Keywords

Toxic leadership; effects academic library; effects user service

2.1 The Effects of Toxic Leadership

Before taking action against toxic leadership it is important to know its impact or effect on an organization and its employees. Toxic leadership is harmful in a variety of ways at different levels within the organization, including the academic library.

Much of the literature mentions that toxic leadership has an impact not just on the workplace, but also on the employees, in ways that extend beyond the boundaries of the workplace (Craig & Kaiser, 2013; Henley, 2003; Kaminski & Sincox, 2012; Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005a; Porath & Pearson, 2005, 2013; Tepper, 2000; Whicker, 1996). Regrettably the academic library is no exception, as will be seen later on in this chapter.

Lipman-Blumen (2005a) proclaimed that “most whistle-blowers encounter grave risks to careers, families and fortunes” (p. 8). Henley (2003) and Lipman-Blumen (2005a) raise the importance of recognizing the existence of “toxin handlers,” i.e., those employees in the organization who help the organization move forward by their dedication while also helping enclose the toxicity. Toxin handlers play an important role in sustaining the organization, but they also hope that the current situation will not persist for a long time because it is not bearable for long periods of time (Appelbaum & Roy-Girard, 2007; Frost, 2003). Toxin handlers, although they are needed buffers for the organization, also need help because they can succumb to the toxic environment themselves, which can take them to the point of burnout or illness (Frost, 2003).

Toxic behaviors represent a problem in higher education, including academic libraries, because they negatively impact retention, morale, and productivity, and they can result in a hostile work environment (Klein & Lester, 2013). In a toxic environment, anyone working in the organization is in a position to observe toxic exchanges in a way that negatively impacts service provision and reputation (Porath, MacInnis, & Folkes, 2010). Holmes (2001) proclaimed that “excessive stress is … destructive leading to a deterioration in performance as well as job dissatisfaction, accidents, unsafe working practices and high absenteeism” (p. 230). These behaviors brought on by high stress would undoubtedly impact an organization’s services, as well as making for poor collegial relationships, leading to a change in their output of organizational citizenship behaviors, in some instances leading to something very similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other health problems as work conditions deteriorate (Coyne, 2011; Frost, 2003; Kaminski & Sincox, 2012; Kusy & Holloway, 2009; Organ, 1997; Sutton, 2010). If team members are not getting along well, owing to high stress and turnover, there is a possibility that some individuals on the team will also engage in what Holmes (2001, p. 231) called “escape strategies,” such as absenteeism to cope, because high turnover in many instances results in staff having to take on additional responsibilities until qualified personnel are hired to fill the open positions.

Holmes (2001) also affirmed that “job dissatisfaction, whatever the cause, is clearly detrimental to any organisation’s aims and objectives making it difficult to meet organisational and/or departmental goals” (p. 231). These behaviors become financially costly to the library’s administration, as eventually new staff will need to be hired and trained to maintain a minimum level of client services (Kusy & Holloway, 2009). The costs of reduced work effort due to toxic leadership are far more than monetary. Besides loss of profit, organizations could also see their reputation affected and employees may begin to show low morale, burnout, and anxiety, and in some instances may begin to consider other work options (Coyne, 2011; Forni, 2008; Frost, 2003; Holloway & Kusy, 2010; Kusy & Holloway, 2009; Lubit, 2004; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Porath & Pearson, 2013; Rose, Shuck, Twyford, & Bergman, 2015; Sutton 2010; Tepper, 2000).

Toxic leadership’s impact is so strong that “research has shown that individuals can be harmed by merely being exposed to, hearing about, or witnessing toxic and dysfunctional workplace behavior” (Lemmergaard & Muhr, 2013, p. 16). This is why it is of the utmost importance to have a way to counter it once it has manifested in an organization, especially in academic libraries, which are highly social and integral parts of universities, colleges, and research centers.

2.2 Effects on Academic Librarians

At first effects may not be visible to anyone but the librarian being singled out by the toxic supervisor. Yet, as the toxicity permeates the entire library, its effects inevitably become palpable. Although not necessarily immediate, the effects are many, from loss of morale through a stoppage in user services to affecting librarians’ own professional output. More than half of the interviewed academic librarians said that their personal lives suffered. However, at the beginning of the abuse these effects may not be obvious to anyone, including the victimized librarian. The symptoms of toxic leadership are varied and on many occasions these are attributed to other aspects of the librarian’s life.

The top two effects academic librarians reported were becoming demoralized and experiencing a decline in productivity. They lost trust in their leader and some of their peers. In many instances, academic librarians felt undermined and that their hard work was not appreciated, which led to a loss of confidence in their work. Toxic leadership and the associated abuse in academic libraries is not a recent phenomenon, but has been going on for a long time and has been labeled a variety of things, ranging from rudeness through workplace incivility, insidious workplace behavior, to mobbing, to plain toxic leadership. Regardless of what it is called, it has effects on the quality of librarians’ work life.

Nevertheless, many academic librarians have dealt with toxic leaders by becoming the best librarians they could be. Many became published authors, whereas others sought more professional development opportunities in their respective fields, such as presentations and teaching engagements, preferably outside of the institution. These professional activities allowed for a mental respite from their toxic libraries. Eventually, however, services suffered because the once contented librarians, eager to do their jobs, no longer felt the same commitment toward their work. These feelings are difficult to reconcile for many academic librarians because they consider themselves to be hardworking and/or passionate about their work. They pride themselves on putting in their best effort. Their organizational citizenship behavior inevitably decreased; in other words, they no longer felt appreciated, they felt burned-out from doing other librarians’ work due to high turnover, or worse, because they were deliberately being overworked by their toxic leaders.

