Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330562765

Toxic leadership: emotional distress and coping strategy

Article  in  International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior · January 2019


DOI: 10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-0027

CITATION READS

1 285

2 authors:

Asha Bhandarker Snigdha Rai


International Management Institute Symbiosis Institute of Business Management
26 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership Beyond Gender View project

Cultural Ethos and Leadership Styles: Indian Perspectives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asha Bhandarker on 01 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior
Toxic leadership: emotional distress and coping strategy
Asha Bhandarker, Snigdha Rai,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Asha Bhandarker, Snigdha Rai, (2019) "Toxic leadership: emotional distress and coping strategy",
International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 22 Issue: 1, pp.65-78, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-0027
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:


https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-0027
Downloaded on: 01 April 2019, At: 00:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 88 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 123 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:422317 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1093-4537.htm

Toxic
Toxic leadership: emotional leadership
distress and coping strategy
Asha Bhandarker
International Management Institute, New Delhi, India, and
65
Snigdha Rai
Mettl, Gurugram, India Received 12 March 2018
Revised 30 May 2018
Accepted 21 June 2018
Abstract
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the distressing impact of toxic leadership on the mental
state of the subordinates and examine the unique coping mechanisms used by them to deal with such leaders.
The paper also examined the relationship between psychological distress and coping strategy used by
subordinates to deal with the toxic leader.
Design/methodology/approach – This study presents a validity testing of two scales. The first scale was
designed to measure experienced psychological distress emanating from exposure to toxic leaders, and the
second scale aims to assess the coping strategies utilized by subordinates to deal with the toxic leaders. Data
were collected from 570 employees working in public as well as private organizations in India.
Findings – The results of this paper supported the theorized two three-dimensional tools to measure:
psychological distress (loss of self-worth, withdrawal and agitated) and coping strategies to deal with toxic
leaders (assertive coping, avoidance coping and adaptive coping). Reliability estimates and construct validity
of both the tools were established. The results also suggest that the loss of self-worth was negatively related
with assertive coping, avoidance coping and adaptive coping. However, withdrawal was positively related
with assertive coping and avoidance coping. Finally, agitation was positively related with avoidance and
adaptive coping.
Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the rare studies to examine together the
phenomenon of both psychological distress experienced by subordinates and the coping strategies utilized by
them to deal with toxic leaders.
Keywords Psychological distress, Scale construction
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Generally speaking, “Leadership” has been equated with constructive leadership marked by
positive intentions, methods and consequences (Burns, 1978; Bennis, 1989). Increasingly,
however, the harmful and destructive impact of certain leaders on their constituencies is
also gaining the attention of researchers (Ashforth, 2003; Boddy, 2014; Collins and Jackson,
2015; Gallos, 2008; Goldman, 2009; Hoel et al., 2010; Kant et al., 2013; Padilla et al., 2007;
Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006; Shaw et al., 2011; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). The association
between the dark side of leadership and organizational dysfunction has been focused upon
by management scholars and practitioners over last four decades (Chatterjee and Hambrick
2007; Frost, 2003; Frost and Robinson, 1998; Kets de Vries, 1995; Knoll et al., 2016; Levinson,
1976; McCall and Lombardo, 1983). The construct of bad leadership has been given a
number of different names like leadership derailment (McCall and Lombardo, 1983),
negative or evil or dark leadership (Conger, 1990), toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005),
despotic leadership (Bass and Stogdill, 1990), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1997; Glasø et al.,
2018), abusive leaders (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2009), bad leadership (Kellerman, 2004),
narcissistic leaders (Rosenthal and Pittinsky, 2006), unethical leaders (Treviño et al., 2003),
aversive leadership (Bligh and Hess, 2007), destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007) and
International Journal of
corporate psychopaths (Boddy et al., 2015; Boddy, 2017). Organization Theory & Behavior
In the present study, we have utilized the construct of toxic leadership, a major aspect Vol. 22 No. 1, 2019
pp. 65-78
of dark leadership, which “spreads insidiously and undetected like a poison and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1093-4537
contaminates not only individuals; it equally affects teams and ultimately the whole DOI 10.1108/IJOTB-03-2018-0027
IJOTB organization” (Goldman, 2008; Vreja et al., 2016). Lipman-Blumen (2005) describes toxic
22,1 leaders as “those who act without integrity by dissembling and engaging in various other
dishonorable behaviors, including behaviors such as corruption, hypocrisy, sabotage and
manipulation, as well as other assorted unethical, illegal, and criminal acts” (p. 18).
Other scholars (Pelletier, 2010; Schmidt, 2008) have also come up with their own
classification of toxic leader behaviors which includes divisiveness, laissez-faire,
66 promoting inequity, social exclusion and threatening followers’ security and self-esteem
According to Pelletier (2010), the leader can be considered toxic if the follower is
physically or psychologically harmed by the leader’s actions and it creates long-lasting
impairment in the subordinates. According to Illies and Reiter-Palmon (2008), toxic leaders
create conflicts and complicate the organizational environment by causing emotional
damage to their subordinates. It is equally interesting to note that the toxic leader never
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

considers his/her behavior as negative and they always believe their behavior to be
socially acceptable (Maxwell, 2015; Schyns 2015).

