Summary: New research reveals that some supervisors intentionally shout at employees—not from stress or burnout, but as a deliberate tactic to increase compliance and reaffirm their authority. Unlike leaders who lash out and later feel remorse, these supervisors report feeling satisfied after the incident.
The study shows that, for a subset of managers, abusive behavior can meet emotional needs for competence and control. Recognizing these motives could change how organizations train leaders and help prevent sustained harm in the workplace.
Key Facts:
- Deliberate Abuse: Some managers admit they yell to increase performance or assert dominance rather than from frustration.
- Emotional Payoff: Intentionally abusive supervisors often feel rewarded afterward rather than guilty.
- Training Opportunity: Identifying these motivations can lead to leadership development that reduces abusive practices and long-term damage.
Source: University of Georgia
Many supervisors yell to enforce compliance and reinforce their status as “the boss,” and for some, this behavior does not produce regret.
Have you ever worked for a manager who seemed to thrive on shouting or belittling team members?
If so, you were probably not imagining it.
Research from the University of Georgia finds that some supervisors derive short-term satisfaction from abusive behavior.
“We’ve been studying workplace abuse for two decades and know it has harmful effects on employees and overall productivity,” said Szu-Han (Joanna) Lin, the W. Richard and Emily Acree Professor in Management at the UGA Terry College of Business. “Yet people keep engaging in it. We assumed managers would feel bad afterward, but that isn’t always true.”
Most prior studies examined how abusive supervision harms employees. Other work focused on leaders who lose control because of stress or exhaustion. Few studies, however, explored leaders who consciously choose abusive tactics to achieve goals.
Lin’s curiosity was partly sparked by scenes from reality television—long episodes in which a high-profile chef berates staff for extended periods. That raised a question: if this behavior persists, might some leaders gain something from it?
Some supervisors yell to secure compliance and assert authority
The researchers first surveyed 100 supervisors from a variety of industries about their use of abusive behavior. Respondents were candid. While some described yelling as an outlet for stress or burnout, a substantial number acknowledged they used abusive behavior intentionally to make employees follow directions or to establish who was in charge.
Supervisors who admitted to deliberate abusive tactics worked across sectors such as manufacturing, construction, nursing and sales, indicating this pattern is not limited to one field.
A follow-up study asked 249 supervisors to report daily for 15 days whether they had been abusive that day, what triggered the behavior and how they felt afterward. The findings again showed two distinct patterns: reactive abuse tied to negative emotions and depletion, and instrumental abuse aimed at changing subordinate behavior or preserving leader identity.
Instrumental abusers feel rewarded; reactive abusers feel guilty
When abuse was driven by burnout or negative emotions, supervisors tended to feel guilty or worse afterward. In contrast, when the abuse was intentional and goal-oriented—meant to boost compliance or reinforce leadership—they often reported feeling better, as though they had accomplished something.
“If a leader lashes out with a clear objective, such as improving performance or defending their role, they satisfy an immediate emotional need,” Lin explained. “If the outburst is merely a vent from exhaustion, it brings no satisfaction.”
This insight suggests that some abusive acts are instrumentally motivated and can provide short-term psychological benefits to supervisors, even though the long-term outcomes for teams and organizations are harmful.
Recognizing these motives creates an opportunity for organizations. Leadership training can teach managers alternative, effective ways to secure compliance and to communicate authority without resorting to abusive conduct.
“Leaders should be aware of their motives. Wanting followers to listen or to establish leadership is understandable, but there are healthier tactics,” Lin said. “Abusive behaviors consistently lead to negative outcomes for teams and organizations. Acknowledging the problem is the first step toward developing better tools and tactics.”
About this workplace psychology research news
Author: Savannah Peat
Source: University of Georgia
Contact: Savannah Peat – University of Georgia
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access. “Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors’ Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes” by Emily Poulton et al. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/01492063251331910
Abstract
Short-Term Fulfillment: How Supervisors’ Motives for Abusive Behaviors Influence Need Satisfaction and Daily Outcomes
Prior work assumes supervisors always feel remorse after abusing subordinates. This research challenges that assumption by proposing that the supervisor’s motive shapes their post-abuse experience. Drawing on social interactionist theory of aggression and self-regulation perspectives, the authors argue that goal-driven (instrumental) abusive acts can provide temporary fulfillment, whereas spontaneous, emotion-driven abuse reduces need satisfaction and produces negative outcomes.
Using an exploratory sample and an event-contingent experience-sampling study, the researchers show that supervisors may rationalize abuse as a means to elicit compliance when employees underperform, which can temporarily fulfill task achievement needs and increase next-day work engagement. They may also justify abuse as identity maintenance when employees show disrespect, which can bolster social identity needs and short-term organizational-based self-esteem.
By contrast, when abuse stems from depletion or negative affect, it undermines need satisfaction and leads to adverse outcomes. The study also identifies supervisors’ psychological power as a boundary condition shaping these effects. Overall, the findings indicate that supervisors’ daily motives for abusive behavior matter and that certain motives can produce short-term benefits for supervisors despite broader negative implications.