A medal always has two sides. One of the articles on Habré on this topic asks an important question: to what extent is it worth sparing the “gentle” soul of a colleague who is not coping with his task? Would the Jira comment, "Done bad, redesign now," be seen as a sign of toxicity? What do organizations do when immature employees can't get along with a tough, demanding leader?
Over the past few years, the topic of toxicity in development teams has gained scope and popularity, although when applied to management, the term "toxic" behavior appeared in America back in the 90s. "The dark side of leadership"has been recognized as a common management problem with a destructive effect on business in general. Interest in toxic management has prompted theorists to study patterns of such behavior and look for ways to neutralize it within the organization. One theory, for example, is based on three components: (1) personal characteristics of the leader , (2) so-called “followers” and (3) an environment that allows such behavior. Research can also find positive, albeit short-term, effects of such leadership and a lot of advice to organizations in such cases.
The habit of rationalizing people's behavior led me to the conclusion that toxic leadership is a game played by several parties in an organization. The closest thing to explaining the "rules" of this game is the Karpman trianglewhere there will always be a “victim” who is terrorized by the “persecutor”, and the “rescuers” are colleagues or HR who always have time or interest in such conflicts. And this situation can be stopped only by getting out of it, and it is not necessary to leave the company.
What do those who continue to work with toxic leaders say?
I will share a case from my previous work experience. As part of one of the studies, I had to conduct a series of interviews with those who are commonly called the "victims" in such a toxic triangle: those who made the decision to stay in the company and continue to work with their toxic manager.
The reason for the investigation was complaints against one of the divisions that it was impossible to work with them, normal people leave there, and only "ghouls" remain. In personal conversations, each of these "ghouls" turned out to be quite a pleasant person who found his own explanation for the unhealthy atmosphere in the team (naturally, not counting it unhealthy). Many of them, being professionals in their field, admitted that they have learned to “adjust” to the temperament of the manager and avoid particularly bright flashes. And stable, albeit not outstanding business results, did not generate much interest in the topic of toxicity from the side of senior management.
And what will the defendant's side say?
No matter how negative the impact of toxic leadership on employees is, there is another side - the tough leaders themselves, who sometimes have to use aggressive measures to save themselves and their department. One of the tasks for a manager in interviews involves reasoning on the topic: “if you lay off, who would you fire first, given that the quality of work of each of the employees is further below expectations: a father of three children, a single mother, an employee of pre-retirement age or an inexperienced talented student "? And every day, leaders are forced to make decisions like these, which can seem aggressive, dishonest, or even stupid.
The head of one of the underperforming divisions once shared his opinion on why he fights mercilessly against weak employees. The reason is only one: only by acting tough, the manager can save the rest of the department, especially in times of crisis or tough deadlines. And if he is fired, then most likely a new manager will come and get rid of all those remaining for inefficiency.
Of course, this does not justify open aggression and attacks on colleagues. But each of us has weaknesses and shortcomings, the hostages of which are primarily ourselves. And sometimes a toxic leader, of course, should be executed, but first, pity, understand and, perhaps, forgive.
Toxic or not? Taste it!
Shouting, the use of aggressive and offensive comments in the work (like “we understood the idiots, and I have to work with them”), appropriation of other people's merits, not to mention lies and outright fraud - these are unconditional signs of a toxic company. Execute, run, look for a new job - this is the only advice that will save your nerve cells and self-esteem.
What if this is a criticism of your results? Or negative (let's say "developmental") feedback about your communication style? Or a high load of emails and chats on weekends?
