Really, this has nothing to do with research methods, it has to do with

personality disorders and which type of personality disorders is in question.

There are several questionnaires to find out who is a psychopath and who is not. Do you really think that a psychopath would honestly answer the questions if his whole life is a lie more or less.

Some personality disorders are professional liars (NPD, BPD). They really need to hit the rock-bottom to start being honest. Mostly those would be sweet like honey for their principles and their real face will be unveiled towards subordinates, when others don't see. The image seen by the principles and this reported by subordinates of the toxic boss contradict each other so much that subordinates report becomes unbelievable.

You propose that defining a personality type can therefore establish the mechanisms of organisational bullying? Everyone understands toxic leaders are Machiavellian. The question posed is how does the researcher circumnavigate the Machiavellian to change outcomes? Or even, how can the researcher provide assistance to destabilizing a structure built to serve the Machiavellian? Or how about, how can the researcher provide information to society to understand they are puppeted by toxic leaders? You also make assumptions regarding psychopathy, 'disorders', and revert to old research methods of questionnaires. My question relates to how can researchers affect a positive social impact through changing the way in which information is collected and used.

I suspect this is more an issue of leadership style AND personality. Checking into transactional vs. transformational leadership might help. Still, you might consider the following:

Toxic leadership and bullying are multidimensional problems that span many disciplines, including psychology, sociology, organizational behavior, business ethics, and even law. Insights gained from an interdisciplinary approach can be more comprehensive and nuanced.

Using mixed methods: Combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. It is possible to gather numerical data about the prevalence, types, and effects of toxic leadership and bullying through surveys and structured interviews. In-depth interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic studies can reveal subtleties, personal experiences, cultural norms, and organizational dynamics that are difficult to quantify.

In light of the long-term effects of toxic leadership and bullying, longitudinal studies may provide insight into the evolution and impact of these behaviors over time. In order to identify preventive measures and understand patterns, this information can be crucial.

A detailed case study of an organization or team with toxic leaders can provide a rich context-specific understanding. It can assist in identifying unique enabling factors, impacts, and organizational responses.

Fear of retaliation can inhibit honest reporting of toxic leadership. Anonymous surveys and confidentiality assurances can mitigate this issue.

A critical realist approach can assist in uncovering the mechanisms and structures contributing to toxic leadership and bullying. Through it, it is possible to gain a better understanding of not only the observed behaviors, but also the underlying cultural, psychological, and structural factors that are responsible for those behaviors. I am currently writing an article on this topic. CR is a powerful meta-theoretical perspective.

Consider intersectionality in your acknowledgement and consideration. Significant differences can exist in how people experience bullying and toxic leadership depending on their race, gender, age, disability, class, and other intersecting identities.

Include multiple perspectives in your research design, including the victims, bystanders, HR professionals, management, and even the alleged bullies themselves. As a result, you may be able to gain a more complete understanding of the problem and possible solutions.

To Researching sensitive topics such as bullying and toxic leadership requires careful attention to ethical issues, including informed consent, respect for individuals, and potential harm. All phases of a researcher's study should consider these.

Consider action-oriented research methodologies that aim to provide a better understanding of the problem and inform interventions, policy changes, and prevention strategies. Research methodologies such as action research or participatory action research may be suitable.

Absolutely. I did all that, including developing a cost benefit analysis on the cost advantages of preventing bullying as well as developing a bullying prevention program that detected patterns of bullying and an anonymous reporting system to protect all parties. All was buried by the leaders.

More than just leadership style and personality, I believe social science research and insights should focus more on systemic social issues. I, indeed, conducted highly complex, multi-method research using one organisation as a case study (using all the concepts you have listed) and that organisation chose to censor and hide the results. Therefore there was no change, the bullying continued, and the leaders deflected accountability.

My argument is that wicked problems are perpetuated by leaders. I believe we should be asking different questions in different ways to be able to prove that however, involving leaders within that equation will always nullify the results.

I think you have identified the issues very well in your paper and your last response to Ken Schmidt. The fault was not in the part of the researcher but on the controlling and bullying behaviour of the leadership.

This is not a problem of the research or methodology but of the culture of the organisation and, as someone once said, "culture eats strategy for breakfast". I believe the same is true for research.

As Rittel and Webber noted in their definition of 'wicked problems':

1 There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem

5 Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot’ operation; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly

7 Every wicked problem is essentially unique

Each and every situation of bullying and harassing leadership is a uniquely formulated problem with no specific resolution, as each situation is unique in some way.

As Martin (1992) identified, organisational culture is subject to 'feeder' cultures in external affiliations and wider society, whether that be professional codes of conduct or toxic masculinity.

From what you have written, it seems that you experienced this behaviour at first hand and may have insights in addition to those you have already described. Some of those would not necessarily have been intended as part of the research and may be part of the wider range of disciplines Ken referred to in his comment.

