Ask HN: How do I stop myself being toxic?

119 points by dijit ↗ HN
At my last performance review I was told that I engage in toxic discussion too much and I should halt.

The problem is, I don't know what constitutes toxic behaviour and how to prevent it. I do have a lot of issues (very bureaucratic and slow central organisation whom I am forced to deal with) and I do bring them to light as the reason for things taking too long- If I'm blocked by the central IT body then I have no qualms telling people I'm blocked. I also take passion in my job, so I might seem complainy.

But, How can I make sure I don't engage in toxic discussions? Are there any people here who have overcome toxic behaviours?

149 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] thread
Technique is what you probably missing. Try reading a classic like https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4865.How_to_Win_Friends_...

Bottom line: You can criticize as long as you wrap it up the 'right' way

Either you (OP) are initiating or propagating discussions for the sake of the discussion and not to solve the problem at hand OR you are simply direct and honest, which some people see as toxic, especially in large companies and institutions. In my experience you need to be more political (wrap it up the right way) in large companies and institutions.

The book FuNe suggests is a classic and a very good read. I've spent my time as a software developer and consultant in both huge, medium and small companies ranging from 1 to 50.000 employees, and the larger the size, the more the "us vs them" inter-departmental bullshit was present.

If you're the right kind of honest, you could just become a consultant and get paid 10x more per hour for being honest, for some reason people listen way more intensely to someone they pay a shitton of money to voice their opinion ;)

Or study the British, they're the world masters at Cadbury-chocolate-covered offensive discussion.

PS: This might read as way too broad a statement or as an attack on British people, rest assured that it's not. I genuinely find the British art of social decorum absolutely fascinating and I think it can have tremendous value. Speaking as a Frenchman, I too often witness the cost of being too hot-blooded and blunt in the social rapport.

I am British working in Sweden. xD
Maybe you've been away for too long? :-)

Are your colleagues mostly Swedish or English/other? Do you speak in English or Swedish to them?

I can imagine if you speak English better than your colleagues then you might imperceptibly/unintentionally treat them like people less intelligent than they are due to having an accent. As a British person working in Europe I've seen it happen, non-UK colleagues I know to be very intelligent are treated ... differently... when talking to someone who speaks english natively. Maybe not "toxic", but in a way I wouldn't appreciate.

I speak English at work, but I couldn't possibly have a superiority complex, they all speak English better than I do.
I think we found the problem. You're a raging capitalist and the Swedes are a bunch of commies.

I'm joking obviously, but maybe you'd fit in better back home. What's toxic in Sweden might be ambitious in Britain. Cultures are different.

My fiance is British and you are spot on. Growing up we dealt with issues in the household directly "Hey asshole it's your turn to wash the dishes". Her family has a different more subtle approach that's hard to verbalize.
(comment deleted)
"The problem is, I don't know what constitutes toxic behaviour and how to prevent it."

"Toxic discussion" seems like an imprecise term that can mean many different things (e.g., insulting people, not letting people finish their sentences, etc.). Maybe you should ask your manager for specific examples of situations that you could have handled better. Of course, you should be careful to ask in a non-confrontational way, making it clear that your aim is to address the problem, not to argue with the allegations.

I think he definitely needs to get a number of particulars from management, because if you ask me, characterizing an employee's behavior as "toxic" is passive-aggressive. It certainly isn't constructive. Without particulars, it simply means "we don't like you."
>> Maybe you should ask your manager for specific examples

Yes. A good rule of thumb for managers is to discuss behaviour not attitude. A good manager will discuss specific incidents, the employee's understanding and any problems arising. They should not have thrown out an interpretation/judgement and leave an employee guessing like this.

As already suggested by FuNe, there are some books which can help (like the one he proposed, or maybe "Getting to Yes", which I have not yet read, though).

Out of curiosity, how many times do you use these words: no, don't, always, most of the time, 99% of the time, absolutely, they, sigh, boring.

I think it's important in such situations to assess whether the problem is mostly you or the culture. Have you had similar problems in other places? Is it this particular place? Most likely it's a combination of the two, but it's worth considering what amount of effort / potentially active dishonesty it will take to fit in with the culture of the place, whether such a culture is a good thing, and whether there might not be better environments for you elsewhere.

