Many employees have experienced the unfortunate but pervasive reality of working under an abusive leader. In a recent survey , almost 90 per cent of respondents reported having at least one abusive boss during their careers, with 30 per cent reporting that they had worked for more than one. Yet, toxic bosses are rarely called out. Why?
Authors
- Marlee E Mercer
PhD Candidate in Human Resources, York University, Canada
- Len Karakowsky
Professor of Organizational Behavior, York University, Canada
One obvious reason for the failure to expose abusive leaders is the fear of retaliation . Victims as well as the "bystanders" worry that exposing the perpetrator could jeopardize their own job or even their career. The result is silence.
Companies have attempted to address that challenge by implementing discreet whistleblowing systems designed to offset power imbalances . However, these systems are premised on the assumption that victims and witnesses to leader abuse can immediately understand and comprehend when an abusive situation has arisen.
The problem lies in the social dynamics of the workplace that can muddy the waters. The result is that what constitutes abusive behaviour can often appear ambiguous or even acceptable in the eyes of observers and victims. There are mechanisms at play that serve to normalize leader abuse, making it hidden in plain sight. Whistle-blowing systems are useless when no one recognizes that abuse is occurring.
What are those social dynamics that can render entire groups of employees incapable of acknowledging that their boss has perpetrated acts of abuse?
In our ongoing research, we have been interviewing people who describe their past experiences with abusive bosses. We have found that, in many cases, individuals were blind to the abuse at the time they were subjected to it. It was only in retrospect that they recognized the true nature of their abusive leader.
In addition to the interview-based data we are collecting, our recently published review and synthesis of current research identifies specific group and leader dynamics that can impede a work group's capacity to accurately assess instances of abusive leader behaviour. This blind spot can allow such abuse to persist.
How groups can miss signs of abuse
Even entire groups can develop blind spots when it comes to detecting psychological abuse .
Under certain conditions, group members unwittingly overlook or misinterpret the true nature of abusive events . This can happen when a group's collective sense-making process - through which the group generates a unified understanding of the situation - is corrupted.
One reason this occurs is that we often rely on our peers to make sense of unexpected or unclear situations. Social psychologists note that groups exert a powerful influence on our individual perceptions. We tend to see what our peers see. A well-known study by Polish-American psychologist Solomon Asch found that individuals possess a strong desire to conform to the popular opinion in a group. As a result, we may doubt our own perception if it differs from the group.
Those who influence the group's sense-making process can create or reinforce blind spots. If an influential group member downplays or ignores abusive leader behaviour - by suggesting the leader's behaviour is legitimate and by accusing others of being "overly sensitive," for example - that interpretation can spread to other group members.
In other words, what a group notices or recognizes depends on how its members share and make sense of information .
Workplace culture can hide abusive leadership
The broader social context can generate blind spots . Workplace culture can blur the line between aggressive and abusive leadership.
Individuals who work in high-achievement cultures, for instance, are more likely to be at risk compared to those working within less aggressive cultures because the former rewards aggressive behaviours. Though a high achievement culture doesn't necessarily foster abuse, such cultures run the risk of minimizing behaviours that otherwise might be considered unacceptable.
The iconic case of Enron provides just one example of a culture where bosses could make unreasonable demands of their subordinates, including exhorting them to engage in corrupt business practices. A leader may more easily exert abusive authority within a culture that focuses solely on the ends and not the means.
Charismatic leadership can hide abuse
The interplay between group identity and leader charisma can also generate blind spots that obscure abuse. This is especially true in groups that have cult-like identities in which individuals matter less than does the collective.
In these groups, there is a powerful sense of solidarity that shapes members' identities in ways that align with the leader's agenda. This makes it more difficult for group members to critically evaluate their leader's behaviour even when it crosses the line. That means when group members strongly identify with their group and its leader, it reduces the members' capacity to scrutinize abusive behaviour.
Individuals who are members of a highly cohesive group with a well-respected leader will self-censor any negative insights about the group or its leader. Further, the group norm discourages members from evaluating their leader in a negative way since doing so can be perceived as an attack on the group itself .
Silence is not golden
Questioning a leader's legitimacy can threaten a fundamental feature of healthy-functioning groups: that of psychological safety . This is the level of security group members feel to express their thoughts without fear of negative consequences.
When members feel that their psychological safety is threatened, they are more likely to suppress any discontent or concern with the leader. An individual who feels otherwise may choose to self-censor .
Over time, this silence can become self-reinforcing. When criticism is suppressed and no one speaks up, individuals may believe they're alone in their concerns. In the absence of information sharing, members question their beliefs and assume they are overreacting. This leads to cognitively minimizing what might otherwise be unacceptable behaviour.
Organizations can combat blind spots by creating an environment where employees feel safe to speak up , and by ensuring the corporate culture is not unwittingly encouraging bad behaviour. Organizations should also monitor their culture to understand the types of messages it may be sending to employees and their leaders in terms of rules of interpersonal conduct and respect.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
