Thought provoking. The LinkedIn crowd is so predictable. I know a few who keep sugarcoating the shit that happens in my industry and keep championing change etc when truly nothing has really changed. Narrative management at its finest.
But what do you do when an entire industry (in my case TV/media) functions as you describe - what are the options left except for retraining and potentially going into a new industry where same/similar mismatch awaits?
Really interesting. And remarkably clear-sighted. I agree that politics is everywhere, at all times. The only question is how much and of what sort. I wonder if you agree that there might be something else also going on here. Which, in fact, I think you do allude to. Namely, the assumption that if its a workplace, then work (real, actual work) is being done there. I suspect that in cases where that assumption is fully warranted, the politics will be at best productive and at worst mildly irritating. But in cases where it is not warranted, or tenuous, there will be ample scope for the sort of 'toxic' politics you describe. By way of example, for many years I worked in a very small building company. There was no question that what the company was doing was beneficial. As well, there were only as many employees as were needed for the work and each of them new their role precisely and were competent. So, occasionally the lead carpenter might be a bit of an alpha guy. But he was the lead carpenter and, really, who cares if, in being so, he created a bit of momentum. By contrast, I've observed, from the outside, workplaces doing 'work' that nobody had appeared to ask for and around which there was little real consensus as to its benefit. And they appeared to be over-staffed with people who didn't seem to have a clear idea of what they were doing there. Inevitably the 'bad' internal politics were amped up. So I guess that I'm just a little concerned that you might be being somewhat fatalistic in generalising to all workplaces - although I grant that this may be deliberate in arguing your point. Let's face it, there is a lot of bullshit work, and there are a lot of bullshit jobs, out there. Getting rid of all of that might do wonders. Not easy, I admit, so maybe it's my guarded optimism that is misplaced. Anyway, thanks for the post.
This is an embarrassingly late response so here goes. You've made a good distinction, and I agree that proximity to real work changes how politics plays out.
In environments where the work is tightly coupled to outcomes, like clear revenue goals, there’s less room for distortion because reality constrains it. Roles are defined and feedback is immediate, so incompetence is noticed early and dealt with. Politics is still there but it tends to stay functional rather than becoming the dominant force.
Things become more unstable when the link between work and outcome is weaker or harder to verify, creating more space for certain narratives to take over, which is where the patterns I’m describing become more visible. So I wouldn’t say all workplaces are the same. More that the underlying logic is consistent, but how much distortion is present depends on how tightly the system is anchored to reality.
I appreciate this perspective. I would only add that the fact that a single leader can change a culture virtually overnight is still worth discussing. But I love the discomfort your points raise. People too often want their cake and eat it too. We compromise for income (as just one example) or other reasons, then lie to ourselves (or compartmentalise ) and feel trapped, rather than act (your point about agency was bang on). People can stay, or as they are not trees, leave, or do any number of things in between those extremes of the spectrum. And there's a lot in-between there.
Just wanted to thank you for getting us to think this through and peel the onion a bit more.
You raised an important point about an effective leader at the top though I’d frame it differently. A leader can shift what’s tolerated or prioritised very quickly, but only within the constraints of the system they’re operating in. If the underlying structure, incentives, and risks remain the same, those changes tend to be local or temporary.
That’s why you sometimes see a visible shift when a new leader comes in followed by a gradual return to the same patterns.
On the individual side, people have more room to move than they often think. The difficulty is that most of the available options come with trade-offs people don’t want to face, so staying and rationalising becomes the easier path.
Very well put and if I pause to think of it, I have unfortunately seen too many examples (three specific names come to mind) of great leaders, even at the Director General level, get pushed out or who chose to simply leave. As for those who are stretched financially, you are probably right that they rationalise (and sometimes even stay unhappy doing so).
Thanks again for your great insights and reminder that things are trickier than they seem. Shortcuts may be easy, but rarely point to the issues at play.
Excellent analysis. I'm left wondering why you left something out. Why don't organizations simply rewrite a description of working there to match the truth instead of blowing smoke before people's first days? There's be a lot fewer headaches, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks and cancers.
It’s like asking a narcissist to have integrity. The ask itself is experienced as an attack on the idealised self, so the response isn’t correction, it’s deflection, reframing, and reinforcement of the image.
Is the conclusion those who don't do well in these working-as-designed systems are simply in the wrong jobs/professions and should therefore find other employment?