I strongly disagree with the people advising self-help books on helping one interact with people; I tend to think the later is a kind of prescribed culture bordering on forced. It's possible to be a decent human being and co-worker (and apparently has been, if you allow that people are decent) without reading self-help books and fitting in to other people's model of 'polite' and 'pleasant'.

I agree with you! I remember that in a previous company I worked for, I had a few colleagues quite old (early employees of a startup which after 10 years got bought) who were toxic/poisonous (it was evident) and they were continuously told to change behavior.

However, they just didn't fit anymore in the new company's culture - which was bad in my opinion, but I can't imagine how fucked up it must have been for those colleagues, considering that they had seen the early great times - a lot of fun, a lot to do, good managers with a good attitude, and so forth.

Sometimes it's really due to "the others", and it's then that you need to realize that the earlier you leave, the better it is for you.

Well, first of all, OP admitted himself that he does not understand what others perceive as inappropriate behavior and would like to learn. I cannot think of more appropriate place to recommend a book that explains exactly that.

Furthermore, such self-help books are recommended for the OP's benefit, not (only) of those around him. It's fine if you don't care to fit into models of 'polite' and 'pleasant', but you should at least know what you're missing out on.

I agree that self-help books may have dubious value, but not because they try to force people into a "prescribed culture".

What the OP needs is someone who cares about him, a mentor, to give him a much-needed reality check when challenging interactions occur at work. There's no replacement for someone who can perceive things which you can't to tell you what is _actually_ going on in any particular situation. The problem with a book is that it can't, usually, force someone to see things in a different way.

In other words, a book can't tell you "No, stop, your interpretation is all wrong!" A human-being can. I recommend that the OP seek out a trusted colleague who can mentor him through this.

That said, there IS a book I recommend. "Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas" by Linda Rising. It is all about effective strategies for introducing new ideas into organizations which are naturally resistant to change. The OP indicated there's a problem with the org accepting his ideas. I see this a lot-- really smart technical people who see solutions but can't get them implemented because of organizational obstacles. Some mindsets will act like a bull in a bull-fight and just keep charging head-first only to get increasingly frustrated. The book gives some ways to approach organizational blocks by taking a longer view and enlisting the critical cooperation of others (and no, that does not mean merely making a logical argument).

Well, it can be you simply aren't accustomed to working in very bureaucratic and slow environments. You either go with the flow or switch jobs.

I am toxic myself and I also have problems with it. So I try to constantly "monitor" what I am saying and how I am feeling. Sometimes it just helps to say to yourself "stop, don't overreact" and to force yourself to calm down. Sometimes we make situation out of no situation.

Good for you! Working on a weakness is great. I expect I would not find you toxic. The truly toxic individuals really needing help are in total denial. The rest of us know we are not perfect and have to work at it.
a) Stop caring about being right

b) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/21/how_to_get_paid_more... -- read this

c) It's fine to say no, or it's wrong, or whatever, but always have a positive and enthusiastic solution for whatever's wrong. Being blocked by a bureaucratic organization? Have a work-around that you offer straight away!

>The first thing you get wrong is spending too much time on things no one sees. No one really cares if you’ve made the backup process run 50 per cent faster unless it’s stopping work, so don't waste your time on this until some politically powerful person or business unit asks. That’s a tactic: the full methodology you should adopt for all your work is Continuous Visible Productivity (CVP).

Plan your work in terms of things other people can see; forget agile dependency modelling, GANTT, etcetera and prioritise with respect to how many useful people see the result.

Is this why every web app I see from a large organization flat out sucks?(2 megs of js to do a single post request, I'm looking at you ADP) It probably works in the corporate world, but damn that's depressing.

You have to make the metric visible then. Put a "average web request size", "average time to load webpage", "average time to load in region X". Show how speed = $$$ & bring up how google saving microseconds in search lead to much higher revenues. Then it becomes part of CVP.
It took me a long time to figure out that you don't get paid to do work, you get paid to do work AND get on with people.

