toxic workplace essay

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Time’s Up for Toxic Workplaces

• Manuela Priesemuth

Three ways to create an environment that doesn’t tolerate abuse.

Direct interactions with “bad bosses” can be traumatic, but the problem often goes further than a single individual. Research has shown that abusive behavior, especially when displayed by leaders, can spread throughout the organization, creating entire climates of abuse. But organizations also can also structure work environments that combat abuse by: 1) educating managers about all costs associated with abusive conduct; 2) strengthening anonymous feedback channels where employees can report their experience without fear of retribution; and 3) upholding and enforcing fair and equitable norms throughout the organization.

Millions of people face abusive supervisors and bullies at work . These employees are targets of ridicule, threats, or demeaning comments by their manager on a daily basis, which results in decreased satisfaction, productivity, and commitment to the job as well as the organization at large.

• MP Manuela Priesemuth is the Megan ’07 and Matthew ’06 Baldwin Assistant Professor of Management at Villanova University. Her research focuses on destructive leadership, workplace aggression, organizational fairness, and behavioral ethics.

Partner Center

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How a Toxic Work Environment Affects Mental Health

Carly Snyder, MD is a reproductive and perinatal psychiatrist who combines traditional psychiatry with integrative medicine-based treatments.

 Antonio Guillem / Getty Images

• How to Cope
• Reducing Workplace Toxicity

At a Glance

A toxic work environment can be caused by weak boundaries, low trust, and incivility. The impact on mental health can be serious. This not only hurts employees; it also harms organizations, which is why it is worth it to take steps to reduce workplace toxicity.

A toxic work environment is characterized by negative behaviors such as bullying , incivility, manipulation, discrimination, and a lack of trust. Not only is incivility in the workplace on the rise, but according to a recent study, it is compromising one of our most critical assets—our mental health .

One study published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology looked at the correlation between toxicity in the workplace and symptoms of insomnia, a common symptom of clinical depression .

On May 19, 2022, Verywell Mind hosted a virtual Mental Health in the Workplace webinar, hosted by Amy Morin, LCSW. If you missed it, check out  this recap  to learn ways to foster supportive work environments and helpful strategies to improve your well-being on the job.

Signs of a Toxic Work Environment

There are several signs that a work environment might be toxic. Some common features include:

• Excessive stress
• Lack of organizational support
• Poor group cohesion
• Poor interpersonal relationships
• Low enthusiasm
• High turnover
• Fear of failure
• Employee disengagement
• Harassment and discrimination
• Poor communication
• High absenteeism
• High employee turnover

What Causes a Toxic Work Environment?

Some factors that can contribute to a toxic work environment include:

Poor Boundaries

Toxic work environments are often characterized by a lack of boundaries . Employers may have excessively high expectations of their employees and push them to prioritize work above everything else.

This contributes to a poor work-life balance , which can ultimately undermine both mental health and workplace productivity.

Lack of Trust

In a toxic work environment, employees don't trust management or each other. And employers often demonstrate that they don't trust their workers. Micro-managing is the norm, and people are often left feeling like they are always being monitored.

This can put workers on edge and make it difficult to feel supported. This creates stress and reduces team collaboration.

Workplace Incivility

Workplace civility, as described by McKinsey and Company, is “the accumulation of thoughtless actions that leave employees feeling disrespected—intentionally ignored, undermined by colleagues, or publicly belittled by an insensitive manager.”

It is also defined as "low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect."

One of the hallmarks of toxic relationships is the presence of contempt. This is characterized by insensitivity, disgust, mocking, name-calling, and outright hostility.

Such behaviors undermine people's sense of self. It is also associated with decreased well-being.

Poor Sleep Quality

Sleep is a critical factor in our overall well-being , including our work performance. It has long been established that poor quality of sleep has significant implications for both our physical and psychological well-being.

For example, insufficient sleep increases a person's risk of developing serious medical conditions, including obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Additionally, lack of sleep over time has been associated with a shortened lifespan.

Negative Rumination

In examining the indirect effects of workplace incivility on symptoms of insomnia and thus overall health, the determining mechanism was found to be negative rumination , or the mentally replaying of an event or disturbing interaction with a co-worker long after the workday has ended."

Workplace toxicity causes people to ruminate over negative work events. This preoccupation contributes to increased workplace stress.

Given that most of us spend the better part of our days and our energy at work, increasing hostility in the workplace doesn’t bode well for our emotional or physical well-being. Research has associated toxic work environments with increased depression, substance use , and health issues among employees.

Further research has shown that organizations are suffering as well. These adverse effects include decreased productivity, lower levels of employee commitment, and increased turnover.

How to Cope With a Toxic Workplace

The good news is that sufficient recovery or coping techniques may be able to mitigate the negative effects of a toxic work environment on employee well-being. In particular, relaxation and psychological detachment.

The ability to psychologically detach from work during non-work hours and relaxation were shown to be the two mitigating factors that determined how workers were affected or not by a negative work environment.

Employees who were better able to detach psychologically are able to relax after work and sleep better even in the face of workplace incivility.

Below are descriptions of these recovery experiences and how they were shown to reduce the negative effects and enable employees to thrive in the most toxic of work environments.

Psychological Detachment

Psychological detachment represents an avoidance of work-related thoughts, actions, or emotions. Some of the items used in the study to measure employees' levels of psychological detachment in the evenings included the following: "I didn’t think about work at all" and "I distanced myself from my work."

Those who were able to detach themselves mentally from this cycle do not suffer as much sleep disruption as those who are less capable of detachment.

Detachment can be fostered through a variety of specific activities, including exercise. Planning future events, such as vacations or weekend outings with family or friends, are examples of positive distractions outside of work.

It should come as no surprise that prioritizing work-life balance was shown to be another effective buffer against the detrimental effects of workplace incivility. Relaxation has long been associated with fewer health complaints and less exhaustion and need for recovery.

Relaxation during non-work time can help buffer negative work rumination and insomnia symptoms. Additionally, it has been identified as a moderator between work characteristics and occupational well-being, between time demands and exhaustion, and between job insecurity and the need for recovery from work.

Relaxation provides an opportunity for individuals to halt work-related demands, which is critical for restoring individuals to their pre-stressor state.

Some activities outside of the office that can foster recovery include volunteering, meditation , taking a walk, listening to music, spending time with friends, and other positive social supports .

Press Play for Advice On Dealing With a Toxic Workplace

Hosted by Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast , featuring business expert Heather Monahan, shares how to survive a toxic workplace. Click below to listen now.

Subscribe Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

How to Change a Toxic Work Environment

Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest the following interventions that companies can address to reduce workplace incivility.

• Raise awareness
• Ensure protection for employees
• Ensure accountability
• Train and model appropriate behavior
• Train supervisors on aggression-prevention behaviors
•  Improve emotional resilience skills
• Offer training on recovery from work, mindfulness practices, emotional/social intelligence skills

You may not be able to control certain events during work hours or the characteristics of your workplace environment. However, what you do have control over is how you choose to cope. Most importantly, finding time to relax, spending time with friends and family, and engaging in activities that will shift your focus away from work during non-work hours.

If you find that you are still experiencing distressful symptoms and that they are interfering with your functioning, it may be a good idea to speak to a therapist who can help you learn additional strategies for coping.

If despite having done all you can still nothing has changed, it might be time to consider the possibility of removing yourself from the toxic environment and looking for a new, more fulfilling and less distressful job. Your health may depend on it.

Demsky CA, Fritz C, Hammer LB, Black AE. Workplace incivility and employee sleep: The role of rumination and recovery experiences . J Occup Health Psychol . 2019;24(2):228-240. doi:10.1037/ocp0000116

McKinsey & Company. The hidden toll of workplace incivility . 2016.

Torkelson E, Holm K, Bäckström M, Schad E. Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others . Work & Stress . 2016;30(2):115-131. doi:10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524

Xia B, Wang X, Li Q, He Y, Wang W. How workplace incivility leads to work alienation: A moderated mediation model .  Front Psychol . 2022;13:921161. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921161

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sleep and chronic disease .

Grandner MA. Sleep duration across the lifespan: implications for health . Sleep Med Rev . 2012;16(3):199-201. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2012.02.001

Torkelson E, Holm K, Bäckström M, Schad E. Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others . Work Stress . 2016;30(2):115-131. doi:10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524

Bridger RS, Day AJ, Morton K. Occupational stress and employee turnover . Ergonomics . 2013;56(11):1629-39. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.836251

Demsky CA, Fritz C, Hammer LB, Black AE. Workplace incivility and employee sleep: The role of rumination and recovery experiences. J Occup Health Psychol . 2018. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000116 .

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

So Your Workplace Is Toxic: How Can You Fix It?

May 21, 2019 • 14 min read.

Many workers believe that toxicity has become the new normal at work. Still, employees and managers can do a lot to combat it.

In a recent survey of tech workers, more than half the respondents said they believed they were working in an unhealthy work environment. Of 9,000 participants in the 2018 poll by Blind, an anonymous workplace app, a quarter of the Google employees who responded said they viewed their workplace as toxic; more than a third at Facebook thought so, too; and almost half at Amazon and Intel said they were laboring away under toxic conditions.

Nearly a fifth of American workers across a wider swath of industries said they faced a hostile or threatening work environment in a 2017 survey conducted by the Rand Corp., Harvard Medical School and UCLA.

Has toxicity at work become the new normal? Many workers believe that it is. “I think what we are seeing is more people resigned to the fact that toxicity is a natural state of the workplace, and that is inherently problematic,” says Wharton management professor Stephanie Creary.

But is the workplace really any more toxic than it once was? Not that long ago, after all, women were expected to endure sexually inappropriate overtures from bosses, LGBTQ+ workers quietly acquiesced to compartmentalizing their personal and professional lives, and African-American workers routinely met with various indignities, exclusions and a professional dead-end in many sectors and professions.

“I think what’s important to keep in mind is that perception is reality. Trying to track down the question of whether there is a real increase in toxicity is missing the point – the perception is clear that there is,” says Wharton marketing professor and identity theorist Americus Reed.

A good deal of that perception is being fueled by social media, Reed points out. Before social media, workers might have just tolerated a toxic environment with a that’s-just-the-way-it-is attitude. “Now, the echo chamber is happening, and so when people feel like things are toxic in the workplace there is this heightened sense that there is something that needs to be done in these environments. Now people are saying this affects the work, it affects good employees, it affects everyone. Social media has become a call to action.”

Employees and managers sincerely interested in modifying their environment will heed that call, but will do so smartly. “If people really want change to happen, they really need to take it upon themselves to propose solutions to change their environment. Not accepting the culture of toxicity or negativity is really important,” says Creary.

And there is actually quite a bit both employees and managers can do to combat the toxicity around them.

“I think what we are seeing is more people resigned to the fact that toxicity is a natural state of the workplace, and that is inherently problematic.” –Stephanie Creary

Defining Toxicity

Arriving at solutions is difficult when there’s no clear definition of what the problem is. “What’s the definition of a toxic workplace?” asks Peter Cappelli, Wharton management professor and director of the Center for Human Resources . “I’ve heard people talk about it as the result of a boss or even a coworker who is toxic. There can be cultures, like the Trump White House, where tearing each other down is encouraged. Does that count? I just saw it defined as any workplace where ‘the work, the atmosphere, the people, or any combination of those cause serious disruptions in the rest of your life.’ Wikipedia says ‘significant drama and infighting, personal battles.’ … I think that’s the problem – if it doesn’t have an understood definition, it isn’t possible to pin down the cause or talk about what to do about it.”

The most common situation, perhaps, is where “the boss acts like a dictator and actively punishes people who articulate different views or express disagreement,” Cappelli says. “In addition to people quitting, the big problem for the performance of the organization is that people sit on their hands, they don’t take the initiative to do anything, and they may actually sit back and watch the boss’s ideas fail even when they could be salvaged. Bosses like this usually have issues that no subordinate is going to address. Without an organization that is looking to see what is going on and is willing to intervene, there isn’t a lot subordinates can do except get out.”

Bosses as dictators are one thing, but often the problem is a boss who either doesn’t see a toxic environment developing, or sees it and underestimates its severity and the toll it is taking on productivity, turnover and the health of workers.

“I suspect much of the time they are unaware,” says Wharton’s Maurice Schweitzer, professor of operations, information and decisions. “Because our experiences at work are so profoundly shaped by the power we have, it very well could be that high-power people see the behavior and don’t perceive it to be a big problem, while lower-level people see it and perceive it to be extremely stressful. There is often a perspective-taking failure in the workplace. As people gain more power they fail to take the perspective of those with less power.”

A manager should be prepared to react quickly to a potentially toxic situation, and it’s smart to “err on the side of reacting too quickly but to do it in a trust-but-verify model,” says Reed. “And if it’s a serious problem in terms of psychological well-being and productivity, then something has to be done.”

One of the best strategies, he says, is for everyone to “come together as a group to create a new community norm about which the group agrees, and say, ‘We are going to call out this behavior and signal that this is not the culture we are going to accept and promote in our work environment.’ It takes some courage to do that, because it causes short-term pain to have those conversations, but it makes it harder to sweep things under the rug.”

Such a “peer review” method is a powerful way of articulating what the norms are, Reed says. It illustrates “social proof,” one of the “Six Principles of Influence” identified by psychologist and marketing expert Robert Cialdini. “When communities come together and tell you something in a common voice it’s very compelling. It’s a diverse set of voices telling you the same thing, so you perceive it as more credible and it’s not a top-down kind of thing.”

What the top leadership can do is to cultivate an atmosphere in which risk and failure are not only tolerated, but also celebrated. “If you want to be creative you have to generate ideas, and a lot of ideas won’t be good,” says Schweitzer. “If you stifle creativity and stifle important voices, people won’t speak up because they won’t want the attention that follows when others challenge and criticize their ideas. How do you fix that? Change the rules around how you hold meetings: Impose a no-interruption rule, have senior leaders speak last, promote anonymity as people share ideas, ask someone to play the devil’s advocate to channel opposing ideas in an endorsed way.”

“Trying to track down the question of whether there is a real increase in toxicity is missing the point – the perception is clear that there is.” –Americus Reed

Creary notes that HR is good at setting policy around respectful engagement and other factors that alleviate toxicity, but it matters that workers see everyone in the organization, from top to bottom, engaging each other in ways the organization values.

“It starts at the front desk with the person who engages with anyone who comes in and out,” she says. “Then, consider the most senior people – how do we see them engaging with people lower down and with each other? If we see respectful behavior between the top and bottom, it is easier to enforce at middle management. The way desirable behavior gets baked into culture is to create artifacts, whether it’s signage, or rewards and recognition programs that recognize people who model this behavior well. The goal isn’t to just reward people who bring in a lot of money, but also to reward people who engage respectfully.”

Much is at stake for just about any employer. A toxic workplace not only discourages creativity, but also increases turnover and stress, “so it is a very costly experience,” says Schweitzer. “And if any of those people experience anything that crosses the line into harassment they are more likely to sue rather than settle with the organization. So it’s risky and costly, and there are some managers who believe that the way to manage people is to intimidate them by bluster or fear. I worry that the current president models a leadership style that endorses yelling at people and calling people you disagree with derogatory nicknames. This is not the way to generate creative ideas, maximize performance of your team, attract the best talent, or reduce turnover. It is the hallmark of a manager who lacks other tools.”

Buffering Stress and Negativity

But if you’re in a toxic workplace and can’t or don’t want to leave, what can you realistically do to turn things around? How does an employee frame the argument for a better atmosphere without acting or appearing to act in critical way?

“Start with little actions. Be a role model,” says Christine Porath, an associate professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and author of Mastering Civility: A Manifesto for the Workplace . “We find that civility spreads in social networks at work.”

Above and beyond how one person deals with the toxic perpetrator, another factor can buffer incivility’s toxic effects: a sense of thriving. “If you do nothing else, be sure to focus on yourself, cultivating an internal sense of being energized, alive and growing,” says Porath. “In studies conducted across a range of industries, I have found that people who experience a state of thriving are healthier, more resilient and more able to focus on their work. When people feel even an inkling of thriving, it often buffers them from distractions, stress and negativity.”

“It very well could be that high-power people see the behavior and don’t perceive it to be a big problem, while lower-level people see it and perceive it to be extremely stressful.” –Maurice Schweitzer

In a study of six organizations spanning six industries, employees characterized as highly thriving demonstrated 1.2 times less burnout than their peers, Porath and Gretchen Spreitzer wrote in “Creating Sustainable Performance: Four Ways to Help Your Employees — and Organization — Thrive,” published in 2012 in the Harvard Business Review . High thrivers were 52% more confident in themselves and their ability to take control of a situation, wrote Porath in “An Antidote to Incivility,” published in HBR in 2016. They were also far less likely to have incivility “drag them down a chute of negativity, distraction, or self-doubt,” she said. “One of my friends, a talented life coach, likes to ask people faced with adversity, ‘What are you going to make this mean?’ … How you interpret a situation is crucial. How much are you going to let someone pull you down? What useful lessons might there be for you in the situation?”

According to Porath, research shows that about 50% of our happiness is based on brain wiring; 40% stems from how we interpret and respond to what happens to us; and 10% is driven by circumstances like whether we have less power and whether we’re more or less dependent on the job or the offender.

“In large part, you really do get to decide how you interpret incivility, the meaning you assign to it, and the stories you tell yourself,” says Porath. “You also get to control whether it makes you feel bad or not. It may not be realistic for you to ‘toughen up,’ but you can choose not to worry about what was said or done to you. If you’re thriving, you’re less likely to worry about the hit you took or to interpret words or deeds negatively. In fact, you’re more likely to craft an interpretation that validates yourself and your behavior.”

One intriguing body of recent research involves the concept of respectful inquiry: encouraging leaders to ask employees questions and listen intently to their answers. “It sounds simple and perhaps even obvious, but it’s a rare form of commanding others because it moves beyond merely being respectful and courteous. It involves relinquishing some control and thus is a huge sign that you trust other people,” says Wharton management professor Andrew Carton. “It’s empowering.”

Respectful inquiry is a multi-purpose tool because it accommodates three basic needs that all people have: control, competence and belonging, argue Niels Van Quaquebeke and Will Felps in “Respectful inquiry: A Motivational Account of Leading Through Asking Questions and Listening,” published in 2016 in the Academy of Management Review . “This increases peoples’ sense of autonomy and meaningfulness at work,” says Carton, adding that although the idea is preliminary, it is thought-provoking and actionable. “This latter issue, an idea that is actionable, is important because it involves moving beyond simply imploring leaders to be more respectful and gives them a concrete suggestion on how to improve their organizations’ culture, one small step at a time,” he notes.

Research shows that people are better able to improve at what they do when they are given feedback that involves a specific behavior – for instance, saying, “please try to be more punctual for our Monday meetings” rather than offering general guidance like “please try to be more conscientious.” This kind of concreteness is all the more important when it comes to soft skills, says Carton.

“It’s just people being themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and being told something isn’t quite right is enough to make them stop.” –Jody J. Foster

Although there might be a lot of toxicity in the air right now, very few workplaces are irretrievably toxic, and most people want to do the right thing, says Jody J. Foster, assistant dean for professionalism at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and author of The Schmuck in My Office: How to Deal Effectively with Difficult People at Work .

Addressing someone behaving badly at work in a kind, concise manner makes the offending co-worker change his or her behavior in 75% to 80% of cases, she says. “It’s just people being themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time,” notes Foster, “and being told something isn’t quite right is enough to make them stop.” Another 10% of those behaving badly will know there’s a problem but don’t know how to stop, and they might need coaching or intervention, she says.

“And then there is a small number of people who just don’t get it, and those are the people who need limits and rules. And if those are the people in authority, sometimes you are the one who has to leave.”

It’s important for those who feel wronged by a toxic co-worker to ask themselves whether they are over-reacting, and to not let resentments fester, Foster adds.

One unknown at the moment is how much toxicity is being generated in the workplace, as opposed to how much is seeping in from outside the office via politics, general social upheaval, and the ugly tone of social media. Is there a way to insulate the workplace as, potentially, a safe haven from the greater societal ills making themselves apparent right now?

“We’ve found incivility is a bug – it’s contagious,” says Porath. “And you can catch it anywhere – at work, at home, online or in your community. So, yes, I think it’s seeping in from outside the office.”

But “the organizations that are able to build stronger, more respectful communities will gain competitive advantage,” she says. “People are so hungry for connection and community. They’re desperate to escape toxicity. Organizations are primed to make a difference. They are bright spots in an increasingly negative and noxious environment.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Three Things All New Managers Should Be Doing

How Will AI Impact the Supply Chain?

Life After Prison: Why Returning Citizens Become Entrepreneurs

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Toxic Work World

By Anne-Marie Slaughter

• Sept. 18, 2015

FOR many Americans, life has become all competition all the time. Workers across the socioeconomic spectrum, from hotel housekeepers to surgeons, have stories about toiling 12- to 16-hour days (often without overtime pay) and experiencing anxiety attacks and exhaustion. Public health experts have begun talking about stress as an epidemic.

