Turning the Tide on Organizational Toxicity
The past few years there has been growing attention to dysfunctional internal dynamics within progressive and left organizations. Whether it’s contentious unionization fights, high profile failures to address racial justice and other equity issues or mass resignations, it’s been hard to miss the upheavals at many organizations. In this context perhaps it’s not surprising that the term “toxic” is frequently used to describe the culture inside some social change organizations. Many practitioners have been analyzing the phenomenon and trying different interventions. In that spirit of collective inquiry, here’s a draft framework that emerged from my work coaching leaders grappling with how to steward organizational change.
There are many sources of toxicity but one common place where I have repeatedly seen problems overtake organizations is when needed change processes are either thwarted or fail. By the time some organizations have acknowledged a problem and begun considering how to make change, the stakes have often become very high. Either the organization will succeed in a certain degree of transformation or toxicity will grow, and sometimes literally kill the host org.
The chart below is intended to define two ends of a spectrum. At one end are the qualities of a successful change process that I’ve seen lead to organizational breakthroughs and transformation. These are contrasted with qualities of toxic organizational culture that undermine organizational function and can sabotage change processes. However, far more important than my distillation of these qualities is the simple idea of a spectrum that contrasts these qualities.
For the framework to be most useful, a group should determine for themselves the specific qualities that define their spectrum. Participatory work to create shared definitions of toxic qualities and transformative qualities is a great way to start an organizational change process. These qualities can then serve as “guard rails” to keep a process on track. The power of co-creating this type of framework and transparently holding it at the center of the change process can help give all stakeholders the agency to counter toxicity if and when it develops.
Sample Framework
| TRANSFORMATIVE ← | → TOXIC |
| “Leaderful” where all stakeholders feel agency | Lack of leadership or leadership that disempowers stakeholders |
| Community: everyone recognizes there is a problem even if they don’t all know or agree on what it is | Isolation: people feel like they are facing the problems alone, might feel gaslit |
| Momentum: progress is happening at an appropriate pace that works for the group | Inertia: change feels impossible |
| Process “works” meaning it meets community expectations on pace and level of clarity of outcome | Imbalance between process and outcome |
| Trust in people’s best intentions. This creates the safety needed to express concerns and be vulnerable about one’s own role in problems | Lack of trust. This is corrosive in so many ways but critically for a change process it often undermines people’s ability to be honest |
| Organization has functioning equity and justice practices that balance existing power differences and create the space for all stakeholders to fully participate regardless of rank, identity or historical marginalization. | Unacknowledged/unhealthy power dynamics. Organization lacks functioning equity systems, patterns of dominance and marginalization are unaddressed and disrupt participation and agency. |
| Hope | Cynicism (change feels impossible) |
| Everything is a tool | Everything is a weapon |
| Curiosity | Animosity |
| (Appropriate levels of) transparency | (Unnecessary) secrecy |
| Clear boundaries on the process. Everyone understands which parts of organization are changeable and which are not. | Unclear boundaries. Either because of fundamental disagreement, gaslighting by leadership or just poor process design. |
| Clear shared vision, purpose or theory of change that can act like a lighthouse guiding the group through the dangerous waters Aka “accountability to mission” | Lack of political alignment = no shared vision to anchor process or provide a compass for navigating disagreement |
| Time is managed well. People have the time they need. The process is not too fast but also not too slow. | Poor time management undermines process: not enough time for critical work, or the process drags on too long. |
| Shared models that help people embrace individual differences such as frameworks that address organizational culture, personality, information processing, conflict styles, etc. | Underdeveloped understanding or appreciation of difference on the team. Lack of shared frameworks. |
| Metaphor: The spiral of evolving change and creativity (systems are complicated and we may need several passes over the same content to get someplace new) | Metaphor: The circle of repetitive doom (nothing will ever change; we are just going round in circles) |
| Emotion is welcomed and there is a group container that can hold a range of expressions | Lack of group container to hold and channel strong emotions |
| Collective sense of potential, that a new organizational state is possible | Blocked energy, sense that failure is inevitable |
| Excitement and engagement by all stakeholders | Withdrawal of stakeholders from process either through lack of engagement or overt departures (quitting, leaving group, etc.) |
| Unleashing of collective creativity leads to lots of new ideas and unblocked energy | Status quo thinking remains dominant and old debates repeat without producing new insights |
| GROUP LANDS WITHIN SUCCESS RANGE | FAILED PROCESS OUTCOMES |