09/22/2026
"Toxic at the Top" -What do you do when the problem starts at the top?
A news story out of Central Connecticut State University caught our collective attention this week. CCSU President Zulma Toro is currently under investigation following a formal workplace complaint. The investigation is ongoing, and no findings have been made.
According to WFSB’s reporting (https://www.wfsb.com/2026/09/09/ccsu-president-under-investigation-culture-fear-intimidation-bullying)
the complaint includes allegations of:
• Yelling at employees, including during a leadership retreat and in front of donors.
• Asking employees to perform personal tasks such as scheduling medical appointments, cutting food, and watching a dog in the office.
• Asking a Black woman who worked in the President's office to regularly prepare and serve coffee; the complaint alleges she was later transferred after declining.
WFSB has also reported that current and former employees described earlier concerns about troubling workplace interactions involving the president.
We routinely tell employees experiencing toxic behavior: Document. Report to HR. Follow the process. Escalate. Tell the Board.
But what happens when you do all of that—and nothing changes?
Documentation matters, but it cannot fix a system with weak accountability, fear of retaliation, or governing bodies unwilling to act in a just manner. And let's be frank: the research shows that many toxic leaders also deliver strong financial results. Boards may fear negative publicity, donor fallout, or disruption. Executives may also have seeded powerful allies within the very structures designed to hold them accountable.
Understanding not just the symptoms of toxic workplace conditions, but unveiling its root causes is one of the reasons I went back to pursue my doctorate in Leadership Studies at LSU Shreveport. As a doctoral candidate, I wanted to better understand what happens when leadership itself becomes a source of workplace harm—and what organizations must do differently when the greatest power sits with the person causing concern.
Too often, we blame employees for withdrawing, disengaging, or "quiet cracking." My national research suggests something different: quiet quitting is data. It can be a sign of workplace distress rather than simply a lack of commitment.
So a prevailing question remains: How do we hold powerful leaders accountable?
Beyond documentation, we need independent accountability, psychologically safe reporting structures, protection from retaliation, meaningful governance, and leaders willing to act on credible concerns.
We tell employees, If you see something, say something. Yet those who speak up are often the ones carrying the greatest risk. Net-net, what is often cast as an employee-relations problem is often a larger leadership and governance problem.
The president of Central Connecticut State University is under investigation after a complaint alleges a workplace culture characterized by “fear, oppressive control, intimidation, humiliation, and bullying.”