The people who can compete and succeed in this culture are an ever-narrower slice of American society: largely young people who are healthy, and wealthy enough not to have to care for family members. An individual company can of course favor these individuals, as health insurers once did, and then pass them off to other businesses when they become parents or need to tend to their own parents. But this model of winning at all costs reinforces a distinctive American pathology of not making room for caregiving. The result: We hemorrhage talent and hollow out our society.

To begin with, we are losing women. America has unlocked the talent of its women in a way that few nations can match; girls are outpacing boys in high schools, universities and graduate schools and are now entering the work force at higher salaries. But the ranks of those women still thin significantly as they rise toward the top, from more than 50 percent at entry level to 10 to 20 percent in senior management. Far too many discover that what was once a manageable and enjoyable work-family balance can no longer be sustained — regardless of ambition, confidence or even a partner who shares tasks equally.

Every family’s situation is different; some women may be able to handle with ease conditions that don’t work for others. But many women who started out with all the ambition in the world find themselves in a place they never expected to be. They do not choose to leave their jobs; they are shut out by the refusal of their bosses to make it possible for them to fit their family life and their work life together. In her book “Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home,” the sociologist Pamela Stone calls this a “forced choice.” “Denial of requests to work part time, layoffs or relocations,” she writes, will push even the most ambitious woman out of the work force.

A young lawyer I know from Virginia was offered a general counsel position, which she determined she could take but only if she could work from home one day a week to be with her two children. Her employer refused. Still another woman wrote to me about her aspiration to an executive-level position and the predicament of doing so with a 2-year-old at home: “The dilemma is in no way the result of having a toddler: After all, executive men seem to enjoy increased promotions with every additional offspring. It is the way work continues to be circumscribed as something that happens ‘in an office,’ and/or ‘between 8–6’ that causes such conflict. I haven’t yet been presented with a shred of reasonable justification for insisting my job requires me to be sitting in this fixed, 15 sq foot room, 20 miles from my home.”

The problem is even more acute for the 42 million women in America on the brink of poverty. Not showing up for work because a child has an ear infection, schools close for a snow day, or an elderly parent must go to the doctor puts their jobs at risk, and losing their jobs means that they can no longer care properly for their children — some 28 million — and other relatives who depend on them. They are often suffering not only from too little flexibility but also too much, as many low-wage service jobs no longer have a guaranteed number of hours a week.

This looks like a “women’s problem,” but it’s not. It’s a work problem — the problem of an antiquated and broken system. When law firms and corporations lose talented women who reject lock-step career paths and question promotion systems that elevate quantity of hours worked over quality of the work itself, the problem is not with the women . When an abundance of overly rigid workplaces causes 42 million American citizens to live day to day in fear that just one single setback will prevent them from being able to care for their children, it’s not their problem, but ours.

THE problem is with the workplace, or more precisely, with a workplace designed for the “Mad Men” era, for “Leave It to Beaver” families in which one partner does all the work of earning an income and the other partner does all the work of turning that income into care — the care that is indispensable for our children, our sick and disabled, our elderly. Our families and our responsibilities don’t look like that anymore, but our workplaces do not fit the realities of our lives.

Irene Padavic, a Florida State sociologist, Robin J. Ely, a Harvard Business School professor, and Erin Reid from Boston University’s Questrom School of Business were asked to conduct a detailed study of a midsize global consulting firm where top management thought they had a “gender problem.” The firm had a paucity of women at the highest levels — just 10 percent of partners were women, compared with nearly 40 percent of junior associates.

After careful study, Professors Padavic, Ely and Reid found that an equal number of men and women had left the firm in the preceding three years, a simple fact that contradicted management’s women, work and family story. Some of the men also left because of the long hours; others “suffered in silence or otherwise made do.” The firm’s key human resources problem was not gender, as management believed, but rather a culture of overwork.

The firm’s leadership resisted these findings. They didn’t want to be told that they needed to overhaul their entire organizational philosophy or that they were overpromising to clients and overdelivering (for example, making hundred-slide PowerPoint presentations that the client couldn’t even use). They wanted to be told that the firm’s problem was work-family conflict for women, a narrative that would allow them to adopt a set of policies specifically aimed at helping women work part time, or be mentored, or join support networks. As Professors Padavic, Ely and Reid wryly concluded, their attitude “required a rejection of evidence on the part of evidence-driven analysts.”

Bad work culture is everyone’s problem, for men just as much as for women. It’s a problem for working parents, not just working mothers. For working children who need time to take care of their own parents, not just working daughters. For anyone who does not have the luxury of a full-time lead parent or caregiver at home.

But there’s good news. Men are also beginning to ask for and take paternity leave and to take lead parent roles. According to a continuing study by the Families and Work Institute, only a third of employed millennial men think that couples should take on traditional gender roles. Some tech companies warring for talent are also beginning to compete by offering longer paternity leaves, which will hardly affect the average American workplace, but is a sign of changing cultural attitudes.

EVEN if men and women join forces to demand changes in the workplace, though, we cannot do this alone, as individuals trying to make our lives work and as workers and bosses trying to make room for care. Some other company can always keep prices down by demanding more, burning out its employees and casting them aside when they are done. To be fully competitive as a country, we are going to have to emulate other industrialized countries and build an infrastructure of care. We used to have one; it was called women at home. But with 57 percent of those women in the labor force, that infrastructure has crumbled and it’s not coming back.

To support care just as we support competition, we will need some combination of the following: high-quality and affordable child care and elder care; paid family and medical leave for women and men; a right to request part-time or flexible work; investment in early education comparable to our investment in elementary and secondary education; comprehensive job protection for pregnant workers; higher wages and training for paid caregivers; community support structures to allow elders to live at home longer; and reform of elementary and secondary school schedules to meet the needs of a digital rather than an agricultural economy.

These proposals are not so far-fetched as they may seem. President Obama put forward proposals to expand access to affordable, high-quality child care in his 2016 budget. Hillary Rodham Clinton has made providing a foundation for working families, including child care, one of the central aspects of her campaign. One of the few states that offers paid family leave (workers pay the cost out of a small increase in their payroll tax) is New Jersey, under the Republican governor Chris Christie.

Republican senators have sponsored a bill that would allow employers to offer employees paid leave hours instead of overtime pay; some polls show that a majority of women who vote Republican support paid family leave. Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, is co-leader of a bipartisan caucus across both the Senate and the House devoted to assisting family caregivers. She follows in the footsteps of former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, who successfully sponsored legislation to allow homemakers to contribute to retirement accounts the same way that salaried workers can. And as the baby boom becomes an elder boom, we can expect a whole new constituency for care, on both sides of the aisle.

Change in our individual workplaces and in our broader politics also depends on culture change: fundamental shifts in the way we think, talk and confer prestige. If we really valued care, we would not regard time out for caregiving — for your children, parents, spouse, sibling or any other member of your extended or constructed family — as a black hole on a résumé. We would see it as engaging in a socially, personally and professionally valuable activity. We would see men who lean out for care as role models just as much as women who lean in for work. We would think managing kids matters as much as managing money.

Impossible, right? Yet I grew up in a society where my mother set out little vases of cigarettes on the table at dinner parties, where blacks and whites had to use different bathrooms, and in which almost everyone claimed to be heterosexual. That seems a lifetime ago, but I’m not so old. Our world has changed over the past 50 years, vastly for the better from the point of view of African-Americans, the L.G.B.T. community and families who lost loved ones to lung cancer. Given the magnitude of that change, think about how much we can still do.

We can, all of us, stand up for care. Until we do, men and women will never be equal; not while both are responsible for providing cash but only women are responsible for providing care. And though individual Americans might win out in our current system, America as a whole will never be as competitive as it ought to be. If we do not act, over time our families and communities, the foundation of our flourishing, will wither.

The women’s movement has brought many of us the right to compete on equal terms; it’s time for all of us to claim an equal right to care.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is the president of New America, a think tank and civic enterprise, and author of the forthcoming “Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family,” from which this essay is adapted.

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

Signs of a toxic work culture—and how to correct them

Contributing writer

If you look at teams that are happy, engaged, and doing their best work, they typically have one thing in common—they work in a healthy and supportive work environment.

But the opposite is also true, and a toxic work culture can not only cause serious issues for your team—but serious issues for your business.

“Morale tends to be lower in these sorts of [toxic] environments—and less engaged employees tend to produce lower-quality work,” says corporate psychologist Patricia Thompson PhD, President of executive coaching and organizational consultancy Silver Lining Psychology . “Further, if the culture is toxic, employees will be more prone to quit, which creates an increased need for constantly finding and training new staff.”

How To Identify And Solve Common Toxic Workplace Traits

So, if you want your team (and business!) to thrive, you need to not only recognize signs that your work culture is inching into toxic territory—but also correct those signs before they cause serious problems.

But what are the signs of a toxic work culture you need to be on the lookout for—and if you see those signs within your organization, what steps do you need to take to fix them and get your culture back on track?

Employees Are In Constant Conflict

Every team has occasional conflict or disagreements; it’s part of working collaboratively. But if those conflicts are constant—or particularly mean-spirited—it could be a red flag that the work environment has gone toxic.

“ You know you have a toxic work culture when there are consistent acrimonious, antagonistic, and suspicious feelings among coworkers,” says Scott Dust , PhD, Professor of Management at Miami University in Ohio .

All that conflict can make it harder for teams to collaborate —and make it harder to move forward on team and organizational goals.

“ If the environment is overly competitive, and people are not willing to work collaboratively with one another, it will be a lot harder to get things done, as coordination and communication will suffer,” says Thompson.

And it’s not just the lack of collaboration that can cause issues. When there’s constant conflict within teams, team members can get to the point where they’re more invested in the drama than the work—which can cause productivity to plummet.

“If people don’t trust…each other, there’s likely to be unnecessary energy spent on office politics, instead of the work at hand,” says Thompson. “There is reduced alignment and collaboration, because people will be more prone to look out for what’s best for themselves, as opposed to thinking about the company as a whole. This can create a lot of blame and finger-pointing, which can cause there to be more of a focus on interpersonal difficulties than on tackling business problems and goals in a team-oriented manner.”

How To Fix It:

There are a number of reasons why your team may be in constant conflict—so, before you can correct the issue, you need to identify what’s causing the perpetual problem.

Spend some time observing and interacting with your team to see where, how, and why conflict arises; once you know the source of the conflict, you can figure out the best way to correct it—and make your team culture less toxic.

For example, you may find the main source of conflict is that your team has trouble agreeing on what to do and how to do it. In that case, setting clear expectations—for example, developing processes around workflows and making sure all team members are clear on who is responsible for what at the onset of a project—can help to resolve conflict. 

Or you may find that two employees have a major personality clash , and their conflict is affecting their coworkers—in which case, you could assign those employees to separate projects, minimizing the amount of time they need to work together (and minimizing the impact their conflict has on the rest of the team). 

