How to Erode “Toxic Culture”
Let’s just get right to it: Toxic Culture is very much a rhetorical phenomenon. It rests on the unwillingness of passive group members to challenge poor-quality behavior when they are uncertain of their own verbal skills, and also of how the group evaluates their membership. Fortunately, there is relief in the form of logic.
Since much of the "toxicity" relies upon the rhetorical skills of bad actors—who are predictable, if anything—we can approach them with the one thing they do not excel at: Reasoning.
The math only looks complicated,
Vi = ∑(wq* q). This formula says that a value Vi equals the SUM ∑ of a specific quality q times the weight wq ascribed to that quality. It expresses a standard that challenges the common rhetorical ways that we evaluate each other. The body of dialogues surrounding the value of another person is no longer negotiable strictly through one’s ability to talk fast. Being confidently aggressive or even narcissistic in the workplace no longer supports an assumption of credibility, or authority.
Toxic Culture is developed through deconstructing the standards by which we are evaluated or held accountable. This is no longer a mystery. Research by Duffy et al. (2012), "Social Undermining in the Workplace," found that bad actors created moral disengagement as a tactic for granting themselves approval for antisocial conduct. Essentially, creating a "Pavlovian cage" within a work environment bred a widespread tolerance of bad behavior that would otherwise never have been tolerated.
Nor is this a local phenomenon; it has been referred to as a "Moral Maze." Robert Jackall (1988), in his landmark study Moral Mazes, found that in bureaucratic institutions, formal accountability structures are often rendered inert by an informal "shadow institution" where the "moral rules-in-use" depend entirely on authority relationships rather than objective standards.
We barely need mention the numerous famous cases of major corporations that created, or allowed the creation of, a toxic culture—supposedly in the name of "good business practice." Enron comes to mind. Wells Fargo. But just in case history is not persuasive enough, researchers Van Rooij & Fine (2021), "Toxic Corporate Culture," found that a culture of accepting rule-breaking easily morphs into a “Lord of the Flies” scenario in which compliance is corrupted and law-breaking is condoned as normal.
Furthermore, research on "Employee Silence" (Morrison, 2014) confirms that when individuals lack a sense of psychological safety, they withdraw their engagement. This silence is not a lack of opinion; it is a survival mechanism that bad actors then use as a tool to deconstruct standards further.
Erosion of standards is how a toxic culture develops, and the central mechanism, without any doubt, is our habit of rhetorical speech. We have, just for example, the term “failing upward.” We’re just asking ourselves: “How is it even possible that means anything at all? And we all know it!”
Rhetorical speech has long been recognized
as more dangerous than lying, since lying has a strict relationship with truth (hiding it) and rhetoric often deconstructs truth, massaging it as a utility for narratives of persuasion (Frankfurt, H. G., 2005, On Bullshit). It allows for "Strategic Ambiguity" (Eisenberg, 1984) as a tactic for enforcing narratives that would otherwise foster objection. This permits a very specific drift from facts to crowd-influence, and that is where our formula comes into effect as a remedy.
Most people are not trained, or even equipped emotionally or intellectually, to go into work every day and engage in rhetorical battles. The outstanding, extra cognitive load built by constant stress and toxic dialogues is often portrayed as a necessary "dog-eat-dog" reality, but on second glance, it’s not clear that the people saying those things have ever owned a dog, lived in reality, or been to a jungle!
The simple fact is that the rhetorical noise is a distraction that is probably meant to create leverage over others, if only by making them work harder and fostering mistakes. People aren’t bad at their jobs if others are actively sabotaging them with bullshit and harmful gossip. The emotional labor of showing up to a toxic environment is harmful and anything but profitable.
That "Fake Reality," which I have termed a “Biological Hallucination” in other articles, is not a naturally occurring influence, but is purposefully assumed by bad actors to enforce the degradation of standards. One of the most common manipulations is to make individuals justify their supposedly inflated value to the crowd—the good old “Who Do You Think You Are?” gambit.
