The dangers of ‘Jekyll and Hyde leadership’: Why making amends after workplace abuse can hurt more than it helps

A glance at the day’s headlines reveals a universal truth: Leadership matters.

Whether uplifting and ethical or toxic and abusive, leaders profoundly shape our lives. And this is especially true on the job. Research consistently shows that leadership influences employees’ attitudes, behaviors and emotions, driving key organizational outcomes such as creativity^[1], employee engagement^[2], well-being^[3] and financial performance^[4].

Unfortunately, research also shows that supervisors abuse their employees^[5] far too often and then try to manage impressions^[6] to compensate for their bad behavior. But what happens when a leader tries to “make up” for past abuse by suddenly acting ethically? And do employees have to experience the abuse firsthand for it to hurt them?

As professors^[7] who^[8] study^[9] management^[10] – and who’ve heard horror stories of employees working under mercurial bosses – we wanted to find answers. So we conducted a study, which was recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology^[11].

Our research includes multiple samples of full-time employees in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. To begin, we surveyed 222 employees and 66 supervisors to gather insights into workplace leadership and work experiences. We focused on two contrasting leadership behaviors: ethical leadership^[12] and abusive supervision^[13]. We also conducted experiments with 400 people, presenting them with stories about managers who alternately display both ethical leadership and abusive supervision and asking them how they would respond.

Across these studies, we found that employees who experience such oscillating leadership often end up worse off – in terms of their emotional well-being and job performance – than if they were consistently being abused. By going back and forth between abusive and ethical behaviors, leaders create greater confusion, leaving their employees emotionally exhausted.

Instead of providing relief, acts of ethical leadership ironically serve to amplify the damage done by prior abusive behavior.

Jekyll and Hyde leadership in practice

As an example, consider Steve Jobs, the co-founder and chief executive officer of Apple for more than a decade until his death in 2011. While Jobs was an icon to many people, he reportedly swung between toxic^[14] and positive^[15] leadership behavior while dealing with subordinates.

For example, when Jobs’ exacting standards^[16] weren’t met, he would reportedly storm into meetings and profanely berate the team responsible for not living up to his lofty expectations. Yet, despite these outbursts, he was also described as a leader who believed in his employees’ potential, expressing unwavering confidence in their abilities and empowering them to exceed their own expectations.

This kind of unpredictable leadership can leave workers emotionally exhausted, wondering: “Which version of my boss will show up today? Will this kindness last, or is it just a setup for another blow?” Unsurprisingly, this isn’t good for productivity.

Employees value stability and predictability^[17] in their leaders. A supervisor who bounces between harsh criticism and warm praise creates an emotional roller coaster for the team. When employees see a supervisor as unpredictable, they experience more stress and emotional exhaustion, which hurts their job performance and willingness to share ideas.

Interestingly, we found that workers don’t even need to be directly targeted by an abusive supervisor to be affected; employees whose immediate supervisors get the Jekyll-and-Hyde treatment from their higher-ups suffer similar consequences.

These negative reactions occur, in part, because employees begin to doubt that their immediate supervisors are able to effectively influence higher-level leaders. In other words, the psychological toll of Jekyll-and-Hyde leaders isn’t limited to direct encounters but can also be experienced vicariously.

How companies can banish Mr. Hyde

The good news is that organizations can break this cycle – and workers are likely to be less stressed and more productive when they do. Here are three steps every organization can take:

• Train leaders to manage stress without lashing out. High-pressure environments are prevalent these days, but abusive leader behavior doesn’t have to be. Providing leaders with tools like emotional intelligence training^[18] and conflict resolution skills^[19] can help leaders navigate both personal and professional challenges more constructively.

• Address the abusive behavior directly. When abusive actions occur, ignoring them or asking the leader to “be nicer next time” isn’t enough. Structured interventions – like one-on-one coaching, counseling or formal sanctions – are essential for generating real change^[20]. Employees need to see that the organization is living up to its stated values and ideals.

• Foster a culture of trust and accountability. Tools like 360-degree feedback reports – which involve feedback from supervisors, peers and subordinates – can help leaders gain deeper insight into their behaviors. These can be used not just for development, but also for heightened accountability. Creating a climate of psychological safety^[21] – in which employees can report concerns without fear of retaliation – is key to rebuilding trust. So is ensuring clear, consistent responses to reports of abusive supervision.

Great leaders understand the power of trust and setting an example. Employees want leaders they can rely on, not ones who keep them guessing. So leaders should be wary about employing ethical leadership as a quick fix for past mistakes. Rather, it’s about showing up consistently, authentically, and with integrity every single day.

For leaders at all levels, the takeaway is simple: Consistency fosters success. Organizations that prioritize stable, ethical leadership create workplaces where employees feel valued, supported and empowered to do their best work.

References

1. ^{^} creativity (doi.org)
2. ^{^} employee engagement (doi.org)
3. ^{^} well-being (dx.doi.org)
4. ^{^} financial performance (doi.org)
5. ^{^} supervisors abuse their employees (doi.org)
6. ^{^} manage impressions (doi.org)
7. ^{^} professors (business.wfu.edu)
8. ^{^} who (www.stevens.edu)
9. ^{^} study (business.wfu.edu)
10. ^{^} management (business.wfu.edu)
11. ^{^} Journal of Applied Psychology (doi.org)
12. ^{^} ethical leadership (doi.org)
13. ^{^} abusive supervision (doi.org)
14. ^{^} toxic (www.businessinsider.com)
15. ^{^} positive (www.forbes.com)
16. ^{^} exacting standards (www.forbes.com)
17. ^{^} Employees value stability and predictability (doi.org)
18. ^{^} emotional intelligence training (doi.org)
19. ^{^} conflict resolution skills (doi.org)
20. ^{^} essential for generating real change (doi.org)
21. ^{^} psychological safety (doi.org)