Employee perceptions of responses to toxic leadership in the modern workplace: a Q methodological study Emily Bublitz-Berg, Carrie Anne Platt and Brent Hill North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explain why people respond to toxic leadership in different ways. The toxic triangle was applied as a lens and extended followership by investigating unsusceptible followers and susceptible followers. Design/methodology/approach – This study employed Q methodology to illustrate the subjective viewpoints of 31 employees. Participants sorted 41 statements ranging from “most uncharacteristic” to “most characteristic” according to their beliefs using a forced distribution. We used qualitative data from the survey and follow-up interviews to document participant motivations. Findings – Findings from this Q study demonstrated three distinct perceptions of responses to toxic leadership: Suffer in Silence (Perspective 1), Confront and Advocate (Perspective 2) and Quiet yet Concerned (Perspective 3). This study found that Perspectives 1 and 3 helped to explain differences in susceptible followership, whereas Perspective 2 helped to explain unsusceptible followership. Our research supports the need for organizations to provide safe whistleblowing channels for reporting unethical behavior by adopting clear policies for handling unethical behaviors and sharing those policies with all constituents within the organization. Practical implications – Our research supports the need for organizations to provide safe whistleblowing channels for reporting unethical behavior by adopting clear policies for handling unethical behaviors and sharing those policies with all constituents within the organization. Originality/value – Our study adds to the developing literature on followership by building a conceptual framework for response types that better explains the motivation and subsequent actions of susceptible and unsusceptible followers. This framework helps us identify new ways to combat toxic leadership by providing a more nuanced view of how employees perceive and respond to toxic leadership. Keywords Toxic triangle, Toxic leaders, Susceptible followers, Unsusceptible followers, Workplace bullying Paper type Research paper In the United States, 49% of workers have experienced bullying or witnessed the bullying of others at work (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2021). Workplace bullying between superiors and subordinates is toxic leadership. Schmidt (2008) defined toxic leaders as “narcissistic self- promoters who engage in an unpredictable pattern of abusive and authoritarian supervision” (p. 57). For organizations, toxic leadership can be as debilitating as the more familiar safety hazards that result in a loss of productivity, retention, and employee growth (Winn and Dykes, 2019). In recent years, the scholarship of toxic leadership has turned from documenting destructive leadership behavior (see Lipman-Blumen, 2010; Schmidt, 2008, 2014) toward identifying contextual and individual factors that inform employee perceptions of toxic leaders and the likelihood of response to toxic leadership (see Pelletier, 2012; Thoroughgood et al., 2011; Webster et al., 2016). Toxicity in the workplace results from destructive leadership behavior intersecting with follower susceptibility and specific environmental conditions (Padilla et al., 2007; Leadership & Organization Development Journal 1205 We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7739.htm Received 18 September 2023 Revised 23 December 2023 18 March 2024 Accepted 25 April 2024 Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 45 No. 7, 2024 pp. 1205-1219 © Emerald Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-09-2023-0512