How can someone be expected to perform a task diligently if they are coerced through aggression to do so. Yet it depends on perspective as well. Seen through the eyes of the boss, might it be possible to correlate productivity with shouty-ness?
Academic research into abusive supervision — defined as sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours by managers (Tepper, 2000) — paints a complex picture. Studies consistently show that aggressive leadership is linked to lower employee satisfaction, higher turnover, and decreased job performance. Critically, one of the most damaged assets in this dynamic is employee trust. Research by Mackey et al. (2017) demonstrates that abusive leadership diminishes trust because employees begin to doubt their leader’s intentions and fairness. Without trust, employees may withhold ideas, avoid taking initiative, and feel less committed to the organization.
However, the picture is not entirely bleak. Some studies suggest that in specific, high-pressure contexts — such as military units or crisis teams — directive or forceful leadership can produce positive short-term outcomes. For example, Schyns and Schilling (2013) argue that while abusive supervision generally undermines trust, in environments where clarity, decisiveness, and authority are valued, certain aggressive behaviours may be interpreted as strength. This can, paradoxically, increase trust in the leader’s competence.
Even in corporate settings, research by Walter et al. (2015) indicates that when a leader’s aggressive behaviour is aimed at defending team goals or confronting poor performance, it can sometimes be reframed by employees as a form of tough love. In these cases, followers may retain trust in the leader’s commitment to results, though emotional bonds often weaken.
Still, the long-term risks are significant. Aggressive leadership styles often create a climate of fear where employees engage in impression management, hide mistakes, or disengage emotionally from their work. Over time, this erodes both vertical trust (between leader and team) and horizontal trust (among colleagues), weakening the social fabric of the organisation.
While a “shouty boss” may occasionally drive results or reinforce competence-based trust, research overwhelmingly supports the view that fear-based leadership is a dangerous strategy. Sustained trust — the kind that drives innovation, resilience, and discretionary effort — is far more likely to flourish under leaders who balance accountability with psychological safety and respect.
References
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Walter, F., Lam, C. F., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality is the key. Journal of Management, 41(3), 773–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311431426