This article has a title with a quick hook. It suggests that some organizational systems are unhealthy and like any other unhealthy environments people need to protect themselves from its ill effects.

The author presents information drawn from an interview with Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford. The result is a very brief exploration of contemporary links between people and profits and suggests that companies "get exactly what they deserve." The implication is that some organizations' create "toxic workplaces" by violating the model of treating employees with respect and dignity. Examples cited of organizations treating their people poorly included: "at-will" contracts used in recruitment, creation of a pace that is not sustainable (i.e. 18 hour workdays), and offering stock options that encourage making money the priority for employment.

The author suggests that organizations unknowingly "create the conditions they deplore" and then complain that "loyalty and talent are dead." The reality in the author's estimation is that organizations are driving people away. Rather than a scarcity of talent, people are less willing to work where they are treated as expenses rather than as assets. Rather than the "end of careers", people are simply looking for opportunities to have variety and challenging work assignments and are willing to change organizations in their searching.

A "how to" approach of "detoxifying your workplace" was explored by first recognizing that the skills, knowledge, commitment and abilities of the people that work in organizations are the resources that will distinguish a firm from others. The concluding paragraph spelled out a philosophy supportive of training and developing people and a recommendation for making changes by starting with yourself working in your immediate sphere of influence.

The strong points of the article in my mind are the identification of "unhealthy conditions" and articulating fault in some of the current high turnover and low productivity rate arguments. Also valuable is the recognition that "toxic organizations" that are not necessarily made up of bad people but of people unable to identify weaknesses within their organizational structures. I also agree on the relevance of these identified issues in the context of today's work environment.

The workplace at my current job with Center for Small Towns at the University of Minnesota, Morris reflects most closely the recommended model in this article for how to treat employees. I feel the organization invests in people, believes in training, mutual commitments between managers and workforce and sharing information widely with people. These values were not present at jobs I held as a young adult in agriculture or temporary employment and to a lesser degree in various human service positions I have held. Employee surveys nor performance reviews of supervisors are conducted here or at any of jobs previously held.

Friends that I discussed this article made positive comments about the effective title in developing quick interest. They gave support to the suggested model for treating employees.

These numerous positive points aside, I found myself struggling with my perception of the lack of professionalism in the style of writing used in this article. My examples include: 1. Where is the research that supports the statement "companies that manage their people right will outperform companies that don't by 30-40%? Am I expected to believe this at face value or send a message to Pfeffer's e-mail address listed at the end of the article and request it? 2. What is the point of the description of Dennis Bakke's photo on page 156? Am I to assume his AES Corporation does not offer stock options? 3. Later on page 156, is this statement "That's one thing that SAS manages brilliantly" There is no explanation of how they accomplish this brilliance. In its brevity, I feel this article lacks needed substance. Using the author's analogy, it is a bit "toxic" in that as a reader I don't feel I'm treated with respect and dignity.

Answered by David Fluegel (fluegedm@mrs.umn.edu) for the Fast Company article review for November 1998.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1998

Answers

I thought you made a good summary of the article. There were a few sentences that did not make sense - the last sentence of paragraph six and the first of paragraph seven. I think some better proofreading would have taken care of those sentences. You had some good criticisms of the article. I think that some of your frustration was due to the poor organization of the material presented in the article. Your concern about not knowing the specifics of how SAS was brilliant at retaining employees was addressed to some extent later on in the article when David Russo was explaining the rationale for spending money on "family friendly" policies. He mentioned a gym and on-site medical care specifically. Throughout the article I found it somewhat difficult to decipher who was talking, and about which company, without going back to clarify who the people and companies were. I'm not sure I would be quite as strong as your suggestion that the article was "toxic", perhaps because I have had personal experience with "toxic" companies as described in the article.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 1998