Work changed. Human beings are finding purpose and self-fulfillment through it as a human-centric, collaborative activity. Work has become a path to express humanness and a gateway for growth. The new workscape runs on interconnected relationships and self-management. Exactly how did we get here? Let us backtrack a bit.

The work model used in the pre-digital-industrial era was perfect for manufacturing. Manufacturing required labor-intensive work structures to meet production demands. So, having employees show up to a particular place to perform tasks as told to in return for salary and benefits worked like a charm. The model spread to all industries like wildfire. As Laëtitia Vitaud describes it in Du labeur à l’ouvrage, (Libertéde l’esprit) (French Edition), 2019, “It was the era of exchanging a handful of employment benefits for a specific distribution of work and submission to the orders of a boss.”

That work arrangement brought security and stability. The consensus at the time was that you could achieve higher social and living standards if you worked hard or exploited yourself enough. Run of the mill people, like my family, raised their living standards enough to buy houses, cars, travel, and send the kids to college. There was access to money even if you were not a professional or came from money. Through “hard work,” a wealthy lifestyle became part of the middle-class portfolio. My father’s career is a good example. He was a “company man” without a college degree. He worked hard while climbing his way up the corporate ladder. He exchanged a good part of his labor and life for a salary and benefits, which was a good deal for him.

By the 1970’s new schools of thought on management styles and work structures emerged. Then in the 1980s, the financialization of the economy happened. Knowledge based jobs and workers emerged in droves. The benefits package that was the main character of work in the predigital Industrial Revolution era dwindled. Company sponsored retirement pensions were the first to go. Then health insurance exited, as well as vacations in states that allow “zero vacations owed” to employees. By the 1990s, the work “benefits package” was unrecognizable. In addition, the United States’ minimum wage remains the one approved by Congress in 2009, even though the cost-of-living increases every single year.

Despite diminished salary and benefits, employers expected employees to remain as enthusiastic about work as they had been before, when it made economic sense for them. But generational shifts, digital advances, and the toxicity of top-down management in the workplace were hard at work changing work.

A. Generational Pull Happened To “Work”

Four generations are coinciding in the workplace, and each defines “work” differently. The workforce ranges from Gen Z to Baby Boomers. Knowing those definitions helps in connecting with employees/collaborators. Baby boomers abide by the work ethic of the pre-digital- industrialization era. Personal effort and ambition fuel their behavior. In addition, boomers are mostly patriarchal. They adhere to the idea that “men should earn a living and women should stay home looking after the children and doing housework.” Or, if they agree that women have the right to decide whether to join the workforce or not, they expect women to play the leading role at home.

Most Baby Boomers believe that “work” includes a fixed schedule, physical presence for at least eight consecutive hours in an office/workspace, and interaction with bosses. Baby boomers use technology as a supplement in their daily lives. All these characteristics make Baby Boomers very hardworking, submissive, and highly individualistic.

Generation X started shifting the work paradigm. They also believe in overworking to achieve career goals. However, this generation invests in balancing work and personal life. Generation X adheres to the traditional employment contract exchange of salary and benefits for submission to a boss and distribution of tasks. They incorporate technology as a vital component of life. If and when digital life interferes with life, they discard digital life. Generation X softened patriarchal ways. This generation also expects working women to carry most home making chores. These characteristics mean GenX’ers are very industrious workers who are less submissive because they value their personal space much more than Baby Boomers, and they are also highly individualistic one.

On the other hand, Generation Y, known as millennials, brings a new and fascinating twist to the workscape. They place high value on personal freedom. They will walk paths that support their independence and commitment to meaningful personal connections and social/ political/environmental causes.

Thus, they are “lazy and lacking in commitment,” according to Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. However, for this generation, there is hardly a benefits package as part of work compensation to talk about. Millennials also know that low-wage job offers based on their lack of experience are a subterfuge to gain their labor at low rates. This generation has digital dexterity that neither Baby Boomers nor Gen Xers have. They know how to reach and/or create sources of income online. They also know how to use social media to influence and build a personal brand without publicists or marketers. Digital life is an integral part of their daily lives. This generation rejects patriarchal structures and will explore alternative lifestyles. This generation will accept salary and benefits for results delivered using their autonomy, creativity, and self-directed responsibility. Thus, they reject micromanaging and directed tasks whenever there is more than one way of achieving a result. These characteristics mean millennials will work where they can fulfil their social/ political/environmental activism needs- where they find space for personal growth, or where they feel connected.

On the other hand, Generation Z neither subscribes to nor understands the definition of work carved in the pre-digital Industrial Revolution era. They might engage with commercial organizations structured in that model but only to fulfill short-term money goals. They know they can opt out of the nine to five. Generation Z knows they can generate income in other non-traditional ways because they already do. They are the true Digital Natives and technology is an integral part of their daily routines. Patriarchy is getting pounded by Gen Z. Gender bending and fluidity are part of what this generation brings front and center to the landscape. Generation Z will work where they can grow, explore alternative work arrangements, where there is flexibility, and where the well-being of all is a top priority. Generation Z is all about collaborative work and teams. They are all about the “we” instead of “me.” They will discard organizations that are out of the digital loop. This generation believes in the exchange of salary and benefits for results delivered using their autonomy, creativity, and self-directed responsibility rather than on directed tasks. Thus, they also reject micromanaging and directed tasks whenever there is more than one way of achieving a result. These characteristics make Generation Z very given to work that focuses on consensus and meets their immediate needs or fulfills their need to pursue social/political/environmental causes and connection. All these differences account for the different definitions of work. Different definitions of "work" create different expectations.

