In the mod­ern work­place, lead­er­ship plays a piv­otal role in shap­ing both employ­ee behav­ior and orga­ni­za­tion­al cul­ture. How­ev­er, it’s impor­tant to remem­ber that not all lead­er­ship styles are equal­ly effec­tive or ben­e­fi­cial. Over the years, research has high­light­ed the dark­er side of lead­er­ship, focus­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly on the dam­ag­ing effects of abu­sive super­vi­sion. In this piece, I will delve into five stud­ies that explore the ways in which abu­sive super­vi­sion can trig­ger employ­ee pro­cras­ti­na­tion, unleash Machi­avel­lian behav­iors, and fuel self-sab­o­tage. Addi­tion­al­ly, I will inves­ti­gate how core self-eval­u­a­tions can influ­ence these behav­iors. Last­ly, I will pro­vide eight prac­ti­cal tips for man­agers and orga­ni­za­tions on pro­mot­ing pos­i­tive lead­er­ship styles and pre­vent­ing abu­sive supervision.

Abusive Supervision: A Closer Look

Abu­sive super­vi­sion refers to a pat­tern of leader behav­ior char­ac­ter­ized by sus­tained dis­play of hos­tile ver­bal and non-ver­bal behav­iors, exclud­ing phys­i­cal con­tact. This can include pub­lic ridicule, under­min­ing, offen­sive remarks, and the silent treat­ment. For exam­ple, a man­ag­er who con­sis­tent­ly belit­tles their employ­ees in front of their peers, crit­i­cizes them harsh­ly for minor mis­takes, or ignores them when they try to com­mu­ni­cate is exhibit­ing abu­sive supervision.

The Unseen Consequences

In 2014, a study by Green­baum et al. found that abu­sive super­vi­sion can acti­vate Machi­avel­lian ten­den­cies in employ­ees, lead­ing to uneth­i­cal behav­ior. Machi­avel­lian­ism is a per­son­al­i­ty trait that cap­tures one’s ten­den­cy to dis­trust oth­ers, engage in amoral manip­u­la­tion, seek con­trol over oth­ers, and seek sta­tus for one­self. For instance, an employ­ee with Machi­avel­lian ten­den­cies might spread rumors to dis­cred­it a col­league or manip­u­late a sit­u­a­tion to their advan­tage at the expense of others.

Fast for­ward to 2021, He et al. found that abu­sive super­vi­sion can lead to work pro­cras­ti­na­tion behav­ior. Work pro­cras­ti­na­tion is a retreat behav­ior asso­ci­at­ed with neg­a­tive cog­ni­tive expe­ri­ence, result­ing in sig­nif­i­cant loss­es to both indi­vid­ual and orga­ni­za­tion­al devel­op­ment. An exam­ple of this would be an employ­ee who, feel­ing over­whelmed by an abu­sive super­vi­sor, delays tasks, miss­es dead­lines, or spends exces­sive time on non-work-relat­ed activities.

The most recent study in 2023 by Zey­tun and Altan-Ata­lay revealed that abu­sive super­vi­sion can lead to self-hand­i­cap­ping behav­ior in employ­ees. Self-hand­i­cap­ping is a strat­e­gy where indi­vid­u­als cre­ate obsta­cles to their own suc­cess, so they can blame these obsta­cles if they fail. An employ­ee might inten­tion­al­ly under­per­form or avoid tak­ing on chal­leng­ing tasks to have an excuse if they do not meet expectations.

All these behav­iors are not only harm­ful to the indi­vid­ual, but can also have a neg­a­tive impact on team dynam­ics and over­all orga­ni­za­tion­al performance.

Self-Handicapping: Predicted by Perfectionism and Locus of Control

Ten years ago, Arazz­i­ni Stew­art and De George-Walk­er exam­ined the rela­tion­ship between self-hand­i­cap­ping and oth­er psy­cho­log­i­cal con­structs such as per­fec­tion­ism, locus of con­trol, and self-effi­ca­cy. They define self-hand­i­cap­ping as a per­for­mance-debil­i­tat­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic that has been con­sis­tent­ly asso­ci­at­ed with neg­a­tive out­comes such as aca­d­e­m­ic under­achieve­ment and poor psy­cho­log­i­cal adjust­ment. It includes behav­iors such as pro­cras­ti­na­tion, sub­stance use, over­com­mit­ting, lack of effort, and not tak­ing the oppor­tu­ni­ty to practice.

Per­fec­tion­ism, locus of con­trol, and self-effi­ca­cy have been linked with self-hand­i­cap­ping but have not been pre­vi­ous­ly exam­ined with­in one cohe­sive frame­work. The study, there­fore, exam­ined a mod­el link­ing mal­adap­tive per­fec­tion­ism (a type of per­fec­tion­ism that is con­sid­ered unhealthy or detri­men­tal) and exter­nal locus of con­trol (the extent to which indi­vid­u­als believe they have con­trol over the events in their lives) to self-hand­i­cap­ping, both direct­ly and indi­rect­ly through their medi­at­ed effect on self-efficacy.

The study found that per­fec­tion­ism and locus of con­trol pre­dict­ed self-hand­i­cap­ping; and per­fec­tion­ism, but not exter­nal locus of con­trol, pre­dict­ed low self-effi­ca­cy. The medi­a­tion analy­ses found no sup­port for self-effi­ca­cy as a medi­a­tor of the rela­tion­ship between per­fec­tion­ism, locus of con­trol, and self-handicapping.

The Role of Core Self-Evaluations

Adding anoth­er lay­er to our under­stand­ing of these behav­iors, a study by Judge intro­duces the con­cept of Core Self-Eval­u­a­tions (CSE). CSE is a broad, inte­gra­tive trait indi­cat­ed by self-esteem, locus of con­trol, gen­er­al­ized self-effi­ca­cy, and (low) neu­roti­cism (high emo­tion­al sta­bil­i­ty). Indi­vid­u­als with high lev­els of CSE are said to per­form bet­ter on their jobs, be more suc­cess­ful in their careers, be more sat­is­fied with their jobs and lives, report low­er lev­els of stress and con­flict, cope more effec­tive­ly with set­backs, and bet­ter cap­i­tal­ize on advan­tages and oppor­tu­ni­ties. Under­stand­ing these con­structs can help man­agers and orga­ni­za­tions to bet­ter under­stand the root caus­es of self-hand­i­cap­ping behav­ior, Machi­avel­lian ten­den­cies, and pro­cras­ti­na­tion, and thus, devise more effec­tive strate­gies to address them.

Practical Tips for Managers and Organizations

These find­ings under­score the impor­tance of pro­mot­ing pos­i­tive lead­er­ship styles and pre­vent­ing abu­sive super­vi­sion. Here are some prac­ti­cal tips for man­agers and organizations:

1. Pro­mote Pos­i­tive Lead­er­ship Styles: Encour­age lead­er­ship styles that inspire and moti­vate employ­ees, such as trans­for­ma­tion­al lead­er­ship. This involves pro­vid­ing a clear vision, act­ing as role mod­els, encour­ag­ing cre­ativ­i­ty, and sup­port­ing indi­vid­ual employ­ee’s needs.
2. Train­ing and Devel­op­ment: Pro­vide train­ing for super­vi­sors to enhance their lead­er­ship skills. This can include train­ing on effec­tive communication,emotional intel­li­gence, con­flict res­o­lu­tion, and oth­er rel­e­vant areas.
3. Clear Poli­cies and Pro­ce­dures: Estab­lish clear poli­cies and pro­ce­dures that define what con­sti­tutes abu­sive super­vi­sion and the con­se­quences for such behav­ior. This can help to deter poten­tial abusers and pro­vide a clear course of action for vic­tims of abuse.
4. Sup­port­ive Work Envi­ron­ment: Cre­ate a sup­port­ive work envi­ron­ment where employ­ees feel val­ued and respect­ed. This can help to reduce the like­li­hood of employ­ees engag­ing in Machi­avel­lian behav­iors or self-sabotage.
5. Employ­ee Assis­tance Pro­grams: Offer employ­ee assis­tance pro­grams that pro­vide resources and sup­port for employ­ees who are deal­ing with issues such as stress, anx­i­ety, or work­place con­flict. This can help to mit­i­gate the neg­a­tive effects of abu­sive super­vi­sion and reduce the like­li­hood of pro­cras­ti­na­tion and self-sabotage.
6. Per­for­mance Feed­back: Pro­vide reg­u­lar, con­struc­tive feed­back to employ­ees. This can help to reduce pro­cras­ti­na­tion by clar­i­fy­ing expec­ta­tions and pro­vid­ing moti­va­tion to meet per­for­mance goals.
7. Pro­mote Psy­cho­log­i­cal Safe­ty: Encour­age an envi­ron­ment where employ­ees feel safe to take risks, make mis­takes, and voice their opin­ions with­out fear of pun­ish­ment. This can help to reduce the like­li­hood of self-sab­o­tage and Machi­avel­lian behaviors.
8. Fos­ter Core Self-Eval­u­a­tions: Encour­age a work envi­ron­ment that enhances employ­ees› self-esteem, self-effi­ca­cy, and inter­nal locus of con­trol, and pro­motes emo­tion­al sta­bil­i­ty. This can poten­tial­ly reduce the like­li­hood of self-hand­i­cap­ping, Machi­avel­lian ten­den­cies, and procrastination.

Please note, that these strate­gies should be tai­lored to the spe­cif­ic needs and cir­cum­stances of each orga­ni­za­tion. What works well in one orga­ni­za­tion might not work as well in another.

In con­clu­sion, while lead­er­ship is a pow­er­ful tool for shap­ing employ­ee behav­ior and orga­ni­za­tion­al cul­ture, it’s impor­tant to be aware of its poten­tial dark side. Abu­sive super­vi­sion can have seri­ous neg­a­tive impacts on employ­ees and the orga­ni­za­tion as a whole, trig­ger­ing pro­cras­ti­na­tion, Machi­avel­lian behav­iors, and self-sab­o­tage. By pro­mot­ing pos­i­tive lead­er­ship styles, pro­vid­ing train­ing and sup­port for super­vi­sors, and cre­at­ing a sup­port­ive work envi­ron­ment, orga­ni­za­tions can mit­i­gate these risks and fos­ter a cul­ture of respect, pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, and mutu­al success.

Remem­ber, the key to effec­tive lead­er­ship is not just about achiev­ing orga­ni­za­tion­al goals, but also about nur­tur­ing the growth and well-being of each indi­vid­ual with­in the orga­ni­za­tion. As we con­tin­ue to learn more about the com­plex dynam­ics of lead­er­ship and employ­ee behav­ior, let’s strive to apply these insights in ways that pro­mote health­i­er, more pos­i­tive work­places for all.