Holmag.INC

This is a chronicle. A collection of testimonies, journal entries, and hard-earned wisdom born from navigating the complex, often toxic, landscape of the modern corporation. It is a continuous narrative dedicated to healing the wounds caused by a specific, pervasive type of antagonist: the Corporate Baddie.

The term “Baddie,” as used within these pages, is a deliberate and necessary twist on its modern pop-culture definition. Here, a Corporate Baddie is not someone who is merely rebellious, attractive, or stylishly assertive. A Corporate Baddie is an individual whose behavior within a professional environment—regardless of their title or tenure—actively undermines, discourages, discriminates against, or abuses their colleagues. They are the agents of microaggressions, gaslighting, systemic bias, and intentional cruelty. They are the true, albeit often hidden, evil forces that drain the potential and passion out of the workplace.

The Purpose: Exposure and Protection

This project is a journal, a refuge, and a flashlight. Its purpose is twofold:

To Expose and Validate: By sharing direct, anonymous quotes and documenting the resultant emotional and professional damage. We aim to pull back the curtain on these toxic behaviors. This is about providing validation to those who have felt isolated, silenced, or told they were “too sensitive” for noticing the rot. Your experience was real.

To Facilitate Healing: For the contributors, myself included, this continuous chronicling is a vital step in transforming trauma into power. We are converting the heavy burden of silence into the light weight of shared truth, making space for courage and growth.

A Note on Anonymity and Safety

To protect the contributors and myself, as well as to ensure the focus remains squarely on the behavior and not the individual, a strict policy of anonymity is in place:

  • At no point in these chronicles will the names, specific locations, or identifying details of the individuals being quoted be revealed. Titles and contexts may be generalized, but the source of the toxicity will remain permanently anonymous.
  • The power of this journal lies in the direct quotes and the accompanying emotional impact. The “Baddies” are defined by their actions and words, which will stand as evidence without needing their personal identities attached.
  • This chronicle is an honest, personal account of perceived injustice and documented experiences. It adheres strictly to the boundary of reporting the quotes and feelings they provoked. It is not an accusation against a named person, but rather an exploration of pervasive cultural and behavioral issues.

This is our collective narrative. Read it, recognize yourself in it, and know that you are not alone in the fight against the Corporate Baddies.

1. The Glass Ceiling Denial

The Quote

“You are far too emotional to manage a team this large. Why don’t you focus on projects where you can just be supportive?”

Anonymous Submission

The Setup

This quote was delivered during a confidential performance review after I applied for a senior leadership role. The individual was a Director, two levels above me, who was mentoring me—or so I thought—through the promotion process. The conversation was supposedly about “development areas.

The Immediate Impact

Confusion and profound self-doubt. It weaponized a quality (empathy and passion) that I previously valued about my leadership style. It felt like a deliberate move to label and limit me based on outdated, gendered stereotypes.

I immediately withdrew my application, feeling defeated and unjustly characterized. The perceived judgment was so strong that it crippled my confidence in pursuing any visible, high-stakes role within the company.

The Chronic Damage

For the next six months, I attempted to mask all passion and emotional reactions, leading to severe burnout and feeling completely disengaged. This moment became the pivot point: I realized that genuine, whole-person success wouldn’t be possible within a structure that defined my strengths as fatal flaws. This quote was the first spade that dug my path toward entrepreneurship.

2. The Cotton Field Cruelty

The Quote

“You know, if you were picking cotton back in the days you wouldn’t need to use sunscreen.”

The Setup

The quote was interjected by a colleague of the same title level during a casual conversation about weekend plans, which included discussing skincare routines and the importance of sunscreen. The colleague delivering the quote is white; the recipient is black. The conversation was in an open-plan office setting, adding a layer of public humiliation to the racial trauma.

The Immediate Impact

Absolute shock, intense dehumanization, and profound offense. The quote was a deliberate, violent reminder of a legacy of slavery and forced labor, used as a flippant “joke” to dismiss a common health topic. It created an immediate sense of unsafety and isolation within the professional environment.

The recipient felt instantly diminished and unable to continue the workday effectively. The energy required to process and manage this overt racism, while remaining “professional,” was overwhelming, directly impairing focus and productivity for the rest of the day. It signaled a hostile environment where even casual conversation could be weaponized by historical trauma.

The Chronic Damage

This moment confirmed a suspicion that deep-seated prejudice and racial insensitivity could openly exist and be expressed without consequence within the workplace. It fundamentally broke the recipient’s trust in the organization’s stated values of diversity and respect. It fueled the understanding that true equity could not be found in that structure, pushing the recipient to seek spaces—including entrepreneurship—where their identity would not be used as the basis for a racist attack.

3. Stay in Your Lane Sabotage

The Quote

“That’s not your place to inquire about behind the scenes act, stay in your lane.”

