Anna Sebastian’s death - Who is responsible ?

The recent death of Anna Sebastian, a 26-year-old employee at Ernst & Young (EY) in Pune, has sparked widespread conversations about workplace culture, mental health, and the pressures of corporate life. Anna, a chartered accountant, joined the firm in March 2024 but tragically passed away in July 2024, just four months into her role. According to her mother, Anita Augustine, Anna’s death was caused by the overwhelming workload and stress she endured at her job.

Anna’s mother detailed how her daughter frequently worked late into the night, often collapsing from exhaustion without even changing clothes. She experienced significant anxiety, sleeplessness, and physical fatigue, classic signs of burnout. Anita also expressed her sorrow that none of Anna’s managers or colleagues attended her funeral, which added to the family’s heartbreak.

This incident has reignited discussions about toxic work environments, with many calling for reforms in corporate workplaces. Social media has been flooded with stories of similar experiences from employees across various industries, pushing for companies to prioritize mental health, provide more support, and prevent overwork. EY has since expressed its condolences and pledged to review its work culture, acknowledging the gravity of the situation and promising steps to ensure the well-being of its employees going forward

Anna’s death is a painful reminder of the need for a healthier work-life balance and has opened up important discussions about how corporations can better support their employees, particularly in high-pressure industries like accounting.

Toxic Management

Toxic managers often ascend the corporate ladder not because of their merit, but because ordinary employees are too intimidated or unwilling to call out their harmful behaviors. This reluctance to speak up creates an environment where toxic leadership thrives, perpetuating a cycle that damages organizational culture and individual well-being.

The Nature of Toxic Management

Toxic managers are typically characterized by behaviors such as bullying, manipulation, micromanagement, or a lack of empathy. These managers create a hostile work environment that stifles creativity, fosters fear, and depletes employees’ morale. Research shows that employees under toxic leadership often suffer from stress, burnout, and even mental health issues, yet these managers continue to rise through the ranks in many organizations

FortuneIndia

Why Do Toxic Managers Get Promoted?

Fear of Retaliation: One of the primary reasons toxic managers are not called out is the fear of retaliation. Employees worry about losing their jobs, being demoted, or suffering professional consequences for speaking out against a superior. This fear is particularly heightened in hierarchical corporate environments where managers hold significant power over subordinates’ careers(SheThePeople).
Normalization of Toxic Behavior: In many organizations, toxic behavior is normalized. If a manager delivers results, their abusive tactics may be overlooked or even rewarded. This normalization creates a vicious cycle where aggressive or harmful leadership styles become part of the company’s culture. Over time, what should be seen as unacceptable becomes “the way things are”(The New Indian Express).
Lack of Support Structures: Many workplaces lack clear, effective mechanisms for employees to report toxic behavior safely and anonymously. Without these structures, employees feel isolated and powerless to change the status quo. This absence of formal channels leads to silence, allowing toxic managers to continue their destructive behavior unchecked.
Silent Endorsement by Peers: Coworkers who witness toxic management but choose not to act are complicit in the behavior. Whether out of indifference or self-preservation, this silence serves as an endorsement, reinforcing the toxic manager’s actions. As a result, the manager’s behavior becomes more entrenched and they continue to climb the corporate ladder.

The Consequences of Inaction

When toxic managers are allowed to remain in power, they erode team cohesion, reduce productivity, and increase turnover. Employees under toxic leadership are more likely to disengage from their work, leading to diminished organizational performance. Furthermore, the long-term effects of toxic leadership can include higher healthcare costs due to stress-related illnesses and a damaged company reputation

Breaking the Cycle

To combat the elevation of toxic managers, organizations need to foster a culture of transparency and accountability. This can be done through:

Creating Safe Reporting Channels: Establishing clear, confidential avenues for employees to report toxic behavior is crucial. Whistleblower protections and anonymous feedback mechanisms can help employees feel secure in raising concerns.
Promoting Emotional Intelligence: Leadership training programs should focus on emotional intelligence, empathy, and conflict resolution. Managers should be evaluated not just on their ability to deliver results, but also on how they achieve those results. This shifts the focus from outcomes to process, ensuring that toxic behaviors are not rewarded.
Empowering Bystanders: Encouraging employees to speak up when they witness toxic behavior is essential. Empowerment comes through educating employees about their rights and providing assurances that retaliation will not be tolerated. This collective accountability helps prevent toxic managers from thriving in silence.
Holding Leaders Accountable: Finally, companies must hold toxic leaders accountable. This can involve regular 360-degree feedback reviews, exit interviews, and clear consequences for those who violate the company’s ethical standards. Only when companies enforce their own policies can real change occur(FortuneIndia).

Foregone Conclusion ?

The elevation of toxic managers is not just the result of individual failings, but a systemic issue rooted in fear, normalization, and lack of support. Until ordinary employees feel empowered to call out toxic behavior without fear of retaliation, these managers will continue to ascend, to the detriment of both organizations and individuals. The antidote lies in creating a culture of accountability, transparency, and empathy, where the health and well-being of employees are valued as much as the bottom line.

