This occasion provides an opportunity to reflect on the responsibilities shared by institutions, employers, and individuals in fostering respectful, inclusive, and psychologically safe work environments.

​

Harassment starts with one person

Harassment typically comes from a single person at work, often manifesting through repeated patterns of intimidation, exclusion, manipulation, or inappropriate conduct that gradually erode one's professional confidence and workplace cohesion. Even though such behavior may initially appear isolated in nature, its effects frequently extend far beyond the individuals directly involved, shaping an organization's culture, resulting to diminishing employees' morale, and undermining the broader principles of respect and inclusion in the workplace.

 

The cost of keeping a toxic employee who harms everyone around them

Most organizations claim to care about culture, psychological safety, and employee wellbeing. This is until the toxic employee (aka, a bully) delivers results and that’s when everything changes and the conversation becomes more nuanced with phrases like: “that’s just their personality", “we can’t afford to lose them right now", “nobody else understands the process like they do” or “replacing them would create chaos", being used to control damage and what ultimately leads to whitewash.   

 

And this is where organizations quietly make a defining cultural decision to choose operational convenience over human sustainability, and this has nothing to do with their ability to recognize the damage but everything to do with them finding it inconvenient to remove the person rather than keeping them.

 

The toxic employee everyone complains about, yet nobody takes measures against

Almost every organization has an employee who controls critical procedural knowledge and owns essential workflows, understands legacy systems, or has been around long enough to become institutionally embedded. This person could be someone either fairly competent or exceptionally so but they are also intimidating, emotionally volatile, dismissive, manipulative and consistently corrosive to team morale. HR receives complaints, managers hear concerns, peers quietly warn newcomers and then turnover begins clustering around them, however they remain. But this is not because leadership is unaware but because it has already calculated the operational cost of dealing with the issue and has already decided that it is too inconvenient.

 

Sometimes the "high performer" is not actually exceptional

One of the least discussed realities in corporate environments is that some employees are perceived as indispensable not because they are uniquely talented, but because authority, knowledge, access, and process ownership have been excessively concentrated around them over time.

 

Organizations often mistake dependency for excellence while in some cases, the "irreplaceable experts" appear indispensable because documentation is poor, access is centralized, knowledge transfer never happened, or the system was gradually designed around their control of information and approvals. Over time, this concentration of authority creates an illusion of superiority and ultimately a structural dependency that supersedes rational evaluation of performance or behavior.

​

 The myth of the "irreplaceable" toxic performer

Organizations often convince themselves that certain individuals are too valuable to lose but what they frequently fail to calculate is cumulative damage as toxic performers rarely damage only one relationship. Instead, they create fear-based communication cultures, defensive teams, information silos, emotional exhaustion, disengagement, passive attrition, and leadership distrust.

 

Over time, strong employees stop contributing openly because psychological safety disappears. At the same time innovation declines because people avoid visibility, meetings become performative, communication becomes cautious, teams optimize for survival instead of excellence and finally organizations lose far more talent than the single individual they protect. The true irony lies in the fact that many companies sacrifice multiple high-potential employees to retain one bully who feels administratively harder to replace.

 

The organizational web that the toxic employee creates includes protectors, followers, and successors

A less visible but highly corrosive dynamic emerges around such individuals over time as they do not remain isolated but instead, create a network around them.

 

Some colleagues, through dependence, fear, opportunism, or exhaustion, begin to align themselves with the dominant figure yet this is not necessarily out of belief, but out of survival. These people learn that proximity reduces risk, agreement reduces friction and resistance creates consequences. Gradually, an informal "inner circle" is created that may not be formally assigned but is certainly socially enforced. These individuals become protectors of the dominant figure, consciously or unconsciously reinforcing their authority. They manage narratives, downplay complaints, and help normalize behaviors that would otherwise be challenged.

 

At the same time, the organization often starts grooming or implicitly rewarding a successor archetype. This refers to the one who inherits not just the role, but also the same behavioral patterns. This successor is frequently shaped by the system itself, learning that authority is maintained through control of information, selective access, and social dominance rather than collaboration or trust. The end result is a self-reinforcing structure where the original individual sets the tone, the protected inner layer defends it, and a successor is prepared to continue it. And this is how the torch is passed.

​

Over time, those who raise concerns are no longer treated as signals of dysfunction but framed as outliers, emotionally unstable, or resistant to "how things work here". In such an environment, speaking up does not challenge behavior but the system’s identity instead, making organizations cross a critical line; the people reporting harm start to appear irrational, while the source of harm becomes institutionally normalized.

 

When leadership prioritizes stability at the expense of integrity

One of the most damaging aspects of these environments is not the bully themselves but leadership’s response to them...or lack thereof. Employees pay close attention to what organizations tolerate so when repeated complaints lead to no meaningful accountability, teams tend to internalize several messages such as the fact that performance matters more than behavior, leadership avoids uncomfortable decisions, reporting issues changes nothing and psychological safety is conditional. All this combined, destroy trust faster than most executives realize because employees can tolerate difficult personalities but not institutional complicity. Imagine this degree of tolerance combined with organizations publicly promoting values they privately refuse to enforce. That’s when hypocrisy is off the charts.

