346 OB ON THE EDGE

It’s not unusual to find the following employee behaviours in today’s work-

place:

Answering the phone with a “yeah,” neglecting to say thank you or

please, using voice mail to screen calls, leaving a half cup of coffee

behind to avoid having to brew the next pot, standing uninvited but

impatiently over the desk of someone engaged in a telephone conversa-

tion, dropping trash on the floor and leaving it for the maintenance crew

to clean up, and talking loudly on the phone about personal matters.1

Some employers or managers fit the following descriptions:

In the months since [the new owner of the pharmacy] has been in charge

[he] has made it clear that he is at liberty to fire employees at will . . .

change their positions, decrease their bonus percentages, and refuse

time-off and vacation choices. Furthermore, he has established an

authoritarian work structure characterized by distrust, cut-backs on many

items deemed essential to work comfort, disrespect, rigidity and poor-to-

no-communication.2

He walked all over people. He made fun of them; he intimidated them.

He criticized work for no reason, and he changed his plans daily.3

The

Toxic Workplace

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/27/06 10:12 AM Page 346

What’s Happeningin Our Workplaces?Workplaces today are receivinghighly critical reviews, being calledeverything from “uncivil” to “toxic.”

Lynne Anderson and ChristinePearson, two management professorsfrom St. Joseph’s University and theUniversity of North Carolina, respec-tively, note that “Historians may viewthe dawn of the twenty-first centuryas a time of thoughtless acts andrudeness: We tailgate, even in theslow lane; we dial wrong numbersand then slam the receiver on theinnocent respondent; we breakappointments with nonchalance.4

The workplace has often been seenas one of the places where civility stillruled, with co-workers treating eachother with a mixture of formality andfriendliness, distance and politeness.However, with downsizing, re-engineering, budget cuts, pressuresfor increased productivity, autocraticwork environments, and the use ofpart-time employees, there has beenan increase in “uncivil and aggressiveworkplace behaviours.”5

What does civility in the workplacemean? A simple definition of work-place civility is behaviour “involvingpoliteness and regard for others in theworkplace, within workplace normsfor respect.”6 Workplace incivility then“involves acting with disregard forothers in the workplace, in violationof workplace norms for respect.”7 Ofcourse, different workplaces will havedifferent norms for what determinesmutual respect. For instance, in mostrestaurants, if the staff were rude toyou when you were there for dinner,you would be annoyed, and perhapseven complain to the manager.However, at the Elbow Room Cafe indowntown Vancouver, if customerscomplain they are in a hurry, man-ager Patrick Savoie might well say, “If

of more negative behaviours in theworkplace, including aggression andviolence.17

Pierre Lebrun chose a deadly wayto exhibit the anger he had stored upfrom his workplace.18 He took ahunting rifle to Ottawa-Carleton–based OC Transpo and killed fourpublic transit co-workers on April 6,1999, before turning the gun onhimself. Lebrun felt that he had beenthe target of harassment by his co-workers for years because of his stut-tering. If this sounds like an unusualresponse for an irate employee, con-sider the circumstances at OCTranspo. “Quite apart from what’salleged or otherwise with Mr.Lebrun’s situation, we know [OCTranspo’s] had a very unhappy workenvironment for a long time,” AlLoney, former chair of Ottawa-Carleton’s transit commission, noted.A consultant’s report produced theyear before the shooting found aworkplace with “rock-bottom moraleand poor management.” It was notuncommon for fights to break outin the unit where the four men werekilled.

Workplace violence, according tothe International Labour Organi-zation (ILO), includes

any incident in which a person isabused, threatened or assaulted incircumstances relating to [his orher] work. These behaviours wouldoriginate from customers or co-workers at any level of the organi-zation. This definition wouldinclude all forms of harassment,bullying, intimidation, physicalthreats, assaults, robbery and otherintrusive behaviour.19

No Canadian statistics on angerat work are available.20 However,studies show that anger pervades theUS workplace. While 25 percent ofAmericans reported being “generally

347

you’re in a hurry, you should havegone to McDonald’s.8 Such a come-back is acceptable to the diners at theElbow Room Cafe, because rudenessis its trademark.

