In this case analysis, we apply the toxic triangle framework, in its entirety, to a public university upon the entry of a new president. We found considerable fit of the theoretical triad to the university: a destructive leader, an enabling environment, and susceptible followers. Consistent with the theory, an environment that lacked fundamental checks and balances, coupled with instability and perceived threats, spawned the conditions that brought a toxic leader to the institution, which, in turn, revealed and fostered conformers and colluders. We describe three episodes (critical incidents) that show how the toxic triangle evolved and strengthened over time. We also offer a critical examination of all three components of the toxic triangle with a special focus on the psychosocial forces that paralyzed even tenured faculty from resisting. In this critical examination, organizational miasma, rationalizations, and control myths provide substantive explanations for ineffective employee action. Further, we suggest that leadership as processual communication can be used to advance the value of the framework. We conclude by highlighting areas for future inquiry.

for their assistance in conducting this rssaar~h. Requests for raprirats should be made to a Joanne ~~hir~~: FO #~~fF u~~70 University Parkway, Ca.~ifY:~ia State University at San Bernardino, San ~a~ar~ir~, CA 92407-2397. ABSTRACT This study investigated changes in attitudes toward persons with disabilities among students in an introductory special education class (experimental group) and students in a general foundations of education class (control group). A multifaceted intervention consisting of information, contact, and persuasive messages was provided to students in the experimental condition during a 1 0-week course. Results indicated that students in the experimental group had significantly greater improvement in attitudes than students in the control group, as measured by the Attitudes toward Disabled Persons scale. Students in the experimental group reported that contact was significantly more influential in changing their attitudes than either information or persuasive messages.Since 1977, PL 94-142 has guaranteed students with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. For many students, the least restrictive environment will be mainstreamed classes. Although many factors influence the assimilation of students with disabilities into mainstreamed classes, one key factor is likely to be the attitudes of educators toward teaching students with disabilities.

No abstract

No abstract