 

Being around for a long time and consistently deliver does not justify intimidation, manipulation, hostility, or chronic disrespect.  A person can be excellent at their function and still be profoundly damaging to organizational health. In fact, toxic performers often become more dangerous precisely because leadership depends on them operationally. Dependency creates immunity and immunity creates escalation and then, over time, these individuals frequently become untouchable not through formal authority, but through organizational fear of disruption, replacement, transition and exposure.

 

Healthy organizations do not foster dependencies

Strong organizations do not allow critical knowledge, workflows, or operational stability to become concentrated around one individual because once a company becomes structurally dependent on someone, accountability is shattered. Healthy leadership understands that expertise should be transferable, systems should be documented,

responsibilities should be distributed, and no employee should become culturally exempt. The more “irreplaceable” someone becomes, the more vulnerable the organization actually is.

 

The real cost is frequently paid quietly and comes with long-term ramifications 

The cost of retaining a toxic employee with authority appears slowly through disengagement, silent withdrawal, increased absenteeism, reduced creativity and trust, internal fragmentation, and the eventual departure of capable people who simply stop believing the environment will improve. Most organizations do not lose good employees because of a huge workload that is hard to manage but because continuous exposure to toxicity becomes psychologically draining causing many employees to realize that if leadership repeatedly protects the source of harm, the culture is functioning exactly as designed.

 

The consequences of tolerating toxic behavior go past team dynamics. For those exposed to it, the damage is often deeply personal and long-lasting. Many do not simply "move on" from these environments or situations. They lose years of career progression, are pushed out of opportunities they were qualified for, and become systematically excluded from visibility and advancement. The chronic stress of sustained psychological pressure can also manifest in severe health outcomes, including PTSD, anxiety disorders, depression, and stress-related autoimmune conditions that emerge or worsen under prolonged exposure. What remains is not only professional disruption, but a sense of time irreversibly lost as years may have been spent trying to survive an environment that should have enabled growth, only to realize later that their career trajectory was quietly stolen in plain sight, while institutions chose stability over accountability.

​

Beyond the direct professional and personal harm, the financial consequences can compound across decades. Career advancement is cumulative so any missed promotions, suppressed compensation growth, lost leadership experience, and exclusion from high-visibility opportunities can create gaps that are rarely recovered in full and are also very difficult to prove and explain to future supervisors (internally) or employers (externally). Individuals whose progress was delayed or derailed by toxic environments often never reach the level of seniority, influence, or earning potential they likely would have attained under fair conditions. The result is not simply temporary income loss, but a long-term reduction in lifetime earnings, retirement accumulation, equity participation, and professional leverage. In many cases, the economic impact continues long after the toxic environment itself has been left behind, as the years lost to stagnation cannot be fully restored or recalibrated within the compressed timelines of career progression.

 

Culture is revealed by what organizations are willing to tolerate

Every company has a value bible published in websites, and recruitment campaigns. But organizational culture is not defined by slogans but by the kind of behaviors it chooses to tolerate. The true test of leadership is not how organizations manage easy employees but whether they are willing to confront harmful behavior when doing so becomes inconvenient or operationally disruptive. Many organizations fail that test because they fear temporary disruption more than long-term cultural erosion and not because they cannot recognize toxicity.

​

Leadership has a personal responsibility to not only drive performance, but to protect those placed under its authority, especially when harm, exclusion, or abuse becomes visible. True leadership requires the integrity to intervene, the fairness to act, and the courage to prioritize accountability over comfort. Silence in the presence of harmful behavior is rarely neutral as, over time, it becomes participation.

 

At the same time, it takes profound courage for those experiencing such behaviors to speak up. Many do so at significant personal and professional risk, often knowing that raising concerns may result in retaliation, isolation, reputational harm, or stalled advancement. Their willingness to come forward should not be dismissed as disruption but recognized as an act of resilience and integrity intended to prevent further harm to others.

 

Whether a leader or a fellow peer, kindness and fairness are in order. No ambition, title, or objective should come at the cost of another person’s dignity, health, future, or sense of self. The measure of leadership is not only what is accomplished, but whether people emerge from the experience stronger, respected, and whole. Striving to create environments where people are able to grow rather than merely endure, can ensure that no person will become the hardship someone else is forced to survive.

​

An envoi...

The bully stands alone at the center of every hallway confrontation, looking singular. Their singlehood is an illusion maintained by the comfort of everyone around them. Some often notice and dismiss it as temperament, others laugh at the safer jokes or translate intimidation into charisma, while bystanders perfect the discipline of looking away at the exact right moment. The perpetrator carries the face of violence, but the institution carries its permission. Their singlehood is therefore not the tragedy of a misunderstood outcast, but the visible tip of a collective failure. One person acts brutally in the foreground while an entire community rehearses complicity in the background through silence, convenience, and the desperate desire to remain uninvolved. 

​

Lack of action equals complicity, and no matter what angle you look at this from, there is no way around it.