Journal Article Review/Critique- Article attached !!!!Instructions: Students will look for peer reviewed journal articles and answer the questions below. The articles must be reporting structured re

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this public ation at: https://www .rese archg ate.ne t/public ation/321359212 The Impact of T oxic Leadership on Intention to Lea ve of Employees Article · September 2017 CITATION 1 READS 1,836 1 author:

Some o f the author s of this public ation are also w orking on these r elated pr ojects: air traffic c ontrol, business manag ement, organisation, or ganisational behaviour , HRM, logistics, strateg y V ie w pr oject Impact of T echnolog y usage on emplo yees V ie w pr oject Meltem Ak ca Ist anbul Univ ersity 22 PUBLICA TIONS    6 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Meltem Ak ca on 04 July 2018. The user has r equested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 285 THE IMPACT OF TOXIC LEADERSHIP ON INTENTION TO LEAVE OF EMPLOYEES Dr. Meltem Akca Istanbul University Transportation and Logistics Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey ABSTRACT In recent years, leadership related studies have been spreaded around the multi -disci plinary areas. New leadership models have been created. One of that model is called as toxic leadership.

Adversely to positive leadership styles, toxic leadership is destructive and harmful for employees and organisations. The popularisation of dark leader ship perspective triggered the development of toxic leadership model. In this study it is aimed to find the interaction between toxic leadership perception and intention to leave of employees. Firstly, it is mentioned about toxic leadership and intention t o leave concepts. Thereafter, research method is described. The results of the statistical analysis show that there is a significant and positive relation between toxic leadership perception and intention to leave of employees Key words : Toxic leadership, d estructive leadership, intention to leave, intention to quit. INTRODUCTION People are generally work together to achieve organisational goals. If there are more than two employee in a work environment , a managerial process is needed to accomplish tasks. In this process, managers or leaders direct and organise the employees to reach the desired targets of corporations. Leaders influence the followers ( employee -subordinate) to obtain organisational aims. Leaders use their power to lead the subordinates. Inter action between leadership style and individual -organisational outcomes are generally studied in the literature. Even though positive structured leadership models(transformational, ethic, democratic, organic, servant, authentic leadership) are correlated wi th euphonic results, some of the leadership approaches have harmful impacts over employees and work environment. Harmful, unethical and ineffective leadership approaches for organisation and subordinates are called as negative and destructive leadership styles (Kellerman, 2004). Reference to the literature review, destructive and negative modified leadership models are listed as; abusive leadership, poor leadership, evil leadership, ineffective leadership, bad leadership, dark leadership, authoritarian lea dership, ignorant leadership, toxic leadership, egotistic leadership and cruel leadership. These leadership models generally damage the followers, subordinates and employee’s job outcomes. Toxic leadership decreases employee’s motivation, creativity, satis faction, productivity, commitment, performance while International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 286 increases intention to leave, health problems, stress and burn out (Lipman -Blumen, 2005; Kellerman, 2004; Liu, Liao& Loi, 2012; Aboyassin & Abood, 2013; İzgüden, Eroymak & Erdem, 2016; Burns, 2017). In t his study it is aimed to determine the relationship between toxic leadership and intention to leave of employees. In this regard, toxic leadership and intention to leave concepts are explained in detailed the paragraphs below. 1. Toxic Leadership Behaviour s of leaders are decisive while identifying of leadership style. Frequency of negative behaviours and aspiration of leader while acting the behaviour are also related with perception of leadership model (Lipman -Blumen, 2005; Whicker, 1996). Toxic leaders p rovide control by using poisoned power to complex the organisational structure. Toxic leaders boost their egos and pay no mind else then themselves. They reduce employee’s work fancy and productivity wit h their harmful behaviours and attitudes. They announ ce scapegoats for problems and blame others when the works go wrong in the organisation. Abusive, illegal, harmful behaviours are evaluated as toxic behaviours(Koys, 2001; Hitchcock, 2015).Pelletier (2010) headlined toxic leadership behaviours as; disenfra nchising employee, ignoring ideas, marginalizing, harassment , emotional volatility, blaming others for self mistakes, treating employees job security, mocking lying, pitting group members, isolating out group members. Although toxic leadership concept look s like similar with some notions there are differences between them. Ash forth (1994; 1997) found out the concept of petty tyranny which means the tendency to dominate one’s power over others.

Petty tyranny model is comprised of behaviours as discouragin g initiative, belittlement of others, self -aggrandisement, arbitrariness, lack of consideration, and unfair punishment. While toxic leaders usually display malicious wicked behaviours for others at work environment, petty trannies do not expose these condu cts every time. Tepper (2000) explained abusive supervision as a regularly malicious verbal and nonverbal behaviours of leaders without physical contact.

However abusive supervision behaviors generate an environment that construct walls and barriers for cr eativity, loyalty and well -being, they do not include the toxic leadership’s features of narcissism or authoritarianism (Hitchcock, 2015).Einarsen, Aasland and Skogstad (2007) determined the destructive leadership as systematic and repeated behaviour of a leader, supervisor or manager that breake the rightful structure of the corporation by spoiling and damaging the organisation’s aims, duties, productivity, and activity. They also exhibit physical harmful behaviours and sexual misconduct, which are not related with toxic leaders core behaviours(Pelletier, 2010; Schmidt, 2008). Toxic leadership style intoxicates employee’s and organisation. Employees are disturbed for toxic leaders harmful behaviours (Koçel,2014). Toxic leaders knowingly and willfully a dopt International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 287 deprecating and unfavourable attitudes over employees. Toxic leaders exhibit an hostile attitude over employees. Poisoned behaviour of toxic leaders feeds from managerial power. Toxical behaviours of leaders spread around the organisation and poison the employees and work climate. Perception of toxic leadership style bring about the employee deviance behaviour and damage the individual and organisational sustainable success ( Gündüz & Dedekorkut, 2014; Reyhanoğlu & Akın, 2016). Table 1:Literature Rev iew of Toxic Leadership Concept Mehta and Maheshwari (2014) Egoist, self -centred, bad -tempered, aggressive, faithfulness characteristic features are at the forefront points of toxic leaders. They do not intend mentoring, coaching and traing the subordinate s. They only care themselves and belittled the others. Lipman -Blumen (2005, 2010) Toxic leaders enact destructive behaviours for employees and organizations. They intend to exhibit harmful behaviours for subordinates. Toxic leaders drain their poisoned b earings to employees. Toxic leaders override the human rights in the organizations. Although they aimed to damage followers feelings and work atmosphere, they infest the organizational success actually. Jowers (2015) Attitudes and behaviours of toxic lead ers have adverse impact over individual, departmental and organisational performance. Norton (2016) Demotivational behaviours of toxic leaders impress the followers morale and well being at work environment negatively. Elle(2012) Leaders behaviours harm the trust between sides.Leaders make a multifaceted work International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 288 climate that they are perceived as poisonous. Gallus et al. (2013) Toxic leaders try to ruin the workgroup cohesions in organisations. Their poisoned behaivours result in individual deviances in wo rkplace. Wilson -Starks (2003) It is a leadership model that damage the enthusiasm, autonomy, creativity and innovative in the work environment by toxicating over control. Schmidt(2008,2014) Toxic leaders generally belittle, berate, and bully the peers. They make out themselves very successful. They intend to show their self -image to others. They are deprive of empathy, sensitivity, humanistic and hopeless. Self promotion, abusive supervision, unpredictability, narcissism, authoritarian leadership are fe atures of the toxic leadership model. 2.Intention To Leave Employee’s aspiration to leave his/her job in a short time is called as intention to leave in management, sociology and psychology literature. Employee is voluntary to leave the job when intend to this idea. Individual feelings for self displacement from the job with desire and ambitious create the intention to leave concept(Mobley, 1982). Intention to leave is consist of conscious and painful job resignation opinions of an employees (Tett and M eyer, 1993). According to reasoned behaviour theory, an individual’s behaviour is expounded with his/her intention ( Ajzen and Madden,1986). Mobley (1977) defines intention to leave as the last step before actually leaving the job. When intention of an emp loyee is resulted with leaving the job organisational turnover volatility increases. Recruitment and employment of new staffs add incremental costs to organisations ( Kumar, Ramendran &Yacob, 2012).In addition to that, intention to quit of qualified work fo rce has negative impacts on the organisational performance. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 289 Operational and financial losses ascend with the turnover activities (Leupold, Ellis & Valle, 2013). Therefore, it is required to reveal factors which tend employees to intention to leave. It is also expected to provide beneficial precautions to minimise intention to leave of employees(Tett & Meyer, 1993). Organisational commitment, job satisfaction, burn out, leadership style are impressive on the intention to leave behaviour (Basak et al, 2013 ). Intention to leave can result in two options. When an employee leave the organisation he/she may start to work in a same job position at another corporation. In the second alternative, employee will leave the organisation and available career and may st art to work in a new job area at another corporation ( Omar &Noordin, 2014). Intention to leave opinions will appear for unhappy and dissatisfied employees in the organisations. These employees start to look for a new job and benchmark the alternative and available job conditions to make a final decide. At the end of the employee’s evaluation process he/she will stay or leave the job. Therefore it should be noticed that intention to leave is a significant evaluation process for employees(Mobley,1977). Fact ors related with intention to live in the work environment are line up as, workload, role coflict, long working hours, shift systems, leader behaviours(Coomber & Barriball, 2007). 