Summary: New research shows that some supervisors yell at employees not out of stress but intentionally—to boost compliance and reinforce their authority. Unlike those who lash out from burnout and feel remorseful, these bosses report feeling better after the abuse.
The study highlights that for some, abusive behavior satisfies an emotional need to feel competent and in control. Understanding these motivations could reshape leadership training to prevent long-term harm in the workplace.
Key Facts:
- Calculated Abuse: Some bosses admit they yell to boost performance or assert dominance, not out of frustration.
- Emotional Reward: Supervisors who abuse with intent often feel good afterward, not guilty.
- Training Implications: Recognizing these motives can guide more effective leadership development and reduce workplace harm.
Source: University of Georgia
Supervisors yell to boost employee performance, reinforce status as ‘the boss.’ They don’t feel bad about it.
Ever had a boss who seemed to thrive on yelling at her employees? Or maybe one who seemed to belittle employees to make himself feel better?
If so, you weren’t imagining it.
New research from the University of Georgia found some bosses thrive on abusive behavior.
“We have been studying abusive behavior in the workplace for 20 years, and we have known it always has bad outcomes for performance and productivity,” said Szu-Han (Joanna) Lin, the W. Richard and Emily Acree Professor in Management in the UGA Terry College of Business.
“But we also know that people keep doing it. I think we assumed that if managers engage in these behaviors, they’d feel bad, and it would always have a negative effect on them. But that’s not the case.”
While organizational psychologists have been interested in bad bosses for decades, most research focused on how workplace abuse affects employees and their performance.
Other research focused on bosses who snap at employees due to stress or exhaustion — but not those who actively choose to engage in abusive behavior.
The study was inspired in part by episodes of “Hell’s Kitchen,” a reality show that features angry British chef Gordon Ramsay yelling at underlings for 45 minutes at a time.
“I was watching season after season, and I thought, ‘Huh? I wonder why he acts like that,’” Lin said.
“That really triggered my interest. I feel like most research focuses on how this type of behavior influences followers. But I wanted to know about the leaders. There must be something in it for them if they keep acting like this.”
Some supervisors yell to get employees to follow orders, show them who’s boss
The researchers surveyed a diverse group of 100 supervisors from many fields, asking if and why they engaged in abusive behavior.
The bosses were surprisingly forthcoming and candid in the open-ended questionnaires. Some reported yelling at employees when they were burned out or overwhelmed. But a significant number admitted to abusing employees to get employees to follow orders or to show who was in charge.
Supervisors who engaged in this abusive behavior came from a variety of industries, including manufacturing and construction, nursing and sales.
A second study surveyed 249 supervisors daily for 15 days, asking whether they abused their employees that day, what was happening before the abuse and how they felt afterward.
Once again, Lin and her team found cases of burnout or negative emotions preceded abuse. But almost an equal number of supervisors reported purposely yelling at or dressing down subordinates — not to vent but to get them to perform or to reinforce their position as the leader.
Bosses who yell to boost employee performance, reinforce their power don’t feel guilty
When supervisors were burned out and yelled at their employees, they felt guilty or worse afterward. When supervisors were abusive to get employees to perform or to reinforce their leadership role, the bosses felt better afterward, as if they had accomplished something.
“If they engage in these behaviors with a goal in mind, like boosting compliance or preserving their identity as leaders, they’re satisfying an emotional need,” Lin said.
“If my followers have poor performance and I yell at them to increase compliance, then I feel like I achieved something in the short term. If I lash out because I’m tired, I won’t feel any satisfaction.”
Understanding why superiors lash out at subordinates can shape leadership training that businesses provide to new managers and could prevent abuse.
“It’s important for leaders to recognize they may have motivations for acting abusively to help them find better leadership tools,” Lin said.
“You may want your followers to listen to you or you may want to make sure you establish your role as a leader. That’s fine, but there are other ways to achieve that.
“If you engage in abusive behaviors, it will always lead to negative outcomes. No one will be motivated at all. Leaders need to acknowledge this is happening if we want them to develop better tools and tactics.”
About this workplace psychology research news
Author: Savannah Peat
Source: University of Georgia
Contact: Savannah Peat – University of Georgia
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access.
“Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors’ Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes” by Emily Poulton et al. Journal of Management
Abstract
Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors’ Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes
Existing research assumes that supervisors invariably feel bad after engaging in abusive behaviors. We challenge this assumption by proposing that supervisors’ motives of abusive supervision shape their post-abuse experiences.
Drawing on the social interactionist theory of aggression and theories of self-regulation, we suggest that instrumental (or goal-driven) abusive behaviors provide a temporary sense of fulfillment, whereas spontaneous (or reactive, emotionally-driven) abusive behaviors diminish need satisfaction and foster negative outcomes.
Using an exploratory study and an event-contingent experiencing sampling study, we found that supervisors may justify their abuse with effecting compliance motives when subordinates perform poorly, which fulfills task achievement needs and increases next-day work engagement.
Similarly, supervisors may also justify their abuse with identity maintenance motives when subordinates are disrespectful, thus enhancing social identity needs and next-day organizational-based self-esteem.
We also found that when supervisors justify their abusive behaviors with spontaneous motives (i.e., depletion and negative affect), it has negative implications for need satisfaction and outcomes.
Lastly, we highlight supervisor’s psychological power as a boundary condition of these effects.
All told, our findings indicate that, at the within-person level, supervisors’ daily motives for abusive behaviors matter, given that certain motives actually yield short-term benefits for supervisors.