Here is the thing with different definitions and expectations of work: it makes the employment contract difficult to estimate and manage. A contract is a set of promises that are legally enforceable. Contracts are written or verbal, express, or implied, but they all have one thing in common- they are about an exchange. And contractual exchanges require clarity in the definitions of the concepts and words and in the expectations for viability. The employment contract is no different. Those entering an employment contract promise each other salary and/or benefits in exchange for what? Well, it depends on who you ask. Baby boomers will clearly say in exchange for obedience and directed performance of tasks. Gen Xer's will say in exchange for obedience and directed performance of tasks. Millennials and Gen Z reject will say in exchange for tasks that performed through personal autonomy, creativity, and responsibility.

Younger millennials and Gen Z flat out reject subjugation, submission or directed performance of tasks. They are willing to give your organization autonomy, self-accountability, and creativity, what Laetitia Vitaud calls artisanship/craftsmanship values, in exchange for salary and/ or benefits. Leaders that know how to focus on results rather than on how employees are getting to the results, are wiser. This applies to situations where there is more than one way to achieve the desired results The new work exchange also includes purpose as an integral part of it. Money is no longer the only bargaining chip on the table. If you can clearly articulate a purpose, a common goal, then you are figuring out the relationship dynamic with employees of the next generations. Finally, to leverage those values that the up-and-coming generations hold dear and expect, knowing how to connect with employees is more important than ever. Writer Adam Sternbergh talks about how older generations are dismissing younger generations by saying they do not know what they want. This is not true. The reason many next generation employees are rejecting the traditional employment contract is because they are rejecting the traditional idea of what it should be. They certainly know what they want. Is your organization willing to adapt?

B. Digital Age Changes Happened To “Work”

Meanwhile, in the past two decades digital technology was busy: 1) connecting people socially and commercially. 2) closing geographical gaps. 3) entertaining us; and 4) making hard-to-find information available. Smartphones became akin to world access. The opportunities for change brought forth by digital technology are almost limitless. Our way of working, entertaining, socializing, studying, and understanding life and our fellow human beings forever changed in the Digital Age. However, our working ways and managers lawfully mistreating employees did not change much. The Internet popped in the workscape in the nineties. Internet connections, computers, servers, and software came to the workspace. Alternative lifestyles became possible, including diverse ways of working. Teleworking emerged in the nineties as an evolution of telecommuting. "The problem with teleworking is that I can't monitor/control employees' attendance/production/time This is an example of a view about teleworking that was based on the perspective of a vertical power manager. Because they were losing control over the "how to" perform a task, leaders exercising vertical power (top-down) concluded, way back then, that teleworking was ineffective. This type of leader or manager is unable to concentrate on specific results rather than on the "how and when". This makes them unfit to manage hybrid working spaces, for example. They value the degree of control they can exercise upon an employee as key to their success as managers. Pre-digital-Industrial Revolution era leaders/managers have nightmares at the thought of losing control over how employees spend their time. Not knowing how many times an employee gets up from the chair, how many times he eats while working, how many breaks he takes from task to task, how many texts he sends from his personal cell phone how many times he enters social media while performing work-related tasks, or how many personal calls he takes during his shift, discredited teleworking with them.

They equate physical presence with production, regardless of what the numbers say. More so amongst those who emphasize subjugation/submission in the employment relationship. Resisting the changes is pointless. Not only is most of the workforce composed of Millennials and Gen Z, but cellphone connections allow more individuals to work and transact business from anywhere.

Teleworking and nomadic life are here to stay thanks to the Digital Revolution. When the pandemic landed it asked, are you closing the doors of your business indefinitely, or will you set up remote structures for employees to work and continue with business? Those who allowed the fear of losing control and answered "no, we will wait", lost. Those organizations that answered, “let us work remotely “remained in business. The ones who carved spaces for employees and clients to continue transacting with their company remotely took first place in managing the pandemic. In fact, they gave continuity to their company and forever changed their business model.

The changed business model makes hybrid working arrangements and nomadic lifestyles possible in their organizations. Nomads sharing their lifestyle successes through social media validate the concept that you can perform tasks from anywhere in the world with Internet access. Organizations that understand this shift and adapt are securing a spot in the Digital Age.

Of course, cars are assembled in manufacturing plants, not in your living room. But you can design and produce content from anywhere you find a computer, Internet access and willingness to do the job. Also, the amount of capital needed to set-up shop and provide services, sell products, or have your own business is small. The “gig economy” opened that door more than a decade ago. Income opportunities controlled by the seeker’s needs are sought through smartphones. The Internet has made it possible for people to find work with minimal effort and within a brief period. The internet has also opened the possibility of working from home, making it easier for single mothers and other individuals with care-taking responsibilities to find ways to earn an income without having to choose between caregiving or working. Besides the generational shifts and the changes brought by digital technology, we also see that top-down management frameworks and all their accompanying manifestations got fired during the pandemic.

C. The Spectrum of Top-Down Power from Simple Mistreatment all the Way to Toxic Work Environments

Changes in leadership styles began decades ago. Even in the 1970s Peter Drucker was urging organizations to become human being" centric. Fifty-two years later, that change is still incomplete. Why? The reasons vary. But the main one is because managers can get away with treating employees poorly. I propose managers are neither given the emotional intelligence skills nor are they held accountable for the way they choose to interact with employees if it is lawful. If you have ever managed employees/collaborators, you know that a degree of lawful mistreatment of employees is tolerated. For example, managers/leaders get trained in sexual harassment and the like but are not required to abandon top-down management interactions filled with coercion and subjugation in lieu of, for example, servant leadership. Managers are briefed on the boundaries of their interactions with employees but not on how the interactions are expected to happen within those boundaries. Managers are shown the legal limits of their behavior but the quality of the interactions with employees is mostly a discretional choice. It should not be discretional any longer as the workforce is rejecting management styles that divest employees of their dignity, autonomy, creativity, and self-responsibility.

The employer/employee relationship is unique, and It is THE most misunderstood of our human relationships. It is often seen as an "it is what it is" type of relationship, unavoidable, if you will. But, in general, healthy human relationships are defined as the ones through which we become our best selves. So, is this not also potentially true for the relationship between a leader/employer and an employee? Of course, it is! I propose that the employer-employee relationship can be one of the most fulfilling, important relationships in a human being's life Granted; employer/employee relationships are contractual, are etched with opposing interests and juggle elements of authority that make it challenging to manage.

Take a brain stroll with me please… a Psychology Today article has pointed out an interesting fact: younger and middle-aged men are getting lonelier by the minute because they are having a tough time finding romantic partners. The article says all the quiet parts out loud: it attributes the occurrence of this new normal to the fact that women are only selecting men who are emotionally available, who are good communicators and who share their values. In other words, the standards have risen, and many men are not making the cut. The article also says that men have a relationship skills gap that, if not fixed, will enlarge the pool of lonely men. The article also states that there is less patience for poor communication skills and lack of emotional connection- two skills that “are not consistently taught to young boys,” still in 2022. The article rounds up suggesting individual therapy to address the skills gap.

This all translates to the workplace as well. Leadership styles executed through a rank, entitlement and vertical power frameworks are fraught with poor communication skills and lack of emotional connection. Let us examine what some call the "alpha" leader, the one that allegedly “gets things done.” An alpha leader is allegedly self-confident, highly intelligent, action oriented, has high performance expectations, has a direct communication style, is highly disciplined and is unemotional. These are all excellent leadership traits, right? Yes, they are.

However, there is an execution component that begs attention. When what is poorly termed “alpha” leadership is distilled through rank, as it usually is, the result is poor communication and lack of connection between leader/employer and team members. Using rank turns those desirable “alpha” leadership traits into major drawbacks.

Thus, the self-confidence of the alpha transmutes into closed mindedness, dominance, and intimidation. The high intelligence morphs into dismissiveness and demeaning behavior towards those who disagree with the alpha. The penchant for action turns into impatience and resistance to new processes, particularly if someone else gets the credit for improved results. High performance expectations turn into endless dissatisfaction and an acute absence of appreciation, motivation, and actual leadership.

Direct communications exercised via the framework of rank, entitlement, and verticality breeds fear and gossip filled cultures. The trait of “highly disciplined” breeds environments filled with unreasonable expectations. And finally, an unemotional “alpha” is unable to express vulnerability and becomes unavailable to create safe, psychological spaces where employees and team members can express themselves, learn and grow.

Thus, connected relationships with this type of leader are out of reach, which in turn results in an inability to inspire and lead others. This type of leader might be amazing for rainmaking but poor for engaging and inspiring employees and keeping attrition rates low.

Top-Down Management (Vertical Exercise of Power)

It is well known that lawful mistreatment of employees is part of doing business in the United States. The pre-digital industrial revolution work models, coupled with the vertical exercise of power (top- down), created a school of thought. The adherents of the “I am the Boss” school of thought believe that without direct employee control, there is chaos and disorder. It is a poorly morphed version of "though love" but at work. These believers focus on the “how, what, where, why, who, when,” rather than on results. Managers resorting to "because I am the Boss and I said so" use pulling rank as their preferred management tool. The four corners of their relational framework are (1) absolute control, (2) intimidation, (3) distance, and (4) blind obedience. Bosses adhering to this management framework decide for everyone, police everyone, are non-approachable and fear is their favorite persuasion tool.