Literature review
Research indicates that bad or toxic leadership is linked to several negative outcomes which
can be classified broadly into psychological- and performance-related outcomes. It is
important to note that stress and psychological well-being of the subordinates are the most
researched psychological outcomes of toxic leadership (Burris et al., 2008; Chen and Kao,
2009; Chua and Murray, 2015; Walton, 2007). Bad leadership is also significantly associated
with performance-related outcomes like decreased organizational commitment, injustice
perceptions, role conflict, interpersonal deviance and poor work-related attitudes among
subordinates (Duffy et al., 2002; Hoobler and Hu, 2013; Mawritz et al., 2012). Toxic leadership
is also found to be negatively associated with job satisfaction, job dedication and work
motivation (Aryee et al., 2008; Elangovan and Xie, 2000; Reed, 2004; Reed and Bullis, 2009;
Templer, 2018). The psychological impact of bad leaders on subordinates is discussed in
detail in the upcoming section.

Psychological distress as an outcome of toxic leadership


In our present study, psychological distress is viewed as an emotional condition that
involves negative views of the self, others and the environment. It is characterized by
unpleasant subjective states such feeling tense, worried, worthless, withdrawn and
irritable (Barlow and Durand, 2005). Sadness, anxiety, detachment with oneself and many
other symptoms of mental imbalance are manifestations of psychological distress. These
subjective states can reduce the emotional hardiness of individuals and impact their
ability to enjoy life and to cope with pain, disappointment and sadness (Rose and
Mechanic, 2002).
According to Hobman et al. (2009), long-term and regular contact with toxic leaders
cause strain and reduced well-being among their subordinates. Similarly, Kusy and
Holloway (2009) also reported low self-worth and reduced self-efficacy among those
subordinates who worked with toxic leaders for a longer period of time. Toxic leaders
wear down subordinates by yelling, criticizing and ridiculing, which immediately reduce
their self-confidence, self-worth and self-efficacy (Harvey et al., 2014). According to
Richman et al. (1992), subordinates’ perceptions of mistreatment results in negative
psychological consequences such as hostility, anxiety and depression. Findings of the
study conducted by Wu and Hu (2009) also suggested that there is an inverse relationship
between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion among subordinates. According
to Carlson et al. (2012), toxic leadership is also positively related to the high level of
withdrawal in subordinates. According to the findings of this study, subordinates
reported high level of detachment within oneself, depression, hopelessness and
detachment with work and role. In sum, three major outcomes in terms of psychological Toxic
distress due to toxic leadership reported in the literature are loss of self-worth, agitated leadership
and withdrawal (Hobman et al., 2009).

Coping with toxic leaders


Coping strategies refer to the specific behavioral efforts that individuals employ to
master, tolerate, reduce or minimize stressful events (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). In the 67
context of toxic leadership, it is observed that subordinates also try to cope with the
higher level of stress and negative emotions due to bad or toxic leadership by using three
coping strategies: assertive coping, avoidance or adaptive coping (Krischer et al., 2010;
Webster et al., 2016). It is also evident that subordinates use assertive coping mechanisms
to deal with toxic leaders by taking direct actions like reporting the toxic attributes,
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

behavior and wrongdoing by the leader to the higher authorities. This, however, is more
likely to take place when there is a prevalence of an ethical climate in the organization
(Cullen et al., 1993). Perceived fear of retaliation from the leader as well as from peers is a
precursor to an employee reporting toxic behaviors of the leader to a higher authority
(Keenan, 2002). In this case, the second method of coping with toxic leaders is used
where employees may either adapt or may choose to remain silent and turn a blind eye
toward the behaviors and actions of toxic leaders. This coping strategy can be labeled as
adaptive coping.
Finally, it has been found that employees tend to balance perceived unfair behavior of
toxic leaders by either avoiding them or having minimum interactions with such toxic
leader (Lubit, 2004). Active or passive avoidance behaviors include withholding
information, not sharing business problems or opportunities with the leader, not helping
other co-workers and disrupting operations in the organization (Thau et al., 2009; Tripp
et al., 2002). This method of coping with a toxic leader stems from the fact that while
working with toxic leaders, employees feel victimized and they experience a loss of control
over situations. They find ways by which they can feel a sense of control, although in a
vengeful and destructive fashion. Using active and passive avoidance strategies with the
toxic leaders helps subordinates to restore the perception of control, autonomy and most
importantly justice, albeit through negative actions (Greenberg, 1990).