It’s not quite that binary. Sometimes there is a genuine mismatch and leaving makes the most sense. But for many people, that’s not immediately possible or even desirable.
The point isn’t that people who struggle are in the wrong job and should exit. It’s that once you see the system more clearly, you’re no longer trying to make it behave according to assumptions it doesn’t actually operate by. From there, people tend to make more deliberate choices about how they participate, whether that’s adjusting how they operate within it, setting limits, or eventually leaving.
The shift is less about the right or wrong job and more about recognising the conditions you’re in and deciding what you’re willing to work within.
Nathalie, I really liked this. It seems like in the past 5-10 years the term "toxic boss" and "toxic workplace" are way, way overused.
At the end of the day, ANY social environment- a club, business, community group will have dysfunction. We are human beings.
We have to decide what dysfunction we can live with.
On the topic of "toxic" workplaces- I worked in one, and it was truly abusive-- constantly changing goalposts with no explanation, weird "tests" given to employees, changing job descriptions/responsibilities with no explanation, screaming at people in front of others, refusing to staff events and conference appropriately, etc, etc.
As unpleasant as it may be, some workplaces are dysfunctional but not abusive or toxic. It might be horribly annoying, but fix the problems you can fix, and don't be a hero.
Thanks Ellie! You’ve described a textbook abusive workplace with a love of humiliating staff. I agree it’s not the same as the more common dysfunction people label as toxic.
I also agree the term gets overused as a way of labelling something that feels wrong without being able to fully explain why.
In this piece, I was aiming to describe how people interpret what they’re seeing. A lot of the confusion comes from assuming the workplace is meant to operate according to its stated values, and treating anything that diverges from that as a failure or deviation.
Once that assumption shifts, the question becomes less about whether something is toxic and more about whether the conditions are something you’re willing to work within, and how you want to respond to them.
A very interesting read. Remarkably clear minded analysis of actually reality as opposed to idealised belief.
I think the most interesting observation from my perspective is that this all goes to what becomes important when systems become disconected from principles, morals and universal objectivity of what those are.
So in that regard, I find your analysis strikingly clear and pragmatic. It most certainly is an effective method for framing disfunctionality as we find it and what practical options an individual has available to them. I am intrigued by the apparant lack of concern or questioning of the fundamental that is at the base of this however.
It is a modern imperative due to the decoupling of individual and institutional behaviour from a previously universally accepted set of moral imperatives. In the case of western social democracies and the institutions that function within those broader systems it is the decoupling from Christian social doctrines.
When one such overarching doctrine is dismantled history demonstrates it is always replaced with an alternative. Your analysis here suggests that having regard for those overarching moral principles is the mistake individials make when choosing a course of action.
The problem I see as a result of this, is that complex organisational structures need that overarching set of moral principles to create a sound enough framework for them to develop to scale in the first place. Simply understanding what the mechanisims of organisational disfunction are to permit an individual to make better personal choices in the immediate term, fails to appreciate what the result is when organisational systems function in the absence of overarching moral principles governing a society that enabled them in the first place.
Thanks Orson for your excellent insights on how people justify remaining in morally compromising situations.
I agree there’s a lot more range in how people respond than just staying or leaving. Most people are already making adjustments across that spectrum, whether they see it that way or not.
What I was trying to do here was isolate the system layer first, because confusion comes from assuming it’s malfunctioning rather than operating as designed. Once that’s clear, the question of how someone chooses to participate or disengage becomes much more concrete.
This paragraph is a bit confusing. Which are being referred to as the first 3 roles?
The first three roles remain inside the political ecosystem, even when they soften or challenge parts of it. They help the system explain itself, refine itself, or carry out what it has already set in motion, while reality restorers are doing something else entirely — to help people stop mistaking it for something it’s not.
Thought provoking. The LinkedIn crowd is so predictable. I know a few who keep sugarcoating the shit that happens in my industry and keep championing change etc when truly nothing has really changed. Narrative management at its finest.
But what do you do when an entire industry (in my case TV/media) functions as you describe - what are the options left except for retraining and potentially going into a new industry where same/similar mismatch awaits?
