Why Toxic Work Cultures Persist — Even Under Good Leadership

Most leaders don’t intend to foster toxic cultures. In reality, many are thoughtful, well-meaning, and genuinely dedicated to their teams. Still, toxic behaviours often continue under their leadership, becoming unchecked, normalised, or quietly accepted.

What makes this challenging is that enabling toxicity is seldom obvious. It typically doesn’t involve shouting, abuse, or outright misconduct. Instead, it often shows up subtly through silence, avoidance, excessive tolerance, or misplaced empathy.

The uncomfortable truth is this:
Many leaders foster toxic behaviour not due to a lack of values, but because they unconsciously defend something inside themselves

Toxicity Thrives in the Unconscious

From a Jungian perspective, whatever remains unconscious in the leader will inevitably shape the culture. When leaders do not recognise their own fears, blind spots, or internal conflicts, these are projected outward and lived through team dynamics.

Toxic behaviour is often not “allowed” explicitly. It is enabled indirectly through:

• Avoiding difficult conversations
• Excusing behaviour because someone is “high performing”
• Over-empathising with one person at the expense of the system
• Staying silent to keep the peace
• Rationalising disrespect as personality or pressure

Jung called this the shadow, the parts of ourselves we don’t want to see, so we unconsciously organise our world to avoid them. When leaders avoid their discomfort, teams pay the price.

Fear Disguised as Compassion

One of the most common ways leaders enable toxicity is by confusing compassion with avoidance.

Leaders often say:

• “I don’t want to be harsh.”
• “They’re going through a lot.”
• “I don’t want to damage the relationship.”
• “It’s easier to let it go.”

But compassion without boundaries is not compassion; it is fear masquerading as kindness.

According to Almaas, this happens when leadership is motivated by the ego rather than genuine presence. The ego craves approval, harmony, and security. Instead of directly confronting harmful behaviours, the leader tends to manipulate perceptions, emotions, and reactions.

True compassion requires presence and strength. It is the willingness to stay grounded while naming what is not working, without attack, but without collapse.

The Enneagram and the Leader’s Blind Spot

The Enneagram helps explain why different leaders enable toxicity in different ways.

• Some leaders avoid confrontation to maintain harmony.
• Some intellectualise issues rather than address their emotional impact.
• Some prioritise results and overlook relational damage.
• Some rescue underperformers and overburden high performers.
• Some seek loyalty and unconsciously protect favourites.

All these patterns originate from a fundamental desire to feel secure, valued, or in control. The issue isn’t the motivation itself but the absence of awareness.

When leaders are defined by their personality patterns, they respond instinctively. As their awareness grows, they gain the ability to choose.

When Performance Becomes a Shield

Another common reason toxic behaviour is allowed is the desire to shield performance.

High performers are often given more leeway. Their behaviour is tolerated because:

• “They bring in results.”
• “They’re difficult, but brilliant.”
• “We can’t afford to lose them.”

However, leaders often overlook this: tolerating toxic behavior teaches the culture what is truly important.

Silence communicates permission.
Inconsistency erodes trust.
Unaddressed behaviour becomes the standard.

Over time, psychological safety collapses, not because of one toxic individual, but because leadership failed to protect the collective.

The Cost of Avoidance

While avoidance might seem safer initially, it inevitably leads to long-term consequences.

Teams begin to:

• Withdraw emotionally
• Stop giving honest feedback
• Lower their standards
• Mirror the same behaviour
• Lose trust in leadership integrity

According to Almaas, avoidance prevents contact with the truth, leading to a loss of vitality. Leaders might feel more tired, burdened, or isolated without recognising that they are carrying the weight of unspoken realities.

Leadership Requires Inner Work

This is where leadership becomes an inner discipline, not just an external role.

To stop enabling toxicity, leaders must be willing to look inward and ask:

• What am I afraid will happen if I address this?
• Whose approval am I protecting?
• What discomfort am I avoiding?
• Where do I override my own knowing?

Jung described individuation as the process of becoming complete by accepting and integrating parts of ourselves we have disowned. Similarly, leadership maturity develops along this same journey. The more a leader confronts their own fears, guilt, or desire for approval, the less these elements influence and control the organisation.

Presence Changes Everything

When leaders are grounded in presence rather than pattern, something shifts.

They can:

• Address behaviour without aggression
• Hold boundaries without withdrawal
• Stay steady when emotions rise
• Choose integrity over comfort

This is not about becoming hard or confrontational. It is about becoming real. Almaas describes this as leading from Essence, where clarity, strength, and compassion emerge effortlessly. Here, leaders don’t need to exert control or avoid situations; they can just acknowledge what is true

A Final Reflection

Toxic cultures are rarely created by malicious leaders.
They are created by unexamined fear.

The most powerful leadership question is not:
“How do I manage difficult people?”

It is:
“What in me goes quiet when something needs to be said?”

Because whatever a leader is unwilling to face internally will eventually be acted out externally, through people, systems, and culture.

Leadership is not proven by how well you protect harmony.
It is proven by how well you protect the truth.

When a leader chooses awareness over avoidance, it sparks a cultural shift.