This post is also available in:
Nederlands
© Photo: BearFotos / Shutterstock.com
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a two-day masterclass that fundamentally changed my perspective on the workplace. With Professor Erik Franck, PhD (University of Antwerp) and Annick Alders (Better Minds Academy) we delved deep into the world of psychological safety and toxic behaviour. This was no mere window-dressing; it was a confronting and enlightening exploration of the mechanisms that determine whether a team flourishes or becomes slowly poisoned.
Below, I will share the most striking insights and practical tools I gained from the experience.
1. The biology of fear: Why we ‘freeze’
One of the most impressive contributions from Erik Franck was the neurobiological foundation of insecurity. Psychological safety is not a ‘soft’ HR topic, but pure biology. Franck explained that our brain interprets a toxic work environment—such as public reprimands or a cynical culture—as a direct physical threat.
When the environment feels unsafe, the amygdala (our fear centre) switches to ‘survival mode’. The result? Our prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain required for logic, creativity, and problem-solving, is literally shut down. In an unsafe culture, people are effectively less intelligent and less capable of innovating. Additionally, he spoke about ‘moral injury’: the emotional exhaustion that occurs when you are forced to remain silent about misconduct or act against your own values.
2. What exactly is toxic leadership?
We often use the term ‘toxic’ loosely, but during the masterclass, we learned that it is a specific umbrella term for destructive leadership styles. A recognisable symptom is the so-called “kiss up and kick down” tendency: the leader is extremely charming and helpful toward their own superiors, but acts miserably and disparagingly toward their own subordinates.
Based on the Toxic Leadership Scale by Schmidt (2008), we examined five critical subscales that reveal a pattern of toxicity:
- Self-promotion: Prioritising personal interests and taking credit unfairly.
- Abusive supervision: Publicly belittling others or violating privacy.
- Unpredictability: Mood swings and explosive outbursts.
- Narcissism: An exaggerated need for admiration and a sense of entitlement.
- Authoritarianism: Excessive control and the restriction of autonomy.
3. The economic reality: The price of the rotten apple
A major eye-opener was the research from Harvard Business School on ‘Toxic Workers’. Toxic employees are often tolerated because they appear to be ‘superstars’: they hit their targets and work at high speeds. However, the data shows a different picture.
The real damage to the organisation lies in the hidden costs
Although toxic employees often work faster in terms of quantity and have a higher output, they deliver a significantly lower quality of work. The real damage to the organisation lies in the hidden costs: from a financial perspective, avoiding toxicity is much more beneficial than maintaining the high productivity of such an employee.
Research shows that removing a toxic force (or transforming them into an average employee) improves a company’s performance significantly more than replacing an average employee with an absolute top performer. In practice, preventing a toxic work environment yields more than twice the return of the extra value added by a ‘superstar’ from the top 1%. Prioritising a healthy culture over the hunt for top talent is therefore the most profitable strategy from an economic perspective.
4. Annick’s role: From science to courage in the workspace
While Erik delved into the scientific depth, Annick Alders provided the essential translation to practice. What struck me most in her approach is the emphasis on interpersonal courage. According to Annick, leadership is not about procedures, but about who you are and having the courage to engage in uncomfortable conversations.
She taught us that a healthy culture is not created by being ‘nice’, but by setting boundaries. She introduced a concrete five-step plan to address toxicity:
- Detect: Pay attention to subtle signals such as gossip, social exclusion, or the systematic ignoring of emails.
- Analyse impact: Look objectively at what the behaviour does to the perpetrator, the ‘target’, and the rest of the team.
- Take action: Use the DESC methodology (Describe, Emotions, Solution, Consequence) to conduct conversations that are connecting yet crystal clear.
- Follow up: Do not assume it will resolve itself; actively check whether improvement is occurring.
- Reflect: Ask yourself the critical question: whether I ignored signals for too long because results seem more important than respect?
5. Signals of Silence: Breaking through the wall
A shocking figure shared by Annick is that 75% to 90% of cases of transgressive behaviour go unreported. We call this the Signals of Silence (SOS). Employees often remain silent because they fear the consequences or because they believe nothing will be done with their report anyway. When an organisation fails to listen or laughs off reports, the perpetrator receives a ‘green light’ to continue. Annick emphasised that it is the leader’s task to break this silence by providing reliable channels and a ‘counter-signal’ of ethical leadership.
Conclusion: Dare to create friction
I leave this masterclass with a deep realisation: psychological safety is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for intelligent and sustainable work. It requires leaders who dare to address the elephant in the room and employees who dare to hold each other accountable based on facts rather than interpretations.
As Annick so aptly summarised: “If there is no friction, there will be no shine”. Are you prepared to allow for some friction to create a safer and healthier working environment?
