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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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"?
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.
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.