The Setup

This quote was delivered by a supervisor after a critical project hit a roadblock. The project’s client immediately rejected a material suggested, citing a previous poor performance by a different department. When approaching the supervisor to ask why she had not informed me about the known failure of that material—which she had initially suggested to the other department—she dismissed me with this quote. She added, “Besides they are in different job function so it was not a relevant fact for you to know.”

The Immediate Impact

A sharp feeling of being intentionally set up to fail. The quote was not just dismissive; it was a power move designed to establish dominance and justify withholding critical information. It generated immediate distrust and anger toward the supervisor, feeling like a direct act of sabotage that embarrassed me in front of the client.

The client was instantly “turned off” and completely unwilling to revisit the material, regardless of its suitability for my project’s specific needs. This lack of communication led to an unnecessary delay in the project timeline and created a perception of incompetence on my part, causing damage to my professional credibility.

The Chronic Damage

This experience taught the recipient that in this environment, information is intentionally weaponized and that certain supervisors will actively impede a colleague’s success to maintain control and perceived superiority. It fostered a deep-seated caution and wariness, forcing the recipient to spend extra time double-checking known facts and resources, thus diverting energy from creative problem-solving to basic self-protection. This systemic lack of support and communication further solidified the need to operate outside of corporate siloes.

4. The Appearance Police

The Quote

“You don’t have to dress up with heels and all that, this is not HQ, we don’t do that over here.”

The Setup

This direct quote was the culmination of weeks of targeted, passive-aggressive behavior from a supervisor. The supervisor frequently engaged in conspicuous conversations with another colleague about personal elements like earrings, perfume, and specific types of clothing due to vague “allergies” or environmental standards. These discussions always took place while observing me, who consistently dressed in professional attire, including heels and accessories, as a source of personal pride and professional readiness. The supervisor and the colleague themselves habitually wore casual sportswear.

The Immediate Impact

Deep-seated embarrassment, humiliation, and the confirmation of weeks of suspicion that I was being actively mocked and targeted for my personal choices. The comment was a direct attack on my sense of self-respect and professionalism, delivered as an unnecessary, passive-aggressive dictate on my personal style.

The comment established a hostile atmosphere where demonstrating personal pride and adherence to a professional standard was discouraged, ridiculed, and potentially seen as a sign of being “too much” or not fitting in. It shifted focus from the quality of my work to the superficial aspects of my appearance.

The Chronic Damage

This episode eroded the simple joy of showing up to work as my authentic self. It forced a constant, low-level anxiety about being judged, policed, or criticized for non-work-related matters. It highlighted a corporate culture where conformity to low standards and petty internal politics were valued over self-expression and professional presentation, reinforcing the belief that true self-respect and pride could only be nurtured outside of that controlling structure.

5. The Amnesia and the Ambush

The Quote

“People seem to have amnesia over here and not remember details.”

The Setup

The quote was hurled by a supervisor who ambushed me with a project failure. The project was originally mine, but the supervisor had told a colleague to “do whatever they wanted” to it, assuring them that the client wouldn’t “remember all the details.” Believing the supervisor was aware of the project’s history, I allowed the colleague to proceed. When the colleague’s revisions resulted in a mistake, the supervisor stormed into the room, held up the faulty project, and yelled at me, demanding an explanation. The colleague who made the mistake stood silent as the supervisor redirected all blame onto me. The quoted line was the supervisor’s dismissal of my confusion as I attempted to recall the initial instructions.

The Immediate Impact

Absolute shock, intense panic, and a moment of genuine gaslighting. The feeling of being publicly scapegoated and having reality questioned—while the true culprit and the supervisor both stood silent—was deeply disorienting. I was momentarily stunned into silence, struggling to recall the details amidst the aggressive confrontation.

This was a brazen attempt at career sabotage. The supervisor was actively creating a false narrative of my incompetence and negligence in front of a peer, intending to shift the blame entirely. This ambush was stopped only by the heroic intervention of a fourth colleague, who publicly and firmly confirmed that the supervisor—not I—had given the faulty instruction. The supervisor’s immediate reaction was visible shame, avoiding eye contact, and swiftly retreating to remote work.

The Chronic Damage

This experience was a vivid, high-stakes lesson in corporate treachery: even when operating in good faith, a supervisor can instantly and aggressively attempt to dismantle your reputation to cover their own missteps. The incident cemented the knowledge that the workplace required constant vigilance, and that without external witnesses, one’s professional truth could be easily erased or manipulated. The eventual vindication was a relief, but the trauma of the public ambush remains a core driver for seeking environments where transparency and accountability prevail over manipulation.

6. The Salary Shackle

The Quote

“You’re salary, not hourly!”

