






































 
16 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

 

Toxic Leadership and Organizational Commitment in 
Faith-Based Healthcare Organizations 
Franchetta Evans Honer, DBA | Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach, AL, United States 
Jodine Marie Burchell, PhD | Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach, AL, United States 

Contact: jodine.burchell@columbiasouthern.edu | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4927-5489 

 

Abstract 
In response to increasing cultural diversity at faith-based healthcare organizations, sincere, responsive, 
and sensitive leadership is critical to ensuring the organizational commitment of African American 
employees. Research was lacking on the relationship between toxic leadership and organizational 
commitment within faith-based healthcare settings. Further, little research existed on the ways toxic 
leadership affects the organizational commitment of African American workers. The purpose of this 
quantitative, non-experimental, correlational study was to examine the relationship between toxic 
leadership and organizational commitment among African American employees of faith-based 
healthcare organizations. This study's theoretical framework was based on Schmidt's toxic leadership 
theory and Allen and Meyer's organizational commitment theory. The variables for this study included 
toxic leadership and organizational commitment, categorized as affective, continuance, or normative 
commitment. The sample consisted of 84 African American employees of faith-based healthcare 
organizations working in Central Florida. Data were collected via an online survey consisting of the 
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire and Schmidt's Toxic Leadership Scale. The analysis 
consisted of three correlation tests to examine the relationship between (a) toxic leadership and (b) 
organizational commitment scales (affective, continuance, and normative). Results of the Spearman 
correlations indicated no statistically significant associations between toxic leadership and affective 
commitment or normative commitment. There was a significant, inverse association between toxic 
leadership and continuance commitment. Although more research is needed to understand toxic 
leadership and organizational commitment in faith-based facilities, the current study provides a 
foundation for future investigations. 

Keywords: Healthcare, Faith-based Healthcare, Organizational Commitment, Toxic Leadership 

mailto:jodine.burchell@columbiasouthern.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4927-5489


 
17 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Introduction/Background 
In response to increasing cultural diversity at faith-based healthcare organizations, sincere, responsive, 
and sensitive leadership is critical to ensuring the organizational commitment of African American 
employees (Shelton et al., 2017). Business administrators must understand and detect toxic leadership, 
as it can undermine an organization's mission, practice, and general work culture (Singh et al., 2018). 
Toxic leaders may employ methods that do not align with the overarching values of faith-based 
organizations (Billings, 2020; Jones, 2017; Scroggins, 2019), thereby undermining workers' 
organizational commitment (Kılıç & Günsel, 2019; Yaghi, 2019; Yalçınsoy & Işık, 2018). 

Toxic leadership describes leadership behaviors that create unhealthy organizational cultures: 
intimidation, bullying, refusal to take feedback, and single-minded priorities (Singh et al., 2018). 
Organizational commitment is an understanding of employees' attachment to their employing 
organizations (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Faith-based organizations are individuals united by religious or 
spiritual beliefs (Abara et al., 2015). According to Glowacki-Dudka and Griswold (2016), ineffective, 
inappropriate, or misaligned leadership can be detrimental to organizational performance (Glowacki-
Dudka & Griswold, 2016). The adverse effects of toxic leadership on African American employees can 
include poor communication, misperceptions, marginalization or stigmatization, perceptions of inequity, 
low job satisfaction, racial microaggressions, and reduced work performance (Abara et al., 2015). 
Research indicates that strong leadership and committed employees are essential to creating and 
managing a diverse workforce within the healthcare industry (Etowa & Debs-Ivall, 2017). 

In addition to toxic leadership, the dependent variables for this study included organizational 
commitment, categorized as affective, continuance, or normative commitment. The sample population 
for this study was African American employees of faith-based healthcare organizations working in 
Central Florida. The researcher explored workers' experiences with toxic leadership more fully, as it 
intersected with race and faith. The researcher collected data via an online survey consisting of 
demographic questions, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Meyer & Allen, 1991) 
and Schmidt's (2008) Toxic Leadership Scale (TLS). Because toxic leaders who lack cultural sensitivity 
can create poor organizational climates that undermine relationships with minority staff (Shelton et al., 
2017), it is also essential to examine how toxic leadership can influence the organizational commitment 
of minority employees. Accordingly, the sample consisted of African American employees of faith-
based healthcare organizations. 

Summary of the Literature 
Worker turnover within healthcare settings has significant economic, social, and organizational 
implications. Healthcare workers' shortage has become an increasing problem worldwide, resulting in 
high economic costs associated with recruiting and training replacement workers (Manzano-García & 
Ayala-Calvo, 2014). For example, by 2030, the nursing shortage is expected to reach 9 million 
(Goodare, 2017). Also, the quality of patient care is significantly undermined by high healthcare worker 
turnover (Tsai et al., 2017). Because healthcare is one of the fast-growing industries, addressing worker 
turnover is increasingly pertinent (Magwenzi, 2018). Worker turnover can be significantly impacted by 
toxic or destructive leadership. 



 
18 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Toxic Leadership 
Leadership researchers often examine the construct of leadership through a positive lens, emphasizing 
the potential benefits of inspiring, motivating, and transformational leaders (Bell, 2017). Leaders are 
viewed as mentors and role models who can positively transform employees and entire organizations 
(Magwenzi, 2018). However, a growing body of research points to destructive leadership's potential 
problems, also known as toxic leadership. 

