Dangers of “Destructive Tolerance” (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction to Destructive Tolerance:

Within the business world, the meaning or intent of the word “tolerance” has evolved over the last three decades. While “tolerance” used to mean passively accepting differences, it now means actively embracing and encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g. DEI). This shift is due to changes in societal norms, globalization, technology, and, of course, legal regulation. Tolerance, or at least the appearance thereof, is now a generally accepted part of corporate culture. Some notable exceptions aside, many companies view tolerance as a strategic and financial advantage that enables them to attract the best talent, remain competitive, and appeal to the largest base of customers. Tolerance in this form is a well-covered subject in business literature and a worthy pursuit.

However, there is a dark side of tolerance that receives far less attention and yet is present to a lesser or greater degree in most businesses beyond sole proprietorships. Before jumping into the subject, a bit of background is required. During my corporate career in high-tech, I kept noticing the almost gleeful rejection of human resource ideals and that a company’s culture was something that could (should?) be written down on the proverbial back of a napkin. In one example, the company founders stated that one of their corporate values was “no whining.” At the time, I fully agreed with that statement. My perspective was “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. While this frame of mind is useful in many areas of running a business, it seems much less useful when dealing with serious issues affecting people and their environment. Two cases come to mind. The first case was when I privately pointed out to a senior executive not in attendance that the CEO of a company we were acquiring was telling inappropriate sexual stories publicly to a large group of people. The second was when I privately pointed out to the VP of sales that having no vegetarian options for our yearly sales conference excluded some attendees and created low-level resentment. As a Texas boy, I enjoy my barbeque, but I don’t want pork in the beans, and neither would the vegetarians who already have limited food options. I treated the discussion as one of mutual respect and highlighted the benefits of projecting an image of a truly international company that respects the dietary restrictions of vegetarians, Muslims, and Jews, for example. I personally didn’t care that pork was served; I just felt and suggested that many other options could be selected, allowing most (all is almost impossible) of the attendees to enjoy a meal in camaraderie and not feel left out. So here is the thing … In the first case, I was in no position to offer any solution, and due to “circumstances,” I was told nothing could be done about it. In the second case, I offered respectful constructive criticism to support our international culture and offered to help with menu selection next time around. However, the whole situation was perceived as whiny.

So, when I heard another executive coach state that “the worst behavior tolerated in a company defines its culture¹,” I was taken aback by the blunt clarity of her statement. In an instant, I flashed back to the jarring examples above with a new perspective. I realized that even with the best intentions, a company may overlook toxic behaviors and keep them hidden behind the ideals it publicly espouses. If I’ve witnessed damaging toxic behaviors at many (certainly not all) of the companies I worked for, then this problem may be more pervasive than I previously thought, including those companies we’ve been told to admire. That new perspective became the impetus for this article on “Destructive Tolerance.”

Background:

The Cambridge Dictionary defines tolerance as the “willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them,” and while appropriate in a positive sense, I find this definition lacking when applied in a negative sense – specifically the tolerance of toxic behavior. Within business organizations, the definition needs to be extended to also include the “willingness to accept behavior and beliefs that are toxic due to an individual’s or group’s high performance or perceived irreplaceability.” The first definition I would call “aspirational tolerance,” and this is the desired outcome set by the company’s Human Resources department. The second, whether to a small or large degree, is “destructive tolerance”². It represents the day-to-day reality experienced by everyone within the company and what sabotages its ability to reach its aspirational goals. This duality of tolerance is akin to corporate cognitive dissonance and creates significant self-limiting barriers that can easily become almost insurmountable as they become more entrenched. I would propose that the best leaders and companies acknowledge this duality and strive to reduce destructive tolerance to bring tighter alignment between aspirational goals and the actual culture.

