By: Ashley Haygood
Toxic behavior within teams is typically understood in academic literature as uncivil, unprofessional, and disruptive toward others. Several concrete definitions exist within the literature, some of which portray these behaviors as multi-faceted. For example, Holloway and Kusy (2010) identify three common forms of toxic team member behavior: shaming (e.g., humiliating others, pointing out others’ mistakes), passive hostility (e.g., distrusting others’ opinions, exhibiting passive aggressiveness, showing difficulty accepting feedback), and team sabotage (e.g., monitoring team members’ behaviors, using authority to punish others).
Other conceptualizations aim to capture how toxic team member attitudes transform into toxic behaviors, and how such behaviors can break down team communication and form tense environments. Toxic attitudes in teams may include “being disrespectful, being resistant to change, always wanting to be the ‘go-to person,’ avoiding conflict, and lacking motivation” (Moore et al., 2015). When these attitudes go unaddressed, resulting miscommunications may form, particularly if team members lack confidence or knowledge, feel underappreciated, and are given unreasonable expectations, for example (Moore et al., 2015). Moore et al.’s (2015) model is informative in that it illustrates how toxic attitudes and environments influence one another, and implies that both must be targeted in order to diminish toxic behaviors.
Given that toxic attitudes and environments are intertwined within teams, it may be valuable to examine the harmful effects of teammate toxicity and how these consequences occur at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Robinson et al. (2014) describe individual-level effects of coworker deviant behavior as threefold. Direct impact occurs when a team member is the target recipient of the coworker’s deviant behavior (e.g., verbal aggression, harassment, ostracism). Employees who face this kind of coworker toxicity are likely to experience lower affective, psychological, and physical well-being, as well as feel less connected to their work (Robinson et al., 2014; Sakurai & Jex, 2012; Lim et al., 2008; O’Reilly et al., 2014; Penhaligon et al., 2009, 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2012). A more recently-emerging but equally significant concept is the vicarious impact that occurs when a team member learns of or witnesses another’s deviant behavior. These events may aggravate workplace stress and even harm other team members’ performance (Robinson et al., 2014; Vartia, 2001; Porath & Erez, 2009). Ambient impact is characterized more abstractly as the impact of collective coworker deviant behavior on a team member. In particular, it describes how an environment characterized by constant employee misbehaviors influences individuals within a team. Accumulation of these experiences may contribute to one’s greater dissatisfaction with one’s job, as well as form climates of team members who mirror one anothers’ deviant behaviors (Robinson et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2008). Additionally, toxicity can further proliferate when targeted team members ally with others against a toxic instigator (Holloway & Kusy, 2010). Altogether, individuals’ toxic behaviors lead others on their team to experience negative affective, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes, all of which damage team collaboration (Robinson et al., 2014).
Toxic attitudes and toxic team environments have also been found to damage functioning and communication on the team-level. Playing a role in both relationship conflicts (e.g., values and interpersonal style) and task conflicts (e.g., procedures, policies, and distribution of resources), toxic team members foster team environments void of appreciation, respect, and trust (Moore et al., 2015). Team leaders can also exacerbate toxic environments when they avoid team stressors, communicate vaguely, fail to provide feedback on how team members should change, and are ambiguous when describing new work or roles (Weberg & Fuller, 2019). Not surprisingly, toxic leadership behaviors have been associated with lower employee job satisfaction and organization commitment (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013).
When toxic individuals contribute to toxic attitudes within teams, organizations suffer as well. In healthcare settings, for example, Hickson et al. (2007) suggest that proper implementation of procedures which target disruptive employee behavior have the potential to impact staff retention, reputation, role model development within teams, patient safety, risk of liability exposure, and overall productivity. Within the realm of patient safety, disruptive behaviors may impact proper administration of medication and patient mortality, potentially leading to higher turnover and a greater number of malpractice suits (Holloway & Kusy, 2010). Organizational cultures that are highly stressful or demanding may also be more likely to foster quickly-spreading toxic behaviors. However, while the dangers of toxic team behavior are especially present in healthcare, organizations of any size and sphere are likely to be impacted by toxic work climates.
