Despite media coverage of examples of toxic management leading to proven harassment—such as at Michelin—no significant decline in this phenomenon has been observed in organizations today.

According to“The Workforce View in Europe,” published in 2019, 23% of respondents in eight European countries, including France, are affected by toxic management. A toxic work environment increases the risk of depression by 300%.

Although not always precisely defined, toxic management encompasses a wide range of managerial practices that, by their very nature or because they are repeated, undermine employees’ psychological well-being. In 2023, the Federation of Psychosocial Risk Specialists (FIRPS) recorded 250 harassment investigations, representing a 21% increase over the course of a year.

We had begun to identify this toxicity caused by certain management techniques as early as 2005 during an investigation conducted at two major French multinational corporations, following waves of burnout and suicides. In 2009, a book on workplace performance led us to conclude that “structured, large-scale managerial systems appeared to be profoundly harmful, as they set employees up for failure.”

Far from being explained solely through the lens of executives with specific psychological profiles (narcissism, in particular), might the toxic drift in management not be better explained by the existence of harmful work environments—the poisonous fruit of a “toxic organizational culture”?

The Law of the “Caïdat”

Christophe Dejours, a psychiatrist and pioneer in the field of occupational psychopathology in France, put forward a fruitful idea regarding this organizational crisis as early as 1985. According to him, when conflict arises within an organization—such as strong interpersonal tensions—it is common for “a second set of rules to take precedence over the official rules.”

Official law encompasses the recognized operating rules that govern, on the one hand, the organization of work—the distribution of tasks, for example—and, on the other hand, its management—methods of managing individuals through objectives, for example. Unofficial yet effective, this second set of rules is aptly described by Christophe Dejours as “caïdat,” a reference to the rules that prevail in prisons and in all microsocieties.

In practice, the “caïdat” establishes itself as a new system of rules based on a specific distribution of power designed to sustain the system over time. This new framework proves to be highly conducive to the expression of toxic management practices… and may even be the very source of such toxicity. According to Christophe Dejours:

“This parallel legal system is never free from violence—bias, inequality, and arbitrariness are repeatedly demonstrated at every level of the hierarchy—so that it is impossible to escape it, regardless of one’s status.”

With Me or Against Me

A divide between the positions of the various actors emerges almost automatically in this parallel system. There are three possible positions:

• To act as a “driving force or enabler” in the commission of this violence—as an informant, a member of a pressure group, a go-between within a department, etc.

• To be "beneficiaries or recipients" of this violence—gaining advantages related to compensation, promotions, job assignments, etc.

• Being “victims”—various forms of harassment related to job assignments, transfer opportunities, pay raises, professional development opportunities, etc.

The very concept of toxic management is being questioned: Is it merely a bad practice on the part of certain managers that needs to be identified so it can be corrected or prevented in the future? Not only that. Can we “escape” toxic management by adopting strategies to “tame” it, as suggested by the title ofAdeline Perez’s book *Toxic Managers: A User’s Guide*? The keys to taming them? Not really .

The “caïdat” offers a new perspective by conceptualizing managerial toxicity as a systemic component of an organizational system in the throes of a severe crisis. Beyond individual interactions, the first two groups establish, benefit from, and perpetuate arbitrary dynamics, while members of the last group are subject to these dynamics, which can either destroy them or drive them away.

Nearly 51% of reports were not followed up on

This systemic nature of toxic management often involves the existence of a clique centered around a leader—the “boss”—who acts as the political architect of the toxic system.

Sometimes quite extensive, this group consists of “supporters” and “beneficiaries”—true “clients,” the winners of the system. Logically, they all work to perpetuate the system, even as economic efficiency declines, turnover increases, and health problems worsen among employees. In this environment, a toxic manager will quite naturally be “protected” if an employee protests against a system that is systematically abusive and unfair.

Even when audits are launched in response to concerning incidents, nothing really changes—as was the case with allegations of toxic management at the Government Information Service in 2022. In this agency, which reports directly to the prime minister, an audit was commissioned from an external firm following serious incidents of toxic management that resulted in health issues. In the employees’ unanimous opinion, this audit turned out to be “rigged,” as it restricted in advance the topics to be addressed and the opportunities for employees to speak out safely. Once the audit report was released, everything continued as before.

A 2022 survey conducted by software publisher Capterra reveals the extent of the effects caused by a toxic organizational culture: 43% of employees observe toxic behavior (toward themselves or others), but only 33% report it. Ultimately, 51% of reports of toxic workplace behavior go unaddressed: either mental health issues are not taken seriously, or no changes are observed when the toxic status quo is enforced by the “bully’s rule.”

The Atrocious and Hypocritical “Overuse of Rules”

Because he has a genetic need for it, the “caïdat” employs the modern tactics of a toxic manager—and, in particular, his perverse skill in manipulating rules.

As the website quite rightly points out Souffrance et Travail, the toxic manager does not invent anything original. They do not act through sheer violence, but rather through an excessive reliance on the rules inherent to the various standard modes of managerial behavior. This is a distortion—most often deliberate—that proves to be as terrible as it is destructive.

Overuse of the Subordination Relationship

A toxic manager will first go so far as to turn the relationship into a strict power dynamic that oppresses the person: the goal is to show that the manager can impose anything on the employee at their discretion. While the range of specific actions is very broad, they always fit together in a unique pattern designed to isolate, stigmatize, insult, ignore, and humiliate…

Overuse of disciplinary measures

As an integral part of an employer’s authority, these “overused” rules can be used to harass employees through constant monitoring, surveillance, or reporting; to refuse to approve or block a promotion or a specific action; or to reprimand victims and subject them to unfounded disciplinary proceedings.

Abuse of managerial authority

This can lead to a loss of meaning in work, render the employee “invisible,” and exhaust them. Setting unrealistic goals or issuing a barrage of paradoxical instructions are the most common manifestations of this excess.

The Influence of the Psychological Traits of Toxic Managers

It is not possible to completely deny the influence of specific psychological traits, which, once again, may influence a manager’s resort to toxic management practices.

Although we should avoid looking for overly strict causal relationships, “people with a compulsive need to dominate and control those around them are more likely to engage in harassing behavior, especially under intense pressure. This excessive need for control can manifest as micromanagement and manipulation,” notes Jean-Claude Delgènes, founder of a firm specializing in labor-management dialogue.

So, how can we break free from this toxic mix—where the effects of an organizational crisis, the manager’s problematic psychological traits, and sometimes even his or her incompetence all converge in a dark and terrible process? Unfortunately, this question remains as fundamental as it is unfathomable. Yet the harassed employee asks himself this question over and over again whenever he thinks of the toxic manager who is methodically destroying his life.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.