Common traits of toxic leaders include unethical behavior, oppressive management, self-promotion, 
anger, and egotistical administrative behaviors (Abbas & Saad, 2020). As Hitchcock (2015) explained, 
"Abusive leaders blame, divide, marginalize, undermine, and intimidate employees" (p. 20). Toxic 
leaders often possess egotistical attitudes and demonstrate aggressiveness and self-centered orientations 
(Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013). Toxic leaders are most likely to blame others when things go wrong 
rather than taking ownership of their mistakes (Hitchcock, 2015). Intimidation, bullying, narcissism, 
authoritarianism, superiority, and low self-esteem are other common traits of toxic leaders (Güldü & 
Aksu, 2016). Further, toxic leaders often manipulate followers to take action that advances their 
personal agendas, regardless of the effects such action may have on followers or organizations (Padilla 
et al., 2007). Toxic leaders often fail to recognize their leadership's negative effects on subordinates, 
undermining their abilities to guide, mentor, and train employees (Abbas & Saad, 2020). Celmece and 
Isiklar (2017) described toxic leaders as "malevolent, maladjusted, malcontent, and harmful" (p. 9), as 
well as mocking, immoral, unreliable, hypocritical, and greedy individuals who do not recognize their 
shortcomings because of their arrogance. 

Schmidt (2008) suggested toxic leadership is composed of five dimensions: abusive leadership, 
authoritarian leadership, narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability. These five dimensions can 
significantly predict employee outcomes, such as turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and satisfaction 
with supervisors (Schmidt, 2008). Based on Schmidt's Toxic Leadership Theory, Schmidt's Toxic 
Leadership Scale (TLS) was created (Schmidt, 2008). 

Effects of Toxic Leadership 
Toxic leadership can have many negative effects on workers and organizations. For example, toxic 
leaders' hostile behaviors toward their subordinates can create anxiety among workers and damage 
organizations' administrative structures (Reyhanoğlu & Akin, 2016). According to Abbas and Saad 
(2020), toxic leaders can undermine administrative and organizational processes, employees' mental and 
physical health, and worker efficacy. These destructive leaders can also foster dysfunctional group 
behaviors, employee absenteeism and tardiness, and turnover and resignation (Abbas & Saad, 2020). 
Hadadian and Zarei (2016) found toxic leadership was positively correlated with employee stress, poor 
employee-leader relationships, and decreased organizational performance. Toxic leaders can also 
contribute to costly employee turnover (Duffield et al., 2015). For every ten leaders and employees who 
leave an organization because of toxic leadership, organizations' costs can surpass $1,000,000 (March, 
2016). Because of the negative effects of toxic leaders throughout entire organizations, organizations 
must detect and eradicate it. A challenge with addressing toxic leadership is that toxic leaders are often 
unaware of their behaviors' negative effects on their subordinates and organizations (Roter, 2012). 



 
19 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Toxic Leadership within Healthcare 
Little research has been conducted on the effects of toxic leadership within the healthcare sector; 
however, the few existing studies indicate several negative consequences for healthcare workers, 
organizations, and patients. Toxic leadership behaviors are increasingly common within stressed and 
overloaded healthcare systems (Magwenzi, 2018). The growing prevalence of toxic leadership within 
healthcare may be attributed to many factors, such as persistent shortages in healthcare workers, 
increased technology costs, and low reimbursement for healthcare costs (Magwenzi, 2018). As 
Magwenzi (2018) explained, "There is a history of indifference to toxic behaviors in healthcare that has 
been attributed to organizational tolerance, an unwritten code of silence, and the lack of willingness, 
initiative, skillset, and organizational structure needed to address toxic behaviors effectively" (p. 2). The 
consequences of toxic leadership in healthcare, including medical errors, adverse patient outcomes, and 
worker turnover, make addressing toxic leadership increasingly crucial within healthcare settings (Roter, 
2012). According to the Joint Commission (2016), workers who engage in toxic behaviors create the 
most significant legal liabilities for hospitals in the United States. 

Organizational Commitment 
Organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct; thus, its predictors, correlations, and 
outcomes vary across the examined dimensions (Meyer et al., 2002). Meyer and Allen (1991) developed 
a three-component organizational commitment model, consisting of affective commitment, normative 
commitment, and continuance commitment. These three components make up Meyer and Allen's (1991) 
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ).Affective commitment describes the degree to which 
an individual identifies and is involved with their employing organization. Normative commitment 
describes a worker's feeling of obligation to stay with an organization. Finally, continuance commitment 
refers to outside factors that keep an employee with an organization, as the cost of leaving is too great. 
Drawing upon the three-component model, Meyer et al. (2002) proposed that each component had 
distinct antecedents. The scholars suggested that the antecedents of affective commitment included 
personal characteristics and work experiences. Antecedents of continuance commitment included 
individual characteristics, alternatives, and investments. Finally, the antecedents of normative 
commitment included personal characteristics, socialization, experiences, and organizational 
investments. The only antecedent to span all three components, according to the scholars, was personal 
characteristics. Three affective, continuance and normative commitment outcomes included turnover, 
work-related behaviors (i.e., attendance, performance, and organizational citizenship), and workers' 
health and well-being. 

Effects of Organizational Commitment 
The organizational commitment of employees has many positive effects on workers and organizations. 
As Celmece and Isiklar (2017) explained, "employees who feel committed to their institution believe in 
the institution's objectives and values, carry out the orders and voluntarily perform what is expected of 
them" (p. 9). Committed employees also tend to work harder to achieve organizational goals, are more 
likely to stay with an organization, and are intrinsically motivated (Celmece & Isiklar, 2017). 
Organizational commitment can positively affect workers' performance and productivity, reduce 



 
20 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

absenteeism, and improve work-related quality of life (Celmece & Isiklar, 2017). According to Steers 
(1977) and Mowday et al. (1982), organizational commitment outcomes include retention, reduced 
absenteeism, and improved job performance. 