Until now, there is no objective mechanism for determining the degree of toxicity in the behavior of a manager, but there are processes that help to indicate negative trends in the organization:
1. Regular and mandatory collection of feedback according to the 360 method.
As one of the most private feedback gathering tools, 360 helps to get information “from everyone about everyone”. Unfortunately, often the lack of consistency in collecting feedback leads to the attitude “why answer, nothing will change anyway”. As a strong advocate of a feedback culture, I can recommend the following:
- Make the survey regular and inevitable, every 3 or 6 months, and over time, employees will get used to being able to tell their truth somewhere;
- Questions and indicators should be known and constant so that every time there are no surprises that they now want to hear about employees;
- It is not HR that owns the process, but the management: it promotes, gives feedback and makes uncomfortable decisions. If you treat 360 as just another innovation that HR only needs, it won't work;
- Sometimes complete anonymity will help, when it is even technically impossible to identify the respondent. However, be careful not to turn 360 into anonymous complaints and gossip without substantiating the facts, which will further harm your culture;
- And an obligatory element that should not be missed in any case is feedback to those who received feedback and making appropriate decisions.
2. Engagement survey
Probably, over the decades of use, no one likes engagement surveys anymore: employees consider them a waste of time, because they do not see any changes afterwards. To fix this, you need to consider the following rules:
- Engagement research should not be just an HR project, managers should be involved in prioritizing this task and communicating it to employees;
- Constant lists of questions that will allow you to track the dynamics in teams;
- Mandatory creation of plans to change and track the result. Unfortunately, this part of the plan is often forgotten, and after the research the result is put on the shelf.
3. Pulse polls
Recently, these pulse polls have gained the most popularity: short, regular polls within the team, in order to understand the mood in the team, will help to "keep an eye on the pulse."
- As a rule, such a survey is designed with a fairly simple and attractive technical solution;
- Can be combined with the end of a sprint for Scrum teams;
- Of the minuses, one can note the slight degree of annoyance of such surveys and sometimes technical difficulties in implementing the solution if you do not want to do it in Excel.
And of course, each time the information received must be taken into account and steps taken to improve the atmosphere.
4. Scientific toxicity scales
For example, "Toxicity scale" from Andrew Schmidt , who proposed a methodology and questionnaire for determining toxicity in a team.
In his survey, Schmidt cites five signs of a toxic leader, such as narcissism, self-promotion, tough management, unpredictability, and authoritarian leadership. By the way, narcissism is almost the main visual sign of a toxic leader: perfect appearance, excessive self-confidence and narcissism, which can be noticed even in an interview with such a leader and draw appropriate conclusions.
The survey is a set of statements about the behavior of the leader with a 6-point scale, which avoids the tendency of central assessments. One of the difficulties of conducting such a survey is the inability to explain to such a leader why such strange questions are asked behind his back (for example, "My leader thinks that he is smarter than others"). However, when investigating a specific manager's toxicity, interviews can be conducted using the same statements and receiving real-time responses.
5. Whistleblowing procedures and anonymous feedback channels
Although these whistleblowing procedureshave long been mandatory for all Western public companies, in Russia they are still treated as "snitching" and "denunciations". This is partly due to the collective culture, and partly to the Soviet past, when even unconfirmed information could cost someone their freedom, and maybe life.
However, in an ideal world, Whistleblowing allows the management of a company to learn all sorts of useful (but often useless or unverified) information about what's really going on in the company.
The implementation of such reporting procedures is a comprehensive approach to improving the transparency of processes in general and increasing the culture of integrity in the company. Therefore, if you decide to promote such an initiative internally, critically assess the risks and costs of its implementation. And not all the information that you will receive through these channels you may like.
What if you see signs of destructive behavior in the company?
Companies that harbor toxic leaders can only cope with a comprehensive solution.
- Correct and high-quality selection of the head. There is nothing wrong with introducing a new leader to the team before making the final hiring decision.
- Working with employees with low self-esteem. These are the people most often targeted by toxic executives, so building their professionalism and self-confidence will help counter the spread of toxicity throughout the company.
- Improving the feedback process in the company when 360, various kinds of feedback (both anonymous and open), polls will draw the attention of senior management to such problems.
And, of course, the fish goes out from the head, so a systemic correction of the situation is possible only in companies where managers and owners understand the importance and complexity of this problem. The culture is formed from the top, and the bad example is contagious, which means that the problem of toxicity must be addressed first of all to the top management.
Be happy at work and don't get sick. And the second is probably more relevant now than the first.