It's Time to Eliminate the Toxic Work Environment
/
For years, workers have been putting up with toxic workplaces. I have personally worked in environments where harassment goes unpunished, employees are expected to be available and responsive 24 hours a day, subject matter experts are demeaned in front of their peers, employees are yelled at in front of their customers, and where legal, ethical, and moral standards are pushed.
The definition of a toxic culture may vary, but Scott Mautz in a recent Inc article mentions some overt and subtle indications of toxicity. Among his more obvious clues: “If appreciation is absent, accountability is elusive at best, there's a raving lunatic of a boss, and everyone's on LinkedIn during work, you might be stuck in a toxic workplace.
Working in an environment here there is little or no dissension (signs that employees are not comfortable, willing, or safe to speak their mind), or where there is low or negative energy (signs that employees are simply going through the motions) are a few of Mautz’s more subtle signs of a toxic culture.
Why Don’t People Call Out Toxic Behavior at Work?
These all seem like obvious red flags, so why don’t more employees call out questionable behavior?
My experience is that fear and helplessness are the two most common reasons employees stay in a toxic environment.
Fear
You can’t speak out because the consequences to me personally are too great. You’ll be labeled as a whiner or a complainer, or as someone who makes excuses instead of getting the job done at any cost. Equally as damaging to being labeled, you could be penalized financially, marginalized in your position, or fired.
Helplessness
When your boss thinks it’s ok to yell at you in front of customers or co-workers, how can you expect a reasonable conversation to address the impact and implications? Employees wonder how likely they will be believed if they raise the issue to HR, and it becomes a you-vs-your-manager narrative.
It’s simply too risky for most employees to speak out, especially when their company has made it explicitly or implicitly clear they do not welcome questions or concerns. In fact, professor Francesca Gino spells out a few risks that employees face in raising a workplace issue. “Challenging the status quo threatens people’s status and relationships with supervisors and coworkers, research shows. Speaking up can also result in negative performance evaluation, undesirable job assignments, or even termination. Most people are aware of these potential costs; as a result, most stay quiet about bias, injustice, and mistreatment.”
Companies such as Away restricted employee communications channels, making the already risky decision to raise issues more difficult. Theranos leadership made it clear that questions or dissension were not welcome. At Amazon, despite many safety concerns, a former manager related, “It’s not a conversation that can be had.”
The common thread I see in companies with toxic cultures is creating an executive team who ignores feedback, restricts communications, and discourages dialog. I call this deafening silence. The management team demands or expects silence on topics that matter to employees, and the implications reverberate across the organization loudly.
The High Costs of a Toxic Culture
While the risks to an individual are either actually or perceived to be high, the risks to a company of NOT listening to their employees are even greater. Ignoring the voice of employees can lead to a public relations crisis, an un-engaged and non-productive workforce, sub-optimized business results, or a full-on implosion.
The most recent Gallup poll on the State of the American Workplace finds 33% of employees to be engaged, 51% non engaged, and 16% actively disengaged. In SHRM’s (Society for Human Resource Management) High Cost of a Toxic Workplace Culture report, they found 44% of workers fulfilled as compared to 56% who say they are less than fulfilled. Sadly and alarmingly, they found 26% of employees “dread going into work.” The statistics below come from the Gallup and SHRM surveys.
Health suffers: Unrealistic and unreasonable expectations can lead to physical injuries and can negatively impact mental health. Gallup finds a 41% reduction in absenteeism and a 70% decrease in the number of employee safety incidents from engaged workers vs. those not engaged.
Productivity crashes: Rather than focus on the job at hand,, employees spend time looking over their shoulders, ruminating about injustices, and looking for new jobs in a toxic environment. An engaged worker delivers a 17% increase in productivity.
Product quality suffers and products walk: Companies with an engaged workforce will see a 28% reduction in shrinkage and 40% reduction in quality defects when compared to companies or business units with employees who are not engaged.
Employee engagement falls: Whether leading to actual absenteeism (not showing up), or “just mailing it in”, an employee who is not present literally or figuratively cannot contribute to business results.
High turnover rates: Employees will leave toxic managers or companies sooner or later. Managers are the main reason 58% of employees said they quit their job due to workplace culture.Turnover rates are 24% lower when employees are engaged vs. not engaged. This turnover rate comes with a high price tag: SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, calculates these costs at more than $220 billion over the past five years.
Business results plummet: There are many studies on the impact gap between engaged and non-engaged employees to the top and bottom line. Gallup sees a 20% increase in sales and a 21% greater profitability
In addition to these “hard” costs, I’ve also seen two other major impacts to a company with a toxic environment.
Whether employees stay or leave, the company’s reputation takes a hit. The speed of news travels instantaneously on the internet for better or worse. Reviews on Glass Door, unflattering tweets, leaked messages, or Facebook groups are all impacting company reputations in real time.
When employees finally decide to leave, many of them head directly to a competitor. This has a double impact on the company: they lose experienced employees while their competitor gains them.
What Can Leaders Do?
These statistics make it clear that we must increase the number of engaged employees. This starts by building a culture of engagement, trust and respect; and requires leadership in terms of actions taken, not titles conferred.
It requires a non-traditional approach to recruiting and retaining employees. Know what your employees want. Know what motivates and drives them. Support their growth and development.
It requires a commitment to communicate and be transparent on everything from company purpose to how each employee impacts the company strategy and mission; from pay equity to opportunity equity, from what’s working well to what needs improvement.
It requires a commitment to a culture that welcomes frank and honest feedback.
Want help developing a positive corporate culture?