Rationale of the study and research questions


The significant impact of highly toxic leader behavior was reflected in the book Life and
Death in the Executive Fast Lane written by Kets de Vries (1995) when he explained that
“some leaders go far beyond the abnormal ways of functioning […] they go off the deep end”
(p. 217). Schyns and Schilling (2013) also concluded from their study that higher prevalence
rate and potentially severe effects of toxic leader on subordinates make it a concept worth
studying empirically. In this context, it is important to study the impact of toxic leadership
on emotional and psychological makeup of an individual employee and the method of
coping used by subordinates to deal with them.
It is important to mention here that there are no specific scales to measure the extent of
psychological distress in subordinates caused by toxic leaders. Most of the existing scales
to measure psychological distress (Watson et al., 1988) and coping strategies
(Folkman and Lazarus, 1988) are generic in nature. Therefore, there is a need to
develop a new and exclusive scale to measure psychological distress due to toxic
leadership and coping strategies employed by subordinates to cope with toxic leaders.
Taking an account the existing literature, the primary purpose of the study is to develop a
scale to measure three aspects of psychological distress caused by toxic leadership,
namely, agitated and withdrawal and loss of self-worth. A new scale will be developed to
measure the three aspects of coping strategy, namely, assertive, avoidance and adaptive
IJOTB coping in the present study. In this study, the relationship between psychological distress
22,1 caused due to working with toxic leaders and type of coping strategies used by
subordinates to deal with them will also be examined.

Methodology
Stage 1
68 In the first phase of the study, two questionnaires were developed for assessment of
psychological distress experienced by subordinates’ due to toxic leaders and coping strategies
employed to deal with toxic leaders. In the first stage, a total of 35 senior managers
representing sectors like banking, automobile, oil and gas sector were interviewed. The
average age of respondents was 36 years and their average work experience was 12.5 years.
The interviews were semi-structured; they were conducted one to one and usually lasted
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

60–90 min. Each respondent was asked to identify a leader whom he/she had worked with
earlier and whom he/she considered to be a bad/toxic leader. Each respondent was then asked
to give a detailed response on the following two open-ended questions:
(1) Share your experiences with the identified toxic leader, with whom you felt
uncomfortable to work with –with whom you would never like to work with
again – and explain how it affected you emotionally.
(2) Explain how you dealt with that leader.
Respondents were asked to keep a single toxic leader in mind with whom he/she had already
worked. The aim of applying such a restriction was to reduce the typical tendency to give
stereotypical and general responses and to thus elicit specific responses. Data collection and
qualitative data analysis occurred simultaneously as per Charmaz (2006) and Glaser and
Strauss (1968). Content analysis method suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1968) was used to
analyze the qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews. On the basis of
the content analysis of interview data, 20 items to measure psychological distress and
20 items to measure coping strategy were developed.

Stage 2
A panel of 20 researchers from the area of leadership and organizational behavior was
invited to evaluate 20 items of psychological distress and 20 items of coping with toxic
leader. Each participant was asked to independently rate each item in terms of its clarity,
redundancy and coherence with the constructs used in the study using a five-point rating
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items which received an
average rating of 4 and above were retained. As a result of this process, 15 items of
psychological distress and 16 items related to coping with a toxic leader were finalized after
some minor modifications in the framing of the items.

Stage 3
At this stage, primary data collection was conducted. The questionnaire was personally
administered. Respondents were asked to identify a toxic leader (whom he/she is working
presently or in the past) with whom they felt uncomfortable to work with. Respondents were
then asked to rate the level of psychological distress which they experienced working with
the toxic leader. Respondents also had to rate the coping strategies used to deal with the
identified leader. Respondents were assured of data anonymity and confidentiality.

Sample
Responses were obtained from 570 employees working in two public as well as two private
organizations in India. Data were collected after taking proper permission from authorities
in these organization. A total of 607 filled-in questionnaires were collected and 37 were Toxic
discarded due to incomplete response. Approximately two-third of the sample leadership
(73.33 percent) consist of male respondents. About 42 percent of respondents belonged to
the younger age group (up to 30 years); 19 percent to the moderate age group (31–45 years)
and finally almost 38 percent of the respondents represented higher age group (46 years and
above). Likewise, 41 percent respondents had less work experience (up to 5 years),
20 percent had moderate work experience (6–20 years) and nearly 39 percent had high work 69
experience (21 years and above). Sector-wise distribution of the sample was balanced as
approximately 54 percent of the respondents were from the private sector and 46 percent
represented the public sector.
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

Measures
Psychological distress. This scale seeks to identify the emotional reactions that respondents
experienced while working with a toxic leader. Sample items include “angry,”
“losing confidence in myself” and “detached from work.” It consists of 15 items to be
rated by the respondent on a seven-point Likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being
strongly agree.
Coping with the toxic leader. This scale attempts to identify the coping mechanisms used
by subordinates while working with a toxic leader. Sample items include “complained to the
higher authority,” “alienated and detached myself from the leader” and “tried to maintain
positive relationship with the leader.” The scale consists of 16 items, each to be rated on a
five-point Likert scale, 1 being never and 5 being always.

