Workplace Culture and Contextual Case Studies
Workplace Culture and Contextual Case Studies
Eric Fey
PPA 420
April 26
Fey 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Introduction 3
For-Profit Sector - Uber Technologies Inc. 4
Public Sector - The Trump White House 6
Issue 1 - Organizational Culture 7
Issue 2 - Leadership 10
Issue 3 - Values 12
Issue 4 - Power 14
Issue 5 - Communication 16
Recommendations 18
Conclusion 21
References 24
Academic Journals 24
Books 27
Multimedia 29
Newspaper 31
Fey 3
Introduction
A hallmark of twenty first century innovation is the degree of sophistication that humans
use to engage in tasks and problem solving. This sophistication offers us every advantage and
major quality of life increases over previous generations, and organized interests are instrumental
to achieving these quality of life increases. Even though this knowledge body and capability for
productivity collectively advances human interests, there are drawbacks. When profits, personal
agenda, rapid expansion, or other potentially detrimental factors become too central of a motive
to organizations, a work environment can become permissive of behaviors that would otherwise
be seen as inappropriate and repress the human components of organizations. These behaviors
get justified based on the warped context that they exist in, and are typically counterproductive to
an organization’s goals and long term health. These scenarios lead to negative affect for
The purpose of this paper is to further a shared understanding and definition of toxic
workplaces with respect to existing literature while also examining contemporary institutions as
case studies when the presence of toxic work environments have been identified. This paper
recognizes two examples which have recently demonstrated the symptoms of toxic workplace
culture from the for-profit and public sectors. These examples are given to contextualize issues
generalize about toxic workplaces. The paper will offer recommendations tailored to the specific
workplaces identified as well as offer avoidance and potential remedies for toxic work situations
in general. I conclude with implications and potential future directions of study to the field of
management.
Kusy and Holloway (2009) define a toxic personality as anyone who “demonstrates a
Fey 4
pattern of counterproductive work behaviors that debilitate individuals, teams, and organizations
over the long term”. Based on this definition, we will define a toxic work culture as any work
based environment in which individuals who exhibit toxic behaviors are permitted and to some
extent enabled. Toxic work environments are known to have severe consequences such as
deviant work behaviors, loss of productivity, turnover, and psychological effects such as bad
decision making and frustration (Applebaum 2007, Applebaum 2007, Kusy 2009, Robinson
1995, Robinson 1997). Deviant work behaviors are described as voluntary behaviors that violate
established organizational norms of conduct that threaten individuals and organizations and can
include theft, fraud, vandalism, sabotage, violence, corruption, absenteeism, and embezzlement
(Robinson 1997). When individuals are mistreated or frustrated as a result of dealing with toxic
individuals, this may cause them to exhibit deviant work behaviors. Toxic behaviors are noted to
contaminate individuals and organizations and persist after individuals exhibiting toxic behaviors
Brief introductions are necessary to better understand the work environments that each
Uber is a ride hailing and sharing service located in over 600 cities around the world. It
operates similar to a taxi service, but the taxi being used is an individual’s own possession.What
makes the company so unique is that it does not own the cars that are used to produce a profit, a
recent trend referred to as the sharing or gig economy. As a legal definition, the company is
technology based and offers a platform to connect users seeking rides to so called independent
contractors available to provide rides (Bales 2017). By actively evading and tricking law
enforcement, manipulating tax payments, and underpaying drivers, the value of the company has
Fey 5
reached as high as seventy billion dollars in the eight years since the company's founding (Isaac
Even though the market value of the company is very high, the foundation on which the
organization has been built is highly toxic. Uber has aggressively and recklessly expanded into
new markets and settled out of court for the theft of intellectual property totalling over two
hundred and forty million dollars in damages (Farivar 2018). Employees were encouraged to
release unfinished products and inform on each other to gain promotions and status in the
company (Isaac 2017, Wong 2017). Initially, internal reports of sexual misconduct had been kept
quiet by managers and members of the Human Resources department. A female software
engineer published her story about internal sexual misconduct after discussing with other female
software engineers some of the retaliatory actions taken against them for reporting said
misconduct (Fowler 2017). Since then, the company has been embroiled in scandal, it has
desperately been trying to rebrand its image to consumers to retain its market share (Fowler
2017, Isaac 2017, Isaac 2017, Isaac 2017, Segall 2017, Wong 2017).
diversity in the software engineering field. The industry is frequently described as having a male
dominated culture and Uber’s software engineers were comprised of about three percent females
at the time of the harassment scandals (Fowler 2017, Illing 2017). Lawsuits have been filed and
settled over Uber paying its female software engineers less money than their male counterparts
(Kolhatkar 2018). It is also important to acknowledge the distinction that Uber makes in regards
to the legal status of its drivers in relation to the sharing economy. By classifying its drivers as
independent contractors, the company has been able to skirt legal requirements for employees
like minimum wage and break requirements in some countries (Elliot 2016, Rugaber 2015). This
Fey 6
(Basinger 2012, Rottinghaus 2014). Notable scandals such as Watergate and Iran-Contra
decrease the publicly held trust of our institutions of democratic governance while limiting the
capacity of the Executive office to act (Basinger 2012) Scandals at this level are typically
representative of deeper and more persistent underlying problems. Nixon famously distrusted
everyone around him and left office for lying about several incidents of sabotage and deception.
In this way, Presidential scandals are important to analyze because they reinforce normative
visions of professional conduct as well as personality traits that contribute to patterns of action.
