The Dark Side of Leadership: How Toxic Leadership Fuels Counterproductive Work Behaviors Through Organizational Cynicism and Injustice

Abstract

This article aims to investigate the impact of toxic leadership (TL) on counterproductive work behavior (CWB) with the mediating roles of organizational cynicism (OC) and organizational injustice (OIJ), using 392 questionnaires collected from employees working in the Egyptian higher education sector. The data are examined using AMOS 25 for structural equation model (SEM) analysis. The results show that toxic leadership positively affects CWBs, organizational cynicism, and organizational injustice. Furthermore, organizational cynicism positively affects CWBs, and organizational injustice significantly affects CWBs. Finally, organizational cynicism and injustice partially mediate the relationship between toxic leadership and CWBs. This study adds novelty to the literature by exploring the influence of toxic leadership on CWBs, OC, and OIJ in Egypt’s higher education sector. As a result, addressing the prevalence of toxic leadership and its ripple effects is essential for fostering sustainable organizational cultures. Sustainable work environments prioritize fairness, employee well-being, and positive leadership practices, reducing counterproductive behaviors. Finally, this article reviews the limitations but also assesses the substantial contributions to theory and practice made by the paper.

1. Introduction

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) exhibited by employees can negatively impact the competitive posture and overall success of their institutions. Intentionally harming the organization, its members, or both, are the goals of these actions [1,2]. Such actions include verbally abusing coworkers, taking overly lengthy breaks, leaving work early without authorization, and publicly embarrassing others [3]. CWBs have the potential to negatively impact both the employer, resulting in decreased organizational effectiveness, and the individuals affected by these behaviors, including their professional well-being [4,5]; On the other hand, employees who use these strategies endanger themselves and their employers if their unethical behavior is exposed and penalized [6,7].

From this perspective, CWBs are strongly associated with significant economic effects, such as an estimated yearly cost of up to $200 billion, with around 69% of supervisors reporting being victims of such behaviors [8]. CWBs are classified as CWB-O and interpersonal counterproductive work behavior (CWB-I). On the other hand, CWB-O encompasses actions that are detrimental to the organization, including withdrawal, sabotage, tardiness, and premature departure from work. CWB-I encompasses actions that adversely impact other individuals inside the company, including gossip, disparagement of others’ viewpoints, and fostering strife among coworkers [9,10]. Hence, an organizational atmosphere that encourages Machiavellianism is one of the items that researchers highlight as a possible motivator for employees to participate in deviant behavior [11], abusive supervision [12], psychological contract breach such as broken promises [9,13], and more labor than can reasonably be done [14]. Workers are very dissatisfied with the way in which their institutions operate and makes decisions because of each of these factors. Another cause of irritation is the belief that there is unfair treatment inside the institution [15,16].

Leadership research has recently shifted its attention to what makes a good leader [17,18]. The bulk of the research has focused on the bright side of leadership. Consequently, they perceive the leader–member relationship positively [19,20]. There is a need for more research that investigates the impact of toxic leadership behaviors on the relationship between leaders and their subordinates, as categorized by Agarwal and Milosevic et al. [21,22]. Their research has shed light on our comprehension of how the disruptive, dissatisfied, and malicious actions of toxic leaders impact personal and organizational relationships. Furthermore, toxic leadership encompasses a broader range of actions and has a more extensive impact in terms of its detrimental consequences [23]. In their study, Mehta & Maheshwari [24] discovered that the concept encompassed traits such as abusive behavior, the promotion of unfairness, and a lack of integrity. According to Mehta & Maheshwari [24], toxic leadership may harm employees’ psychological health and productivity, which in turn can hurt the organization’s success. From the most senior positions (such as that of the director) to the most junior (such as that of supervisors), toxic leaders act as entirely detrimental persons who deplete the vitality of both individuals and organizations. They create a menacing environment that disrupts seamless operation [25]. In addition, detrimental evaluations of leaders and vengeful acts are common outcomes of employees’ perceptions of toxic leadership [26].

Employee cynicism has escalated recently [27], significantly impacting institutional performance [28]. Cynicism is a mindset characterized by feelings of irritation, disappointment, and pessimism, leading to undesirable outcomes such as decreased productivity and diminished loyalty across various industries and sectors [29]. This pessimistic outlook generally results in negative associations with performance, reduced prosocial conduct, increased interpersonal conflicts, high employee turnover, and elevated absenteeism [30]. Additionally, workers who engage in hostile and accusatory dialogues undermine the institution’s reputation and deteriorate the workplace environment, often reflecting a deficiency in employee commitment [31,32]. It is now well-accepted that organizational cynicism (OC) is a growing issue in the workplace that requires significant attention [33]. The idea of cynicism hinders employees from accessing essential resources in return for their ties with their bosses. Consequently, there is a progressive increase in psychological pressure, leading to the development of cynicism as a negative emotional response characterized by skepticism towards an organization [34]. Organizations need help in cultivating organizational culture OC among their personnel. Interestingly, when firms fail to meet the criteria, needs, sincerity, honesty, and fairness of their employees, these dissatisfactions typically do not enhance the organizational commitment [35]. Some of the literature has meticulously examined negative workplace behaviors due to their substantial psychological, social, and economic repercussions on the work environment [36,37]; among these behaviors are CWBs.

The perception of unfairness in allocating resources or compensation, known as organizational injustice, can significantly impact how employees act and think in the workplace. This situation develops when workers feel they are being unfairly treated in relation to monetary compensation, career advancement chances, incentives, public acknowledgment, and other material rewards [32]. According to Hodson et al. [38] these views are characterized as the degree to which employees think their boss mistreats them in comparison to their colleagues. Perceived organizational unfairness can be seen when individuals believe that certain members of the organization receive preferential treatment due to their relationship with the boss or on account of being credited for more work than they really provide [38]. Workers feel pressured to act on their views of organizational injustice, which drains their resources and might hurt their performance in their work and their chances of advancement [39,40]. This aligns with the conclusions drawn by De Clercq et al. [41], who identified a significant factor contributing to increased counterproductive work behavior: employees’ weakened identification with their employing business due to views of unjust treatment.

Therefore, OC and OIJ amplify the effects of toxic leadership, creating a vicious cycle of negativity and inefficiency that undermines employee morale and organizational cohesion. OC and OIJ amplify the effects of toxic leadership, creating a vicious cycle of negativity and inefficiency that undermines employee morale and organizational cohesion [42,43]. From a sustainability perspective, toxic leadership disrupts organizational resilience by eroding trust and reducing employee engagement. Sustainable practices, such as promoting ethical leadership, fostering transparency, and ensuring equitable treatment, can mitigate these negative effects. Such interventions not only reduce CWBs but also enhance organizational stability and long-term success, contributing to sustainable human capital management [44,45]. This underscores the importance of addressing toxic leadership to foster workplaces that support innovation, collaboration, and overall sustainability.

The significance of this research lies in its establishment of a link between theoretical concepts, study variables, and practical challenges [46] encountered by employees in higher education. This research is advantageous for both managers and society.

First, in recent years, academics have directed their attention to toxic leaders and their role in workplace aggression. They have proven that subordinates’ organizational commitment, work happiness, and performance are negatively impacted by verbal hostility from supervisors [47,48]. Examining the aims between bosses’ hostile tone and CWBs is the primary goal of this study. Additionally, it examines how such aggression could lead to lousy employee behaviors that are intended to harm the business. From this viewpoint, Yue et al.; Jones [48,49] highlighted the detrimental effects of CWBs on employee productivity, attrition, and organizational failure. Therefore, we decided to focus on them as a behavioral outcome. Social exchange theory (SET) posits that people are motivated to repay equivalent behaviors for advantages obtained [50,51]. Our research indicates that verbal hostility from superiors might adversely affect the institution’s culture and employees’ mental health. In an optimal working environment, employees acknowledge significant organizational support from colleagues and superiors and act and think positively toward the institution [52].

Second, Graen and Uhl-Bien [53] assert that the leader–member exchange hypothesis (LMX) posits that superiors differentially interact with their subordinates. LMX is the quality of a dyadic work relationship between an organizational member and their supervisor, which incorporates the interconnected traits of respect, trust, and mutual duty [53,54]. The connections develop as a result of a series of encounters that take place at work. Managers handle their employees differently depending on whether they are trusted assistants or hired hands, a distinction based on the nature of the connections between the two [55,56]. Furthermore, the escalating issue of toxic leadership, which encompasses actions such as violence, manipulation, and bullying, is becoming increasingly problematic in the realm of higher education. The LMX hypothesis provides insights into the mechanisms that enable the thriving of such conduct. Leaders may exhibit bias towards members of their group while scapegoating and undermining members of other groups. This fosters an atmosphere characterized by apprehension and skepticism, impeding the ability to work together and generate new ideas. Poor-quality leader–member exchange (LMX) can result in a widespread feeling of organizational cynicism among teachers and staff. If employees see inequitable treatment and a shortage of assistance, they may experience disillusionment and disengagement. This can be observed as a decrease in effort, a lack of confidence in leadership, and even exhaustion, which ultimately results in CWBs [56,57].

Third, the theory of organizational justice sheds light on how toxic leadership contributes to institutionalized cynicism and unfairness in Egypt’s higher education system. According to this theory, employees assess how they are treated in an organization based on four interconnected dimensions: procedural, distributive, informational, and interpersonal justice [58,59]. Employees who believe that there are instances of unfair treatment within institutions as a result of toxic leadership may develop a feeling of cynicism. This can be seen in a decline in confidence in those in positions of authority, a perception that the system is manipulated in favor of specific individuals or groups, and a reduced level of dedication to established organizations. Moreover, these infractions intensify sentiments of unfairness. Employees may have a sense of being devalued, underappreciated, and, ultimately, mistreated by upper management. The feeling of injustice can result in reduced morale, heightened stress, organizational cynicism, and CWBs.

Taken collectively, this study fills several gaps in the existing literature. First, it is important to recognize that toxic leadership behaviors are common in business environments [60] and are becoming more widespread in several domains [61]. However, there are few studies investigating the link between toxic management practices and CWBs, as influenced by cynicism and organizational injustice [62]. This necessitates more investigation and validation [63]. This study focuses on filling this existing research void. There are also population gaps; the study concerned Egypt’s higher education sector, but, according to the researcher, this needed to be thoroughly investigated. These discrepancies have yet to be investigated extensively, as far as the researcher can establish. Among the countries in the MENA region, Egypt’s educational system is unique [64].

Second, due to expansion, more higher institutions have been established and disseminated. As more and more colleges and universities shifted their emphasis to professional and vocational training, the practice of monitoring became mainstream in higher education [65,66]. National universities have established campuses in all regions of Egypt. These sections have grown and developed into independent universities. During 2017, Egypt had a total of 27 state institutions catering to a student population of over 2.2 million [66]. In Egypt, the higher education sector faces several challenges, including excessive centralization of government, high population density, and pervasive inefficiencies [64,67].

Third, this research paper is a response to the call of [41,68,69], who suggested extending the research to an explanatory role of organizational injustice and CWBs. Moreover, the significance of this paper comes from filling the research gaps. In light of the above, this study explores the influence of toxic leadership on CWBs in Egypt’s higher education system, considering the mediation roles played by organizational cynicism and injustice. This research is a groundbreaking study conducted in a developing nation, specifically Egypt. The subject matter pertains to the Egyptian higher education sector, which constructs a comprehensive framework that includes all of these relationships collectively.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

The independent variable here is toxic leadership, while the mediator variables are organizational cynicism and organizational injustice. CWBs are considered here to be the dependent variable. What follows is an analysis of:

2.1. Toxic Leadership (TL)

O’Hara [70] attributes the introduction of the notion of toxic leadership to [71]. According to Whicker [71], toxic leaders are those who are not well-adjusted, are discontented, and frequently have malicious intentions. They engage in destructive behavior against others in order to achieve success. The phrase “toxic leadership” gained popularity with the release of Lipman Blumen’s work on the topic. Lipman-Blumen [72] defines toxic leaders as those who cause significant and long-lasting harm to their followers since they are toxic or have dysfunctional personality qualities.

However, in order for specific actions to be classified as hazardous, the intention behind them plays a crucial role. Toxic leaders act detrimentally on purpose, putting their needs ahead of those of their employees and the institutions. Schmidt’s research [73] shows that toxic leaders show little concern for their employees’ well-being and are capable of inflicting harm and mistreating them. Toxic leaders are characterized by their excessive control over employees, resulting in subordinates feeling uncomfortable and fearful. Toxic leaders exhibit narcissistic, self-centered tendencies and lack empathy and sensitivity toward their subordinates [70,73]. Moreover, toxic leaders, according to Schmidt [73], are those who are egotistical and put themselves first. Additionally, these leaders exhibit a habit of harsh and unpredictable authoritarian supervision. Thus, unpredictability, abusive conduct, authoritarianism, narcissism, and self-promotion are all characteristics of toxic leaders since they are toxic or have dysfunctional personality qualities. Toxic leaders exhibit the following behaviors:

• Intentionally demoralizing, depreciating, marginalizing, being unapproachable, or inducing anguish.
• Engaging in unethical practices.
• Intentionally cultivating subordinates’ perceptions bolsters the leader’s authority while diminishing the subordinates’ performance abilities.

Due to its dysfunctional traits, toxic leadership discriminates in several mechanisms. These features push toxic leaders to maintain insatiable wishes that prioritize their authority and influence over the welfare of their followers. Toxic leaders often develop a tendency to assign blame, leading them to see faults in their subordinates [74].

2.2. Organizational Cynicism (OC)

Prajogo [75] described organizational cynicism as the outward expression of an employee’s lack of faith in their organization. Organizational cynicism (OC) is a prominent concern in the field of business literature because of the intense rivalry and resulting high levels of stress that employees may experience [76,77]. In addition to employees who have opposing views on their coworkers, employers and firms are said to exhibit OC [78,79,80]. Skeptical workers believe that the institution lacks honesty, openness, equality, sincerity, and integrity [81].

