A former student* of mine came back to visit a few years after she had graduated. She works in finance, a heavily male-dominated industry, and even though she sees herself as a strong woman, she felt some traditional sexism seeping into the office culture. She was often asked to take notes or make coffee, something her male counterparts were rarely tasked with.
Even worse, the workplace culture was one in which the job was expected to be number one in employees’ lives, above everything else. Employees were often expected to stay late to work on unexpected, urgent problems, regardless of their availability. People routinely had to work weekends and late evenings, often without advance notice. When my former student raised these issues with her boss, she would be loudly berated and chastised. She described an environment with frequent turnover and no real sense of autonomy.
During our visit, she told me about a conversation with her boss in which she said it was a problem that employees had no psychological safety in the workplace. Her boss had never heard the term before and dismissed it outright. Hearing how he responded to her concerns, I couldn’t help but think, “Well, there’s your warning sign!”
In coaching her through the situation, I suspected she’d need to start looking for new employment opportunities. The toxic workplace she described seemed unlikely to change as long as her boss was in charge, as he didn’t seem interested in addressing any of the issues she raised.
What is psychological safety? The concept, extensively studied by Harvard professor Dr. Amy Edmondson, refers to the shared belief among team members that one can speak up in the workplace, offering countering perspectives or concerns, without the fear of retribution or punishment. Psychological safety gives team members room to ask questions, seek help, and learn when something doesn’t go as planned. In her foundational study of 51 workplace teams, Edmondson (1999) found that psychological safety was associated with team learning behaviors, such as seeking feedback, discussing errors, and asking for help. These are everyday interactions that allow people to learn and do their jobs effectively.
But what happens when your workplace lacks psychological safety? And when that’s compounded by a lack of work-life boundaries? How do you know when to stick it out with a company versus when it may be time to move on? A few questions can help you decide.
What happens when you raise a concern?
Does your supervisor listen and ask questions? Or do they respond with a knee-jerk reaction, resorting to ridicule, anger, or retaliation? No one is perfect. It can be challenging for leaders (even with the best of intentions) to hear critical feedback. But after they’ve had time to reflect, do they circle back to address the issue? Or does the situation end with dismissiveness, deflection, or retribution?
Is there evidence that change is possible?
When a problem is raised, is there follow-through from leadership? Are there sustained changes in behavior (not just promises after someone threatens to quit)? In academia, the government, and other large organizations, change can be slow. You can’t always expect an immediate change in policy or procedure, especially if there’s a shared decision-making process involved. But have the wheels been put into motion? The speed of change matters, but so does whether there’s any meaningful movement at all.
What options exist within the organization?
Is there another supervisor or a transfer opportunity that could move you from the troubled department or unit into one that functions more smoothly? Could you switch teams or responsibilities so you work with different people or report to someone else? Can anyone serve as an ally in the situation, such as another supervisor or manager who can mediate?
What is staying costing you?
Research gives us reason to take the costs associated with a crummy job situation seriously. A meta-analysis by Schyns and Schilling (2013) found that destructive leadership was associated with poorer employee well-being, lower performance, and greater intentions to leave. The effects of a difficult working environment can extend beyond how you feel about your boss.
Consider your confidence, health (mental and physical), relationships, and ability to do work you feel good about. If you love the job and feel passionate about what you’re doing, you may be willing to put up with certain issues, like occasional late evenings or a sometimes snappy response from a supervisor. But if the job is wearing down your self-esteem and damaging your relationships outside of work because mandatory overtime means cancelled plans and missed social engagements, it may be time to consider the toll it’s taking on your life overall.
It’s almost never easy to leave a job, especially when you’ve landed your “dream job” and the job market is tight, making alternatives feel limited. Recognizing that it’s time to leave also doesn’t mean you're financially or practically able to leave right away. It may mean starting to explore your options and making a plan.
I wouldn’t suggest jumping ship at the first sign of trouble. When it’s safe and reasonable to do so, give your supervisor and your workplace a chance to make things right. But if your concerns aren’t taken seriously and meaningful change seems unlikely, consider both what the job gives you (a paycheck, purpose, opportunities) and what it’s taking from you (work-life balance, self-esteem, health, relationships).
Sure, there are busy or difficult seasons of work. But if the scales are constantly tipped toward work at the expense of your health and life outside of it, it may be time to make a change.
*Some details have been changed to protect the students’ privacy. Story shared with permission.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001