The Trump administration has been involved in more scandal and controversy in their
fifteen months than most Presidents could experience in eight years. Though each controversy
has been notable in its own right, we will focus our attention on several aspects that are
aggregately present in the situation. The White House has a turnover and morale problem
(Stracqualursi 2018). This can be fairly common among appointed aides and cabinet positions
which tend to be highly political in nature. However, there have been so many high profile
departures, resignations, and outright firings for various reasons that we should expect to find
toxic workplace conditions; as no one wants to work at the White House for very long (Cillizza
2018, Stracqualursi 2018). These high turnover rates will lead to problems such as lack of
institutional knowledge, inadequate vetting for security clearances, media leaks, low morale and
job satisfaction, and appointed officials acting out of self preservation rather than the public
interest. The rate of departures is also accelerating, signifying that underlying problems have not
Fey 7
been addressed. Republican members of Congress do not want to work with the President either.
The Speaker of the House is retiring to avoid dealing with a president he is frequently at odds
with. The rate of Congressional Republicans not seeking re-election is the highest in history,
which further suggest the difficulties that working with the President entail (Petulla 2018,
The federal government is a great example of bureaucracy at the highest level. Within
this structure, chain of command and authority are important tools for maintaining discipline and
the working order of operations. Members of the Executive Branch looks toward the President to
guide their conduct, who has thus far demonstrated poor leadership skills and an inappropriate
style of leadership required for the position. Even though toxicity and aggression may work
against your opponents in a business environment, it has severely hindered the executive agenda
and effectiveness of the Presidency. Apart from the appointed officials who have been jailed for
fraud, the remaining cabinet members and aides are forced make decisions in a context which
supports counterproductive outcomes based on toxicity trickling down. We should expect to see
deviant behaviors like sabotage, as well as toxicity, aggression, and laziness becoming the new
norm (Courtois 2017, Frank 2018, Haberman 2018). This is partially confirmed by recent reports
detailing the aggressive nature with which the President and subordinates use to harass perceived
procedures of any organization are highly repetitive and iterative. If certain components or
departments of an organization are dysfunctional, then they will repeatedly cause problems. In
this way, all of our key variables are interrelated. Poor organizational culture is influenced by
Fey 8
leadership,values, power, and communication; with each factor influencing and reinforcing the
others. This paper is organized with the most important issues being discussed sequentially.
Addressing the organizational cultures that allow toxicity to exist would likely diminish or
multiple sources to create a working definition. The Society for Human Resources Management
defines organizational culture as “shared beliefs and values established by leaders and then
perceptions, behaviors and understanding. Organizational culture sets the context for everything
an enterprise does” (Org Culture 2018). Organizational culture being context specific is the most
important part of this definition to understand. Culture must vary between organizations because
of the different environmental factors and contexts that they exist in (Schein 2010). Culture is
also persistent, largely invisible, socially constructed, yet present and pervasive throughout
groups and subgroups within organizations (Schein 2010). In Harvard Business Review, Watkins
(2014) reports that culture is largely influenced by incentives, constantly changing, and is a
jointly understood reality, making organizational culture difficult to change. It is also important
to note how a strong positive organizational culture should define how leadership roles want
decisions to be made. Leaders need to demonstrate core organizational values as well as continue
to reinforce these values through communication (Org Culture 2018, Schein 1990, Schein 2010).
Both organizations have a toxic organizational culture, even if the niches they occupy are
slightly different. In both instances, toxic individuals occupy positions of power and work
counterproductively against the organization. At Uber, the control over toxicity was held most
directly by managers and HR who would receive frequent reports of sexual harassment and
Fey 9
hostile work environments (Fowler 2017). These employees were never disciplined or removed
because they were “high performers” (Fowler 2017, Isaac 2017). The C.E.O. of Uber eventually
resigned after months of scandal, one of which was the acknowledgement that he was given
reports of the harassing behaviors and failed to act (Segall 2017). Employees were also
encouraged to inform on anyone who wasn’t performing in the aggressive “Uber way”, and this
pattern of betraying your coworkers confidence degrades human relations and interactions while
At the White House, the toxicity comes from the President who routinely attacks others
on social media, makes insensitive remarks to minorities, and acts aggressively and impulsively.
As a measure of his impulse decisions, White House staff have learned not to do anything the
President says unless he repeats it more than three times (Haberman 2018). The President has
also moved toward rejecting structure and discipline designed to limit outbursts of rage (Parker
2018). These behaviors make slightly more sense in an elite New York business setting, but
being a Chief Executive requires diplomacy, tact, compromise. The President's actions are also
highly counterproductive. Although frequently known to gauge his success by the performance
of the stock market, the President will declare us at odds with China and threaten to sanction
imports. The stock market then drops accordingly because of uncertainty. These and other
actions are examples of how the organizational culture of the administration are most directly
behaviors that toxic organizations exhibit. Leaders in the organizations demonstrated lack of
insight in refusing to address problems that are highly visible. This communicates and reinforces
negatively held beliefs and values to the employees. The incentives to lie, aggressively expand,
Fey 10
demean, and ignore problematic behaviors were present at both organizations and are contrary to
what the public expects; even though the institutional contexts at the time would suggest these
actions were justifiable. Subordinates notice and respond to incentives, even if they are based on
unsustainable practices or damaging to long term organizational health (French 1968, Watkins
2014). Even if these organizational cultures are addressed quickly, the toxicity present can have
lasting detrimental effects to public trust and credibility (Kusy 2009). This can lead to viable
competition and alternatives capturing that specific niche instead (Lyft or Democrats.)
