The toxicity stems from one unabated source. Perhaps that's why the employee is motivated to leave. That combined with a large dollop of cowardice and fear, plus a willingness to succumb to complacency. An overbearing manager who struts about visiting their unbridled narcissism on whatever target they choose will cause a staffing bleed for any company.
The question is whether the exiting employees will choose to disclose the basis of their choice either in their resignation notice or even anonymously. Considering that employees realize the toxic manager is traditionally the one who provides the employment reference and evaluation either to Human Resources or those conducting employment considerations, the exiting employee will say nothing in order to preserve their employability. They will also be disinclined to speak anonymously for fear the context of their comments will pinpoint their identity. Consider the options and results that accrued to Anita Hill with regard to remaining silent for years and then making a confidential disclosure. Thus, reliable feedback and information in order to implement change on solid, verifiable, documented criteria is lacking. The disease will continue.
The toxic manager is not always the braying ogre. There are many characteristics to this type of individual and the package is a kaleidoscope from which any mixture can derive. The bottom line is the manager is lacking leadership, as well as management, skills. There are serious identity and self esteem issues. Their need to control is too strong compared with the task assigned and this is because the manager is uncertain of their ability to carry out their work, not the abilities of their staff. This type of manager will typically look for fault and manufacture situations that create fault finding. They will twist information in order to make it fit their purposes. What appears to be unnconscious harassment is a constant motivation. An excellent example of the devices of a toxic manager and their pulling in unsuspecting allies and supporters of their designs are discussed in the recent Equal Opportunity Employment Comm'n v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles. The employee finally chose to speak after being terminated.
The result of these insecurities and lack of training is unjustified recriminations. Additionally, morale will be reduced. Absenteeism will rise. Because of rising resentment, quality of work product will drop. A 2005 study found that disgruntled workers are frequently the source of office sabotage. The workers were disgruntled because of poor employment evaluations or because of poor management by their supervisors. Most of the time, the sabotage occurred just before the employee left the business. Well, it could be said there was some form of exit feedback.
The important issue is not to discover why the employee is leaving. Rather, the most essential practice is to be aware of the company's culture temperature. Have solid ground rules for certain types of behavior that will not be compromised, thus, assuring employees of what they can expect and what is expected of them. ("Employees" in this context applies to all manner of individuals working for the company, no matter what capacity.) Additionally, when a violation of the rules of conduct occurs, the matter should not be allowed to continue in the hopes that it will work itself out. Rather, corrective steps should be taken immediately. Otherwise, the ones being subjected to mistreatment will leave, while smiling and saying nothing.
Yvonne LaRose is a California Accredited Consultant whose office is in Beverly Hills, California. Her practice focuses on two general areas: Organizational Development and Career Coaching. Her column, Career and Executive Recruiting Advice was created in early 2000 and then moved to its own domain in mid-2002. She now blogs from The Desk.