Within Healthcare Settings 
In response to healthcare workers' challenges and stressors, a growing body of research has emerged on 
organizational commitment within healthcare settings. For example, Newman et al. (2016) examined 
organizational commitment concerning organizational support and staffing adequacy perceptions. The 
scholars found that organizational support partially mediated the relationship between perceptions of 
staffing adequacy and affective organizational commitment. In contrast, organizational support was a 
full mediator in the relationship between perceptions of flexible work schedules and affective 
organizational commitment. Findings from Newman et al.'s research emphasized the multidimensional 
characteristics of organizational commitment and the multitude of antecedents, mediators, and 
moderators that influence the construct. 

Race, Organizational Commitment, and Toxic Leadership 
While researchers have explored how toxic leadership affects employees and organizations, less is 
known about its relationship with organizational commitment (Yaghi, 2019). However, findings from 
available research indicate toxic leadership undermines workers' organizational commitment, resulting 
in increased worker turnover. As Hitchcock (2015) explained, the behaviors of toxic leaders "create an 
environment that builds walls, and crushes creativity and loyalty" (p. 20). For example, findings from 
Yaghi's (2019) interviews with seven senior executives from various industries revealed that toxic 
leadership within organizations significantly impacted turnover decisions. Six participants had recently 
left their organizations because of toxic leadership, indicating that toxic leadership's adverse effects can 
span an organization's levels. As Yaghi explained, holding senior-level positions within a firm does not 
guarantee organizational commitment, nor does it make workers impervious to toxic leaders' effects. 
Accordingly, toxic leadership should be considered a problem affecting workers of all professional 
levels – from entry-level workers to senior executives. Reyhanoğlu and Akın (2016) also found toxic 
leaders had adverse effects on organizational climates, reducing workers' job satisfaction, organizational 
commitment, and intention to stay with an organization. Similar findings have been reported by Balli 
and Cakici (2016) and Yalçınsoy and Işık (2018). However, research lacks on how the effects of toxic 
leadership on organizational commitment may vary by race. An extensive review of the literature 
revealed a dearth of investigation on the relationships between these constructs. Some scholars have 
studied the effects of toxic leadership on different groups, but not in the context of healthcare or with the 
intent of examining effects on organizational commitment. For example, Scroggins (2019) studied how 
toxic and transformational leadership affected mentorship in African American Pentecostal churches. 
Findings revealed that toxic leadership was negatively associated with mentorship effectiveness, while 
the relationship between transformational leadership and effective mentorship was positive. 



 
21 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Toxic Leadership within Faith-Based Organizations 
Little research exists on the presence and effect of toxic leadership in faith-based organizations. 
However, findings from available studies reveal that faith-based organizations are not immune to toxic 
leadership's negative effects. For example, Billings (2020) examined toxic leadership among pastors of 
mega-churches using a case study approach. A review of case studies of three mega-churches (Mars 
Hill, Willow Creek, and Harvest Bible) revealed occurrences of toxic leadership. It provided an 
important reminder that churches – or any other type of faith-based organization – are not immune to 
toxic leadership. Toxic leadership in faith-based organizations may go unchecked when traditional 
hierarchal organizational structures are not present or under the assumption that leaders of faith-based 
organizations will not behave in destructive or toxic ways. Further, as Rainer (2014) explained, toxic 
leaders in faith-based organizations can get away with their behaviors because of charming and 
charismatic personalities. Billings' research emphasized the importance of examining toxic leadership in 
faith-based organizations and elucidating the gap addressed in the current investigation. 

Methods 
Based on the background and literature review, the problem for this study is a lack of information 
regarding the relationship between toxic leadership and organizational commitment among African 
American workers in faith-based healthcare organizations. A quantitative, non-experimental, 
correlational approach was selected to examine relationships between study variables among African 
American workers in faith-based healthcare organizations. The variables of toxic leadership and 
organizational commitment were assessed via pre-validated numerical scales. 

Research Questions and Hypotheses 
RQ1. What is the relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and 
normative organizational commitment among African American members of faith-
based healthcare organizations? 

H1o: There is no relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and 
normative organizational commitment among African American members of faith-
based healthcare organizations. 

H1a: There is a relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and 
normative organizational commitment among African American members of faith-
based healthcare organizations. 

Data Collection 
Participants were recruited from groups on Facebook and LinkedIn. The researcher searched for groups 
aimed at healthcare workers employed at both secular and faith-based organizations not to limit the 
search's scope. Also, groups primarily targeted at African American healthcare workers were sought. 
After identifying the groups, the researcher contacted group moderators via email, explaining the study's 



 
22 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

intent and seeking permission to post an email invitation to the group. After written permission was 
obtained from moderators, study invitations were posted to the group boards. The invitation contained a 
link to the informed consent form, which had to be completed before individuals could access the study 
survey. Screening questions were asked at the start of the survey to ensure all respondents met the stated 
eligibility criteria. Individuals who did not provide informed consent or were deemed ineligible through 
the screening questions were exited from the survey and redirected to a screen thanking them for their 
interest and time. 

Eligible individuals entered the online survey, which they completed from their location of choice. The 
survey was comprised of demographic questions as well as Likert-scale questions from Allen and 
Meyer's (1991) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ, 23 items) and Schmidt's (2008) Toxic 
Leadership Scale (TLS, 20 items). The survey took less than 10 minutes to complete, on average. Data 
were collected through SurveyMonkey, which was the survey platform selected for this study. Upon 
completion of the survey, participants were redirected to a screen thanking them for their time. After 
cleaning the data for incomplete surveys, the analysis began using SPSS. No follow-up procedures were 
employed; anonymous interaction with participants only involved the study survey's one-time 
completion. 

Data Analysis 
Following the data collection, survey data were extracted from SurveyMonkey and uploaded into SPSS 
version 27.0. Data were first examined for non-responses; surveys from participants who did not 
respond to most of the questionnaire (> 50%) were removed from the analysis. Composite scores were 
developed for toxic leadership and the three organizational commitment categories (affective, 
continuance, and normative) through an average of the respective items comprising each scale. Potential 
outliers were identified through the standardization of the composite scores around the mean. 
Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) suggested that standardized values exceeding the ± 3.29 standard 
deviations from the mean should be considered outlying values and removed or corrected. Correction for 
this study involved changing the existing outlying score to the average of all the other scores for that 
item. 