The more time you spend with your team, the better you’ll be able to pinpoint the source of conflict—and the better you’ll be able to manage it.

Results Are Valued More Than People

Producing results is an important part of running a sustainable business. But when those results come at the expense of the team—for example, by forcing your team to work unrealistic schedules in order to hit a quarterly goal—it’s definitely a sign of a toxic work culture.

“ Obviously, it is important for businesses to put an emphasis on outcomes, so they can be profitable and stay in business,” says Thompson. “Still, if there is little attention paid to the well-being of employees, it can be a recipe for low engagement, burnout, and turnover.”

If you realize your culture is too results-oriented, it’s important to take steps to bring things back into balance—and make sure you’re taking care of your team as they work towards those results.

“If the culture skews too much towards results at the expense of people, then you’ll need to work to create a more appropriate balance,” says Thompson. “Whether it’s being more intentional about empowering employees, providing more recognition, ensuring expectations are reasonable, or helping leaders to develop emotional intelligence , making sure that there is adequate focus on relationships and emotional factors is critical for having a culture that performs on a high level with respect to tasks and people.”

A Lack Of Psychological Safety 

One of the most straightforward signs of a toxic work culture? Employees are afraid to speak their mind, make mistakes, or be authentic—or, in other words, a lack of psychological safety .

“In a toxic culture, employees often feel that they don’t have a voice and that they are punished for raising concerns,” says Thompson. “This can lead to inefficiency, as problems will be less likely to come to light. They are also punished for making honest mistakes, which can cause them to hide them—[and] can create bigger problems in the future.”

When your team is scared to speak their mind or make mistakes, innovation is impossible, which can make your organization less competitive. Plus, if employees feel like they can’t speak up or try new things at work without the fear of repercussions, eventually, they’re going to get sick of walking on eggshells—and bring their voice and ideas elsewhere.

If you want your team to feel safe and comfortable at work, you need to foster an environment that supports that safety and comfort.

For example, ask your team for feedback on ways you can better support them—and when they share honest feedback, listen, support, and celebrate those ideas (even if they’re challenging to hear). 

Schedule a monthly “mistakes” meeting, where employees can talk about any mistakes they made over the previous month, what they learned, and how those mistakes can support the growth and evolution of the team. And make sure that you’re the one kicking off those meetings; as a leader, sharing your own mistakes can be a powerful way to make your team feel safe and comfortable doing the same!

“ Leaders need to be in the ‘people growth business’ and create a safe culture where people feel validated and [that] their ideas are appreciated,” says Randall P. White, PhD, founding partner of organizational and leadership development consultancy Executive Development Group .

Toxic Employees

If you want to repair a toxic work culture, it’s not enough to just address toxicity at a cultural or organizational level; you also need to address it at an individual level.

Toxic employees can cause “a ripple effect throughout the organization,” says Dust. For example, a toxic employee that spreads gossip can cause conflict within teams—and can ultimately make other employees so uncomfortable at work, they may start looking for other opportunities. Or a toxic employee with a negative attitude can spread that attitude to their immediate coworkers—dragging down morale (and productivity) for the entire team.

“T he first step is to talk to them about their behavior,” says Thompson. “Be specific about how it is at odds with the culture, and provide examples of the behavior,” says Thompson. “Help them to create a development goal related to the behavior, along with action steps that they will take to address it.”

For example, let’s say an employee has a seriously negative attitude—and it’s starting to negatively impact the rest of the team. You might schedule a 1:1 and let them know how their negativity is impacting the workplace—and help them brainstorm ways to bring more positivity to work.

It’s also important to examine how your work culture might be influencing the employee’s behavior. “ A toxic environment can cause good people to act in toxic ways,” says White. So, as you’re talking to your employee, be on the lookout for any culture issues that may be impacting their behavior. For example, if their supervisor has unrealistic expectations around their workload (and they’re having to work nights and weekends in order to get through their tasks), their argumentativeness could be a result of overwork and burnout—which is an issue that needs to be addressed at the organizational level as much as the individual.

If you give an employee the opportunity and support to address and change toxic behaviors—and they refuse to change—you may need to take more drastic action to prevent them from influencing other team members.

“If the employee’s behavior doesn’t change across time, you will likely need to transition them out of the organization,” says Thompson. “If you allow toxic behavior to continue, other employees will assume that the organization tolerates it. That is not the message that you want to send.”

Toxic Leadership

Concerned that your work culture has crossed the line into toxic territory? Then you’ll need to take a good, hard look at your leadership.

“Culture starts at the top,” says Dust. So, if leadership has toxic behaviors and attitudes, those behaviors and attitudes are going to trickle down to the rest of the organization and boom—before you know it, you’ve got a toxic work culture on your hands.

For example, let’s say you have a leader within your organization that raises their voice at people when they’re having a big day. Not only will that yelling make for an uncomfortable work environment, but managers will get the message that yelling is an acceptable behavior—and will be more likely to yell at their team as a result.

As mentioned, culture starts at the top—so if you want to shift your work culture from toxic to healthy, that change needs to start with leadership. 

“ Leaders have to live up to the culture they want to create,” says White.

As a leader, think about what ways you want your culture to change—and start modeling that behavior with your team. So, for example, if you worry that your culture has become too negative to support your team’s best work, make a commitment to show up at work with a positive attitude every day. 

If you notice your team is working around the clock (and quickly approaching burnout as a result), set a firm end time each day—and then respect that end time by not messaging your employees, sending them emails, or asking them to work during off-hours.

The point is, leaders shape work culture—so if you want to change a toxic work culture, changing any toxic leadership behaviors or attitudes is a good place to start.

Stay Ahead Of Toxicity In Your Work Environment

These strategies will help you identify and address any toxicity in your work environment and get your culture back on track—which is a crucial part of sustaining a healthy, supportive work culture.

But that’s not all you need to do to keep a toxic work culture at bay! Reacting to—and correcting—signs of a toxic work culture is only one part of the equation. If you really want the kind of culture where employees (and, as a result, the organization) thrive, you need to be proactive in building that culture from the get-go.

“Organizations tend to wait until things get bad to make corrections—but by then, it’s too late,” says Dust. “Organizations need to be proactive in managing their culture, because it takes a significant amount of time and resources to fix something that’s broken.”

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Risk Manag Healthc Policy

Exploring the Relationships Between a Toxic Workplace Environment, Workplace Stress, and Project Success with the Moderating Effect of Organizational Support: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan

Zilong wang.

1 College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, People’s Republic of China

Samma Faiz Rasool

2 School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Institute, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, People’s Republic of China

Qamar uz Zaman

3 Business School, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530004, People’s Republic of China

Researchers have shown great interest in the relationships among a toxic workplace environment, workplace stress, and project success, which have led to an expansive body of research on the topic. In light of this work, the current study explores the effects of a toxic workplace environment (TWE) and workplace stress (WS) as determinants of project success in the renewable energy projects of Pakistan. Based on the resource-based view (RBV) theory, the study proposes and tests a model with organizational support as a moderating variable.

Research Methodology

A 30-item questionnaire survey was administered among staff of ten renewable energy project companies located in the vicinity of Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad (Pakistan). The target population was senior managers, middle-level managers, and administrative staff. Structural equation modelling was used to estimate the predictive power of the model.

A toxic workplace environment was found to have negative relationships with project success and workplace stress. Organizational support served as a moderator in the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress and thus contributed to the success of a project.

Toxic workplace environment and the resulting workplace stress have a negative effect on project success. Projects undertaken in the energy sector have tight deadlines, which create stress that leads to a range of mental and physical health problems. Workers facing these problems can ultimately suffer from such diseases as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. These issues lower morale and, thus, negatively affect productivity. The provision of organizational support can mitigate the negative effects.

Introduction

Increasing energy demands and continuous reduction in fossil fuel reserves are forcing the world to focus on renewable energy sources to meet energy and environmental requirements and avoid a crisis in the energy sector. The number of renewable energy projects under construction is increasing continuously to ensure energy availability, reduce costs, and improve the environment. This is already a rapidly growing trend and is expected to have an even greater influence in the future. Jefferson 1 , 2 Pakistan is one example of an energy-deficient developing country. To address the looming energy crisis, the Pakistan government has launched a range of renewable energy projects in the country. 3 The success of these projects are directly or indirectly dependent on the workplace environment for employees of the firms involved, and the support these firms provide to their workers. Renewable energy projects are undertaken to tight deadlines, which creates stressful conditions for many workers associated with these projects. These high levels of employee stress can then affect the success of the projects. Previous studies have discussed the effects of workplace stress (WS) on project success. WS is the major source of workplace mental health problems globally and affects the decision-making ability of workers. 4 The performance and productivity of employees who are continuously under WS suffers, which produces major losses for organizations. 5 Ultimately, WS affects the overall efficiency, performance, and success of a project. 6 , 7

Organizational support (OS) plays a very important role in reducing the toxicity of workplace environments and mitigating or alleviating WS among employees; it thus contributes to energizing and motivating employees, increasing their work performance and productivity and ultimately improving the likelihood of project success. 8 An organization that is more supportive of its employees and tries to control the sources of toxicity in the workplace environment to reduce workplace stress will help employees to be more efficient and productive and thus achieve superior project outcomes. 9

Renewable energy projects are time-sensitive and subject to a high level of pressure in terms of time and budget. 10 In such a high-pressure environment, employees can face problems and experience a variety of negative behaviors within the organization responsible for the project’s success. They can be exposed to workplace violence and often suffer from WS. Workplace environments can be divided into two types: collaborative and toxic. 11 A collaborative workplace environment (CWE) increases the productivity of workers, whereas the various dimensions of a TWE—harassment, bullying, ostracism, and incivility—reduce project success. 12 , 13 A TWE is directly linked to WS, with a highly toxic environment at work generating a form of stress that affects an employee’s mental and physical condition. Due to workplace stress, employees are unable to concentrate on their work and this reduces their productivity, which is a great loss for an organization because it will affect the success of the project. 10 Organizational support is very important because it can moderate the toxicity of the workplace and alleviate WS, thus increasing employee productivity and leading to more successful projects. According to the resource-based view (RBV), an organization can exploit its resources by consolidating and assigning the duties of employees in such a way that can increase their productivity, leading to project success. 14 Employees’ capacity to become productive in their work is reduced by TWE and WS, and this affects the success of projects. 15 It is therefore important for researchers to pay close attention to the sources of TWE and WS when exploring the antecedents of project success. This study contributes to this literature by examining TWE, WS, productivity loss, poor efficiency among employees, and the potential of OS to overcome these problems to increase the efficiency and productivity of employees for project success. In particular, this is the first study to focus on the moderating role of organizational support in the relationship between toxic workplace environment and workplace stress towards the success of a project.