I found my life became far easier when I took five minutes to talk to people about their kids, pets, work, spouses etc. Make a cup of coffee for the team, get one for your boss before a meeting. Bring in some cookies and doughnuts. Hell, turn up to work 30 minutes late with cookies everyone is pleased to see you.

I read "how to make friends and influence people".... it didn't change my life, but it's good to remember what my mum would call 'good manners' trumps 100% productivity.

> It took me a long time to figure out that you don't get paid to do work, you get paid to do work AND get on with people.

In many places work is defined as "what the boss wants, even if that's really stupid".

Life is easier if you can accept doing dumb stuff is part of the job, or if you just leave and get another job.

And when layoffs come knocking with almost equal skilled workers and half the team have to go? The boss is going to keep his friends or people he likes.

I've seen so many ass-lickers who treat the boss to a round of golf get the promotion because 'they are keen'

> stop caring about being right

This is either bad advice, or poorly phrased. There are many domains where being right actually really does matter. Engineering is one of them.

But being right is very very different than getting the last word. It involves a lot more listening.

> stop caring about being right

There's 2 ways to take this statement. The first is the way you took it, in that you care to only say things that are correct.

However, most people (especially "toxic" ones) are more focused on not being proven wrong than on being correct in the first place. "Being right" to them is having everyone think they're right, even if they're actually wrong.

They eventually show their attitude by saying things like, "He never implements my ideas." or "He doesn't take my ideas seriously."

The third way is to be willing to say things that are incorrect, collaborating with someone else to come to a more correct understanding.
It's hard to answer this as an outsider because it's hard to know what exactly your manager(s) consider toxic. It's cultural. At my company we have very open and frank discussions of what our systemic problems are or what our team problems are, etc. But I've had prior employers where those same discussions would have been considered out of bounds and inappropriate.

As general advice though, I think if you like your job and want to stay there and be in good standing with those around you it's extremely important to learn the culture of that workplace and adapt to it. If you're getting feedback that you are being toxic, and it's not just from one person who doesn't like what you're saying but really is a clash between you and the culture, then you need to listen to that feedback and reign your personality in.

You can vent to friends and family outside of work. And if you really don't like it, you can always find another job that is a better fit for you.

Good, balanced answer.

"Very bureaucratic and slow central organisation whom I am forced to deal with." is one perception of the organisation. No way to know if this is really the case, and I would refrain using these words with colleagues. It may well be the case, but others might not experience it that way.

Is it you that's toxic, or is it the organisation? I wouldn't readily assume you are the problem. If you're in a culture that avoids confrontation and criticism, anyone who is outspoken will be targeted as a troublemaker. Just some food for thought.
Actual toxic behavior usually involves playing corporate politics in a way that's detrimental to the work you're supposed to be engaged in. Voicing negative views openly is healthy and should be encouraged, as long as you know what you're talking about. If you whine and complain but do not have a proposed solution, then that is not toxic behavior it's just garden variety laziness.
I think there is a caveat. If team X is slowing your workflow, you don't say, "I am unable to do $FOO because team X are a bunch of lazy bastards with a shit process." Instead, you can try, "I can see that team X has a lot on their plate. I do need their support to complete $FOO, and the current process seems to be hindering that. What can we do to improve this situation? I think we could do $BAR, but I want to get some buy-in first."

I feel the difference between toxic and not toxic (at least where I work) is how you approach situations: constructively vs not.

Negative view should be able to be discussed. But it should be done in a way as to seek progress and improve. Not to just shit on other people or teams. I've seen people who don't get this.

It sounds like you're posting here because you want someone to reaffirm that your work place is toxic.

Well, I'm happy to oblige:

Your work place is toxic.

Lean on others around you for feedback - ask a trusted co-worker to be brutally honest with you when he/she gets the impression you are being toxic. Tell them to approach you afterwards and make you aware of it.

Apart from this, here are a few things to watch yourself for:

  * sarcasm & cynicism
  * passive aggressive behavior
  * insults
  * loving proving others wrong and making them look bad
  * loudness / brashness
hm, I am quite loud and direct. I'll ask a colleague to give me a nudge when I'm being too much.

Others have mentioned a book, I'll make sure I read it and I hope it helps people's impressions of me. I just want to do the best I can and I love my work- I just get very frustrated by people who don't want to do their jobs.

