The 7 Traits of Toxic Management

Executive Summary: The Silent Cost of Control

Leadership profoundly defines organizational health, yet the most detrimental forms of management often operate subtly, cloaked in professional rigor and meticulous control. Toxic leadership does not always manifest as overt aggression; rather, it often emerges from managerial insecurity that substitutes genuine guidance with centralized power, quietly eroding trust and discouraging growth. These subtle behaviors—such as ignoring employee needs, neglecting feedback, or excluding individuals from conversations—are debilitating violations of human decency that marginalize and punish employees just as effectively as more aggressive acts.¹

The root cause lies in a fundamental insecurity-control nexus: when leaders prioritize their personal power and image over collective performance, they systemically withhold the resources necessary for others to succeed. The organizational cost is staggering and global. Exposure to these toxic leadership styles is directly linked to major mental health issues, with the World Health Organization (WHO) estimating that anxiety and depression resulting from such environments cost the global economy an extraordinary $1 trillion annually in lost productivity.² Furthermore, data shows that a poor manager or unfair treatment is cited by 54% of employees in poor cultures as their primary reason for departure, highlighting the critical link between managerial conduct and workforce stability.³ This report examines the seven core behaviors of toxic managers and proposes systemic, evidence-based mitigation strategies relevant to the complex dynamics of the international workplace.

Section 1: Defining Toxic Leadership in the Modern Global Enterprise

1.1 The Spectrum of Toxic Behavior

Toxic leadership exists on a spectrum that ranges from overtly aggressive actions to passively complicit behaviors. While overt toxicity (e.g., harassment or shouting) is relatively easy to identify and address, the subtle, passive-aggressive forms are far more insidious. These subtle acts are not merely administrative oversights; they are calculated mechanisms of control.⁴ They include neglecting visible needs, deliberately failing to provide feedback to maintain ambiguity, or excluding people from critical meetings and conversations.¹ These violations are painful and debilitating for employees and allow a toxic culture to perpetuate easily because the manager maintains a veneer of professionalism while deploying passive acts that marginalize, embarrass, and punish.¹

This normalization of subtle toxicity is dangerous because it elevates the problem from a simple personnel issue to a systemic power structure failure. When key knowledge is withheld, power becomes centralized, enabling the manager to control not only decision-making but also how outcomes are presented and who receives credit.⁴ This calculated control manages the manager’s image and quietly erodes trust, stopping subordinates from challenging the ‘why’ behind instructions.⁴

1.2 Toxic Leadership and Organizational Failure

The consequences of toxic leadership extend beyond team morale; they contribute to large-scale organizational failure and moral crises. Recent history has shown that toxic phenomena can lead to systemic employee abuse and corporate scandal, exemplified by cases involving major international organizations such as Amazon, Facebook, and Uber.⁵ This issue is globally ubiquitous, affecting all workplace spheres and directly causing reduced employee performance, higher turnover rates, and escalating hiring and training costs.⁶

A complicating factor in diagnosing organizational health is the transformational-toxic paradox. Research suggests that a leader may be perceived as both highly transformational (inspiring and vision-driven) and profoundly toxic (demanding and controlling) at the same time.⁷ The case of Steve Jobs illustrates that the categorization often depends on the beholder. This suggests that the seven identified traits can often coexist with environments that produce high performance and output. If an organization focuses solely on output metrics without consistently measuring the health of the internal culture—specifically the degree of psychological safety—toxicity can easily thrive, masked by quarterly success.⁷ Therefore, systemic interventions must target organizational transparency and psychological health metrics, not just individual behavior coaching, to address the core power dynamics at play.

Section 2: Psychological Manipulation and Erosion of Agency (Traits 1, 2, & 3)

2.1 Trait 1: Discourages Development—The Stagnation Strategy

Toxic managers often view the professional growth of their subordinates as a direct threat to their own standing. By dismissing learning or self-improvement as unnecessary and blocking access to growth opportunities, the toxic manager employs a deliberate stagnation strategy intended to keep employees “in their place.”

While some employees may genuinely be content in their current roles and choose not to pursue advancement, the toxic behavior occurs when a manager actively forces stagnation.⁸ This predatory practice sacrifices long-term organizational capacity for the manager’s short-term comfort. When employees, particularly high performers, realize they are being blocked from internal moves or career progression, repeated pushing eventually makes them feel that they are being punished for their value.⁸ This leads to severe disengagement, “quiet quitting,” or forced external resignation, sacrificing valuable human capital.

