I realize I am going to come across as polarizing and controversial in this 2-part article. I also understand that 2 things can be seemingly contradictory yet equally true at the same time and so I want to lean into that.

My most recent blog post detailed how certain people can THRIVE in a toxic workplace so it may seem paradoxical to be writing about why I have recently walked away from a 6-figure client contract because of a toxic working environment… (yes, as an entrepreneur who services corporations in addition to individual clients, I’ve committed to only working in healthy environments and with people I align with ‘value-wise’, so that means giving clients, particularly corporate ones, the boot when I have to.)

Listen: yes, we are all responsible for our own energy, protecting it, elevating it, understanding it, and shifting it for our own good. To do so successfully, we must accept and implement a radical level of self-care.

Sometimes this self-care looks like staying. And, sometimes it looks like walking away.

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. I posted 1 Corinthians 6:12 last week on social media and it perfectly captures the idea of 2 truths in a hierarchy: just because something is do-able doesn’t mean it’s the best possible choice for ME (or you) and just because something is allowed doesn’t mean it gets to make me miserable.

Or: just because something is (superficially) lucrative does not make it worth it. Period. 

This isn’t about why money isn’t everything. Of course, it isn’t. But I have bills just like everyone else. Bills to pay and mouths to feed that have often required certain levels of sacrifice when it comes to what I will put up with.

I’m at a point in life that what matters to me more than anything (more than money … and tbh even my kids) is: inner peace and personal integrity. And those two things include being in environments and working with people that are truly diverse with who they hire and how they treat people - it doesn’t matter if I’m not actually their  “employee”. I’m done with toxicity - whether it's happening to me or occurring around me. 

Coming from the newsroom means I know what toxicity looks like on a very intimate level. (I’ve written about it extensively already). 

Toxic workplace culture is a big phrase, of course, and can encompass behaviors that range from lack of office enthusiasm, micro-aggressions, subtle discrimination to outright verbal or even physical abuse. In my experience, the most toxic workplaces are characterized by:

• Constant dysfunction and confusion (usually caused by terrible leadership)

• Lack of leadership / strategy and immature or inexperienced leaders (aka those promoted before their “time”)

• Pervasive fear of failure (usually caused by terrible expectations)

• Underlying office politics fueled by drama, gossip, passive-aggressive commentary, and dishonesty (usually caused by terrible energy)

• Black on Black (or race on race/gender to gender) workplace hate (usually caused by self hate and plantation mentality 

• High turnover

• Lack of support

• Micromanagement

• Hustle Culture and Overwhelm/Busyness despite policies to the contrary 

• Promotes culture of diversity yet leadership and staff are still majority white and/or male 

“Out of 1.4 million employee reviews, analysts have determined that toxic workplaces are characterized as: unethical, non-inclusive, disrespectful, cutthroat, and abusive.”

MIT Sloan Management Review

All of these characteristics are, in fact, caused by the same thing: inauthenticity.

A lack of authenticity in the workplace (and everywhere else) looks like game-playing, code-switching, competitive-snarky-back-biting bullshit. You know the drill. It’s one-up-man-ship on steroids.

People are inauthentic because they are insecure. They have settled firmly into what the Energy Leadership Index Assessment defines as Level 2 Energy: part-time victim, part-time martyr. Always competing. Always fighting to win, meaning someone will have to lose. Always exerting their will on another. And that’s where most corporations of today exist. In fact, that’s the foundation most of them are built upon. They need to be better than someone else, constantly feeding the need to improve, all while pushing the boundaries of achievement to unrealistic levels.  

Consider this scenario: you’ve been “brought in” as a top-level, executive consultant for a large, well-known corporation. You’ve been feted and wooed and now it’s time to meet the team. You’re on a Zoom call, assuming all is well, when – WAM! – you are introduced to a new set of corporate executives who seem a little less thrilled at your presence. This feels strange. You were approached and hired and wined-and-dined… and now you are getting more than just a sense that you may not truly be welcome here, at this virtual table. You’re getting cold, frosty stares and high-sounding, bombastic linguistic gymnastics that are all code for: we’re not entirely convinced that YOU are the right person for the job …or worse…we’re afraid your contribution and expertise will highlight that we aren’t …or even worse ….we brought you here because it's kosher politically and looks good for our image but “your kind” is not really aligned with our beliefs and values. 

Cue the dreaded, awkward interactions, pure confusion.

You get off the bizarre call and your phone is blowing up. The person who brought you on board is freaking out. I don’t know what just happened there. I’m so sorry. I don’t understand. I’m so embarrassed. Etc.