According to Khan [82], cynics experience emotions characterized by skepticism, pessimism, insecurity, and disruption. Koço\uglu Sazkaya [79] stated that cynicism can account for various organizational phenomena, such as psychological disengagement from the organization, staff members who cognitively disengage from their jobs by daydreaming or cyber-loafing, staff members who physically disengage from the organization by being absent or tardy to work, and staff members who emotionally disengage from the organization by indulging in antisocial behavior.

2.3. Organizational Injustice (OIJ)

According to research on organizational justice by Cohen & Spector [83], there are distinctly diverse kinds of organizational justice, including distributive, procedural, and interactional forms. When people feel that their organization’s procedures or decision-making processes are fair, this is known as procedural justice. Meanwhile, Leventhal [84] emphasized that the lack of prejudice, together with correctness, correctability, ethics, and consistency, determines the efficacy of decision-making in an organization. A question of distributive justice concerns whether or not resources are distributed fairly. The term “incentive commensurability” describes how workers feel about the relationship between their efforts and the benefits they get [85]. Employees are treated with compassion, respect, and decency, demonstrating interactional justice, which incorporates both interpersonal and informational dimensions of justice [86].

On the other hand, this difference applies to the many forms of unfairness inside an organization. Procedural and distributive unfairness arise from the organizational structure. However, unfairness in contact arises from dealings with certain people [87]. When workers feel that their efforts are not making a difference, they may start to compare the rewards they get to those of their coworkers. This behavior is to be expected, according to equity theory. A variety of opinions and, sometimes, erroneous responses result from this kind of comparison [85]. After that, four things were identified as making up organizational justice, and it was expected that they would be related to each other. Along with procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice, distributive justice is a crucial part of justice, and fairness is a big part of it. According to Ahmed et al. [59], this mainly concerns the idea that people are fairly compensated for their efforts.

2.4. Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs)

According to Sabir et al. [88], CWBs occur when employees willfully harm the organization, its members, or its legitimate interests, as well as those of its internal workers and external stakeholders. Such behaviors, which are intentionally harmful, violate established norms and standards, and pose a threat to the organization’s progress and the safety of its members, are referred to as conduct with the will to harm (CWBs). In addition, Gervasi et al [85] call “counterproductive work behaviors” (CWBs) incidents that can hurt people and organizations, which in turn hurts productivity in the workplace. Meanwhile, CWBs lead to the depletion and inefficient use of organizational resources, which in turn causes a deterioration in the quality of work [85]. Over time, this has a detrimental effect on coworkers or the institution and hinders the institution’s ability to carry out its responsibilities effectively [85].

Adverse effects on organizations can result from the following: inefficient use of time and resources, improper use of information, risky behaviors, inappropriate verbal conduct, theft from the organization, abuse of substances, inappropriate physical actions, poor attendance, and bad job quality [85]. Furthermore, employees engaging in such behaviors may experience detrimental effects on their reputations when their misconduct is exposed and subsequently penalized [89,90]. As stated by Putra [91], CWBs encompass deliberate actions by workers that harm the well-being of the institution. In this way, both individuals and organizations suffer when employees act in an unproductive manner on the job [92]. Similarly, CWBs emerge from an intricate interaction between the person and their surroundings, with the belief in unfavorable consequences playing a significant role in the decision to participate in CWBs [93].

2.5. Toxic Leadership and CWBs

A past study has extensively demonstrated the link between destructive leadership and CWBs. A meta-analytical study has identified many crucial outcomes associated with DL that might lead to or worsen CWBs. According to Schyns and Schilling [17], these results might manifest in various ways, such as discontent with one’s work and leader, plans to quit the organization, lack of commitment, lower well-being, and decreased individual performance.

The adverse effects of the Dark Triad on the workplace have also been the subject of research into business scandals [94]. Several sources state that TL influences employee behavior, including [55,95,96], and the reciprocity norm. When people face DL (disciplinary actions), they tend to operate less productively and have negative views towards their jobs [97]. Subordinates often exhibit downward behavioral adjustments by participating in CWBs, which refers to detrimental activities that employees take toward their company or its members. Therefore, there is a clear and robust connection between toxic leadership and CWBs aimed at both the organization and the supervisor. This correlation has been confirmed by studies conducted by Tepper et al. [98] and Brender-Ilan and Sheaffer [99]. The following hypothesis may be formulated based on the above:

H1. 

Toxic leadership has an impact on CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector.

2.6. Toxic Leadership and Organizational Cynicism

Studies on toxic leadership indicate that this type of leadership can have detrimental effects on followers’ psychological well-being as well as on organizational well-being, including work satisfaction and organizational commitment [24]. In addition, Schmidt [100] argues that leaders who are toxic to their teams undermine team cohesion through behaviors including insincere boasting, lack of consistency, and low morale on the job. Essential considerations in this area also include the response of the followers and the existence of supporting environments [101]. An organization’s commitment levels will take a nosedive when toxic leadership is present. According to [102], the sample of nonprofit organizations shows mixed results in organizational citizenship and turnover behavior.

Toxic leaders, on the other hand, may severely harm staff morale and welfare [103]. Severe psychological and bodily injury, including death, can occur as a result of weak leadership practices and an unsuitable role model [104]. The following hypothesis may be formulated based on the above:

H2. 

Toxic leadership has an impact on OC in the Egyptian higher education sector.

2.7. Toxic Leadership and Organizational Injustice

Meanwhile, Song et al. [105] found that when managers exhibit damaging behaviors and are not accessible to their subordinates, employees are more likely to choose to keep silent in order to feel comfortable and protected. In their study, Gao et al. [106] discovered a direct correlation between employee voice and their level of confidence in their management.

The researchers discovered that the actions of managers, such as providing information to employees, including them in decision-making, and coaching them, enhance their dependability and foster a more positive perception of managers among employees. Xu et al. [107] and Wang and Jiang [108] both agree that abusive supervision silences employees and hurts their opinions. Researchers Reyhanoglu and Akin [109] looked at the relationship between hospital workers’ intentions to leave their jobs and three organizational factors: toxic leadership, organizational fairness, and organizational silence. The findings show that toxic leadership and organizational justice are negatively correlated. The following hypothesis may be formulated based on the above:

H3. 

Toxic leadership has an impact on OIJ in the Egyptian higher education sector.

2.8. Organizational Cynicism and CWBs

According to the studies conducted by Wilkerson et al. [110] and Yıldız and Şaylıkay [111], OC refers to a negative attitude that employees have towards their organizations. This negative attitude is believed to lead to feelings of alienation and result in undesirable behaviors, such as criticizing the organization. A direct association between corporate cynicism and staff misbehavior was shown by Evans et al. [112]. Tong et al. [113] also demonstrated that OC may prefigure CWBs. A strong and positive correlation between CWBs and OC was discovered by Dar et al. [114]. In their study, EREN and DEMİR [115] looked at the connection between OC and the effects of perceived pay justice on inefficient work habits. According to studies carried out, when workers feel their pay is unfair, it makes them dislike their employer. Having a negative attitude at work makes it more likely that employees will participate in CWBs. The following hypothesis may be formulated based on the above:

H4. 

