How Hard-Line Leadership Is Crushing Morale

Bullying is not a good idea. A fourth-grader could tell you that. Workplace bullying involves repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons by one or more perpetrators (in technical terms). Behaviors such as verbal abuse, offensive conduct, and work interference are characteristics of bullying. When leaders adopt a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, dismissing employee concerns and consumer privacy, they tread dangerously close to bullying.

A throwback to unilateral command-and-control flies in the face of effective leadership training – not to mention what your momma told you about how to treat people. Remember the golden rule? “Whoever has the gold makes the rules” is not it. Leaders who rely on threats, implementing one-way decisions and punitive measures may achieve short-term compliance. But they do so at a significant cost to organizational health and productivity.

Leadership strategies that involve coercion, and emphasize punishment, don’t feel very modern. But they are becoming more common. Jamie Dimon, the hard-charging billionaire CEO of JPMorgan, was recently confronted with a worker petition regarding return to office (RTO) initiatives. In an expletive-laced response, he dismissed the workers’ views by saying, “I don’t care how many people sign the f___ing petition.” When it comes to leadership, “my way or the highway” feels more like bullying than building engagement. “Do it, or else”, sounds like something a playground bully might say.

Bullying As a Strategy?

“Essentially what you have is DOGE just swooping in and bullying their way into access to millions of Americans’ private data,” according to Karianne Jones, a labor lawyer who is part of a recent lawsuit based on perceived Internal Revenue Service (IRS) injustices. According to FOX News reports, labor unions are asking a Federal Court to intervene and stop Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing the Social Security data of American taxpayers. “They cannot explain why they want this data,” Jones tells Newsweek. “They can’t really tell you what data they want. They just want everything. They want the source code, and they want to do it without any restrictions.”

Allegations of bullying are rampant, as DOGE moves forward with few guardrails and restraints. So far, the work of DOGE has drawn nearly two dozen lawsuits – with little word on what they can and can’t access at various government offices.

While not every billionaire is a bully, with great power comes great responsibility. Whether you heard that from Voltaire, or Spiderman, the intention here remains the same. When you have the ability to threaten people with their jobs, or to access private information, that’s a great responsibility. The intention of DOGE – to reduce spending, bloat and government inefficiency – seems like the right idea. But the implementation of DOGE has left 54% of voters feeling that the organization is doing more harm than good (according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week).

Command-and-Control Can Be Seen as Bullying

Organizations that rely on command-and-control leadership styles often face long-term challenges. While such approaches may yield immediate results, similar to how a grenade works, they typically result in higher employee turnover, the departure of vital tribal knowledge, reduced morale, mistrust, and a tarnished employer brand. In an effort to reduce collateral damage, the U.S. Army has enacted a fresh approach when it comes to leadership structure.

Mission command has become the prototypical command template for Western armed forces in recent years, with many nations’ militaries adopting it as their preferred command philosophy. According to U.S. Army resources, mission command is “the Army’s approach to command and control that empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.” As the actual battlefront is inherently chaotic and uncertain, the U.S. Military recognizes that, in order to capitalize on what is actually happening (on the front lines), “commanders must ‘capitalize on subordinate ingenuity.’” When everyone is involved, decisions become wiser. Commanders are more informed. And front-line perspectives are valued as critical-path points of view.

Bullying, or Bottom-Line Focus? Depends on Your Point of View

What happened to leaders who listen? Perhaps Dimon is listening – to his shareholders, his instincts, and his vision for the company. Some say he’s not bullying people – he’s telling it like it is. His message of “Come in to the office or find another office” is the way the wind blows. Not bullying. But notice that JP Morgan’s profit surged to record levels in 2024 and the stock has roughly doubled in the last five years – prompting nearly 1,000 people to sign a petition wondering why RTO was so important. The answer seems to be, “Because I said so.”

In an age where Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are on the decline, has inclusive leadership gone the way of Napster and the floppy disk? What happened to the idea that listening to other perspectives can help inform your own?

Beyond Bullying: The Pitfalls of Hard-Line Leadership

The “carrot and stick” approach to management, where rewards and punishments are used to motivate employees, has long been debated. However, contemporary research indicates that an overemphasis on the “stick”—or punitive measures—can be detrimental. Gartner’s studies reveal that negative employee perceptions of pay equity, often stemming from authoritative leadership, can result in a 15% decrease in intent to stay, a 13% increase in job searching activity, and a 13% decrease in employee engagement.

Dismissive and abrasive responses can be perceived as bullying, fostering a culture where employees feel undervalued and powerless. This environment not only hampers engagement but also drives talent away, as employees seek workplaces that respect (or maybe just acknowledge?) their preferences and well-being.

Leadership, at its best, is agreement. A mutual commitment to clearly defined goals, where both employees and executives align in an environment where feedback is encouraged.

Gartner’s research underscores the critical role of management style in employee engagement. They found that 70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager. This statistic highlights that managers who employ coercive tactics risk disengaging their teams, leading to decreased productivity and higher turnover rates.

Rethinking Bullying: Lessons from the Playground

The lessons from our childhood about bullying remain relevant in the workplace. Leaders who push their agendas without regard for employee perspectives may achieve compliance, but at the expense of engagement, performance and loyalty. Just as bullies on the playground are eventually isolated, organizations that tolerate or promote bullying behaviors risk alienating their workforce – or their customers.

By moving away from punitive measures and embracing inclusive leadership, organizations can foster a committed and high-performing workforce, ensuring long-term success in an increasingly competitive landscape. Even when pursuing giant progress, it helps to remember that there are always people involved. There is a way to handle layoffs (and access to sensitive data) with respect and compassion. Inclusive leadership isn’t an outdated strategy, it’s good business. In an era where employee engagement is paramount to organizational success, hard-line leadership and bullying tactics are counterproductive.