5 Signs of a Toxic Relationship at Work

If you’ve left a meeting feeling smaller, revising your memory of what was said, or bracing for the next one-on-one, that isn’t “just how work is.” It’s a warning. A growing body of research links mistreatment at work with higher anxiety, depressed mood, and departures. In one often‑cited analysis, 66% of employees dialed back effort after incivility and 12% quit (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Back in 2022, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a national framework naming workplace well‑being as a public health priority—because it is. My view: no job is worth a permanent knot in your stomach.

Table of Contents

• 1) Undermining and gaslighting
• 2) Chronic incivility and disrespect
• 3) Isolation and information hoarding
• 4) Speaking up feels unsafe
• 5) Boundary violations—time, privacy, values
• What to do if you spot a toxic relationship at work
• When to escalate immediately
• Final thought
• Summary
• References

1) Undermining and gaslighting

The signature move of a toxic relationship at work is quiet sabotage—deadlines that shift without notice, praise in private followed by critique in public, promises made and then denied. This echoes the literature on “abusive supervision,” which predicts anxiety, depression, and withdrawal across multiple studies. When your version of events is constantly disputed, you start interrogating your own memory—and even your competence.

Check yourself:

• Patterns: Are “miscommunications” and “oversights” routinely assigned to you, regardless of who triggered them?
• Receipts: Do emails, tickets, or chat logs in your archive tell a different story than what’s aired in public?

Why it matters: Abusive supervision reliably forecasts worse mental health and lower job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). The cost is not just emotional; rumination and vigilance siphon attention and slow real work. My take: call the behavior by its name early; ambiguity protects the abuser.

2) Chronic incivility and disrespect

The eye‑roll that lands after your point. The repeated interruptions. The joke at your expense that “everyone” pretends is harmless. Incivility—low‑intensity disrespect—may feel minor in the moment, yet meta‑analytic evidence shows it drags down performance, engagement, and well‑being (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Women, early‑career staff, and anyone with less power report sharper impacts—it stings more then we admit—because pushing back carries real risk.

Check yourself:

• Frequency: Does it show up week after week… or has it seeped into daily interactions?
• Spread: Did it start with one person, and then get copied by others once it seemed “safe” to do so?

Why it matters: After incivility, 80% of people lose time worrying, and one in four take frustration out on customers (Porath & Pearson, 2013). That ripple can sour a whole team. Opinion: culture is what you tolerate when it’s inconvenient to object.

3) Isolation and information hoarding

Exclusion can be quiet. Missing from calendar invites. Dropped from threads. Given assignments without the context required to deliver. This is ostracism—being ignored rather than attacked—and it predicts lower well‑being, belonging, and performance (Robinson et al., 2013). In many toxic relationships at work, isolation functions as control: keep someone uninformed, and their influence shrinks.

Check yourself:

• Access: Do you routinely learn key updates after decisions are made?
• Patterns: Are materials or briefings “accidentally” withheld before high‑stakes reviews?

Why it matters: Humans interpret exclusion as threat. Chronic threat states impair memory, problem solving, and mood—your brain narrows to survival. My view: if silence surrounds only certain people, that is not a coincidence; it’s a design.

4) Speaking up feels unsafe

If you bite your tongue in meetings, avoid disagreeing with a senior colleague, or rehearse every sentence in a Slack message for fear of reprisal, psychological safety is low. Teams that score high on safety learn faster, innovate more, and make fewer errors (Frazier et al., 2017). From healthcare to aviation, the pattern holds: when people cannot surface concerns, problems compound. In a toxic relationship at work, you learn quickly that silence equals survival.

Check yourself:

• Cost: What reliably happens after you share a concern or bad news—curiosity and problem‑solving, or defensiveness and penalty?
• Recovery: Can your group admit mistakes, repair, and move on, or do errors become a character verdict?

Why it matters: Without voice, bad ideas linger and good ideas die on the vine. Visibility depends on contribution; if you cannot contribute safely, your trajectory stalls. Editorially: leaders who punish dissent are managing reputation, not risk.

5) Boundary violations—time, privacy, values

Late‑night “urgent” pings that are not urgent. Nudges to skip lunch or PTO. Probing questions about your personal life under the guise of “team fit.” Long hours are associated with higher risks of depression and cardiovascular disease (Virtanen et al., 2012; Kivimäki et al., 2015). The World Health Organization recognized burnout in 2019 as an occupational phenomenon tied to chronic workplace stress. When the week loses it’s edges, watch out.

Check yourself:

• Consent: Are time‑sensitive asks truly time‑sensitive—and discussed—or simply presumed?
• Autonomy: Are you shamed or penalized for straightforward boundaries (OOO, do‑not‑disturb, PTO)?

Why it matters: Sustained boundary‑breaking drains energy and frays values alignment—the glue that keeps people engaged and well. My position: urgency without clarity is just coercion dressed up as commitment.

What to do if you spot a toxic relationship at work

• Name the pattern: Label what you see—undermining, ostracism, boundary violations. Precise language reduces self‑blame and sharpens your options.
• Document everything: Dates, times, who was present, exact wording, screenshots, calendar invites. Keep notes factual; assume they may be read by HR or counsel later.
• Set micro‑boundaries: “I’ll respond during working hours.” “Let’s keep feedback private and tied to specific work.” Calm repetition over drama.
• Seek allies: A trusted peer, ERG lead, or senior sponsor can widen the aperture. Collective voice is safer and harder to dismiss.
• Use channels: Reference policy language in HR or ethics reports. Avoid labels like “toxic” in formal complaints; describe behaviors, frequency, and impact.
• Protect your health: Schedule recovery—sleep, movement, therapy, time outdoors. Short, consistent breaks lower strain; it adds up.
• Plan your options: If change stalls, update your résumé and network quietly. Exiting a toxic relationship at work is a legitimate, research‑backed health decision—targets of bullying who leave often see mental health improve (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). The Guardian reported in 2019 that formal complaints rose alongside awareness; you are not alone.

When to escalate immediately

• Retaliation after you speak up
• Discrimination or harassment tied to a protected characteristic
• Threats, safety issues, or deliberate sabotage of your work product

Final thought

You deserve respect, clarity, and voice. If you recognize these patterns, this isn’t about being “too sensitive”—it’s about evidence of harm. Naming a toxic relationship at work, setting limits, and taking strategic steps can restore both energy and direction. You are not the problem; the pattern is—and patterns can be changed.

Summary

A toxic relationship at work shows up as undermining, chronic incivility, isolation, low psychological safety, and boundary violations. Document patterns, set micro‑boundaries, recruit allies, use formal channels, protect your health, and plan exits when needed. Evidence indicates that addressing or leaving toxicity improves well‑being. Choose the environment that supports you. If you need support, talk to a licensed therapist or HR partner today.

References

• Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility
• Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000100
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
• Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: Workplace ostracism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030864
• Frazier, M. L., et al. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000116
• Virtanen, M., et al. (2012). Overtime work as a risk factor for major depressive episode. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e30719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030719
• Kivimäki, M., et al. (2015). Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke. The Lancet, 386(10005), 1739–1746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60295-1
• Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.734709