The Mediation Role of Toxic Leadership in the Effect of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to test the effect of job stress on job satisfaction, to define whether the employees' perceptions of a toxic leader have an effect on the significant relationship between these two variables. If there are any affects, determine whether the toxic leadership is a partial or full moderating force, and make suggestions which will increase the welfare of the organization for employees. In line with this purpose, the data for the study has been obtained from 124 workers. As a result of analysis performed, a significant relationship has been found between job stress and job satisfaction. It has been determined that, as a result of a multiple regression analysis on the mediating effect, a toxic leader perception is a partial moderator variable on the effect of job stress on job satisfaction, and that a 1-unit increase in job stress resulted in a decrease of 0.308 units on a job satisfaction scale, while a 1-unit increase in toxicity perception resulted in a decrease of 0.111 units on the job satisfaction scale.

Full text

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 ISSN: 1083˗4346
The Mediation Role of Toxic Leadership in the
Effect of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction
H. Tezcan Uysal
Department of Management and Organization
Zonguldak Vocational College
Bülent Ecevit University, Turkey
h.tezcanuysal@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to test the effect of job stress on job satisfaction, to define
whether the employees’ perceptions of a toxic leader have an effect on the significant
relationship between these two variables. If there are any affects, determine whether the
toxic leadership is a partial or full moderating force, and make suggestions which will
increase the welfare of the organization for employees. In line with this purpose, the data
for the study has been obtained from 124 workers. As a result of analysis performed, a
significant relationship has been found between job stress and job satisfaction. It has been
determined that, as a result of a multiple regression analysis on the mediating effect, a
toxic leader perception is a partial moderator variable on the effect of job stress on job
satisfaction, and that a 1-unit increase in job stress resulted in a decrease of 0.308 units
on a job satisfaction scale, while a 1-unit increase in toxicity perception resulted in a
decrease of 0.111 units on the job satisfaction scale.
JEL Classifications: M1, M12, M19
Keywords: toxic leader; job satisfaction; job stress; mediator variable; organizational
climate

56 Uysal
I. INTRODUCTION
“Job satisfaction” is expressed as a reaction of employees to the situation at the workplace
(Yeh and Hsieh, 2017), and can also be defined as a cognitive, emotional and an
evaluating reaction to various dimensions of an individual's job (Djordjević, 2017). In
other words, “job satisfaction” refers to the individual's occupation-related attitudes
towards factors such as the job itself, managers, colleagues, working conditions, wages,
rewards, and recognition (Sharma, 2017). Job satisfaction is a complex, multidimensional
concept explored in a wide range of interdisciplinary trades, such as organizational
psychology, business, marketing, management, human resources and sociology (Zheng
et al., 2017). The main reason why job satisfaction became such an intense area of work
is the effect on various organizational outputs, such as commitment, performance, and
recognition. Therefore, job satisfaction is an extremely important indicator for both an
organization and its employees (Yeh and Hsieh, 2017). Job satisfaction has been
examined at an individual level and in an organizational context, because of it, more
attention has been given to this topic (Judge et al., 2002). Factors affecting job
satisfaction at the individual level are factors such as the duration of study, socio-cultural
environment, intelligence, personality, occupational status and work, level of education,
marital status, gender and age. Factors affecting the job satisfaction in an organizational
context are factors such as the organizational environment, colleagues, working
conditions, competition, promotion opportunities, wage, communication, participation in
decisions, sense of security, style of supervision, style of management, incentive, quality
of work and the physical characteristics (Tengilimoğlu, 2005). Job-related dimensions of
job satisfaction, according to Golpayegan (2017), represent components such as wage
and job security, job content, job conditions and working hours. In fact, the job
satisfaction depends on the combination of different job dimensions, and one’s total
satisfaction is determined by the amount of value the individual gives each of these
dimensions.
Job satisfaction can be categorized according to the needs of the individual (Smith
et al., 1969). Among the various theories in this context, two theories developed by
Maslow (1954) and Herzberg et al. (1957) are the two popular theories of motivation
applied in the research of job satisfaction. Herzberg's theory, which forms the theoretical
basis of the external job satisfaction factors, is often called the two-factor theory and
deals with both internal and external factors. “Internally satisfying the factors” refers to
personal success, recognition, value and development. External factors are related to the
environment in which the employees perform their occupations, such as their working
conditions, wages, job security, company policies, and organizational support. While the
external factors tend to minimize their work dissatisfaction, the presence of positive
internal factors can motivate them and lead to a superior performance. By combining
Maslow's hierarchy of needs with Herzberg's two-dimensional factors, it was expressed
that the higher-level needs (internal factors) cannot be fulfilled unless the lower-level
needs (external factors) are fulfilled (Zheng et al., 2017).
There has been a great interest in the research of job satisfaction on gender
differences. Women on average get a lower share than men in terms of job-related
promotion and autonomy to balance job and home needs. Mason (2001) studied a sample
of more than 13,000 US workers in a study of job-related gender differences in terms of
job satisfaction and found no difference between men and women in the workplace. The

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 57
men were more inclined to deal with anxiety-inducing work and lack of morale compared
to women, and the women tried to balance the decline in job satisfaction on their end
(Magee, 2013), since some studies showed that, on average, women cared more about
having internal rewards (appreciation) than about job satisfaction, while men tended to
value external rewards more (Kim, 2005).
The relationship between personality types and job satisfaction is among the
important research in literature. It is necessary for organizations to provide an
environment which gives more importance to the personality traits of the people, and
makes the individuals more connected to the organization, so that the personnel perform
better. In this context, the instinctual personality type has a significant relationship with
job satisfaction (Golpayegan, 2017).
In literature, job satisfaction is regarded as the main element of job commitment,
or choosing not to leave and change it (Liu et al., 2010; Park and Kim, 2009; Brown and
Peterson, 1993). The sources of job satisfaction for employees are the main focus of the
matter. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the resources of job satisfaction in order to
increase the efficiency of the employees via adjusting their perceived job satisfaction and
to decrease their intentions to leave. Studies conducted up to this date have indicated that
managerial support and person-organization alignment are important elements of job
satisfaction within perceived organizational support (Galletta et al., 2011; Narayanan and
Sekar, 2009; Schaubroeck and Fink, 1998).
There have been researchers over a long period of time who have an interest in
factors which affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees. Wnuk (2017) argued that
employees seek jobs with values which are consistent with their own, and thus, an
employee-organization alignment will become stronger when the organization provides
a coherent working environment with the employees' values, professional goals,
capabilities, competencies and knowledge. The organizational support perceived by the
employee shows how an employee perceives the possibilities offered by the organization.
Both perceived managerial support and person-organization alignment have influenced
perceived organizational support positively (Wnuk, 2017). Individuals are more satisfied
in their organization when they feel that their abilities, values and experiences are being
used adequately (Sharma, 2017). Job satisfaction is an important factor in determining
organizational performance. When employees' satisfaction with an organization is low,
employees can start looking for new jobs, which can negatively affect organizational
performance (Yeh and Hsieh, 2017).
As observed in the studies in the literature, job satisfaction is a very important
concept for both organizations and employees. Job satisfaction plays an important role in
optimizing the organizational atmosphere with effects such as employees' continuity of
work, integration into organizational goals, adaptation within the organization and having
high level of sense of mission. Therefore, besides the desire of the employees of each
organization to be satisfied of their jobs, the managers of the organizations also want the
employees to develop job satisfaction and managerial strategies are followed
accordingly. One of these strategies is to minimize the job stress, but not to eliminate it
completely, since has been observed that work performance declines in a stress-free
environment. Similarly, the low work performance has been noted in those working
under high stress. Thus, organizational managers aim at the "optimal stress" level, i.e. the
organizational climate in which unnecessary stress factors are eliminated. In order for
managers to be able to provide job satisfaction to employees, it is necessary to carefully

58 Uysal
examine various factors such as excessive workload, authority-responsibility imbalance,
and mismatch between individual and the job, which can cause extraordinary stress. One
of these factors is leadership. Unlike the manager, while the leadership is expected to
reflect on the organization positively, the leader causes toxicity in the organization in
toxic leadership type. Therefore, the mediating role of toxic leadership type, which is
considered likely to cause unusual stress, has been examined in this research.
The purpose of the research conducted is to determine whether job stress has an
effect on job satisfaction, which is quite important for the performance and productivity
in organizations to examine whether a toxic leader perception has a mediating role on
this effect, and to examine the effects of toxic leadership. The research conducted is
important in terms of including findings on improving job satisfaction, demonstrating the
importance of toxic leadership, contributing to the issue of toxic leadership, which is
rarely studied in literature, and emphasizing the integrated effect of multiple factors in
studies of organizational behavior.
II. TOXIC LEADERSHIP: TOXIC DIMENSION OF LEADERSHIP
In terms of organizational behavior, Whicker (1996) defined toxic leadership in literature
as the leader being incompatible, anxious and malicious. In military terms, toxic
leadership was addressed for the first time in the U.S. Army Doctrine No. 6-22.
Accordingly, toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations and
behaviors that can create negative effects on task performance, the organization and
subordinates. Toxic leaders, who prioritize individual personal objectives in comparison
to organizational goals and cannot stand criticisms (Zagross and Jamileh, 2016), are
defined as individuals who create a very serious, permanent, or even toxic effects on
societies, individuals, organizations, and families exposed to their methods (Heppell,
2011). Toxic leadership is proven by a negative impact on the organization, and it can be
any of the resources to be addressed, any incompatibility or intolerance to commit malice
(Reed, 2014). Kasalak and Aksu (2016) stated that the determinants of toxicity are
negative comments on gender/racial traits, directions in interpersonal relations,
weaknesses in organizational communication, rumors and personal conflicts, problem
solving and decision-making processes and domination (by) fear in duties and
responsibilities. Reed (2004), on the other hand, stated that toxic leader syndrome
basically has three main elements. These are (1) A clear lack of concern for the
wellness/welfare of the subordinates; (2) A personality or interpersonal technique
negatively affecting the organizational climate; and (3) A belief of the subordinates that
the leader is first motivated by his or her own interests
Toxic behavior may include intimidation, bullying, manipulation, too quickly
following-up, also displaying narcissism, and immoral behaviors. “The main reasons for
a leader's destructive behavior include personality traits such as authoritarianism,
narcissism, selfishness and superiority, values system, low self-esteem and negative
experiences” (Güldü and Aksu, 2016:94). Possible consequences are anxiety, depression,
emotional exhaustion, fear, social isolation, and physical health problems in workers
affected by toxic leadership, for different reasons (Webster et al., 2016). As a reflection
of this, employees who consider the leaders in their organizations as toxic leaders are less

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 59
satisfied with the relationships with their colleagues, their subordinates and their
superiors, their job, profession and wages (Reed and Olsen, 2010).
Different aspects of employees are very sensitive to toxic leaders (Lipman-
Blumen, 2005). The first of them is existential anxiety. An example of this anxiety is
caused by the awareness that we will die. The second is our psychological needs. As
Maslow explains in the hierarchy of needs, needs make workers sensitive to toxic leaders.
The third is crises - rapid changes and turmoil in everyday life. These factors lead to
situational fears. All of these aspects keep employees' perception of their toxic leader and
allow them to develop attitudes that change in both individual and organizational
contexts.
III. JOB STRESS: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN ORGANIZATIONS
Generally, stress is defined as emotional and physiological reactions to stress sources,
and these stress sources can be triggered by job or occupational conditions (Maslach et
al., 1996). Stress caused by a person's employment is called job stress (Menon et al.,
2015). Job stress is a complex phenomenon and a subjective experience. Shivendra and
Kumar (2016) have identified job stress as “harmful physical and emotional reactions
(which) arise when a job’s needs and individuals' skills do not match their abilities,
resources or needs.” It is defined as a major challenge to the individual's mental and
physical health and organizational health throughout the world (Menon et al., 2015).
Stress sources can be seen physically, mentally and situationally. Physical stress
may arise in cases of an excessive workload, inadequate rest, and a poor diet. Mental
stress is based on the mental state of an individual, including daily feelings of hope,
anxiety, and remorse. Situational stress is due to our interactions with the outside world,
our internal roles and our interactions with the needs of modern life, such as cars, and
computers (Banerjee and Mehta, 2016). Job stress leads to health hazards, occupational
dissatisfaction, and a loss of productivity. In other words, it affects an individual's
physical and mental systems negatively. This can lead to absenteeism, accidents,
unprincipled behaviors, dissatisfaction and various diseases. Stress in workers can
manifest as frustration, poor performance, and unhealthy relationships at work and at
home. However, it is accepted that specific stress is a normal part of life, but elongated
stress factors may lead to physical, psychological, or behavioral disorders (Menon et al.,
2015). It has been stated that the gender, age and the personality of an individual are
influential in the cause-effect relationship between stress-related psychosomatic
problems or negative stress-coping methods and stressors. Psychological stresses can be
regulated by occupational and working conditions along with daily life factors and
personality. As the authority of an individual to make decisions increases, psychological
distress may arise in terms of job insecurity and social support, and a psychosocial
working environment may have an effect on the emergence of stress-related disorders.
High job demands, low job control, low cooperational support, low educational support,
low procedural justice, low relational justice and high effort reward imbalances are
stipulated as the causes of stress-related disorders (Kawada and Otsuka, 2014). Al-Omar
(2003) determined in his study investigating the sources of job stress on hospital
employees that family support, gender, marital status and language were very influential
on job stress. The results of the same study show that the women, married women and

60 Uysal
foreign employees experienced more job stress than the male, single, and/or native citizen
workers. The inadequate technical possibilities, lack of appreciation, long working hours,
short breaks, the emergence of health problems, change of work, abandonment of certain
applications and unwanted relations with colleagues could explain the changes in the
average stress level among employees. In addition, the findings indicated that age and
experience have a significant negative relationship with job stress and that there were no
significant relationships between the education status and job stress (Al-Omar, 2003).
Colligan and Higgins' study (2006) that revealed the job stress, etiology, and
outcomes also evaluated the stress-related factors as an insecure working environment,
workload, isolation, working hours, role ambiguity, role conflict, lack of work autonomy,
difficulties in cooperation with management and colleagues, authoritarian management,
harassment, and organizational climate. In a study on job stress and staff welfare in
medical faculties of the universities in the U.S., it was stated that employees are most
affected by bureaucracy on job stress (Salmond and Ropis, 2005). In this study, the stress
sources of employees were revealed as organizational anticipations, time pressure to
perform certain activities, lack of staff to direct the work, and a lack of cooperation with
the colleagues. In a study conducted by Nouri and Soltani (2017) on the distribution of
job stress among state employees, management turnover, and lacks of planning were
stated to be as the strongest stressors. In the same study, the results indicated that another
strong factor leading to staff stress was related to physical and psychological health.
Another study investigating the sources of stress among university lecturers exhibited
weak incentives, lacks of teaching staff offices and opportunities, and a lack of project
research of students as the sources of stress (Omoniyi, 2013).
Stress causes costly and irreversible outcomes which affect both individuals and
the organization (Nouri and Soltani, 2017). The consequences of stress can be examined
both personally and organizationally. These can be considered in three groups
individually (Nouri and Soltani, 2017; Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1991):
 Negative behaviors and emotions, such as job dissatisfaction, low motivation, low
employee morale, loss of organizational commitment, low professional quality of life,
unemployment, waste, a tendency to quit, low productivity, low job quality and quantity,
declines in decision making ability, theft, vandalism and workplace delays, as well as
alienation, and increased smoking and drinking may be observed.
 Physiological disorders such as blood pressure and heart rate increases,
cardiovascular diseases, cholesterol increases, blood sugar increases, insomnia,
headaches, infections, skin disorders, and fatigue may be observed.
 Psychiatric disorders such as distress, anxiety, aggression and energy loss, and
fatigue, as well as, losses of confidence, losses of self-excitement, losses of concentration,
and feelings of emptiness. Typical behaviors are rushing, ignoring social norms and
values, dissatisfaction from work and life, often departing from reality and emotionally
burning out themselves may be observed. The results of the organizational stress may be
approached in two groups (Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1991):
 A loss of employee morale, loss of efficiency and performance, loss of quality of
services and products, loss of customer relationships, loss of customers, loss of company
image and reputation, loss of opportunities, lack of focus on products, high
levels/numbers of accidents and errors, turnover increases, loss of qualified personnel,
increase in the number of patients, early retirements, a decrease in cooperation, a decrease

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 61
in organizational communication, an increase in organizational clashes, and
unpredictable working climates may occur.
 Organizational costs can increase as a result from reduced performance and
productivity, those leaving from the organization (worker turnover rate), healthcare
services, legal costs of the company and equipment damage (depreciation).
It has been anticipated that the managerial support perceived by employees can
significantly reduce job stress as an important factor (Lewicka and Krot; 2015; Monnot
and Beehr, 2014). It has been suggested that job stress will lead to increased productivity
when addressed at the level of management instead of an individual level, and offers
suggestions for job provisions, inclusion of employees in the decision making processes,
and awarding rewards for achieving targets according to personal preferences in stress
management (Banerjee and Mehta, 2016). In order to overcome job stress, it is necessary
to establish incentive, promotion, cooperation and interaction systems among the
employees (Santhi and Reddy, 2015) for correct, honest, and hardworking employees by
integrating job security with rewards. In particular, it was stated that positive
communications with colleagues can mitigate the effect of job stress, whereas negative
communications can serve to increase its effect (Monnot and Beehr, 2014). However,
when a leader has a highly supportive attitude, it is stated that the employees may
undertake a regulatory role in relation to the rescue behavior, depending on the level of
job stress (Turunç, 2015).
Contrary to this positive leadership style, toxic leaders do not worry about the
negative organizational climate, which is caused by short and long term negative effects.
They operate with a sense of emotion. Toxic leaders use persistent dysfunctional
behaviors to intimidate, force or punish others to fulfill their wishes. “Organizations in
which there is a type of toxic leadership have a lack of trust and integration, egoism and
arrogance increase the conflict mismatch within the organization. Toxic leaders often
frighten employees, reduce their motivation, cause communication disruptions within
organizations, and dissipation of the sense of hopelessness” (Izgüden et al., 2016: 264).
In addition to the prior points, toxic leaders can decide very quickly and can change any
decision unexpectedly and without specifying a valid reason (Özer et al., 2017). “Toxic
leaders deliberately damage others by acting selfishly without care, but they are different
from leaders who act cautiously or do not act for a certain purpose, but who somehow
adversely affect the organization and employees in another way” (Reyhanoğlu and Akın,
2016; Lipman-Blumen, 2005). At the expense of wasting their subordinates’ and their
units, they exhibit self-centered careerism behaviors, and this style is characterized by
dictatorial and exploitative behaviors which promote an unhealthy organizational climate
(Boisselle and McDonnell, 2014).
IV. A RESEARCH ON THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TOXIC LEADERSHIP
A. The Population and Sample of the Research
A universe of research consists of employees working in the public sector. The sample
for the study consisted of the occupations in the public institutions working in the
Zonguldak province and participating in the research. A purpose sampling method,
among non-probabilistic sampling methods, has been used in the research. In this context,
the data was obtained from 150 employees, but a sample size of 124 persons was provided

62 Uysal
at an analyzable level since some of the surveys were returned in a missing and/or
incorrect manner. The reasons for the selection of public employees in the survey is the
fact that some of the criteria, such as performance and success, are pushed to the
background, and leaders who are determined with direct assignments are more prone to
more toxicity.
B. The Data Collection Method of the Research
The data to be used in the research was obtained by applying the face-to-face survey
method. The survey used to obtain data consisted of three dimensions, being job
satisfaction, job stress, and toxic leadership. Minnesota's job satisfaction scale was used
to measure job satisfaction, Matteson's job stress scale was used to measure job stress,
and the toxic leadership scale developed by Çelebi et al. (2015) was used to measure
toxicity.
C. The Research Model and Hypotheses
A scanning model has been used in the research. The dependent variable of the research
was job satisfaction, the independent variable was job stress, and the moderator variable
was toxic leadership.
Figure 1
The research model
The hypotheses of the research are listed below:
H1a: There is a significant relationship between job stress and job satisfaction.
H1b: A toxic leadership has a mediating effect on job stress and job satisfaction.
H1c: The toxic leadership perception varied based on gender.
H1d: The toxic leadership perception varied based on income level.
H1e: The toxic leadership perception varied based on education level.
H1f: The toxic leadership perception varied based on work experience.
H1g: The toxic leadership perception varied based on age.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 63
D. The Research Data Analysis
The SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 20.0 software was used to evaluate
the findings obtained through the research. A reliability analysis had been conducted to
determine the internal consistency of the research scales. A correlation analysis was used
to determine the direction and intensity of the relationship between dependent and
independent variables, a simple linear regression analysis and a multiple regression
analysis were used to examine the relationship between variables, and One-Way Analysis
and Independent-Samples T tests were used to determine the differences.
E. Findings Obtained Through the Research
Table 1 shows the frequency values regarding the demographic questions of the public
employees participating in the survey. From the obtained data, it was determined that
46% of the sample was male and 54% of the sample was female. Upon the examination
of the age distribution, it was observed that the majority of the sample was between 21-
50 years of age. The examination of income levels indicated that 66.9% of the population
had an income level between TRY 2000-3000. It was determined that only 16.2% of the
participants had an associate degree or higher education. With regards to the job
experience period, 94.4% had job experience of more than 3 years.
Table 2 contains the alpha coefficients (Cronbach's Alpha) which were used to test
the reliability of the scales used in the research. As a result of the reliability analyses, the
reliability coefficient of the toxic scale had been determined as 0.735, the reliability
coefficient of the job stress as 0.832, and the reliability coefficient of the job satisfaction
scale as 0.832. According to these results obtained, the scales used in the research had
been defined to have high internal consistency.
Table 3 shows the results of the correlation analysis between the dependent
variable and independent variable, as well as the moderator variable and independent
variable of the research. According to this table, there was a negatively directed
significant relationship between the dependent variable (job satisfaction) and
independent variable (job stress) at the moderate level (r=-0.534). A positively directed,
significant relationship was determined between the moderator variable (toxic
leadership) and independent variable (job stress) at the moderate level (r=-0.605).
Table 4 exhibits the simple linear regression analysis oriented to the relationship
between the job stress and job satisfaction. According to the examined result of the
regression analysis performed, it had been found that in the regression model, to be
established indicates a statistical significance, since the statistical significance values of
the F values are lower than 0.05.
The ANOVA results of the regression analysis performed throughout the study are
shown in Table 5. According to the analysis results, it had been determined that the
change in the job stress explained 28% of the change in job satisfaction scale.
Accordingly, the value that job satisfaction can take can be formulated as follows:
Job Satisfaction = 31.214 - (0.530 x Job Stress)

64 Uysal
Table 1
Basic information on data providers (N=124)
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Male
57
46.0 %
Female
67
54.0 %
Age
Younger than 21
2
1.6 %
21-30
23
18.5 %
31-40
68
54.8 %
41-50
30
24.2 %
51-60
1
0.8 %
Monthly Income Level
Between TRY 1000-2000
17
13.7 %
Between TRY 2000-3000
83
66.9 %
Between TRY 3000-4000
21
16.9 %
Between TRY 4000-5000
2
1.6 %
TRY 5000 or more
1
0.8 %
Education Status
High School
54
43.5 %
Associate
50
40.3 %
Undergraduate
12
9.7 %
Post-graduate
7
5.6 %
Doctorate
1
0.8 %
Job Experience
Between 1-2 years
1
0.8 %
Between 2-3 years
6
4.8 %
Between 3-4 years
26
21.0 %
4 years or more
91
73.4 %
Table 2
Reliability analysis
Cronbach's Alpha
Toxic Leadership Scale
0.735
Job Stress Scale
0.823
Job Satisfaction Scale
0.832

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 65
Table 3
Correlation analysis
Job Stress
Job Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation
-0.534
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
Toxic Leader Perception
Pearson Correlation
0.605
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
Table 4
Relationship between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction - ANOVA
Table 5
Relationship between job stress and job satisfaction - Model summary
According to the model, 1-unit increase in job stress appears to result in a decrease
of 0.530 units of the job satisfaction scale. These findings confirm the hypothesis H1a of
the study. However, to test the H1b hypothesis, an intermediary role for toxic leadership
needs to be examined. The moderator model designed by Baron and Kenny (1986) was
applied for this. In order to mention the mediating effect of a variable according to this
model, the independent variable needs to have an effect on a dependent variable; the
independent variable needs to have an effect on a mediating variable, and when the
mediating variable is included in the regression analysis, the regression coefficient of the
independent variable on the dependent variable needs to decrease. Also, the mediating
variable needs to have a significant effect on the dependent variable. The regression
analysis performed in that regard is provided below.
Table 6 exhibits the simple linear regression analysis oriented to the relationship
between the job stress and toxic leader perception. According to the examined result of
the regression analysis performed, it had been found that the regression model to be
established indicated a statistical significance, since the statistical significance values of
the F values are lower than 0.05.
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Model
1
Job
Satisfaction
Regression
833.680
833.680
48.769
0.000
Residual
2085.513
17.094
Total
2919.194
β
t
Sig.
R2
Adjusted
R2
Model
1
Job
Satisfaction
Constant
31.214
17.348
0.000
0.286
0.280
Job Stress
-0.530
-6.984
0.000

66 Uysal
Table 6
Relationship between job stress and toxic leader perception (moderator) - ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Model
2
Toxic Leader
Perception
Regression
11,889.536
11,889.536
70.523
0.000
Residual
20,568.174
168.592
Total
32,457.710
Table 7
Relationship between job stress and job satisfaction - Model summary
β
t
Sig.
R2
Adjusted R2
Model
2
Toxic Leader
Perception
Constant
55.521
9.826
0.000
0.366
0.361
Job Stress
2.003
8.398
0.000
Table 8
Relationship between job stress and toxic leader perception and job satisfaction -
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Model
3
Job
Satisfaction
Regression
1,086.673
543.337
35.876
0.000
Residual
1,832.521
15.145
Total
2,919.194
The ANOVA results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 7. Accordingly,
36% of the change in employees' perception of having a toxic leader had been explained
by the change in job stress. The regression analyses carried out for the last step for the
mediating affect are provided below.
Table 8 exhibits the multiple regression analysis oriented to the relationship
between the job stress and toxic leader perception and job satisfaction. According to the
examined result of the regression analysis performed, it had been found that the
regression model to be established indicated a statistical significance.
The ANOVA results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 9.
According to the results of the analysis, it was determined that 28% of the change in the
job satisfaction of the employees is explained by job stress and a moderator variable toxic
leadership. When the 3 developed models were examined, it had been determined that
the regression coefficient in the measurement of the relationship of job stress to job
satisfaction is -0.530 on the job stress scale; that the regression coefficient regarding the
job stress scale decreased to -0.308 in Model 3, which has been developed by adding
toxic leadership to Model 1, and a toxic leader perception has indicated a statistically
significant affect in Model 3. According to these results, it was determined that the toxic
leader perception has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between job stress and
job satisfaction.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 67
Table 9
Relationship between job stress and toxic leader perception - Model summary
β
t
Sig.
R2
Adjusted
R2
Model
3
Job
Satisfaction
Constant
Constant
37.372
16.487
0.000
0.372
0.362
Job Stress
-0.308
-3.432
0.001
Toxic Leader
-0.111
-4.087
0.000
Table 10
Independent samples t test oriented to toxic leader perception and gender
Levene’s Test for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std.Error
Difference
Equal
variances
assumed
1.821
0.180
3.244
122
0.002
9.148
2.820
Equal
variances
not assumed
3.294
122
0.001
9.148
2.777
Table 10 shows the analysis oriented to correlations between toxic leader
perception and gender. As a result of the analysis performed, it had been determined that
the significance value is less than 0.05. According to this, it had exhibited that there is a
significant difference between men and women in the toxicity perception for the
organization of the employees and the toxicity perception is higher in the male workers.
Table 11 examines the relationship between the monthly income levels of
employees and toxic leader perception. It can be observed in the table that the
significance value is greater than 0.05. Accordingly, it had been determined that there
was no significant difference in the toxicity perception of the employees of the
organization towards their leader based on their monthly income level.
Table 12 examines the relationship between the educational level of the employees
and the toxic leader perception. According to this table, it has been determined that the
toxicity perception of public employees towards their leaders indicated a significant
difference based on their educational levels, and that the highest group of toxic leader
perception was postgraduate and doctoral graduates in the sample.
In Table 13, the analysis of the different job experience durations of the employees
in the same organization versus the toxicity perception of the leader by the employees is
shown. According to the result of this analysis, the toxic leader perception of the
employees does not vary based on the job experience duration, in other words, the time
spent in the organization does not affect the toxicity perception.
Table 14 shows the difference analysis between the toxic leader perception and
the age of employees. According to the results of this analysis, it had been determined
that the perception of toxicity does not show any significant difference based on the age
of employees.

68 Uysal
Table 11
One-way analysis of toxic leader perception and monthly income level
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
F
Sig.
Between TRY
1000-2000
17
99.706
12.980
3.148
1.178
0.324
Between TRY
2001-3000
83
103.000
14.158
1.554
Between TRY
3001-4000
21
97.619
24.582
5.364
Between TRY
4001-5000
2
119.500
2.121
1.500
TRY 5001 and
more
1
109.000
.
.
Table 12
One-way analysis of toxic leader perception and education level
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
F
Sig.
High School
54
96.907
15.354
2.089
3.212
0.015
Associate
50
105.740
12.892
1.823
Undergraduate
12
101.250
26.877
7.759
Post-graduate
7
114.000
10.8781
4.112
Doctorate
1
109.000
.
.
Table 13
One-way analysis of toxic leader perception and job experience
N
Mean
Std Deviation
Std. Error
F
Sig.
Between 1-2 years
1
125.000
.
.
0.979
0.405
Between 2-3 years
6
101.167
16.630
6.789
Between 3-4 years
26
104.462
14.632
2.869
4 years or more
91
101.033
16.649
1.745
Table 14
One-way analysis of toxic leader perception and age
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
F
Sig.
Younger than 21
2
119.500
7.778
5.500
1.428
0.229
21-30
23
103.435
16.287
3.396
31-40
68
102.500
13.806
1.674
41-50
30
97.833
20.598
3.761
51-60
1
119.000
.
.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 69
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The aim of the study was to determine whether job stress has an effect on job satisfaction
that is crucial to the performance and productivity in organizations, and to examine
whether a toxic leader perception has a mediating role on this effect and if it does,
examine whether toxic leadership has a mediating role, and examine the effect of toxic
leadership. Seven hypotheses had been proposed depending on this purpose, and data had
been obtained from 124 public employees to test these hypotheses. The obtained data had
been processed by the SPSS 20.0 program, and as a result of the analyses, it had been
determined that there is a significant negative relationship between job stress and job
satisfaction, and that the 1 unit increase in the job stress scale caused a decrease of 0.530
units on the job satisfaction scale. In the multiple regression analysis conducted for the
determination of the mediating role, it had been exhibited that the toxic leader perception
had increased from 28% to 36% when the toxic leader perception value was added to the
model as a moderator variable, that the 1 unit increase in the job stress scale had
decreased the effect on job satisfaction to 0.308, and the 1 unit increase in the toxic leader
perception caused a decrease of 0.111 units in the job satisfaction scale, except in job
stress. In addition, the male gender and higher education levels had been found to increase
the perception of toxicity. The gender increased it very slightly, and the education level
increased it to a more significant degree. The test matrix for the hypotheses generated as
a result of the analyses performed is shown in Table 15.
Table 15
Test matrix of the research hypotheses
Hypothesis
Result
Significance
Significance
Result
Hypothesis
H1a
Accepted
0.000
0.015
Accepted
H1e
H1b
Accepted
0.000
0.405
Rejected
H1f
H1c
Accepted
0.001
0.229
Rejected
H1g
H1d
Rejected
0.324
Upon examining the test matrix created as a result of the analysis, it can be
observed that 4 of the hypotheses put forward within the scope of the research were
accepted, and 3 hypotheses were rejected. Accordingly, the mediating role of toxic
leadership suggested in the study has been statistically accepted.
The research results indicated that the concept of job satisfaction, which is very
important for ensuring the performance of organizations, is influenced by many
organizational behavioral factors. Job stress is at the top of these factors. Often a certain
level of job stress is considered normal, but an increasingly stressful working
environment can cause chronic problems in employees after a while. The feeling of
burnout leads into such problems. Chronic burnout is a common finding while working
as a result of an unresolved or uninterrupted stressful organizational climate. Of course,
the only attitude that workers develop in such a business environment is not burnout.
Another important perception that develops in employees who notice that job stress is

70 Uysal
not reduced or solved is a negative leadership perception. In such situations, employees
analyze the leader to make sense of the leader's behavior and develop a negative belief
about the leader. The most dangerous one of these is the belief that the toxic leader has
dominance over the organization. As seen in this research conducted, it has been
determined that occupational stress and a toxic leader perception reduce integrated job
satisfaction, and increasing job stress also increases a toxic perception of the leader to a
very high degree. Therefore, the level of toxicity of organizational leaders and the
perception of employees' perceptions of this level are supported by this research.
However, it is not easy to solve this problem that has been revealed. First, it is necessary
to examine the factors that cause job stress in detail, and to develop managerial strategies.
There are two basic ways that the toxic leader perception, which holds an importance role
among these factors, can be eliminated. The first of these is to change the leader's toxic
leadership model, and the second is to replace the leader himself who does not agree to
change the toxic leadership model for better organizational performance and continuity.
Apart from these, there are strategies that the employees of the organization can use to
deal with toxicity. These are avoidance, social support, resistance and conflict. However,
employees should discuss the effectiveness of these strategies, and the deterrence thereof,
on a person who has adopted a toxic leadership strategy. It is stipulated that these
strategies, rather than create success, are likely to wear out workers in the middle and
long term in a physical, mental and spiritual sense, reduce their loyal commitment, and
that the atmosphere of the organization will worsen in a conflict-filled environment.
REFERENCES
Al-Omar, B.A., 2003, “Sources of Work-Stress among Hospital-Staff at the Saudi,”
Journal of Research in Islamic Economics, 17(1), 3-16.
Banerjee, S., and P. Mehta, 2016, “Determining the Antecedents of Job Stress and Their
Impact on Job Performance: A Study among Faculty Members,” The IUP Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 15(2), 7-24.
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny, 1986, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Boisselle, D.J., and J. McDonnell, 2014, Dark Leadership in the Ranks: How the U.S.
Armed Forces Can Address Narcissism and Toxic Leadership.
Brown, S.P., and R.A. Peterson, 1993, “Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson
Job Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis and Assessment of Causal Effect,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.
Colligan, T.W., and E.M. Higgins, 2006, “Workplace Stress Etiology and
Consequences,” Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 21(2), 89-97.
Çelebi, N., H. Güner, and V. Yıldız, 2015, “Toksik Liderlik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi,”
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 249-268.
Djordjević, B., M. Ivanović-Djukić, and V. Lepojević, 2017, “Relationship of Ages and
Gender of the Employees in Organizations in the Republic of Serbia and Their Job
Satisfaction” Economic Themes, 55(2), 263-280.
Galletta, M., I. Portoghese, M. P. Penna, A. Battistelli and L. Saiani, 2011, “Turnover
Intention among Italian Nurses: The Moderating Roles of Supervisor Support and
Organizational Support,” Nursing and Health Sciences, 13(2), 184-191.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 71
Ganster, D.C., and J. Schaubroeck, 1991, “Work Stress and Employee Health,” Journal
of Management, 17(2), 235-271.
Golpayegan, M.A., 2017, “Evaluating the Relation between Personality Properties with
Job Satisfaction of the Staff,” Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(3),
937-949.
Güldü, Ö., and N.E. Aksu, 2016, “Yıkıcı Liderlik Algısı ve Mesleki Tükenmişlik
Arasındaki İlişkide Olumsuz Duygu-Durumun Aracı Rolü,” Çalışma İlişkileri
Dergisi, 31(4), 676-694.
Heppell, T., 2011, “Toxic Leadership: Applying the Lipman-Blumen Model to Political
Leadership,” Representation, 47(1), 241-249.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, R. Peterson, and D.F. Capwell, 1957, Job Attitudes: Review of
Research and Opinion. Pittsburg, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburg.
İzgüden, D., S. Eroymak and R. Erdem, 2016, “Leadership to be Toxic Behavior in
Health Institutions: Example of a University Hospital,” BJSS Balkan Journal of
Social Sciences, 31(4), 262-276.
Judge, T.A., D. Heller and M.K. Mount, 2002, “Five- Factor Model of Personality and
Job Satisfaction: A Meta Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-41.
Kasalak, G. and M.B. Aksu, 2016, “Örgütler Nasıl Zehirlenir? Öğretim Elemanlarının
Örgütsel Toksisite Algıları,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(4),
676-694.
Kawada, T., and T. Otsuka, 2014, Change in Job Stress and Job Satisfaction Over A Two-
Year İnterval Using the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire, IOS Press Work, 49, 107-
111.
Kim, S., 2005, “Gender Differences in the Job Satisfaction of Public Employees: A Study
of Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea,” Sex Roles, 52(9-10), 667-681.
Lewicka, D., and K. Krot, 2015, “The Model of HRM-Trust-Commitment
Relationships,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, 115(8), 1457-1480.
Lipman-Blumen, J., 2005, “Toxic Leadership: When Grand Illusions Masquerade as
Noble Vision,” Leader to Leader, 36, 29-36.
Liu, B., J. Liu, and J. Hu, 2010, “Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover
İntention: An Empirical Study in the Chinese Public Sector,” Social Behavior and
Personality, 38(5), 615-626.
Magee, W., 2013, “Anxiety, Demoralization, and the Gender Difference in Job
Satisfaction,” Sex Roles, 69(5-6), 308-322.
Maslach, C., S.E. Jackson and M.P. Leiter, 1996, Maslach Burnout Inventory, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Third Edition, Palo Alto.
Maslow, A.H., 1954, Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mason, E.S., 2001, “Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Social
Psychology, 135(2), 143-151.
Menon, B.G., C.J. Praveensal, and G. Madhuc, 2015, “Determinants of Job Stress in
Chemical Process İndustry: A Factor Analysis Approach,” IOS Press Work, 52, 855-
864.
Monnot, M.J., and T.A. Beehr, 2014, “Subjective Well-Being at Work: Disentangling
Source Effects of Stress and Support on Enthusiasm, Contentment, and
Meaningfulness,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 204-218.

72 Uysal
Narayanan, S.S., and P.C. Sekar, 2009, “A Person-Organization Fit Study of College
Work Culture and its Impact on Behavioral İntentions of Teachers,” Asia Pacific
Management Review, 14(2), 121-136.
Nouri, B.A., and M. Soltani, 2017, “Effective Factors on Job Stress and Its Relationship
with Organizational Commitment of Nurses in Hospitals of Nicosia,” International
Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 4(2), 100-117.
Omoniyi, M.B., 2013, “Sources of Workplace Stressors among University Lecturers in
Southwest Nigeria: Implication for Counseling,” 1st Annual International
Interdisciplinary Conference, 24-26 Nisan, Azores, Portugal, 589-596.
Özer, Ö., Ö. Uğurluoğlu, G. Kahraman, and K. Avcı, 2017, “A Study on Toxic
Leadership Perceptions of Healthcare Workers,” Global Business and Management
Research: An International Journal, 9(1), 12-23.
Park, J.S., and T.H. Kim, 2009, “Do Types of Organizational Culture Matter in Nurse
Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention?,” Leadership in Health Services, 22(1), 20-
38.
Reed, G.E., and R.A. Olsen, 2010, “Toxic Leadership: Part Deux,” Military Review,
90(6), 58-64.
Reed, G.E., 2004, “Toxic Leadership,” Military Review, July-August, 67-71.
Reed, G.E., 2014, “Toxic Leadership, Unit Climate, and Organizational Effectiveness,”
Air and Space Power Journal, 3-10.
Reyhanoğlu, M., and Ö. Akın, 2016, “Toksik Liderlik Örgütsel Sağlığı Olumsuz Yönde
Tetikler mi?,” İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 442-459.
Salmond, S., and P.E. Ropis, 2005, “Job Stress and General Well-Being: A Comparative
Study of Medical - Surgical and Home Care Nurses,” Medsurg Nursing Journal,
14(5), 301-309.
Santhi, M.P., and N. Reddy, 2015, “Job Stress among the Employees of Tirupati Co-
Operative Bank, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh,” International Journal of
Research in Commerce and Management, 6(11), 31-34.
Schaubroeck, J., and L.S. Fink, 1998, “Facilitating and Inhibiting Effects of Job Control
and Social Support on Stress Outcomes and Role Behavior: A Contingency model,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(2), 167-195.
Sharma, P., 2017, “Organizational Culture as A Predictor of Job Satisfaction: The Role
of Age and Gender,” Management, 22(1), 35-48.
Shivendra, D., and M.M. Kumar, 2016, “A Study of Job Satisfaction And Job Stress
Among Physıcal Education Teachers Working in Government, Semiı-Government
And Prıvate Schools,” International Journal of Sports Sciences and Fitness, 6(1),
89-99.
Smith, P.C., L.M. Kendall, and C.L. Hulin, 1969, The Measurement of Satisfaction in
work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago, IL: Rand-
McNally.
Tengilimoğlu, D., 2005, “Hizmet İşletmelerinde Liderlik Davranışları ile İş Doyumu
Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma,” Ticaret ve Turizm
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(24), 23-45.
Turunç, Ö., 2015, “İş Stresi - Kaytarma İlişkisinde Liderin Rolü Turizm Sektöründe Bir
Araştırma,” Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 142-159.
Webster, V., P. Brough, and K. Daly, 2016, “Fight, Flight or Freeze: Common Responses
for Follower Coping with Toxic Leadership,” Stress and Health, 32, 346-354.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 24(1), 2019 73
Whicker, M.L., 1996, Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad. Quorum Books.
Wnuk, M., 2017, “Organizational Conditioning of Job Satisfaction. A Model of Job
Satisfaction,” Contemporary Economics, 11(1), 31-44.
Yeh, C., and T. Hsieh, 2017, “A Study on the Management Styles and Job Satisfaction
of Employees at Taiwan’s Architectural Firms,” The International Journal of
Organizational Innovation, 10(1), 185-204.
Zagross, H., and Z. Jamileh, 2016, “Relationship between Toxic Leadership and Job
Stress of Knowledge Workers,” Studies in Business & Economics, 11(3), 84-89.
Zheng, L.X., C.W. Faubion, W.B. Talley, and G.M. Lankford, 2017, “The Climate of Job
Satisfaction: The Relationship Between Extrinsic Job Factors and Satisfaction
Among Community Rehabilitation Program Professionals,” Journal of
Rehabilitation, 83(1), 23-30.