Semantic differences aside, the impact and consequences of a high “destructive tolerance” threshold are real and far-reaching. An employee exhibiting toxic behavior is its own localized poison, but leadership’s tacit approval of that toxic behavior can lead to cascading effects impacting the entire company, its brand, customers, and even its external ecosystem. When company leaders sidestep their responsibilities and don’t address toxic behavior due to that individual’s exceptional performance or perceived indispensability, their lack of action sends a troubling message to the rest of the employees – one that rewards bad behavior as long as goals are met. If Machiavelli was around today, I’m sure he would add a thumbs-up emoji at the end of this last sentence. Unfortunately, the motivation for eventual action is often dictated not by any moral or leadership imperative, but by legal exposure and associated financial damages.

Tolerance within an organization is a double-edged sword. While embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion is crucial, it is equally important to recognize when tolerance enables toxic behavior. Leaders should uphold a culture where no one, regardless of their performance or perceived indispensability, is allowed to undermine the well-being and productivity of the workforce. They should also strive to understand the dual nature of tolerance, and take meaningful action to build healthier, more inclusive, and ultimately more successful organizations. In doing so, they not only protect employees but also safeguard the reputation and viability of their company.

Potential Motivations for Acceptance of Destructive Tolerance:

I’ve always maintained that leadership (and culture) flows downhill. However, even in cases where the top leadership does not know about or tolerate toxic behavior, one wonders what would cause anyone in the downstream chain of command to say nothing – to tacitly approve. Understanding the motivations behind “destructive tolerance” requires understanding the corporate culture, personal motivations and pressures, group dynamics, performance metrics and associated compensation, and various other factors – some of which can be addressed with supportive leadership and others that require a major corporate shakeup.

As complex human beings, we are all wired differently, and our behaviors are sometimes hard to decipher even to ourselves. To ascribe any one or two psychological or environmental factors to explain why a particular leader has a high “destructive tolerance” threshold is a nearly impossible task. The best we can do is to identify those that may come up most often. Here is my list of psychological (internal) factors and environmental (external) factors that may explain a leader’s inability to address toxic behavior exhibited in a high-performing or seemingly irreplaceable employee … including CEOs, board members, and founders.

1. Performance metrics:
   1. Performance metrics that reward bad behavior in favor of short-term results often create unintended consequences.
2. Conflict avoidance and expediency:
   1. The innate discomfort with confrontation can lead to a willful reluctance to address problematic conduct, which, in some cases, is based on the false hope that the problem will work itself out.
   2. Pushing off facing difficult situations can seem like the best option. Leaders can convince themselves that the problem is not yet bad enough and that there are other more pressing priorities.
3. Peer pressure:
   1. The desire to fit in can also influence decisions, especially in environments where toxic behavior has become normalized or accepted as a valid means to an end.
4. Lack of empathy and selfishness:
   1. The inability to emotionally connect with people leads to either not caring or not recognizing the impact of toxic behavior on people.
   2. Caring only for oneself can reach the level of psychopathy where toxic behavior is not only tolerated but even encouraged.
5. Inadequate training:
   1. Poor training in handling such issues, coupled with feeling overwhelmed by responsibilities, can leave leaders ill-equipped to take decisive action.
6. Lack of foresight and imagination:
   1. The inability to foresee the long-term negative consequences of toxic behavior can mean not perceiving the issue as a problem and, therefore, maintaining the status quo.
   2. If a leader can’t imagine success without the presence of the toxic employee, then they also lack the imagination to develop strategies to remove or sequester the individual and thus minimize the company’s perceived or real losses.

While the psychological factors may be hard to uncover, and therefore hard to address, the external factors are more easily understood and easier to address. I would venture that one of the greatest external factors leading to “destructive tolerance” is related to goals and incentives. You’ve likely heard Charlie Munger’s quote “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” This quote succinctly explains the danger of poorly set goals, especially short-term goals. This emphasis on short-term gains over long-term health and sustainability of the organization can easily encourage the tolerance of toxic behavior. Additionally, the pressure to conform to the expectations of peers and the broader corporate culture can sway leaders’ decisions, making it challenging to act against the norm, even when it’s detrimental. This pressure is particularly pronounced in highly competitive environments where maintaining a competitive edge is deemed paramount. Such external factors create a challenging landscape for leaders, often leading to decisions that, while beneficial in the short term, can have far-reaching negative consequences for the organization’s health and morale.