Results
Preliminary analysis
Since the data were collected using single survey instrument, Harmon one-factor test was
performed to test the influence of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Factor
analysis using principal axis factoring was used to test if one factor explains the majority of
variance. The results indicate that single factor solution explained only 21.94 percent of
variance which is less than the critical method factor cut-off value of 25 percent suggested
by Williams et al. (1989). Therefore, it can be concluded that common method bias is not a
serious threat to the findings of the present study.

Exploratory factor analysis


An iterative scale purification process was utilized as per the recommendations of
Churchill (1979). An exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with oblique
rotation) was conducted. Factor extraction was based on the principle of eigenvalue
greater than 1 which resulted in a six-factor solution. Variables with communalities
greater than 0.50 were retained in the analysis (Hair et al., 2006). For factor interpretation,
a threshold value of 0.50 or higher on a specific factor and a loading of no higher than
0.45 on other factors was considered (Igbaria et al., 1995). Six items were removed from the
list because their respective factor loadings were less than 0.5 on any of the six factors
extracted. The clustering of 25 items on six factors explained 47.78 percent of all variance.
The purified scale (refer to Table I) resulted in three dimensions of psychological distress,
namely, loss of self-worth, agitated and withdrawal, and three dimensions of coping
strategy to deal with toxic leader, namely, assertive coping, avoidance coping and
adaptive coping. Reliability of the six sub-scales was estimated with the help of internal
consistency method (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) which resulted in Cronbach’s α values
ranging from 0.52 to 0.81 (refer to Table I).
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

70
22,1

method)
Table I.
IJOTB

factor analysis
(maximum likelihood
Results of exploratory
Loss of Assertive Avoidance Adaptive
Items Mean SD self-worth Withdrawal Agitation coping coping coping Cronbach’s α

Insecure 4.31 1.71 0.523 0.803


Losing confidence in myself 3.73 1.80 0.941
Nervous 3.81 1.71 0.702
Unwanted 3.83 1.63 0.461
Deep sense of failure 3.54 1.77 0.525
Depressed and distressed 4.08 1.78 0.566 0.816
Detached from work 4.06 1.84 0.745
Frustrated 4.64 1.71 0.741
Helpless and hopeless 3.92 1.74 0.715
Angry 5.20 1.40 0.809 0.711
Humiliated 4.88 1.58 0.55
Irritated 5.39 1.43 0.552
Complained to the higher authority 2.11 1.44 0.727 0.78
Complained to the officers association 1.89 1.34 0.798
Left the organization because of the leader 2.06 1.69 0.412
Protested openly to the leader 2.59 1.48 0.529
Tried to mobilize the opinion of others against the leaders 2.49 1.59 0.457
Wrote anonymous letters to higher authority in the
organization 1.43 1.09 0.705
Alienated and detached myself from the leader 3.50 1.57 0.843 0.788
Avoided any communication with him/her 3.36 1.66 0.877
Did not share business related problems or opportunities
with him 3.36 1.78 0.441
Tried to maintain minimum relationship with the leader 3.62 1.66 0.597
Got furious but tried to compose myself for the right time
to discuss 4.08 1.61 0.438 0.527
Considered it as a bad phase which would ultimately
pass by 4.26 1.54 0.56
Tried to maintain positive relationship with the leader 3.97 1.53 0.483
Note: Extraction method: maximum likelihood
Descriptive statistics and correlation Toxic
Table II reports the mean, standard deviation and inter-correlations among six variables. It leadership
is clearly evident from Table II that the highest type of psychological distress among the
respondents has been agitated, followed by withdrawal and loss of self-worth. Among the
three coping strategies utilized to deal with toxic leaders, adaptive coping is the first
strategy used by subordinates, followed by avoidance and, finally assertive coping is used.
Results indicate the significant positive correlation between withdrawal and assertive 71
coping as well as avoidance coping. Agitated is significantly and positively correlated with
avoidance and adaptive coping and withdrawal is positively associated with assertive and
avoidance coping. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to investigate whether
psychological distress is associated with coping strategies (refer to Table III). The model for
assertive coping was significant (F ¼ 12.8, p o0.01). Nevertheless, it explains only 5 percent
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