Frequencies and percentage distributions were examined for the nominal-level data. Means and standard 
deviations were examined for continuous-level data. A Cronbach's alpha test of reliability was 
conducted on each of the four scales. The strength of the alpha values was assessed via thresholds 
described by George and Mallery (2016) in which α ≥ .9 Excellent, α ≥ .8 Good, α ≥ .7 Acceptable, α ≥ 
.6 Questionable, α ≥ .5 Poor, α < .5 Unacceptable. Regarding internal consistency, Meyer and Allen 
(1991) reported the scales range from .74 to .89 for Affective Commitment, .69 to .84 for Continuance 
Commitment, and .69 to .79 for Normative Commitment. Schmidt (2008) reported scores for the Toxic 
Leadership Scale that range from .88 to .93. 

Before data analysis, the assumptions of linearity and normality were also tested. Linearity was tested 
with a series of scatterplots between toxic leadership and organizational commitment scales (affective, 
continuance, and normative). The assumption of normality was tested using two methods. First, 
histograms were created, and none appeared to be bell-shaped. Second, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was 
used for each variable. Significance on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < .05) indicates that the 



 
23 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

assumption of normality is not supported. All four Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for the scales were 
statistically significant, indicating that the assumption of normality was not supported for the data. 

Accordingly, a Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between (a) 
toxic leadership and (b) the organizational commitment scales (affective, continuance, and normative). 
To interpret the correlation coefficients' strength, Cohen's (1988) standard was applied, whereby 
coefficients between .10 and .29 represented a small association; coefficients between .30 and .49 
represented a medium, and coefficients above .50 represented a significant association. 

Results 
A total of 91 participants responded to the survey. Among these individuals, seven participants did not 
respond to any portion of the survey after consenting and were subsequently removed from further 
analysis. The final sample consisted of 84 participants. 

Descriptive Statistics 
Frequencies and percentages for the demographic variables are presented in Table 1. Most of the 
participants (n = 30) worked in nursing. Nineteen participants worked in management or supervisory 
positions. In terms of education, all participants had completed high school. Most participants (n = 36) 
had obtained high school diplomas or equivalent. Eight participants earned graduate degrees. Twelve 
participants had obtained undergraduate degrees, and another 12 had obtained associate degrees or 
certificates. Most respondents were employed full-time (n = 65), and religious affiliation was well-
distributed throughout the sample. 

  



 
24 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Table 1 

Frequencies and Percentages for Demographic Variables 

Variable n % 
What is your role?   

Management 8 9.5 
Supervisory 11 13.1 
Facilities 6 7.1 
Nursing 30 35.7 
Housekeeping 6 7.1 
Dietary 2 2.4 
Other 21 25.0 

What is your educational level?   
Did not complete high school 0 0.0 
High school graduate or equivalent 36 42.9 
Some college 16 19.0 
Certificate or associate's degree 12 14.3 
Undergraduate degree 12 14.3 
Graduate degree 8 9.5 

What is your religion?   
Baptist 24 28.6 
Christian 14 16.7 
Pentecostal 11 13.1 
Catholic 10 11.9 
Seventh Day Adventist 10 11.9 
Other 15 17.9 

What is your employment status?   
Full-time 65 77.4 
Part-time 15 17.9 
PRN- as needed 2 2.4 
Temporary 2 2.4 

Note. Due to rounding errors, percentages may not equal 100%. 

  



 
25 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Composite scores were calculated for the OCQ and TLS through an average of the respective items 
comprising the scales. The OCQ measures affective, continuance, and normative commitment, while the 
TLS measures toxic leadership. Cronbach's alpha was used to test the internal consistency of the scales. 
The strength of the alpha values was assessed through use of thresholds described by George and 
Mallery (2016) in which α ≥ .9 Excellent, α ≥ .8 Good, α ≥ .7 Acceptable, α ≥ .6 Questionable, α ≥ .5 
Poor, α < .5 Unacceptable. The reliability for continuance commitment (α = .75), normality commitment 
(α = .80), and toxic leadership (α = .99) met the acceptable threshold for internal consistency. The 
reliability for affective commitment (α = .61) had questionable internal consistency. Therefore, caution 
should be applied when interpreting descriptive and inferential statistics for the affective commitment 
scale. Cronbach's alphas for the scales are presented in Table 2. 

Table 2 

Cronbach Alpha for the Scales 

Variable Number of items α 
Affective commitment 6 .61 
Continuance commitment 6 .75 
Normative commitment 6 .80 
Toxic leadership 30 .99 

 

Affective commitment participant scores ranged from 2.50 to 5.00, with M = 4.37 and SD = 0.62. 
Continuance commitment scores ranged from 2.00 to 5.00, with M = 3.88 and SD = 0.79. Normative 
commitment scores ranged from 2.83 to 5.00, with M = 4.23 and SD = 0.61. Toxic leadership scores 
ranged from 1.00 to 4.60, with M = 2.18 and SD = 1.14. Descriptive statistics for the scales are 
presented in Table 3. 

