Imagine working with an abusive boss who yells at you unreasonably, makes condescending remarks to humiliate you in front of colleagues, and speaks to you in a hostile manner.
In the face of such a predicament, how would you react? Would you attempt to build rapport with your boss, in hopes of improved treatment from them? Or would you distance yourself from your boss and avoid any form of association?
A common assumption in the realm of workplace dynamics is that building close relationships with powerful individuals will boost one’s social standing.
However, this is not always the case.
Perception of low morality and untrustworthiness
We conducted a pilot study, three experiments and two supplementary studies in 2022 to examine the possible repercussions on employees who develop high-quality relationships and are closely associated with their abusive bosses. Our research paper was published in Organization Science.
In our study, participants were prompted to envision themselves as employees of a multinational consulting company, with either an abusive leader or a non-abusive leader. They were told that one of their colleagues seemed to have a close or distant relationship with their respective leader.
In total, there were four unique scenarios for comparison purposes; abusive leader with a close colleague, abusive leader with a distant colleague, non-abusive leader with a close colleague, and non-abusive leader with a distant colleague.
When an abusive leader had a close relationship with a colleague, participants tended to perceive their colleague as the least moral and trustworthy among the four scenarios.
This perception, in turn, translated into participants being less inclined to help or support this colleague.
This can be explained with the stigma-by-association theory, which proposes that individuals who are closely associated with stigmatised others are subject to negative evaluations — even if they may not possess these discrediting traits themselves.
As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together, and so observers assume that their colleague gets along well with the abusive boss because they share similar moral characters.
Furthermore, stigma-by-association can operate automatically without deliberate information processing. That is, observers may unconsciously experience negative emotions when they observe coworkers getting along well with an abusive supervisor.
Interestingly, such stigma is evident even in the absence of any meaningful relationships.
Our study revealed that merely sitting next to an abusive boss in a meeting can make employees appear to be less ethical and trustworthy. This means that even an unplanned encounter with an abusive boss in the cafeteria could damage one’s social image.
Employees who are perceived as voluntarily associating with an abusive boss face stronger stigma than those whose association is seen as involuntary.
In such relationships, voluntary motive signals the employee’s allegiance to the abusive boss’ ideology, thereby exacerbating the adverse impacts of association.
In contrast, perceived involuntary association with an abusive boss signals to observers that employees do not necessarily share and agree with the boss’ values, making the negative impact of stigma-by-association less salient.
The negative consequences engendered by association with abusive bosses highlight the need for employees as well as organisations to mitigate the effects of abusive leadership.
Fellow colleagues could show support and empathy for abused co-workers by speaking up for them or lending a listening ear. Instead of being bystanders, they should strive to be part of the support system.
At the same time, they should be mindful of their implicit biases to prevent misjudgment of the victims’ character.
Organisations could strengthen the support system and prioritise the well-being of employees, including those who have suffered emotional harm from abusive supervision or its unintended consequences.
Resources such as counselling services or well-being workshops can go a long way towards aiding in their mental health recovery and rebuilding trust among colleagues.
Additionally, organisations should establish safe and confidential reporting channels for employees to voice their concerns, such as workplace bullying or other problems that they face at work.
These reporting channels should be made accessible and responsive, with appropriate actions taken promptly to investigate reports and address issues.
By encouraging and empowering employees to speak up, organisations can nip workplace issues in the bud and protect the well-being of their workforce.
Organisations can also go a step further by promoting accountable leadership. It is worthwhile for them to invest in training and development programmes that emphasise effective leadership practices, to ensure that leaders do not perpetuate abusive behaviour.
Given that an organisation’s culture is primarily shaped by the values upheld by its leaders, unethical values will result in the perpetuation of a toxic culture that not only impedes overall well-being, but also drives away talented employees.
By promoting accountable leadership, organisations can equip supervisors with the skills and knowledge necessary to foster a safe and respectful workplace.
In other words, it should never be the employees’ responsibility to reconcile their relationship with an abusive boss. In fact, doing so will indirectly cause more harm to these employees beyond the psychological pressure that they might experience when interacting with abusive leaders.
By providing robust support systems, tapping on reporting channels, and promoting accountable leadership, both employees and organisations can work in tandem to cultivate a healthy work environment where all employees feel safe and respected.
It is only through such concerted efforts and a commitment to improve that organisations can foster a culture of trust, collaboration, and mutual respect.
The story first appeared in TODAY.