Should employees petition to remove a toxic boss?

Our department head is a dictator. He controls rather than coaches, blames instead of guides, and uses fear, favoritism, or humiliation to get results. Most of the time, he uses four-letter words to get us going. Ninety percent of people under his department are fed up. We’re thinking of writing a petition so that he’s replaced, if not dismissed by the chief executive officer (CEO). Please advise before we do anything. — Sea Lion.

There are many things that could unite employees who think they must do something against a toxic boss. This is often done through a silent network forum, including meal breaks turning into therapy sessions. Outside of work, group chats light up with animated discussions, solidifying into a resolution that “something must be done.”

Eventually, someone suggests petitioning the CEO to remove him. It sounds bold. It feels cathartic. It also sounds like justice. But is it the best option? The short answer is no, if you’re resorting to it as the first option.

Don’t be trigger-happy. Writing a petition to the CEO is premature, risky, and surprisingly ineffective as many of them tend to protect their management team.

When employees are unhappy, emotions run high. In that emotional state, a petition feels like strength in numbers. There’s unity in numbers. Unfortunately, many CEOs don’t always see it that way. Rather, they would look at a petition like a rebellion to be suppressed.

Your CEO may think: How could I protect this manager who has consistently delivered extraordinary results? If that’s the case, your petition may quietly die at the risk of the signatories becoming visible and silently hunted by the manager.

EMOTION VERSUS DATA
CEOs act on risk, performance, and data, not people’s emotions. The argument that the boss is toxic is emotionally true but operationally weak. They would want to hear objective data provided by an independent human resources (HR) department. They will ask:

Would that result in a higher attrition for this department than others? Are employee engagement scores declining? Are targets being missed? Are customers complaining? Are safety, compliance, or ethical lines being crossed? In other words, CEOs want to see how behavior translates into business or governance impact.

A boss who is unpleasant to workers but still delivers results will often be tolerated. One common mistake that employees make is attacking the manager instead of his behavior. “That boss is arrogant, abusive, and impossible to work with.” Those statements may be true, but they are subjective and easy to dismiss unless supported by data.

What carries weight are patterns of behavior with actual complainants’ testimonies: Publicly shaming employees during meetings. Setting unrealistic deadlines that lead to burnout. Ignoring HR or safety protocols. Threatening “rebels” who raise valid concerns.

Patterns suggest a systemic issue, not a personality clash.

EXHAUSTING OTHER REMEDIES
Before employees consider a petition, they should ask a hard question: Have they fully availed of the existing grievance channels, if the employees are unionized? These usually include how HR has handled individual or multiple complaints.

Also, what’s the result of the annual morale survey? What was done by the immediate boss of the manager, assuming the toxic boss is not reporting directly to the CEO?

How about other options like the internal ombudsman office, ethics committee, or a whistleblower program, if any? Because the CEO can always ask: Why are you bothering me with this when there are other appeals mechanism available? If there are no clear answers, then your petition will be routinely ignored.

After all, collective action doesn’t require a public petition. When multiple employee complaints are reported through proper channels, it sends a strong signal — it’s not an isolated grievance. It’s a leadership issue. Quiet consistency is more powerful than drastic, loud confrontation.

WHEN PETITIONING MAKES SENSE
Of course, there are situations when a petition can be handled directly by the CEO. This includes the repeated failure of HR to resolve such cases, or if the available mechanism is not working to expectations. Even then, the goal should not be instant removal of the toxic boss. 

Rather, a more effective message is: “We are requesting CEO intervention to address behaviors that are harming people, their morale, and performance that could result in organizational risk.” That subtle shift allows top management to choose the corrective action like a reassignment or removal without anyone feeling publicly cornered.

In conclusion, petitioning the CEO to take corrective action against a toxic boss is not wrong, if you’re not doing it as a knee-jerk reaction. Start with evidence. Individually, the complainant could silently raise the issue with the toxic boss. If warranted, use the available open-door system.

Focus on logical and systematic impact. Escalate without emotion. And when removal becomes necessary, it should look less like a revolt — and more like a responsible leadership correction that redounds to the benefit of the organization.

Consult your workplace issues with Rey Elbo for free. E-mail elbonomics@gmail.com or DM Facebook, LinkedIn, X or via https://reyelbo.com. Anonymity is guaranteed, if necessary.