South African employees are under growing pressure, with recent surveys* pointing to rising stress and mounting concerns about workload, job security and workplace culture. When these pressures are compounded by harmful leadership or dysfunctional systems, the consequences can be serious – affecting individual wellbeing, team performance and organisational stability.
The impact of a toxic work environment should not be under-estimated, as it can cause not only immediate, but potentially life-threatening or life-long harm. At the same time, “toxic workplace” has become a catch-all label for almost every professional frustration, which undermines the seriousness of truly harmful cases, a leadership expert says.
Understanding the difference between a toxic workplace, organisational dysfunction and just a bad fit is essential: it helps employees identify what they are experiencing and choose whether to adapt, speak up, seek support or walk away.
“It is crucial for employees struggling at work to accurately assess their circumstances to determine whether they are facing ordinary challenges that can be managed or addressed, or a genuinely toxic environment requiring more serious action,” says Debbie Goodman, CEO at Jack Hammer Global, Africa’s top boutique executive search firm. Goodman recently did a deep-dive on the topic during the podcast Is My Workplace Toxic? with organisational politics expert Niven Postma.
TRULY TOXIC
Diagnosis: A genuinely toxic workplace involves (often at the hand of a narcissist), persistent bullying, manipulation, humiliation or intimidation that damages an employee’s confidence, wellbeing and ability to function. Warning signs include gaslighting, blame-shifting, retaliation, constant undermining and a growing sense of dread, anxiety or panic.
The key distinction is that the harm is targeted, recurring and difficult to resolve through normal communication. Physical symptoms such as panic attacks, sleeplessness or loss of appetite signal the need for urgent action.
Action: In a genuinely toxic workplace, the only real cure is to walk away. The situation is unlikely to improve because an employee works harder, becomes more accommodating or tries to repair the relationship alone. Remaining in the environment can gradually damage confidence, mental health and, ultimately, the person’s ability to keep working.
“Leaving is not always immediately possible, but it is usually the only long-term remedy. Financial or family constraints may require remaining while preparing a realistic exit. That is why developing a Plan B early is so important,” says Goodman.
“The timeline may extend over several months or even a year. The objective is not to make a sudden decision that creates additional risk, but to regain a sense of control and move towards a viable alternative. Recognising that leaving may eventually be necessary can itself restore agency: the employee is no longer trapped in an endless effort to change an environment that is harming them.”
ORGANISATIONAL DYSFUNCTION
Diagnosis: Many workplaces suffer from excessive meetings, internal politics, poor communication, unclear priorities, and slow decision-making. These conditions can be frustrating and exhausting without amounting to personal abuse. Recurring patterns include a lack of trust in colleagues’ competence or character, fear of conflict that leads to issues being avoided rather than addressed, and an inattention to results in which politics takes precedence over meaningful outcomes.
Action: Determine whether the problem is primarily structural or personal. If the entire team is affected, the response can involve setting clearer boundaries, improving decision-making within one’s control, and building alliances with constructive colleagues. Choose which battles to fight, raise practical concerns, and initiate incremental improvements. Senior staff may indeed have a duty to improve the environment.
BAD FIT (IT’s NOT YOU, IT’s ME)
Diagnosis: Differences in working pace, communication style, management preferences, or expectations can create real unhappiness, even if it doesn’t amount to abuse. A return-to-office policy, a change in reporting lines, or a preference for a different working style may be unwelcome without being inherently harmful.
Action: Employees need to determine whether the mismatch is related to core values on which they can’t compromise, whether the issue is about the substance of the work or simply the management style, and whether there is sufficient overlap between their values and those of the organisation. If so, is it possible to influence the culture or negotiate a workable arrangement? If not, can you accept the environment or do you need to plan an exit?
“This kind of self-assessment is not about blaming the employee. It is a way of separating personal misalignment from misconduct and identifying the most realistic next step,” Goodman says.
“Ultimately, distinguishing ordinary organisational dysfunction and genuine poor fit from actual abuse allows employees to respond proportionately and in their own best personal and professional interest.”
* Old Mutual Employee Wellbeing Survey and Profmed Graduate Professionals Stress Index