DR UBALDINA NORONHA
Workplace environments do not collapse overnight. They erode slowly, often because one or more employees are allowed to behave badly while managers look away.
In the Flydubai case, the Omani co‑pilot had been suspended from flight training at Oman Air after concerns about extremist views. Perhaps the right decision taken in time that has saved Oman Air from the consequence of what Flydubai had to later endure. He was reportedly later hired by other carriers, including Flydubai, where he allegedly attacked the captain with a cockpit axe and tried to seize control of the aircraft.
In India, consider the well-known case of a senior sales leader at a small finance bank in Bengaluru. In August 2025, it was widely reported on social media that he committed suicide shortly after an official meeting. They allege that he was insulted, humiliated and cornered by supervisors and that he was under extreme target pressure. Some accounts claim he left a final note naming individuals and alleging workplace harassment.
In both incidents, the organisational psychology is identical and mirrors what happens in many organisations when warning signs and complaints about a toxic work behaviour are ignored. Distress spreads, performance drops and good people leave, and sometimes disastrous consequences occur.
In ordinary offices, factories, educational institutions or hospitals, the behaviour of a toxic employee can be in the form of bullying, humiliation, sabotage, intimidation or chronic incivility. A problematic employee shows red flags. Colleagues complain. Management delays, minimises or avoids the conflict. The behaviour continues. Over time, the toxic person’s conduct becomes the unofficial norm, and the rest of the employees pay the price.
Recent research reveals this stark pattern. In iHire’s Toxic Workplace Trends Report 2025, 75% of employees say they have worked in a toxic environment, and more than half report quitting a job because of it. Crucially, 62% of workers say managers and supervisors have ignored acts of incivility, and one in four has witnessed retaliation against people who reported misconduct. The iHire report notes that 58.9% of employees would accept a lower salary to escape a toxic environment. This is a willingness to trade income for basic psychological safety.
When employers avoid dealing with a difficult employee, they do not preserve peace; they license harm. For a manager who is conflict‑averse or poorly trained, ignoring a toxic employee can seem like the path of least resistance. But avoidance has predictable costs. The toxic employee learns that there are no real consequences. Targets of bullying learn that speaking up is futile or even dangerous in an organisation that tolerates harm.
When a rule‑breaker is not corrected, their behaviour gradually becomes ‘how things are done here’. In a sense there is normalisation of deviance. When complaints are ignored or punished, employees stop sharing concerns. Employees watch what gets tolerated. If a high‑performing but abusive worker is protected, others infer that results justify cruelty. Organisational psychology frames this as a failure of justice and leadership.
When a toxic employee is left unchecked, several outcomes commonly follow. Targets of bullying and incivility report higher anxiety, sleep problems and somatic symptoms. Cognitive resources are diverted to coping, self‑protection and navigating office politics rather than focusing on performance. Those with options leave first, often the most competent and ethical staff, while the toxic employee remains. New hires adopt prevailing norms, and the toxic work environment continues to spread.
Organisational psychology points out that one must treat conflict and misconduct as system issues, not just interpersonal dramas. Codes of conduct should define bullying, harassment, and incivility in concrete terms, with specified consequences. Policies only work if they are applied consistently.
Many managers must be trained in problem‑solving approaches and conflict resolution, including having difficult conversations and documentation of such toxic behaviour. Employees need multiple ways to raise concerns, with protection from retaliation. Leaders must repeatedly communicate that respect and safety are non‑negotiable and model this in their own behaviour.
Recent data indicate that toxic workplaces are now the norm rather than the exception and that employees are increasingly unwilling to tolerate them. The lesson for leaders is clear: Address the one or two unchecked employees early, fairly and firmly. The cost of inaction is not just unhappy staff, it is the slow erosion of trust, morale and psychological safety within the entire organisation.
(The writer is Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, St Xavier’s College, Mapusa)