Incivility within teams is often driven by multiple factors, and is therefore challenging to address. Given that some team and organizational environments (e.g., stressful ones) are likely to facilitate the proliferation of toxic attitudes, sources of incivility may also be interdependent (i.e., toxic attitudes not only influence environments, but environments also influence these attitudes). A variety of best practices, however, have been proposed in an effort to improve team functioning.
Holloway & Kusy (2010)’s Toxic Organization Change System (TOCS) addresses incivility at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Its goals at the organizational level involve establishing values that promote respectful behaviors and incorporating these values into performance appraisal procedures. At the team level, TOCS aims to prevent unprofessional behaviors from spreading, chiefly by encouraging team leaders to identify and provide direct feedback to team members who indirectly reinforce toxic attitudes (i.e., “toxic buffers” and “toxic protectors”). Holloway & Kusy (2010) distinguish between these agents and those who directly reinforce toxic attitudes (i.e., “toxic instigators”). Toxic buffers and protectors contribute to toxic environments by making excuses for the instigator’s behavior or protecting them for self-serving purposes, respectively. Since toxic instigators are often unaware of or unwilling to change behaviors, intervention is not always effective. However, Holloway & Kusy (2010) recommend that team leaders combat individual-level toxicity by providing continuous feedback to instigators and team members who reinforce their behavior, and suggest that toxic individuals are more receptive to leaders who can implement consequences for noncompliance.
Hickson et al. (2007) suggest a framework for identifying and addressing unprofessional behaviors in healthcare which involves a hierarchy of interventions (i.e., informal, awareness, authority, and disciplinary) based on the persistence of toxic behavior patterns. They also recommend that healthcare organizations promote leadership and enforce policies that encourage patients, visitors, and team members to communicate when they observe unprofessional behaviors, and they suggest that organizations implement effective intervention skills training for those who address unprofessional behaviors (Hickson et al., 2007). These practices are likely useful for non-healthcare organizations as well. Additionally, leaders can foster positive team environments by setting clear goals and expectations and fostering trust through transparency (Weberg & Fuller, 2019).
References
Hickson, G. B., Pichert, J. W., Webb, L. E., & Gabbe, S. G. (2007). A complementary approach to promoting professionalism: identifying, measuring, and addressing unprofessional behaviors. Academic Medicine, 82(11), 1040-1048.
Holloway, E. L., & Kusy, M. E. (2010). Disruptive and toxic behaviors in healthcare: zero tolerance, the bottom line, and what to do about it. J Med Pract Manage, 25(6), 335-40.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104-1124.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 95.
Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. C. (2013). Consequence of Toxic leadership on Employee Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 8(2).
Moore, I. C., Coe, J. B., Adams, C. L., Conlon, P. D., & Sargeant, J. M. (2015). Exploring the impact of toxic attitudes and a toxic environment on the veterinary healthcare team. Frontiers in veterinary science, 2, 78.
O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774-793.
Penhaligon, N. L., Louis, W. R., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2009). Emotional anguish at work: The mediating role of perceived rejection on workgroup mistreatment and affective outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 34.
Penhaligon, N. L., Louis, W. R., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2013). Feeling left out? The mediating role of perceived rejection on workgroup mistreatment and affective, behavioral, and organizational outcomes and the moderating role of organizational norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 480-497.
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 29-44.
Robinson, S. L., Wang, W., & Kiewitz, C. (2014). Coworkers behaving badly: The impact of coworker deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 123-143.
Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal of occupational health psychology, 17(2), 150.
Vartia, M. A. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 63-69.
Weberg, D. R., & Fuller, R. M. (2019). Toxic leadership: three lessons from complexity science to identify and stop toxic teams. Nurse Leader, 17(1), 22-26.