Over the course of one’s career, there is still a strong likelihood to be confronted with an abusive supervisor at some point in time, so what can we all do to help? Birgit Schyns finds out
We know from previous research that working with an abusive supervisor is bad for an employee’s well-being. Indeed, subordinates with bosses who manipulate, humiliate, or ostracise suffer, particularly in the long run, with consequences ranging from anxiety and depression to problem drinking and insomnia The starting point of our paper was thus the question: Why do subordinates not simply move on and leave the abusive relationship with their supervisor? We got inspired by work on battered women who are also often asked the same question: why do you not simply leave?
Over the years and with movements such as #metoo, society has been become more sensitive to acknowledging abuse and to better understand why people might find it difficult to speak up and end their abusive relationships. However, in the workplace, we are still at an early stage. While there is now a substantial amount of research available on the negative consequences of abusive supervision – and with that, more awareness in the general public, we know very little about the motivation of subordinates not to walk away. In our paper, we looked into reasons why this might be the case and try to inspire future research but also sensitise the public to understand better how to support abused employees.
Based on considerations around battered women, we identified several layers of barriers that can impede employees to leave when working with an abusive supervisor. First, in terms of barriers in the larger societal context, for example, a tight labour will make it difficult for employees to move on. Take for example, the recent Covid-19 crisis and its impact on the job market. Employees might simply not see any alternative opportunities and thus stay with their abusive supervisor. But also a lack of (unambiguous) laws supporting the illegality of workplace abuse may be a reason why employees do not leave an abusive supervisor. We also considered barriers in the organisational context. Here an example are unclear policies and practices. Questions such as where do employees complain?, what measures can they expect to be taken?, and how will the abusive supervisor be dealt with? are crucial. An abused employee might not feel safe to report issues for fear of the complaint to backfire and of the supervisor to retaliate if the abuse is not dealt with in an effective manner.
Also, the shared experience of abusive supervision among team members may create a bond that make it hard for individual employees to leave the team, feeling like they ‘abandon’ their co-workers. The abusive supervisor him- or herself can constitute a barrier by preventing the employee from leaving, for example, by not providing them with a reference that allows them to find another employment or by isolating the abused employees from others, preventing them to seek and find help. Abusive supervision also affects subordinates in a way that can impede them from taking the initiative to leave due to the effect it has on their well-being. Subordinates might find that they are too exhausted to look for alternatives or they might lack the self-esteem to think they will find another employment due to the continuing abuse. Finally, the employee’s own thoughts and feelings might pose a barrier to changing away from an abusive supervisor because, for example, they believe that all supervisors are the same, so a job change would not improve their situation or because they think that it is not acceptable to change jobs.
It is important to note that victims of workplace abuse can experience more than just one of those barriers and that these barriers do not operate separately but can reinforce each other. Think about, for example, that supervisors influence company policies, so might actively prevent their company from supporting abusive employees. They also have a substantial influence on company culture so that, in the end, abuse might become something that is considered acceptable. We have seen example of this in the French press, such as the case of France Télécom. At the same time, cases like this might emerge easier where no societal support is given to abused followers, for example, by laws that function to support employees. Society might even influence employees to remain in an abusive relationship for instance by confirming their own thoughts that changing jobs is not something that is acceptable.
So what can we all do in our different functions to help abused followers? First and foremost, it is important not to downplay the phenomenon and its effects. While researchers rightly point out that abusive supervision is a ’low base-rate problem’, that is, it does not happen a lot (thankfully), over the course of one’s career, there is still a strong likelihood to be confronted with an abusive supervisor at some point in time. Similarly, that something is rare does not mean we should look away.
For example, the UK Office of National Statistics estimates that an estimated 7.5% of women (1.6 million) and 3.8% of men (786,000) experienced domestic abuse in the year 2018/2019. Clearly that is a minority of all relationships. Does that mean we can safely ignore the problem? Most people likely agree that we should not. Interestingly, the WHO claims that over their lifetime, one in three women is abused. That means that something that is a low-base rate phenomenon can ultimately affect a large group of people.
With our article we would like to draw attention to the difficulties that some employees experience at work, to raise awareness of the issue, and to encourage further research into the phenomenon and its long-term effects.
Based on our model, we suggest that awareness of the barriers that impede abused employees from leaving an abusive relationship is the first point of call. This also implies turning from blaming the victims to supporting them. The World Health Organization may play an important part in raising awareness, both by acknowledging workplace abuse (in addition to domestic and elder abuse) as a health problem and supporting campaigns to raise awareness. We acknowledge that some barriers are difficult to overcome or need time to change. A tight labour market for a particular profession is not something that is easily changeable. However, if legislation protects employees better, this might already be a good starting point. Legislation can also support organisations and back up action they can take. Maybe cases such as France Télécom* serve at least to raise awareness both in society but also in companies.
At the same time, companies should be encouraged to deal effectively with abusive supervisors. If a supervisor is found to be abusive, they should ideally be removed from responsibility over others. Clear policies about what behaviour is and is not tolerated, and what are the consequences for not acting in accordance with these behavioural norms, is also important. It may result in a win-win situation in which supervisors are less likely to behave abusively and employees are simultaneously more likely to speak up and seek support when it does happen. Here, we would also appeal to abusive supervisor’s N+1 or their peers to raise their voice in support of employees. Coaching and employment agencies could also be sensitised to the issue so they could offer support for employment seekers who have suffered under an abusive supervisor to rebuild their self-esteem and their confidence on the labour market.
Birgit Schyns is a Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Neoma Business School, and has been since 2017. She has previously worked at different universities in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK before moving to France. Her research focuses around leadership, specifically the perception of leaders and negative leadership.
*The France Telecom case, the France Telecom trial or the suicide case1 refers to a French court case against the company France Telecom (which became Orange in 2013) for moral harassment.