Organizational cynicism has an impact on CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector.

2.9. Organizational Injustice and CWBs

Several potential causes of employees’ unusual conduct have been found by researchers. These factors include an organizational culture that promotes Machiavellianism, abusive supervision, unfulfilled promises by the organization, and excessive workloads. Each of these factors fuels worker dissatisfaction with the institution’s operations and decision-making [15,16,87]. Feelings of internal inequity are another source of aggravation. The extent to which workers believe their employer treats them differently from their coworkers is reflected in these beliefs [41]. When workers feel that some coworkers receive special treatment because of their familiarity with upper management or because they are overestimated in their contributions, this is known as “perceived organizational unfairness” [38]. Employees experience stress when they perceive organizational injustice, which drains resources and potentially harms job performance and future career opportunities [39,40]. The following hypothesis may be formulated based on the above:

H5. 

Organizational injustice has an impact on CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector.

2.10. The Mediating Role of OC in the Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and CWBs

Recent research has investigated the links between toxic leadership, organizational cynicism, and CWBs [42]. discovered that toxic leadership promotes workplace deviance, with emotional exhaustion as a mediator. Organizational cynicism exacerbates this impact, implying that unfavorable sentiments about the organization might worsen the harm produced by toxic leadership. Similarly, ref. [116] found a correlation between autocratic leadership and CWBs among Pakistani police officers, with emotional exhaustion moderating the relationship and reinforcing organizational cynicism. Hattab et al. [117] investigated the influence of toxic leadership on CWBs and employee turnover, finding that toxic leadership is associated with both CWBs and the desire to quit the organization. These studies highlight the harmful impact of organizational cynicism in aggravating the negative consequences of toxic leadership, emphasizing the need to address toxic leadership to enhance organizational performance and employee well-being. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:

H6. 

OC mediates the link between toxic leadership and CWBs.

2.11. The Mediating Role of OIJ in the Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and CWBs

Recent studies have explored the connections between toxic leadership, organizational injustice, and CWBs, Rosado’s [118] dissertation examined how abusive supervision (AS), a form of toxic leadership, negatively affects organizational behavior, leading to workplace deviance and CWBs. The research highlights the destructive impact of TL on employee conduct and organizational culture. Similarly, ref. [88] investigated the role of psychological contract breach as a mediator between AS and CWBs, demonstrating that AS provokes employee indignation and reduces productivity, further emphasizing the detrimental effects of toxic leadership on work outcomes. In another study [119] explored the influence of toxic leadership on job satisfaction, organizational identity, and turnover intentions. Their findings show that TL creates a toxic work environment, contributing to adverse behaviors and increased employee turnover intentions. Together, these studies underline the significant role of organizational injustice in shaping the relationship between TL and CWBs. They stress the importance of addressing TL and perceived injustices within organizations to mitigate their negative consequences on employee performance and organizational effectiveness. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:

H7. 

OIJ mediates the link between toxic leadership and CWBs.

2.12. Gender as Moderator Between Toxic Leadership and CWBs

Studies on gender dynamics inside organizations have predominantly concentrated on role stereotyping and gender discrimination. At the same time, more emphasis should be placed on the divergent ways in which men and women process information [120]. The selectivity theory [121] posits that women engage in more detailed information processing, rendering them more attuned to discrepancies, whereas males prefer heuristic processing, concentrating on the overarching message. This disparity in processing may influence the perceptions of leaders by men and women, especially in detrimental settings. Women’s meticulous processing enables them to discern misleading cues more accurately, whereas males are less inclined to detect tiny inconsistencies. Meanwhile, refs. [122,123] identify two processing strategies: a meticulous, labor-intensive approach yielding more accuracy and a schema-driven, more straightforward method resulting in lower precision. The selectivity hypothesis proposes that gender-based variations in processing patterns may impact how followers perceive toxic leadership, encouraging the creation of hypotheses to investigate this dynamic further. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:

H8. 

Gender as a moderate the link between toxic leadership and CWBs.

3. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 displays the theoretical framework and the predicted relationships between its components.

4. Methodology

4.1. Procedures and a Sample Questionnaire

This study concentrates on primary data collected from the Egyptian higher education sector and is grounded on empirical research. Thus, to reach a larger sample of potential respondents, the survey methodology employed an online questionnaire disseminated by personal email and social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Viber, and Facebook. Researchers distributed 700 surveys. A total of 392 respondents completed the questionnaires, yielding a response rate of 56%, which is reasonably satisfactory considering the nature of this study. A total of 308 were returned, not completed, ineligible, or refused. The data were collected from 16 November 2023, until 27 February 2024.

A 5-point Likert scale was employed to assess each item, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Prior to conducting the survey, the questionnaire underwent a pretest by ten higher education scholars who evaluated it to ensure that all the measuring criteria were comprehensible and unambiguous. Furthermore, the participants were assessed as a focus group, enabling us to obtain more comprehensive feedback about the issues discussed during the individual interactions (e.g., understanding of questions and terminology, fluency, clarity of instructions and inquiries, absence of supplied options, and duration). Furthermore, ambiguous wording and items were revised, presented to the respondents, and incorporated into the final edition of the survey. Upon completing the final enhancements, the survey was dispatched to the respondents.

In general, consent from the participants was obtained on a fully informed and freely given basis. The survey was carefully presented to them to encourage a high response rate. The respondents were provided with comprehensive details about the investigation, including the title and goal of the investigation, details about the authors, the study sample and who was being asked to participate, the types of data required, declarations about privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity, as well as assurances about data security and use of the data solely for scientific research purposes, etc. To reduce potential biases, the preliminary results called for the order of concepts in the survey to be randomized.

This study employed structured equation modeling (SEM) utilizing the AMOS 25 software to examine the relationships among the components of the proposed model. To ascertain the structural model’s validity, the research model’s hypotheses were assessed after conducting a confirmatory factor analysis.

4.2. Measures and Operational Definitions

Our independent variable, toxic leadership, consists of statements from which we adopted 24 items [73]. The items measure the respondents’ evaluation (TL) of employees, for instance: makes subordinates responsible for tasks outside of their job responsibilities; controls how subordinates perform assignments; has a sense of personal entitlement; has a drastic shift in mood when his or her supervisor is there; and allows his or her present mood to shape the working atmosphere.

Second, OC was assessed using six-item measures from [124]. The respondents assessed the OC of workers, for example: the organization’s policies, goals, and procedures do not reflect what is happening on the ground; the organization wants employees to perform a task but does not compensate them; and becomes uneasy when thinking about their organization.

Third, OIJ was assessed using 18 items from [85]. Respondents assessed the OIJ of workers, for example: Were you able to convey your thoughts and feelings during those procedures? Does your (result) represent the effort you have put into your work? Did he or she treat you politely? Did (he/she) describe the processes thoroughly?

