Surviving a Toxic Workplace.
Generational Risks and New Opportunities.
By Dr. Gregory Lyons, PsyD, LCPC.
9/11/2025.
Work can be one of the most significant sources of meaning in a person’s life — or one of the most damaging. Most individuals spend a greater amount of time at work than at home. Many employees describe not just dissatisfaction, but outright toxicity in their workplaces: chronic stress, burnout, or feeling devalued by systems that prioritize profit over people.
Surveys by Gallup and the American Psychological Association highlight that disengagement, anxiety, and depression are far more common in toxic environments, where leadership fails to prioritize employee well-being.
Understanding Workplace Toxicity.
A toxic workplace isn’t always loud or obvious. Sometimes it’s the subtle accumulation of stressors: unclear expectations, shifting demands, lack of recognition, favoritism, or unsafe workloads. For others, it’s more direct: bullying, harassment, or retaliatory leadership.
HR departments, while often the designated path for addressing problems, are structurally bound to protect the company first. This can leave employees feeling silenced or unsupported.
Importantly, the problem is not just individual — it’s national.
Gallup’s U.S. employee engagement data (2022–2023) noted that disengagement and burnout cost companies hundreds of billions annually in lost productivity.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that separation rates average 3–4% per month, which adds up to over 50 million people leaving their jobs each year.
The APA’s Work in America Survey found that nearly one in five workers reported toxic workplace experiences contributing to their decision to quit.
Generational Dimensions of Toxicity.
Toxic workplaces affect everyone, but not equally. Data shows generational differences in how employees experience and respond to unhealthy work cultures:
Gen Z.
Report the highest stress and burnout rates of any generation.
In MHA’s Mind the Workplace 2024 report, 71% had unhealthy work health scores.
More likely to report low psychological safety — unsure they can speak openly or be their authentic selves at work.
Studies show a higher intent to leave compared to Millennials.
Millennials.
Also reported high stress; 59% had unhealthy scores in MHA’s 2024 survey.
Value work-life balance, clarity, and feedback more than older cohorts.
They are more likely to job-hop or leave toxic environments earlier than older generations.
Generation X.
52% reported unhealthy scores in MHA’s 2024 data.
Often cope by staying longer in toxic environments, influenced by financial responsibilities or career stage.
Less likely than younger generations to quit quickly, but still significantly impacted.
Baby Boomers / Older Generations.
Tend to report lower levels of unhealthy work health (42% in MHA 2024).
May underreport due to cultural norms around stoicism and lower expectations of psychological safety.
Less likely to leave toxic environments quickly, sometimes constrained by fewer opportunities or nearing retirement.
These differences underscore why one-size-fits-all approaches fail. Toxicity is widespread, but its impact is shaped by age, expectations, and opportunities.
Readiness for New Opportunities.
Sometimes it is the best thing for you, as well as the organization. Most companies don't wish to see you miserable, and sometimes the company's dynamic isn't a good fit. Surviving a toxic workplace may mean preparing yourself for what comes next. This could mean taking strategic steps that help you move with intention, reduce stress, and improve your odds of landing something better.
Key Strategies & Tactics:
Use the Right Job Engines, wisely. Platforms like LinkedIn, Indeed, and other job boards have different strengths. For example, one recent comparison noted that Indeed generates about 66% of all applications (volume). In contrast, LinkedIn, though lower in sheer volume, tends to produce more interviews per application when the profile and keywords align (Skrapp, 2023). Some sites’ response rates are in the ballpark of 20–25% for well-matched applications, but many platforms (including job boards or career pages) have much lower response rates (often 3–10%) unless you tailor your approach (Uppl, 2023).
Focus on Quality Over Quantity:
Instead of mass-applying, pick a few jobs that truly match your skills, experience, and values. Research those companies, study the job descriptions, then tailor your materials for them. This means:
Keyword Alignment: Pull out keywords from the job description (titles, required skills, software tools, adjectives like “collaborative,” “fast-paced,” etc.), and make sure your resume/profile includes them—especially in measurable achievements.
Match Your Documented Experience: Don’t exaggerate or stretch, but re-order or emphasize parts of your experience that match what the employer is asking.
- Tailored Cover Letters or Intro Statements: Even a short paragraph (or tailored summary on a profile) that shows you understand the role, the company, and how you could fit.
Track Your Applications Like a Project.
Keeping organized helps you stay intentional. For example:
Maintain a spreadsheet or job-tracker with: job title, company, date applied, source (LinkedIn, Indeed, company website), notes about what you liked or concerns.
Mark follow-ups: when to check back, who you can reach out to (if you have a contact).
Revisit and refine: if you see that certain types of applications or resume styles aren’t producing interviews, adjust.