Issue 2 - Leadership
As an abstraction, the study of leadership tends to be about the direction of organizations
in the future in response to impending change, and focusing the attention of individuals by
objective (Northouse 2018). This definition does not limit leadership roles to a specific formal
position, but rather anyone who exhibits influence over the group (Northouse 2018). In not-for-
profit leadership, leaders often seek to elevate their followers to higher planes rather than just
providing an exchange of mutual benefits (Burns 1978). It is also important to note the common
ground that leaders work towards. By having a shared mutual interest in accomplishing a goal,
leaders are less likely to abuse their power. This commonality also creates a more collaborative
environment to encourage teamwork and shared labor (Rost 1991). The ever-declining trust in
formal political leadership positions is also important to note for the way it diminishes potential
outcomes (Kellerman 2001). Leadership in public contexts is less thoroughly understood, yet we
can rely on an understanding of leadership in that it catalyzes individuals toward changes within
their respective context (Kellerman 2001, Northouse 2018, Schein 2010). Recent developments
Fey 11
in leadership studies also suggest that excellent leadership tends to focus on organizational
culture by adapting and modifying symbols and values (Collins 1997, Schein 2010).
In our case studies, leaders at both levels or the organizations had opportunities to modify
their symbols and values to shape employee behavior, but failed to do so. As mentioned,
leadership at Uber was responsible for failing to discipline individuals who were repeatedly
reported for harassing behaviors. Aggression and expansion were valued more highly than the
individual employees. These behaviors not only communicate a low perception of value to
certain employees, but also shape the expected behavior of other employees who are incentivized
for high performance and remain toxic towards others. The values in this circumstance were not
particularly hard to change, which makes this case all the more confusing. By focusing on a
human-centric, collaborative, inclusive, and zero tolerance based workplace, these and other
issues could have been dealt with or avoided entirely. Since the detailed incidents, Uber has
brought in a new C.E.O. whose focus is repairing the negative image associated with the
company (Fiegerman 2017). The toxicity emboldened during Mr. Kalanick’s tenure has had
lasting effects even after he stepped down (Kolhatkar 2018, Kusy 2009).
For a time, the White House was not entirely operating in a leadership vacuum. Chief of
Staff John Kelly was able to implement some order and disciple to the situation by carefully
managing the President’s schedule. This was at least helpful in limiting frequent bouts of rage
and impulsivity. Recently, the President has become emboldened to act on his own and ignore
the strict scheduling that Kelly had worked so hard to implement (Parker 2018) As mentioned,
strong leadership in organizations should indicate how they want subordinates to act and respond
to situations (Org Culture 2018, Schein 1990, Schein 2010). The only way White House staff
know how to act is to try and guess what might anger the President and avoid doing that
Fey 12
(McIntire 2018, Parker 2018). The President is a highly symbolic leader and by demonstrating
impulsivity and retribution, the prestige and professional conduct of the office are damaged;
because these actions aren’t representative of quality leadership. Without clear guidance on what
is being measured, controlled, and ignored in relation to situations of national importance, aides
and cabinet members have no official guidance and have discretion to pursue their own agenda
which may run contrary to the party agenda or the public benefit (Rainey 2009). Giving
employees discretion to act in accordance to their role towards fulfilling the mission of the
their collective mission or objectives actually are in order to work towards them. The White
House has also failed to issue consistent or stable directives for it’s short and long term policy
Issue 3 - Values
Values typically represent some preferred state of being and are “core conceptions of the
desirable within individuals and society (Rokeach 2008). Values also inform our actions,
cognition, attitudes, judgements, and tend to remain stable across populations (Rokeach 2008).
Organizations convey values to their members through similar means as culture. Stories,
symbols, procedures, language, affirming rituals, and incentives all display individual and
organizational values (Rainey 2009). An organization that values social responsibility might host
community volunteer days and encourage its employees to become more involved through more
social affinity, recognition, and influence over the organizations volunteer efforts. Matching the
organization fit, job motivation, and job success. Recent literature that emphasizes Public
Service Motivation in relation to public and nonprofit sector work seems to confirm this (Bruni
Fey 13
2009, Choi 2018, Jessica 2015, Kjeldsen 2018, Potipiroon 2017). The pre-existing values of
organizations also tend to direct and inform the values of individuals who find themselves in that
organizational context (Bruni 2009, Miller-Stevens 2014). The main factors contributing to job
satisfaction in the not for profit sector relate to helping society at large (Kilpatrick 1964). This is
why individuals who value societal benefits and self sacrifice tend to gravitate towards the public
service; because their individual values are congruent with an organization's values. (Bruni 2009,
Miller-Stevens 2014) Having incongruent values to your organization can be demotivating and
causes conflicts resulting from differences in opinion with other members (Rainey 2009, Stern
2000).
In terms of Uber, we have examined how the organizational culture placed emphasis on
blitzing new market areas through aggressive expansion and undercutting competitors.
