Managers Who Build and Managers Who Break: Abusive Supervision, Psychological Safety, and Team Learning-A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Limits

Abstract

In normal language, it's just one word that makes the difference between a manager and a damager, but the difference in behaviour between the two can be measured in the learning of the team, the health of the staff and the cost to the organisation. This article examines peer-reviewed journal evidence pertaining to supervisory behavior, including studies on abusive supervision, psychological safety, just culture in safety critical industries, and occupational health research that relates supervisors' ratings to reported illness. These can be found in occupational medicine cohort studies, regulatory text on error reporting and the use of data in the workplace, and in organisational behaviour journals and international standards on psychosocial risk. Three findings recur. First, teams which have leaders who ask how when things go wrong report more problems and make earlier corrections than teams with leaders who ask who. Second, hostile supervision is positively related to turnover intentions, decreased task performance and poorer health, with most designs being based on employee perception and there is limited ability to determine cause and effect. Third, the published figures of cost of damaging supervision are less convincing than the fact that they are frequently cited is sometimes thought to indicate. This article outlines the current measurement options, the legal parameters for their use, and practical options for employers, regulators, and employees. The evidence of causation and cross-country data are still relatively scarce.