Many of us have experienced toxic behavior in the workplace. Though many of us use stories and anecdotes to illustrate and process our experiences, few of us have had access to quantifiable data when attempting to communicate the importance of managing these behaviors at work. What are the full costs of toxic workplace behavior? To help organizations get clarity around the value of reducing toxic behavior in the workplace, we’ve anonymized and aggregated a trove of data around this question, and taken it upon ourselves to use this data to provide meaningful insight for companies around the world.
Last year, we kick-started this conversation by publishing a study called "The Cost of a Toxic Hire.” It was a breakthrough resource showing how much money companies were losing to the turnover and absenteeism caused by toxic employees. While the response was overwhelmingly positive, we recognized that companies were losing far more than $1.2 million per year. We soon found even more information about how much market cap companies were losing to toxic behavior, and the measures that boards are now taking to protect their companies from the fallout of insidious workplace events.
Earlier this year, we launched the Toxic Employee Handbook with Dr. John Sullivan, a renowned influencer in the world of talent management. This newly released handbook covered over 40 distinct categories of damage caused by toxic employees and offered new tools to start building a business case for formal toxic behavior reduction efforts. Again, the response was overwhelmingly positive. More and more companies are looking to understand the full extent of damages that toxic employees inflict on our businesses and to discover ways they can identify them before they harm our organizations.
Still, we get questions about the value of certain preventative methods. As the leading provider of online background screening, we’ve worked with hundreds of clients to develop strategies to identify workplace behaviors ranging from subtle bigotry to violent threats. Even though more than 70% of employers today research candidates on social media before hiring them, we’re often asked: why should I look online to keep my company safe from bad hires?
As of 2019, nurses and doctors have been voted the most trusted professions in the United States. While this is great news for the healthcare industry, there are also good reasons for this designation. We trust nurses and doctors with our health and safety. So when we find a provider that treats us with care, we’re relieved to find they have our best interest in mind. However, trust can be easily broken, and as new technologies transform the profession, we see two forces making that trust harder to regain.
Today, there’s a steady rise in HIPAA violations on social media putting privacy at risk, and a long-standing epidemic of toxic behavior making its way online and threatening the basic safety of patients and staff. In this blog, we’ll explain how these issues play out on social media and the public web, and lay out why these mistakes are costly both for patients and the providers they trust…
Cultural and reputational risks are becoming more and more common for enterprises today. As companies across business sectors find themselves suffering reputational damage over some form of toxic behavior or unethical business decision, a growing number of executives are starting to see culture as a direct contributor to the bottom line. While the increasing awareness around these issues is encouraging from a social standpoint, many executives are still unsure how to tangibly improve their company culture. According to Deloitte’s Human Capital Trends Report, 82% of executives say that culture is a potential competitive advantage, yet only 12% believe they’re driving the “right culture.”
How is it possible that only 12% believe they’re driving the right culture? In part, it’s because the processes that executives and board members have in place aren’t giving them the signals they need. Despite the fact that information is essential to understanding and managing culture risk, especially in a digitized and media-driven business environment, 65% of CEOs and 62% of board members today say they lack a process for identifying signals of potential culture risk. This leaves companies prone to a range of negative consequences ranging from consumer backlash to a spike in turnover.
How can there be such a lack of process for identifying signals of potential culture risk?
As HR professionals, we do everything in our power to ensure that productivity stays high. To keep our employees engaged, we offer remote work options and competitive perks. We double down on diversity and inclusion programs to make sure everyone can enjoy a safe and welcoming workplace. But when it comes to social media, we’re often not sure what to do. More and more sources say that to see real success, leaders need to let go of “culture control” and enable a culture that yields productivity instead. But how does social media impact productivity—and how do you make it work for you?
It’s not exactly straightforward. On the one hand, social media without restrictions can be a source of genuine distraction and, by some estimates, make up 13% of an organization’s lost productivity. On the other hand, cracking down on social media for the sake of output can be a serious hit to morale. To be among the most innovative and agile companies in the market, we need to figure out a way to balance the benefits of social media to productivity while minimizing potential risks. But what’s the approach?
Three years ago, we wrote a blog focused around a segment by John Oliver on “Last Week Tonight” surrounding the inaccuracy of background checks and the impact this can have on your business and workforce. This past Sunday, John Oliver took another dive into the working world, this time around automation and the fear that improvements in technology might lead to replacing humans with machines. This topic has been of growing concern for professionals in a variety of functional roles, and HR is no exception.