of the total variance, while β coefficient (β ¼ 0.297, p o0.05) revealed a significant positive
role of withdrawal in assertive coping. The second model which investigated the association
between psychological distress and avoidance coping is also significant (F ¼ 11.38,
p o0.05), while β coefficient suggests significant negative association between the loss of
self-esteem and avoidance coping (β ¼ −0.115, po 0.05). Whereas, withdrawal (β ¼ 0.153,
p o0.01) and agitated (β ¼ 0.187, p o0.01) are positively associated with avoidance coping.
Finally, the third model of adaptive coping as a criterion variable and psychological distress
as a predictor variable is also significant (F ¼ 6.00, p o0.01) and β coefficient suggests a
significant negative association between the loss of self-worth and adaptive coping
(β ¼ −0.115, p o0.05) and a positive association between agitated and adaptive coping
(β ¼ 0.197, p o0.01).

Loss of Assertive Avoidance Adaptive


Variables Mean SD self-worth Withdrawal Agitation coping coping coping

Age – – −0.019 −0.181** −0.052 −0.214** −0.275** −0.091


Work experience – – −0.021 −0.154** −0.041 −0.188** −0.252** −0.064
Gender – – −0.011 0.035 −0.006 0.055 0.055 −0.104*
Education – – −0.075 −0.083 0.025 0.013 0.114** 0.184**
Sector – – 0.003 0.154** 0.023 0.260** 0.240** 0.084
Loss of
self-worth 3.84 1.28 – 0.576** 0.460** 0.090 0.059 −0.037
Withdrawal 4.17 1.41 0.443** 0.241** 0.169** −0.001
Agitation 5.15 1.17 0.055 0.202** 0.135**
Assertive coping 2.09 1.00 0.428** 0.088*
Avoidance coping 3.45 1.30 0.286** Table II.
Adaptive coping 4.10 1.11 Descriptive statistics
Notes: *,**Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels (two-tailed), respectively and correlation

Independent variables Assertive coping Avoidance coping Adaptive coping

Loss of self-worth −0.058 −0.115* −0.115*


Withdrawal 0.297** 0.153** −0.022
Agitation −0.050 0.187** 0.197**
R2 0.064 0.057 0.031
Adjusted R2 0.059 0.052 0.026 Table III.
F-statistic 12.80** 11.38** 6.00** Multiple regression
Notes: *,**Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively analysis
IJOTB Discussion
22,1 Psychometric validation of the psychological distress scale resulted in the formation of a
three-dimensional scale, namely, loss of self-worth, withdrawal and agitated. Loss of self-
worth was characterized by an individual feeling of deep sense of failure, loss of self-
confidence, feeling nervous, insecure and unwanted due to the experience of working with
a toxic leader. Withdrawal was characterized by feeling hopeless, irritated and detached
72 from work and feeling depressed while working with the toxic leaders. Finally, feeling
agitated includes feeling angry, humiliated, hurt and irritated due to bad behavior from
toxic leaders. The three factors which resulted from the analysis of coping strategies were
labeled as assertive, avoidance and adaptive coping strategies. Assertive coping strategy
was characterized by taking prompt action to deal with toxic leaders such as direct
complaints to internal higher authority or officers’ associations. Subordinates using
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

