How to Survive a Jerk at Work

Dealing with rude, abusive, or demeaning coworkers can turn an already demanding job into an exhausting ordeal. According to extensive research, workplace incivility doesn’t just hurt morale—it damages mental and physical health, undermines performance, and spreads rapidly through organizations.

Stanford management professor Robert Sutton draws on decades of academic research and real-world cases to explain how toxic behavior affects employees. Studies show that exposure to rudeness increases anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and even heart problems. It also reduces creativity, decision quality, and overall productivity.

One of the most troubling findings is that bad behavior is contagious. Research by Trevor Foulk and colleagues demonstrates that even a single exposure to rudeness—such as an insulting email—can turn targets into “carriers” who then spread incivility to others, much like the common cold.

Confronting bullies directly is often risky. Power dynamics matter, and even well-intended efforts to remove abusive individuals can backfire if those individuals are seen as more valuable than their challengers. As a result, many employees feel trapped—unable to leave due to career, financial, or personal constraints.

Sutton outlines several evidence-based strategies for reducing exposure and minimizing harm. One of the simplest is distance. Communication drops sharply as physical distance increases. Classic research by MIT’s Thomas Allen found that people are four times more likely to communicate with someone seated six feet away than with someone sixty feet away.

More recent data reinforces this point. A study by Michael Housman and Dylan Minor tracking workers at a technology company found that sitting near a toxic employee increased one’s own likelihood of engaging in toxic behavior by 150%. Employees seated within 25 feet of a toxic coworker were also twice as likely to quit as those seated farther away.

Another effective tactic is to slow down interactions. Toxic individuals often feed on emotional reactions. Delaying responses, minimizing engagement, and staying calm deprives them of reinforcement and can reduce both the frequency and intensity of abuse over time.

Sutton also recommends reframing as a psychological defense. Techniques include reminding yourself that the behavior is not your fault, minimizing perceived threats, focusing on long-term outcomes, or mentally distancing yourself from the situation. Research shows that imagining how current problems will feel in the distant future significantly reduces present-day emotional distress.

In some cases, it may even be possible to neutralize a bully by transforming the relationship. Drawing on the “Benjamin Franklin effect,” Sutton notes that asking a hostile person for a small favor can, paradoxically, increase their liking for you. People tend to rationalize helping behavior by concluding they must like the person they helped.

Finally, Sutton issues a difficult but necessary reminder: not all jerks recognize themselves as such. Surveys show that while nearly half of employees report experiencing or witnessing bullying, fewer than 1% admit to being perpetrators. Honest feedback and self-reflection are essential to ensure that one does not unknowingly contribute to the very toxicity they seek to escape.

The core takeaway is pragmatic rather than idealistic. While toxic people may be unavoidable, employees are not powerless. Strategic distancing, emotional regulation, reframing, and selective engagement can significantly reduce harm—and, in some cases, restore a sense of control and dignity at work.