It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic.

Thanks for the feedback. :)

Hey, some hopefully constructive feedback here:

This sentence "It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic" is kind of a red flag. Think about how the people around you would feel about this comparison. It's pretty insulting, right? If you carry around the attitude that you're put upon dealing with other people's incompetence, they're going to notice and take it badly.

Younger me would see my comment and say "so what? they're incompetent!" This is the wrong emotional reaction. It doesn't matter if they're incompetent. Telling them they're incompetent will harm your relationship with them, and worsen your LA traffic gridlock.

There's almost always a way to be direct, correct and also kind. If you can't figure one out, then talk to someone. "Hey, I'm a little irritated about xyz situation, but I don't want to handle it badly. Do you have any suggestions for how I can constructively engage, or do you think I should just let it go?" Many people can't help, but some people have great emotional intelligence and can help crack those things open. I'm not particularly good at it, but man, the difference between trying and not trying is night and day.

Thank you for the feedback! :) I understand what you mean.

May I ask though, how can I convey my frustration to anyone? and how to I avoid becoming jaded and apathetic to my goals?

Re: conveying frustration: Ask questions -- once you try to understand a situation, the frustration will recede, at least partially.
My imperfect understanding would be that, at best, you could convey your frustration to someone well removed from your work environment.

Frustration is rarely a constructive thing to convey. It may seem okay at times, but even if it's objectively justifiable, it's going to leave an impression on people.

Too many of those, and everything you say is viewed through that lens.

Your boss. He should be the primary person responsible for making sure your organization minimizes the disruptions to your work. He may or may not be in a position to personally solve any issues, but at least you have now shared concerns about your work environment with someone "up the chain".

That person could also be a project manager or any other person who is ultimately responsible for deliverables. It IS their job to make sure you deliver. If you are getting constantly blocked for external reasons, they should know and work towards fixing those issues.

I'm in the exact same boat, btw. Good luck.

>how can I convey my frustration to anyone

You don't. If something is impeding you, calmly tell someone who can help that you're having trouble doing something because of XYZ. Don't be negative or pessimistic or blame anyone.

The problem is if you're always frustrated, everyone is going to view you as an angry asshole. I am constantly frustrated but I gave up doing anything about it when it's out of my control. I just move on.

> You don't. If something is impeding you, calmly tell someone who can help that you're having trouble doing something because of XYZ.

Or, even better, ask what you can do to help with getting XYZ done.

> May I ask though, how can I convey my frustration to anyone? and how to I avoid becoming jaded and apathetic to my goals?

Spend time cultivating empathy and patience.

A million times this answer. We're in need of a good dose of that in engineering organizations.
Realize that the only person in the world who cares about your frustrations is you. If you can't handle your shit, people won't want to be around you. You need to make it your personal responsibility to be a good team player. It should help you to realize that all of your amazing skills and talent aren't worth anything if no one can stand being around you.
Everyone has their own specific set of strengths and weaknesses.

It's toxic to compare people's weaknesses to your own strengths, or to compare your own weaknesses with other's strengths.

Enjoy connecting to people and making banter. Stop trying to get "somewhere". Don't even try to push for the project to finish earlier. It finishes when it finishes. The quality it's done at is the quality it's going to be. Do what you're going to do then step back. Focus on the present, and enjoy it because it is everything you have. The only "somewhere" everyone ever gets to is death. What's more important, your joy in the present, or some illusion of the future?

Choices are illusory. Our lives are not ours to control. We can follow the flow of life's river and enjoy the sights life offers, or push against the current, and encounter resistance, spending all our time bucketing water out of our boats. The only choice we have is between focusing on reality of the present, the small boons we experience every day, a smile, an eye contact, a joke, listening to a story, and focusing on the illusions of the future, finding weaknesses in yourself or others through comparison, fighting against the current of life. Who are you in this moment?

Your post is riddled with feel-good platitudes and specious mantras. I definitely think most people (myself included) could benefit from slowing down and focusing on the present, but it's folly to say 'Choices are illusory. Our lives are not ours to control.' and 'It finishes when it finishes. The quality it's done at is the quality it's going to be.'
Brilliant analysis. This is wisdom for the ages, thank you.
I agree with 9935c101ab17a66's [dead] post: your comment contains some good advice, but it's diluted with garbage and platitudes beyond all utility.