avoidance coping strategy to deal with toxic leaders maintain a distance or minimum
relationship with the leader and try to avoid meeting him/her as much as possible. Finally,
adaptive coping strategy was characterized with the use of adaptive mechanisms by the
subordinates like maintaining a positive relationship with the leader. Even if they got
furious with the toxic leader’s behavior, they sought to control their anger and wait for the
right time to discuss.
The present study proposed and tested the impact of toxic leadership on the emotional
and psychological state of the subordinates. Findings of the present study reveal that
respondents reported a prominent level of irritation, anger and frustration followed with a
higher sense of insecurity, frustration and detachment from work while working with toxic
leaders. Findings of the present study are similar to the study by Rafferty and Restubog
(2011) who also reported a positive association between abusive leadership and
psychological distress (the extent to which subordinates reported anxiety, fear and
depression over the previous month). The study also identified and analyzed different
coping mechanisms used by the subordinates to manage with toxic leaders. In the present
study, it was found that subordinates reported higher usage of adaptive coping, rather than
assertive and avoidance coping mechanisms to deal with toxic bosses. The respondents
considered working with the toxic leader as a “bad phase” which would ultimately pass. It is
also important to note here that when they are treated badly, respondents do not react
immediately and continued to maintain a positive relationship with the toxic leaders,
perhaps because their present evaluations as well as future career progress were at stake.
The second most used coping strategy used by subordinates to manage working with the
toxic leaders was the avoidance strategy. According to the findings of the study,
subordinates reported that they tried to maintain maximum distance, least possible
communication and interpersonal relations with the toxic leader. The most detrimental
aspect of avoidance approach is to withhold information about business problems and
opportunities from the toxic leader. Besides this, employees who feel victimized by toxic
leaders develop a desire for retaliation against those supervisors responsible for their
psychological distress (Ambrose et al., 2002). Greenberg (1990) suggested that employees
who worked with toxic leaders often engage in retribution to reinstate a sense of justice.
According to Duffy et al. (2002), subordinates often use obscure strategies like spreading
rumors, silently disobeying and censoring information from supervisors which impacts a
toxic boss negatively over time. This can also vitiate the atmosphere and poison the work
culture and climate of the organization. Last but not the least, some of the respondents also
reported the use of assertive coping mechanisms like open protest and trying to mobilize the
opinion of others against the toxic leader. Respondents also reported that they have
complained to higher authorities or officers’ associations, sometimes openly and sometimes
anonymously. But most important of all, in the extreme case, respondent have also indicated
that they quit the organization because of the toxic behavior of their respective bosses.
Such a move is the definitive strategy to reduce stress levels as well as negative emotions Toxic
caused by the perceived mistreatment by the toxic leader. Above all, in due course leaving leadership
the job is a retaliatory act which helps to restore the perceptions of control and autonomy
among the subordinates (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007).
The results clearly bring out that agitated is at the first level of the intensity of emotional
distress; followed by withdrawal at the second-level distress intensity and finally there is
loss of self-worth which may be the highest level of distress intensity. The coping responses 73
are also calibrated accordingly. Thus, those who experience agitated (relatively mild level)
while working with toxic leaders, attempt to use the coping strategy of adaptation followed
by avoidance. Those subordinates who reported a high degree of withdrawal while working
with toxic leaders (moderate level of intensity of emotional distress), actively cope by being
assertive and they try to handle the situation to the best of their ability. This level of
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

psychological distress still gives the subordinates the strength to act and even fight back.
Finally, higher the loss of self-worth (highest intensity of emotional distress) lower the use of
either of the three coping strategies mentioned above, indicating a tendency to give up.
(Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Nielsen and Knardahl, 2014). Thus, when there
is no hope of the situation changing, there is no effort made to cope. Although the person is
physically present in the organization, he or she is not there in every other way.

Practical implications
This study has important implications for leaders as well and for their respective
organizations. Organizations should take timely proactive actions for identification and
correction or elimination of toxic leaders present in their respective organizations, otherwise
it become difficult to control the bad word-of-mouth spread against organization on social
media like LinkedIn and Glassdoor. Additionally, it is observed that toxic leaders often give
immediate results, but they make their subordinates suffer. An important implication from
the findings of the study is the suggestion that organizations should be aware and
cautiously analyze the performance before rewarding toxic leaders. In addition,
organizations should also devise anonymous whistle-blowing mechanisms, so that
subordinates can expose the wrongdoings of toxic leaders. If subordinates silently adapt to
the whims and fancies of toxic leaders, it is detrimental for both subordinate as well as
organizational performance. Moreover, passive coping strategies like maintaining distance,
avoiding communication and most importantly, withholding organizationally relevant
information from the leaders can have a direct destructive impact on both employees and
organizational performance. Besides, it results in creating a toxic work environment which
leads the whole organization into a vicious cycle of discouragement and delinquency.
Institutionalizing formal HR practices to address employees’ complaints may help to reduce
the negative effects of toxic leadership. The presence of such leaders in the organization
especially at very senior levels can create a culture of sycophancy in which people, in an
attempt to get close to those in power may become tale carriers, run down colleagues and in
general destroy team working and collaboration. These are some of the factors which
constrain an organization from reaching its full potential.

Strengths, limitations and future research


The strength of the present study is the large sample of experienced employees from Indian
public and private sectors both describing the impact of psychological distress and resulting
coping strategy used to deal with toxic leaders. There are other empirical studies which have
examined the agitation as the component of distress (Carlson et al., 2012), but in the present
study we have also examined how toxic leadership contributes to withdrawal, detachment and
disengagement from work, sense of irritation and humiliation, low sense of self-worth which
includes negative self-perception and low-self-esteem. Our study is not without limitations.
IJOTB First, all of our variables have been tested in the self-report format. Second, we have not
22,1 directly studied toxic leadership of the present (toxic) leaders whom the respondents are
currently working with (at the time of the study). Further research should examine the
current leader’s impact on the psychological state of the subordinates and resulting coping
mechanisms used by the subordinates to manage the toxic leader. Another limitation of
the present study is that in the present study the influence of a variable, namely, level in the
74 hierarchy (of both the toxic leader and the subordinates) is not studied. Position in hierarchy
will impact the skill with which toxic leaders may engage in their destructive behaviors as well
as the difference in coping strategies used by subordinates due to their rank in hierarchy
(Giessner and Schubert, 2007). Future research should examine the role of hierarchical status
of toxic leaders and subordinates in determining psychological distress and coping strategy.
Finally, due to cross-sectional nature of the study, the causality between psychological distress
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

and coping strategy cannot be established. Hence, it is suggested that future research with
longitudinal design should be undertaken to support and strengthen the findings of the study.