Employees have reported the demanding conditions like excessively high low levels of work life
balance from their employees; with some reporting eighty hour work weeks while being
permanently on call (Fowler 2017, O’Donovan 2018). The profit directive was so strong that the
basic humanity of both office employees and drivers were being ignored. Individual employees
never felt valued because of the constant fear used by management staff. These actions show
how much higher profit is placed over people, without respecting that humans are the most
Recent departures from the White House highlight differences in values. The office of the
President started to become more akin to corporate values and ideals during the late nineties and
early two thousands. Major political appointee roles were deemed acceptable to be filled from
non-traditional career politicians with examples like Dick Cheney; who on top of being an
elected politician switched to the private sector as a C.E.O. before returning to government. This
Fey 14
trend has unfortunately continued, as a businessman with little political knowledge and no
previous experience has infiltrated our highest elected office. With Trump’s election, he brings
his personal values of the private sector to an office with an entirely different and more diffuse
value set. (Ring 1985) This infiltration of corporate values into the public sector has continued
and as a result brought appointees with little or no political experience into key roles as
diplomats (Rex Tillerson) and department heads (Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt, Ronny Jackson)
(Fandos 2018). A corporate sector cabinet has also brought about deregulation in finance,
energy, and the environment (see New Source Rule changes, EPA) (Bade 2017, NSR 2018). It is
no surprise that so many high profile departures have occurred. When differences in values are
communicated and subsequently ignored by the administration, personnel choose to exit rather
than continually existing in value conflicts (Hirschman 1970). The subject of values can be
related to phases of governance. If a President has largely corporate values, this will tend to
create a focus on short term efficiency and costs (New Public Management) rather than
accountability, citizen input, coproduction, and equity (New Public Service) (Denhardt 2002,
Miller-Stevens 2014).
Issue 4 - Power
Though there are many ways of thinking about power, our definition will focus on power
as the “potential ability to direct behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome
resistance, and to convince people to do things that they would not do otherwise” (Pfeffer 1992).
Power differs from leadership in that leadership tends to be about focusing the attention of
individuals rather than mandating their attention and is a less forceful, more organic process
(Barid 2017, Rost 1991). In one of the most frequently cited studies on power, French and Raven
(1968) offer us an understanding of where power comes from in organizations. They argue that
Fey 15
power comes from the ability to reward, punish, coerce, and other factors such as formal
authority status, level of reference (being well liked), and level of expertise. Power and
organizations are rooted within each other, with organizations relying on structure, external
influence, and the political economy as a way to maintain the power and legitimacy needed to
pursue their goals (Clegg 2006). In terms of using power in organizations, management must
decide what goals are, who can best help to achieve this goal, the perspectives and reactions of
individuals to decisions or outcomes, what power and influence can actually be exerted over the
situation, and what the most appropriate and effective action is (Pfeffer 1992). Understanding the
various different sources of formal and informal power and the historical context of power within
organizations are critically important to using power with grace rather than force (Clegg 2006,
There are several commonalities between the power centers of both organizations in our
case studies. Both are privileged white men who occupy the highest respective symbolic
positions of power within their organizations. At Uber, the power to punish and coerce was being
manipulated by managers to make employees fearful and obedient. The power to reward and the
failure to pursue punishment was being used by managers to protect “high achievers” from
harassment claims. Protecting negative behaviors allows toxicity to spread not only from those
engaging in these behaviors, but to those affected by harassment who view their psychological
work contract as being broken without the interactional justice of punishment for deviant norm
violation. The power to express dissatisfaction, also known as voice, was removed from affected
employees as well which typically results in exit, loyalty, neglect, or changing perceptions of the
The Trump administration has been steadily decreasing in popularity throughout his
Fey 16
tenure, meaning his reference power is equivalently low (Gallup 2018). The President had no
prior political or civil servant experience before serving as President (no expertise power). As the
President becomes more and more unpopular, Congress and the Supreme Court seek to remove
power from the Office of the President in the form of Congressional protections for the special
counsel and blocking the authority to implement travel bans and to repeal the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program (less formal authority). Half of the Presidents potential sources
of power are gone or diminished, even though his formal authority is still very strong. Less
power combined with frequent scandals leaves few options for the context-appropriate uses of
power that a President so desperately relies upon (Basinger 2012, Kellerman 2001, Pfeffer 1992).
Issue 5 - Communication
We can define communication as the exchange of information from a transmitter to a
receiver. Both parties should also correctly comprehend the meaning and implied actions based
on shared understanding. Poor communication may be the result of conflicting views or the
occurring at and flowing between all levels of an organization constantly. Structures and rules
used to communicate should range from a more formal, mechanized procedure to inform
superiors while still having informal methods like acknowledging individuals for their
when two or more groups have dissimilar interests and goals, failure to listen or perceive the
transmitted message, and when groups define concepts differently (Rainey 2009, Gortner 2006).
In order for groups to perform at a high level, they need to perceive their leaders as respectful,
engaged, and participatory (Zander 1994). This would be impossible without effective
communication. Leaders should also establish and maintain communication networks to promote
Fey 17
the free flow of information, while creating a culture of information sharing through the use of
In both of our case studies, the organizations were using communication effectively to
some extent. The problem is that the content being communicated happens to be toxic. Both
organizations are very aware of the values and symbols that their actions communicate to
employees. At Uber, there were certain values being communicated to employees like high
performance, disregard for the law, aggressive expansion, no expectation of work-life balance,
public retribution and shaming, and that employees should always be fearful for their job
(Fowler 2017, Isaac 2017, Isaac 2017, Kolhatkar 2018, O’Donovan 2018). Even though
employees knew and understood the context they were in, there were no guidelines in how to
make decisions, what would be tolerated, and how management expected decisions to be made
based on vague criterion (O’Donovan 2018). A fearful work environment may drive high
productivity in the short run, but can poison the foundations of an organization for the future.
(King 2015) Uber’s net value dropped as much as twenty six billion after it’s numerous scandals,
which jeopardizes stakeholder value and the organization’s solvency (Knight 2017).
The White House also uses communication designed to create uncertainty, anger and
retribution. The President repeatedly insults opponents and allies on Twitter, derides members of
his self-chosen cabinet as “weak and idiotic” for allowing a Russia investigation, and has even
fired top appointed officials via tweet (Singletary 2018, Williamson 2018). The President makes
embarrassing or untrue statements which forces his staff to try and spin the news in awkward
situations (Baker 2018, Robertson 2017 ). At times, certain explanations will be given by the
President, his staff go forth and make a policy announcement, only to have the President change
Fey 18
his mind and renege on the decision after an official announcement has been made (Rucker
2018). These communications are the most readily apparent, publicly visible signs of
counterproductivity which isolate subordinates and represent internal conflict. This pattern also
undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the entire Executive Office, as goals are
Recommendations
Each case will be addressed in turn. In relation to Uber, they have already begun the road
to recovery for their public image. Most of the recommendations that could or should be
implemented have not already been done. The board members removed the previous C.E.O.
from his position, even though he still retains some voting power on a shareholders board
(Kolhatkar 2018). The new C.E.O. Dara Khosrowshahi was brought in to “be an adult” and to
implement image rebranding of the company without necessarily changing the previously
existing culture of aggressive expansion and avoiding regulation (Kolhatkar 2018). Consumers
have the tendency to forget quickly about scandal with a constant twenty-four hour news cycle
which has been plagued with scandals as of late. As long as Uber is providing lip service and
vaporware to organizational change, consumers will likely forget given enough time and promise
of change until another polemic about organizational culture is released from inside the
organization. In this surface level appeal to consumers, the organization has been largely
successful. They have begun offering popular options from other ride sharing platforms, such as
the ability to directly tip a driver. The company has also issued apologies to its consumers and
even governments themselves for its various blunders. (Kolhatkar 2018) The organization as a
whole is still focused on aggressive expansion into new markets, with former engineers and
executives reporting that with such steep competition for ride sharing, it is not yet time to change
Fey 19
corporate culture (Kolhatkar 2018). The shareholders were never looking for a true change agent
to remove toxicity, but someone who could responsibly take the company public with a desirable
valuation.
We should collectively view these changes as important first steps while continuing to
hold the company accountable to further change by refusing service and choosing more ethically
focused competitors. The company could easily encourage surface and deep level diversity for its
employees for the benefits to decision making, innovation, and creativity (Green 2002, Roberge
2010) Software engineers should work in an environment which fosters collaboration and
creativity, without the fear of sabotage from other employees present at Uber. Employees need
their collective voice returned via the opportunity to express dissatisfaction with corrective
follow up. Most importantly, change has to be focused on the dynamism of the system which
allowed the toxicity to begin with (Kusy 2009). Management failing to report harassment,
threatening, intimidating, and theft of intellectual property are all serious behaviors which
Changing the deeply embedded organizational culture would require a change leader well versed
in facilitating discussion about policy reformation based on employee concerns (Collins 1997,
Schein 2010, Sopow 2006). The culture needs to be fixed by changing symbols, rituals,
language, and incentives more than just changing a few office slogans and posters (Collins 1997,
appointed officials, the recommendations for the White House will be much more short term in
nature; as the organization will likely not be under any solvency threats akin to those in the
corporate world (Ring 1985) The toxicity is centered in the President as head of the agency, and
Fey 20
most efforts to fix counterproductive issues would likely be directed thus. Rather than bring in
previous Republican cabinets members or top aides with experience and institutional knowledge,
the President appointed his personal network of business associates in many cases. Appointing,
then trusting in the practical, lived experience of previous government appointees would bring an
air of legitimacy and reason (King 2015). The Twitter privilege of the President should be
removed and given to White House staff or communications directors. Messages about goals and
policy directives need to be well thought out before being released to the public, as most leaders
and corporations have started to ignore the President; as astounding as that is (White 2018,
Williamson 2018). As humans, we tend to make decisions quickly and then live with the
consequences for years after (Pfeffer 1992). If the President were to slow down his decision
making process, the consequences become more liveable and saleable to others. Governing with
some resistance represents pluralist interests in democracy, but the power to accomplish any goal
requires more power than those who oppose that goal (Pfeffer 1992). By making, announcing,
and executing poorly planned decisions, the President fuels his opposition by legitimizing their
claims of his ineffectiveness; reducing his power to act (Basinger 2001, French 1968). The
President should engage in critical self analysis to at least recognize that he has a different value
set then the typical President to inform his understanding of the established norms of conduct
(King 2015).
As much as possible, power structures within the White House should be flattened to
allow subordinates more structure and control over the administration’s day to day activities; at
which John Kelly was somewhat effective (Parker 2018). This would also allow the
communication of dissent in terms of voice. Similar to Uber, there is not much deep level
diversity in the administration, which could assist in aspects of holistic decision making (Green
Fey 21
2002, Roberge 2010). The President was unique in that he had the opportunity to leave most
decision making to his appointed officials, as he was and is lacking political and policy
knowledge. The President should take on the role of a high-level coordinator of skilled
department heads allowing discretion towards policy objectives; based on the knowledge of what
he knows and does not know (King 2015). The Presidency is a highly symbolic office and needs
to demonstrate leadership through examples of actions that shows others how and why they
should be replicating these actions (Hinckley 1990). Simply put, by fixing the actions of the
President, the toxicity will subside and the organizational culture will be much easier to
influence.
