He cuts you off in meetings, downplays your work, or regularly lets you handle his emergencies at the last minute. Very quickly, the verdict falls: this colleague is toxic. But once this conclusion is made, what can we do, concretely, without exploding or taking it all in?
The first useful reflex is less to look for the right label than to return to what really happened.
Describe precise, dated facts and their consequences on your work allows you to get out of feeling alone, without denying what you are experiencing. This is also the approach defended by the INRS when it recalls that an approach to prevention of psychosocial risks must be centered on work and its organization, and involve the analysis of concrete situations, examples and objective facts.
Why avoid saying too quickly: “He’s toxic”?
Saying “He’s manipulative” or “She’s sabotaging me” may reflect a painful experience, but it remains an interpretation. On the other hand, “at three meetings, he presented my work without quoting me” describes a situation that can be examined, cross-referenced, discussed.
It’s this shift that changes everything. Note for example the date, the context, the people present, what was said or done, and the effect on your work: delay, overload, contradictory instructions, loss of information, exposure in front of the team. Also keep the exchanges relevant, without turning each annoyance into a chargeable case.
The goal is not to diagnose a colleague’s personality. This advice is neither a psychological test nor automatic proof of harassment. It serves to make repeated difficulties visible and to be able to talk about them other than through a global accusation. To better recognize certain difficult behaviors, you can also read our article on toxic profiles at work, without making it the only prism of analysis.
How to set a limit without carrying everything alone?
If the exchange is possible and you do not feel in danger, make a concrete request. For example: For this task, I need us to clarify who is doing what and by what deadline. Or again: at the next meeting, I would like everyone’s contribution to be explicitly presented.
An effective request concerns an observable behavior and a work rulenot on the moral value of the person. It avoids definitive formulas such as “You always do that” and brings the discussion back to the organization, roles, deadlines, validation circuits.
But you don’t have to solve everything alone. Depending on the situation, it may be necessary to contact your manager, human resources, staff representatives, the CSE or the occupational prevention and health service. In the event of hostile actions, violence, threats, reprisals or if your health deteriorates, direct confrontation is not the right first reflex. We must seek support quickly.
What if the problem didn’t just come from one person?
This is a point often forgotten: conflicts do not always arise from a single “bad colleague”. INRS emphasizes that poorly defined roles, chronic overload, conflicting priorities, ineffective meetings or confusing organization can fuel tensions.
In other words, a colleague can exhibit problematic behavior, but the ground that allows the situation to persist is sometimes collective. Who validates what? Who arbitrates emergencies? Are tasks clearly distributed? Are the evaluation criteria known? Do meetings really allow us to decide? These questions shift the topic from “how to support this person” to “what needs to change at work”.
The nuance is important: a disagreement, even heated, is not automatically harassment. Conversely, repeated humiliations, sidelining, attacks or persistent pressure should not be trivialized. If the situation is affecting your sleep, your mental health, your safety or your ability to work, talk to a healthcare professional, your GP or your occupational physician.
The goal is not to find a technique to endure the unbearable. It’s about identifying what’s being repeated, what it’s doing to your work and what relays can help change the situation.