Colloquium Presentation Discussion Aspen University Fall 2024 Pt. 1

This episode discusses the key themes and important ideas presented by Dr. Park Johnson in his research colloquium on toxic leadership in public education. Based on excerpts from an audio recording of his presentation, this document highlights the nature of toxic leadership, its impact on individuals and institutions, the research methodology employed, and the initial findings. Speaker: Dr. Park Johnson, Aspen University School of Education Alumnus Topic: Toxic Leadership in Public Education Date: Fall 2024 Colloquium (Exact date not specified) Main Themes: Prevalence of Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership is not limited to K-12 education but is present across all levels of education and in various other professions. It is a form of incivility with severe repercussions. Impact on School Culture and Well-being: Toxic leadership significantly and detrimentally affects overall school culture, teacher and support staff well-being, and sense of self-efficacy. Negative Effects on Student Outcomes: Teaching conditions and student outcomes are directly linked. Toxic environments hinder the ability of teachers and staff to positively influence student performance, impacting school success metrics. Consequences for Turnover: Workers, including educators, are more likely to leave a company or educational facility if they are treated poorly by their superiors. Lasting Psychological Effects: The negative effects of toxic leadership can persist even after the toxic leader is no longer in place, potentially leading to symptoms akin to PTSD in subordinates. The Gap in Existing Research: While positive leadership approaches are widely studied, there is a lack of research specifically focusing on toxic leadership in public education, how to identify it, and how to address it. Dr. Johnson's research aims to fill this gap. Defining Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership is characterized by a lack of care for subordinates' welfare, detrimental impacts on the organizational environment, a focus on the leader's self-interest, and a lack of moral principles. Manifestations of Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership can present as abusive management, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, social marginalization, lack of integrity, assault on self-esteem, laissez-faire management, shaming, passive-aggressive behavior, team sabotage, aggression, dishonesty, avarice, haughtiness, and bullying. Organizational Toxicity: This broader concept encompasses harmful and painful circumstances in the workplace, stemming from various factors including incompetent leadership, negative comments, communication weaknesses, and unfair rewards. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Research Motivation: Dr. Johnson's initial research interest was the direct effects of proximity on student learning, influenced by the pandemic's shift to remote education. However, his experience in a toxic environment exacerbated during the pandemic shifted his focus to toxic leadership. The Problem of Leader Self-Perception: Dr. Johnson notes recent research indicating that a majority of toxic leaders believe they are great leaders, highlighting the challenge of self-awareness. Characteristics of Toxic Leaders (According to Literature and Participants):Lack of moral principles Unhealthy obsession with self-promotion Inflated sense of self-importance Arrogant attitude Excessive greed Callous disregard for the welfare of others Egotistical attitudes, motivations, and behaviors Organizational Toxicity Elements:Ineptitude Infidelity Insensitivity Intrusion Institutional pressures Inevitability Research Questions:Main Question: How do educators and support staff describe toxic leadership practice and its impacts in the arena of public education? Sub-Question 1: What are the effects of destructive or toxic leadership on employee turnover, morale, and job performance in public education institutions? Sub-Question 2: What strategies do participants offer to address destructive or toxic leadership in public education institutions? Methodology: Dr. Johnson employed qualitative research using the "thick description" method with open-ended interviews of educators, support staff, and paraprofessionals. This allowed for rich, in-depth insights into their experiences. Data Analysis: Interview recordings were transcribed using Dovetail software and analyzed using Deduce software. Codebooks were developed based on existing theories (R's theory of social justice, critical leadership theory, and the toxic leadership scale). An outside coder was used to mitigate bias. Key Findings from Participant Transcripts (Illustrative Quotes):Participants used negative vocabulary such as "yelling," "foul language," "cursed at," "terrifying sensation," "worrying excessively," and "stress" to describe their experiences. Words like "drained," "forced out," and "chastised" were used. Instances of condescending communication, inappropriate language (e.g., the "B-word"), demotion without documented reason, demoralization, and feeling "not clever enough" were reported. Participants described feeling their leaders were "riding my back," using language like "inept," "unqualified," "ruder or meaner," "wicked," "useless," "belittling," "rebuked," "shouting," "yelling," "swearing," and referring to the environment as "unhealthy." Quotes illustrated instances of leaders taking credit for the work of subordinates. Connections to Theory: Findings aligned with R's theory of social justice and critical leadership theory, revealing connections between hegemonic culture, psychological damage, poor well-being, intimidation, low morale, manipulation, control, micromanagement, and work performance. Common codes included hegemonic culture, control, intimidation, egocentric attitudes, micromanagement, low job performance, and high staff turnover. Scale Validation: The use of the first eight questions from Schmidt's toxic leadership scale, adapted for public education, helped create a practical and trustworthy survey instrument. Hostile Work Environment: The alarming pattern of poisonous conduct and negative culture described by participants suggests the presence of hostile work environments in schools. Quotes from the Source: Dr. Thrasher: "toxic leadership is a form of instability. It's just in education." Dr. Johnson: "I graduated from Aspen, so from the School of Education. I love this school. It's been uh so supportive and I've had fantastic professors here." Dr. Johnson: "The consequences of toxic leadership have severe repercussions even through... It'll fix the students as well as the teachers." Dr. Johnson: "researchers in the field say that workers are more likely to leave a company or educational facility if they're treated poorly by their bosses." Dr. Johnson: "...teachers and support staff were talking about about everybody from the bus driver, kitchen staff, um secretaries, paraprofessionals, teachers, aids, everyone certified, uncertified and their well-being and their si sense of self efficacy... are affected by toxic leadership environments and it's detrimentally affected..." Dr. Johnson: "teaching conditions and student outcomes are directly linked when teachers and support staff work in a positive environment and a helpful setting. They're able to influence student outcomes in a positive way." Dr. Johnson: "...working in a toxic environment and the toxicity being exacerbated during the pandemic motivated my transition and focus for the project to toxic leadership." Dr. Johnson: "...a majority of toxic leaders believe they are great leaders. So, it takes a little transparency and self-examination." Dr. Johnson (citing literature): "toxic leaders are characterized by a lack of moral principles. an unhealthy obsession with self-promotion, an inflated sense of self-importance, an arrogant attitude, and excessive greed and callous uh disregard for the welfare of others." Dr. Johnson (citing literature): "organizational toxicity is defined as harmful, troublesome and painful circumstances that occur in the workplace." Participant Quote (from table 1 - not read aloud but included as an illustration): "principal yelled so much it was terrifying" Participant Quote (from table 2 - not read aloud but included as an illustration): "felt drained, forced out, chastised, Principal spoke to him condescendingly" Participant Quote (from table 3 - not read aloud but included as an illustration): "I was demoralized not clever enough the principal was riding my back... Demoted" Participant Quote (from table 4 - not read aloud but included as an illustration): "called staff inept, unqualified, ruder or meaner, wicked, useless, belittling... shouting, yelling, swearing... unhealthy... choice words"