Conclusion
This case analysis normatively attempts to arrive at a way organizations should function
in part by pointing out ways in which they are flawed. By examining organizational culture,
leadership, values, power, and communication, we can come to a closer understanding of the
dysfunctional working environments found in Uber and the White House by using these
concepts. The context of every organization is different, yet the characteristics of toxic
individuals across different organizational contexts and sectors remains the same. This case
analysis has mainly focused on the role of the toxic individual within organizational contexts and
This paper is written with the public and non-profit sectors as the main scope of focus.
Public agencies differ from for-profit agencies in that they must deal with artificial time
constraints, turnover via political instability, openness to public input, and ambiguously defined
objectives (Ring 1985). However, the Uber case study is included for several reasons. It shows
how the difference in sector values reflect changes in management style and organizational
Fey 22
culture. The case study shows the human and organizational cost of ignoring persistent problems
that run counter to a society's accepted norms; as well as what these norms should be. It also
demonstrates the importance of recognizing each organization as case specific and contextually
driven, no matter the sector. Toxic individuals plague workplaces throughout every sector, even
if the context surrounding those individuals are different. This is why it is important to
diversity of sources.
Future research should be directed in the following ways. The topic of leadership in
public organizations has room for expansion and improvement. Multidimensional case studies of
toxicity in organizations could help to highlight how specific corrective actions can be taken
against toxic individuals as well as the outcomes. Further understanding the values in
organizations such as Miller, Taylor, and Morris (2014) describe would be useful in matching
organizations isn’t well understood either (Clegg 2006). If possible, personality studies of
attributes commonly found within toxic individuals should be catalogued to see if there is any
ability to predict toxic work behaviors. These studies could then be expanded cross nationally to
see if there are any commonalities between toxic individuals of separate countries based on other
The most difficult part of this analysis is recognizing the achievements that toxic
organizations have been able to accomplish. As far as we know, the President was
democratically elected by this country and a majority of voters resonated with his message.
Whether or not the election result was tainted is unknown at this point, which would have
implications on how successful a toxic organization could hope to be. In terms of Uber, the
Fey 23
company is still worth upwards of seventy billion dollars, even considering the scandals that
lowered its respective value from the an estimated ninety six billion (Knight 2017). The former
C.E.O. of Uber, whose actions both built and plagued a company, recently bought a different
company and installed himself as C.E.O. there instead (Kolhatkar 2018). These organizations
both represent toxic behaviors and unfettered success; with no real indicators of future plans to
change. Both organizations exhibited a rapid rise due to aggression and expansion, and are now
so large and powerful that they can effectively rebrand or defend their positions without
changing key elements of their culture or leadership. In both cases, the benefits of exhibiting
these behaviors outweighed the costs. This may represent a new paradigm shift in how
disengaged we are from our values as a society and how willing we are to discuss commonly
held notions (Stivers 2008). At the very least, it reinforces the notion that toxic behaviors are
becoming more acceptable if the ultimate benefits outweigh the costs. The implications are truly
frightening. American democratic ideals are already at risk due to international attacks on our
sovereignty and corporate interests seeking to game the system for benefit. Our trust in
organizations does not need to be further undermined by allowing toxic individuals to control
References
Academic Journals
A toxic culture. (2016). Internal Auditor, 73(6), 21-23.
Abbasi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public
Personnel Management, 29(3), 333-342.
Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate
to deviant workplace behaviour. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Business in Society, 5(4), 43-55.
Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant
workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, 7(5), 586-598.
Bales, R. A., & Woo, C. P. (2017). The Uber million dollar question: Are Uber drivers
employees or independent contractors? Mercer Law Review, 68(2), 461-487.
Basinger, S. J., & Rottinghaus, B. (2012). Stonewalling and suspicion during presidential
scandals. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 290-302.
Brenner, V. C., Carmack, C. W., & Weinstein, M. G. (1971). An empirical test of the
motivation-hygiene theory. Journal Of Accounting Research, 9(2), 359-366.
Bruni, L., & Smerilli, A. (2009). The value of vocation: The crucial role of intrinsically
motivated people in values-based organizations. Review Of Social Economy, 67(3), 271-
288.
Cerasoli, C., Nicklin, J., & Nassrelgrgawi, A. (2016). Performance, incentives, and needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: a meta-analysis. Motivation & Emotion,
40(6), 781-813.
Choi, Y., & Chung, I. H. (2018). Effects of public service motivation on turnover and job
satisfaction in the U.S. teacher labor market. International Journal Of Public
Fey 25
Courtois, C., & Gendron, Y. (2017). The "normalization" of deviance: A case study on
the process underlying the adoption of deviant behavior. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice
& Theory, 36(3), 15-43.
Daniel, N. (2018). The sharing economy, Uber, and corporate social responsibilities.
Fórum Empresarial, Vol 22, Iss 2, Pp 109-116 (2018), (2), 109.
Didier Bloch, a., & Nora Borges, a. (2002). Organisational learning in NGOs: An
example of an intervention based on the work of Chris Argyris. Development In Practice,
(3/4), 461.
Gortner, H. F. (2001). Values and ethics. Public Administration and Public Policy, 86,
509–528.
Green, K. A., López, M., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Diversity in the workplace:
Benefits, challenges, and the required managerial tools. University of Florida, 1(4).