Most work environments are notexpected to be characterized by suchrudeness. However, this has beenchanging in recent years. RobertWarren, a University of Manitobamarketing professor, notes that “sim-ple courtesy has gone by the board.”9

There is documented evidence ofthe rise of violence and threats of vio-lence at work.10 However, severalstudies have found that there is per-sistent negative behaviour in theworkplace that is not of a violentnature.11 For instance, a survey of 603Toronto nurses found that 33 percenthad experienced verbal abuse duringthe five previous days of work.12

Another study found that 78 per-cent of employees interviewed thinkthat workplace incivility hasincreased in the past 10 years.13 Theresearchers found that men aremostly to blame for this change:“Although men and women are tar-gets of disrespect and rudeness inequal numbers . . . men instigate therudeness 70 percent of the time.”14

Rude behaviour is not confinedto men, however. Professor AndréRoberge at Laval University suggeststhat some of the rudeness is genera-tional. He finds that “young clerksoften lack both knowledge and civil-ity. Employers are having to trainyoung people in simple mannersbecause that is not being done athome.”15 Professor Warren backs thisup: “One of the biggest complaintsI hear from businesses when I go totalk about graduates is the lack ofinterpersonal skills.”16

Workplace ViolenceRecently, researchers have suggestedthat incivility may be the beginning

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/31/06 3:54 PM Page 347

348

at least somewhat angry at work,” 49 percent say that they felt “at least‘a little angry’ at work.”21 A 2000Gallup poll conducted in the UnitedStates found that 25 percent of theworking adults surveyed felt likescreaming or shouting because of jobstress, 14 percent had considered hit-ting a co-worker, and 10 percentworry about colleagues becomingviolent. This worry is not unfounded.Twenty employees are murderedeach week in the United States.22

Canadian workplaces are notmurder-free, however. In 2001, 60murders occurred at work, 10 percentof all murders for the year.23 Most ofthese workplace incidents were car-ried out by male spouses and part-ners of female employees.Surprisingly, Canada scores higherthan the United States on workplaceviolence. In a recent ILO studyinvolving 130 000 workers in 32countries, Argentina was ranked themost violent. Romania was second,France third, and Canada fourth. TheUnited States placed ninth.24

Sixty-four percent of union repre-sentatives who were surveyedrecently reported an increase inworkplace aggression, based on theirreview of incident reports, grievancefiles, and other solid evidence.25 TheILO, in a separate 1998 study, foundthat, per capita, the rate of assault atwork for Canadian women is four

times that of American women.27 Tounderstand the seriousness of thissituation, consider that one quarterof Nova Scotia teachers surveyedreported that they faced physical vio-lence at work during the 2001–2002school year.28

What CausesIncivility (andWorse) in theWorkplace?If employers and employees are act-ing with less civility toward eachother, what is causing this to happen?

Managers and employees oftenhave different views of theemployee’s role in the organization.Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organi-zational behaviour at the GraduateSchool of Business at StanfordUniversity, notes that many compa-nies don’t really value their employ-ees: “Most managers, if they’re beinghonest with themselves, will admitit: When they look at their people,they see costs, they see salaries, theysee benefits, they see overhead. Veryfew companies look at their peopleand see assets.”29

Most employees, however, like tothink that they are assets to theirorganization. The realization thatthey are simply costs and not valued

members of an organization cancause frustration for employees.

In addition, “employers’ excessivedemands and top-down style of man-agement are contributing to the riseof ‘work rage,’” claims Gerry Smithof Toronto-based WarrenShepellConsultants.30 He is the author of therecently released Work Rage.31 He citesdemands coming from a variety ofsources: “overtime, downsizing, rapidtechnological changes, companyrestructuring and difficulty balancingthe demands of job and home.”32

Smith worries about the conse-quences of these demands: “If youpush people too hard, set unrealisticexpectations and cut back their ben-efits, they’re going to strike back.”33

Smith’s work supports the find-ings of a study that reported the mostcommon cause of anger is the actionsof supervisors or managers.34 Othercommon causes of anger identifiedby the researchers include lack of pro-ductivity by co-workers and others;tight deadlines; heavy workload;interaction with the public; and badtreatment.

The PsychologicalContractSome researchers have looked at thisfrustration in terms of a breakdownof the psychological contract formedbetween employees and employers.Employers and employees begin todevelop psychological contracts asthey are first introduced to each otherin the hiring process.35 These con-tinue over time as the employer andthe employee come to understandeach other’s expectations about theamounts and quality of work to beperformed and the types of rewardsto be given. For instance, when anemployee is continually asked towork late and/or be available at allhours through pagers and email, theemployee may assume that doing so

OB ON THE EDGE

• In 2000, only 49% of working Canadians said they were committed totheir employer. In 1991, the level of commitment was 62%.

• More Americans report commitment to their employers than Canadians:55% of Americans vs. 49% of Canadians.

• Of those who experience rudeness, 12% quit their jobs in response, 22%decrease their work effort, and 52% lose work time worrying about it.

• Employees over the age of 55 express the highest degree of commitmentto their employers.

