Abusive bosses—those who belittle, ridicule or dismiss their employees—are a well-known workplace problem. Yet, paradoxically, some employees tolerate or even defend such behaviour, especially if the boss is seen as successful. A study from Ohio State University explores this puzzling dynamic, revealing how employees reinterpret abuse as “tough love” when their leader performs well.
Published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (2024), the study led by Robert Lount, professor at Ohio State’s Fisher College of Business, involved two parts.
First, a survey of 576 US workers across industries asked about abusive behaviours by their bosses and rated leadership effectiveness. Employees were asked if they viewed their boss as abusive or more of a “tough love” leader—described as “stern but caring” or “rough but well-meaning.”
Results showed that employees were less likely to label a boss abusive if they also rated them a high performer. Instead, they reframed the same harsh behaviours as “tough love.” Conversely, poor-performing bosses received the “abusive” label more readily.
The research also found that employees of successful but abusive bosses believed their career prospects were better due to their experience, and were less likely to resist or retaliate against them.
Co-author Bennett Tepper explained that employees seek a silver lining in harsh treatment: “These bosses may treat employees harshly, but presumably their intent is to help their followers realise their potential—that’s the ‘tough love’ part.”
In other words, abuse is tolerated because it is seen as purposeful, driving performance and growth. Employees convince themselves the pain is temporary and beneficial.
Lab Experiment Reinforces the Findings
A second study involved 168 undergraduates tasked with online teamwork, supposedly led by an MBA student. Participants received either an abusive or encouraging message from the “leader.” Afterwards, they were told their team performed either well above or below average.
Participants receiving abusive messages but positive team results rated their leaders as less abusive compared to those with poor results, despite identical language.
Lount noted, “Finding out your team did better because of your leader’s judgment really dampened the willingness to label that person as abusive.”
The researchers emphasise they are not endorsing abusive leadership. Years of research confirm that abusive bosses damage employee wellbeing and organisational success.
This study simply reveals how employees cognitively cope with abuse when it comes from a successful leader. Instead of seeing abuse, they see “tough love.”
Why Some Abusive Bosses Keep Their Jobs
Tepper suggested these findings explain why some abusive bosses maintain long careers: “The bosses who get away with abusive behaviour may be those who somehow get high performance despite their behaviour.”
Their results shield them from consequences, as employees rationalise the abuse as leadership rather than hostility.
While employees may tolerate abusive bosses if successful, the emotional and organisational costs remain high. This study urges organisations to challenge the myth that abuse is acceptable if it delivers results.
Leaders can be both effective and respectful—embracing positive management styles improves morale, retention, and true performance.