BUSINESS NEWS - South African employees are under growing pressure, with recent surveys pointing to rising stress and concerns about workload, job security and workplace culture. 

When these pressures are compounded by harmful leadership or dysfunctional systems, the consequences can extend beyond workplace frustration, affecting individual well being, team performance and organisational stability.

At the same time, “toxic workplace” has become a catch-all term for almost every professional frustration, potentially undermining the seriousness of situations involving genuine psychological harm.

Understanding whether a workplace is truly toxic, dysfunctional or simply a bad fit is therefore critical to determining the most appropriate response, says leadership expert Debbie Goodman, CEO of Jack Hammer Global, an African boutique executive search firm.

Goodman recently explored the issue in depth with organisational politics expert Niven Postma on the podcast Is My Workplace Toxic?

1. Truly toxic

Diagnosis: A genuinely toxic workplace is characterised by persistent bullying, manipulation, humiliation or intimidation, often involving harmful leadership behaviour. The impact can be profound, undermining an employee’s confidence, wellbeing and ability to function.

Warning signs may include gaslighting, blame-shifting, retaliation, constant undermining and an increasing sense of dread, anxiety or fear about going to work.

The key distinction is that the harmful behaviour is targeted, recurring and difficult to resolve through normal communication. Physical symptoms such as panic attacks, sleeplessness or loss of appetite can be warning signs that the situation requires urgent attention.

Action: In a genuinely toxic environment, leaving may ultimately be the only sustainable solution.

Working harder, becoming more accommodating or attempting to repair the relationship alone is unlikely to resolve a deeply harmful environment. Prolonged exposure can erode confidence and wellbeing and may eventually affect an employee’s ability to continue working effectively.

“Leaving is not always immediately possible, but it is usually the only long-term remedy. Financial or family constraints may require remaining while preparing a realistic exit. That is why developing a Plan B early is so important,” Goodman says.

That plan may take months - or even a year - to execute. The goal is not to make a sudden decision that creates further financial or personal risk, but to regain a sense of control and work towards a viable alternative.

“Recognising that leaving may eventually be necessary can itself restore agency: the employee is no longer trapped in an endless effort to change an environment that is harming them,” she says.

2. Organisational dysfunction

Diagnosis: Not every unhealthy workplace is abusive.

Some organisations struggle with excessive meetings, internal politics, poor communication, unclear priorities, limited trust and slow decision-making. These conditions can be frustrating and exhausting without necessarily constituting personal abuse.

Other warning signs include avoiding difficult conversations because of a fear of conflict, questioning colleagues’ competence or motives, and allowing organisational politics to take precedence over meaningful results.

Action: The first step is to establish whether the problem is primarily structural or personal.

If dysfunction affects an entire team or organisation, employees may have more scope to influence the situation. This could include setting clearer boundaries, improving decision-making within their sphere of control, building relationships with constructive colleagues and raising practical concerns.

Not every battle needs to be fought. Employees can focus on areas where incremental improvements are possible while choosing carefully when and how to challenge wider organisational problems.

For people in senior positions, Goodman notes that there may even be a responsibility to help improve the environment rather than simply accept dysfunctional practices.

3. Bad fit: “It’s not you, it’s me”

Diagnosis: Sometimes the problem is neither toxicity nor dysfunction. It may simply be a mismatch between an employee and the organisation.

Differences in working pace, communication styles, management preferences or expectations can create genuine unhappiness without amounting to misconduct or abuse.

A return-to-office policy, a change in reporting lines or a management style that does not suit an employee may be unwelcome, but that does not automatically make the workplace toxic.

Action: Employees should consider whether the mismatch involves core values they cannot compromise on, the substance of the work itself or simply a management or communication style.

It is also worth asking whether there is enough common ground between the employee’s values and those of the organisation to make the relationship workable.

Can the situation be influenced? Can expectations be negotiated? Is there room for compromise? If not, can the employee accept the environment as it is, or is it time to start planning an exit?

“This kind of self-assessment is not about blaming the employee. It is a way of separating personal misalignment from misconduct and identifying the most realistic next step,” Goodman says.

Ultimately, distinguishing genuine abuse from organisational dysfunction or a poor personal fit allows employees to respond proportionately - and in their own best personal and professional interests.

Knowing when to fight for change and when to start planning a way out can be one of the most important career decisions an employee makes.

Differences in working pace, communication styles, management preferences or expectations can create genuine unhappiness without amounting to misconduct or abuse. Photos: Supplied

‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’