Really interesting. And remarkably clear-sighted. I agree that politics is everywhere, at all times. The only question is how much and of what sort. I wonder if you agree that there might be something else also going on here. Which, in fact, I think you do allude to. Namely, the assumption that if its a workplace, then work (real, actual work) is being done there. I suspect that in cases where that assumption is fully warranted, the politics will be at best productive and at worst mildly irritating. But in cases where it is not warranted, or tenuous, there will be ample scope for the sort of 'toxic' politics you describe. By way of example, for many years I worked in a very small building company. There was no question that what the company was doing was beneficial. As well, there were only as many employees as were needed for the work and each of them new their role precisely and were competent. So, occasionally the lead carpenter might be a bit of an alpha guy. But he was the lead carpenter and, really, who cares if, in being so, he created a bit of momentum. By contrast, I've observed, from the outside, workplaces doing 'work' that nobody had appeared to ask for and around which there was little real consensus as to its benefit. And they appeared to be over-staffed with people who didn't seem to have a clear idea of what they were doing there. Inevitably the 'bad' internal politics were amped up. So I guess that I'm just a little concerned that you might be being somewhat fatalistic in generalising to all workplaces - although I grant that this may be deliberate in arguing your point. Let's face it, there is a lot of bullshit work, and there are a lot of bullshit jobs, out there. Getting rid of all of that might do wonders. Not easy, I admit, so maybe it's my guarded optimism that is misplaced. Anyway, thanks for the post.
This is an embarrassingly late response so here goes. You've made a good distinction, and I agree that proximity to real work changes how politics plays out.
In environments where the work is tightly coupled to outcomes, like clear revenue goals, there’s less room for distortion because reality constrains it. Roles are defined and feedback is immediate, so incompetence is noticed early and dealt with. Politics is still there but it tends to stay functional rather than becoming the dominant force.
Things become more unstable when the link between work and outcome is weaker or harder to verify, creating more space for certain narratives to take over, which is where the patterns I’m describing become more visible. So I wouldn’t say all workplaces are the same. More that the underlying logic is consistent, but how much distortion is present depends on how tightly the system is anchored to reality.
I appreciate this perspective. I would only add that the fact that a single leader can change a culture virtually overnight is still worth discussing. But I love the discomfort your points raise. People too often want their cake and eat it too. We compromise for income (as just one example) or other reasons, then lie to ourselves (or compartmentalise ) and feel trapped, rather than act (your point about agency was bang on). People can stay, or as they are not trees, leave, or do any number of things in between those extremes of the spectrum. And there's a lot in-between there.
Just wanted to thank you for getting us to think this through and peel the onion a bit more.
You raised an important point about an effective leader at the top though I’d frame it differently. A leader can shift what’s tolerated or prioritised very quickly, but only within the constraints of the system they’re operating in. If the underlying structure, incentives, and risks remain the same, those changes tend to be local or temporary.
That’s why you sometimes see a visible shift when a new leader comes in followed by a gradual return to the same patterns.
On the individual side, people have more room to move than they often think. The difficulty is that most of the available options come with trade-offs people don’t want to face, so staying and rationalising becomes the easier path.
Very well put and if I pause to think of it, I have unfortunately seen too many examples (three specific names come to mind) of great leaders, even at the Director General level, get pushed out or who chose to simply leave. As for those who are stretched financially, you are probably right that they rationalise (and sometimes even stay unhappy doing so).
Thanks again for your great insights and reminder that things are trickier than they seem. Shortcuts may be easy, but rarely point to the issues at play.
Keep leading!
Excellent analysis. I'm left wondering why you left something out. Why don't organizations simply rewrite a description of working there to match the truth instead of blowing smoke before people's first days? There's be a lot fewer headaches, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks and cancers.
Their truth IS the distortion.
It’s like asking a narcissist to have integrity. The ask itself is experienced as an attack on the idealised self, so the response isn’t correction, it’s deflection, reframing, and reinforcement of the image.
Is the conclusion those who don't do well in these working-as-designed systems are simply in the wrong jobs/professions and should therefore find other employment?
Excellent description of systems.
It’s not quite that binary. Sometimes there is a genuine mismatch and leaving makes the most sense. But for many people, that’s not immediately possible or even desirable.
The point isn’t that people who struggle are in the wrong job and should exit. It’s that once you see the system more clearly, you’re no longer trying to make it behave according to assumptions it doesn’t actually operate by. From there, people tend to make more deliberate choices about how they participate, whether that’s adjusting how they operate within it, setting limits, or eventually leaving.