These bosses believe only employees need to change. Hence, they discourage contributions, reduce knowhow learning, reduce feedback, and trigger employees into withholding contributions. These bosses create poorly empowered teams that transmute into toxic work cultures. Mistreatment of employees is one of the leading causes that triggered the Great Resignation that began in April 2021 [3]. Despite the phenomenon, the mistreatment of employees persists. Top-down (vertical exercise of power) facilitates it and it is still tolerated because it is not illegal as such- as long as it is not discriminatory or harassing behavior. The cost of this management framework is high. It can stall and forever stunt the growth of a company.

We have equated ball busting with having a no-nonsense, get-things done attitude. Relating this way to employees is simple – all you need to do is use your position of authority to bark out orders in stern, harsh, or unkind, and at times insulting words. And while this style may work in the short-term to get things done, it is detrimental to the employer-employee relationship and the organization. Ball-busting bosses use fear to subjugate employees. And fear never allows for genuine connection. We know that to inspire, motivate, and persuade employees – and thus keep them as part of your organization– genuine connection between a boss and an employee is necessary.

Another negative of "ball busting" as a way of relating to employees is that it creates an environment of mistrust. When employees feel like they cannot trust their leader, it leads to disengagement and eventually, high turnover rates. Lastly, "top down-ball busting" bosses are often unable to take constructive feedback. This inability to listen to others and learn from mistakes only further alienates employees and creates an environment where innovation and creativity are stifled. An environment where ball busting occurs is often one where employees feel like they must tiptoe around their boss – they cannot be themselves or share their innovative ideas for fear of getting invalidating feedback. Without creativity and innovation, a company will fail to thrive in the long-term. The best way to be an effective boss without resorting to "ball busting" is by becoming a leader instead. You become one by learning how to inspire, motivate, and persuade your employees through genuine connection. This means building relationships with your employees based on mutual respect and empathy. It means being open to learning from your employees – after all, they often have the best insights into how a company can improve!

A direct report once told me that she did not understand why employees/collaborators “were allowed” to complain, propose ideas and/or vent frustrations. According to her, they were employees; they had to follow orders, period. She believed her direct reports owed her blind obedience because “she was their boss.” Pulling authority over others was emotional validation for her. Telling employees what to do, when to do it and how to do it was part of her intangible benefits package. She was misaligned with organizational values and focused on her own. She was lacking skills to relate and lead the members of her team. For example, on one occasion, she wanted to discipline an employee because it took the employee three minutes to comply with an order she gave. She felt disrespected. Her anger was palpable.

It was a "Houston, we have a problem" moment. My direct report was a superb task master. But her visceral desire to talk down and subjugate employees made her an untrustworthy leader. Regardless, she was responsible for leading a team. That is when I understood my direct report needed upskilling because she was unwittingly creating a toxic work environment. Toxicity in working environments is the same poison found in toxic romantic relationships. Allowing a toxic work environment to persist runs counter to employee wellness, at a minimum, and lowers employee engagement while increasing attrition.

How do Toxic Work Cultures Take Off?

Exercising top-down authority is a colorful palette. On one end of the spectrum, you find managers relaxed in the exercise of this type of power, the “nice” managers. On the other end of the spectrum, you find micromanagers. It is extremely difficult to effectively manage employees in the Digital Age using steep, top-down management frameworks but for micromanagers, it is impossible. They rely on insults, threats, humiliations, reprimands, and invalidating remarks to “get results.” Micromanagers, for example, give an order demanding that certain tasks be completed by date x, which is three days after the order is barked. Instead of waiting until the deadline to follow up on the order they gave, they will ask for a status of what they ordered 30 minutes after giving the order.

They will follow up all the way to the deadline, even if the task is due days or weeks away. The micromanager’s delusion is that this type of follow-up is administrative efficiency. It is not. It is nerve wracking behavior that borders on harassment. It shows the micromanager’s inability to focus on results. It invalidates employees. It communicates to employees they are regarded as incompetent. It shows employees their boss's degree of insecurity and inadaptability and untrustworthiness. During my consulting days, I witnessed an entrepreneur build a multi-million-dollar business. I also witnessed how he micromanaged it to the ground and destroyed it. This CEO’s story begins with him raising capital to establish an ink replacement business. The competitive advantage of the business was the quality of the replacement inks. The CEO got original ink manufacturers in Asia to sell him replacement cartridges under a private label. The company secured many contracts in the printing industry. It also partnered with a well-known department store chain, which had printing services. Private investments poured in.

The business was booming. Investors believed in the business and in the micromanager. A perfect storm was brewing. The CEO/micromanager was deciding everything without running the decisions through the Board of Directors. Because that is what micromanagers do. They believe only they have the perfect, correct answers and are the only ones that can make perfect, correct decisions. The CEO/micromanager would ask the Board of Directors to approve his decisions retroactively. He distrusted everyone except himself. And even though the board had a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, they functioned as the micromanager’s rubber stamp. Money was flowing in like a rising river. By the way, companies skirt holding micromanagers accountable if he/she is a good rainmaker. The question is, what is the cost of letting a rainmaker micromanager run rampant in your organization? The answer is it is costing the company’s continuity.