The solution to 'wicked problems' such as this are not only 'one-shot' operations but need to operate across many dimensions simultaneously. I doubt if anyone would put their entire faith in the use of a poster campaign to solve the problem - if that was effective, we would not have misogyny or racism.

I don't have any solutions to this particular problem - but I doubt if there is one that will work in all situations as it is a culturally based problem. Changing the culture of an organisation is fraught with difficulties and takes a long time but that does not mean that we should not try. Perhaps 'outing' the toxic leadership problem, in a similar manner to that of 'institutional sexism' or 'institutional racism' would be a good starting point.

Thank you for your response. Indeed, I am very much trying to spark discussion on the broader aspects involved and to shed light on the complexity of social issues. I believe researchers are the critical starting point of being able to address wicked social problems and in throwing our hands up in the air and saying 'we've done our part' is contrary to the ethos of why we do research in the first place.

My research uncovered a plethora of issues that feed into why we have the social problems that we have. It's a big piece of work that no one person could consider looking at alone. I'm hoping to inspire audacious researchers to reconsider how they approach research and insights so that the work done in research can be applied in positive ways to address wicked problems.

Debate is good. We should think outside the box for solutions.

Researching the wicked problem of toxic leaders and bullying requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to uncover the truth, some key considerations for changing the research methodology to address this issue using a Mixed Methods Approach: Adopting a mixed methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative research methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. Qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, and case studies can help capture the experiences, perceptions, and narratives of individuals affected by toxic leaders and bullying. Quantitative methods, such as surveys and statistical analyses, can provide numerical data and identify patterns or correlations among variables related to toxic leadership and bullying.

Those leaders might have forgotten that "Honesty is the best policy"

unfortunately it is not the first time, in fact there is a long history if u look it up, that research results are buried and it continues to happen to this day

I don't think that researchers should be labeling their research topics--e.g. leadership style---as, for instance, wicked or toxic; this is biased.

Rather, leadership style 'is what it is', and there to be researched. Let the research audience decide.

@ Mary. Exactly. Hence mine is merely one example of how research results are buried. Unfortunately when these results are buried, the problem is never solved.

@Philip. Absolutely the role of the researcher is to research with independence however my research brief was to uncover the underlying factors to the workplace culture of bullying and harassment and when the result came back that it was due to leadership, the results were buried and skewed. As a behavioural scientist/social scientist, my area of interest is in wicked social problems hence the connection. My ethos is to share the knowledge I have - and let the audience decide.

There are several points, raised by various people, to which I would like to give a response.

Philip Adams I agree that researchers shouldn't label research topics, however, Rittel and Webber defined 'wicked problems' in their research into types of problem with very specific criteria. Susan is using the term in that regard, as I did when researching 'institutional abuse in care settings for older people'.

Similarly, characteristics of traits or behaviours may be labelled toxic, e.g. 'toxic masculinity' does not mean all masculinity is toxic. In some cases this may be the purpose of research, i.e. identifying these characteristics.

Tomasz Rybak you have referred to one aspect of the wicked problem. There are *some* leaders who have personality disorders and *some* may have unidentified personality disorders, while many may not have any such issues. Unfortunately, I am unable to recall the researcher who looked at psychopathy as a spectrum of behaviour (NOT in any way related to autistic spectrum issues). In this they were quite clear that just because we tend to associate the term with serial killers and axe murderers (courtesy of mass media) makes it hard to bear in mind that some sociopaths are very successful and may, in some cases, actually be part of the spectrum of behaviours that are psychopathic.

When we consider the nature of politics, certainly here in Britain and potentially in Russia, we can see that there are some people whose behaviour calls into question their commitment to 'the good of the people'. I leave it to others to discuss the nature of their mental state.

Mary-Helen Castanuela, absolutely there is research that gets buried. A close look at food scientists and their employers, with respect to ultra-processed food ingredients, will evidence that research gets biased in how it is presented. This is before we get around to the 'bottom-drawer' issue of research that doesn't disprove the null hypothesis (pharmacy please take note).

In my research and as I outlined in my earlier comment, organisational culture can be corrupted by outside influences, such as professional or political affiliation. It is also, obviously, affected by leadership style and leadership personality.

I am not washing my hands of the issue when I say I don't have the answers. I am merely acknowledging the difficulty in addressing them - which may be beyond the ability of researchers to formulate because of the nature of 'wicked problems', i.e. each situation is unique and what works in one may not work anywhere else.

thank you, Norman Sterling-Baxter. your las para pretty much says why i said what i said re always there.

