Fey 1

Toxic Workplace Culture and Contextual Case Studies

Case Research Report

Eric Fey

PPA 420

Dr. Jennifer A. Taylor

April 26, 2018

 Fey 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2

Introduction 3

For-Profit Sector - Uber Technologies Inc. 4

Public Sector - The 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 body of knowledge 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 inappropriate and repress the human components that exist in organizations. These

behaviors are defended, justified and allowable 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 employees and are often referred to as toxic work

environments.

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 in which the existence of toxic work environments has been identified. This paper

recognizes two examples which have recently demonstrated the symptoms of toxic workplace

culture from the private and public sectors. These examples are given to contextualize issues to

readers rather than attempting to offer condemnation of the organizations themselves or

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.
 Fey 4

Kusy and Holloway (2009) define a toxic personality as anyone who “demonstrates a

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 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 because of toxic individuals or

cultures, 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

are removed (Kusy 2009).

Brief introductions are necessary to better understand the work environments that each

case study exists in.

For-Profit Sector - Uber Technologies Inc.

Uber is a ride hailing and sharing service located in over 600 cities around the world. It

operates like a taxi service, but the taxi being used is an individual’s own possession; making

them an independent contractor. The company is unique because it does not own the cars that are

used to produce a profit. This is a recent trend fueled by technological advances and is a mix

between the sharing economy and 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
 Fey 5

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 reached as

high as seventy billion dollars in the eight years since the company's founding (Isaac 2017,

Russell 2017).

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 totaling 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).

In addition to the aforementioned problems, it’s important to remember the lack of

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 regard

to the legal status of its drivers in relation to the sharing economy. By classifying its drivers as
 Fey 6

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

classification sends a message to both contractors and corporate employees; it is acceptable to

mistreat or inadequately represent the interests of your human capital.

Public Sector - The Trump White House

The executive office of the President has had no shortage of scandals in recent years

(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, our focus will be on several aspects that are aggregately present in the

situation. The White House has a turnover and morale problem (Stracqualursi 2018). This can be

common among appointed aides and cabinet positions which are 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
 Fey 7

for self-preservation rather than the public interest. The rate of departures is also accelerating,

signifying that underlying problems have not 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, Stolberg 2018, Tillet 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 to 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 have used to harass

perceived opponents and detractors (Haberman 2018, McIntire 2018).

Issue 1 - Organizational Culture

Establishing the right norms and conduct in organizations is so important as the

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
 Fey 8

this way, all key variables are interrelated. Poor organizational culture is influenced by

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

reduce the need for other interventions in leadership, values, etc.

Our understanding of organizational culture will be synthesized and informed from

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

communicated and reinforced through various methods, ultimately shaping employee

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
 Fey 9

directly by managers and HR who would receive frequent reports of sexual harassment and

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 coworker’s confidence degrades human relations and interactions while

limiting productivity due to fear (Fowler 2017, Isaac 2017).

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

influenced by the President and his actions.

The actions of both parties are representative of the intentionally counterproductive

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
 Fey 10

negatively held beliefs and values to the employees. The incentives to lie, aggressively expand,

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

encouragement, motivation, and inspiration (Barid 2017). In terms of organizations, we can

understand leadership as one individual influencing a group of individuals toward a common

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
 Fey 11

their respective context (Kellerman 2001, Northouse 2018, Schein 2010). Recent developments

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 even 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
 Fey 12

know how to act is to try and guess what might anger the President and avoid doing that

(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

organization is a good leadership principle. However, employees need to be directed on what

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 its short and long-term policy

goals in order to unify subordinates towards action.

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

values of individuals to the values of organizations is hugely important to determining person-

organization fit, job motivation, and job success. Recent literature that emphasizes Public
 Fey 13

Service Motivation in relation to public and nonprofit sector work seems to confirm this (Bruni

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).

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 the humans that are the most

valuable component to an organization's mission.

Recent departures from the White House highlight differences in values. The Office the

Executive has 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
 Fey 14

politician switched to the private sector as a C.E.O. before returning to government. This trend

has continued, with President Trump’s history as a businessman with limited political knowledge

and no previous experience government experience. 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 ranking officials

(Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner, Betsy DeVos) 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
 Fey 15

(1968) offer us an understanding of where power comes from in organizations. They argue that

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 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 be exerted over the situation, and what the

most appropriate and effective action is (Pfeffer 1992). Understanding the various 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, Krackhardt 1990, Pfeffer

1992).

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

work environment (Hirschman 1970).

 Fey 16

The Trump administration has been steadily decreasing in popularity throughout his

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

cause of misunderstandings which create conflict (Rainey 2009). Communication should be

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

performance. Communication can breakdown due to lack of feedback, distortion of information,

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
 Fey 17

communication. Leaders should also establish and maintain communication networks to promote

the free flow of information, while creating a culture of information sharing through the use of

rewards such as recognition, reinforcement, and serving as a model of effective communication

(Schein 2010, Watkins 2014).

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
 Fey 18

President, his staff go forth and make a policy announcement, only to have the President change

his mind and renege on the decision after an official announcement has been made (Rucker

2018). These communications are the most plain, 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 constantly changing

without communicating that change to subordinates.

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 shareholder’s 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. If 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 is still focused on

aggressive expansion into new markets, with former engineers and executives reporting that with
 Fey 19

such steep competition for ride sharing, it is not yet time to change 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 must 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

require a self-critical analysis of the organization to diagnose and subsequently change.

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,

Schein 2010, Watkins 2014).

Due to the politically constructed restraints on time in administrations that utilize

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 cabinet 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 any agency (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 livable 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 communication

in terms of voice. Similarly to Uber, there is not much deep level diversity in the administration,

which could assist in aspects of holistic decision making (Green 2002, Roberge 2010). The
 Fey 21

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 organization 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

how the effects of toxic individuals are felt.

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

culture. The case study shows the human and organizational cost of ignoring persistent problems
 Fey 22

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. Therefore it is important to understand

toxic individuals through a meta-analysis consisting of toxic examples from a 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

policy to contexts and objectives within organizations. Our understanding of power in

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

cultural dimensions such as power distance.

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 most 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 company is still

worth upwards of seventy billion dollars, even considering the scandals that lowered its
 Fey 23

respective value from seventy billion to sixty-nine 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 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 them without consequence.

 Fey 24

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.

Appelbaum, S. H., & Roy-Girard, D. (2007). Toxins in the workplace: affect on

organizations and employees. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Business in Society, 7(1), 17-28.

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.

Barid Nizarudin, W. (2017). The differences between management and leadership.

Sinergi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Manajemen, Vol 7, Iss 1 (2017), (1).

Basinger, S. J., & Rottinghaus, B. (2012). Stonewalling and suspicion during presidential
scandals. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 290-302.

Boe, E. S. (1970). Job attitudes: The motivation-hygiene theory. Journal Of Accountancy,

130(4), 99-101.

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

Administration, 41(3), 172-180.

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.

Elliott, R. E. (2016). Sharing App or Regulation Hack(ney)?: Defining Uber

Technologies, Inc. Journal Of Corporation Law, 41(3), 727-753.

Gore, W. (1963). Understanding organizational behavior. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 8(2), 278-280.

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.

Lăzăroiu, G. (2015). Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary

Readings In Law & Social Justice, 7(2), 66-75.

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.

Paquet, G., 2007. Organization design as governance’s achilles heel.

www.governancia.com, 1 (3), 1-11.

Parker, L. D. (1984). Control in organizational life: The contribution of Mary Parker

Follett. Academy Of Management Review, 9(4), 736-745.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization's ethical

climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47-61.

Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and

rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373-389.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management

Review, 34(2), 29.

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.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.

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.

Roberts, K. H., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in

organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 205-215.

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.

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of

environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

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,

Yu, M. (2009). Employees' perception of organizational change: The mediating effects of

stress management strategies. Public Personnel Management, 38(1), 17-32.

Books
Appelbaum, E. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems
pay off. Cornell University Press.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic

individualism. Maryland: Georgetown University Press.
 Fey 28

Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The starfish and the spider: The unstoppable
power of leaderless organizations. London: Portfolio.

Burns, J. M. Leadership. New York: HarperCollins, 1978.

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.

Hinckley, B. (1990). The symbolic presidency: How presidents portray themselves.

Routledge.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,

organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.

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.

Northouse, P.G. (2018) Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications

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.

Rokeach, M. (2008). Understanding human values. Simon and Schuster.

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

Organizational Culture - Society for Human Resources Management. (2018, February

12). Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/toolkits/pages/understandinganddevelopingorganizationalculture.aspx

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

the plutocrats). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/for-

richer.html

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