2.2 Trait 2: Controls Access to Knowledge—The Power Hoard

The second trait, controlling access to knowledge, is a direct operational manifestation of the insecurity-control nexus. Knowledge hoarding is not an administrative failing but a calculated strategy fundamentally driven by managerial self-interest and a lack of trust in subordinates.⁹ By excluding capable people from important updates or keeping key information centralized, the manager ensures that the team remains dependent, thereby preventing true empowerment.⁴

This is structurally anti-innovative. In a knowledge-based economy, effective knowledge management is a critical factor for competitive advantage.⁹ Knowledge hoarding decreases transparency, fosters internal conflict, and leads to reduced organizational performance.⁹ Conversely, organizations that cultivate knowledge sharing breed collaboration, which has been shown to result in a significant 41% increase in customer satisfaction.¹⁰ Thus, the manager’s deliberate control over information is not just about ego; it is a direct operational threat to the organization’s competitive viability and market perception.

2.3 Trait 3: Undermines Confidence—The Morale Tax

The toxic manager undermines confidence through consistent psychological manipulation, often through subtle criticism, ignoring effort, or publicly highlighting mistakes while neglecting achievements. This social undermining has a direct and debilitating impact on the employee’s psychological health and overall well-being.¹¹

Supervisor inhibition negatively affects key performance factors, including employee self-esteem, creativity, and overall job performance.¹² Critically, this pattern of abuse creates a negative psychological feedback loop. When employees fear failure and perceive that their genuine efforts are ignored, the psychological cost of undertaking challenging tasks becomes too great. The resulting negative behaviors are often withdrawal and procrastination, reducing the possibility that they will contribute positively to the organization.¹¹ In essence, the toxicity causes the poor performance, which the manager then uses to justify further psychological control. This undermining also induces compliance and “obedience behavior,” resulting in a workforce that is less likely to speak up or take necessary risks.¹²

Section 3: Performance Sabotage and Accountability Deficit (Traits 4 & 5)

3.1 Trait 4: Takes Credit, Shifts Blame—The Attributional Error of Success

This trait describes the toxic manager’s manipulation of attribution, claiming success as their own while actively avoiding accountability for failures. This behavior is reinforced by a systemic bias in organizational psychology, where studies have found a strong tendency to give managers and leaders credit for organizational successes, even when that credit is undeserved.¹³

Although direct colleagues and teammates are frequently cited as the primary culprits in blame shifting (64% and 37%, respectively), direct managers are responsible in a significant percentage of cases (26%).¹⁴ The mechanism of this behavior often involves the manager commissioning high-level work, providing zero input, and then requiring the subordinate to present the results. The manager then takes credit privately with superiors, confirming that “we were the only ones who were prepared”.¹⁵ This minimization of team contributions and unfair recognition actively damages trust, as it systematically divorces effort from reward.

The tendency to take credit and suppress collaboration (Trait 5) are mutually reinforcing behaviors. By suppressing collaboration that might expose their weaknesses, the manager minimizes the risk that others can verify their lack of contribution to the project for which they claimed credit. True organizational reform must therefore foster transparency and cross-functional visibility, making it structurally difficult for any single manager to monopolize information or credit.

3.2 Trait 5: Blocks Visibility and Progress—Retaining the Asset

Blocking an employee’s career progression often stems from the manager viewing the subordinate as a crucial, irreplaceable operational asset. This “golden handcuffs” strategy involves limiting access to leadership and key projects, and actively preventing the recognition of high performers to ensure they remain stuck in their current role.