Very deep topic. I have experienced that towards myself and witnessed toxic treatment of my colleagues. To address that some things are required to focus on: transparency and monitoring; not basing on the potential bully's feedback, take more 360o approach. Make sure people are feeling comfortable to speak about it. A toxic person would be sweet to her/his principals but evil to subordinates, so it is important to get feedback from the last and have a objective view on the problem. I would also look if people feel appreciated, usually bully bosses, try to take all the credit. Finally important indication: people smiling honestly in the office indicated healthy culture, bully, toxic couture can be detected straight away, seeing people depressed, stressed and not valued.

Norman Sterling-Baxter, You captured most of the salient points I intended to highlight based on the previous contributions. Without extensive digression from the original question, ethics, criticality, culture, and context are among other factors to be considered in determining a research methodology.

Culture and context are often not thoroughly examined in deciding research methodology. These factors (culture and context) are intrinsically interchangeable but provide reflexivity in understanding diverse sociological phenomena. Follow the existing paradigms as much as they are relevant to your methodology but make room for contextual analysis. Every study with subjective reality should have its positionality, biases, and assumptions. A broader examination of certain premises can dispel the foundational concepts on which the research question is built.

Take mentioned "political nature" aforementioned earlier, for example. When political leadership is subjected to or influenced by externalities, a holistic context evaluation would reveal that leadership characterisations, however, earlier known, are not independent of the prevailing factors. So, reporting only the result without causal connections brings the finding to half-truth, if not rehiding the very essence of the research focus.

Norman Sterling-Baxter agree with the disordered personalities, especially BPB, which tend to be dominant personality in the current corporate World

@Norman - your discussion is appreciated. My research sought to look at bullying prevention in the organisation and instead led me to understand the complex interplay of personality constructs and how these impact and shape organisational behaviour. Along the way I unfortunately learnt how it is 'leaders' that shape, not only organisations, but also the information that is authorised to be circulated perpetuating a belief system of their design. It is precisely this that I feel maintains wicked problems, as the solutions were at hand but tossed aside for an alternate agenda.

@Tomasz - thank you Tomasz for your perspective. Indeed I have found bullying is prevalent in many (most?) hierarchal organisational structures. Personalities shape and design the structure and culture where, I believe, you have a toxic environment where you have a toxic leader. We, as a society, have unfortunately rewarded those who are cunning - able to smile at the right time and say the right words at the right time. This becomes an additional limitation in uncovering the 'truth' as I found that responses to research questions were disingenuous and blatant lies.

@Mathias - thank you for your response.  Indeed reporting causal connections is imperative however when the results indicated the cause was leadership, the information was distorted to change the result.

My premise is that toxic leaders create the environment of their design to ensure their stronghold at the top. They fabricate illusions that lower echelons are the cause of unsavory cultures to deflect from their own nefarious intent (maintaining a stronghold, power and control). Toxic environments create the ability for manipulation and control.  At any time this is detected, with their capacity in leadership roles, they alter the results, narrative and rhetoric to protect their status and authority.

I had considered that reporting causal relationships from outside the organisation may allow for results to be more truthful.  However I found that, even when presenting information that clearly outlines that toxic leadership is the cause of bullying, the information was dismissed - as though it is unacceptable to understand toxic leadership exists.

What most research into toxic leadership and bullying look at, is the behaviour of the leaders.  Yet very little work is done looking at the accedence of followers to be manipulated as directed by leaders. 

Are researchers playing into the narrative?

Here's a thought: research organisations---academia---will be just as prone to toxic leadership as any other.

Hi Susan - I think the very ontology of toxicity needs to be challenged. The narrative of a 'bad' person with traits of bullying and persecution does not perhaps reveal the true moderators of hurt people feel that is mediated by others. For example, I found that staff who were less adept at their task would be defensive and I would sometimes use a different management tone compared to those performing well. I have personally never researched the topic - other than my periods of introspection as a CEO. But that hasn't stopped me from sharing my thoughts here (LOL) which perhaps adjusts our view on the epistemology of the toxic workplace https://youtu.be/AcYMae2-efs

Thank you so much, Sidney, for your perspective. Absolutely 'toxicity' is quite loaded and elicits a great deal of emotional response depending on how the subject has affected one. I did, indeed, start to pull apart 'perspective' in relation to the definition and, yes, it starts to get incredibly complicated. Perhaps this is exactly where we need to start when it comes to understanding 'toxicity' and bullying? The varying perspectives and how the issue not only affects them but then how that experience dictates response - a motivation and intent critique.

Having worked transitional ministry I've encountered and tried to assist a number of toxic leaders. From a perceived evaluation based on encounter my suspicion is the presence of strong narcissistic tendencies. A dual survey instrument could be designed to explore this asking the congregation (those being lead) about how their leader(s) respond to various situations and asking the leaders how they respond to the same and comparing / contrasting responses. Situations should be historical events rather than hypothetical gleaned from listening to the congregants stories. Understanding would be improved by supplementing with interviews.