Table 3 

Descriptive Statistics for the Scales 

Variable n Min Max M SD 
Affective commitment 84 2.50 5.00 4.37 0.62 
Continuance commitment 84 2.00 5.00 3.88 0.79 
Normative commitment 84 2.83 5.00 4.23 0.61 
Toxic leadership 84 1.00 4.60 2.18 1.14 

 

  



 
26 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Results 
For this study, the following hypothesis was tested: 

H1o: There is no relationship between toxic leadership and affective, continuance, and 
normative organizational commitment among African American members of faith-
based healthcare organizations 

A Spearman correlation test was conducted between toxic leadership and the three organizational 
commitment scales. Cohen's (1988) standard was applied to interpret the strength of the correlation 
coefficients, whereby coefficients between .10 and .29 represent a small association, coefficients 
between .30 and .49 represent a medium, and coefficients above .50 represent a large association. There 
were no statistically significant associations between toxic leadership and affective commitment (rₛ = -
.21, p = .054) or normative commitment (rₛ = -.12, p = .269). Both correlation coefficients indicated 
small associations between the variables of interest. There was a statistically significant association 
between toxic leadership and continuance commitment (r = -.43, p < .001). The correlation coefficient 
was negative, indicating a medium inverse association between toxic leadership and continuance 
commitment. These statistics indicate that as toxic leadership increases, each type of commitment 
decreases, but only continuance commitment was statistically significant. Affective commitment was 
only barely not significant. Due to one of the three correlations indicating significance, the null 
hypothesis (H1o) for the research question was partially rejected. Table 4 presents the findings of the 
Spearman correlations. 

Discussion 
Again, there were no statistically significant associations between toxic leadership and affective 
commitment or normative commitment. Both correlation coefficients indicated small associations 
between the variables of interest. There was a statistically significant association between toxic 
leadership and continuance commitment. The correlation coefficient was negative, indicating a medium 
inverse association between toxic leadership and continuance commitment. Due to one of the three 
correlations indicating significance, the null hypothesis (H1) for the research question was partially 
rejected. Each of the types of commitment are discussed in more depth below. 

Affective Commitment  
Affective commitment describes employees' emotional attachment to organizations (Yousef, 2016). 
Workers with high affective commitment stay with an organization because they want to, not because 
they feel obligated to do so. Among participants in the current study, affective commitment scores 
ranged from 2.50 to 5.00, with M = 4.37 and SD = 0.62. Based on these descriptive statistics, the 
average levels of affective commitment were relatively high within the sample. Of the three types of 
commitment assessed, affective commitment was highest among study participants. Overall, participants 
had a strong desire to remain with their organizations. Analysis revealed toxic leadership was not 
significantly associated with affective commitment, suggesting that even in the presence of toxic 
leaders, employees may maintain strong emotional attachments to their organizations. 



 
27 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Findings regarding the relationship between affective commitment and toxic leadership were 
unexpected, as previous researchers have reported the deleterious effects of toxic leadership on this type 
of commitment. For example, Ramadan and Eid's (2020) study on the effects of toxic leadership on the 
organizational commitment of nursing staff revealed a significant negative correlation between these 
two variables. Mehta and Maheshwari (2013) found toxic leadership were negatively associated with all 
facets of organizational commitment, including affective commitment. 

Normative Commitment 
Normative commitment describes employees' sense of obligation to an employing organization (Yousef, 
2016). Workers with high normative commitment remain with an organization because they believe it is 
the right thing. Among participants in the current study, normative commitment scores ranged from 2.83 
to 5.00, with M = 4.23 and SD = 0.61. Based on these descriptive statistics, the average levels of 
normative commitment were quite high within the sample. Overall, study participants had a strong sense 
of obligation to their organization and believed maintaining employment was "the right thing to do." 
Analysis revealed toxic leadership was not significantly associated with normative commitment, 
suggesting that even in the presence of toxic leaders, employees may maintain a sense of obligation to 
remain with their employing organizations. 

Like findings regarding the affective commitment variable, the lack of a significant relationship between 
affective commitment and toxic leadership was unexpected. Previous research on the deleterious effects 
of toxic leadership on organizational commitment expected that toxic leadership would be negatively 
associated with affective commitment. However, no significant relationship existed. This finding 
contradicted those from previous investigations. For example, Ramadan and Eid (2020) reported a 
significant negative correlation between affective commitment and toxic leadership. Weaver and Yancey 
(2010) reported that destructive leadership was negatively related to employees' affective commitment. 
The toxic leadership components (abusive supervision, authoritarian leadership, self-promotion, and 
unpredictability) were negatively associated with affective commitment in manufacturing employees in 
Paltu and Brouwers' (2020) study. 

Continuance Commitment 
Continuance commitment describes employees' awareness of the costs they would face if they left an 
organization (Yousef, 2016). Employees with strong continuance commitment may stay because the 
social or financial costs of leaving are too high, even if they are not incredibly happy with the 
organization. In the current study, participants' continuance commitment scores ranged from 2.00 to 
5.00, with M = 3.88 and SD = 0.79. Although participants' continuance commitment levels were lower 
than affective and normative commitment levels, continuance commitment was still moderate. Of the 
three types of commitment assessed, continuance commitment was the only type correlated with toxic 
leadership. Analysis revealed a medium inverse association between toxic leadership and continuance 
commitment; as toxic leadership increased, moderate decreases in continuance commitment were 
observed. Thus, toxic leadership was associated with lower employee awareness of the costs of leaving 
an organization. 



 
28 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

More broadly, these findings align with those from previous researchers who reported on the negative 
relationship between toxic leadership and organizational commitment. Interestingly, only two previous 
studies could be located where continuance commitment was specifically tested concerning toxic 
leadership. Pelletier (2010) found abusive leadership was significantly and negatively associated with 
continuance commitment. In contrast, Paltu and Brouwers (2020) studied toxic leadership and 
organizational commitment among manufacturing employees. They discovered a significant positive 
association between continuance commitment and two factors of toxic leadership (authoritarian and 
unpredictable leadership). 

Paltu and Brouwers' finding regarding the positive relation between continuance commitment and toxic 
leadership qualities reveals that the current study was not the first to demonstrate that toxic leadership 
may not be negatively associated with all facets of organizational commitment the literature may lead 
one to conclude. Unexpected findings may also suggest the presence of factors that counteract the 
effects of toxic leaders on employees. For example, because the current study only examined toxic 
leadership within faith-based organizations, many of the employees likely have religious or spiritual 
foundations that may help to strengthen them in the presence of negative situations. 