As the corporation’s legal counsel, I found myself at odds with this situation. I was not the CEO/micromanager's personal lawyer, I was the corporation's lawyer, but the directives were coming through the CEO. I asked the Board of Directors to hold the CEO/ micromanager accountable for his impulsive, unauthorized decisions. They turned a blind eye. I knew then that the company was in big trouble. One ordinary day, an ink manufacturer withdrew a large ink delivery from the docks. They had once again quarreled with the micromanager. This time, they were done. That withdrawal of the inks cargo from the docks triggered events that threw the multi-million-dollar business off balance. It never recovered from it; in fact, the organization ended in bankruptcy court. This is the way of micromanagers. Micromanagers appear to delegate. They never do. They focus on the way employees perform tasks. Micromanagers are only interested in getting things done their way. They need to establish that they are the boss multiple times per week.

Micromanagers focus on the process, not the results, even when the results exceed expectations. This causes frustration, discouragement, and demoralization amongst employers/collaborators. Micromanagers criticize them even after getting excellent results because they used methods the micromanager dislikes. In the blame game they play, micromanagers never take responsibility for the push-pull strategy they use on employees. At heart, micromanagers are insecure and lack a clear long-term vision for the business. This lack of clarity leaves employees without a map to follow. Micromanagers placate their insecurities by believing they are the smartest person in the room. Having others set the tone or lead the way is insulting to a micromanager. They also reject constructive criticism. Micromanagers invalidate and dismiss ideas proposed by others. They fear losing control if they validate those ideas. The micromanager accepts new, groundbreaking ideas if he can take credit for them.

Innovative ideas are discarded if they do not resonate with the micromanager's personal frame of reference. Organizations led by one or multiple micromanagers experience innovation scarcity. New ways of doing things make micromanagers nervous. Therefore, they limit and control attempts at innovation. According to statistics offered by Trinity Solutions and published by Author Harry Chambers, in his book “My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival Guide,” 79% of those polled had experienced micromanagement.

Because of the micromanagement, 69% of the respondents said they had considered changing jobs. Seventy-one percent (71%) said that micromanagement interfered with their job performance, while 81% said that their morale was affected. Those are pre-pandemic numbers. The Great Resignation statistics show that employee resignations reached historic heights in 2021. Experts say that none of the five top reasons for the mass exodus has to do with pay. Experts have concluded that in addition to fair compensation, employees want respectful treatment, meaningful connections with their leaders, meaningful work, and professional development. Getting micromanaged for eight or more hours per day runs counter to the framework that affords employees the opportunity to grow and develop. Management styles such as Servant Leadership, Democratic Leadership, Experience Management, Agile, Lean, and work structures such as self-management, and holacracy run with it. These are all human centric to some extent.

Technology is also running with decentralization. DAO's, Web 3.0, metaverses and crypto evidence the decentralized direction technology is also headed. And autonomy is what makes decentralization possible. Without intentional change and without basic emotional intelligence skills, micromanagers are unable to function in these Digital Age styles and structures. Micromanagers create environments where everyone loses. They need to assert “I am the Boss” all the time. Although legal, this way of managing has zero alignment with the new workscape and is unworkable into the new work paradigm. Rather, it is aligned with what a toxic work culture looks like and how it operates. We know from The Great Resignation that the relationship standard for the employer-employee relationship has also risen. Employees expect to work in emotionally healthy environments. More than expecting it, they are demanding it. And, just as with lonely men on the rise, organizations that perpetuate toxic work cultures will suffer the loss of employees and will fail at attracting and hiring new talent. You may have heard the phrase "toxic workplace" thrown around quite a bit. It is an unfortunate reality that some companies operate under unprofessional standards and create a negative culture for employees.

What is a toxic relationship?

A toxic relationship is one that is characterized by unhealthy behaviors and dynamics. Toxic relationships are harmful for many varied reasons. They can damage your self-esteem, lead to anxiety and depression, and even cause physical health problems. Toxic relationships can also be very draining, both emotionally and physically. They can make you feel like you are always on edge, always walking on eggshells, and always second-guessing yourself. And we know that therapists recommend leaving toxic relationships.

What does a Toxic Workplace Look Like?

It looks a lot like a prison, except that the prisoner is your soul. Toxic workplaces are defined as places where there are high incidences of bullying, low job satisfaction, and low collaboration between staff members. Also, toxic workplaces are dripping in low energy behaviors, such as yelling, cursing and rudeness. These toxic workplaces are rampant with high incidences of incivility, discrimination, sexual harassment, unhealthy worklife balance, high job turnover, and low productivity. These are all the things that you do not want to find yourself surrounded by daily. If you think that you work in a toxic work environment, then you are experiencing some level of distress. This can lead to psychological and physiological stress that can affect your health both at and away from work. Toxic relationships between bosses and employees are often so damaging that employees are driven to quit their jobs. However, you can proactively identify the warning signs of a toxic work environment and make changes accordingly before things get out of hand. It will not be easy—but it is possible! Here are some telltale signs that your organization is creating a toxic work culture:

1. Micromanaging, Steep 'Top-Down Talking At You' Styles and Constant Communication Breakdowns

Toxic workplaces are often full of miscommunication. If you find yourself frequently struggling to communicate with your team members or noticing that vital information is consistently getting lost in translation, this could be a sign of a bigger problem. It is important to pay arise.