In highly specialized fields, skilled professionals are frequently blocked from internal transfers or promotions because their manager declares they are “too important” in their current role.¹⁶ One international case involved a computer science graduate stuck performing tech support, who had received four separate internal offers from three different teams, all of which were blocked by the current manager.¹⁷ The manager reportedly used threats and statements like “I am not going anywhere” to dissuade hiring managers.¹⁷ This predatory retention method leads to severe exhaustion and worry for the employee’s career, forcing them to perform tasks far below their qualifications for years.¹⁷

This aggressive retention tactic represents a structural governance failure. The individual manager’s power is allowed to override organizational benefit, causing massive legal and HR risk. Such managerial actions can precipitate claims of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination against the company.¹⁸ The organization’s HR function must protect the business by recognizing that blocking an employee’s career progression to retain them is functionally equivalent to organizational sabotage, demanding strong internal escalation policies for blocked transfers.¹⁶

Section 4: Cultural Pathology: Fear and Empathy Absence (Traits 6 & 7)

4.1 Trait 6: Manages Through Fear—The Autocratic Anchor

Toxic managers use silence, pressure, or control to generate an environment of anxiety rather than clarity. They confuse their authority with genuine respect, demanding obedience rather than earning trust. This strategy is acutely sensitive to the global cultural context, particularly in relation to Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (PDI).

The PDI measures the extent to which a culture accepts that power and wealth are distributed unequally.¹⁹ In High Power Distance Index (H-PDI) cultures, large inequalities in power are accepted, and bureaucracy is encouraged. The characteristic leadership style is autocratic, and subordinates are extremely unlikely to challenge authority figures directly.²⁰ This cultural tolerance provides a protective buffer for the toxic manager, allowing a culture of fear and intimidation to easily take hold. The toxicity persists longer and is harder to diagnose because the organization’s natural safety valves (employee voice, challenge) are culturally disabled, leading to dangerous “management blind spots”.²⁰

In contrast, Low Power Distance Index (L-PDI) cultures (typically favored in the West) prefer flat hierarchies and democratic, consultative management.²⁰ While these environments are not immune to fear and distrust, autocratic leadership is less characteristic, and concerns are shared more freely.²⁰

The extreme consequences of pressure-based management are tragically illustrated by the Japanese work culture, defined by intense dedication (ganbaru). This focus on discipline and endurance, when linked to managerial pressure, has led to karoshi (death by overwork), with approximately 1,949 work-related deaths and suicide attempts recorded in 2019 alone due to excessive work.²¹ This case exemplifies the catastrophic human cost when power structures emphasize compliance and endurance above employee limits.

The differing tolerance levels based on PDI scores suggest that PDI acts as a predictor of toxic longevity. MNCs operating in H-PDI environments must aggressively introduce psychological safety protocols to circumvent the cultural aversion to challenging authority.

4.2 Trait 7: Professional Without Empathy—The Compliance Over Compassion Model

The final trait describes a manager who is “professional without empathy.” This leader prioritizes compliance and transactional tasks, actively avoiding real conversations about employee well-being. This approach builds an image of rigid professionalism but completely fails to establish trust.

True leadership requires empathy, which is the capacity to imagine oneself in the situation of another, experiencing their emotions and ideas, making it more productive and supportive than mere sympathy (pity).²² When a manager lacks this capacity, they fail to recognize critical signals, such as signs of overwork before burnout becomes an issue leading to disengagement and turnover.²² The lack of empathetic leadership is cited by 47% of employees in poor work environments as a reason for leaving, ranking as a major driver alongside unfair treatment and inadequate pay.³

The manifestation of empathy varies across cultures. Leaders in multinational organizations must navigate these nuances.²³ For example, individualistic Western cultures may score lower on empathy because they prioritize self-expression.²³ Conversely, a study comparing British and East Asian participants found that East Asian counterparts reported less empathic concern but higher “empathic accuracy” (a more cognitive understanding of suffering).²³ This difference suggests that a manager perceived as uncaring in one culture may simply be displaying empathy in a culturally distinct, less emotionally expressive way. Leadership development must therefore focus on teaching leaders the various types of empathy—cognitive, emotional, and compassionate—and training them to recognize cross-cultural variations to ensure genuine connection and trust.²⁴

Section 5: The Organizational and Financial Toll (Global Epidemiology)

5.1 Financial Quantification of Toxicity

Toxic leadership is an existential financial threat to global organizations. The high turnover it generates results in massive replacement costs.⁶ Due to the expense of hiring and training, replacing a single employee can cost up to twice the employee’s annual salary/compensation.⁶

