Altogether, considering the correlation and regression analysis, this showed that some dimensions of toxic leadership had a greater relationship and/or effects on work motivation. Narcissism and self-promotion dimensions of toxic leadership had the most consistent association with work motivation (material, and introjected). Abusive supervision (with introjected regulation of work motivation) showed more inconsistent results. On the other hand, abusive supervision had a significant negative regression but null correlation with introjected regulation of work motivation. Amotivation was correlated negatively with all dimensions of toxic leadership, as significantly predicted by general regression models, but with no specific model being significant.

In our sample, the highest score was found in narcissism, which is related to leaders’ behavior attempting to show they are more special than others. Toxic leadership scores, in general and in all its dimensions, in our Angolan sample have lower levels than those of the original US military sample (Schmidt), in which all dimensions have higher scores than ours (Angola: M = 2.86; SD = 1.05; US military: M = 3.42; SD = 1.20; Schmidt, 2008). Compared to a hospital sample from Nigeria, our results are also lower in general (Angola: M = 2.86; SD= 1.05; Nigeria: M =3.89; SD = 0.70; Gabriel, 2016). These results are somewhat different from and lower than our expectations based on informal observation of the general organizational dynamics in Angola. Even though participants were informed about confidentiality and anonymity, their answers may have been influenced by social desirability, considering that some participants were worried about what the research team could do with their answers, fearing they could suffer negative consequences if giving their real opinion about their leaders (retaliation).

Considering work motivation, our sample had the highest results in identified and intrinsic regulation. On the other hand, amotivation and external social regulation showed the lowest scores. Those scores might be obtained because the most represented work sector is education and sciences (Table 3).

The relation between toxic leadership and amotivation is straightforward, because it has a positive and significant correlation with all the dimensions of the former. As found by Elangoven & Xie (2000), coercive use of power by leaders is associated with lower levels of follower motivation. Similarly, Deci et al. (1989) reported that very close supervision of followers’ work is associated with lower levels of work motivation. This reminds us about not fulfilling workers’ basic needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness.

Regarding the correlation between authoritarian leadership and intrinsic work motivation, it is non-significant. Previous research has revealed that people in organizations with a collectivistic orientation culture may not feel motivated by participative leadership, as shown by Francesco & Chen (2000) who found that in Hong Kong, empowering leaders tend to be seen as weak and less competent. Therefore, in Angola we could expect authoritarian leadership to have less undermining effect on intrinsic motivation than in individualistic cultures.

In another study by Cunha et al. (2019), some leadership paradoxes have been mentioned as a critical point to consider in leadership and organizational effectiveness. Specifically, one paradox is related to the balance between empowerment and participation, according to which some leaders tend to be seen as weak when they empower their subordinates. It is possible that the high power distance of Angolan culture explains that as we explain below.

In an exploratory study by Adrónico (2017) in Angola, using the GLOBE framework (House et al., 2004), participating organizations were shown to have a high level of in-group collectivism and a moderate-to-low level of societal collectivism. Adrónico (2017) study found that both types of collectivism are positively correlated with general levels of motivation and identified regulation of motivation. Moreover, Angola has a high level of power distance (83/100 points; Hofstede Insights, undated). This cultural dimension “generates on followers a set of reactions of submission and dependence, but also of conformity, subservience and adulation” (Cunha et al., 2016, p. 684).

Narcissism in toxic leadership is associated with material and introjected regulation of work motivation, which may be due to a focus on the external manifestation of personal value, instead of the intrinsic value. The behavior of showing off may be a strategy narcissistic people use to show that value, needing an external validation, which may be related to indulgence. According to Hofstede’s dimensions (Hofstede Insights, undated) Angola has high levels of indulgence (83/100 points) and a low future orientation (Adrónico, 2017)

Similarly, self-promotion is positively associated with introjected regulation, because self-promotion is frequently at the expense of others, and so followers may see it as an instrumental strategy also useful for themselves. In this regard, it is relevant to consider Padilla et al. (2007), according to whom toxic leadership emerges and is maintained due to the leader’s toxic characteristics, but also by followers’ characteristics and a conducive environment. Regarding followers’ characteristics, they referred to colluding members who have ambition, a similar world view of values lacking ethics. On the other hand, conforming members have unmet needs, low self-perception and low maturity. This result directs us to the possibility of colluders seeing toxic leaders as role models, and because their drivers of motivation are based on external regulation directed by social emotions. In this line, Wilson-Starks mentions that “in a toxic leadership environment, ‘yes’ people are rewarded and promoted to leadership roles, while people who more fully engage their mental resources, critical thinking, and questioning skills are shut out from decision-making and positions of influence” (2003, p. 2, quoted by Schmidt, 2008).

Self-promotion’s positive correlation with intrinsic work motivation may be due to the fact that the leader is seen as a powerful person, who gives followers the sense of predictability, making the work more interesting. Furthermore, within a culture of high power distance (Hofstede Insights, undated) and high levels of corruption (UCAN, 2017) the self-promotion can be seen as normal, decreasing the detrimental effect of that dimension. Another interesting interpretation is that the self-promotion of the leader can be compensated by intrinsic motivation, where the tasks of the job position are exciting and pay for the detrimental effect of the leader’s self-promotion.

In terms of management consequences, the results reinforce the importance of considering the complexity of culture and the need to be careful in transferring the knowledge from a cultural context to another. The results also highlight the challenge that leaders have to face in deciding which aspects of the context should be kept as legitimate cultural characteristics, and which ones should be changed since they are either ineffective or illegitimate. Since high work motivation is a target that human resources managers to pursue, they shouldn’t ignore the basic principles and values as those present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that were translated in the labor field as the concept of decent work (Ferraro et al., 2016). Future studies are required to address those aspects.

This study sought to understand how the manifestation of a toxic leadership style influenced followers’ work motivation using the SDT framework. This style of leadership has been associated with individual and organizational outcomes, among them followers’ work motivation.

From the results, our main conclusions are as follows:

The leader’s narcissism and self-promotion behavior is most closely related to external types of regulation (mainly introjected), generating positive correlations. We see this pattern of a positive effect on external regulation as a manifestation of effort as an instrumental way to achieve the benefits leadership has over followers, in light of the toxic triangle model of Padilla et al. (2007), where colluding members see collaboration with a toxic leader as a way to achieve that.

Regarding theoretical contributions, this study adapts and validates organizational assessment instruments for Angola (Toxic Leadership Scale and Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale), which have good psychometric properties. This has a relevant impact on research in the domain of WOP in Angola, considering the lack of previous research and the fact that this domain of Psychology is now starting to expand in the country (Saveia, 2015).

To our knowledge, this theme has never been systematically studied in Angola, and it is urgent to do so considering leadership’s impact on effectiveness and the country’s human development, especially considering the low levels of development and high levels of corruption (UCAN, 2017). It also gives insights into human resource management (HRM) in Africa, in general, and in Angola which must go beyond a western vision.

From the practical point of view, some recommendations for HRM can be drawn from our study, such as the importance of empowering followers without being afraid of seeming weak; promoting cooperation between team members, teams and organizations; developing a servant leadership orientation through psychological coaching; promoting decent work and justice for followers and leaders; fostering an organizational culture of ethics and accountability; implementing practices of recruitment and selection and career management (preventing the selection and promotion of future toxic leaders), etc.

Despite our study does not focus on the legitimacy and effectiveness of culture, it can contribute to the reflection on those topics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be expressed, among others, in the labour field. The way leaders perform their roles even where rooted in cultural traits deserve to be checked and studied. Moreover, cultures evolve over time and the results of our study can help in that reflection.

This study has some limitations, namely the sample size, which is small and restricted to the urban context. Angola has significant ethnic and cultural diversity, which may impact on results. As we used a single measure of toxic leadership that may be biased by social desirability, results based on TLS must be complemented with a multi-rater and multi-source study and qualitative methodology with in-depth interviews. The sampling procedure did not allow reaching a representative sample. In future studies more robust sampling techniques can be applied.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

We all declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the views expressed in this article, which are our own and not an official position of our institutions.