The shift is less about the right or wrong job and more about recognising the conditions you’re in and deciding what you’re willing to work within.
Nathalie, I really liked this. It seems like in the past 5-10 years the term "toxic boss" and "toxic workplace" are way, way overused.
At the end of the day, ANY social environment- a club, business, community group will have dysfunction. We are human beings.
We have to decide what dysfunction we can live with.
On the topic of "toxic" workplaces- I worked in one, and it was truly abusive-- constantly changing goalposts with no explanation, weird "tests" given to employees, changing job descriptions/responsibilities with no explanation, screaming at people in front of others, refusing to staff events and conference appropriately, etc, etc.
As unpleasant as it may be, some workplaces are dysfunctional but not abusive or toxic. It might be horribly annoying, but fix the problems you can fix, and don't be a hero.
Thanks Ellie! You’ve described a textbook abusive workplace with a love of humiliating staff. I agree it’s not the same as the more common dysfunction people label as toxic.
I also agree the term gets overused as a way of labelling something that feels wrong without being able to fully explain why.
In this piece, I was aiming to describe how people interpret what they’re seeing. A lot of the confusion comes from assuming the workplace is meant to operate according to its stated values, and treating anything that diverges from that as a failure or deviation.
Once that assumption shifts, the question becomes less about whether something is toxic and more about whether the conditions are something you’re willing to work within, and how you want to respond to them.
"I mean the ordinary daily business of influence, favour, positioning, and survival inside hierarchies where everyone pretends merit matters."
Isn't this essentially "social capital" i.e. relationships? If not, how does it differ?
This isn’t just social capital. Social capital assumes relationships are an asset that can be accumulated and exchanged.
I’m describing how influence is regulated and constrained by the system, often independently of merit or even stable relationships.
So it's more about the inner workings of how "the bureaucracy's main goal becomes preserving itself"?
I would agree with that statement. The bureaucracy becomes the ultimate authority.
I relate to this more than I’d like to admit. I recently wrote about something similar.
It's a tough pill to swallow. Can you share a link of your writing?
https://substack.com/@alex767562/note/c-264768608?r=8hf7ku&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thanks for the link. I hope that people who see the distortion you describe find their way to you and a little less lost as a result.
The theory we all know , I hope , we should not care what other people think about us , but is difficult to do it when you where raised to care .
A very interesting read. Remarkably clear minded analysis of actually reality as opposed to idealised belief.
I think the most interesting observation from my perspective is that this all goes to what becomes important when systems become disconected from principles, morals and universal objectivity of what those are.
So in that regard, I find your analysis strikingly clear and pragmatic. It most certainly is an effective method for framing disfunctionality as we find it and what practical options an individual has available to them. I am intrigued by the apparant lack of concern or questioning of the fundamental that is at the base of this however.
It is a modern imperative due to the decoupling of individual and institutional behaviour from a previously universally accepted set of moral imperatives. In the case of western social democracies and the institutions that function within those broader systems it is the decoupling from Christian social doctrines.
When one such overarching doctrine is dismantled history demonstrates it is always replaced with an alternative. Your analysis here suggests that having regard for those overarching moral principles is the mistake individials make when choosing a course of action.
The problem I see as a result of this, is that complex organisational structures need that overarching set of moral principles to create a sound enough framework for them to develop to scale in the first place. Simply understanding what the mechanisims of organisational disfunction are to permit an individual to make better personal choices in the immediate term, fails to appreciate what the result is when organisational systems function in the absence of overarching moral principles governing a society that enabled them in the first place.
Thanks Orson for your excellent insights on how people justify remaining in morally compromising situations.
I agree there’s a lot more range in how people respond than just staying or leaving. Most people are already making adjustments across that spectrum, whether they see it that way or not.
What I was trying to do here was isolate the system layer first, because confusion comes from assuming it’s malfunctioning rather than operating as designed. Once that’s clear, the question of how someone chooses to participate or disengage becomes much more concrete.
This paragraph is a bit confusing. Which are being referred to as the first 3 roles?
The first three roles remain inside the political ecosystem, even when they soften or challenge parts of it. They help the system explain itself, refine itself, or carry out what it has already set in motion, while reality restorers are doing something else entirely — to help people stop mistaking it for something it’s not.
The reality restorer role sits outside the 3 roles.