Emotional Intelligence as a Shield Against Toxic Leadership

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines the relationship between toxic leadership and emotional intelligence (EI) in organizational settings. It explores how toxic leadership behaviors—characterized by narcissism, volatility, and self-interest—negatively impact employee wellbeing and organizational health, while emotional intelligence serves as a protective factor against such toxicity. The research demonstrates that leaders with high EI are less likely to exhibit toxic behaviors and better equipped to foster psychologically safe work environments. Through case studies across healthcare, business, and government sectors, the article illustrates how developing core EI competencies—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management—can transform organizational cultures, improve team collaboration, and enhance overall performance. These real-world examples highlight how EI training and assessment can mitigate toxic tendencies, reduce turnover, strengthen community relations, and create more inclusive, productive work environments even during periods of significant change or stress.

Leadership styles play a significant role in shaping organizational culture and the well-being of employees. While some leadership styles motivate and inspire, others can be downright toxic. Toxic leadership negatively impacts productivity, engagement, and even physical and mental health. However, research shows that leaders with high emotional intelligence are less likely to exhibit toxic behaviors and more apt to create psychologically safe, high-performing work environments.

Today we will explore the research on toxic leadership and emotional intelligence, discuss how emotional intelligence acts as a protective factor against toxicity, and provide industry examples of putting these concepts into practice.

Defining Toxic Leadership

Toxic leadership has been defined as "a triad comprising of leader behavior, follower perception, and organizational context" (Palanski & Yammarino, 2011, p. 155). Research identifies common behaviors of toxic leaders as narcissism, abrasiveness, volatility, and self-interest at the expense of others (Fitch, 2017; Schmidt, 2008). Toxic leaders lack consideration for subordinates, taking actions that endanger employee well-being or morale for their own gain. They create anxiety, damage trust, and fail to address real issues or concerns (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). The impacts of toxicity ripple beyond direct reports to negatively influence overall organizational health.

Measuring Toxicity

Several assessment tools have emerged to measure toxic leadership behaviors. The Abusive Supervision Scale assesses things like public ridicule, hostility, and credit-taking (Tepper, 2000). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory gauges selfishness, lack of empathy, and entitlement (Raskin & Hall, 1979). Together these assessments help identify specific behaviors to remedy, such as yelling, belittling others, taking undue credit or blame, enforcing unreasonable demands, showing favoritism, and failing to provide necessary support or feedback. Addressing root causes through coaching or other interventions can mitigate toxicity.

Emotional Intelligence as an Antidote

Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions - both one's own and others' - in a way that enhances social and professional interactions (Goleman, 1995). Research provides strong evidence that EI acts as a protective factor against toxicity. Leaders high in EI are less likely to exhibit toxic behaviors themselves and are better equipped to counteract toxic influences (Cherniss & Goleman, 2001). Four core EI skills are especially relevant:

• Self-awareness: Awareness of one's emotions, strengths/weaknesses, values/motivations reduces irrational reactions and self-interested actions.

• Self-management: Emotional self-control and transparency build trust, manage frustration appropriately, and provide stability during tensions.

• Social awareness: Understanding others' perspectives and situational dynamics prevents assumptions, fosters cooperation, and resolves conflicts constructively.

• Relationship management: Inspiring, developing others through effective communication and dependability creates psychological safety and productive climates despite challenges.

By developing strong EI competencies in these areas, leaders can recognize toxicity before it emerges, regulate overwhelming emotions, empathize with others' experiences, and bring out the best in individuals and teams even under stress. The following sections explore specific industry applications of using EI to mitigate toxic tendencies.

Healthcare Example: Physician Leadership

Physicians in supervisory roles are not immune to toxic behaviors that damage morale and care quality if issues like overwork and stress are not addressed properly (Taylor, 2019). However, research shows EI training for doctors improves patient satisfaction, team collaboration, and even medical outcomes (Allison et al., 2019; Ramachandran et al., 2019). For example, cardiologists at Johns Hopkins performed EI assessments then partnered physicians with weaker skills, like managing frustration or conflict, with mentors to develop targeted competencies. This reduced complaints, improved relationships across specialties, and clinicians felt better equipped to prioritize patient needs over ego or competitiveness (Claramita et al., 2013). Cultivating EI allows doctors to hear concerns compassionately without taking issues personally, finding solutions cooperatively instead of reacting defensively when mistakes happen or tensions arise. Patients and colleagues alike appreciate this calmer, more empathetic approach which mitigates potential toxicity.