Jan-Paul, L., José, N., & Rita, B. (2017). How knowledge worker teams deal effectively
with task uncertainty: The impact of transformational leadership and group development.
Frontiers In Psychology, Vol 8 (2017).
Jessica, W., & Sung Min, P. (2015). The new public service? Empirical research on job
choice motivation in the nonprofit sector. Personnel Review, (1), 91.
Kellerman, B., & Webster, S. W. (2001). The recent literature on public leadership:
Reviewed and considered.” The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 485-514.
Khong, J. N., Liem, G. D., & Klassen, R. M. (2017). Task performance in small group
settings: the role of group members' self-efficacy and collective efficacy and group's
characteristics. Educational Psychology, 37(9), 1082-1105.
Kjeldsen, A. M., & Hansen, J. R. (2018). Sector differences in the public service
motivation–job satisfaction relationship: exploring the role of organizational
characteristics. Review Of Public Personnel Administration, 38(1), 24-48.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power
in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 342-369.
Fey 26
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance.
Employee involvement, TQM, re-engineering, and knowledge management in the fortune,
1000.
Miller-Stevens, K., Taylor, J. A., & Morris, J. C. (2014). Are we really on the same page?
An empirical examination of value congruence between public sector and nonprofit
sector managers. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 26(6), 2424-2446.
Nica, E. (2013). Organizational culture in the public sector. Economics, Management &
Financial Markets, 8(2), 179-184.
Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with full range
leadership model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business
Ethics, 90(4), 533.
Philip, B., & Gordon, W. (2001). Educating for the new public service: Implications of
the transformation of governance. Journal Of Public Affairs Education, (4), 267.
Potipiroon, W., & Ford, M. T. (2017). Does public service motivation always lead to
organizational commitment? Examining the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and
ethical leadership. Public Personnel Management, 46(3), 211-238.
Rana Özen, K., & Nuray, M. (2015). A research on the relationship between knowledge
sharing behaviour and organizational culture. Journal Of Human And Work, Vol 2, Iss 2,
Pp 147-155 (2015), (2), 147.
Fey 27
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An
exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 26(1), 5-30.
Ring, P. S., & Perry, J. L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private
organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(2), 276.
Roberge, M. É., & Van Dick, R. (2010). Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and
how does diversity increase group performance?. Human Resource Management Review,
20(4), 295-308.
Sampson, E. E. (1963). Individual and group performance under reward and fine. Journal
Of Social Psychology, 61(1), 111-125.
Seidle, B., Fernandez, S., & Perry, J. L. (2016). Do leadership training and development
make a difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review,
76(4), 603-613.
Sopow, E. (2006). The impact of culture and climate on change programs. Strategic
Communication Management, 10(6), 14.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkinste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining
the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic
psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22,
Books
Appelbaum, E. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems
pay off. Cornell University Press.
Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider: The unstoppable
power of leaderless organizations. London: Portfolio.
Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. Pine
Forge Press.
Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.
New York: HarperCollins, 1997.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2002). The new public service: Serving, not steering.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
French, J.R.P., and Raven, B. The bases of social power. Group dynamics. New York:
HarperCollins, 1968.
Gortner, H. F., Nichols, K. L., amd Ball, C. Organization theory:A public and nonprofit
perspective. (3rd ed.) Cengage Learning, 2006.
Kilpatrick, F. P., Cummings, M. C., and Jennings, M. K. The image of the federal
service. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1964.
King, C. S., & Zanetti, L. A. (2015). Transformational public service: Portraits of theory
in practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kusy, M., & Holloway, E. (2009). Toxic workplace!: Managing toxic personalities and
their systems of power. John Wiley & Sons.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. John Wiley &
Sons.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its
manifestations, and its causes.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.
Fey 29
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture: what it is and how to change it. In Human
Resource Management In International Firms (pp. 56-82). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley &
Sons.
Stivers, Camilla. 2008. Governance in dark times: Practical philosophy for public
service. Washington, D.C: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Zander, A. Making groups effective. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Multimedia
Bade, G. (2017, December 12). EPA to drop key New Source Review enforcement provision.
Retrieved from https://www.utilitydive.com/news/epa-to-drop-key-new-source-review-
enforcement-provision/512825/
Cillizza, C. (2018, March 07). 35 and counting: The list of senior officials who have left the
Trump administration. Retrieved April 06, 2018, from
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/politics/trump-white-house-staff-departures/index.html
Farivar, C. (2018, February 09). Waymo and Uber end trial with sudden $244 million
settlement. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/02/waymo-and-Uber-end-trial-with-sudden-244-million-settlement/
Fiegerman, S. Uber's new CEO to employees: 'This company has to change'. Retrieved
April 16, 2018, from http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/30/technology/business/Uber-ceo-
all-hands/index.html
Fowler, S. Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber. (2017, February 19).
Retrieved April 08, 2018, from https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-
on-one-very-strange-year-at-Uber
Frank, T. (2018, April 12). The Ineffective Executive: How Trump's Laziness Is
Destroying His Presidency. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/the-ineffective-executive-how-trumps-
laziness-is-destroying-his-presidency
Gallup, Inc. (2018, April 25). Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval. Retrieved from
http://news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
Illing, S. (2017, February 28). Uber and the problem of Silicon Valley's bro culture.
Retrieved April 08, 2018, from
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/28/14726004/Uber-susan-fowler-travis-
kalanick-sexism-silicon-valley
Fey 30
Knight, E. (2017, June 30). Uber pays a $26 billion price for its toxic corporate culture.