FactBox26

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/27/06 10:12 AM Page 348

will result in greater rewards or fasterpromotion down the line. Theemployer may have had no suchintention, and may even be thinkingthat the employee should be grate-ful simply to have a job. Later, whenthe employee does not get expected(though never promised) rewards,he or she is disappointed.

Sandra Robinson, an organiza-tional behaviour professor at theSauder School of Business at theUniversity of British Columbia, andher colleagues have found that whena psychological contract is violated(perceptually or actually), the rela-tionship between the employee andthe employer is damaged. This canresult in the loss of trust.36 Thebreakdown in trust can causeemployees to be less ready to acceptdecisions or obey rules.37 The ero-sion of trust can also lead employ-ees to take revenge on the employer.So they don’t carry out their end of atask. Or they refuse to pass on mes-sages. They engage in any number ofsubtle and not-so-subtle behavioursthat affect the way work gets done—or prevents work from getting done.

The ToxicOrganizationPfeffer suggests that companies havebecome “toxic places to work.38 Henotes that companies, particularly inSilicon Valley, ask their employees tosign contracts on the first day of workindicating the employee’s under-standing that the company has theright to fire at will and for any rea-son. Some employers also ask theiremployees to choose between hav-ing a life and having a career. Pfefferrelates a joke people used to tellabout Microsoft: “We offer flexibletime—you can work any 18 hoursyou want.”39 This kind of attitudecan be toxic to employees, though

the organization begin to breakdown. In other words, the situationbecomes toxic. This is not dissimilarto what the liver or kidneys do whentoxins become too intense in ahuman body.40

What causes organizations to betoxic? Like Pfeffer, professors Frostand Robinson identify a number offactors. Downsizing and organiza-

349

this does not imply that Microsoft isa toxic employer.

What does it mean to be a toxicorganization? The late professor PeterFrost of the Sauder School ofBusiness at the University of BritishColumbia notes that there willalways be pain in organizations, butthat sometimes it becomes so intenseor prolonged that conditions within

Below are some of the toxic behaviours of managers and the workplace culturesthat allow these behaviours to thrive.

Managerial Toxic Behaviour

Actor behaviour. These managers act out anger rather than discuss problems. Theyslam doors, sulk, and make it clear they are angry, but refuse to talk about it.

Fragmentor behaviour. These managers see no connection between what theydo and the outcome, and take no responsibility for their behaviour.

Me-first behaviour. These managers make decisions based on their own convenience.

Mixed-messenger behaviour. These managers present themselves one way, buttheir behaviour doesn’t match what they say.

Wooden-stick behaviour. These managers are extremely rigid and controlling.

Escape-artist behaviour. These managers don’t deal with reality, often lying, orat the extreme, escaping through drugs or alcohol.

Workplace Culture That Fosters This Behaviour

• Macho culture. People don’t discuss problems. The emphasis is to “take itlike a man.”

• Specialist culture. Employees who are technically gifted or great in theirfields don’t have to consider how their behaviour or work impacts anyone.

• Elitist culture. Promotions and rewards are not based on your work but onwho your buddies are.

• Office-politics culture. Promotions and rewards are based on flattery andpositioning.

• Change-resistant culture. Upper management struggles to maintain thestatus quo regardless of the outcome.

• Workaholic culture. Employees are forced to spend more time at theoffice than necessary.

Source: L. McClure, Risky Business (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 1996).

Do You Have a Toxic Manager?

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/27/06 10:12 AM Page 349

350

tional change are two main factors,particularly in recent years.Sometimes organizations experienceunexpected events—such as the sud-den death of a key manager, anunwise move by senior management,strong competition from a start-upcompany—that lead to toxicity.Other organizations are toxicthroughout their system due to poli-cies and practices that create distress.Such factors as unreasonable stretchgoals or performance targets, or unre-lenting internal competition, can cre-ate toxicity. There are also toxicmanagers who lead through insen-sitivity, vindictiveness, and failure totake responsibility, or they are con-trol freaks or are unethical. The insetDo You Have a Toxic Manager? onpage 349 lists some types of toxicmanagers and the workplace culturethat fosters their behaviour.

What Are the Effects ofIncivility and Toxicity inthe Workplace?In general, researchers have foundthat the effects of workplace angerare sometimes subtle: a hostile workenvironment and the tendency to doonly enough work to get by.41

Those who feel chronic anger inthe workplace are more likely toreport “feelings of betrayal by theorganization, decreased feelings ofloyalty, a decreased sense thatrespondent values and the organiza-tion’s values are similar, a decreasedsense that the employer treated therespondent with dignity and respect,and a decreased sense that employershad fulfilled promises made torespondents.”42 So do these feelingsmake a difference? Apparently so.Researchers have found that thosewho felt angry with their employerswere less likely to put forth their besteffort, more likely to be competitivetoward other employees, and lesslikely to suggest “a quicker and betterway to do their job.43 All of theseactions tend to decrease the produc-tivity possible in the workplace.

