Qualitosis

What is Qualitosis?

By definition, an organisation has developed Qualitosis at the point where Service Quality begins to be impacted by a toxic work environment.

Such a toxic work environment will inevitably affect staff behaviour and performance, which in turn will impact the service they provide.

This definition is important because companies where Qualitosis is taking hold are often controlled by management that is focused on performance goals over behavioural goals. Where this is the case, a manager may instinctively “push harder”, doing more harm than good.

What causes Qualitosis?

A toxic culture leads to Qualitosis, but what causes the toxic culture in the first place?

“Culture is the sum total of all the behaviours all the people display every day in the organisation.”

There will always be instances of bad behaviour in any organisation, but in a toxic workplace, bad behaviour goes unchecked and may even be encouraged. If culture is the sum total of all the behaviours of all of the members of an organisation, the behaviour of management carries a higher weighting the further up the hierarchy they are and the higher their visibility.

“The tone is set at the top”.

Where upper management allows open communication from all levels about bad behaviour and manifests a zero-tolerance attitude to any form of harassment or bullying, a benign culture will permeate. Conversely, where there is fear to speak out, promotion or protection of “high-performing” but offensive staff, or poor behaviour from management itself, a toxic culture will inevitably follow.

Why is identifying Qualitosis so important?

Qualitosis has two significant impacts: it destroys corporate value and at its most severe, it destroys lives.

If a company manufactured a product or spilled waste which caused depression or even led to suicide, they would be obliged to recall it and redesign it until it was safe. However, there is currently no such obligation for toxic workplace environments. That doesn’t mean that it is any less important.

The main reason is that it’s easy to identify and measure toxic waste or dangerous products, but not so easy to identify and measure a toxic workplace environment.

Why is identifying and measuring Qualitosis so difficult, especially in toxic companies?

A toxic working environment is invisible. It can’t be tasted or smelled. It’s evidenced often in micro-situations behind closed doors that build and fester until outward signs are exhibited in terms of staff attrition, absenteeism, presenteeism and general demotivation amongst the staff.

Only when the situation gets to the point where service quality begins to be significantly impacted, or worse such as legal or reputational issues, does management start to ask questions.

Why is this? An organisation that has promoted its staff based on performance over behavioural goals will probably have its management team populated by “high performers” with below average levels of empathy and self-awareness.

The only way to effectively measure a workplace environment is to seek honest and transparent feedback from staff members. The paradox is that where the need for change is greatest, i.e. in a toxic company where trust in the management is compromised, the management is least likely to seek the opinions of staff and, if they did, the likelihood of employees giving honest feedback is low. Even where the management team did recognise a problem, there would be reluctance to bring in an independent survey agency for fear the results would reflect badly on them.

Is there a solution?