Retrieved April 17, 2018, from https://www.smh.com.au/business/Uber-pays-a-26-
billion-price-for-its-toxic-corporate-culture-20170630-gx1x3w.html
Kolhatkar, S. (2018, April 03). At Uber, a new C.E.O. shifts gears. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/09/at-Uber-a-new-ceo-shifts-gears
New Source Review (NSR) Permitting. (2018, April 17). Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/ns
O'Donovan, C., & Anand, P. How Uber's hard-charging corporate culture left employees
drained. Retrieved April 17, 2018, from
https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/how-Ubers-hard-charging-corporate-
culture-left-employees?utm_term=.omQPzvpk5#.elZVzjxam
Petulla, S., & Hansler, J. (2018, April 11). There is a wave of Republicans leaving
Congress. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html
Robertson, L., & Farley, R. (2017, January 23). The facts on crowd size. Retrieved April
17, 2018, from https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/
Rugaber, C. S. (2015, July 16). Labor department tries to clarify hiring rules for gig
economy. Retrieved April 09, 2018, from https://www.inc.com/associated-press/new-
guidance-labor-department-employees-contractors.html
Russell, J. (2017, July 28). SoftBank is reportedly keen to buy 'multi-billion dollar stake'
in Uber. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from
https://beta.techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/softbank-is-reportedly-keen-to-buy-multi-billion-
dollar-stake-in-Uber/?_ga=2.158280186.1188819085.1523205866-
188200583.1523205866
Segall, L., & Mullen, J. (2017, June 21). Travis Kalanick resigns as Uber CEO after
months of crisis. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/21/technology/Uber-travis-kalanick-
resignation/index.html
Stracqualursi, V., Kelsey, A., & Keneally, M. (2018, March 29). A list of officials who
have left the Trump administration. Retrieved April 06, 2018, from
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-officials-left-trump-
Fey 31
administration/story?id=49334453
Tillett, E. (2018, April 12). Speaker Paul Ryan on his "very candid dialogue" with
Trump. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speaker-paul-
ryan-on-his-very-candid-dialogue-with-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aac3a
Watkins, M. D. (2014, August 07). What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should
We Care? Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2013/05/what-is-organizational-
culture
Wong, J. C. (2017, March 07). Uber's 'hustle-oriented' culture becomes a black mark on
employees' résumés. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/07/Uber-work-culture-travis-
kalanick-susan-fowler-controversy
Newspaper
Baker, P., Davis, J. H., & Haberman, M. (2018, April 17). Sanctions flap erupts into open
conflict between Haley and White House. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/world/europe/trump-nikki-haley-russia-
sanctions.html
Fandos, N. (2018, April 24). After Trump hints V.A. nominee might drop out, an
aggressive show of support. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/politics/ronny-jackson-veterans-affairs.html
Haberman, M., & Schmidt, M. S. (2018, April 10). Trump sought to fire Mueller in
december. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/trump-sought-to-fire-mueller-in-
december.html
Isaac, M. (2017, March 03). How Uber deceives the authorities worldwide. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-
authorities.html
Isaac, M. (2017, February 23). Inside Uber's aggressive, unrestrained workplace culture.
Retrieved April 08, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/Uber-
workplace-culture.html
Isaac, M. (2017, February 20). Uber investigating sexual harassment claims by ex-
employee. Retrieved April 06, 2018, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/Uber-sexual-harassment-
investigation.html
Krugman, P. (2002, October 20). The end of middle class America (and the triumph of
Fey 32
Mcintire, M., Rutenberg, J., & Haberman, M. (2018, April 11). Michael cohen, 'ultimate
trump loyalist,' now in the sights of the F.B.I. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump.html
Parker, A., Dawsey, J., & Rucker, P. (2018, April 07). 'When you lose that power': How
john kelly faded as white house disciplinarian . Retrieved April 08, 2018, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/when-you-lose-that-power-how-john-kelly-
faded-as-white-house-disciplinarian/2018/04/07/5e5b8b42-39be-11e8-acd5-
35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.90506e06af9b
Rucker, P., Leonnig, C. D., Troianovski, A., & Jaffe, G. (2018, April 16). Trump puts the
brakes on new Russian sanctions, reversing Haley's announcement. Retrieved April 17,
2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-puts-the-brake-on-new-
russian-sanctions-reversing-haleys-announcement/2018/04/16/ac3ad4f8-417f-11e8-8569-
26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f7c4534759dc
Singletary, M. (2018, March 15). Perspective | Trump dumped Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson in a tweet. What's the worst way you've been fired? Retrieved April 17, 2018,
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/03/15/trump-dumped-
secretary-of-state-rex-tillerson-in-a-tweet-whats-the-worst-way-youve-been-
fired/?utm_term=.0dab93ce9bb7
Stolberg, S. G., & Kaplan, T. (2018, April 11). Ryan Found Himself on the Margins as
G.O.P. Embraces Trump. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/politics/paul-ryan-
speaker.html?mtrref=apple.news&gwh=98D3660E428A5AC623C1A1030992349A&gw
t=pay
White, B., Cassella, M., Nelson, L., Johnson, E., Allison, G., Graham, R., . . . Palmieri, J.
(2018, April 18). The world learns to ignore Trump. Retrieved from
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/18/trump-ignore-wall-street-diplomats-493818
Williamson, E. (2018, April 24). Jeff Sessions is serving, and doing his best to ignore,
Trump. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/politics/sessions-
trump.html