2. Excessive Employee Turnover

Excessive employee turnover is a sign of a toxic workplace. It can be devastating for a company both financially and in terms of morale. In many cases, the cost of replacing an employee (including recruiting, interviewing, and training) outweighs the cost of keeping employees on board. When there are new people constantly coming and going, it makes it difficult for employees to establish lasting relationships with leaders, with each other and with clients. High turnover rates can have a negative impact on the product or service you are producing. If you notice that the organization’s employee turnover rate is higher than normal for your industry, it may be time to assess what is causing the exits. Are they leaving because they are finding better opportunities elsewhere? Or are they leaving because they hate their work environment? If it is the latter, it is important that you do something to fix the problem before it becomes unmanageable.

3. Unclear Organizational Values and Beliefs

Organizational values and beliefs should be clearly defined and communicated to all employees. If your organization or team lacks written values, it may be a sign that upper leadership does lacks clarity on which values the organization must have. If you want your organization succeed at having a stable staff, it is important to have values and beliefs that are consistent across the board. When values are unclear, it makes it difficult for employees to know what to expect. It can also negatively impact how employees feel about the organization, which can have a ripple effect.

4. Inconsistent Discipline

A process through which employee behavior is modified is vital in any workplace, as it ensures that employees are held accountable for their actions. If you notice that the discipline standards are inconsistent, this can be a sign of a toxic work environment. For example, if one employee is disciplined for being consistently one or two minutes late to work, while attention to the ways in which your organization communicates and to address any issues that may another employee is never disciplined for unjustifiably coming in extremely late, it is an example of an inconsistent application of organizational policies. These inconsistencies make it difficult for employees to trust the organization’s leadership. Hold leaders, managers, supervisors, bosses accountable for applying organization policies in an inconsistent manner.

5. Shifting Goal Posts

Shifting goal posts, it is natural for businesses to want to improve and grow over time. If you notice that your organization is constantly changing its goals, this can be a sign of a toxic work environment. For example, if senior management is constantly changing the sales goals or the timeline for when employees should be achieving those goals, this can be a sign that they are not being realistic. It can also be a sign that they are not confident in the current team’s ability to achieve those goals. Sometimes, shifting goal posts can be a good thing if the organization is shifting them to be more achievable.

It can also be a sign that the senior management team is playing catch-up and not being realistic about what the current team is capable of. While toxic work environments are often thought of as being harmful to employees’ physical and mental health, they can also have a negative impact on an organization's bottom line. If a boss uses rank to belittle and humiliate to get a particular productivity outcome, that is an unacceptable use of authority. It used to be that exercising power that way was a sign of "alphaness", authority and leadership. It no longer holds true. This "style" might have worked with older generations, but it will get leaders nowhere and fast with the next generations.

A toxic work environment is not something that will magically disappear overnight. Bad, negative work environments require intentionality to eradicate them. It is important to try to proactively solve these issues before they become too big to handle. Leading others is an honor. It is a personal achievement, no doubt. And a true leader knows that leading is not about the leader and their achievement, it is about developing the team and the team members. Leadership styles that create safe psychological spaces for employees to express themselves create trust and connected relationships between leaders and employees.

When you are working in a toxic work environment, building healthy relationships is difficult. If you are unable to build healthy connections, the best advice is to know which behaviors you find unacceptable. As soon as you come across that behavior, it is time to push it away. This is how you create a safe psychological space for yourself. Clear communication is the way to make this happen. Make it clear that you will not tolerate unacceptable, abusive behavior. Make it clear that you will call it out because your wellbeing and your team's wellbeing requires it. Toxicity is harmful to the mental health of human beings. Never tolerate it. Make sure it never gets to the point where your life becomes unmanageable because of the toxicity coming from your workplace. So, how do you shift a toxic workplace and a toxic work culture? Working on how you relate with employees is a first step.

Essential Workers- Another malaise in the workplace that crystallized during the pandemic. In 2020, a group of people exempted from stay- in-place orders kept us all alive. We baptized them as essential workers. Had essential workers stayed home during the pandemic, we would all have died. Without the food and medicine distributors, without doctors and nurses and medical personnel, without pharmacy staff, without transporters, without messengers, without collaborators who received food orders for us, for our families, for our pets, without utilities workers, without those making purchases on our behalf and then bringing the goods to our doorstep, COVID-19 would have been the least of our problems. It became clear: essential workers are extremely essential. And then a crude gap also became clear. “The essentials” receive little pay for their work. We collectively understood the situation, and there was a burst of genuine indignation and appreciation. The gap between the needs of a community during a public health emergency and what employers will pay employees to satisfy them is abysmal.

As the gap became widely known, the already discredited pre-digital- industrialization work model was even more discredited. Labeling employees as "essential" to justify pushing them to work in the middle of a pandemic for little money opened eyes and raised eyebrows. “Essential workers" were treated as disposable. They were pushed to a breaking point. The mistreatment imprinted in employees what labor unions could not for decades: it was time to fire organizations that cannot prioritize the overall wellbeing of its employees. And employees did. And the labor movement got a revamp it did not even see coming. In addition to the Great Resignation the pandemic brought on the Great Prioritization of the Self.