Be Strategic About Volume.
It’s tempting to throw many resumes at the wall, hoping one sticks — but that wastes mental energy. Some data suggests you may need a strategic set of applications on average to get one interview in today’s market (The Interview Guys, 2023). But those numbers improve substantially if you apply selectively and tailor your documents. Some organizations receive thousands of applications when they post an opportunity through employment sites, and many of the CVs are clearly not qualified for the job due to a lack of experience, unrelated past employment histories, and the inability to perform the basic requirements described in the job description. This can be extremely frustrating to the hiring manager, making their decision process that much more difficult.
Do Your Company Research.
Applying isn’t enough. To make a better decision, know the company’s culture, values, and recent news. Check reviews or Glassdoor feedback, and see if people in your network work there. This shows up in interviews and in your cover letters, but it also helps you decide whether a role is “better enough” to merit leaving a toxic environment.
Optimize for Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS).
Many large employers use software that screens resumes before a human ever sees them.
Use standard headings (“Experience,” “Skills,” etc.).
Mirror phrases from the job description.
Avoid overly fancy formatting, graphics, or non-standard fonts that may confuse ATS parsing.
Use measurable achievements (“increased sales by 15%,” “led a team of 5”) rather than vague statements.
Coping While You’re Still There.
If you feel that you need to move on with your vocational practices, leaving may take time. In the meantime, survival strategies matter:
Mindfulness practices. This includes practices such as deep breathing, short walks, or one-task focus to anchor the mind when overwhelmed.
End-of-day rituals. Consciously marking the close of work, whether by journaling, stretching, or even a shower to reset. Going to the gym, walking your dog, or just sitting and watching the sunset with a loved one. Just have a practice where your mind and body take in the suggestion that the work day is over, and it is time to rewind.
Awareness of caffeine. Many of us rely on this boost to start or get through our day. Be mindful of when your reliance on coffee and other caffeinated products might lead to exhaustion.
Awareness of alcohol. Try to recognize when “unwinding” after a hard day with a drink becomes a necessary habit. Be mindful that this could develop into a risk of slipping into and unhealthy destructive pattern.
How Organizations Can Respond.
Generational data shows that toxicity is not just an individual problem — it’s a systemic challenge. If younger workers are leaving in record numbers while older employees disengage quietly, companies risk losing both innovation and institutional knowledge.
Train Managers to Lead, Not Just Supervise. Managers account for 70% of the variance in team engagement. Training in empathy, communication, and conflict resolution reduces toxicity at its root. It is cheaper to work with viable, experienced employees than to retrain new ones, due to the cost of training, mistakes that can be made during the acclimation period, and sustaining a positive group or department dynamic. This also reflects on individuals who may damage the dynamic suggested above. Individuals who are more of a hindrance, promote organization disruption, oppositional defiance, or are toxic towards others can be the poison pill that can kill productivity or the peace within a department, managerial staff, or the organization itself.
Build True Team Cohesion. Social belonging protects against burnout across generations. This includes encouraging cross-functional collaboration, creating rituals of recognition, and establishing mentorship programs that bridge age gaps.
Reform HR Practices. Rebuild trust with employees by offering confidential, third-party reporting channels, publishing transparent employee survey results, and enforcing anti-retaliation protections.
Support Group-Based Mental Health. Workshops, coaching circles, and structured dialogues can normalize stress discussions, especially for younger workers who report low psychological safety.
Align Values With Action. Move beyond slogans. Tie leadership evaluations and compensation to metrics like engagement, retention, and employee well-being.
Closing Reflection.
Toxic workplaces aren’t inevitable. They result from management choices, cultural blind spots, and neglected accountability. Employees across generations are saying the same thing: they want psychological safety, respect, and meaningful work. When organizations invest in better training, authentic HR practices, and real team cohesion, they do more than reduce turnover — they create workplaces where people can truly thrive.
References:
American Psychological Association. (2023). Work in America Survey. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Job openings and labor turnover survey highlights. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/jlt
Gallup. (2023). State of the Global Workplace 2023 Report. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace
Mental Health America. (2024). Mind the Workplace 2024. Mental Health America. https://mhanational.org
Skrapp. (2023). Indeed vs LinkedIn: Which is better for recruiters and job seekers? Skrapp.io. https://skrapp.io/blog/indeed-vs-linkedin
The Interview Guys. (2023). How many job applications does it take to get one interview? TheInterviewGuys.com. https://blog.theinterviewguys.com/how-many-applications-does-it-take-to-get-one-interview
Uppl. (2023). Job application response rate: How to improve it. Uppl.ai. https://uppl.ai/job-application-response-rate