Congratulations. You have just experienced an external outworking of internal dysfunction. Dysfunction that, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with YOU.

There is a behind-the-scenes conversation happening in that corporation that you are neither involved in nor privy to. It’s rooted in professional gamesmanship, office politics, and a win-lose mindset – all of which are inauthenticity in action.

(In this particular scenario – one which I recently observed – the issue was that there were two main camps in the c-suite: one which felt passionately about bringing in a certain consultant and one which wanted another consultant entirely. The consultant decided (and rightfully so) to not pitch themselves in a pick-me-pick-me competition they didn’t even know they were part of! The issue wasn’t a split in leadership; the issue was an unresolved split in leadership, which led to an unhealthy situation for the prospective consultant.) And it’s not uncommon! 

In another situation, I observed a white, female, high level, C-suite leader with an underlying intention to move further up the executive ladder, make some key personnel moves before climbing higher, all while playing her own version of “pick a n***er” lead generation on LinkedIn to do it. She intentionally cold targeted talented, deserving and also unsuspecting minority professionals, wooed them with grand visions of a utopian workplace and high-level titles, only to bring them into a dysfunctional work climate, slap executive titles on them and then throw them into what actually were menial, admin roles complete with mentally, emotionally, verbally abusive (and less experienced I might add) “overseers”. This C-level executive made what appeared to be a “diversity” quota and then bailed up and out of the way with a new promotion, taking no accountability and/or responsibility.

Inauthenticity is rooted in a win-lose mindset. It’s catabolic energy at its finest.  There are two basic lenses for looking at life: one of scarcity and one of abundance. If you choose a scarcity lens, you cannot help but be controlled by fear, doubt, worry and that often shows up as a lack of concern, care, understanding or empathy for others. Why? Because if the pie is only so big, it means as long as someone else is getting a bigger slice, your slice MUST get smaller. People in this mindset believe there is only so much to go around and that is why they try to “protect” what they think they have, even at the expense of another. There’s no “give” here.

This is the essence of toxic workplace politics: if I win, you lose. If you win, I lose. Scarcity. More for me means less for you.

Let’s revisit our scenario: two camps of well-meaning people. Well-meaning c-suite executives with limited resources. All of them wanting to win but none of them wanting to compromise. In the other situation, we have an executive focused more on their “rise” to the top vs doing the real work of finding resolutions to resolve real organization and workplace culture issues.  A scarcity mindset is the underlying cause of the inauthentic actions and reactions that resulted in both situations. No one came out and said internally to their team, “Hey, I understand what we need to do externally here, but let’s take a look within and resolve x,y,z first before we do anything. Here’s what I want. Here’s what we need. Here’s when and how I would love to see it happen. Here’s how it may impact an innocent outsider we bring in based on where we are now. What’s the win-win to keep us moving forward and at the same time resolving our own sh*t? Bottom line: this issue should have been resolved internally with honesty and a win-win motivation.

A win-win mindset is one of underlying abundance. It’s an internal shift from “survival” to “coherence” or creation.  This is the lens of unlimited pie. It expands the focus. No matter how big your slice, I know there is more than enough for everyone at all times. As Terry Crews famously said: “Everybody says they’re trying to get their piece of the pie. They don’t realize that the world is a kitchen – you can make your own pie.”

If the executives in my scenarios would have approached their difference in opinion or desire to “be great” with a win-win mindset, they would have come together with a common goal: find the best possible people to help move their company forward - period. And do so, while acknowledging the existing pain points and limitations in their existing structure.  It wouldn’t have been an us-versus-them consciousness driving the conversations, but rather a simple and honest pro’s-and-con’s-based comparison to find the best options. And all of this would have happened behind closed doors and been shared more transparently with potential candidates.

There are two important things to point out here:

1. An awkward Zoom call with some high-level executives is hardly the reason to walk away from a 6-figure contract. In fact, that was an entirely different organization than the one I actually decided not to do business with. However, awkward Zoom calls like that are harbingers, sneak peeks of the toxicity going on behind the scenes. You don’t always get warning signs in advance – but when you do, you better pay attention and I’ve learned that lesson one too many times!

2. Every single executive in this scenario was a woman and several key ones were POCs.

Why does #2 matter? Because we’ve been taught that identity and gender is somehow separate from or unrelated to consciousness and that inauthenticity as dysfunction is an old, white man’s purview.

((ouch))

Didn’t think I was going to go there, did you? Stay tuned… Part 2 drops next week!