Lastly, the independent variable CWBs were measured using 7 items from [125]. Respondents evaluated the CWBs of employees, for instance: started false stories about their organization and concealed their faults; competed with their coworkers in an unproductive manner; they stayed out of sight to avoid employment; they took institutional equipment or commodities; and they blame their coworkers for their mistakes.

Table 1. The operational definitions of the conceptual framework.

Variable	Dimensions	Measurement Scale
Independent Variable: TL	Abusive supervision	[73]
	Authoritarian leadership
	Narcissism
	Self-promotion
	Unpredictability
Mediator: OC		[124]
Mediator: OIJ	Procedural justice	[126]
	Distributive justice
	Interpersonal justice
	Informational justice
Dependent Variable: CWBs		[125]

indicates the operational definitions of the conceptual framework.

5. Results and Findings

To guarantee the investigation’s validity and confirm that the study’s valid responses were representative of the study population, a non-response bias test, common method bias, and common method variance (CMV) were used. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis, average variance extracted, Fornell & Larcker criteria, and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio were employed to verify the study constructs’ discriminant and convergent validity. These comprehensive methods collectively ensure the robustness and credibility of the research findings.

A technique for determining a measurement model construct’s dependability is composite reliability (CR). A more robust measure of overall reliability, coefficient alpha (CR), evaluates the internal consistency [127]. The research findings indicate that the correlation coefficients for various factors are as follows: abusive supervision = 0.878; narcissism = 0.875; authoritarian leadership = 0.827; self-promotion = 0.921; unpredictability = 0.918; procedural justice = 0.920; distributive justice = 0.829; interpersonal justice = 0.843; informational justice = 0.852; organizational cynicism = 0.829; and CWBs = 0.944. The measuring approach has strong reliability for all constructs.

At all times, the AVE (average variances extracted) needs to be more than 0.50, as “[127]” states. Organizational cynicism, CWBs, procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice, self-promotion, authoritarian leadership, narcissism, and unpredictability all have average values (AVE) of over 0.50. It appears that the structural model evaluation may concur with the findings of these measurements being suitable.

5.1. Measurement Model Result

The AMOS program was used to conduct a (CFA) on the 11 factors. The degree of freedom (DF) was 1268, which should be more than or equal to 0. The value of χ²/DF is 1.923, which is less than 3.0 and should be less than or equal to 3.0. The RMSEA was calculated to be 0.044, which is less than 0.08. The TLI index is 0.928, which is quite close to 1.0. A value of 1.0 represents a perfect match. The CFI was 0.934. The indices in the CFA analysis are all close to 1.0, indicating that the measurement models substantially support the factor structure developed using the CFA, as seen in

Table 2. Measurement’ model result.

Goodness of Fit Measures	Name of Index	Model Result	Remark
Chi-Square	χ2	2437.829	accepted
Degrees of Freedom	DF	1268	accepted
Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom	χ2/DF	1.923	accepted
Comparative Fit’ Index	CFI	0.934	accepted
Tucker Lewis Index	TLI	0.928	accepted
Root Mean’ Square Error of Approximation	RMSEA	0.044	accepted

.

The measurement model’s parameter estimations and overall fit index are derived using the maximum likelihood (ML) approach, as indicated in [128]; the study met or approximated the essential requirements for employing ML estimation. The sample size is appropriate (n = 390), and above the recommended minimum of 384 occurrences [127]; the observed variables are continuous; and no multivariate normality violations were discovered in the survey responses. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with AMOS to evaluate the measurement model.

Thirty-nine observable variables quantify these 11 hidden variables.

Table 3. Item loading.

Variable	Construct and Item	Standardized Loading
Abusive supervision	Holds subordinates responsible for things outside their job descriptions	0.758
	Is not considerate about subordinates’ commitments outside of work	0.829
	Speaks poorly about subordinates to other people in the workplace	0.771
	Reminds subordinates of their past mistakes and failures	0.795
	Tells subordinates they are incompetent	0.802
Authoritarian leadership	Controls how subordinates complete their tasks	0.508
	Invades the privacy of subordinates	0.737
	Does not permit subordinates to approach goals in new ways	0.859
	Is inflexible when it comes to organizational policies, even in specialcircumstances	0.891
Narcissism	Has a sense of personal entitlement	0.713
	Assumes that he/she is destined to enter the highest ranks of the organization	0.763
	Thinks that he/she is more capable than others	0.795
	Believes that he/she is an extraordinary person	0.747
	Thrives on compliments and personal accolades	0.796
Self-Promotion	Drastically changes his/her demeanor when his/her supervisor is present	0.853
	Denies responsibility for mistakes made in his/her unit	0.909
	Will only offer assistance to people who can help him/her get ahead	0.907
	Accepts credit for successes that do not belong to him/her	0.758
	Acts only in the best interest of his/her next promotion	0.748
Unpredictability	Allows his/her current mood to define the climate of the workplace	0.827
	Expresses anger at subordinates for unknown reasons	0.887
	Varies in his/her degree of approachability	0.838
	Causes subordinates to try to “read” his/her mood	0.881
	Affects the emotions of subordinates when impassioned	0.757
Organizational cynicism	The organization’s policies, goals, and practices do not match with what is really happening on the ground	0.866
	The organization expects workers to do something, but does not reward them	0.727
	I feel uncomfortable when I think about my organization	0.594
	I complain to my external friends about how things are managed within the organization	0.821
	I share common views with a specific meaning about the organization with my colleagues at work	0.799
	I criticize the organization’s practices and policies in front of others	0.542
Procedural justice	Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures?	0.831
	Have those procedures been applied consistently?	0.891
	Have those procedures been free of bias?	0.857
	Have those procedures been based on accurate information?	0.871
	Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?	0.814
	Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures?	0.748
Distributive justice	Does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work?	0.721
	Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed?	0.774
	Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization?	0.725
	Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance?	0.739
Interpersonal justice	Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?	0.735
	Has (he/she) treated you with dignity?	0.805
	Has (he/she) treated you with respect?	0.733
	Has (he/she) refrained from making improper remarks or comments?	0.755
Informational justice	Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?	0.844
	Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?	0.840
	Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?	0.814
	Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals’ specific needs?	0.554
Counterproductive work Behaviors (CWBs)	Started negative rumors about your company	0.796
	Covered up your mistakes	0.906
	Competed with your coworkers in an unproductive way	0.873
	Stayed out of sight to avoid work	0.878
	Took company equipment or merchandise	0.867
	Blamed your coworkers for your mistakes	0.786
	Intentionally worked slowly	0.765

shows the standardized loadings of the measurement items used to assess the internal consistency of the constructs inside the measurement model. Each construct’s internal consistency was good, with standardized loadings ranging from 0.508 to 0.909, above the minimum criteria of 0.50.

Using many indicators for a single dependent or independent variable is made possible by the measurement approach, as stated in [127]. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), researchers may determine how reliable a scale is and how much weight each component carries in determining the overall notion. After that, the scales are used to estimate the relationships between dependent and independent variables in the structural model. A method that uses factor scores in regression analysis and factor analysis of the items on the scale is similar to this approach. One way to quantify the trustworthiness of a measurement model construct is through composite reliability (CR). CR evaluates the construct’s consistency and is thus a more informative indicator of overall reliability [127].

Table 4. Model validity measures.

Variables	Composite Reliability CR	Average Variances Extracted AVE	Maximum Reliability MaxR (H)	Abusive Supervision	Narcissism	Authoritarian Leadership	Self-Promotion	Unpredictability	Procedural Justice	Distributive Justice	Interpersonal Justice	Informational Justice	CWBs	Organizational Cynicism
Abusive Supervision	0.878	0.591	0.884	0.769
Narcissism	0.875	0.583	0.877	0.040	0.764
Authoritarian Leadership	0.827	0.561	0.890	0.583 ***	0.087	0.749
Self-Promotion	0.921	0.702	0.936	0.572 ***	0.032	0.777 ***	0.838
Unpredictability	0.918	0.737	0.921	0.018	0.099 †	0.023	0.063	0.859
Procedural justice	0.920	0.698	0.925	0.364 ***	0.084	0.600 ***	0.598 ***	0.023	0.836
Distributive justice	0.829	0.548	0.830	0.041	−0.131 *	−0.011	−0.037	−0.018	−0.038	0.740
Interpersonal justice	0.843	0.574	0.846	0.108 *	0.733 ***	0.044	0.068	0.087 †	0.074	−0.025	0.758
Informational justice	0.852	0.597	0.879	0.312 ***	−0.001	0.189 ***	0.282 ***	0.058	0.350 ***	−0.030	−0.043	0.772
CWBs	0.944	0.706	0.950	0.471 ***	0.071	0.793 ***	0.649 ***	0.023	0.699 ***	0.036	0.110 *	0.292 ***	0.840
Organizational cynicism	0.829	0.591	0.895	0.625 ***	0.134 *	0.733 ***	0.763 ***	−0.009	0.665 ***	0.005	0.139 **	0.359 ***	0.762 ***	0.769

Note: The elements on the diagonal (values in parentheses) represent the square root of (AVE). † p < 0.100; * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001.

shows that the CR of abusive supervision = 0.878; narcissism = 0.875; authoritarian leadership = 0.827; self-promotion = 0.921; unpredictability = 0.918; procedural justice = 0.920; distributive justice = 0.829; interpersonal justice = 0.843; informational justice = 0.852; organizational cynicism = 0.829; and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) = 0.944. The measuring methodology indicates that all constructs exhibit substantial dependability. The items in the measurement model have standardized loading estimates of 0.5 or higher, which indicates that the measurement model is valid and reliable. The estimates vary from 0.508 to 0.909 at the 0.05 level of significance. A construct’s discriminant validity reveals how different it is from other constructs [127]. According to [127], the average variances extracted (AVE) must never exceed 0.50. According to Table 4, the specific constructions’ average variances extracted (AVE) of the particular constructs (abusive supervision = 0.591; narcissism = 0.583; authoritarian leadership = 0.561; self-promotion = 0.702; unpredictability = 0.737; procedural justice = 0.698; distributive justice = 0.548; interpersonal justice = 0.574; informational justice = 0.597; organizational cynicism = 0.591; and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) = 0.706) are more than 0.500. Overall, these measurement results are satisfactory and suggest that it is appropriate to proceed with the evaluation of the structural model. Moreover, the model demonstrated discriminant validity. According to [129], the AVE square root needs to be greater than all the component correlations to guarantee discriminant validity. Table 4 shows that discriminant validity is shown by the square root of the AVE (main diagonal) consistently being more significant than the correlations among the components. Furthermore, [128] suggests that discriminant validity is shown when the correlation between the two constructs is less than their respective composite reliabilities (CR). The correlations have lower values than their associated reliabilities, as seen in Table 4. As a result, the discriminant validity of the measures used is confirmed by all the constructs.

5.2. Structural Model

In SEM, numerous fitness indices indicate the model’s data adequacy. Nonetheless, researchers lack consensus on which fitness indices to employ. [127] advises using at least one fitness metric from each type of model fit. There are three types of model fits: absolute fit, incremental fit, and parsimonious fit.

Table 5. Structural model-final results.

Goodness of Fit Measures	Name of Index	Model Result	Remark
Chi-Square	χ2	2824.260	accepted
Degrees of Freedom	DF	1310	accepted
Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom	χ2/DF	2.156	accepted
Comparative Fit’ Index	CFI	0.914	accepted
Tucker Lewis Index	TLI	0.910	accepted
Root Mean’ Square Error of Approximation	RMSEA	0.049	accepted

shows the model fit indices for the structural model and the appropriate cutoff values. The goodness-of-fit statistics show that the structural model accurately matches the data. Figure 2 shows the structural model.

The results of the individual significance tests that were performed to evaluate the correlation between the variables are shown in

Table 6. Hypothesized path of the final SEM.

Hypothesized Path			Estimate	Critical Ratio (C.R)	Significance Level (p-Value)
Organizational Cynicism	←	Toxic Leadership	0.973	18.090	***
Organizational Injustice	←	Toxic Leadership	0.781	13.190	***
(CWBs)	←	Toxic Leadership	0.361	2.838	0.005
(CWBs)	←	Organizational Cynicism	0.832	14.951	***
(CWBs)	←	Organizational Injustice	0.430	3.186	0.001

Note: p value (***) meaning is less than 0.001.

. The results show that toxic leadership is positively associated with CWBs (β = 0.361, CR (critical ratio) = 2.838, CR > 1.96, p = 0.005, p < 0.05). Thus, the hypothesis H1 (toxic leadership influences CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector) is confirmed. The following findings further support H2 (that toxic leadership has an effect on OC in Egypt’s higher education sector): β = 0.973; CR = 18.090; CR > 1.96; p = 0.000; and p < 0.05). In relation to H3 (that in Egypt’s higher education sector, toxic leadership is associated with organizational injustice), according to the results, the statistics support this, with a beta coefficient of 0.781, a critical ratio of 13.190 (over the threshold of 1.96), and a p-value of 0.000 (less than 0.05).

Furthermore, the findings support H4 (organizational cynicism influences CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector), with significant results (β = 0.832, CR (critical ratio) = 14.951; CR > 1.96; p = 0.000; and p < 0.05).

In relation to CWBs and H5 (organizational injustice affect Egypt’s higher education): With a beta coefficient (β) of 0.430, a critical ratio (CR) of 3.186, and a p-value of 0.001, all below the significance level of 0.05, the results are noteworthy. Thus, the hypothesis is confirmed.

Toxic leadership and CWBs have a strong indirect effect on OC, as shown in

Table 7. Mediating significant.

Mediating Path	Significance Level (p-Value)
Effect Toxic Leadership on CWBs Through Organizational Cynicism	0.004
Effect Toxic Leadership on CWBs Through Organizational Injustice	0.001

(p = 0.004, p < 0.05). According to the mediation research, OC appears to act as a go-between for toxic leadership and CWBs.

According to study results, OC mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector H6, was found to be supported by the study’s findings. Also, through organizational injustice, toxic leadership had a substantial indirect effect on CWBs (p = 0.001, p < 0.05). An examination of the mediation process has shown that organizational injustice partially mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and CWBs. As a result, organizational injustice OIJ mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector H7, has been confirmed.

5.3. Gender Effect Analysis

Table 8. Gender effect analysis—multi-group analysis.

Path Name	Male		Female
	Beta (β) Value	Significance (p-Value)	Beta (β) Value	Significance (p-Value)
CWBs ← Toxic Leadership	0.381	***	0.342	***

Note: p value (***) meaning is less than 0.001.

shows the gender interaction effect on the toxic leadership and CWB connection. With a beta (β) value of 0.381 for males and 0.342 for females, the association between toxic leadership and CWBs is more robust for males. Gender moderates the association between toxic leadership and CWBs in the Egyptian higher education sector, therefore confirming H8.

6. Discussions

According to Yıldız & Şaylıkay [130], leadership functions inside the government’s structure, extending from the highest levels to the interactions between followers and leaders on an individual level. Policies and laws enacted by national governments have an impact on the leadership at higher levels. At the individual level, leader–member exchange (LMX) pertains to a psychological agreement that workers create before joining an organization [9,131]. In addition, the dynamic between leaders and followers influences the relational process [132].

This study emphasizes the importance of leadership in the one-on-one contact between leaders and followers in the higher education sector in Egypt. Instead of seeing leadership practices as a collection of government directives, we should see them as multifaceted phenomena involving individuals and communities. This study lends credence to other research that has shown how toxic leaders might impact workers’ CWBs [45,133,134,135,136].

This study’s findings indicate that toxic leadership is a major contributor to the prevalence of organizational cynicism in Egypt’s higher education sector. Toxic leadership traits, including abusive supervision, narcissism, self-promotion, unpredictability, and authoritarianism may positively influence organizational cynicism. Hamzah [137] indicates that this finding aligns with prior research demonstrating a positive correlation between toxic leadership and organizational cynicism [104,138,139,140].

Indeed, leadership plays a crucial role in either encouraging or restricting the occurrence of cynical behaviors within an organization. This is because the leadership establishes plans, policies, and programs that reflect its vision, philosophy, and ideas. The leadership may successfully curb the growth of organizational cynicism by establishing a welcoming workplace that supports engagement in realizing these goals and objectives. Creating a hostile work environment can occur when subordinates are exposed to toxic leadership behaviors, such as aggressive and self-centered practices, exclusion from decision-making processes, constant emphasis on their shortcomings, and placing blame on them. As a result, subordinates may develop organizational cynicism as a defense mechanism. Furthermore, an adaptive mechanism is observed, resulting in an increase in and consolidation of the level of organizational cynicism within the organization being examined.

There is also evidence that toxic leadership contributes to institutional inequity in Egypt’s universities. According to research by Reyhanoglu & Akin [109], there is a negative correlation between toxic leadership and organizational fairness. Their conclusions are supported and reinforced by this outcome. The findings also showed that CWBs at Egypt’s universities are influenced by organizational cynicism. The findings are consistent with those of [33,137,141], all of which identified that CWBs are greatly affected by organizational cynicism. This is because CWB is an unfavorable outcome of organizational cynicism. Therefore, employees’ cynical tendencies towards the company might lead to antisocial actions that hurt the company and its workers. Organizational injustice affects CWBs in Egypt’s higher education sector, according to this study’s findings. In a similar context, Dajani & Saad [126] found that CWBs are significantly related to organizational injustice (in all forms), based on their research in the Egyptian public sector. Additionally, they demonstrated that CWB is elevated in people when there is organizational injustice [142,143]. This demonstrates that CWBs is perpetrated by those who are very envious of unfair situations [68]. Based on the results, OC plays a mediating role in the relationship between TL and CWBs. Furthermore, OIJ is involved in mediating the relationship between TL and CWBs to some extent. Gender is a mitigating factor in the relationship between TL and CWBs in Egypt’s higher education sector.

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach to transforming the organizational culture and leadership practices within higher education institutions in Egypt. Firstly, fostering a culture of openness and accountability is paramount. Leaders must exhibit transparency in their decision-making processes and ensure responsibility for themselves and their subordinates [144]. This can be achieved by instituting a system of checks and balances, promoting transparent communication, and cultivating a culture of trust and respect. By doing so, leaders can reduce organizational cynicism and enhance perceptions of fairness.

Secondly, encouraging a sense of community within the organization is essential. Leaders should promote cooperation, teamwork, and a common purpose [144]. This can be facilitated by fostering cross-functional teams, advocating for mentorship and coaching, and recognizing individual and collective accomplishments. A strong community can mitigate the effects of toxic leadership by enhancing employee engagement and reducing CWBs.

Embedding sustainable practices into the university culture is another critical strategy. Sustainable practices should be integrated through staff participation and inclusion, which is especially important in higher education. Engaging employees ensures the active incorporation of sustainability into daily operations, pedagogical approaches, and research projects. Aligning employee contributions with sustainability standards helps achieve sustainability objectives and fosters a sense of responsibility and ownership among staff. Promoting servant leadership is also vital in creating a positive organizational atmosphere. Servant leadership emphasizes followers’ needs and empowers them to take responsibility for their tasks [145]. This approach fosters cooperation, empathy, and a sense of belonging, thereby reducing toxic behaviors and enhancing organizational justice.

Furthermore, encouraging a sense of responsibility within the organization can significantly impact CWBs. Leaders should cultivate a culture of accountability by motivating followers to take ownership of their tasks. This can be accomplished by establishing explicit expectations, providing support and resources, and ensuring accountability for followers’ activities. A culture of responsibility aligns individual actions with organizational goals, thereby reducing CWBs. Addressing toxic behaviors directly is also crucial. Leaders must confront toxic behaviors, including abuse, harassment, and discrimination, by implementing a zero-tolerance policy and providing support to victims [25]. This includes offering resources for incident reporting, counseling, and support services, as well as enforcing disciplinary measures against offenders. Confronting toxic behaviors can significantly reduce organizational cynicism and CWBs.

In addition, adapting the higher education curriculum to align with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) is essential. Business curriculums should prepare managers with a mentality focused on environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and corporate social responsibility while developing management abilities for sustainable development [146,147]. Educating future leaders on these principles can foster more ethical and sustainable leadership practices, reducing the likelihood of toxic leadership and its negative consequences. By implementing these strategies—fostering openness and accountability, encouraging community, embedding sustainable practices, promoting servant leadership, encouraging responsibility, confronting toxic behaviors, and adapting the higher education curriculum—higher education institutions in Egypt can address the adverse effects of toxic leadership, reduce organizational cynicism, and mitigate CWBs. These measures will contribute to fostering a more positive, fair, and productive organizational environment, ultimately enhancing the overall effectiveness and sustainability of Egypt’s higher education sector.