Most similar studies have been conducted in developed countries, especially the USA, UK, and other Western countries. Relevant findings are scarce for emerging countries like Pakistan. The limited studies undertaken in emerging countries have generally examined the renewable energy sector, believing that renewable energy organizations play significant roles in socio-economic development. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this research is among the first to investigate the impact of toxic workplace environment and workplace stress on project success in the Pakistani organizational context and the first to consider organizational support as a moderating variable. Based on the understanding of the above literature on TWE, WS, OS, and project success, this study addresses the research gaps with reference to the RBV. It also emphasizes the moderating role of OS for the success of renewable energy projects. The following research questions are proposed:

RQ1. How does a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress affect project success?

RQ2. How does organizational support moderate the relationship between a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress?

This article is organized as follows: The next section presents a review of the relevant literature. Hypotheses Development frames the hypotheses development and theoretical framework of the study. Research Methods describes the research methods. Results and Analysis presents the study results and analysis, which are further discussed in Discussion. Limitations and Practical Implications provides some practical implications and limitations of the study, and Conclusion concludes.

Literature Review

Toxic workplace environment.

The workplace environment is a term used to describe the relationship between workers at a workplace. 16 Prior studies have revealed two types of workplace environment: a collaborative work environment (CWE) and a toxic workplace environment. A CWE is characterized by amiableness, workplace pleasure, and a sense of involvement, includes feelings of empathy, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) prevails among the workers. 17 , 18 A TWE features narcissistic behavior, offensive and insulting leadership, threatening behavior, harassment, humiliation, mobbing, ostracism, incivility, and bullying among employees. A TWE is a source of physical and mental imbalances that cause high levels of stress and burnout, and have negative psychological effects on employees’ health. High levels of work pressure are generated, which lead to counterproductive work behavior (CWB) at the place of the work. CWB is not in the favor of an organization because it affects its reputation and efficiency. 19

Workplace Stress

WS is a condition suffered by a person within a workplace environment in which they are confronted with a thousand tasks to be fulfilled, completion of which seems impossible. Since 2001, the incidence of WS has risen by 10%. 20 Many stressors have become prominent in this period, such as the need to adapt to the rapid changes in working environments resulting from technological developments. Some individuals are able to adapt to these changes easily, while for others, they are perceived as a challenge that threatens their well-being. 21 Managers of firms are aware that WS is a critical issue, because having employees suffering high levels of work stress from various stressors ultimately results in ineffective workers, higher staff turnover, lower quality and quantity of work practices, increased health-care costs, lower work satisfaction, and lower productivity. 22

Organizations need to develop strategies to deal with the harmful and costly stressors, and those that do not do so will find their employees looking for better opportunities elsewhere. In developing countries, excessive overtime work and high work intensity is having a destructive effect because of WS. 23 , 24 WS is caused by factors inside and outside of an organization. Creating a peaceful industrial atmosphere should produce fewer conflicts, but there is no organization that has eliminated WS. 25 , 26 Factors related to both a person or their situation can cause WS, which ultimately leads to self-degradation, poor self-efficacy, and negativity about the self, thus causing a person to produce poor work. 27 – 29

Organizational Support

OS is the perception or belief that employees working in any organization have about the organization’s role in contributing towards and protecting their rights and interests. 30 OS can be divided into the two dimensions of instrumental support and social-emotional support, 31 or the three dimensions of emotional, instrumental, and superior support. 32 According to studies in various sectors, by playing its role in supporting employees, an organization can effectively reduce WS and burnout. 33 , 34 A study of professional estimators found that informal support provided by the organization was even more helpful and effective than formal organizational support. 34

Project Success

Project success refers to a project achieving its goals within its budget and deadline, although a general definition of project success is unachievable. 35 Whether a given project is declared as successful or failed depends upon the assessment of particular stockholders, because every stakeholder group has its own criteria to judge project outcomes. 36 From the viewpoint of project management, a successful project is one that maintains a balance between the demands of project quality, scope, cost, and meeting stakeholder expectations. 37 A project is thus described as successful if it meets its desired quality standard and satisfies stockholders within its allocated budget and time, and this success is to be judged on the two dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency. A project is considered efficient if “things are being done right” to obtain the maximum output, while it is considered effective if the “right things are being done” to meet the project goals. 38 Project efficiency may be related to assessing the project success via an “iron triangle” of time, cost, and quality, whereas project effectiveness is the measurement of the satisfaction of clients, stakeholders, and users. The criteria of meeting the needs of the project’s owner within the iron triangle is the measure of a successful project, 39 upon which there is a great deal of literature. 40 – 43

Hypotheses Development

Toxic workplace environment and workplace stress.

A positive relationship has been found between a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress. A number of studies indicate that violence at the workplace increases occupational stress among employees. 44 – 46 A toxic workplace threatens to fail to meet employee needs, and the demands it makes of employees’ physiological resources decrease the capacity of employees to meet their targets and reduce social unity among peers. 47 , 48 A TWE has been found to contribute to hypertension, anxiety, and WS. 49 , 50 A high level of toxicity in the workplace environment increases WS, whereas a low level of toxicity decreases WS; 51 and this relationship has been confirmed by the ILO and in empirical studies. 52 , 53 Based on the literature discussed above, the following hypothesis was derived:

Hypothesis 1: A more toxic workplace environment will lead to higher levels of workplace stress.

Workplace Stress and Project Success

A negative relationship has been found between WS and project success. Previous studies indicate that WS increases absenteeism and lowers productivity. 54 , 55 Employees suffering from WS are likely to engage in behavior that is poor for their health, such as smoking, drinking, eating less, and stopping physical exercise. 56 , 57 Employees who suffer from WS exhibit poor performance and a lower quality of work and life, which reduces the success of projects that they contribute to. Studies have shown WS to reduce project success. 58 High WS leads to low project success, while lower WS leads to higher levels of project success. This negative relationship between WS and project success is reflected in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Higher levels of workplace stress will lead to lower levels of project success

Toxic Workplace Environment and Project Success

A negative relationship has been found between TWE and project success. Previous studies indicate that different dimensions of TWE (harassment, bullying, ostracism, mobbing, and workplace incivility) are a cause of physical and mental illness, high blood pressure, appetite problems, too little sleep, less involvement with work, less productivity at work, depression, anxiety, and de-motivation, all of which affect the success of a project. 27 , 59 These types of threats, harms, and negative forms of work behavior in an organization prevent employees from performing their routine tasks, which undermines their performance and productivity, and ultimately the success of the project. 17 Some previous literature has shown a negative relationship between a TWE and project performance, 60 , 61 confirming that organizations with a highly TWE achieve low levels of project success and vice versa. In light of this literature, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 3: A more toxic workplace environment will lead to lower levels of project success

The Moderating Effect of OS

A TWE is a source of stress, and WS is the strain response to this source of stress. So, the association between TWE and WS is called a stressor–strain relationship. Previous studies have indicated that OS has a positive impact on employees’ output, improving their commitment toward the organization and their productivity at work, thereby transforming the organization and the effectiveness of its fundamental values. 62 – 65 A positive association has been found between OS in the form of leadership sharing among team members and dynamic work behavior. 66 Motivation arising from the perception of OS among employees leads to greater productivity. 67 According to stress theories, OS plays an important role in relaxing the stressor–strain relationship: for example, the demand control support (DCS) model shows that severe health problems at work arise from excess demand and low levels of control coupled with insufficient organizational support. 68 This indicates that the effects of a TWE and WS can be reduced with the support of leaders and peers. 69 – 71 Based on the RBV of firms and the above literature, the present study proposes a theoretical framework (presented in Figure 1 ) predicting that OS can serve as a moderator in the relationship between TWE and WS. The following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Organizational support moderates the pathway between a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress

Theoretical framework.

Research Methods

Instrument development.

A questionnaire survey approach was used for data collection. 72 , 73 Such an approach begins with the design of a questionnaire to collect data on the basis of the constructed hypothesis, followed by the calculation of descriptive statistics. 74 For the questionnaire, 30 items were included, all marked on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The detail of each item of the research questionnaire is showing in the Appendix -A . To check the reliability and validity of the instrument a pilot study was conducted, which involved 30 draft questionnaires being distributed to experts and personnel with knowledge of the research topic and experience in the field of project management: specifically, ten academic professors, ten doctorate students, and ten professionals. Some changes were recommended by the pilot study respondents, and the instrument was modified accordingly before being distributed among the target population of our study for data collection purposes.

Data Collection and Sampling

Data were collected from ten renewable energy project based companies working in the vicinity of Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad (Pakistan). The target population was senior managers, middle-level managers, and administrative staff working on renewable energy construction projects in Pakistan. To meet the requirements of ethical research, respondents were informed that the information they provided would be confidential and used only for the purpose of the study. Of 500 distributed questionnaires, 453 responses were received for a response rate of 81%. After the disposal of 50 questionnaires that were not filled in correctly, the final sample consisted of 403 responses.

Variables and Measures

Two independent, one dependent, and one moderating variable were adopted for the study. Toxic workplace environment (TWE) and workplace stress (WS) were the independent variables, organizational support (OS) was the moderating variable, and project success (PS) was the dependent variable.

The independent variable of TWE comprised four dimensions: workplace harassment, workplace bullying, workplace incivility, and workplace mobbing. Seven items for TWE were adopted from Anjum et al, 75 all measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included “My supervisor/co-worker/subordinate often appreciates my physical appearance” and “My supervisor/co-worker/subordinate spoke rudely to me in public.” Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96 was above the threshold of 0.70 and higher, so the measure was considered reliable for this study.

Seven items for WS were adopted from Anjum and Ming, 19 all measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included “I do not feel any interest or enjoyment in doing things” and “I often think about to hurt myself, and I deserve to be dead.” The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 was above the threshold of 0.70, so the measure was considered reliable for this study.

Seven items for OS were adopted from Eisenberger et al, 76 – 78 all measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included “The organization attaches great importance to my work goals and values” and “The organization always helps me whenever I am facing bad time.” The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 was above the threshold of 0.70, so the measure was considered reliable for this study.

Nine items for PS were adopted from Maqbool, Sudong, Manzoor, Rashid, 43 all measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included “I completed my projects within the given time frame.” The Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 was above the threshold of 0.70, so the measure was considered reliable for this study.

Demographics

Table 1 presents the demographics of the study participants. The respondents comprised 75% males and 25% females. In terms of work experience, 36.2% of respondents had less than five years, 44.4% had between 5 and 10 years, and 19.4% had more than ten years. Eleven percent of the respondents were in senior management, 38% in middle management, and 51% were in the administrative staff. Individuals under 25 years of age made up 6.1% of the sample, between the ages of 35 to 44 years made up 42.2%, between 35 and 44 years made up 31.7%, and the remaining 20% were over 44 years of age. In terms of education, 25.3% had completed junior high school or below, 24.1% matriculation, 23.3% higher secondary school/technical school/FA education, 20.1% undergraduate education, and 7.2% post-graduate education.

Results and Analysis

Data analysis.

SPSS-20 was used to aid in the analysis of respondents’ demographics, reliability, descriptive statistics, and correlations. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was adopted for regression and moderation analyses, using AMOS-18. We adopted AMOS SEM instead of partial least squares SEM because the structural model is complex and contains a series of dependent relationships.

Validity and Reliability

Table 2 reveals Cronbach’s alpha values greater than the generally accepted 0.7 thresholds. The KMO and contribution to overall variance were calculated for each variable through exploratory factor analysis. Table 2 shows that all constructs returned values greater than the accepted thresholds for reliability. The KMO values were above 0.6, while the Bartlett test returned p < 0.001, indicating suitability for factor analysis. Therefore, composites could be calculated by averaging the scale items. Table 2 also shows that all factor loadings exceeded 0.70 or 0.50 thresholds. Factor loadings for TWE (7 items) were between 0.86 and 0.89; for WS (7 items) between 0.80 and 0.86; for OS (7 items) between 0.80 and 0.89; and for the dependent variable PS (8 items) between 0.73 and 0.89.

Abbreviations: TWE, toxic workplace environment; WS, workplace stress; OS, organizational support; PS, project success; KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to measure the reliability of each of the items and constructs. Average variance extracted (AVE) scores were calculated for each construct to test convergence validity, and composite reliability (CR) scores were also determined for each latent variable. Table 3 shows the results of CFA, representing the goodness-of-fit. All fitness indicators exceeded the accepted threshold values, and the standardized coefficients were all above the minimum acceptable value of 0.7. The AVE values for each latent variable were above 0.5, indicating good convergence validity. The CR values for each latent variable were above 0.6, demonstrating good measurement and construct reliability. The results of validity and reliability testing indicated that SEM was appropriate for testing the model.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Abbreviations: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 4 shows that the theoretical framework with four factors was confirmed as an outstanding fit. The alternative single factor and three-factor models returned a poor fit, as indicated by increased x 2 /df values and higher values for other confirmatory factor analysis indexes. Tests for participation bias (using the chi-square method) and for common method variance (using the Harman one-factor method) indicated no major concerns.

The Comparative Results of Alternative Models

Abbreviations: CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; TWE, toxic workplace environment; WS, workplace stress; OS, organizational support; PS, project success.

Hypothesis Testing

Table 5 shows the results of the SEM, showing that the hypothesized relationships were all significantly associated with project success. Significance levels and tests of model fitness were all found to be acceptable, CMIN/DF = 1.400, GFI = 0.930, NFI = 0.965, and IFI = 0.990 (above threshold value of 0.9) and RMSEA = 0.037 (within the upper limit of 0.05). The results, therefore, support our Hypotheses 1–3.

The Structural Equation Modelling Results of the Model

Note: Significance level at <0.05*.

Abbreviations: CMIN/DF, x 2 /degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; GFI, Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index.

Moderation Testing

Organizational support was found to moderate the relationship between TWE and WS. Eliminate co-linearity, TWE, WS, and OS were centered, thus minimizing the correlation between the interaction term and the initial latent variables of TWE and OS. 79 An interaction term was then constructed between TWE and OS. 80 While Kenny et al 81 suggested that all possible interaction pairs should be constructed as indicators of the main effect, Ping et al and Joreskog et al 82 recommended the use of just one product metric to simplify data processing and increase accuracy. Using this method, the results shown in Table 6 show all hypothesized relations to significantly affect WS, thus supporting Hypothesis 4.

The Moderating Effect Analysis

Note: Significance level at < 0.001***.

The workplace environment has attracted the attention of many researchers. 19 , 75 , 83 A collaborative work environment keeps employees in a confident and relaxed state from which they can achieve their maximum output, whereas a TWE creates depression, anxiety, and WS. An organization suffering from a TWE is a main source of stress for employees. The results of this study show that a TWE and WAS are directly linked: an increase in the toxicity of a workplace environment will increase WS. This supports our Hypothesis 1, in which higher levels of TWE lead to higher levels of WE. Ideally, employees, organizations, and all other stakeholders can be considered as cooperating on the basis of trust and honesty, but often the relationships become dysfunctional because of a TWE and WS. A TWE results in problems of anxiety, stress, and insomnia among employees. 84 – 86

There is a danger that organizations trying to complete major projects with tight budgets and limited timeframes will put profitability ahead of the well-being of their most important assets, which are their employees. Ultimately, it is the employees of any organization who will render any project successful or unsuccessful, and organizations must give consideration to this. With projects being rushed for completion within a given time period and budget to satisfy all stakeholders, employees can bear the burden of excessive mental pressure, with their stress manifesting in a variety of physical and mental health problems. These mental and physical stressors, however, also affect the success of the project. The results of this study show that there is a negative relationship between WS and project success. A high level of stress among employees at the workplace is likely to produce a less successful project. This supports our Hypothesis 2, in which higher levels of WS lead to lower levels of project success. This is consistent with the results of a prior study that showed a negative relationship between WS and project success in the IT industry. 87

There is a negative connection between TWE and PS, which means that if the workplace environment is toxic, a project can face some serious issues that could be avoided by a CWE. The findings of this study confirm that higher levels of TWE lead to lower levels of project success, and show the relationship to be strong. A toxic workplace has a highly negative impact, according to the findings of this study.

How an organization attempts to meet the expectations of its employee while they work on a project is very important. High-pressure projects can give rise to various types of negativity, which can then create a toxic environment and high levels of stress in the workplace. However, organizational support plays a moderating role in the pathway between a TWE and workplace stress. By playing a supportive role in decreasing workplace toxicity and stress, an organization can ultimately improve project success. Organizational support for employees increases their motivation levels by providing them with a sense of attachment to the organization, which ultimately results in higher productivity. An organization that does not intervene to moderate the pathway between TWE and WS will have less motivated and less productive workers. The results of our study supported our hypothesis that OS moderates between a TWE and WS. The moderating role of OS has a significant effect on a TWE in its relation to WS, according to the findings of this study, which represent an original contribution in the context of emerging countries like Pakistan.

Limitations and Practical Implications

Limitations.

The current study has filled the gap in the literature. For practitioners, this research will help project-oriented organizations in weighing the critical success factors from different points of view that have not been discussed before. Particularly in Pakistan, where renewable energy projects are still in their infancy, the results of this study should encourage project-oriented organizations to focus on employee wellbeing. Nonetheless, this study has some limitations that should be considered in interpreting the results. First, the respondents were all from Pakistan. Limiting the study to one country increases the risk of cultural bias, and caution must be taken in generalizing the results. Future research in different cultural contexts is needed to validate the results. Second, few of the respondents could be considered experts who are highly capable and qualified in managing renewable energy projects, because Pakistan is a developing country and has only in recent years begun to promote renewable energy projects. To reduce the effect of these limitations, the results have been interpreted in line with related studies, and a pilot study was done to ensure the questions would be clear to the respondents.

Practical Implications

Project-based organizations have limited time to complete their projects efficiently and effectively. With projects being undertaken in different cities, often far from the organization’s headquarters, employees are often expected to work on these projects far away from their houses, family, and friends. This is one of the causes of a TWE and WS in the specific sector examined in this study. The findings of this study have various practical implications related to the role of OS in helping to reduce the effects of TWE and occupational stress among employees.

First, organizations should provide financial, moral, and psychological support to prevent the emergence of a toxic environment and thus to maintain physical and mental balance among employees. This kind of support provided by organizations to their employees helps them to maintain their productivity level, which ultimately is beneficial for the organization as well as for employees. Second, organizations should introduce attractive compensation (direct and indirect) schemes among employees, to increase feelings of responsibility and motivation, leading to greater productivity. Third, sports activities arranged by organizations could be useful to keep employees physically fit and active. Fourth, training sessions should be arranged by top-level managers to ensure employees are well prepared to manage and work in different scenarios.

In general, the root causes of a TWE need to be identified. Steps should be taken to reduce and dissolve toxicity in the workplace environment and try to build a positive environment in its place. These steps taken by the organization and top-level managers will help to create a positive workplace environment and enhance work productivity. Moreover, a CWE will decrease stress levels and relieve insomnia, headache, and other health issues among employees.

In this study, we investigated the relationship between a TWE, workplace stress, and project success. Moreover, organizational support was found to moderate between a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress. The results show a negative relationship between a toxic workplace environment and project success and between workplace stress and project success. As most of the renewable energy projects chosen as the focus of this study are time-sensitive, employees of organizations participating in these projects experience a variety of mental and physical health problems. A TWE and WS intensify these problems, which can ultimately lead to diseases of depression, anxiety, and insomnia. These issues reduce the morale of employees, which affects their productivity level. Employees lacking morale will not be productive at the workplace, which ultimately results in less successful projects.

The findings of this study also indicate that organizational support, which is treated as a moderator between a TWE and WS in this study, plays an important role to overcome the problems. An organization that cares more about its employees will intervene in the situation and play a supportive role to sustain wellbeing and productivity. Through organizational support, employees of an organization feel a responsibility towards their assigned duties, which increases their productivity. This is ultimately good for the organization as well as for the employees, improving the chances of project success. In conclusion, the model tested in this study indicates that a toxic workplace environment and workplace stress influence project success with organizational support acting as a moderator. The study makes a novel contribution in the context of renewable energy projects in Pakistan.

Funding Statement

This work is supported by the National Social Science Fund (Key Project Grant No. 18AGL028).

Ethics Statement

This research was conducted among in Pakistani organizations involved in renewable energy projects. First, the authors attained the approval of project directors for data collection. Second, the participants were given a cover letter ensuring them of the confidentiality of their responses and asking them to indicate their willingness to participate. All the participants willingly took part in the questionnaire survey, and written informed consent was provided by the participants and their organizations. Third, this work was conducted under the supervision a Chinese professor, and the research ethics committees of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Guangzhou University, and Guangxi University approved the study.

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

• Witnesses in Trump documents case can remain private, judge rules
• Chicago officers fired at suspect nearly 100 times at fatal traffic stop, report says
• Boeing hit with whistleblower allegations, adding to safety concerns
• Senior US Democrat wants more answers before approving Israel F-15 sale
• UK Conservative lawmaker quits party after leaking colleagues' numbers
• Biden says he is examining power to shut US border on his own
• While You Were Sleeping: 5 stories you might have missed, April 10
• US aid chief sees 'sea change' in assistance for Gaza, wants more
• US to sell to Ukraine US$138 million in Hawk air defence upgrades
• White House: US condemns Ecuador's armed raid of Mexico's embassy
• US says labor complaints against Mexican facilities have been resolved
• Liberia senate approves war crimes court's creation
• Spain's parliament to draft amnesty bill for undocumented migrants
• UK Nobel Prize-winning physicist Peter Higgs dies aged 94
• US sends seized Iranian weapons to Ukraine
• 124 candles? Peru stakes claim to world's oldest human, born in 1900
• Biden calls Trump main threat to US democracy
• Parents of US school shooter sentenced to 10-15 years in prison
• Georgians protest outside parliament against 'Russian law' on foreign agents
• Former Venezuelan oil, finance ministers arrested in PDVSA corruption case
• Blinken says talks on Israel's Rafah offensive expected next week
• Ukraine's Zelensky checks Kharkiv fortifications as Russia intensifies attacks
• Colombia ex-President Uribe will face trial, attorney general's office says
• Niger coup risks jump in EU immigration, commissioner says
• Sudan's war spills into farming state hosting displaced people
• Trump seeks delay in Stormy Daniels hush money trial as he appeals gag order
• UK's Cameron: Position on arms sales to Israel unchanged
• Polish lawmaker who extinguished Hanukkah candles faces charges
• Mass famine in Gaza would ensure long conflict, US defense chief says
• Sex & R/S
• Entertainment
• Food & Drink
• Stuff to do
• Gift Guides
• Tech & Home
• WOMEN OF THE YEAR

Subscribe to Apr 2024 now!

Your life. Your rules. Your style. We’ve got you covered. Sign up for our newsletter for the latest news from Her World.

Privacy Menu

• Advertising with Us
• Conditions of Access
• Privacy Statement

Most employees say their workplace is “toxic”. But what does that mean anymore?

‘Toxic workplace’ as a term is the It-girl around the career block, with many speaking out about their experiences. But how do we know we are stuck in one? Or are we using the term as a blanket statement to mask our unhappiness towards unmet expectations

Share this article

In my first full-time role working in social media and marketing, I had a workaholic boss who demanded our team give our heart and soul to the company. This meant being on standby 24/7 and having meetings and content discussions after working hours.

Of course, I understood that sometimes, this is the expectation of working with social media platforms and their never-ending nature, but it started becoming excessive when he expected replies and discussions to occur past office hours and in the wee hours of the morning. This led to many of us hiding our after-work activities posted on social media to avoid scrutiny when we showed up to work. Over time, the lack of boundaries bled into other areas – from insensitive comments about our appearances to uncomfortable communal venting sessions of employees he was unhappy with.

But to maintain the peace, none of us spoke out or voiced our concerns for fear or retaliation. At the time, it felt more beneficial to keep mum and to seek solace in our shared experience amongst ourselves instead. However, it made me wonder about all the workplaces where people have done the same just to increase their chances of climbing the career ladder. For instance, being told we’re a “family” as a way to falsely foster relationships, while simultaneously expecting top-level performance at the expense of the employees. Or burdening them with the responsibility of bad mismanagement and foresight.

Research from The Adecco Group found that 35.7 per cent of the studied employees left their jobs due to a toxic or negative work environment, and it’s also the top reason for people leaving their jobs. Toxic workplaces impact many of us severely, even when we do not notice its effects on our lives because we believe it could be the norm.

It begs the question: How many of us are stuck in toxic workplaces?

Related: Should I volunteer to work overtime just because everyone else is?

Related: Which productivity method is the right one for you?

Related: Should you take up a contract role that pays more?

What is a toxic workplace, really?

As defined by the American Psychological Association , a toxic workplace has “infighting, intimidation, and other affronts that harm productivity”. Some of these attributes include failure to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, leaving workers feeling disrespected by rampant and unethical behaviour displayed by their co-workers.

Such toxic work behaviours can manifest through the gossip culture between coworkers, favouritism from managers, additional workload that might not be compensated, or even emotionally volatile managers or co-workers whom employees need to tiptoe around. 

Toxic workplace environments are not just created from questionable actions or remarks but also by the way coworkers create toxic relationships with one another, says Mr Calvin Yeo, a Co-founder and Principal Consultant of Cadence Culture and Executive Coach for workplaces with 28 years of experience. “It results in people experiencing a lack of psychological safety, where they might not have a choice or voice, but have to conform like a minion in the system in place”, he continues. Such culture is not synonymous with a single notion but with many contributing factors.

Psychological safety is when employees feel comfortable and safe to share opinions, take risks and admit their mistakes without fear of negative consequences. While this is something organisations should actively promote, unfortunately, most businesses tend to prioritise high performance over anything else, which can lead to a complacency when it comes to cultivating a healthy work environment. 

As author and inspirational speaker Simon Sinek says, businesses end up unintentionally promoting toxicity by rewarding high performers in the workplace, who might not be the most trustworthy individuals outside the workplace. This shows how culture can be informed by the worst behaviours that are accepted by leaders in an organisation and have a trickle down effect.

Who’s responsible for preventing a toxic workplace from arising? 

In a different company within the media industry, I started disagreeing with, Evelyn*, a seemingly ‘friendly, thoughtful, and kind’ coworker that everyone gravitated towards. At the time, she had committed a workplace violation which I had spoken out about and she was unhappy with the action I took, and took to badmouthing me to other co-workers. I immediately saw my colleagues distancing themselves from me as a result, likely due to the emotionally tense environment that Evelyn had created due to her shifts in mood in the office. 

Jocelyn Luw, the office manager at public relations firm Tate Anzur, shared that some telltale signs in a toxic workplace include a lack of psychological safety among employees that creates an environment where employees are unable to take risks, voice their opinions, and ask questions or make mistakes without consequences. This could result in employees not voicing out their ideas or frustrations in the workplace – opening a Pandora’s Box of rampant hushed conversations and gossip. 

“Toxic culture can start from anyone, be it the leadership, middle management or junior team members. It can also arise if there is a misalignment, where the employee may not share a similar value fit as the company culture,” elaborated Jocelyn. Wrong hires could also overload the current workload of other employees and lead to burnout.

There is an added responsibility on companies and management to ensure that the company culture is healthy enough for all current and future employees to thrive in. Jocelyn commented that with the Human Resources (HR) department being the first point of contact for new hires, it is important to discern the cultural fit and value alignment with stakeholders before hiring. The HR department must also create and enforce practices that promote respect, inclusivity, and fairness for all parties. 

And from the POV as job seekers, we need to ask the right questions during the interview process to ensure the company culture fits our personality; particularly ones that gives insight to the work culture, company values and employee expectations An introverted person would struggle in a work environment that encourages a high amount of collaboration across teams or participation in after-work social activities. In their interview, they should be asking questions such as the importance of teamwork required in this role, especially if they are more suited to a role in silo. 

The woke-ification about work 

Since Evelyn and I were in teams that worked closely together, it was essential to ensure that the relationship was healthy between all of us. Evelyn was microaggressive and would stomp all around the office, rattling the wooden floors whenever she was upset, or behave standoffish when we had to talk about work so I found comfort in bonding closely with my team and utilised them as a support system that helped me to focus on my work. 

This gave me the concentration I needed to make my projects a success, and at the same time muted Evelyn’s behaviour by remembering that we were all working towards a common, rewarding goal. I also learnt to create boundaries that protected me psychologically and emotionally such as skipping out on optional gatherings if I knew she would be present and sharing less of my personal life at work. 

While Evelyn was observed by managers and coworkers as one of the more self-aware individuals within the company due to her friendly and thoughtful nature, many were still treading on eggshells around her because of the tense environment she would create whenever she got emotional at work. 

Despite the progress we are making in the workplace to be more mindful of ourselves and others around us, toxic workplaces persist because we don’t stop to question that we could be the ones perpetuating it. Even if we create an entirely friendly workplace where we’re nice to one another instead of giving critical feedback, that could be the start of a toxic culture that keeps company outcomes at a mediocre level. 

The way forward for our work culture

On the flip side, is the modern workforce less “hardy” than its older generations by perceiving a conventional working culture as toxic? We’ve seen endless complaints on Linkedin and Reddit about Gen Z being coddled or labelled as “fragile”. According to Roberta Katz, a senior research scholar at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, younger folks like Gen Zs receive unfair negative judgement from a misunderstanding by their elders about what it is like to grow up in today’s world. This rings true when we remember how hard it is now to even secure an interview for a position and go through multiple long and redundant processes for even entry level postions, let alone get a job. 

Mr Yeo remarked that while there are multiple studies available for management to understand the different needs of each generation, there needs to be further conversation for this understanding to be customised and contextualised for their teams. In these conversations, each individual should express their hopes, the contributions they desire to make, and how they wish to be engaged to create a healthy and purpose-driven culture. 

For example, Mr Yeo shares that in intergenerational conversations, Baby boomers and Generation X individuals are told that they do not embrace new learning opportunities; however, older staff members are not resistant to change but worry about the pace and level of support provided for learning. Gen Zs in the workplace may sound picky, but in reality, they are seeking meaning and purpose in their work before diving in. 

Managers should first acknowledge the existing toxic culture and hold people accountable for their actions, even if it results in conflict and discomfort. Additionally, Mr Yeo explained that an organisation should have a supportive work culture which helps with sustainable productivity – derived from recognising and valuing employees through regular appreciation of their work; and providing growth that is attainable and aligned with their aspirations. Managers need to genuinely believe in the importance of it too, as the latter will lead to their team’s disillusionment. 

Because of the changing work environment influenced by technology advancements, new generations of the workforce and industry transformations, supportive work cultures can only continue if managers are intentionally connected to people’s changing needs, “Managers need to have regular dialogue and check-ins with their team to be present in their work life and provide the necessary support for their thriving”, says Mr Yeo.

Toxic workplaces might never go away, no matter how much self-awareness and policies are put in place. But we can prevent them from becoming a foundation in an organisation’s work culture. 

Related: 5 ways to know if a company is a right fit for you

Related: How to figure out your workplace love language

Related: How do I know if I’m entitled to retrenchment benefits?

Toxins at a Workplace Essay

Targeted scenario, connection between the two cases, testing for the connection, a case in court, reference list.

Every employee is entitled to a safe working environment. The law requires employers to ensure their employees work in safe environments. The presence of toxins in a given workplace can result in many health issues. Some occupations “expose many individuals to different toxic compounds” (Lin, 2012, p. 1465).

Individuals who handle chemicals, plastics, beauty products, nail polishes, solvents, and paints are exposed to different toxicants. This discussion examines how the presence of toxins in a given workplace can affect the health conditions of many individuals.

A woman had delivered a healthy baby before starting her new job. She later joined a small manufacturing plant as an employee. Her child became sick after several months. The child was later hospitalized in order to get the required medical support. She later discussed the conditions of the child with one of her coworkers.

She observed that another female coworker had encountered a similar problem. The female coworker’s child had been hospitalized after portraying similar symptoms. These two cases show clearly that the employees in the firm were exposed to different toxic compounds (Lin, 2012).

It is agreeable that these two cases are closely connected. These employees encountered similar health challenges. Their newborn babies portrayed similar symptoms. According to Kacew and Lee (2013), children are affected the most by different toxic compounds. Children tend to have weak bodies.

Their body organs are also under development thus making them prone to different toxicants (Kacew & Lee, 2013). The mother can therefore use several methods to determine if there is a connection between these two cases.

To begin with, she should analyze the symptoms experienced by the two newborns. The mother should ensure the child is tested in order to determine the kind of toxicant affecting him or her (Lin, 2012).

Several factors should be addressed in this scenario. The first approach is examining the nature of the working conditions in the manufacturing plant. This analysis will identify some of the potential toxins in the working environment. The next approach is comparing the medical reports of the two babies.

This analysis will identify the unique similarities between the two newborn babies. The health statuses of the two women should also be examined carefully (Lucille, 2015). The milk produced by the mothers should also be examined in order to understand the pathway of the potential toxic compound.

The other practice is collecting more information from every worker in the manufacturing plant. The approach will highlight the major issues affecting many individuals in the firm.

The provided scenario shows clearly that the working environment has been unsafe. That being the case, the mother of the child has a case in a court of law. Chances are very high that the company has not been supporting the health needs of its employees. Two women have faced similar health challenges.

Their newborn babies have also portrayed similar signs and symptoms. Chances are very high that the woman is also affected by different toxic compounds (Kacew & Lee, 2013). The company has failed to provide the required safety precautions to its workers. This fact explains why the female employee should consult an attorney.

The “child’s medical report should be used as evidence in court” (Lin, 2012, p. 1483).

Kacew, S., & Lee, B. (2013). Lu’s Basic Toxicology: Fundamentals, Target Organs, and Risk Assessment . New York, NY: Information Healthcare.

Lin, A. (2012). Beyond Tort: Compensating Victims of Environmental Toxic Injury. Southern California Law Review, 78 (1), 1439-1529.

Lucille, H. (2015). Do You Have a Toxic Workplace? Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 5). Toxins at a Workplace. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toxins-at-a-workplace/

"Toxins at a Workplace." IvyPanda , 5 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/toxins-at-a-workplace/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Toxins at a Workplace'. 5 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Toxins at a Workplace." February 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toxins-at-a-workplace/.

1. IvyPanda . "Toxins at a Workplace." February 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toxins-at-a-workplace/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Toxins at a Workplace." February 5, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/toxins-at-a-workplace/.

• The Epigenetic Impact of Various Environmental Toxicants
• Compare and Contrast of Toxicants
• Susceptibility to Environmental Toxicants
• Toxicology Examination of a Site
• The Practice of Using Therapeutic Drugs
• Effects of PCBs on the Immune System, the Respiratory System, and the Liver
• About Toxicogenomics
• Toxic Environmental Factors and Development of Dementia
• Toxicological Issues at a Hazardous Waste Site
• Ecotoxicology: Toxic Wastes in the Marmara Sea
• Humidex Index Calculation
• Human Mastery in Voluntary Self-Restraint
• Sustainability Assessment Approach: An Alternative
• The Triple Bottom Line and the Global Reporting Initiatives
• Air Pollution Sources in Houston

Kinda Frugal

15 Tips for Exiting a Toxic Workplace Professionally

Posted: March 12, 2024 | Last updated: March 12, 2024

The uncertainty of quitting a toxic job can be scary. People usually stay in toxic jobs for years because of the security they get from working for a successful company or a large corporation. By leaving, you might face financial uncertainty plus the stress of providing for family members and fulfilling other financial obligations like a mortgage. 

However, enduring a toxic work environment also comes at a cost. Chronic stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression are just some of the negative consequences that workers experience. With time, the adverse effects of a job you hate can begin impacting other areas of your life. 

Don’t let fear and anxiety prevent you from pursuing healthier, more rewarding options elsewhere. The tips below will help you navigate the uncomfortable transition more confidently.

Trust Yourself

Since you already have a job, it is safe to assume you are a somewhat experienced employee with acceptable professional skills and qualifications.

So what makes you think you won’t be able to find another job that pays just as well (if not better) that doesn’t come at the cost of your well-being? You have already found one job, and you are capable of finding another.

Break the Cycle of False Beliefs

Sometimes, always looking on the bright side can cause you to miss out on better opportunities. Don’t let your dependency and appreciation for security be a detriment to your long-term success. 

No job situation is ever truly secure. Every company experiences economic downturns, employees are laid off, and industry changes impact organizations constantly. It is best to always be proactive. 

Reflect on Your Priorities & Values

As you think about escaping a toxic work environment , take some time to consider what truly matters to you in life and work. If you find that your job is clashing with your core values or interfering with your priorities, it’s a sign that you should start looking for a way out.

Ensure Psychological Safety

Creating a psychological safety net to negate your hesitation would be best. That is why, before quitting your job, you should revise your resume and research potential job opportunities.

The next step is to evaluate your financial situation. If you have savings, consider how long you can live off of them if you quit your job without securing another.

Seek Support From Friends, Family, & Mentors

During this challenging time of overcoming a toxic job situation, lean on your support network. Share your experiences with friends, family, and mentors who can offer valuable advice, encouragement, and emotional support as you prepare to leave your toxic job. Sometimes, you may find a great new job opportunity by expressing your needs to your network. 

Develop an Exit Strategy

A well-planned exit strategy is an essential step to quitting an unhealthy job. Assess your financial situation, set a timeline for when you’d like to leave, and outline the steps to secure a new position. A clear plan will help you stay focused and organized throughout the process.

Update Your Resume & LinkedIn Profile

As you navigate a toxic job departure, ensure your resume and LinkedIn profile are current and showcase your skills and accomplishments. Use keywords and phrases relevant to your industry to catch the attention of potential employers.

Network With Industry Professionals

Connecting with professionals in your field can help you find job opportunities while managing a toxic work environment exit. Attend industry events, join online forums, and engage with professionals on social media to expand your network and increase your chances of finding a new job.

Apply for New Jobs Regularly

To successfully leave a hostile workplace, consistently apply for new positions. The more opportunities you explore, the higher your chances of finding a job that’s a better fit for you.

Prepare for Job Interviews

As you start landing interviews, ensure you’re ready to handle them confidently. Research the companies, practice answering common interview questions, and be prepared to discuss your experience and how it relates to the position. This will improve your chances of securing a new job offer.

Maintain Professionalism During the Transition

Staying professional as you transition out of your current job is crucial when dealing with a toxic job situation. Keep up your performance and be respectful to your colleagues, even if the environment is challenging. This will help you maintain a positive professional reputation.

Secure a New Job Offer Before Resigning

Try to secure a new job offer before resigning from your toxic job. It’s typically easier to find a job when you’re already employed, and it gives you peace of mind knowing you have something lined up.

Give Appropriate Notice and Follow the Resignation Protocol

When it’s time to leave a toxic workplace, make sure you give appropriate notice and follow your company’s resignation protocol. This will help you maintain good professional relationships and leave on favorable terms.

Resist the Persuasion to Stay

Once you submit your resignation, you may encounter resistance. Your boss and HR will probably want to know your reasons for leaving.

If you are a valuable company employee, don’t be surprised if they make you a counteroffer. For example, they might tell you they will increase your salary if you agree to stay. You might even hear something about the possibility of promotion.

However, you need to be adamant in your decision to move on. Clearly state that money and career growth opportunities cannot convince you to stay at this company.

Endure the Notice Period

Once it has been made official that you will be leaving, your notice period will begin. This could be two weeks or a month, depending on your employment agreement. Your coworkers might be informed that you will be leaving during this period.

Unfortunately, the news can exacerbate some of your coworkers’ toxic behaviors. That is why it would be preferable not to share with anyone that you have decided to quit. Let the company share that news if they feel it is pertinent. 

Finally, save your excitement and happiness for the new opportunity for your family and new company. Maintaining professionalism until you exit the office on your final day is the best way to keep your reputation. 

12 Assertive Ways to Respond When Your Boss Ignores You

One of the more concerning realizations you could make at work is that your boss ignores you. They don’t respond to your emails or DMs or have time to talk to you in person. So, why is your boss ignoring you all of a sudden? Could it be that they are angry at you for some reason? Do they no longer value you as a professional and an employee? Or are they simply too busy to respond to you? However, one crucial thing to remember is that every situation is unique, so the resolution to your situation might come from one or several of the steps outlined below. Whatever the reason for their lack of attentiveness, we have twelve tips to help you determine the best course of action to restore the lines of communication.

15 Jobs Employers Are Actively Seeking Candidates For

Finding capable people to fill open roles is a persistent problem for many businesses. Talent shortages and challenges in recruiting occur when the demand for competent experts in a sector exceeds the supply of such individuals. In an online forum, people identify these jobs that have become almost impossible to fill.

More for You

First-Quarter "Safe-Harbor" Quarterly IRS Estimated Tax Payments: Why and How to Make Them

Acura's Next SUV Will Likely Be a Bite-Sized, Integra Sibling

Liam Lawson told to ‘keep his phone charged’ with brutal Daniel Ricciardo verdict delivered

Here’s How Long You Should Walk Every Day to Keep Your Heart Healthy

The Exact Time to Quit Your Job, According to Chief HR Officer

Xbox Game Pass Adds Two Games Today, Including a Day One Launch Title

What Were Those Bright Red Dots Seen During the Eclipse?

3 Mistakes to Avoid When Buying a Hybrid Car

18 Unwritten Rules: What Not to Do in America

A father with children born via surrogacy rejects the Vatican's view that condemns the practice

YouTube influencer group Dude Perfect scores more than $100M investment

This common trait is a red flag of a toxic boss, says ex-IBM CEO: 'I used to think it was a great skill'

Women Are Quiet Quitting Their Marriages

Apple Targets New Miami Office Space Following Amazon, Microsoft

The 5 Costco Prepared Foods to Avoid, According to Customers

4-Year-Old Living With One of the Rarest Disorders in the World

Webb telescope detects light from an Earth-like planet

I did 50 standing toe touches every day for a week — here’s what happened to my abs

17 Phrases Confident People Use to Stand Up For Themselves

John Calipari addresses decision to 'step away' from Kentucky: 'Time for another voice'