Abusive Leader or Master Motivator?

By Robert J. Bies, Ph.D., Thomas M. Tripp, Ph.D., and Debra L. Shapiro, Ph.D.

Over the years and across many industries, society has been exposed more than ever to extremely outspoken leaders seen as abrasive and sometimes cruel in their management tactics. In Walter Isaacson’s book, Steve Jobs, an in-depth biography of the life and leadership of Jobs, Isaacson recounts examples of people who perceived Steve Jobs as an abusive leader, one who could be mean, even cruel, to people. Yet, there were many others who viewed Steve Jobs as the ultimate master motivator who put a “dent in the universe” at Apple and who inspired employees to do the best work of their careers. So, why do certain leaders who engage in aggressive behaviors, such as yelling, seem “abusive” by some, yet “motivating” to others? Whether one is viewed as an abusive leader or a master motivator is in “the eye of the beholder.” In other words, perception shapes reality.

The research we’ve conducted finds that “social contextual factors” shape the extent to which aggressive verbal and nonverbal behaviors are perceived as abusive or motivating. These social contextual factors are:

• The leader’s success in developing those they are leading – When a leader develops employees into top performers achieving individual and team success, the employees tend to view this experience favorably and potentially as motivating, even when it involves the leader’s harsh or aggressive critiques. For instance, Bobby Knight, former head coach of men’s basketball at Indiana University, was known to be aggressive in his leadership style, yet because he produced high-performing teams, he received numerous accolades, and people looked past his style of motivation. However, when he began losing and he was unable to retain high national rankings, perceptions of Knight quickly changed, news coverage of his behavior became far harsher, and Knight was eventually fired for reasons that pointed to the abusiveness of his leadership style. Similarly, Apple did not approve of Jobs’ leadership style in 1985 when Apple’s stock rapidly declined to near its historical low. However, Apple did approve the same leadership style when Apple’s stock climbed to historical highs two decades later.
• Trust in the leader – When employees trust their supervisor, they tend to view their supervisors’ actions with rose-colored glasses. For example, employees tend to view a leader’s performance-criticizing remarks as motivating (e.g. “She wants to encourage me to perform my best.”) rather than malicious (e.g. “She wants to intimidate me into complying with unreasonable demands.”). As another example, employees tend to give the leader the benefit of the doubt in circumstances where the leader’s behavioral intent is ambiguous.
• Explanations provided for motives guiding the leader’s behavior – The motives that employees attribute to leaders’ actions are shaped, too, by how leaders explain their actions, especially when leaders’ explanations seem sincere. Indeed, sincere explanations by leaders for various types of “harm” ranging from unwanted organizational change to harsh performance-critiques have been linked to greater levels of perceived fairness, and in turn, greater trust in the leaders.
• Peer opinions about the leaders – Perceptions are socially-guided; therefore, the way a leader is perceived is influenced by the remarks heard from co-workers and team members. Employees’ comments about how fairly they are treated, or about work-related experiences more generally, influence others’ fairness perceptions and perceptions of abusive supervision.

It is possible for a leader to be perceived as both abusive and inspirationally motivating, as Steve Jobs was perceived to be. This is the dynamic that captures the strong feelings of ambivalence that many viewers of the movie Whiplash experience in watching the “abusive” methods of the music director, Terrence Fletcher, in motivating a drummer, Andrew Neyman, to achieve perfection. Throughout most of the movie, Andrew perceived the methods of Fletcher as abusive. However, in the climactic closing scenes, triggered by Fletcher’s “abusive” actions, Andrew delivered a virtuoso performance stunning Fletcher, Andrew, and the audience. The final scene shows both Fletcher and Andrew smiling at each other, acknowledging the achievement. Both of the participants seemed to signal that the abusive actions were, in the end, inspirational and motivational. In other words, the perception of abuse is in the eye of the beholder – and that perception is shaped by social contextual factors.

Because “abuse” is in the imperfect eye of the beholder, shaped by social contextual factors, organizations should be cautious in two ways regarding “abusive leadership.” First, organizations need to investigate the substance of any alleged abuse with sensitivity to the perspective of all parties involved, as well as the social contextual variables that connect them. Second, organizations need to recognize the possibility that a leader’s success may make actual abusiveness invisible (i.e., unreported). Therefore, organizations should treat accusations of abusive supervision as calls for further investigation and investigate how top-performing employees and teams are motivated by their leaders.

Robert J. Bies, professor of management and founder of the Executive Master’s in Leadership Program at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, Thomas M. Tripp, professor of management at Washington State University in Vancouver, and Debra L. Shapiro, Clarice Smith professor of management and organization at University of Maryland, are co-authors of “Abusive Leaders or Master Motivators? ‘Abusive is in the Eye of the Beholder’,” a chapter in a newly released book, High Performance Work Practices or Abusive Supervision: Where is the Boundary?