Read Case study 14.1 (Dr. Chen likes power) and Case Study 14.2. (Breaking the silence). Do these case studies provide examples of destructive leadership and the toxic triangle? Explain. How should employees and stakeholders respond when they encounter destructive leadership? How should institutions and organizations react to destructive leadership and how can they reduce the likelihood or prevent it from existing? Explain.

In the academic world, the old adage "publish or perish" has unmistakable meaning. This is especially so for Sophia Lopez, who has been an assistant professor in the school of pharmacy for several years and is currently up for promotion to associate professor with tenure. Professor Lopez's department is headed up by Dr. Lilly Chen, a recognized scholar in medical and pharmaceutical research. Dr. Chen is known to get perks (e.g., a high-figure "consulting fee," a leased Lexus, and paid trips to conferences) from the pharma companies who give the school grants for research, which she uses her junior faculty and graduate students to conduct. Dr. Chen has been at the university for 20 years and is widely known for her flamboyant and confident style. Besides her administrative duties, she has a busy travel schedule giving international presentations on drug discovery. Dr. Chen is a favorite of the university's upper administration because of her international reputation but also because she brings large government grants to the university for her research with pharmaceutical companies. As a result of these lucrative grants, Dr. Chen is known to have influence and power over university administrators and generally gets whatever she wants, and the administration looks the other way about the perks she gets from the pharma companies. Dr. Chen's leadership within the school of pharmacy does not receive the same accolades. Although she is tolerated, Dr. Chen is not well liked among the school's faculty. As director of the school, she has the responsibility and power to set the school's mission and supervise its day-to-day operations, but when she carries out this work, she does so without regard for others' input. Faculty seldom say anything positive about Dr. Chen's administrative ability, often describing her as a leader who is driven, self-serving, and cavalier. Junior faculty are cautious around her and describe her as mean-spirited and authoritarian. It is within this work environment that Sophia Lopez finds herself. Sophia is a single mom with two worked very hard. She teaches a full load of classes each semester and also conducts research. She spends considerable time outside of class mentoring students, listening to their personal problems, and giving them support. Sophia has resisted the pressure to take part in Dr. Chen's research projects because she doesn't have time and it is not her area of specialty. Sophia has had three articles accepted for publication recently in clinical journals but not in the top-tier research journals. Annual teaching evaluations indicate that she is an average instructor. For her upcoming annual review, Sophia needs a letter of support from Dr. Chen stating that Sophia's teaching and research meet the standards necessary for promotion. Sophia met with Dr. Chen to discuss the letter and to obtain her support, and although she was fearful about her meeting with the administrator, Sophia did not anticipate how threatening and overwhelming the meeting would actually be. Regarding teaching, Dr. Chen said she expected everyone to be superior in the classroom and expressed disappointment in Sophia's average teaching evaluations, suggesting she devote more time to class preparations and improving her classroom teaching style. Sophia tried to defend herself and point out that she has a large teaching load (five classes) and is teaching more night classes than any other faculty. Dr. Chen dismissed her comments and told her to "quit whining." She also accused Sophia of spending too much time working at home instead of at the office, wondering if she was really working when at home or "just taking care of her kids and cleaning house." Regarding Sophia's research, Dr. Chen was very frank, stating that she wanted her pharmacy school to be ranked in the top 10 nationally and that Sophia was "doing nothing" to help that ranking. Furthermore, Dr. Chen berated Sophia for her low productivity and called her "the weakest faculty member in the school." She pointed out that Sophia had only published three articles, none of which were cutting-edge scholarship. Dr. Chen reminded Sophia that when she was hired, she was given a sizeable startup grant to get her research off the ground, but Sophia accomplished little with these funds and made frequent excuses about her lack of time to publish articles on her research. Dr. Chen then wryly noted that the pharma company research projects she oversees have more credibility and are in higher-tier journals but that Sophia "seems to feel she is above working on that kind of research." Needless to say, Sophia was devastated by Dr. Chen's review of her work. Dr. Chen seemed mean, heartless, and intimidating. Sophia likes the school of pharmacy and her colleagues but does not know how to make Dr. Chen recognize her value to the school. Sophia is also worried about her children and even more so about keeping her qreen card if Dr. Chen decides to let her qo. Harvey Weinstein was powerful, well connected, and wealthy. In 2011, he was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World. Well known in the film industry, his name might not have been instantly recognizable to the average person, but that changed in 2017. On the outside, Weinstein was a highly acclaimed film producer generously mentoring talented performers and launching them into stratospheric careers. He was a respected Hollywood gatekeeper, and garnering his favor meant entrance to an exclusive, lucrative industry and access to rare opportunities for career success. The story, however, was somewhat different from the inside. Highly acclaimed? Definitely. Powerful, wealthy, and well connected? Most certainly. Respected? Yes, but the word feared came up just as often. Generous mentor? Not so much. An article in The New York Times on October 5, 2017, threw open the shutters and revealed Weinstein's dark side. "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades" was the culmination of an investigation by journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey that revealed substantial allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. The article outlined eight known settlements to effectively silence actresses and other female employees who had made sexual harassment claims against the media mogul It was just the tip of the iceberg. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, founded the Miramax film production company in 1979, which was a very successful venture, producing award-winning, blockbuster films. In 1993, Disney Productions purchased Miramax, infusing it with cash but leaving the Weinsteins in charge. Miramax had at least one Oscarnominated film every year from 1992 until 2003 (Eltagouri, Rosenberg, \& Hui, 2018). In 2005, Harvey and his brother left the company after a dispute with Disney and formed The Weinstein Company (TWC), a privately held production company of which the brothers had significant control through their ownership of 42% of the companv's stock. As a condition of emplovment. TWC emplovees were required to sian nondisclosure agreements, binding them to a "code of silence"-they could not criticize the company or its leaders in a way that could harm their "business reputation" or "any employee's personal reputation" (Kantor \& Twohey, 2018). Under the Weinsteins' control, the working environments at both Miramax and TWC were considered unstable by many employees, with Harvey Weinstein described as a capricious leader. While reputed to be "charming and generous," showering those in his favor with gifts, cash, and personal or career assistance, Weinstein apparently had a "volcanic personality ... given to fits of rage and personal (verbal) lashings of male and female employees alike" (Kantor \& Twohey, 2018). Noting that the Weinstein brothers had a reputation for being ruthless in business dealings, employee Stuart Burkin, who started at TWC in 1991, said "'Miramax ran on fear. They're intimidating, they shout a lot, they foam at the mouth"' (Eltagouri et al., 2018). But for actors and actresses, a meeting with Harvey Weinstein could open a world of possibilities, from lucrative scripts and acting roles to media coverage and endorsements. However, the price could be high. The New York Times article detailed allegations of decades of sexual harassment, coercion, and payoffs by Weinstein to actresses and female company employees, including actresses Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan, who divulged their experiences in the story. Many of the article's accounts were eerily similar, though very few of the women interviewed had ever met one another: A business meeting was arranged with Harvey Weinstein at either his office or a hotel restaurant, and the woman was to be greeted by an assistant, usually female, and told the meeting location had been changed to Mr. Weinstein's hotel suite, where the assistant would escort the woman and then abruptly leave. After that, Weinstein would try a variety of means to coerce or intimidate the women into sexual activities, including "appearing nearly or fully naked in front of them, requiring them to be present while he bathed or repeatedly asking for a massage or initiating one himself" (Kantor \& Twohey, 2018). The article set off a firestorm. Weinstein was dismissed as the head of TWC, and four members of the company's all-male board of directors resigned. And the allegations kept pouring in. The number of women than a week after The New York Times published its expos, the New Yorker magazine published the findings of a 10-month investigation of its own by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow. Thirteer more women, including actresses Rosanna Arquette and Mira Sorvino, shared their stories with The New Yorker, including allegations of rape and assault. The article highlighted what had been intimated by the victims and others involved: that Weinstein's behavior was common knowledge within the company and the entertainment industry. Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein's companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein's films and in the workplace. They and others described a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models. All 16 said that the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Messages sent by Irwin Reiter, a senior company executive, to Emily Nestor, one of the women who alleged that she was harassed, described the "mistreatment of women" as a serial problem that The Weinstein Company had been struggling with in recent years. Other employees described what was, in essence, a culture of complicity at Weinstein's places of business, with numerous people throughout his companies fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way. Some employees said that they were enlisted in a subterfuge to make the victims feel safe. A female executive with the company described how Weinstein's assistants and others served as a "honeypot"-they would initially join a meeting along with a woman Weinstein was interested in, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman. (Farrow, 2017a) It wasn't only TWC employees who were aware of the behavior. For years there had been subtle public clues in comments by members of the entertainment industry including by late-night talk-show and Oscar hosts. As the stories continued to break regarding Weinstein, industry insiders began to come forward, confirming that Weinstein's misconduct was well known. Acclaimed filmmaker Quentin Tarantino, who collaborated with Weinstein on some of his biggest box office hits, shared that he had long been aware of Weinstein's misconduct, revealing that "I knew enough to do more than I did" (BBC,2019). Retaliation and fear of reprisal played a significant role in the perpetuation and concealment of Weinstein's activities. Those who resisted his advances contend that their careers were stalled or damaged by the long reach of Weinstein's network. Often, derogatory stories regarding their personal lives would suddenly begin appearing in the media. Farrow (2017a) shared the following: Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation. "If Harvey were to discover my identity, I'm worried that he could ruin my life," one former employee told me. Many said that they had seen Weinstein's associates confront and intimidate those who crossed him and feared that they would be similarly targeted. Four actresses, including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette, told me they suspected that, after they rejected Weinstein's advances or complained about them to company representatives, Weinstein had them removed from projects or dissuaded people from hiring them. Multiple sources said that Weinstein frequently bragged about planting items in media outlets about those who spoke against him; these sources feared similar retribution. In November 2017, Farrow's article "Harvey Weinstein's Army of Spies" appeared in The New Yorker, detailing how Weinstein had hired high-powered private security agencies and investigative journalists to collect information on the women and other journalists trying to expose the allegations against him. The agencies' intimidating tactics included stalking, using false names, misrepresenting themselves as journalists, and recording conversations without permission. Weinstein channeled the hiring and payment of these agencies and journalists through a legal firm in order to conceal and protect their work under the auspices of client privilege. Weinstein, however, personally monitored the investigations. Included in the service agreements with the agencies were "success fees" such as a $300,000 bonus if the agency provided information that "directly contributes to the efforts to completely stop the article from being published at all in any shape or form" (Farrow, 2017b). Almost 90 women have come forward with stories of sexual assault and harassment by Weinstein, with at least 14 of them accusing the media mogul of rape. Many of these actors are renown in the film industry, including Kate Beckinsale, Daryl Hannah, Heather Graham, Angelina Jolie, Julianna Margulies, Gwyneth Paltrow, Lupita Nyong'o, Monica Potter, Sean Young, and Uma Thurman (Moniuszko \& Kelly, 2017). Exposure of Weinstein's behavior and the magnitude of the accusations against him has had farreaching consequences and resulted in several lawsuits against Weinstein and his company. In March 2018, in an effort to protect itself from the possible financial devastation of the pending lawsuits, TWC filed for bankruptcy protection. Through this filing, the company released victims of and witnesses to Weinstein's alleged misconduct from their signed nondisclosure agreements. "Since October, it has been reported that Harvey Weinstein used non-disclosure agreements as a secret weapon to silence his accusers. Effective immediately, those 'agreements' end," the company said in a statement. "No one should be afraid to speak out or coerced to stay quiet" (Associated Press, 2018). Weinstein was subsequently arrested and indicted on criminal charges of rape and sexual abuse. Many of the prominent associations he had affiliation with or had garnered honors from rescinded the awards and memberships, most notably the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization behind the Academy Awards). But the impact of Weinstein's downfall was felt far beyond Hollywood. As the list of accusers grew, it helped to ignite an explosive international movement against sexual harassment through the #MeToo hashtag campaign, which encouraged others to share their personal stories via social media. Dubbed the "Weinstein Effect," it opened the floodgates, and a torrent of allegations across industries and the globe resulted in the dismissal of several prominent business and political figures. In April 2018, The New York Times and The New Yorker were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service "for their coverage of the sexual abuse of women in Hollywood and other industries around the world