Bosses of the world, yelling, being sarcastic, using the silent treatment, setting impossible deadlines or taking credit for your workers' ideas is counterproductive for the company, in addition to causing a great impact on the well-being of the workforce. A study recently published in Group
This effect is especially noticeable in those people focused on promoting their careers compared to those who care more about job security and stability. The team behind the article, led by the Stevens Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois Chicago, both in the United States, explains the results by the different cognitive interpretations in each work style.
“Psychological empowerment consists of trusting that you can do your job well, believing that your work is important and meaningful, and feeling that you can make your own decisions about how to perform your tasks and have an impact on the organization,” explains by email. Study co-author Haoying Xu, associate professor at Stevens Institute of Technology.
When an employee feels psychologically empowered, he or she works especially hard. He may even go further and perform actions not specified in his job description, such as the aforementioned practice of assuming responsibility. On the other hand, a 'disempowered' person will find themselves unmotivated and will reduce their work efforts.
On the other hand, assuming responsibilities means focusing on making constructive changes in work procedures and policies, which is why it differs from other proactive behaviors such as offering suggestions, implementing ideas or taking measures to avoid problems. This entails certain risks for those who put it into practice as it involves challenging the company's status quo.
Staff commitment in this regard can easily be extinguished in a hostile work environment, as it leads people to view their influence as limited and, therefore, it would not be safe to undertake initiatives of this type.
Therefore, the team decided to examine what implications and cognitive interpretations employees draw from abusive supervision, since this is where their concerns regarding decision-making are rooted. They focused on the implications of achievement and security.
"We theorized that both the desire to obtain rewards (job promotion, bonuses) and the desire to avoid punishment (maintain job security) would shape how employees respond to abusive bosses," explains the researcher in a press release from the Institute. of Stevens Technology.
The team surveyed more than 200 employees and their direct supervisors at 42 South Korean companies. In this first study they simply explored the ways in which this toxic supervision affects employees' "taking the initiative" behavior. It was in a second study where they experimentally examined the role of the aforementioned achievement and security implications. The team had a sample of 300 American students who were guided to imagine that they worked in a certain type of organization.
To their surprise, the team discovered that those who prioritize advancing their careers are strongly affected by this type of leadership - they tend to withdraw and reduce the assumption of responsibilities. People who choose job security remain just as likely to take initiative despite abusive supervision.
One explanation the research group contemplates is that ambitious employees may perceive such a superior as someone with direct control over whether they will receive bonuses or promotion opportunities.
“Considering the detrimental impact of abusive supervision on employee mental processes, motivation, and performance, it is imperative that companies exercise greater scrutiny when selecting individuals for leadership positions. They can conduct personality tests and select those who have strongly prosocial personalities, since they tend not to participate in abusive supervision,” explains Xu, to which he adds periodic courses in companies to ensure the implementation of positive leadership.
The researcher highlights within the latter, servant leadership, proposed by Robert K. Greenleaf in the 1970s and characterized by prioritizing the needs of followers over the interest of the leader. Rather than seeking personal gain, servant leaders are dedicated to supporting their followers, fostering their growth, and enabling them to reach their full potential.
As for employee actions, Xu encourages going to Human Resources or higher management positions if unwanted treatment persists. “The underlying goal of these steps is to put an end to any abuse by a supervisor,” he says.