Work Ethic is a Definition, Not a Value with Universal Meaning

For decades society has held the belief that Americans can thrive and prosper through a strong work ethic. It has become a cultural pillar and part of the American dream recipe. But what exactly is a work ethic or working hard? At its root, work ethic is simply how we approach our job on any given day; it is also the habits we develop to help us get through those days.

The concept has morphed into a value judgment that says something about someone's character. The thing is work ethic is not a tradition with special rituals. It is not a moral imperative. It is not a character strength. It is a definition of an extremely vague concept, of the concept "hard work". Therefore, there are many ways to describe a person’s work ethic, but there is no one universal definition for it. Each unique individual will have their own personal values and beliefs about their work ethic and how they approach their job on any given day. Each will define what hard work and extra effort is.

Work ethic is the mirage of hard work.

When people talk about having a strong work ethic, they often mean “doing more than what is expected at work.” People often talk about how they learned their work ethic from their parents or grandparents. But work ethic is innate. Every person defines work ethic based on the factors intersecting in someone's environment and life.

For example, my father taught me that hard work was the way to achieve, to succeed. However, as soon as I hit the workforce in a male dominated profession, I realized that my gender was a personal, immutable characteristic that had an impact, a negative one, on my ascension in the profession. No amount of "hard work" was going to transmute that immutable characteristic my bosses saw as a minus. My approach to work at the law firm changed consequently I suddenly stopped going above and beyond because there was no point to it. I performed my duties and tasks superbly, I just knew I was not going to become a partner in that law firm and adjusted my behavior accordingly. Does it mean I became lazy? Not by one bit. What happened was that I radically accepted the fact that I was not in a satisfying career path in said law firm. Thus, I directed my energy and efforts into my own entrepreneurial projects that were going to yield the professional results I expected and wanted for myself and my arduous work. From my employer's perspective it might have looked I was not going above and beyond, and I was not but I never stopped working hard.

If work ethic is simply a definition, why do we care about it so much? Well, for one thing, it is important to define work ethic because ambiguity as to it will create off the mark expectations. So, what does working hard mean for you and your team members? Is it staying after the shift concluded? It is making sure that all the work hours are meaningful without having to stay after a shift has concluded. These different expectations matter. They must be clarified. define it and redefine it as part of your work culture dynamics. It will not matter how hard you work, if you do not have the skills or knowledge to get the job done, or if the work culture is toxic or if there is lack of clarity regarding your role or if there is no room for creativity, flexibility, or accountability, then you are set up for failure. Having a strong work ethic is about more than simply showing up each day, staying late and giving extra miles without end. Plus, the collective definition of work ethic is owned the majority in the workforce.

We champion work ethic as a virtue necessary for an individual's success. Supporters of the work ethic or of "hard work" argue that the work ethic encourages people to take ownership of their own work and to be accountable for their own results. Supporters also argue that the work ethic can be a positive force in society. They argue that it can motivate people to achieve their goals and to reach their full potential. And while it is undoubtedly important, and it is important to have a clear definition of what work ethic means in your organization, work ethic should never be used to shift the leadership burden from leadership to employee.

Leadership is about taking responsibility for the direction of the team and ensuring that everyone is working towards the same goal. Work ethic is about putting in the hard work to achieve that goal. The two are not the same, and it is unfair to expect employees to shoulder the entire burden of leadership. If you use top-down, pull rank tactics expecting more than average results to make up for poor organizational structures, under-staffing, and other organizational inadequacies, you are making your team members responsible for your job. Next gens see right through that and are not falling for it. Use of Personal-Interpersonal Skills Treating employees, the way we treat family and friends has created another change in the workplace.

Quick story: I realized that managers are never taught how to relate to employees a while back. When I was litigating, I would repeatedly hear things like: "we were like a family. I treated him like a son/brother/father/cousin and look what I got in return. I cannot believe what he/she did to me after all the good things I did for him/her, I was out left hanging".... or similar statements. That type of statement communicates disappointment, failed expectations. It is rooted in the absence of a work-interpersonal relational framework. But here is the thing: organizations cannot survive without effective leaders regardless of how many bosses they have. Linkage forecasts that in the next five years, 84% of organizations expect a shortfall of leaders! If you catch yourself thinking something like “Sage’s parents did not teach them X,” know that you are judging and transferring your leadership responsibility onto the team member. You are saying something like: "because they lack x character or behavioral trait, which is likely due to their parents not instilling it in them, I am unable to connect with them."

