The Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Organizational Commitment

The Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Organizational Commitment
in Faith-Based Healthcare Organizations
University
December 8th, 2019

Concept Paper
Table of Contents
Section 1: Problem Statement and Theoretical Framework 3
Problem Statement 3
Theoretical Framework 3
Application to Business Administration 4
Section 2: Purpose Statement and Research Questions 7
Purpose Statement 7
Research Questions 7
Variables/Phenomena 7
Section 3: Research Method and Design 9
Research Method 9
Research Design 9
References 10
 
Section 1: Problem Statement and Theoretical Framework
Problem Statement
The researcher proposes to examine the relationship between toxic leadership and organizational commitment in faith-based healthcare organizations. Specifically, the researcher intends to fill the gap in knowledge regarding how toxic leadership can influence African American employee’s willingness to perform for the organization. Toxic leadership may be described as a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance (Behery, Nasser, Jabeen, and EL Rawas, 2018). Organizational Commitment is a view of an organization’s member’s psychology towards his/her attachment to the organization that he/she is employed by (Allen, N., & Meyer, J. 1990). Faith-based organizations are groups of individuals united based on religious or spiritual beliefs (Abara, Coleman, Fairchild, Gaddist, and White 2015).
Some scholars have explored the subject of toxic leadership and other related negative leadership behaviors. For example, Holder, Jackson, and Ponterotto (2015) conducted a study of 10 female African American managers working in commercial vocations in the health care industry in the northeastern United States and their experiences with facial micro-aggression and coping strategies. The authors found that the managers believed that leaders who reduced the presence of micro-aggressions were beneficial (Holder et al., 2015).
Glowacki-Dudka and Griswold (2016) evaluated workshops that were held at Highlander Research and Education Center from 2013 through 2014 to assess authentic leadership and popular education. The authors found that ineffective, inappropriate, or misaligned leadership could prove detrimental to organizational performance (Glowacki-Dudka & Griswold, 2016).
Abara, Coleman, Fairchild, Gaddist, and White (2015) conducted a study about the role of faith-based organizations in facilitating HIV/AIDS awareness amongst the African American population in African American churches in South Carolina. Findings revealed that the effects of toxic leadership were extensive, ranging from poor communication, misperceptions, and feelings of marginalization or stigmatization, to perceptions of inequity, low job satisfaction, racial microaggressions, and reduced performance in African American employees.
Etowa and Debs-Ivall (2017) conducted a study of 21 nurses working in healthcare settings in Canada and their experiences with leadership and organizational commitment concerning ethnocultural diversity. The findings of this study promote the importance of strong leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment in creating and managing a diverse workforce necessary for effective healthcare.
In an extensive study of 660 employees designed to examine toxic leadership and various Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB), Behery, Nasser, Jabeen, and EL Rawas, (2018) found a weak, positive relationship between toxic leadership and employee commitment (r = .214, p <.001) which was counter to the authors’ hypothesis that Toxic Leadership would be negatively correlated with employee commitment. In summary,while some scholars have explored various topics of toxic leadership, including its effect on personal organizational performance as well as employee trust and various components of employee OCB, there has been little research on the relationship between toxic leadership and employee commitment to include affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment. Also, while some research has included specific groups, such as African American female employees, and various industries, such as education and healthcare in general, this study will examine the relationship between Toxic Leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment for African-American employees working in Faith-based healthcare organizations. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is the Toxic Leadership Theory developed by Schmidt (2008) and Meyer and Allen’s Organizational Commitment Theory. Both theories will be described in the next sections. Toxic Leadership Theory Toxic Leadership will be measured using the five subscales of the Toxic Leadership Scale developed by Schmidt (2008). Schmidt (2008) suggests that toxic leadership is composed of five dimensions: abusive leadership, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability. Schmidt (2008) argues that the five dimensions can significantly predict employee outcomes such as turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with the supervisor. The Toxic Leadership Scale consists of 30 items measured using a 6-point Likert-type scale. Organizational Commitment Theory Organizational commitment will be measured using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), as developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Allen and Meyer (1990) argue that it is more appropriate to consider affective, continuance, and normative commitment as components rather than types of organizational commitment because an employee’s relationship with an organization might reflect varying degrees of all three. According to Allen and Meyer (1990), affective commitment occurs when an employee is emotionally attached to the organization, continuance commitment can be described as commitment based on the cost that employees associate with leaving the organization, and normative commitment involves employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. The OCQ consists of 18 items measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Application to Business Administration This proposal relates to Business Administration by identifying the effects a toxic leader can have on an organization and the reaction of employees to this type of leadership. Understanding toxic leadership behavior is important to a business because it can cause employee dissatisfaction, low productivity, and a high turnover rate. Organizations that employ toxic leaders risk creating a demotivated workplace. Organizational Commitment is important to a business because committed employees are willing to make sacrifices for the organizations while creating a positive culture and supporting the company’s vision and goals (Etowa and Debs-Ivall 2017). Section 2: Purpose Statement and Research Questions Purpose Statement The purpose of this quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational study is to examine the relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment for African American employees of faith-based healthcare organizations. Research Questions (and Hypotheses) The researcher will employ a quantitative, nonexperimental, correlational research design to examine how what relationship exists between toxic leaders and organizational commitment. The researcher proposes the following research questions: RQ1. What is the relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment for African American members of faith-based healthcare organizations? H1o: There is no relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment for African American members of faith-based healthcare organizations? H1a: There is a relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and normative organizational commitment for African American members of faith-based healthcare organizations? Variables/Phenomena The variables to be examined include toxic leadership and organizational commitment in faith-based healthcare settings. Toxic leadership will be measured using the five subscales of the Toxic Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) developed by Schmidt (2008). The five subscales include abusive supervision, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability. The TLQ includes 30-items measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Organizational commitment will be measured using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The OCQ consists of 18-items measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The OCQ includes three subscales, such as affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. Section 3: Research Method and Design Research Method The researcher will employ a quantitative methodology for this study. Quantitative methods involve empirical research that investigates a human problem by testing a theory consisting of variables that are measured numerically and analyzed statistically (Yilmaz, 2013). The variables of toxic leadership and organizational commitment using pre-validated scales that are numerical. Therefore, the researcher deems a quantitative approach to be most appropriate for addressing the research questions in this study. Research Design The researcher has selected a nonexperimental, correlational research design for this scholarship. In correlational studies, participants are not randomly assigned to a treatment condition (Thompson, Diamond, McWilliam, Snyder & Snyder, 2005). In this case, the researcher will not be assigning participants to different conditions but will provide all participants with the same questionnaire and will analyze all responses in the same manner. Correlational designs entail collecting data to identify the degree to which a relationship exists between two or more variables (Thompson et al., 2005), making that design appropriate for this researcher’s intent to examine the impact of toxic leadership on organizational commitment and quality of interaction and exchange between leaders and subordinates in faith-based healthcare organizations. Data will be gathered from faith-based healthcare organizations in Central Florida. G*Power will be used to determine the minimum number of participants appropriate for this study. Participants will be provided by the Human Resource Department at participating facilities to receive an anonymous survey questionnaire by mail. The researcher will employ correlational analysis of collected data to address the research questions. The survey data received will be stored as an Excel spreadsheet, then uploaded into statistical software, such as R or SPSS, which is designed to analyze Likert-type data. Statistical tests will be used to ensure the fitness of the data, including a test of normality such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) Test of Normality. For a correlational study, Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r) will be used if the data has a normal distribution. If not, Spearman Rank-Order Coefficient () will be used to test correlation. References Abara, W., Coleman, J. D., Fairchild, A., Gaddist, B., & White, J. (2015). A faith-based community partnership to address HIV/AIDS in the Southern United States: Implementation, challenges, and lessons learned. Journal of Religion and Health, 54, 122-133. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-013-9789-8. Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. The Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, pp. 1-18. Retrieved from: http://cyb.ox.or.kr/lms_board/bbs_upload/%C1%B6%C1%F7%B8%F4%C0%D4-%BF%DC%B1%B9%B3%ED%B9%AE.pdf Behery, M., Nasser, A. D., Jabeen, F., & EL Rawas, A. S. (2018). Toxic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: a mediation effect of followers’ trust and commitment in the middle east. International Journal of Business and Society, 19, 793-815. Retrieved from https://www.semsnticscholar.org Etowa, J., & Debs-Ivall, S. (2017). Leadership and organizational commitment to ethnocultural diversity in healthcare. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11, 277-292, 16. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Griswold, W. (2016). Embodying authentic leadership through popular education at Highlander Research and Education Center: A qualitative case study. Adult Learning, 27, 105-112. https://doi:10.1177/1045159516651610 Holder, A. M., Jackson, M. A., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2015). Racial microaggression experiences and coping strategies of black women in corporate leadership. American Psychological Association, 2, 164-180. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000024 Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Theses. (UMI 1453699). Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., McWilliam, R., Snyder, P., & Snyder, S. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Sage Journals, 71. https;//doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100204 Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48, 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Abusive Supervision: alpha = 0.93 1. Ridicules subordinates 2. Holds subordinates responsible for things outside their job descriptions 3. Is not considerate about subordinates’ commitments outside of work 4. Speaks poorly about subordinates to other people in the workplace 5. Publicly belittles subordinates 6. Reminds subordinates of their past mistakes and failures 7. Tells subordinates they are incompetent Authoritarian Leadership: alpha = 0.89 1. Controls how subordinates complete their tasks 2. Invades the privacy of subordinates 3. Does not permit subordinates to approach goals in new ways 4. Will ignore ideas that are contrary to his/her own 5. Is inflexible when it comes to organizational policies, even in special circumstances 6. Determines all decisions in the unit whether they are important or not Narcissism: alpha = 0.88 1. Has a sense of personal entitlement 2. Assumes that he/she is destined to enter the highest ranks of my organization 3. Thinks that he/she is more capable than others 4. Believes that he/she is an extraordinary person 5. Thrives on compliments and personal accolades Self-Promotion: alpha = 0.91 1. Drastically changes his/her demeanor when his/her supervisor is present 2. Denies responsibility for mistakes made in his/her unit 3. Will only offer assistance to people who can help him/her get ahead 4. Accepts credit for successes that do not belong to him/her 5. Acts only in the best interest of his/her next promotion Unpredictability: alpha = 0.92 1. Has explosive outbursts 2. Allows his/her current mood to define the climate of the workplace 3. Expresses anger at subordinates for unknown reasons 4. Allows his/her mood to affect his/her vocal tone and volume 5. Varies in his/her degree of approachability 6. Causes subordinates to try to “read” his/her mood 7. Affects the emotions of subordinates when impassione