Choices are illusory? Nope. Life is an endless, continuous stream of choices, and making those choices is the only thing that you can do to influence how your own life goes.

I'm not going to convince you, but in my experience I find it to be true. The more I am focused on the present, the more the choices I do pick appear to be the obviously good ones. The other choices merely clouds my life, like the OP, trying to pushing things through faster, experiencing gridlock, and then getting labelled as toxic. If we know that's what the consequence of a choice is like, it'd be obvious not to pick it, none of it is enjoyable. It so happens these obviously bad choices in hindsight all happen to be picked when I am too attached to some future outcome, and all the good choices I do make, I was not attached to the future, I made them by being immersed as the present, picking the obviously good choice.

By good choice I mean one I would never regret no matter what the outcome was, and instead would have regretted if I never made it.

That's what I mean by choices being merely an illusion. All I can pick is the present, or the illusion of being in control of the future.

> Others have mentioned a book, I'll make sure I read it and I hope it helps people's impressions of me. I just want to do the best I can and I love my work- I just get very frustrated by people who don't want to do their jobs.

> It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic.

I must say I really understand what you mean. :) But I think I have learned that to strong emotions, either positive or negative, doesn't belong in the workplace. It costs so much when you get burnt and dumb bosses interfere and imposes their will. I still do 100% everyday and every hour I work, but I'm a little emotionally detached or shielded from the result of it.

Instead, I'm contributing to a free software project where I can be really passionate. You should probably try that too.

> It's like driving a Ferrari in LA traffic.

You're the Ferrari, your co-workers are the traffic? Are you fucking serious? This is the crux of the problem - you think you are better than everyone else, and you make that obvious. Unless you can get your ego under control this will be a serious impediment to your career.

The situation as I describe it is certainly apt, I'm not calling them out on being "traffic" but it's more like this:

I am dedicated to a project, my sole job is to ensure the continuity and delivery of the product that the project makes. Part of this is relying on central IT, who do not want to delegate responsibility on certain things (IE; firewalls, networking, authentication, timekeeping, package management services, storage, etc). Those people are constrained because they are used by every project.

While it's not their fault they're not fully available to me at all times when I need them; being blocked by a firewall for a week is frustrating. It stops me being able to complete tasks for extended periods of time.

So yes, I am trying to move, and they are not moving. It's not their fault but that's the fact as it stands.

Traffic is normal, the issue is thinking of yourself as a Ferrari. You are a normal car in LA traffic, just like everyone else. Everyone has to move slower because of the organization, everyone gets blocked sometimes. If you actually can't do anything for a week then talk to your boss, but with the attitude of "this is a fact of life and I'm looking for something else to work on in the meantime", not "these assholes are holding me back".
(comment deleted)
@dijit, if you want to improve your relationships, practice the Golden Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule), treat others as you would want to be treated, and don't treat them the way you wouldn't want to be treated.

Have a look at http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/thewaytohappiness/precepts/... and http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/thewaytohappiness/precepts/... which describe and give examples of both sides of this rule.

Don't concentrate on how others may be treating you (delaying your projects) or what you might be doing wrong (toxic interactions) but focus on the positive way you can treat others (fairly? with respect? helping them? etc.)

I challenge you to practice the Golden Rule assiduously for a week and see how life seems then. =)

Good luck!

Option 1. Honk your horn. Sounds like this is what you're doing, and it makes other people around you more stressed, more frustrated, and less willing to do extra work to help you. After a while, noise like that just gets tuned out.

Option 2. Recognize this is an inappropriate metaphor, and that you are part of an organization that has certain policies and procedures, and that anything being done for reasons other than legal compliance can be up for debate and change.

Do you know why the central IT branch is behind? Are they working with shitty software that makes their jobs harder instead of easier? Are the business processes in place to grant a simple request unnecessarily complex? Is a mistake very costly and difficult to fix, meaning that correctness is incentivized at the expense of throughput? How much is it costing the business while you sit and twiddle your thumbs waiting for approval? Who in your organization has these answers? Who has the power to make decisions about these things? What can you do to get those people together in a room to discuss these issues?