Business Example: CEO Transition and Culture Change

New CEOs aim to drive progress but risk creating anxiety or resentment if changes neglect "people impacts" (Elkington et al., 2017). For a Fortune 500 tech firm facing competition threats, the incoming CEO assessed her own leadership style through 360 reviews identifying a tendency towards impatience and micro-management born from demanding past roles. To ensure buy-in for strategic shifts requiring cooperation across silos, she participated in a high-profile EI training centered on empowerment, active listening, and calming intense emotions constructively. Subsequently rolling out a similar program company-wide, the CEO empowered direct reports to voice uncertainties openly and shaped company messaging around humanity, teamwork and shared futures rather than individual agendas. Turnover decreased as people felt heard and aligned with transparent, inclusive decision-making (Fry & Kriger, 2009). Revenue rebounded as talents combined creatively instead of defending narrow interests competitively. The CEO's commitment to leading with empathy set the tone for collaboration over potential disruption during significant change.

Government Example: Policing Reform and Community Relations

Toxic policing practices seriously damaging community trust demand rethinking at all levels to ensure fairness, cooperation and public safety for all (Tyler & Wakslak, 2004; Wolfe & Nix, 2016). The Chicago Police Department launched an initiative recognizing that reform requires internal cultural evolution as much as new policies and technologies. After assessments found disconnectedness between patrol experiences and administrative perceptions, all officers received training emphasizing EI capabilities shown to de-escalate conflicts and strengthen minority relations (Lum et al., 2017). Skills like active listening, emotional self-control under pressure, recognizing biases and understanding others' behaviors from their perspectives equipped officers to resolve issues collaboratively instead of reactively. Community forums allowed sharing challenges from all sides to develop mutual understanding and joint solutions. Compliance with new use of force protocols improved dramatically as officers felt heard too, supporting communities reassured abusive practices would not re-emerge. Continuous EI education additionally helped reject toxic "codes of silence" dividing command staff from frontline realities.

Conclusion

Toxic leadership severely damages organizational health, performance and human welfare if left unaddressed. However, research shows leaders and entire cultures can mitigate toxicity's negative consequences by developing emotional intelligence capabilities demonstrated to diffuse potentially difficult interactions, inspire cooperation through empathy, and bring out individuals' and teams' best qualities even during uncertainty or conflict. Healthcare, business, and government examples illustrate how assessing weaknesses, partnering to strengthen relational skills like self-control, active listening and understanding diverse perspectives, and modeling emotional best practices create psychologically safer environments where people feel respected, engaged and willing to navigate challenges together productively. Continuous EI development represents a proactive, whole-person solution for shielding against toxicity and elevating performance sustainably despite inevitable stresses. Leaders equipped with these strategies can foster inclusive, thriving cultures attuned to humanity's complex realities instead of reactive dysfunctionality.

References

1. Allison, K., Crawford, I., LePine, J., Stevens, G., Landis, R. S., Reeves, C. L., DeChurch, L. A., Huang, W., Knobloch, H., & Rich, B. L. (2019). Celebrating teamwork and social relationships: Investigating socially oriented leadership, team social resources, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 639–657.

2. Claramita, M., Nugraheni, M. D., van Dalen, J., & Van Der Vleuten, C. (2013). Doctor‐patient communication in Southeast Asia: A different culture? Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 15–31.

3. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (Eds.). (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups and organizations. Jossey-Bass.

4. Elkington, R., van der Steege, M., Glick-Smith, J. L., & Breen, J. M. (2017). Visionary leadership in a turbulent world: Thriving in the new VUCA context. Outskirts Press.

5. Fitch, D. (2017). Sustaining a culture of attentive leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration, 47(9), 417-421.

6. Fry, L. W., & Kriger, M. P. (2009). Towards a being-centered theory of transformational leadership. The Journal of Management Development, 28(7), 627–640.

7. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bloomsbury.

8. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.

9. Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(1), 3–26.

10. Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2011). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 765–786.

11. Ramachandran, R., Dowell, R., & Graham, T. W. (2019). Emotional intelligence in surgery – enhancing quality and safety. The Lancet, 393, 1585.

12. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590.

13. Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland.

14. Taylor, J. (2019). Physician burnout: It just takes one bad boss. Medical Economics, 96(9), 10-14.

15. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.

16. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–281.

17. Wolfe, S. E., & Nix, J. (2016). The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to engage in community partnership. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 1–10.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). Emotional Intelligence as a Shield Against Toxic Leadership. Human Capital Leadership Review, 20(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.20.4.3