The idea is to put someone on the defensive by presuming to speak on behalf of the crowd, who have probably endured similar treatment and are afraid to be singled out. In a single, disingenuous question, the individual is placed in a false opposition to the group, with one person demanding a justification- not for anything real- but just for an attitude that is implied to be an affliction on the group.
Well, let’s work through that, because the math is entirely in favor of the individual.
The bad actor doesn’t say it out loud
but implies that it is up to any individual to justify their value, as an employee, as a member of the group; YES, even as a human being. However, that implied devaluation has no basis in reality or even logically, because if our values are not additive, then there is no value in turning the group against anyone.
The individual either has a basic value, or the crowd has no value either. A group’s value is entirely contingent on the base value of individuals! Once that is re-established, the onus to justify any devaluation passes to the person making the accusation.
Logically, if Vi = 0, then 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0. The accuser is saying that is exactly the case until they decide on the values. That is now blown wide open to challenge. Either you have value, or no one does, and turning the group against you is futile. In fact, the very act of trying to turn a group against an individual asserts the number of members in that group as the value of the accused. It’s not even a choice, logically, because again, if the accused indeed has no value, then what is the display for? The additive values of the individuals in the group is a measure of how important it is to impose upon the accused.
Rhetorically, your response leads with a solid gut-punch: “Who do I think I am? I’m a member of this group, just like you. Logically, either I have a voice, or no one here does, including you. So, what’s it going to be?”
Follow that with a rhetorical upper-cut: “It sounds to me as if you’re reserving the right to do the valuing for everyone, and I just don’t see how you are getting from A to B on that.”
Then a bit of "ground-and-pound": “Let’s face it: You’re using the group to back you up, so logically their number is the value you are placing on my compliance. You’ve inflated my value to the number of people here today, and I’m not sure how solid that reasoning is. If you devalue everyone in this group to win an argument, you are effectively bankrupting the company’s only real asset. Is that your intention?”
(*Voice of Experience: The accuser is going to argue anyway and talk over you and shout you down, but stick to your guns, because everyone else has heard you, and is now thinking hard about your argument.)
Unless there is a real reason to question your presence- which would be what? You are supposed to be in prison, but crashed a staff meeting at a company you don’t work for??? Without a real, quality rationale for openly devaluing others, the onus is on the accuser to provide the evidence, just like on “Law & Order”.
Let’s talk about Quality, then.
There are 4 actual qualities relevant across all domains:
Integrity (Consistency between word and action).
Competence (The ability to move the "Role" toward the goal).
Foresight (The ability to see outcomes based on data).
Sovereignty (The ability to maintain integrity against influencers).
The value of someone’s voice can be evaluated reasonably on these qualities so that even if you are technically qualified for something, a poor evaluation on them could justify a harsh downgrade in credibility. You still have a basic value of 1, but the added value of your credentials may suffer some real-world strain.
On the other hand, a lack of credentials may not be a solid counter for high evaluations on those 4 qualities. While management can audit a role, they can’t reasonably inflate that to other qualities such as Sovereignty, or your basic value. There is no room for claiming a total, abject failure across the board for that clerical error you made 5 years ago.
Faced with someone demanding an implied devaluation of you as a human, or employee or whatever, you can still take control of that dialogue by insisting on real valuations of those qualities. In fact, it’s a great strategy because it is, as they say on Law & Order “fruit of the poisoned tree, your Honor”. The accuser allows questioning of their own performance on those same qualities if they engage. (They probably won’t).
The Sovereign Value of “1”
The basic value of each person is not something that can be dispensed with rhetorically while retaining any credibility. It is now a signal of poor qualities, or openly toxic behavior, which you don’t need to take responsibility for. By reclaiming the sovereign value of "1," you aren't just defending yourself; you are restoring the math of the entire group.