Why aggressive leaders thrive in companies where pressure is confused with performance: “True power lies not in fear, but in the ability to create safety”

A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that the way people evaluate their bosses depends less on the behavior of those in leadership positions and much more on the way employees understand the world.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

More specifically, Columbia Business School researchers found that competitive people in their professional lives tend to admire aggressive, authoritarian, or confrontational leaders and view their behavior as effective. In contrast, people who view work through the filter of collaboration react exactly the opposite: they see such leaders as professionally weak, counterproductive, and difficult to follow.

“It surprised us how differently people react to the same leadership behavior, especially when it's harsh or tactless,” explain the authors of the titled study “Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders”Christine Nguyen and Daniel Ames. They note that in recent years there has been a certain sympathy for the tough-minded leadership style. “There are comments that glorify the idea of ​​being tough or even ruthless as a strategy to get results,” say the researchers. This led to their main question: Why do some see this style of running a business as a sign of competence and others as a failure of leadership?

How aggression gets confused with competence

“We expected worldview to matter, but we were surprised by how strong and consistently the effect repeats”Nguyen and Ames also say. “People with a competitive outlook not only rate tough leaders differently, they tend to work for them and find them effective.”

This does not mean that toughness is an effective leadership strategy, the authors pointed out. “It just shows why some people find it effective, and how these beliefs can help antagonistic leaders stay in positions of power longer than general assessments would suggest.”

Gabriela Răileanu, psychologist and Adlerian psychotherapist, declares for “Adevărul”: “People who believe that the world operates as a social jungle where only the strong survive tend to see aggression as a form of competence: a kind of survival strategy applied to leadership.” For these people, raising their voice or constant pressure are not signs of abuse, but indications of “firmness”.

On the other hand, “those who have a cooperative view of life interpret the exact same behaviors as unprofessional or even psychological abuse”. In their view, a harsh leader is not an effective leader, but a source of stress that can push people to resign.

Tough leaders thrive in organizations that confuse pressure with performance

The psychotherapist also draws attention to the profile of leaders who frequently reach positions of power. “Leadership positions often provide a perfect context in which individuals with strong needs for control and dominance can display their aggression without immediate restraint; they can use authority to validate their power, to manipulate or control the team, and to derive psychological satisfaction from the submission of others, which explains why such behaviors are sometimes perpetuated in organizations.”

The paradox arises when such leaders are, in fact, promoted. “Paradoxically, companies can consider such leaders effective because they manage to push people to very high targets, sometimes impossible to reach. Efficiency becomes measured by quick results, by numbers, not by how it got there. Because, for a company, profit matters and less that pressure, fear and overload work for the moment, but gradually erode people's mental health, creativity and loyalty”. claims Gabriela Răileanu.

In his opinion, the admiration for harsh authority can be explained by the unconscious need for safety in an unstable environment, the normalization of aggression from past experiences, the psychic projections that transform the leader into a “strong adult” absent in childhood, and the confusion of rigidity with professionalism, still very present culturally.

In the practice, she says she notices a clear pattern: “In my experience, I frequently see people who, because of their family history or an unpredictable childhood environment, end up breaking their own boundaries to avoid becoming the target of aggression or criticism from superiors. Behind an exemplary employee sometimes hides a child who has learned early that in order to survive he must be good, helpful, invisible, not disturbing and not causing conflicts.”

Such people work overtime, take on tasks that don't belong to them, accept tough behaviors because they are familiar, strive to be irreplaceable, even at the cost of burnout, she adds. “For an authoritarian leader, they become the ideal employees: they perform a lot, demand a little and tolerate a lot.”

The consequences are severe, says the specialist. “Harsh leadership significantly increases the risks of generalized anxiety and hyperactivation of the stress system, decreased creativity and self-confidence, avoidance of initiative for fear of criticism, burnout, deep demotivation and emotional disengagement.”

However, the myth of the “tough boss” survives because it is based on distorted perceptions, painful personal histories and a culture of misunderstood efficiency, she explains. “Our role as specialists is to show that real power in leadership lies not in fear, but in the ability to create safety, meaning and collaboration.”