The human cost translates directly into lost global productivity. A 2020 survey revealed that 72% of employees feel stressed daily because of a poor manager, and 49% have actively considered quitting due to their boss’s behavior.² This sustained psychological strain leads to significant mental health issues, with the World Health Organization attributing the staggering $1 trillion annual global cost in lost productivity to anxiety and depression directly linked to prolonged exposure to bad leadership.²

To underscore the critical need for executive intervention, the following table consolidates the essential quantitative metrics demonstrating the profound financial and human consequences of allowing the seven toxic traits to persist:

Global Financial and Human Cost of Toxic Leadership

| Metric | Global Estimate/Range | Associated Impact of Toxic Leadership | Source Context |

|—|—|—|

| Annual Global Cost of Anxiety/Depression | $1 Trillion USD (Lost Productivity) | Prolonged exposure to poor leadership. | WHO/APA Research 2 |

| Employee Turnover Driver | 54% cite poor manager/unfair treatment. | Top reasons for employees leaving poor work cultures. | SHRM Report 3 |

| Employee Replacement Cost | Up to 2x employee’s annual salary/compensation. | Cost incurred due to high turnover. | International Studies 6 |

| Employees Stressed Daily | 72% (due to bad boss). | Direct link between toxic managers and burnout/stress. | WorkHuman Survey 2 |

5.2 Legal and Regulatory Exposure

Toxic management practices expose multinational companies to significant legal risks, particularly those related to workplace bullying and discrimination. While regulatory frameworks vary, the trend is toward greater accountability for psychological health and safety.

In jurisdictions such as France, specific legal provisions in the labor code and criminal code prohibit workplace bullying (harcèlement moral).²⁶ In other regions, including the USA, Germany, the UK, and Russia, there is often no single law specifically addressing bullying; however, employees can leverage existing legal frameworks. Instances of bullying can form the basis for claims of constructive dismissal, unlawful discrimination, or harassment related to a protected characteristic.²⁶ For example, in Germany, employees may seek an injunction, refuse to work without loss of pay in serious cases, or even terminate employment without notice.²⁶

Furthermore, analyzing systemic corporate crime (e.g., BP, Volkswagen, Wells Fargo) demonstrates that organizational toxicity persists even when leaders change.²⁷ Toxicity exists when a corporate culture condones rule-breaking, disables compliance, or allows actual practices to contrast expressed compliant values. This signals that managerial toxicity is a precursor to—or enabler of—systemic corporate wrongdoing.²⁷ Therefore, investing in internal conflict resolution avenues and encouraging open feedback is a cost-effective legal risk mitigation strategy, as employees who feel their voice matters are less likely to seek external legal recourse.¹⁸

Section 6: Strategic Mitigation: Building Resilience and Efficacy

Mitigating the seven traits requires moving beyond individual behavior correction to structural and cultural detoxification. The fundamental antidote to control-based toxicity is the systematic fostering of psychological safety.

6.1 The Antidote: Fostering Psychological Safety

Psychological safety, defined as an environment where employees feel safe to offer opinions, suggest ideas, ask questions, and admit mistakes without fearing negative consequences, is the necessary precursor to breakthrough performance and innovation.²⁸ The four key elements of psychological safety directly counter the mechanisms utilized by the toxic manager:

1. Attitude to Risk and Failure: Directly counters Trait 3 (Undermining Confidence) by viewing mistakes as acceptable in favor of learning, eliminating the power of public shaming.²⁸
2. Open Conversation: Directly counters Trait 6 (Managing Through Fear) by establishing conversations as candid and safe, dismantling the confusion and silence used by fear-based managers.²⁸
3. Willingness to Help: Directly counters Trait 2 (Knowledge Hoarding) by establishing that asking for help is appropriate, thus breaking down the barriers of dependency created by knowledge control.²⁸
4. Inclusion and Diversity: Directly counters Trait 5 (Blocking Progress) by ensuring that employees feel their diverse experiences and expertise matter, making it impossible for a single manager to hoard key talent without consequence.²⁸

Implementing these protocols is not merely a “soft” initiative but a direct financial risk mitigation strategy, addressing the core causes of the $1 trillion global productivity loss.