Who is Responsible ?

Toxic management is often attributed to the failings of a single manager, but the reality is much more complex. The entire organizational hierarchy is frequently complicit in allowing such behaviors to persist, creating an environment where toxicity not only survives but is often rewarded. From top leadership down to colleagues who remain silent, the broader system plays a key role in enabling harmful managerial practices.

The Role of Organizational Hierarchy in Supporting Toxicity

Upper Management’s Tolerance: Often, senior leaders overlook or even reward toxic behaviors when they align with company goals such as profit, productivity, or quick wins. A manager who meets performance targets might be seen as “effective” regardless of the damage caused to employee morale or well-being. This creates a culture where achieving outcomes is prioritized over how they are achieved. The failure to scrutinize the methods by which these results are obtained signals to the entire workforce that toxic behavior will be tolerated or even celebrated as long as it delivers(The New Indian Express).
The Bystander Effect Among Peers: Colleagues and mid-level managers often witness toxic behavior but choose not to intervene, either because of fear, self-preservation, or a belief that it’s “not their problem.” This collective inaction allows toxic managers to thrive. In some cases, toxic managers even rise through the ranks because they learn how to navigate the internal politics effectively, exploiting the unwillingness of others to speak up. This silent complicity turns the toxic behavior into an open secret, where everyone is aware, but no one takes responsibility(SheThePeople).
Lack of Accountability Structures: Many organizations fail to have effective mechanisms in place to hold managers accountable for how they treat their teams. While performance reviews often focus on results and key performance indicators (KPIs), there’s little emphasis on team dynamics, emotional intelligence, or the long-term effects of managerial style. This absence of accountability creates a vacuum in which toxic managers continue to operate unchecked. Regular feedback, especially from subordinates, is crucial for identifying issues early, but too often, feedback loops are either broken or ignored(FortuneIndia).
Normalization of a Toxic Culture: Toxic behavior can become so entrenched in an organization’s culture that it begins to feel “normal.” When new employees witness such behavior but see no consequences for it, they assume it’s part of the company’s DNA. Over time, this desensitization leads to widespread acceptance of harmful leadership styles. Toxic managers are not born in a vacuum—they are often products of toxic cultures that have been tolerated, if not outright fostered, for years.
Human Resources’ Limited Role: While HR departments are tasked with managing workplace conflicts, they sometimes act more as protectors of the organization than as advocates for employees. HR might dismiss or downplay complaints against toxic managers, particularly if those managers are seen as crucial to business success. This misplaced loyalty to the organization over its people perpetuates a culture where toxic behavior goes unpunished, and employees feel unsupported when raising concerns(The New Indian Express).

The Complicity of Silence

The silence of employees is also a major factor. Many workers, fearful of retaliation, remain quiet in the face of abusive leadership. This silence not only shields toxic managers but also reinforces their power. When employees refrain from speaking out, they inadvertently give tacit approval to the toxic behavior. This collective passivity creates an environment in which toxic managers feel emboldened to continue their harmful practices.

Moreover, other managers in the hierarchy often play a role in enabling toxic managers, either by failing to address the behavior or by tacitly supporting it through inaction. These mid-level leaders may view themselves as powerless to effect change or believe that addressing the issue might put their own positions at risk. In some cases, they may even benefit from aligning with toxic leaders, further embedding the behavior into the organization’s fabric.

Solutions: Addressing the Entire System

To truly address toxic leadership, the entire hierarchy must be held accountable. This requires:

Top-Down Cultural Reform: Senior leadership must set the tone by emphasizing ethical behavior, respect, and empathy as core values. There should be zero tolerance for toxic behavior, regardless of a manager’s performance. Leaders must demonstrate through their actions that people come before profits.
Whistleblower Protections and Clear Reporting Channels: Employees need to feel safe in reporting toxic behavior. Organizations should create transparent, confidential mechanisms for reporting misconduct, with assurances of protection from retaliation.
Regular, Comprehensive Manager Reviews: Performance reviews should not focus solely on results but also on how managers treat their teams. Incorporating 360-degree feedback, where input from subordinates is included, can help identify toxic behavior before it becomes a systemic problem.
Ongoing Leadership Training: Organizations must invest in developing emotionally intelligent leaders who prioritize team well-being. Managers need to be equipped not only with technical skills but also with interpersonal skills that promote healthy, productive workplaces.
Peer Accountability: Finally, peers must hold each other accountable. A culture of bystanderism perpetuates toxicity. Employees at all levels should be empowered to speak up when they see misconduct, knowing that their concerns will be taken seriously.

Conclusion

The rise of toxic managers is not solely the result of individual failings, but a consequence of an entire system that allows, tolerates, and sometimes encourages toxic behavior. From the highest levels of leadership to silent bystanders, the complicity of the organizational hierarchy plays a significant role in allowing toxicity to persist. Real change requires a collective commitment to accountability, transparency, and the creation of a culture where both people and performance matter equally.

Anna Sebastian’s death – Who is responsible ?