You can get a lot further by trying to fix a problem instead of just complaining about it.

Classic bureaucracy calls for classic techniques; Radar on MAS*H knows what's up. Your best bet is to cultivate relationships that can help you get things done faster. The more important your project the easier this will be; from official resource allocation to a guy on the inside acting as a back channel. It may be worth working both ends of the spectrum at the same time.

If your project is important enough or the problem pervasive enough you might be able to get people together on an official solution. Raise awareness that your progress is being blocked frequently. An "all on the same team" approach to working on a solution will bring departments together to work out a path forward. This will often appear in the form of limited delegation of IT resource ownership, priority work queues, and dedicated/embedded resources.

If your project is NOT important enough and/or the problem lacks interest at the right levels(awareness raising fails) you might have to game the system. Get friends in the right places that can help you out when you have something blocking you. You might also have to just suck it up.

The problem is that you prioritize your work over others' work. Being blocked is not an excuse to treat people poorly, so whenever it happens, just focus on another task until you can continue. Use that blocked time to learn something new, make progress on something else or review your work.
You're a Ferrari, and project is very important. So escalate and get it done.

If unable to get that escalation, than you're just another Honda Accord, and there is no dishonor in that. Accept and move on.

Have you considered switching to a less beurocratic team/company. I used to be in a place where I'd fight the system. Most felt the system was good enough.

Moving to a team where your personal values are aligned with team values, may be you won't need to have those discussions.

If you're in typical corporate IT, driving a Ferrari in LA traffic is an understatement. I'm baffled by the mass incompetence I see on a daily basis. Changes that should take 15 minutes to implement take two or three weeks of dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying. Fiddle-fucking around abounds. You treasure those occasions that you get to deal with a marginally competent US/UK/EU IT person, rather than a person from elsewhere who has 0 authority, independent thinking, and more often than not is an outsourced contractor with no official status and less real knowledge.
Perfect advice. I would add, if possible, to ask same question to person-boss who gave you this feedback. It's in everybody's interest that issues are identified clearly by all sides, otherwise improvement won't happen. It might not work if he is too introvert/polite, then check with somebody else.
It might be worth following up with your manager on what behavior they're seeing, specifically. Depending on how your organization works and how your relationship with your manager work, of course. That said, politely approaching them with a short list of very specific questions may allow you to clarify what they're seeing. If asking for clarification is an option, it's definitely better than guessing what the issue is. The thing is, they're concluding your behavior is "toxic" based on a set of specific actions (assuming the review process is functional, etc.), so you'll want to find out what those actions are and then make a plan on what to do differently, execute that plan, then ask for feedback again later.
Simply put, it's time to leave. Either your attitude towards the organization is bad, or the organization itself cannot take criticism. If it's the organization, then there is nothing that can be done and you should immediately find new employment. This is generally a sign of bad things to come.

If it's you, then you are not happy and you are not as effective as you could be. You are no longer a good fit for the position. This sounds negative towards you, but it's not. It just means that you need to find a place that you like more.

This happened to me a couple of years ago. I worked with a group of people for almost 15 years at different organizations. Towards the end, I was negative all the time about the company we currently worked at. I wanted to stay, because they were all my friends, and we had been through so many struggles together that I couldn't imagine working with them (layoffs, bankruptcies, buyouts, etc.) I had no idea how unhappy I was until I finally quit and found another job. I miss the people there quite often, but now I know I would never go back to that place. I would never have accomplished what I have if I stayed there.

>Either your attitude towards the organization is bad

This is very likely the problem, not the latter. The OP will probably will run into this problem again and again in the future, leaving his current employer is not going to solve that. If anything, staying would be better, since they're willing to work with him on fixing it.

(comment deleted)
tbh we don't really know OP. Although It could be that the words OP uses might be offending.
Think you should identify this label better and once you do, you'll know if there's anything to correct. From a glance at this, I'm reading "toxic discussion" as relating to inter-department communication.

You mentioned that you have no qualms speaking your mind about faults of other departments, but is it possible that this kind of blunt communication is creating political problems for your managers and coworkers?

When you make vocal statements about an another department, you're seen as representing your department and your boss in those statements. That may not be what your boss wants to be publicly associated with.

In technical problem solving, it's easy to make a very easy read of problems and state them clearly, but in an organization they're seen as accusations and criticism. Often, there are strong defensive reactions from being called out and they can start a chain reaction: another department withdraws support or resources, or escalates their complaint which then comes down on your boss.

It seems like you have good reasons to be toxic ;-) I have felt similarly in some organizations.

In your case "toxic" seems to be that pointing out negative things about the organization too often or too bluntly might lead to colleagues becoming less motivated and less attached. So the "simple" way out would be to reduce your remarks about the flaws of the organization or to state them in a less blunt or confrontational manner.

Of course, what is being considered toxic will differ from one company to the next but also from one country to the other. Germans and Dutch are known for being very honest and direct whereas most other cultures prefer a less confrontational attitude.

(comment deleted)
When faced with criticism from an organization that doesn't know how to internalize criticism directed against itself, put on the most earnest expression you can muster and ask firmly but politely for concrete examples of "toxic behavior" that you've supposedly committed. Performance reviews, especially at large organizations, are not set up to help you improve. They're either a political device or a component of stack ranking that can be used as part of "documenting" a dismissal. Especially suspect are broad accusations that can mean practically anything but sound serious on the surface.

Definitely get more information before you go accepting blame for something that might well be a smoke screen.

But sometimes there may not be a single concrete example. Some people just have that unfriendly vibe. Getting an example of "this one time Chad didn't want to talk to you because you were scowling the whole standup" probably won't mean much to you, but if it's a persistent theme, it's still a vaguely toxic behaviour that may warrant dismissal.
ST*Up... and relax :)
I like this question. I'm going to be somewhat prescriptive here, and make some assumptions about what management means by "toxic".

Is the first time you're getting this feedback is at the performance review? If so, then one thing you could do going forward is ask your manager to give more timely feedback. It's perfectly reasonable to tell them that you want to improve (clearly you do, since you're posting here!) and to give you feedback right when they observe "toxic behavior" rather than waiting for the annual review.

Things that I have observed that I myself would call toxic:

1. Snark. All the time. In your case, snark about the slow-moving bureaucracy. The question to ask is, when engaging in a conversation, what do you really expect the outcome to be? If you're complaining about the slow-moving IT department, is there really a purpose rather than venting?

2. Truth be told, when I work with people who are snarky/negative/critical all the time (which, again, is my assumption of what management means by "toxic"), it really does bring the rest of the team down. People spend time gossiping and being more negative themselves. It breeds a team who continually complains, rather than people who identify problems and actively try to come up with solutions to make things better. Be honest - which camp do you see yourself in?

3. Is there a better venue to bring up issues than with co-workers? Bringing up complaints in a 1-1 with a manager will reflect better on you than venting to co-workers.

Everybody knows that the team is less productive because of bureaucracy, so complaining doesn't help. Consider asking "why is this central IT body here in the first place?" and seeing if you can help come up with solutions which fit.

And, at the end of the day, the business has made a decision that they are "okay" with development moving - and people being blocked - with their current policies. In a sense, that is perfectly valid decision for them to make, and if they want to pay you to wait around for them then that is the company's burden.

This is good feedback, thank you.

Others have mentioned a book I will read it, and I will ask a colleague to keep an eye on me for negative behaviour.

Timely feedback is also important. But yes, I am quite critical and I make snarky jokes to lighten the mood- often it is at the expense of the central IT body. They're not located in my region so it's very "us vs them" and we get downtrodden a lot and I try to lighten the mood. I should probably do this another way.

Maybe aim more for the "eh, what are you going to do" verbiage. Ie you have done everything you can do for project X and it is now in someon else's ball park. Since you're not management the rest is not your problem.
How to Win Friends & Influence People

This is a classic book that you can finish in one night. If you don't like reading there's an audiobook version as well. It's also recommended by pg and yc

http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/How-to-Win-Friends-Influe...

https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0...