References
Aldwin, C.M. (1994), Stress, Coping, and Development, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A. and Schminke, M. (2002), “Sabotage in the workplace: the role of
organizational injustice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 947-965.
Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X.G. and Debrah, Y.A. (2008), “Abusive supervision and contextual
performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit
structure”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 393-411.
Ashforth, B. (2003), “Petty tyranny in organizations”, in Porter, L.W., Angle, H.L. and Allen, R.W. (Eds),
Organizational Influence Processes, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, NY, pp. 151-171.
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Barlow, D.H. and Durand, V.M. (2005), Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach, Wadsworth,
Belmont, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Bennis, W.G. (1989), “Managing the dream: leadership in the 21st century”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 6-10.
Bligh, M.C. and Hess, G.D. (2007), “The power of leading subtly: Alan Greenspan, rhetorical leadership,
and monetary policy”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 87-104.
Boddy, C., Miles, D., Sanyal, C. and Hartog, M. (2015), “Extreme managers, extreme workplaces:
capitalism, organizations and corporate psychopaths”, Organization, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 530-551.
Boddy, C.R. (2014), “Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and
counterproductive work behaviour”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 107-121.
Boddy, C.R. (2017), “Psychopathic leadership a case study of a corporate psychopath CEO”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 141-156.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6,
pp. 912-922.
Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E. and Whitten, D. (2012), “Abusive supervision and work–family
conflict: the path through emotional labor and burnout”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 849-859.
Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Research, Toxic
Sage Publications, London. leadership
Chatterjee, A. and Hambrick, D.C. (2007), “It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and
their effects on company strategy and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 351-386.
Chen, H. and Kao, H.S. (2009), “Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates’
psychological health”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 75
No. 12, pp. 2533-2546.
Chua, S.M.Y. and Murray, D.W. (2015), “How toxic leaders are perceived: gender and information-
processing”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 292-307.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.


Collins, M.D. and Jackson, C.J. (2015), “A process model of self-regulation and leadership: how
attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive
leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 386-401.
Conger, J.A. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 44-55.
Cullen, J.B., Victor, B. and Bronson, J.W. (1993), “The ethical climate questionnaire: an assessment of its
development and validity”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 667-674.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social undermining in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and
conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Elangovan, A.R. and Xie, J.L. (2000), “Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate work
attitudes”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 319-328.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1980), “An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample”,
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-239.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1988), Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Frost, P. (2003), Toxic Emotions at Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Frost, P. and Robinson, S. (1998), “The toxic handler: organizational hero and casualty”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 96-106.
Gallos, J.V. (2008), “Learning from the toxic trenches the winding road to healthier organization and to
healthy everyday leaders”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 354-367.
Giessner, S.R. and Schubert, T.W. (2007), “High in the hierarchy: how vertical location and judgments
of leaders’ power are interrelated”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Glaser, B.S. and Strauss, A. (1968), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Glasø, L., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G. and Einarsen, S. (2018), “Leadership, affect and outcomes:
symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Goldman, A. (2008), “Company on the couch unveiling toxic behavior in dysfunctional organizations”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 226-238.
Goldman, A. (2009), Transforming Toxic Leaders, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Vol. 6, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
IJOTB Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., Gillis, W.E. and Martinko, M.J. (2014), “Abusive supervision and the entitled
22,1 employee”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 204-217.
Hobman, E., Restubog, S. and Bordia, P. (2009), “Abusive supervision in advising relationships:
investigating the role of social support”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 233-256.
Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “Leadership styles as predictors of
self-reported and observed workplace bullying”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
76 pp. 453-468.
Hoobler, J.M. and Hu, J. (2013), “A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 256-269.
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G.B. (1995), “Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage
via a structural equation model”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 4,
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