The Toxicity-Antidote Matrix

Toxic Trait (Mechanism)	Core Toxic Behavior	Psychological Safety Antidote	Reference
Undermines Confidence (Trait 3)	Publicly shames mistakes, lowers morale.	Attitude to Risk & Failure (Mistakes are acceptable for learning).	28
Manages Through Fear (Trait 6)	Uses silence/pressure, confuses authority.	Open Conversation (Conversations are candid and safe).	28
Controls Access to Knowledge (Trait 2)	Withholds knowledge, creates dependency.	Willingness to Help (Asking for help is appropriate).	28
Blocks Visibility/Progress (Trait 5)	Limits high performers, suppresses collaboration.	Inclusion & Diversity (Diverse experiences and expertise matter).	28

6.2 Tailoring Leadership Development to Cross-Cultural Dynamics

Effective global leadership development must be adapted to local cultural contexts, especially concerning power dynamics. The Power Distance Index (PDI) provides a crucial framework for customizing interventions:

In environments with a High PDI, where autocratic leadership is traditional and challenging authority is difficult, training must prioritize the institutionalization of active voice mechanisms, such as anonymous feedback or ombuds programs. These structures are necessary to circumvent the cultural aversion to direct confrontation.²⁰ Conversely, in Low PDI environments, the focus should be on maintaining democratic structures and reinforcing the expectation that managers genuinely consult subordinates and value cooperation.²⁰

Cultural Dynamics and Tolerance for Fear-Based Management

Cultural Dimension	High Power Distance Index (H-PDI)	Low Power Distance Index (L-PDI)
Characteristic Leadership Style	Autocratic; orders are expected and followed.	Consultative/Democratic; managers collaborate with subordinates.
Tolerance for Inequality	High; power differences are accepted and bureaucracy is encouraged.	Low; flat hierarchies are favored, and workers are treated more equally.
Willingness to Challenge Authority	Very unlikely to challenge authority figures directly.	Knowledge and concerns are shared freely.
Risk of Fear Culture	High; a culture of fear/intimidation easily takes hold, leading to management blind spots.	Lower; managers consult subordinates, though distrust can still be a challenge.
Source Context	[19, 20]	[19, 20]

Furthermore, empathy training must address cross-cultural nuances, ensuring that leaders understand the cognitive dimension (accurately assessing needs) as well as the emotional and compassionate dimensions.²⁴ This nuanced training prevents managers from being mislabeled as uncaring when they may simply be displaying concern in a culturally constrained manner.

6.3 Systemic Accountability and Structural Detoxification

Detoxifying the corporate culture requires more than changing individual leaders. It demands addressing the structures, values, and operational practices that enable violations and obstruct compliance.²⁷ Managers must be held accountable for modeling respectful communication and must receive formal training on anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws to prevent manager-induced legal liability.¹⁸

Organizations must transition from toxic models to transformational leadership, which utilizes individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation.²⁹ Transformational leaders foster innovation by allowing followers to take initiative and exercise their creative abilities, directly countering the stagnation and knowledge-hoarding tactics of toxic managers.²⁹ True change requires moving away from reactive liability management (assigning blame) toward proactively prioritizing transparency, honesty, and sustaining measurable cultural shifts.²⁷

Conclusion: The Path to Transformational Leadership

The analysis of the 7 Traits of a Toxic Manager confirms that this leadership pathology is rooted in deep insecurity, manifested as subtle, calculated strategies designed to control knowledge, careers, and emotions. This behavior constitutes organizational corrosion—a profound threat quantified by exorbitant employee replacement costs and a $1 trillion annual global loss in productivity.

True leadership, particularly in the multinational context, transcends control. It requires a strategic investment in creating the structural and cultural conditions for excellence, primarily through the institutionalization of psychological safety. By proactively adopting PDI-adapted leadership development, enforcing systemic accountability against knowledge hoarding and career blocking, and fostering a culture where mistakes lead to learning rather than shaming, organizations can effectively mitigate the seven dimensions of managerial toxicity. Sustainable success and innovation are achievable only when leadership creates the room—the cultural space—for others to excel.

