The science of workplace dysfunction

My interview with the Team Lab Podcast

My route to the study of human behaviour in workplaces was through cancer research, where my work focused on how the tissue microenvironment influences cellular behaviour, particularly the conditions that enable abnormal growth, tumour invasion, and metastasis. Cells become malignant within a permissive microenvironment that fail to register threat, while tumours co-opt surrounding systems to persist, amplify, and spread, causing disruption far beyond their point of origin.

Once you see this mechanism clearly in a biological system, it’s not hard to start seeing it human relational ecosystems.

The AI’s interpretation of my job description.

This systems-based understanding extends into organisations and is where I draw inspiration for my analyses of human-system interaction and group dynamics in workplaces. Workplaces function as environments that organise behaviour through incentive structures governing access, status, protection, legitimacy, and advancement. These structures covertly shape how people relate over time. Behaviour adapts to what sustains viability within the system, producing stable and highly predictable patterns of conduct, even if the conduct is morally questionable yet is perceived as upstanding.

This adaptation is formative in what I’ve written about as a passive assimilation process. Individuals who see themselves as ethical, principled, and well-intentioned, but lack the capacity to express these qualities, learn to withhold information, downplay and delay concerns, avoid pointing out problems, and redirect responsibility in response to organisational signals. They develop an understanding of what enables success through repeated participation in everyday work interactions, reshaping the moral disposition with which they entered the workplace.

What happens when you don't resist assimilation

From this perspective, workplace dynamics can be traced directly to how incentives are structured and enforced. Psychological safety, trust, scapegoating, and narcissistic behaviours feature in environments where authority and protection are exercised through informal rules rather than explicit accountability. People adjust themselves based on what preserves standing, limits risk, and maintains favour, which is why these patterns persist even in organisations that publicly endorse ethical values.

In this conversation with the Team Lab Podcast hosts, Angela Migliaccio and Cori Caldwell, we explore how everyday workplace interactions shape conduct over time, how people adapt to what is reinforced or discouraged, and how relational patterns stabilise within teams and organisations. The discussion focuses on how trust, psychological safety, scapegoating, and authority operate in practice rather than as stated ideals. This podcast offers a dose of reality by making sense of workplace behaviour as it unfolds to support discernment and deliberate choices about how to engage, adapt, or exit.

Let us know your thoughts about this conversation here and/or on their podcast page. You can find them on Apple iTunes, Spotify and YouTube. You can also read the transcript of our conversation below.

Here are the themes we covered:

• Introduction and Framing of Workplace Dysfunction

• From Science to Workplace Systems

• Psychological Safety vs Toxic Workplaces

• Scapegoating in the Workplace

• Narcissistic Behaviour in Leadership

• Limits of Awareness, Coaching, and Culture Change

• Navigating Toxic Power Structures

• Advice for Gen Z Entering the Workforce

• Authenticity and the Myth of “Bringing Your Whole Self to Work”

• The Formative Curriculum of Work

Transcript

Corey:
Welcome back to Team Lab. I’m Corey.

Angela:
And I’m Angela. Today we’re diving into the deep end, tackling the prickly issue of toxic leadership and dysfunction in the workplace.

Corey:
Our guest today is Dr. Nathalie Martinek, an author, speaker, and facilitator who helps professionals build relational leadership capacity and navigate the subtle power dynamics that shape trust, connection, and harm at work.

Angela:
Nathalie is one of the leading voices on narcissistic leadership, something many of us have experienced with managers, peers, or senior leaders, but often felt powerless to shift.

Corey:
This often shows up systemically. For example, you might see a cross-functional trust gap where teams sound aligned in meetings, but everything falls apart in the handoffs.

Angela:
Nathalie gets very specific about what psychological safety actually looks like: people can speak up, they’re taken seriously, and disagreement doesn’t turn into punishment. You can empathise without having to agree.