In light of the impact that movements such as #MeToo and #TimesUp have had on the business world, more and more companies are looking to AI to help tackle increasingly important issues around corporate culture. However, as AI moves into the conversation, many HR professionals have raised concerns. In addition to the potential for AI to create bias and discrimination, many HR professionals are wondering: will new technologies officially replace the HR function?
There’s no underselling how important professors are in our society. We rely on them to shape the next generation and instill the knowledge students need as they prepare to head into the workforce. However, it’s becoming clear that when they’re not careful, their personal biases can overshadow the education their institutions had promised and create a toxic environment for students.
Millions are talking about a professor and administrator at Duke University who recently sent an email asking students not to speak Chinese. The incident, circulated by Bloomberg, The New York Times, and the BBC, has spurred discussions worldwide around bias in higher education. It has left people wondering what colleges are doing to protect students from individual bias and harassment, and just how much a professor or administrator can damage their institution’s brand through the things they say.
Duke will likely withstand this PR incident. However, many institutions see much larger repercussions when a scandal breaks loose. A paper from Harvard Business School shows that colleges that receive long-form news coverage about a high-profile scandal can experience a 10% drop in applications for over two consecutive years. This is equivalent to losing 10 ranks in the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. As a college or university, your reputation impacts both the quality and quantity of donations, enrollment, and funding. Though your school’s overall reputation is made up of many components, it hinges largely upon the administrators and faculty members you hire to build your image.
Socially responsible marketing is on the rise. If the recent consumer controversy over Gillette’s ad on masculinity wasn’t enough, everyone in the business world is also talking about the new marketing trend. In the last 12 months alone, Deloitte, McKinsey, and the World Economic Forum in Davos have all noted that more and more consumers are looking to businesses to take stances on important social issues. The numbers are talking as well: 66% of consumers will pay more for products from companies committed to positive social impact. With millennials, this number is even higher. 73% will pay more for sustainable products, and 81% expect companies to take a public stance on social issues.
That means that there is an enormous opportunity at hand. Brands that can properly connect their brand with relevant social causes have grown their audience and revenue by as much as 200%. However, you can spend millions on marketing in hopes of winning favor with the public without realizing that it takes as little as one person to erode the goodwill you’ve built. While socially conscious marketing is helpful and even necessary today, a single revelation of toxic employee behavior can render all of those marketing efforts fruitless. Yes, the numbers say that socially conscious marketing pays dividends—but take a closer look and you’ll see the costs of toxic behavior are even greater.
For every headline we see about workplace harassment or bigotry, it’s easy to forget that there are hundreds of stories that never surface. Today’s blog comes from an anonymous employee who recounts an instance of systematic, predatory behavior at one of largest tech companies in America. Their story illustrates the discomfort and trauma that employees (often women) face when toxic behavior is present, and explains why companies must take new approaches to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
I am grateful to have had so many positive experiences in the workplace. I worked at my previous company for six and a half years, during a time of tremendous growth in which the company grew from 3,000 to 25,000 employees and became one of the most highly recognized brands in the world. Throughout this time, the focus on culture and community was apparent from the top down and instilled a genuine feeling of family amongst my colleagues and myself. Even after leaving the company a year and a half ago, I still feel it. Four people on my former team became some of my best friends, and I think of my former colleagues as extended family.
So when I discovered that more than a dozen young women – my extended family members – all experienced the predatory behavior of another male colleague through a systematic and premeditated series of inappropriate conversations via an internal company chat tool, I was furious and heartbroken. I discovered this one night at our company’s annual sales conference, where thousands of people in my work family gather each year to connect, learn and grow together. After one of the sessions, I was catching up with friends from other offices when a teammate shared a story about his team dinner from the previous evening…
As more and more of our lives move onto the public web, businesses are becoming aware of the degree to which publicly available online information can help them stay ahead of potential risks. Previously, we discussed how online screening can help organizations manage their mergers and acquisitions. However, as the landscape of risk continues to grow, we’re also seeing companies leverage online screening to prevent insider threats—malicious threats to an organization’s security, data, and computer systems that comes from the people within.
Traditionally, businesses have mitigated insider threats by identifying and troubleshooting technical vulnerabilities in the enterprise or responding after the fact. But as more and more employees collaborate with criminal and activist groups, and the cost of the average insider threats reaches $8.7 million per incident, the success of your business can also hinge upon your ability to catch more emotional and qualitative vulnerabilities. How do these “emotional warning signs” indicate a potential attack, and how do you find them before it’s too late?
In this blog, we’ll discuss how employees’ interactions with social media and the public web can lead to costly breaches to information security. From there, we’ll break down the difference between negligent and malicious insiders, and why companies need a sophisticated online screening solutions to safeguard themselves from the full set of potential vulnerabilities.