Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study investigates the lived experiences of followers under toxic leadership in Malaysia, extending prior research that established its prevalence and systemic entrenchment. Drawing on a quantitative dataset (n=79) across 24 industries, the analysis shifts focus from documenting occurrence to examining the psychological, motivational, and behavioral consequences of toxic leadership. Findings reveal that more than 80% of respondents experienced significant negative impacts, with over half reporting that harm extended into both work and personal life. Followers overwhelmingly attributed toxic leadership to self-interest and deliberate intent, thereby eroding psychological safety and intensifying distrust. Coping responses were marked by avoidance, silence, emotional withdrawal, and resignation, reflecting not apathy but fear of retaliation and futility of organizational oversight. Paradoxically, beneath this normalization of toxicity lies a fragile but widespread desire for change: 84.8% of respondents expressed openness to reform, with a majority strongly endorsing systemic efforts to prevent and address toxic leadership. By integrating organizational behavior, cultural, and psychological frameworks, this study highlights two enduring insights: toxic leadership produces whole-life harm rooted in perceptions of leader self-interest, and cycles of silence and institutional failure perpetuate toxicity, even as followers retain hope for transformation. These findings underscore the destructive endurance of toxic leadership in Malaysia and the latent collective readiness for change, offering critical implications for leadership scholars and practitioners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gandolfi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: