The Toxic Workplace

The overall human and financial costs of toxic workplaces, though significant, go largely ignored. These are workplaces where some of the management systems or practices damage, rather than enhance, the functioning of the organisation.
This often shows up as a department with a staff turnover rate much higher than others in the company. Absenteeism may be high, as staff have more incentive to feel ill, genuinely or otherwise. Conflict appears, as frustration causes blaming and anger to spread. Low morale sets in when there is a perception of powerlessness, and lack of hope for resolution. Enquiries of "How's the job going?" will be met with grim silence, vitriol, sighs or tears. There will be complaints of stress, both emotional and physical. Reports of OOS are likely to be more frequent.

Some managers are all too likely to dismiss the costs as both unimportant and unknowable. However, the costs are numerous, and largely avoidable. The Hay Group calculates the cost of turnover to be up to 150% of a person's salary. This might seem excessive until the costs of the person leaving, are calculated, including loss of production, (both theirs and others) overtime or temporary staff, loss of training investment, knowledge, contacts or clients. Then there is the manager's time spent in trying to untangle, pacify, control, and organise the situation. This might have been happening for many months before the person leaves. Next, there is the cost of replacement, which includes advertising, time spent in administration, interviews, reference checks, induction, and for the new person to come up to speed in the job, which may also take months. Even if nobody leaves the company, other factors take their toll. Absenteeism occurs both on and off the job, as people take time out, and "mental health days". Stressed employees are likely to have a lower rate of output, and make more errors. Lack of loyalty to the company can foster pilfering and sabotage. There may develop an "us and them" mentality, with management and workers distrustful of, and frustrated with each other.

The causes of toxicity are often masked in conflict and blame. People are labelled as "difficult", "troublemakers" or " a pack of moaners". The causes are seen as due to bad people, rather than with bad systems and practices. Certainly, the behaviour of some individuals is inflammatory, but generally this is as much a symptom of the problem, as a cause. Failure to manage such behaviour effectively, also contributes to the problems. Real causes are usually a mixture of difficult relationships, problematic structures, factors intrinsic to the job, role conflicts, flawed career development, and poor communications.

The situation may not be the manager's fault, but it is their responsibility to solve. Yet often this kind of situation is tolerated, because it seems too hard to change it. Inaction is excused on the grounds of "the work's just like that", or "its just human nature". Such a position ignores the very real costs. The longer a situation has been in existence, the greater the need for comprehensive intervention. A simple team-building exercise or a heart-to-heart is unlikely to solve it, because this generally ignores the history and interrelated dynamics of the issues. The situation needs proper diagnosis and planned intervention. Expert help is available, and advisable especially if the manager's objectivity has been compromised. Such assistance should come from a specialist with a proven knowledge of human behaviour. Given such intervention, a reduction in all the symptoms and their associated costs can be expected.