Corey:
She’s the author of The Little Book of Assertiveness and The Scapegoating Playbook at Work, and she writes Hacking Narcissism on Substack.

Angela:
If you’re dealing with visible or invisible dysfunction at work, you don’t want to miss this conversation.

From science to workplace systems

Corey:
You may not be able to predict the lottery, but you bring a scientific lens to human systems. You started in a lab and then moved into workplace dynamics. Can you talk about that transition?

Nathalie:
My last role as a scientist was in cancer research, studying the process of cancer formation and tumour metastasis. That greatly paralleled what I was experiencing in the workplace, which was a carcinogenic environment and the metastasis of certain toxic behaviours, not only around me but in me as well.

I realised I was becoming much like the system I was trying to fight against. That opened my eyes to the impact environments have on behaviour. I became more interested in how that happens. How someone who believes she is ethical, moral, does the right thing, is a good person, can start behaving in ways that are not that.

That intrigued me. Once I left the lab and hung up my scientist coat, I became more interested in human behaviour and what influences us to act the way we do in certain environments. My expertise was in how environments influence tumours, their ability to become mobile, to move around, to infect, co-opt, and hijack the body’s normal functioning to feed and serve them.

That is very similar to narcissistic behaviour. Personality traits that we all have, which in certain environments and conditions are brought out as survival mechanisms. If we’re not aware that that’s what we’re doing in order to succeed and fulfil our ambitions, those traits can dominate us.

That’s what intrigued me. We’re all capable of acting against our moral principles in certain environments and not even being aware of it. Life took me down that path to where I am now.

Psychological safety and toxic environments

Angela:
We’ve all worked in environments where we didn’t feel safe. Sometimes we don’t realise how toxic they are. Can you talk about the difference between psychological safety and a toxic workplace?

Nathalie:
Psychological safety, as I understand it, means being in a team or group where everyone is able to express themselves with respect for each other. We have others in mind. We don’t want to cause harm, but we do want to be honest. We want to share feedback, learn from each other, and make adjustments so that we can continue to have a culture where thoughts, ideas, disagreements, and pushbacks can be expressed without being taken personally.

There is a shared purpose. A desire to collaborate, cooperate, reflect, and learn together in service of the group’s goals.

In a toxic environment, that cannot exist. There is a hierarchy and a power structure where certain people need to be pleased and appeased. To do that, you can’t be honest. You can’t give feedback that contradicts the unspoken norms or the desired narratives. Not everyone has the same opportunity to express themselves.

Some people can speak freely. Others cannot.

There is a hierarchy of inequality. What you say can be used against you. You can experience retaliation, either directly from the individual you’ve challenged or from the group, because they’ve been enlisted by the person with the most power.

That power goes unspoken and unacknowledged, but it is there.

Corey:
You mentioned that you can have psychologically safe teams inside wider systems that aren’t safe. How long can those teams survive?

Nathalie:
They can’t survive indefinitely. They internalise the stress of the wider system they’re trying to buffer themselves from, especially if the leader shielding the group doesn’t have enough power to influence broader change.

If the group knows how to function well together, knows what good looks like, and knows what needs to happen to benefit the wider organisation, the problem is that the other teams need an appetite for that. They need to see it as valuable and be open to learning.

A lot of people say they’re open, but openness requires behavioural and mindset change. Not everyone is interested in that. Many people are more interested in appearing open than actually being open.

So the manager trying to influence outward, trying to create a more cohesive culture, will encounter resistance. Over time, that resistance wears them down.

If a new leader comes in and says psychological safety is important but also believes the organisation is already psychologically safe, there is nothing you can do. You can’t contradict them. You can’t challenge them. Their self-image is more important than reality.

Scapegoating as a systemic response

Angela:
You talk a lot about scapegoating. Can you explain how that shows up in workplaces?

Nathalie:
Scapegoating is a type of workplace abuse that doesn’t get highlighted the way bullying does. Bullying is more overt. It’s interpersonal. Someone assaults another person because they have a problem with them.

