Why do employees sometimes accept working for an abusive boss?
A recent study indicates that employees may tolerate working for an abusive boss more willingly if the boss is perceived as a high performer, often attributing the abuse to being a form of ‘tough love’.
The study revealed that employees were less inclined to react negatively to abusive behavior from their bosses when these leaders were viewed as high performers. In fact, some employees even believed that being associated with a successful (albeit abusive) boss could advance their careers.
According to Robert Lount, the lead author of the study and a management professor at The Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, employees might hesitate to characterize a successful boss as abusive, choosing rather to interpret the behavior as a form of constructive criticism or ‘tough love’.
The research was recently published in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
The study encompassed two separate inquiries. One involved a three-stage survey of 576 workers from various industries across the United States. Participants were asked to rate their boss’s use of abusive behaviors and overall effectiveness as a leader.
Additionally, the study gauged how employees labeled their bosses in instances of abuse, categorizing them as either ‘abusive’ or resembling a ‘tough love’ leader. ‘Tough love’ bosses were defined as individuals who displayed traits like being stern but caring, insensitive yet nurturing, and rough but well-intentioned.
The results indicated that employees were more inclined to associate their abusive bosses with a ‘tough love’ leadership style if the boss was considered a high performer. Conversely, when the boss’s performance was viewed as lower, employees were more likely to label them as abusers.
The study’s co-author, Bennett Tepper, also a management professor at Ohio State, suggested that employees may perceive a silver lining in working for harsh bosses, believing that such behavior could help them reach their full potential.
Individuals working under abusive yet successful bosses may acknowledge the mistreatment but anticipate positive outcomes from their challenging circumstances, such as career advancement within the organization.
The study’s second phase observed how employees respond to abusive yet successful leaders in a real-time lab experiment. Undergraduate students participated in the study, simulating team collaboration led by a fictional MBA student.
Participants were assigned either an abusive or non-abusive message from their supposed team leader. Feedback on their team’s performance further influenced how participants evaluated their leader’s behavior.
The results demonstrated that participants who received abusive messages tended to rate their leader less harshly when their team performed above average, highlighting how successful outcomes can mitigate perceptions of abuse.
Lount and Tepper clarified that their study does not advocate for abusive behavior as a route to success. They emphasized existing evidence showing the detrimental effects of abusive leadership on employees and organizations.
The study’s focus lies in analyzing how employees react to abusive supervision and their perceptions of successful yet abusive leaders.
Employee responses to such leaders highlight a reluctance to label them as abusive due to their perceived success, shedding light on why some abusive bosses can sustain long careers despite their behavior.
Woohee Choi, a co-author of the study and an assistant professor at Providence College, underlined the significance of understanding how followers interpret leaders who exhibit both abusive and successful traits.