pp. 87-114.
Illies, J.J. and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2008), “Responding destructively in leadership situations: the role of
personal values and problem construction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 1,
pp. 251-272.
Kant, L., Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T. and Einarsen, S. (2013), “Beware the angry leader: trait anger and
trait anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 106-124.
Keenan, J.P. (2002), “Whistleblowing: a study of managerial differences”, Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Kellerman, B. (2004), Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Kets De Vries and M.F.R. (1995), Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane: Essays on Irrational
Organizations and their Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Knoll, M., Lord, R.G., Petersen, L.E. and Weigelt, O. (2016), “Examining the moral grey zone: the role of
moral disengagement, authenticity, and situational strength in predicting unethical managerial
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Krischer, M.M., Penney, L.M. and Hunter, E.M. (2010), “Can counterproductive work behaviors be
productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 154-166.
Kusy, M. and Holloway, E. (2009), Toxic Workplace: Managing Toxic Personalities, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Levinson, H. (1976), Psychological Man, Levinson Institute, Boston, MA.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005), The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt
Politicians – And How We Can Survive Them, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lubit, R. (2004), Coping with Toxic Managers, Subordinates and Other Difficult People, Prentice
Hall–Financial Times, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McCall, M.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983), “Off the track: why and how successful executives get
derailed”, Technical Report No. 21, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J. and Marinova, S. (2012), “A trickle-down model
of abusive supervision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 325-357.
Maxwell, S.M. (2015), “An exploration of human resource personnel and toxic leadership”, Doctoral
Dissertation of College of Management and Technology, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN,
available at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=
dissertations (accessed May 20, 2016).
Mitchell, M.S. and Ambrose, M.L. (2007), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4,
pp. 1159-1168.
Nielsen, M.B. and Knardahl, S. (2014), “Coping strategies: a prospective study of patterns, stability, and Toxic
relationships with psychological distress”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 2, leadership
pp. 142-150.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 248-292.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. and Kaiser, R.B. (2007), “The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, 77
pp. 176-194.
Pelletier, K.L. (2010), “Leader toxicity: an empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric”,
Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 373-389.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rafferty, A.E. and Restubog, S.L.D. (2011), “The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’
organizational citizenship behaviours: the hidden costs of abusive supervision”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 270-285.
Reed, G.E. (2004), “Toxic leadership”, Military Review, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 67-71.
Reed, G.E. and Bullis, R.C. (2009), “The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and
civilian employees”, Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Richman, J.A., Flaherty, J.A., Rospenda, K.M. and Christensen, M. (1992), “Mental health consequences
and correlates of medical student abuse”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 267
No. 5, pp. 692-694.
Rose, S.M. and Mechanic, M.B. (2002), “Psychological distress, crime features, and help-seeking
behaviors related to homophobic bias incidents”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 14-26.
Rosenthal, S.A. and Pittinsky, T.L. (2006), “Narcissistic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 617-633.
Schmidt, A.A. (2008), “Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale, available at: http://
drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/8176/umi-umd-5358.pdf;jsessionid=ACD7324236A12
1B5BFCBA18F3386DA30?sequence=1 (accessed May 20, 2016).
Schyns, B. (2015), “Dark personality in the workplace: introduction to the special issue”, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013), “How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 138-158.
Shaw, J.B., Erickson, A. and Harvey, M. (2011), “A method for measuring destructive leadership and
identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 575-590.
Templer, K.J. (2018), “Dark personality, job performance ratings, and the role of political skill: an
indication of why toxic people may get ahead at work”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 124 No. 5, pp. 209-214.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C. and Hua, W. (2009), “Abusive supervision,
intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: a power/dependence analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 156-167.
Thau, S., Bennett, R.J., Mitchell, M.S. and Marrs, M.B. (2009), “How management style moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: an uncertainty management
theory perspective”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1,
pp. 79-92.
IJOTB Thoroughgood, C.N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S.T. and Tate, B.W. (2012), “The susceptible circle: a
22,1 taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 897-917.
Treviño, L.K., Brown, M. and Hartman, L.P. (2003), “A qualitative investigation of perceived executive
ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite”, Human Relations,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Tripp, T.M., Bies, R.J. and Aquino, K. (2002), “Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of
78 revenge”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 966-984.
Vreja, L.O., Balan, S. and Bosca, L.C. (2016), “An evolutionary perspective on toxic leadership”,
Management and Economics Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 217-228.
Walton, M. (2007), “Leadership toxicity – an inevitable affliction of organisations”, Organisations and
People, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-27.
Downloaded by International Management Institute Delhi At 00:36 01 April 2019 (PT)

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), “Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1063-1070.
Webster, V., Brough, P. and Daly, K. (2016), “Fight, flight or freeze: common responses for follower
coping with toxic leadership”, Stress and Health, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 346-354.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and
perceptions at work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 462-468.
Wu, T.Y. and Hu, C. (2009), “Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: dispositional
antecedents and boundaries”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 143-169.

Further reading
Goldman, A. (2006), “High toxicity leadership: borderline personality disorder and the dysfunctional
organization”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 733-746.

Corresponding author
Snigdha Rai can be contacted at: snigdhabhu@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen