Actual Toxic Workplace Cases

The following are true cases of real people who struggled with employment in their own toxic work environment. These cases may provide some small piece of information that may be helpful to you as you consider making your own career change.

The Case of Vivian

Others began observing her come to work early, work through lunch, and stay well into the evening day in and day out for several months. Unexpectedly, Vivian was rewarded for exceptional dedication to the company during the annual awards ceremony. Her new award further reinforced her workaholic behaviors.

Within several months of receiving her award, Vivian was promoted to another position with greater authority and additional responsibility. During her transition to the new position she was expected to complete her former responsibilities in addition to the new one. In an attempt to maintain excellence, Vivian continued her work schedule as before. In addition, however, she began taking her laptop home nightly to accommodate the extra responsibilities.

Vivian continued to articulate to her supervisor (and her supervisor’s supervisor) that her workload was excessive. She openly shared her concerns that she was having difficulty staying on top of her duties. Her supervisor responded by acknowledging her feelings and assured her that “things would improve”. He told Vivian that everyone was stretched to the extreme and that his workload was even more intense than hers. Beyond words, however, no actions were taken to modify the employee’s workload. Vivian was left with no choice but to maintain her schedule of work just to stay afloat.

After several months, the Vivian experienced a breakdown in the office. She simply fell out of her chair onto the floor in convulsions. So as not to disrupt the work of other employees Vivian was loaded back into her office chair by the HR partner and wheeled to the front door of the company until the paramedics could arrive to transport her to the hospital.

Vivian returned to the company on a reduced work schedule against her doctor’s advice. When asked to take on additional projects that would require working beyond her part-time status Vivian refused. Within approximately two months from the time of her breakdown Vivian resumed her normal work schedule. After only two weeks her job was suddenly eliminated.

Unfortunately, the company was walking the slippery slope of risk for litigation because the employee repeatedly expressed to her supervisor that the workload was becoming unmanageable. The supervisor’s failure to direct Vivian to modify her work schedule along with failure to provide assistance put both the supervisor and the company at risk. It was convenient for the company to eliminate Vivian’s position.

It is most regrettable that another position was not found for Vivian within the organization. Even if Vivian had been required to take a reduction in pay, the fact that she was not given this option was very telling as to the climate of the company.

The Case of Craig

The next case is an example of a toxic work environment where employee health concerns escalated out of control.

An employee named Craig experienced persistent stress on the job that, according to his physician, "contributed substantially to the onset of diabetes". Craig’s health concerns were such that he was required to remain in the hospital then at home for a month.

During the month, Craig attempted to communicate with his supervisor regarding various issues pertaining to his job. His supervisor, on the other hand, made the decision to provide no response to Craig regarding job-related issues. Instead, the supervisor directed the Craig to address all of his comments and concerns to HR.

Craig became confused and concerned about his supervisor’s behavior. In an attempt to force the communication, Craig sought to receive information and feedback from his supervisor’s supervisor. Craig’s attempts were futile; his communication attempts were ignored.

Given that Craig was currently experiencing stress related health issues, the collective behavior from management compounded the employee’s stress. After one month of medical leave Craig returned to work. He quickly found himself to be completely out of touch with current job-related issues and newly implemented procedures. Craig struggled to maintain appropriate sugar levels over the next several weeks.

In addition, Craig was faced with the stress of failing to meet his supervisor’s expectations. Within a month from the time Craig returned to the office, the intentional withholding of critical job-related information by the supervisors created tremendous pressure on Craig. Finally, Craig made the decision to terminate his relationship with the employer.

Craig went home early one Friday afternoon. The next day, Craig was not schedule to work but he went back into the office. He cleaned out his desk, removed all pertinent files and information, and then never again returned. On Monday of the next week, Craig did not show up for work nor did he call to report being ill. The same thing happened on Tuesday; there was no call but Craig did not show up for work. Management had no information regarding Craig’s absences leaving projects unfinished and a lot of whispers among colleagues in the office.

By Wednesday, HR distributed an interoffice memo stating that Craig has resigned. (Per company policy, two days of no call and no show indicate a voluntary resignation by the employee). By the next week, Craig’s friend and colleagues reported that his “no call/no show” behavior was “in retaliation for the supervisor’s lack of communication during his medical leave.”

The supervisor in this situation played a part in contributing to Craig’s stress and poor health early on. During Craig’s medical leave the supervisor’s intentional avoidance and lack of communication inflamed an already difficult situation. Periodic communication, even if it had been minimal, may have served to reduce the stress and tension between Craig and his supervisor. In summary, avoidance of an employee is not an adequate management strategy. Conversely, some level of communication would have provided a reasonable attempt to reduce the employee’s stress. The supervisor’s behavior often determines the level of threat that the employee will engage in negative retaliatory behavior.

For example, prior to the employee’s medical leave, if the supervisor believed that Craig was unable or unwilling to perform his duties, the proper progression of discipline and termination should have occurred. As unpleasant as it is to discipline or terminate an employee, following company policies and procedures is the professional route; it will ultimately provide protection against employee retaliation.

Stress is often the direct result of miscommunication. An infinite number of hypothetical scenarios accompanied by real or imagined threats to job security can easily consume employees when their supervisors do not clearly articulate expectations. Frequently, employees (including managers) have unspoken expectations that are not readily discernable during a job interview. In addition, changes in management may also result in a misunderstanding of unspoken expectations.

In adverse situations, management may opt for purposeful failure to communicate performance expectations; such vicious behavior that may result in physical and emotional harm to an employee. This regrettable behavior is a strategy used by some managers to build a case against an employee with the goal of termination.

Any salaried employee should have a general understanding that his/her work schedule should include more than 40 hours per week. If this schedule does not align with the employee's work-life balance goals, it's time for a change!

