Toxic or Just Challenging? The Leadership Balancing Act
I talk all the time about what it means to create a human-centric workplace, the balance of people and profit, hand in hand, delivering performance. Build the right culture, put people at the centre, and the results should follow.
That said, there's a challenge many leaders face: what happens when you've done all the right things, and the very thing holding you back isn't your strategy or culture, but the people themselves? Because even in the most human-led organisations, you will face individuals whose behaviour doesn't fit the culture you've worked so hard to build.
The toxic employee
I've seen it first-hand: a team with high performance, strong trust, and a clear sense of purpose slowly eroded by one individual. It didn't start with outright disruption, but with subtle negativity, quiet resistance to change, whispered frustrations that spread. Over time, it chipped away at morale, distracted others from their work, and created a ripple effect no leader could ignore.
And this is where leadership gets messy. It's not neat, it's not linear, and it's certainly not as simple as the handbook makes it sound.
What are 'toxic' employees?
The term gets thrown around a lot. It can mean anything from persistent negativity to manipulative behaviour, gossip, bullying, or underperformance that drags others down.
A Harvard Business School study found that avoiding a toxic worker saves companies $12,500 in costs, more than twice the value of hiring a 'superstar' employee. That's how damaging one individual can be.
But labelling someone "toxic" can itself be risky. It dehumanises the person, boxing them into a role they might not even recognise in themselves. Not every difficult employee is toxic. Some are simply challenging, and challenge, when harnessed, can be a gift. These are the people who question the status quo, resist groupthink, and ask uncomfortable questions others avoid. In a culture that values innovation, these voices are vital. The danger lies in failing to tell the difference.
A healthy challenge may feel uncomfortable, but it sparks progress, creativity, and protects the business from blind spots. Destructive behaviour, on the other hand, corrodes trust, undermines performance, and creates ripple effects that can undo years of cultural work.
Research shows the difference matters: Gallup found that workplaces encouraging constructive dissent are up to 3.5 times more likely to be innovation leaders, while exposure to one toxic colleague can increase the likelihood of others becoming toxic by up to 46%.
And the truth? As leaders, we don't always get that distinction right. It takes judgement, courage, and sometimes trial and error.
Do they even know?
Sometimes, yes. Some individuals are fully aware of their impact and continue regardless, which is why accountability and boundaries are non-negotiable. But often the answer is no. Many behaviours we interpret as toxic are rooted in blind spots, stress, or a lack of self-awareness.
Research from Tasha Eurich shows that while 95% of people believe they're self-aware, only 10'15% actually are. That gap leaves plenty of room for behaviours that grate on others without the individual realising it.
Think about it: someone who interrupts might see themselves as enthusiastic. A person who resists change may believe they're protecting standards. What feels like gossip to the team might feel, to them, like "sharing information". So before we write someone off as toxic, we have to ask: have they been given clear feedback? Do they understand their impact? Or are we expecting them to self-correct in the dark? Because if they don't know, and we don't tell them, that's not just their failing, it's a leadership one.
What impact do they have on others?
Toxic behaviours rarely exist in isolation. They ripple. The obvious impacts are easy to spot, tension in meetings, lower morale, increased sick leave. But the subtler ones are often more damaging. A colleague who constantly undermines can cause others to withdraw. Persistent negativity can make even motivated team members question their drive. Over time, the culture shifts from collaborative to cautious.
Christine Porath found that 66% of employees said their performance declined after experiencing incivility, and 78% said their commitment decreased. Gallup adds that one in two employees have left a job to get away from a manager, while a single chronically negative colleague can drop team performance by 30-40%. And when high performers leave because they're tired of carrying the weight, the cultural cost can take years to rebuild.
But not every ripple is negative. A challenging voice can push a team to think harder, hold higher standards, or avoid complacency. The impact depends not only on the behaviour itself but on how it's handled.
Why is it so difficult to deal with them?
On the surface, it seems simple: if someone is toxic, address it. Yet any leader who has tried knows it's far from straightforward. Part of the difficulty comes from human complexity. Behaviours are wrapped up in history, emotions, personal circumstances, and blind spots. Unpicking all of that is rarely black and white.
Then there's the discomfort factor. Most leaders don't relish conflict. Addressing toxic behaviour means leaning into tension, having conversations that feel risky, and accepting the possibility of fallout. It's easier to hope things "settle down" than to confront them.
And let's not forget the fear of misjudgment. What if what looks like toxicity is actually valid challenge? What if tackling it destabilises the team further?
Finally, there's the emotional toll. Dealing with toxic behaviours requires leaders to hold empathy and accountability at the same time, understanding the person while protecting the team. That balancing act can be exhausting. This is why unresolved toxicity lingers. Not because leaders don't care, but because the path forward is messy, uncertain, and fraught with trade-offs.
How can we adopt differing styles?
If there's one truth in leadership, it's this: no single style works in every situation. When dealing with toxic or challenging behaviours, agility is everything.
Coaching Style — when it's more blind spot than malice. Ask open questions, hold up a mirror, help them see their impact.
Directive Style — when lines are crossed. Be clear, set boundaries, outline consequences. No ambiguity.
Supportive Style — when behaviour stems from struggle. Offer resources, flexibility, or mentoring to help turn it around.
Collaborative Style — when the issue requires wider ownership. Involve peers or stakeholders, reinforce accountability, and make culture a shared responsibility.
The best leaders flex between these styles. Protecting the team doesn't mean abandoning the individual, but it does mean putting culture and performance first.
A balanced overview
So, are toxic employees really toxic? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
Some behaviours stem from blind spots or stress and can be shifted with the right support. Others are corrosive and require firm action. And some are challenges in disguise — voices we should value, not silence.
The real danger isn't the behaviour itself, but how we respond. Saying nothing signals tolerance, erodes trust, and risks losing your best people. Acting too harshly risks silencing healthy dissent and stifling innovation.
Human-centric leadership demands something harder: empathy and accountability in equal measure. Seeing the person behind the behaviour without excusing the impact on the team. Knowing when to coach, when to support, when to set boundaries, and when to say "enough".
It's not neat. It's not simple. And it will never be comfortable. But maybe that's the point. Because leadership, in its truest sense, isn't about avoiding the mess. It's about navigating it, with humanity, courage, and conviction.
References
Harvard Business School (2015) ' Toxic Workers study by Housman & Minor.
Gallup (2017) ' State of the American Workplace Report.
Harvard Business Review (2016) ' Christine Porath, The Price of Incivility.
Stanford (2018) ' Charlan Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business.
Tasha Eurich (2017) ' Insight: The Surprising Truth About Self-Awareness.
SHRM (2019) ' The Cost of Turnover research.
