Yes, I'd be curious to know if they identified perpetrators vs victims of toxic workplaces. Someone who is leaving Blizzard because of a scandal where their assaulting other co workers became public is extremely different from someone leaving Blizzard because their manager assaulted them.
If you came up in a toxic environment that will be all that you know. Good people will come out of certain shops thinking that e.g. firing the bottom % of employees is just something you do and tank all their projects.
The perpetrators and victims are all the same people.
I think I agree with this, but there are also other causes.
Some time ago, I left a toxic shop to join a new company. I found myself aggressively fighting against things that I perceived as toxic based on my previous experience. Even if I was 100% correct (and I certainly wasn't), adding to the negativity wasn't helpful.
> I'd be curious to know if they identified perpetrators vs victims of toxic workplaces.
Simple.
The perpetrators are successful and therefore well adjusted, whereas the victims are defective and have to be excluded lest there be "social contagion".
The conclusion is its own justification.
Or, as it's fashionable nowadays, the "just world fallacy".
A tale as old as time.
Edit:
You already have a parent comment here doing exactly that.
Apparently the healthy environment was at an "hedge fund" out of all industries.
I assume your hedge fund comment is a reference to my post, so I'll reply.
You'll notice that in the HF scenario I described, there was no perpetrators or victims. It was just a group of professionals doing work in a calm and rational, dare I say, sane, way.
So yes, I'll stick with that story as the healthiest place I've ever worked.
And in the other 3 companies I've worked, I've seen lots of examples of employees making themselves crazy en masse when the "trigger" was obviously something not worthy of that reaction.
