Couverture de Colloquium Presentation Discussion Aspen University Fall 2024 Pt. 1

Colloquium Presentation Discussion Aspen University Fall 2024 Pt. 1

Colloquium Presentation Discussion Aspen University Fall 2024 Pt. 1

Écouter gratuitement

Voir les détails

À propos de ce contenu audio

 This episode discusses the key themes and important ideas presented by Dr. Park Johnson in his research colloquium on toxic leadership in public education. Based on excerpts from an audio recording of his presentation, this document highlights the nature of toxic leadership, its impact on individuals and institutions, the research methodology employed, and the initial findings. Speaker: Dr. Park Johnson, Aspen University School of Education Alumnus Topic: Toxic Leadership in Public Education Date: Fall 2024 Colloquium (Exact date not specified) Main Themes: Prevalence of Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership is not limited to K-12 education but is present across all levels of education and in various other professions. It is a form of incivility with severe repercussions.Impact on School Culture and Well-being: Toxic leadership significantly and detrimentally affects overall school culture, teacher and support staff well-being, and sense of self-efficacy.Negative Effects on Student Outcomes: Teaching conditions and student outcomes are directly linked. Toxic environments hinder the ability of teachers and staff to positively influence student performance, impacting school success metrics.Consequences for Turnover: Workers, including educators, are more likely to leave a company or educational facility if they are treated poorly by their superiors.Lasting Psychological Effects: The negative effects of toxic leadership can persist even after the toxic leader is no longer in place, potentially leading to symptoms akin to PTSD in subordinates.The Gap in Existing Research: While positive leadership approaches are widely studied, there is a lack of research specifically focusing on toxic leadership in public education, how to identify it, and how to address it. Dr. Johnson's research aims to fill this gap.Defining Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership is characterized by a lack of care for subordinates' welfare, detrimental impacts on the organizational environment, a focus on the leader's self-interest, and a lack of moral principles.Manifestations of Toxic Leadership: Toxic leadership can present as abusive management, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, social marginalization, lack of integrity, assault on self-esteem, laissez-faire management, shaming, passive-aggressive behavior, team sabotage, aggression, dishonesty, avarice, haughtiness, and bullying.Organizational Toxicity: This broader concept encompasses harmful and painful circumstances in the workplace, stemming from various factors including incompetent leadership, negative comments, communication weaknesses, and unfair rewards. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Research Motivation: Dr. Johnson's initial research interest was the direct effects of proximity on student learning, influenced by the pandemic's shift to remote education. However, his experience in a toxic environment exacerbated during the pandemic shifted his focus to toxic leadership.The Problem of Leader Self-Perception: Dr. Johnson notes recent research indicating that a majority of toxic leaders believe they are great leaders, highlighting the challenge of self-awareness.Characteristics of Toxic Leaders (According to Literature and Participants):Lack of moral principlesUnhealthy obsession with self-promotionInflated sense of self-importanceArrogant attitudeExcessive greedCallous disregard for the welfare of othersEgotistical attitudes, motivations, and behaviorsOrganizational Toxicity Elements:IneptitudeInfidelityInsensitivityIntrusionInstitutional pressuresInevitabilityResearch Questions:Main Question: How do educators and support staff describe toxic leadership practice and its impacts in the arena of public education?Sub-Question 1: What are the effects of destructive or toxic leadership on employee turnover, morale, and job performance in public education institutions?Sub-Question 2: What strategies do participants offer to address destructive or toxic leadership in public education institutions?Methodology: Dr. Johnson employed qualitative research using the "thick description" method with open-ended interviews of educators, support staff, and paraprofessionals. This allowed for rich, in-depth insights into their experiences.Data Analysis: Interview recordings were transcribed using Dovetail software and analyzed using Deduce software. Codebooks were developed based on existing theories (R's theory of social justice, critical leadership theory, and the toxic leadership scale). An outside coder was used to mitigate bias.Key Findings from Participant Transcripts (Illustrative Quotes):Participants used negative vocabulary such as "yelling," "foul language," "cursed at," "terrifying sensation," "worrying excessively," and "stress" to describe their experiences.Words like "drained," "forced out," and "chastised" were used.Instances of condescending communication, inappropriate language (e.g., the "B-word"), demotion without documented reason, demoralization, and feeling "not clever enough...
Les membres Amazon Prime bénéficient automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts chez Audible.

Vous êtes membre Amazon Prime ?

Bénéficiez automatiquement de 2 livres audio offerts.
Bonne écoute !
    Aucun commentaire pour le moment