»A ship in port is safe, but that’s not what ships are built for.« For me as a sailor, that’s more than just a great quote. It’s almost a truism. But as the son of a civil servant, raised on stability and security, in a family where permanent jobs and predictable career paths were seen as the sensible way to do things, it’s also something I didn’t live by for a long time.
Until recently, companies at least had to make the same mistakes independently. One organization might overvalue prestigious universities. Another might mistake confidence for competence. A third might quietly screen out unconventional careers. Their judgments were often flawed. But they were flawed in different ways.
The light tilts, the colors deepen, pavements shine after quick showers. Autumn moves the city from one state to another without fuss or apology. That same current runs through our workdays: from tiny thresholds to bigger crossings it’s all about the art of leaving one thing cleanly and arriving well at the next. These transitions come in all sizes — from the eyelash-thin switch between two tasks that lasts a heartbeat to the long arcs that reshape teams, companies, and people over months, sometimes years.
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.
How does the size of a team impact individual performance? The Ringelmann effect suggests that individual productivity decreases as the size of a group increases, leading some to assume that larger teams result in lazier employees. In simple terms, people tend to put in less effort when they work together in a large group compared to when they work alone or in smaller groups. But what are the underlying causes, and how can organizations address them?