If the way a team member talks to you triggers you, first, ask yourself why. Is the team member using harsh words or tone? Or is the team member simply giving you push back because there is, in fact, another way of doing what you are asking them to do? Or is the team member simply someone you dislike; someone with whom you would never voluntarily socialize? Using harsh words or tone towards you is one thing and it is unacceptable, period. It is a boundary, and you remedy the unacceptable behavior by having a conversation with the team member to set the boundary. Setting a boundary is not ego-based thinking. If you expect an employee to treat you with respect but do not set the boundary when they do not, then the of respect or disliking someone and looking down on their character traits are ego-based considerations. When your thoughts are responding to these two considerations, you are in heavy judgment mode, the type of judgment that will only yield toxicity. Why? Because you want a team member to be or become someone else. Someone other than whom they are because that will make you feel better about leading them. Again, you are transferring your job to them. It behooves you as a leader to inspire and mentor everyone in your team, not only those that have a natural connection with you. When you experience this situation, [and hint: everyone that leads employees has felt like this at some point] know that your leadership is getting ready for a growth spurt. The fact that you became self-aware of a bias within you that is difficult to see when you are the person in charge is giving you the signal.

Do not miss the opportunity to solidify your leadership skills. Seek a win-win outcome for all. Leading Individuals you Personally Dislike It would be so much easier if we could just quit on the people we do not like. Unfortunately, that is not an option for leaders. We must find a way to work with them, even if it is not easy. The truth is you cannot just quit on the people you do not like. This does not mean you have to be best friends, but it does mean you have to find a way to work together for the sake of the team. There are a few reasons why it is important to find a way to work with the people you do not like: first and foremost, it is the right thing to do. Leaders set the tone for the team dynamics and acceptance of each other. Working with people we do would not have as friends outside of work is a skill that every outstanding leader must develop. Secondly, it sets a good example for the rest of the team. If we cannot find ways to lead, grow and develop failed situation is on you because you have the authority and hopefully the ability to correct it in a positive, meaningful way. It is not the employee’s parents’ fault. However, getting push back and equating it with lack of respect or disliking someone and looking down on their character traits are ego-based considerations.

When your thoughts are responding to these two considerations, you are in heavy judgment mode, the type of judgment that will only yield toxicity. Why? Because you want a team member to be or become someone else. Someone other than whom they are because that will make you feel better about leading them. Again, you are transferring your job to them. It behooves you as a leader to inspire and mentor everyone in your team, not only those that have a natural connection with you. When you experience this situation, [and hint: everyone that leads employees has felt like this at some point] know that your leadership is getting ready for a growth spurt. The fact that you became self-aware of a bias within you that is difficult to see when you are the person in charge is giving you the signal. not miss the opportunity to solidify your leadership skills. Seek a win-win outcome for all.

Leading Individuals you Personally Dislike

It would be so much easier if we could just quit on the people we do not like-that is not an option for leaders. This does not mean you have to be best friends. It does mean you have to find a way to work together. There are a few reasons why it is important to find a way to work with the people you do not like: first and foremost, it is the right thing to do. Leaders set the tone for the team dynamics and acceptance of each other. Working with people we do would not have as friends outside of work is a skill that every outstanding leader must develop. Secondly, it sets a good example for the rest of the team. If we cannot find ways to lead, grow and develop someone we do not personally like, what does that say about our ability to handle conflict? It shows that we are not willing to compromise or put the team first. Finally, it is good for our own development as leaders. Dealing with people whose behavior we find difficult to guide is a fantastic way to learn and grow as a leader. It forces us to develop our emotional intelligence and learn how to navigate difficult conversations.

To succeed at leading people, you do not personally like, there are a few things you need to focus on caring for the well-being and development of each team member. That might seem obvious, but it is worth repeating because focusing on that will divert your energy to what really matters and away from your personal considerations. People follow leaders they respect, so it is crucial that you earn that trust and respect by genuinely caring for your team members. Also, you need to be empathetic. You might not personally like the person you are working with, but that does not mean you cannot understand where they are coming from. You can begin by reframing the task at hand and focusing on the behavior causing static rather on the individual. Framing an employee as a difficult person is way less manageable than framing the employee's behavior as misaligned with the goals of the team. "A difficult person" is addressing character traits that are usually immutable. It sounds like and looks like a value judgment. "Misaligned behavior" is identifying a circumstance under your leadership that is fixable. In other words, you can modify misaligned behaviors, you have no right to try to change immutable character traits that you personally do not like.

Empathy, which we will go in depth later on, will help you see things from their perspective and find common ground. If your empathy muscle is weak, do not despair. Empathy is learnable. And finally, you need to develop patience. Dealing with people from all walks of life is never easy, but it is important to remember that it takes two people to make a relationship work. If you are patient and committed, there is a good chance you will be able to find a way to work together. Dealing with people we find difficult is just one of the many challenges leaders faces. When we are successful in leading our team, we get to see the positive impact we have on other people's lives.

We get to help them grow and develop in their careers, and we get to watch them succeed. That is what makes leadership worth it - knowing that we are making a difference When I began managing employees directly, I ran into the relational issue myself. I knew the technical stuff, knew what was expected of my role, I knew how to do my job. Regardless, I did not know how to approach employees. Was I supposed to befriend them? Or parent or boss them around? Well, no. I knew that. Litigation taught me the perils of all those approaches. Convincing my direct reports to abandon the top-down strategy of telling people what to do, when to do it, how to do it and pushing them to do it was a tall order. Nonetheless, that old management style was not working, and it is rejected by the next generation across the board. What you talk about with employee is important but how you talk with them and not at them is fundamental in establishing a connected relationship.