The Setup

This quote was delivered by a colleague in a pressure attempt to force me to join a non-essential client call on a Friday night, outside of standard business hours. The justification was the client’s different time zone. I politely declined, explaining that I had a prior professional commitment that could not be missed. The colleague then used this phrase as a blunt tool to imply that as a salaried employee, my time was the company’s property 24/7, justifying the demand for unpaid overtime.

The Immediate Impact

Annoyance, followed by fierce resolve. The comment was a blatant attempt to manipulate and exploit the contract structure, instantly creating a defensive posture. It confirmed a core corporate toxicity: the expectation that dedication is measured by the willingness to sacrifice personal boundaries and life outside of work.

This direct demand prompted a necessary boundary defense. I immediately “clapped back,” clearly stating that my salaried contract was based on a 40-hour work week, not a 24/7 commitment. This direct confrontation was a necessary act of self-protection against the subtle but persistent erosion of work-life balance that this specific phrase attempts to enforce.

The Chronic Damage

This phrase is a constant whisper in corporate culture, designed to guilt high-performing employees into accepting burnout as a badge of honor. This experience solidified the recipient’s view that personal time and professional boundaries must be fiercely guarded. It reinforced the understanding that the freedom and control over one’s own time—a core component of entrepreneurship—is an invaluable defense against corporate exploitation of the salaried structure.

7. The Condescending Correction

The Quote

“Now you know the right way to do it!”

The Setup

This project was highly unusual for the local office, which typically focused on a specialized market. Due to its unique nature, HQ had specific, non-negotiable parameters for execution. The office staff, including the supervisor, clearly did not understand these rules. On a key client call, the supervisor incorrectly communicated the parameters. The colleague assigned to the project, relying on the supervisor’s instruction, gullibly repeated the incorrect information. The truth only surfaced when the sales and other internal colleagues later released the data, revealing a major discrepancy. The supervisor immediately vanished, letting the assigned colleague shoulder all the blame and public shame for “not transcribing the parameters correctly,” nearly resulting in a loss of the client relationship. The quoted phrase was the supervisor’s only, cold comment after the damage was done.

The Immediate Impact

The initial shock of being entirely abandoned and watching a peer take the fall for the supervisor’s clear incompetence was devastating. The quote itself was infuriating—a highly condescending dismissal that completely ignored the supervisor’s primary role in introducing and perpetuating the wrong information. It transformed a shared systemic failure into a personal learning failure for the scapegoat.

This demonstrated a severe deficiency in leadership, marked by both a failure to communicate critical HQ rules and a spectacular lack of accountability. The supervisor deliberately sacrificed a subordinate’s reputation to protect their own perceived authority, nearly causing a client loss to the company. The consequence was severe public humiliation and stress for the innocent colleague.

The Chronic Damage

This event was a stark lesson that incompetence at the top is frequently solved through scapegoating at the bottom. It destroyed any remaining faith in the supervisor’s competence and integrity. The realization that one’s professional safety depended entirely on the character of those above them—and that character could be instantly absent in a crisis—became a powerful catalyst for seeking a professional path where one could enforce their own standards of competence and accountability.

8. The Normalization of Abuse

The Quote

“You will become better at the end of it all.”

The Setup

This quote was offered as advice by a long-tenured colleague (at the same job level) in response to being asked how they managed to survive working under a notoriously difficult supervisor. This supervisor was a “ticking bomb,” known for constantly changing strategies, poor communication of vision, and a habit of aggressively blaming subordinates for all mistakes and revisions. The colleague offering the advice had been in their role for nearly a decade without promotion, suggesting they had become comfortable in a state of professional stasis and were heavily “hand-held and cocooned” by the abusive system.

The Immediate Impact

Frustration, disbelief, and a profound sense of isolation. The quote felt less like encouragement and more like a grim acceptance of toxicity. It reframed sustained abuse and chaos as a necessary trial by fire—implying that the recipient’s personal growth required enduring a destructive environment. It confirmed that the toxicity was not just supervisory, but a cultural norm defended by long-time employees.

This advice revealed a peer who had chosen endurance over excellence. By accepting the abuse as a path to “betterment,” the colleague was actively reinforcing a broken system that suppressed ambition and normalized fear-based management. The recipient realized they were not just fighting a bad supervisor, but an entire culture of resigned complacency.

The Chronic Damage

This quote served as a vital piece of evidence: true professional fulfillment and growth would never be found within a system that elevates endurance of abuse above clear communication, strategic competence, and mutual respect. It starkly illustrated the difference between simply surviving (the colleague’s path) and thriving (the recipient’s goal). The internalization of this toxic philosophy by peers became the final compelling argument that the only way to genuinely “become better” was to exit the destructive structure entirely.

More to come in part 2.

Until next time