Employees (and Coaches and Consultants) Are the Canary in the Coal Mine:

The practice of carrying canaries into coal mines began in the late 19^th century to give miners an early warning to the buildup of dangerous gases – specifically carbon monoxide. Due to their susceptibility to even low concentrations of carbon monoxide, their distress or demise would provide the early warning indicator needed to allow the miners to escape toxic conditions. In this business context, “the worst behavior tolerated” is the toxic environment that, if ignored, expands into broader problems detrimental to the company’s culture, brand, and financial success.

Employees operating in a toxic work environment will display signs that serve as critical indicators signaling the need for change. Recognizing and responding to these signals is crucial for the health and sustainability of an organization. High turnover rates, poor mental and physical employee well-being, and a damaged organizational esprit de corps (i.e., excessive gossiping, poor motivation, and morale) are all potential signs that destructive tolerance is being allowed to thrive within the company or a specific group/division. It is important to note that while only a few employees may have the courage to report an issue to HR, the impact and potential employees affected by destructive tolerance may be far higher. If you will forgive my riff on an old metaphor, pay attention to the smoke to effectively extinguish the fire.

From a different perspective, the coach/consultant can also take on the role of the canary. By their nature, consulting or group facilitation engagements involving a large set of stakeholders will likely include people exhibiting toxic behaviors, and it is up to the consultant to determine the impact on the project and make the client aware of the potential issues as soon as possible. Individual coaching engagements are perhaps a bit easier because the coach can establish the client’s threshold of “destructive” tolerance as part of the initial interview or later during the self-discovery process.

As a business consultant and/or executive coach, we must understand the complex dynamics within a company, its ecosystem, and employees for us to serve the client best. If a coaching client exhibits some of these factors listed above, there are ways to work through some of them – but not all. With a consulting client, there may be ways to sidestep the toxic environment or person depending on the business problem – but not all of them. The ability of a coach and/or consultant to properly evaluate the present threshold of “destructive tolerance” within an organization becomes critical in determining if the engagement can be successful. Clients who tolerate a high level of “destructive tolerance” or are themselves the source of toxic behaviors are never ideal clients. In my experience, they are indicators of a greater and far more systemic set of issues that are almost impossible to overcome. By contrast, an ideal client is aware of the issue and desires to positively reshape their culture.

Conclusion:

The best leaders recognize that minimizing “destructive tolerance” is an important step toward their company’s desired aspirational tolerance. They understand that such efforts ultimately deliver the positive long-term results that come from encouraging an ethically robust workplace. Furthermore, these efforts are part of a continuous process to maintain an environment that respects a diverse workforce and actively safeguards it against behaviors that undermine the company’s collective values and culture.

As tolerance evolves within the corporate world, so must leadership strategies, moving from passive acceptance to proactive enforcement of a healthy corporate culture. The responsibility to address “destructive tolerance” falls not just on the top executives, but on all downstream managers. All are responsible for challenging harmful norms, promoting accountability, and guiding organizations toward practices focused on the success of individuals and the holistic well-being of the entire workforce. Embracing these responsibilities with a vigilant eye for a rise in destructive tolerance marks the true spirit of tolerance.

If you are an executive at a high-tech company and would like to seek specific guidance or strategies on addressing these issues within your own company or group you manage, please reach out for a more in-depth discussion.

Stay tuned for Part 2 where I will discuss strategies to reduce destructive tolerance.

¹ The original quote comes from the 2015 book titled, “School Culture Rewired: How to Define, Assess, and Transform It” by Steve Gruenert and Todd Whitaker, and states, “The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate.” I prefer the more real and relatable version stated above. Note: ² You can find pre-existing references to the term “Destructive Tolerance” or its conceptually close cousin “Toxic Tolerance” as applied in the business world. I prefer the term destructive tolerance due to its focus on impact or outcome versus toxic tolerance, which focuses more on behavior or environment.