Toxicity revisited: seven reasons why employers tolerate toxic behaviour
Image courtesy of Nijwan Swarjiary on Unsplash
Between December last year and January of this year, I posted three blogs about toxicity in the workplace. These blogs highlighted how this pernicious form of mischief manifests itself amongst those in leadership positions as well as across the wider workplace.
Since that time, I have been struck by the number of bloggers on Medium, who have posted on the subject and shared their own harrowing testimonies of workplace toxicity.
So why am I revisiting the issue?
Well, here in the UK, workplace toxicity is in the headlines in a big way. First, the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) was dismissed following complaints of inappropriate behaviour. Then two weeks later, the British Deputy Prime Minister resigned in the wake of a report, which substantiated allegations of bullying against him. By any measure, a sitting Deputy Prime Minister of a nation state and the Director General of a lobbying organisation, with global reach are major scalps. Their departures should serve as a powerful reminder, if such were needed, that the most effective cure for toxic behaviour is zero tolerance.
The actions taken respectively by the CBI and the British Government show what can and should be done, when such matters are given the attention, they deserve. However, they do not address the underlying problem. Fundamentally, toxicity is not evidenced by an ‘incident’ (a unique occurrence) it is evidenced by ‘incidence’ (an established pattern of behaviour). So why is it then, that employers tolerate toxic behaviour in the workplace?
1. The end justifies the means
Behaviour that is toxic, whether that be shouting, aggressive gestures, belittling, condescension or even threats can be seen as part and parcel of the workplace environment. A kind of canteen culture not dissimilar to that which can be found in society at large. All too often, this behaviour is normalised because at a fundamental level, if it enables the employer to achieve the desired productivity levels, then the end can be seen to justify the means. To that extent, there will inevitably be some employers who, whilst acknowledging toxic behaviour as an ‘evil’, may also judge it to be a necessary one, in the grander scheme of things.
2. The seniority of the perpetrators
This is probably the most common reason why toxic behaviour in the workplace is allowed to continue unchecked. The unevenness of power in an organisational hierarchy makes it possible for those who wield it to tip the scales in their favour and use their positions to intimidate those who should hold them to account. With such a power imbalance, highly paid executives or those considered to be ‘unsackable’, can remain beyond the reach of accountability. This is likely to remain the case unless or until, the executive or senior perpetrator commits an act so egregious that the employer is compelled to act or risk losing credibility.
3. The supervisors are as bad as the perpetrators.
There is nothing quite like the reflection of one’s own hypocrisy in silencing an accusatory tongue. The unfortunate truth is that perpetrators often act in the image of their leaders (not always, but often). In the classic style of monkey see, monkey do, these individuals find it possible to conduct themselves in ways that are anti-social because those in positions of power are doing exactly the same. This makes it even more difficult, to say nothing of embarrassing, for leaders to intercede and call out the very behaviour that they tacitly encourage by commission or omission.
4. Those who are experiencing it do not matter enough to stop it
A bit like in wider society, where power and privilege can procure ‘designer outcomes’, so it is within organisational settings. Those who occupy lower hierarchical layers have less power, leverage, and influence. Particularly so where the might and weight of an organisational machine is directed against them. In such situations, employees can feel extremely isolated as the organisation subtly and surreptitiously seeks to undermine an accuser’s credibility. With their situation seemingly untenable, the accuser will either be forced to quit and find employment elsewhere, or receive a severance payment, “without prejudice”.
5. They are not aware that it is happening
This is the ‘boiling frog’ defence. It is where the employer pleads ignorance to insulate themselves from the accusation of failing to act in timely fashion. As a defence, “I did not know it was happening’ is as weak as dishwater. Although, it is certainly true that any employee can commit a bad act, the fact that such behaviour becomes normative or widespread, is a damning indictment of an employer. Organisations are custodians of their workplace culture. They are sufficiently tooled whether that be through supervision, sickness absence data, appraisals, and other soft intelligence to ‘tune in’ to staff concerns. There are no excuses for ignorance.
6. It has not yet reached the ‘shame threshold’
There are two drivers of human behaviour: threats and benefits. The same principle applies to organisational behaviour. It is a sad indictment of any organisation that it might only choose to act decisively to address allegations of toxic behaviour when such behaviour or its discovery, rises to the level where serious damage to the employer’s reputation might result. Put more pointedly: some toxic behaviour may be deemed tolerable, depending on an organisation’s ‘shame threshold’ or appetite for humiliation. Wittingly or unwittingly, when organisations make accommodation for little sins, they invite the commission of even more serious ones.
7. The perceived damage of discovery
The act of sweeping potentially damaging revelations under the carpet, to avoid embarrassment, is not new. It works something like this: an organisation becomes aware of toxic behaviour and instead of exposing the conduct and taking decisive action, it calculates that greater damage will be done if the behaviour is brought to light (especially if doing so, will expose wider organisational failings). Therefore, the employer either does nothing in the hope that the matter will go away or has a quiet word with the perpetrator, in the hope that they will desist. Of course, often there is no such desistence, and the conduct simply escalates and becomes even more serious.
A 2021 report on the ‘culture economy’ indicated that toxic workplace culture costs the UK economy more than £20bn annually in lost productivity. This is a staggering sum of money that reveals a deep-rooted problem across the UK workforce. It also highlights the weakness of corporate leadership in setting and maintaining acceptable standards of employee conduct. Clearly, it is not possible to eliminate instances of unacceptable behaviour altogether. However, a bit like an unattended injury that becomes infected, toxicity is evidence of metastasis. The duty-of-care role that employers have is a serious one. The approach to organisational toxicity should not be an exercise in ‘failure demand’. Rather, employers must make it as difficult as possible for employees to engage in such behaviour to begin with, not wait until it is too late before they act.
