Yuga Arya Kencana

Bibliometric Analysis of Toxic Leadership

Introduction

Bibliometric analysis of toxic leadership. This study analyzes toxic leadership research (2020-2025) using bibliometrics, revealing trends, collaboration, and its impact on organizations. Learn to identify & prevent toxic behaviors.

Abstract

Leadership plays a central role in determining the success of an organization, both in terms of productivity and employee relations. However, not all leadership styles have positive effects. Toxic leadership is a type of disruptive leadership that causes emotional distress, reduces work motivation, and causes organizational dysfunction. This study aims to uncover research trends, collaboration patterns between authors and institutions, and important issues established over the last ten years by conducting a bibliographic analysis of recent studies on toxic leadership. This research approach processes data from Google Scholar according to the 2020–2025 requirements using VosViewer and Publish or Perish software. According to the study’s findings, counterproductive employee behaviour, high sales, and fewer organisational calls are all significantly impacted by toxic leadership. In order to establish a more wholesome and effective workplace, this study highlights how crucial it is for businesses to identify early toxic leadership tendencies and put ethical and emotional intelligence-based preventative measures into place.

Review

This paper presents a timely bibliometric analysis of toxic leadership, a critical area given its profound impact on organizational success and employee well-being. The abstract clearly articulates the study's relevance, highlighting how toxic leadership contributes to emotional distress, reduced motivation, and organizational dysfunction. By aiming to uncover research trends, collaboration patterns, and key issues over the last decade, this study positions itself as a valuable contribution for researchers seeking to understand the evolving landscape of this detrimental leadership style. A well-executed bibliometric review in this domain can provide crucial insights into theoretical developments and practical challenges. The methodological approach outlined, involving data processing from Google Scholar and the use of VosViewer and Publish or Perish software, suggests a systematic effort to map the research field. The specified timeframe of "2020-2025 requirements" is notable, potentially indicating a very current or even forward-looking scope, which would require further clarification in the full paper regarding data acquisition for future years. The abstract points to significant findings, linking toxic leadership to counterproductive employee behaviour and underscoring the importance of early identification and ethical, emotionally intelligent preventative measures. This practical emphasis on creating a "wholesome and effective workplace" provides a strong rationale for the study's relevance to practitioners. While the abstract promises valuable insights, several areas warrant deeper elaboration in the full manuscript. The exclusive reliance on Google Scholar, while accessible, might introduce limitations compared to more curated databases like Web of Science or Scopus, which offer richer metadata crucial for comprehensive bibliometric analyses. Furthermore, the finding that toxic leadership significantly impacts "high sales" appears counter-intuitive when juxtaposed with its generally negative consequences like emotional distress and organizational dysfunction; this specific impact requires robust explanation and contextualization to fully understand its implications. Clarification on the "2020-2025 requirements" for data processing would also strengthen the methodological description. Addressing these points will enhance the study's methodological rigor and the nuanced interpretation of its findings, ultimately solidifying its contribution to the understanding and mitigation of toxic leadership.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.