The Case of Alice

An unfortunate example of the unspoken expectations involved a salaried employee named Alice. Alice was unexpectedly called into a meeting with the supervisor and HR partner to discover that the amount of time in the office was below standard. Alice expressed shock and disbelief at these comments. Upon further questioning Alice discovered that all employees in like positions were subject to the unspoken expectation of working 65 hours per week.

Alice responded to the statement of these expectations by saying that she was unaware rather than unwilling to comply. The supervisor and HR partner disagreed; they insisted that this expectation was stated during the interview process. Alice disagreed. She responded to these accusations by stating that if this expectation had been expressed during the original interview she would never have accepted the position.

Within days of this meeting Alice was given a directive to begin working 65 hours, demoted by title, removed from her office to a position on the floor, and sited for insubordination. Clearly, the decision to terminate the employee had been established in the mind of the supervisor when he articulated the previously unspoken expectation. Thus, the employee had fallen victim to the supervisor’s trap with no option but to resign or be terminated.

Often, intentional pressures exerted by management may cause such stress and discomfort for the employee he/she may elect to resign. Resignation is clearly more favorable for the company because unemployment compensation is averted. In either case, management perceives this as “win”.

Research reveals that the fallout from such a strategy can have both a negative and long-lasting impact on the company.

The Case of Nick and Beth

There was an occasion for Beth to travel for a week of professional development training resulting in certification to enhance her job skills. Because the destination of Beth’s training happened to be Nick’s favorite place to go, he decided that he would accompany Beth.

It just so happened that during the week of the training Nick was also heavily involved in sale of his home; the sale was not going smoothly as there were some issues with the home inspection. Nick attended the morning session of the first day but never again returned to the training the rest of the week. Nick’s justification for his non-attendance, as stated to Beth, was that the trainers were “stupid” and that the certification was nothing more than a “scam”.

During dinner together mid-way through the week, Nick confided in Beth that he had a bad experience in a previous position. Nick reported to Beth that a female employee from the previous position had accused him of sexual harassment to her supervisor that resulted in his immediate termination. He further confided in Beth that he had made a promise to himself, stating, “Before I die I am going to take her out. I know where she lives and I’m going to get her. I don’t want to do it now because it would hurt my family, but I’ll leave myself enough time to kill her.” While Beth was shocked at Nick’s words she did not respond.

Some months passed from the time of the training. With budget approval due to the Board and employee negotiations going poorly, Nick became agitated and unpredictable. Beth took notice of Nick’s erratic behaviors and bursts of anger in the workplace. Concluding that Nick’s behavior was becoming more unpredictable by the day, she decided to share her observations with Nick’s and her supervisor. At that time, Beth also shared with the supervisor Nick’s statement of threat against the female in his previous position. The supervisor promptly dismissed her concerns as ridiculous.

Within a month of Beth’s conversation to her supervisor she became concerned to the point that she shared her concerns with a colleague. The colleague noted that he too had observed the unpredictable and erratic behaviors. He also shared with Beth that he had personally witnessed a severe explosion of Nick’s anger toward himself and others during a meeting while in the presence of Beth’s supervisor. Unfortunately, he reported to Beth that the supervisor did nothing to help bring Nick under control.

In this case, the manager’s avoidance of Nick’s violent outbursts further empowered Nick to behave in a grossly inappropriate manner in the workplace. To the dismay of the other employees who were trying to remain professional, Nick was permitted to behavior without restraint in any way he saw fit. Like an uncontrollable and vicious dog, other employees were being mangled while the supervisor looked on. Consequently, Beth’s supervisor lost all respect from his employees due to his persistent lack of action.

Why some managers elect to do nothing and to avoid the obvious in some very inappropriate situations can be perplexing. In a court of law, the supervisor’s willful negligence to address Nick’s problems would most likely result in a “win” for the prosecution.

Nevertheless, there are some capable managers who choose to do nothing rather than create any “waves” that might threaten the stability of their own position. In the case of Beth, it is clear that the supervisor perceived Nick to be in a position of power with the potential to threaten his position. As a result, the supervisor opted to ignore Nick’s behavior as if it simply did not exist.

Some time later, it became obvious to Beth that her supervisor told Nick that she had shared concerns. Upon hearing this, Nick began to engage in subtle but purposeful passive aggressive actions (i.e., denied opportunities to attend training, cut off from critical job-related information, given large assignments then ignored) against Beth until she, herself, was slated for termination.

The psychopathic executive behaves in patterns much like those of an abuser. There are periods of kindness and encouragement followed by swift blows of anger and abusive treatment. The psychopath may say to the entire department, “You’re playing a critical role in the company’s success therefore I am counting on you all to do your part. The company depends on you to give your best. We are on the edge of greatness and it is because of your collective efforts that we will reach our goals.” Then, after a brief period of time, a couple of individuals are terminated due to "right-sizing". While this is happening, the quotas and benchmarks for success are increased in quantum increments that are impossible for the employees to reach.

Such cyclical and bizarre behaviors exhibited by the executive cause employees to believe that their perceptions of the situation must be out of alignment; they question their own judgment, and sometimes their sanity, regarding their work environment. Just when the employee has reached the targeted mark, he/she finds that the mark has moved – and continues to move. The goal of the psychopath executive is to keep employees off balance and unsettled; this behavior sets the stage for the psychopath to control any situation in a multitude of ways.

Consequently, it is necessary for employees in this situation to take a periodic check of reality. They should continue to trust their deep inner voice and align to their inner compass where the anchor of reality is fixed. In addition, they should look around for other work environments that are “normal” so they do not lose sight of how a healthy company functions. Finally, they should take stock of their own willingness to continue to participate in this dysfunctional game.

Summary