Scapegoating is different. It’s a systemic response to an internal threat. The system turns on an individual, but the people participating in the system can’t see that this is what they’re doing. They just see someone who is a problem.

That person carries the blame and the shame of the system so the system never has to look at itself. The shame is outsourced. It’s projected onto one object. The system then tries, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly, to push that person out.

Once the scapegoat exits, the system experiences relief. They believe the problem is gone. Then the system repeats the same pattern because it never reflects or examines itself.

A system isn’t an abstract thing. It’s made up of people. There is usually one person who initiates the scapegoating process. Often this happens when someone is very competent, high-achieving, aligned with policies and processes, or pointing out areas for improvement.

If the leader is insecure, shame-based, or feels inferior, that person becomes a threat. Instead of learning from them, the leader projects that shame onto them.

They start planting seeds of doubt in others. Others participate because it suits them. It’s easier to believe in a problem person than to see themselves as part of the problem.

That’s the distinction between scapegoating and bullying.

Corey:
Can an entire team become the scapegoat?

Nathalie:
Yes. A team can become the scapegoat. Or a representative of the team. Sometimes it’s both.

There isn’t an HR program that addresses this. HR are often participants in the scapegoating mechanism. What HR person wants to admit they were involved in the alienation and exile of someone who was actually doing a very good job?

It can come out in an exit interview, but by then it’s too late.

Narcissistic behaviour in leadership

Corey:
You’ve written extensively about narcissistic leaders. How did you start identifying this in workplace settings?

Nathalie:
I want to distinguish between what people call a narcissist and what I talk about as narcissistic behaviour.

Narcissistic behaviour is about asserting dominance and control over another person’s perception of you. It’s about maintaining an ideal self-image. It’s self-preservation. Defensive behaviour. Often unconscious.

There are people who do this consciously. They manipulate, dominate, gaslight, and diminish others to preserve their sense of power and authority, especially when someone threatens that simply by being competent or challenging.

But we are all part of relationship dynamics. We all contribute. The last thing I want to do is say that manager is the problem and it has nothing to do with me.

Once a dynamic is established, once someone is dominant and someone else isn’t, trying to change that will often lead to conflict and retaliation. That person is hellbent on staying in the power position.

In low-trust environments, you see these traits amplified. There is competition, envy, shame, resentment. People smile on the surface, but beneath that there is constant threat monitoring.

In Australia, there’s a lot of polite aggression. Not passive. Subtle. People are actively doing it, even if they’re not aware of it.

Leaders often present as empathetic and compassionate. They talk about psychological safety. Then behind the scenes they scapegoat someone else and start smear campaigns.

This creates cognitive dissonance. People want to believe the ideal image. Accepting the other reality means recognising you’re participating in a toxic system.

Believing the ideal is easier than dealing with the demoralising truth.

Can awareness change these systems?

Angela:
Can coaching or awareness shift these behaviours?

Nathalie:
Only if people are willing to recognise that any problem they experience in the workplace has their participation in it. That doesn’t mean they caused it, but that they are part of it.

If people are interested in discovering how they’re playing a role, often unconsciously, then they can interrupt the pattern and change it.

People need an appetite for that. They need to be willing to reflect on their behaviour and change it. I don’t think that desire exists for everyone.

It also requires an environment that doesn’t punish people for discovering uncomfortable truths about themselves.

Many workplaces run initiatives that invite vulnerability, but someone is taking notes. That information can be used later for retaliation.

Once people realise disclosure can be weaponised, they won’t participate again.

Listener story: navigating a toxic leader

Corey:
We received a listener story from Raina, a director at a technology company dealing with a manipulative leader. She asked how to alert the authorities. What would you say?

Nathalie:
There is no authority to alert. The authorities are already recruited and participating.

You would need your own allies with high status in the organisation to intervene, and even then you’re dealing with extensions of the same power structure.