It’s not just those who work for anorganization who are affected by inci-vility and toxicity. Poor service, fromindifference to rudeness to outrighthostility, characterizes many transac-tions in Canadian businesses. “Acrossthe country, better business bureaus,provincial government consumer-helpagencies and media ombudsmenreport a lengthening litany of com-plaints about contractors, car dealers,

repair shops, moving companies, air-lines and department stores.”44 Thissuggests that customers and clientsmay well be feeling the impact ofinternal workplace dynamics.

The Toxin HandlerEmployees of toxic organizations suf-fer pain from their experiences in atoxic environment. In some organi-zations, mechanisms, often informal,are set up to deal with the results oftoxicity.

Frost and Robinson identified aspecial role that some employeesplay in trying to relieve the toxicitywithin an organization: the toxinhandler. This person tries to mitigatethe pain by softening the blow ofdownsizing, or change, or the behav-iour of the toxic leader. Essentiallythe toxin handler helps othersaround him or her deal with thestrains of the organization, by coun-selling, advising, shielding employeesfrom the wrath of angry managers,reinterpreting the managers’ mes-sages to make them less harsh, etc.

So who takes on this role?Certainly no organization to date hasa line on its organizational chart for“the toxin handler.” Often the roleemerges as part of an individual’sposition in an organization, forinstance, a manager in the humanresource department. In many cases,however, handlers are pulled into therole “bit by bit—by their colleagues,who turn to them because they aretrustworthy, calm, kind and non-judgmental.”45 Frost and Robinson,in profiling these individuals, sug-gest that toxin handlers are predis-posed to say yes, have a hightolerance for pain, a surplus of empa-thy, and when they notice people inpain, they have a need to make thesituation right. But these are not indi-viduals who thrive simply on deal-ing with the emotional needs of

OB ON THE EDGE

• They listen empathically.

• They suggest solutions.

• They work behind the scenes to prevent pain.

• They carry the confidences of others.

• They reframe difficult messages.

Source: P. Frost and S. Robinson, “The Toxic Handler: Organizational Hero—and Casualty,”Harvard Business Review, July–August 1999, p. 101 (Reprint 99406).

How Toxin Handlers AlleviateOrganizational Pain

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/27/06 10:12 AM Page 350

others. Quoting one of the managersin their study, Frost and Robinsoncite the full range of activities of mosttoxin handlers: “These people areusually relentless in their drive toaccomplish organizational targetsand rarely lose focus on businessissues. Managing emotional pain isone of their means.”46 The inset HowToxin Handlers Alleviate OrganizationalPain identifies the many tasks thattoxin handlers take on in an organi-zation. Frost and Robinson suggestthat these tasks will probably needto be handled forever, and they rec-ommend that organizations takesteps to actively support people per-forming this role.

Research Exercises

1. Look for data on violence andanger in the workplace in othercountries. How do these data

351

compare with the Canadian andAmerican data presented here?What might you conclude abouthow violence and anger in theworkplace are expressed in differ-ent cultures?

2. Identify three Canadian organiza-tions that are trying to foster bet-ter and/or less toxic environmentsfor their employees. What kind ofeffect is this having on the organi-zations’ bottom lines?

Your Perspective

1. Is it reasonable to suggest, assome researchers have, thatyoung people today have notlearned to be civil to others, or do not place a high priority ondoing so? Do you see this as oneof the causes of incivility in theworkplace?

2. What should be done about man-agers who create toxicity in theworkplace while being rewardedbecause they achieve bottom-lineresults? Should bottom-lineresults justify their behaviour?

Want to Know More?

If you’d like to read more on this topic,see Peter Frost, Toxic Emotions atWork (Cambridge, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press, 2003); P. Frostand S. Robinson, “The Toxic Handler:Organizational Hero—and Casualty,”Harvard Business Review, July–August1999, pp. 96–106 (Reprint 99406);and A. M. Webber, “Danger: ToxicCompany,” Fast Company, November1998, pp. 152–157. You can find thelatter article at www.fastcompany.com/online/19/toxic.html. It contains aninterview with Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer,who discusses examples of toxicorganizations.

The Golden Rule, “Do unto othersas you would have others do untoyou,” should still have a role in today’s workplace. Being nicepays off.

Manners are an over-romanticizedconcept. The big issue isn’t thatemployees need to be concernedabout their manners. Rather, employ-ers should be paying better wages.

FACEOFF

09_lang_ch09.qxd 1/27/06 10:12 AM Page 351