There have been instances where, as one librarian was developing coping mechanisms for dealing with the toxic environment, another librarian in another department was starting to deal with how this could be happening to him or her. These librarians are ambivalent about who to reach out to with their dilemma and suffer in silence for months or years.

In some academic libraries user services programming has stopped because the librarians who were able to leave the toxic environment left, and thus the remaining librarians were left to carry on not only with their own duties, but also those of the librarians who have quit.

Nonetheless, there were a few librarians, very few, two in fact, who were able to completely compartmentalize and separate their work situations from their personal lives. These librarians claimed to have succeeded in preventing the toxic environment from affecting them outside of the library. They stated that they were fortunate in having strong family networks living nearby, and selected a mentor or co-worker in whom they could confide about their work situation. They also credited their unscathed survival to leading full lives outside of work. Their library career, although valued, was not more important than the other parts of their lives.

Librarians who worked under toxic leadership conditions for an extended period of time felt they had diminished their human capacity. Work cannot and should not be everything to librarians, because toxic leaders will abuse their dedication. These dedicated librarians will in due course burn out and their toxic leaders will not care about their happiness at work, because to them, everyone is expendable. Work-focused lives seem to have in some cases unintentionally assisted toxic leaders with their exploitative behaviors.

The effects of toxic leadership on academic libraries and librarians are many, Table 2.1 captures the most commonly reported effects of toxic leadership on academic librarians, which ranged from affecting their personal output to feeling undermined and unappreciated for their hard work and dedication.

2.3 Effects on User Services

It is only when the situation at an academic library has deteriorated so much that members of the university community—students, faculty, staff, and administration, notice the toxic interactions between librarians or the loss of services that begins to impact the whole university. Once this happens, the library’s reputation has been tarnished and it can even give the institution a bad name. Only a toxic leader who is self-involved allows the library’s productivity and services to degenerate. Loss of services and of a productive work environment undoubtedly impact users’ perception of the library.

It takes time for the library to be accepted again as a place where students can study, professors do research, and all of them receive great services and comfortably access library resources. Once the problem is disclosed, it is important not to hide what is happening in the library. It is in fact the inaction (which is indeed a type of action) that allows many academic librarians to suffer in silence, because no one outside the library notices the duress they are under. It also does not help that to many in upper administration librarians themselves are invisible. And it does not matter whether the academic librarians are classified as faculty, administrators, or staff. Libraries in academic institutions are simply seen as an academic service, while the people working in them are unappreciated. Toxic leaders advocate for themselves, not their library or their librarians.

Besides the fact that most people working in higher education settings are not trained to recognize the toxic leadership types of behavior, aside of course from the student counselors, who are trained to identify not only mental illness, but also high stress, compulsive behaviors, and fear, among other indicators of mental abuse happening to students. It should be noted that it is only within the past decade that university-sanctioned online trainings have emerged in higher education institutions all over the United States. These online trainings vary from learning what to do in an active shooter situation, through how to identify sexual harassment, to helping students with psychological difficulties. But to date there are no trainings on how to identify a toxic leader (or peer) in the academic workplace.

Ultimately, it is academic librarians who create and deliver services to users. If users are impacted in a negative way, such as in the reduction of services (workshops, hours, research consultations, etc.), not meeting users’ needs, and not innovating or keeping up with technological advances, the library’s reputation will be tainted.

High turnover also has an effect on user services, with the unintended consequence of overworking the remaining librarians. Users will certainly notice their favorite librarian is no longer there or that their favorite workshops have been canceled indefinitely. To the best of their ability librarians must take care to impact user services minimally; however, this may not always be possible. One very respected and well-liked librarian quit the day before final examinations began, intending to send a message to the library dean. The dean was extremely toxic, therefore the only people hurt, because of the last-minute cancellation of workshops were the students. The librarian, who left for a position at another university, loved her work, but she knew she had to leave because after 4 years of relentless abuse she could no longer cope; and so she ended up turning on her own liaison students.

The only way in which having users notice that things are not quite right in the library could be useful is if users report their concerns about changing attitudes in the library or its services to university personnel outside of the library, and do not inadvertently report this to the toxic leader. Realistically, this is more likely possible for faculty, administrators, and staff who are supportive of the library than it is for students, who are coming into and leaving the higher education institution every year. Administrators, faculty, and staff, if things are going well in their units, will and should be around much longer, making them ideal to take an active interest in the campus library.

2.4 When is it not Toxic Leadership?

As mentioned in the previous chapter, toxic leadership includes egregious actions of any kind including, but is not limited to: demeaning, shunning, ignoring, bullying, mobbing, gas-lighting, overworking, backbiting, berating, among others. Librarians must remain vigilant to see if these behaviors are happening to any of their colleagues or themselves. Sometimes it can be confusing to figure out if a supervisor is actually a toxic leader, Table 2.2 attempts to clarify what some librarians erroneously perceived to be toxic leadership. These scenarios came up multiple times while conducting the librarian interviews.

Of course, all that has been listed in the table does not mean librarians have to ignore obvious toxic leadership behaviors, much less patterns, if these clearly emerge. If toxic leadership is happening in your library it must be reported. However, it is important to distinguish when it is not toxic leadership to avoid unnecessary confusion and needlessly lose credibility within the institution. Librarians who make accusations without merit ultimately hurt not only themselves, but also the library in the eyes of the institution’s upper administration.