Even if you’re moved somewhere else, you’re still dealing with peers of that leader who will make your life miserable. They’re tentacles of the same system.

When someone is plucked from one team and placed under a charismatic, narcissistic leader, they become the outsider. They’re easy to blame and diminish.

If they’re competent, they’re already a threat because they expose inadequacies in the wider group.

Often the only option is to leave.

Are there healthy teams?

Angela:
Are there organisations or teams that don’t have these problems?

Nathalie:
I can’t speak for entire organisations because they’re made up of teams. Every team has its own subculture.

If an organisation has to broadcast how psychologically safe it is, it usually isn’t there yet.

But there are great teams. They have cohesion. They care about each other. They care about the work. They negotiate. They disagree. They leave space for dissent and are curious about it.

Competence alone isn’t enough. You need to be politically aware. That’s the real job, not the one in the position description.

Advice for Gen Z entering the workforce

Angela:
What advice would you give Gen Z entering their first jobs?

Nathalie:
You don’t know what you’re walking into.

You want to make a good impression. You don’t know anything yet. Some compliance is necessary, but not to the point of exploitation.

There are hidden rules of work. No one teaches them.

Don’t believe what people say about the culture. Watch what they do. Watch what’s rewarded. Watch what’s punished.

If leaders are untrustworthy, don’t tell them your thoughts and feelings. They don’t want them. They want to hear what serves them.

Play the game without losing your integrity. That might mean staying silent about some things. Not about abuse, but about opinions no one is interested in hearing.

Authenticity at work

Angela:
You’ve spoken critically about authenticity in the workplace.

Nathalie:
Authenticity has lost meaning.

You can only be authentic around people who make you feel completely safe. Work doesn’t need to be that place.

Work is a place to do a job and get paid. It doesn’t need to fulfil your values or express your full self.

Be friendly. Be warm. Be collegial. Be helpful. Don’t be a doormat. Don’t be more than that.

The formative curriculum of work

Nathalie:
Every workplace has a formative curriculum.

It’s not on any position description. It’s dealing with a tricky person day to day.

I can be avoidant. I can run away. I can switch teams. But I’ll meet another tricky person.

There is something in me that needs to be learned so I no longer have trigger points. So I can work with this person to the best of my ability without requiring them to change.

Maybe nobody else even sees the problem. Just me.

It makes the job harder. It’s an added task. But if I don’t deal with it here, I’ll deal with it somewhere else.

That takes strength of character and maturity.

Everyone brings their full self to work, baggage included, whether they like it or not.

---

Hack Narcissism and support my work

Hacking Narcissism is for people trying to make sense of and effectively navigate a morally distorting and chaotic age. When moral development is disincentivised, people lose reliable reference points for discernment and struggle to distinguish between what’s real, what’s performative, and what’s covertly shaping their perception.

Narcissistic traits are expressed in everyone (often referred to as Cluster B traits). They flourish during periods of moral decline because they help secure status, protection, and significance in environments where norms of what appears correct, rather than what is grounded in moral principles, regulate behaviour. The effect of this behaviour is experienced in all types of relationships, including in workplaces, where people can be punished for violating norms they never agreed to and were never made explicit.

By supporting my research and writing, you’re supporting an effort to understand the processes shaping reality and relationships, to disentangle from dysfunctional relational dynamics, and to remain anchored to truths that guide perception rather than allowing external influences to shape it. Your support enables me to continue making sense of patterns that many people recognise but struggle to articulate, and to clarify the actions that allow people to free themselves from those patterns.

Here’s how you can help:

• Order my books: The Little Book of Assertiveness: Speak up with confidence and The Scapegoating Playbook at Work

• Support my work:

  • through a Substack subscription

  • by sharing my work with your loved ones and networks

  • by citing my work in your presentations and posts

  • by inviting me to speak, deliver training or consult for your organisation