Works cited

1. Is Your Toxic Boss Actively Toxic or Passively Complicit? – LeaderFactor, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.leaderfactor.com/post/is-your-toxic-boss-actively-toxic-or-passively-complicit
2. Understanding Bad Bosses: Data-Driven Insights on Toxic Leadership – C-Suite Strategy, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.c-suite-strategy.com/blog/understanding-bad-bosses-data-driven-insights-on-toxic-leadership
3. SHRM Report: Workplace Culture Fosters Employee Retention Worldwide, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/shrm-report-workplace-culture-fosters-employee-retention
4. When Leaders Cross the Line: Spotting Subtle Signs of Toxic …, accessed October 31, 2025, https://starnetwork.org/when-leaders-cross-the-line-spotting-subtle-signs-of-toxic-leadership/
5. Impact of Toxic Leadership on Employee Performance – PMC – NIH, accessed October 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9760724/
6. Full article: Dark clouds of leadership: causes and consequences of toxic leadership, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00208825.2024.2442185
7. The thin line between toxic leadership and transformational leadership: Stories of Steve Jobs | Lund University, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/8888235
8. How to react when employee is not interested in career development?, accessed October 31, 2025, https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/87085/how-to-react-when-employee-is-not-interested-in-career-development
9. Knowledge Hoarding: A Literature Review, accessed October 31, 2025, https://drpress.org/ojs/index.php/jid/article/download/10822/10531/10602
10. 9 Signs Your Organization Has a Knowledge Hoarding Problem – Coveo, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.coveo.com/blog/knowledge-hoarding/
11. The Effect of Social Undermining on Employees’ Emotional Exhaustion and Procrastination Behavior in Deluxe Hotels: Moderating Role of Positive Psychological Capital – MDPI, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/931
12. Why does subordinates’ negative workplace gossip lead to supervisor undermining? A moderated mediation model – PMC – NIH, accessed October 31, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9559591/
13. Full article: Perspective-Taking Does Not Reduce Victim Blaming in Work-Related Situations, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01639625.2024.2354349
14. WTF is blame shifting? – WorkLife.news, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.worklife.news/culture/wtf-is-blame-shifting/
15. Manager takes credit for work that she contributed nothing to – Reddit, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/managers/comments/1lsnt9t/manager_takes_credit_for_work_that_she/
16. Boss stopped me getting a promotion – what are my rights? : r/AskUK – Reddit, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/rvs1bc/boss_stopped_me_getting_a_promotion_what_are_my/
17. Current manager has blocked 4 internal offers so far. Do I keep fighting or resign? – Reddit, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/careeradvice/comments/x02ahv/current_manager_has_blocked_4_internal_offers_so/
18. 13 Lawsuits That Threaten Companies & How HR Prevents Them | AllVoices, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.allvoices.co/blog/13-reasons-employees-sue-companies
19. Power Distance: Definition and Examples – Organizational Psychology Degrees, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.organizationalpsychologydegrees.com/faq/what-is-power-distance/
20. Navigating Power Distance In International Teams – Leadership …, accessed October 31, 2025, https://ls-s.com/en/blog/navigating-power-distance-in-international-teams.html
21. (PDF) Otsukaresamadeshita!: A Critical Analysis of Japan’s Toxic Work Culture, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352913307_Otsukaresamadeshita_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Japan’s_Toxic_Work_Culture
22. The Importance of Empathy in the Workplace – Center for Creative Leadership, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/empathy-in-the-workplace-a-tool-for-effective-leadership/
23. How Does Empathy Vary Across Different Cultures? Explained – Morgan Latif, accessed October 31, 2025, https://morganlatif.com/insight/how-does-empathy-vary-across-different-cultures/
24. Do you feel empathy is helping or sabotaging you in your career? : r/Leadership – Reddit, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Leadership/comments/1j8xoah/do_you_feel_empathy_is_helping_or_sabotaging_you/
25. Cross-Cultural Differences in Empathy and Relevant Factors – ResearchGate, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369867195_Cross-Cultural_Differences_in_Empathy_and_Relevant_Factors
26. Bullying in the workplace in France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the USA – Dechert LLP, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2016/6/bullying-in-the-workplace-in-france-germany-russia-the-uk-and.html
27. Toxic Corporate Culture: Assessing Organizational Processes of Deviancy – MDPI, accessed October 31, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/3/23
28. How to Build Psychological Safety in the Workplace | HBS Online, accessed October 31, 2025, https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/psychological-safety-in-the-workplace
29. Strategies to Resolve Toxic Leadership Styles Which Impede Employee Innovation – ScholarWorks | Walden University Research, accessed October 31, 2025, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11621&context=dissertations