It is also important to note that the presence of toxic leadership was relatively low among participants. 
Toxic leadership scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.60, with M = 2.18 and SD = 1.14. On a scale of 1 to 5 
(with 5 indicating high levels of toxic leadership), the average toxic leadership score was just 2.18. 
Thus, the lack of statistical significance for affective and normative commitment may have been 
affected by generally low levels of perceived toxic leadership. With that said, the relatively low presence 
of toxic leadership is encouraging and suggests toxic leaders may be rare at the organizations included in 
this investigation. 

Theoretical Implications 
The theoretical framework for this study was based on toxic leadership theory (Padilla et al., 2007; 
Schmidt, 2008) and organizational commitment theory (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Schmidt (2008) 
suggested toxic leadership is composed of five dimensions: abusive leadership, authoritarian leadership, 
narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability. These five dimensions can significantly predict 
employee outcomes, such as turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and satisfaction with supervisors 
(Schmidt, 2008). When considering organizational commitment, findings from the current study 
highlight the importance of considering the prevalence of toxic leadership at an organization and 
protective factors among employees. Arguably, any toxic leader has the potential to affect an 
organization negatively. Still, it is also possible that the destructive actions of one or two toxic leaders 
may be diluted by an overwhelming presence of positive, strong leadership within an organization. 
Further, protective factors or traits among individual employees, such as resilience, spirituality, and a 
sense of purpose, may help reduce the negative effects of toxic leadership on facets of organizational 
commitment – especially when the presence of destructive leaders is low. Accordingly, future 
researchers should examine individual and organizational factors when assessing the potential effects of 
toxic leadership. 

Organizational commitment describes the degree to which individuals identify with and commit to an 
organization. Organizational commitment components include affective commitment, continuance 
commitment, and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment describes 



 
29 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

employees' emotional attachment to organizations; continuance commitment describes employees' 
awareness of the costs they would face if they left an organization; and normative commitment describes 
employees' sense of obligation to an employing organization (Yousef, 2016). In the current study, 
normative and affective commitment were not significantly associated with toxic leadership; a medium 
inverse association existed between toxic leadership and continuance commitment. Thus, the only 
significant relationship to emerge indicated that a decline in awareness of costs associated with leaving 
an organization was associated with an increase in toxic leadership. 

Findings from this study emphasize the differences in the three elements of organizational commitment 
and how outside factors may influence them in different ways. Results also suggest the need for future 
research to understand better how toxic leadership may relate to each element of organizational 
commitment, depending on outside factors. 

Implications for Professional Practice 
Although findings from only one of the tests conducted in this study were statistically significant, 
professional implications may be gleaned from the results. Overall, findings revealed that organizational 
commitment was high among employees, and toxic leadership was low. Without controlling for outside 
variables or conducting more objective assessments of toxic leadership, it is impossible to know if 
participants' high commitment caused them to perceive less toxic leadership or if toxic leadership was 
very low at the study sites. Regardless, these findings were positive and suggested that the workplace 
environments at the study site facilities are likely positive settings that foster employee satisfaction and 
commitment. The high levels of organizational commitment and low levels of toxic leadership may also 
reflect the faith-based nature of the study sites; however, further research would be required to make 
such claims. 

Employees' organizational commitment is vital to worker satisfaction, the care provided to patients, and 
the overall health of an organization. Organizational leaders interested in improving the commitment of 
all workers while improving patient outcomes and reducing expenditures should routinely check in with 
leaders and employees to make sure the leader/follower dynamics are healthy and conducive to success. 
In addition, leadership training may be a valuable tool for improving positive leadership traits and skills 
among organizational leaders. 

Limitations 
It can reasonably be assumed that culture and geographic area of residence and work may affect 
conceptions of leadership and toxicity. The study was further limited by the definition of toxic 
leadership, as participants' understandings of toxic leadership practices may differ from the researchers. 
Because data were gathered through a convenience sample of African American workers employed at 
faith-based healthcare organizations, findings are not generalizable to other populations and contexts. 
The study survey's anonymous and online nature presented another limitation. The researcher had no 
way of knowing who took the survey and trusted that only those who met the stated inclusion criteria 
completed it. 



 
30 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Future Research 
Results from this investigation revealed several opportunities for future research. First, the sample for 
this study was relatively small, which created limitations and required cautious interpretation of 
findings. Future researchers could replicate the current study with a larger sample by increasing the 
number of organizations included and broadening the geographic scope. Because the current study only 
leveraged study sites in a small geographic region, the research could also be conducted with a broader 
geographic scope. With a broader, more diverse, and nationally representative sample, findings may be 
more reliable. 

This research could also be replicated with other types of faith-based organizations. For example, 
researchers could examine relationships between organizational commitment and toxic leadership at 
other types of faith-based organizations, such as schools, churches, or nonprofit organizations, rather 
than limit the sample to employees at healthcare facilities. Additionally, scholars may assess differences 
in employees' organizational commitment and perceptions of toxic leadership based on whether an 
organization is faith-based. 

The current study focused on African American employees, so findings preclude understanding racial or 
ethnic differences in employees' organizational commitment or perceptions of toxic leadership. 
Accordingly, an investigation into ways employees' demographic characteristics (such as race, age, and 
gender) may influence these factors may address a shortcoming of the current study and contribute new 
knowledge to the literature. Besides toxic leadership, it is also essential to acknowledge that several 
factors could affect employees' organizational commitment. Thus, future researchers could assess for 
moderating factors in the relationships between organizational commitment and toxic leadership. 