3. The Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Intention to Leave Toxic l eadership is negatively related with motivation and commitment of employees while it is positively correlated with high turnover and intention to leave behaviours of employees(Reed & Bullis,2009). Health problems of employees increase with toxic leaders be haviours even as their performance, job satisfaction and organisational commitment tend to decrease (Schmindt,2008,2014).Anxiety, irateness, unhappiness, loss of motivation, stress, distractibility , desperateness, isolation, deviation, alienation, lack of confidence and compunction are some of the psychosocial impacts of bad/destructive/toxic/harmful/dark leadership styles over employees - subordinates -follower -peers. Sleeplessness, weakness, nuisance, fatigue, inappetency, dermatological and ergonomic health problems are also related with toxic leadership behaviours( Başar, Sığrı & Basım, 2016). International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 290 Table 2: Literature Review for Hypothesis Development Hadadien and Zarei( 2016) They found positive and significant relationship between toxic leadership and employ ee stress. Aboyassin and Abood(2013) It is found that ineffective leadership has negative impact over the employee’s and organisation’s performance. Weaver and Yancey( 2010) The results of the study show that dark leadership has a significant and positiv e relationship between intention to leave while negative with organisational commitment. İzgüden, Eroymak and Erdem(2016) The perception of toxic leadership is lowand differentiate into the demographic groups of the research’s sample. Akman(2016) According to the results there is a positive and significant relationship between toxic leadersh ip and employee’s burnout. Schmidt(2008,2014) It is found positive and significant relationship between toxic leadership and intention to leave while adverse with satisfaction, commitment and trust. Roche et al, (2015) Negative leadership styles increas e the turnover. Lavoie -Tremblay et al, (2015) The results show that there is a positive and significant relationship between abusive leadership and intention to quit. 4.Research Methodology In this study it is aimed to determine the impact of toxic lead ership perception on intention to leave of employees at a private company. In this context, SPSS 21.0 program was used to International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 291 analyse the datas. Factor analyses had used and than regression analyses was applied. In factor analyses results, it was seen that sc ale’s features are complied with the original ones. And then, assumptions of regression analyses were examined. Finally regression analysis was used to test the research’s hypothesis. Measures, hypothesis and research model which were used for this study i s as shown below. Toxic Leadership Scale: It was used Schmidt’s(2014) short form of toxic leadership questionnaire. Scale is comprised of five dimensions. There are three items for each dimension . Self -promotion, abusive supervision, unpredictability, nar cissism and authoritarianism are the sub -scales of toxic leadership scale. Intention to Leave Scale: It was used Rosin and Korabick’s (1995) scale for intention to leave variable. Scale has one dimension and comprised of four items. H1+ Figu re 1: Research Model H1: There is a positive and significant relationship between perceived of toxic leadership and intention to leave. Questionnaire form is composed of 23 items. There are four demographic questions in the 3rd part of the questionnaire f orm. Toxic leadership and intention to leave scales were designed with Likert Scale Format. The population of this study was generated from the sampling formulation.

There are 1547 workers in the whole company. Consideringly error margin and confidence interval, it was found to have suitable277 forms. Convenience sampling method was prefered to provide cost and time effectiveness. 300 questionnaire form was dispensed and 291 of the valid form was collected from the participants at the end of two weeks. 282 valid form was used for statistical analyses. Toxic Leadership Intention to Leave International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 292 5. Research Results In this study to provide regression analysis assumptions, the normality and correlation analysis tests were investigated. In the normality tests, diagrams and Skewness -Kurtosis values; it was accepted that the datas demonstrates normal distribution. With reference to the correlation tests it was seen that there is a positive an middle level correlation between toxic leadership and intention to leave variables. Correlation between variables is 0,613*(significant) at the level of 0.01. Table 3:Descriptive Statistics for Research Variables Variable Mean Max Min Skewness Kurtosis Std. Deviation Toxic Leadership 3,77 5,00 2,60 -0,645 0,264 -0,805 0,332 0,493 Intention to Leave 3,46 4,67 1,10 -0,715 0,342 -0,581 0,472 0,765 Table 4:Regression Analyses Model Table Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std.

Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin - Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 ,613 a 0,481 0,423 0,63217 0219 17 6,811 1 290 0 1,446 Regression analyses model table values can show some critical features of the research hypothesis. In accordance with this table’s results, %42 of the variance in the intention to leave can be explained by the toxic leadership percept ion. Anova table results also indicates that research model is meaningfulness. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 293 Table 5:Regression Analyses Coefficients Table Model Unstandardize d Coefficients Standardize d Coefficients t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics B Std.

Error Beta Ze ro - order Partia l Part Toleranc e VI F 1 (Constant) -0,712 0,308 -3,286 0,02 2 Toxic Leadership _ 1,248 0,128 0,613 18,91 1 0,00 0 0,61 3 0,613 0,61 3 1 1 Mean Reference to the regression analyse results, research hypothesis is supporte d. By evaluating the results, it is admitted that there is a positive and significant relationship between toxic leadership perception and intenton to leave. Furthermore, positive impact factor(Beta) of toxic leadership on intention to leave is 0,613. Tab le 6: Demographic Variables Variables Features Numbers % Age Group 20 -30 45 16 31 -40 101 36 41 -50 83 29 51 -60 27 10 61+ 26 9 Gender Female 145 51 Male 137 49 Marital Status Single 110 40 International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 294 Married 172 60 Educational Status Associate Degree 10 4 Bachelor’s Degree 231 82 Master Degree 38 13 Doctoral Degree 3 1 According to demographic variables results, women and men employment in the company is similar. A great majority of respondents have at least bachelor’s degree.There is also an accumulation between 31 and 50 age range. Considering to discrimination tests between groups, perceived toxic leadership average is higher at women employees while intention to leave average is superior at single ones. CONCLUSION Aasland and colleaques( 2010) reported that approximately %61 of the Norwegian workers is composed with destructive leaders. A similar result was found in Sezici’s (2016) study in Turkey where most of the participants reported that they are exposed to leaders harmful behaviours in their workplace. With reference to literature, it was aimed to determine the impact of toxic leadership perception on intention to leave of employees in this study. In this context, toxic leadership and intention to leave notions were explained and the n structured model was tested with statistical analyses. Results of the study supported the research’s hypothesis and it was found that there is a significant and positive relationship between toxic leadership and intention to leave. Accordance to the resu lts, it is advised to intervent toxic leadership behaviours in organisations to minimise intention to leave and leave. Next researches will focus on relationship between dimensions of toxic leadership with job outcomes. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 295 REFERENCES Aasland, M. S., Skogstad , A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal of Management , 21 (2), 438 -452. Aboyassin, N. A., & Abood, N. (2013). The effect of ineffective leadership on individual and orga nizational performance in Jordanian institutions. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal , 23 (1), 68 -84. Akman , Y. (2016). Yıkıcı liderlik ile mesleki tükenmişlik arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Öğretmenler üzerine bir araştırma. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama , 12 (3), 627 -653. Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human relations , 47 (7), 755 -778. Ash forth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration , 14 (2), 126 -140. Azen, I., & Madden, T. (1986). Pr ediction of goal directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 2, 453 -474. Basak, E., Ekmekci, E., Bayram, Y., & Bas, Y. (2013). Analysis of factors that affect the intention to leave of wh ite -collar employees in Turkey using structural equation modelling. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science . Başar, U., Sığrı, Ü., & Basım, N. (2016). İş Yerinde Karanlık Liderlik. İş ve İnsan Dergisi , 3(2), 65 -76. Burns, W. A. (2017). A descriptive literature review of harmful leadership styles: Definitions, commonalities, measurements, negative impacts, and ways to improve these harmful leadership styles. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership , 3(1), 33 -52. Coombe r, B., & Barriball, K. L. (2007). Impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave and turnover for hospital -based nurses: a review of the research literature. International journal of nursing studies , 44 (2), 297 -314. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition andconceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 207 -216. Elle, S. A. (2012). Breaking the Toxic Leadership Paradigm in the U.S. Army. Carlisle Barracks, VA: US Army War College. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 296 Gallu s, J. A., Walsh, B. M., Driel, M. v., Gouge, M. C., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable Cruelty: A Multilevel Examination of the Impact of Toxic Leadership on U.S. Military Units and Service Members. Military Psychology,25 (6), 88 –601. Gündüz, Y., & Dedekorku t, S. E. (2014). Yıkıcı liderlik. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 10 (1), 95 -104. Hadadian, Z., & Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Job Stress of Knowledge Workers. Studies in Business and Economics , 11 (3), 84 -89. Hit chcock, M. J. (2015). The Relationship between toxic leadership, organizational citizenship, and turnover behaviors among San Diego nonprofit paid staff . University of San Diego Doctoral Thesis. San Diego İzgüden, D., Eroymak, S., & Erdem, R. (2017). Sağlı k Kurumlarında Görülen Toksik Liderlik Davranışları: Bir Üniversitesi Hastanesi Örneği. Balkan Journal of Social Sciences Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 262 -276. Jowers, K. (2015, November 19). Toxic leadership's effect on families. Marine Corps Times, 19. Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters . Harvard Business Press. Koçel, T. (2014). İşletme Yöneticiliği,Yönetim ve Organizasyon, Organizasyonlarda. Davranış, Klasik -Modern -Çağdaş ve Güncel Yaklaşımlar, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım AŞ. İstanbul . Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit‐level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology , 54 (1), 101 -114. Kumar, R., Rame ndran, C., & Yacob, P. (2012). A study on turnover intention in fast food industry: Employees' fit to the organizational culture and the important of their commitment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 2(5), 9-42. Lavoie‐Tremblay, M., Fernet, C., Lavigne, G. L., & Austin, S. (2016). Transformational and abusive leadership practices: impacts on novice nurses, quality of care and intention to leave. Journal of advanced nursing , 72 (3), 582 -592. Leupold, C. R., Ellis, L . E., & Valle, M. (2013). Job embeddedness and retail pharmacists’ intention to leave. The Psychologist -Manager Journal , 16 (4), 197 -216. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 297 Lipman -Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader , 36 , 29 -36. Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three -level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 55 (5), 1187 -1212. Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G.C. (2014).T oxic Leadership:Tracing the destructive trail. International Journal ofManagement , 5(10), 18 -24. Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover, causes, consequences, and control . Addison -Wesley. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship bet ween job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology , 62 (2), 237 -240. Norton, R. J. (2016). Tarnished: Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military (Book review). Naval War College Review, 69(2), 143 -145. Omar, S., & Noordin, F. (2016). Care er Commitment and Intention to Leave Among ICT Professionals in Malaysia. Springer Singapore, 309 -318. Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership , 6(4), 373 -389. Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society , 36 (1), 5 -18. Reyhanoğlu, M., & Akın, Ö. (2016). Toksik Liderlik Örgütsel Sağlığı Olumsuz Yönde Tetikler mi? İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi , 5(3), 442 -459. Roche, M. R., Duffield, C. M., Dimitrelis, S., & Frew, B. (2015). Leadership skills for nursing unit managers to decrease intention to leave. Nursing: Research and Reviews,5 , 57 –64. Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale . University of Maryland Master Thesis. Schmidt, A. A. (2014). An examination of toxic leader ship, job outcomes, and the impact of military deployment . University of Maryland, Doctoral Thesis. Sezici, E. (2016). İzleyicilerin Yıkıcı Liderlik Algısı ve Sonuçları. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Science/Dumlupinar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 47 , 106 -121. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research Vol. 1, No. 04 ; 2017 ISSN: 2456 -7760 www.ijebmr.com Page 298 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of manage ment journal , 43 (2), 178 -190. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management , 33 (3), 261 -289. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel psychology , 46 (2), 259 -293. Weaver, S. G., & Yancey, G. B. (2010). The impact of dark leadership on organizational commitmen t and turnover. Leadership Review , 10 , 104 -124. Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad . Praeger Publishers. Wilson -Starks, K. Y. (2003). Toxic leadership. Transleadership , access time: 05.07.2017, http://www.transleadership.com/ToxicLeadership.pdf . View publication statsView publication stats