Ultimately, non-formal educational methods that facilitate lifelong learning for sustainability present a significant potential for promoting Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) [148]. Higher education institutions can utilize this educational strategy by offering non-credit courses on sustainability for community members and partnering with NGOs to conduct workshops and seminars on the topic. Education for sustainability may be advanced by establishing unique multidisciplinary degrees and programs that integrate many aspects of sustainability. On this basis, units for professional development and entrepreneurship that promote the cultivation of leadership qualities and engagement in societal research initiatives may be instituted. Thus, higher education institutions will fulfill their social duties to society while enhancing cultural comprehension of sustainable development, which will impact the quality of education in the future.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

This research enhances several areas of the academic literature. First, it fills a gap in the existing literature by examining the influence of toxic leadership on CWBs in a specific context where this leadership style may be more common and accepted. Previous studies have primarily concentrated on the consequences of toxic leadership in Western and developed nations, which may have different cultural and institutional factors compared to the Egyptian context [149,150].

Second, a comprehensive model is examined in this study to determine the role of OC and organizational injustice as mediators between toxic leadership and CWBs. Despite claims that these two elements may provide light on the ways in which toxic leadership affects workers’ attitudes and actions, the empirical evidence for this claim is limited and conflicting [151]. In this study, the importance of each mediator is determined and the direct and indirect impacts of toxic leadership on CWBs are evaluated.

Third, this study contributes to the existing literature on toxic leadership, organizational cynicism, and organizational injustice in Egypt’s higher education system. They are all deemed significant at the 5% level of significance, as per the analysis. The estimated structural model supports the five hypotheses. The toxic leadership construct accounted for 94.6% of the variation in organizational cynicism (R² = 0.946), 61% of the variation in organizational injustice (R² = 0.610), and 72.6% of the variation in CWBs (R² = 0.726) through its interaction with organizational injustice and organizational cynicism.

6.2. Practical Contributions

This research uses organizational injustice and organizational cynicism as a framework to explain the connection between toxic leadership and CWBs. If managers wish to know why their employees are acting destructively and defiantly, they may utilize this study’s results to build a fairer and more supportive workplace that makes people feel more valued, gives them more agency, and boosts their sense of purpose.

OC, organizational injustice, and toxic leadership all have a negative influence on the attitudes and behaviors of employees. This study can help them recognize these consequences, overcome them, and seek justice and a voice in the institution concerned. Research like this can also aid policymakers in Egypt’s higher education sector in keeping tabs on workplace cynicism and injustice, as well as in implementing changes and interventions to make organizational practices and processes fairer and of higher quality.

Moreover, the study sheds light on the negative consequences of toxic leadership in the workplace, which is especially important in developing nations (specifically, Egypt’s higher education sector), where such leadership is likely more prevalent. This study can assist managers in recognizing and proactively addressing toxic leadership, as well as in formulating efficient approaches to manage and minimize its adverse effects on both personnel and the business. This research can also assist employees in identifying and evading the impact of toxic leadership, as well as in seeking assistance and safeguarding from appropriate channels. It can also assist policymakers in implementing and enforcing legislation and regulations that prohibit and penalize toxic leadership while promoting ethical and responsible leadership.

6.3. Practical Implications

The results of this study have significant implications for practical application. First and foremost, administrators in the higher education sector should prioritize the development of an organizational justice culture within the workplace. The ultimate objective is to reduce the occurrence of CWBs by committing sincere efforts and resources to reduce perceptions of organizational injustice. The implementation of continuous career development and training initiatives for supervisors and administrators serves as an illustration of this. This will equip them to successfully lead by example and make them trustworthy figures for those working under them [142]. Furthermore, the higher education sector should implement effective and punitive actions of procedural justice to address various offenses appropriately, ensuring equal treatment for all employees without any bias or exemptions [152].

Moreover, possessing an awareness and comprehension of the detrimental outcomes and negative impacts of CWBs (referred to as informational justice) might reduce their occurrence among employees. Upon becoming aware of their CWBs, some workers may feel shame and sorrow, prompting them to embrace a more structured approach and actively participate in beneficial discretionary acts. These behaviors, such as adopting organizational citizenship behavior, are intended to make up for their misconduct and CWBs, eventually leading to an improved sense of moral self-esteem [153,154]. Moreover, to gain a competitive advantage, the higher education sector should adopt proactive counseling tactics and human resource interventions to monitor the degrees of job alienation among employees closely. This is essential because feeling alienated from work as a result of unfairness might contribute to their engagement in CWBs.

7. Conclusions

The researchers in this study set out to learn how toxic leadership affects CWBs in Egypt’s higher education institutions. The study also examines the role of organizational injustice and organizational cynicism as intermediaries in this connection. It found that CWBs, organizational cynicism, and organizational injustice are all significantly correlated with toxic leadership. Furthermore, both OIJ and CWBs are correlated statistically with cynicism in the workplace. OC and OIJ partially mediate the link between toxic leadership and CWBs. This study will lay the groundwork for future studies on how to prevent employees from acting out in a dysfunctional manner on the job as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction with what they see as unfair working circumstances and their lack of dedication to the institutions.

8. Research Limitations and Future Directions

Our study confirms that toxic leadership influences CWBs through OC and organizational injustice, which is a substantial contribution; it is essential to acknowledge its limitations, which are outlined below. In addition, we suggest potential areas of investigation for the long-term viability, endurance, and inventive conduct of organizations.

First, this study investigates the impact of toxic leadership on the Egyptian higher education system. Due to cultural disparities, it is imperative to carry out comparable research on personnel within the higher education industry in other Middle Eastern nations. The scientific value of conducting empirical analyses on organizational members from diverse nations and cultures lies in determining whether similar outcomes may be produced.

Second, this study exclusively examined the roles of OC and OIJ as mediators in the link between toxic leadership and CWBs. In addition to those variables, however, we propose that other variables, including emotional exhaustion, trust in leaders, and employee-leadership match, also serve as mediators of this relationship.

The third point we recommend includes using organizational and political behavior as a moderator between toxic leadership and CWBs. Along with organizational and political behavior, other elements pertaining to individuals and organizations must be considered. Considering the organization’s workers’ political views and abilities is crucial from a personal perspective. The reason for this is that leaders and employees may govern their exchange and feedback interactions through political skill, which is a component of interpersonal effectiveness [155]. One definition of organizational and political perception is an individual’s subjective assessment of political and organizational behaviors and events [156]. Research pertaining to organizations in the future should center on their political atmosphere. This is because the political and organizational climate will always have an impact on employees’ psychological and behavioral states; this corresponds with the widely held belief about how much power the organization’s structure uses to dictate how decisions are made, how resources are distributed, and how goals are achieved [157]. This means that future studies need to identify and confirm the moderating effects of these factors.

Finally, there are two factors to consider: the preponderance of the respondents were employees, and the investigation was not intentionally classified. Standard method bias (CMB) and variable over-correlation are potential outcomes of this strategy. Future studies should focus on developing more efficient survey methods so that employees may provide feedback on leadership concerns. It is also essential for leaders to address questions about the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of their staff; doing so will increase the value of the data.