In Geneva, do results excuse hostile management?
Within SHR’s “Psychosocial Risks” programme, managerial conduct is a matter of prevention, not merely personal style. The practical question is specific: should an organisation wait for results to deteriorate before intervening when a manager regularly belittles employees?
What the literature establishes
Bennett J. Tepper (2000, Academy of Management Journal) examines abusive supervision, defined through perceptions of a supervisor’s sustained hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviour, excluding physical contact. His study links this exposure to lower job satisfaction and greater psychological distress. The issue is therefore not high expectations in themselves, but a repeated way of treating people.
An association extending beyond a single study
Jeremy D. Mackey, Rachel E. Frieder, Jeremy R. Brees and Mark J. Martinko (2017, Journal of Management) bring together the available research in a meta-analysis of abusive supervision. Their synthesis identifies adverse associations with well-being, job attitudes and certain workplace behaviours. It suggests that managerial hostility should not be treated as a mere interpersonal disagreement without organisational implications.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that any negative feedback or unpopular decision constitutes abusive management. These studies do not support that equation: a reasoned correction of someone’s work is not equivalent to repeated humiliation. Conversely, meeting a sales target or a deadline does not demonstrate the absence of psychosocial risk. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the data and standard indicators do not tell us
The research relies heavily on reported perceptions and observational designs, which limits causal conclusions and makes context important. A questionnaire alone can therefore neither determine a situation’s legal status nor establish individual responsibility. But revenue, on-time delivery and the absence of formal complaints are no more valid as measures of the quality of relationships between managers and employees.
A practical check in Genève
In a private bank, an international organisation, a luxury watch manufacturer or a commodity trading company in Geneva, one proposed check is to examine responses to reports of hostile managerial behaviour over four weeks. For each report, someone independent of the management line concerned confidentially records the reported events, any recurrence and the action taken, without creating a medical file. The indicator is the proportion of reports receiving a documented initial review within a timeframe set in advance, with restricted access to files and aggregate reporting only where confidentiality can be preserved. This checks the organisation’s capacity to respond, not the prevalence of the behaviour: zero reports does not prove its absence. To go further: explore the Psychosocial Risks training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Psychosocial Risks in Geneva
- psychosocial risks
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva