument responses, meticulously reviewing the transcripts for accuracy, and engaging an impartial expert educator to code the data without any bias. The results obtained from this study can be considered applicable to education staff working under the conditions of toxic leadership, as described by the participants. This is because significant efforts were made to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. Given the typical structure of public schools, it is reasonable to assume that the findings can be applied to public schools nationwide, where toxic leadership may be prevalent.     Implications for Professional Practice The issue of toxic leadership in public education needs attention within the current administration of school districts nationwide. To effectively tackle this problem, the researcher recommends implementing a corollary of proactive measures to address it, such as upskilling mentor programs and providing mandatory training for named presently serving toxic leaders. Additionally, as expounded by Dan Heath (2020) in his eponymous publication, the notion of upstream posits that by proactively addressing the underlying causes of toxic leadership prior to their manifestation, the adverse consequences may be mitigated or entirely averted. Hence, it is imperative for educational institutions to establish screening procedures for prospective leaders in order to ascertain their possession of the essential attributes associated with ethical and empathic leadership. Furthermore, the continuous professional growth of existing leaders should prioritize the cultivation of a favorable and robust work atmosphere that encourages cooperation, confidence, and transparent communication among employees. School districts may foster a culture of excellence that benefits educators and children by adopting a proactive stance in detecting and resolving toxic leadership practices. The upstream proactive process is highlighted in the following parable: "You and a friend are having a picnic beside a river and you just laid out your picnic blanket, you're preparing to have a feast, when all of a sudden, you hear a shout from the direction of the river. You look back and there's a child thrashing around apparently drowning. Instinctively, both you and the friend jump in and swim out to rescue the child. But after you bring the child safely back to shore and just as your pulse starts to return to normal, you hear another child call for help. So, back in you go. You fish out that child. No sooner have you done that; you hear two shouts. Now it's two kids in the river. And so, begins this kind of revolving door of rescue. Just as exhaustion sets in you notice your friend swimming back to shore, emerging from the water, and walking upriver. You say, 'Hey, where are you going, I can't do all this work by myself.' And your friend says, 'I'm going upstream to tackle the guy who's throwing all these kids in the river" (Heath, 2020, p. 1). What strategies may districts use to support academic leaders? Reactive measures for current toxic leaders include school districts that may enhance the effectiveness of academic leaders by offering continuous training and development programs that specifically target ethical leadership, emotional intelligence, and proficient communication abilities. Districts may assure the creation of a pleasant work environment that promotes cooperation and trust by investing in the growth and development of their leaders. Furthermore, it is possible for districts to implement mentoring programs and peer support networks in order to assist leaders in effectively addressing difficulties and gaining insights from one another's experiences. School districts may foster a culture of excellence that benefits all members of the educational community by adopting a proactive approach to leadership development. An illustrative instance of this phenomenon may be a district offering leadership development courses that specifically target emotional intelligence and proficient communication abilities for their school administrators. These sessions have the potential to enhance principals' comprehension and regulation of their emotions, help successful communication with staff members, and foster robust connections within the school community. In addition, the implementation of mentoring programs, whereby seasoned principals provide direction and aid to emerging leaders, may significantly enhance their professional development and achievement. Foundationally, upstream proactive preventative measures to stop toxic leadership behaviors could include specific courses and curricula required in colleges and universities across the US. These courses and curricula should include self-reflective diagnostic tools, targeted training to build new responses to situations, and crisis intervention training so that future public-school leaders have the skills to handle tough situations effectively. By emphasizing the importance of ethical leadership and accountability early on in their education, aspiring leaders can develop a solid foundation for promoting a positive school culture. Through these proactive measures, school districts can create an environment where toxicity is less likely to thrive, benefiting both educators and students alike. Developing a robust crisis management strategy fosters an inclusive work environment where every employee has a voice and contributes to the organization's vision and direction. Recommendations for Future Research To name a toxic leader, Schmidt (2008) created an interview instrument that serves as a diagnostic tool. However, it does not probe participants' recommendations of coping skills promoting endurance or self-health maintenance while in such a workplace. Given the prevalence of toxic leadership in public education, education staff need 'tools' in their 'tool belt,' which the researcher would like to pursue further. Future research could delve into the specific coping mechanisms recommended by education staff who have experienced toxic leadership firsthand. Additionally, exploring the long-term effects of toxic leadership on employee well-being and productivity could offer valuable insights for creating more supportive work environments in public education settings. Are there any organizational factors that contribute to the prevalence of toxic leadership, and how can they be addressed to prevent its occurrence in the future? Further research in this area could lead to the development of more effective strategies for promoting positive leadership practices within educational institutions. Similarly, during the research and interview process, the issue of the psychological, physiological, and emotional harm to teachers as a result of toxic leadership in public education led to the mention of the indirect influence these phenomena had on educators' ability to deliver and maintain a quality, robust, and rigorous mastery of content education for students. Furthermore, the atmosphere created by toxic leadership in public education was deemed palpable by students, according to participants of the present research. Consequently, these two areas need additional research in order to fully understand the extent of the impact of toxic leadership on both teachers and students in the public education system. It is important to delve deeper into the specific mechanisms through which toxic leadership affects educators' well-being and their ability to effectively teach, as well as how it influences students' learning experiences and academic outcomes. By conducting further research in these areas, we can develop strategies and interventions to mitigate the negative effects of toxic leadership and create a healthier and more productive educational environment for all involved. Finally, this author reflects on the importance of reaching out to potential participants earlier in a study. There were stories of toxic leadership abusiveness, scandalization of staff, hegemonic culture, and bullying that had been made known to this author but were not able to achieve contact as a result of phone numbers being changed. In the future, this author will conduct thorough research on effectively locating and communicating with prospective participants, ensuring that their voices are heard, and their experiences are shared. Concurrently, this author will approach participant recruitment with a sense of urgency and persistence, recognizing the importance of amplifying marginalized voices in public education research about toxic leadership. Both Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of this present manuscript were focused on allowing the voices of the participants to be heard and letting their lived experiences be the GPS directing the research, recourse, findings, and future research. To understand the scope of the problem and work toward effective solutions, it is crucial to center the voices of those who have experienced toxic leadership firsthand. By prioritizing their perspectives and insights, educators and administrators can begin to dismantle harmful organizational cultures and create environments that foster growth and well-being for all education staff and the student body. By amplifying marginalized voices in public education research, positive change can be executed that benefits the participants and future generations of educators and leaders.   Conclusion The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of toxic leadership in public education. Furthermore, it was the intent of the researcher to identify strategies for addressing the consequential issues of toxic leadership, such as employee turnover, morale, and job performance, in order to shed light on the darkness within the public education system. The researcher conducted a broad literature review and subsequent convenience sampling of teachers exposed to toxic leadership over the last 30-plus years in order to investigate the phenomenon of toxic leadership in public education. As discussed in the literature review, extensive research has shown a clear link between toxic leadership and a range of detrimental effects. These include decreased well-being, lower organizational commitment, negative attitudes towards the leader, reduced job satisfaction, higher turnover intention, increased stress levels, more workplace deviance, and impaired job performance (Haider et al., 2018; McCleskey, 2013; Odhiambo, 2022). The link between toxic leadership and the negative outcomes mentioned earlier became apparent when analyzing the interview transcripts of the six participants. The language used by the participants indicated a negative and unhappy work environment with low morale, lack of trust, and dissatisfaction with their jobs. The analysis of the data uncovered a range of detrimental behaviors linked to toxic leadership, including counterproductive work actions, social exclusion, self-centeredness, bullying, and intimidation (Balasundaram, 2016; Burns, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2021; Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020; Snow et al., 2021). The participants described the toxic leader as someone who displayed authoritarian tendencies, showed narcissistic traits, and engaged in unpredictable autocratic behaviors. They also mentioned the leader's tendency to micromanage their subordinates. The researcher met the goals of the investigation and, in so doing, discovered prototype gaps regarding the direct effect on the student body, student performance levels, and psychological benefits of identifying additional factors contributing to toxic leadership in public education and the broader impacts it has on the school community. By understanding these effects more thoroughly, schools can work towards implementing strategies to address and prevent toxic leadership via upstream growth, creating a healthier and more positive learning environment for all stakeholders involved. Additionally, further research could help develop interventions and support systems for those affected by toxic leadership, leading to improved overall well-being and success within the education system.