I highly recommend this reading this book. If you read it 5 years ago, I highly recommend re-reading it--the insights you have when you get reminded of things will surprise you.

I also recommend the book Difficult Conversations by the same folks who wrote Getting to Yes. It lays out a good model for better predicting what impact the things you say might have on other people.

I like "re-reading" the audiobook occasionally while doing other things (cooking, driving). I find my interactions improve right after a re-reading.

Well worth the time and cost.

Difficult Conversations is great. Two other really good books are Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg, and Crucial Conversations by Patterson, et al.
Ill add to that this: Lifetime Conversation Guide by Van Fleet. Crammed with many times more techniques plus examples of using them in various situations. Also illustrates personal goals and benefits each helps with before the technique so you can prioritize the reading. Motivation, too, of course. Probably a few bucks used by now.
From what you wrote, I guess that you get into conflicts with other people or they complain about you.

My general attitude has helped me in dealing with all kinds of people. Try to figure out what kind of person it is you are talking to before you say anything drastic. Some people are open and enjoy heated discussions, others (most of the people) are actually insecure about themselves and cannot be confronted head on.

Empathy is key to making yourself appear friendly even if you are disgusted by the other person. Toxicity is inherently subjective and it doesn't matter so much what you say but how you say it.

I might tell you the work you are doing is crap because reasons. Or I might engage in a brief how-are-you-doing and mention it as a sidenote that I've seen something that looked unfortunate and then ask about YOUR opinion on it and guide the conversation with subtle questions in such a way that you see the problem yourself.

Often in bureaucratic environments, when something got stuck, I did not try to tell them what to do or how to do their job. Rather, I would give them the credit of being the "expert" in their field and ask them for advice for my situation. People are way more willing to help you if the idea came from them and they immediately like you if you show them respect for the work they do (that is especially true for hard working but overlooked people, e.g. secretaries, cleaning personnel, etc.).

Also, in order to not appear toxic, understand your colleagues' characters, admit mistakes in communication and tell them you are sorry if there was a problem, address them with respect and DO NOT push them into a corner. NEVER become overly defensive or aggressive, ALWAYS be prepared to let someone make decisions which you wouldn't do while maintaining your friendliness.

I see it as a kind of diplomacy. As long as you are not the boss, it is not your call to decide who does what. If there's a real problem with a person on your team, your boss should already be aware of it and he should be dealing with it without you having to tell them. If your boss doesn't know the people on his team, then you have an entirely different problem.

In my experience as a manager, "toxic" means you have an ego problem. Some things to note that may help:

* The goal of a discussion is an agreement everyone is comfortable with, and not proving that you are right - even if you are right.

* Really listen to what your colleagues say. If what they say sounds stupid, it may be because you don't understand what they're saying, or that you don't know as much as you think you do about the problem domain

* If a wrong decision was made when you advised against it, don't go back and point it out. People will remember, you saying "I told you so" makes you seem like a dick

* If you do something good, don't boast, just allow people to notice

>The goal of a discussion is an agreement everyone is comfortable with, and not proving that you are right - even if you are right.

That's a great way to rack up tech debt by making a lot of sub par decisions.

> If a wrong decision was made when you advised against it, don't go back and point it out. People will remember, you saying "I told you so" makes you seem like a dick

Are we supposed to pretend that the right decision was made and just stay the course? This is one of the few joys that makes staying a a crappy company worthwhile.

Probably just leave your current job. The problem might be with them, not with you.
Is there a chance that you are on the autism spectrum? Many people who gravitate toward technology are. Efforts toward inclusion usually don't recognize the special needs of people on the spectrum.

You may have a cause of action. They may legally be required to provide accommodation.

Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, just because one is autistic doesn't automatically make them toxic - nor does being toxic automatically make one autistic. This is a really disingenuous and harmful stereotype of people on the spectrum. Autism affects more than just social functioning, and a great number of us, myself included, have no problems behaving in a positive and supportive fashion.
> Speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, just because one is autistic doesn't automatically make them toxic - nor does being toxic automatically make one autistic. This is a really disingenuous and harmful stereotype of people on the spectrum.

You should note that I did not say either of those things, nor do I believe them.