Conclusion 
The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between toxic leadership and 
organizational commitment among African American employees of faith-based healthcare 
organizations. To date, this investigation is among the very few that have considered toxic leadership in 
faith-based organizations. In addition, the handful of existing studies on toxic leadership in faith-based 
organizations substantiated the existence of toxic leaders in faith-based organizations. Still, more 
research was needed to understand its presence and potential effects. 

Analysis for this study revealed no statistically significant associations between toxic leadership and 
affective commitment or normative commitment. However, a statistically significant negative 
association existed between toxic leadership and continuance commitment. Due to one of the three 
correlations indicating significance, the null hypothesis (H1o) for the research question was partially 
rejected. Overall, although the statistical significance of the results was modest, the findings are 
encouraging. Participants' relatively high levels of organizational commitment and low perceptions of 
toxic leadership suggest healthy workplace environments at the faith-based healthcare facilities that 
served as study sites. Although more research is needed to understand toxic leadership and 
organizational commitment in faith-based facilities, the current study provides future investigations. 
Healthy workplace environments characterized by committed employees and positive leadership are 



 
31 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

essential for any organization type. However, in healthcare settings, the implications extend beyond the 
viability and profitability of an organization to include patient outcomes. 

  



 
32 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

References 
Abara, W., Coleman, J. D., Fairchild, A., Gaddist, B., & White, J. (2015). A faith-based community 
partnership to address HIV/AIDS in the Southern United States: Implementation, challenges, and 
lessons learned. Journal of Religion and Health, 54(1), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-
9789-8  

Abbas, M., & Saad, G. B. (2020). An empirical investigation of toxic leadership traits impacts on 
workplace climate and harassment. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(3), 2317-2333. 
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100208309&tip=sid&clean=0  

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and 
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x  

Balli, E., & Cakici, A. (2016). The impact of organizational commitment on organizational silence in 
hotel businesses. Çukurova University Journal of FEAS, 20(2), 79-98. 
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cuefd  

Bell, R. M. (2017). The dysfunction junction: The impact of toxic leadership on follower effectiveness 
(UMI No. 10260880). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1881834074). 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1881834074?accountid=45424  

Billings, B. (2020). Mega-churches can have mega problems – Insights from toxic leadership in modern 
mega-churches. (Honors Thesis). https://repository.belmont.edu/honors_theses/7  

Celmece, N., & Isiklar, A. (2017). Impact of the perception of toxic leadership of healthcare 
professionals on organizational commitment and quality of work life. International Journal of 
Humanities, 3(2), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.30546/2523-4331.2019.3.2.7  

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West 
Publishing Company. 

Duffield, C., Roche, M., Dimitrelis, S., & Frew, B. (2015). Leadership skills for nursing unit managers 
to decrease intention to leave. Nursing: Research and Reviews, 57. https://doi.org/10.2147/nrr. s46155  

Etowa, J., & Debs-Ivall, S. (2017). Leadership and organizational commitment to ethnocultural diversity 
in healthcare. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 11, 277-292. http://www.jeqr.org/  

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 
update (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 

Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Griswold, W. (2016). Embodying authentic leadership through popular 
education at Highlander Research and Education Center: A qualitative case study. Adult Learning, 27, 
105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1045159516651610  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-9789-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-013-9789-8
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100208309&tip=sid&clean=0
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cuefd
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1881834074?accountid=45424
https://repository.belmont.edu/honors_theses/7
https://doi.org/10.30546/2523-4331.2019.3.2.7
https://doi.org/10.2147/nrr.%20s46155
http://www.jeqr.org/
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1045159516651610


 
33 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Goodare, P. (2017). Literature review: Why do we continue to lose our nurses? Australian Journal of 
Advanced Nursing, 34(4), 50-56. http://www.ajan.com.au/Vol34/Issue4/6Goodare.pdf  

Güldü, Ö., & Aksu, N. E. (2016). Between destructive leadership perception and professional burnout 
negative emotion in the relationship—The mediating role of the situation. Journal of Labor Relations, 
31(4), 676-694. https://www.springer.com/journal/12122  

Hadadian, Z., & Zarei, J. (2016). Relationship between toxic leadership and job stress of knowledge 
workers. Studies in Business and Economics, 11(3), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2016-0037  

Hitchcock, M. J. (2015). The relationship between toxic leadership, organizational citizenship, and 
turnover behaviors among San Diego non-profit paid staff. University of San Diego Doctoral Thesis. 
San Diego Joint Commission. (2016). Bullying has no place in health care. 
https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/23/Quick_Safety_Issue_24_June_2016.pdf  

Jones, Y. (2017). Toxic leadership: A curriculum to identify and prevent toxic leaders in church ministry 
in Southwest Dallas, Texas. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 
10272677). 

Kılıç, M., & Günsel, A. (2019). The dark side of the leadership: The effects of toxic leaders on 
employees. European Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejss-2019.v2i2-64  

Magwenzi, B. V. (2018). The toxic triangle: Exploring toxic leadership in nursing administration – A 
phenomenological study. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (ProQuest No. 
13428007). 

Manzano-García, G., & Ayala-Calvo, J. C. (2014). An overview of nursing in Europe: A SWOT 
analysis. Nursing Inquiry, 21, 358– 367. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12069  

March, R. I. (2016). Toxic leadership and voluntary employee turnover: A critical incident study. 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1668380970?accountid=31255  

Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2013). Consequence of toxic leadership on employee job satisfaction 
and organizational commitment. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 8(2), 1-23. 
https://www.cmr-journal.org/  

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. 
Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z  

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and 
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and 
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842  

Mowday, R., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkage. New York, NY: 
Academic Press. 

http://www.ajan.com.au/Vol34/Issue4/6Goodare.pdf
https://www.springer.com/journal/12122
https://doi.org/10.1515/sbe-2016-0037
https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/23/Quick_Safety_Issue_24_June_2016.pdf
https://doi.org/10.26417/ejss-2019.v2i2-64
https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12069
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1668380970?accountid=31255
https://www.cmr-journal.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842


 
34 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Newman, A., Nielsen, I. L., & Smyth, R. (2016). The influence of individual and organizational 
variables on organizational commitment among nurses. SSRN Electronic Journal. 
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2742938  

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible 
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001  

Paltu, A., & Brouwers, M. (2020). Toxic leadership: Effects on job satisfaction, commitment, turnover 
intention and organisational culture within the South African manufacturing industry. SA Journal of 
Human Resource Management, 18.https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm. v18i0.1338  

Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. 
Leadership, 6(4), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010379308  

Rainer, T. S. (2014). Fourteen symptoms of toxic church leaders. 
http://thomrainer.com/2014/10/fourteen-symptoms-toxic-church-leaders  

Ramadan, A. H. A., & Eid, W. M. (2020). Toxic leadership: Conflict management style and 
organizational commitment among intensive care nursing staff. Evidence-Based Nursing Research, 2(4), 
46-59. https://doi.org/10.47104/ebnrojs3.v2i4.160  

Reyhanoğlu, M., & Akın, Ö. (2016). Does toxic leadership trigger organizational health negatively? 
Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 5(3), 442-459. 

Roter, A. B. (2012). The lived experiences of registered nurses exposed to toxic leadership behaviors. 
(Doctoral dissertation). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-lived-experiences-of-registered-
nurses-exposed-Roter/d0c19835cab64903831f248f45c6f4c3cd4bbee5  

Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale. ProQuest Digital 
Theses. (UMI No. 1453699). 

Scroggins, S. (2019). The impact of toxic and transformational leadership on mentorship in the African 
American Pentecostal church. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 
22589568). 

Shelton, R. C., Charles, T., Dunston, S. K., Jandrof, L., & Erwin, D. O. (2017). Advancing 
understanding of the sustainability of lay health advisor (LHA) programs for African American women 
in community settings. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0491-3    

Singh, N., Sengupta, S., & Dev, S. (2018). Toxic leadership: The most menacing form of leadership. 
Dark Sides of Organizational Behavior and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75462  

Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science 
Quarterly,22, 46-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391745   

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2742938
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010379308
http://thomrainer.com/2014/10/fourteen-symptoms-toxic-church-leaders
https://doi.org/10.47104/ebnrojs3.v2i4.160
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-lived-experiences-of-registered-nurses-exposed-Roter/d0c19835cab64903831f248f45c6f4c3cd4bbee5
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-lived-experiences-of-registered-nurses-exposed-Roter/d0c19835cab64903831f248f45c6f4c3cd4bbee5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0491-3
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75462
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391745


 
35 January 2022 | Volume 1, Number 1 

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and 
Bacon. 

Tsai, Y., Wu, S., & Szu-Chieh, C. (2017). Assessing the risk of turnover intention among hospital 
workers. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences (IJMESS) 6, 244-258. 
http://www.ijmess.com/  

Weaver, S. G., & Yancey, G. B. (2010). The impact of dark leadership on organizational commitment 
and turnover. Leadership Review, 10, 104-124. https://www.kravisleadershipinstitute.org/  

Yaghi, M. (2019). Toxic leadership and the organizational commitment of senior-level corporate 
executives. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae. 
v16i4.2375  

Yalçınsoy, A., & Işık, M. (2018). A study on the relationship of toxic leadership with organizational 
commitment and intention to leave work. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 17(3), 1016-
1025. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.373835  

Yousef, D. A. (2016). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and attitudes toward organizational 
change: A study in the local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), 77–88. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1072217  

http://www.ijmess.com/
https://www.kravisleadershipinstitute.org/
https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.%20v16i4.2375
https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.%20v16i4.2375
https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.373835
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1072217


 
36 Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Register and submit your work to  

Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal  

https://bmra.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/bmra 

 

Business Management Research and Applications: A 
Cross-Disciplinary Journal (BMRA) (ISSN 2769-4666) is 
an open-access (CC BY-ND 4.0), peer-reviewed journal 
that publishes original research as well as works that ex-
plore the applied implications of others’ research, concep-
tual papers, and case studies (including teaching notes for 
review) that have a business administration and manage-
ment slant. BMRA welcomes original submissions from 
researchers, practitioners, and Master's/doctoral students 
from the following disciplines:  business management, 
occupational safety, cybersecurity, finance, marketing, 
entrepreneurship, public administration, health services, 
fire safety, human resources, project management, 
healthcare management, and information technology. 
Master's degree-level student authors must be co-authors 
with faculty or professional researchers in the 
field. BMRA is a participant with the LOCKSS archival 
system, Alabama Digital Preservation Network | 
ADPNet.  

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons At-
tribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

 

https://bmra.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/index.php/bmra
http://www.adpn.org/
http://www.adpn.org/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

	Toxic Leadership and Organizational Commitment in Faith-Based Healthcare Organizations
	Franchetta Evans Honer, DBA | Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach, AL, United States Jodine Marie Burchell, PhD | Columbia Southern University, Orange Beach, AL, United States
	Introduction/Background
	Summary of the Literature
	Toxic Leadership
	Effects of Toxic Leadership
	Toxic Leadership within Healthcare
	Organizational Commitment
	Effects of Organizational Commitment
	Within Healthcare Settings
	Race, Organizational Commitment, and Toxic Leadership
	Toxic Leadership within Faith-Based Organizations

	Methods
	Research Questions and Hypotheses
	Data Collection
	Data Analysis

	Results
	Descriptive Statistics

	Results
	Discussion
	Affective Commitment
	Normative Commitment
	Continuance Commitment

	Theoretical Implications
	Implications for Professional Practice
	Limitations
	Future Research
	Conclusion
	References


